Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

I take it that The Daily Mail is UK equivalent to National Enquirer w/ I'm Bigfoots love child stories?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Daily Mail headline predictor

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

I take it that The Daily Mail is UK equivalent to National Enquirer w/ I'm Bigfoots love child stories?

warspite1

No - nothing like it. The Daily Mail is a serious newspaper.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DSwain

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

I take it that The Daily Mail is UK equivalent to National Enquirer w/ I'm Bigfoots love child stories?

That would be fine - such newspapers are comics and they know it. Problem with The Daily Mail is that it takes itself seriously. Its stock in trade is xenophobia, racism, sexism and hysteria. I'm no left winger (my daily newspapers are The Daily Telegraph and The Financial Times, one beloved of retired Army colonels and the other of stockbrokers). The Mail is, in my opinion, only a thin shade short of being evil.

By the way, I do not subscribe to the idea that readers slavishly follow their preferred newspaper (people read newspapers for sport, culture, reviews etc, not only news and political slant) and I know that the Mail has an incredible level of coverage about 'celebrity' (not my cup of tea, but what the heck). I think the newspaper is awful, I'm not necessarily saying all of its readers are.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DSwain

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

I take it that The Daily Mail is UK equivalent to National Enquirer w/ I'm Bigfoots love child stories?

That would be fine - such newspapers are comics and they know it. Problem with The Daily Mail is that it takes itself seriously. Its stock in trade is xenophobia, racism, sexism and hysteria. I'm no left winger (my daily newspapers are The Daily Telegraph and The Financial Times, one beloved of retired Army colonels and the other of stockbrokers). The Mail is, in my opinion, only a thin shade short of being evil.

By the way, I do not subscribe to the idea that readers slavishly follow their preferred newspaper (people read newspapers for sport, culture, reviews etc, not only news and political slant) and I know that the Mail has an incredible level of coverage about 'celebrity' (not my cup of tea, but what the heck). I think the newspaper is awful, I'm not necessarily saying all of its readers are.

warspite1

Evil? Wow.

Incredible level of celebrity eh? Er... no not really. They have the odd bit devoted to such stuff but not much and I think you are confusing the Mail with the red tops.

Racism? Er... no again! The paper campaigned tirelessly for justice for Stephen Lawrence and were brave enough (unlike other papers) to name the "guilty" - remember that? Other newspaper editors applauded their bravery.

quote:

Racism? Sorry but I had hoped we had moved on from the time - just a few years ago under New Labour - when to mention the I - word was to be branded a screaming racist. The Daily Mail is not racist just because it doesn't believe an immigration policy should consist of doing nothing when the country is growing at the size of Birmingham every 7 seconds and halting any debate by branding people who question said policy as Adolf Hitler's love children. I thought we'd all grown up a bit since then? They are questioning, that is all.

quote:

Sexism? Given the readership make-up that comment is just ridiculous - unless you think they are sexist against blokes. Would you prefer they replaced Fred Bassett with Andy Capp or George and Lynn?

quote:

Xenophobia? Can't think of anything particular to support that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DSwain

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

I take it that The Daily Mail is UK equivalent to National Enquirer w/ I'm Bigfoots love child stories?

That would be fine - such newspapers are comics and they know it. Problem with The Daily Mail is that it takes itself seriously. Its stock in trade is xenophobia, racism, sexism and hysteria. I'm no left winger (my daily newspapers are The Daily Telegraph and The Financial Times, one beloved of retired Army colonels and the other of stockbrokers). The Mail is, in my opinion, only a thin shade short of being evil.

By the way, I do not subscribe to the idea that readers slavishly follow their preferred newspaper (people read newspapers for sport, culture, reviews etc, not only news and political slant) and I know that the Mail has an incredible level of coverage about 'celebrity' (not my cup of tea, but what the heck). I think the newspaper is awful, I'm not necessarily saying all of its readers are.

warspite1

Evil? Wow.

Incredible level of celebrity eh? Er... no not really. They have the odd bit devoted to such stuff but not much and I think you are confusing the Mail with the red tops.

Racism? Er... no again! The paper campaigned tirelessly for justice for Stephen Lawrence and were brave enough (unlike other papers) to name the "guilty" - remember that? Other newspaper editors applauded their bravery.

"campaigned tirelessly"?

Hahahaha, that's a good one.

Twenty articles over three years doesn't sound like a "tireless campaign" to me. That works out as one article every 54.75 days . Does it sound like "tireless campaigning" to you?

quote:

Racism? Sorry but I had hoped we had moved on from the time - just a few years ago under New Labour - when to mention the I - word was to be branded a screaming racist. The Daily Mail is not racist just because it doesn't believe an immigration policy should consist of doing nothing when the country is growing at the size of Birmingham every 7 seconds and halting any debate by branding people who question said policy as Adolf Hitler's love children. I thought we'd all grown up a bit since then? They are questioning, that is all.

