Topics about a single subject's Daily Mail experience
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Posts
They don't like him. Left wife, Liberal Democrat in the Tory Cabinet, and in charge of climate change. Noticed this is my parents' print edition the other day. ... nergy.html

The £1,000 is the estimate by analysts at UniCredit bank. And it's in 2030.

The government put the figure at £160. But the Mail's work out the problem with that.

However, this relies on an assumption that families will cut their annual energy use in the home by 30 per cent over the same period.

So discount that energy efficiency might improve a fair bit in the next 19 years and you get..... not £1,000.

There is to be fair a more credible source.

Industry regulator Ofgem calculates that the work will cost more than £200billion by 2020. It has also talked of a rise of 52 per cent in bills – which equates to around £600 a year.

This sounds worth a look. But £600 isn't as much as £1,000, so fuck it.

The revelations keep coming:

Separately, there will be a carbon tax regime to raise the minimum price for power generated from gas and coal to ensure it is not cheaper than wind and nuclear power.
Money raised from this regime, estimated at £1.4billion a year by 2014, would go straight into Treasury coffers.

Tax. Going to the Treasury. Fuck, that's sly.

And a sighting of this old favourite windbag:

Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rejected the Coalition’s figure of a £160 rise in bills, saying: ‘This is fanciful, it has just been plucked out of the air.’
Dr Peiser said there is no global shortage of gas and that Britain itself could be sitting on a gas gold mine, which would power homes for decades.

Huhne's banned Britain from exploring for gas? It might power homes for longer than a few decades if we don't all use it at once. No carbon targets or anything then?

As ever, a more heavyweight expert gets put at the end, and ignored by the headline writer:

‘You can have blackouts or you can have investment. Which do you want?’
Dr Robert Gross, director of the Centre for Energy Policy and Technology at Imperial College, rejected the warnings of a £1,000 rise in energy bills, saying: ‘I have not seen any credible analysis that suggests bills will double unless a complete mess is made of the financing.’

Top rated commenter had rediscovered an affection for coal he lost in the eighties. Because the important thing is to "stuff the EU"

We should be using our coal reserves, and building new generation coal burning power stations. I saw a figure once that we have 300 years of coal reserves left. The emphasis should be on using clean coal burning technology to effectively use these resources. India and China are burning lots of coal, and we have to compete with them!! Stuff the EU and all its silly Carbon Legislation!!!
- Peter, Guildford, UK, 13/7/2011 1:13
By ezinra
Membership Days Posts
Carina Trimingham loses privacy case against Daily Mail

Trimingham, also speaking outside court, said: "I'm extremely disappointed by this judgment. There is a ray of light however. Thankfully the court has accepted today that repeated mocking of a person by a national newspaper by reference to their sexual orientation would be so oppressive as to amount to harassment.

"However, the court did not appreciate that when national newspapers make repeated irrelevant references to my sexuality – particularly in the context of pejorative and stereotypical reference to appearance – it amounts to the same kind of mocking which the court has confirmed is unacceptable.

"This is confused, and I think wrong. I am very concerned that this judgment may become a blueprint for bullies and bigots. I intend to appeal."
By Daley Mayle
Membership Days Posts
I see Andrew Pierce was representing the Mail after the verdict. Strange choice, it couldn't be because of his own sexual orientation and the Mail wanted to show that it was not homophobic? No, that's just too darn Machiavellian.
By satnav
Membership Days Posts
Pierce has today written this twaddle.

Pierce works for the Mail because he is a raving right winger who believes that Thatcher was the best thing since sliced bread. Over the years a number of MPs have voted for homophobic legislation even though they were gay themselves. The Mail was actually looking to discredit Huhne and they weren't too bothered about the human cost of such attacks.
By SoulBoy
Membership Days Posts
Next time Moir or Platell use the old "some of my best friends are gay and they agree with me" line remember that they are referring to Pierce.
By Catkins
Membership Days
He's also a misogynist. I saw him do the Sky papers review a few months ago and the Mail front page had a picture of Nigella. The Sky presenter made some comment about her being curvy and he actually shrieked "She's NOT curvy, she's FAAATTTTTT, FATTTTT!" He had a face full of disgust.

I actually thought at the time, 'God I feel sorry for his wife'. Obviously my gaydar was on the blink that evening.
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Posts
No, you got the terminology correct first time. It's "wife" because the gays will kill you if you use a different word.

