Jump to content


What's so wrong with Daily Mail readers?

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Littlejohn really is the most hideous, intellectually challenged bigot. In his column today he is making some sort of stance about how in the next census he demands the right to tick a box that declares his nationality is English. Obviously, that stirs up the usual types who agree wholeheartedly that they are all oppressed in this PC gone mad society. If Littlejohn had stopped to think before he started frothing over his keyboard, he might have recalled that in the last census he could, indeed, have declared his nationality as English (although, given that he lives in the US, maybe this passed him by). Just a typical example of his factually incorrect pandering to the paranoid. It serves no beneficial purpose whatsoever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

There's nothing private about Twitter and furthermore I prefer people who speak their mind at all times, not saying anything in public and virtually the opposite in "private".

 

Obviously you don't right eh?

 

 

So why are you defending her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's nothing private about Twitter and furthermore I prefer people who speak their mind at all times, not saying anything in public and virtually the opposite in "private".

 

Obviously you don't right eh?

 

 

So why are you defending her?

 

Duh!

 

It was a private conversation in the way that it wasn't associated with her journalism.

 

Also just in case you missed it, I was informing you that the journalist in question wasn't a Guardian journalist but a freelance journalist who hasn't produced any work for the newspaper in the last 18 months.

 

So your argument is a poor one.

 

As for your last comment, you obviously have a different understanding of the word defending than I do. :roll: But for the record can you point out where you think I have defended her?

Edited by JFKvsNixon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's nothing private about Twitter and furthermore I prefer people who speak their mind at all times, not saying anything in public and virtually the opposite in "private".

 

Obviously you don't right eh?

 

 

So why are you defending her?

 

But Kia Abdullah wasn't employed by the Guardian, and hadn't written for them for over a year when she made insensitive remarks on her Twitter account. If I remember correctly, didn't Rushbridger say she would not be writing for the Guardian again after she did it? It doesn't contrast well with a paper that employs Littlejohn, Hitchens (P) and Moir, does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Duh!

 

It was a private conversation in the way that it wasn't associated with her journalism.

 

Also just in case you missed it, I was informing you that the journalist in question wasn't a Guardian journalist but a freelance journalist who hasn't produced any work for the newspaper in the last 18 months.

 

So your argument is a poor one.

 

As for your last comment, you obviously have a different understanding of the word defending than I do. :roll: But for the record can you point out where you think I have defended her?

 

A freelance journalist who happens to write for the Guardian.

 

 

And if you need help with your last question read back from your own replies, according to you something said on Twitter is priivate and because she's a freelance journalist who writes for the Guardian there's no problem.

 

 

Bet you would have had one if she was a freelance journalist for the Daily Mail wouldn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But Kia Abdullah wasn't employed by the Guardian, and hadn't written for them for over a year when she made insensitive remarks on her Twitter account. If I remember correctly, didn't Rushbridger say she would not be writing for the Guardian again after she did it? It doesn't contrast well with a paper that employs Littlejohn, Hitchens (P) and Moir, does it?

 

I have no particular gripe with such journalists as oppossed to the tax evasion and double standards of the lose making Guardian. Also they've been caught out in the phone hacking scandal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A freelance journalist who happens to write for the Guardian.

 

She doesn't write for the Guardian any more, occasionally she used to, she hasn't for a year, and wont again. Surely this is not a hard point to understand? :huh:

 

And if you need help with your last question read back from your own replies, according to you something said on Twitter is priivate and because she's a freelance journalist who writes for the Guardian there's no problem.

 

I was differentiating between her private and professional life. Again surely this is not a hard point to understand? :huh:

 

Also again we seem to have a different understanding of English, where have I said that there is no problem with the journalists actions? :huh:

 

Bet you would have had one if she was a freelance journalist for the Daily Mail wouldn't you?

 

Another very week argument, because one was cleared for publication by a newspaper one wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A freelance journalist who happens to write for the Guardian.

 

 

And if you need help with your last question read back from your own replies, according to you something said on Twitter is priivate and because she's a freelance journalist who writes for the Guardian there's no problem.

 

 

Bet you would have had one if she was a freelance journalist for the Daily Mail wouldn't you?

 

You'd really like to claim black was white wouldn't you Stream?

 

 

 

 

Actually on reflection you wouldn't ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no particular gripe with such journalists as oppossed to the tax evasion and double standards of the lose making Guardian. Also they've been caught out in the phone hacking scandal.

 

Really, you have no gripe with any of those journalists? Good lord.

 

I personally don't buy the Guardian so don't feel compelled to defend it (although I'm not sure how the fact that it makes a loss should be used to condemn it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She doesn't write for the Guardian any more, occasionally she used to, she hasn't for a year, and wont again. Surely this is not a hard point to understand? :huh:

 

 

 

I was differentiating between her private and professional life. Again surely this is not a hard point to understand? :huh:

 

Also again we seem to have a different understanding of English, where have I said that there is no problem with the journalists actions? :huh:

 

 

 

Another very week argument, because one was cleared for publication by a newspaper one wasn't.

 

 

Neither does the Daily Mail support Hitler but for how long are you going to drag out this tied, idiotic and immature nonsense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither does the Daily Mail support Hitler but for how long are you going to drag out this tied, idiotic and immature nonsense?

 

Duh!

 

I've never claimed that they have. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Duh!

 

I've never claimed that they have. :huh:

 

"Errrrrrrrrr they cosied up to him because he was doing a good job in Germany prior to war breaking out.."

 

 

Explain how you believe this to be true.

 

 

 

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.

 

You don't have to make claims, it quite clear your intentions are to descredit.

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.