Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The idea that it is “non-political” is hard to swallow. Dig deeper....find the links!" How about you provide the links.im feeling lazy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The idea that it is “non-political” is hard to swallow. Dig deeper....find the links! How about you provide the links.im feeling lazy "he just means links to the waily fail  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The idea that it is “non-political” is hard to swallow. Dig deeper....find the links! How about you provide the links.im feeling lazy "I’m too lazy too....but not that curious....just find it hard to believe there is no political agenda too it....there always is. Someone will come along and check I’m sure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The non political group that is campaigning to rid the media of hatred and bigotry is under attack again today in the Daily Mail. The Mail has asked Stop Funding Hate for a statement and this is what they have said... "The Daily Mail has the right to print what it likes within the law, and we all have the right to choose not to fund it. With growing concern that the hate in our media is fuelling hate crime on our streets, is it any wonder so many of us don’t want to subsidise this through our shopping? Stop Funding Hate is all about polite and friendly customer engagement. Most people in Britain have little power, but one thing we can do is use our voices as consumers. We'd urge the Daily Mail to reflect on why so many feel attacked by its hostile coverage, and why brands might want to distance themselves."" To hate is discusting it is a crime | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many people the daily mail only means intolerance of differences, prejudice and hate.. it is either to accept that this is not the same country as the 1950's it would love to see again.. it will gradually diminish in its relevance unless it resolves to change.." That might be what it means to you and I’m sure there’s loads of other people think the same. However we’re all different and we all have different opinions, the Mail is the 2nd biggest selling daily paper so obviously people want to read what it prints. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many people the daily mail only means intolerance of differences, prejudice and hate.. it is either to accept that this is not the same country as the 1950's it would love to see again.. it will gradually diminish in its relevance unless it resolves to change.. That might be what it means to you and I’m sure there’s loads of other people think the same. However we’re all different and we all have different opinions, the Mail is the 2nd biggest selling daily paper so obviously people want to read what it prints. " Because it appeals to the lowest denominator and feeds peoples worst instincts. Britain is great except it never is because of [insert current disliked minority here]. Nothing is your fault, its all *them* and the next generation is awful compared to yours. And they slander and lie and peddle untruths that suit them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many people the daily mail only means intolerance of differences, prejudice and hate.. it is either to accept that this is not the same country as the 1950's it would love to see again.. it will gradually diminish in its relevance unless it resolves to change.. That might be what it means to you and I’m sure there’s loads of other people think the same. However we’re all different and we all have different opinions, the Mail is the 2nd biggest selling daily paper so obviously people want to read what it prints. " So was The Scum till people found out what a vile rag it was telling lies about normal football fans....and not forgetting its sister paper hacking a innocents little girls phone in the middle of trying to find her...disgusting rag...same news different name | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many people the daily mail only means intolerance of differences, prejudice and hate.. it is either to accept that this is not the same country as the 1950's it would love to see again.. it will gradually diminish in its relevance unless it resolves to change.. That might be what it means to you and I’m sure there’s loads of other people think the same. However we’re all different and we all have different opinions, the Mail is the 2nd biggest selling daily paper so obviously people want to read what it prints. Because it appeals to the lowest denominator and feeds peoples worst instincts. Britain is great except it never is because of [insert current disliked minority here]. Nothing is your fault, its all *them* and the next generation is awful compared to yours. And they slander and lie and peddle untruths that suit them." So because I read it I assume you would class me in “lowest denominator” category. I believe we’re all entitled to our own opinions and I would never try and push mine on others, I would never judge anyone on the paper they read. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many people the daily mail only means intolerance of differences, prejudice and hate.. it is either to accept that this is not the same country as the 1950's it would love to see again.. it will gradually diminish in its relevance unless it resolves to change.. That might be what it means to you and I’m sure there’s loads of other people think the same. However we’re all different and we all have different opinions, the Mail is the 2nd biggest selling daily paper so obviously people want to read what it prints. Because it appeals to the lowest denominator and feeds peoples worst instincts. Britain is great except it never is because of [insert current disliked minority here]. Nothing is your fault, its all *them* and the next generation is awful compared to yours. And they slander and lie and peddle untruths that suit them." I guess by this comment you do not read the paper concerned. In this case it is difficult to see how you or the very small majority of people who love to criticise the Daily Mail are in a position to form an objective view of its content. It is a highly successfull newspaper and employs many award winning journalists. In addition it has won many prestigious press awards . It's circulation figures alone are proof of its success. In any event most newspapers are governed by the rules of the press council so on a simplistic basis what you publish has to be true . There will of course be a very small number of cases where errors are made . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many people the daily mail only means intolerance of differences, prejudice and hate.. it is either to accept that this is not the same country as the 1950's it would love to see again.. it will gradually diminish in its relevance unless it resolves to change.. That might be what it means to you and I’m sure there’s loads of other people think the same. However we’re all different and we all have different opinions, the Mail is the 2nd biggest selling daily paper so obviously people want to read what it prints. Because it appeals to the lowest denominator and feeds peoples worst instincts. Britain is great except it never is because of [insert current disliked minority here]. Nothing is your fault, its all *them* and the next generation is awful compared to yours. And they slander and lie and peddle untruths that suit them. I guess by this comment you do not read the paper concerned. In this case it is difficult to see how you or the very small majority of people who love to criticise the Daily Mail are in a position to form an objective view of its content. It is a highly successfull newspaper and employs many award winning journalists. In addition it has won many prestigious press awards . It's circulation figures alone are proof of its success. In any event most newspapers are governed by the rules of the press council so on a simplistic basis what you publish has to be true . There will of course be a very small number of cases where errors are made . " Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many people the daily mail only means intolerance of differences, prejudice and hate.. it is either to accept that this is not the same country as the 1950's it would love to see again.. it will gradually diminish in its relevance unless it resolves to change.. That might be what it means to you and I’m sure there’s loads of other people think the same. However we’re all different and we all have different opinions, the Mail is the 2nd biggest selling daily paper so obviously people want to read what it prints. Because it appeals to the lowest denominator and feeds peoples worst instincts. Britain is great except it never is because of [insert current disliked minority here]. Nothing is your fault, its all *them* and the next generation is awful compared to yours. And they slander and lie and peddle untruths that suit them. I guess by this comment you do not read the paper concerned. In this case it is difficult to see how you or the very small majority of people who love to criticise the Daily Mail are in a position to form an objective view of its content. It is a highly successfull newspaper and employs many award winning journalists. In addition it has won many prestigious press awards . It's circulation figures alone are proof of its success. In any event most newspapers are governed by the rules of the press council so on a simplistic basis what you publish has to be true . There will of course be a very small number of cases where errors are made . "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many people the daily mail only means intolerance of differences, prejudice and hate.. it is either to accept that this is not the same country as the 1950's it would love to see again.. it will gradually diminish in its relevance unless it resolves to change.." I would think that the number of Daily Mail readers who remember the 50 s is comparatively small. By being a forward looking open minded and tolerant newspaper that have actually manages to increase market share . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many people the daily mail only means intolerance of differences, prejudice and hate.. it is either to accept that this is not the same country as the 1950's it would love to see again.. it will gradually diminish in its relevance unless it resolves to change.. I would think that the number of Daily Mail readers who remember the 50 s is comparatively small. By being a forward looking open minded and tolerant newspaper that have actually manages to increase market share . " A tolerant newspaper loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many people the daily mail only means intolerance of differences, prejudice and hate.. it is either to accept that this is not the same country as the 1950's it would love to see again.. it will gradually diminish in its relevance unless it resolves to change.. I would think that the number of Daily Mail readers who remember the 50 s is comparatively small. By being a forward looking open minded and tolerant newspaper that have actually manages to increase market share . A tolerant newspaper loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool " I guess you do not read it. If this is the case, which one do you read ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the waily fails market share has done the opposite of increase over the last 13 years according to their own unskewed figures " If this is the case , which competitors have gained sales ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the waily fails market share has done the opposite of increase over the last 13 years according to their own unskewed figures If this is the case , which competitors have gained sales ? " all the broadsheets according to the fails own unskewed figures | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many people the daily mail only means intolerance of differences, prejudice and hate.. it is either to accept that this is not the same country as the 1950's it would love to see again.. it will gradually diminish in its relevance unless it resolves to change.. I would think that the number of Daily Mail readers who remember the 50 s is comparatively small. By being a forward looking open minded and tolerant newspaper that have actually manages to increase market share . A tolerant newspaper loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool I guess you do not read it. If this is the case, which one do you read ? " Oh ive read it...but one thing its not is tolerant...you must be blind or raciest not to realise | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many people the daily mail only means intolerance of differences, prejudice and hate.. it is either to accept that this is not the same country as the 1950's it would love to see again.. it will gradually diminish in its relevance unless it resolves to change.. I would think that the number of Daily Mail readers who remember the 50 s is comparatively small. By being a forward looking open minded and tolerant newspaper that have actually manages to increase market share . A tolerant newspaper loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool I guess you do not read it. If this is the case, which one do you read ? Oh ive read it...but one thing its not is tolerant...you must be blind or raciest not to realise "When you say that you have read it, do you mean every day or do you mean just looked at the odd copy . ? I get my eyes tested regularly so do not consider myself to be blind and not racist as I mix on a Daily basis with a variety of nationalities. I do however consider that other nationalities are more than capable of looking after themselves . It always seem bizarre to me that only white people complain of racial issues. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the waily fails market share has done the opposite of increase over the last 13 years according to their own unskewed figures If this is the case , which competitors have gained sales ? all the broadsheets according to the fails own unskewed figures" They currently have four million readers . Do you have the relevant figures for othèer newspapers . ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many people the daily mail only means intolerance of differences, prejudice and hate.. it is either to accept that this is not the same country as the 1950's it would love to see again.. it will gradually diminish in its relevance unless it resolves to change.. I would think that the number of Daily Mail readers who remember the 50 s is comparatively small. By being a forward looking open minded and tolerant newspaper that have actually manages to increase market share . A tolerant newspaper loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool I guess you do not read it. If this is the case, which one do you read ? Oh ive read it...but one thing its not is tolerant...you must be blind or raciest not to realise When you say that you have read it, do you mean every day or do you mean just looked at the odd copy . ? I get my eyes tested regularly so do not consider myself to be blind and not racist as I mix on a Daily basis with a variety of nationalities. I do however consider that other nationalities are more than capable of looking after themselves . It always seem bizarre to me that only white people complain of racial issues. "And that old chesnut i have friends from a different culture makes it ok....im sure lots of Man Utd supporters found the scums headlines ok as well...and btw you have just been shot down as per usual | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the waily fails market share has done the opposite of increase over the last 13 years according to their own unskewed figures If this is the case , which competitors have gained sales ? all the broadsheets according to the fails own unskewed figures They currently have four million readers . Do you have the relevant figures for othèer newspapers . ? " yes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know, I know. Proving Pat wrong is like shooting fish in a barrell at this stage, nevertheless: The Daily Mail readers average age is a whopping 58 years old. Thats average remember, 45% of their readers are over 65. The Independent is a full 15 years younger at 43. The Daily Mail is also the worst performing newspaper for people under the age of 34 with only 14%. Forward looking indeed!! On to their open mindedness,in the 90s they ran this headline:"Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding". Thats right folks,better no kid than a gay kid. 2009 it printed a homophobic article about Stephen Gately days after he died and before his family had a chance to bury him. Its coverage of Ralph Miliband was seen as a continuation of the anti semetic nazi supporting history of the paper (not hyperbole, they were literal Hitler supporters) When criticising a judge they chose to focus on his sexual orientation. Former workers have said the paper steals content, publishes lies when they think it will make money, management is racist, sexist. Wikipedia has found so many inaccuracies, lies and half truths in their reporting that they've been barred as a source. On the list of hundreds of front page articles about cancer (fear mongering) oxygen, blowjobs, having children, not having children, dogs, eggs, electricity, facebook, gardens, lipstick, menopause and menstruation, "modern living" (so forward thinking), retirement, sex, shaving, teen sex, water and working will all apparently cause cancer. Between 2010 and 2015 it ran an anti immigrant front page splash twice a week on average. Thats incredible dedication to find that many stories on the same subject be the main news of the day for so many years. The Daily Mail, for old people to be scared of cancer, sex (and especially homosexual sex) and immigrants with a bit of racism, sexism and anti semitism thrown in to keep things light." Interesting as this information is would be interesting to know how much if any of it is true or is it just a repeat of scare mongering . The first paragraph would tend to suggest that you regard older readers as less important than younger ones so I stopped reading it there . My preference is to treat everyone equally regardless of age . Anything can be published in Wilkipedia without verification. The other stories can be ignored. I cannot remember them being front page headlines and if you do not read the Daily Mail it is difficult to see how you could be in possession of sufficient information to comment on it . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many people the daily mail only means intolerance of differences, prejudice and hate.. it is either to accept that this is not the same country as the 1950's it would love to see again.. it will gradually diminish in its relevance unless it resolves to change.. I would think that the number of Daily Mail readers who remember the 50 s is comparatively small. By being a forward looking open minded and tolerant newspaper that have actually manages to increase market share . A tolerant newspaper loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool I guess you do not read it. If this is the case, which one do you read ? Oh ive read it...but one thing its not is tolerant...you must be blind or raciest not to realise When you say that you have read it, do you mean every day or do you mean just looked at the odd copy . ? I get my eyes tested regularly so do not consider myself to be blind and not racist as I mix on a Daily basis with a variety of nationalities. I do however consider that other nationalities are more than capable of looking after themselves . It always seem bizarre to me that only white people complain of racial issues.
