to be glad that the Guardian is making enormous losses

[longfingernails]

www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-losses-reported-to-have-escalated-by-a-further-10m-to-68-7m-for-the-last-financial-year/

Great stuff. Their chatterati condescension, Islington moral vacuum and politically correct echo chamber has been a malignant blot upon our society for decades.

Let it wither upon the Viner.

So what? Their parents pay tax.

Shame that local authority funding for education was based on the 2000 census for the relevant period, and likewise capital projects, wasn't it? The income tax went into central coffers and didn't come back to actually pay for those school places. The current funding is basically set by the 2010 census, which isn't much better. Areas that have experienced high levels of A8 immigration are fucked for education funding. Yes, any sudden change to population numbers has the same problem, but as we haven't had hundreds of thousands of men returning from the second world war since the second world war, it's not been a problem since the second world war.

I don't work for the Guardian.

I've highlighted more than one point to say how it isn't biased, especially as t has a range of columnists that all have different political perspectives, even having Aaron Banks write one last week.

Society hasn't become more right wing, why does the Labour party have more members than the Conservatives for example?

You've just told us that A8 immigration isn't important as it only represents 2% of the population.

What percentage of the population do you think are members of political parties? Rather less than 2%, yes?

Red what a bizarre post.

But I guess your defense of the Guardian also defends the Daily Mail. Which is good for exactly the same reasons.
If you only have a few newspapers which reflect a very narrow view point and a very narrow ownership, power becomes concentrated and it leaves democracy open to abuse That how many ex Guardian readers have come to see it. Its the guardian that has lost readers, cant you see that, its turning people off because it doesn't represent them anymore. Go and tell the Guardian how sad you are, rather than us - who have turned away from it.

I always read different sources if I want to follow something, even then we never get the full story but the guardian's omissions have been shocking, utterly shocking. When you read round like I do you will have noticed this a long time ago, but it was only Cologne when the penny dropped for many readers. Yes, lets keep papers varied and open, lets all complain to the Guardian and sack journos like the horrific owen jones

I don't A8 immigration is the massive source of societies ills like is painted to be.

Also, London just voted in a Labour Mayor, Labour won more seats at the local council elections than the tories. The Tories have a very small majority, I don't think this is indicative of society moving further to the right.

i dont feel society has become right wing and I feel people are desperate for a labour party to turn too but they have been rejected by the labour party.

Its just peoples lives have been affected on a daily basis by immigration and the labour party told them they were racist for saying so. Thats the bottom line.

Oh yes of course, the healthy migrant factor making waiting times at A and E shorter, and times for elective treatment, like that?

Or is it people perceiving that immigration has effected their lives negatively? Or that immigration has been blamed by the right wing, because of political expediency, for the impact of austerity?

sweetsummer

I think for me it was Cologne after perhaps not the world's most impartial reporting/comment when the Camila Batmanghelidjh thing was going on.

I had my eyebrows in my hairline during that one.

Or, could it be that some migrants have not behaved in the best way they could? Maybe some people have migrants living in very large numbers on their streets, or even next to them as neighbours? Maybe they have seen some migrants fighting on a very regular basis. Maybe they have seen numerous agencies attend such houses weekly, incl ambulance, police and SW. Maybe its not even the same migrants causing issues but new migrants moving into such lodgings on a regular rolling basis. Who all cause numerous social issues? Maybe chatting to friends and family in the police, NHS and SW helps to form a picture of a wider issue. Maybe they know where the migrants work and get paid cash in hand, and do not pay tax and know the LL has not got permission for a dwelling with multiple lodgers and therefore does not pay tax on it either.
Whilst a good many migrants have settled into their new communities seamlessly and are a benefit to them, and do work its clear many migrants may have caused issues. Maybe they know the translators to interced and are called in - to hep with the police and so on and they know what they have been getting paid....When you are dealing in such incredibly high numbers, it becomes a real problem. Especially when such migrants are not counted in anyway shape or form and live a transient lifestyle off the books so to speak.

Or maybe it was that it was their elderly frail DF who had meals on wheels pulled as a short fall in funding had to go to extra help in schools when suddenly hundreds of new non English speaking students arrived?

Maybe Maybe Maybe.......Maybe far away, or maybe real near by...

ipost Yes I had forgotten about that debacle.

It was a sly joke smallfox, I apologise, but come on, they are just as biased and agenda driven as all the other broadsheets, it doesn't make them balanced just because your on the same sphere politically.

For all the good the guardian has done, other broadsheets have done relatively, it wasn't the guardian that highlighted the expenses scandal for example.

There is an obvious hypocrisy and blind spots with the paper, it's not only the 'evil right wing' Murdoch press that has highlighted it, many long term guardian readers, even if you exclude the recent hard left backlash over Corbyn, traditional labour supporters have also been turned of the paper, to try and paint that as everyone is just wrong or some kind of swivel eyed dail Mail reader as another poster put it is just juvinile.

