Newspaper of the year

[Central Scrutinizer]

Can anyone explain what became of the Express, which was always my favourite paper. They always had the Vale's results in there , when played on Monday nights , and I really enjoyed reading it. Now , it''s just like the Sun. Online at least.

 

It can be found in The Bulls Head, usually unread unless someone's got hold of the Sentinel first.

[For Us All]

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.

 

It's basically censorship by the left and it makes you wonder how these students will cope in the big-wide world when they come up against people with opposing views?

[mr.hobblesworth]

2+2 making 5 there. Not really a surprise.

 

I don't buy The Mail and wish that nobody else did. I'd like to see the shitty rag go bust. If I ran a shop I would take the decision not to sell it, just as many shops in Liverpool took the decision not to stock its scummy brother, The Sun. The choice to stock or not stock anything in my shop is my prerogative, just as it's the student council (or the Scouse newsagent)'s prerogative. To then suggest that the students will struggle with opposing views is just daft. Do Scousers run screaming when they venture in to shops that stock The Sun? Do they heck.

 

If the student body want to promote a culture of acceptance, equality and fairness (it's political correctness gone mad!) then it's perfectly justifiable to opt not to stock publications that promote the opposite.

[Regal Beagle]

 

If the student body want to promote a culture of acceptance, equality and fairness (it's political correctness gone mad!) then it's perfectly justifiable to opt not to stock publications that promote the opposite.

 

If they want to promote a culture of acceptance, equality and fairness then they absolutely must respect freedom of speach and freedom of choice.

 

Banning things is truly outrageous. Voting to stop others from accessing something just because you disagree with it, is in no way accepting, equal or fair. It's censorship, it's fascim.

 

The only justification would be if the daily mail actually lived up to the leftist accusations thrown at it. But it simply doesn't in my opinion.

 

Being concerned when an immigrant commits a crime in the UK is not hateful. It raises legitimate questions about our immigration policy. It does not encourage people to go out and attack the first brown person that they see.

[mr.hobblesworth]

If they want to promote a culture of acceptance, equality and fairness then they absolutely must respect freedom of speach and freedom of choice.

 

There is freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I imagine there's a newsagents pretty close to their union building if anyone's desperate for their daily intake of lies and ********.

 

Banning things is truly outrageous. Voting to stop others from accessing something just because you disagree with it, is in no way accepting, equal or fair. It's censorship, it's fascim.

 

Would you stock books by, say, holocaust deniers in your theoretical shop? Do the Liverpool newsagents refusing to stock the Sun anger you?

 

No-one's being stopped from buying it, they just have to buy it elsewhere. Should the Vale shop sell Stoke shirts? Should health food shops sell Skittles? Should record shops sell yukka plants? Why should a student union be somehow forced to sell an item that it's ruling body doesn't want to stock?

 

The only justification would be if the daily mail actually lived up to the leftist accusations thrown at it. But it simply doesn't in my opinion.

 

And it's my opinion, and that of many many others (many of whom are not 'leftist'), that it does.

 

Being concerned when an immigrant commits a crime in the UK is not hateful. It raises legitimate questions about our immigration policy. It does not encourage people to go out and attack the first brown person that they see.

 

Horror headlines lying about the threat is, IMO, hateful, as is having a one track mind which basically overemphasises the threat posed by immigrants on a near daily basis. The stories (I genuinely can't remember the exact details) about the influx of 'foreigners' when a certain country's citizens were allowed access to the UK is a case in point. The papers (and, surprise surprise, Farage) screamed themselves hoarse about how our way of life was under threat and how 100s of 1000s would be streaming through our ports and, in the end, the figure was absolutely nothing like that. Don't you think that stokes anti-immigrant feeling? Don't you think that if an immigrant committed a crime it would get far more coverage than more serious crimes committed by a white Englishman? I find that hateful. I honestly don't know how you can debate it: The Daily Mail hates immigrants, it hates asylum seekers.

[mr.hobblesworth]

Can you not see how (and this is genuinely a random example) this could be detrimental to race relations? Don't you think that day after day after day of **** like this, staring up at you from the news racks might turn your mind against immigrants. I think that's pretty hateful. Yeah, the basic facts may be (or may not be) factual but the phrasing, the choice of photos, there's real intent there.

 

[JOHNNYAITCH]

 

If the student body want to promote a culture of acceptance, equality and fairness (it's political correctness gone mad!) then it's perfectly justifiable to opt not to stock publications that promote the opposite.

 

That's a complete contradiction

 

Acceptance, equality and fairness would mean treating the Mail etc the same as every other newspaper not treating them differently cos you don't like the content.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Can you not see how (and this is genuinely a random example) this could be detrimental to race relations? Don't you think that day after day after day of **** like this, staring up at you from the news racks might turn your mind against immigrants. I think that's pretty hateful. Yeah, the basic facts may be (or may not be) factual but the phrasing, the choice of photos, there's real intent there.

 

 

I can see that...but it's for the courts to decide if what they have published is legal or not and for the buying public to decide if they want to buy it or not. if it's illegal then they'll face the appropriate punishment if it doesn't appeal to sufficient people it won't sell in enough numbers and they'll stop doing it.

 

People are allowed to hold and express views that you and I find abhorrent..or is it now Ok to ban opinion cos we don't like the opinion?

[mr.hobblesworth]

That's a complete contradiction

 

Acceptance, equality and fairness would mean treating the Mail etc the same as every other newspaper not treating them differently cos you don't like the content.

 

No it's not. Not when that paper promotes discrimination and hate against minorities.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

There is freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I imagine there's a newsagents pretty close to their union building if anyone's desperate for their daily intake of lies and ********.

