Shock: Mail hack doesn't like you and your kind

passout

I don't like the Mail but I must admit I don't think that it's as bad as most of you imply. It is far from balanced, right wing and seemingly against most forms of immigration BUT you couldn't call it racist.

As for the cycling thing, they are wrong but they represent the majority feeling in this country. I think most people in the UK basically don't like us - only a minority hate us of course. It isn't right, it's not an excuse but it shouldn't be a surprise either. The Mail is only a very small part of of the problem; we are obsessed with cars just like the Americans.

The press don't cause Brits to dislike cyclists - they simply reflect it. It makes you appreciate the French doesn't it?

Porgy

mercsport wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

'HURRAH FOR THE BLACKSHIRTS"

Daily Heil 1934

all you need to know about that reactionary rag

So far as I can recall, the DM was one of the very few papers that consistently were against ALL the warmongering enterprises by the ever so pious Tony Blair of this parish. From Kosovo to Afghanistan and Iraq in between. No good was ever done by that murderous bugger, and the DM said it. The broadsheets, by and large (aside from the DT, maybe), tacitly went along with everything that gurning wretch said.

What I mean is, the DM were onto that fraudster from the off, not 'on second thoughts', when all the broadsheets quietly joined in the consensus that TB was the deluded, bonkers idiot that he so manifestly is, together with the shame that he's burdened us all with.

Aside from all the rabid anti-DM tripe spouted on this thread, few of you have acknowledged that Petronella might have a point with regard to the aggressiveness of some of our kind. I witness it often enough and it makes me cringe. I see it now, on this thread. Naturally she'd just been winded by the close shave her mum had had. But, no, some of you are questioning her veracity and possibly making it up, to make some crap copy for her deadline. Difficult to remain non-judgemental, and, I really don't want to say it - but I will - GROW UP! :roll:

I wonder if the DM oppose all wars then - or only wars started by Labour.

I prefer to read a paper that allows its readership to make their own minds up tbh.

I've had the misfortune to be able to study the DM over the past year as my landlord who lives in the same house as me was getting it delivered daily.

I did find evidence of racism btw - though I didn;t keep any examples - I will look out for further examples.

I found many examples of irrational hatred of things that I value - or prinicples I hold dear. The level of journalism is extremely poor with little things like evidence, proof and actual facts missing entirely.

While I accept they laid into blair big time - I don;t remember any incisive evidence based critisicism - or any sort of rational argument. Just ranting and foaming at the mouth type stuff.

I think I'll stick with the independent.

Porgy

passout wrote:

The press don't cause Brits to dislike cyclists - they simply reflect it. It makes you appreciate the French doesn't it?

Bit of both I think. Once an irrational view is reflected in print it becomes legitimised.

If there was suddenly an openly racist paper in the newsagents then you would see a rise in the fortunes of the BNP.

Don't underestimate the power of a newspaper - why do you think Murdoch is so powerful - it's not the money - it's the influence that owning media can swing.

tailwindhome

Porgy wrote:

While I accept they laid into blair big time - I don;t remember any incisive evidence based critisicism - or any sort of rational argument. Just ranting and foaming at the mouth type stuff

Someone seems to have hacked into your profile and added a ranting and foaming anti Blair website to your sig

Porgy

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Porgy wrote:

While I accept they laid into blair big time - I don;t remember any incisive evidence based critisicism - or any sort of rational argument. Just ranting and foaming at the mouth type stuff

Someone seems to have hacked into your profile and added a ranting and foaming anti Blair website to your sig

it's a single issue opinionated website not a newspaper and just because you disagree with its aims, I see no ranting and foaming anywhere on there. Have you read it?

deptfordmarmoset

Porgy wrote:

passout wrote:

The press don't cause Brits to dislike cyclists - they simply reflect it. It makes you appreciate the French doesn't it?

Bit of both I think. Once an irrational view is reflected in print it becomes legitimised.

