Ah, the left, quick to criticise the Mail for an article about the possible influence a marxist father could have had on his son, a potential future PM of this country, but happy to let MP's and others slate and disgrace the memory of an old woman and try to disrupt her funeral.
If you dont like the damn paper, dont buy it, I wouldnt dream of buying the Mirror, The Granuaid or Morning Star, neither would I visit a website to see how much they hated me, neither do I give a flying that they would/do.
Feel free to criticise the paper for something they did years ago (rightly so, as you ask, they should always be reminded) but, try this link and then tell me none of you have ever used any of the products or services listed.
If they had just questioned the political influence that Milliband senior had had on his son then that would have been absolutely fine - but they didn't.
They said that the bloke - based on a single diary entry when he was 17 years old - "Hated Britain" - completely unjustifiable and over the top.
They actually ruined a good story because it would be interesting to know what strands of his Father's philosophy that Ed Milliband holds on to, but they could not help themselves.
It wasnt based on a diary entry when he was 17, that was merely his statement of allegiance to Marx and "The workers" it was based on confirmed comments from RM, published in his biogrpaphy, that he sometimes wished we had lost world war II, and he detested our defence of "The F****** Falklands". If thats not a man who is at least uncomfortable with his country, then I dont know what is, maybe hated were the wrong words, but anyone quoting those comments to me would get short shrift.
Uncomfortable enough to fight the Nazis whilst serving in the Royal Navy ?
The remarks were made after he had served, so no doubt his political views had skewed enough to make the remark about losing WWII, if people are comfortable with someone saying that, despite them serving in the forces, then fine, I'm not. I am sure there are people of marxist/communist leanings in the current forces who disagree with the reasons for recent wars in the middle east, but to say you wished you would lose is deplorable IMO.
I just think it's easy for a newspaper to say "he hated his country" but what have most of us ever really done for our country ? Significantly less than this man I'd imagine.
No doubt in my mind the headline was designed to grab attention, it did.
Completely agree - but you have to ask yourself if there are any limits to what's acceptable in order to achieve an grabbing headline ?
Its a newspaper, its free to write what it wants, as long as its within the law, I dread to think what the Morning Star or Socialist Worker papers may have written about Lady Thatchers death that could be deemed acceptable/unacceptable. I have no proof that they did anything, but I doubt it would have bothered those on CL like this, if so.
I love it when two wrongs make a right
My point being, I know that reading the either the Morning Star or Socialist Worker would raise my heckles, so I dont read them or visit their websites. Lets agree, for arguments sake that the DM wrote about RM was unacceptable, but I dont remember many on here attacking the left wing press or MP's (George Galloway for one) for some of the vile stuff printed about Lady Thatcher at the time of her death and funeral. It seems only those on the left on this forum have the right to be offended and take the moral high ground.
Ah, the left, quick to criticise the Mail for an article about the possible influence a marxist father could have had on his son, a potential future PM of this country, but happy to let MP's and others slate and disgrace the memory of an old woman and try to disrupt her funeral.
If you dont like the damn paper, dont buy it, I wouldnt dream of buying the Mirror, The Granuaid or Morning Star, neither would I visit a website to see how much they hated me, neither do I give a flying that they would/do.
Feel free to criticise the paper for something they did years ago (rightly so, as you ask, they should always be reminded) but, try this link and then tell me none of you have ever used any of the products or services listed.
If they had just questioned the political influence that Milliband senior had had on his son then that would have been absolutely fine - but they didn't.
They said that the bloke - based on a single diary entry when he was 17 years old - "Hated Britain" - completely unjustifiable and over the top.
They actually ruined a good story because it would be interesting to know what strands of his Father's philosophy that Ed Milliband holds on to, but they could not help themselves.
It wasnt based on a diary entry when he was 17, that was merely his statement of allegiance to Marx and "The workers" it was based on confirmed comments from RM, published in his biogrpaphy, that he sometimes wished we had lost world war II, and he detested our defence of "The F****** Falklands". If thats not a man who is at least uncomfortable with his country, then I dont know what is, maybe hated were the wrong words, but anyone quoting those comments to me would get short shrift.
Uncomfortable enough to fight the Nazis whilst serving in the Royal Navy ?
The remarks were made after he had served, so no doubt his political views had skewed enough to make the remark about losing WWII, if people are comfortable with someone saying that, despite them serving in the forces, then fine, I'm not. I am sure there are people of marxist/communist leanings in the current forces who disagree with the reasons for recent wars in the middle east, but to say you wished you would lose is deplorable IMO.