I see Littlejohn's "looks like a lesbian from central casting" jibe was one of the bits of "vindicated" journalism.
By ezinra
Membership Days Posts
Thanks, Esqui!!

The Mail's Glenda Parsons and Glenda Mooney are both plunging their hatchet into Huhne and his family today in the service of the Dacre family values agenda. The task has been neatly divided for them — thanks, Paul — so that Parsons gets to savage Huhne (and, by extension, egotistical, adulterous dads) while Mooney goes for Vicky Pryce (and bitter, vengeful wives).

Parsons leads with her specialist subject: guilt and shame. The subtext of her story — of practically every story she writes — is the venerable idea that human beings are essentially awful, and we are only prevented from doing awful things to each other by an all-consuming sense of guilt. If you are catholic, you won't need me to explain further.

She also criticises Huhne for vanity and hubris. Her interpretation of the emails exchanged between Huhne and his son is downright bizarre:

His son’s anger, despair and hate are visceral. ‘You disgust me,’ he says in one of his milder outbursts. Huhne’s replies, on the other hand, could almost have come from an anger-management textbook — calm, neutral, devoid of either culpability or emotion.

There’s no apology for the pain he’s caused by his affair, no admission of grief for breaking up a family. Just repeated declarations of love — made, I can’t help but feel, with one eye to possible future legal proceedings.

It's no good being level-headed and saying you love someone if you haven't said your hail Marys first.

Mooney, on the other hand, is the Mail's 'relationship counsellor' whose qualifications include a degree in common sense from the university of toughing it out. She leads with some psychoballs in an article entitled Threaten the primal bond between mother and son at your peril: Bel Mooney lays bare the devastating impact of divorce on the teenage psyche. She goes on to explore "one of the outrages of modern life — that adults seem less and less able to control themselves for the greater good of their families." It hardly needs saying that, when adults do "control themselves", ie, make themselves miserable, they may think it's for the greater good of the family, but it doesn't always turn out that way. Still, it allows Mooney to squeeze in a sentence that has come directly from the Desk of Dacre, namely that "each increase in the divorce statistics represents a national as well as an individual crisis." Note: not each divorce, but each increase in the statistics. That is not the language of a 'relationship counsellor'.

After nearly an article-and-a-half of bashing Huhne and bad dads, it must surely be time to blame women for something. Using the case of the woman captioned in the Mail as "Vicky Pryce. the former wife of Geoff Huhne," Mooney decides that although it is men "who break up homes in the majority of cases", they are merely "following their passions", albeit "with painful consequences," and we should not expect too much of them beyond that. On the other hand:
it’s my conviction that, no matter how hurt she feels, the wife who is left must do everything she can to foster a good relationship between her children and her erring spouse.

Guilt, self-sacrifice, duty, repressing one's feelings: that's how to be a good woman in the Daily Mail.
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Posts
For a moment there I thought it was 1955...
By Lord Brett
Membership Days Posts
The Tory candidate in the Eastleigh by-election sounds like a real charmer - very right wing, anti-immigrant and anti-abortion. She claims to have been stitched up in previous interviews but Maria Hutchings sounds like just the sort of person we could do without in parliament. ... byelection ... um-seekers
EDIT: Bugger - I've just noticed that that this subject is being discussed tight now on the LibDem thread. I'll repost the New Statesman link there.
By Watchman
Membership Days Posts
Lord Brett wrote:The Tory candidate in the Eastleigh by-election sounds like a real charmer - very right wing, anti-immigrant and anti-abortion. She claims to have been stitched up in previous interviews but Maria Hutchings sounds like just the sort of person we could do without in parliament. ... byelection ... um-seekers
EDIT: Bugger - I've just noticed that that this subject is being discussed tight now on the LibDem thread. I'll repost the New Statesman link there.

Playing the autism card is she...I thought they were just naughty children who need a clip round the ear! If she had the front to challenge Blair about special needs provision i'd be interested to hear her views on what her own party has done in that area
The Mail's Front Page Headline

Fuckwits. It chimes in with Otto English's piece o[…]

Unfortunately it's pretty much a constant battle w[…]

The Trump Presidency

I did he manage to get nominated in t[…]

But that's all anyone has - the fact that of the p[…]