I'm curious as to the editorial nature of some newspapers in the UK right now so I'd like to garner the views of the good people of this forum on this.

I read the following article today and ask you to read and then consider whether you think it represents the views of the paper's editors. Would you consider them racist to have written what they have?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055365/Poppy-burning-Muslims-plan-new-hell-heroes-demonstration-November-11.html

Maybe its surprising to have such content allowed in the British press for everyone to be allowed to read? Vote on this as well if you will...I'd be interested to know your views.

Thanks for all responses.

odd poll that.

the daily mail a newspaper well known for it's right wing views regularly publishes far more "biased" articles than that....

why did you choose that one?

odd poll that.

the daily mail a newspaper well known for it's right wing views regularly publishes far more "biased" articles than that....

why did you choose that one?

Chosen at random wearing a blindfold m'lud.

No and Yes. It's factual reporting. I couldn't detect an opinion in it. Not sure where you are going with this one Smokie.

{Normally it's an embarrassingly rabid Tory mag and I say that as someone with some Conservative leanings}

It's factual reporting.

Factual as in when the Daily Mail get caught red handed making up quotes?

Of course they're racist - they always have been. They're homophobic as well when they can get away with it. One of their columnists (Jan Moir) wrote a really nasty article when Stephen Gately died. They weren't expecting the 25,000 complaints they got

This is the paper whose owner (Lord Rothermere) wrote an article in 1934 titled 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts' praising Oswald Moseley's British Facist party.

There's a proposal for the UK to adopt Summertime and Double Summertime rather than GMT and BST (there always is at this time of year). The Daily Mail has been writing the usual scaremongering articles calling it 'Berlin Time'. Don't mention the war Basil!

I'm not sure who they're going to appeal to when when the present collection of old farts dies off - and I speak as an old fart.

And yes they ought to be allowed to publish articles like that. It allows people to judge them for what they are. What they never seem to realise is that they're playing right into Choudary's hands by giving him the publicity no-one else will. Choudary and the Mail were made for each other. They ought to get married.

Of course they're racist - they always have been. They're homophobic as well when they can get away with it. One of their columnists (Jan Moir) wrote a really nasty article when Stephen Gately died. They weren't expecting the 25,000 complaints they got

This is the paper whose owner (Lord Rothermere) wrote an article in 1934 titled 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts' praising Oswald Moseley's British Facist party.

There's a proposal for the UK to adopt Summertime and Double Summertime rather than GMT and BST (there always is at this time of year). The Daily Mail has been writing the usual scaremongering articles calling it 'Berlin Time'. Don't mention the war Basil!

I'm not sure who they're going to appeal to when when the present collection of old farts dies off - and I speak as an old fart.

And yes they ought to be allowed to publish articles like that. It allows people to judge them for what they are. What they never seem to realise is that they're playing right into Choudary's hands by giving him the publicity no-one else will. Choudary and the Mail were made for each other. They ought to get married.

Please post the links. Particularly to the Stephen Gately article.

Edited October 31, 201114 yr by smokie36

The original article about Gately:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html

The Guardian's take on it (my apologies - there were 22,000 complaints not 25,000).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/19/jan-moir-complain-stephen-gately

'Berlin' time:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361042/VT-Day-For-time-traitors-war--Mail-Sunday-triumphs-campaign-prevent-Berlin-Time-imposed-Britain.html

It's ironic that the Mail accuses The Times of appeasement in that article. Read about Rothermere to see why...

Lord Rothermere - Daily Mail owner:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Harmsworth,_1st_Viscount_Rothermere

The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday are vile yellow rags.

No and Yes. It's factual reporting. I couldn't detect an opinion in it. Not sure where you are going with this one Smokie.

{Normally it's an embarrassingly rabid Tory mag and I say that as someone with some Conservative leanings}

Factual reporting? Ah yes thanks for your input Santisuk.

Of course they're racist - they always have been. They're homophobic as well when they can get away with it. One of their columnists (Jan Moir) wrote a really nasty article when Stephen Gately died. They weren't expecting the 25,000 complaints they got

This is the paper whose owner (Lord Rothermere) wrote an article in 1934 titled 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts' praising Oswald Moseley's British Facist party.

There's a proposal for the UK to adopt Summertime and Double Summertime rather than GMT and BST (there always is at this time of year). The Daily Mail has been writing the usual scaremongering articles calling it 'Berlin Time'. Don't mention the war Basil!

I'm not sure who they're going to appeal to when when the present collection of old farts dies off - and I speak as an old fart.

And yes they ought to be allowed to publish articles like that. It allows people to judge them for what they are. What they never seem to realise is that they're playing right into Choudary's hands by giving him the publicity no-one else will. Choudary and the Mail were made for each other. They ought to get married.

I think you will find the Mail are Masters at playing this game.Give Choudary enough Publicity for the Public to scream for his Deportation,while selling Newspapers encouraging it,the self elected voice of Britain.

they know the British Public would be happy to see the back of this hatemonger, other Clerics over the years thought they were untouchable too, wait and see who the winner will be.

The original article about Gately:

http://www.dailymail...ng-death--.html

The Guardian's take on it (my apologies - there were 22,000 complaints not 25,000).

Excuse my ignorance but what was the actual cause of death of this young man?

Of course they're racist - they always have been. They're homophobic as well when they can get away with it. One of their columnists (Jan Moir) wrote a really nasty article when Stephen Gately died. They weren't expecting the 25,000 complaints they got

This is the paper whose owner (Lord Rothermere) wrote an article in 1934 titled 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts' praising Oswald Moseley's British Facist party.