I just think it's easy for a newspaper to say "he hated his country" but what have most of us ever really done for our country ? Significantly less than this man I'd imagine.
No doubt in my mind the headline was designed to grab attention, it did.
Completely agree - but you have to ask yourself if there are any limits to what's acceptable in order to achieve an grabbing headline ?
Its a newspaper, its free to write what it wants, as long as its within the law, I dread to think what the Morning Star or Socialist Worker papers may have written about Lady Thatchers death that could be deemed acceptable/unacceptable. I have no proof that they did anything, but I doubt it would have bothered those on CL like this, if so.
I love it when two wrongs make a right
My point being, I know that reading the either the Morning Star or Socialist Worker would raise my heckles, so I dont read them or visit their websites. Lets agree, for arguments sake that the DM wrote about RM was unacceptable, but I dont remember many on here attacking the left wing press or MP's (George Galloway for one) for some of the vile stuff printed about Lady Thatcher at the time of her death and funeral. It seems only those on the left on this forum have the right to be offended and take the moral high ground.
You may not remember it but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. There was a very long thread that despite calls from Admin descended in insult and counter-insults and yes many came from those on the left but also many from those on the right.
The big difference, while not defending the sick insults to Thatcher, is that she was a politician who has just died rather an just a politician's father who died many years ago and whose was accused of hating his country on misquotes of what he wrote when 16. His military service was almost ignored and then a relative's memorial service gatecrashed in order to dig up more "dirt".
Those on the right frequently get "offended" on here and start threads about non-Charlton related threads.
Ah, the left, quick to criticise the Mail for an article about the possible influence a marxist father could have had on his son, a potential future PM of this country, but happy to let MP's and others slate and disgrace the memory of an old woman and try to disrupt her funeral.
If you dont like the damn paper, dont buy it, I wouldnt dream of buying the Mirror, The Granuaid or Morning Star, neither would I visit a website to see how much they hated me, neither do I give a flying that they would/do.
Feel free to criticise the paper for something they did years ago (rightly so, as you ask, they should always be reminded) but, try this link and then tell me none of you have ever used any of the products or services listed.
If they had just questioned the political influence that Milliband senior had had on his son then that would have been absolutely fine - but they didn't.
They said that the bloke - based on a single diary entry when he was 17 years old - "Hated Britain" - completely unjustifiable and over the top.
They actually ruined a good story because it would be interesting to know what strands of his Father's philosophy that Ed Milliband holds on to, but they could not help themselves.
It wasnt based on a diary entry when he was 17, that was merely his statement of allegiance to Marx and "The workers" it was based on confirmed comments from RM, published in his biogrpaphy, that he sometimes wished we had lost world war II, and he detested our defence of "The F****** Falklands". If thats not a man who is at least uncomfortable with his country, then I dont know what is, maybe hated were the wrong words, but anyone quoting those comments to me would get short shrift.
Uncomfortable enough to fight the Nazis whilst serving in the Royal Navy ?
The remarks were made after he had served, so no doubt his political views had skewed enough to make the remark about losing WWII, if people are comfortable with someone saying that, despite them serving in the forces, then fine, I'm not. I am sure there are people of marxist/communist leanings in the current forces who disagree with the reasons for recent wars in the middle east, but to say you wished you would lose is deplorable IMO.
I just think it's easy for a newspaper to say "he hated his country" but what have most of us ever really done for our country ? Significantly less than this man I'd imagine.
No doubt in my mind the headline was designed to grab attention, it did.
Completely agree - but you have to ask yourself if there are any limits to what's acceptable in order to achieve an grabbing headline ?
Its a newspaper, its free to write what it wants, as long as its within the law, I dread to think what the Morning Star or Socialist Worker papers may have written about Lady Thatchers death that could be deemed acceptable/unacceptable. I have no proof that they did anything, but I doubt it would have bothered those on CL like this, if so.
I love it when two wrongs make a right
My point being, I know that reading the either the Morning Star or Socialist Worker would raise my heckles, so I dont read them or visit their websites. Lets agree, for arguments sake that the DM wrote about RM was unacceptable, but I dont remember many on here attacking the left wing press or MP's (George Galloway for one) for some of the vile stuff printed about Lady Thatcher at the time of her death and funeral. It seems only those on the left on this forum have the right to be offended and take the moral high ground.
You may not remember it but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. There was a very long thread that despite calls from Admin descended in insult and counter-insults and yes many came from those on the left but also many from those on the right.
