These have already been posted elsewere, but they are perfect examples of the Mails attitude:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212143/Harman-puts-class-war-agenda.html

Govenment tries to bring in legislation to help those most in need, but its wrong because it will create classwar!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212350/Our-Dickensian-schoolchildren-start-school-unable-use-knife-fork-dress-themselves.html#comments
Why isn't the evil govenment doing anything to help those in need?!?!

Forget 'Moon-on-a-stick', this is 'Saturn-on-a-stick'!

WTF has that got to do with anything!!!! Sally-Anne you twat!

What a cow! Why did she even feel the need to comment, she adds nothing except spite. I wonder how often she sees her daughter...

I do hope it's whenever she needs £10 for a fix and there are no punters around.

Brilliant!!!!!

I am amused by a case of Mail Fail in that story where there's a link halfway through to another story entitled, "Want the dream marriage? Then sleep in separate beds".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... abase.html

It's the kind of hysteria that the Mail and similar papers create about this issue which prompts action like this.

Daily Mail are just very upset because it involves targetting of nice Middle Class families who would normally say things like "do I look like a terrorist?" at an airport and apply a similar "do I look like a paedophile?" in this situation.

The BBC (and just about everyone else) is carrying the same story but none with the same headline-grabbing hysteria. They've tried to frame it so that readers with low attention spans will get the impression that parents giving another child a lift will need to be registered, which is a stupendously idiotic notion. With the rhetoric removed, the proposals all sound fairly sensible. Maybe there's a debate still to be had on this, particularly on the costs, I don't know, but what I do know is that the approach taken by the Mail is, as always, far from helpful in that debate.

Here's a recent comment (of the 500+) from someone who clearly hasn't understood:



As always, click on the 'Worst rated' tab to see the most sensible, measured comments. Some are verging on the paranoid, but are perfectly valid nonetheless.

This is the worst rated with -226



Mail readers obviously consider this to be an extreme view, but is it really? A child being abused vs minor inconvenience to those adults who regularly work and volunteer with children. It's surely a debate worth having is it not?

It's a depressingly well-worn path, isn't it? Something shocking but rare (if it wasn't rare it wouldn't be so shocking, would it?) happens. The tabloid press compete with each other to see who can shout "something must be done" the loudest. Government, shit scared of seeming to stand around doing nothing while society collapses around it, puts ill-thought out, kneejerk laws and regulations into place. Broadsheets wince. Tabloids wonder whether the government has really gone far enough.

A couple of years later as the initial hysteria begins to fade from memory, the full implications of the new legislation start to become apparent. Decent, hardworking, middle-class people start to realise that it's not just the forrins and the chavs that have to obey the new laws. A tabloid frenzy breaks out about the intrusion of the nanny state, draconian overreactions to minor problems, government incompetence etc, etc, etc.

Hungerford. Dangerous Dogs. Dunblane. Soham. I'm sure you could add your own example.

Indeed, personally I’m not fully convinced about these checks and they wouldn’t have saved holly and Jessica’s lives (Huntley met them via his girlfriend who worked at a different school, not though his own job).

After all isn’t the vast majority of child abuse is conducted by a family member? Besides it’s of no help detecting those who have yet to be caught, so it may actually be counter productive and provide a false sense of security. Haven’t there also been documented cases of background checks dragging up largely irrelevant youthful indiscretions which have gone on to affect people careers and reputations years later?

But the debate still needs to be had. Screeching about the ‘nanny state’ is every bit as unhelpful and emotive as screeching ‘won’t someone think of the children?’

9/11 & 7/7 being obvious examples

Maybe its a suggestion that the govenment shouldn't bend to the whim of the media quite so easily, but sadly the latter have so much power that its difficult not to, especially with elections coming up.

Are you referring to TWAT (The War Against Terror) ?

And ain't that the hypocrisy: the Daily Mail and its readers wailing about the Government overreacting to what is apparently a rare problem. They really are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Totally agree Killer Whale. Not even worth me trying to re-phrase your sentiments. They create a moral panic and then get pissy when somethings done about a situation they've helped create.

Indeed. This latest fury over 'big brother' is a superb example of the Mail back peddling as fast as they can upon realizing the current public mood was against their initial raving. We have always been at war with Eurasia!

Does anyone have any links to articles published in the wake of the Soham murders where the Mail called for checks to be put into place?