Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tim Drayton]

I apologise if you did not know what MSM refers to, I thought it was commonly known as being ..... Main Stream Media. The handful of news outlets run by huge corporations that have a monopoly of TV, Newspaper and popular news stories, that is widely available without having to go look for it.

They are often fed the by Reuters or Associated Press and a few other news agencies, who collect from 'sources' around the world and the MSM then runs with the story with there angle added. If that is the only source you use to collect information on anything ..... from Syria to Gaza ....... from Finance to Politics ..... you will only ever read one side of the story. If the MSM prints a load of rubbish, which the independents show to be so a few days later, the Media never apologies for their errors or reprints the article with corrections, but to the mindless hoards that use that as there single source .... it is set in stone for ever. Anything that then gives an alternative and detailed story that refutes the original MSM version gets shouted down ........... as you often do!

You should also look at independent news outlets that are run as non-profit organisations and are not part of the MSM. Often run as one-man-bands and are used to carry the same news story. These are very frequently well know journalists who do not/will not fall into line and follow the MSM's editorial guide lines as their detailed stories often clash with their editorial policies. The articles provide many links to there sources from Govt. papers to UN Reports.


[/quote]

Thanks. That being so, why do you make so many references to such MSM outlets as the Daily Mail and Daily Express?

[Tim Drayton]

Post Brexit I think you will find, or though incorrect in terminology, refers to after the vote for a Brexit. As I pointed out and you have repeated, there is no 'Post-Brexit' yet, it's all speculation ..... so everything else you have said above is just that, speculation because it can only be your opinion. Just your views as to what YOU think ..... and I note you don't link to any credible source either. If you do not look at other sources for information and make your own assessment of the credibility of an argument and the degree of probability of it being 'true' .........you will never know the full story.

That is precisely my point. Do try and concentrate, will you, dear boy, or is it going to take another six pages of going round and round the same circle until it finally sinks in, like with explaining why international private law currently permits a contract governed by English law to be entered into outside England? The predictions made by the remain campaign were for the consequences AFTER the UK leaves the EU (if it ever does so). In this context, AFTER means 'at a later time than, following, subsequent to'. Keep that definition firmly in mind. You said that none of the claims made by the remain campaign have been borne out in practice. However, that is impossible, because the claims made by the remain campaign were for the consequences AFTER the UK leaves the EU (i.e. what they expect to happen at a later time once the UK leaves). Because the UK has not yet left, it is not yet possible to test those claims empirically. therefore, your assertion has no meaning or validity.

[Tim Drayton]

You can't quote any MSM reports that can demonstrate that ANY of the remain campaign was even remotely true.

Typical man of straw fallacy. The remainers supposedly said that, if the vote was for leave, there would be an instant apocalypse and the sky would fall in the next day. Well, the sky didn't fall in the next day so they were wrong! What intellectual dishonesty. Nobody made such claims. The claims that were made were based on the premise that article 50 would be triggered the day after and the UK would rapidly leave the union. In fact, as each day passes, it becomes clearer that we are in a 'Hotel California' situation and may never even get round to leaving. At the moment the UK remains an EU member and life carries on as before. Even so, there are plenty of negative auguries. The pound is weaker. Interest rates have been reduced to a pathological quarter percent and business confidence levels are low. To demonstrate empirically that the 'remain campaign was true', as you put it, the UK will first of all need to leave the EU, because the claims of the remain campaign were that 'If the UK leaves the EU, the consequences of this will be ...". The remain campaign did not say that these things would happen just because the vote was for leave.

Again ..... that is your opinion only! Not a single link to a credible source to support your opinion.

What about the claims that there would be an income tax rise, the mortgage rates would rocket and house prices would tumble ......... surely if that had been a credible reason to remain, to avoid just that, then we should be seeing some evidence? But it seems not!

You want a credible source to support my opinion that the UK has not yet left the EU?

Oh dear. I can see this is going to be another hopeless effort. I am afraid you are not the sharpest tool in the shed. I wish I knew how to explain things so that you could understand them. Let's have one more go:

The claims made were for the consequences IF/WHEN the UK leaves the EU, i.e. AFTER this happens, in other words, later in time. Since the UK has not yet left the EU, of course we are not yet experiencing these consequences.

[Tim Drayton]

boris gove and farage are responsible for this. Never mind ministerial jobs they should be locked up for inciting these thugs.

I don't think you can blame them! They did not advocate violence just the idea that the UK should be able to chose who they want to come and live/work in the UK. To me, that does not seem to be an unreasonable expectation.

There has been a 57% rise in hate crime following the disgustingly racist campaign waged by the leave side in the referendum, and now this murder ... and you say there is no connection!

[Londonrake]

boris gove and farage are responsible for this. Never mind ministerial jobs they should be locked up for inciting these thugs.

I don't think you can blame them! They did not advocate violence just the idea that the UK should be able to chose who they want to come and live/work in the UK. To me, that does not seem to be an unreasonable expectation.

There has been a 57% rise in hate crime following the disgustingly racist campaign waged by the leave side in the referendum, and now this murder ... and you say there is no connection!

