talkFORUM

Ralph wrote:Andrew Neil is a friend of Arron Banks & they have similar political views, so it’s no surprise he thinks it’s a good idea to provide him with a platform to refute allegations made against him & rubbish an investigation.

It’s a bizarre decision by the BBC. Andrew Marr is not a tough or forensic interviewer. Not even his best friends would claim that. He’s written pro Brexit articles where he describes it as “offering huge opportunities”. Easy to say when you’ve got your feet under the table at the BBC. If he worked in a car factory he might have a different view.

Would Banks do an interview with Jeremy Paxman or even someone like Eddie Mair? Doubt it. Seems like he’s picked his interviewer carefully.

The BBC don’t generally provide a platform to people under investigation, that’s the long & short of it. What next - Andrew Marr interviews Harvey Weinstein?

The BBC is the establishment broadcaster & it’s showing.

Surely the BBC is an impartial organisation, and it will ensure that this platform is as flat as a pancake with nowhere to hide. Don't you think he should have the opportunity to put his side of the story, which the general public has access to? Is it not in the public's interest.

Zambo wrote:

Ralph wrote:Andrew Neil is a friend of Arron Banks & they have similar political views, so it’s no surprise he thinks it’s a good idea to provide him with a platform to refute allegations made against him & rubbish an investigation.

It’s a bizarre decision by the BBC. Andrew Marr is not a tough or forensic interviewer. Not even his best friends would claim that. He’s written pro Brexit articles where he describes it as “offering huge opportunities”. Easy to say when you’ve got your feet under the table at the BBC. If he worked in a car factory he might have a different view.

Would Banks do an interview with Jeremy Paxman or even someone like Eddie Mair? Doubt it. Seems like he’s picked his interviewer carefully.

The BBC don’t generally provide a platform to people under investigation, that’s the long & short of it. What next - Andrew Marr interviews Harvey Weinstein?

The BBC is the establishment broadcaster & it’s showing.

Surely the BBC is an impartial organisation, and it will ensure that this platform is as flat as a pancake with nowhere to hide. Don't you think he should have the opportunity to put his side of the story, which the general public has access to? Is it not in the public's interest.

They’re clearly not impartial are they.

The BBC don’t normally provide a platform to people under criminal investigation to give their side of the story. Harvey Weinstein must be furious he never got to sit on Andrew Marr’s sofa & rubbish the allegations made against him.

Ralph wrote:

Zambo wrote:

Ralph wrote:Andrew Neil is a friend of Arron Banks & they have similar political views, so it’s no surprise he thinks it’s a good idea to provide him with a platform to refute allegations made against him & rubbish an investigation.

It’s a bizarre decision by the BBC. Andrew Marr is not a tough or forensic interviewer. Not even his best friends would claim that. He’s written pro Brexit articles where he describes it as “offering huge opportunities”. Easy to say when you’ve got your feet under the table at the BBC. If he worked in a car factory he might have a different view.

Would Banks do an interview with Jeremy Paxman or even someone like Eddie Mair? Doubt it. Seems like he’s picked his interviewer carefully.

The BBC don’t generally provide a platform to people under investigation, that’s the long & short of it. What next - Andrew Marr interviews Harvey Weinstein?

The BBC is the establishment broadcaster & it’s showing.

Surely the BBC is an impartial organisation, and it will ensure that this platform is as flat as a pancake with nowhere to hide. Don't you think he should have the opportunity to put his side of the story, which the general public has access to? Is it not in the public's interest.

They’re clearly not impartial are they.

The BBC don’t normally provide a platform to people under criminal investigation to give their side of the story. Harvey Weinstein must be furious he never got to sit on Andrew Marr’s sofa & rubbish the allegations made against him.

I'm going to frame that

Can you tell Hillman amd the rest of the mob.

At least Banks took up the offer to be interviewed and state his case - which is surely his right. More than Cobyn will do when the topics he won't discuss are why is your party riddled with antisemitic racists pretending to be the voice of tolerance and how long do you think it will take to bankrupt the country with your stupid commie politics.

Banks has done nothing wrong. It's just another extension of the sour grapes we've all seen for the last 2 years from sore losers and pathetic cry babies who will scweem and scweem and scweem until they get their own way - which is the right way of course because 15 year olds really know what's the best way to run a country.

Someone must have told them Brexit will result in a shortage of jelly and ice cream.

m4rkb wrote:At least Banks took up the offer to be interviewed and state his case - which is surely his right.

He picked the softest of soft interviewers, Marr really didn't seem prepared for that interview. There is evidence of Banks meeting the Russian Ambassador, leaked emails showing his employees paid to work at Leave.eu but not recorded in the expenses, he never actually said where the cash came from and just danced around Marr until the clock ran out.