There's a proposal for the UK to adopt Summertime and Double Summertime rather than GMT and BST (there always is at this time of year). The Daily Mail has been writing the usual scaremongering articles calling it 'Berlin Time'. Don't mention the war Basil!

I'm not sure who they're going to appeal to when when the present collection of old farts dies off - and I speak as an old fart.

And yes they ought to be allowed to publish articles like that. It allows people to judge them for what they are. What they never seem to realise is that they're playing right into Choudary's hands by giving him the publicity no-one else will. Choudary and the Mail were made for each other. They ought to get married.

I think you will find the Mail are Masters at playing this game.Give Choudary enough Publicity for the Public to scream for his Deportation,

Where to? He's a British citizen.

Excuse my ignorance but what was the actual cause of death of this young man?

According to the Spanish coroner it was natural causes - pulmonary oedema:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8304419.stm

Excuse my ignorance but what was the actual cause of death of this young man?

According to the Spanish coroner it was natural causes - pulmonary oedema:

http://news.bbc.co.u...ent/8304419.stm

A tragic end. Yet while the article written is hostile, and uninformed, it is certainly not breaking any law.

Excuse my ignorance but what was the actual cause of death of this young man?

According to the Spanish coroner it was natural causes - pulmonary oedema:

http://news.bbc.co.u...ent/8304419.stm

A tragic end. Yet while the article written is hostile, and uninformed, it is certainly not breaking any law.

Whereabouts in your original post did you ask if they were breaking the law?

Whereabouts in your original post did you ask if they were breaking the law?

My point is that while it was a deeply unpleasant article and doubtless offensive to his family and friends it stops short of being a homophobic attack. At least the PCC thought so at the time.

Of course they're racist - they always have been. They're homophobic as well when they can get away with it. One of their columnists (Jan Moir) wrote a really nasty article when Stephen Gately died. They weren't expecting the 25,000 complaints they got

This is the paper whose owner (Lord Rothermere) wrote an article in 1934 titled 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts' praising Oswald Moseley's British Facist party.

There's a proposal for the UK to adopt Summertime and Double Summertime rather than GMT and BST (there always is at this time of year). The Daily Mail has been writing the usual scaremongering articles calling it 'Berlin Time'. Don't mention the war Basil!

I'm not sure who they're going to appeal to when when the present collection of old farts dies off - and I speak as an old fart.

And yes they ought to be allowed to publish articles like that. It allows people to judge them for what they are. What they never seem to realise is that they're playing right into Choudary's hands by giving him the publicity no-one else will. Choudary and the Mail were made for each other. They ought to get married.

I think you will find the Mail are Masters at playing this game.Give Choudary enough Publicity for the Public to scream for his Deportation,

Where to? He's a British citizen.

Judging by the way he constantly attacks the UK,one could be forgiven for thinking he was not a British Citizen,sadly you are right.

Small wonder English Newspapers attack him, see the wiki link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjem_Choudary

Whereabouts in your original post did you ask if they were breaking the law?

My point is that while it was a deeply unpleasant article and doubtless offensive to his family and friends it stops short of being a homophobic attack. At least the PCC thought so at the time.

I'm not quite sure if 'homophobic attacks' are against the law and I personally wouldn't want them to be. People should be allowed their opinions, no matter how vile, as long as they don't escalate into something more.

The article was offensive to a far wider audience than his friends and family. He was a bit of a poster boy for the gay community and the way that Moir tried to discredit him caused a lot of anger.

Whereabouts in your original post did you ask if they were breaking the law?

My point is that while it was a deeply unpleasant article and doubtless offensive to his family and friends it stops short of being a homophobic attack. At least the PCC thought so at the time.

I'm not quite sure if 'homophobic attacks' are against the law and I personally wouldn't want them to be. People should be allowed their opinions, no matter how vile, as long as they don't escalate into something more.

The article was offensive to a far wider audience than his friends and family. He was a bit of a poster boy for the gay community and the way that Moir tried to discredit him caused a lot of anger.

Some of the threats received by Moir could indeed be viewed as far more unpleasant and indeed criminal in their intent.

Whereabouts in your original post did you ask if they were breaking the law?

My point is that while it was a deeply unpleasant article and doubtless offensive to his family and friends it stops short of being a homophobic attack. At least the PCC thought so at the time.

I'm not quite sure if 'homophobic attacks' are against the law and I personally wouldn't want them to be. People should be allowed their opinions, no matter how vile, as long as they don't escalate into something more.

The article was offensive to a far wider audience than his friends and family. He was a bit of a poster boy for the gay community and the way that Moir tried to discredit him caused a lot of anger.

Some of the threats received by Moir could indeed be viewed as far more unpleasant and indeed criminal in their intent.

Then those who made them ought to be arrested and prosecuted. That doesn't excuse the fact that she published an article that was riddled with lies and innuendo. If you think that's acceptable then up to you. I don't. I expect newspapers to tell the truth as much as possible.

You started this thread by questioning the Daily Mail's integrity as far as racism is concerned. I've pointed you towards some of their lack of integrity in other directions. You can make of them what you will.

Well the PCC decided this wasn't a homophobic attack in the newspaper so who am I to argue...?

Anyway back to the issue of whether the paper is racist in its editorial comment please.

Edit: sp.

Edited November 2, 201114 yr by smokie36