Discussion in 'General Chat' started by stevegreen, Jul 27, 2005.
Apart from the fact it's spelt wrong, what are your opinions on this?
Unfortunately posts on this subject, so far, rarely result in "discussions", more than likely we'll end up with a tirade of insults hurled back and forth between the usual suspects that pollute this Forum.
just pointing out an irony
Bombers are all sponging asylum seekers ....
main worry is that as peope read that .. some will see it as
all sponging asylum seekers are bombers ....
( no i don't mean dyslexics, I mean by inference )
I'd agree with your last point Ethics
Holy crap they'll be stealing our women and taking and all the jobs next!
I guess it is a oneupmanship game of banality with the Daily Mail.
Are you sure? I read it that the Daily Express is saying that the bombers are helping to keep asylum seekers clean by spongeing them. Alternatively they may be helping hungry asylum seekers by giving them sponges in the 'let them eat cake' tradition.
There are also perfectly respectable asylum seekers who'd want nothing more than live and work like the rest of us.
There are 100% british people who sponge off the state while stealing/killing and god knows what.
There's good and bad everywhere, the problem with such headlines as Ethics Gradient pointed out is that many people will mix 2 different things.
And why would you be surprised that someone who's prepared to kill so many innocent civilians would feel bad for 2 seconds about using the tax payer's money ? Nothing to do with being asylum seekers, all to do with being horrible animals.
Does anyone really read the daily express? I don't consider that rag fit enough to wipe my arse with TBH.
I read it once, and I haven't made a full recovery yet...
Great stuff! keep it coming................
The Daily Mail had virtually exactly the same headline, just less crude. Are they appealing to like minded readers d'you think?
Can't see the problem. It's accurate. They didn't say "asylum seekers are bombers", it said "bombers are asylum seekers", which are two different things entirely.
Its the message behind the headline which is ver sensationalist ie the Government is at fault again. These rags will stop at nothing .l They are after selling copies thats all and headlines like that encourages the raving right to buy them so they can all sit at home and gnash their teeth.Blair must have upset J Desmond ( proprietor) at some point because all they have done in the past 2 /3 years is a have a go at Blair.
I thought the Express was mainly read by pensioners. What are we teaching our pensioners should be the headline. Anyway tabloids have always seemed to exist in a parallel world distanced from normal, liberal thinking (maybe not as normal as I think). And to think the Express has a readership of a million - how can they print such rubbish - they're basically insulting their readership.
The implication being that the govts policy on asylum seekers is allowing potential bombers in. Of course it also, by implication, is tarring all asylum seekers as potential trouble makers. In case you hadn't noticed those two papers have spent the last seven years attacking asylum policy.
In fairness to the Tories, one of their own MP's admitted this morning that they are as much to blame for this situation as the current administration. Now there's a first............ for any party.
You want to do what I do and not lower yourselves to buying tabloids.
Aren't the Inperpendent and Times now tabloids - or do they have another name for it?
Ok then, newspapers in general. I don't read any. The newspapers have too much of an agenda and their aim is to sell newspapers rather than publish news. So what you're reading is no more than the opinion of the editor/publisher. For example, I think it's totally wrong that a newspaper supports one political party over another. It's not then a 'news' paper.
Also it disgusts me how newspapers invade the privacy of both celebrities and 'joe public'. In my opinion, by buying newspapers and these rags like Hello, you are condoning the actions of the paparazzi. Isn't that objectionable? It's like peering through peoples' bedroom windows or rubbernecking at a fatal accident.
We all need our hobbies.
20 easy steps to lose a stone?????!!!!!
Two good points.
Although in a democracy stopping overt political support, essentialy for one party in the UK, is unthinkable, the level of bias demonstrated by the likes of the Mail, Express, Telegraph etc would be unacceptable in Europe.
On the other, quite agree. The paparazzi are vermin, no more, no less. They aren't doing anyone any good, and if they are a reflection of the sort of 'news' 'we' want then God help us ................
I stopped buying newspapers years ago when every single one of them was packed with Charles and Dianna stories. I found myself shouting at the pages "I'M NOT INTERSTED IN THEM, TELL ME SOME NEWS" so thought that I needed to stop getting newspapers for the sake of my health
I found it quite interesting and wondered if i only wanted to lose half a stone, do i only need to take 10 of the steps?
a)For me there are too many " news"papers tabloids in particular
b) Each paper should be required to print the news in a balanced and as unbiased fashion as is possible.Opinion columnists should be allowed to spout their stuff and each paper should have columnists of the left, right and centre.Readers can make their own minds without feeling they are being bombarded by propagandaThe editor should have nothing to say whatsoever
I don't think our pensioners need to be taught. They have already lived with at least 3 militant groups bombing UK soil in their lifetimes. The difference this time is that the government is paying these bombers housing benefit.
Giving a mugger who has spent time in prison a passport to stay in the country is beyond me. It's political correctness gone mad
Of course they knew that didn't they? I wonder if previous govts paid out to IRA members in dole and other benefits? Hmmmm? Or how many BNP thugs live on benefit?
These guys weren't even 'asylum seekers' themselves. As the papers, much to my surprise, seemed little interested in, they arrived in the UK as children. It was their parents who were seeking asylum - and under a Tory govt! Although in this context, unlike the Mails attempt to blame the current regime, I attach no blame to them.
Still, why spoil a decent piece of racial incitement eh?
It's good to see the Mail and co's hate filled rags aren't entirely wasting their time then..........
Quote from the "esteemed "editor of the Daily Mail Paul Dacre:
Refering Cherie Blair " her compulsion to travel the world cashing in on her husbands position is unworthy of a PM's spouse" and then next to that there is the most unflattering picture of her they could find.
Who does this sanctimonuous so and so think he is?What business is it of his or anyone else what Cherrie does or doesnt do? Its her life she can earn money anyway she likes as longs as its legal
But when the Law firm for which she is an associate tries to undermine the legislation which the Government, rightly or wrongly, tries to introduce to lessen the the chances terrorists have to act in the way they want. Then we have to question whether she should be doing that whilst being married to the Prime Minister.
It puts her in a unique position to know what is going on, I may be wrong, but I would suggest she uses that knowledge wrongly. IF, that is the case, then it is the business of everyone who may suffer the effects of her actions.
I found the Daily Mail comments about Cherie Blair very interesting. It has been the argument on the right that the govt has been introducing too much legislation that erodes civil liberities, and that regardless of the recent bombings they need to be restrained to avoid 'erosions to the way of life we hold dear'.
Mrs Blair then echoes the exact same sentiments and the Tory press accuse her of allowing terror suspects to 'get away with it'. Is a suspect then guaranteed to be guilty (although according to the press anyone muslim, asylum seeking, etc is automaticaly deemed to be an 'antisocial element')? Some confusion here perhaps?
This comes across therefore, as utter hypocracy of the first water. Cherie Blair rightly or wrongly, fires a warning shot across the govts bows, on the same lines as the press, and yet is still attacked for doing so. It smacks of everything the Blairs do being open to attack whether they are right or wrong. I may find them a pretty awful pair, and yes they do mess up on a regular basis, but not everything they do is wrong. It merely undermines the presses own crediblity when a blanket criticism is applied. In particular when they have expressed similair views..........
I may not agree with her, but many do. For the press to attack her in this case creates, as above, a serious holing in their crediblity. Of which they hold very little already............
Separate names with a comma.