> "Am truly disgusted by this news and it's another nail in the coffin of despicable things that happen all the time now."
Is this a real person or just the twat-o-tron feeding back on itself?
Middle England will be shocked to discover that the Daily Mail's website, the world's most read online newspaper, has only gone and admitted to a shameful data security cock-up. The publication - which is known for displaying loads of pictures of tits and ass online normally alongside an equal amount of outrage about tits and …
Am truly disgusted by this news and it's another nail in the coffin of despicable things that happen all the time now.
In normal usage:
"another nail in the coffin of X" = X will soon cease to exist
"despicable things that happen all the time now" = X in the above
So, no more despicable things. That has to be good news.
If you see something in the news, and can't believe that it's genuine, or else humanity must have gone mad, you just need to believe harder. It is genuine. It's also possible that humanity has gone mad. Or always was...
I call this the Chris Morris effect. Every day I see more headlines that only Chris Morris could have written. As time goes on I have gradually realised that 'The Day Today', 'On the Hour' and 'Brass Eye' weren't satire, they were in fact media training material that got broadcast by mistake.
It's paedogeddon out there.
I remember stumbling on an episode of The Day Today nearly 20 years ago (seriously, where does time go?). Their tone of voice, the quality of the graphics - it took me a few minutes to realise that I was watching top-notch satire.
I believe it's as funny and relevant today as it was back then. Ianucci & Morris are man-mental giants.
" It's also possible that humanity has gone mad. Or always was..."
As I happen to have the misfortune of knowing some who post such rubbish for the world to marvel at their idiocy, it's true.
The world's been long mad as a hatter and is currently moving rapidly downhill.
"It is better to remain silent and be thought the fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
Right now I am on my knees praying
that somehow some "terrible, awful" images were quietly stashed somewhere. Because life wouldn't get much better. Except if it turned out that the hackers involved were massive potheads.
. . .<
Those images should feature CP*, best to be hosted in a hidden folder on mumsnet and then linked to the Daily Mail.
That'd make me smile.
"Those images should feature CP*, best to be hosted in a hidden folder on mumsnet and then linked to the Daily Mail."
While deeply despicable you have to think that if you wanted to stir up plenty of TOTC type outrage the Daily
Jailbait Mail would be the place to plant it.
> Daily Mail. The paper which supported Hitler.
I'm shocked that a right wing paper would support a Socialist regime.
Mind you, nothing much surprises me. The Guardian supported the Confederates in the American Civil War and opposed the creation of a National Health Service because it would "eliminate selective elimination" and lead to an increase of congenitally deformed and feckless people.
"I'm shocked that a right wing paper would support a Socialist regime."
Er, calling themselves a Socialist party didn't make them act much like one.
A bit like, you know, the English Defence League, I've never even seen them complain about a misplaced apostrophe let alone promote correct spelling.
> Er, calling themselves a Socialist party didn't make them act much like one.
A lot of their policies did:
They declared May Day to be a paid workers holiday celebrated by all. It purpose was to break down class barriers.
Private ownership was ok as long as it conformed to national interests and if it didn't it was nationalised.
Free competition and self regulation diminished in favour of state control.
They had Social Welfare programs and encouraged the better of to help the poor.
They had the Winter Relief program whose slogan was "None shall starve nor freeze" to organise charitable work to help the needy over the winter.
They were anti-capitalism, against big business and preferred a state controlled economy.
Even though they ultimately ended up as a bunch of evil bastards they had far more in common with socialism than you think.
"They were anti-capitalism, against big business and preferred a state controlled economy.."
So just why was Gradfather Bush so eager to get into bed with Herr Hitler?
Or why Hitler was involved in identifying German soldiers who had taken part in the 'Bavarian Socialist Republic' uprising in 1918/19?
Or why 'the poor' didn't include rich Jewish people who had all their possessions taken by the state? (BTW Russia stated that Jewish people were equal to all other people in the early 1920s).
Any idea why s Nazi storm troopers started attacking trade unionists and communists?
Unbelievable how history can be re-written - even whilst there are millions of those who fought the evil of fascism are still alive.
Unbelievable how history can be re-written - even whilst there are millions of those who fought the evil of fascism are still alive.
I couldn't agree more, how dare anyone point out that the really (no I mean REALLY) nasty parties all come from the political left. That socialist bastard Mussolini and his fascist "middle way", the national socialist party, and the communists... they were all from the extreme right of politics, it stands to reason.
