(V): Of course they are trying to cover their buts but shouldn't they be subject to the same laws as the citizens?

(V): Jules. You just like to nitpic. The ratings system might not be perfect but it still gives an accurate picture of those programs that are the most popular (and which programs are dogs). In the case of this discussion, you just don't like the FACT that Fox has out performed all the others for the past TEN YEARS. Sorry if that disapponts your dislike of Fox but it's a reality. And the margin that Fox trounces its opponents is significant. When it comes to news, Fox wins hands down. And no amount of complaining on your part will change that fact.

Anyone can look at the ratings formulas and see that they fairly represent various demographics in their samplings. Just because you can cite a critic doesn't mean that the measurements used aren't reliable. One thing is very clear: Fox is CLEARLY number one with viewers. And the margin for error is insignificant when comparing the number one spot (Fox - of course) with number two on down.

Artful Dodger: Top statisticians working for the advertisers.. hmmmmm

"I have studied both as well and the process that is used is very sound"

Show me in your own words why then.

(V): I have studied both as well and the process that is used is very sound and accepted by top statisticians.

Jack: Some have already resigned, some through the investigations look stupid. Some look very suspicious that after leaving the police they find themselves in a nice job working for NI.

Of course the police are trying to cover their butts.

Artful Dodger: .. with a sample of only 5000 out of 99,000,000 ... that means the percentage sample is only 0.00005050505 of the total viewers.

"And you're the expert. I should known"

I studied statistics and maths at college, get over it

(V): Sure it's vague. And you're the expert. I should have known.

(V): I understand the police problem and shouldn't they be prosecuted as well.

We have a big problem with racist police and police that willingly take bribes here and the most punishment they receive is to be taken off the street and give a nice deck job or they are fired but never prosecuted.

This Murdock thing is going to have far reaching consequences and that's why I feel we need to give the investigation a chance to gather the evidence to put these criminal where they belong.

Jack: Trouble is many police were taking bribes off NI, and that is an established fact. That the phone hacking was known of for years and the police did a very poor job of looking into it initially. It has been established that about 4000 peoples phones were hacked!!

(V):<b>(V)</b>:  so maybe the press room printers are not guilty of anything but how do you keep a business operating as crooked as Murdock is. Maybe force him out all together and allow a responsible media outlet to take over? Even then the criminals that steal other peoples lives through hacking need to be punished.

I guess we should just allow the justice departments of both countries to go ahead and finish their investigations to collect all the evidence they can. 

Jack: I cannot agree. When you get down to 'shop level' (such as the workers running the printing machines in the case of the NOTW paper) they were just doing a job.

When you get to the likes of Rebekah Brooks and the other reporters involved.. yes they should be banned from holding any journalistic positions, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Including the likes of Cheryl Carter who with others have been trying to destroy evidence regarding the phone hacking case.

"Murdock should suffer the most but he will get away free because someone will be paid off to take his fall."

He is as I said already suffering. His attempt to buy the rest of BSkyB has failed as a direct result of the phone hacking scandal.

Artful Dodger: Sorry Dan, but from what I've read about the system of collecting data in the USA regarding viewers.. it's a little vague.

Only 5000 TV sets in the USA are used to calculate the viewing statistics for the whole country, the system also can count a program as being watched even if it is only watched for ten minutes or less. It can also count two programs watched within an hour period as being watched based on that 'ten minute slot'.

It is calculated that there are 99,000,000 households in the US that have TV sets, going back to my days of studying statistics in college I feel the sample of only 5000 viewers too small to be " clear and precise".

Also, It seems from looking at the system of knowing who is watching is dependant on pressing a button, which is acknowledge as not being always done by the data collectors.

... Call me fickle, but to me this is not good realiable statistics. It may be good enough to calculate how much to charge for advertising, but overall I would not call the data collection system accurate or "clear and precise".

And so it goes. The left rants against the BEST because they best they could come up with was Air America

And so they RANT. On and on.

But they show no proof.

It's more like a temper tantrum.

