Daily Mail
- Thread starter p_ps_sock
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
Citizens of Commonwealth countries who are resident in the UK and pay taxes are eligible to vote in national and local elections. EU citizens who are resident in the UK are eligible to vote in local elections (not sure about national ones, don't think they can).
The Commonwealth provision has been in place for decades, certainly since the 1960s.
EDIT: Saw Frosty's reply, but my dad voted in an election in the 70s, and it was already possible for quite a long time then.
More evidence (if we needed any) that the Mail is a shit paper that panders to prejudice:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1028222/I-create-gods-time--I-think-exist.html
Check out the difference between the headline and the article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1028222/I-create-gods-time--I-think-exist.html
Check out the difference between the headline and the article.
Don't be so pedantic Spin. Just because the title states that Terry Pratchett has found religion doesn't mean that you should expect his interview to actually say or even suggest this.
What is the phrase? Lies, damn lies and Daily Mail articles?
What is the phrase? Lies, damn lies and Daily Mail articles?
I have to admit that when I saw the headline I was shocked. So shocked that I actually picked up the paper to read the article. Then I read the first line, and all was well (except that I'd been suckered into reading the Daily Mail of course).
Another example of absolute feckwittery from the Mail - a few weeks back they did a story on how the official inflation statistics lie, and understate inflation by a large amount - more than 10%. Their way of proving this was by taking lots of items and constructing a basket of items that had risen more than a certain amount, and excluding items that had fallen in price. Of course, anything that had risen a lot tended to be food and energy.
feck's sake. It was one of those days when I thought "anyone who reads and believes this trash must be a moron".
EDIT: here's the article. Their nice little chart seems to be gone though.
Repeat after me, the inflation rate is an average...
feck's sake. It was one of those days when I thought "anyone who reads and believes this trash must be a moron".
EDIT: here's the article. Their nice little chart seems to be gone though.
Repeat after me, the inflation rate is an average...
Its all the imigrants fault Spin, accept it.
Good to see another convert reading the Daily Mail, but the Femail section..... oh dear. Marginally better than thumbing through the sticky pages of a Littlewood's Catalogue I suppose.
I reckon the readership of the Mail has gone up by at least ....oh, ten since this thread started. Probably all you Labourites looking for something to group winge about.
Are there other sorts of days?
Well, the days when I don't see or read the Daily Mail
Poor Terry Pratchett - not only does he have Alzheimer's, he agreed to be interviewed by the DM...
Spinoza is an FT man
Out of interest, what's your problem with the FT? I use it mainly as a source of news that I can't get anywhere else - company news, market movements, trading patterns etc. Quite a lot of pages in the FT consist of share and fund prices. You can call that crap (and sometimes it is) but that sort of stuff doesn't have any political bias.
Well, the days when I don't see or read the Daily Mail
Poor Terry Pratchett - not only does he have Alzheimer's, he agreed to be interviewed by the DM...
Out of interest, what's your problem with the FT? I use it mainly as a source of news that I can't get anywhere else - company news, market movements, trading patterns etc. Quite a lot of pages in the FT consist of share and fund prices. You can call that crap (and sometimes it is) but that sort of stuff doesn't have any political bias.
Don´t have a problem with the FT and I read it daily for over 30 years
and you could say the same about the sports results in any crap newspaper like the Mail - but it doesn´t make lots else in the FT biased in its own way . In sounds as if its bias is in line with yours - much like you´re accusing the idiot Mail readers
Nah, I doubt it - the FT Companies and Markets section is 50-60% of the paper, much more than any sports section.
The FT views the world through a prism of free market economics, but tends to sensibly confine itself to discussion of those issues (unlike, say, the Wall Street Journal). Now you could argue that there are other economic paradigms through which they could view the world, but I don't think that this is what you mean. There isn't much political bias in the FT, unless you call rants about which political party's policies would be better for the City political bias.
The Mail is a shit paper for fools. Quite often whatever facts they are reporting don't support the conclusion or the headline - that's not bias, that's just making things up. It isn't a problem confined to the right wing tabloids either - I've nearly pissed myself laughing at some stuff that the Worker prints.
now that is a silly statement - what do you think Murdoch is doing with the Sun Times and NOTW if not controlling/changing our political masters for commercial gain using politically biased reporting . He´s not doing it out of altruism or come to think of it neither is the FT or Mail or Star or Guardian et al
My dad reads the FT and he's constantly coming home with sentiments he's picked up from that paper. It's as political as any other, yet its readers like to think of themselves as free from bias.
