Daily Mail messageboard watch

ezinra · **Posted:** Tue May 01, 2012 4:34 pm

Quote:

When a man erect equipment is visible through his shorts or trousers, It offends women greatly..But a woman intentionally shows off her nipples and breasts in public, it is considered to be a part of women's freedom. Women are proud of it. Surprisingly no man is offended by it. Don't u think this is double standard.. ??
- Donald, Australia, 01/5/2012 10:48 55 ------
What planet are you on? Answer - Certainly not. Nipples are stimulated by cold not just sexual arousal - men's and women's! Whereas an erect tackle is obviously giving way to a sexual stimulus. And men walk around bare-chested without a thought - not much difference when a woman wears a half-cup bra - her nipples are not naked. However, women can keep the sexual arousal of their groin discreet by design, but men have to control their urges, as much as their interpretation of stimulated nipples....So get over yourself, reacting nipples do not remotely compare to a mans stimulated tallywhacker.....

- RJ, NW, 1/5/2012 13:34 Rating 21

Tom_UK · **Joined:** Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:14 pm **Posts:** 3168

A pretty fine critique of the Mail's reporting of the rain.

Quote:

DM, why are you winding people up. Do you think people will believe that the water companies should be somehow 'catching' the rain that's falling and diverting it to reservoirs so they can drink it? You KNOW it doesn't work like that. Instead of printing such bl00dy sensational headlines, why don't you EXPLAIN and INFORM people. You could start by explaining that water that used to soak into the ground and gradually make its way somewhere useful is now running off paved over parking spaces - that were previously front - gardens and running into drains, where it is no good to gardens. You could explain HOW water is captured for re-use, AND how we are wasting it. What a shocking way to behave. When you want to get behind a project (like the poor little boy with the burned face in China) you do such a lot of good - I don't know whether somebody has the day off when you write tripe like this headline, but I really think you are doing yourself - and US - a great disservice - SAD!

- lemonygirl, Knebworth, England, 02/5/2012 03:32

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon May 07, 2012 11:53 pm

Quote:

I can't believe the amount of left wing nutters who believe there's no terrorist threat, mainly due to their warped agenda.
- Carl, once proud Brummie, 07/5/2012 23:08
Click to rate Rating 2

A warped agenda like claiming there is a significant amount of lefties who believe there is no terrorist threat?

Link

*cough* Anders Breivik *cough*

newslove · **Posted:** Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:35 pm

Coupled Moment wrote:

new puritan wrote:

Quote:

....To the Con/Lib government (and in loud words to Nick Clegg) .... cut tax rates, the minimum wage and balance the books with cuts to the benefit 'gravy train'. There is no other solution. Any other schemes do nothing but re-arrange the chairs on the deck ....! In China a factory worker apparently labours at least a 140 hour month for +/- $300 (+/- £200). In the UK the minimum wage suggests a payment of £1,000 pm. Herewith ends the 'lesson'. It is not for the UK government to say what the Chinese should earn ... or that it is allegedly 'slave labour'. It is reality that goods can be imported from China at a fraction of the cost of making them 'at home'. Herewith ends 'lesson two' .
- Dave Kay, Woking, Surrey, 14/3/2012 13:54

First world living costs, third world wages. What could possibly go wrong? Thankfully, most of the comments seem to be fairly sensible.

You have to be a real cunt's cunt to write "Herewith ends the 'lesson'" in a newspaper comment. I'm shocked the pretentious bollock hasn't shoe-horned in a "methinks" or one of the other shibboleths that mark one out as a proper bellend.

I'm new here so hello everyone , I've also only recently started reading the Mail as a result of perusing this fine site so thanks for that , I really wanted to say I greatly admire the expression " cunt's cunt " and will be endeavouring to shoe horn it into everyday discourse forthwith and henceforth

Abernathy · **Posted:** Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:40 pm

newslove wrote:

I've also only recently started reading the Mail as a result of perusing this fine site

I'd hate to think we were responsible for spawning another Mail reader. Hopefully you've also gathered that we don't like the shiterag very much. And that you don't actually buy the hateful pamphlet.

