BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 12:44 PM

Progress at last ............ Sadiq Khan has now gone from Pakistani to Muslim ................

although I suspect both are terms of derision in some twisted minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 12:54 PM

"Goldman was a critic of the Israeli government and therefor Ben-Gurion according to your own link."
So what - so are millions of other Jews - then and now - does that make them all liars as you have always claimed?
Nobody disputes that Ben Gurion said what he said - only you
Some apologist have said he meant something else - YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE IN MY EXPERIANCE TO HAVE CLAIMED HE TOLD LIES - LET'S SEE IF YOU CAN COME UP WITH ANYBODY, IF NOT, YOU ARE MAKING THINGS UP TO DEFEND ISRAEL - NOTHING NEW THERE
I ask again - who else has accused this veteran Zionist of lying
Failure to answer is answer itself - none - it is all your own work.
And you were given a dozen or so more quotes from Israeli establishment figures - can we assume you challenge none of them?
And you call me a fanatic - you are insane.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 01:46 PM

We are getting classic Keith wriggling and squirming in this thread. He will never admit the truth. What a way to run your life.

1. The will of the US people apropos of settlements has not been tested by plebiscite but what evidence there is suggests that they disapprove in large numbers, very likely by a sizeable majority, of Israel's settlement expansion. See Greg's link.

2. In any case, presidents are not elected to carry out "the will of the people" (as if there is any such thing) like sheep. They are leaders, there to lead, expected to be far more expert in foreign affairs and with far more access to intelligence than ordinary citizens and to have far more detailed dealings with foreign leaders. They are not delegates. President Obama is not Pontius Pilate. We call this "democracy," Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 04:56 AM

Jim,
Nobody disputes that Ben Gurion said what he said - only you

Yes they do. You will not find that quote on any reputable site.

Steve,
1. The will of the US people apropos of settlements has not been tested by plebiscite but what evidence there is suggests that they disapprove in large numbers, very likely by a sizeable majority, of Israel's settlement expansion.

The settlements have been the main issue of contention by the Palestinians for years.
Numerous polls have shown clearly that US public opinion is strongly against the Palestinians.
Once again, I was right and you were wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 05:06 AM

"Yes they do. "
No they don't - produce a single disclaimer Keith
This is, to borrow your own phrase, "made up Keith shit"
If anybody, apart from you, disputes it, produce than doing so.
Mad as a bag of cats
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:08 AM

A classically-confected non sequitur here from struggling Keith:

"The settlements have been the main issue of contention by the Palestinians for years.
Numerous polls have shown clearly that US public opinion is strongly against the Palestinians."

From Greg's NYT link:

Steven M. Cohen, a research professor at Hebrew Union College and a consultant to a recent Pew study of American Jews, said that Mr. Kerry's speech represents the viewpoints of most American Jews. "On survey after survey, American Jews are opposed to Jewish settlement expansion. They tend to favor a two-state solution and their political identities are liberal or moderate," he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/us/american-jews-john-kerry-israel.html

Reminds me of a quote from John Seymour's book that I've had occasion to mention twice in 24 hours, Bring Me My Bow:

The average English working man at the start of Hitler's war might not have had much time for the Jews but by God he was not going to see them being herded into the gas chambers.

Working people in east London might have been "against the Jews" but they came out in force to see off the army and police who were protecting the Blackshirts. You can be "against the Palestinians" but you can at the same time be revolted by the way they have their good land forcibly usurped for someone else's luxury villages. Your world view is simplistic, distorted and delusional, Keith, but the only person you're deluding is yourself. I doubt that even your fellow far-right travellers here aren't fooled.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:25 AM

Israel has new embarked on censoring its own history - it began with the withdrawal access to many of Ben Gurion's papers
Wonder how they'll deal with the fact that Netunyahu has been cautioned by the police for illegally accepting money
Interesting days!!
How are we doing with those denials of Ben Gurion's statement Keith?   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 11:20 AM

Jim, it is an uncorroborated claim by one man, so of course it is not accepted and you will not find it in on any reputable site.

