Tag Archives: Media

Letters to the Editor – for what good it does……..

The following has been submitted to the letters column of the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and the Guardian – not that I have any hope any of them will publish it……..

Dear Sir,

When the House of Commons Library produces a Briefing Paper (Number 07840 -19 December 2016) which purports to define, among other terms, the meaning of the EU’s Customs Union; and in the process gets it so spectacularly wrong, is it any wonder that we of the people that do have an understanding of what is needed to accomplish a successful Brexit, remain fearful of what our politicians might so do, in our name, during their endeavours – especially when it is based on such incorrect information? Where we have the unknowledgeable (House of Commons Library) leading the unknowledgeable (the politicians); is this not a perfect example of the blind leading the blind?

When the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, during his appearance before the Brexit Select Committee, confuses the terms “mutual recognition” and “regulatory convergence“; and it is not recognised and thus queried by said committee; should we not be even more concerned?


Just who are these people who insist on a voice in the Brexit negotiations, yet who exhibit a total lack of knowledge about the most basic of facts; but who believe only they have the knowledge to conduct what will be the most complex negotiation ever undertaken on behalf of the people of this nation?


That the information required to accomplish a logical Brexit is available on the internet, one devoid of risk to our nation, is unknown to those who profess to know and who refuse to acknowledge same can only beggar belief.


Yours sincerely,


David Phipps

(Address and Telephone Numbers supplied)

The right to rule?

It would seem that those we elect rely on a mistaken belief, based on ‘Parliamentary Democracy’, that they alone have the ‘right to rule’ the people of the United Kingdom. This allows them to believe that, through the system of representative democracy, they ‘own’ the United Kingdom based on the idea they represent the people of the United Kingdom – which they most definitely do not.

While one sees MPs such as David Lammy stating he will vote against triggering Article 50 come what may  and Owen Smith openly stating he will use any vote in an attempt to get another referendum to overthrow the result of the first; no way can MPs maintain they represent the views of the people. It is then the question has to be asked: wherefore democracy?

Anyone who has either read the reports in Hansard of debates in the House of Commons – or watched them on Parliament tv – cannot but feel that MPs exhibit a dearth of knowledge – and thus understanding – of matters EU. This also raises another question: just why are they there and how, logically, are they able to demand a voice on the timing of notification under Article 50? When one peruses the members sitting on the Select Committee for Exiting the European Union it is hard to find one who has any knowledge worthy of note about the subject matter.

If there is anguish among some of the electorate at the ineptitude of our politicians, there is probably just as much frustration with the media which appears populated with journalists and commentators of similar ineptitude where knowledge of matters EU is concerned – not that they reserve their ineptitude just on matters EU. Until the judgment of the Supreme Court in January (probably) we will, no doubt, have to suffer more of the drivel such as appeared in the media today.

It is perhaps pertinent to recall Shakespeare’s Hamlet and the words of Marcellus who states: Something is rotten in the state of Denmark (Act 1 Scene 4).  An argument can be made that the phrase ‘state of Denmark’ rather than just ‘Denmark’ is used as it implies the fish is rotting from the head down—all is not well at the top of the political hierarchy. Not just where the EU is concerned, we can also recall Hamlet’s words in Act 1 Scene2, that Denmark is an unweeded garden of things rank and gross in nature.

The words of Marcellus and Hamlet about Denmark are also pertinent where the United Kingdom is concerned. So why do we, the people, allow ourselves to suffer our nation to rot from the head down? Why should we allow our nation to become an unweeded garden of things rank and gross in nature?

The reason why I have set up DD4UK.com is to show people that they can put an end to the problems we in this nation suffer, it is possible for them to take back control of that which is rightfully theirs – their lives and the future of their nation. In so doing they can stop the rot and make this land once again ‘green and pleasant’.


An ‘Excitable’ Media

Along with other bloggers I have often complained about the lack of subjective reporting by the media on ‘news’ items; be that of a general nature or, more importantly, on ‘matters EU’ and, in particular, about the forthcoming referendum on our nation’s membership of the EU.

For some time I have been struck by the media’s ‘trivialisation’ of news and the apparent need of the media to ‘make a mountain out of a molehill’. Why must we suffer the theatrical element in journalism?

Witness, today, such examples: Cameron ‘slaps down Penny Mordaunt over her comments about Turkey; Cameron ‘slams‘ Trump’s Muslim Ban.

Cameron did neither: he corrected Mordaunt’s erroneous understanding about whether Member States of the EU have a veto over any application to join the EU and he disagreed with Trump’s reported plan to ban Muslims from the USA.

