I haven’t got a clue, Gemma. Why not ask the Mail about it? Having stuck you on the front page in a crop top and cut-off short shorts, they obviously purely admire you for your mind.
Shouldn’t the welcome for someone on a “State Visit” rather than religious one, be unholy, Isn’t that the point of getting the UK taxpayer to pay for it.
It’s a bit strange seeing the Popes entourage accuse Britain of being a third world country, given the amount of atheism here and how Christianity still has a hold on many parts of the third world.
Plus, hasn’t the Mail, over the years, taught us to despise foreigners coming to Britain and telling us how to live our lives in ways different to our “indiginous” norms?
How typical of The Mail to have such a hysterical headline. And how typical of them to tell a porky, this time about Stephen Fry. I’m glad he’s stood up to The Mail’s viscious attack.
I suppose the pope’s visit will give some nutbars the chance to conflate secularism with atheism (which is always militant, of course) and criticise both. What do such commentators want? A theocracy?
Furthermore, why do some pillocks insist that the UK resembles a Third World country? Are such gonks saying that living in our country is somehow worse than residing in a post-communist state? I suppose it’s a disguised attack on people with the wrong skin colour.
As for the Vatican aide who made that daft comment, he should consider that many people in the West have turned their back on faith thanks to improved education and welfare states, leaving the faithful in societies where both of these things are in short supply. Like the real Third World.
Mandela isn’t costing the taxpayer 21 million and hasn’t called for homosexuals to burn in hell. Nethier has his entourage called Britain a third world country, but Mandela probably knows what constitutes a Third World Country a bit better than some prat in a robe.
Lady Burglar, if you’re trying to expose us as hypocrites then you’re wasting your time. What does it matter if some people prefer Mandela to Pope Benedict XVI?
For my part, I’ll probably choose Mandela over the Pope, partly because of the nature of the body that Benedict represents. There are myriad problems with the Catholic church, for example its inabilty to change and stop treating women and gays like second class citizens.
I shall give you something further to mull over: did you know that the first women to work in the vatican were toilet attendants in the 1960s? Let us welcome the church to the thrilling new 19th century.
You may wish to consider the long list of atrocities that Mandela’s ANC committed and perhaps then you would deselect yourselves from the team. I can only presume that your previous remark infers that cleaning toilets is demeaning and inferior work.May I ask who cleans your’s,your mother,wife,girlfriend ? Surely not you
If I were given a detailed list of ANC atrocities I may well deselect myself from Mandela’s team. Nobody seems to mention these when the man Mandela is around, so fair play to you, Lady Burglar. It makes no difference to protesting the Pope’s visit in any case and the journosaurs at The Mail make fools of themselves once more.
Yes, toilet cleaning is a necessary but disliked task. Few people willingly do it, even if paid to do so. I have cleaned toilets in the past, some not even my own and I find it deeply dispiriting. Still, it makes precious difference anyway. The main thrust of my argument was that women weren’t given any decent roles to play in the vatican before the 1960s. This is because, as I have stated, the church takes a long time to make change of any sort. If someone told me that Benedict turned had turned into a fossil in office I wouldn’t bat an eyelid.
My other points still stand. For Catholic women, the choice is stark: become a nun, commit yourself to having a large family or, best of all, consider leaving the faith. That British society has become less homophobic over the last decades is bound up with the decline of British Christianity and the waning influence of the chuch.
lady burglar: So why aren’t you out protesting Mandela, instead of spending your efforts whining about what other people choose to protest about?
Anyway, nice straw man argument. I might as well criticise you for protesting Mandela, saying “I bet you won’t be protesting [insert someone I don't like]!”
Lady B. Once again confirming the view I expressed a few weeks ago, that no-one can be blindly proud of their history because you can always find a dark side somewhere.
BTW the difference with ANC violence was that it was driven by the need to resist oppression; inevitably some went too far.
Recent controversies surrounding the Roman Catholic church are because the church itself seem to be covering up the excesses of some of its members to avoid undermining its own power and influence.
