Newspaper of the year

[JOHNNYAITCH]

So some satirical cartoons are not offensive but a front page headline is.

 

To be honest I read the Mail's headline as ridiculing sexist attitudes. May herself dismissed it. The content that day was rather heavyweight..took a while to get through.

[For Us All]

Why would I apologise to you? I don't think you understand, do you? Then again, when you just regurgitate other people's opinions (not to mention cutting and pasting vast swathes from wikipedia and the like), you're bound to come unstuck.

 

 

 

http://www.madamegilflurt.com/2014/05/james-gillray-fashionable-contrasts.html

 

If you can't see the difference between what Steve Bell has done in his Guardian cartoon and that sexist tripe on the front page of the Mail then I'm not sure you should be posting on here. You're just making a fool of yourself. Again.

 

Will you teach me how to cut and paste cartoons please?

[Regal Beagle]

Democracy has spoken! The students voted and decided to leave (those rags off the list of papers that their union shop sells). Let's get on with it. These Mailingerers just can't accept that there has been a vote and the people have opted out of selling those papers. Get over it!

 

I opt out of buying thing everytime I go to the shop. I don't start votes to try and stop other people from buying the things that I don't like though. It's not democracy, it's censorship yet again by leftist fantasists.

[mr.hobblesworth]

What would you say if they'd banned, (for example (and I'm not sure if it's even still going)) The National Front newspaper?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I'd say no legal publication should be banned from university campus'.

[Regal Beagle]

What would you say if they'd banned, (for example (and I'm not sure if it's even still going)) The National Front newspaper?

 

I wouldn't agree with that either.

 

On a slightly related note, I can't really take anyone seriously who uses the term hate speach, especially when 99.9% of things that they accuse of 'spreading hate' are completely and utterly harmless. It has become a really trendy thing to say in the UK and the USA over the past few years and is mainly used by people who absolutely love to be outraged so they can broadcast what a wonderful person they are.

[mr.hobblesworth]

I wouldn't agree with that either.

 

Would you stock it in a shop that you owned?

 

On a slightly related note, I can't really take anyone seriously who uses the term hate speach, especially when 99.9% of things that they accuse of 'spreading hate' are completely and utterly harmless. It has become a really trendy thing to say in the UK and the USA over the past few years and is mainly used by people who absolutely love to be outraged so they can broadcast what a wonderful person they are.

 

Unless it's being used to describe a Muslim 'hate preacher', in which case it's fine, I presume.

 

The reason why I describe the likes of the Mail as 'spreading hate' has nothing to do with me wanting people on OVF to think I'm a wonderful human being. I say it because the Mail (along with The Sun and The Express and The Star) have consistently had an anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant agenda. Do you honestly think that the constant drip-drip of racist (and, yes, hate-filled) front pages doesn't enable and embolden *********?

 

You may find it 'harmless' but you're not on the receiving end of the beatings and discrimination that this section of society has to put up with.

[Regal Beagle]

Would you stock it in a shop that you owned?

 

 

 

Unless it's being used to describe a Muslim 'hate preacher', in which case it's fine, I presume.

 

The reason why I describe the likes of the Mail as 'spreading hate' has nothing to do with me wanting people on OVF to think I'm a wonderful human being. I say it because the Mail (along with The Sun and The Express and The Star) have consistently had an anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant agenda. Do you honestly think that the constant drip-drip of racist (and, yes, hate-filled) front pages doesn't enable and embolden *********?

 

You may find it 'harmless' but you're not on the receiving end of the beatings and discrimination that this section of society has to put up with.

 

Haha I would stock it if the market was there yes. That wouldn't mean I agree with anything that is written in it. I have a strong dislike for cigarretes but I don't boycot shops that sell them, or tell people they should not smoke. It's their choice.

 

And yes, a Muslim preacher telling people that they should strap a bomb to themselves and blow up as many (innocent) civilians as possible really is hate speach.

 

Someone on OVF saying that the daily mail is 'spreading' hate by reporting on someones nationality when they commit a crime, or for daring to write a satirical headline about two women wearing skirts is not hate speach.