Odd how you mention Adolf Hitler, when the Daily Mail once ran the headline "Hurray for the Blackshirts".

Let's not forget the paper opposing the boycotting of Apatheid South Africa.

quote:

Sexism? Given the readership make-up that comment is just ridiculous - unless you think they are sexist against blokes. Would you prefer they replaced Fred Bassett with Andy Capp or George and Lynn?

http://www.expertwitnesstoday.co.uk/article/daily-mail-accused-racist-and-sexist-attitude-towards-newsnight-expert-witnesses

quote:

Xenophobia? Can't think of anything particular to support that.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2014/02/silence-climate-change-deniers

And let's not forget this jem - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435751/Red-Eds-pledge-bring-socialism-homage-Marxist-father-Ralph-Miliband-says-GEOFFREY-LEVY.html

I could list a whole load more, but I'll just leave you this link - http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/mail

quote:

Odd how you mention Adolf Hitler, when the Daily Mail once ran the headline "Hurray for the Blackshirts".

quote:

Let's not forget the paper opposing the boycotting of Apatheid South Africa.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

Why is campaigning tirelessly such "a good one"? If the right on Guardian cared so much why didn't they name the scum?

quote:

Bizarre.... a) it did not (the spelling is wrong so that must have been the Guardian
b) a cheap shot no? A little context perhaps?

quote:

Oh dear... Depends if you think the boycott was right doesn't it? OF course you jump to the conclusion that anyone that thinks it was wrong is a racist. Sorry, but many of those who were anti-boycott took that line because, when South Africa had finally got rid of that evil regime, they wanted her to still be economically strong and not a basket case. THAT makes those people caring about the majority black population - not racists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

Why is campaigning tirelessly such "a good one"? If the right on Guardian cared so much why didn't they name the scum?

Because "innocent until proven guilty" is the key foundation of our legal system, and a popular newspaper is, quite simply, not a court of law in any way, shape or form.

quote:

Bizarre.... a) it did not (the spelling is wrong so that must have been the Guardian
b) a cheap shot no? A little context perhaps?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ro698J4AWNE/UlA-hGQmfJI/AAAAAAAABnk/PaZ5i5EhsgQ/s1600/Hurrah4Blackshits.jpg

It was the 1930's. The Daily Mail didn't like people who weren't "British" (mainly Jews) way back then as well.

quote:

Oh dear... Depends if you think the boycott was right doesn't it? OF course you jump to the conclusion that anyone that thinks it was wrong is a racist. Sorry, but many of those who were anti-boycott took that line because, when South Africa had finally got rid of that evil regime, they wanted her to still be economically strong and not a basket case. THAT makes those people caring about the majority black population - not racists.

So, the Daily Mail opposing the arms embargo (the only non-voluntary embargo) on Apatheid South Africa was them...caring about the suppressed black majority...how exactly?

Sorry, I just can't wrap my head around the massive level of stupidity containted in your statement.

The boycott was right. Stopping the sale of arms to a racist state was a good thing, and the South African economy was not likely to collapse if the consumers didn't get their M-16s and 7.62 rounds.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

Why is campaigning tirelessly such "a good one"? If the right on Guardian cared so much why didn't they name the scum?

Because "innocent until proven guilty" is the key foundation of our legal system, and a popular newspaper is, quite simply, not a court of law in any way, shape or form.

quote:

Bizarre.... a) it did not (the spelling is wrong so that must have been the Guardian
b) a cheap shot no? A little context perhaps?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ro698J4AWNE/UlA-hGQmfJI/AAAAAAAABnk/PaZ5i5EhsgQ/s1600/Hurrah4Blackshits.jpg

It was the 1930's. The Daily Mail didn't like people who weren't "British" (mainly Jews) way back then as well.

quote:

Oh dear... Depends if you think the boycott was right doesn't it? OF course you jump to the conclusion that anyone that thinks it was wrong is a racist. Sorry, but many of those who were anti-boycott took that line because, when South Africa had finally got rid of that evil regime, they wanted her to still be economically strong and not a basket case. THAT makes those people caring about the majority black population - not racists.

So, the Daily Mail opposing the arms embargo (the only non-voluntary embargo) on Apatheid South Africa was them...caring about the suppressed black majority...how exactly?

Sorry, I just can't wrap my head around the massive level of stupidity containted in your statement.

