[davidjay]

Mumsnet is probably the most influential and high-profile forum so if you're going to hit one, it's be them.

[Fozzy]

I've seen that thread, though I gave up reading it because of what it was doing to my blood pressure - particularly at the way the kneejerk response of the Dacre worshippers to every unassailable fact about the Mail thrown at them was stout denial. One at least of them is a speech and language therapist whom I have seen displaying quite eye-popping views about children with learning difficulties; why the parent of a child with speech problems would ever let her near their child, God only knows. I will say, however, that it isn't that typical of Mumsnet which normally has a very healthy crop of Mail haters, so I assume that that part of the site doesn't usually get much traffic.

[Safe_Timber_Man]

One thing that really strikes me about Dacre in that piece is his clear disdain of Twitter. Yet in their daily outrage/fury stories and campaigns for things to be banned the entire basis of that outrage is twitter. They nearly always use random twitter comments to back up their claims. And not an avalanche of twitter comments, just one or two is enough for them to say "look, other people agree with us". Fucking hypocrite.

[Catkins]

I've seen that Mumsnet thread as well. The poster 'Claig' is obsessed with defending the Mail - if you search you will literally find hundreds and hundreds of posts by her on the subject going back years, defending the Mail day and night (I ran an advanced search and mumsnet could only should me her last 500 contributions on the topic!). I genuinely can't work out whether she's a Poe, but I suspect not.

[youngian]

One thing that really strikes me about Dacre in that piece is his clear disdain of Twitter. Yet in their daily outrage/fury stories and campaigns for things to be banned the entire basis of that outrage is twitter. They nearly always use random twitter comments to back up their claims. And not an avalanche of twitter comments, just one or two is enough for them to say "look, other people agree with us". Fucking hypocrite.

It certainly gets up his nose as Twitter is not full of right wing headbangers. He is perplexed it is does not reflect 'the real voice of Britain' (homophobic, racist, neo liberal nationalist bile) and has therefore been hijacked by the trendy Metropolitan elite. Or as it is better known, people under 55.

[MisterMuncher]

He does claim that any publication medium beyond his own is "fake" with alarming regularity. There's a great deal of paranoia and delusion going on there.

[Andy McDandy]

See also his annual disdain for the honours system and the concept of the house of lords when they fail to give him a title, compared to the usual slavish fawning over those of blue blood.

In the end, his hypocrisy was shown up over the energy bills issue. While it's true that his paper has regularly railed against the 'fat cats' and rising prices, his ideology got in the way the moment someone suggested doing something about it. See also 'Mugabe-style land grabs'. Not a murmur when it's Boris suggesting it, but it's the worst thing in the world when Ed Miliband proposes the exact same thing. In each case the right of the 'fat cats' to make a profit trumped the 'little people' he supposedly cares so much for and champions.

In the end he sees people as mushrooms - keep them in the dark and feed them shit.

[Kreuzberger]

Yeah, probably a staffer on duty to contain the damage.

I would have thought that Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 would forbid this type of shilling.

Falsely claiming or creating the impression that the trader is not acting for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession, or falsely representing oneself as a consumer.

http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/nort ... /cputr.pdf

You'd think, too that proving it, one way or the other, would only require the will to do so.

[youngian]

He does claim that any publication medium beyond his own is "fake" with alarming regularity. There's a great deal of paranoia and delusion going on there.

When Sarah Palin was campaigning for the vice-presidency she would use the phrase standing up for 'real America'. To which Jon Stewart retorted; "Welcome to the Daily Show bought to you by New York Jews from fake America".

More bogus victimhood from Dacre this Saturday:

It seems that in the real world, people — most of all our readers — were far more supportive of us than the chatterati would have you believe.

It is that the Mail constantly dares to stand up to the liberal-Left consensus that dominates so many areas of British life, and instead represents the views of the ordinary people who are our readers and who don’t have a voice in today’s political landscape.

Apart from the Mail, Telegraph, Times, Express, Sun, Sport, Star, breakfast TV stations, online news sites like Yahoo and radio phone-ins that follow their agenda. Most TV stations will then debate their agenda and will be accused liberal-left consensus for daring to drag someone on to counter their point of view.

[Safe_Timber_Man]

Where were all these Mail readers who stood up for the Mail, anyway? They certainly weren't in the comments section, or the ones who were found themselves in an avalanche of red arrows. Even my misguided Mailite father was in agreement that they hugely over stepped the mark. These must be the same people who apparently bombarded Mad Mel with letters telling her how great and right she is. We never see them, but the Mail assures us they exist.

[The Red Arrow]

Celebribellum #3: Paul Dacre

It’s an exciting day here in the scanning room at Celebribellum HQ as our most recent imagery – gleaned from the internal cognitive workings Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre – have thrown up some intriguing results, not least that Freud may have been on to something...

http://www.redmolotov.com/blog/celebrib ... /#more-841" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;