58 replies · 1,714 views
What a pile of awful shit. Who reads it?
I can accept any other newspaper. Perhaps you don't like long words, enjoy looking at nakedness or just read it for the sport. But the Daily fucking Mail? Fuck off.
And if you're a bloke there's no excuse. Every male who reads the Daily Mail is a fucking cretin FACT. Stick it up your arse and fuck off while you're doing it.
There, I've said it.
Ravi Kumar wrote: I think its alright. Better than the Gaydian, which seems to defy common sense altogether.
Like a moth to a flame 
The mother-in-law reads it... Nuff said... 
As Col said, anything else can be justified... When I do media with sixth form students, we'll cover the whole range, even the Sport, but I draw the line at the Mail... 
Snorri xxx
QED
(my mum keeps buying it, and for ages I would say thing like "did you see the retarded headline on that ream of folded shitewipes today?" and she kept saying "no, what was it".....turns out she likes the crossword 
I do find this odd, because she's always been rather good at crosswords, but I can't imagine the Daily Fail's is any better than "dark foreign job theif and wife defiler N something G something something R")
I reccommend the dailymail-o-matic, which I've linked here too often, you lazy cunts need to learn about google ;)
Does anyone remember this from a few years ago? We were busy slagging off some shitty little article in the Sun when the woman who wrote it came on sticking up for herself? We ripped her another one and she was never seen again?
I've been searching for the thread but can't find it. It was on the sane side, I think.
Melanie Phillips is quite widely disliked, but I cant think of anything that harmful about what she is saying. Littlejohn can regularly raise a titter and the middle pages often offer respectable wanking fodder. The Guardian just harps on about the environment, black womens rights and 'social cohesion in the community' - whatever that means 
It's all middle-class, paranoid racist, elitist Tory-boy wanky shit though. How can that possibly raise a smile in anyone but an utter moron?
All three of my top-three most hated people in the whole world read it regularly. I despise it. I hate my eyes for not going fucking blind whenever I look at it. It's shit.
The Guardian at least takes a pride in what it publishes, with the exception of it's football reporting, which is ridiculous but what do you expect?
Jesus. That's low. I was under the impression that the point of being a survivor was that you got to live.....apparently not in Sunday Express land.....there when you survive something horrible you have to remain in a glass case for ever and ever and ever or you're a shameful fuck.
I LOVE the use of the anniversary....this year is the 16th....wow, and next year the 17th, funny that.
Galactic fail.
I'm surprised the Express has got any room on its pages. Must have squeezed that in around the Pwincess of Heats 'news'.
Reckon they'll start writing about Goody once she goes?
Diamond 383 wrote: It's all middle-class, paranoid racist, elitist Tory-boy wanky shit though. How can that possibly raise a smile in anyone but an utter moron?
All three of my top-three most hated people in the whole world read it regularly. I despise it. I hate my eyes for not going fucking blind whenever I look at it. It's shit.
The Guardian at least takes a pride in what it publishes, with the exception of it's football reporting, which is ridiculous but what do you expect?
Well dont read it then!
I'm with Andrew on this. I'd rather read the Daily Mail over the Grauniad any day of the week. The Grauniad is all middle class, paranoid, elitist pseudo left New Labour bollocks.
What's even better is that someone decided to return the favour and do a bit of online stalking of the woman who wrote it and found her on facebook. Numerous references to 'being pissed', 'soooooo hungover this morning' and so on.
and Liam, the mail is psuedo upper class racist biggoted old tory nationalist bullshit....which gang do you want to be in?
Neither.
Although at least the Mail is open and honest about what it is. Some of the Grauniads reporting over the years has been nothing short of disgraceful.
I think referring to Israels incursion into Jenin in 2002 as a "holocaust" was one of the most offensive things I have ever read in my life. Far more offensive than the populist tripe spread by the Mail.
The Teacher wrote: I'd rather read the Daily Mail over the Grauniad any day of the week.
QED (again)
Edd wrote: What's even better is that someone decided to return the favour and do a bit of online stalking of the woman who wrote it and found her on facebook. Numerous references to 'being pissed', 'soooooo hungover this morning' and so on.
