Where would you place it? It can hardly be described as somewhere near the political centre.

 

I would say right-wing, but not as far from the centre as Thatcherism.

Same technique. Seen the front page of the mail today? Ps they dont support nazis overtly since they got caught out last time round.

 

Covertly, though?

 

The on-line Mail's lead article is 'Royals remember the victims of Grenfell Tower' - I have no idea what article you refer to in the printed version?

 

Personally though, I am appalled at the suggestion I might be a Nazi sympathiser, simply because my views are a little paraochial, and I read the Daily Mail! :o

 

 

The on-line Mail's lead article is 'Royals remember the victims of Grenfell Tower' - I have no idea what article you refer to in the printed version?

 

Personally though, I am appalled at the suggestion I might be a Nazi sympathiser, simply because my views are a little paraochial, and I read the Daily Mail! :o

The front page follows the lead of their "Smash the saboteurs" and "Enemies of the People" front pages in recent months. Essentially, they accuse the eleven Tory MPs who had the courage of their convictions yesterday of treachery.

 

The front page follows the lead of their "Smash the saboteurs" and "Enemies of the People" front pages in recent months. Essentially, they accuse the eleven Tory MPs who had the courage of their convictions yesterday of treachery.

 

Thanks for that - the headline in the online version was nothing like so eye-catching : MPs `take back control´ as Tory rebels help inflict Brexit vote defeat on May

 

 

The on-line Mail's lead article is 'Royals remember the victims of Grenfell Tower' - I have no idea what article you refer to in the printed version?

 

Personally though, I am appalled at the suggestion I might be a Nazi sympathiser, simply because my views are a little paraochial, and I read the Daily Mail! :o

Re read what i said. I said no such thing. Sounds like a dsily mail fan.

Thanks for that - the headline in the online version was nothing like so eye-catching : MPs `take back control´ as Tory rebels help inflict Brexit vote defeat on May

It wasnt a brexit defeat at all. It was a victory for parliamentary democracy. Queen may wasnt on the referendum ballot. You are a hypocrite uf you fail to recognise british parliamentary democracy after whingeing endlessly on about it as a reason for brexit.

 

 

Re read what i said. I said no such thing. Sounds like a dsily mail fan.

 

OK, maybe my comment was a little OTT, but I'm still made to feel like a pariah, simply because my political beliefs & choice of newspaper are in the minority here.

Edited December 15, 20177 yr by vidsanta

OK, maybe my comment was a little OTT, but I'm still made to feel like a pariah, simply because my political beliefs & choice of newspaper are in the minority here.

Maybe change your buzzjack name to Pariah Carey in protest? Fab name!

Maybe change your buzzjack name to Pariah Carey in protest? Fab name!

 

Yes, that *is* good. :D

 

VidPariah might be more easily recognisable though. ;)

 

Maybe even DailyMailLover. :teresa:

Edited December 15, 20177 yr by vidsanta

Yes, that *is* good. :D

 

VidPariah might be more easily recognisable though. ;)

 

Maybe even DailyMailLover. :teresa:

Im not entirely sold on Vid as when i dont have my glasses on the i blurs out and its a bit unfortunate! :)

Going off at a tangent :

 

Should controversial issues be openly discussed, or suppressed?

Going off at a tangent :

 

Should controversial issues be openly discussed, or suppressed?

 

difficult issues need to be discussed, controversial or otherwise. Part of a stable democracy is being able to discuss issues.

difficult issues need to be discussed, controversial or otherwise. Part of a stable democracy is being able to discuss issues.

 

Unless they're raised in a certain newspaper? :P

 

Seriously though, what happens if issues are *so* controversial that its impossible to do so in terms that don't cause offence?

Unless they're raised in a certain newspaper? :P

 

Seriously though, what happens if issues are *so* controversial that its impossible to do so in terms that don't cause offence?

 

Discussions take place within the law. Spreading headlines of hate and inequality is not a discussion in any sense of the word. It's propaganda. If there were a discussion about there would be dissenting voices being asked about the headlines. We are having this discussion here and now about it because the Daily Mail won't.