If there was suddenly an openly racist paper in the newsagents then you would see a rise in the fortunes of the BNP.

Don't underestimate the power of a newspaper - why do you think Murdoch is so powerful - it's not the money - it's the influence that owning media can swing.

+1, not least because it becomes part of the cycle cliché checklist, but it appears to convince the gormless, otherwise incapable of thinking of it, that cyclists are worthy scapegoats.

simonaspinall

mercsport wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

'HURRAH FOR THE BLACKSHIRTS"

Daily Heil 1934

all you need to know about that reactionary rag

So far as I can recall, the DM was one of the very few papers that consistently were against ALL the warmongering enterprises by the ever so pious Tony Blair of this parish. From Kosovo to Afghanistan and Iraq in between. No good was ever done by that murderous bugger, and the DM said it. The broadsheets, by and large (aside from the DT, maybe), tacitly went along with everything that gurning wretch said.

What I mean is, the DM were onto that fraudster from the off, not 'on second thoughts', when all the broadsheets quietly joined in the consensus that TB was the deluded, bonkers idiot that he so manifestly is, together with the shame that he's burdened us all with.

Aside from all the rabid anti-DM tripe spouted on this thread, few of you have acknowledged that Petronella might have a point with regard to the aggressiveness of some of our kind. I witness it often enough and it makes me cringe. I see it now, on this thread. Naturally she'd just been winded by the close shave her mum had had. But, no, some of you are questioning her veracity and possibly making it up, to make some crap copy for her deadline. Difficult to remain non-judgemental, and, I really don't want to say it - but I will - GROW UP! :roll:

The Daily Mail has extensive form in cr@p journalism, hysteria, incredibly twisted perspectives on society and won't be happy until everyone is living in 1950s berkshire riding around on Pashleys and going to church for their daily vitamin c. They have endless form for hating pretty much everyone and everything that isn't white, middle class, christian (actually they probably hate them too) or Princess Diana - Up to 10 years after her death 1 in 6 headlines on the front page were still about her - about 60 a year!!

It's a paper which is racist, bigotted and can't go out of business so it's politics of hysterical fear is confined to the dust.

And i'll repeat my previous point....it's not as if the journalists at the Daily Mail haven't been caught out before for making stuff up. So instead of the crtics growing up why don't you take an actual look at what a paper read by a depressing proportion of people in this country contains and worry - It's this sort of voter that is being chased and why the Labour government exists - Tony Blair actively went after the narrow-minded Daily Mail reader!

simonaspinall

mercsport wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

'HURRAH FOR THE BLACKSHIRTS"

Daily Heil 1934

all you need to know about that reactionary rag

So far as I can recall, the DM was one of the very few papers that consistently were against ALL the warmongering enterprises by the ever so pious Tony Blair of this parish. From Kosovo to Afghanistan and Iraq in between. No good was ever done by that murderous bugger, and the DM said it. The broadsheets, by and large (aside from the DT, maybe), tacitly went along with everything that gurning wretch said.

What I mean is, the DM were onto that fraudster from the off, not 'on second thoughts', when all the broadsheets quietly joined in the consensus that TB was the deluded, bonkers idiot that he so manifestly is, together with the shame that he's burdened us all with.

Aside from all the rabid anti-DM tripe spouted on this thread, few of you have acknowledged that Petronella might have a point with regard to the aggressiveness of some of our kind. I witness it often enough and it makes me cringe. I see it now, on this thread. Naturally she'd just been winded by the close shave her mum had had. But, no, some of you are questioning her veracity and possibly making it up, to make some crap copy for her deadline. Difficult to remain non-judgemental, and, I really don't want to say it - but I will - GROW UP! :roll:

The Daily Mail has extensive form in cr@p journalism, hysteria, incredibly twisted perspectives on society and won't be happy until everyone is living in 1950s berkshire riding around on Pashleys and going to church for their daily vitamin c. They have endless form for hating pretty much everyone and everything that isn't white, middle class, christian (actually they probably hate them too) or Princess Diana - Up to 10 years after her death 1 in 6 headlines on the front page were still about her - about 60 a year!!