The big difference, while not defending the sick insults to Thatcher, is that she was a politician who has just died rather an just a politician's father who died many years ago and whose was accused of hating his country on misquotes of what he wrote when 16. His military service was almost ignored and then a relative's memorial service gatecrashed in order to dig up more "dirt".
Those on the right frequently get "offended" on here and start threads about non-Charlton related threads.
Hey! What's the problem? We're all Charlton aren't we?? ;o))
A good example of the Mail's influence is the campaign it ran against the MMR vaccine. Single-handedly it persauded a significant number of parents -way, way beyond its readership - that MMR was dangerous.
More positively, its coverage of the Stephen Lawrence murder was extraordinarily effective.
People who still think the Guardian is full of left wing propaganda , hasn't read the paper for a long time ( or at all ) . I read the online addition which is superb and I get no impression it's left wing . ( if it did I wouldn't read it ) . The Mail is a different story . On the odd occasions I see in in the dentist surgery waiting room , once I have scanned through it I feel dirty and want to top myself . It's vile and spiteful and I would hate to think it influenced people but I suspect it does and I'm not just talking about influencing they way they vote.
The mail is a horrible paper but the comments made by the readers are as equally venomous. I log online sometimes to perv at David Beckham and people are vile on there.
Its not about the mail offending the politics of the left or right, its about the Mails behaviour and their offensive ways of reporting. They have drawn criticism from Nick Clegg and Michael Heseltine – hardly left wingers. Unless of course your politics are so far to the right these two politicians are considered left wing. Remember the Mail were supporters of Hitler in the 1930’s.
Surely those reading the mail would be voting to the right anyway, so it's not really influencing anything
It is still revolting journalism
I'm not a radical muslim but I still find burning poppies offensive. By your logic it isn't a problem as it isn't influencing anyone.
Would you even know about the poppy burning if the mail/sun/express hadn't reported it? Hardly something the guardian would usually focus on, they'd probably have a blog article online about how it was the troops fault for expecting a day of remembrance.
It's revolting journalism in your opinion, it's free press here so just buy another paper.
Surely those reading the mail would be voting to the right anyway, so it's not really influencing anything
It is still revolting journalism
I'm not a radical muslim but I still find burning poppies offensive. By your logic it isn't a problem as it isn't influencing anyone.
Would you even know about the poppy burning if the mail/sun/express hadn't reported it? Hardly something the guardian would usually focus on, they'd probably have a blog article online about how it was the troops fault for expecting a day of remembrance.
It's revolting journalism in your opinion, it's free press here so just buy another paper.
It's not really an opinion that its revolting to send a journalist to ask all the family members at a man's memorial whether the man hated Britain.
All the right wingers were up in arms when there wasn't overwhelming praise in certain media for Thatcher, so why now is it ok to character assassinate the dead?
Surely those reading the mail would be voting to the right anyway, so it's not really influencing anything
It is still revolting journalism
I'm not a radical muslim but I still find burning poppies offensive. By your logic it isn't a problem as it isn't influencing anyone.
Would you even know about the poppy burning if the mail/sun/express hadn't reported it? Hardly something the guardian would usually focus on, they'd probably have a blog article online about how it was the troops fault for expecting a day of remembrance.
It's revolting journalism in your opinion, it's free press here so just buy another paper.
I don't buy the Guardian or the Mail. I read The Times as it happens.
The poppy burning was on the TV but now you are making stuff up about the Guardian blaming troops or not reporting it. You want it to be true as it suits you to believe that but you don't know that as you yourself say you don't read it. If you have to make stuff up it shows you are struggling to protect the Mail so have to make up stuff about another paper that you think I or other lefties read when actually I don't.
Yes, it is a free press just as people are free to burn poppies. Doesn't stop either be revolting.
It is not for me, yet those who seem to care most about diversity and free speech seem to be those who get so outraged against something they don't stand for.
What is clear though is that they are making a success of it. They have adapted to the digital age far better than anyone else, and as a result have virtually cornered the digital market. Their website receives over 9 million hits a day, more than double their closest digital rival (Guardian), and continues to grow y/y by 30%.
Whether you like what they do (I don't), there clearly is a market who do.
Both the Mail and the Guardian have cracked the US market, albeit the Mail online is generally a different animal to the print version and focused more on celebrity than politics. Arguably the Guardian's success is more remarkable, since they start from a much lower print sale but are hammering the other UK nationals (leaving aside pay wall issues).
Just had a look at the Guardian's circulation figures and they really are appalling. Only the Independent has less of the daily nationals. I guess a lot of natural Guardian readers (the youngish etc) are more likely to get their news online?