Andy McDandy · **Posted:** Sat Oct 13, 2012 8:02 pm

Yeah. You know that magazine, "The Week", that brings you the best bits of the world's news media in one handy place? We're like the anti version. :twisted:

newslove · **Posted:** Sat Oct 13, 2012 8:49 pm

No , no actual cash money changes hands I read it for free at work , usually I stick to the classics - Morning Star , The Economist and Viz
Although I must admit to being shocked - it's not until you actually start reading the thing that you realise how awful it really is , I always thought the denegraters were going OTT for comic effect .

Abernathy · **Posted:** Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:23 pm

You're not wrong, Lover, if I may call you that. I'm actually convinced that the Mail is a pernicious force for evil in society. It's of course quite shameful that unscrupulous bastards should be able to exploit the knee-jerk reactionary attitudes of the hard-of-thinking and mean-minded in our society (of which there are sadly abundant numbers) for profit, but I think that the Mail goes well beyond that, to the point of shaping and encouraging hatred and selfishness in society - and even enabling the kind of rapacious badger fuckers we have running government today.

oboogie · **Posted:** Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:24 pm

newslove wrote:

it's not until you actually start reading the thing that you realise how awful it really is , I always thought the denegraters were going OTT for comic effect .

Nah. Occasionally, in a weak moment I think it can't really be as bad as I imagine (I'm such a soft old shite :roll:

) then it slaps me in the face with a whole new level of cuntery and I awake to the realisation that it's actually far, far worse than I ever dreamt.

Welcome moi new luvver (as they'd say in Cornwall).

shyamz · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:40 am

newslove wrote:

:lol:

No , no actual cash money changes hands I read it for free at work , usually I stick to the classics - Morning Star , The Economist and Viz
Although I must admit to being shocked - it's not until you actually start reading the thing that you realise how awful it really is , I always thought the denegraters were going OTT for comic effect .

Ah Viz, it might not be quite what it once was, but there's still occasionaly more wit and intelligence in one of their spoof articles than in your whole average copy of the mail.

Nice to meet you.

Siuan · **Joined:** Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:16 pm **Posts:** 66

Abernathy wrote:

I'm actually convinced that the Mail is a pernicious force for evil in society. It's of course quite shameful that unscrupulous bastards should be able to exploit the knee-jerk reactionary attitudes of the hard-of-thinking and mean-minded in our society (of which there are sadly abundant numbers) for profit, but I think that the Mail goes well beyond that, to the point of shaping and encouraging hatred and selfishness in society

Absolutely. Can anyone name something positive which the Mail has pushed in, say, the last decade? I'm not sure the war on plastic bags counts. Like oboogie, I sometimes think 'it can't be all that bad', but then one of the Glendas will outdo herself, or the likes of Hitchens, Heffer, LJ or Letts will issue forth another vomit of disgust at something or other, and I'm aghast and outraged - at the author and the comments, rather than whatever they're moaning about - all over again.

oboogie · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:54 am

Siuan wrote:

Can anyone name something positive which the Mail has pushed in, say, the last decade?

The last good thing the Mail did was their coverage of the Stephen Lawrence case, but that was in 1997. So the answer to your question is no.

Andy McDandy · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:09 am

Very good puzzle page.

Kreuzberger · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:42 am

Siuan wrote:

Absolutely. Can anyone name something positive which the Mail has pushed in, say, the last decade?

A whole bunch of maniac tories to UKIP, thereby splitting the vote?

Daley Mayle · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:02 pm

oboogie wrote:

Siuan wrote:

Can anyone name something positive which the Mail has pushed in, say, the last decade?

The last good thing the Mail did was their coverage of the Stephen Lawrence case, but that was in 1997. So the answer to your question is no.

And that's only because a relative of Stephen happened to be working on Dacre's Dark Tower and they met and talked about the murder. Up until that point The Mail's editorial line was that it was just another black on black gang death, and probably drug related.

Maybe if the Dark Lord met the people who are the targets of his newspaper he'd realise they're flesh and blood with feelings. Hold on, what's that...

Daily Mail messageboard watch

Who is online