Discussion of article from the Mail's columnists and RightMinds contributors
:shit: 100 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
By Fozzy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#83967
Normal total stupidity in today's article at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ating.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This comment sums up one of many idiocies:
"Surely if you insist on lessons to teach small children it is wrong for men to hit women, then you are implying that all men are a potential menace."

"No one ever, ever addresses or confronts the men, from all sectors of society, who are most likely to commit these acts of violence"

These are both quotes from the article above. Are you not capable of maintaining a consistent stance from one paragraph to the next?
- Lizzy, Aberystwyth, 27/11/2009
 
By jonnyhead
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#83973
Just finished blogging that one; http://nosleeptilbrooklands.blogspot.co ... -from.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; [/pimp]

It's really just cookie-cutter conservative nonsense, it has the air of someone instinctively being against any policy that might be perceived PC and then desperately trying to justify it.
By Fozzy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#84048
Would this be your message, croissantfever (and welcome to our happy band)?
They are NOT repeat NOT teaching 5 year olds about domestic violence. That was even admitted in your own paper, it is part of the national curriculum, that starts off by teaching 5 year olds not to bully or call each other names (even you couldn't object to that surely?) and will result in older teenagers being taught the evils of domestic violence.

It will not imply that all men are criminals and it will help to tackle the problems of honour killings by teaching this to ALL CHILDREN, regardless of ethnic background. Yes, we should be stricter on wife beaters (and husband beaters) and honour killers, bullying the bullies as you so succinctly put it, but we should also be teaching our children that violence and bullying is wrong so they don't turn out as bullies!

How blinkered are you?!
- mike, sussex, 27/11/2009 8:25
I've just cut and pasted this, then selected it and used the quote button on the message window. No doubt if there is a more efficient way of quoting, someone will tell us.
By ACG
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#85694
i'm sure she's biting her tongue as we speek, the comments on the artical about murphy's death are already suffering the "jan moir effect". several reference to how it "can't be natural" assumptions about her taking drugs (based on a 4 year old rumour, unnamed "friends" and perez fucking hilton) and several references to "size 0" and anorexia.
 
By AOB
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#85699
mr_wonderful wrote:I'm waiting for Jan's column this week where she will give us an insight into Brittany Murphy's sad and lonely death, after all 32 year-old people don't just drop dead for nothing do they Jan?
Next column she does you should submit a comment to that effect.
By moonshien
#85739
ACG wrote:i'm sure she's biting her tongue as we speek, the comments on the artical about murphy's death are already suffering the "jan moir effect". several reference to how it "can't be natural" assumptions about her taking drugs (based on a 4 year old rumour, unnamed "friends" and perez fucking hilton) and several references to "size 0" and anorexia.
It's not just the comments, now they are, unsurprisngly, at it themselves

Brittany Murphy: Did anorexia play a part in actress's tragic death?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... death.html
 
By Pugwash
Membership Days Membership Days
#85750
Having seen the pictures of her printed in the Mail, she was just a slender young woman- clearly no evidence of anorexia from those photos. Has Britain become such a nation of fatties now than any woman who has made an effort to keep in shape as he job would have required, is automatically deemed anorexic?

My gripe was the use of the word quizzed inthe headline in relation to Ms Murphy's husband. He will be interviewed as a matter of routine but the deliberate usage of the word quizzed conjures up something a little more sinister as well the DM knows.
By ACG
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#85752
Pugwash wrote:Having seen the pictures of her printed in the Mail, she was just a slender young woman- clearly no evidence of anorexia from those photos. Has Britain become such a nation of fatties now than any woman who has made an effort to keep in shape as he job would have required, is automatically deemed anorexic?
i don't think the mail (or any of the four hacks it took to write this thing*) actually know what anorexia is, its just thrown randomly around whenever a woman is deemed to be a bit thin. as if this is somehow the sole cause of wightloss in women, and not that weightloss is the mild side effect of loads of different things, like minor stress, or having been a bit peaky recently. or even that "thin" isn't the same thing as "underweight" anyway, and is basically a meaningless way to be assesing someones health from photographs.
The U.S. star, who is thought to have suffered a heart attack, was pictured looking painfully thin just two-and-a-half weeks ago at a fashion event in Los Angeles.

She even admitted at the time that she was a little concerned about her weight.

She reportedly told FOX News: 'I am a bit thinner now than I would like to be'.
...because nothing quite says anorexia like concern over your weightloss.



*is the mail just a journalisitc attempt at that infinate number of monkeys = shakepear theory? if they get enough idiots tapping away at keyboards eventually a newspaper will just evolve from it.
 
By JamesFarrier
Membership Days Membership Days
#85757
*is the mail just a journalisitc attempt at that infinate number of monkeys = shakepear theory? if they get enough idiots tapping away at keyboards eventually a newspaper will just evolve from it.
Maybe this is part of the Jan Moir effect - make four journos share the credit for a speculative article just like Moir's means no one person can be targetted in the same way she was.
By ACG
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#85771
can we please stop throwing the term "anorexic" around like it just means "person who has lost weight recently"? it is a serious mental health problem, and i can see no real suggestion that this young woman was suffering with it. seeing as she had expressed concern over her own weight loss that would actually suggest quite the opposite.
people can lose weight for all kinds of reasons, a bad cold, stomach bug, mild stress or even just seasonally, and none of these things are anorexia.
this kind of pointless conjecture does nothing for the public understanding of the condition, if its ever confirmed, fine, but for now lets leave that kind of thing out of the realm of tabloid fodder please.

- mable, lake district, 22/12/2009 12:42
Click to rate Rating 1
this is mine, it was up 2 earlier, which means at least 3 people have come out against the idea of treating this issue with care and tact.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 60
Newsnight

Why are the BBC giving that freeloading bum Prin[…]

It's late enough at night for me to propose the sy[…]

2019 General Election

Yes, I know, its about those foreigners... […]

We do seem to have a sensible independent running […]