Playing to readers' prejudices. Quite possibly distorting figures for maximum effect.

What, the readers' prejudice that the private sector is far more expensive than the public?

That governments waste money and act in ways that 'normal' people find stupid.

And that the little bastards are living in luxury.

Even Tory governments?

Recalling that apparently nothing gets into the paper unless it fits in with Paul Dacre's personal agenda, he thinks the Tory government is wasting money by favouring the private sector over the public?

That's a bit of a turnaround isn't it. When did this happen?

You really don't get Dacre, do you? It's not about parties, it's about policies. Hence he hates Clarke and liked Brown. He doesn't much like Cameron. He is entirely driven by the prejudices of middle England, which he seems more attuned to than any other editor. He is selling entertainment and confirmation bias, plus his own, rather strange, vision of 1950s Britain.

Point is, Dacre would only be happy if convicts were doing hard labour 24 hours a day, living on mouldy bread and ditchwater, and living in holes in the ground. In his eyes, anything other than this is proof we've gone soft, regardless of who's running the show.

As for this happening under a Tory government, it goes to support the conspiracy theory that somehow the reds are infiltrating society and corrupting it from within. Unelected and unaccountable and all of that...

_________________
Ten seconds... the pain begins.

Fifteen seconds... you can't breathe.

Twenty seconds... you give up and turn off the Jeremy Vine show.

Or in Dacre's case proves that the entire political class are softy woofters who are out of touch with the public on certain key issues. Usually those involving inflicting pain on people less fortunate than themselves.

_________________
Sick Left-wing Zealot.

Don't worry D.M. As long as you're around to tell us the discovery of Afro-roman remains are part of an agenda, where Hitler bought his underwear and how Eva loved blacking-up we'll be fine. Maybe we could all just watch Downton-fucking-Abbey?

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1h3l0UuJr

Unlike the Mail's comment filter that filters out "Littlejohn" among other words.

_________________
Sick Left-wing Zealot.

Yesterday.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1hoymCiRH

Today...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z1hozPTcbA

_________________
Sick Left-wing Zealot.

There's no hypocrisy here. It's clear from the first link that it isn't the Mail accusing the BBC of bad taste - it would be Leading Labour figures and a Labour source doing the accusations as found in these two sentences you conveniently missed out:


And before you start, newspapers don't reveal their 'sources' so 'Leading Labour figures' and 'A labour source' is good enough.

So given that the first article doesn't show the Daily Mail accusing the BBC, it's simply them reporting what others feel, the second of your links is thus irrelevant and therefore there is no hypocrisy between these two articles. Just showing a bit of balance to your inaccurate claim.

Are you really that stupid?



Really?

Yes, of course you are...

Good point. Nothing like a bit of selective reporting to make a point that isn't true, is there.