Why don't you name this faceless conspirator who's manipulating the FT behind the scenes then?The FT is owned by Pearson a publicly traded company, which is in turn has no major family investor. 5 major institutional fund management groups make up more than 40% of their ownership, with no investor owning more than 13%, so it's hard for someone to actually influence the FT editorial staff through ownership. You're spouting conspiracy theory bullshit.
In the second place, if you actually look at the news coverage, the FT's political news is less than 10% of actual copy. 3 out of 4 days so far this week there hasn't been a single political headline on the front page.
The FT has a particular paradigm which it uses because its readers have a particular paradigm. However, this paradigm says little about politics. All political parties in Britain long ago accepted that free markets create wealth. The slant of the FT's political news blows in the wind depending on which reporter and / or which editor is writing it, and even then it's never very strong.
And which sentiments were these?
I don't think FT readers think of themselves as free from bias because they read the FT. They already have their political biases and use the FT for other types of news. Hence, the FT is fairly unbiased from a political perspective.
I know people of almost all political persuasions who read the FT (not encountered a member of the Socialist Party yet though), so the newspaper's circulation is heavily dependent on catering to the niche it fills, and not overstepping into anything else. Lots of people don't read the WSJ for example, because of its political bias, and it has lost readers to the FT.
so no publicly traded company influences/tries to influence its political masters - be it oil companies, sugar manufacturers, pharma companies, cola, weapons or journals with the tools at their disposal - and all shareholders are altruistic to a man sorry human including those of Pearson
- and the Pearson board are all wonderful human beings with no eye on the dollar - believe on
so no publicly traded company influences/tries to influence its political masters - be it oil companies, sugar manufacturers, pharma companies, cola, weapons or journals with the tools at their disposal - and all shareholders are altruistic to a man sorry human including those of Pearson
- and the Pearson board are all wonderful human beings with no eye on the dollar - believe on
Don't be so fecking dense.
You claim the FT engages in politically biased reporting. I point out that there's no central agenda stemming from ownership and there's precious little political news anyway, so the scope for politically biased reporting is limited.
You then go off on a rant about corporate influence over politics, something only tangentially related. Classic case of not living in the reality based community.
I'm also going to disagree with you about the extent of corporate influence over politics - it's mainly confined to regulatory capture and profit maximising (rare cases like Rupert Murdoch excepted).
Have you ever voted proxies in shareholder meetings? Lobbied company management to do something? If you have, you'll know how difficult it is to exert ownership influence over anything. So I'm guessing you haven't, and have no actual evidence to back up what you say, as per usual.
Have you ever voted proxies in shareholder meetings? Lobbied company management to do something? If you have, you'll know how difficult it is to exert ownership influence over anything. So I'm guessing you haven't, and have no actual evidence to back up what you say, as per usual.
I am gobsmacked at such chastising from someone of your experience. To enlighten me further how many years have you been working and how many of those in so elevated a management position to allow you to advise us other mere mortals .Oh and the industries you´ve worked in would be illuminating too - ta
I agree fully with p ps sock. The Daily Mail gets away with filling people's minds with pessimistic right-wing propaganda because some people want to believe that the country is ran by incompetent oafs who get everything wrong and that life would be far better if we were governed by somebody else. This is not a political sentiment, these people would feel the same way if the tories were in charge, they would feel the same if the lib dems were in charge; Daily Mail readers get off on thinking that powerful people are stupid, it makes them feel smugger to think that they themselves could do a far better job if only they were given the chance. They begin reading an article about, for example, a new type of speedboat that can travel underwater, and, by the end of the article, the author is bemoaning the labour government for allowing immigrants into the country which, in turn, makes Japanese men build speedboats, fecking nonsense. Yesterday i read an article about Andy Murray, started off ok, congratulations to Andy Murray for getting to the quarters, next best thing since Henman etc. but, two paragraphs into the article, the author was claiming that Andy Murray's aggressive on-court nature surmised British yob culture and was a bad example to be setting and was all Labour's fault, stupid bad bad bad labour. Tennis=bad government, nonsense. Few weeks ago i read an article about a new TV that was 150" wide or thereabouts. Ot oh! Big TV's? That's Labour's fault that is! Nothing wrong with old small square TV's! Labour Out! Labour Out! fecking nonsense. It's just not journalism, there is no news in the Daily Mail. Sure, there are reports, there are words written on the page, but they are all written with the sole intent to slag off the Labour Party, that's not news, that's just bitching. Don't get me wrong, i'm not a Labour supporter, in fact i'm not even politically minded, but i can tell when i'm being preached to, preached at. I can tell when a newspaper is trying to put their own prejudices into my head by subliminally slagging off government in what should be totally unpolitical articles. I know the Mail is shite, i know it's trying to make me think the thinks it thinks, to make me think labour bad labour bad labour bad labour bad no immigrants yob culture labour's fault labour's fault labour bad labour bad. It is because i know that it's bollocks that i can get away with reading it, as a sort of exercise in comically biased journalism. But the problem is that some people aren't as clever as me, some people will read an article about Andy Murray and then think 'yeah, labour is bad, by citing Andy Murray's on-court demeanor as evidence, the paper just proved it!'. And they like to think that, they like to think that the country is a hell hole, it makes them feel important, like martyrs, like a persecuted people who will one day break free from the tyrannical rule of the evil despotic Labour. Fortunatelythough, in reality, the country is fine, it's a very comfortable country to live in in fact, we're free, on the whole; happy - comfortable, safe, well-off, well-educated, healthy - relatively of course, there's always room for improvement, and if all the thick-headed Daily Mail readers would think a think for themselves 'stead of just thinking the thinks the paper told them to think - that would be a fecking good start.
