Daily Mail

Don't Kill Bill said:
" The cosmic blueprint of your life was written in code across the sky at the moment you were born"
Click to expand...

Actually, it was a skywriter with 'Piss Off, Steve' coming out of his biplane.
 
SteveJ said:
That reads an awfully lot like: 'Feeling good? Feeling bad? Got a scar on your knee? Blah blah mystic stuff...click here for The Asral Road to Prosperity. Only £35000.'
Click to expand...
The opening for the Taurus is my favourite."Are you safe? Are you protected? Can nobody get at you? Or do you feel exposed and vulnerable?" I was half expecting it to try and sell me Nortons latest version.
 
I'm buying one of his genuine quartz amulets that stop people being scammed.
 
What's wrong with Charmaine?

So now its time to hear my predicament, my catch 22
I loved this girl but now I have to cut her loose.
So I was talking to one of my boys the very next day
And I, told him all about me and Charmaine.
He looks at me in a very strange way,
And asks me if de la rosa is her surname
If shes, mixed race and her eyes are green
I say "yeah" he replies, "blud, that girls fourteen."

Read the rest: http://www.lyricsmania.com/charmaine_lyrics_plan_b.html
All about Plan B: http://www.musictory.com/music/Plan+B
Click to expand...

Also, this explains in more detail:


In short, Plan B sang a song about a girl named Charmaine. Need I say more?
 
ACC_zpsca2b17f2.png


She doesn't exactly need any help when it comes to boosting her assets.
But Carol Vorderman opted for a curve-enhancing optical illusion dress for work on Wednesday, which bore more than a passing resemblance to a Cornetto cone.

The Loose Woman presenter, who's admitted that she loves to wear tight-fitting clothes, squeezed her trim figure into the flattering dress for her day at ITV. Emerging looking as perfectly preened as usual, the 51-year-old posed for photographs outside the studio, perhaps unaware that she she looked a little like an ice cream cone.
Click to expand...
 
This week, after being mocked in the press with an attack piece by the Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn, schoolteacher Lucy Meadows committed suicide.

Lucy was raised male, but recently underwent a transition to live as female -- which for Littlejohn was reason enough to attack her in his column. Leading with the mocking headline "He's not only in the wrong body... he's in the wrong job", Littlejohn belittled and harassed Meadows, referring to her decision as her “personal problems” and playing on the outdated scare tactic that LGBT people are a threat to children.

The vile article led to a witch hunt targeting Meadows. Newspapers offered to pay parents for a picture of her, and she complained of having to leave home by the back door and arrive early to school to avoid the packs of journalists.

Sign our petition to the Daily Mail: fire Richard Littlejohn, issue an apology, and institute an editorial review to ensure that this never happens again.

Richard Littlejohn has a long history of using his perch at the the Daily Mail to mock and harass others, from laughing at cerebral palsy to snide insinuation that ethnic minorities got their jobs through discrimination to incessant attacks on the LGBT community, Littlejohn has been a national disgrace.

Throughout the article, Littlejohn repeatedly referred to Lucy as “he”, and claimed that getting gender reassignment surgery showed that she didn't care for the children she taught.

Littlejohn claimed that children don’t have the capacity to handle a gender transition -- but kids are smart and don’t carry the bias that adults have absorbed over the years. Just take the experience our campaign manager Kaytee's partner Max had when he came out to his little cousin as a transgender man. The cousin said “Oh, that makes sense. I always thought you were a boy. Now can we go play Legos?” Gender transition is only an issue for kids when the adults in their lives -- many egged on by these sorts of offensive opinion pieces -- make it out to be a problem.

The Daily Mail may thrive on controversy to sell its tabloid papers, but even it knows it went too far this time. In the wake of backlash, the Daily Mail removed the article from its website, but the damage has already been done.

Everyone has the right to say what they think, but mainstream publications like the Daily Mail shouldn't support and promote this sort of hate. The Daily Mail needs to ensure that this never happens again -- by not only yanking Littlejohn’s column and apologizing for the paper’s decision to run the hateful opinion piece, but also instituting an editorial review policy that prevents discriminatory writing from ending up in its paper again.

Tell the Daily Mail that newspaper columns cannot be used for bullying and hate, and that Richard Littlejohn has no place in the papers.
Click to expand...

http://action.sumofus.org/a/daily-mail-littlejohn-lucy-meadows/?sub=fb

Disgusting paper.
 
This was another of his article from 7 years ago. I don't know where he's actually that full of hate or whether he just writes antagonistically for publicity but either way he's a disgrace.