Never mind that the one man did have an agenda, and did not make the claim until after BG's death some twenty years later!

Your reliance on such uncorroborated claims shows how weak, or non-existent, your case is.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 11:44 AM

No examples of people of anybody calling this man a liar then - thought not
Made up Keith shit then?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 11:48 AM

Correction to my last post lest the historian nitpickers besiege me: the army was not involved in the Battle of Cable Street, just the police, 6000 of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 12:06 PM

Steve,
"On survey after survey, American Jews are opposed to Jewish settlement expansion. They tend to favor a two-state solution and their political identities are liberal or moderate," he said.

Completely irrelevant to my claim Steve.
My claim was about the will of the people on supporting Israel or supporting the Palestinians.
Not "Apart from the settlements" supporting Israel or supporting the Palestinians.

Guardian, " 59% of Americans say their sympathies lie more with Israel, as opposed to just 13% who say their sympathies are more with the Palestinians."

2015 CNN/ORC poll,
Thinking about the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in the Middle East, please tell me whether, in general, you think America should be...?  (CNN/ORC, February 2015)
A strong supporter of Israel
27%
A supporter of Israel
26%
A supporter of the Palestinians
8%
A strong supporter of the Palestinians
3%

My point proved. I was right and you were wrong.

What do American Jews feel about Obama not using the UN veto to protect Israel over the settlement issue?

From your link Steve,
"But for others, even those who support a two-state solution and object to Israeli settlement policy, the decision by the United States not to shield Israel at the United Nations — which is widely viewed among many American Jews as hostile to Israel — was a mistake. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, a Democrat with a large Jewish constituency, called the Security Council action unnecessary and inappropriate,"

"Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish movement in North America, said it was "a miscalculation in our minds. I think a majority of American Jews would agree, no matter how one feels about settlements, that the idea that the U.N. is an honest broker when it comes to Israel is laughable."
For Shira Greenberg, a public school teacher in Florida, Mr. Obama's rebuke of Mr. Netanyahu confirmed her worst assumptions about the president. "Throughout the whole Obama administration, people were trying to guess where he stood," she said after morning services at her conservative synagogue on Thursday. "At this point, it's pretty clear."
And at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles, a large and politically divided congregation, Rabbi David Wolpe said Mr. Obama had "pulled the rug out from under people who said the president's intentions toward Israel was positive and strong."
The public display of rancor is unsettling. "Nobody in the community can be happy when you have this public spat between the prime minister and the president, and the kind of language the prime minister has been using about the president," said Daniel C. Kurtzer, who has served as the United States ambassador to both Israel and Egypt.
David Zwiebel, the executive vice president of Agudath Israel of America, which represents ultra-Orthodox Jews, said that there is a general sense among Orthodox Jews, who tend to be more conservative, "that the outgoing administration is outgoing and should be outgoing, and it's time for an approach that is more openly supportive of Israel."

So, I was right that the will of the American people is pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian. That may not be true of a majority of Jews but even they denounce Obama's withholding of the veto.

As ever, I was right and you were wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 12:10 PM

Jim,

No examples of people of anybody calling this man a liar then - thought not

No. He is just completely ignored and his unlikely quote never quoted by any historian or reputable commentator.


No examples of people of anybody quoting it then - thought not.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 01:05 PM

Lie upon lie upon lie, Keith. You claimed that the president went against the will of the people IN A UN VOTE WHICH CONDEMNED ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS. We have demonstrated to you that not only is there no good evidence that the people of the US are IN FAVOUR OF ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS but that, if anything, they are more likely in general to be OPPOSED TO THOSE SETTLEMENTS. I don't give a stuff about all your "proof" that they are "against the Palestinians." We know that already. Go and teach your granny to suck eggs why don't you. You are trying to use that to cover up your original lie, that he went against "the will of the people" in failing to veto a resolution CRITICISING ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS.

