Jump to content


What's so wrong with Daily Mail readers?

Recommended Posts

I see the Guardian is now caught up in the phone hacking scandal, along with their tax invasion and their reported losses of £33 million per year they really do need to take a long hard look at themselves..

 

 

http://order-order.com/2011/08/05/david-leigh-the-guardians-hacker-in-chief-lied-to-guido/

 

You're just sore because Michael White of the Guardian and Jeremy Paxman exposed Guido Fawkes (Paul 'dirty' Staines) as a complete tool

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r5d2Ccpo3I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you actually ever contribute to any of the threads except throwing around insults?

 

He never does, pay him no attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Explain how you believe this to be true.

 

Check post number 81 on page 5 of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The comments section can be quite funny too.

 

I often think the comment are made-up by the paper, there can't be real people who think like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tend to look at the pictures.

 

The dailymail conjures up images of Kelly Brook, Imogen Thomas and Elizabeth Hurley scantily clad amongst others.

 

The comments section can be quite funny too. The best and worst rated comments are often quite predictable, especially when you writ them yourself to take the mick.

 

But the Daily Mail are extremely sensitive to any criticism, in spite of the scabrous attacks its reporters make of others.

 

For example Richard Littlejohn loves to lampoon others for political correctness, complaining that 'you can't say what you want because of PC Nazis', even lambasting the 5 murdered prostitutes in Ipswich shortly after their death as “disgusting, drug-addled street whores”.

 

However when PrivateEye magazine, commenting on Littlejohn's continued reporting of homosexuals, mocked that Littlejohn's website address was notjustgaycurious.com, he got very offended & threatened legal action.

 

What a snivelling <REMOVED> he is. He can give it out, but not take it.

Edited by esme
not family friendly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Check post number 81 on page 5 of this thread.

 

Sorry for not making myself clearer, I was asking Streamline to explain why he/she thinks that Hitler was doing a good job in Germany prior to war breaking out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously you left wing liberals like to perpetuate the myth about the Daily Mail supporting Hitler...

 

Myth?

 

 

Lord Rothermere, one of the co-founders of the Daily Mail, was a friend and supporter of both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, which influenced the Mail's political stance towards them during the 1930s.

 

From the outset it [The Daily Mail] was rabidly conservative, attracting some criticism for its pro-Empire stance and lack of objectivity during the 1899-1902 South African War (the “Boer War”). Even after the Mail dropped its support for the BUF after violence at a 1934 meeting at Kensington Olympia, it nevertheless maintained a sympathetic stance towards Hitler right up until 1939.

 

Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Rothermere famously wrote a Daily Mail editorial entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts", in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine".

 

Rothermere wrote to Adolf Hitler congratulating him for the annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938, and encouraged him to march into Romania. He went on to note that Hitler's work was "great and superhuman".

Edited by Rushup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And let's not forget Jan Moir.

 

Moir wrote in her column "Why there was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death", linking Gately's death to the fact that he was gay (even though the coroner had ruled that Gately had died of natural causes). She then went onto say:

 

"The sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath. Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again. Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one."

 

To the credit of some readers of the Mail (and consequent campaign on Twitter) she was forced to write an apology in her column saying, "I would like to say sorry if I have caused distress by the insensitive timing of the column, published so close to the funeral".

 

She did add later that "I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones.”

 

Mischievious? This coming from the woman who in an article 3 weeks prior to Gately's death she wrote a piece in the Mail about Peter Mandelson and George Osborne - it was called something like 'Brokeback Mountain' and contained a line about Mandelson "crawling up the soil pipe of politics".

 

Like Littlejohn, Moir is a nasty guttersnipe and tries to pander to the percived prejudices of their readerships. It's only when people say enough is enough and advertisers threaten to withdraw (as in the case of Moir) that insincere apologies are written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And let's not forget Jan Moir.

 

Moir wrote in her column "Why there was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death", linking Gately's death to the fact that he was gay (even though the coroner had ruled that Gately had died of natural causes). She then went onto say:

 

"The sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath. Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again. Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one."

 

To the credit of some readers of the Mail (and consequent campaign on Twitter) she was forced to write an apology in her column saying, "I would like to say sorry if I have caused distress by the insensitive timing of the column, published so close to the funeral".

 

She did add later that "I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones.”

 

Mischievious? This coming from the woman who in an article 3 weeks prior to Gately's death she wrote a piece in the Mail about Peter Mandelson and George Osborne - it was called something like 'Brokeback Mountain' and contained a line about Mandelson "crawling up the soil pipe of politics".

 

Like Littlejohn, Moir is a nasty guttersnipe and tries to pander to the percived prejudices of their readerships. It's only when people say enough is enough and advertisers threaten to withdraw (as in the case of Moir) that insincere apologies are written.

 

 

I see, who was the nasty piece of work for the Guardian who was making fun on Twitter of the students recently killed in Thailand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myth?

 

 

Lord Rothermere, one of the co-founders of the Daily Mail, was a friend and supporter of both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, which influenced the Mail's political stance towards them during the 1930s.

 

From the outset it [The Daily Mail] was rabidly conservative, attracting some criticism for its pro-Empire stance and lack of objectivity during the 1899-1902 South African War (the “Boer War”). Even after the Mail dropped its support for the BUF after violence at a 1934 meeting at Kensington Olympia, it nevertheless maintained a sympathetic stance towards Hitler right up until 1939.

 

Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Rothermere famously wrote a Daily Mail editorial entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts", in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine".

 

Rothermere wrote to Adolf Hitler congratulating him for the annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938, and encouraged him to march into Romania. He went on to note that Hitler's work was "great and superhuman".

 

Have you got any evidence to show that the Daily Mail supported Hitler in the war years which is what most left wingers are trying to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you got any evidence to show that the Daily Mail supported Hitler in the war years which is what most left wingers are trying to do?

 

There's something you're in denial about, why is that?

 

From Wikipedia (Although freely contributed to, is heavily monitored to against historic records before publication)

 

"Lord Rothermere was a friend and supporter of both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, which influenced the Mail's political stance towards them during the 1930s.[28][29] Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them.[30]"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see, who was the nasty piece of work for the Guardian who was making fun on Twitter of the students recently killed in Thailand?

 

It seems that you're trying to compare a freelance journalist's private comments to something that was cleared by the editors to be printed in a newspaper. It's not a strong argument is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.