Discussion of the more serious side of the Mail's agenda
:grinning: 100 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
By Fozzy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#125709
I couldn't see that we'd had this topic before, but I thought it was worth highlighting those gratifying days when the Mail totally misjudges its readers' likely reactions and fails to stir them up into foaming mouthed fury.

This story is one - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rders.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dacre and his mates are hacked off that they haven't been able to fill their pages with hundreds of column inches' worth of drooling reports about footballers' sex lives, lavishly illustrated with underdressed WAGs. So they report that the public is full of righteous fury and indignation that they have been prevented from doing so. Except that they aren't. The vast majority of the comments say that they really don't give a bugger, they don't feel its any of our business and they're not interested anyway. One or two say they're actually quite pleased that it might force Fail journos to do their jobs and report some actual news instead.
 
By Bails
Membership Days
#125725
media solicitor Mark Stephens said: ‘This ruling suits those who can pay lawyers £700 an hour. What we have here is a man with the morals of an alley cat who, because he happens to be rich and famous, can afford the protection that ordinary folk can’t get.
Wait, is he talking about the papers bullying 'ordinary folk' after writing libelous stories about them? If so, I agree, it's a travesty.
 
By Bones McCoy
Membership Days Posts
#125739
Bails wrote:
media solicitor Mark Stephens said: ‘This ruling suits those who can pay lawyers £700 an hour. What we have here is a man with the morals of an alley cat who, because he happens to be rich and famous, can afford the protection that ordinary folk can’t get.
Wait, is he talking about the papers bullying 'ordinary folk' after writing libelous stories about them? If so, I agree, it's a travesty.
Solicitor complains about solicitor's wages.
Isn't a sensible conclusion that we should all enjoy this protection (without the £700/hour price tag).
 
By Bails
Membership Days
#125779
Bones McCoy wrote:
Bails wrote:
media solicitor Mark Stephens said: ‘This ruling suits those who can pay lawyers £700 an hour. What we have here is a man with the morals of an alley cat who, because he happens to be rich and famous, can afford the protection that ordinary folk can’t get.
Wait, is he talking about the papers bullying 'ordinary folk' after writing libelous stories about them? If so, I agree, it's a travesty.
Solicitor complains about solicitor's wages.
Isn't a sensible conclusion that we should all enjoy this protection (without the £700/hour price tag).
This comment is still bugging me. In essence, he (and the mail as they've printed his quote in a supportive role) is saying "when we unduly invade people's private lives or print lies about them, it's unfair that the rich are able to fight back".

They're saying it as if it's a bad thing that THEY print lies about 'ordinary folk' which those 'folk' are unable to fight against. They want the general public, the 'ordinary folk' to side with them in their "we should be allowed to print damaging smears against everyone" campaign. Surely the problem is that some people are unable to afford to take on the papers. If they want the 'ordinary folk' to support them they should be campainging for legal aid for libel cases.
 
By Timbo
Membership Days Posts
#125967
Helpless parents forced to watch trapped son dying in wreckage after 999 operator 'forgot' to call firefighters to free him
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1D0Sq2mNy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A terrible story where human error was involved, by an overworked public servant at the end of a 12-hour stint.
Buried deep down in the story we find:
"A post-mortem examination revealed that the teenager died from the head injury. The pathologist added that he did not think the delay contributed to Justin's death"
Incredibly, the comments are being balanced, supportive of the 999 worker, and generally balanced and sympathetic to the family. I originally assumed this would be a top-trumps between feral yob who bought it on himself vs bloated Labour fatcat too busy doing lesbian moon-maiden awareness training to take the call.

Kudos for once to the commenters, this is the top-rated:
I agree that the 12 hr shift is too long, it may have been a contributing factor. The call handler make a horrific error but I doubt it was in any way deliberate... not a 'oh forget it, I'm going home' kind of moment, but a human oversight, perhaps tired. She was completely honest about it, didn't cover it up and spends her days saving lives, so she won't be a bad person. She has taken responsibility for it. It must be awful for his loved ones though, all that can come out of this, is an improved system at the call centres to prevent it happening again. Most of the critical posters here lucky to be in jobs where human error results only in missing paper work or numerical errors, not the deaths of human beings (who you are trying to save)
...and this not far below it:
I think it's in rather poor taste to use the sad events of this tragedy as bait for readers to get wound up, as they usually do. What good could come out of it? The best you can do is encourage people to leave messages of sympathy, rather than venom, by wording both the headline and the article appropriately. I'm sure the operator, Ms. Rooney will be dealt with appropriately as the hearing reaches its verdict, but I extend my sympathies to her, too, as she must feel truly awful. Just stop for a moment and put yourselves in her position, and imagine how you'd feel if people were vilifying you from afar (as gutless as they are for doing so). My thoughts go out to Justin's family and friends.
By Tom_UK
Membership Days Posts
#125978
A less serious story, but a lot of the readers are not too keen on the intrusive paparazzi stalking going on here (this is their second day stalking Lisa Snowdon on her holiday):

