Newspaper of the year

[JOHNNYAITCH]

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?

 

Katie Hopkins' opinions are IMO rather pathetic and at times offensive (I've no idea if the opinions she voices are genuine or not..in a way it doesn't matter). But she's entitled to her opinion and if any media outlet wishes to allow her to express those opinions they have the right to do so but must accept the legal and commercial consequences of doing so. As per her recent libel case when she (or anyone else) goes too far the legal system is their to deal with it. If it's her intention to incite criminal behaviour that's a different matter but nevertheless still a matter for the courts. Of course the newspaper editors have a responsibility to exercise their judgement in what they publish but they should not think "I'd better not publish this cos some university might ban us"

[For Us All]

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

 

Especially when the university runs one of the UK’s top journalism programmes.

However,less than 200 of the university’s 19,500 student population attended the meeting where the motion was passed to ban the newspapers.

[Bea Smith]

Especially when the university runs one of the UK’s top journalism programmes.

However,less than 200 of the university’s 19,500 student population attended the meeting where the motion was passed to ban the newspapers.

 

Not saying I agree with their ban, but your argument is wafer-thin and ill-conceived.

 

So that means that any election with a small turnout is invalid ? By-elections with 30 per cent turnout, council elections with 20 or less per cent turnout.

 

You really never engage your brain before you post, do you ?

[For Us All]

Not saying I agree with their ban, but your argument is wafer-thin and ill-conceived.

 

So that means that any election with a small turnout is invalid ? By-elections with 30 per cent turnout, council elections with 20 or less per cent turnout.

 

You really never engage your brain before you post, do you ?

 

I wondered where you'd gone Bea?

Make of it what you will,I'm just stating the facts.

[Bea Smith]

I wondered where you'd gone Bea?

Make of it what you will,I'm just stating the facts.

 

But the fact is that any vote is just as valid, because if a large number of people choose to ignore it then they cannot and should not complain if they don't like the result.

 

Do you agree ?

[For Us All]

But the fact is that any vote is just as valid, because if a large number of people choose to ignore it then they cannot and should not complain if they don't like the result.

 

Do you agree ?

 

Well,a vote is a vote I suppose but a turnout of 1.025% isn't too impressive is it.

Did everyone know about this event?

[Regal Beagle]

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?

 

Again (in relation to the sidebar) if you don't like reading it then don't buy it or click on their website. I don't particularly care about reading about what celebrities have been pictured in a see through top this week.

 

Where are these hateful bigots? I can probably count the instances of racist violence/abuse I've witnessed in the UK on one hand. It is not racist, hateful or inciteful to have issues with aspects of (radical) Islam.

 

I don't see muslims getting attacked just for walking down the street. I've seen headlines from media sources I'd consider as blinkered and as biased as the daily mail, misrepresenting facts, trying to tell us that 'hate' crime spiked after the brexit vote, it's ********.

 

The daily mail is not responsible for bigotry, racism, hate.

 

And if you are that concerned about hate, why not start with preachers who want to kill civilians, instead of this faux outrage culture where it's cool to make everyone a victim of anything and picking on random targets instead of the targets that are actually dangerous.

[Bea Smith]

Well,a vote is a vote I suppose but a turnout of 1.025% isn't too impressive is it.

Did everyone know about this event?

 

Well, you know I cant answer that, but it's hardly the most important thing to go out of your way to vote on anyway. If they didn't, no doubt the Daily mail would have found a couple complaining that they didn't though.

 

By the way, is it true that if Vale's fate avoiding relegation depends on how we get on at Fleetwood, then you, Bookworm and Royal Beagle are all going to dress up for the day as giant pieces of cod with bulging eyes, scaly skin, fat underbellies and massive fangs? If so, how will we notice the difference ?

[For Us All]

Well, you know I cant answer that, but it's hardly the most important thing to go out of your way to vote on anyway. If they didn't, no doubt the Daily mail would have found a couple complaining that they didn't though.

 

By the way, is it true that if Vale's fate avoiding relegation depends on how we get on at Fleetwood, then you, Bookworm and Royal Beagle are all going to dress up for the day as giant pieces of cod with bulging eyes, scaly skin, fat underbellies and massive fangs? If so, how will we notice the difference ?

 

Are you trying to rock the boat?

[SourceOfTheTrent]

As this thread is about the 'Newspaper of the Year' I would like to add comment that it must be a pretty poor award that honours a hate filled jingoistic rag that promotes a return to some kind of imaginary past Imperialist Utopia and publishes disgraceful front pages such as accusing the judiciary of being 'enemies of the people' for upholding the law, belittling a major political meeting between two senior female politicians as a contest as to which one has the most attractive legs and today's double drivel hailing the triggering of Article 50 as somehow representing 'freedom' and the downgrading of a soldier's conviction of murder to manslaughter for the summary execution of a wounded prisoner of war as 'justice'. Silly me, I didn't realise we had been enslaved for 44 years and I was unaware that we no longer abide by the Geneva Convention we signed up to and think it's ok to lower our military's standards to those of yesteryear and the brutalistic Taliban.

 

The saddest thing is it's one of the UK's best selling papers which doesn't say much for the attitudes and value set of a large portion of the population.

