Daily Mail

[Tweedle-Dum]

[s]Midget wrote on 00:33, 8th Aug 2004:
Yeah and interesting the way only a few of our papers printed anything at all about James Murdoch messing up with his company. Why was it the Guardian had it on their front page but there was no mention of it in The Sun, The Times, etc. I wonder?


The governnment issued the D Notice too late

[hr]
Live by the sword, die by the arrow.

[Steveo]

I get round all the bias problems by understandung them and taking the views under consideration, then usually dismissing them.

The best thing to do is read several papers to see the extermes and contradictions. Thats what I do.

[hr][s]What a beautiful world this will be .... what a glorious time to be free[/s]

[Midget]

Yeah I agree, I have nothing against most papers no matter how biased. Its the readers who read one paper and assume it is the whole truth, they really piss me off.

[Intolerant Bastard]

Perhaps not all sane adults can be trusted with such games. Thinking students playing them is one thing but for the unthinking the consequences could be terrible.

It is rather like the way the intelligent liberal/left elite has applied its own values (which no doubt work quite well within educated circles)on everybody else. For example, the cult of personal 'choice'(to pay attention or not, to wear uniform or not, to call the teacher 'Mr' or not etc.) is fine for school children who have been brought up to value education. It has, however, been applied to all types of children from all backgrounds.

Why must we all pretend that everybody is the same when clearly they are not in terms of outlook, experience and 'conditioning'?

Why must Guardian readers persist with the lie that in some way they are with the common man?

[Midget]

Why must Guardian readers persist with the lie that in some way they are with the common man?

Errrr what are you on about?

I have looked through this thread and cannot find a scrap of this so called Guardian Liberal people trying to assert their values on the "common people" -????

[Jonny_G]

Nor can I. Anyway, back to the point, the Daily Mail is unquestionably the most racist newspaper I have read. It's pretty thinly veiled stuff too. Their articles are often also bigotted and homophobic and i find it disgusting that it's the second biggest selling newspaper in this country (i think that's right). My parents used to be regular readers but over a few years i managed to convince them it was only useful for lining drawers.

Every time i read it I feel violently ill at complete bollocks spewing forth from it's vile pages. It spectacularly biased and flawed reporting is nothing short of an abomonation.

[Anon.]

[s]Jonny_G wrote on 17:08, 10th Aug 2004:
...but over a few years i managed to convince them it was only useful for lining drawers.

I wouldn't use it to line my drawers.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

What would you consider reasonable uses of the paper then? Firelighters? Mattress stuffing?

[Salvatori]

i have a friend who has a puppy who is not house trained yet. Perfect use for the daily mail- carpet protector!

[mottthehoople]

The Sunday Sport fuckin rocks. What with headlines such as "Two headed woman smokes 140 fags a day" and "Buddy Holly found alive as Peggy sue"

[Prophet Tenebrae]

It's like the weekly world news but with tits.

[Guest]

Is anyone going to back up the whole "the daily mail is eveeel" with some examples or are we just supposed to believe what we read with no proof like the readers of tabloids supposedly do?

[Guest]

Reading the letters page of the Daily Mail is a seriously depressing experience; reading comments such as ‘women are only truly happy when they exist within tradition limitations’ makes me ask whether the equal pay Acts (etc) under Ted Heath (a Tory!!) were really worth the effort. Perhaps the misogynistic attitudes that are prevalent in this rag of a paper should have been included in my earlier rant against the 2nd (yeah I got that fact wrong- so shoot me!) most popular paper.

To fight bigotry and ignorance, u need to understand it…or so I’m told!

As for the Sun, any paper which seeks to unseat Clare Short with a page 3 girl cant be all that bad surely?!

A Capitalist will sell you the rope with which to hang yourself- Lenin

[Cain]

Yesterday's Mail on Sunday had a few classics.

A big page attacking Tony blair for wearing aBritish olympics 2004 adidas polo shirt. The scoundrel! the turncoat! if he wanted to wear a british olympic 2004 polo shirt, he could at elast have picked a british olympic 2004 polo shirt made by a british company, instead of a bunch of germans.

Now, i have becomne obsessed with finding other athletes in our olmpic squad who follow the path of benedict arnold, and wear the clothes of the enemy. The great hope of british boxing, who won 32-12 this afternoon? a german sympathiser. the rowing team? again, more loyal to the land of schnitzel than to old blighty.