Vespa wrote:

m4rkb wrote:At least Banks took up the offer to be interviewed and state his case - which is surely his right.

He picked the softest of soft interviewers, Marr really didn't seem prepared for that interview. There is evidence of Banks meeting the Russian Ambassador, leaked emails showing his employees paid to work at Leave.eu but not recorded in the expenses, he never actually said where the cash came from and just danced around Marr until the clock ran out.

The fact our most implacable enemy is encouraging Brexit speaks volumes.

I’ve no idea whether Banks has done anything wrong. Nobody came out of that interview well. Andrew Marr was hopeless. Arron Banks came across as evasive.

Ralph wrote:Andrew Neil is a friend of Arron Banks & they have similar political views, so it’s no surprise he thinks it’s a good idea to provide him with a platform to refute allegations made against him & rubbish an investigation.

It’s a bizarre decision by BBC management. Andrew Marr is not a tough or forensic interviewer. Not even his best friends would claim that.

Would Banks do an interview with Jeremy Paxman or even someone like Eddie Mair? Doubt it. Seems like he’s picked his interviewer carefully. A soft interviewer who’s expressed pro Brexit views.

The BBC don’t generally provide a platform to people under investigation. What next - Andrew Marr interviews Harvey Weinstein?

The BBC is the establishment’s broadcaster & it’s showing more than ever.

Any specific and irrefutable evidence of that ?

Holden Mcgroyne wrote:

Ralph wrote:Andrew Neil is a friend of Arron Banks & they have similar political views, so it’s no surprise he thinks it’s a good idea to provide him with a platform to refute allegations made against him & rubbish an investigation.

It’s a bizarre decision by BBC management. Andrew Marr is not a tough or forensic interviewer. Not even his best friends would claim that.

Would Banks do an interview with Jeremy Paxman or even someone like Eddie Mair? Doubt it. Seems like he’s picked his interviewer carefully. A soft interviewer who’s expressed pro Brexit views.

The BBC don’t generally provide a platform to people under investigation. What next - Andrew Marr interviews Harvey Weinstein?

The BBC is the establishment’s broadcaster & it’s showing more than ever.

Any specific and irrefutable evidence of that ?

He invited Arron Banks to speak to the members of his exclusive dining club & pointed out there would be lots of people willing to donate to Leave.EU.



Andrew Neil hasn’t denied it so.....

I seem to remember Mandleson do nothing but gallivant with the super rich and famous and every Russian oligarch under the sun. Any problems with that or is it just when someone from the perceived right does it?

Then there's still the problem of us wanting our money back - the £9million of taxpayers money wasted on something it turned out the people didn't want despite endless pro EU propaganda both here and further paid for by the EU themselves. They are pumping this shit into classrooms which we're also paying for yet you're whinging about a few paltry million which may or may not have come from someone's private funding.

The pro EU side not only uses / wastes our own money promoting itself, it is massively disproportionate to the amount spent on the anti EU side ,and guess what you still lost by public opinion

Perhaps we need a level playing field from now on where the anti EU side can bolster it's own funding directly from the EU purse (our money anyway) so it matches the losing sides funding - and see what happens to voting patterns then.

At the moment, it's a constant stream of 'EU funded mouthpiece backs the EU shocker'. And you lot are still banging on about democracy and how unfair it was the ridiculously (self)underfunded side won.

Why do you think Cold War warrior Putin did/does everything he can to promote Brexit m4rkb?

m4rkb wrote:I seem to remember Mandleson do nothing but gallivant with the super rich and famous and every Russian oligarch under the sun. Any problems with that or is it just when someone from the perceived right does it?

Then there's still the problem of us wanting our money back - the £9million of taxpayers money wasted on something it turned out the people didn't want despite endless pro EU propaganda both here and further paid for by the EU themselves. They are pumping this shit into classrooms which we're also paying for yet you're whinging about a few paltry million which may or may not have come from someone's private funding.

The pro EU side not only uses / wastes our own money promoting itself, it is massively disproportionate to the amount spent on the anti EU side ,and guess what you still lost by public opinion

Perhaps we need a level playing field from now on where the anti EU side can bolster it's own funding directly from the EU purse (our money anyway) so it matches the losing sides funding - and see what happens to voting patterns then.

At the moment, it's a constant stream of 'EU funded mouthpiece backs the EU shocker'. And you lot are still banging on about democracy and how unfair it was the ridiculously (self)underfunded side won.

It is apparently fine to give traitors, who still support Remain, to be given masses of airtime. It is akin to giving airtime to the enemy, in a war with another country.

Ralph wrote:Why do you think Cold War warrior Putin did/does everything he can to promote Brexit m4rkb?