It's a paper which is racist, bigotted and can't go out of business so it's politics of hysterical fear is confined to the dust.

And i'll repeat my previous point....it's not as if the journalists at the Daily Mail haven't been caught out before for making stuff up. So instead of the crtics growing up why don't you take an actual look at what a paper read by a depressing proportion of people in this country contains and worry - It's this sort of voter that is being chased and why the Labour government exists - Tony Blair actively went after the narrow-minded Daily Mail reader!

dodgy

simonaspinall wrote:

- Up to 10 years after her death 1 in 6 headlines on the front page were still about her - about 60 a year!!

I thought it was the Daily Express that was famous for going on about Diana?

spen666

simonaspinall wrote:

....... They have endless form for hating pretty much everyone and everything that isn't white, middle class, christian (actually they probably hate them too) or Princess Diana - Up to 10 years after her death 1 in 6 headlines on the front page were still about her - about 60 a year!!
....!

Your rant would be better placed if you even had a clue which newspaper you were ranting against.

It was not the DM that ran the Diana stories , it was the Daily Express

Whoops- the rest of your rant can't be taken seriously when you can't even attack the correct paper

simonaspinall

spen666 wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

....... They have endless form for hating pretty much everyone and everything that isn't white, middle class, christian (actually they probably hate them too) or Princess Diana - Up to 10 years after her death 1 in 6 headlines on the front page were still about her - about 60 a year!!
....!

Your rant would be better placed if you even had a clue which newspaper you were ranting against.

It was not the DM that ran the Diana stories , it was the Daily Express

Whoops- the rest of your rant can't be taken seriously when you can't even attack the correct paper

There's a difference?

simonaspinall

simonaspinall wrote:

spen666 wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

....... They have endless form for hating pretty much everyone and everything that isn't white, middle class, christian (actually they probably hate them too) or Princess Diana - Up to 10 years after her death 1 in 6 headlines on the front page were still about her - about 60 a year!!
....!

Your rant would be better placed if you even had a clue which newspaper you were ranting against.

It was not the DM that ran the Diana stories , it was the Daily Express

Whoops- the rest of your rant can't be taken seriously when you can't even attack the correct paper

There's a difference?

Both papers are scrae-mongering racist tabloid rant rags that epitomise self-centered middle class thinking surrounding council tax, NHS, education, immigration et al.

I'm struggling to believe my eyes that an open-minded forum like Bikeradar is defending the DM!

blackpanther

simonaspinall wrote:

[
Both papers are scrae-mongering racist tabloid rant rags that epitomise self-centered middle class thinking surrounding council tax, NHS, education, immigration et al.

I'm struggling to believe my eyes that an open-minded forum like Bikeradar is defending the DM!

Racist???? im not aware of any overt racism from the DM? Have they been dragged through the courts for this unpleasent crime? They might reflect peoples fears and concerns but shouting down anyone or anything you dont understand or possible agree with is hardly a liegitimate considered response.

Dont like it myself though I prefer The Times.

simonaspinall

blackpanther wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

[
Both papers are scrae-mongering racist tabloid rant rags that epitomise self-centered middle class thinking surrounding council tax, NHS, education, immigration et al.

I'm struggling to believe my eyes that an open-minded forum like Bikeradar is defending the DM!

Racist???? im not aware of any overt racism from the DM? Have they been dragged through the courts for this unpleasent crime? They might reflect peoples fears and concerns but shouting down anyone or anything you dont understand or possible agree with is hardly a liegitimate considered response.

Dont like it myself though I prefer The Times.

The implication that foreigner/anything apart from Britain is bad are bad.