To put it another way the ANC were resisting oppression whereas the the Catholic church was the oppressor.
Lady B, you do know what a straw man argument is, right? Anyway, the Catholic Church did, and do, some pretty disgusting things too, often in the name of God of all things. And for a heck of a longer time than the ANC has existed. Just ask the Cathars, Jews, homosexuals, midwives… If you have a point, which you don’t, then a few years of the ANC having had a few nasty members doing horrible things doesn’t really compare to 2000 years of unenlightened bullshit, torture and persecution even if the same insitution brought with it schools and hospitals.
Of course, rational thinking isn’t really want being a Pope fan is all about. If he’d come to at least redress his standpoint on AIDs I’d have given him some time. He hasn’t. He gives people hope? That’s not good news in much the same way that a heatly adult still believing in Santa Claus wouldn’t be. He can’t properly explain why the New Testament disagrees with itself and is a midrash of ancient Jewish writting? He’s an icon of gullability and animalistic fear.
I am not arguing for any religious or quasi political regime whatsoever. Anyone committing such offences,in my opinion, should be hanged. What I am pointing out is that to have any moral ground to stand on, one must have a balanced view.To demonstrate against one faction whilst welcoming another is not balanced. Committing despicable crimes, whether over a few years or thousands, is still unforgiveable.
A balanced view? You know that Catholics exist all over the world and are part of Britain, right? Whereas the ANC is South African. For your point to make sense you’d have to have the Pope v Something That Affects Britons. As well as the whole world. And even so to argue against one thing is not to say you agree with everything else.
Condoms do provide a barricade against AIDs – it’s a disgusting and current lie to suggest otherwise and the third world would be better off if they didn’t have so many babies. Right now, Mandela isn’t doing anything as downright disgusting and lets not forget – at least he’s been in jail for 25 years eh? Unlike that bloke in the fine robes.
“I would not care to mention them on a public forum.The best thing for you to do is find out for yourself”
how about just dates and places? something people could actually look up. this is your argument, don’t expect the people you’re arguing against to do the research into it for you. if you want to references an event for the sake of your point do it properly or think of another argument.
Oh well then in that case Lady B, fair point. Actually, no – your still not making any sense. How dare the leader of a country end up as a millionaire… Well at least he didn’t start out as one, eh?
Google ” protesting mandela visit uk” and if you look five entries down you’ll find this very thread – and nothing else. Someone must have had issue with the man, at least on the internet where the wild things are, right? Nope, it’s just you.
Maybe if he’d been part of some worldwide buggery/3rd world AIDs scandal things would be a bit different. Why are you so het up about Mandela anyway? How about Mother Teresa – she thought suffering was a way to heaven and kept the poor in horrible conditions despite all the money she raised to guarantee them passage. Well, mainly because mentioning her would also make no real point. A man came to teh UK, popular with a minority, ignored by the majority and whose presense was questioned by an even smaller number. That’s all. Judging the visit on its own merits is perfectly fair.
MsMorbo-I was taught to never accept what anyone told you, but to find out for ones self, and without wishing to be offensive I suggest you do that.
JS. You miss my point. He became a millionaire while in gaol,and perhaps you might be “het up” if it had affected your family and friends
lady burgler: i was always told not to expect other people to do everything for you, so without wishing to be offensive, i suggest that if you can’t be arsed to do your own research for a debate, you shouldn’t expect others to be on your behalf. you’ve really left people with no option but to assume you don’t have a point.
No Lady B – you have no point with your Mandela thing no matter where you take it. Straw man, y’see. I know that the ANC hasn’t a pure history, it’s a moot point. The Pope has just visited. Mandela has not. Perhaps you’d prefer that apartheid had continued unless it could have come to an end in a perfectly decent way?
I bet you accepted that you should never accept what anyone told you though, eh?
Lady B: “The atrocities that were perpetrated were beyond the call of need, being too vile to mention.”