 

They can always buy the Mirror if that's what they want

 

 

 

Would you stock books by, say, holocaust deniers in your theoretical shop? Do the Liverpool newsagents refusing to stock the Sun anger you?

 

I would stick such books..I'd be quite happy to sell any legally available book. I di get angry about LFC refusing to allow Sun journalists in to Anfield (I think that's what they have done)

 

No-one's being stopped from buying it, they just have to buy it elsewhere. Should the Vale shop sell Stoke shirts?

 

The vale shop is there to make money for PVFC so if selling Stoke shirts was going to raise funds for the club why not?

 

Should health food shops sell Skittles? Should record shops sell yukka plants? Why should a student union be somehow forced to sell an item that it's ruling body doesn't want to stock?

 

And there you have it 'ruling body' not the student body but the 'ruling body'.

 

 

Horror headlines lying about the threat is, IMO, hateful, as is having a one track mind which basically overemphasises the threat posed by immigrants on a near daily basis.

 

Well I read it every day and I don't see that. If it's being hateful report it and the criminal process will take its course

 

The stories (I genuinely can't remember the exact details) about the influx of 'foreigners' when a certain country's citizens were allowed access to the UK is a case in point. The papers (and, surprise surprise, Farage) screamed themselves hoarse about how our way of life was under threat and how 100s of 1000s would be streaming through our ports and, in the end, the figure was absolutely nothing like that. Don't you think that stokes anti-immigrant feeling? Don't you think that if an immigrant committed a crime it would get far more coverage than more serious crimes committed by a white Englishman? I find that hateful. I honestly don't know how you can debate it: The Daily Mail hates immigrants, it hates asylum seekers.

 

Feel free to slag off the Mail and to find it abhorrent and not buy it, that is your right..no reason for a legal newspaper not to be available in all outlets rather than being banned cos some 'ruling body' doesn't like the content

[mr.hobblesworth]

People are allowed to hold and express views that you and I find abhorrent..or is it now Ok to ban opinion cos we don't like the opinion?

 

I guess it depends on your definition of 'ban'. I think it absolutely fine for an individual (or in this instance, the student body) to opt not to stock something that they find offensive and promotes hate. I think an individual's decision on the grounds of their own personal beliefs (as long as it's within the law) is very different from 'banning'.

 

Again, do the Liverpool newsagents refusing to stock the Sun anger you?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

No it's not. Not when that paper promotes discrimination and hate against minorities.

 

Of course it is..you promote acceptance, equality and fairness but don't practice it when it comes to legally available newspapers..in an equal and affair society you don't ban a newspaper that's legal cos you don't like it..you don't buy it. You don't ban something legal cos it expresses views you find abhorrent. Feel free to campaign for it to be banned or prosecuted or whatever but you don't just ban it

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I guess it depends on your definition of 'ban'. I think it absolutely fine for an individual (or in this instance, the student body)

 

Make your mind up..was it the student body or the ruling body

 

to opt not to stock something that they find offensive and promotes hate. I think an individual's decision on the grounds of their own personal beliefs (as long as it's within the law) is very different from 'banning'.

 

You mean that they believe or claim promotes hate. As I said this is akin to a council/committee banning books from libraries cos they don't like the content..it's for the reader to decide.

 

Again, do the Liverpool newsagents refusing to stock the Sun anger you?

 

I would not go as far as anger..I find it disappointing..I'd hope they could rise above it and be the better people and let their customers decide

[mr.hobblesworth]

Make your mind up..was it the student body or the ruling body

 

I thought it was the student council, so both. The ruling student body. The student ruling body. I don't actually get the difference. They're an elected body that is there to make decisions on behalf of the students, or at least that's what I thought they were. Am I wrong?

 

You mean that they believe or claim promotes hate. As I said this is akin to a council/committee banning books from libraries cos they don't like the content..it's for the reader to decide.

 

Many do 'ban'/ opt to not stock books. Good luck finding (for example) David Irving books in many libraries. I worked in a record shop and we wouldn't buy in records by people like Skrewdriver (far right punk bands). I completely support the many student unions that refused to stock porn or Nuts, Zoo, FHM etc. I've used the example of the NF paper before; I presume you think shops should stock that so long as it's legal? I'm not saying that they shouldn't but am completely behind any shopkeeper or student/ ruling body that doesn't want to.

[Bea Smith]

If they want to promote a culture of acceptance, equality and fairness then they absolutely must respect freedom of speach and freedom of choice.

 

But you don't - you have posted that I shouldn't be allowed say certain things.

 

Banning things is truly outrageous.

 

But you don't mind US and UK agencies making it ry difficult for RUSSIA TODAY to continue broadcasting ? I don't see any posts about that from you.

 

Voting to stop others from accessing something just because you disagree with it, is in no way accepting, equal or fair. It's censorship, it's fascim.

Torture and extreme Pornography ? Child material ? Online terrorist manuals on how to make pipe bombs ? Are they ok with you ?

 

The only justification would be if the daily mail actually lived up to the leftist accusations thrown at it. But it simply doesn't in my opinion.

 

Being concerned when an immigrant commits a crime in the UK is not hateful. It raises legitimate questions about our immigration policy. It does not encourage people to go out and attack the first brown person that they see.

But some do, and even your Royal highness saying the figures are rubbish doesn't change official statistics for hate crimes that have risen significantly since Brexit and these trash rags promoted hate, like the Mail diod when it supported Hitler in the 1930,s.

Perhaps you think that the creature that killed Jo Cox just before Brexit referendum wasn't influenced by anything either

[/b]

 

 

........