[Waterstones]

I noticed on the 1960's thread that people had linked some stuff of his on the Mail website based on his new book State of Emergency:The Way We Where:Britain 1970-1974,I had a flick though it in Waterstones Yeserday and it's a very unMail like book as it does give the Mail a kicking so why the Mail would want to draw attention to the book I don't know.

On saying that Mr Sandbrook has written a couple of artcles for the Mail as part of the Mail's Satuarday essay and he came across as a raving nutter he jumped on the Mail outrage bandwagon when Cameron put his foot in it when he was first in America as PM and he made his 'Britain was a junior parter in the War' comments which sent the Mail into fits Sandbrook wrote a 'Omgod Why is Cameron ashamed of Britain'? essay in which he wrote that Britain was first in everthing and other nations can kiss our ass,what is it with really good writers that they make such cunts of themselfs writing in the Mail?

[Andy McDandy]

As evidenced by the article detailed in the 'Poppy Fascism' thread, quite often this is the work of the sub-editor rather than the original author.

In that (the poppy) article, the author actually commented to the effect that a misleading headline had been placed on his article, making it apparently a standard rant against lefty liberals, while it was anything but (and had been lifted from the Independent in the first place). Papers will quite often do this, knowing that the headline for an article, along with any picture captions, will set the tone for an article and help foster the desired reaction among readers. It's a bit similar to the Kuleshov effect (look it up). But basicaly, if the headline says "You will be outraged", a good many readers will be, regardless of actual content.

On other occasions, writers may find their work heavily edited to appear stronger (the removing of mitigating arguments for instance) than they are. Finally, there have been cases, most notably recently with a piece apparently from the pen of Janet Street-Porter disparaging those suffering from depression, that according to those in the know originate at the desk of Dacre.

In the case of Sandbrook, I'd say it was a combination of heavy editing, a certain amount of writing for the money, and a good dose of standard Mailite nostalgia for anything happening further back in time than 1997, on the basis that anything happening in the good old days must have been good, otherwise how could they have been good old days?

[Waterstones]

Thanks for that Andy,yeath I did know that the Mail lifted other writers work from other newspapers like The Independent for example when the Pope visted the UK the other month the Mail published Johann Hari's rant against the Pope which had been in the other days Independent,I first noticed that the Mail cribbed work from The Independent a few years ago whenever The Mail wanted to have a pop at GM Crops which was a bugbear of theirs for years they always printed the work of a writer called Geoffy Wheatcroft which always had a 'A verison of this article was pubished in The Independent' and I used to think 'What's a right-wing newspaper doing printing a article that came from a left-wing newspaper?' I thought they where ment to hate one another?

[ezinra]

The Mail's resident crap historian and EU-basher defends the united kingdom by patronising Scots:

It was Burns Night and, in a pub on the Royal Mile, we watched the traditional ritual: the entrance of the haggis, the appearance of the bagpipe-player and the vigorous recital of Robert Burns’s famous Address to a Haggis.

This was the best of Scottish patriotism, convivial, open-hearted and thoroughly likeable. And, as a mere Sassenach, I loved it.

and engaging in some astounding hypocrisy:

And if the worst happened and the Union broke up, I believe it would be the biggest disaster in our history.

The fact is that we would all be much better off in a confident, outward-looking, culturally diverse and economically powerful Britain than in a narrow, squabbling, inward-looking assortment of petty statelets.

We are stronger together and weaker apart.

cf:

after decades of idealistic blather, it has become abundantly clear the European project is in deep, desperate trouble.

And if anyone ever seriously believed grand supra-national organisations should replace our traditional patriotic identities, they should take a long hard look at the death agonies of the euro.

In the final analysis, it is small, local loyalties that matter most. We may be obliged to carry tacky EU passports, but to most of us our European identity is relatively meaningless.

A window cleaner from Wolverhampton has no more in common with a Greek fisherman than he does with a man from Timbuktu.

Or a crofter from Portree? Or a nationalist from Omagh?

David Attenborough talks regularly on programmes about the endangered species. We, the white Brits are such a species and it won't be long before we will become rare specimens. Something should be done NOW to protect us like the wild life supporters take care of their insects and wild flowers, etc but somehow or other we seem to have been overlooked. All too late, I fear.