Once again, let me remind you, as you claim to espouse democracy (I'm beginning to have my doubts), that, in democracies, prime ministers and presidents are not, in any case, elected as delegates to slavishly "follow the will of the people." You appear to have a very shaky grasp of the reasons we have elections. That could be an honest defect in your education. Lying as you have been doing in order to "win" at all costs is far less excusable.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 01:07 PM

"No examples of people of anybody quoting it then - thought not."
What about the dozen s or so linked one I've put up over the years Keith - made up?
This is a one man band of your making - nobody disputes it was said - not anywhere
TRY THIS FOR SIZE IF YOU DON'T MIND JEWS WHO ARE CRITICAL OF ISRAEL
Now - any evidence from you?
No?
Thought not
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 01:32 PM

Steve,
You claimed that the president went against the will of the people IN A UN VOTE WHICH CONDEMNED ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS.

US did not vote. The issue is that they failed to use the veto.
US public opinion overwhelmingly favours Israel over the Palestinians, and US Jews feel betrayed over the withholding of the veto.
I was right and you were wrong.
If I have lied, quote it.
Good luck with that Steve!

Jim,
What about the dozen s or so linked one I've put up over the years Keith - made up?

Just propaganda sites. nothing reputable.
It is an uncorroborated claim by one man, so of course it is not accepted and you will not find it in on any reputable site.

Never mind that the one man did have an agenda, and did not make the claim until after BG's death some twenty years later!

Your reliance on such uncorroborated claims shows how weak, or non-existent, your case is.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 01:38 PM

OR FROM AN ISRAELI
INTERESTING ARTICLE on LAND STEALING FROM JEWISH INTELLECTUAL
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 01:41 PM

Sweet Jesu, will the professor EVER grow up.

You are not in school now professor, for gods sake start acting like an adult.




Aplogies to those true Christians out there for the use of such language, I'm not even a christian

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 05:43 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 04:10 PM

Er, what "change of policy" on Israel would that be, then?

U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright 1994:

"We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 war as 'occupied Palestinian territory.' In the view of my Government, this language could be taken to indicate sovereignty, a matter which both Israel and the PLO have agreed must be decided in negotiations on the final status of the territories. As agreed between them, those negotiations will begin not later than two years after the implementation of the Declaration of Principles."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:15 PM

" US did not vote. The issue is that they failed to use the veto."

Well I'm not going to argue with you whether abstaining is "failing to use the vote." In fact, on this occasion it proved to be a rather devastating use/non-use of a vote. Take your pick. The effect was awesome! 😂

"US public opinion overwhelmingly favours Israel over the Palestinians, and US Jews feel betrayed over the withholding of the veto."

Correct, though you forgot to say SOME US Jews. And don't start bandying numbers because neither you nor I knows how many on each side. But this is irrelevant anyway. The vote was nothing to do with how many favour Jews over Palestinians. The vote was confined to condemnation of the settlements. Nothing else. You have no evidence that a majority of US citizens, whether they favour Israel or not, think that the settlement expansion is fair. The NYT link suggests that it's probably the other way round. It is perfectly possible to strongly dislike the Palestinians yet condemn Israel for taking their land for settlements. I really am trying to couch this in the simplest possible terms for you, Keith. But on and on you go, tunnel vision, blinkers on, hands clasped over ears. You can't face the truth. You're not addressing this, Keith. You keep on repeating things that we already know. Something wrong upstairs, Keith.

"I was right and you were wrong."

Idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:19 PM

Since when have ambassadors been owners of policy, bobad? Can you show me where the US constitution dictates that each and every UN resolution criticising Israel must be vetoed? Simple enough question.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:23 PM

Well I'm not going to argue with you whether abstaining is "failing to use the vote."

Vote, veto, tomayto, tomato. Not my finest hour but the point holds.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:45 PM

Since when have ambassadors been owners of policy, bobad?

Owners??????

