Guardian Readers

[spitfire]

This thread got loads better when we introduced food to it. Might do it more often

Lentil related no doubt.

 

[Thurston]

This thread got loads better when we introduced food to it. Might do it more often

there is a certain inevitability that a thread on Guardian readers should inevitably veer off from the tedious liberal agenda into middle class recipes, mullets and probably the f***ing Great British Bake Off.

 

[Lankester Merrin]

Lentil related no doubt.

Yup. Urud.

 

[tysonstorm]

I'd never heard about this before you mentioned it so I Googled it and I've just read a very interesting article about it. .. on the Guardian website.

Do you have a link for that article? if this is indeed true and they do complain about GMG's tax avoidance as loudly as they complain about MP's fiddling, Starbucks and Amazon avoiding tax then good on them, if not it just displays the Guardian's rank hypocrisy.

Or can't - because it's their parent company.

Surely your issue here with with the parent company, and not the publication who regularly goes after tax avoiders?

Or in other words The Guardian can't complain about the tax avoidance their parent company does because of their own vested financial interests..........they sound a lot like MP's.

 

[Lankester Merrin]

Do you have a link for that article? if this is indeed true and they do complain about GMG's tax avoidance as loudly as they complain about MP's fiddling, Starbucks and Amazon avoiding tax then good on them, if not it just displays the Guardian's rank hypocrisy.

Or in other words The Guardian can't complain about the tax avoidance their parent company does because of their own vested financial interests..........they sound a lot like MP's.

Hmmm.... The Guardian and the Observer are owned by the Shaw Trust which doesn't pay much tax because it doesn't make much profit.

I think that the article is confusing the Shaw Trust with Eden Bid Co - a company the Guardian part owned which it used to aquire a whole load of other media companies a few years ago using the profits it made when it sold its controlling stake in GMTV. As the name suggests it was an aquisitions vehicle which it used to buy up a load of other publications, including iirc all of EMAPs business press division (it sold the conferences business back to them), Autotrader group, and a whole load of radio stations. The companies they aquired pay tax in the UK, as does the Shaw Trust, on the profits that they make. No-one is dodging tax, but they did use an offshore company to allow them to snaffle up loads of UK media companies dirt cheap.

Basically that is how the Guardian exists - the actual newspaper loses money, but the website has a huge reach (3rd behind NYT and Mail), and they own a massive number of other publications which allows them to earn loads in advertising.

For people who claim not to like capitalism that much they are damn good at it.

 

[not spavin]

Or in other words The Guardian can't complain about the tax avoidance their parent company does because of their own vested financial interests..........they sound a lot like MP's.

If I owned a paper, I wouldn't let it complain about me. In fact, I'd probably try and stop it complaining about stuff I do.

The fact that the Guardian continues to pursue the tax avoidance story is to be applauded imo. Lesser papers would avoid the issue altogether.

Hmmm.... The Guardian and the Observer are owned by the Shaw Trust which doesn't pay much tax because it doesn't make much profit.

I think that the article is confusing the Shaw Trust with Eden Bid Co - a company the Guardian part owned which it used to aquire a whole load of other media companies a few years ago using the profits it made when it sold its controlling stake in GMTV. As the name suggests it was an aquisitions vehicle which it used to buy up a load of other publications, including iirc all of EMAPs business press division (it sold the conferences business back to them), Autotrader group, and a whole load of radio stations. The companies they aquired pay tax in the UK, as does the Shaw Trust, on the profits that they make. No-one is dodging tax, but they did use an offshore company to allow them to snaffle up loads of UK media companies dirt cheap.

Basically that is how the Guardian exists - the actual newspaper loses money, but the website has a huge reach (3rd behind NYT and Mail), and they own a massive number of other publications which allows them to earn loads in advertising.

For people who claim not to like capitalism that much they are damn good at it.

Think that's a bit of a fallacy tbh. The Guardian has its own shop, it has regular features on what clothes, cars and make up to buy. It just has a bit of a 'ethical / sustainable' angle to some bits of it, that's all.

 

[Thurston]

Hmmm.... The Guardian and the Observer are owned by the Shaw Trust which doesn't pay much tax because it doesn't make much profit.

I think that the article is confusing the Shaw Trust with Eden Bid Co - a company the Guardian part owned which it used to aquire a whole load of other media companies a few years ago using the profits it made when it sold its controlling stake in GMTV. As the name suggests it was an aquisitions vehicle which it used to buy up a load of other publications, including iirc all of EMAPs business press division (it sold the conferences business back to them), Autotrader group, and a whole load of radio stations. The companies they aquired pay tax in the UK, as does the Shaw Trust, on the profits that they make. No-one is dodging tax, but they did use an offshore company to allow them to snaffle up loads of UK media companies dirt cheap.

Basically that is how the Guardian exists - the actual newspaper loses money, but the website has a huge reach (3rd behind NYT and Mail), and they own a massive number of other publications which allows them to earn loads in advertising.

For people who claim not to like capitalism that much they are damn good at it.

I can't recall ever seeing anything with them claiming to dislike capitalism. Their whole concept of politics is mainly just about how nice and tolerant they are of everyone, which they tenuously link to trade union movements occasionally, rather than actually being interested in the 'crucial part' which social ownership of production etc, hence why they are just liberal wankers posturing as socialists.

 

[tiptoad]

 

[cluffy]

I can't recall ever seeing anything with them claiming to dislike capitalism. Their whole concept of politics is mainly just about how nice and tolerant they are of everyone, which they tenuously link to trade union movements occasionally, rather than actually being interested in the 'crucial part' which social ownership of production etc, hence why they are just liberal wankers posturing as socialists.

I read the Guardian a lot. Mainly football, crossword, music and film. I never feel the crossword complier is a 'liberal wanker posturing as a socialist.' The paper has it's faults but they're not what you think they are. What paper's consistently better anyway?

 

[Thurston]

I read the Guardian a lot. Mainly football, crossword, music and film. I never feel the crossword complier is a 'liberal wanker posturing as a socialist.' The paper has it's faults but they're not what you think they are. What paper's consistently better anyway?

The crossword is probably for middle class technocrat poseurs mate aren't the music and film sections just articles about Nick Cave albums, obscure 90's female vocalists making a comeback and reviews of small indie films with gratuitous nudity? Because they have been everytime I've seen them.

 

[cluffy]

The crossword is probably for middle class technocrat poseurs mate aren't the music and film sections just articles about Nick Cave albums, obscure 90's female vocalists making a comeback and reviews of small indie films with gratuitous nudity? Because they have been everytime I've seen them.

As I said which paper do you read mate? One that hates gratuitous nudity?

 

[Thurston]

As I said which paper do you read mate? One that hates gratuitous nudity?

The only daily I'll read now is The Times, although I dislike its politics and I don't like its sport sections because I can't stand their self-aggrandising tit of a chief sports reporter David Walsh after the way he wanked over himself and tried to award himself all of the credit for nailing Lance Armstrong in the doping scandal, and the way he vindicated Team Sky of any potential wrong-doing, because that team is funnily enough also owned by that newspapers proprietor. I actually read The Mail for its financial and sometimes sports sections. I'll also read a number of weekly newspapers however I am also largely dismissive of the politics in most of them too.