Mail vs Britain

mattomac · **Posted:** Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:43 pm

Couldn't reading Austerity Britain 1946-51 By D Kynaston and it really is a recommended read to anyone who has little knowledge of the time, totally bi-partisan I think so no real bias.*

Davester · **Posted:** Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:48 pm

"I’m pretty sure that we’re finished as a country and a society anyway, and would advise anyone who can do so to think seriously about getting out while it’s still possible."

Quote:

What do we expect if we treat our own nation with such contempt?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... tempt.html

You've got to be taking the fucking piss.

Stoneman · **Posted:** Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:20 pm

I wasn't really sure where to post this, but here seems most relevant. Anyway, this is a prime example as to why I hate the Heil:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... rning.html

Quote:

Throughout the past century, even amid the mounting death tolls of two world wars, public displays of grief were unknown. People regarded it as their duty to keep their emotions in check, no matter how painful their inner feelings.

The famous British stiff upper lip was very much a reality. Solemnity had to be observed. Applause and flower-throwing would have been unthinkable.

At one stage in Wootton Bassett, a young man ran forward from the crowds to place a football shirt on one of the coffins.

Such behaviour would once have been regarded as crass or vulgar. Today, it is seen as authentic, a reflection of heart-felt suffering.

So what? People have lost their best friends or their kids, but they're only allowed to commemorate them in a pale, mail-approved, emotionless way? As for the bit about people not showing grief in WW2, I'm sure that's complete bunkem. I know for a fact that my grandma cried for a week and wouldn't go to work when she thought that my grandad's ship had gone down.

jonnyhead · **Posted:** Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:24 pm

Quote:

It is fascinating to contrast this outpouring of sentiment in the week after Princess Diana’s death with the quiet sadness that enveloped Britain in the week of Winston Churchill’s death in January 1965.
Marked with silent gravity, the great statesman’s funeral and lyingin-state had none of the overt demonstrations of anguish that characterised Diana’s funeral.

As much as the Diana thing was over-the-top, it was an unexpected and tragic death of someone relatively young. Churchill died at the age of 90.

jonnyhead · **Posted:** Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:27 pm

Oh and this:

Quote:

I can't believe the comments on here. If I were a relative of a young man or woman whose hearse was being driven down the street, I would probably react in the same way. I have always been as stoic as possible at funerals until attending that of my own father and I can honestly say that I couldn't tell you who was there and I couldn't have given a damn who saw me cry.
- Annie, Wilts, 16/7/2009 12:58

...is currently downrated by 1. Who downrates someone for admitting they cried at their father's funeral?

The article is really twatty, I wonder how any of those young people in the first photo would feel being slagged off in the Mail?

JamesFarrier · **Posted:** Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:45 pm

There's something very inhuman about this whole stiff upper lip business. Showing your emotions and doing whatever you can to express your lost is a natural way of dealing with loss. A life devoid of emotion is a poor one indeed, especially when it comes to losing someone to a sudden death.

Adam · **Posted:** Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:50 pm

I hardly thought the scenes yesterday were unrestrained and mawkish. Quite dignified and respectful, I thought.

Stoneman · **Posted:** Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:04 pm

But there were women out of the kitchen, and young people, and *gasp* MEN were crying! Daily Mail can't have that...

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:55 pm

Even worse the young people weren't mugging grannies and hardly seemed to be off their tits on drugs at all. What is the world coming to?

bluebellnutter · **Posted:** Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:57 pm

Adam wrote:

I hardly thought the scenes yesterday were unrestrained and mawkish. Quite dignified and respectful, I thought.

I agree. Sometimes people can go vastly over the top, especially about people who they don't know (see: Diana, Jade Goody, Baby P, Jackson), but when it's people they actually know personally, then I think it's fair enough. I wouldn't have thought it odd if William and Harry had cried at Diana's funeral. I found it highly odd that Mrs Smith from Chelmsford and all her family (for example) did.

Mr Mordon · **Posted:** Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:53 pm

On story about Broadband devlopment:
Britain's broadband 'not fit for the future': Our service is worse than Bulgaria and Latvia

Only one paragraph down:

Quote:

The report, by IT giant Cisco, ranked the UK's systems 31st out of 66 countries and found they were currently 'meeting needs for today'.

so whats the problem

Quote:

Joanne Hughes, from Cisco, said: 'It can be a bit misleading to look at the rankings

Only if your a constantly negative and rectionary tabloid love

horacegoesskiing · **Posted:** Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:43 pm

Revealed: The 20 best places in the world to live (and guess which country trails in 21st place?)

