Were they to write the same inflamatory headlines about a ethnic or religous group they'd be done. So how are they able to get away with printing this?
Legally enforceable state press regulation? If it stops this sort of thing I may be in favour of it.
Shocking isn't it? You have to ask who the people are who voluntarily go out and buy this bilge.
think we'll have to wait a long time for
"Harold Shipman, A vile product of middle class Britain!"
headline
Its just more of what we now expect from our hate-filled, nasty, gutter level, unregulated 'free press'
This is just part of the right wing presses continuing vilification of the poor, egged on by Downing Street press office, to justify this government's dismantling of the benefits system
It is a calculated, co-ordinated, cynical and ideologically driven campaign, waged through their friends in the press, that has had a very clear agenda right from the day this despicable administration took power
What will it it take to stop them? (the Coalition and the gutter press).
Alright Degsy, calm down.
In related news, Kelvin McKenzie has joined the Torygraph, so expect more quality balanced journalism from that source...
Please verify that the above link does not transfer me to the Daily Wail website...
I feel shitty already today and giving those b'stards even the merest click of my mouse might tip me over the edge.
No it's not a direct DM link. Though after viewing the front page you are likely to be depressed, and seetheingly angry.
Apparently even Anne Widdecombe thought the DM had gone a too far with that piece of 'journalism'. If Anne Widdecombe thinks you're being a bit of a right-wing git, you should probably wind your neck back in.
From Charlie Brookers original TV GO Home TV programme listings
[b]
Daily Mail Island[/b], [i]a reality TV show where several normal people are deposited on an island and not allowed access to any media other than the strongly right-wing and conservative Daily Mail newspaper, leading to them becoming progressively more irrational and brutal as the series progresses - for example, tying teenage lovers together with sacks on their heads and beating them,or sealing a teenager caught masturbating into a coffin filled with broken glass and dog faeces and throwing it over a cliff, and their language devolving into rhetorical questions and sarcastic snorts.[/i]
There was a bloke from the DM on Today this mornign defending it.
His line was "He only did it because the state was giving him a £1000 a month for the children and he didn't want to lose the income".
Which, I have some sympathy with as a position - he did do it for the money.
To extrapolate that the way that the DM have, though, is stretching things a bit too far.
The problem with the Daily Mail is that they are the 2nd most popular paper in the UK.
1) The Sun 2,165,605
2) Daily Mail 1,594,421 (2.4m on a Sunday)
3) Daily Mirror 953,422
Nobody I know admits to reading the Mail (expect my parents) but obviously 1.5m people buy the paper and I'm guessing 3.0m probably read it. Whilst they continue to sell in those numbers they will continue to publish absolute s***!
If the Sun couldn't be brought down by Hillsborough and the phone tapping scandals, I don't see anyway the Daily Mail will ever be brought down. Certainly not until all the Baby Boomers die (This is a sweeping generalisation on my part that the Baby Boomers are loyal Mail readers).
He only did it because the state was giving him a £1000 a month for the children and he didn't want to lose the income
I suspect he loved his kids [ madness given what he did!!] and he wanted to win the custody case rather than just get them money. Surely if he wanted money he could just have more kids with another mistress?
It is far more complicated than that and we could debate his motivations but thqt headline and claiming he did it for money is just BS
However the clear point is he was an amoral individual and this was unlikely to be a result of the benefits system anymore than fraud by bankers is a direct result of the banking system
We all know this even the person who wrote that article for money knows this
TBH i thought it was taking a polemic to a ridicolous level - if the benefits systeme did this - given the hoardes of scroungers and immigarants out there this would be a common event
Shamefull that a well educated individual would write something they dont believe ,for money, and then defend it.
It is not so much journalism as it is trolling tbh
the fact folk buy it [ the paper and the article] is probably more worrying
[i]It is far more complicated than that and we could debate his motivations[/i]
you're right. I won't edit my post but his motives were also about control etc as well as money.
The great thing about the Daily Mail is that it is one of only a handful of subjects that everyone on STW seems to agree on (along with Piers Morgan being a twunt).
So we may hate their gutter press, but let us rejoice in it bringing unity to STW, the home of arguments!