Factual reporting of news is what the public require; whilst also requiring a media who takes the trouble to question, following diligent research, that which politicians would have us believe.

By allowing themselves to be guided, by means of ‘editorial guidelines’ which are dictated by whoever controls the media for which they work, journalists have become no more than purveyors of propaganda.

Propaganda, we should remember, is a form of biased communication, aimed at promoting or demoting certain views, perceptions or agendas. Propaganda is often associated with the psychological mechanisms of influencing and altering the attitude of a population toward a specific cause, position or political agenda in an effort to form a consensus to a standard set of belief patterns (put forward by a ruling political class) – in other words, it is information that is not impartial and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented.

That our media, by recycling the outpourings of our politica class without checking that which they say, is guilty of propaganda.

On such the people of this nation are supposed to make an informed decision, come June 23rd? To answer that question in the vernacular: you gotta be having a larf!

This begs an oft repeated question I have posed: in whose pocket is who where the media and politicians are concerned?

Come acceptance of the Harrogate Agenda, perhaps besides the need of the people to control their politicians there comes a requirement of the need for the people to control of their media?

Just an opinion……………..

Comment welcome…………..


The people are mere ‘spectators’

Where the forthcoming referendum is concerned, the title of this article has never been truer. The latest ‘tittle-tattle’ that journalism has produced is the offering from James Forsyth in the Speccie Coffee House blog.

Just why does either ‘campaign’ need to be led by a political figure or anyone connected with the establishment? Just when will journalists recognise and accept that the whole idea of a referendum is that it is supposed to be the people’s choice – and in order for them to make that choice all they need is the facts pro and anti membership of the EU? Just when will journalists, in pushing for one ‘campaign’ or another, be ‘open’and in the case of Forsyth admit that the commissioning editor of his article is married to the campaign director of Vote_Leave?

Much has been in the news about Cameron and his cabinet being able to campaign for either view – ‘In’ or ‘Out’ – but if, as Cameron statedUltimately, it will be for the British people to decide this country’s future by voting In or Out of a reformed European Union in the referendum….. then the question must be asked, should not our politicians refrain from expressing their individual preference on the basis that as politicians it has nothiing to do with them? Unless of course they have a hidden agenda, in which case should we not be told what that is?

We are supposed to have democracy in this country – which we don’t – consequently what exists can be compared to a spiders web; a widening circle of compliant pressure groups and media; and controlling everything, at the centre, a prime minister with his feelers touching every strand of the web of deceit which he has created.

Democratised dictatorship, anyone? That it is, is beyond doubt. I would refer readers to an earlier article and the words of Peter Grant (Glenrothes – SNP) who said: For Scotland, sovereignty does not reside in this place, and it does not reside in those of us who have been sent to serve in this place. It resides for ever in those who have sent us to serve here. Watching the proceedings one could almost see, if not feel, the shudder of fear that permeated those MPs present when it  dawned on them that one of their own kind felt that the people should be able to over-rule them.

Until the media, in all its forms, starts to publish the truth, starts to publish/air the views of those that buy their services, we ‘the people’ will remain mere spectators of an event that is all about us!

Try looking in a mirror, Iain

Iain Martin, writing on CapX, bemoans the inability of the press to question politicians during  the current general election; especially at stage-managed public appearances, whilst complaining bitterly that morning press conferences are now a thing of the past with only Ukip continuing to provide such events.

Martin’s article poses the question: why is the British media so supine in the face of control from the big parties – but has not the British media been so for ages? When journalists are allowed to question political figures, such questions that are asked are poor to say the least. 

When questioning Cameron, for example, they could ask him how he has ensured that politicians are the servants of the people, not their masters, when on not one measure he and his government has introduced have the people been able to agree or reject such decisions. In that regard, they could then ask whether, bearing that point in mind, representative democracy really serves the people to their best interest. They could ask him about his claims to have vetoed an EU treaty, especially when there was no EU treaty to veto. They could ask him about his claim to have cut the EU budget, when it is obvious he did not. They could ask him about his wish to repatriate powers from the EU when such powers cannot be so repatriated. They could ask him why he complains about excessive EU regulation when the EU is only transposing standards which have been agreed at UN bodies at which this country does not have its own seat and thus cannot speak for itself.

It is tad rich for Iain Martin to complain about the media being ‘supine’, when commentators such as he are just as guilty of dereliction of their duty; which is to hold politicians to account on a day-to-day basis – particularly as the people, under representative democracy, cannot.

Is it any wonder this general election campaign is ‘lifeless’when there exists a political class, that in common with the media, seem so bereft of the knowledge required on matters about which they both speak and write?