Last week the Daily Mail published an article about Ed Miliband's father Ralph calling him the man who hated Britain. Ralph Miliband (originally called Adolphe but you can see why he changed his name) and his family fled Belgium after Hitler (supported for many years by the same Daily Mail) invaded the country. They settled in Britain along with many other Jewish refugees (or asylum seekers as the Daily Mail would call them now). Therefore, it seems unlikely that he would have hated the country. As a self-styled Marxist historian, he undoubtedly opposed institutions such as the monarchy (he is not alone there) but that isn't the same as hating the country.

 

Not surprisingly, Ed Miliband is angry about this. Ralph Miliband cannot sue as he died nearly 20 years ago and it is not possible to sue for libel on behalf of a dead person. He was allowed to write a piece for the Mail today but, underneath his article, they repeated their allegations - and used up more space for that than the space allotted to Miliband.

 

Cameron's comments on the matter were interesting. He didn't criticise the Mail (after all, he isn't very good at standing up to the strong) but he did say that he would do the same if he felt someone had unfairly attacked his father (also dead).

 

No doubt we can expect more of this sort of rubbish from the Mail between now and the next election.

I'd be interested in someone doing a hatchet piece on the owner(s) of the Mail's parents, publish a photo of their graves and the like, and they can't sue or have a right of reply. It's not illegal and it might be illuminating, as using their logic if their parents were mass murderers or the like then by inference they must also be well dodgy.

 

I'd also love to see a breakdown of senior Mail staff's ancestry, and some evidence that they are hiring under equality policies - and I don't mean as office cleaners, I mean as journalists.

 

Don't suppose I'll get my wishes though....

 

 

 

I've got to be careful here to not go into one massive rant... frankly it is absolutely abhorrent and TOTALLY out of order; the paper I have always hated for many reasons - it is less journalism thesedays and more mindless tittle-tattle and stupid hypocritical articles by the absolutely impossible not to hate and bile-filled Richard Littlejohn. However, this is just unbelievable! Hopefully this will be the papers downfall, it deserves to suffer the same fate as the absolute scum rag that was News of the World.

 

I'd also love to see a breakdown of senior Mail staff's ancestry, and some evidence that they are hiring under equality policies - and I don't mean as office cleaners, I mean as journalists.

 

Well The Daily Mail supported the nazis back in the 30s. Harold Harmsworth (who was proprietor of the Mail for a time) lavished praise on the Nazis in the run-up to the Second World War.

 

So they aren't exactly in a great position to throw mud. Their font has a third Reich look to it as well.

I'd be interested in someone doing a hatchet piece on the owner(s) of the Mail's parents, publish a photo of their graves and the like, and they can't sue or have a right of reply. It's not illegal and it might be illuminating, as using their logic if their parents were mass murderers or the like then by inference they must also be well dodgy.

 

I'd also love to see a breakdown of senior Mail staff's ancestry, and some evidence that they are hiring under equality policies - and I don't mean as office cleaners, I mean as journalists.

 

Don't suppose I'll get my wishes though....

Well, let's start with the editor Paul Dacre. While Ralph Miliband's father was taking part in the Normandy landings on D-Day Dacre's father was celebrating his 19th birthday while working as a show business reporter for the Daily Express. He was apparently perfectly fit so perhaps his son could explain why his contribution to the war effort was writing gossip.

It's a silly point but I realised the irony of the paper that supported "National Socialism" saying that a socialist couldn't be patriotic.

 

On a serious note, this was of course completely out of order and unfounded. They'll have to try harder if they want to make something stick against Ed in the next eighteen months.

Time to go against the grain here.

 

The biggest winner out of all of this is The Daily Mail. Why? Because now the entire country cannot stop talking about The Daily Mail. You have to remember that the Daily Mail is a business, and as a business their main aim is to get eyes on screens/newsprint. They don't give a darn about being liked, their business model relies upon them being talked about to encourage more people to give them more sales/clicks. I will wager that as a result of this furore, the sales for the Daily Mail and clicks for their incredibly popular website (which has a monopoly on link-baiting articles designed to promote outrage amongst those foolish enough to enter) will have skyrocketed.

 

Was what the Daily Mail did morally reprehensible? Undoubtedly. If the paper had taken a diary entry written by my father when he was 16 and twisted it to make it look like he hated the country, and used it as a weapon to attack my character and career, I would be demanding blood as well. But by giving the paper the oxygen of publicity, you are playing right into their grubby hands.

 

If you really want to stop the Daily Mail, the answer is simple. Don't read/click on any of their articles, which I imagine most of you do anyway. But to take it a step further, don't mention the Daily Mail. Ever. I know that attacking the Daily Mail is the catnip of the intelligentsia, but by giving them your time, you're only encouraging them. By ignoring them, you're hitting them where it hurts. In the wallet.

It will be interesting to see whether this has any impact on sales. I suspect some people will have read the offending (and offensive) articles online but if it is a one-off slight upward blip that won't have much effect on advertising revenue. Naturally I never click on a link to an article in that squalid, contemptible rag.

 

Their strategy may yet backfire. The story has knocked the Tory conference down the news agenda and has given Miliband another opportunity to stand up to the strong. Note how the Tories are supporting Miliband's defence of his father without actually bringing themselves to criticise the Mail.

Time to go against the grain here.