And that old chesnut i have friends from a different culture makes it ok....im sure lots of Man Utd supporters found the scums headlines ok as well...and btw you have just been shot down as per usual "Not too bothered about being shot down . This is Cyberland and a very long way from reality . A forum such as this hardly makes any difference to life in the real world . In the real world I guess that some posters might not be quite so brave . I guess a few people must agree with my views . The Daily Mail has 4.6 million readers.How many readers does the newspaper which you read have. ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many people the daily mail only means intolerance of differences, prejudice and hate.. it is either to accept that this is not the same country as the 1950's it would love to see again.. it will gradually diminish in its relevance unless it resolves to change.. I would think that the number of Daily Mail readers who remember the 50 s is comparatively small. By being a forward looking open minded and tolerant newspaper that have actually manages to increase market share . A tolerant newspaper loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool I guess you do not read it. If this is the case, which one do you read ? Oh ive read it...but one thing its not is tolerant...you must be blind or raciest not to realise When you say that you have read it, do you mean every day or do you mean just looked at the odd copy . ? I get my eyes tested regularly so do not consider myself to be blind and not racist as I mix on a Daily basis with a variety of nationalities. I do however consider that other nationalities are more than capable of looking after themselves . It always seem bizarre to me that only white people complain of racial issues.
And that old chesnut i have friends from a different culture makes it ok....im sure lots of Man Utd supporters found the scums headlines ok as well...and btw you have just been shot down as per usual Not too bothered about being shot down . This is Cyberland and a very long way from reality . A forum such as this hardly makes any difference to life in the real world . In the real world I guess that some posters might not be quite so brave . I guess a few people must agree with my views . The Daily Mail has 4.6 million readers.How many readers does the newspaper which you read have. ? "Oh its fairly obvious your a long way from reality | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The Daily Mail has 4.6 million readers.How many readers does the newspaper which you read have. ? " It can be safe to assume that your data is probably biased and skewed to support your point of view . In real life i want data to make a decision and i prefer to do my own independent search in order to be satisfied that the data returned was not biased . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Interesting as this information is would be interesting to know how much if any of it is true or is it just a repeat of scare mongering . The first paragraph would tend to suggest that you regard older readers as less important than younger ones so I stopped reading it there . My preference is to treat everyone equally regardless of age . Anything can be published in Wilkipedia without verification. The other stories can be ignored. I cannot remember them being front page headlines and if you do not read the Daily Mail it is difficult to see how you could be in possession of sufficient information to comment on it . " Well you were the one who said that you didnt think Daily Mail readers were old, I merely corrected you and pointed out that in fact the Daily Mails core readership are the elderly and they are the worst performing paper among young people. If you didnt want to discuss the age of the readership you shouldnt have been so uninformed when you spoke about it. Youre the most intellectually dishonest poster on the forum. You said you stopped reading after thr first paragraph and then immediately show yourself up to be dishonest by discussing the rest of my post. You expect people to take your information seriously and yet you "prefer" not to pay any attention to any replies that dont immediately confirm your own opinions. If you cant remember any of those stories, including the twice weekly migrant bashing, I would consider seeing a specialist, dementia is prevalent among Daily Mail readers. But if you'd like to read any of those stories you just let me know and Ill give you the headline so you can find it on their website. But then I imagine you'll be caught in a bind, you dont believe anything others post but you always believe the Mail...what to do, what to do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok so now that I’m not allowed to read the daily mail is there any paper in particular that all you tolerant people would recommend I read, I’m obviously not intelligent enough to make my own decisions. " The Beano might suit you more...far more truth in that than the Fail  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok so now that I’m not allowed to read the daily mail is there any paper in particular that all you tolerant people would recommend I read, I’m obviously not intelligent enough to make my own decisions. " How about you pick the one with the fewest upheld complaints for slander and dishonesty instead of the 1 paper that has more than most of its competitors COMBINED. If you read a newspaper to find out whats going on in the world why pick the one thats been independently found to be the most dishonest??? Doesnt that defeat the purpose? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The Daily Mail has 4.6 million readers.How many readers does the newspaper which you read have. ? It can be safe to assume that your data is probably biased and skewed to support your point of view . In real life i want data to make a decision and i prefer to do my own independent search in order to be satisfied that the data returned was not biased . "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok so now that I’m not allowed to read the daily mail is there any paper in particular that all you tolerant people would recommend I read, I’m obviously not intelligent enough to make my own decisions. The Beano might suit you more...far more truth in that than the Fail "Dennis the menace has been known to tell a fib or two | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok so now that I’m not allowed to read the daily mail is there any paper in particular that all you tolerant people would recommend I read, I’m obviously not intelligent enough to make my own decisions. The Beano might suit you more...far more truth in that than the Fail
Dennis the menace has been known to tell a fib or two
"Yeah i heard his new job is reporting for the Daily Fail | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Interesting as this information is would be interesting to know how much if any of it is true or is it just a repeat of scare mongering . The first paragraph would tend to suggest that you regard older readers as less important than younger ones so I stopped reading it there . My preference is to treat everyone equally regardless of age . Anything can be published in Wilkipedia without verification. The other stories can be ignored. I cannot remember them being front page headlines and if you do not read the Daily Mail it is difficult to see how you could be in possession of sufficient information to comment on it . Well you were the one who said that you didnt think Daily Mail readers were old, I merely corrected you and pointed out that in fact the Daily Mails core readership are the elderly and they are the worst performing paper among young people. If you didnt want to discuss the age of the readership you shouldnt have been so uninformed when you spoke about it. Youre the most intellectually dishonest poster on the forum. You said you stopped reading after thr first paragraph and then immediately show yourself up to be dishonest by discussing the rest of my post. You expect people to take your information seriously and yet you "prefer" not to pay any attention to any replies that dont immediately confirm your own opinions. If you cant remember any of those stories, including the twice weekly migrant bashing, I would consider seeing a specialist, dementia is prevalent among Daily Mail readers. But if you'd like to read any of those stories you just let me know and Ill give you the headline so you can find it on their website. But then I imagine you'll be caught in a bind, you dont believe anything others post but you always believe the Mail...what to do, what to do." It would seem very odd that you have so much information on the Daily Mail as you do not claim to actually read it. I can only assume that the information which you quote was simply copied and pasted in from another site and not gained from first hand knowledge of the topic on which you choose to comment . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok so now that I’m not allowed to read the daily mail is there any paper in particular that all you tolerant people would recommend I read, I’m obviously not intelligent enough to make my own decisions. How about you pick the one with the fewest upheld complaints for slander and dishonesty instead of the 1 paper that has more than most of its competitors COMBINED. If you read a newspaper to find out whats going on in the world why pick the one thats been independently found to be the most dishonest??? Doesnt that defeat the purpose?" Last time I checked the Daily Mail had fewer complaints than some other papers. I would expect a newspaper with a higher circulation to generate more complaints than one with a smaller circulation . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok so now that I’m not allowed to read the daily mail is there any paper in particular that all you tolerant people would recommend I read, I’m obviously not intelligent enough to make my own decisions. How about you pick the one with the fewest upheld complaints for slander and dishonesty instead of the 1 paper that has more than most of its competitors COMBINED. If you read a newspaper to find out whats going on in the world why pick the one thats been independently found to be the most dishonest??? Doesnt that defeat the purpose?" And which paper would that be, people are able to tell me what I shouldn’t read but I’m still waiting for an alternative ( apart from the beano). I’d also be interested to know where you got the information regarding complaints from | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Last time I checked the Daily Mail had fewer complaints than some other papers. I would expect a newspaper with a higher circulation to generate more complaints than one with a smaller circulation . " i would think that because this discussion is taking place in cyberspace that your data is skewed to support your own view. i prefer to do my own research and as a result i would expect that my data is extremely accurate. i would be of the opinion that armed with this knowledge of the results from my own research, that in the real world the facts about the daily mail being an inferior media source are clear. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok so now that I’m not allowed to read the daily mail is there any paper in particular that all you tolerant people would recommend I read, I’m obviously not intelligent enough to make my own decisions. How about you pick the one with the fewest upheld complaints for slander and dishonesty instead of the 1 paper that has more than most of its competitors COMBINED. If you read a newspaper to find out whats going on in the world why pick the one thats been independently found to be the most dishonest??? Doesnt that defeat the purpose? And which paper would that be, people are able to tell me what I shouldn’t read but I’m still waiting for an alternative ( apart from the beano). I’d also be interested to know where you got the information regarding complaints from " The Independent had the least, though the Guardian and FT werent included. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Last time I checked the Daily Mail had fewer complaints than some other papers. I would expect a newspaper with a higher circulation to generate more complaints than one with a smaller circulation . i would think that because this discussion is taking place in cyberspace that your data is skewed to support your own view. i prefer to do my own research and as a result i would expect that my data is extremely accurate. i would be of the opinion that armed with this knowledge of the results from my own research, that in the real world the facts about the daily mail being an inferior media source are clear." Do you not see the contradiction in your statement ? Could your data not be skewed to support your view? I don’t know whose data is right but as far as I can see people are making loads of statements to support their own opinion but give no information as to where their information comes from. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok so now that I’m not allowed to read the daily mail is there any paper in particular that all you tolerant people would recommend I read, I’m obviously not intelligent enough to make my own decisions. How about you pick the one with the fewest upheld complaints for slander and dishonesty instead of the 1 paper that has more than most of its competitors COMBINED. If you read a newspaper to find out whats going on in the world why pick the one thats been independently found to be the most dishonest??? Doesnt that defeat the purpose? And which paper would that be, people are able to tell me what I shouldn’t read but I’m still waiting for an alternative ( apart from the beano). I’d also be interested to know where you got the information regarding complaints from The Independent had the least, though the Guardian and FT werent included." Is this information on the ISPO website ? I can’t seem to find it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It would seem very odd that you have so much information on the Daily Mail as you do not claim to actually read it. I can only assume that the information which you quote was simply copied and pasted in from another site and not gained from first hand knowledge of the topic on which you choose to comment . " Youve managed to avoid addressing any of the points correcting you so far and instead try and distract. The only one you come close to addressing is Wikipedia, that would be the online publication that has been proven to have fewer mistakes and innaccuracies than the Encyclopedia Britannica. I havent commented at all on my newspaper reading habits so I dont know how you could possibly know them. First hand knowledge cant be gained on every subject. Thats why we have an education system. True the education system may fail some people and leave them bewildered and confused and naive, but in the whole its very successful. My knowledge of the daily mail front page splashes comes from a remarkable skill I learned in my education: counting. Liz Gerard formerly of the Sunday Times did a study of anti migrant news coverage and one article helpfully including images of the litany of abusive front pages. Im sure you'll find some way to weasel around the issue, maybe call studies ineffective, claim counting has a liberal bias or whatever it is. But you know damn well, just as I do, and everyone else in this forum that the Daily Mail consistently runs front pages filled with anti migrant sentiment every week of the year and has done for years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Last time I checked the Daily Mail had fewer complaints than some other papers. I would expect a newspaper with a higher circulation to generate more complaints than one with a smaller circulation . i would think that because this discussion is taking place in cyberspace that your data is skewed to support your own view. i prefer to do my own research and as a result i would expect that my data is extremely accurate. i would be of the opinion that armed with this knowledge of the results from my own research, that in the real world the facts about the daily mail being an inferior media source are clear. Do you not see the contradiction in your statement ? Could your data not be skewed to support your view? I don’t know whose data is right but as far as I can see people are making loads of statements to support their own opinion but give no information as to where their information comes from. " OP is taking the piss out of Pat and parrotting his inane arguments back to him. He knows that position is nonsense, hes just tired of Pats dishonest debating style where everything Pat believes is credible and everything that proves him wrong is skewed and biased. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Last time I checked the Daily Mail had fewer complaints than some other papers. I would expect a newspaper with a higher circulation to generate more complaints than one with a smaller circulation . i would think that because this discussion is taking place in cyberspace that your data is skewed to support your own view. i prefer to do my own research and as a result i would expect that my data is extremely accurate. i would be of the opinion that armed with this knowledge of the results from my own research, that in the real world the facts about the daily mail being an inferior media source are clear. Do you not see the contradiction in your statement ? Could your data not be skewed to support your view? I don’t know whose data is right but as far as I can see people are making loads of statements to support their own opinion but give no information as to where their information comes from. OP is taking the piss out of Pat and parrotting his inane arguments back to him. He knows that position is nonsense, hes just tired of Pats dishonest debating style where everything Pat believes is credible and everything that proves him wrong is skewed and biased." I’m not trying to say I’m right and I don’t want to be taking sides, I just don’t like being told what I can and cannot do. We’re all different and have different opinions but that dosen’t mean we can’t express them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m not trying to say I’m right and I don’t want to be taking sides, I just don’t like being told what I can and cannot do. We’re all different and have different opinions but that dosen’t mean we can’t express them. " If your opinion is that tea is better than coffee then thats fine. Thats subjective and thats what an opinion is. If you say Therese May is the best possible leader for the UK thats fine, but just as your free to express that opinion, others are free to challenge it. If someone tries to claim that the Daily Mail doesnt regularly use their front page splash to denigrate and stir up negative feelings about migrants then thats not an opinion, its a lie. Its verifiable how often they publish those stories, its observable that they are negative stories and its plain to see that they are being singled out and targetted (hundreds of muggings happen every week, its only front page in the Mail if its a migrant). Its undeniable that they have waged a years long campaign against migrants, not on the basis of policy or genuine effects on the country but in a spiteful way that highlights every crime by an individual and uses them to paint the rest with a bad name. And its perfectly justifiable to see this as a negative for the country and to work to combat it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m not trying to say I’m right and I don’t want to be taking sides, I just don’t like being told what I can and cannot do. We’re all different and have different opinions but that dosen’t mean we can’t express them. If your opinion is that tea is better than coffee then thats fine. Thats subjective and thats what an opinion is. If you say Therese May is the best possible leader for the UK thats fine, but just as your free to express that opinion, others are free to challenge it. If someone tries to claim that the Daily Mail doesnt regularly use their front page splash to denigrate and stir up negative feelings about migrants then thats not an opinion, its a lie. Its verifiable how often they publish those stories, its observable that they are negative stories and its plain to see that they are being singled out and targetted (hundreds of muggings happen every week, its only front page in the Mail if its a migrant). Its undeniable that they have waged a years long campaign against migrants, not on the basis of policy or genuine effects on the country but in a spiteful way that highlights every crime by an individual and uses them to paint the rest with a bad name. And its perfectly justifiable to see this as a negative for the country and to work to combat it." I don’t agree and that’s my opinion??, but I’m also clever enough not to judge people on what they read or don’t read. Personally I don’t get influenced by what any paper prints but I like to have the choice. If the daily mail print a front page headline everyday for the next year stating Liverpool are the best football team I’m not going to start supporting Liverpool???? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m not trying to say I’m right and I don’t want to be taking sides, I just don’t like being told what I can and cannot do. We’re all different and have different opinions but that dosen’t mean we can’t express them. If your opinion is that tea is better than coffee then thats fine. Thats subjective and thats what an opinion is. If you say Therese May is the best possible leader for the UK thats fine, but just as your free to express that opinion, others are free to challenge it. If someone tries to claim that the Daily Mail doesnt regularly use their front page splash to denigrate and stir up negative feelings about migrants then thats not an opinion, its a lie. Its verifiable how often they publish those stories, its observable that they are negative stories and its plain to see that they are being singled out and targetted (hundreds of muggings happen every week, its only front page in the Mail if its a migrant). Its undeniable that they have waged a years long campaign against migrants, not on the basis of policy or genuine effects on the country but in a spiteful way that highlights every crime by an individual and uses them to paint the rest with a bad name. And its perfectly justifiable to see this as a negative for the country and to work to combat it. I don’t agree and that’s my opinion??, but I’m also clever enough not to judge people on what they read or don’t read. Personally I don’t get influenced by what any paper prints but I like to have the choice. If the daily mail print a front page headline everyday for the next year stating Liverpool are the best football team I’m not going to start supporting Liverpool????" But they may print there a bunch of animals and thieves like the paper they took all there readership from | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m not trying to say I’m right and I don’t want to be taking sides, I just don’t like being told what I can and cannot do. We’re all different and have different opinions but that dosen’t mean we can’t express them. If your opinion is that tea is better than coffee then thats fine. Thats subjective and thats what an opinion is. If you say Therese May is the best possible leader for the UK thats fine, but just as your free to express that opinion, others are free to challenge it. If someone tries to claim that the Daily Mail doesnt regularly use their front page splash to denigrate and stir up negative feelings about migrants then thats not an opinion, its a lie. Its verifiable how often they publish those stories, its observable that they are negative stories and its plain to see that they are being singled out and targetted (hundreds of muggings happen every week, its only front page in the Mail if its a migrant). Its undeniable that they have waged a years long campaign against migrants, not on the basis of policy or genuine effects on the country but in a spiteful way that highlights every crime by an individual and uses them to paint the rest with a bad name. And its perfectly justifiable to see this as a negative for the country and to work to combat it. I don’t agree and that’s my opinion??, but I’m also clever enough not to judge people on what they read or don’t read. Personally I don’t get influenced by what any paper prints but I like to have the choice. If the daily mail print a front page headline everyday for the next year stating Liverpool are the best football team I’m not going to start supporting Liverpool???? But they may print there a bunch of animals and thieves like the paper they took all there readership from "I guess they could, that’s the thing about having free speech. I’ve never seen a racist article in the mail, but I don’t read it everyday. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m not trying to say I’m right and I don’t want to be taking sides, I just don’t like being told what I can and cannot do. We’re all different and have different opinions but that dosen’t mean we can’t express them. If your opinion is that tea is better than coffee then thats fine. Thats subjective and thats what an opinion is. If you say Therese May is the best possible leader for the UK thats fine, but just as your free to express that opinion, others are free to challenge it. If someone tries to claim that the Daily Mail doesnt regularly use their front page splash to denigrate and stir up negative feelings about migrants then thats not an opinion, its a lie. Its verifiable how often they publish those stories, its observable that they are negative stories and its plain to see that they are being singled out and targetted (hundreds of muggings happen every week, its only front page in the Mail if its a migrant). Its undeniable that they have waged a years long campaign against migrants, not on the basis of policy or genuine effects on the country but in a spiteful way that highlights every crime by an individual and uses them to paint the rest with a bad name. And its perfectly justifiable to see this as a negative for the country and to work to combat it. I don’t agree and that’s my opinion??, but I’m also clever enough not to judge people on what they read or don’t read. Personally I don’t get influenced by what any paper prints but I like to have the choice. If the daily mail print a front page headline everyday for the next year stating Liverpool are the best football team I’m not going to start supporting Liverpool????" Maybe you wouldnt start supporting Liverpool but a lot of people who maybe dont watch football that much will believe it. Im a United fan and a big part of what made United a big team was having lots of the sports press on side years and years ago. 5-1 losses werent hammerings, they became Old Trafford 6 goal thrillers. So if someone doesnt have a lot of contact with migrants and every week for 5 years they see 2 front page splashes about how terrible migrants are, how awful they are for the country and how theyre all criminals and they dont see anyone but "the looney left" saying otherwise then they will form a negative opinion. Its not at all surprising that in Germany,a country we regular hear negative news about migrants in our press, had larger support for anti migrant parties in areas with the LEAST migrants! People with actual experience of migrants usually have better opinions than those who read the right wing press. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m not trying to say I’m right and I don’t want to be taking sides, I just don’t like being told what I can and cannot do. We’re all different and have different opinions but that dosen’t mean we can’t express them. If your opinion is that tea is better than coffee then thats fine. Thats subjective and thats what an opinion is. If you say Therese May is the best possible leader for the UK thats fine, but just as your free to express that opinion, others are free to challenge it. If someone tries to claim that the Daily Mail doesnt regularly use their front page splash to denigrate and stir up negative feelings about migrants then thats not an opinion, its a lie. Its verifiable how often they publish those stories, its observable that they are negative stories and its plain to see that they are being singled out and targetted (hundreds of muggings happen every week, its only front page in the Mail if its a migrant). Its undeniable that they have waged a years long campaign against migrants, not on the basis of policy or genuine effects on the country but in a spiteful way that highlights every crime by an individual and uses them to paint the rest with a bad name. And its perfectly justifiable to see this as a negative for the country and to work to combat it. I don’t agree and that’s my opinion??, but I’m also clever enough not to judge people on what they read or don’t read. Personally I don’t get influenced by what any paper prints but I like to have the choice. If the daily mail print a front page headline everyday for the next year stating Liverpool are the best football team I’m not going to start supporting Liverpool???? Maybe you wouldnt start supporting Liverpool but a lot of people who maybe dont watch football that much will believe it. Im a United fan and a big part of what made United a big team was having lots of the sports press on side years and years ago. 5-1 losses werent hammerings, they became Old Trafford 6 goal thrillers. So if someone doesnt have a lot of contact with migrants and every week for 5 years they see 2 front page splashes about how terrible migrants are, how awful they are for the country and how theyre all criminals and they dont see anyone but "the looney left" saying otherwise then they will form a negative opinion. Its not at all surprising that in Germany,a