Yeah? Don't remember that. Who was she? Can anyone find the thread?
The Daily Mail is a birds' paper. Surely everyone knows that. No bloke should be seen dead reading it.
The ultimate paper for the Tory house-wife, which, amusingly, was one of the only groups young Kingy claimed should give a shit about Remembrance Sunday.
Having said that, their Weekend TV guide is ace. 
The Teacher wrote: Neither.
Although at least the Mail is open and honest about what it is. Some of the Grauniads reporting over the years has been nothing short of disgraceful.
I think referring to Israels incursion into Jenin in 2002 as a "holocaust" was one of the most offensive things I have ever read in my life. Far more offensive than the populist tripe spread by the Mail.
so your problem is that the guardian is not zionist enough for you then?....
Its longstanding support for terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah certainly wins no favours with me.
I liked the Mail on weekends as I felt the supplements were better than other papers.
I've had phases of reading different newspapers but never found one I'm completely happy with. Now I rarely buy them. Keep abreast of the news by the internet.
i'm undecided, can people help me out here.
is liam option a just being himself & disagreeing with everyone else to be deliberatly provocative or is he really option b someone who would rather read the daily heil over the guardian?
i would have thought that anyone with any sort of moral compass would find option b offensive
have i answered my own question?
Bossy Jem wrote: I liked the Mail on weekends as I felt the supplements were better than other papers.
I've had phases of reading different newspapers but never found one I'm completely happy with. Now I rarely buy them. Keep abreast of the news by the internet.
This is acceptable. The MoS does have nice glossy pictures of famous people at the weekend 
The Teacher wrote: Its longstanding support for terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah certainly wins no favours with me.
So where do you stand on the likes of the Stern gang killing our brave boys to lay the foundations of your Zionist state? 
Or is that the acceptable face of terrorism in your book?
The Teacher wrote:
I think referring to Israels incursion into Jenin in 2002 as a "holocaust" was one of the most offensive things I have ever read in my life...
You don't read your own posts then? Actually, I bet you didn't read that Guardian editorial anyway, just read about it somewhere else and copied your offence from someone else.
The Israelis really piss me off with this sort of shit. Quite happy to slaughter massive numbers of people for no good reason other than an impending election, then scream like fuck when someone uses the wrong word in a report about it and claim that the coverage is biased. I think the Guardian is spot on for refusing to accept the bullshit that the Israelis come out with about the crappy terrorist threat offered by Palestinian groups and quite correct to fully report, for example, the horror of the Israeli's wholesale slaughter of non-combatants, women and children with illegal weapons. It stands to reason that if Israel do more killing, they'll get more of the bad press.
As far as backing the baddies goes, the Daily Mail still holds the crown for supporting the Nazis up to the start of the second world war. "Hurrah for the Blacksirts" they wrote. And look what happened there: a real Holocaust.
I hate it when the news over here sometimes quotes things vaguely, like 'A British newspaper said this this this....' (they literally would use the Japanese word for newspaper), and then they say it's from the Daily Mail or The Sun, and I'm thinking... "that's not a quality newspaper!"
Not that Japanese non-quality ones are any better....
El Jarvo wrote:
The Teacher wrote: Its longstanding support for terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah certainly wins no favours with me.
So where do you stand on the likes of the Stern gang killing our brave boys to lay the foundations of your Zionist state?
Or is that the acceptable face of terrorism in your book?
Certainly not. But its not like they had anything to do the creation of Israel. And after the state of Israel was established, they were banned and roundly criticised by the Israeli government. Although I dont know why they decided to recognise their achievements in 1980.
Then again, nobodys perfect. I mean, look at the adulation Nelson Mandela gets.
Diamond 383 wrote:
The Teacher wrote:
I think referring to Israels incursion into Jenin in 2002 as a "holocaust" was one of the most offensive things I have ever read in my life...
You don't read your own posts then? Actually, I bet you didn't read that Guardian editorial anyway, just read about it somewhere else and copied your offence from someone else.
