Bolitics The New Condem Government

[KennyPowers]

I have no desire to be a defender of the Daily Mail. I've never bought it. My parents don't buy it. Sure I look at it on-line occasionally but I do all newspapers. 

 

Surely you've heard the famous line though, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Either they can say within the law, what they want or they can't. This seems to have been lost in the recent fervour about the right-wing press, the mail specifically. By all means criticise, point out their errors and mistakes and weak intellectual underpinning, I do myself. 

 

I maintain that the quote below is just outright abuse. An abusive post generalising what, millions of people. That has been my main objection

 

 "generally read and loved my mindless, scared, sad and pathetic little selfish morons who think Christmas has been banned and political correctness has gone mad."

 

I'll be honest I've become increasingly disturbed by the hysteric responses on social media to certain items. It certainly appears to me, that it's okay to openly abuse certain groups and not others. Take for example, Jews, vitriolic abuse towards Jews is routinely tolerated when it wouldn't be for other religious groups and no, I'm not Jewish. 

 

Do you remember the Boston marathon bombings? They managed to identify and slander some random person who had gone missing before the real culprits were identified. I do think it's time people were held more accountable for their comments on social media and more than that we seem to heading down a slippery slop of hypocrisy in terms of the abuse that is posted online. 

[blandy]

I've absolutely no problem with any of that Kenny, in terms of objecting to abuse and the point about internet social media stuff is very true.

I dunno if what you say about jewish people being routinely abused and that abuse being tolerated is true - I haven't noticed it myself. But then I don't look at places where jewish things are discussed. I also thinkit's important to seperate comment on the Israeli Gov't from anti semetism. The israeli gov't has acted appallingly over decades, but as soon as there's any criticism of it, it's cries of "anti-semetism". Which is disgraceful in two ways. Firstly it's no kind of counter to genuine accusations of misbehaviour and secondly it cheapens the genuine victims of anti-semtism.

 

Interesting that you mention the Boston bombings, and someone being villified before the real culprit was identified. Isn't that similar to what multiple tabloids have done in the UK with the McCanns, with that man who was done over by them for some crime with which he had absolutely no part? And with countless other souls? And of course there's all kinds of stuff on the internet where people get horribly abused.

[Kingfisher]

I'm writing in the style of the Mail, I'm only criticising the people who buy it and enjoy it when it's not about them - they're fair game.

There we have it, the oracle has spoken. People are fair game for abuse for buying the 'wrong' newspaper. What a vision for a tolerant society you have.

Anyone who reads the Mail and agrees with its stance on most issues would fit the definition of intolerant. Intolerant is its raison d'être.

Yes, I'm intolerant of intolerance. I'm expressing that in a cutting yet harmless and ironic way. Hypocrisy would be a daily mail reader saying its wrong. The harm and the wrong is in the intolerance of the paper and the enjoyment of the readers, not my objection of it.

[KennyPowers]

Yeah, lets not get into the Middle East

 

There's a twin problem of the relative anonymity of the internet and the speed of social media promoting reactionary, hysteric responses. It can apply to any story but I do think if I'm being honest it's worse from people who are nominally but not intellectually left-wing. This is probably mostly due to the tendency for social media to be used by young people and young people to generally be more left-wing. 

 

There's a lot of smug people out there who think it's okay to be abusive to certain sections of society and the herd mentality on social media is really enabling and emboldening a lot of people, Jews are a good example and whether it's mainly down to Israel I don't know. I do think on twitter especially it's getting out of hand, the amount of abuse on there every day is astonishing, things that people would never have the balls to say in real life. 

 

This idea that being openly abusive, being openly intolerant and dismissive of other people's views is okay if it ultimately is in the name of tolerance is misguided though. Not only misguided, but plain wrong and as I said earlier divisive. 

[KennyPowers]

 

It's really not complicated. Protection of the free press has long been a socially progressive (or liberal) ideal. To sacrifice this principle on the altar of 'I don't like the Daily Mail' is hypocritical in my view.  