None of the national press circulation figures are wonderful by historic standards, but the old broadsheets always operated with much lower sales than the popular tabloids. Their business model is different - historically they could attract higher ad spend per reader because their readers tended to be more affluent.
Traditionally it's the middle market papers who were squeezed because they had neither mass circulation nor enough affluent readers to attract the ad revenue. The Mail has bucked that trend for a long while, although the Express (which is a seriously bad newspaper) has been crushed by it.
People trying to put a defence comparing the abuse towards Thatcher are just simply wrong and are confussing two completely separate issues. Those who hated her and what she did/stood for said so at the time and the abuse was aimed directly at her during her lifetime and focused on her personally when she died. The mail article is nothing to do with attacking Miliband Snr, it's about undermining Miliband Jnr now. Why didn't the Mail do a big story directed personally at Snr when he was alive when he could answer the article? What is the relevance of the article to anything now and what is the relevance of a dead blokes politics to his sons? Big difference, their trying to influence politics and attack a person by hiding behind a smokescreen of talking about someone else.
Personally I think the bloke fought for his country so has the right to hold any view about war and politics, and even hate England if he wishes. He's earnt that right more than most. My Granded fought in Egypt and as like many suffered witnessing his best friend killed by his side. He was also a Socialist and a pacifist and was anti the war and the politics of it even whilst he was fighting. Who am I or anyone, especially a worthless scummy hack, to tell him he couldn't hold the views he did?
Oh and if the mail wish to really be the bastion of supporting Britishness, they might want to tell their owner that being a British Peer and registering as a non dom so he doesn't pay any tax in this country might look a bit hypocritical to some.
My late father used to read the Telegraph, and I guess my Mum just read that. When he died in 1996, that's when my Mum started reading the Mail. Sometimes if I was visiting, she'd ask me to pick up a copy. I'd hide it inside a copy of Penthouse....
But seriously, it's not about it being right wing that bothers me. It's this thing about keeping its readership in a permanent state of fear. I am convinced this has had a big effect on my Mum. She never used to think and talk as she does now. Permanently worried about this and that. The day before the Czech Republic joined the EU they ran a two page story about the "tidal wave of Gypsies" from the country that was going to swamp the UK. it was and is a complete load of bollocks. But she believes all this scaremongering. What a shame that she has to see out her years in a state of permanent unfounded fear about the country.
I didn't realise he'd gone specifically to stir, youre right that isn't on.
Henry, I never said that the story was in the paper, nor did I even say it was on their website. I was merely implying that a guardian blogger may be more likely to side with the poppy burners. It was meant more to be tongue in cheek rather than hard fact.
Anyway,I rarely by papers and when I do I don't buy the mail
I didn't realise he'd gone specifically to stir, youre right that isn't on.
Henry, I never said that the story was in the paper, nor did I even say it was on their website. I was merely implying that a guardian blogger may be more likely to side with the poppy burners. It was meant more to be tongue in cheek rather than hard fact.
Anyway,I rarely by papers and when I do I don't buy the mail
fair enough.
I don't read the Guardian but I doubt they would side with the poppy burners as they are pretty mainstream. SWP/Morning Star etc may well do but they are a lunatic fringe like the BNP and EDL and practically no one reads those papers anyway. People, not you, are trying to deflect attention away from what a major mainstream paper did by talking about what tiny fringe papers like the Morning Star might have said. As said before two wrongs don't make a right.
A free press and freedom of speech (within the law) is a great thing but it leaves room for vile things like Poppy burning and the Mail Article. Neither is good but better we have to suffer than than sharia (or any other religious) law, communism or fascism.
The problem is that if we say it's OK to attack Milliband in this way ie via his father because he's from a party we don't support than sooner or later it will be Cameron, Farage, Clegg, Johnson's parents being dug up for a good kicking and that doesn't help anyone.
One other aspect that I haven't seen mentioned is how incredibly cowardly it is to attack a man (a war hero no less) who can no longer defend himself as a way of covertly attacking a man who can.
Comments
Lets agree, for arguments sake that the DM wrote about RM was unacceptable, but I dont remember many on here attacking the left wing press or MP's (George Galloway for one) for some of the vile stuff printed about Lady Thatcher at the time of her death and funeral.
It seems only those on the left on this forum have the right to be offended and take the moral high ground.