[Regal Beagle]

As this thread is about the 'Newspaper of the Year' I would like to add comment that it must be a pretty poor award that honours a hate filled jingoistic rag that promotes a return to some kind of imaginary past Imperialist Utopia and publishes disgraceful front pages such as accusing the judiciary of being 'enemies of the people' for upholding the law, belittling a major political meeting between two senior female politicians as a contest as to which one has the most attractive legs and today's double drivel hailing the triggering of Article 50 as somehow representing 'freedom' and the downgrading of a soldier's conviction of murder to manslaughter for the summary execution of a wounded prisoner of war as 'justice'. Silly me, I didn't realise we had been enslaved for 44 years and I was unaware that we no longer abide by the Geneva Convention we signed up to and think it's ok to lower our military's standards to those of yesteryear and the brutalistic Taliban.

 

The saddest thing is it's one of the UK's best selling papers which doesn't say much for the attitudes and value set of a large portion of the population.

 

Maybe they're sick of the outrage culture and the Daily Mail offers an opposition to that?

 

Calling judges enemy of the people, is that really disgusting? I mean I don't agree with it but again, I just wouldn't buy the paper rather than adopt a white knight virtue signalling high horse approach.

 

The daily mail represents what a lot of this country is feeling. I think you should focus your energy on addressing those issues rather than labelling something hate filled simply because you disagree politically.

[For Us All]

The Daily Mail is now the most read newspaper in the UK– according to the National Readership Survey,

The NRS estimates that the Daily Mail and Mail Online has some 23.5m UK readers over the course of a month.

The Daily Mirror is in 2nd place with 17.5m readers over the course of a month and the Daily Telegraph in third with 16.4m (neck and neck with The Guardian on 16.3m).

The Sun is still the most read title in print, with readership across the month of 12.7m.

[mr.hobblesworth]

Maybe they're sick of the outrage culture and the Daily Mail offers an opposition to that?

 

Calling judges enemy of the people, is that really disgusting? I mean I don't agree with it but again, I just wouldn't buy the paper rather than adopt a white knight virtue signalling high horse approach.

 

The daily mail represents what a lot of this country is feeling. I think you should focus your energy on addressing those issues rather than labelling something hate filled simply because you disagree politically.

 

"A white knight virtue signalling high horse approach" and "snowflake" are just the new "do-gooders" or "political correctness gone mad". The Daily Mail and it's ilk, along with this callous self-serving bunch of ***** in government, IMO, undoubtedly contribute to worsening the lives of some of society's most vulnerable and put upon individuals. To criticise or have concerns about this isn't virtue signalling, it's having a genuine concern. I feel saddened and angry when I read some of the Mail's headlines, particularly when I know that some of it's readership will automatically take in it's malicious lies as fact, probably with delight as it reinforces their own bigotry and prejudices.

 

Maybe the 'outrage culture' as you put it, is a reaction to that other culture that The Mail is a key component of; that of (metaphorically) spitting on the poor, despising those that use food banks, hating asylum seekers and those of any other culture than traditional white British. Katie Hopkins advises blowing refugees out of the water or mocks those that need handouts in her shitty column. The Sun thinks that some refugees should have their ******* teeth examined to ascertain their ages and prints a front page attack on Gary Lineker for having the temerity to stick up for refugees. People take umbrage at that and to label it as somehow false or done for effect is deeply unfair. Since maybe the turn of the decade, IMO, this country has become less fair, less tolerant and less kind. Hate crimes HAVE gone up, no matter how much you or The Mail would like to spin it. I work with the people that these attitudes effect and I see their impact, on decent human beings, all the time.

 

Just because 'a lot of the country is feeling' this, doesn't mean that people shouldn't rally against it.

[jjvale_03]

"A white knight virtue signalling high horse approach" and "snowflake" are just the new "do-gooders" or "political correctness gone mad". The Daily Mail and it's ilk, along with this callous self-serving bunch of ***** in government, IMO, undoubtedly contribute to worsening the lives of some of society's most vulnerable and put upon individuals. To criticise or have concerns about this isn't virtue signalling, it's having a genuine concern. I feel saddened and angry when I read some of the Mail's headlines, particularly when I know that some of it's readership will automatically take in it's malicious lies as fact, probably with delight as it reinforces their own bigotry and prejudices.

 

Maybe the 'outrage culture' as you put it, is a reaction to that other culture that The Mail is a key component of; that of (metaphorically) spitting on the poor, despising those that use food banks, hating asylum seekers and those of any other culture than traditional white British. Katie Hopkins advises blowing refugees out of the water or mocks those that need handouts in her shitty column. The Sun thinks that some refugees should have their ******* teeth examined to ascertain their ages and prints a front page attack on Gary Lineker for having the temerity to stick up for refugees. People take umbrage at that and to label it as somehow false or done for effect is deeply unfair. Since maybe the turn of the decade, IMO, this country has become less fair, less tolerant and less kind. Hate crimes HAVE gone up, no matter how much you or The Mail would like to spin it. I work with the people that these attitudes effect and I see their impact, on decent human beings, all the time.

 

Just because 'a lot of the country is feeling' this, doesn't mean that people shouldn't rally against it.

 

Calm down, snowflake.

[Central Scrutinizer]

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

 

Stalin murdering up to 60 million, that was hilarious.