The Israelis really piss me off with this sort of shit. Quite happy to slaughter massive numbers of people for no good reason other than an impending election, then scream like fuck when someone uses the wrong word in a report about it and claim that the coverage is biased. I think the Guardian is spot on for refusing to accept the bullshit that the Israelis come out with about the crappy terrorist threat offered by Palestinian groups and quite correct to fully report, for example, the horror of the Israeli's wholesale slaughter of non-combatants, women and children with illegal weapons. It stands to reason that if Israel do more killing, they'll get more of the bad press.
As far as backing the baddies goes, the Daily Mail still holds the crown for supporting the Nazis up to the start of the second world war. "Hurrah for the Blacksirts" they wrote. And look what happened there: a real Holocaust.
I've actually got the paper somewhere in my boxes.
Its clear you havent read it, or the link about the apology. Where Rusbridger (The Editor) openly acknowledges the failings of the editororial and the offencen may have caused.
To a room full of Jews! Hardly the time to tell them to go and fuck themselves, was it?
Anyway, apologising for one word, in fact the capital letter at the start of one word, doesn't invalidate the newspaper's editorial policy.
You're right though, I didn't read it. But I never claimed to, did I?
What else do you have in your boxes? Other things you've taken offence at?
Am I in there?
The Teacher wrote: The Grauniad is all middle class, paranoid, elitist pseudo left New Labour bollocks.
Have to agree with that. It even makes The Independent look good. Very weak journalism!
The monthly music magazine with the Observer is quite good though.
QUOTE"after the state of Israel was established, they were banned and roundly criticised by the Israeli government"
apart from members like
Yitzhak Shamir, Israeli prime minister 1983-1984 and 1986-1992
and
Natan Yellin-Mor, member of the Knesset 1949-1951.
one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter....
Diamond 383 wrote: To a room full of Jews! Hardly the time to tell them to go and fuck themselves, was it?
Anyway, apologising for one word, in fact the capital letter at the start of one word, doesn't invalidate the newspaper's editorial policy.
You're right though, I didn't read it. But I never claimed to, did I?
What else do you have in your boxes? Other things you've taken offence at?
Am I in there?
Nah, only things I can learn from.
Incidentally, was The Grauniad Editorial where you got your rather odd definition of "Genocide" from?
Ger Boy wrote:
The Teacher wrote: The Grauniad is all middle class, paranoid, elitist pseudo left New Labour bollocks.
Have to agree with that. It even makes The Independent look good. Very weak journalism!
REALY?!?
, you always struck me as a liberal minded individual.
What I did was read various reports about what was going on, watched a few things on the telly and then thought about what word could be used to describe it. I didn't read it anywhere, I made it up.
Just fancy that!
The most depressing thing about the Daily Mail is that it probably does echo the thoughts and beliefs of the majority of the British population. We can all sit and snigger at it and scratch our heads in disbelief at some of the rabid BS it comes away with but for everyone of us there's ten times as many nodding in approval.
Christ, we see enough examples of Daily Mail-esque thought posted on these very boards. Boards that you would assume (clearly quite wrongly) would be populated with individuals with a bit more of a broad minded/slightly 'alternative' outlook by virtue of the subject matter we're all meant to be discussing!
Look at the Karen Matthews posts that appeared here. Or some of the Madeline McCann stuff. It was like Brass Eye never happened.
Diamond 383 wrote: Is that a spaceship firing water at an apricot?
Like you haven't noticed before? You of all people.
I really don't like the the current affairs/popular culture sections of the Mail because because they're sensationalist and patronisingly written to play on people's base fears (as well as encouraging borderline xenophobia) however I know someone very well who writes for the sports section so I try to consider that part of the paper separate out of some small sense of loyalty. The rest of the paper is totally gash though.
I read the Guardian & Observer a lot because I think they have the best "Culture" coverage of most papers but even their bias shines through on current affairs a bit too flagrantly occasionally. One or two of the columnists are a bit too "right on PC" for me and I like to think I'm pretty liberal to begin with.
The Times isn't bad either.
The only publication I put any degree of faith and proper respect in is Private Eye. In fact, I really need to sort out a subscription for the remainder of this year. Street of Shame is worth the entry fee alone exposes all the knobbish behaviour of the hacks on Fleet Street.