Check her out: Lisa Snowdon almost suffers second bikini malfunction as she tries to adjust gingham two-piece in Miami


Top rated
The guy whom is stalking around Lisa taking long lens photos is one CREEPY guy

- KM, London, 4/2/2011 8:16
Click to rate Rating 231
Second highest rated
DM, please can you stop buying these pics. She's clearly just on a bit of a holiday, and am guessing not craving the publicity like some of your bikini-babes.

- Pasquin, Kent, 4/2/2011 8:33
Click to rate Rating 112
Third highest (and quite a good rant):
Ok, Jody (author of article). I read this article yesterday...or the best part if it and commented. So, let me re-itterate-THE BIKINIS THAT LISA SNOWDON HAS BEEN WEARING HAVE FITTED HER JUST FINE. Perhaps bikinis should come should with a warning on the tag for folks like you. Just to confirm, Jody, as you are obviously not au-fait with enjoying a sunshine holiday that sunbathing, swimming in the sea and frolicking on a beach may result in skewed straps. That's just what happens. No woman on the planet will be worried with Lisa's photos or put off buying a m & s bikini. She looks great. Tucked in bikini straps or not. Non news, DM. AGAIN.

- It's wee me, Glasgow, 4/2/2011 6:52
Click to rate Rating 98
Leave the poor woman alone. She's on holiday. Your reporters are stalking her and it's disgusting.

- Jam Sandwich, London UK, 4/2/2011 9:31
How intrusive is that first photograph - disgraceful.

- Tina Sparkles, UK, 4/2/2011 16:22
By Sodpenguin
Membership Days
#126264
Boy, 11, racks up £1,000 bill on mother's debit card playing XBox online

Image
It's always someone else's fault isn't it...
Oh come on, you can't expect Microsoft to cancel that! If you didn't set parental locks on the account then it's your fault!! Anyway how can you not notice all those payments to MS over 6 months?
This is an example of both mother and son being irresponsible, not Microsoft. The son knew what he was doing.. .and the mother obviously didn't check her statements - I sure as hell would know if a sum a lot smaller than that was missing! I hope they didn't expect public sympathy because they aren't going to get it.
By glasgowgril
Membership Days Posts
#126717
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... lunch.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Liz Jones (LIZ JONES!!!!!!) criticises Kate Middleton's hair, make-up, clothes and boots when she steps out on an ordinary morning. Gets a kicking in the comments. Yaaaaaaay.
By glasgowgril
Membership Days Posts
#126730
What i like best is the number of comments saying 'what qualifies LJ to comment on fashion?' Er, ex-editor of Vogue? But she has ruined her credibility so thoroughly that your average Mail reader doesn't even trust her to criticise a pair of boots now. Brilliant.
By Fflaps
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#126732
She didn't edit Vogue*, it was Marie Claire [/pedant] but even so, she shouldn't be so bloody judgmental. It would be amazing if she could say something nice about someone for once.

*I can't imagine Vogue would let her through the door, although she's not terrible writing on fashion. It's just the criticism of other people's looks when she admits to having a problem with the way she herself looks that annoys me.
By glasgowgril
Membership Days Posts
#126735
That photo captioned 'Good heir'? (can't seem to copy it, maybe someone can tell me how?) is crying out for an alternative caption.

She didn't edit Vogue*, it was Marie Claire
Oh, OK. She looks like a fright anyway, I do agree.

Just noticed this gem -
The two halves of this split ­personality are clashing, which is why she looks a little ­uncomfortable
Oh, THAT's why she's glowering at the photographer.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 36
The Observer is shit

You had one job... https://mobile.twitter.com/[…]

Labour, Generally.

Ian Lavery was on TV this evening doing his Plain-[…]

Labour Policies 2019/20

A thread to discuss the several policies which wil[…]

Brexit Fuckwit Thread

Well, I suggested taking the batteries out and l[…]