They are the conveyors of government policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:50 PM

Stick to the point. Show me the policy, written into US law, or the constitution, that all UN votes criticising Israel must be vetoed. That's all I ask. Show me that Obama acted unconstitutionally. Come along now. I'm sure you can do better than an ancient quote from an ambassador.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 07:09 PM

Ah yes, Shaw trying the old misrepresentation gambit which is getting pretty old by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 07:15 PM

Stick to the point. I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 07:24 PM

Lol!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 07:32 PM

It's a simple thing to ask of such an ardent Israel supporter such as yourself, surely. Where is it written down in law or constitution that the US must always veto UN resolutions that criticise Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 08:20 PM

Something for bobad and Keith to chew over: the US has abstained on at least 20 UN resolutions criticising Israel and has even supported a handful. You can find a list of them on sethfrantzman.com. There is no US policy stating that anti-Israel UN resolutions must be vetoed. Implying or stating that Obama has gone against US policy in failing to use the veto is a downright lie. There is no such policy. There is outrage in some actions of the community for sure, as well as in Israel, against that move. But there has not been the slightest suggestion from anyone that Obama is in breach of the constitution or the law. Except from Keith. Still, as we know, Keith is right and the rest of the planet just makes up shit. As for Obama "going against the will of the people" in failing to support those SETTLEMENTS, prove it! I have till I die!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 08:21 PM

some sections

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 09:29 PM

Erm.........policy does not equate to "law" or "constitution", but keep on trying to misrepresent, it only serves to confirm your dishonesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 04:48 AM

Ok, I'll make it as simple as possible. Just show me where anyone high up in in any US administration has ever declared that automatically vetoing resolutions criticising Israel is the official government policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:16 AM

Steve,
Correct, though you forgot to say SOME US Jews.

Your own linked article make it clear it is the majority.

You have no evidence that a majority of US citizens, whether they favour Israel or not, think that the settlement expansion is fair.

I disagree.
The NYT link suggests that it's probably the other way round.

No it does not.
It is perfectly possible to strongly dislike the Palestinians yet condemn Israel for taking their land for settlements.

They were not asked who they "liked." They were asked who they "supported."

You can find a list of them on sethfrantzman.com.

I can't. More detail please.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:27 AM

Momentum leader on Labour anti-Semitism,

"The founder of the grassroots group that helped propel Jeremy Corbyn to the Labour leadership has condemned anti-Israel Jews who blame allegations of anti-Semitism on 'Zionists" – as he insisted he "can't see any good reason" why it's taken so long to determine Ken Livingstone's fate in the party.

Momentum chief Jon Lansman was speaking to Jewish News after taking part in two panels on his first visit to Limmud, setting out why Jews should support Labour under Corbyn.

While he acknowledged there was a problem of anti-Semitism in the party, he claimed the row had been "exaggerated" and there was a "gap between perception and reality". But he added: "I think the suggestion that the row about anti-Semitism has been organised by Zionists is completely wrong. Jewish anti-Zionists are entitled to their point of view about Zionism but are not helping Palestinian or themselves in claiming the row is part of a Zionist conspiracy. It is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:36 AM

"Ilyas Aziz, an avid supporter of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn who is listed as a manager of a Pakistani community centre in the East Midlands city, tweeted on 31 December: "Can resume my Labour Party activities now that my suspension lifted. Thanks to all who stood by me in difficult times."
Labour lifted the suspension of Aziz, who has been approached for comment, after political website Guido Fawkes revealed that he had written a string of anti-Semitic social media posts. He was subsequently suspended in May."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 06:00 AM

Is that supposed to be debate, Keith? You quote all my statements, say for each one "no it isn't" and leave it at that? That's a joke, Keith.

Go to Seth Frantzman's website. Scroll down from the top a little. Not hard if you really want it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 06:03 AM

Let's have those antisemitic social media posts then, Keith. Back yourself up.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 07:57 AM

"Let's have those antisemitic social media posts then, Keith"
Have patience - he'll put it up when he puts up examples of others calling one of Israel's leading Zionists a liar
All in good tuime (should we live that long!!)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Tunesmith
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 08:31 AM

The British press is the main obstacle to Labour - and Jeremy - being elected!
Now the British national press is totally owned by Jewish businessmen.
Also, I believe, that this is true for UK TV companies ( even the " neutral" BBC has been headed by a number of Jewish Director Generals)

This is amazing when one considers that Jewish people only make up 0.5% of the UK population.
AND, Jeremy has been very outspoken about Israel's treatment of Palestinians.

