there would be nothingn wrong with this front cover were it not for the presence of the porky smug twat at the top there, which kind of ruins the respectful nature of the rest of the cover.
…mind you maybe it acts as a nice fag packet style warning to people “just before you think better of us, remember we still employ this c*nt”
“The ‘country’ didn’t sack the dinner lady. The ’school’ sacked her.”
Thanks for pointing that out. When I first saw this headline, I was worried that I’d missed the referendum on whether the dinner lady should be sacked or not.
I disagree that this is a good front page. I’ve always disliked the way that tabloids (not just the Mail) lard everything with emotion – even when I happen to agree with the line they’re taking. I’m perfectly capable of figuring out how to feel about a story, thanks, I don’t need to be led by the hand. This particular story should be given prominence (it’s shocking how the media in general have allowed people to more or less forget Iraq and Afghanistan), and by all means have an editorial or op-ed loaded with opinion, but the front page should be dispassionate, just presenting the facts.
Ah, classic Littlejohn. He reports on a clearly isolated case, the full facts of which are unclear, and extrapolates this to the whole country. That’s how most of these ‘PC gone mad’ myths start.
A perfectly good, worthy front page utterly ruined by splashing a picture of a gurning imbecile at the top.
there would be nothingn wrong with this front cover were it not for the presence of the porky smug twat at the top there, which kind of ruins the respectful nature of the rest of the cover.
…mind you maybe it acts as a nice fag packet style warning to people “just before you think better of us, remember we still employ this c*nt”
Sacked for telling the truth? Sounds like the sort of thing that might happen to a DM journalist who let the facts get in the way of the story.
Littlejohn must be delighted to be on top of two boy soldiers.
The ‘country’ didn’t sack the dinner lady. The ’school’ sacked her.
“The ‘country’ didn’t sack the dinner lady. The ’school’ sacked her.”
Thanks for pointing that out. When I first saw this headline, I was worried that I’d missed the referendum on whether the dinner lady should be sacked or not.
The Mail were all for war. Being in the Army means you get a gun & people will shoot at you and try and kill you while you do the same to them.
I disagree that this is a good front page. I’ve always disliked the way that tabloids (not just the Mail) lard everything with emotion – even when I happen to agree with the line they’re taking. I’m perfectly capable of figuring out how to feel about a story, thanks, I don’t need to be led by the hand. This particular story should be given prominence (it’s shocking how the media in general have allowed people to more or less forget Iraq and Afghanistan), and by all means have an editorial or op-ed loaded with opinion, but the front page should be dispassionate, just presenting the facts.
It’s really cheap for a paper to act all high and mighty when they supported the idea of this “war”.
“What kind of country….?” Well certainly not one you live in.
Ah, classic Littlejohn. He reports on a clearly isolated case, the full facts of which are unclear, and extrapolates this to the whole country. That’s how most of these ‘PC gone mad’ myths start.
And she hasn’t been sacked.
Also, this front page reminds me of a Rolf Harris song, and that’s never a good thing.
Littlejohn’s back, well I suppose it is slightly better than his front…
Moggie how dare you dis Rolf!