Yinka Adegoke
Reuters
10:06 p.m. CST, January 31, 2012

Ads by Google
Qwest® DSL Internet
Only $19.99/mo — Call Today & Save! 30 Day Guarantee + $150 Gift Card
Qwestlowprices.com/QwestInternet
See Todays Mortgage Rates
Mortgages Plunge to 2.5% (3.01%APR) As Seen on Good Morning America!
www.MortgageRates.LowerMyBills.com

(Reuters) - Shepard Smith, the 48-year-old Fox News anchor, admits that he was happy hardly anyone watched the network at first.

"We really needed the practice," said Smith, the Holly Springs, Mississippi, native who has been with Fox News since its launch in 1996.

Practice appears to have paid off - Fox News on Tuesday marked its tenth consecutive year as the No. 1 rated cable news network. Nielsen data shows that Fox News averaged 1.9 million primetime viewers this January, up 78 percent from January 2002 when the network first laid claim to the top-rated news network crown with an average of just over 1 million viewers per night in primetime.

Although "cable beats broadcast" ratings news items are beginning to be a bit like "dog bites man", it's worth noting that last night's The O'Reilly Factor on FOX News topped NBC's Rock Center with Brian Williams viewership 3.417 million to 3.293 million.

As in all cases of cable v. broadcast, the broadcast network is available in noticeably more US households, NBC is in approximately 115m households and FOX News is in approximately 99 million.


So let's see, even though there are FEWER available viewers for Fox cable, they STILL BEAT the competition....hands down.

(V): NOTHING will come of it. Fox will not only remain strong, they will continue to dominate. Too bad for the others.

(V): Sorry Jules but please provide some EVIDENCE that Fox isn't number one. The ratings are clear and precise. Fox pulls in millions. The others only thousands. Period. Suck it up.

(V): I feel these people all knew what they were doing and shouldn't be shown any sympathy for hacking into peoples personal grieving. They also know what Murdock is and will always be when they hired on.

These people are the lowest life on the planet as far as I am concerned. In America they create great harm to our political system that goes beyond political leanings. The media has no right to produce false information just to support corporate profits for their boss.

Murdock should suffer the most but he will get away free because someone will be paid off to take his fall.

Jack: That would be wrong. In the end the people that will suffer from Murdoch's games will be the staff. Just like with the NOTW paper.

Ok... like with the NOTW, there is a level at which those can be held complacent. Such as the editors.. but should the normal Joes who are just working be punished..... no.

Imho.

(V): Murdock is responsible for his company and what it does. FOX will continue it's criminal activities until the American investigation is complete and then it will fade from history I hope. ABC is a FOX affiliate now and look at how the FOX supporters slam them. They are truly uninformed people.

Artful Dodger: The people being asked at various inquiries all say the Murdoch's knew about the phone hacking. I think the US law people are waiting for the results of our law system.

"Fox is still number one."

By the counting system I've heard that is aimed at advertising.. yes. In actual... no.
The system used for counting is a little strange.

(V): We know all that. You've posted this before. Big woop. The bigger question is who was directly responsible for the phone hacking? That's an important fact. If Murdock knew of it and ok'd it, then you've got something. If not, then it's a local one time offense. And that article is from July and I don't see a big global thing here. It hasn't changed a thing. Fox is still number one.

The 9/11 phone hacking investigation: it's Murdoch and Fox News who could be destroyed, not the Republicans

The News Corp phone-hacking scandal has gone global. The FBI has announced that it is launching an investigation into allegations that Rupert Murdoch’s corporation hacked into the mobile phones of 9/11 victims. If it’s true, it’s a moral outrage of huge proportions – a terrible insult to American honour. It would seriously damage Murdoch’s reputation in the US and reduce his very profitable share of the media market. But the
political context is subtly different to the UK scandal, and that will shape the way it plays out. The comparison some are already making to Watergate is instructive in its inaccuracy. This hurts Murdoch, but not necessarily the Republican Party or conservative media in general.

Hacking into Milly Dowler’s phone was an attack on a single family. Hacking into the phones of the 9/11 victims is an assault on an entire nation. In America, the memory of the people who died on 9/11 is sacred.
The invasion of their privacy not only violates wire-tapping laws but offends a much bigger, popular ethical sensibility. If it is proven true then the Murdoch brand will be irreparably harmed, and that means the collapse of an empire that reaches well beyond a seedy UK newspaper obsessed with sex and celebrity face lifts.....