Let's get the caveat out of the way from the off. The five women murdered in Ipswich were tragic, lost souls who met a grisly end. I sincerely hope whoever killed them is caught, charged and convicted.
No one with a shred of humanity would wish upon them their ghastly lives and horrible deaths. But Mother Teresa, they weren't.
And I know this might sound frightfully callous in the current hysterical, emotional climate, but we're not all guilty.
We do not share in the responsibility for either their grubby little existences or their murders. Society isn't to blame.
It might not be fashionable, or even acceptable in some quarters, to say so, but in their chosen field of "work'=", death by strangulation is an occupational hazard.
That doesn't make it justifiable homicide, but in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss.
They weren't going to discover a cure for cancer or embark on missionary work in Darfur. The only kind of missionary position they undertook was in the back seat of a car.
Click to expand...
 
What a horrible human being. Signed and shared on Twitter.
 
What's weird is that this self-righteous newspaper and guardian of the nation's morals has a website version that is predominantly about sex and soft porn.
Signed, anyway.
 
A few years ago I seem to remember him using little brittian to attack gay people. How that man has a job at a newspaper aught to be beyond human comprehension - but then again the mere fact that such a vile newspaper sells so much tells you all you need to know. He's a cretinous cnut, but hate speech is what the mail sells.

Signed and shared the petition, it probably won't achieve much, but it's worth supporting.
 
alastair said:
Not the nicest guy in the world, but I defend his right to say whatever he wants. Not signed.
Click to expand...
Do you also defend Islamist hate speech or just right-wing hate speech?

He caused a woman to fecking kill herself. If that's not grounds for dismissal (if not criminal prosecution for emotional abuse and bullying) I don't know what is.

He can say he hates trannies as much as he likes - but what he did was single out someone and abuse her, that's where the line is, Al.

Edit: How do you think you would react if I were to follow you around this forum and just say "close minded ring wing cnut" after every single one of your posts regardless of the subject of your post? Because that's the equivalent of what he does.
 
alastair said:
Not the nicest guy in the world, but I defend his right to say whatever he wants. Not signed.
Click to expand...

Forget not being the nicest guy, he's a hateful stupid cnut. So you think it's acceptable for him to say what he did, and for there to be no consequences after writing that piece in particular?
 
Silva said:
He can say he hates trannies as much as he likes - but what he did was single out someone and abuse her, that's where the line is, Al.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this was bullying on a massive scale. The consequences have been as dire as possible. This isn't freedom of speech.
 
alastair said:
Not the nicest guy in the world, but I defend his right to say whatever he wants. Not signed.
Click to expand...

The right to say what he wants...So that equals the right to single out one human being, identifying one attribute about them which to any civilised person wouldn't and really in this day and age shouldn't be an issue and then running essentially a hate campaign against them?
 
Al is just a little confused here lads, reading the mail as he does has desensitized him from hate speech and has removed every ounce of his compassion towards people.

White text? Not that I believe I'm too far from the truth.
 
Eboue said:
But the government shouldn't be involved with any punishment.
Click to expand...
Well, they should. If I caused someone I don't like to commit suicide I'd be taken to the fecking dogs.

Not too long ago there was a case about a homosexual student being filmed by his flatmate and outed on the internet, leading to the guy committing suicide. If I remember correctly the flatmate was prosecuted (even though he seemed to be playing a prank rather than anything serious). What happened here is that this guy pushed someone to kill themselves by actively perusing a witch hunt against her.
 
Eboue said:
Right. The consequences should be that there is enough public outcry for him to be fired. But the government shouldn't be involved with any punishment.
Click to expand...

Somebody was recently charged in Manchester after they taunted somebody who was on a rooftop to jump whilst other civilians and police were trying to talk him out of it. I know it's not exactly the same thing, but the fact of the matter is that morally (and it appears lawfully) you can't say things that drive people to their own death or the death of others.
 
Silva said:
Well, they should. If I caused someone I don't like to commit suicide I'd be taken to the fecking dogs.

Not too long ago there was a case about a homosexual student being filmed by his flatmate and outed on the internet, leading to the guy committing suicide. If I remember correctly the flatmate was prosecuted (even though he seemed to be playing a prank rather than anything serious). What happened here is that this guy pushed someone to kill themselves to actively perusing a witch hunt against her.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi


Is that what you mean? Because they weren't prosecuted for bullying, they were prosecuted for invasion of privacy.

Anyway, I can't seem to find the exact article that started this, but why should the author be held responsible for someone choosing to commit suicide? He should be held responsible for his writing, by being fired but that's it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.