What's so wrong with Daily Mail readers?

[Mister M]

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.

[Streamline]

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?

[Streamline]

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?

[Mecky]

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]"

[JFKvsNixon]

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?

[libuse]

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

[Streamline]

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?

[JFKvsNixon]

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. But for the record can you point out where you think I have defended her?

[libuse]

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?

[Streamline]

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. 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?