country we regular hear negative news about migrants in our press, had larger support for anti migrant parties in areas with the LEAST migrants! People with actual experience of migrants usually have better opinions than those who read the right wing press." I get what your saying but I don’t agree the stuff printed in the daily mail is that extreme.The Sunday Times sacked a reporter for writing an anti Semitic article this year, does that make them racist ? Yeah the mail are to the right but we’ve also got media outlets who are left wing, People from both sides will get offended by the others opinions at times. I’m Irish and have lived in London for 20yrs so I’m not going to preach about immigration to anyone. I’ve lived in areas which have had large immigrant communities but I wouldn’t say my opinions of them are better or worse than anyone I come across. There is good and bad in every race. Of course Immigration has had a positive impact on this country but unfortunately like everything in life there’s also negatives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m not trying to say I’m right and I don’t want to be taking sides, I just don’t like being told what I can and cannot do. We’re all different and have different opinions but that dosen’t mean we can’t express them. If your opinion is that tea is better than coffee then thats fine. Thats subjective and thats what an opinion is. If you say Therese May is the best possible leader for the UK thats fine, but just as your free to express that opinion, others are free to challenge it. If someone tries to claim that the Daily Mail doesnt regularly use their front page splash to denigrate and stir up negative feelings about migrants then thats not an opinion, its a lie. Its verifiable how often they publish those stories, its observable that they are negative stories and its plain to see that they are being singled out and targetted (hundreds of muggings happen every week, its only front page in the Mail if its a migrant). Its undeniable that they have waged a years long campaign against migrants, not on the basis of policy or genuine effects on the country but in a spiteful way that highlights every crime by an individual and uses them to paint the rest with a bad name. And its perfectly justifiable to see this as a negative for the country and to work to combat it. I don’t agree and that’s my opinion??, but I’m also clever enough not to judge people on what they read or don’t read. Personally I don’t get influenced by what any paper prints but I like to have the choice. If the daily mail print a front page headline everyday for the next year stating Liverpool are the best football team I’m not going to start supporting Liverpool???? Maybe you wouldnt start supporting Liverpool but a lot of people who maybe dont watch football that much will believe it. Im a United fan and a big part of what made United a big team was having lots of the sports press on side years and years ago. 5-1 losses werent hammerings, they became Old Trafford 6 goal thrillers. So if someone doesnt have a lot of contact with migrants and every week for 5 years they see 2 front page splashes about how terrible migrants are, how awful they are for the country and how theyre all criminals and they dont see anyone but "the looney left" saying otherwise then they will form a negative opinion. Its not at all surprising that in Germany,a country we regular hear negative news about migrants in our press, had larger support for anti migrant parties in areas with the LEAST migrants! People with actual experience of migrants usually have better opinions than those who read the right wing press. I get what your saying but I don’t agree the stuff printed in the daily mail is that extreme.The Sunday Times sacked a reporter for writing an anti Semitic article this year, does that make them racist ? Yeah the mail are to the right but we’ve also got media outlets who are left wing, People from both sides will get offended by the others opinions at times. I’m Irish and have lived in London for 20yrs so I’m not going to preach about immigration to anyone. I’ve lived in areas which have had large immigrant communities but I wouldn’t say my opinions of them are better or worse than anyone I come across. There is good and bad in every race. Of course Immigration has had a positive impact on this country but unfortunately like everything in life there’s also negatives. " . Jesus man..... You can't go round saying the bleeding obvious in here!!. The snowflakes will be self flagellatiing for a month | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m not trying to say I’m right and I don’t want to be taking sides, I just don’t like being told what I can and cannot do. We’re all different and have different opinions but that dosen’t mean we can’t express them. If your opinion is that tea is better than coffee then thats fine. Thats subjective and thats what an opinion is. If you say Therese May is the best possible leader for the UK thats fine, but just as your free to express that opinion, others are free to challenge it. If someone tries to claim that the Daily Mail doesnt regularly use their front page splash to denigrate and stir up negative feelings about migrants then thats not an opinion, its a lie. Its verifiable how often they publish those stories, its observable that they are negative stories and its plain to see that they are being singled out and targetted (hundreds of muggings happen every week, its only front page in the Mail if its a migrant). Its undeniable that they have waged a years long campaign against migrants, not on the basis of policy or genuine effects on the country but in a spiteful way that highlights every crime by an individual and uses them to paint the rest with a bad name. And its perfectly justifiable to see this as a negative for the country and to work to combat it. I don’t agree and that’s my opinion??, but I’m also clever enough not to judge people on what they read or don’t read. Personally I don’t get influenced by what any paper prints but I like to have the choice. If the daily mail print a front page headline everyday for the next year stating Liverpool are the best football team I’m not going to start supporting Liverpool???? Maybe you wouldnt start supporting Liverpool but a lot of people who maybe dont watch football that much will believe it. Im a United fan and a big part of what made United a big team was having lots of the sports press on side years and years ago. 5-1 losses werent hammerings, they became Old Trafford 6 goal thrillers. So if someone doesnt have a lot of contact with migrants and every week for 5 years they see 2 front page splashes about how terrible migrants are, how awful they are for the country and how theyre all criminals and they dont see anyone but "the looney left" saying otherwise then they will form a negative opinion. Its not at all surprising that in Germany,a country we regular hear negative news about migrants in our press, had larger support for anti migrant parties in areas with the LEAST migrants! People with actual experience of migrants usually have better opinions than those who read the right wing press. I get what your saying but I don’t agree the stuff printed in the daily mail is that extreme.The Sunday Times sacked a reporter for writing an anti Semitic article this year, does that make them racist ? Yeah the mail are to the right but we’ve also got media outlets who are left wing, People from both sides will get offended by the others opinions at times. I’m Irish and have lived in London for 20yrs so I’m not going to preach about immigration to anyone. I’ve lived in areas which have had large immigrant communities but I wouldn’t say my opinions of them are better or worse than anyone I come across. There is good and bad in every race. Of course Immigration has had a positive impact on this country but unfortunately like everything in life there’s also negatives. " It's a racist paper.Those who can't see it. Are complicit . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m not trying to say I’m right and I don’t want to be taking sides, I just don’t like being told what I can and cannot do. We’re all different and have different opinions but that dosen’t mean we can’t express them. If your opinion is that tea is better than coffee then thats fine. Thats subjective and thats what an opinion is. If you say Therese May is the best possible leader for the UK thats fine, but just as your free to express that opinion, others are free to challenge it. If someone tries to claim that the Daily Mail doesnt regularly use their front page splash to denigrate and stir up negative feelings about migrants then thats not an opinion, its a lie. Its verifiable how often they publish those stories, its observable that they are negative stories and its plain to see that they are being singled out and targetted (hundreds of muggings happen every week, its only front page in the Mail if its a migrant). Its undeniable that they have waged a years long campaign against migrants, not on the basis of policy or genuine effects on the country but in a spiteful way that highlights every crime by an individual and uses them to paint the rest with a bad name. And its perfectly justifiable to see this as a negative for the country and to work to combat it. I don’t agree and that’s my opinion??, but I’m also clever enough not to judge people on what they read or don’t read. Personally I don’t get influenced by what any paper prints but I like to have the choice. If the daily mail print a front page headline everyday for the next year stating Liverpool are the best football team I’m not going to start supporting Liverpool???? Maybe you wouldnt start supporting Liverpool but a lot of people who maybe dont watch football that much will believe it. Im a United fan and a big part of what made United a big team was having lots of the sports press on side years and years ago. 5-1 losses werent hammerings, they became Old Trafford 6 goal thrillers. So if someone doesnt have a lot of contact with migrants and every week for 5 years they see 2 front page splashes about how terrible migrants are, how awful they are for the country and how theyre all criminals and they dont see anyone but "the looney left" saying otherwise then they will form a negative opinion. Its not at all surprising that in Germany,a country we regular hear negative news about migrants in our press, had larger support for anti migrant parties in areas with the LEAST migrants! People with actual experience of migrants usually have better opinions than those who read the right wing press. I get what your saying but I don’t agree the stuff printed in the daily mail is that extreme.The Sunday Times sacked a reporter for writing an anti Semitic article this year, does that make them racist ? Yeah the mail are to the right but we’ve also got media outlets who are left wing, People from both sides will get offended by the others opinions at times. I’m Irish and have lived in London for 20yrs so I’m not going to preach about immigration to anyone. I’ve lived in areas which have had large immigrant communities but I wouldn’t say my opinions of them are better or worse than anyone I come across. There is good and bad in every race. Of course Immigration has had a positive impact on this country but unfortunately like everything in life there’s also negatives. It's a racist paper.Those who can't see it. Are complicit . "Have you read the feature by Helen Weathers in today's Daily Mail? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m not trying to say I’m right and I don’t want to be taking sides, I just don’t like being told what I can and cannot do. We’re all different and have different opinions but that dosen’t mean we can’t express them. If your opinion is that tea is better than coffee then thats fine. Thats subjective and thats what an opinion is. If you say Therese May is the best possible leader for the UK thats fine, but just as your free to express that opinion, others are free to challenge it. If someone tries to claim that the Daily Mail doesnt regularly use their front page splash to denigrate and stir up negative feelings about migrants then thats not an opinion, its a lie. Its verifiable how often they publish those stories, its observable that they are negative stories and its plain to see that they are being singled out and targetted (hundreds of muggings happen every week, its only front page in the Mail if its a migrant). Its undeniable that they have waged a years long campaign against migrants, not on the basis of policy or genuine effects on the country but in a spiteful way that highlights every crime by an individual and uses them to paint the rest with a bad name. And its perfectly justifiable to see this as a negative for the country and to work to combat it. I don’t agree and that’s my opinion??, but I’m also clever enough not to judge people on what they read or don’t read. Personally I don’t get influenced by what any paper prints but I like to have the choice. If the daily mail print a front page headline everyday for the next year stating Liverpool are the best football team I’m not going to start supporting Liverpool???? Maybe you wouldnt start supporting Liverpool but a lot of people who maybe dont watch football that much will believe it. Im a United fan and a big part of what made United a big team was having lots of the sports press on side years and years ago. 5-1 losses werent hammerings, they became Old Trafford 6 goal thrillers. So if someone doesnt have a lot of contact with migrants and every week for 5 years they see 2 front page splashes about how terrible migrants are, how awful they are for the country and how theyre all criminals and they dont see anyone but "the looney left" saying otherwise then they will form a negative opinion. Its not at all surprising that in Germany,a country we regular hear negative news about migrants in our press, had larger support for anti migrant parties in areas with the LEAST migrants! People with actual experience of migrants usually have better opinions than those who read the right wing press. I get what your saying but I don’t agree the stuff printed in the daily mail is that extreme.The Sunday Times sacked a reporter for writing an anti Semitic article this year, does that make them racist ? Yeah the mail are to the right but we’ve also got media outlets who are left wing, People from both sides will get offended by the others opinions at times. I’m Irish and have lived in London for 20yrs so I’m not going to preach about immigration to anyone. I’ve lived in areas which have had large immigrant communities but I wouldn’t say my opinions of them are better or worse than anyone I come across. There is good and bad in every race. Of course Immigration has had a positive impact on this country but unfortunately like everything in life there’s also negatives. It's a racist paper.Those who can't see it. Are complicit .