 

I disagree that they are anti-muslim. They, like many people, have an issue with radical islam,and even moderate islam has a lot of negative points, it's not racist or hateful to point them out.

 

Anti-immigration is a legitimate political view point as well, so I wont criticise anyone for it.

 

Show me anyone who has been beaten up following a daily mail article?

[jjvale_03]

Nothing more comical than lefties acting like fascists, without realising it.

[Regal Beagle]

Nothing more comical than lefties acting like fascists, without realising it.

 

Especially considering that fascist is one of their favourite words!

[jimbo57]

Would you stock it in a shop that you owned?

 

 

 

Unless it's being used to describe a Muslim 'hate preacher', in which case it's fine, I presume.

 

The reason why I describe the likes of the Mail as 'spreading hate' has nothing to do with me wanting people on OVF to think I'm a wonderful human being. I say it because the Mail (along with The Sun and The Express and The Star) have consistently had an anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant agenda. Do you honestly think that the constant drip-drip of racist (and, yes, hate-filled) front pages doesn't enable and embolden *********?

 

You may find it 'harmless' but you're not on the receiving end of the beatings and discrimination that this section of society has to put up with.

 

but...if you go to London you might well be killed or injured by a religious maniac at the wheel of a car, or stabbed to death, or blown up, just because you're walking over a bridge.

Nearer home you might be killed as a result of an Imam in Tunstall encouraging support for IS.not forgetting one of the '3 musketeers' from Cobridge in posession of a pipe bomb, machete and samurai sword. And the charity worker in stoke, whose charity was ISIS.

remind me - who's on the receiving end?

[mr.hobblesworth]

but...if you go to London you might well be killed or injured by a religious maniac at the wheel of a car, or stabbed to death, or blown up, just because you're walking over a bridge.

 

"You might well be killed" ?!?!? Utterly ridiculous! That's the kind of paranoid fear of others that the Daily Mail panders to. Laughable.

 

In this country, far far more people are killed by white 'christians' than terrorists. I'm not sure what your point is.

[mr.hobblesworth]

Someone on OVF saying that the daily mail is 'spreading' hate by... daring to write a satirical headline about two women wearing skirts is not hate speach.

 

No-one has labelled that as hate speech and they'd be ridiculous for doing so. It wasn't satirical either, was it? What's it satirising? Is their infamous sidebar of shame where they regularly pick fault with women's appearances 'satirical' also?

 

Show me anyone who has been beaten up following a daily mail article?

 

I think that many many perpetrators of anti-muslim/ immigrant violence will have been directly or indirectly influenced by The Mail and it's filthy ilk. Do you not think that Katie Hopkins saying that we should send gunboats out to shoot refugees out of the water could make some scum feel validated in swinging a punch or aiming phlegm at an immigrant? Can you not see how front page after front page of lies and scare stories about muslims can make some hateful bigot feel that he can voice that hatred in public?

[cheshirevaliant]

I have been to London many times and never been killed. Out of a city of around 9m people, I think less than 100 have been killed by terrorists in the past 20 years? Survival chances are still pretty good I'd say.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

No-one has labelled that as hate speech and they'd be ridiculous for doing so. It wasn't satirical either, was it? What's it satirising? Is their infamous sidebar of shame where they regularly pick fault with women's appearances 'satirical' also?

 

 

 

I think that many many perpetrators of anti-muslim/ immigrant violence will have been directly or indirectly influenced by The Mail and it's filthy ilk. Do you not think that Katie Hopkins saying that we should send gunboats out to shoot refugees out of the water could make some scum feel validated in swinging a punch or aiming phlegm at an immigrant? Can you not see how front page after front page of lies and scare stories about muslims can make some hateful bigot feel that he can voice that hatred in public?

 

All possible but not reasons for banning a legal newspaper.

 

We have a fair and independent legal system in this country so we deal with racism and incitement and similar issues in the media thru the legal system not thru banning newspapers.