 

In terms of party politics, the social progressives should be the ones opposing this new charter, indeed any charter, not endorsing it.

Nothing in the Royal Charter proposal affects a free press, they are free to print whatever they want. If they get it wrong however, it will be easier for those affected to get redress, not only that but redress judged by a body not run by the very people who have a vested interest in the outcome as it presently is. You can't be the accused, the judge and the jury all at the same time.

The press' objection to Leveson is full of red herrings put out there by… the press. Currently the only redress people have against the press is the PCC, run by the press and the law of the land which is prohibitively expensive for the average person to even contemplate. That is what this Royal Charter is about, nothing to do with censorship or "controlling" what the press print, which seems to be the general idea that its objectors keep putting about.

The press will still be free but if they stuff up, now those affected will hopefully get correct redress and not some small print tucked away on page 35 next to an advert for canine flea removal

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/11/secret-state-itching-gag-press

 

Jonathan Freedland's piece today might change your mind. Which is not to say the PCC isn't a disgrace and needs reforming/revolutionising in some way to pre-empt your inevitable response. 

[peterms]

We would all be better off if more people read a newspaper like the Economist that is intellectually challenging.

I wonder why you're so keen on the Economist. (It's not a newspaper, by the way). It's always struck me as rather dull, plodding, and prone to repeat uncritically the false certainties of the establishment.

You get more diversity and more intellectual challenge in the Torygraph or the FT, if reading right-wing papers is your thing.

[MakemineVanilla]

There is something inherently disturbing about the contents of the Daily Mail but ultimately I think Lefties should just see it as a predictable response to an economic system which relies on fear to keep people paranoidly productive far beyond actual necessity.

 

You can't really blame people for feeling under the constant threat of having whatever wealth they have managed to scrape together taken away from them, when there are constant reminders in daily life which prove that the threats are real, and which are actually part of the system.

 

For Lefties it is the system which is the actual threat to most people, whether it is the in-built boom and bust which generations of economists have failed to solve, the constant debasement of the currency, or the mis-selling of pensions and other financial products, which fraudulently promise future security, which are the real threats.

 

No one who understands the falsity and fraudulent nature of capitalism can be blamed for developing a Stockholm syndrome, where they identify with the system which threatens them, and seek comfort in allocating blame for their understandable fear, on other sources.

 

Obviously, the Daily Mail's raison d'etre is to stimulate both the fear and to identify the perpetrators as everything but the real source. 

Edited October 12, 2013 by MakemineVanilla

[peterms]

There is something inherently disturbing about the contents of the Daily Mail but ultimately I think Lefties should just see it as a predictable response to an economic system which relies on fear to keep people paranoidly productive far beyond actual necessity.

 

You can't really blame people for feeling under the constant threat of having whatever wealth they have managed to scrape together taken away from them, when there are constant reminders in daily life which prove that the threats are real, and which are actually part of the system.

 

For Lefties it is the system which is the actual threat to most people, whether it is the in-built boom and bust which generations of economists have failed to solve, the constant debasement of the currency, or the mis-selling of pensions and other financial products, which fraudulently promise future security, which are the real threats.

 

No one who understands the falsity and fraudulent nature of capitalism can be blamed for developing a Stockholm syndrome, where they identify with the system which threatens them, and seek comfort in allocating blame for their understandable fear, on other sources.

 

Obviously, the Daily Mail's raison d'etre is to stimulate both the fear and to identify the perpetrators as everything but the real source. 

 

Interesting piece in the Grauniad, about middle-class kids in the future probably being worse off than their parents.

 

Some would say that's entirely unsurprising.  If the 1% are to continue to accrue an ever-greater share, then of course it will have to come from the middle classes as well as the poor.

 

But the readership of the Mail may well think, "I didn't see that coming.  And I don't like it."

[MakemineVanilla]

 

There is something inherently disturbing about the contents of the Daily Mail but ultimately I think Lefties should just see it as a predictable response to an economic system which relies on fear to keep people paranoidly productive far beyond actual necessity.