It's really sickening, to print such a load of bile and claim to be a newspaper. Everyone associated with the mail should take a good long look in the mirror this morning. What binners said +1
The T-shirt posted above is a lovely way of demeaning mental health issues, oh the ironing etc
It's sickening that what the DM does is considered to be an acceptable.
The DM is the new Der Sturhmer?
All correct... BUT what nobody here seems to appreciate is that the readers of STW are not typical of the British population and most ordinary, ignorant and bigoted British people will agree with the Daily Mail. There is a nasty undercurrent of hatred and bigotry in the UK, which surfaces often in places like Norn' Iron and less often in the rest of the nation. It is only our living memory of Adolf Hitler, which prevents us from voting en masse for fascist politicians.
I wonder if anyone has reported the DM to their local police for inciteing hate crime? Though as the poor are the new jewry I don't suppose a complaint would get very far. It would be good to see the **** who wrote this getting his collar felt, or, in our dreams, dismissed.
Read an article yesterday taken from the Daily Mail in 1938. The headline "German Jews pouring into the country".
"The way stateless Jews are pouring into every port in the this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to it's fullest."In these words Mr Herbert Metcalfe the old street magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the "back door"-a problem which The Daily mail has repeatedly pointed.
"HURRAH FOR THE BLACKSHIRTS!"
The thing about the Daily Mail is that as the world's most-visited newspaper website and one of the Uk's most popular print newspapers, it has to do just one thing very well: articulate the views of a substantial number of people.
For anybody who is taking these negative, unpleasant, nasty opinions about about the Daily Mail at face value, without actually reading reading the paper first-hand, please have a look through a copy in a newsagent.
You'll find that these views are all [b]entirely[/b] justified.
It's a thoroughly unpleasant, hate-filled publication that is read widely by the harrumphing, but not necessarily well-informed, older generation.
My parents, who were young at the time, used to have it delivered when I was growing up, and I used to read it, thinking that it was news.... I hope it hasn't affected me too much.
Despite the Mail's [i]disgust[/i] about everything -often with full sets of photographs to illustrate the depravity for readers-, their hugely-viewed website is basically a bit of prurient or hate-fuelled [i]"news"[/i] with links to celebrities in bikinis. A winning formula, apparently.
The worst thing is hearing people spout the things they've read in the Mail (or the version for people who struggle with big words, the Express) as fact -People in general like to be told what to think and don't question things if they appear to confirm their prejudices.
With reference to any news source, don't take what you read or hear as correct without thinking about it. There is often a biased spin on things, especially statistics -often fairly obvious too.
ps. I read the in-laws' Telegraph occasionally and, despite a veneer of respectability, that isn't much better...
The DM is the new Der Sturhmer?
I wouldn't go quite that far, but then the DM does employ evil, dangerous hatemongers such as this charming lady:
[img] 
[/img]
Whose books are to be found in such places as Excalibur, the online shop of the BNP:
http://www.buyexcalibur.co.uk/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=207
So actually, you might have a point there...
Not much has changed, eh?
[img] 
[/img]
The times is reporting that Philpott was clearing the equivalent of £100k in salary each year - putting him in the top 2% of earners for the whole country. Not a bad return for not having to do a hard days work since 2004. The £1000 figure is the amount his income dropped when one of his wifettes moved out and is allegedly the motivation for the subsequent attempt the fire / regaining access to the kids and the associated benefits payments.
To be honest everything I've read and heard about the guy is just deeply depressing and detracts from the deaths of 6 very very unlucky kids - I just hope it's a one off and there aren't more people out there with his weird logic.
The times is reporting that Philpott was clearing the [i][b]equivalent of[/b][/i] £100k in salary each year - putting him in the top 2% of earners for the whole country
I suspect that this could be looked at in greater detail.
One for Tim Harford on R4's [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qshd ]"More or Less"[/url]?
And whilst all this goes on, they still manage to publish a full size front page picture of the Countess of Wessex's bottom (mondays paper).
* Disclaimer* I know this only because my parents are staying at the moment and they buy the paper.
[b]Vile Product of Capitalism Fueled Greed[/b]
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/28/stephen-seddon-jailed-40-year ]Stephen Seddon jailed for 40 years for parents' murder[/url]
[i]"His parents had made him sole beneficiary of their £230,000 estate in their will"[/i]
Six young lives who perished. Just innocent kids with their whole lives ahead of them cut so short. The whole sorry story is unimaginable.