"Asylum seekers carry new type of Aids"
"Enough is enough!...Immigrants!"
"Olympics pulls in another 10,000 foriegn workers"
"Fury as Japan gets our jobs"
"How saying the word 'family' got four iraqis into britain"

and so on...

(all actual headlines ran in either DE or DM)

Now just consider how if these stories were actually true they coul've been phrased. Then look at how they were phrased. Hence the 'scare-mongering' xenophobia label.
Opinion based on prejudice about foreigners, their intentions, activity and so on.

I am shocked that there is defence of the DM and DE on this forum. I thought the posters on here were generally liberal and open-minded people. I've only ever read posts which could've come from educated people who could see these hate filled rags for what they were. :shock:

GiantMike

simonaspinall wrote:

I am shocked that there is defence of the DM and DE on this forum. I thought the posters on here were generally liberal and open-minded people. I've only ever read posts which could've come from educated people who could see these hate filled rags for what they were. :shock:

But that's the point Simon. As a tolerant intelligent individual you must understand that some people have different opinions to yours and may appear ignorant or stupid. Personally I think that the DM and DE are rather pointless tatty rags and it gives me great pleasure reading a copy from time to time (never bought, obviously) to see what idiocy passes as journalism. However, we should defend anybody's right to read and even agree with what's in them.

simonaspinall

GiantMike wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

I am shocked that there is defence of the DM and DE on this forum. I thought the posters on here were generally liberal and open-minded people. I've only ever read posts which could've come from educated people who could see these hate filled rags for what they were. :shock:

But that's the point Simon. As a tolerant intelligent individual you must understand that some people have different opinions to yours and may appear ignorant or stupid. Personally I think that the DM and DE are rather pointless tatty rags and it gives me great pleasure reading a copy from time to time (never bought, obviously) to see what idiocy passes as journalism. However, we should defend anybody's right to read and even agree with what's in them.

I completely agree with the free speech aspect - It's the fact that the readers of these mags have the right to vote and are allowed in cars which can have a significant impact on cyclists that worries the bejesus out of me. It's not a case of 'well if you don't agree with them then just ignore them' - The readers of the DE and DM can legally be part of the democratic process which is quite frightening considering it's the second most read paper in the UK with the Sun being first.

blackpanther

[quote="simonaspinall"Asylum seekers carry new type of Aids"
"Enough is enough!...Immigrants!"
"Olympics pulls in another 10,000 foriegn workers"
"Fury as Japan gets our jobs"
"How saying the word 'family' got four iraqis into britain"

and so on...

(all actual headlines ran in either DE or DM)

Now just consider how if these stories were actually true they coul've been phrased. Then look at how they were phrased. Hence the 'scare-mongering' xenophobia label.
Opinion based on prejudice about foreigners, their intentions, activity and so on.

I am shocked that there is defence of the DM and DE on this forum. I thought the posters on here were generally liberal and open-minded people. I've only ever read posts which could've come from educated people who could see these hate filled rags for what they were. :shock:[/quote]

There are many people in britain that feel these are ligitimate headlines highlighting some real fears that they have. As to wether the DM is cynical in its use of them or not is another matter.
There are also many in this country whos life experiences lead them to believe that part of the problem is overly liberal policies that promote equality before looking after the current inhabitants. (note i didnt mention colour or religion etc) The paper is balanced in that it also reflects the fears many people have about other issues such as education, or protection from serious criminals. Perhpas your education pre disposes you to look at things from a different angle than many people whos views and fears are influenced by real life issues.

simonaspinall

@blackpanther

I take your point - admittedly I am complete 'guardian reader' who is very liberal minded, quite pro-immigration, gay rights and so forth with an education in sociology and politics.

I understand that the paper feels it speaks for a certain 'type' of person/target reader. The headlines are inflammatory and put on the front to do what every newspaper wants to do - sell newspapers (that term being used loosely).

Instead of putting the news headline on the front cover and then saving the editorial for the editorial section, it puts it up front with a trememendous slant to fuel the fear and xenophobic feeling from the right-wing.