Lovely rant.
The Mail is the only paper I won't be seen reading. I am a compulsive reader and even when I see copies of the Mail left on the train, and I am desperate for stuff to read, I refuse to soil my hands on the thing. It's a paper designed so cnuts can feel better about being cnutish.
Fine words, which will be applauded by many contributors to this thread. The key thing though, Cider, is that you're reading it. Welcome to the Daily Mail club.
Yeah i work in a factory, there are loads of different papers hanging around, my mate Tony buys the Mail aswell as my mate Ian. Fortunately they only buy it for the crossword (which is very good by the way) and the footy (less so), but i usually flick through it and read a bit. I'm a Times reader myself, a proper paper that, the Times.
I prefer the Telegraph, but I do like the Times. Especially in the "tabloid" size that makes it easier to read on the move.
Last edited by ciderman9000000 : Today at 20:40. Reason: just wanted to see what such a big rant would look like in a larger font, makes it easier to read i s'pose.
a rant by any name is still verbal diets
a rant by any name is still verbal diets
I like the tabloid Guardian meself aka the Morning Star aka the Daily Worker
FFS, Topper why don't you read the Mail like everyone else???
shhhhhhhhhh mate - I do read it but have it sent to a PO box address in a plain wrapper
articles there guaranteed to get the lefties blood pressure up You shoulda seen it in size7, gigarantatron.
Oh and the industries you´ve worked in would be illuminating too - ta
Who says you need to work a long time and in a senior management position to have the right to put pressure on managers? All you have to do is own the shares... or the loans.The Berliner format just feels wrong. I hate it, the only advantage is that you can tuck it under your arm.
The Berliner format just feels wrong. I hate it, the only advantage is that you can tuck it under your arm.
yeh any cnut can own shares - but you speak with such authority on all things - including biz - that I guessed you had been in Senior management for some years
don´t be bashfull - how many years in work and how many in senior positions to have developed this wisdomyeh any cnut can own shares - but you speak with such authority on all things - including biz - that I guessed you had been in Senior management for some years
I speak with authority because I'm usually right
You resort to talking about experience and age because it's the last straw you clutch.
I speak with authority because I'm usually right
You resort to talking about experience and age because it's the last straw you clutch.
so you have just started shaving - I thougt so
how many years have you actually been working ?
so you have just started shaving - I thougt so
how many years have you actually been working ?
What kind of stupid question is that? I might have been working 55 years as a bartender, or 2 years as an activist investor. Obviously the latter is more relevant. I've done a bit of both, but I'm clearly referring to the time spent on the latter.
Rather than query my qualifications, why don't you actually engage with the ideas? The fact that you consistently refuse to do this when responding to my posts is why I think your world view is probably built on nothing but your prejudices. Empty of facts and evidence, in other words.
easy does it Spinoza - just a simple question twas - don´t want to upset youI´m so amazed at your expèrtise in such a wide range of topics and your business acumen that I wanted to know how quickly you amassed this practical knowledge. You being right all the time as well
But if this question makes you uncomfortable then I won´t push it - never did like making people feel uncomfortable
sorry and all that - mea culpa******* Harman pitches for 'stand-in' Prime Minister job
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:32 AM on 07th July 2008
******* Harman is campaigning to promote herself as a stand-in Prime Minister should Mr Brown be forced out.
It emerged last night that Labour MPs have been sounded out about her suitability if the PM leaves No10 by the end of the year.
With the Prime Minister's position looking precarious, manoeuvring to replace him is well under way.
The revelation that his own deputy fancies her chances will annoy Mr Brown, who is desperate to dampen speculation about his future.
The Daily Mail understands that MPs acting on Miss Harman's behalf have approached backbenchers in recent weeks to test her popularity as a possible leader.
They are emphasising her English middle-class roots to capitalise on fears among some MPs that Mr Brown's Scottishness is contributing to his sinking popularity.