The big difference, while not defending the sick insults to Thatcher, is that she was a politician who has just died rather an just a politician's father who died many years ago and whose was accused of hating his country on misquotes of what he wrote when 16. His military service was almost ignored and then a relative's memorial service gatecrashed in order to dig up more "dirt".
Those on the right frequently get "offended" on here and start threads about non-Charlton related threads.
More positively, its coverage of the Stephen Lawrence murder was extraordinarily effective.
I'm not a radical muslim but I still find burning poppies offensive. By your logic it isn't a problem as it isn't influencing anyone.
The Mail is a different story . On the odd occasions I see in in the dentist surgery waiting room , once I have scanned through it I feel dirty and want to top myself . It's vile and spiteful and I would hate to think it influenced people but I suspect it does and I'm not just talking about influencing they way they vote.
You can't compare the two papers .
Can see a lot of people getting shoved out the door.
It's revolting journalism in your opinion, it's free press here so just buy another paper.
All the right wingers were up in arms when there wasn't overwhelming praise in certain media for Thatcher, so why now is it ok to character assassinate the dead?
The poppy burning was on the TV but now you are making stuff up about the Guardian blaming troops or not reporting it. You want it to be true as it suits you to believe that but you don't know that as you yourself say you don't read it. If you have to make stuff up it shows you are struggling to protect the Mail so have to make up stuff about another paper that you think I or other lefties read when actually I don't.
Yes, it is a free press just as people are free to burn poppies. Doesn't stop either be revolting.
How much does you hate the Daily Mail
Still, diversion from wondering what Charlton will turn up at the Valley on Saturday...
Traditionally it's the middle market papers who were squeezed because they had neither mass circulation nor enough affluent readers to attract the ad revenue. The Mail has bucked that trend for a long while, although the Express (which is a seriously bad newspaper) has been crushed by it.
not sure what that means & don't care.
Those who hated her and what she did/stood for said so at the time and the abuse was aimed directly at her during her lifetime and focused on her personally when she died. The mail article is nothing to do with attacking Miliband Snr, it's about undermining Miliband Jnr now. Why didn't the Mail do a big story directed personally at Snr when he was alive when he could answer the article? What is the relevance of the article to anything now and what is the relevance of a dead blokes politics to his sons? Big difference, their trying to influence politics and attack a person by hiding behind a smokescreen of talking about someone else.
Personally I think the bloke fought for his country so has the right to hold any view about war and politics, and even hate England if he wishes. He's earnt that right more than most. My Granded fought in Egypt and as like many suffered witnessing his best friend killed by his side. He was also a Socialist and a pacifist and was anti the war and the politics of it even whilst he was fighting. Who am I or anyone, especially a worthless scummy hack, to tell him he couldn't hold the views he did?
Oh and if the mail wish to really be the bastion of supporting Britishness, they might want to tell their owner that being a British Peer and registering as a non dom so he doesn't pay any tax in this country might look a bit hypocritical to some.
But seriously, it's not about it being right wing that bothers me. It's this thing about keeping its readership in a permanent state of fear. I am convinced this has had a big effect on my Mum. She never used to think and talk as she does now. Permanently worried about this and that. The day before the Czech Republic joined the EU they ran a two page story about the "tidal wave of Gypsies" from the country that was going to swamp the UK. it was and is a complete load of bollocks. But she believes all this scaremongering. What a shame that she has to see out her years in a state of permanent unfounded fear about the country.
Henry, I never said that the story was in the paper, nor did I even say it was on their website. I was merely implying that a guardian blogger may be more likely to side with the poppy burners. It was meant more to be tongue in cheek rather than hard fact.
Anyway,I rarely by papers and when I do I don't buy the mail
fair enough.
I don't read the Guardian but I doubt they would side with the poppy burners as they are pretty mainstream. SWP/Morning Star etc may well do but they are a lunatic fringe like the BNP and EDL and practically no one reads those papers anyway. People, not you, are trying to deflect attention away from what a major mainstream paper did by talking about what tiny fringe papers like the Morning Star might have said. As said before two wrongs don't make a right.
A free press and freedom of speech (within the law) is a great thing but it leaves room for vile things like Poppy burning and the Mail Article. Neither is good but better we have to suffer than than sharia (or any other religious) law, communism or fascism.
The problem is that if we say it's OK to attack Milliband in this way ie via his father because he's from a party we don't support than sooner or later it will be Cameron, Farage, Clegg, Johnson's parents being dug up for a good kicking and that doesn't help anyone.
Ridiculous article in a vile rag.
I'm hated by the mail - no surprise there, in fact I was worried it was going to go wrong after the first couple of questions. ;-)