Has the Express stopped running Diana front pages yet? They wrung a good 10-11 years out of her corpse... it became a running joke.
It is possible, you know, to read something and not entirely agree with some of it. Opinion pieces are just that - things that offer an opinion for you to consider. There's no need to get upset if you don't agree with it. Mostly, the quality press make a clear distinction between news and editorial. My main objection to the so-called quality tabloids is that they present their opinions as news. They hardly ever have any tits in them, either.
Diamond 383 wrote: It is possible, you know, to read something and not entirely agree with some of it. Opinion pieces are just that - things that offer an opinion for you to consider. There's no need to get upset if you don't agree with it.
I didn't say I got upset, just said I found them a bit too "right on PC" which in turn is my opinion I then closed the paper and walked away. There were no tears, tantrums or fighting (unfortunately), at least not that time.
Diamond 383 wrote: Mostly, the quality press make a clear distinction between news and editorial. My main objection to the so-called quality tabloids is that they present their opinions as news.
I agree.
Diamond 383 wrote: They hardly ever have any tits in them, either.
It's a scandal, Col.
Old Lead Foot wrote:
Ger Boy wrote:
The Teacher wrote: The Grauniad is all middle class, paranoid, elitist pseudo left New Labour bollocks.
Have to agree with that. It even makes The Independent look good. Very weak journalism!
REALY?!?
Right, so we have Andrew King, Uncle Liam and Ger Boy reading the Daily Mail - all of whom are slightly more right wing than Oswald Moseley...
Guess that's why I don't read it then!
No, Nick. That's not why at all is it?
EDIT: Can't believe how hard it was to find that - Google Image search for "Page 3" comes up will loads of images of a pages books and magazines. The third pages, I suppose.
Diamond 383 wrote:
My main objection to the so-called quality tabloids is that they present their opinions as news. They hardly ever have any tits in them, either.
But isn't that true for most newspapers? At least here in the States, almost all the papers do that to nausium.
Nick King wrote:
Old Lead Foot wrote:
Ger Boy wrote:
The Teacher wrote: The Grauniad is all middle class, paranoid, elitist pseudo left New Labour bollocks.
Have to agree with that. It even makes The Independent look good. Very weak journalism!
REALY?!?
Right, so we have Andrew King, Uncle Liam and Ger Boy reading the Daily Mail - all of whom are slightly more right wing than Oswald Moseley...
Guess that's why I don't read it then!
I never said I read the Mail. I said I would read the Mail over the Grauniad. I bought the Mail once, which was August 2001 when it endorsed Ken Clarke as Tory leader.
I read The Times. Every day.
Diamond 383 wrote:
The Teacher wrote:
I think referring to Israels incursion into Jenin in 2002 as a "holocaust" was one of the most offensive things I have ever read in my life...
You don't read your own posts then? Actually, I bet you didn't read that Guardian editorial anyway, just read about it somewhere else and copied your offence from someone else.
The Israelis really piss me off with this sort of shit. Quite happy to slaughter massive numbers of people for no good reason other than an impending election, then scream like fuck when someone uses the wrong word in a report about it and claim that the coverage is biased. I think the Guardian is spot on for refusing to accept the bullshit that the Israelis come out with about the crappy terrorist threat offered by Palestinian groups and quite correct to fully report, for example, the horror of the Israeli's wholesale slaughter of non-combatants, women and children with illegal weapons. It stands to reason that if Israel do more killing, they'll get more of the bad press.
As far as backing the baddies goes, the Daily Mail still holds the crown for supporting the Nazis up to the start of the second world war. "Hurrah for the Blacksirts" they wrote. And look what happened there: a real Holocaust.
Reasonably sure Max Moseley's dad had his own column in the Fail. SLIGHT giveaway. I get emails from mail readers every night in work. I delete their half-witted racist dribblings. Always emails though, they NEVER phone to complain about how THEY have to fill out a whole form AND pay money for passports, when (Insert this week's foreign group the mail don't like) get them handed to them for free when they crawl out of the tomato lorry. They make my fucking flesh creep.
I bet Liam really hates those cowardly French who kept carrying out terrorist outrages againt their lawful Nazi government in the 40's.