....For starters, Democratic Senators Frank Lautenberg and Barbara Boxer
have called for Murdoch to be personally investigated under the terms of
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for the crime of bribing English
police. If found guilty, the old man could face up to $30 million in
fines and 20 years in prison....

.....In contrast, no Democrat would bother to court the support of Fox News or the New York Post. They are conservative niche media, which has excluded them from half of the US political establishment and kept them philosophically pure. And just because it fills a Right-wing niche doesn’t mean News Corp has determined the ebb and flow of conservative politics either. The Sun’s claim that it “won it” in 1992 is a sentiment that no US news outlet would understand or echo. They regard themselves as either strictly non-partisan or, in the case of Fox, something that reflects rather than sets the popular mood.

In short, there is a distance between News Corp and the Republican Party that will keep the scandal from becoming the partisan frenzy that it was in the UK. Whatever Obama's claims to the contrary, Fox does not
speak for the GOP and would never claim that kind of influence. It is a case of a private institution committing crimes against the general public; the UK's added dimension of political culpability is missing. This is not a conservative scandal, or even a political scandal. It is simply criminal.

".....look, we're going to start a cable network. But the last thing people need is another liberal leaning network that simply spews out biased reporting in favor of left wing policies. Instead, we're going to have a balanced approach. Conservatism sells, so that's what we'll give the public. But we'll have liberals sit along side conservatives and have "punch counterpunch" style debates. And let's see if we can hire that O'Reilly guy. He's going places. Let's be sure that when he gets big it's with us....."

CNN was number one in those days. And why did Fox bury them all? Because the other networks are simply puppets for the liberal party in America. Fox dances to its own beat. It's unique. And every time you liberals whine about it, and angel gets its wings.

Artful Dodger: It already has brought him down.

Do you think a child being murdered a little event?
..Do you think hacking the phone of that child causing the parents to think she was still alive a little event?

... Do you think that hacking interfering with the police investigation into that child's disappearance a little event?

Do you?

(V): You won't have a repeat event like in the UK. And it will take more than that little event to bring Murdock down.

(V): Can't be me. I never bring him up. Just stating a fact that you seem to lose sleep over. Fox is number one. That means that most people who watch the news get it from Fox. In a demographic study, they found that a huge number of college educated folks watch Fox regularly. hmmmmmm

(V):<b> V FOX is being watch now by the justice department and I am sure Murdock will screw up here just like he did in Britain. These people have no shame and no loyalty to anyone or any thing. FOX has been found guilty of creating fake headlines to support corrupt republican scam artists and the only way they get away with these fake headlines is because they are registered as an entertainment service and not a media outlet.

FOX makes tabloid news like Enquirer look good.

Jack: You'll need a serious event like the Phone hacking in the UK to make that happen. Something that'll make even those who kiss up to Murdoch want to distance themselves.

... Kinda like with Glenn Beck and the advertisers but bigger.

If it turns out "The Sun" is just as screwed and corrupt in it's abuse of standards as "NOTW", then there might be a call for News Corp to be booted out of the News industry.

Artful Dodger: I think it's you more.

Milly Dowler, one name that caused the closure of NOWT paper. Why.. because the paper had people hack the murdered girls phone before she was known to be dead. They listened to the messages left by the parents and then deleted them, causing the parents to still think she was alive. The paper also had hacked the phones of deceased British soldiers and their relatives, and victims of the 7/7 London bombings.

The News group has had to pay out millions in compensation to individuals.

This event and more has exposed that Murdoch used his papers as a way to manipulate politicians. If they were not his friends, they were subject to mud slinging throughout Murdoch's press. That the police knew and were manipulated again by Murdoch's companies through bribery.

Most people in the UK are disgusted by the activities of News Corp.

Hence this by Murdoch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rupert-Murdoch-ad-001.jpeg

(V): I think you have a fetish for Murdock. Fox is the number one cable news program in the US for TEN years and it will only continue to climb. MSNBC is in the pits and CNN is second by way down on the list. I love that people whine about Fox but that FOX is the most popular cable network anywhere. Oh yeah, Bill O'Reilly smashes the competition in his time slot all the time. Most Fox programs dominate. Even the liberals love to watch Fox.

