USA Election

[125Forever]

Move towards neutrality from where exactly?

If people equally criticise it for being too left wing and too right wing, does that not suggest it probably has the right balance?

I see the point, but I think both left and right would favour the BBC being apolitical and impartial, not taking sides or favouring one group over another.

Looks like CalExit is on the cards too now...

 

[EM2]

If voting in Trump is a reaction against the 'global elite', why has the Dow Jones closed at a record closing high?

 

[Phil.]

If voting in Trump is a reaction against the 'global elite', why has the Dow Jones closed at a record closing high?

Because it wasn't a vote against the global elite. It was the little people voting who had had enough of the political elite like the lying Clintons.

 

[EM2]

Because it wasn't a vote against the global elite. It was the little people voting who had had enough of the political elite like the lying Clintons.

No, it is! 125Forever told us so, look!
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2769310&postcount=130

 

[Tim R-T-C]

I see the point, but I think both left and right would favour the BBC being apolitical and impartial, not taking sides or favouring one group over another.

But 'favouring' a group is such a subjective term. Everytime they have an interview they are essentially giving that person a chance to air their views and people from opposing camps can claim bias.

But if they have to interview someone of every viewpoint on every issue, for exactly the same amount of time, with exactly the same tone and questions, then the news will become unwatchable.

 

[anme]

Because it wasn't a vote against the global elite. It was the little people voting who had had enough of the political elite like the lying Clintons.

Let's actually check the facts: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls

Selected quote: "Of the one in three Americans who earn less than $50,000 a year, a majority voted for Clinton. A majority of those who earn more backed Trump." The "little people", as you so charmingly put it, voted for Clinton.

You can find a lot more analysis on line - can I recommend read some before people post this kind of stuff again?

 

[backontrack]

Who has the all-powerful SJW conspiracy infiltrated? Are you next?

Yeah. You know, I'm so fed up of being written off as a commie SJW social media-loving gingham-wearing vine-blogging man-bunning Momentum-supporting condom-challenging flag-waving anti-Brexiteering always-moaning ears-bleeding soya-drinking insta-chatting London-living Pokemon-obsessing bubble-living smartphone-staring always-pedantic undemocratic Owen Smith clone just because I'm young and I'm British and I don't think that high austerity and fossil fuels are the right way to go.

/rant (it needed to be said)

 

[AlterEgo]

Let's actually check the facts: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls

Selected quote: "Of the one in three Americans who earn less than $50,000 a year, a majority voted for Clinton. A majority of those who earn more backed Trump." The "little people", as you so charmingly put it, voted for Clinton.

You can find a lot more analysis on line - can I recommend read some before people post this kind of stuff again?

Nah, why bother? We are in the post-intellectual age.

So far we've had posters link to a book on Jewish-Masonic NWO conspiracies, Breitbart, and a YouTuber whose videos are titled "Feminist Whores for Islam", and "It's Good to be Anti-Islam".

It's all rather unpleasant. I'm not offended, just a little saddened at a handful of grown men on a railway forum who think that stuff has any real currency.

 

[anme]

Nah, why bother? We are in the post-intellectual age.

So far we've had posters link to a book on Jewish-Masonic NWO conspiracies, Breitbart, and a YouTuber whose videos are titled "Feminist Whores for Islam", and "It's Good to be Anti-Islam".

It's all rather unpleasant. I'm not offended, just a little saddened at a handful of grown men on a railway forum who think that stuff has any real currency.

Well off older white men are the people who elected Trump.

Edit: with a dishonourable mention to well off older white women too.

 

[me123]

Nah, why bother? We are in the post-intellectual age.

So far we've had posters link to a book on Jewish-Masonic NWO conspiracies, Breitbart, and a YouTuber whose videos are titled "Feminist Whores for Islam", and "It's Good to be Anti-Islam".

It's all rather unpleasant. I'm not offended, just a little saddened at a handful of grown men on a railway forum who think that stuff has any real currency.

This kind of says it all.