Are you speaking about the ANC or the apartheid system? Obviously the latter was the greater offender as far more ethnic Africans died than ethnic Europeans as the apartheid regime tried to maintain Africans as a servant race.
“hope you will all protest with as much venom when Mandela next arrives in Britain” Was where this silliness started.
1) There’s no protest here, just some views on the Mail’s weird handling of a letter that was written by other people. The Pope, I doubt, read’s these pages. 2) There’s no venom here.
Mandela is not in the news, aside from revelations on his attack on Blair – which wasn’t on the front page. And as for “liberal propaganda”, you can read the letter in full. It’s the Mail’s treatment of it that’s dodgy. For someone who claims to be so wide awake… wow, just wow. Read the letter, think for yourself – there’s a link and everything. The headline makes it seem that Fry spat in the Pope’s face for goodness sake, and when they mention Mandela on the front page, then we can all have a think about that, right?
Who’s being lazy? I’ve done my searching and listening first hand to gruesome details.But I can recommend research at the National Archives,Amnesty international reports on ANC death camps or if you want to ignore those read David Milliband’s (Marxist upbringing and the ANC was marxist funded) comments.Happy hunting
Well done you – now do some research into the story on the front page and please stop being so very you. Try mentioning, I don’t know – Stephen Fry and The Pope and Richard Dawkins or something. Your ANC communist stuff is known – it’s just not relevant. You can do better than this. try popping onto this forum and actually wmentioning the headlines and how they relate to reality for a change.
A very enjoyable debate taking place here. My favourite bit is where JohnD chooses not to admit that he NEVER cleans the toilets in his own home. In other words somebody else cleans his toilets for him. Call this a hunch on my part, but whoever cleans JohnD’s toilet is FEMALE. JohnD sounds suspiciously to me like the kind of high-minded leftist who talks the talk on equality but never walks the walk, or more accurately, never wields the bogbrush. (For the record I clean my own toilet and would NEVER expect anyone else to do so)
Concerning the Papal visit I will make this observation: A few years back Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a leading Muslim cleric was an honoured guest of Ken Livingstone. al- Qaradawi supports the killling of apostates, defends wife-beating (so long as it’s done lightly), and believes in the execution of homosexuals, although he allows for some debate over whether just the active and not the passive partner should be put to death. I sincerely hope that all you enlightened and progressive people were as steamed up about the Sheikh’s visit as you are about the Papal visit.
Oh FFS. Another one assuming the beliefs and motivations of posters and then running with something far removed from commenting on the rights and wrongs of the Dail Mail and, specifically, the front page.
Well I hardly ever clean my toilet either, Neander, we have jobs deligated round our way. I take the bins out down a dark alley and cook. Make of that what you will or, maybe, comment on the bloody story at hand.
“please read the actual documents and not the liberal propaganda”
Are you saying the apartheid system didn’t really exist; it was just liberal propaganda?
Anyway, what you’re describing isn’t really liberalism (a belief in liberty and equality), just the right-wing misrepresentation of liberalism as the promotion of the rights of people who aren’t entitled to them.
Thanks Neander I was rather hoping that either you of Karlo would ride to my rescue.Of course the whole premis of a good debate is the opposing factions, and not just blanket agreement.
To ask me to not be myself is a bit silly because I am me and proud of it.
That was a rescue? The poor reflection on the cleaning toilets ‘in the past’ bit? Wow. Neander doesn’t even make sense when you read what was actually written. Heck, I’ve cleaned toilets in the past – for myself and for very rich people. Wouldn’t want to do it as a job again.
Ok, so here we go. The story is about the Pope. Good thing he visited or bad? There are your opposites. Or how about how The Mail covered it – well or poorly? Going on about Mandela and al- Qaradawi adds nothing to the ‘debate’. Personally, I’d have liked it if the Pope had announced Vatican III for something. That would have been a Good Thing. How’s about you debate that. Y’know, it being mildly relevant.
Proverbs 16:18 KJB “Pride precedes a disaster, and an arrogant attitude precedes a fall.” Not all of the Bible is without merit either.