Discussions take place within the law. Spreading headlines of hate and inequality is not a discussion in any sense of the word. It's propaganda. If there were a discussion about there would be dissenting voices being asked about the headlines. We are having this discussion here and now about it because the Daily Mail won't.

 

Surely it's impossible to report terrorist acts and/or hate crimes *without* it having the potential of generating hate?

 

But what's the alternative - hushing it up, and therefore leaving the public at risk through lack of awareness? e.g. if there's a serial killer on the loose, wouldn't it be irresponsible to conceal info that might lead to their identification & capture, just to avoid giving offence to others of a similar profile?

Surely it's impossible to report terrorist acts and/or hate crimes *without* it having the potential of generating hate?

 

But what's the alternative - hushing it up, and therefore leaving the public at risk through lack of awareness? e.g. if there's a serial killer on the loose, wouldn't it be irresponsible to conceal info that might lead to their identification & capture, just to avoid giving offence to others of a similar profile?

 

No, it wouldn't. Hushing up information on criminals is not a suggestion and is not relevant to what I said.

 

I said the Daily Mail writes headlines and then doesn't discuss anything. It preaches it's own point of view and charges anyone who doesn't agree as a traitor. That is not a discussion, that is propaganda.

 

This is a discussion.

No, it wouldn't. Hushing up information on criminals is not a suggestion and is not relevant to what I said.

 

I said the Daily Mail writes headlines and then doesn't discuss anything. It preaches it's own point of view and charges anyone who doesn't agree as a traitor. That is not a discussion, that is propaganda.

 

This is a discussion.

 

Surely they have a right to at least the first part of the above, though? I would say 'publish' rather than 'preach' though...

Edited December 23, 20177 yr by vidsanta

Princess Michael apologies for wearing a racist brooch.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/de...christmas-lunch

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd never even *heard* of such brooches before - so what this article has actually done has vastly increased the number of people who've heard of this racist item. It's a similar situation to Jeremy Clarkson's 'slope on the bridge' comment - another apparently racist term I'd never heard of.

 

The point being - surely it's sometimes better *not* to spread around the knowledge of obscure racist terms? :unsure:

Surely they have a right to at least the first part of the above, though? I would say 'publish' rather than 'preach' though...

 

...as long as they are happy being labelled front page traitors to British people too, and they are equally happy becoming targets of nutty murdering nationalists, so let's start it here then. It's as fair as targeting our democratically elected and appointed MP's and Judges and anyone they hate for being decent human beings.

 

"Rothermere family, Daily Mail

A Lady Rothermere trust is recorded in Jersey. It appears to refer to the late Lord Rothermere's second wife, Maiko Lee, of Korean nationality. She did not respond to our invitations to comment. Rothermere's son Jonathan by his first wife inherited the Daily Mail, also through a Jersey trust, and a Bermuda-registered offshore entity. Jonathan is estimated to be worth £760m. He has not denied claiming tax concessions as a "non-dom", on the grounds that his father lived in Paris. He resides at Ferne Park, a stately home in Wiltshire built for him by architect Quinlan Terry."

 

Source: The Guardian. Note, not elected to represent the British people at all, just mega-rich right-wing individuals descended from Nazi supporters. Note also, may be potentially liable to pay taxes by EU legislation on tax haven money in the near future unless the UK leaves the EU.

 

Fair enough then?

 

...as long as they are happy being labelled front page traitors to British people too, and they are equally happy becoming targets of nutty murdering nationalists, so let's start it here then. It's as fair as targeting our democratically elected and appointed MP's and Judges and anyone they hate for being decent human beings.

 

But you know that their have *always* been a tiny hard care of extreme nationalists - Oswald Mosely's 'Blackshirts' for example. However, to most people, even ardent Brexiters, they are just criminal thugs. Perhaps Brexit has emboldened existing racists, but I see very little evidence it is created any new ones.

 

[

"Rothermere family, Daily Mail

 

Source: The Guardian. Note, not elected to represent the British people at all, just mega-rich right-wing individuals descended from Nazi supporters.

 

What does 'being descended from Nazi supporters' have to do with anything? Probably half of Germany's current population share that dubious distinction, but it means nothing since political ideology is not genetic.