Well for starters plenty of people (actual politicos in the know) have said the stand-off with the Russians during the cold war was as fake as Katie Price's tits and the Rusdsians never meant us any harm anyway, like everyone else in the Eastern block as it turns out. But great business for the arms trade eh and the kind of super rich behind it?

Likewise, we don't really have an axe to grind with the Russians despite what we're constantly being told to think. In other words it's all complete fucking bullshit. Franklly, I've had enough of it and see no real reason why we can't have good relations with the Russians and vice versa. I'd half suspect Putin thinks the same and thinks a free Britain would be a good trading partner as well as potential friend. What is in the way of this is the same thing in the way of us leaving the EU's political clutches - POLITICIANS who know it weakens their own authority and stranglehold of power over us all.

Also he might have seen the way the EU intervened in the Ukraine and though fair play to Britain for wanting to upsticks and leave this shower of shit behind. Just a thought. Not saying it's right or wrong just credible.

Anything which weakens the march of global power hungry politicians trying to styfle democracy gets my vote.

Darkyboy wrote:

m4rkb wrote:I seem to remember Mandleson do nothing but gallivant with the super rich and famous and every Russian oligarch under the sun. Any problems with that or is it just when someone from the perceived right does it?

Then there's still the problem of us wanting our money back - the £9million of taxpayers money wasted on something it turned out the people didn't want despite endless pro EU propaganda both here and further paid for by the EU themselves. They are pumping this shit into classrooms which we're also paying for yet you're whinging about a few paltry million which may or may not have come from someone's private funding.

The pro EU side not only uses / wastes our own money promoting itself, it is massively disproportionate to the amount spent on the anti EU side ,and guess what you still lost by public opinion

Perhaps we need a level playing field from now on where the anti EU side can bolster it's own funding directly from the EU purse (our money anyway) so it matches the losing sides funding - and see what happens to voting patterns then.

At the moment, it's a constant stream of 'EU funded mouthpiece backs the EU shocker'. And you lot are still banging on about democracy and how unfair it was the ridiculously (self)underfunded side won.

It is apparently fine to give traitors, who still support Remain, to be given masses of airtime. It is akin to giving airtime to the enemy, in a war with another country.

Yes. People who basically had one solitary vote ,like I did, yet somehow think their media profile entitles them to speak as though their voice is worth millions of votes and somehow 'more right'. Well it doesn't.

Besides, as far as the losing side is concerned ,this still boils down to having as many votes as required until we reach the decision to remain in which case democracy will have been achieved.

Right now he EU is looking at this carry on and arch federalists, like Schultz, Junker, Verhofftwat at al are more convinced than ever we do not need democracy or any input from the people. It needs to be scrapped as everything will be much better is they are put in complete dictatorial control so we avoid making any decisions ourselves just in case we decide on something they don't like - such as removing them from power which is the ultimate democratic right of anyone wielding any type of vote.

m4rkb wrote:

Ralph wrote:Why do you think Cold War warrior Putin did/does everything he can to promote Brexit m4rkb?

Well for starters plenty of people (actual politicos in the know) have said the stand-off with the Russians during the cold war was as fake as Katie Price's tits and the Rusdsians never meant us any harm anyway, like everyone else in the Eastern block as it turns out. But great business for the arms trade eh and the kind of super rich behind it?

Likewise, we don't really have an axe to grind with the Russians despite what we're constantly being told to think. In other words it's all complete fucking bullshit. Franklly, I've had enough of it and see no real reason why we can't have good relations with the Russians and vice versa. I'd half suspect Putin thinks the same and thinks a free Britain would be a good trading partner as well as potential friend. What is in the way of this is the same thing in the way of us leaving the EU's political clutches - POLITICIANS who know it weakens their own authority and stranglehold of power over us all.

Also he might have seen the way the EU intervened in the Ukraine and though fair play to Britain for wanting to upsticks and leave this shower of shit behind. Just a thought. Not saying it's right or wrong just credible.

Anything which weakens the march of global power hungry politicians trying to styfle democracy gets my vote.

Let’s not dance around the issue. Putin supports Brexit because he thinks it will weaken the UK. He’s still fighting the Cold War. It’s no more complicated than that.

Ralph wrote: He invited Arron Banks to speak to the members of his exclusive dining club & pointed out there would be lots of people willing to donate to Leave.EU.



Andrew Neil hasn’t denied it so.....

Well, he hasn't denied that he put Banks up against Roland Rudd to debate Brexit at an Addison Club dinner. Inferring that he's a top chum of Banks seems to be a little wild. Carole Cadwalladr has misrepresented this several times.

The Addison Club is a networking group for rich tories, it isn't shocking that some of them would want to donate to Leave.EU