Of course the headlines shown in newspapers will always reflect what they feel their 'atypical' reader will want to see - the independent often showing the destruction of the environment or anti-war sentiment as they believe their core reader is a left-wing liberal with strong green-ethics.

I just hate the Daily Mail & The Daily Express! There I said it! Oh, don't forget the Sun, Mirror and other tabloids. Having said that at least the red-tops know they're trashy.

blackpanther

good reply man.

peace

mercsport

simonaspinall wrote:

@blackpanther

I take your point - admittedly I am complete 'guardian reader' who is very liberal minded, quite pro-immigration, gay rights and so forth with an education in sociology and politics.

I understand that the paper feels it speaks for a certain 'type' of person/target reader. The headlines are inflammatory and put on the front to do what every newspaper wants to do - sell newspapers (that term being used loosely).

Instead of putting the news headline on the front cover and then saving the editorial for the editorial section, it puts it up front with a trememendous slant to fuel the fear and xenophobic feeling from the right-wing.

Of course the headlines shown in newspapers will always reflect what they feel their 'atypical' reader will want to see - the independent often showing the destruction of the environment or anti-war sentiment as they believe their core reader is a left-wing liberal with strong green-ethics.

I just hate the Daily Mail & The Daily Express! There I said it! Oh, don't forget the Sun, Mirror and other tabloids. Having said that at least the red-tops know they're trashy.

Simon, are you not aware of the beautifully sublime irony of your posts?

Your choleric invective is the very opposite of the values you supposedly espouse. :roll:

Aggieboy

MarkW - respect!

Word.

simonaspinall

mercsport wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

@blackpanther

I take your point - admittedly I am complete 'guardian reader' who is very liberal minded, quite pro-immigration, gay rights and so forth with an education in sociology and politics.

I understand that the paper feels it speaks for a certain 'type' of person/target reader. The headlines are inflammatory and put on the front to do what every newspaper wants to do - sell newspapers (that term being used loosely).

Instead of putting the news headline on the front cover and then saving the editorial for the editorial section, it puts it up front with a trememendous slant to fuel the fear and xenophobic feeling from the right-wing.

Of course the headlines shown in newspapers will always reflect what they feel their 'atypical' reader will want to see - the independent often showing the destruction of the environment or anti-war sentiment as they believe their core reader is a left-wing liberal with strong green-ethics.

I just hate the Daily Mail & The Daily Express! There I said it! Oh, don't forget the Sun, Mirror and other tabloids. Having said that at least the red-tops know they're trashy.

Simon, are you not aware of the beautifully sublime irony of your posts?

Your choleric invective is the very opposite of the values you supposedly espouse. :roll:

Yes I am aware of the irony. Intolerant of the intolerant.

But you have to say - When a 'journalist' writes such a tawdry article about wanting to remove bikes from the road it's difficult not to take the bait.

shouldbeinbed

rhext wrote:

Oooohhh, how do you post replies to the article. I couldn't see!

you need to click on Petty's name at the top of the link page - it'll take you directly to the article proper. However they've stopped taking comments and they don't seem keen on publishing them anyway. mine was reasonable, not sweary or finger pointy simply asking for a few figures to back up her assertions and suggesting that 3 days isn't really sufficient time to become confident and competent on a bike in a major urban environment and that maybe not every car in the road is driven by someone over 17 holding a driving licence. It didn't make it past the censors.

maybe if I'd suggested hunting cyclists like vermin and burning them alive by the roadside.......

simonaspinall

shouldbeinbed wrote:

rhext wrote:

Oooohhh, how do you post replies to the article. I couldn't see!

you need to click on Petty's name at the top of the link page - it'll take you directly to the article proper. However they've stopped taking comments and they don't seem keen on publishing them anyway. mine was reasonable, not sweary or finger pointy simply asking for a few figures to back up her assertions and suggesting that 3 days isn't really sufficient time to become confident and competent on a bike in a major urban environment and that maybe not every car in the road is driven by someone over 17 holding a driving licence. It didn't make it past the censors.

maybe if I'd suggested hunting cyclists like vermin and burning them alive by the roadside.......