Errr- I don't know. Kazakhstan? Chad? El Salvador?

Quote:

The UK has been ranked the 21st best place in the world to live – flagging behind Ireland and Iceland.

Silly me! I should have guessed. Reading the headline, and the article, it'd make you think that 21st was rock bottom and absolutely the worst place to live ever, when in fact there's at least 193 fully sovereign, recognised countries in the world.

The standard of the comments is oh-so-predictable:

Quote:

I am surprised Britain got as high as 21!

- Karen, England, 6/10/2009 10:11

Quote:

If the U.K is 21st, then how come we are so over populated with illegal immigrants?
Unless Norway has even more that we don't know about...?

- Sarah, Home, 6/10/2009 10:46

Quote:

21st? Must be rigged. There are plenty of countries I would place higher than the UK.

- John Divine, Berkshire, 6/10/2009 10:48

Quote:

Norway first? And Iceland second? And Sweden ahead of France? Evidently they didn't take much account of the climate!

Who wants to live in a countries that are frozen up for months at a time and have even higher fuel taxes than the UK?

- Dave, Southampton, UK, 6/10/2009 9:54

That's the first time I've ever read someone saying on the Mail website that the UK does not have the highest fuel taxes in the world. Amazing! I'm shocked.

Quote:

If you all think Britain is so c**p, why don't you leave? That would go part way to solving the overpopulation problem you are always whinging on about.

- Cindy Chaplin, Coggeshall, Essex,

Cindy,

I agree! If all the whingers left maybe this country would be a nice decent place to live.

Aww now you have me dreaming of this imaginary utopia with no mail readers.

- Sarah, Belfast, Northern Ireland, 6/10/2009 9:14

Brilliant! Pat on the back for those two ladies.

Quote:

Let's issue this to all the illegals camped on our borders then they might think again.

Or maybe it would be better to have a study as to which country is best for the illegals to go to for favourable treatment. Then we might come first.

- David Moody, Leeds, England, 6/10/2009 7:55

There's a few more like this one too. It's as if they all think that Britain is the only destination that an illegal immigrant would consider. C**ts.

Quote:

Take note all those immigrants, legal or otherwise, and perhaps try getting into Norway, or Australia or maybe Iceland.....Hmmmm thought not! You probably wouldn't have a hope in hell and would have to be vouched-for, self-supporting, skilled and healthy.

- jane, essex, 6/10/2009 0:02

My god. What a joyless bitch you sound like.

jonnyhead · **Posted:** Tue Oct 06, 2009 2:28 pm

Mr Mordon wrote:

On story about Broadband devlopment:
Britain's broadband 'not fit for the future': Our service is worse than Bulgaria and Latvia

...but better than Germany, Spain and Italy. Lithuania is ahead of the United States, what does it all mean?

Actually, those graphs they use show us ahead of Bulgaria, they're in 34th? If I'm reading them right it means that Bulgaria's internet is well-equipped for the future but hardly anyone has actually got access to it.

Fflaps · **Posted:** Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:50 pm

On that story about the UK (not England, Albert Hall of Hove) being 21st bestest place to live:

Quote:

Speaking as an American, I can confidently say that we have had enough of "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". I invite and welcome the idea of all Eurotrash, Religion of Peace followers, et al, to direct their migration to Norway (snort, where it's like $8 a beer) and China (snort, where you can "freely" practice your freedom of speech and religion) to trash up the place as much as you've trashed up the US cities. Have at it mates.
- USA #1, Virginia, US of A, 6/10/2009 12:27
Click to rate Rating 2

'My ancestors got in ok, now let's pull up the drawbridge'. What an absolute sneering c*nt.

Esqui · **Posted:** Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:35 pm

Quote:

21st? Must be rigged. There are plenty of countries I would place higher than the UK.

- John Divine, Berkshire, 6/10/2009 10:48

Plenty? You mean, say, 20?

Also, Norway is cool.

Mail vs Britain

Who is online