Übergeek 바둑이: A post below may desapear.. Yes, this sentence has been left by itself by it's author.

Übergeek 바둑이: Ulterior motives. He is a saboteur of dialogue.

(V): Murdock is something else. His FOX Media is a joke here, if they don't have a real headline to support political corruption they just make one up.

Politicians here are not supposed to take gifts either but it's never prosecuted. Somehow we need to get our justice department to enforce the rule of law again.

Jack: The rules are that UK politicians are not allowed to take gifts.... .... Yet we all know at some level it does happen. But if caught 'red handed' .. then you will be held accountable for your actions.

We know from recent news that political parties have made deals with the likes of Murdoch to get good press. N' we can extrapolate from certain cases (such as the building companies price fixing scandal) that public officials are somehow turning a big blind eye to blatant fraud.

So it happens... but not legally.

(V): V, I don't know to much about British politics but I read one time that politicians were not allowed to take gifts from anyone because they were paid to be on the job not on the golf course. Is that true?

Artful Dodger: Not unless my maths is 5 years out

"And we both know politics is mud slinging. which is why the Repubs can't seem to find a decent candidate to run against Obama."

I thought that was a just a left wing attribute.

"As for Newt, you're stating old news and apparently it's not enough to keep him from running for office."

True, it doesn't. But it reminds me of an argument in the UK over directors who have businesses closed down for fraud, etc. They then go and open up elsewhere, just change their position. How certain disgraced UK politicians/advisers just fade for a while then turn up elsewhere in the world of government.

"it's old news and that Turk is a Jerk and his blather won't work"

Turk picks up on stuff just like everyone else does.

"And if you have something more current, with a reliable data source."

What like Murdoch run Fox, who's empire is now facing in the UK more scrutiny over the "The Sun" paper and it's bribing of police for information.

... But this is a matter that dates back over ten years!! Should it be ignored, counted as dated?? Or just noted that it has just been exposed, just like NOTW caught intercepting and then deleting the messages of a murdered girl... That caused Murdoch to close down the NOTW last year

... Something that they tried to bury under the rug due, as it exposes police corruption and politician a*** kissing of Rupert Murdoch's butt!!

Übergeek 바둑이:<b>Übergeek 바둑이</b>: You have it pretty much right. Romney is their best chance but it's a very slim chance. Romney supports nothing but the rich. Romney off shores millions to hide it from the tax man.

Romney and the rest of the republicans campaigning have one agenda. Destroy Social Security, Medicare, stop funding education, end all the safety nets created to keep people in their homes. The republicans support more free tax rides for the wealthy and huge subsidies to energy companies while the public drowns in poverty.

Romney may win the republican nomination but the majority of republican voters nationwide are religious hypocrites and Romney is a Mormon and that will keep many republicans home on election day.

The bankers support Obama because of the huge bailouts he continued with the Bush program and they know they can get more if they need them.

The republicans have been obstructionists since the 2010 tea party wins and have shown for two years their only agenda is to get rid of Obama at any cost including destroying the country.

The economy is really not getting better it just looks a little better for now because of temp jobs created for the holidays and those jobs are being taken away fast now and the next quarter will show a loss.

People are still losing their homes to crooked bankers and inflation is rising fast. Food here is getting very expensive and gasoline continue to rise in price due to Wall Street speculation. Jobs are still being outsourced to China. The government only uses people collecting unemployment figures with people collection compensation not people that have  used up their benefits and have no income and they do not use figures for the people that are under employed so the public has no real information to use when making decisions on the economy.

The American media is just a corporation now and does not give any real news they show whatever politician pays the most to say and show.

From what I was reading, New Gingrich was speaker of the house during the Clinton administration. That had made him the most powerful Republican at the time. Then the ethics violations came into place in 1997 and almost the entire House of Representatives voted to fine him $300,000. He attempted to stay in his position as Speaker of the House but in the congressional elections of 1998 the Republicans did poorly and he was blamed (rightly so) with damaging the reputation of the Republican Party. He ended up resigning in 1999.

He left politics and went into the private sector. He remained politically active, wrote books, etc. I imagine that after 13-14 years he thought that people might have forgotten his ethics violations. However, his opponents were bound to bring that back. At this point I imagine that it is the Romney camp pushing the issue. For the Democrats the nomination of Newt Gingrich would have been better than Romney because reviving his past ethics violation would have been better right at crunch time one week before the vote.

