It may very well be true, either statistically or specifically in this case, that famous people opinions are true. But that shouldn't be because of their celebrity.

Or they are wrong because of their celebrity either.

Or because of their being a manufacturer.

Their views, just like the views of other citizens, should just solely in the merit of their views, not the messengers celebrity, social status, wealth, jobs, looks, sex or nationality, to name a few.

So, in your opinion, the celebrity opinion may or may not be valid. And we should not listen or ignore them because they are a celebrity. So, back to the original comment, why should any UK resident care what opinion they have? And, why should a news story exist about the celebrity's opinion?

 

The assumption is that a celebrity has something at risk by being wrong in public, and therefore wouldn't say anything unless they are "right". (I'm not saying the assumption is valid.) Therefore when they weigh in on some issue, it must be because 1) their conviction is held deeply, 2) they've spent some time studying their position, and 3) they have talked to others and are speaking for more than just themselves.

Given the idiocy we see spew from the mouths of celebrities, the assumption is clearly invalid. But the voice of a celebrity can still cut through the noise and enter the head of the typical, uninformed public.

I suspect the news stories exist because the celebrity is saying what the journalist or his editor wants to hear.

 

The assumption is that a celebrity has something at risk by being wrong in public, and therefore wouldn't say anything unless they are "right". (I'm not saying the assumption is valid.) Therefore when they weigh in on some issue, it must be because 1) their conviction is held deeply, 2) they've spent some time studying their position, and 3) they have talked to others and are speaking for more than just themselves.

Given the idiocy we see spew from the mouths of celebrities, the assumption is clearly invalid. But the voice of a celebrity can still cut through the noise and enter the head of the typical, uninformed public.

I suspect the news stories exist because the celebrity is saying what the journalist or his editor wants to hear.

Their endorsement of one side or the other is not intended to help "the greater good of society". Their endorsement is intended to help themselves. Different celebrities have different personal situations and may benefit differently...
- Do they own a villa in an EU country?
- Do they have cash or other investment in an EU country
- Do they have cash, assets, in the UK that might be taxed differently
- Do they manufacture/market products in UK that must abide by EU rules for REACH regulations?
- Are they on the verge of bankruptcy? Where are their assets or debt located?

What ever their situation is, I am sure it would not take too much investigation to find out why one Celebrity endorses one option vs. the other.

 

Hahaha my post has caused mayhem!

 

The assumption is that a celebrity has something at risk by being wrong in public, and therefore wouldn't say anything unless they are "right". (I'm not saying the assumption is valid.)

I think the hypothesis is likely statistically valid: thee celebrity types live off of their reputation and being wrong consistently would devaluebtheir assets.

So reputation risk acts as a deterance here.

 

Personally, I hold my own opinions in higher regard than any celebrity. In fact, if a celebrity is doing something other than what they are famous for, I ignore them. Actually, I ignore them anyway.

 

Personally, I hold my own opinions in higher regard than any celebrity. In fact, if a celebrity is doing something other than what they are famous for, I ignore them. Actually, I ignore them anyway.

The whole idea of recruited "spokes models" or paying celebrities to do advertisements (or to do publicity) has been around for years. The difference now, it is done in such a way that it is less clear than an actor on a commercial. Now, celebrities are paid to make press releases and mention topics during interviews on talk shows. This more subtle and realistic approach is more convincing to the audience.

 

Please, let's not let the discussion become too political.

 

It's just a new twist to Payola (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola). You got to be really old to remember that scandal.

John

 

I do not remember it personally but I was taught about it in some TV production classes.

 

Well, at least it doesn't go back as far as Andrew Jackson, who #12 seems to think I remember (see post #34)!

I restrained myself to referencing that part of history during which I existed.

John

 

Please, let's not let the discussion become too political.

Interestingly, I haven't seen a single item here that would be described as "political". Even the mention of "Trump" was about an isolated person - no mention of any optical views or actions.

 

What's wrong with actors? being an actor doesn't disqualify one from speaking his/her mind and doesn't mean s/he is stupid.

The only stupid people here are those who qualifies them or disqualifies them because they are actors.

Is the qualification of actors based on their "status" as actors? Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Being an actor, one who follows a script, does not make one an expert in other matters. Speaking of following a script ... news anchors come to mind.

 

One of the articles I read a couple days ago said that the leave side is up a couple points in the polls.

Would be interesting to see how the leave is executed afterwards.

 

One of the articles I read a couple days ago said that the leave side is up a couple points in the polls.

Would be interesting to see how the leave is executed afterwards.

What would the difficult part be?

 

Everyone I have discussed this referendum with are voting to get out of the EU.
The reasons are:
Uncontrolled immigration into the UK.
All the Social services, ie: Benefits, Health, Education are already seriously overloaded.

We are not allowed to deport immigrants who are a 'threat' to our homeland security, due to so called 'human rights'!
Instead we imprison them, which costs a lot to do. I understand that at this time there are around 60,000 immigrants in our jails.
Sentenced for a variety of crimes, terrorism, drugs, criminal activities etc ...

E

Corrected typo in number.

 

Everyone I have discussed this referendum with are voting to get out of the EU.
Instead we imprison them, which costs a lot to do. I understand that at this time there are around 600,000 immigrants in our jails.E

Got a source on that?

 

A more factual source of data
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-191372/Foreign-inmates-outnumber-Britons.html

The info passed onto by others appears to be somewhat exaggerated.!!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/poles-top-foreign-inmate-list-3463695

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/378232/Immigrant-crime-soars-with-foreign-prisoners-rising

 

David Cameron’s father in law was reported in the Mail saying that even if the outcome of the referendum was to leave the EU, MP’s do not have to abide by the decision.

Our benefit system is in desperate need of an overhaul, but no government has the backbone to do it as it is not a vote winner.

One example on a TV documentary, a Romanian guy came here and had a “job” washing cars, he stopped that and managed to get job seekers allowance benefit.
What did he do ?
Went straight back to Romania and brought his wife and five kids back to the UK, then threw himself at the London councils demanding to be housed.
Eventually one did and he has been housed in Birmingham.
Now with our benefit system and with five kids he will never ever work again and be a huge burden on UK taxpayers.

That’s the negative impact ONE guy can have on the future prosperity of this country, multiply that by several thousand and the impact is obvious.

 

Uncontrolled immigration into the UK.
All the Social services, ie: Benefits, Health, Education are already seriously overloaded.

We are not allowed to deport immigrants who are a 'threat' to our homeland security, due to so called 'human rights'!

There's a rumor going around that if Trump doesn't do well in November here in the States, he's thinking of moving to the UK and running for PM.