I tried to comment with a few quite reasonable points...nowt appeared.

In fact it has no comments at all...I think after the Martin-gate they are a bit more guarded with comments being posted. And that the comments must avalanched against the Bint.

rhext

mercsport wrote:

...Aside from all the rabid anti-DM tripe spouted on this thread, few of you have acknowledged that Petronella might have a point with regard to the aggressiveness of some of our kind. I witness it often enough and it makes me cringe. I see it now, on this thread. Naturally she'd just been winded by the close shave her mum had had. But, no, some of you are questioning her veracity and possibly making it up, to make some crap copy for her deadline. Difficult to remain non-judgemental, and, I really don't want to say it - but I will - GROW UP! :roll:

I would not class myself as rabidly anti-DM. But to me the article speaks for itself. I don't defend the individual cyclist: if the facts are as reported then whoever it was should at least have stopped. I do question whether the facts are as reported: I don't believe that the victim of the accident would be best placed to comment reliably on whether the cyclist was properly visible for example. And as to whether she's possibly making it up to make some crap copy for her deadline: well, she wouldn't be the first opinion column writer to do that. So it has to be a possibility!

But the thing that gets my back up is using a single isolated incident to build into a case that all cyclists are evil menaces who should be brought under control. Some muggers use bicycles, therefore we should license all cyclists? Some cyclists don't cycle very well or very considerately, therefore...... It's lazy, it's reactionary, it's discriminatory. And some of it sticks. There's no research to find out whether there really is a growing problem. There's no reasoned argument as to whether licensing cyclists would actually solve the perceived problem. It's just pure prejudice: a small number of cyclists are irresponsible therefore the whole lot should be targetted. You could take that article, cross out the word 'cyclist', replace it with 'pedestrian' and use it as an argument to bring in identity cards which must be stapled visibly to the back of people's jackets.

I suppose you could simply argue that it's an 'opinion' piece, that's her opinion and she's entitled to it. The problem I have with that is that it tends to legitimise the bad behaviour we all suffer from every day from a minority of people who read this stuff and believe it! I'd like to think that the editors of national newspapers were a bit more responsible than that.

And re "....the aggressiveness of some of our kind.....". If by 'our kind' you mean 'people', I agree with you. If, on the other hand, you mean 'cyclists' then that invites us to believe that something changes in people's heads when they climb on a bike, cease to be a pedestrian/driver/passenger, and become a cyclist. It's that bit I don't accept. Some people are aggressive morons. An aggressive moron at the controls of a bike going at 20 MPH is a danger to themselves and to pedestrians. But if we then introduce measures which make cycling less attractive to our hypothetical aggressive moron, he's still going to get around somehow. So we trade a 20MPH cyclist for a 40MPH motorist and all of a sudden we're talking about deaths instead of sprained wrists and hurt pride.

Porgy

The day the DM run a positive story about the benefits of cycling and the majority of law-abiding cyclists then that is the day I may - just maybe - reconsider my current opinion of the DM as a hateful rag with a mission to wind up middle England on a daily basis with lies, half truths and unrepresentative reports full of murderous cyclists, swan killing immigrants, the lazy, sponging unemployed, PC gone mad and fraudelent diagnoses of various mental illnesses, why anyone with ME or AS is clearly faking it for attention or financial reward, and why illegal wars started by labour are wrong while illegal wars started by Tories are fine and upstanding wars, and don;t you dare say anything against our boys....<foams at mouth>.

simonaspinall

I think what happens is the editorial team roll dice with

NHS
Education system
Council Tax
Cancer
House Prices
Employment

Terrorists
Immigrants
Cyclists
Benefit scroungers
Political Correctness & Loony left
Speed Cameras

find some sort of connection, twist a stat and then put it in their front page...