Reading about Willard Mitt Romney, it seems to me that he is as conservative (and perhaps more so) than Newt Gingrich. Mitt Romney (like George W. Bush) seems to represent more the wealthy elite and inherited wealth.

At this point I am inclined to believe that Romney will win the nomination. I think he will attract more voters within the Republican caucuses. At this point the party will probably see him as the best chance to defeat the Democrats.

As for the Democrats, Romney seems to represent the more difficult opponent because he seems "cleaner" and better equipped to defeat Obama's charisma. However, ultimately Obama has the full support of the finance and banking sectors, and that will give him the edge to win. I am inclined to believe that Obama will be reelected just like Bill Clinton was, specially since the American economy is showing signs of improvement at this point.

gogul:

I agree. The sentence reads strange. I think a few words are missing.

Jack: "The bigots on the right took Gingrich out of the house under guard."

Explain. This sentence is incomplete, believe me, I understand english better as my writing.

"Gingrich is a wing nut not a democrat they don't allow that caliber of scum in the party."

specify, it would be interesting to hear more about.

Why so flushed?

Gingrich is a wing nut not a democrat they don't allow that caliber of scum in the party."

Jack: specify


*Edit" Two posts gone

"The bigots on the right took Gingrich out of the house under guard. Gingrich is a wing nut not a democrat they don't allow that caliber of scum in the party."


Jack: I'm asking of you to provide a reliable source that backs up this idiot's claims.

(V): And we both know politics is mud slinging. which is why the Repubs can't seem to find a decent candidate to run against Obama. It's a nasty business. As for Newt, you're stating old news and apparently it's not enough to keep him from running for office. I'll bet there are more like Newt (like Pelosi) who fudge on their taxes (like Rangle did and so do many other dems). They write the laws but can't even keep track of them!

Either way, it's old news and that Turk is a Jerk and his blather won't work. And if you have something more current, with a reliable data source, then you've got something. But with the media mostly for the Left, where's the beef?

(V): are you talking 20 years ago?

Artful Dodger: The bigots on the right took Gingrich out of the house under guard. Gingrich is a wing nut not a democrat they don't allow that caliber of scum in the party.

Artful Dodger: It was in the news when he first did it...

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/01/25/Group-seeks-info-on-Gingrich-ethics-probe/UPI-56641327539926/

WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 (UPI) -- A government watchdog group Wednesday requested the release of all documents in the 1990s ethics investigation into U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, said all information should be made public so voters can decide for themselves if Gingrich was let off too lightly, The Hill reported. The group filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

In 1997 a House ethics panel's investigated allegations Gingrich improperly used a college course, funded by political donors, to promote political causes, potentially violating federal tax laws and House ethics rules. The House voted 395-28 to adopt the committee's report that recommended reprimanding Gingrich and imposing a $300,000 penalty.

....
....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/012297.htm
House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker

By John E. Yang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 22 1997; Page A01

The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.

The ethics case and its resolution leave Gingrich with little leeway for future personal controversies, House Republicans said. Exactly one month before yesterday's vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.

"Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.). "If [the voters] see more of that, they will question our judgment." .........

.....The 395 to 28 vote closes a tumultuous chapter that began Sept. 7, 1994, when former representative Ben Jones (D-Ga.), then running against Gingrich, filed an ethics complaint against the then-GOP whip. The complaint took on greater significance when the Republicans took control of the House for the first time in four decades, propelling Gingrich into the speaker's chair.

With so much at stake for each side -- the survival of the GOP's speaker and the Democrats' hopes of regaining control of the House -- partisanship strained the ethics process nearly to the breaking point.

All but two of the votes against the punishment were cast by Republicans, including Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (Md.), many of whom said they believed the sanction -- especially the financial penalty -- was too severe.

....
....