You may have pointed out more than one issue, that issue is a contentious one I admit, but less contentious, I will pick up on your reply from a couple of days ago where I'm apparently looking for problems(obviously paraphrased), I will drop the identity politics stance for now but there 'pile in on northern Buy to let' coverage of typical working class towns coming good whilst a couple of years later after the snake has eaten itself they are bemoaning foriegn buyers snapping up flats within the m25, the unpaid internships that they made a big thing of whilst also and still recently employing recent grads on the same (in principal) grounds, the whole 'anti capatlism' evil tax avoidance stance they championed whilst there shell parent company had done the same, obviously ignoring the fact that most columnists are essentially contractors who by any sense (if you want to make contracting properly pay) will also be heavily involved in the practice, we could highlight the zero hour contract thing that they championed, ignoring the fact that many polls (which everyone ignores until it supports ther agenda) say that the majority are happy with them, pick on some unscrupulous employer such as sports direct and try and paint the whole market as such and make out they are fighting for the common man. That is also disregarding the fact that the opinions of your typical person working zero hour contracts in a factory in northern England is repulsive to the guardian smacks of hypocrisy and preaching from up high.

Oh yes sports direct the champion of immigration, using humans like human chattels, slaves to work in cruel Victorian factory conditions....

money from meals on wheels being used to subsidise children of migrants in schools

Really?

Is there a source for this?

funny how everyone knows these stories, but when you try and find a source, it's all just smoke and no substance

They did expose the Sports Direct thing though! Which sparked a bloody parliamentary enquiry!

I'm not sure the tax thing is just the Guardian either, all of the newspapers avoid taxes, the Guardian surely wouldn't pay any on the fact that it doesn't make a profit.

Like I say, your looking for problems.

Overall the Guardian is probably the best newspaper of the lot, as has been reflected in it winning the British Newspaper of the Year 4 times over the last 11 years!

The Guardian isn't biased???? Here's a corker from today. It's the same old smear tactics they tried during the Referendum campaign - just try to associate anyone you disagree with with everything bad you can think of. Worked well that time, didn't it? I wonder if it will work as well with the Labour leadership election? By the way, dreadful article but excellent discussion in the comments.
Labour's hard left to Donald Trump, it's been the summer of the personality cult | US news | The Guardian www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/30/donald-trump-labour-per

Oh yes sports direct the champion of immigration, using humans like human chattels, slaves to work in cruel Victorian factory conditions

With your virtue signalling must have missed the salient point where I pointed out that they was unscrupulous, and in now way inferred I was a fan...

"just try to associate anyone you disagree with with everything bad you can think of. "

Wasn't this the tactic of the leave campaign?

I wasn't virtue signallng , I was pointing out that it was the Guardian's investigation that brought it to light.

Its impossible not to be biased in some way if you are writing an opinion piece.

Even if you disagree with a story, if it has some substance to it, then its got a point.

FWIW even though I wouldn't wipe my arse with the Daily Mail, it does have its place. The problem is when its the ONLY newspaper.

So yeah call my post bizarre if you want, but you missed the point.

I don't think many posters on this thread who are critical of the Guardian are critical because it is too left wing and liberal. In my view it has moved hugely to the right recently although I'm increasingly not finding left/right as very helpful labels in understanding what is happening in this country. My criticism of the Guardian is that it is helping to lower the whole tone of political and social discussion by it's constant resorting to smear tactics, selective reporting, and what, in the case of Polly Toynbee, for me comes very close to hate speech against those they disagree with (I am thinking particularly of PT's The mood is ugly and now an MP is dead article, which really plumbed new depths).

I read that piece and I think we may have taken very different things from it.

Seriously, I do believe that the referendum campaigns stirred some emotions and in PT phrase "lifted some stones" all you have to do is see that the number of reports of racial abuse have increased since the vote.

I may have got a bit hyperbolic with my use of the phrase "hate speech" above re PT article. But still an attempt to smear by association and in my view misuse of a terrible tragedy and crime for political purposes

Who did she attempt to smear?

On the rise in racial abuse since the referendum, in my view some writers in the Guardian who put forward the view that anyone voting leave must be racist or at least not a "decent liberal" to quote Jonathon Friedland should be questioning whether they have helped ferment the atmosphere where a minority of people feel it is acceptable to racially abuse others. Partly I feel an atmosphere where name calling and insulting people has grown through the campaign since the referendum campaign. Secondly, racists may have thought they were in a minority before the ref. They are now being told by some that anyone who voted leave is racist too so it is perhaps not surprising that some feel emboldened to display racist behaviour as they must be thinking that a huge number of people silently agree with them. Perhaps if we can get back to only calling people racist who display racist behaviour or make racists comments or statements, the actual racists will realise that they are in the minority and crawl back under their rocks. In short, and sorry if this has gone off topic, I do think the Guardian does real harm with some of its more divisive articles.

Who did she attempt to smear?

"Did we delude ourselves we were a tolerant country – or can we still save our better selves? Over recent years, struggling to identify “Britishness”, to connect with a natural patriotic love of country that citizens have every right to feel, politicians floundering for a British identity reach for the reassuring idea that this cradle of democracy is blessed with some special civility.

But if the vote is out, then out goes that impression of what kind of country we are. Around the world we will be seen as the island that cut itself off as a result of anti-foreigner feeling:"

I can't read this as anything but an attempt to smear leave voters as intolerant, uncivil and xenophobic, particularly given the rest of the article.

I don't think the people who have been abusing others in the street read the Guardian. Neither did the people who stood in Newcastle city centre demanding repatriation. I think that the leave campaign and the newspapers associated with it have far more to do with it.

Not only was immigration discussed in a very divisive way by the Sun, Mail, Express and to an extent the Telegraph, but the airwaves were full of people discussing it, dismissing expert opinion and data with appeals to emotion. There was a lot of misinformation discussed regarding it too.

I don't ever recall the Guardian ever claiming that everyone on the leave side was a racist. I do recall the hyperbolic language and extremely prominent use of the immigration argument being used by the leave side.