Terrorists cause cancer
Immigrants lower house prices in Home Counties
Cyclists cause rise in unemployment
Speed Cameras destroy education system
NHS waiting lists go up thanks to Loony left

A suspected UK Immigrant terrorist found feasting on roasted swan as a SWAT team crashed through his council house window. The 'terrorist' was sharpening his carving knife and was quoted as saying "I was feeding my 9 benefit dependent children as my burkha clad wife over from Pakistan is having her operation today as she was prioritised over the white women". Sources from behind a net curtain said "Oooo these immigrants ...i've never like the look of them. I don't know if he's living here legally, employed or engaged in acts of terrorism but he is definitely a terrorist"

mercsport

simonaspinall wrote:

But you have to say - When a 'journalist' writes such a tawdry article about wanting to remove bikes from the road it's difficult not to take the bait.

Well, mouth agape, you were well and truly hooked.

You probably didn't see the print copy of the 'Mail on Sunday' (different editorial team appparently) wherein the offending article was printed, but if one bothers to be selective and read beneath the exclamatory headlines, there are always some thoughtful essays to digest. On the opposite page to Petronella's mild rant was - for balance- William Rees Mogg's weekly column. I mention him as he's one of Fleet St's finest. A long time editor of the Times for example. A few pages further on another great writer: Craig Brown, has his literary piece. David Mellor is always a good read on classical music. And so on.

Within the main body of the paper, Peter Hitchens fulminates weekly. And, on most points, it's difficult not to agree with him. Here, methinks, he'd eat you alive : "admittedly I am complete 'guardian reader' who is very liberal minded, quite pro-immigration, gay rights and so forth with an education in sociology and politics." If you want to exercise your values on a head to head with Hitchens you might enter into an email correspondence with him on his blog. He's quite active, and if you prick him he'd respond I'm sure.

As for: "admittedly I am complete 'guardian reader' who is very liberal minded, quite pro-immigration, gay rights and so forth with an education in sociology and politics." There, you've admitted it; you've been brainwashed!
However, more seriously, how can you declare yourself to be liberal minded when your posts are so ruddy splenetic? They remind me very much of the crazed rants by the members of the Anti Nazi League, or whatever they're called, and similar so-called free speech, democracy, et al, mobs that abound nowadays, and work only to an end that is wholly opposite to what they frenziedly screech about. To my way of thinking your lot are clowns and have well and truly buggered up Britain, if you did but know it.

The pity of it, of course, is that you don't.

Porgy

mercsport wrote:

[so-called free speech, democracy, et al, mobs that abound nowadays, and work only to an end that is wholly opposite to what they frenziedly screech about.

Name names - put up or shut up so to speak

To my way of thinking your lot are clowns and have well and truly buggered up Britain, if you did but know it.

Explain what you mean by your lot? socioligists? Guardian Readers? Anti-Nazi League?

I think they'd have to have gone a long way to bugger up a country already buggered up by 60 years of corrupt, cowardly and incompetent government, & 30 years of uncontained and rampant corporatism.

simonaspinall

However, more seriously, how can you declare yourself to be liberal minded when your posts are so ruddy splenetic? They remind me very much of the crazed rants by the members of the Anti Nazi League, or whatever they're called, and similar so-called free speech, democracy, et al, mobs that abound nowadays, and work only to an end that is wholly opposite to what they frenziedly screech about. To my way of thinking your lot are clowns and have well and truly buggered up Britain, if you did but know it.

The pity of it, of course, is that you don't.

I'm liberal in that I believe people are entitlted to freedom - Whatever persuasion of sexuality, ethnicity, religion or gender.

The negative side of the DM has already been extensively discussed in this forum so will not go back in to that.

Who do you define as 'my lot' and how has Britain been buggered up by 'my lot'?