Home Politics & Debate
Need support urgently? Head to this thread.

Does Daily Mail understand irony?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Today they have a story about how Richard Dawkins has "outraged" muslim groups.

Still no comment about whether Paul Dacre has.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Muslim Association of Britain will complain about absolutely anything whatsoever if it gets their name in the papers. When a journalist is desperate to get a story online or has a print deadline looming, the Muslim Association of Britain is always a good place to go to for a quote to fill any story regarding immigration, burkhqas, Richard Dawkins or the like.

    It's not quite as ridiculous as one of their other recent choices, however. There was a story in the Mail on Sunday two days ago where the article said that staff working for Marie Stopes could get free abortions as a "perk of the job". Their word, not mine. Aside from completely distorting the truth, who do they decide to go to for some unbiased, objective commentary on the matter at hand? Ah yes, the Pro-Life Alliance whose completely inpartial analysis was "Never famous for its sensitivity, Marie Stopes recently shared controversial TV advertising time with a selection of beer brands, rival supermarkets, hair products and well-known confectionary bars. So it is not surprising this crass organisation equates free abortions with gym membership as appropriate consumer perks for employees and their families. We have every right to be outraged and it is time for a proper public inquiry into the practice and marketing of abortion in the UK.".

    Speculation is rife on Twitter (probably) that the spokesperson was called Pot K. Black. Either way, Josephine Quintavalle from the Pro-Life Alliance, you are a total fucking tool.

    Dawkins is entitled to his view on the burkqa. Although I'm surprised nobody in the fashion world has tried to branch out into this market yet. Why do burkqas only come in black? That needs remeding as soon as possible, even though black and white stripes would make any woman (or even man) wearing one look like a zebra.

    Summing up on this story. Richard Dawkins - a bellend, but a bellend whose entitled to his opinion. Paul Dacre - loathsome cunt.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Although I'm surprised nobody in the fashion world has tried to branch out into this market yet. Why do burkqas only come in black? That needs remeding as soon as possible, even though black and white stripes would make any woman (or even man) wearing one look like a zebra.

    Not just in black, no...


    burka_fashion.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Does Daily Mail understand irony?

    Does Dawkins ?

    An apparent blind faith acceptance that public money is spent on education. (His concern is how it is spent)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Say what?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    Say what?

    Have you read the article ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I had, and I've read it again, why?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "He asks why public money should be spent labelling children on the basis of ‘something as arbitrary as religion’."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Today they have a story about how Richard Dawkins has "outraged" muslim groups.
    Why did you quote the word "outraged"? I can't see that word anywhere in the DM article.
    MoK wrote: »
    Still no comment about whether Paul Dacre has.
    I'm not agreeing/disagreeing with you (yet). I'd like to see some examples though please.

    btw the comments from the comments section don't count.

    Cheers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sanitize wrote: »
    Why did you quote the word "outraged"? I can't see that word anywhere in the DM article.

    They've updated the article. When I say "updated", I mean re-written parts.
    I'm not agreeing/disagreeing with you (yet). I'd like to see some examples though please.

    btw the comments from the comments section don't count.

    Cheers.

    Note what I said, "whether Paul Dacre has", I didn't say that he had. Perhaps we should ask the rent-a-quote group the DM goes to...

    NB Comments are moderated, therefore there is editorial control. Worth bearing that in mind.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "He asks why public money should be spent labelling children on the basis of ‘something as arbitrary as religion’."

    Comment on your quote.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    NB Comments are moderated, therefore there is editorial control. Worth bearing that in mind.
    Comments on TheSite are also moderated. Does that mean that **Helen** and Jo7 are imposing editorial control on our views?

    I don't think this criticism of the Mail's comments sections is fair. They allow most things through, and I've seen some stuff that's deeply critical of the Mail themselves written in there. And more often than not, there's a fair number of green arrows on those comments!

    And just like they wouldn't publish a comment which called Paul Dacre a cunt, it's safe to say I wouldn't survive for long here if I published a comment attacking a moderator in the crudest Anglo-Saxon expletives that are available. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Comments on TheSite are also moderated. Does that mean that **Helen** and Jo7 are imposing editorial control on our views?

    Yeah they do. Hence why people are banned, comments amended etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm surprised as we're talking about censorship no-one's mentioned the most heavily censored comment section in the British media, that so-called bastion of free-speech the Guardian

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/02/wikileaks-british-lies-afghanistan-ireland

    Not content with having the leader of the most facist party in the UK spout off they then remove comment after comment pointing out their hypocrisy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd be talking about free speech if such a thing was enshrined in UK law, sadly (and offensively) it isn't.

    The Guardian proves my point about moderated forums, even though the approach they take isn't something I support, in that the editors can and do decide what is posted under their banner.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Today they have a story about how Richard Dawkins has "outraged" muslim groups.

    Still no comment about whether Paul Dacre has.

    They wont stop me or any other muslims from whereing it, its religion to where it and we shall do as we please I where it always we wont hide guns or anything in our burka either x
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    **Annie** wrote: »
    ...it's religion to [wear] it and we shall do...
    You clearly don't know your own religion very well, then. There is absolutely nothing in the Koran that states women must wear the burkha. I've spoken to several Muslims in the past who know the book inside out, and they confirmed as much to me.
    I always [wear it], we won't hide guns or anything in our burka either.
    Good for you.

    I honestly can't think of any other response to that...
Sign In or Register to comment.