The posters you are referring to are sadly not unique, nor are they even uncommon. This is now the level at which we are discussing and debating politics on a global scale. People don't trust facts and would rather form opinions based on prejudice. The tone of political debate is marginalising many people around the world, largely those who do not have a voice at a governmental level.

There is no doubt in my mind that the politics of 2016 are certainly the lowest I've seen in my lifetime, and probably the lowest for quite some time before as well. And I'm sure I'll get abused for posting any of my personal thoughts (which is the direction that this thread has taken), but I'm not talking about simply left vs right. I actually, despite being a "lefty loony millennial", have a great deal of respect for many people on the right. Just not those that perpetuate stereotypes, condone and even encourage hatred, marginalise and divide communities, and show a profound disrespect for their fellow man.

I would have said about a year ago that I was a very politically engaged person. Now, I don't want to waste my time with it. Global political debate is beneath me.

 

[AlterEgo]

This kind of says it all.

The posters you are referring to are sadly not unique, nor are they even uncommon. This is now the level at which we are discussing and debating politics on a global scale. People don't trust facts and would rather form opinions based on prejudice. The tone of political debate is marginalising many people around the world, largely those who do not have a voice at a governmental level.

There is no doubt in my mind that the politics of 2016 are certainly the lowest I've seen in my lifetime, and probably the lowest for quite some time before as well. And I'm sure I'll get abused for posting any of my personal thoughts (which is the direction that this thread has taken), but I'm not talking about simply left vs right. I actually, despite being a "lefty loony millennial", have a great deal of respect for many people on the right. Just not those that perpetuate stereotypes, condone and even encourage hatred, marginalise and divide communities, and show a profound disrespect for their fellow man.

I would have said about a year ago that I was a very politically engaged person. Now, I don't want to waste my time with it. Global political debate is beneath me.

There is no left and right politics any more. Just authoritarianism of different kinds. Reason is being drowned in a sea of NWO conspiracists, hardline authoritarians, anti Semites, islamophobes, misogyny and distemper. These traits exist on both what we might have called the very left and very right wing. To me, the extremes of both wings are indistinguishable.

I have found over the last year that I have become very disaffected politically. I no longer care much for politics and feel the next time I vote I'll have to give my vote to nice, reasonable people.

Trump won because he is a supreme communicator. As someone who earns money from Comms, I congratulate him and laud his craft. I despise his politics.

I think we are embarking on a period of mass uncertainty. Technological progress means that the ways we communicate and connect to each other have changed. Nuance and long form debate is no longer valued. 18-24 year olds now communicate increasingly through video or pictures. These in themselves are not bad things but the pace of change has been rapid. We've a lot of adjusting to do.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And by just as many to be biased towards the right. Which suggests that they're not really biased at all.

That is a fair comment, and shows that the BBC is viewed as biased by differing sides. Hence it needs to move towards neutrality.

I don't see the logic there. What makes you think the BBC isn't already reasonably neutral?

In my experience it's very common for people of all political persuasions to assume that a news report that doesn't back up their own opinions must be biased. That suggests to me that you'd expect a neutral news organization to be regularly accused of bias by both sides, which - oddly enough - is exactly what seems to happen to the BBC. That looks to me like a possible indication that it maybe is doing a good job of reporting reasonably neutrally.

 

[Richard_B]

So you're saying if someone is called a racist online they probably are ?

probably yes, definitely no
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Let's actually check the facts: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls

Selected quote: "Of the one in three Americans who earn less than $50,000 a year, a majority voted for Clinton. A majority of those who earn more backed Trump." The "little people", as you so charmingly put it, voted for Clinton.

You can find a lot more analysis on line - can I recommend read some before people post this kind of stuff again?

Your statistics are true but don't tell the whole story. Votes by those who earn less than 50K a year have voted for the democrats for many many years. (i assume this is heavily linked to the disproportionate number of blacks in this income band. However, this year Clintons margin with this group was cut dramatically (10pts+) compared to what Obama took in 08 and 12. So there was a revolt against the Democrats

 

[bramling]

Makes you wonder though - who would have thought that Brexit and Trump would have been realities in 2016?

Personally I'm less convinced there's a connection between Trump and Brexit.