Have you read the feature by Helen Weathers in today's Daily Mail?"It is certainly an interesting and highly informative article. Having said that we probably knew most of its content already . Luckily the Advertising Association , the ad industrys trade body considers intimidation of this nature puts our free and competitive press at risk. It would appear that a handful of Zealots want newspapers to reflect only their values which may be unpalatable to the values of the millions who choose to read them. A review of the history of the tweets of some of those who took part in the campaign against the company Paper Chase is quite disturbing. If you support the current UK government it appears to be fine by those who supported the campaign to tweet offensive comments against the current ruling party . In this case it appears that certain types of hate appear to be acceptable . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many people the daily mail only means intolerance of differences, prejudice and hate.. it is either to accept that this is not the same country as the 1950's it would love to see again.. it will gradually diminish in its relevance unless it resolves to change.. I would think that the number of Daily Mail readers who remember the 50 s is comparatively small. By being a forward looking open minded and tolerant newspaper that have actually manages to increase market share . " you are deluded or just plain trolling.. i posted on several examples of the mail having to pay out damages to people they had slandered, this was during another debate with one of your previous profiles.. i spent literally minutes looking into a previous claim by you, the information is there in droves but you then as now lack the objectivity to allow your blinkered views to accept what is fact.. 'open minded and tolerant' is total twaddle and the scores of people who have successfully had to prove that is twaddle in the Courts both here and abroad is testimony to the contrary.. head in the sand again Pat.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m not trying to say I’m right and I don’t want to be taking sides, I just don’t like being told what I can and cannot do. We’re all different and have different opinions but that dosen’t mean we can’t express them. If your opinion is that tea is better than coffee then thats fine. Thats subjective and thats what an opinion is. If you say Therese May is the best possible leader for the UK thats fine, but just as your free to express that opinion, others are free to challenge it. If someone tries to claim that the Daily Mail doesnt regularly use their front page splash to denigrate and stir up negative feelings about migrants then thats not an opinion, its a lie. Its verifiable how often they publish those stories, its observable that they are negative stories and its plain to see that they are being singled out and targetted (hundreds of muggings happen every week, its only front page in the Mail if its a migrant). Its undeniable that they have waged a years long campaign against migrants, not on the basis of policy or genuine effects on the country but in a spiteful way that highlights every crime by an individual and uses them to paint the rest with a bad name. And its perfectly justifiable to see this as a negative for the country and to work to combat it. I don’t agree and that’s my opinion??, but I’m also clever enough not to judge people on what they read or don’t read. Personally I don’t get influenced by what any paper prints but I like to have the choice. If the daily mail print a front page headline everyday for the next year stating Liverpool are the best football team I’m not going to start supporting Liverpool???? Maybe you wouldnt start supporting Liverpool but a lot of people who maybe dont watch football that much will believe it. Im a United fan and a big part of what made United a big team was having lots of the sports press on side years and years ago. 5-1 losses werent hammerings, they became Old Trafford 6 goal thrillers. So if someone doesnt have a lot of contact with migrants and every week for 5 years they see 2 front page splashes about how terrible migrants are, how awful they are for the country and how theyre all criminals and they dont see anyone but "the looney left" saying otherwise then they will form a negative opinion. Its not at all surprising that in Germany,a country we regular hear negative news about migrants in our press, had larger support for anti migrant parties in areas with the LEAST migrants! People with actual experience of migrants usually have better opinions than those who read the right wing press. I get what your saying but I don’t agree the stuff printed in the daily mail is that extreme.The Sunday Times sacked a reporter for writing an anti Semitic article this year, does that make them racist ? Yeah the mail are to the right but we’ve also got media outlets who are left wing, People from both sides will get offended by the others opinions at times. I’m Irish and have lived in London for 20yrs so I’m not going to preach about immigration to anyone. I’ve lived in areas which have had large immigrant communities but I wouldn’t say my opinions of them are better or worse than anyone I come across. There is good and bad in every race. Of course Immigration has had a positive impact on this country but unfortunately like everything in life there’s also negatives. It's a racist paper.Those who can't see it. Are complicit .
Have you read the feature by Helen Weathers in today's Daily Mail? It is certainly an interesting and highly informative article. Having said that we probably knew most of its content already .
Luckily the Advertising Association , the ad industrys trade body considers intimidation of this nature puts our free and competitive press at risk.
It would appear that a handful of Zealots want newspapers to reflect only their values which may be unpalatable to the values of the millions who choose to read them.
A review of the history of the tweets of some of those who took part in the campaign against the company Paper Chase is quite disturbing. If you support the current UK government it appears to be fine by those who supported the campaign to tweet offensive comments against the current ruling party . In this case it appears that certain types of hate appear to be acceptable . ".. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many people the daily mail only means intolerance of differences, prejudice and hate.. it is either to accept that this is not the same country as the 1950's it would love to see again.. " Luckily we have an organisation 'in hope not hate' that has been proved in a court of law to be fair, just, impartial and entirely honest, to speak out for the silent majority against the vitriolic hate speech that has been proved in a court of law to be contained within the pages of the daily mail. I find it odd that the vocal minority are attempting to skew the facts in order to add a bias to their legally dismissed arguement. Hopefully the advertisers that have done the correct thing by refusing to fund this kind of hate speech in this minority view publication, will be an example for other would be advertisers to follow and i would expect that no company will be working with the paper before too very long. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many people the daily mail only means intolerance of differences, prejudice and hate.. it is either to accept that this is not the same country as the 1950's it would love to see again.. Luckily we have an organisation 'in hope not hate' that has been proved in a court of law to be fair, just, impartial and entirely honest, to speak out for the silent majority against the vitriolic hate speech that has been proved in a court of law to be contained within the pages of the daily mail. I find it odd that the vocal minority are attempting to skew the facts in order to add a bias to their legally dismissed arguement. Hopefully the advertisers that have done the correct thing by refusing to fund this kind of hate speech in this minority view publication, will be an example for other would be advertisers to follow and i would expect that no company will be working with the paper before too very long." What “proof” in “ a court of law” is this? Sounds like nonsense to me. And hopefully few will follow Paperchase’s rather craven submission to bullying -Clinton’s for me from now on! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m not trying to say I’m right and I don’t want to be taking sides, I just don’t like being told what I can and cannot do. We’re all different and have different opinions but that dosen’t mean we can’t express them. If your opinion is that tea is better than coffee then thats fine. Thats subjective and thats what an opinion is. If you say Therese May is the best possible leader for the UK thats fine, but just as your free to express that opinion, others are free to challenge it. If someone tries to claim that the Daily Mail doesnt regularly use their front page splash to denigrate and stir up negative feelings about migrants then thats not an opinion, its a lie. Its verifiable how often they publish those stories, its observable that they are negative stories and its plain to see that they are being singled out and targetted (hundreds of muggings happen every week, its only front page in the Mail if its a migrant). Its undeniable that they have waged a years long campaign against migrants, not on the basis of policy or genuine effects on the country but in a spiteful way that highlights every crime by an individual and uses them to paint the rest with a bad name. And its perfectly justifiable to see this as a negative for the country and to work to combat it. I don’t agree and that’s my opinion??, but I’m also clever enough not to judge people on what they read or don’t read. Personally I don’t get influenced by what any paper prints but I like to have the choice. If the daily mail print a front page headline everyday for the next year stating Liverpool are the best football team I’m not going to start supporting Liverpool???? But they may print there a bunch of animals and thieves like the paper they took all there readership from
I guess they could, that’s the thing about having free speech. I’ve never seen a racist article in the mail, but I don’t read it everyday. "So you call free speech lying and slandering a group of people ?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whenever I come across such discussions, I tend to smile quietly to myself. Who are we trying to kid? Society gets the leaders it deserves. Society gets the media it deserves. Allow me to explain. When apartheid was at its height, it was not doing so in a vacuum. It was ably supported and assisted by by no less a government than the British government and many others. Libya springs to mind. Muamar Gaddafi was doing arms deals with the British government even up to 6 months before the Arab Springs. Not a single WOMD was found in Iraq and yet not a single British or American politician or leader went to jail for that FACT. When Mugabe was depriving Zimbabwe of oxygen, his government was STILL being propped up by a vast number of Zimbabweans for whatever reasons. During the last elections I. The US, so much noise was made around the globe about a certain Mr trump and how "incorrect" he was and YET, he is in the Whitehouse at this very moment. The number of times I have heard ( purely accidentally) very respectable people utter things that bordered on racism at best, because they had no idea I was around is very revealing. I have had this experience in supermarkets, in pubs, at work, in the gym, within some very high educational institutions, even in swinging clubs, etc. Not had my breakfast yet so I'll leave it here. Effective and genuine change starts at the personal level." Great post fella....i like Pats quote im not raciest i have many people i mix with from othe nationalities | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many people the daily mail only means intolerance of differences, prejudice and hate.. it is either to accept that this is not the same country as the 1950's it would love to see again.. Luckily we have an organisation 'in hope not hate' that has been proved in a court of law to be fair, just, impartial and entirely honest, to speak out for the silent majority against the vitriolic hate speech that has been proved in a court of law to be contained within the pages of the daily mail. I find it odd that the vocal minority are attempting to skew the facts in order to add a bias to their legally dismissed arguement. Hopefully the advertisers that have done the correct thing by refusing to fund this kind of hate speech in this minority view publication, will be an example for other would be advertisers to follow and i would expect that no company will be working with the paper before too very long. What “proof” in “ a court of law” is this? Sounds like nonsense to me. And hopefully few will follow Paperchase’s rather craven submission to bullying -Clinton’s for me from now on!" Paper chase may also have damaged their reputation by giving in to these demands. Quite a few on line posters have criticised them for surrendering. It can only be assumed that the issue was handled by a junior member of their staff. Companies such as John Lewis and Marks and Spencer have choosen to ignore their bullying tactics . Interesting many of the 500 messages which Paperchase received were either anonymous or from abroad . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I get what your saying but I don’t agree the stuff printed in the daily mail is that extreme.The Sunday Times sacked a reporter for writing an anti Semitic article this year, does that make them racist ? Yeah the mail are to the right but we’ve also got media outlets who are left wing, People from both sides will get offended by the others opinions at times. I’m Irish and have lived in London for 20yrs so I’m not going to preach about immigration to anyone. I’ve lived in areas which have had large immigrant communities but I wouldn’t say my opinions of them are better or worse than anyone I come across. There is good and bad in every race. Of course Immigration has had a positive impact on this country but unfortunately like everything in life there’s also negatives. " Immigration like most things has negatives a positives, thats a fair and balanced view. The Daily Mail publishes 2 anti migrant stories a week as the *main* news that day for 5 years. So let me ask you, is that fair, is that balanced? To target one part of society in a years long campaign like that, zero positive stories and hundreds, literally hundreds, of negative ones. In 2013 the Mail had headlines saying half of Britons suffered because of the results of immigration. Not a word of the benefits of immigration, just a ludicrous unbelievable headline that half of the country was suffering because of these foreigners. In 2015 they ran a front page saying hundreds and hundreds of illegal immigrants were being put up in hotels at a cost to the taxpayer. The truth: less than a hundred legal immigrants fleeing a war zone were temporarily housed in hotels by SERCO and not the government. In one headline they lied 3 times. You might not think its extreme but thats the point, its not effective if you see it as extreme. Theres no other word for it when you consider the fact that of how much energy and resources went into this. To take your football example imagine if twice a week the back page of a paper dedicated itself to criticising Liverpool. Twice a week they publish a critical story about the club, and any time one of their fans does something wrong they make it headline news but if fans of another club do the same or worse its ignored. Sounds ridiculous, petty and hateful doesnt it? Thats the Daily Mail. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I get what your saying but I don’t agree the stuff printed in the daily mail is that extreme.The Sunday Times sacked a reporter for writing an anti Semitic article this year, does that make them racist ? Yeah the mail are to the right but we’ve also got media outlets who are left wing, People from both sides will get offended by the others opinions at times. I’m Irish and have lived in London for 20yrs so I’m not going to preach about immigration to anyone. I’ve lived in areas which have had large immigrant communities but I wouldn’t say my opinions of them are better or worse than anyone I come across. There is good and bad in every race. Of course Immigration has had a positive impact on this country but unfortunately like everything in life there’s also negatives. Immigration like most things has negatives a positives, thats a fair and balanced view. The Daily Mail publishes 2 anti migrant stories a week as the *main* news that day for 5 years. So let me ask you, is that fair, is that balanced? To target one part of society in a years long campaign like that, zero positive stories and hundreds, literally hundreds, of negative ones. In 2013 the Mail had headlines saying half of Britons suffered because of the results of immigration. Not a word of the benefits of immigration, just a ludicrous unbelievable headline that half of the country was suffering because of these foreigners. In 2015 they ran a front page saying hundreds and hundreds of illegal immigrants were being put up in hotels at a cost to the taxpayer. The truth: less than a hundred legal immigrants fleeing a war zone were temporarily housed in hotels by SERCO and not the government. In one headline they lied 3 times. You might not think its extreme but thats the point, its not effective if you see it as extreme. Theres no other word for it when you consider the fact that of how much energy and resources went into this. To take your football example imagine if twice a week the back page of a paper dedicated itself to criticising Liverpool. Twice a week they publish a critical story about the club, and any time one of their fans does something wrong they make it headline news but if fans of another club do the same or worse its ignored. Sounds ridiculous, petty and hateful doesnt it? Thats the Daily Mail." I assume that you do not read the Daily Mail as you appear to express contempt for it . If this is the case how could you be in a position to express an opinion on its content ?. At best you can only have picked up information from a biased or unreliable source and pasted it in. Your summary of the content of the Daily Mail is not one the I recognise and I buy it every day and have done so all my life ( in common with about 4.6 million other readers ) Unlike any post on the internet newspapers have to conform to press council guidelines. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I get what your saying but I don’t agree the stuff printed in the daily mail is that extreme.The Sunday Times sacked a reporter for writing an anti Semitic article this year, does that make them racist ? Yeah the mail are to the right but we’ve also got media outlets who are left wing, People from both sides will get offended by the others opinions at times. I’m Irish and have lived in London for 20yrs so I’m not going to preach about immigration to anyone. I’ve lived in areas which have had large immigrant communities but I wouldn’t say my opinions of them are better or worse than anyone I come across. There is good and bad in every race. Of course Immigration has had a positive impact on this country but unfortunately like everything in life there’s also negatives. Immigration like most things has negatives a positives, thats a fair and balanced view. The Daily Mail publishes 2 anti migrant stories a week as the *main* news that day for 5 years. So let me ask you, is that fair, is that balanced? To target one part of society in a years long campaign like that, zero positive stories and hundreds, literally hundreds, of negative ones. In 2013 the Mail had headlines saying half of Britons suffered because of the results of immigration. Not a word of the benefits of immigration, just a ludicrous unbelievable headline that half of the country was suffering because of these foreigners. In 2015 they ran a front page saying hundreds and hundreds of illegal immigrants were being put up in hotels at a cost to the taxpayer. The truth: less than a hundred legal immigrants fleeing a war zone were temporarily housed in hotels by SERCO and not the government. In one headline they lied 3 times. You might not think its extreme but thats the point, its not effective if you see it as extreme. Theres no other word for it when you consider the fact that of how much energy and resources went into this. To take your football example imagine if twice a week the back page of a paper dedicated itself to criticising Liverpool. Twice a week they publish a critical story about the club, and any time one of their fans does something wrong they make it headline news but if fans of another club do the same or worse its ignored. Sounds ridiculous, petty and hateful doesnt it? Thats the Daily Mail. I assume that you do not read the Daily Mail as you appear to express contempt for it . If this is the case how could you be in a position to express an opinion on its content ?. At best you can only have picked up information from a biased or unreliable source and pasted it in. Your summary of the content of the Daily Mail is not one the I recognise and I buy it every day and have done so all my life ( in common with about 4.6 million other readers ) Unlike any post on the internet newspapers have to conform to press council guidelines. " One example Decision of the Complaints Committee 04051-16 Dartington v Daily Mail Summary of Complaint 1. Jake Dartington complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “We’re from Europe – Let us in!”, published on 16 June 2016. The article was also published online on 15 June with the headline “We’re from Europe – let us in! As politicians squabble over border controls, yet another lorry load of migrants arrives in the UK”. 2. The article, which was the only article on the front page, reported that a lorry carrying 11 “stowaways” had been intercepted by police in East London. It was accompanied by a prominent image of the police speaking to the individuals in the back of the lorry. It reported that when these individuals were asked where they were from, they replied “Europe”, a claim which was supported prominently by the sub-headline. 3. The article went on to report that the Conservative Party was “in chaos over border controls”. It reported that the Chancellor had said there would be no changes to European Union rules on freedom of movement, while the Home Secretary had said that further reform was needed. 4. The online version of the article was accompanied by additional images of the police interception of the lorry. It was otherwise identical to the print version of the article. 5. The complainant said that the individuals found in the lorry were not from Europe: they were trying to enter the UK illegally, and it was therefore clear they were not European citizens. The phrase “We’re from Europe” spuriously implied a connection between these individuals being found in a lorry, and the debate about free movement within the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Okay i put my hand up....I buy the Daily Mail and the Times daily...I have never voted Conservative and i voted remain. So what if the paper is right wing, It also employs a lot of fine writers better than those found at the Express and the Mirror/Sun/Guardian etc. Live and let live as they say i do not agree with the editorial but am able to live with that Vive La Difference xx" I am struggling to imagine you actually say the words, " LA difference " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Okay i put my hand up....I buy the Daily Mail and the Times daily...I have never voted Conservative and i voted remain. So what if the paper is right wing, It also employs a lot of fine writers better than those found at the Express and the Mirror/Sun/Guardian etc. Live and let live as they say i do not agree with the editorial but am able to live with that Vive La Difference xx" Do you find it as people are saying though?...and yes people are free to read what they like....maybe by reading it influenced your stance on things | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I get what your saying but I don’t agree the stuff printed in the daily mail is that extreme.The Sunday Times sacked a reporter for writing an anti Semitic article this year, does that make them racist ? Yeah the mail are to the right but we’ve also got media outlets who are left wing, People from both sides will get offended by the others opinions at times. I’m Irish and have lived in London for 20yrs so I’m not going to preach about immigration to anyone. I’ve lived in areas which have had large immigrant communities but I wouldn’t say my opinions of them are better or worse than anyone I come across. There is good and bad in every race. Of course Immigration has had a positive impact on this country but unfortunately like everything in life there’s also negatives. Immigration like most things has negatives a positives, thats a fair and balanced view. The Daily Mail publishes 2 anti migrant stories a week as the *main* news that day for 5 years. So let me ask you, is that fair, is that balanced? To target one part of society in a years long campaign like that, zero positive stories and hundreds, literally hundreds, of negative ones. In 2013 the Mail had headlines saying half of Britons suffered because of the results of immigration. Not a word of the benefits of immigration, just a ludicrous unbelievable headline that half of the country was suffering because of these foreigners. In 2015 they ran a front page saying hundreds and hundreds of illegal immigrants were being put up in hotels at a cost to the taxpayer. The truth: less than a hundred legal immigrants fleeing a war zone were temporarily housed in hotels by SERCO and not the government. In one headline they lied 3 times. You might not think its extreme but thats the point, its not effective if you see it as extreme. Theres no other word for it when you consider the fact that of how much energy and resources went into this. To take your football example imagine if twice a week the back page of a paper dedicated itself to criticising Liverpool. Twice a week they publish a critical story about the club, and any time one of their fans does something wrong they make it headline news but if fans of another club do the same or worse its ignored. Sounds ridiculous, petty and hateful doesnt it? Thats the Daily Mail." We’re never going to agree on this and can keep showing examples of “wrongdoing “ by different sides. Britain is one of the most tolerant and multicultural societies in the world and gives everyone a platform to express their views. In my opinion the press is well regulated in this country, not everyone is going to be happy with what they read and will pick and choose articles to suit their agenda. You mention an article in 2015 about immigrants being put up in hotels and criticise the Mail for it’s inaccuracies in its report, the report I read ( although I admit it could be a different article) stated they had indeed entered the country illegally from Calais and were being put up in a hotel by Serco, Serco is not a charity and is given a contract by the Uk government to provide immigration services. A quick search on google of “ immigrants being housed in hotels” will show numerous stories from VARIOUS media outlets yet I notice people on here on highlight the DM. Should Tripadvisor also be in the firing line as they allowed negative reports on their site from people who had stayed at some of these hotels | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I assume that you do not read the Daily Mail as you appear to express contempt for it . If this is the case how could you be in a position to express an opinion on its content ?. At best you can only have picked up information from a biased or unreliable source and pasted it in. Your summary of the content of the Daily Mail is not one the I recognise and I buy it every day and have done so all my life ( in common with about 4.6 million other readers ) Unlike any post on the internet newspapers have to conform to press council guidelines. " Youre wrong yet again Pat. 1. The Daily Mail sells 1.5m copies, not 4.5m who buy it every day as you claim 2. The Press Council hasnt existed in nearly 30 years. Exactly how out of touch are you? 3. IPSO, like the PCC which replaced the Press Council, are voluntary no one "has to" conform to their guidelines as you stated. 4. I read a wide variety of news media from left to centre to right. 5. This is from an article from the Daily Mail: “Add the fact that 27 per cent of babies born in the UK in the year to March had migrant parents, and we are experiencing an unprecedented upheaval in the make-up of a country once united by ties of language, history, creed and patriotism.” Defend that as not being racist. Funny that I can point to specific stories, headlines and studies while you waffle on about what you do and dont remember. This despite the fact that due to the average age of the Daily Mail readership Daily Mail readers are 73 times more likely to have dementia than readers of other newspapers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
.
Yes next time there's a problem like in Egypt, it's more to do with the Quakers than Islam and it's Islamaphobic to say anything different .
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We’re never going to agree on this and can keep showing examples of “wrongdoing “ by different sides. Britain is one of the most tolerant and multicultural societies in the world and gives everyone a platform to express their views. In my opinion the press is well regulated in this country, not everyone is going to be happy with what they read and will pick and choose articles to suit their agenda. You mention an article in 2015 about immigrants being put up in hotels and criticise the Mail for it’s inaccuracies in its report, the report I read ( although I admit it could be a different article) stated they had indeed entered the country illegally from Calais and were being put up in a hotel by Serco, Serco is not a charity and is given a contract by the Uk government to provide immigration services. A quick search on google of “ immigrants being housed in hotels” will show numerous stories from VARIOUS media outlets yet I notice people on here on highlight the DM. Should Tripadvisor also be in the firing line as they allowed negative reports on their site from people who had stayed at some of these hotels" Ok lets break it down to somethings we can agree on. Is the issue of immigration deserving of 2 front page headlines every week for 5 years? How many articles on the dailymails website about immigration would you personnally deem to be excessive coverage. To give you some guidance the site is 21 years old which is about 7,500 days. Id genuinely like an answer on this because if youre not in Pats "defend the mail at all costs" club then I think this might actually change your view on the paper. The article you read must have been a different one as these were legal immigrants, I dont dispute illegal immigration happens but in the case I was referring to the Daiy Mail lied about the citcumstances around it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free speech!!. Blimey half the media can't even bring themselves to call them by the name they use... Isis became isil which became is which became daeish which became Islamic state which is now... "So called Islamic state" and according to Obama!. It's got less to do with Islam than any other religion .