For the Catholics yes.A state visit is a state visit and should be treated as such. I wouldn’t invite someone into my house and then sent out to insult them.Nor would I Mandela for that reason, but I wouldn’t like it.
What if that person had covered up child abuse? What if that person could do things that would benefit rather than harm the 3rd world? And, indeed, who exactly invited them? Fry wrote that he had no issue with the visit, just the cost and that it wasn’t really a state visit.. Do you think the Mail was fair in how they reported what he wrote?
@lady burglar…What most of the lefties on this site seem not to grasp is that it is an open forum. I rather suspect that some of them wish this site were the Internet equivalent of the former Soviet Union, where only the ‘approved point of view’ was ever given a public airing. And for people who claim not to like Catholicism certain of them seem to have a decidedly Inquisitorial attitude towards dissent.
@ms morbo…JohnD was evading the question of whether or not he cleans his own toilets NOW, which he clearly does not, obviously preferring to let someone else, almost certainly a woman, do this task for him. As you are clearly a feminist ms morbo (nothing wrong with that) why are you defending such male chauvinism?
“only the ‘approved point of view’” What? The site is broken down into front pages, essays, and a forum where I’m sure you can start a thread.
It would help if it were related to the Daily Mail or the Express. You wouldn’t turn up to Chess Club and demand that everyone watch you pole dance so why in the name of Thor do you expect to be able to turn up to a particular section and railroad it into becoming about Muslims and the ANC? That’s just rude which ever part of the political spectrum you identify with. And why in the name of merry fudge do you care who cleans a posters toilets? How does that relate to an athiest hate campaign led by Stephen Fry? Or the way an actress is treated? Or a free DVD?
The fact your posts are never deleted suggests this place is hardly an echo of the USSR.
you seem to be doing an awful lot of assuming neander, you assume johnd doesn’t clean his own loo, you further assume that a woman must do it for him, you even further assume that this must mean he’s a chauvanist, you then top off the assumptionathon by assuming i’m a feminist (i wouldn’t actually self describe as one, i cirtainly fully support womens rights, but i would leave the term “feminist” for people more proactively engaged in either the activism or philosophy than me) for some reason.
if you are not yet familier with the phrase “you can’t assume without making as ass out of you and me” i would suggest becoming so.
lastly, to reiterate swindles post, this isn’t a “lefty” site, it’s just a place with a very clear theme, which is easy to stick to, this making it really irritating when people are constantly wondering off topic (perticually when there is also a seperate forum where you can talk about other things if need be).
Interestingly, “We are no longer accepting comments on this article.” can be found on the comments section for the article the headline refers to, and could be for some time. That Stalanist Mail!
Seems many/most comments didn’t really take to the tack that the paper was taking. Presumably the people who commented about it in a negative way (the majority last time I looked) were all part of some elite Leftie hit squad and not the usual equal mix of expats, MailOnline and paper readers, Texans as well as Guardanistas up for a King Canute. Or the paper just misjudged this one a bit. It does that from time to time. Regular readers of the paper aren’t all drones. Cool.
I haven’t got a clue, Gemma. Why not ask the Mail about it? Having stuck you on the front page in a crop top and cut-off short shorts, they obviously purely admire you for your mind.
Shouldn’t the welcome for someone on a “State Visit” rather than religious one, be unholy, Isn’t that the point of getting the UK taxpayer to pay for it.
The Daily Wail accusing someone else of orchestrating a hate campaign? I never thought I’d see the day.
And Stephen Fry has already responded to the latest attempt at a smear campaign.
http://bit.ly/dailyhate
It’s a bit strange seeing the Popes entourage accuse Britain of being a third world country, given the amount of atheism here and how Christianity still has a hold on many parts of the third world.
[...] Categories: Religion | « Mail [...]
Ratzinger cunningly whacks himself off under his papal robes over the picture of “Gemma”, whoever she is.
Plus, hasn’t the Mail, over the years, taught us to despise foreigners coming to Britain and telling us how to live our lives in ways different to our “indiginous” norms?