 

You can't really blame people for feeling under the constant threat of having whatever wealth they have managed to scrape together taken away from them, when there are constant reminders in daily life which prove that the threats are real, and which are actually part of the system.

 

For Lefties it is the system which is the actual threat to most people, whether it is the in-built boom and bust which generations of economists have failed to solve, the constant debasement of the currency, or the mis-selling of pensions and other financial products, which fraudulently promise future security, which are the real threats.

 

No one who understands the falsity and fraudulent nature of capitalism can be blamed for developing a Stockholm syndrome, where they identify with the system which threatens them, and seek comfort in allocating blame for their understandable fear, on other sources.

 

Obviously, the Daily Mail's raison d'etre is to stimulate both the fear and to identify the perpetrators as everything but the real source. 

 

Interesting piece in the Grauniad, about middle-class kids in the future probably being worse off than their parents.

 

Some would say that's entirely unsurprising.  If the 1% are to continue to accrue an ever-greater share, then of course it will have to come from the middle classes as well as the poor.

 

But the readership of the Mail may well think, "I didn't see that coming.  And I don't like it."

 

 

The writings of Elizabeth Warren highlight the problems that the American middle-classes are having with an ever-increasing rising tide of bankruptcy - she says that more middle-class kids are experiencing bankruptcy than divorce these days.

 

This represents a real failure of modern capitalism and conservative politics, because it has become more and more clear that the old promise that a college education and hard work would bring success, has been broken, and this is a serious betrayal.

 

Obviously the same thing is happening over here, as an increasing number of graduates find themselves having to take jobs, they assumed their degree would over-qualify them for, based upon the options and expectations enjoyed by previous generations.

 

But once again we find that the system escapes blame as the opinion-formers seek to redirect blame away from the system and towards the individual for actually entering higher education in the first place, debasing their achievements, or even questioning the value of education entirely. 

 

We are told that a country's prosperity is dependent on how educated its population is, and it would seem like a dangerous course to take, to break the link between education, hard work and success.

 

Inviting educated people to question the system seems hardly the best way to go, for a stable democracy.

Edited October 12, 2013 by MakemineVanilla

[peterms]

How odd.  The person who is soon to publish a book about all sorts of interesting sex parties, and who was famously photographed with George Osborne in a setting where she says he took cocaine and he says he didn't, has been raided by police.

 

The raid was to look for drugs.  She says there were no sniffer dogs used, and the police asked about her forthcoming book.  No drugs were found.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-cops-raid-home-2366160#.UlqBO1JnuNY.twitter

[Dr_Pangloss]

 

We would all be better off if more people read a newspaper like the Economist that is intellectually challenging.

I wonder why you're so keen on the Economist. (It's not a newspaper, by the way). It's always struck me as rather dull, plodding, and prone to repeat uncritically the false certainties of the establishment.

You get more diversity and more intellectual challenge in the Torygraph or the FT, if reading right-wing papers is your thing.

 

The Economist reminds me of a student magazine that is written by Economics undergrads. Every now and then there's a good, interesting article, but most of the time it's old hat 'micro 101' and rather tedious... The 'Schumpeter' column is particularly hilarious and clearly written by someone who has never read Schumpeter before.

 

You're absolutely right that the FT is more diverse and intellectually challenging.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Dr_Pangloss

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

 

 

22 Reasons for the Bedroom Tax - Carol Ann Duffy

 

Because the Badgers are moving the goalposts.

The Ferrets are bending the rules.

The Weasels are taking the hindmost.

The Otters are downing tools.

 

The Hedgehogs are changing the game-plan

The Grass-snakes are spitting tacks.

The Squirrels are playing the blame-game.

The Skunks are twisting the facts.

 

The Pole-cats are upping the ante.

The Foxes are jumping the gun.

The Voles are crashing the party.

The Stoats are dismantling the Sun.

 

The Rabbits are taking the biscuit.

The Hares are losing the plot.

The Eagles are kicking the bucket.