Otherwise people might start to wonder about the why left wing parties always employ more public sector workers than right wing parties, and we wouldn't want them thinking about who employed the state police of those countries where it all went horribly wrong... would we comrade?
"nasty parties all come from the political left"
I think that statement could be quite difficult to justify in the real world. Anyway as has been pointed out earlier, which you obviously didn't bother reading. Two issues here, 1. The rule of self naming. What ever an entity calls it's self is almost always what it isn't: Peoples Republics, Homeland Security, Ministry of Justice, EDL etc. 2. Left and right Wing don't mean much. In reality the scale is more of a circle that a straight line. If you go too far either way you end up in the same place.
There was a big difference between the manifesto designed to win votes, and what they actually did.
State control of industry turned out to be Nazi bosses running protection rackets.
The rich looking after the poor turned out to be Krupp and Thyssen using slave labour.
And so on.
The present UK government is the same thing, but as more of black farce than total evil.
In Hay on Wye yesterday I admit I put a biography of Harris next to one of Goebbels, because I thought they deserved to be together. The national.British myth of our ethical superiority is just that, a myth.
Let me guess - you think Tory Blair was also a socialist because he was leader of a political party that included 'Labour' as part of its name. In reality, he took Tory policies and moved them to the right, doing things such as piratizing the NHS that even Thatcher backed off from. He used the Daily Mail demographic for his focus groups. He even consulted with Murdoch's personal economist on economic policy. Backing from Murdoch during the elections formed a key part of Blair's success in elections.
People so often fail to understand how the various ism's work.
At the simplest level you have
Authoritarian vs Liberal
State Control vs Free Trade
The Nazi party was about half way down the State Control slider and started off a quarter down the authoritarian ending probably at the end of the authoritarian line.
In reality of course political entities tend to be far more complex unless they're single issue parties/movements.
Policies like exterminating "enemies of the state" (generally created to create a sense of unity amongst those who view themselves as more "xyz" then the target minorities) have little to do with where you live on those scales, you could in theory have a ultra liberal ultra capitalist state that views a certain subclass as 2nd class and at points exterminates them.
Organisations like the EDL and UKIP are often rather socialist and authoritarian (they believe in British Jobs for British workers, subsidizing British companies, etc) while at the same time wanting to throw out immigrants and makes it harder for immigrants to get into the country and tighten laws and such like.
If you look a bit deeper at most political groups from Charities and Unions to Political parties and Lobbyists their actual politics aren't where you imagine them to be at all, tending to be more towards authoritarian and state controlled.
The terms left and right wing don't mean a lot. There are two sorts of politician: ones who want power for their own benefit, like [long list] and ones who want power to benefit other people, like [short list]·
The Mail is a long-lister. Hitler and Stalin are on the long list along with Blair, Cameron and many other British Prime Ministers. The Guardian would.like to support the short list, hence their support for the Lib Dems. But they don't always succeed.
"Simples, El Reg is populated almost entirely with Grauniad reading socialists who love to look down on people who don't think the same as them."
Even Daily Star readers look down on Daily Mail readers and consider them low brow.
PS it's simple not simples. Are you a Guardina typesetter for a living ?
You do know that the Whole Gruaniad thing was made up by Fleet Street to discredit a paper that had the audacity to be published from somewhere else. They were trying to suggest that proper education didn't exist outside the capital. In reality their typesetting was no worse and no better than any other national daily. And No I don't buy the Guardian or any other paper. I'll read anything I find lying around but paying somebody to tell you comforting lies just seems wrong to me.
...... the hate is generated by Guardian readers. While I agree that the DM can exaggerate when it's a ranty story at least most of them are true, unlike the Guardian which manages one truthful big news story once a year, the rest they just publish to support the boom in fact checking blogs.
Plus the fact the glorious Guardian dead tree version is outsold by the DM 9 to 1 must really piss them off.
Dunno, guess a lot of people really hate the Daily Mail or something! The funny thing is though those of us that do all visit the site for a good giggle now and then and no doubt some folk like looking at celeb ass their too - no wonder their so well read!
"The Register has very kindly done the legwork for the Mail by passing on the details of the blunder to the ICO"
That's jolly nice of you!