I'm sure their parents will have plenty of time now to think about it. And they will.
As for the Mail...well it prints what its readers deserve.
ernie_lynch - MemberVile Product of Capitalism Fueled Greed
Stephen Seddon jailed for 40 years for parents' murder
"His parents had made him sole beneficiary of their £230,000 estate in their will"
A fabricated link to provide a counter-balance?
As someone pointed out on Twitter, I’m looking forward to the DM's “Fantastic Product of Welfare UK” story about JK Rowling...
The thing about the Daily Mail is that as the world's most-visited newspaper website
Their success is largely down to the fact that they are deliberately sensationalist; lurid headlines make for far greater reaction than simply reporting facts. And I'd magine a great deal of advertising revenue is generated through their website. So it's all part of a careful plan.
Trouble with the Mail, is that while most of it's journos are simply in a job that pays ok, and one they can just walk away from at the end of the day and not care too much about the crap they write, there are those like Melanie Phillips for whom it is a mouthpiece for their nasty, hate-fuelled invective. And that's where it becomes dangerous.
What worries me isn't that the Daily Mail have printed that - nothing that hateful rag prints really surprises me.
What worries me is that there are people who rather than reel in disgust from that headline actually buy the paper instead.
what the headline does is devalues human life. it is an utter insult to the six innocent children who have lost their lives through the ignorance of one man. I doubt the editors/columist/journalist at the DM would have used such headlines if they themselves had to carry the six corpses out of that house
[img] 
[/img]
What this does show is that absolutely anything at all, no matter how vile and tasteless, is fair game to use as a stick to beat the Mail's perceived enemies, and further its repugnant right wing agenda
A normal person looks at the deaths of 6 children and sees a human tradgedy, a mail journalist instead sees an opportunity to indulge in more vile pontificating!
I actually pity them. Imagine being that cold hearted!
Aristotle - I agree it would be interesting to see a "more or less" type analysis (great programme by the way) but the key point is that he forced his partners to pay *all* of the money into his bank account - they weren't allowed to keep any of it themselves or have their own bank accounts - it's the control aspect that grates most with me.
For interest, the figures behind the £100K salary claim are:
11 kids @ £20.30 week x 52 weeks = £11,611
10 kids @ £13.40 week x 52 weeks = £6,968 (he also received the child benefit for kids that weren't even his!)
Annual Tax credit on wife 1 ex wages = £20,560
Annual Tax credit on “partner” ex wages = £17,870
Housing benefit - £150 a week x 52 weeks = £7,800 (it's unclear whether this was actually paid directly to him or not though)
Total net income: £64,809
Yep. Let's not focus on the bankers and the career politicians. Let's not talk about China destroying the global economy by pretty much being all of the global economy.
Let's bash the poor. Divide and conquer.
But back to the hate crime point. The legislation is there to prevent the incitement of hatred by preventing hateful views from being aired, and so reinforced in those pathetic people who would be influenced by them. Wasn't the point also to protect vulnerable groups from the harmful effects of hate crime?
How do we ensure a reasonable freedom of speech without allowing these excesses?
I'm just glad for everyones' sake that I don't live near the DM offices. I don't think I'd be able to restrain myself...
Admission time......
Whilst on a 3 hour ferry journey yesterday, the on-board shop had limited reading material - The Mail or The Express.
My dad reads the Express and i couldn't handle anymore of that garbage after a week staying with him so i chose the Mail
I read the whole article (after seeing the Newsnight show about him the previous night)
It really was awful journalism, but very typical of British tabloid rubbish
Not surprising in any way - but i do hope that he doesn't get solitary in the nick, but as most other prisoners will see him as a child killer, so is likely to get solitary, so unlikley to get murdered by some psycho
Wasn't the point also to protect vulnerable groups from the harmful effects of hate crime?
The Daily Mail is just exploiting the tragic death of six children to make a political point that it has on its agenda, hate crime laws aren't designed to deal with this sort of situation.
I want those responsible for the he DM article jailed.
I want those responsible for the he DM article jailed.
Don't be silly.