The boycott was right. Stopping the sale of arms to a racist state was a good thing, and the South African economy was not likely to collapse if the consumers didn't get their M-16s and 7.62 rounds.

warspite1

Innocent until proven guilty? Nice one.... Let's ignore the facts of the case eh?

quote:

It was the 1930's????? I can't get my head around that level of stupidity. You quote a paper from the 1930's??? Right so by that reckoning, every German living now is a Nazi??

quote:

Opposing the Arms embargo? We seem to be a little selective in what we are posting. Was a boycott the right way to go or the wrong way to go? Who knows? History shows the evil apartheid regime was eventually overthrown, but whether that could have been achieved earlier/later, better/worse is now immaterial. WHAT IS NOT immaterial is the idea that someone is racist because they have a different view on how to achieve it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

Why is campaigning tirelessly such "a good one"? If the right on Guardian cared so much why didn't they name the scum?

Because "innocent until proven guilty" is the key foundation of our legal system, and a popular newspaper is, quite simply, not a court of law in any way, shape or form.

quote:

Bizarre.... a) it did not (the spelling is wrong so that must have been the Guardian
b) a cheap shot no? A little context perhaps?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ro698J4AWNE/UlA-hGQmfJI/AAAAAAAABnk/PaZ5i5EhsgQ/s1600/Hurrah4Blackshits.jpg

It was the 1930's. The Daily Mail didn't like people who weren't "British" (mainly Jews) way back then as well.

quote:

Oh dear... Depends if you think the boycott was right doesn't it? OF course you jump to the conclusion that anyone that thinks it was wrong is a racist. Sorry, but many of those who were anti-boycott took that line because, when South Africa had finally got rid of that evil regime, they wanted her to still be economically strong and not a basket case. THAT makes those people caring about the majority black population - not racists.

So, the Daily Mail opposing the arms embargo (the only non-voluntary embargo) on Apatheid South Africa was them...caring about the suppressed black majority...how exactly?

Sorry, I just can't wrap my head around the massive level of stupidity containted in your statement.

The boycott was right. Stopping the sale of arms to a racist state was a good thing, and the South African economy was not likely to collapse if the consumers didn't get their M-16s and 7.62 rounds.

warspite1

Innocent until proven guilty? Nice one.... Let's ignore the facts of the case eh?

So you think newspapers are suitable judges of guilt in a court of law? Let's just change juries in to boards of newspaper editors then, shall we?

quote:

It was the 1930's????? I can't get my head around that level of stupidity. You quote a paper from the 1930's??? Right so by that reckoning, every German living now is a Nazi??

No, just pointing out that the Daily Mail has a history of far-right opinions.

quote:

Opposing the Arms embargo? We seem to be a little selective in what we are posting. Was a boycott the right way to go or the wrong way to go? Who knows? History shows the evil apartheid regime was eventually overthrown, but whether that could have been achieved earlier/later, better/worse is now immaterial. WHAT IS NOT immaterial is the idea that someone is racist because they have a different view on how to achieve it.

So, the UN decided that an arms embargo was the best course of action. The Daily Mail disagreed.

I know who's judgement I'd trust in matters of international relations.

I still don't see how you can redeem opposition to arms sales to a racist state.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

By any stretch of the imagination, the Lawrence case (and even more so because of what we know subsequently) was a special case.

quote:

What a newspaper did in the 1930's - different owners, different personnel, different times - has nothing to do with the present. Another cheap shot there but no - in no way shape or form can the Mail OBJECTIVELY be described as far-right.

quote:

I am not saying I personally supported that policy. I AM saying the Mail are not necessarily racist for taking their course of action.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

By any stretch of the imagination, the Lawrence case (and even more so because of what we know subsequently) was a special case.

Sure, I'll accept that.

But you understand that newspapers and the popular media play judge and jury is bad and that they shouldn't do it, right?

quote:

What a newspaper did in the 1930's - different owners, different personnel, different times - has nothing to do with the present. Another cheap shot there but no - in no way shape or form can the Mail OBJECTIVELY be described as far-right.

I agree, but newspapers rarely shift political alignment, and with a paper like the Daily Mail (ownership of which has been kept within a single family) that's even less likely.

quote:

I am not saying I personally supported that policy. I AM saying the Mail are not necessarily racist for taking their course of action.

Please explain.

They opposed the arms embargo based on what logic?

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Hellooooooo....T. E. Lawrence!

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Hellooooooo....T. E. Lawrence!

But it's so much more fun watching Warspite & MM battle each other that I had to stop my tape of Sexy Jello Wrestling

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: cassmj

Robert Pattinson will be TE. Naomi Watts, too. I think my stomach is turning...

https://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/robert-pattinson-set-play-lawrence-arabia-222452694.html

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg

Our US colleagues may not know of this fine analysis of the papers from Yes Prime Minister

Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Oh and Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Having read the reviews on Amazon, I now have this book on order. Hope its as good as advertised.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Having read the reviews on Amazon, I now have this book on order. Hope its as good as advertised.

I don't think you will be disappointed. One really needs to know about colonialism and the break up of the Ottoman empire to even come close to understanding the Middle East today. This book simply does an excellent job. It is not just about Lawrence although he is a key player.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805