How typical of The Mail to have such a hysterical headline. And how typical of them to tell a porky, this time about Stephen Fry. I’m glad he’s stood up to The Mail’s viscious attack.
I suppose the pope’s visit will give some nutbars the chance to conflate secularism with atheism (which is always militant, of course) and criticise both. What do such commentators want? A theocracy?
Furthermore, why do some pillocks insist that the UK resembles a Third World country? Are such gonks saying that living in our country is somehow worse than residing in a post-communist state? I suppose it’s a disguised attack on people with the wrong skin colour.
As for the Vatican aide who made that daft comment, he should consider that many people in the West have turned their back on faith thanks to improved education and welfare states, leaving the faithful in societies where both of these things are in short supply. Like the real Third World.
A free DVD from David Attenborough – who openly states he doesn’t believe in God? And in fact, he’s the one who is the target of a hate campaign for daring to state this ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/4347954/Sir-David-Attenborough-questioned-on-faith-naturally.html ).
hope you will all protest with as much venom when Mandela next arrives in Britain
Mandela isn’t costing the taxpayer 21 million and hasn’t called for homosexuals to burn in hell. Nethier has his entourage called Britain a third world country, but Mandela probably knows what constitutes a Third World Country a bit better than some prat in a robe.
Lady Burglar, if you’re trying to expose us as hypocrites then you’re wasting your time. What does it matter if some people prefer Mandela to Pope Benedict XVI?
For my part, I’ll probably choose Mandela over the Pope, partly because of the nature of the body that Benedict represents. There are myriad problems with the Catholic church, for example its inabilty to change and stop treating women and gays like second class citizens.
I shall give you something further to mull over: did you know that the first women to work in the vatican were toilet attendants in the 1960s? Let us welcome the church to the thrilling new 19th century.
2nd player for team Mandela.
Thank you for joining the ranks, Steve.
You may wish to consider the long list of atrocities that Mandela’s ANC committed and perhaps then you would deselect yourselves from the team. I can only presume that your previous remark infers that cleaning toilets is demeaning and inferior work.May I ask who cleans your’s,your mother,wife,girlfriend ? Surely not you
If I were given a detailed list of ANC atrocities I may well deselect myself from Mandela’s team. Nobody seems to mention these when the man Mandela is around, so fair play to you, Lady Burglar. It makes no difference to protesting the Pope’s visit in any case and the journosaurs at The Mail make fools of themselves once more.
Yes, toilet cleaning is a necessary but disliked task. Few people willingly do it, even if paid to do so. I have cleaned toilets in the past, some not even my own and I find it deeply dispiriting. Still, it makes precious difference anyway. The main thrust of my argument was that women weren’t given any decent roles to play in the vatican before the 1960s. This is because, as I have stated, the church takes a long time to make change of any sort. If someone told me that Benedict turned had turned into a fossil in office I wouldn’t bat an eyelid.
My other points still stand. For Catholic women, the choice is stark: become a nun, commit yourself to having a large family or, best of all, consider leaving the faith. That British society has become less homophobic over the last decades is bound up with the decline of British Christianity and the waning influence of the chuch.
lady burglar: So why aren’t you out protesting Mandela, instead of spending your efforts whining about what other people choose to protest about?
Anyway, nice straw man argument. I might as well criticise you for protesting Mandela, saying “I bet you won’t be protesting [insert someone I don't like]!”
Lady B. Once again confirming the view I expressed a few weeks ago, that no-one can be blindly proud of their history because you can always find a dark side somewhere.
Nicely done, Mark. Why didn’t I think of such a move?
BTW the difference with ANC violence was that it was driven by the need to resist oppression; inevitably some went too far.
Recent controversies surrounding the Roman Catholic church are because the church itself seem to be covering up the excesses of some of its members to avoid undermining its own power and influence.
To put it another way the ANC were resisting oppression whereas the the Catholic church was the oppressor.