Old Lead Foot wrote: QUOTE"after the state of Israel was established, they were banned and roundly criticised by the Israeli government" apart from members like Yitzhak Shamir, Israeli prime minister 1983-1984 and 1986-1992 and Natan Yellin-Mor, member of the Knesset 1949-1951.
SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP.
Before you know it you'll be saying that certain politicians from that land of milk and honey are actually wanted for the exact same war crimes trial in the Hague that the septics have bombed countries and their kiddies flat to get to blokes to drag them to.
Doctor? wrote:
Old Lead Foot wrote: QUOTE"after the state of Israel was established, they were banned and roundly criticised by the Israeli government" apart from members like Yitzhak Shamir, Israeli prime minister 1983-1984 and 1986-1992 and Natan Yellin-Mor, member of the Knesset 1949-1951.
SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP.
Before you know it you'll be saying that certain politicians from that land of milk and honey are actually wanted for the exact same war crimes trial in the Hague that the septics have bombed countries and their kiddies flat to get to blokes to drag them to.
And how many Israeli politicians are wanted for War Crimes?
What people fail to recognise, that as a state which abides and enforces the rule of law, if crimes were committed, then the suspect would be tried in an Israeli court first and foremost. And that if a suspect was wanted by the International Courts, then Israel would have no problem handing them over.
This is of course in contrast to the Palestinians, who often use summary justice with no due process and no rule of law. Whose leaders admit they are terrorists, yet for some reason these people are feted.
I believe their former prime minister is wanted for leading a masaacre of a camp filled entirely with woman and children. Or so a human rights lawyer from Brussels (actually she's from Bellshaft, she just works in Brussels) told me. But what would she know.
Doctor? wrote: I believe their former prime minister is wanted for leading a masaacre of a camp filled entirely with woman and children. Or so a human rights lawyer from Brussels (actually she's from Bellshaft, she just works in Brussels) told me. But what would she know.
Evidently very little would appear to be the answer.
A quick google reveals just opinion.
I presume the Prime Minister in question is Ariel Sharon. Well, when Sharon was Prime Minister, he travelled abroad often enough to be arrested. As for a camp "filled entirely with woman and children." Well, thats an explosive statement which I'm surprised you've had the ignorance to believe.
Just Google "Israeli War Crimes". Over three million hits. Amnesty International, the Red Cross and countless other humanitarian organisations have complained about serious violations of international law. Human Shields, illegal weapons, targeting civilians and non-combatants.
They're bastards, Liam, and your continued refusal to accept this is pathetic.
Saying that the Palestinians are no angels is simply not a counter argument. So what if there are organisations within Palestine who use violence to further their aims? Does that give anyone the right to drop bombs onto schools and hospitals? If so, why didn't we bomb Cambo's school, or the hospital where he was born? There were some right horrible bastards in Ireland at the time.
Quote"that as a state which abides and enforces the rule of law"
somthing israel is famed for adhearing to...
I know - pathetic isn't it?
You don't have to pick one side or another. It is possible to see the wrongs that both sides are committing. That's what grown-ups do.
Diamond 383 wrote: I know - pathetic isn't it?
You don't have to pick one side or another. It is possible to see the wrongs that both sides are committing. That's what grown-ups do.
Now now Colin, less of that extremist nonsense.
The Teacher wrote:
El Jarvo wrote:
The Teacher wrote: Its longstanding support for terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah certainly wins no favours with me.
So where do you stand on the likes of the Stern gang killing our brave boys to lay the foundations of your Zionist state?
Or is that the acceptable face of terrorism in your book?
Certainly not. But its not like they had anything to do the creation of Israel. And after the state of Israel was established, they were banned and roundly criticised by the Israeli government. Although I dont know why they decided to recognise their achievements in 1980.
Then again, nobodys perfect. I mean, look at the adulation Nelson Mandela gets.
That's bollocks Liam, Begin was a terrorist and he'dbe turning in his grave if he knew people were saying he had nowt to do with the establishment of Israel
Liam, have you got a copy of today's Independent for your box?
Got one here, will send it to you if you like.