The Rats are joining the dots.

 

The Herons are throwing a curveball.

The Shrews are fanning the flames.

The Field mice are sinking the 8-ball.

The Swans are passing the blame.

 

And the Pheasants are draining the oil from the tank-

but only the Bustards have broken the bank

 

[thetrees]

How odd.  The person who is soon to publish a book about all sorts of interesting sex parties, and who was famously photographed with George Osborne in a setting where she says he took cocaine and he says he didn't, has been raided by police.

 

The raid was to look for drugs.  She says there were no sniffer dogs used, and the police asked about her forthcoming book.  No drugs were found.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-cops-raid-home-2366160#.UlqBO1JnuNY.twitter

And it is in that bastion of accurate, unbiased news reporting that is the Mirror!

 

So someone who is around 40 and 'respectable' shagged and took drugs when he was 20 something, preferring not to talk about it, hardly a story.

 

Our MPs should be accountable for what they do now, not what they did as youngsters.

 

All you shagging, high, student VTers take note. If you have high political ambitions, stop what you are doing, and start living the relatively clean life of us boring 40-somethings.

[blandy]

 

How odd.  The person who is soon to publish a book about all sorts of interesting sex parties, and who was famously photographed with George Osborne in a setting where she says he took cocaine and he says he didn't, has been raided by police.

 

The raid was to look for drugs.  She says there were no sniffer dogs used, and the police asked about her forthcoming book.  No drugs were found.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-cops-raid-home-2366160#.UlqBO1JnuNY.twitter

And it is in that bastion of accurate, unbiased news reporting that is the Mirror!

 

So someone who is around 40 and 'respectable' shagged and took drugs when he was 20 something, preferring not to talk about it, hardly a story.

 

Our MPs should be accountable for what they do now, not what they did as youngsters.

 

All you shagging, high, student VTers take note. If you have high political ambitions, stop what you are doing, and start living the relatively clean life of us boring 40-somethings.

 

Well Scotland Yard confirmed it happened.

[thetrees]

 

 

How odd.  The person who is soon to publish a book about all sorts of interesting sex parties, and who was famously photographed with George Osborne in a setting where she says he took cocaine and he says he didn't, has been raided by police.

 

The raid was to look for drugs.  She says there were no sniffer dogs used, and the police asked about her forthcoming book.  No drugs were found.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-cops-raid-home-2366160#.UlqBO1JnuNY.twitter

And it is in that bastion of accurate, unbiased news reporting that is the Mirror!

 

So someone who is around 40 and 'respectable' shagged and took drugs when he was 20 something, preferring not to talk about it, hardly a story.

 

Our MPs should be accountable for what they do now, not what they did as youngsters.

 

All you shagging, high, student VTers take note. If you have high political ambitions, stop what you are doing, and start living the relatively clean life of us boring 40-somethings.

 

Well Scotland Yard confirmed it happened.

 

I don't doubt that it happened.

Whether it matters is something else.

[meregreen]

 

How odd.  The person who is soon to publish a book about all sorts of interesting sex parties, and who was famously photographed with George Osborne in a setting where she says he took cocaine and he says he didn't, has been raided by police.

 

The raid was to look for drugs.  She says there were no sniffer dogs used, and the police asked about her forthcoming book.  No drugs were found.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-cops-raid-home-2366160#.UlqBO1JnuNY.twitter

And it is in that bastion of accurate, unbiased news reporting that is the Mirror!

 

So someone who is around 40 and 'respectable' shagged and took drugs when he was 20 something, preferring not to talk about it, hardly a story.

 

Our MPs should be accountable for what they do now, not what they did as youngsters.

 

All you shagging, high, student VTers take note. If you have high political ambitions, stop what you are doing, and start living the relatively clean life of us boring 40-somethings.

 

You've rather missed the point. Most people are not interested what Gideon did as a young scrote. The point is were the police there to look for drugs, or was it to do with finding possible evidence to back up her claims in the forthcoming book. I don't know the answer to that, but it would, if true, be a far more serious allegation.