In the run up to the next election, the British people will be bombarded with negative headlines directed at Corbyn.

A free press?
Well,it is free to pick who runs the country!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 08:38 AM

Let's have those antisemitic social media posts then

antisemitic social media posts

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 08:47 AM

Now the British national press is totally owned by Jewish businessmen.
Also, I believe, that this is true for UK TV companies ( even the " neutral" BBC has been headed by a number of Jewish Director Generals)

This is amazing when one considers that Jewish people only make up 0.5% of the UK population.

Oh look another UK anti-Semite, surprise, surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 09:43 AM

Go to Seth Frantzman's website. Scroll down from the top a little. Not hard if you really want it.

Thanks. Found it.

"Is US abstaining unprecedented? It has been unprecedented under Obama, but other US administrations have regularly abstained from or supported UN resolutions against Israeli actions."
Really?

"In 2002 the US abstained on Resolution 1345. " which was not about Israel or the Middle East.

"The US abstained on UN Resolution in 1322 in 2000."
The original version of the resolution sought a strong condemnation of Israel. The United States, which abstained, threatened to veto this version, and the language was modified to remove mention of Israel by name.[6]

The rest are more than twenty years old so I lost interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 09:49 AM

Steve and Jim,
https://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/guido-fawkes-exposes-another-anti-semite-in-labours-ranks/

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 09:52 AM

Tunesmith, it is unequivocally anti-Semitic to claim that the Jews control the media.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 10:23 AM

It is not antisemitic simply to state facts. It's how you use those facts. Your first step is to show that Tunesmith is factually incorrect. If he is, then his post smacks strongly of antisemitism. If he is substantially factually correct, then it's up to you to show that his motive in posting the information was antisemitic. Just three-quarters or less of the Israeli population is Jewish, but Jews run Israel almost entirely. Have I been antisemitic in saying that?

Having said that, I'm not sure that Tunesmith was wise to post those rather threadbare facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 10:32 AM

Well, bobad, Guido Fawkes's blog is sub-tabloid, isn't it? Tendentious, incoherent, old news, nothing new, clutching at straws. And I can't find anything antisemitic in any of it. And please don't do your usual spitting back. Highlight the remarks that you think are antisemitic and tell me why so that I can tell you why they are not, and let's see how we get on.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 10:38 AM

No surprise that Shaw is coming to Tunesmith's defense, is it? Tunesmith, you will find yourself in the company of fellow travelers here but just like we do with them we will not let you get away with spewing anti-Semitic hatred.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 10:44 AM

Guido Fawkes Blog - for Christ's sake
Really bottom of the barrel time
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 10:47 AM

so that I can tell you why they are not

By your definition, right Shaw, which is totally laughable considering the definition accepted by your country, your political party, your police forces and the 31 countries who adopted it. But do go on and tell us again why you are entitled to ignore what all these bodies accept as being anti-Semitic, as if we don't know why.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 10:54 AM

Guido Fawkes Blog - for Christ's sake
Really bottom of the barrel time

You must have missed the copies of Ilyas Aziz's virulent anti-Semitic tweets posted on the site or are you pulling your usual ruse of trying to disparage the messenger when he gives you something you would rather not see?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Tunesmith
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:24 AM

This is sinister craziness! Or stupidity!

It is a FACT that UK national newpapers are entitely owned by Jewish businessmen.
Please correct me if I'm wrong!
As are the TV companies.

It's also a fact that the media can - and has been - "King Makers".

It is a fact that when Blair and Cameron visited the States, they would always find time for a meeting with Murdoch ( I wonder why?)

The UK press is going to reflect the aims and desires of its owners.