Now, why aren't these athletes being given the beatings that they deserve for not supporting british firms. So remember, if they're not wearing Reebok, or admiral, then they don't deserve your support, because they aren't supporting you.

I would be great working for the daily mail.

Also, a few weeks ago in the night & day, their magazine on sundays, Molly watson god a full two pages to lay into Keira Knightley, for her insipid accent, laughable acting skills tat consist of a lack of expression and total over acting, and her bony figure. This week, she's at it again.

Why does the mail have this vendetta against keira knightley? and isn't it a bit much to run two attacks on her in the space of a month?

[hr]I will diminish, and go into fourth year, and remain Cain

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Not really - presumably their mentality is "strike until the iron threatens legal action".

[The Cellar Bar]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 17:11, 10th Aug 2004:
Is anyone going to back up the whole "the daily mail is eveeel" with some examples or are we just supposed to believe what we read with no proof like the readers of tabloids supposedly do?

maybe not the rag itself but their readers chat rooms are interesting
http://chat.dailymail.co.uk/dailymail/t ... e=10545912
Children of criminals are to be tracked from an early age under new Government plans to prevent them following their parents into a life of crime.
Views
I think it makes sense. It's to their and societies benefit that they don't follow their parents into a life of crime. Far better to catch them really early (or better prevent them getting into crime at all) than leave it till they have no other 'career' choice.

The idea of taking DNA samples is a bit past the fact - it might make them easier to catch but by the time they have committed a crime that merits DNA testing of samples it's going to be too late...

As for infringement of their rights, why can't it be *helping them into civilized adulthood?

they aren't going to be treated like criminals though, are they? They are going to be monitored, and if it keeps thugs off the street I;m all for it.
Although people will be shouting *human rights!!!* so it won't happen.

on Treason
Mr Blair and his Govt have wholeheartedly passed more powers to a foreign authority, while lying to us about their possible implications. They are even now desperately trying to get a new Constitution through which illegally replaces our existing constitutional arrangements and reduces the status of the Monarch to that of citizen. That last bit alone can only be called treason.

We'll do him on the same day as Ted Heath.Save paying the hangman twice

[Rex Mundi]

[s]Midget wrote on 00:33, 8th Aug 2004:
Yeah and interesting the way only a few of our papers printed anything at all about James Murdoch messing up with his company. Why was it the Guardian had it on their front page but there was no mention of it in The Sun, The Times, etc. I wonder?


Well, in part because the Guardian hates Murdoch (which is a very healthy state of affairs). All the papers have their own little biases. Only the Telegraph, Independant and Guardian manage to keep them mostly in the comment & analysis sections. Which is why they're the only 3 worth reading.

[Humphrey]

Hey Cellar Bar, you think the Daily Mail forums worrying, check out this

http://www.betweenthecoasts.com/archives/000232.html

'US should drop a nuclear weapon over the arabic states and start from anew. Its easier to start from scratch then try to rebuild.

Think of a car. Rather than repairing it and spending 2000$ in repair per year, after 5 years it's way too much expenditure. Simply, buy a new car - to do so requires throwing away or selling or destroying the old one.

Besides nuking them will cause trouble now but later on everyone will be thankful'

'The Arabs start wars and then start slobbering and crying like animals when they lose ground. The easiest and most effective way to deal with these slime is to put uranium and plutonium in their water supplies. Within ten years the variety of cancers in their populations would weaken them to the point of behaving.'

Do you reckon these guys watch Fox News?

[hr]http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Manic23]

[s]Humphrey wrote on 20:23, 17th Aug 2004:
Hey Cellar Bar, you think the Daily Mail forums worrying, check out this

http://www.betweenthecoasts.com/archives/000232.html






Jesus Christ Almighty!

Unbelievable. Simply Unbelievable. Mind you, they're probably the same bastards who regularly contribute to www.bloodandhonour.com

[Humphrey]

'America is gods gift to white men. NOT to arabs jews or latinos. When I look at all the riff raff those Communist goverments has put on our shores I start to cry. But I know that God he makes me strong and by his nuclear aid we shall get rid of all those maggots like we destroies Amalek Indians.

To bad we can't shift them eastward by trains because of the ocean....'

What a fucking prick, The Daily Mail seems tame in comparison

[hr]http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/