The general consensus seems to be Trump has been elected as some form of protest, offering policies and ideologies which appeal to a specific subset of the population. It's also worth remembering that Trump is something that has a shelf-life, maximum 8 years.

Brexit on the other hand is a permanent change to Britain. The push for Brexit has been much longer coming, Britain has always been a reluctant European, and hefty numbers of people have never really bought into the EU and/or Britain's membership of it. It has been suggested that the leave vote would probably have been even stronger had it not been for the 'project fear' in the months leading up to referendum day. I don't really see Brexit as being anti-establishment, just a rational preference to a yes/no membership question.

As to whether there really is an anti-establishment tendency spreading round the west, the next test will be France. If Frexit were to happen (personally I think it's still highly unlikely - but who knows these days?!), we wouldn't need all this Brexit fuss because I think it really would be the end of the EU.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Farage has joked about Trump molesting Theresa May. I'm not a prude as far as humour goes, but I don't think a political leader should joke about sexual assault so blatantly.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ge-jokes-about-trumps-alleged-sexual-assaults
Farage then joked about Trump meeting May, saying, “don’t touch her for goodness sake”, before laughing. Asked about the likely behaviour of Trump, who has been accused of a series of sexual assaults, which he denies, Farage added: “If it comes to it, I could be there as the responsible adult role, to make sure everything’s OK.”

In other news, students at TSU have handled the election with the same level of decorum and decency that we've come to expect from the Lone Star State.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/u...tacks-on-muslim-students-at-universities.html

The fliers depicting men in camouflage, wielding guns and an American flag, appeared in men’s restrooms throughout Texas State University: “Now that our man Trump is elected,” they said. “Time to organize tar and feather vigilante squads and go arrest and torture those deviant university leaders spouting off that diversity garbage.”

Yeah. You know, I'm so fed up of being written off as a commie SJW social media-loving gingham-wearing vine-blogging man-bunning Momentum-supporting condom-challenging flag-waving anti-Brexiteering always-moaning ears-bleeding soya-drinking insta-chatting London-living Pokemon-obsessing bubble-living smartphone-staring always-pedantic undemocratic Owen Smith clone just because I'm young and I'm British and I don't think that high austerity and fossil fuels are the right way to go.

/rant (it needed to be said)

I don't think you can honestly be too Pokémon obsessed. Sadly my complete collection of gen 1 cards aren't going to save austerity from destroying public services anytime soon.

 

[125Forever]

Personally I'm less convinced there's a connection between Trump and Brexit.

The general consensus seems to be Trump has been elected as some form of protest, offering policies and ideologies which appeal to a specific subset of the population. It's also worth remembering that Trump is something that has a shelf-life, maximum 8 years.

Brexit on the other hand is a permanent change to Britain. The push for Brexit has been much longer coming, Britain has always been a reluctant European, and hefty numbers of people have never really bought into the EU and/or Britain's membership of it. It has been suggested that the leave vote would probably have been even stronger had it not been for the 'project fear' in the months leading up to referendum day. I don't really see Brexit as being anti-establishment, just a rational preference to a yes/no membership question.

As to whether there really is an anti-establishment tendency spreading round the west, the next test will be France. If Frexit were to happen (personally I think it's still highly unlikely - but who knows these days?!), we wouldn't need all this Brexit fuss because I think it really would be the end of the EU.

I think that is very much on the cards, Frexit and then the end of Merkel hopefully. If she goes, never mind about Article 50 it's all over for the EU anyway.

Last thoughts on this thread:

We are entering a new age of world government, and this trend IMO will only continue. It may be sad for some (especially those who feel that they are the educated and enlightened ones - yet failed to not only get their message across to those people upset with the status quo, they were drowned out by the lynch mobs on their own side) but we either accept what is happening and make the most of these changes or we run away to Canada/Continental Europe.

I saw a comment on Facebook earlier: 'Goodbye America, you are no longer mine' - America does not belong to one person nor one interest group, it belongs to everybody, and maybe now these people are going to learn what it is like when you have no voice. It's going to be a very long, cold winter for them (not just temperature-wise either).