[thetrees]

Point taken.

 

In all honesty, i would have thought that if Government was going to arrange a raid on the woman's place, it would be by a more clandestine organisation than the police.

[Panto_Villan]

 

 

We would all be better off if more people read a newspaper like the Economist that is intellectually challenging.

I wonder why you're so keen on the Economist. (It's not a newspaper, by the way). It's always struck me as rather dull, plodding, and prone to repeat uncritically the false certainties of the establishment.

You get more diversity and more intellectual challenge in the Torygraph or the FT, if reading right-wing papers is your thing.

 

The Economist reminds me of a student magazine that is written by Economics undergrads. Every now and then there's a good, interesting article, but most of the time it's old hat 'micro 101' and rather tedious... The 'Schumpeter' column is particularly hilarious and clearly written by someone who has never read Schumpeter before.

 

You're absolutely right that the FT is more diverse and intellectually challenging.

 

 

The Economist isn't so financially focused as the FT - it's more of a current affairs paper with a business and economics section, while the FT really is the Financial Times. It's also not inherently right wing, rather it's liberal in the literal sense of the word - supporting free market economics like the Tories do, but supporting social liberalism like Labour and the Lib Dems do. I'd say that makes it relatively centrist. The columns are named for economists who contributed to economics, rather than because that particular columnist agrees with their views or is some way obliged to communicate them in the column.

[KennyPowers]

 

We would all be better off if more people read a newspaper like the Economist that is intellectually challenging.

I wonder why you're so keen on the Economist. (It's not a newspaper, by the way). It's always struck me as rather dull, plodding, and prone to repeat uncritically the false certainties of the establishment.

You get more diversity and more intellectual challenge in the Torygraph or the FT, if reading right-wing papers is your thing.

 

 

It is a newspaper. What in the world do you think a newspaper is if not a publication that reports news? As the above poster has pointed out it is non-partisan politically and is very critical of the government of the day. It's fairly obvious from your response you don't read it regularly (if you've ever read it at all) which makes your assumption-laden response a curious mix of sad and amusing.

 

The FT is more intellectually challenging no doubt and hence less accessible. I occasionally encourage people to read the Economist because it really is very accessible and as a fairly succinct weekly publication not particularly time-consuming. 

 

I struggle to see why anyone working outside of financial services would read the FT regularly. 

[peterms]

 

 

We would all be better off if more people read a newspaper like the Economist that is intellectually challenging.

I wonder why you're so keen on the Economist. (It's not a newspaper, by the way). It's always struck me as rather dull, plodding, and prone to repeat uncritically the false certainties of the establishment.

You get more diversity and more intellectual challenge in the Torygraph or the FT, if reading right-wing papers is your thing.

 

 

It is a newspaper. What in the world do you think a newspaper is if not a publication that reports news? As the above poster has pointed out it is non-partisan politically and is very critical of the government of the day. It's fairly obvious from your response you don't read it regularly (if you've ever read it at all) which makes your assumption-laden response a curious mix of sad and amusing.

 

The FT is more intellectually challenging no doubt and hence less accessible. I occasionally encourage people to read the Economist because it really is very accessible and as a fairly succinct weekly publication not particularly time-consuming. 

 

I struggle to see why anyone working outside of financial services would read the FT regularly. 

 

 

It's a magazine.  It doesn't do news reporting, but publishes features, comment, and some summary of what newspapers have already covered.

 

It's been described as Readers' Digest for corporate America, which seems about right.  Like "Hello", applied to politics and business.  Panto Villan is broadly right to describe it as economic and social liberalism; I would say that's also a good description of David Cameron - support big business, but no need to be beastly to gay people along the way, because some of our chums are gay.  Sod the scroungers, though.  If you see that as "centrist", well, I don't.

 

Plenty of people outside finance read (parts of) the FT (few people still confine their reading to one or two print sources which they buy every day or week).  They do so for the quality of some of the writing, like Wolf and some of the Alphaville stuff, not the share prices and press releases.