No one was jailed for the Sun's Hillsborough front page, and that was a pack of lies. The Daily Mail is probably more guilty of tastelessly exploiting the tragic deaths of 6 children to score cheap political points, than lying.
I actually pity them. Imagine being that cold hearted!
I recently went to see a film about Don McCullin, the acclaimed photojournalist. An man who has witnessed terrible tragedy right in front of his own eyes. And understandably, so brutalised by his experiences, somewhat detached from the full horror of it all to the extent that he could keep taking pictures of all that he saw. A man damaged by life. Yet McCullin still retained his humanity, and the ability to empathise with others.
The problem with people like DM journos, is that they are shielded from the reality of the situations they comment on, hence their lack of empathy or consideration for others, and for the effects of their words. They don't care. they probably all go back to their cost little bubbles, safe in the knowledge that they aren't affected.
Maybe they need to actually have a long hard look at reality, maybe that would give them a better perspective.
Or maybe, as in Melanie Phillips' case, they're just ****s.
A fabricated link to provide a counter-balance?
No. It happened.
Read an article yesterday taken from the Daily Mail in 1938. The headline "German Jews pouring into the country".
The UK government's policy and treatment of Jewish asylum seekers thorughout the 1930s and during WW2 was often shameful, it wasn't just the Daily Mail.
Coyote - MemberA fabricated link to provide a counter-balance?
No. It happened.
The crime happened, but the link to the Guardian doesn't exist.
It doesn't does it. Try this one :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/28/stephen-seddon-jailed-40-years
It wasn't a fabricated link, it just didn't work for some reason. I'm surprised that you weren't able to figure that out.
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/dont-get-mad-about-use-of-philpotts-tarnish-poor ]Another good write up about the DM article[/url]
The UK government's policy and treatment of Jewish asylum seekers thorughout the 1930s and during WW2 was often shameful, it wasn't just the Daily Mail.
No you're right; anti-semitism was rife in Britain during that time. But Associated Newspapers, which owns the Daily Mail, has a history of links with the far-right:
http://www.anitaroddick.com/readmore.php?sid=556
http://dailymail-rehab.livejournal.com/17709.html
Interesting that Melanie Phillips, who is Jewish, chooses to work for a publishing company with such a history.
I seem to remember that Ken Livingstone tried to articulate much the same point, pissed, at a party. It didn't go too well...
Yep. Let's not focus on the bankers and the career politicians. Let's not talk about China destroying the global economy by pretty much being all of the global economy.Let's bash the poor. Divide and conquer.
I think you're getting carried away with yourself. The tone and rhetoric is shameful but It is a legitimate news story and would have been any time since Gutenburg (Johannes, not Steve).
The sympathy for further government regulation of the press is also misplaced, morally and practically. This type of story is more typical of a repressive press environment than a free(r) one. If the press is restrained, it is less likely to take a pop at the powerful, which leaves only the powerless as the target. (Not that the Daily F'ing Mail is speaking truth to power with that front page).
I seem to remember that Ken Livingstone tried to articulate much the same point, pissed, at a party.
How did you respond ?
it is an utter insult to the six innocent children who have lost their lives through the [i]ignorance of one man[/i].
I am assuming you are referring to Philpott.If so to refer to him as merely "ignorant" is also an insult.
A violent, selfish,odious ,manipulative,greedy,misogynistic killer more like.
I see Gideon is jumping on the bandwagon trying to make political capital out of this tragedy:
[url] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22025035 [/url]
Blaming the welfare state for the actions of this wicked individual is beneath contempt. And the evidence noted that both his wife and mistress both worked.
Maybe I read a different article to you Philby but this could potentially make a good verbal reasoning test. If I've read it correctly the article states:
[i]He [Philpott] has been branded a "vile product" of the benefit system by some newspapers.
Asked about such claims, Mr Osborne said "[b]a debate was needed about whether the state should "subsidise lifestyles like that[/b]"."[/i]
the article later attributes a second comment:
[b][i]
"Philpott is responsible for these absolutely horrendous crimes and these are crimes that have shocked the nation; the courts are responsible for sentencing him.
"But I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state - and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state - subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had."[/i][/b]
So he didn't actually pass comment other than to say the horrendous crimes have shocked the nation and that a debate is needed.
