Daily Mail

_83727776_mail.jpg


Yep... I definitely would...

Though only because it looks like her to be fair.
 
How to order
Gone are the days where the man would pick for the woman. Gone because everyone has got a lot fussier with what they can/can’t eat and due also to women’s lib.

You should pick a restaurant you know reasonably well so you are able to offer suggestions as to what is good on the menu but allow the lady to make up her own mind.
When the waiter comes, let the woman order first.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/f...iam-Hanson-avoid-disastrous-dinner-dates.html

Bloody women's lib! It's gone too far!
 
Hate to say it, but the author might have a point. Pictures do seem to express cliquey, voluntary exclusion along racial lines. Having said that, we have no idea how many pictures they had to choose from, they might be building a narrative not grounded in reality -- it definitely wouldn't be above the Mail, and their readers would lap that nonsense up, which the Mail's editors are well aware of.

Half defending the Mail... I feel dirty.

Probably just down to slightly different upbringings and who they relate to the most when they first walk through the door.

Most likely.
 
What's your take on this? I also doubt anything racist is going on but there sure does seem to be a bit of a stick to your own malarkey going on

I just wonder how cherry-picked the photos are.
 
Yep. However, the editor's M.O. - the provocative headline at odds with the actual text - is not dissimilar to the technique on show in one of today's Mail articles: 'IRA Commander and Labour leadership candidate in bonfire of Parliament Square'...which isn't exactly the main story of yesterday's anti-austerity demonstration.
 
I wouldn't say the headline is provocative, although it could definitely do without the 'look carefully and ask yourself...' if we're looking for a more objective title (if it could ever be considered that).

As far as journalism goes, they should instead be imploring readers to read carefully.
 
The article wasn't even really trying to suggest anything controversial. He mentioned a subconscious divide, but that's about it.

If anything, they should spend a bit more time focusing on homophobia in football.
 
He's died at 33, after an obvious eating disorder, it's very easy to have a lot of sympathy for him.
Also, it's not like he was a little overweight and couldn't get thin due to laziness. The guy quite clearly had a mental problem. Anyone who gets to a stage like that does so due to illness of some sort.
 
He's died at 33, after an obvious eating disorder, it's very easy to have a lot of sympathy for him.
I feel dirty doing this, but a comment at the bottom of the article sums it up for me: 'I have no sympathy for this man who has sponged off the state all his life to indulge his selfishness. The benefit system is exacerbating the obesity epidemic by encouraging people to become morbidly obese by giving them the money to gorge themselves. Most hard working people could not afford to spend £200 a week on food for their whole family, yet he was able to do so at tax payers expense plus all the other benefits and nursing care he was getting.'
 
"Indulge his selfishness." Thinking he was selfish is one thing I can't get my head around but I think it's very narrow minded and cruel. That person is effectively saying they're glad he's dead because the tax payer no longer gives him any money, to live.... It's a classic daily mail comment.
 
The benefit system is exacerbating the obesity epidemic by encouraging people to become morbidly obese by giving them the money to gorge themselves.

That comment makes sense if you ignore fact and are incapable of empathy. The majority of studies on the topic has found a correlation between poverty and obesity. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that the benefit system is exacerbating the problem, but because it provides people with too little, rather than too much.
 
They should teach cookery and other life skills in school. Kids aren't getting that stuff from parents so much anymore.
 
Not sure how I feel about the big guy. You could put a lot of things down to a mental disorder and people don't sympathise.
Doesn't stop it being sad, but at the end of the day he had a weakness that he could've addressed and most likely didn't have the stones to do so (no pun intended).
 
Let's be honest, cooking is always going to be a class the majority bunk off and don't care for, I know I did. I don't recall anyone taking it seriously, or carrying it on past year 8, shit I think I stopped in year 7. Not least because it's nothing you can't learn at home, usually. For those kids who don't have a chance to do so, the first sentence still applies.
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-seen-snorting-cocaine-London-tube-train.html

Standard modus operandus for this shit rag. Get hold of viral video with someone doing something silly then run with several different versions over a few consecutive days until they identify the individual concerned and ruin his life completely. Can only imagine the glee with which they would report an eventual suicide.

Comments are interesting, though. Even their own readers find it all a bit unnecesary.
 
For what was once research for a now defunct project, I found, then forgot about, then just recently found again, the wonder that is The MailWatch forum - a forum dedicated exclusively to hatred of the Mail - which is glorious in many ways. Aside from the obvious serious-minded CE like sub forums, the main delight is the "Other Mail Discussion" forum (which I've linked to) which includes such brilliant thread topics as...

The sad faces of wronged Mail readers...

and

Faces of Deities and Celebs in household objects...

as well as..

Questions to which the answer is 'No'...

I reckon @SteveJ will enjoy this one nearly as much as me.