Daily Mail Finally Admits Their "Winterval" Stories Are Lying Crap

[MarillionFan]

The OP is obsessed. I think he once had a bad sexual experience with Allison Pearson.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

The OP is obsessed. I think he once had a bad sexual experience with Allison Pearson.

I would. If only to tell her what a steaming pile of odure the paper she writes for is.

[xoggoth]

Gordon Bennet, not another Daily Mail thread!

Naturally, if there was an inaccurate or daft comment from most sources, that in itself would not be deemed reason to discount all they said. With The Daily Mail it's different. It's in The Daily Mail! Argument complete! You lefties do have a nice lazy life.

I agree the DM should stick to the facts and not blow some things up out of proportion. Daft PC attitudes do exist in local govt but there are dipsticks in every walk of life and they are not typical. However, there is a difference between DM articles like that and some others that raise genuine issues, asylum seekers being given excessively expensive residences for example. No matter how uncommon it may be, the rules should not be allowing it to happen. How can issues be properly debated or laws reformed in what is supposed to be a democracy if the facts can never be mentioned?

The Mail sometimes backs off from facts and statistics in a way that the Guardian and Independent do not. Polly Toynbee did not dispute the figures quoted by a police chief about the nature of street crime in London for example, only the reasons for it. If facts can only be given as part of what is prejudged to an "acceptable" argument, then what exactly is the point of any dialog at all?

If any publication did regularly report actual facts on issues like immigration or Islam as reported by reliable sources such as the ONS, police reports, hospital or university studies or the US State Department human rights reports, or even picked apart the Home Office reports dispassionately, they would make The Daily Mail look like The Guardian. Try looking.

We don't see things dismissed on CUK just because it's the Guardian or BBC saying it and quite rightly, even the right's Bete Noir Toynbee makes valid points at times. Yet we get these continual Daily Mail taunts and whole threads from the usual suspects.

Not sure if it's because you lefties have no ability to argue based on fact or because actual facts do not support many of your notions.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/mu...e-1590337.html

[NotAllThere]

Gordon Bennet, not another Daily Mail thread!

Naturally, if there was an inaccurate or daft comment from most sources, that in itself would not be deemed reason to discount all they said. With The Daily Mail it's different. It's in The Daily Mail! Argument complete! You lefties do have a nice lazy life....

Oy. I'm right wing and still think the Daily Mail is steaming pile of crap, only fit to be read by the wives of those who run the country.

[d000hg]

Gordon Bennet, not another Daily Mail thread!

Naturally, if there was an inaccurate or daft comment from most sources, that in itself would not be deemed reason to discount all they said. With The Daily Mail it's different. It's in The Daily Mail! Argument complete! You lefties do have a nice lazy life.

I agree the DM should stick to the facts and not blow some things up out of proportion. Daft PC attitudes do exist in local govt but there are dipsticks in every walk of life and they are not typical. However, there is a difference between DM articles like that and some others that raise genuine issues, asylum seekers being given excessively expensive residences for example. No matter how uncommon it may be, the rules should not be allowing it to happen. How can issues be properly debated or laws reformed in what is supposed to be a democracy if the facts can never be mentioned?

The Mail sometimes backs off from facts and statistics in a way that the Guardian and Independent do not. Polly Toynbee did not dispute the figures quoted by a police chief about the nature of street crime in London for example, only the reasons for it. If facts can only be given as part of what is prejudged to an "acceptable" argument, then what exactly is the point of any dialog at all?

If any publication did regularly report actual facts on issues like immigration or Islam as reported by reliable sources such as the ONS, police reports, hospital or university studies or the US State Department human rights reports, or even picked apart the Home Office reports dispassionately, they would make The Daily Mail look like The Guardian. Try looking.

We don't see things dismissed on CUK just because it's the Guardian or BBC saying it and quite rightly, even the right's Bete Noir Toynbee makes valid points at times. Yet we get these continual Daily Mail taunts and whole threads from the usual suspects.

Not sure if it's because you lefties have no ability to argue based on fact or because actual facts do not support many of your notions.



Mugging: is it a black and white issue? - News - The Independent

Can you summarise in one sentence what your point is, exactly?

[Mich the Tester]

Can you summarise in one sentence what your point is, exactly?

Let's have a guess; 'I fell out of bed with a stinking headache this morning and it's all the fault of YOU LEFTIES!!!'

[xoggoth]

Can you summarise in one sentence

I did think it would be too much for some of you to understand. Maybe we should all move to Twitter. Ok, for those whose brains cannot handle more than a sentence:

Try arguing issues based on facts related to those issues rather than smear by association.

[TheFaQQer]

It's that time of the year when the lying buffoons that pass for journalists at the Daily Mail try to convince us that the term "Christmas" has been banned due to "political correctness gone mad".

I wouldn't bet on that - the DM has already issued FoI to local educational authorities asking how many schools did productions / plays last Christmas, how many were of a religious theme, how many were of a Christian theme.

I wonder what the story is going to be

[MarillionFan]

Oy. I'm right wing and still think the Daily Mail is steaming pile of crap, only fit to be read by the wives of those who run the country.

It's got a good financial section.

[d000hg]

I did think it would be too much for some of you to understand. Maybe we should all move to Twitter. Ok, for those whose brains cannot handle more than a sentence:

Try arguing issues based on facts related to those issues rather than smear by association.

The problem wasn't the length of your first post, but the unstructured flailing way you wrote it.