| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Falsifications by Francis Rowe on this thread | |
| Posted by: | Steve Taylor | |
| Date/Time: | 17/06/25 17:11:00 |
Dear Mr Rowe, thanks for your elaborate response. Your opinions are appreciated and make quite interesting reading albeit that you are wrong again just as you were wrong about Biden. I would have thought that my tongue in cheek or throwaway comment about O’Brien was clearly intended to be what it is; a throwaway comment not to be taken as fact. A lighthearted joke if you like. Clearly you took it literally. However, now that you are intent on making an issue of it it is clear that I need to highlight your FALSE claim. He is certainly not one of the most popular Presenters on radio. Whilst I am a staunch ‘Remainer’ I would suggest that most of his listeners are also Remainers who don’t find his self centred rants as irritating as I do. While he does have a large and dedicated audience, his weekly listenership is around 1.5 million. This translates to an average of roughly 214,000 listeners per day, according to Global Media & Entertainment. This is not over 2 million a day as you assert. Your assertion is FALSE! Jamie Theakston hosts the UK's largest commercial breakfast show, reaching 4.3 million weekly listeners. Heart, the radio brand, is also celebrating a record-breaking 13.4 million weekly listeners overall, making it the number one commercial radio brand in the UK. BBC Radio 4 has approximately 5.6m tuning in for The Today programme every day. A report by spending watchdog, the National Audit Office (NAO), says that the number for housing Asylum Seekers is now expected to be £15.3bn. Hence your assertion that the £1.5billion saved by cancelling the WFA is half the TOTAL cost of housing asylum seekers is essentially untrue. The remainder of your FACTS are based only on your opinion or interpretation of facts. Nothing more; but I do agree with your view that “ In terms of social and economic policy, only the Conservatives offer a straightforwardly right wing alternative. “ On the issue of Rwanda your opinion is noted but it should be noted that the Supreme Court concluded that deficiencies in the Government of Rwanda's arrangements for determining asylum claims could lead to risks of refoulement. The key word is “could” !! And in any event the refoulement issue was addressed by Rishi Sunak’s government. In response to the Supreme Court: “The Home Secretary made a statement to Parliament that in response to the conclusion of the Supreme Court, a new treaty between the UK and Rwanda would be finalised containing assurances about the adequacy of the Rwandan asylum process and a provision that reinforces the principle of non-refoulement – a key issue identified by the Supreme Court. The Prime Minister also announced that the UK Government would introduce new legislation to enable Parliament to confirm that, with the new treaty, Rwanda is a safe country.” Therefore my statement that “The Rwanda deal would have ensured a safe haven for asylum seekers” is not at all false. It’s 100% true. Your response to my claim is indeed totally false. It is clear that your own prejudices get the better of you. That’s fine - you are fully entitled to your opinions but that’s all they are; opinions. |