Yes next time there's a problem like in Egypt, it's more to do with the Quakers than Islam and it's Islamaphobic to say anything different .
" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We’re never going to agree on this and can keep showing examples of “wrongdoing “ by different sides. Britain is one of the most tolerant and multicultural societies in the world and gives everyone a platform to express their views. In my opinion the press is well regulated in this country, not everyone is going to be happy with what they read and will pick and choose articles to suit their agenda. You mention an article in 2015 about immigrants being put up in hotels and criticise the Mail for it’s inaccuracies in its report, the report I read ( although I admit it could be a different article) stated they had indeed entered the country illegally from Calais and were being put up in a hotel by Serco, Serco is not a charity and is given a contract by the Uk government to provide immigration services. A quick search on google of “ immigrants being housed in hotels” will show numerous stories from VARIOUS media outlets yet I notice people on here on highlight the DM. Should Tripadvisor also be in the firing line as they allowed negative reports on their site from people who had stayed at some of these hotels Ok lets break it down to somethings we can agree on. Is the issue of immigration deserving of 2 front page headlines every week for 5 years? How many articles on the dailymails website about immigration would you personnally deem to be excessive coverage. To give you some guidance the site is 21 years old which is about 7,500 days. Id genuinely like an answer on this because if youre not in Pats "defend the mail at all costs" club then I think this might actually change your view on the paper. The article you read must have been a different one as these were legal immigrants, I dont dispute illegal immigration happens but in the case I was referring to the Daiy Mail lied about the citcumstances around it." Unfortunately I’m going to disagree after reading your first sentence
I don’t believe there’s been 2 front page headlines regarding immigration every week for the last 5 yrs but I’m willing to stand corrected if shown concrete evidence.
Is the website really 21yrs old? I thought it was launched in 2003 but I could be wrong.
I’m genuinely not looking to “defend the mail” at all costs, what I am looking to do is defend my right to read it without being labelled racist. I think you’ll agree that at no stage have I tried to claim my views are right or i haven’t tried to tell people what they can and cannot read. I find it offensive that people think I’m not intelligent enough to make my own decisions. Having a platform to debate is brilliant and I think it’s good to see both sides of the argument | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I assume that you do not read the Daily Mail as you appear to express contempt for it . If this is the case how could you be in a position to express an opinion on its content ?. At best you can only have picked up information from a biased or unreliable source and pasted it in. Your summary of the content of the Daily Mail is not one the I recognise and I buy it every day and have done so all my life ( in common with about 4.6 million other readers ) Unlike any post on the internet newspapers have to conform to press council guidelines. Youre wrong yet again Pat. 1. The Daily Mail sells 1.5m copies, not 4.5m who buy it every day as you claim 2. The Press Council hasnt existed in nearly 30 years. Exactly how out of touch are you? 3. IPSO, like the PCC which replaced the Press Council, are voluntary no one "has to" conform to their guidelines as you stated. 4. I read a wide variety of news media from left to centre to right. 5. This is from an article from the Daily Mail: “Add the fact that 27 per cent of babies born in the UK in the year to March had migrant parents, and we are experiencing an unprecedented upheaval in the make-up of a country once united by ties of language, history, creed and patriotism.” Defend that as not being racist. Funny that I can point to specific stories, headlines and studies while you waffle on about what you do and dont remember. This despite the fact that due to the average age of the Daily Mail readership Daily Mail readers are 73 times more likely to have dementia than readers of other newspapers." Why would anyone be bothered as to whether they are right or wrong .? The 4 million to which I refer are the numbers who read it , not the numbers of copies sold. I specifically the ked the number before making the post so it was not an error . It is difficult to see what possible relevance referring to the press council as not existing for 30 years has to a discussion. Anyone with common sense would know that the reference was to the governing body. Any reference to Dementia is completely unacceptable . It is a horrible disease and it hard to believe that anyone would make sarcastic remarks concerning it . I prefer to treat people with respect and stick to facts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We’re never going to agree on this and can keep showing examples of “wrongdoing “ by different sides. Britain is one of the most tolerant and multicultural societies in the world and gives everyone a platform to express their views. In my opinion the press is well regulated in this country, not everyone is going to be happy with what they read and will pick and choose articles to suit their agenda. You mention an article in 2015 about immigrants being put up in hotels and criticise the Mail for it’s inaccuracies in its report, the report I read ( although I admit it could be a different article) stated they had indeed entered the country illegally from Calais and were being put up in a hotel by Serco, Serco is not a charity and is given a contract by the Uk government to provide immigration services. A quick search on google of “ immigrants being housed in hotels” will show numerous stories from VARIOUS media outlets yet I notice people on here on highlight the DM. Should Tripadvisor also be in the firing line as they allowed negative reports on their site from people who had stayed at some of these hotels Ok lets break it down to somethings we can agree on. Is the issue of immigration deserving of 2 front page headlines every week for 5 years? How many articles on the dailymails website about immigration would you personnally deem to be excessive coverage. To give you some guidance the site is 21 years old which is about 7,500 days. Id genuinely like an answer on this because if youre not in Pats "defend the mail at all costs" club then I think this might actually change your view on the paper. The article you read must have been a different one as these were legal immigrants, I dont dispute illegal immigration happens but in the case I was referring to the Daiy Mail lied about the citcumstances around it. Unfortunately I’m going to disagree after reading your first sentence
I don’t believe there’s been 2 front page headlines regarding immigration every week for the last 5 yrs but I’m willing to stand corrected if shown concrete evidence.
Is the website really 21yrs old? I thought it was launched in 2003 but I could be wrong.
I’m genuinely not looking to “defend the mail” at all costs, what I am looking to do is defend my right to read it without being labelled racist. I think you’ll agree that at no stage have I tried to claim my views are right or i haven’t tried to tell people what they can and cannot read. I find it offensive that people think I’m not intelligent enough to make my own decisions. Having a platform to debate is brilliant and I think it’s good to see both sides of the argument "Since we're not allowed to link Ill give you the headline "The Press and immigration: reporting the news or fanning the flames of hatred?" Its from Sept 3rd 2016. For another option you can put daily mail migrant into google image search and see the screenshots of the many many front page splashes of negative headlines about migrants. And if you search the daily mail site you'll find that they average 30+ stories on immigration PER DAY over the last 21 years. (And yes Pat you can verify that by checking the Daily Mails site). By contrast they cover only 20 economic stories per day (for britain and the rest of the world) 5 NHS stories per day, 15 on the EU, 11 on employment. The only 2 topics that the Mail love to write about more than immigration are terrorism 40+ articles per day and cancer (an absolutely staggering 50+ articles per day) in the last 24 hours theyve run stories about salt, fathers, ivf, sunbeds, oral sex, alcohol,smoking, filter coffee, breast implants, salmon and e cigarettes cause cancer in seperate stories. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I prefer to treat people with respect and stick to facts. " You neither stick to the facts (your dishonesty is highlighted daily) and you dont respect anyone else. You regularly say that other posters are biased and wilfully skew information and that what they say isnt worth paying attention to, not respectful at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We’re never going to agree on this and can keep showing examples of “wrongdoing “ by different sides. Britain is one of the most tolerant and multicultural societies in the world and gives everyone a platform to express their views. In my opinion the press is well regulated in this country, not everyone is going to be happy with what they read and will pick and choose articles to suit their agenda. You mention an article in 2015 about immigrants being put up in hotels and criticise the Mail for it’s inaccuracies in its report, the report I read ( although I admit it could be a different article) stated they had indeed entered the country illegally from Calais and were being put up in a hotel by Serco, Serco is not a charity and is given a contract by the Uk government to provide immigration services. A quick search on google of “ immigrants being housed in hotels” will show numerous stories from VARIOUS media outlets yet I notice people on here on highlight the DM. Should Tripadvisor also be in the firing line as they allowed negative reports on their site from people who had stayed at some of these hotels Ok lets break it down to somethings we can agree on. Is the issue of immigration deserving of 2 front page headlines every week for 5 years? How many articles on the dailymails website about immigration would you personnally deem to be excessive coverage. To give you some guidance the site is 21 years old which is about 7,500 days. Id genuinely like an answer on this because if youre not in Pats "defend the mail at all costs" club then I think this might actually change your view on the paper. The article you read must have been a different one as these were legal immigrants, I dont dispute illegal immigration happens but in the case I was referring to the Daiy Mail lied about the citcumstances around it. Unfortunately I’m going to disagree after reading your first sentence
I don’t believe there’s been 2 front page headlines regarding immigration every week for the last 5 yrs but I’m willing to stand corrected if shown concrete evidence.
Is the website really 21yrs old? I thought it was launched in 2003 but I could be wrong.
I’m genuinely not looking to “defend the mail” at all costs, what I am looking to do is defend my right to read it without being labelled racist. I think you’ll agree that at no stage have I tried to claim my views are right or i haven’t tried to tell people what they can and cannot read. I find it offensive that people think I’m not intelligent enough to make my own decisions. Having a platform to debate is brilliant and I think it’s good to see both sides of the argument
Since we're not allowed to link Ill give you the headline "The Press and immigration: reporting the news or fanning the flames of hatred?" Its from Sept 3rd 2016.
For another option you can put daily mail migrant into google image search and see the screenshots of the many many front page splashes of negative headlines about migrants.
And if you search the daily mail site you'll find that they average 30+ stories on immigration PER DAY over the last 21 years. (And yes Pat you can verify that by checking the Daily Mails site). By contrast they cover only 20 economic stories per day (for britain and the rest of the world) 5 NHS stories per day, 15 on the EU, 11 on employment.
