If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Sanitize: I know plenty of people who read the Mail and are not racist, homophobic or xenophobic. Many pay no attention to the politics and read it because it is a female-friendly paper with features and articles that interest them.
But make no mistake: the rag is all of those things, and together with the Scum and the Express, on a completely different league to every other newspaper in the country. It is virtually impossible to expect the Mail will report any story regarding to immigration, multiculturalism, Muslims and to a lesser degree homosexuality without it being heavily biased and misconstructed. It's fucking poison of the worst kind, and a disturbing percentage of its columnists and lead writers are grade-A cunts. There are no two ways about it.
Yes Paul Dacre is a grade A tool but to decry the whole output of the paper is a little, dare I say it, closed minded.
On a totally unrelated topic, I have given up smoking. I feel like such a sell out.
We're not saying you're wrong. However a significant amount of the Daily Mail's column inches at the moment are taken up with issues surrounding multiculturlism (sp), immigration, muslims and people on benefits. Whenever they do one of these articles it's invariably full of journalism that appears to be completely made up on the spot or blown out of context.
I personally despise them because of their bizarre pro-law anti-police stance.
They quite like the idea of zero tolerance e.t.c. but get in a right old state when the laws are enforced.
When it comes to motoring offences, the Daily Mail is but the most vociferous critic of of the law being enforced. Sometimes they're all but demanding their 'right' to break the speed limit without being prosecuted for it, and speak of "the War on the Motorist".
I look forward to them complaining about people being arrested for taking drugs, and bravely campaigning against "the War on the Recreational Drug User".
Hypocritical cunts as they are.
Good point. It's ok when the Proles are arrested, but not people for "middle class" crime such as speeding or using a mobile phone behind a wheel.
Daily Mail... Police smash white supremacist terror plot to poison ethnic minorities with ricin
BBC... Pair questioned over ricin find
Guardian... Man and son held after 'ricin find'
Times... Man and teenage son held after ricin found
Independent... Father and son held after 'ricin find'
So the Daily Mail (and the right wing Telegraph funnily enough) were the only ones who mentioned White Supremacists in their headline, and the fact that the victims would've been ethnic minorities.
Found it:
In 2009 (http://www.private-eye.co.uk/paul_foot.php), two Mail journos, Stephen Wright and Richard Pendlebury, were shortlisted for exposing this charming character:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054496/Lawyer-centre-Scotland-Yard-race-war-convicted-conman-suspect-legal-qualifications.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054481/Liar-crook-friend-billionaires-royalty--meet-lawyer-whos-tearing-Met-apart.html
Just goes to show that not all the hacks at the Mail tow the "they took errrr jerrrrbbss" party line and that they do occasionally practice the art of good journalism.
Though if we're talking about revolting papers the Guardian must be high up there with various articles such as an apolgia for despotism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/nov/26/cuba-raul-castro-human-rights
or its the claim that the Serbs were not even partly responsible and that the ethnic cleansing didn't really matter
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/14/itstimetoendserbbashing
Not to mention the most revolting article I've ever seemn (sadly before the internet) when a Guardian journalist wrote it was alright to murder RUC men because because they were either planters or traitors. The Guardian never entered our house again, not helped by the fact my Dad had the day before gone to the funeral of one.
Ditto Telegraph and Times regarding their disturbingly sympathetic coverage of Israeli ethnic cleansing and atrocities against the Palestinians.
But instead of descending into a your-paper-is-worse-than-mine argument, I sincerely hope Flashman that you do agree with the sentiment held by many of us that the Mail is a lot worse than other newspapers in the UK and that it has a general and continuing agenda of prejudice against certain minority groups that borders on the racist.
For all their faults, the likes of the Guardian and the Telegraph don't get anywhere near the Mail in the vile scales.
To a certain extent I am showing the hypocrisy of those who condemn the Mail for articles but are content to brush under the carpet other papers. The Mail is not Mein Kampf or anywhere near.
However please do not suggest Israel is anywhere near Serbian level of atrocities - I have seen the results of real ethnic cleansing and can ensure you they are not
The headline: BURKHA BAN: TWO-THIRDS IN FAVOUR
First line: ALMOST two-thirds of Britons think women should be barred from wearing the burkha in public, a poll has revealed.
Second Line: Figures from pollsters Harris show that 57 per cent of people – Muslim and non-Muslim – say they would support a ban on the head-to-toe garment like the one being considered in France.
But they save the best for last: In a poll for the Daily Express last year, 98 per cent of voters said Britain should ban burkhas.
Now what makes me think that one wasn't a fair poll?
Now it what world is 57% even nearly two thirds, never mind actually two thirds as they say in the headline? It's more "just over half" than "nearly two thirds." The article is by Daily Express Reporter. I can recommend a great garment of clothing if they want to remain anonymous.
Also, according to them this figure represents the number of people who support the ban on the "head-to-toe" garment.
Why "head-to-toe"? Surely the only part of the attire that anyone could possibly object to is the bit which conceals the face?