“driven by the need?” The atrocities that were perpetrated were beyond the call of need, being too vile to mention.
“too vile to mention.”
convinent, seeing as actually mentioning them would aid your argument.
I would not care to mention them on a public forum.The best thing for you to do is find out for yourself
Lady B, you do know what a straw man argument is, right? Anyway, the Catholic Church did, and do, some pretty disgusting things too, often in the name of God of all things. And for a heck of a longer time than the ANC has existed. Just ask the Cathars, Jews, homosexuals, midwives… If you have a point, which you don’t, then a few years of the ANC having had a few nasty members doing horrible things doesn’t really compare to 2000 years of unenlightened bullshit, torture and persecution even if the same insitution brought with it schools and hospitals.
Of course, rational thinking isn’t really want being a Pope fan is all about. If he’d come to at least redress his standpoint on AIDs I’d have given him some time. He hasn’t. He gives people hope? That’s not good news in much the same way that a heatly adult still believing in Santa Claus wouldn’t be. He can’t properly explain why the New Testament disagrees with itself and is a midrash of ancient Jewish writting? He’s an icon of gullability and animalistic fear.
I am not arguing for any religious or quasi political regime whatsoever. Anyone committing such offences,in my opinion, should be hanged. What I am pointing out is that to have any moral ground to stand on, one must have a balanced view.To demonstrate against one faction whilst welcoming another is not balanced. Committing despicable crimes, whether over a few years or thousands, is still unforgiveable.
A balanced view? You know that Catholics exist all over the world and are part of Britain, right? Whereas the ANC is South African. For your point to make sense you’d have to have the Pope v Something That Affects Britons. As well as the whole world. And even so to argue against one thing is not to say you agree with everything else.
Condoms do provide a barricade against AIDs – it’s a disgusting and current lie to suggest otherwise and the third world would be better off if they didn’t have so many babies. Right now, Mandela isn’t doing anything as downright disgusting and lets not forget – at least he’s been in jail for 25 years eh? Unlike that bloke in the fine robes.
Don’t forget that Mandela came out a millionaire-how strange. The ANC committed the same atrocities against their own people as well as the white man
“I would not care to mention them on a public forum.The best thing for you to do is find out for yourself”
how about just dates and places? something people could actually look up. this is your argument, don’t expect the people you’re arguing against to do the research into it for you. if you want to references an event for the sake of your point do it properly or think of another argument.
Oh well then in that case Lady B, fair point. Actually, no – your still not making any sense. How dare the leader of a country end up as a millionaire… Well at least he didn’t start out as one, eh?
Google ” protesting mandela visit uk” and if you look five entries down you’ll find this very thread – and nothing else. Someone must have had issue with the man, at least on the internet where the wild things are, right? Nope, it’s just you.
Maybe if he’d been part of some worldwide buggery/3rd world AIDs scandal things would be a bit different. Why are you so het up about Mandela anyway? How about Mother Teresa – she thought suffering was a way to heaven and kept the poor in horrible conditions despite all the money she raised to guarantee them passage. Well, mainly because mentioning her would also make no real point. A man came to teh UK, popular with a minority, ignored by the majority and whose presense was questioned by an even smaller number. That’s all. Judging the visit on its own merits is perfectly fair.
MsMorbo-I was taught to never accept what anyone told you, but to find out for ones self, and without wishing to be offensive I suggest you do that.
JS. You miss my point. He became a millionaire while in gaol,and perhaps you might be “het up” if it had affected your family and friends
lady burgler: i was always told not to expect other people to do everything for you, so without wishing to be offensive, i suggest that if you can’t be arsed to do your own research for a debate, you shouldn’t expect others to be on your behalf. you’ve really left people with no option but to assume you don’t have a point.
Typical expected reply!
No Lady B – you have no point with your Mandela thing no matter where you take it. Straw man, y’see. I know that the ANC hasn’t a pure history, it’s a moot point. The Pope has just visited. Mandela has not. Perhaps you’d prefer that apartheid had continued unless it could have come to an end in a perfectly decent way?