As for the media and intellectualism, if people were that clever they'd have wanted everybody to be included and to be informed - but they didn't. Why have everybody together when it's more fun to brow-beat those who don't agree with what they say? Besides, the left sold out years ago imo and left its traditional core behind - why do you think UKIP came to such prominence, for example? Just on the back of bigotry, or because a group of people had become disillusioned with their own country and wanted change? If your football team had the same manager for many years, yet the club did worse and worse year on year - no titles, no trophies, no signs of better days - you would want a new manager at the helm, yes?

Evidently, the message either did not reach people or it was flatly rejected - these people may be stupid (in your eyes), but they have that right to be stupid and so long as they are happy and content with their everyday lives, then the smarmy left can go and do the other. If people are really that clever, why didn't they want to help these people out the way that they did with special interest groups?

I appreciate and respect why people want to stand up for certain communities and fight against racism/homophobia etc. However, when some of the same people roundly accuse everybody who wants a different future for their children and future generations as if they were on a par with the devil, then it does make me question how much they they mean their message of peace, love and understanding. People have the right to choose their own destiny, and to think outside of their identity politics.

Liberals have to reclaim the ground taken from them by the far-left extremists, as well as Feminism and true Social Justice (which, by the way, means fighting for all people - not just minorities - you have to fight against environmental degradation, against cancer, against AIDS, against child poverty and so on). Also, IF you do care about the world, get out there and change it - don't just pontificate from a computer desk on how person x is s****y because he/she doesn't agree.

Maybe in time the left will re-manifest itself as something which everybody can be a part of, rather than some be apart from. It's up to those who care about left-wing issues to ensure that the things they believe in benefit us all and aren't dashed due to either militancy within their own groups nor the meddling politicians for whom the people only matter on polling day.

Over and out.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's sad you equate intellectualism with brow beating.

The trend globally is not towards right wing governments. It's towards authoritarianism. That is quite different from "the right wing"!

Greece has an illiberal and authoritarian left wing government. This government deposed the previous incumbent which was broadly neoliberal.

Seeing Brexit and Trump win does not equate to some sort of moral victory for "the right wing". I feel this term is outdated.

I don't see this trend continuing for more than ten or fifteen years. Trump will be replaced once again by someone more liberal, and if the EU collapses (as it might) then who knows what'll happen? Nationalism and social authoritarianism aren't the preserve of the "right", they're political stances in their own right.

A great deal of Democrats thought Bernie should have been their candidate. He signifies an equal amount of change as Trump; "anti-establishment", authoritarian pseudosocialism. He may well have given Trump a run for his money.

In any case, Hillary polled more votes than Trump.

 

[125Forever]

It's sad you equate intellectualism with brow beating.

The trend globally is not towards right wing governments. It's towards authoritarianism. That is quite different from "the right wing"!

Greece has an illiberal and authoritarian left wing government. This government deposed the previous incumbent which was broadly neoliberal.

Seeing Brexit and Trump win does not equate to some sort of moral victory for "the right wing". I feel this term is outdated.

I don't see this trend continuing for more than ten or fifteen years. Trump will be replaced once again by someone more liberal, and if the EU collapses (as it might) then who knows what'll happen? Nationalism and social authoritarianism aren't the preserve of the "right", they're political stances in their own right.

A great deal of Democrats thought Bernie should have been their candidate. He signifies an equal amount of change as Trump; "anti-establishment", authoritarian pseudosocialism. He may well have given Trump a run for his money.

In any case, Hillary polled more votes than Trump.

He might have, but the Democrats went with Hilary - they made their beds, they should now lie in them.

 

[AlterEgo]

He might have, but the Democrats went with Hilary - they made their beds, they should now lie in them.

The idea that if you lose an election "you have to lie in your bed" is just daft.

A pro-Remain government was voted into office in the UK only 18 months ago.

 

[DarloRich]

I suppose that you think that RT and Euro News are similarly wrong, because they don't say what you want them to?