"Fifteen Years Ago Today, Newt Gingrich Became The First House Speaker In American History To Be Reprimanded By His Colleagues"

Today is the South Carolina GOP presidential primary and, as this Mitt Romney campaign reminds us, another special date, too:

Happy 15th Anniversary, Mr. Speaker
The House Voted “Overwhelmingly” to Reprimand Gingrich and Ordered Him to Pay a $300,000 Penalty After He Violated House Rules and Misled Ethics Investigators:

On January 21, 1997, Gingrich Became The Only Speaker In History To Be Formally Reprimanded By The House For “Ethical Wrongdoing.” “The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing. … Exactly one month before yesterday's vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.” (“House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker,” The Washington Post, 1/22/97)

The House Voted 395-28 To Reprimand Speaker Gingrich – With Roughly Nine In Ten House Republicans Voting Against Gingrich. (H.Res. 31, Vote #8: Passed 395-28: R 196-26; D 198-2; I 1-0, 1/21/97)

And now the Newt has been caught again..
http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2012/01/gingrich-thinks-romneys-tax-returns-are.html

I guess tax fraud is not big press in the right wing press now, even though I find it reported everywhere but....

" “It appears that he is not paying his fair share of Medicare tax,’’ Robert E. McKenzie, a partner in the Chicago law firm of Arnstein & Lehr LLP concluded, in an email to Forbes, after reviewing Gingrich’s 2010 tax return. McKenzie, a past chairman of the Employment Tax Committee of the American Bar Association Tax Section and a member of the IRS’ Advisory Council, added: “There are a multitude of cases where the IRS has successfully challenged the improper tax strategy of this candidate and his accountants. Service businesses are only allowed to distribute a fair return on investment from an S corp. as profits exempt from Medicare taxes. The remainder of profits must be paid as salary subject to a 2.9% Medicare tax levy.”

As Forbes notes, the IRS has specific rules on how payments from a small business like Gingrich Holdings should be treated for tax purposes, and the amount Gingrich says he invested in his companies — between $500,000 and $1 million — is likely “far too little” to “justify booking $2.4 million as profit.” The ploy, however, is used widely. According to the Government Accountability Office, S corps. like Gingrich Holdings underpaid wages by $24 billion in 2003 and 2004, allowing owners to avoid payroll taxes.

Gingrich’s dodge of Medicare taxes, though, pales in comparison to the tax break he’d give himself should he get to the White House. His tax reform plan calls for a flat 15 percent tax rate, slashing his effective rate to 14.6 percent and giving himself a $540,000 tax break in the process."

http://www.nationofchange.org/gingrich-used-gimmick-avoid-paying-taxes-millions-income-1327424546

(V): No, I actually don't know he's right. And if he were, it would be all over the news that Newt broke the law. That guy is a radical left wing lying fact twisting moron. He's unreliable. And in this case, he's not presenting anything factual. No evidence, just his big blowhard mouth stumbling along. He's an idiot.

What I'm asking of you is to provide a reliable source that backs up this idiot's claims. If you can't do that, then it simply proves my case. You can find anything on the internet. And idiots on the left can make any claim they want but that doesn't make it true. Remember Rather-gate? Proof positive that the left will say whatever they can to attack someone on the right. But in this case, Rather lost his career over it and still has plenty of mud sticking to his ugly face.

Artful Dodger: Regardless of who he is, you know he is right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJCfESavCn8&feature=relmfu

Ten years of fighting to close loopholes and no closure?

Why?

The UK government willing in the current situation to write off £25,000,000,000 in tax fraud?

Why?

We see the headlines all full of wage freezes, loss of support for those who need help in the community, benefit fraud costing the UK £1,000,000,000.

... but little on the £25,000,000,000.

Is that because the majority of the UK press is right wing owned, ie in bed with the businesses??

Übergeek 바둑이: Not children, that level even though it does happen is illegal and one actual problem that gets the various law bodies around the world to work as a team.

The considerable problem with porn is the same as boxing. Drive it underground by making it illegal will just make things worse. At least now the 'actors' are protected and they have to have regular check ups for SDI's.

"As usual, it is all about money."

Mostly.

"will they also pass laws that ban violence and pornography in the Internet?"

Pointless to try. There are vast areas of the net that are impossible to regulate.

"It is illegal to copy a game where people get beheaded or blown up, but it is legal to make such a game."

But then isn't it upto the parents to make the young aware of the difference between fiction and reality? Most people are aware of this difference.