That's not quite correct. The biggest circulating newspaper - The Sun backed Leave, as did the Daily Star, Daily Mail and the Telegraph. Only the Guardian, the Mirror, the Standard and a few Sunday newspapers backed remain. Local rags varied.

And the BBC! Do you think that didn't count for anything?

Yeah, fair enough my rhetoric got away from me a bit there.

but the City of London is its own territory, similar to Washington DC in the USA.
https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/abou...s/default.aspx

A hearty laugh and a tip of my Earl Grey.

That's the risk with shutdowns...the people may actually realize they do not need the government as much as they are told they do.

And the BBC?? Anyone that would fire Jeremy Clarkson can't be trusted!

Anyone that would pay Jeremy Clarkson that amount of money can't be trusted!

The BBC is not a newspaper. The BBC generally does not run ultra biased articles, as the Sun, Express and Mail do... it may have been biased, but there was certainly no official bias.

While I'm sure that you made a conscious, informed decision to vote to leave, presumably based on your own interests and convictions, that does not remove the fact that others were mislead - as all the evidence shows.

There is a world of difference between a few words from Obama, Cameron's and Osbourne's limp "project fear" campaign and any perceived bias from the BBC - and the full-on onslaught from the right wing press (including a handful of newspapers with the largest circulation by far), two separate "leave" campaigns, the efforts of a political party founded and focused for the express purpose of pushing the idea of leaving the EU at the masses through shallow, divisive and populist propaganda and the multi-millionaire financial backing behind it all.

The Brexit party / Farage have publicly disclosed that they wanted to subvert democracy, by making a pact with the Tories to strategically not field candidates against them in specific constituencies in this election. If you look at who was bankrolling the leave campaigns, UKIP, the Brexit Party, etc, the same names will come up.

Farage is not going to battle for a constituency, because he knows well he cannot win. His party, as with his previous party is a crude strategic tool, which only exists to lure the indecisive working class Labour voter away, through the use of racist and xenophobic rhetoric - to assist in a Tory victory.

Not quite, the "City of London" is actually the financial sector - the "Square Mile" (as per your link).

"Greater London" is a county, but is divided into 32 boroughs plus the "City".

Well, not as openly biased. On the other hand in some ways it's more honourable to be up front about it like the newspapers you mention.

Agreed: "officially" the BBC is unbiased.

Sorry to be blunt but this is a perfect example of the prejudice and arrogance I referred to before - this assumption that the remainer's viewpoint is so undeniably superior both rationally and morally that anybody who disagreed must be a knuckle dragging racist (or a freak).

I don't know what "evidence" you're referring to but when I meet other leavers they're usually much better informed about the EU than most remainers I meet; the EU is like a sausage the more you know what's in it the less appetising it seems. I always encourage remainers to learn as much as possible about the EU (particularly it's proceedures rather than just it's structures).

You may see a world of difference - I don't.

How is this subverting democracy?

George Soros - oh no wait, that's the Nazi collaborator who bankrolled much of the remain campaign. All political parties raise funds by donation and often from some pretty unsavoury characters. If I was a remainer I'd be very careful about throwing stones.

Yeah, ignorant unwashed plebs - I don't know why we let them vote at all.

Two cities actually.

Rules about political neutrality are difficult to maintain in a time of political realignment. For example, there is a long-standing convention that the Speaker of the House of Commons is chosen alternately from the two main political parties but must not favour either of them. The present Speaker, John Bercow, has fulfilled that requirement, but he is very obviously prejudiced in the growing unofficial division between Leave and Remain. And because this is not the official political axis, it appears that his prejudice does not count constitutionally.

The same is true of the BBC. I'm sure that they would consider it quite improper to favour either the Labour party or the Conservative party to the extent that they openly favour Remain over Leave.

I am also, like Trewornan, rather tired of the convention that Leave voters in general could not possibly have voted intelligently but must have been carried away by anger at being left behind economically, or by xenophobia or that they are just too dumb to understand what the issues were. According to Cynwulf, I am the only person to have voted Leave out of genuine conviction. Well, thank you, Cynwulf! That's very flattering. But seriously, it's not very likely, is it.

Oh dear, we are getting over-excited, aren't we?

How would a party not fielding candidates in constituencies where they have no quarrel with the incumbent "subvert democracy"? People in those constituencies will be deprived of the dubious pleasure of voting for Farage's people, but they will still have the choice of at least three parties to vote for.

In the second quoted sentence, you imply that working-class Labour voters are racist and xenophobic! Well, presumably you know your own people better than I do…

Is there an "independent" newspaper in the UK, or is it similar to other countries where all have a vested interest/slant?