I think they are wrong because:

• RT is a Russian government owned puff piece design to act as part of a political Maskirovka to justify any action taken by Putin. It is hardly a credible, impartial and independent media outlet. OFCOM tends to agree having found against RT several times on that very point.
  
• Euronews, which started as a pan European rival to CNN, but is now owned by an Egyptian and has close links with a Ukranian oligarch with ties to our good friend Vlad. No chance of bias or the spreading of disinformaiton there.

By all means believe what they say above other media sources but be prepared for those with better critical facilitates to question you.

This may be uncomfortable, but organisations like the BBC, ITV and SKY are no longer trusted by many people - the BBC is perceived by some to be too biased towards the left, for instance. As far as the BBC goes, it is a shame that a once great organisation has been laid low:

I agree the BBC is biased. It is biased towards whoever holds power so that they keep their charter in place. It is left wing biased when Labour is in power and right wing biased when the conservatives are in power.

Plus, let us not forget the now infamous Mr. Savile and how the BBC hushed that all up. With regards to independent journalism and research,that is practically non-existent now and stories will be slanted left or right to appease the audiences. Now, if the BBC was wholly independent and accountable directly to the licence fee payer, I might be prepared to accept it more than I do so now.

What does wholly independent and accountable directly to the licence fee payer actually mean? The government by turns has to told the BBC to be more populist and then less populist. They don't seem to be able to win.

I know for certain people like Murdoch, The Barclay brothers, Viscount Rothermere and many other media types would like to see the BBC nurtured so that any challenge to their views is removed. I wonder why?

Why can't everybody accept your view, Rich? Hmmm, maybe because we are all different and not everybody wants to see things from one point of view. I'm an atheist, so am I wrong because I don't believe in a deity? I mean, are you going to call me silly because I don't believe in a bearded man in the sky or a flying spaghetti monster.

Fear and ignorance also means that people just cow-tow and accept one POV only - the world is full of more than one.

I am very happy we live in a country where everyone is able to express their views. I believe very strongly in that right. However, in acknowledging that right you also acknowledge my right to say that your views are based on the most fantastical paranoid conspiracy theory tin foil hat wearing rubbish. By the same token you are welcome to criticise me. I simply don't care if you do.

Finally, you make yourself look silly by posting a link to some kind of tract outlining a secret group of Jewish Freemason lizard men that control the world. I am happy that you are free to believe that even if the majority of us in the world think that it is utterly bonkers.

 

[anme]

I actually think we should all calm down and think about the opportunities a Trump government offers to Europe. The US is likely to become more inward looking, more isolationist and less friendly to business. This offers great opportunities for the EU and its members to take a lead in the world - diplomatically, in culture, in technology and in trade and industry. For sure there will be challenges but working together Europe now has a great chance to step forward and shape the coming century.

Not sure where this leaves the UK, to be honest. I once read an article dating from the mid-sixties, which suggested the UK should aim for closer and closer co-operation and integration with the US, and in the long term it should become a US state. That plan might now be modified to aim for four separate states (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland). Given the obvious parallels between Trumpism and Brexit, maybe this idea could now fly?

 

[backontrack]

Not sure where this leaves the UK, to be honest. I once read an article dating from the mid-sixties, which suggested the UK should aim for closer and closer co-operation and integration with the US, and in the long term it should become a US state. That plan might now be modified to aim for four separate states (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland). Given the obvious parallels between Trumpism and Brexit, maybe this idea could now fly?

I think that it would be good to build a stronger relationship with the Scandinavian countries (certainly with Scotland anyway).

 

[Steveman]

Monisha Rajesh of the Guardian and Telegraph tweeted that she hoped for a presidential
assassination before quickly deleting both her Facebook and Twitter account.
The offending piece has been sent to the American Embassy and the FBI so she may soon be faced with an extradition case as the Yanks take things like that very seriously.
She perhaps hasn't heard of the Twitter archive.

 

[Domh245]

In any case, Hillary polled more votes than Trump.

