Sky is pretty impartial and does try to see both sides.
IDS and Boris seem to be on every BBC News bulletin, and you get extra Boris if you watch BBC London news. No shortage of Eurosceptic views on the BBC.
The only BBC News report I saw with a half impartial view was from a Director of the Chamber of Commerce. Not saw Boris once and even the news reports on Radio 2 eventually dropped the reporting of the anti-EU stance in favour of just reporting the pro-EU stance. There is a lot of BBC News reports from Calais though...
Most of the reports I have seen on the BBC have been anti - we must be part of different audiences. I suspect that, overall, the balance is, as usual, about right......Getting a bit fed up with the bias as well as all the scaremongering reports if I am honest. How am I, an average Joe, supposed to make an informed decision on the basis of what a biased Prime Minister leading a biased BBC says... maybe I'll have to see if Sky News are any better when I get home
As much as I dislike the EU bandwagon I consider indoor smoking bans, assuming the EU was actually responsible for them, to be the best days work they ever did
In my opinion though smokers don't usually sit in the beer garden, they congregate round every door forcing the majority to walk through their smoke and smell
Pubs were given that choice.
Before the outright ban there was a voluntary code of practice in place. Pubs were allowed to designate which rooms were smoking or non smoking.
Some may remember the stickers that appeared in pub windows at the time stating that particular pub's policy.
I never saw a sticker that didn't say, "Smoking policy: Smoking allowed throughout".
Pubs had their chance. They blew it.
I'm impartial about EU membership- I have plenty of issues with the organisation- and would say the BBC is pretty much spot on.
I would expect Murdochs friends to be anti-EU, as he has no power over it. Shame the same can't be said for the UK government...
Prior to the ban I can remember a few Wetherspoons Pubs become "smoke free" but quickly retracted the policy when business nosedived.
The only BBC News report I saw with a half impartial view was from a Director of the Chamber of Commerce. Not saw Boris once and even the news reports on Radio 2 eventually dropped the reporting of the anti-EU stance in favour of just reporting the pro-EU stance. There is a lot of BBC News reports from Calais though...
Most of the reports I have seen on the BBC have been anti - we must be part of different audiences. I suspect that, overall, the balance is, as usual, about right.
"Scaremongering" again. This is obviously the buzzword of the referendum. Simply saying there may be undesirable consequences to a decision is not "scaremongering", it is simply part of what is known as a "debate". (Unless, of course, the consequences are ridiculous, such as "everyone's nose would drop off", which some might take seriously)
As for a "biased Prime Minister"!!! Do you understand anything? It is the Government policy to support staying in (though, of course, some members of the Government have been given permission to campaign against); the Prime Minister is the leader of the Government, so it is his job to put the case for staying in.
The French are scaremongering as it seems they need us in the EU more than we need them. To say there will be the possibility of dropping border checks leading to an influx of migrants onto British soil if the UK leaves the EU is blatant scaremongering.
"Scaremongering" is creating ludicrous positions that have no justification in reality to scare people.
France have pointed out that they agreed to juxtaposed border controls in the spirit of European unity. If there's no European unity they may change their mind about juxtaposed border controls. If they change their mind about that, all the migrants in Calais will be able to board boats for Dover. Calais' mayor has already said she wants rid of the juxtaposed borders, and there is much anger in Northern France about Britain's position.
I wouldn't say France's position is "scaremongering". They're simply stating their position. You might consider it a threat, it's up to you to decide whether a) you think they'd follow through and b) whether that bothers you.
the scrap of paper Cameron brought back from Paris
I think everyone, regardless of whether they're in or out, are agreed that Cameron's "emergency brake" agreement isn't worth the paper that it is written on. He's used up a decade of European goodwill on something that has all the standing of a used tissue. A true statesman. William Pitt the Younger he ain't.
France couldn't just wave people on to the boats, but they could make it a lot easier for people to get on the boats. As I say, of course it is a threat; you just need to decide whether you think they'd follow through and whether you care if they do.
How do they do that, and would the boats sail to the UK to face a hefty fine per passenger?
Stop patroling the tunnel entrances would be one thing they could do.
8AM Radio 2 news
1) Ian Duncan Smith attacks the fact the tory party are going to be in disarray after the election regardless
2) Something about cancer research
3) Trump
4) Tech companies vs fbi
There were a couple of others, but I tuned out. Nothing else EU related apart from the IDS piece.
Clearly pro-leave.
In which case Eurotunnel can quite legitimately patrol its own property.
Indeed they can, and do. But they can't do it with armed guards, for which they need the French police.
Much of the security at Calais, including the juxtaposed border, is reliant on French co-operation. Most of the important security equipment is only there because the French allow it to be there. Politicians in Northern France have been arguing for the abolition of the juxtaposed border for at least two years. Who knows if the French would be as co-operative if we turned our back on the EU?
France have pointed out that they agreed to juxtaposed border controls in the spirit of European unity. If there's no European unity they may change their mind about juxtaposed border controls.
I think you might be stretching a point rather, what if IDS had said nothing and Cameron had made a pro-stay speech, would that mean the BBC was 'clearly pro-stay'?
Which is exactly what some of us would like to see. The EU may well have many faults and may already have been a great disappointment to some of us, but the alternative of a little England (assuming Scotland would head off pretty quick and get back into the EU) always going on about its (so-called) democracy, its superiority in all respects over other European coutries, the way its people love being subjects of the crown, etc truly appals.... the continuous slide towards a United States of Europe?
No one is saying it would be easy and yes it will cost the UK but what is the cost of the continuous slide towards a United States of Europe?
Does it? Given the way Radio 4's ten-p.m. news reported on the migrant question yesterday evening with two substantial interviews both strongly favourable towards migrants, I wonder how unbiased the BBC is. I agree the organisation is unbiased between Labour and Conservative, but it does generally seem to have a left-liberal inclination in its selection of what to report and the language used by many of its staff.Or there's the alternative, which is the BBC reports the news, and gives equal weights to both sides of the argument, which is what really happens.