Please don't dis me for my 'there' 'their' and 'they're' screw ups - I do that on on many posts I make here but most of the time mange to use the edit post facility to fix them. This topic seems to be set to moderated by default (for obvious reasons!) and as such the edit function isn't available. If you want to blame someone, don't blame me, blame terrorists, asylum seekers or paedophiles!
By the way I do not hate middle class people either! This isint a class issue, its a shit choice of newspaper issue!
The Daily Mail's demographic is middle class.
People hate the middle classes and they think they should all just shut up and keep paying their taxes. Their opinions are worthless, unless they happen to agree with something in the Guardian, in which case their opinions are invaluable and demonstrate how much the middle classes have progressed. And they should never be allowed to vote just in case they put the wrong ones in power.
Because it masquerades as a NEWS-paper when in reality it's anything but. In its black-and-white world view, its hatred of foreigners, its contempt for (any) incumbent government, its proselytising of "little england" values, its championing of "strong" law and order to protect "us" from "them", it is perhaps reminiscent of the newspapers published in the Weimar republic in the 1920s; a continuous diet of this sort of thing helped, in part, to bring the Nazis to power, and we all know what happened then.
As Ian Hislop put it rather sardonically a few years ago on HIGNFY, when asked a question about the (then) drought: "There's a drought, or, as the Daily Mail would put it, Asylum-seeking criminals drank all our water".
The blatant hypocrisy doesn't help, either. Read the DM any day - full of anti-paedophile hysteria - then read the DM Online: there was an article the other day - fully illustrated, of course - about how "hot" Christie Brinkley's 15 year old daughter is.
And no, I'm not a Grauniad reader - I'm somewhat right of centre and can't stand the endless world-owes-me-a-living bleating - but that doesn't mean that I can bear reading the DM.
Because it is a reactionary, steaming pile of hate every morning that pretends to be a serious paper?
Because it panders to small-minded insularity, hate and fear of everything that isn't "decent", middle class, white and English?
Because it encourages its reader to believe that the world is full of evil foreigners/companies/authorities who are out to steal from them, injure them, and destroy their way of life?
Because it believes its readers are self-centred obsessives whose prime concern in life is the value of their property, the interest rate on their mortgage, and how evil foreigners/companies/authorities are intent on ruining both.
Because it is an enormous hypocrite, sounding forth on internet paedophiles, while serving up daily photos of "celebrity" children with border-line salacious non-stories?
No hate for Daily Mail readers though. It must be a terrible existence being fed a constant stream of fear and anxiety about society.
Even stretching the definition of newspaper, how does a paper whose audience is - the wives of people who read the times and people who want to read the sun but don't want to be seen reading the sun - get to be the most popular online paper?
(admittadly most popular in the same sense that Malaria is the most popular parasitic disease)
Let's not forget that, despite everything, it was the Daily Mail which had the balls to name five men as the murderers of Stephen Lawrence when the Metropolitan Police were doing sod all except wallowing in shit.
It goes against the grain for me to say this but, in this matter at least, kudos to the Mail.
"Let's not forget that, despite everything, it was the Daily Mail which had the balls to name five men as the murderers of Stephen Lawrence when the Metropolitan Police were doing sod all except wallowing in shit."
Doubly so given the suspicion that at one of the killers dads was (allegedly) shifting substantial amounts of Class A drugs and was very supportive of certain police officers, with regular brown paper "care parcels."
So yes they do deserve a thumbs up for that.
It's not necessarily that straight-forward. In this case, the Met were, as you say, wallowing in shit, rather than properly investigating a serious crime, and because of this, publishing the names of the suspects may have helped. It wasn't, however, the right thing to do.
Publishing the names of suspected killers has a serious effect on justice, not least of which is that it can prejudice any trial, and make it harder to find unbiased jurors. If the suspects are later found to innocent, they will already have been found guilty in the court of public opinion. This is why there are very strict rules on reporting of such things, and rightly so. In other words, it makes it harder, and more expensive, to convict the guilty, and it stigmatises the innocent.
In this case, the Mail got the right names, but what would have happend if they had made a mistake and published the names of five innocent people, or get the names of the five killers, plus the name of a sixth, innocent, party. There are plenty of idiots out there who will say, "there's no smoke without fire".
It's not even like the papers have never done this. I don't think it was the Mail, but at least one of the national red-tops who, during the investigation of the Jo Yates murder, published the name of her landlord as a suspect. He was later cleared, but suffered a great deal as a result.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019