Also worth noting that Trump didn't win because he mobilised large amounts of voters. Hilary lost because Democratic votes collapsed

 

[furnessvale]

Also worth noting that Trump didn't win because he mobilised large amounts of voters. Hilary lost because Democratic votes collapsed

Given the number of possible candidates available to the Democrats, it would appear they totally misunderstood just how unpopular Clinton was.

 

[125Forever]

I think they are wrong because:

• RT is a Russian government owned puff piece design to act as part of a political Maskirovka to justify any action taken by Putin. It is hardly a credible, impartial and independent media outlet. OFCOM tends to agree having found against RT several times on that very point.
  
• Euronews, which started as a pan European rival to CNN, but is now owned by an Egyptian and has close links with a Ukranian oligarch with ties to our good friend Vlad. No chance of bias or the spreading of disinformaiton there.

By all means believe what they say above other media sources but be prepared for those with better critical facilitates to question you.



I agree the BBC is biased. It is biased towards whoever holds power so that they keep their charter in place. It is left wing biased when Labour is in power and right wing biased when the conservatives are in power.




What does wholly independent and accountable directly to the licence fee payer actually mean? The government by turns has to told the BBC to be more populist and then less populist. They don't seem to be able to win.

I know for certain people like Murdoch, The Barclay brothers, Viscount Rothermere and many other media types would like to see the BBC nurtured so that any challenge to their views is removed. I wonder why?




I am very happy we live in a country where everyone is able to express their views. I believe very strongly in that right. However, in acknowledging that right you also acknowledge my right to say that your views are based on the most fantastical paranoid conspiracy theory tin foil hat wearing rubbish. By the same token you are welcome to criticise me. I simply don't care if you do.

Finally, you make yourself look silly by posting a link to some kind of tract outlining a secret group of Jewish Freemason lizard men that control the world. I am happy that you are free to believe that even if the majority of us in the world think that it is utterly bonkers.

There, we will have to agree to disagree.

I don't believe in NWO etc. as an absolute non-negotiable fact, but I have spent a lot of time reading into the subject which I personally find quite interesting. I like to keep an open mind on things, even if it means going against the grain - besides, who always wants to follow suit?

I think that actually you do care, Rich - you see why else would you resort to name calling? I don't believe that I have called you anything, so even if my responses haven't always been intellectually brilliant I have tried to keep them respectable. If you didn't care, you'd simply think (as I do about you) 'ho hum, it's his life, let him get on with it.'

There is waffle in a number of Conspiracy Theories, granted, but there is also a lot of waffle in the mainstream - yet if you go against the mainstream that is somehow wrong in the eyes of certain people.

Do I personally believe that Queen Elizabeth is an Annakin Illuminati lizard? No.

Do I personally believe that Princess Diana was murdered by the Illuminati? No, although I can see why some people think that.

Do I personally believe that Jill Dando was murdered by the Illuminati, in order to stop the expose of Jimmy Savile?

On this one, I am open to suggestion. Certainly, Jill was investigating paedophiles a few months before her death, and she may have stumbled across Savile and found proof about him and others being involved with children. Incidentally, many years ago, people were calling other people out as silly for believing that Savile was a monster (just saying...)

I believe that there is a lot to this world that we don't know, and there is much still to learn about (for example) banking cabals and why certain people seem to hold sway over politicians who should be there to stand up for the common man first and foremost.

Is there an Illuminati? I can't say for certain - if there is then it would answer a lot of questions, but if not then there isn't. It's like if you asked me is there a God, I would say 'not in my opinion', but then if when I die there is a God then obviously the Christians or whomever were right all along.

Never feel bad for questioning things - if we didn't then we would still be in the dark ages.

 

[DarloRich]

There, we will have to agree to disagree.

I don't believe in NWO etc. as an absolute non-negotiable fact, but I have spent a lot of time reading into the subject which I personally find quite interesting. I like to keep an open mind on things, even if it means going against the grain - besides, who always wants to follow suit?

You are wasting your time. There is no shady conspiracy by secret unknown people to rule the world. There really isnt.

I think that actually you do care, Rich - you see why else would you resort to name calling? I don't believe that I have called you anything, so even if my responses haven't always been intellectually brilliant I have tried to keep them respectable. If you didn't care, you'd simply think (as I do about you) 'ho hum, it's his life, let him get on with it.'

