'Kill it, kill it': Teenager took sickening video of him screaming at pet dog telling him to tear fox apart

Pics included of course.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1g2SKrAM8

_________________
Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand

That'll give the pro-fox hunting brigade a hard on and no mistake

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

_________________
Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand

A nice 'worst rsted' there...

'Why did he have to be killed when he didn't have a gun anymore'

403 in the red...

A very good question.

_________________
Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand

_________________
Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand

I have a request for this thread: could we not repost the pictures? A link to the article would suffice; if there is no point to discuss, I'm not sure it's worth posting at all. Isn't the point of this thread that the Mail's use of these images is sensationalist and unjustifiable? They're even more out of context here, so how can we defend reposting them?

I agree with that. Reposting the pictures is just doing what we say the Mail is doing wrong. It's also a bit creepy.

It also needs to be restated that Mail Online is an international website and so reflects attitudes and values that are not necessarily British.

I agree.

Mind you, you could say that about the Tits thread too.

_________________
MY COMMENTS ARE FROM THE HORSES MOUTH AND ARE ALL FACTS

I must admit to being less than comfortable with that one, myself. It seems to go against what we set out to do here, whereas in fact the Mail is just doing what all news outlets do (I see that Huffpost is running the lingerie-company story, too, but with fewer tits.)

Mind you, if you can't see what people are talking about then there's not a lot of point in having the thread. I don't like clicking onto the DM website.

Bah. Swings and roundabouts innit?

_________________
MY COMMENTS ARE FROM THE HORSES MOUTH AND ARE ALL FACTS

Another Mail fail (prepared to be, ahem, shot down by the military experts if I have got this wrong) in the Liege story.

Rocket launcher, AK47 and Kalashnikov found at his home

Aren't an AK47 and a Kalashnikov the same thing?

_________________
I'd rather shoot Paul Dacre than anyone else in the country- Colin Dexter. A direct quote from the Radio Times m'learned friends

Yes. And the rifle he used was an FN (Belgian made) assault rifle. Might be they are using 'Kalashnikov' as a generic term.

Imagine them reporting about finding a Saxo and a Citroen in the same garage. Although AK47 does have that terrorist-in-our-midst-supplied-by-nasty-regime dog whistle vibe about it. 'Two assault rifles' or even 'two Kalashnikovs' wouldn't have the same effect at all, would it?

_________________
Mailwatch. Love us or leave us.
http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/

A two-sentence summary of the image, and what makes it objectionable, should be enough, with a link for those who want one.

It's useful that Mailwatch logs the Mail's repeated use of gratuitous and titillating pictures, especially as the rag gets on its high horse about decency and refuses to print the word 'crap' without asterisks. The Mail is the voyeurist's paper of choice — I think this forum should emphasise that, without contributing to it. That might be a difficult balance to strike. I often find myself clicking on a link thinking, 'They haven't, have they?'


I post quite a lot in Tits (and Arse). Partly it's to emphasise the flimsiness of the Mail's attempt to disguise the pornographic content of its articles by cloaking it in hastily-written text which appears to have been composed by computers fed a diet of rubbish euphemisms and descriptive passages from 1950s wank mags. Partly it's because the Mail's approach to ladyflesh is uniquely sleazy and misogynistic (and here I disagree slightly with Malcolm), as it combines the power trip of peeping-Tom pap snaps with a reductive, dehumanising view of women, depicting them as a combination of pricktease, dancing bear, and showroom dummy. I wouldn't have linked the lingerie story, and I don't repost the Mail's photos unless I can't make my point without them; but I'm not going to object to whoever did as I'm sure it would be easy to take issue with some of what I have posted.