 

The biggest winner out of all of this is The Daily Mail. Why? Because now the entire country cannot stop talking about The Daily Mail. You have to remember that the Daily Mail is a business, and as a business their main aim is to get eyes on screens/newsprint. They don't give a darn about being liked, their business model relies upon them being talked about to encourage more people to give them more sales/clicks. I will wager that as a result of this furore, the sales for the Daily Mail and clicks for their incredibly popular website (which has a monopoly on link-baiting articles designed to promote outrage amongst those foolish enough to enter) will have skyrocketed.

 

Was what the Daily Mail did morally reprehensible? Undoubtedly. If the paper had taken a diary entry written by my father when he was 16 and twisted it to make it look like he hated the country, and used it as a weapon to attack my character and career, I would be demanding blood as well. But by giving the paper the oxygen of publicity, you are playing right into their grubby hands.

 

If you really want to stop the Daily Mail, the answer is simple. Don't read/click on any of their articles, which I imagine most of you do anyway. But to take it a step further, don't mention the Daily Mail. Ever. I know that attacking the Daily Mail is the catnip of the intelligentsia, but by giving them your time, you're only encouraging them. By ignoring them, you're hitting them where it hurts. In the wallet.

 

But the key thing here imo is that the Mail (the online version atleast) had actually broadened it's "audience" in recent years, by (purposely?) toning down some of its more hyper-partisan stuff. This will turn off those people who hate what the Mail stands for but maybe over the last few years had occasionally read the celebrity or lifestyle items on their site.

 

Anyway, this whole attempt to try and smear Ed Miliband as a "socialist" is laughably pathetic. The Conservatives and their press cheerleaders don't seem to realise that this 1970s-style scaremongering just doesn't touch a nerve with most people under the age of 40 in this day and age, as shown by the fact that Labour's policy to "fix" energy prices is far more popular than any of their supposedly "centrist" "credible" policies.

Edited October 2, 201311 yr by Danny

Obviously some people in high places are started to get a little worried - see the 'hilarious' microphone being misplaced near Nigel Farage picture that appeared in the Times.

 

Anyway BB you are right of course, I shouldn't stoop to the level of the paper, nor even acknowledge that it exists. It is pretty sickening to me though the way they reprinted the story all around his right-to-reply as if the paper is some kind of pathetic recalcitrant child screaming for attention.

Never thought I would see the day when I side with Ed Miliband over something but this is something where I agree with him 100%

 

With the extremely dubious history of the Daily Mail with their nazi support they are the last people to have any sort of moral high ground over this

 

I despise Miliband Snr's political views as do I Ed's but Miliband Snr served this country with distinction in the war so the article is absolute bollocks

There seems to be some crusade at the Daily Mail to get Ed as PM

 

They have now sent a reporter to Ed's uncles memorial service, a private family and colleagues event, to harass his family and dig up gossip on his dad

 

Instead of a quite superb conservative conference being talked about across the nation, there seems instead to be a wave of support and sympathy for Ed which will no doubt boost labour poll ratings

I have been sort of loving this entire situation. It's very enjoyable to see things like this happening:

 

 

Yes they thrive on the negative publicity (and I try never ever to go on their site for obvious reasons) but this story seems to be really striking home and everyone is PUBLICLY calling the Mail out on their shit. It's really fantastic.

 

And now the Mail is demanding an apology for the 'vicious accusations' they have received. Which is just LAUGHABLY hypocritical, but it does suggest they want to keep a modicum of respect. Clearly there's a limit to what they'll let themselves be seen as, and it's Nazis.

Mehdi Hasan's rant was a highlight of QT last night :lol: It can be filed against Alastair Campbell's Newsnight performance.

Mehdi Hasan's rant was a highlight of QT last night :lol: It can be filed against Alastair Campbell's Newsnight performance.

 

Best TV moment of the year. Down with the Daily Mail! :D

I have been sort of loving this entire situation. It's very enjoyable to see things like this happening:

 

 

Yes they thrive on the negative publicity (and I try never ever to go on their site for obvious reasons) but this story seems to be really striking home and everyone is PUBLICLY calling the Mail out on their shit. It's really fantastic.

 

And now the Mail is demanding an apology for the 'vicious accusations' they have received. Which is just LAUGHABLY hypocritical, but it does suggest they want to keep a modicum of respect. Clearly there's a limit to what they'll let themselves be seen as, and it's Nazis.

 

Hard to disagree with a word he says there.

 

It goes way beyond politics, most of my right wing friends think Dacre well out of order, if Paul Dacre insulted my dad he would be spitting out what is left of his teeth

 

I find 99% of what Ed says utterly abhorrent, he is fair game for attacks, his family are not

I've been a Guardian reader for over 35 years but I believe this article apparently written by Paul Dacre (editor of the Daily Mail) is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever read in it

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2...e?commentpage=1

 

That man makes me fear for the safety of humanity.

That man makes me fear for the safety of humanity.

He asked to be able to comment in the Guardian. You might have thought that he would have taken the opportunity to write something that would have made the typical Guardian reader wonder whether he had a point. Instead he submitted this rubbish.

He asked to be able to comment in the Guardian. You might have thought that he would have taken the opportunity to write something that would have made the typical Guardian reader wonder whether he had a point. Instead he submitted this rubbish.

He submitted a piece of trash that just confirms what the "left wing media & BBC" have been saying all along. He and his newspaper are not worthy of being called journalists. They lack the ability to write a basic opinion piece that doesn't come across like the deranged ramblings of some extreme right wing eejit.

I think this probably fits nicely in this thread

 

http://games.usvsth3m.com/are-you-hated-by-the-daily-mail/