I bet you accepted that you should never accept what anyone told you though, eh?
“Typical expected reply!”
*sigh*
Lady B: “The atrocities that were perpetrated were beyond the call of need, being too vile to mention.”
Are you speaking about the ANC or the apartheid system? Obviously the latter was the greater offender as far more ethnic Africans died than ethnic Europeans as the apartheid regime tried to maintain Africans as a servant race.
please read the actual documents and not the liberal propaganda
please stop being lazy and actually link to them if they’re that important.
“hope you will all protest with as much venom when Mandela next arrives in Britain” Was where this silliness started.
1) There’s no protest here, just some views on the Mail’s weird handling of a letter that was written by other people. The Pope, I doubt, read’s these pages. 2) There’s no venom here.
Mandela is not in the news, aside from revelations on his attack on Blair – which wasn’t on the front page. And as for “liberal propaganda”, you can read the letter in full. It’s the Mail’s treatment of it that’s dodgy. For someone who claims to be so wide awake… wow, just wow. Read the letter, think for yourself – there’s a link and everything. The headline makes it seem that Fry spat in the Pope’s face for goodness sake, and when they mention Mandela on the front page, then we can all have a think about that, right?
Who’s being lazy? I’ve done my searching and listening first hand to gruesome details.But I can recommend research at the National Archives,Amnesty international reports on ANC death camps or if you want to ignore those read David Milliband’s (Marxist upbringing and the ANC was marxist funded) comments.Happy hunting
Well done you – now do some research into the story on the front page and please stop being so very you. Try mentioning, I don’t know – Stephen Fry and The Pope and Richard Dawkins or something. Your ANC communist stuff is known – it’s just not relevant. You can do better than this. try popping onto this forum and actually wmentioning the headlines and how they relate to reality for a change.
A very enjoyable debate taking place here. My favourite bit is where JohnD chooses not to admit that he NEVER cleans the toilets in his own home. In other words somebody else cleans his toilets for him. Call this a hunch on my part, but whoever cleans JohnD’s toilet is FEMALE. JohnD sounds suspiciously to me like the kind of high-minded leftist who talks the talk on equality but never walks the walk, or more accurately, never wields the bogbrush. (For the record I clean my own toilet and would NEVER expect anyone else to do so)
Concerning the Papal visit I will make this observation: A few years back Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a leading Muslim cleric was an honoured guest of Ken Livingstone. al- Qaradawi supports the killling of apostates, defends wife-beating (so long as it’s done lightly), and believes in the execution of homosexuals, although he allows for some debate over whether just the active and not the passive partner should be put to death. I sincerely hope that all you enlightened and progressive people were as steamed up about the Sheikh’s visit as you are about the Papal visit.
Oh FFS. Another one assuming the beliefs and motivations of posters and then running with something far removed from commenting on the rights and wrongs of the Dail Mail and, specifically, the front page.
Well I hardly ever clean my toilet either, Neander, we have jobs deligated round our way. I take the bins out down a dark alley and cook. Make of that what you will or, maybe, comment on the bloody story at hand.
” I clean my own toilet ” Call this a hunch on my part, but you live alone.
“please read the actual documents and not the liberal propaganda”
Are you saying the apartheid system didn’t really exist; it was just liberal propaganda?
Anyway, what you’re describing isn’t really liberalism (a belief in liberty and equality), just the right-wing misrepresentation of liberalism as the promotion of the rights of people who aren’t entitled to them.
Thanks Neander I was rather hoping that either you of Karlo would ride to my rescue.Of course the whole premis of a good debate is the opposing factions, and not just blanket agreement.
To ask me to not be myself is a bit silly because I am me and proud of it.
That was a rescue? The poor reflection on the cleaning toilets ‘in the past’ bit? Wow. Neander doesn’t even make sense when you read what was actually written. Heck, I’ve cleaned toilets in the past – for myself and for very rich people. Wouldn’t want to do it as a job again.