And ministers claim Miss Harman has held talks with Justice Secretary Jack Straw to enlist his support.
The lobbying is being done in private in the Commons but several MPs who have been approached say it is intensifying.
'It is discreet but the clear aim is to talk up *******'s prospects as Labour leader in case things get bad for Gordon,' one said.
The public school-educated feminist has been quietly trading on her victory in last year's contest for the deputy leadership.
A fortnight ago she caused an uproar by championing an Equality Bill that will allow discrimination in favour of women and minority employees and require companies to publish details of the salary gap between male and female workers.
At Westminster the Bill was seen in part as an attempt to burnish her credentials with party activists who will have a key role in deciding the next leader.
Some supporters of the Prime Minister say she could emerge as a choice for what is being described as the 'anybody but David Miliband camp'.
The Foreign Secretary is favoured by some as the obvious alternative to Mr Brown, and many are urging him to show his hand.
The leadership is being discussed by all Labour MPs as they contemplate the prospect of a catastrophic general election defeat under Mr Brown. There is growing speculation that the Prime Minister might not survive the party conference season in the autumn.
But one factor protecting Mr Brown is the absence of an obvious candidate to succeed him.
Health Secretary Alan Johnson remains a favourite but has ruled himself out, while Mr Straw is seen by some as a caretaker leader.
Some MPs are championing Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell as a standard bearer for a new generation.
With Scotland causing increasing problems for Mr Brown, some MPs are calling for a more overtly English leadership to take on Tory leader David Cameron's appeal.
Mr Straw, who has called for a greater recognition of English concerns about the consequences of giving Scotland its own parliament, is seen by some of Miss Harman's supporters as a natural ally and possible deputy on a 'dream ticket'.
But Miss Harman will have to get past large numbers of MPs in the party who fear she is too middle class to win support with the voters.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032645/*******-Harman-pitches-stand-Prime-Minister-job.html
.....................................................................
******* Harridan as PM. Sweet Jesus, what a prospect.
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:32 AM on 07th July 2008
******* Harman is campaigning to promote herself as a stand-in Prime Minister should Mr Brown be forced out.
It emerged last night that Labour MPs have been sounded out about her suitability if the PM leaves No10 by the end of the year.
With the Prime Minister's position looking precarious, manoeuvring to replace him is well under way.
The revelation that his own deputy fancies her chances will annoy Mr Brown, who is desperate to dampen speculation about his future.
The Daily Mail understands that MPs acting on Miss Harman's behalf have approached backbenchers in recent weeks to test her popularity as a possible leader.
They are emphasising her English middle-class roots to capitalise on fears among some MPs that Mr Brown's Scottishness is contributing to his sinking popularity.
And ministers claim Miss Harman has held talks with Justice Secretary Jack Straw to enlist his support.
The lobbying is being done in private in the Commons but several MPs who have been approached say it is intensifying.
'It is discreet but the clear aim is to talk up *******'s prospects as Labour leader in case things get bad for Gordon,' one said.
The public school-educated feminist has been quietly trading on her victory in last year's contest for the deputy leadership.
A fortnight ago she caused an uproar by championing an Equality Bill that will allow discrimination in favour of women and minority employees and require companies to publish details of the salary gap between male and female workers.
At Westminster the Bill was seen in part as an attempt to burnish her credentials with party activists who will have a key role in deciding the next leader.
Some supporters of the Prime Minister say she could emerge as a choice for what is being described as the 'anybody but David Miliband camp'.
The Foreign Secretary is favoured by some as the obvious alternative to Mr Brown, and many are urging him to show his hand.
The leadership is being discussed by all Labour MPs as they contemplate the prospect of a catastrophic general election defeat under Mr Brown. There is growing speculation that the Prime Minister might not survive the party conference season in the autumn.
But one factor protecting Mr Brown is the absence of an obvious candidate to succeed him.
Health Secretary Alan Johnson remains a favourite but has ruled himself out, while Mr Straw is seen by some as a caretaker leader.
Some MPs are championing Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell as a standard bearer for a new generation.
With Scotland causing increasing problems for Mr Brown, some MPs are calling for a more overtly English leadership to take on Tory leader David Cameron's appeal.
Mr Straw, who has called for a greater recognition of English concerns about the consequences of giving Scotland its own parliament, is seen by some of Miss Harman's supporters as a natural ally and possible deputy on a 'dream ticket'.
But Miss Harman will have to get past large numbers of MPs in the party who fear she is too middle class to win support with the voters.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032645/*******-Harman-pitches-stand-Prime-Minister-job.html
.....................................................................
******* Harridan as PM. Sweet Jesus, what a prospect.Just what we need, another unelected prime minister.