For as long as I can recollect, whenever serious and quite legitimate concerns about the unprecedented levels of UK immigration have been raised the same shout-down cry has gone out fron the Left. "RACIST!". Nothing changes it seems.

As for the so-called culpability for murder of Farage and Johnson, absolute tosh. You remind me of Dim Jim, arbiter of Cyprus Living, who insists upon Thatcher's personal responsibility for his mate's suicide, post job loss. Barking.

BTW, when this subject is continually raised by disgruntled Remainers, years before a sensible view can actually be formed, pointing out that in the largest electoral event within the UK's history they lost the vote has nothing to do with "a game of conkers" and everything to do with a reminder of the nature of democracy: the tyranny of the majority, as they say.

[Robin Hood]

Post Brexit I think you will find, or though incorrect in terminology, refers to after the vote for a Brexit. As I pointed out and you have repeated, there is no 'Post-Brexit' yet, it's all speculation ..... so everything else you have said above is just that, speculation because it can only be your opinion. Just your views as to what YOU think ..... and I note you don't link to any credible source either. If you do not look at other sources for information and make your own assessment of the credibility of an argument and the degree of probability of it being 'true' .........you will never know the full story.

That is precisely my point. Do try and concentrate, will you, dear boy, or is it going to take another six pages of going round and round the same circle until it finally sinks in, like with explaining why international private law currently permits a contract governed by English law to be entered into outside England? The predictions made by the remain campaign were for the consequences AFTER the UK leaves the EU (if it ever does so). In this context, AFTER means 'at a later time than, following, subsequent to'. Keep that definition firmly in mind. You said that none of the claims made by the remain campaign have been borne out in practice. However, that is impossible, because the claims made by the remain campaign were for the consequences AFTER the UK leaves the EU (i.e. what they expect to happen at a later time once the UK leaves). Because the UK has not yet left, it is not yet possible to test those claims empirically. therefore, your assertion has no meaning or validity.

Don't be so bloody arrogant. If you had made your 'dear boy' comment to some of the Americans I have worked with you would be nursing a broken jaw and a few missing teeth.

You have a habit of misreading just about everything, to put your opinion as 'sensible and informed', which it isn't. You are just parroting above what I have said in the post you have copied !

I wasn't going to mention your ridiculous claim about 'governing law' when applied to moving the Banks from UK to Germany but you screwed that up as well by your ignorance. 'Governing law' is only applicable if there is a contractual dispute and determines the country's laws that will be used to settle that dispute . I am sorry but I don't have to just sit back and take a lot of crap from you.

Everything you have expressed an opinion on so far has been nothing more than YOUR opinion !

[CBBB]

Handbags at dawn?

[Londonrake]

Handbags at dawn?

Or........ spanners at sunset?

[Robin Hood]

You can't quote any MSM reports that can demonstrate that ANY of the remain campaign was even remotely true.

Typical man of straw fallacy. The remainers supposedly said that, if the vote was for leave, there would be an instant apocalypse and the sky would fall in the next day. Well, the sky didn't fall in the next day so they were wrong! What intellectual dishonesty. Nobody made such claims. The claims that were made were based on the premise that article 50 would be triggered the day after and the UK would rapidly leave the union. In fact, as each day passes, it becomes clearer that we are in a 'Hotel California' situation and may never even get round to leaving. At the moment the UK remains an EU member and life carries on as before. Even so, there are plenty of negative auguries. The pound is weaker. Interest rates have been reduced to a pathological quarter percent and business confidence levels are low. To demonstrate empirically that the 'remain campaign was true', as you put it, the UK will first of all need to leave the EU, because the claims of the remain campaign were that 'If the UK leaves the EU, the consequences of this will be ...". The remain campaign did not say that these things would happen just because the vote was for leave.

Again ..... that is your opinion only! Not a single link to a credible source to support your opinion.

What about the claims that there would be an income tax rise, the mortgage rates would rocket and house prices would tumble ......... surely if that had been a credible reason to remain, to avoid just that, then we should be seeing some evidence? But it seems not!

You want a credible source to support my opinion that the UK has not yet left the EU?

Let's have one more go:

The claims made were for the consequences IF/WHEN the UK leaves the EU, i.e. AFTER this happens, in other words, later in time. Since the UK has not yet left the EU, of course we are not yet experiencing these consequences.

#1 Quote where I have said that or even suggested that the UK has left the EU. Once again your reading skills leave a lot to be desired. Read carefully before you make a statement .... otherwise it shows you as being a bit flippant in translating what you read. And for someone who makes a living out of translation ...... it isn't good for your credibility.

Oh dear. I can see this is going to be another hopeless effort. I am afraid you are not the sharpest tool in the shed. I wish I knew how to explain things so that you could understand them. Let's have one more go:

I am a lot sharper and much better informed than you are, at least I can read and understand what I have read, a capability you seem to lack!

Since the UK has not yet left the EU, of course we are not yet experiencing these consequences.

Exactly as I explained to you but you managed to misread .... again.

[Robin Hood]

Handbags at dawn?

Or........ spanners at sunset?

I wondered when you would poke your oar in Spanner ! Nothing intelligent to add then LR?