To me this falls quite a long way short of your "[i]trying to make political capital[/i]" claim or [i]"Blaming the welfare state for the actions of this wicked individual is beneath contempt. And the evidence noted that both his wife and mistress both worked. "[/i]. He just answered a question with a view...
What is quite noticeable in the article is the quote from Labour MP Andy McDonald who is said to have accused the chancellor of trying to make political capital out of an "appalling" crime and for "demonising" people seeking work by linking them to a convicted killer.
There's nothing in the article to suggest Gideon actually made any link at all between people looking for work and a convicted killer, but I'm sure this form of pretty lame political ping pong appeals to many.
Dear God!! Having read that Zoe Williams article, I wasn't aware that Paul Dacre was head of the Press Complaints Commission! It seems really surprising, knowing that, that press self-regulation has failed! 😯
Having read that Zoe Williams article, I wasn't aware that Paul Dacre was head of the Press Complaints Commission!
Are you now aware that he isn't head of the Press Complaints Commission?
Strange that! In the printed version of the article it says that he is. But that's been removed from the online version. I didn't think that he was.
@robdixon - Osborne is quite clearly is making a link by commenting on both Michael Philpott and welfare benefits which '[i]subsidise lifestyles like that'[/i]. Perhaps he shouldn't have mentioned both issues in the same speech - it is clearly political opportunism and pandering to the reactionary right. Did Philpott being on benefits cause the crime? It seems the fact that he is a deeply malevolent and evil individual is secondary to his benefit status to many people.
[img] 
[/img]
Strange that! In the printed version of the article it says that he is. But that's been removed from the online version. I didn't think that he was.
Pretty sure he used to be.
To me this falls quite a long way short of your "trying to make political capital" claim or "Blaming the welfare state for the actions of this wicked individual is beneath contempt. And the evidence noted that both his wife and mistress both worked. ". He just answered a question with a view...
Oh come off it! Complety disingenuous to claim he isn't going along with the Mail's vile rhetoric. Plenty of other things he could have said if he didn't want to create that impression.
Maybe even something like - 'this is an awful situation but linking it to the benefits system is baseless, cynical, vindictive and immoral'.
Osborne is quite clearly is making a link by commenting on both Michael Philpott and welfare benefits which 'subsidise lifestyles like that'. Perhaps he shouldn't have mentioned both issues in the same speech - it is clearly political opportunism and pandering to the reactionary right
this he is not as politically daft as sound like a DM headline writer , well certainly not in public.
Writing DM headlines is just his hobby.
In the printed version of the article it says that he is
I've only got access to the online version - is there something you feel you should be telling us, binners?
Not really. The Zoe Williams article makes reference to Paul Dacre being head of the PCC, and therefore complaining to them would be pointless. In the online version linked, that reference has been removed
It wouldn't surprise me if the Mail had their lawyers straight on to the Guardian. Without a hint of irony, complaining about 'factual inaccuracies'. It's the way bullies usually tend to operate
Osbornes just happy to spout on about the one man in the country less popular than he is right now
in other right wing £*%$ news I see kelvin mackenzie has moved to the daily telegraph
Its just more of what we now expect from our hate-filled, nasty, gutter level, unregulated 'free press'
This is just part of the right wing presses continuing vilification of the poor, egged on by Downing Street press office, to justify this government's dismantling of the benefits system
It is a calculated, co-ordinated, cynical and ideologically driven campaign, waged through their friends in the press, that has had a very clear agenda right from the day this despicable administration took power
Bang on.
"But I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state - and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state - subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had."So he didn't actually pass comment other than to say the horrendous crimes have shocked the nation and that a debate is needed.
The way he is framing the debate which ought to be had gives some indication of what he believes ought to be the outcome though, doesn't it? I mean, if I say that we should have a debate whether the UK taxpayer ought to be subsidising people like George Osborne to continue living their parasitic, shameful and arrogant lifestyle, you would probably agree that it's not a neutral statement, right? It's disingenuous cobblers - he should at least have the nuts to turn around say "I don't believe the taxpayer should..."
It's doublespeak - "having a debate" means we'll release some press releases, get some editorials printed in the right-wing press, then use those to say "the public" want something to happen.