- mh, Hants, 28/1/2012 7:48 Rating 28

I didn't realise that the break-up of the union would darken everyone's skin.

It's all part of the Franco-German plan - they have tried to dominate Europe and destroy the UK through military means on more than one occassion and now they are in cohoots with traitorous UK politicians from North and South of the border to do it! Divide and conquer! WAKE UP and sweep these TRAITORS from Parliament!

- Don T Aske, Somewhere on the South Coast of what was once England, 28/1/2012 14:10 Rating 15

I am English, the word Bitish means nothing to me, there are 51millon in england I think we can stand on our own feet.

- jack, london, 28/1/2012 9:30 Rating 11

"Bitish" — is that Bitty's nationality?

[ezinra]

But this weekend, perhaps more than any other for years, we should fly the flag without shame or apology, and let our hearts swell with pride.

It might surprise many of us to admit it, but when all is said and done, we really do live in the greatest country in the world.

Barf.

[mojojojo]

GB GB GB

We're Number One!

We're Number One!

[satnav]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... d-God.html

Sandbrook appears to be doing his bit to promote David Owen's book on the Hubris of Blair and Bush. Owen accusing people of hubris really is a case of kettle calling pot black.

[Big Rob]

Excuse me while I whip this out of one place.....

.... and insert it here.....

Hubris and a man who thinks he can only be judged by God

Dominic Sandbrook talking about David Owen on Tony Blair.

the architect of New Labour has fallen victim to a pathological obsession with his own political importance and moral righteousness.

As Lord Owen sees it, Mr Blair’s conduct after he won power in 1997 formed a ‘pattern of hubristic behaviour . . . which could legitimately be deemed to constitute a medically recognised syndrome’.

This ‘hubris syndrome’, as he calls it, is not the same as ordinary arrogance. Most politicians have an arrogant streak; even Lord Owen was never renowned for his modesty.

But pathologically hubristic politicians, according to Lord Owen, have ‘a narcissistic propensity to see the world primarily as an arena in which they can exercise power and seek glory’. They have a ‘disproportionate concern with image and presentation’, and ‘a messianic manner of talking about what they are doing’.

They identify ‘themselves with the State to the extent that they regard the outlook and interests of the two as identical’. They have ‘excessive confidence in their own judgment and contempt for the advice or criticism of others’.

Well apart from the armchair psychology this description would fit Dacre and most of his columnists.

As for David Owen well glass houses and stones......

I guess it is easy for some idiots to hate Blair. A bit like looking in the mirror at times.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Now he's doing predictions, and, guess what? It's Dacre's Dystopian Drip!

(Actually, I'm pretty sure I've read some of this before)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... llion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Overhead, the air is thick with the roar of engines, as the endless succession of early-morning flights from Brussels, capital of the United States of Europe, head into Heathrow. Outside the city’s surgeries and hospitals, the queues are already forming, legions of parents waiting anxiously with their pale children, hoping against hope they can get one of the day’s few emergency appointments.

Many have already been awake for hours, having risen while it was still dark to beat the traffic.
It is barely six o’clock, yet already the streets are at a standstill. The lines of cars waiting to use the roadside electric charging points stretch for miles.

But no one seems angry or impatient: merely weary, depressed and downtrodden. After all, this is Britain in 2050, a nation of almost 80 million people, most of them packed into the south-eastern corner of Europe’s most densely populated state.

[ezinra]

(Actually, I'm pretty sure I've read some of this before)

Did you get past page 200?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Christ, that's utter rubbish. Not even consistent. It seems we've banned petrol engines but have everyone travelling to Brussels by plane.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

(Actually, I'm pretty sure I've read some of this before)

Did you get past page 200?

What are you suggesting?

[Tubby Isaacs]

I'm taking this a bit seriously but haven't these mad greeny types built any more public transport? Why's everyone in cars?

[ezinra]

What are you suggesting?

That Sandbrook's opening reads like a better-written version of To hell in a handcart, the dystopian meisterwerk of the great Russian novelist Littleivansky.

[Paul]

If the BBC programme Tomorrows World was to be believed, we would all be working a ten hour week and have flying cars by now.