Ok, so here we go. The story is about the Pope. Good thing he visited or bad? There are your opposites. Or how about how The Mail covered it – well or poorly? Going on about Mandela and al- Qaradawi adds nothing to the ‘debate’. Personally, I’d have liked it if the Pope had announced Vatican III for something. That would have been a Good Thing. How’s about you debate that. Y’know, it being mildly relevant.
Proverbs 16:18 KJB “Pride precedes a disaster, and an arrogant attitude precedes a fall.” Not all of the Bible is without merit either.
Wow JS did you remember that from Sunday school or Google it
It’s tatooed on my face.
….Ok, so here we go. The story is about the Pope. Good thing he visited or bad?
For the Catholics yes.A state visit is a state visit and should be treated as such. I wouldn’t invite someone into my house and then sent out to insult them.Nor would I Mandela for that reason, but I wouldn’t like it.
What if that person had covered up child abuse? What if that person could do things that would benefit rather than harm the 3rd world? And, indeed, who exactly invited them? Fry wrote that he had no issue with the visit, just the cost and that it wasn’t really a state visit.. Do you think the Mail was fair in how they reported what he wrote?
And what percentage of the UK are Catholic anyway? It’s not even their house.
it’s quite fascinating to watch neanders warping process in action, how you can turn this:
“I have cleaned toilets in the past, some not even my own”
into the assumption that JohnD doesn’t ever clean his own bog is beyond me.
@lady burglar…What most of the lefties on this site seem not to grasp is that it is an open forum. I rather suspect that some of them wish this site were the Internet equivalent of the former Soviet Union, where only the ‘approved point of view’ was ever given a public airing. And for people who claim not to like Catholicism certain of them seem to have a decidedly Inquisitorial attitude towards dissent.
@ms morbo…JohnD was evading the question of whether or not he cleans his own toilets NOW, which he clearly does not, obviously preferring to let someone else, almost certainly a woman, do this task for him. As you are clearly a feminist ms morbo (nothing wrong with that) why are you defending such male chauvinism?
“only the ‘approved point of view’” What? The site is broken down into front pages, essays, and a forum where I’m sure you can start a thread.
It would help if it were related to the Daily Mail or the Express. You wouldn’t turn up to Chess Club and demand that everyone watch you pole dance so why in the name of Thor do you expect to be able to turn up to a particular section and railroad it into becoming about Muslims and the ANC? That’s just rude which ever part of the political spectrum you identify with. And why in the name of merry fudge do you care who cleans a posters toilets? How does that relate to an athiest hate campaign led by Stephen Fry? Or the way an actress is treated? Or a free DVD?
The fact your posts are never deleted suggests this place is hardly an echo of the USSR.
you seem to be doing an awful lot of assuming neander, you assume johnd doesn’t clean his own loo, you further assume that a woman must do it for him, you even further assume that this must mean he’s a chauvanist, you then top off the assumptionathon by assuming i’m a feminist (i wouldn’t actually self describe as one, i cirtainly fully support womens rights, but i would leave the term “feminist” for people more proactively engaged in either the activism or philosophy than me) for some reason.
if you are not yet familier with the phrase “you can’t assume without making as ass out of you and me” i would suggest becoming so.
lastly, to reiterate swindles post, this isn’t a “lefty” site, it’s just a place with a very clear theme, which is easy to stick to, this making it really irritating when people are constantly wondering off topic (perticually when there is also a seperate forum where you can talk about other things if need be).
Interestingly, “We are no longer accepting comments on this article.” can be found on the comments section for the article the headline refers to, and could be for some time. That Stalanist Mail!
Seems many/most comments didn’t really take to the tack that the paper was taking. Presumably the people who commented about it in a negative way (the majority last time I looked) were all part of some elite Leftie hit squad and not the usual equal mix of expats, MailOnline and paper readers, Texans as well as Guardanistas up for a King Canute. Or the paper just misjudged this one a bit. It does that from time to time. Regular readers of the paper aren’t all drones. Cool.
And there’s, hopefully, an end to it.