The only 2 topics that the Mail love to write about more than immigration are terrorism 40+ articles per day and cancer (an absolutely staggering 50+ articles per day) in the last 24 hours theyve run stories about salt, fathers, ivf, sunbeds, oral sex, alcohol,smoking, filter coffee, breast implants, salmon and e cigarettes cause cancer in seperate stories."Are you referring to the Irish or UK editions of the newspaper as they are different . If one wanted to get a detailed analysis of the papers content you would have to spend weeks doing it ( not wirhstanding the fact that I am at a loss as to why anyone would wish to go into that level of detail ). You would have to prepare a summary and assign a classification to every story published . I prefer to get my information first hand from a printed copy of the publication concerned. Ignoring the fact that there is no control over what can be published on the internet , you can probably configure your results to return what you want to see. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you referring to the Irish or UK editions of the newspaper as they are different . If one wanted to get a detailed analysis of the papers content you would have to spend weeks doing it ( not wirhstanding the fact that I am at a loss as to why anyone would wish to go into that level of detail ). You would have to prepare a summary and assign a classification to every story published . I prefer to get my information first hand from a printed copy of the publication concerned. Ignoring the fact that there is no control over what can be published on the internet , you can probably configure your results to return what you want to see. " Im referring to the UK daily mail site only. And you can check that site yourself to see the results. The Daily Mail handily classifies its article topics for you already. And theres another example of the flagrant disrespect you show people. You baselessly claim Ive tampered with the analysis (despite previously pointing out just for you that it can be checked on the dailymails own site). In this thread youve decided that IPSOs upheld complaints arent relevant, a 5 year study of the Daily Mail isnt to be trusted for absolutely no reason and that for some reason we shouldnt count the Daily Mails website despite the fact that it reproduces stories from the print edition. And youve completely ignored the fact that you can see a record of the Daily Mails front pages online to confirm everything Ive said as being true. Dishonest should be your middle name, literally no one is taking your ridiculous stance seriously. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you referring to the Irish or UK editions of the newspaper as they are different . If one wanted to get a detailed analysis of the papers content you would have to spend weeks doing it ( not wirhstanding the fact that I am at a loss as to why anyone would wish to go into that level of detail ). You would have to prepare a summary and assign a classification to every story published . I prefer to get my information first hand from a printed copy of the publication concerned. Ignoring the fact that there is no control over what can be published on the internet , you can probably configure your results to return what you want to see. Im referring to the UK daily mail site only. And you can check that site yourself to see the results. The Daily Mail handily classifies its article topics for you already. And theres another example of the flagrant disrespect you show people. You baselessly claim Ive tampered with the analysis (despite previously pointing out just for you that it can be checked on the dailymails own site). In this thread youve decided that IPSOs upheld complaints arent relevant, a 5 year study of the Daily Mail isnt to be trusted for absolutely no reason and that for some reason we shouldnt count the Daily Mails website despite the fact that it reproduces stories from the print edition. And youve completely ignored the fact that you can see a record of the Daily Mails front pages online to confirm everything Ive said as being true. Dishonest should be your middle name, literally no one is taking your ridiculous stance seriously." Thanks for the compliment. When someone needs to refer to another poster as being dishonest, I can only suggest that it is a reflection on the poster calling someone dishonest, not the recipient of the description. Everyone is entitled to express an opinion. I would prefer to base my opinions on what happens in real life , not on the results of information drawn off internet web sites . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you referring to the Irish or UK editions of the newspaper as they are different . If one wanted to get a detailed analysis of the papers content you would have to spend weeks doing it ( not wirhstanding the fact that I am at a loss as to why anyone would wish to go into that level of detail ). You would have to prepare a summary and assign a classification to every story published . I prefer to get my information first hand from a printed copy of the publication concerned. Ignoring the fact that there is no control over what can be published on the internet , you can probably configure your results to return what you want to see. Im referring to the UK daily mail site only. And you can check that site yourself to see the results. The Daily Mail handily classifies its article topics for you already. And theres another example of the flagrant disrespect you show people. You baselessly claim Ive tampered with the analysis (despite previously pointing out just for you that it can be checked on the dailymails own site). In this thread youve decided that IPSOs upheld complaints arent relevant, a 5 year study of the Daily Mail isnt to be trusted for absolutely no reason and that for some reason we shouldnt count the Daily Mails website despite the fact that it reproduces stories from the print edition. And youve completely ignored the fact that you can see a record of the Daily Mails front pages online to confirm everything Ive said as being true. Dishonest should be your middle name, literally no one is taking your ridiculous stance seriously. Thanks for the compliment. When someone needs to refer to another poster as being dishonest, I can only suggest that it is a reflection on the poster calling someone dishonest, not the recipient of the description. Everyone is entitled to express an opinion. I would prefer to base my opinions on what happens in real life , not on the results of information drawn off internet web sites ." Did....did you really just say I know you are but what am I? Whats next, Im rubber youre glue, it bounces off me and sticks to you? And you dont want to base your information on anything but your own opinions. Its been proven repeatedly that the Daily Mail has been actively working on a hate campaign for years against migrants and you keep trying to defend them. Have you ever read Don Quixote? You remind me of him tilting at windmills. You havent been this obstinant in the face of reality since you spent 3 days arguing that convicted paedophiles shouldnt be jailed and should instead have free access to children. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you referring to the Irish or UK editions of the newspaper as they are different . If one wanted to get a detailed analysis of the papers content you would have to spend weeks doing it ( not wirhstanding the fact that I am at a loss as to why anyone would wish to go into that level of detail ). You would have to prepare a summary and assign a classification to every story published . I prefer to get my information first hand from a printed copy of the publication concerned. Ignoring the fact that there is no control over what can be published on the internet , you can probably configure your results to return what you want to see. Im referring to the UK daily mail site only. And you can check that site yourself to see the results. The Daily Mail handily classifies its article topics for you already. And theres another example of the flagrant disrespect you show people. You baselessly claim Ive tampered with the analysis (despite previously pointing out just for you that it can be checked on the dailymails own site). In this thread youve decided that IPSOs upheld complaints arent relevant, a 5 year study of the Daily Mail isnt to be trusted for absolutely no reason and that for some reason we shouldnt count the Daily Mails website despite the fact that it reproduces stories from the print edition. And youve completely ignored the fact that you can see a record of the Daily Mails front pages online to confirm everything Ive said as being true. Dishonest should be your middle name, literally no one is taking your ridiculous stance seriously. Thanks for the compliment. When someone needs to refer to another poster as being dishonest, I can only suggest that it is a reflection on the poster calling someone dishonest, not the recipient of the description. Everyone is entitled to express an opinion. I would prefer to base my opinions on what happens in real life , not on the results of information drawn off internet web sites . Did....did you really just say I know you are but what am I? Whats next, Im rubber youre glue, it bounces off me and sticks to you? And you dont want to base your information on anything but your own opinions. Its been proven repeatedly that the Daily Mail has been actively working on a hate campaign for years against migrants and you keep trying to defend them. Have you ever read Don Quixote? You remind me of him tilting at windmills. You havent been this obstinant in the face of reality since you spent 3 days arguing that convicted paedophiles shouldnt be jailed and should instead have free access to children." Your last comment is simply bizarre and smacks of desperation. My comments specifically related to Chrisopher Brooker a distinguished journalist who regularly writes articles on the court of protection. Writing articles on the Court of Protection has no relevance to the issues to which you refer . The case he was writing about was extremely complex and concerned a lady ( not a gentleman ). If we take your analogy to its logical conclusion, no barrister or solicitor would be able to defend their clients in court . The assumption being that by defending a client they themselves ( the solicitor or barrister) approve of or are sympathetic to the crimes committed . You comments are rather insulting to the journalist concerned and the excellent articles which he writes . As my views are similar to those of 4.6 million Daily Mail readers I do not think that I will be losing too much sleep. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Paper chase may also have damaged their reputation by giving in to these demands. Quite a few on line posters have criticised them for surrendering." one can only find it odd that the vocal minority think that they can sway the marvellous work done by 'hope not hate'. we are indeed very fortunate to have people such as this to fight the vitriol espoused by the minority press like the daily mail. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Your last comment is simply bizarre and smacks of desperation. My comments specifically related to Chrisopher Brooker a distinguished journalist who regularly writes articles on the court of protection. Writing articles on the Court of Protection has no relevance to the issues to which you refer . The case he was writing about was extremely complex and concerned a lady ( not a gentleman ). If we take your analogy to its logical conclusion, no barrister or solicitor would be able to defend their clients in court . The assumption being that by defending a client they themselves ( the solicitor or barrister) approve of or are sympathetic to the crimes committed . You comments are rather insulting to the journalist concerned and the excellent articles which he writes . As my views are similar to those of 4.6 million Daily Mail readers I do not think that I will be losing too much sleep. " Christopher Brooker championed a convicted paedophile and child abuser (her gender is irrelevant, or is Myra Hindley one of those annoying facts you prefer to ignore). He stated that she should have access to kids again and you spent days aruging that he was right. And to take my argument to a logical conclusion is a task best left to people who can use logic. The press and legal defence are 2 important parts of society, but both serve very different roles. If youre confused about the difference Ill explain it to you. The only bizarre part of my comment is that its accurate. A 50 something year old man spending his time on a sex forum advocating for the rights of paedophiles to avoid jail time, you should both know better and have better things to do than champion scum like that. Its not like you take part in discussion here because you ignore everything that doesnt suit you and pretty much every post you make is soaked in dishonesty. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to a quick google, the circulation of the DM is around 1.5M, not 4.5. " It was already explained to him. He doesnt care about that. The Daily Mail claim it and it suits him so its now an unassailable fact. This is why democracy doesnt work as well as it should, its not the uninformed, its the willingly misinformed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to a quick google, the circulation of the DM is around 1.5M, not 4.5. It was already explained to him. He doesnt care about that. The Daily Mail claim it and it suits him so its now an unassailable fact. This is why democracy doesnt work as well as it should, its not the uninformed, its the willingly misinformed." The paper media is dying on its arse... They are heading towards irrelevance fast. I tend to ignore that poster because I can't believe that any human is actually that stupid, so I'm guessing it's a troll. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you referring to the Irish or UK editions of the newspaper as they are different . If one wanted to get a detailed analysis of the papers content you would have to spend weeks doing it ( not wirhstanding the fact that I am at a loss as to why anyone would wish to go into that level of detail ). You would have to prepare a summary and assign a classification to every story published . I prefer to get my information first hand from a printed copy of the publication concerned. Ignoring the fact that there is no control over what can be published on the internet , you can probably configure your results to return what you want to see. Im referring to the UK daily mail site only. And you can check that site yourself to see the results. The Daily Mail handily classifies its article topics for you already. And theres another example of the flagrant disrespect you show people. You baselessly claim Ive tampered with the analysis (despite previously pointing out just for you that it can be checked on the dailymails own site). In this thread youve decided that IPSOs upheld complaints arent relevant, a 5 year study of the Daily Mail isnt to be trusted for absolutely no reason and that for some reason we shouldnt count the Daily Mails website despite the fact that it reproduces stories from the print edition. And youve completely ignored the fact that you can see a record of the Daily Mails front pages online to confirm everything Ive said as being true. Dishonest should be your middle name, literally no one is taking your ridiculous stance seriously." Game, Set & Match to you Explicit. Easy straight sets win. Proof provided from the Daily Mails own site. And Pat still dismissed it! That's so ridiculous it's funny. And a little bit sad  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The marvellous work Hope not Hate do? Lowles doxes people that hold views contrary to his own marxist outlook. In anyone's reckoning thier actions should be deemed unethical and underhanded at best. " I agree as I believe in a free and independent press. Hope not hate are a self appointed small but very vocal band of internet trolls who think they can police what people can or can't read in this country. We already have a press regulations authority and they regulate the free press. It's very arrogant of hope not hate to think they have the moral authority to determine what other people can or can't read as their main objective is to put some newspapers out of business by cutting off their advertising. The silent majority however will continue to buy the newspapers which they are entitled to buy under the free press system we have so any attempts to silence or change editorial styles of newspapers by hope not hate will be negligible. Companies like paperchase who buckle under pressure from a few Internet trolls are really shooting themselves in the foot and ignoring the silent majority as the readership of newspapers they have pulled funding from may now boycott products from companies like paperchase. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The marvellous work Hope not Hate do? Lowles doxes people that hold views contrary to his own marxist outlook. In anyone's reckoning thier actions should be deemed unethical and underhanded at best. I agree as I believe in a free and independent press. Hope not hate are a self appointed small but very vocal band of internet trolls who think they can police what people can or can't read in this country. We already have a press regulations authority and they regulate the free press. It's very arrogant of hope not hate to think they have the moral authority to determine what other people can or can't read as their main objective is to put some newspapers out of business by cutting off their advertising. The silent majority however will continue to buy the newspapers which they are entitled to buy under the free press system we have so any attempts to silence or change editorial styles of newspapers by hope not hate will be negligible. Companies like paperchase who buckle under pressure from a few Internet trolls are really shooting themselves in the foot and ignoring the silent majority as the readership of newspapers they have pulled funding from may now boycott products from companies like paperchase. "Another Pat here | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