I don't care if you challenge my views or not. Please do. That is the benfit of living in a free state. BTW I am not allowed by the rules of this board to respond to many posters in the direct and robust manner I would ideally like.

There is waffle in a number of Conspiracy Theories, granted, but there is also a lot of waffle in the mainstream - yet if you go against the mainstream that is somehow wrong in the eyes of certain people.

Do I personally believe that Queen Elizabeth is an Annakin Illuminati lizard? No.

Do I personally believe that Princess Diana was murdered by the Illuminati? No, although I can see why some people think that.

Do I personally believe that Jill Dando was murdered by the Illuminati, in order to stop the expose of Jimmy Savile?

On this one, I am open to suggestion. Certainly, Jill was investigating paedophiles a few months before her death, and she may have stumbled across Savile and found proof about him and others being involved with children. Incidentally, many years ago, people were calling other people out as silly for believing that Savile was a monster (just saying...)

So an unexplained celebrity murder is now to be linked to every conspiracy going? The police say there was no evidence of any connection with Saville or any expose.

Most likely it was a contract killing carried out by criminals convicted via Crimewatch or for some bizarre reason by Yugoslavian assassins as the style of killing matches their modus operandi. Of course it could be a secretive group of underworld world rulers desperate to preserve their power and status but i doubt it. It certainly wasn't the bloke the old bill fingered for the crime.

I believe that there is a lot to this world that we don't know, and there is much still to learn about (for example) banking cabals and why certain people seem to hold sway over politicians who should be there to stand up for the common man first and foremost.

Money and influence - pure and simple. UK politicians know Murdoch can destroy them in an instant with one headline. People out there lap up such rubbish without question. We can see that facts are of little use or import to many these days. There is your new world order, not secretive Jewish lizard people!

Vast money buys influence and access. Politicians need money to campaign and in return they grant access. Trump used his money to access presidents in the past to try and influence them. He used his money to get elected and will now help out all his rich mates by cutting their taxes. He is as beholden as all the others.

Is there an Illuminati? I can't say for certain - if there is then it would answer a lot of questions, but if not then there isn't. It's like if you asked me is there a God, I would say 'not in my opinion', but then if when I die there is a God then obviously the Christians or whomever were right all along.

Never feel bad for questioning things - if we didn't then we would still be in the dark ages.

Indeed - but the fact you give credence to the possibility of a secret organisation ruling the world is worrying. Any rational thought shows such a suggestion to be bonkers. If they do exist why did they allow Trump to win? Is he one of them? Why didn't they kill him like other opponents and put one of them in his place? However I can see how it would be necessary to rub out a UK TV star. I mean compared to he president of the United States their power is almost endless!

 

[Johnuk123]

RT is a Russian government owned puff piece design to act as part of a political Maskirovka to justify any action taken by Putin. It is hardly a credible, impartial and independent media outlet.

I had never watched it much but lately I have found it gives a totally different view of the world and find it very good. It's now the main news outlet for me.

Just had it on and not only did they talk about the Guardian journalist inciting people to assassinate Trump they also showed a bloke pulled out of his car and savagely beaten by pro Clinton demonstrators.
I am pretty certain neither of these will be on the BBC as it doesn't suit their agenda.

 

[DarloRich]

I had never watched it much but lately I have found it gives a totally different view of the world and find it very good. It's now the main news outlet for me.

Just had it on and not only did they talk about the Guardian journalist inciting people to assassinate Trump they also showed a bloke pulled out of his car and savagely beaten by pro Clinton demonstrators.
I am pretty certain neither of these will be on the BBC as it doesn't suit their agenda.

Perhaps but it is honestly a PR vehicle for the Russians - Believe them as gospel if you like but the question should be why do they (Russia) want Trump in the White House?

 

[AlterEgo]

Ah, Jill Dando, a B-list celeb and TV presenter, murdered by "the Illuminati" to protect Savile, because the Illuminati are also a paedophile ring, I guess? And Savile was Illuminati?

Sigh.