There are people who take any opportunity to attack the Daily Mail and who stigmatise anybody or any publication that is critical of people from certain demographics such as immigrants, but I don't think James O'Brien was wrong to question the editorial decision of the Daily Mail today and I for one was curious to know why the story was on page 30 when James O'Brien mentioned it.


James O'Brien's point is it wasn't even near the front, it was on the 30th page.

Thanks for the link. I hadn't bothered to read up on the story, which is why I've kept out of the discussion but Mail-online has given it plenty of coverage. I must have missed the bit where the paper blames immigrants for the killing. It seems, due to his early life, Mair had a grudge against them and feared he would lose his house to them, which the paper has reported. He might not have been judged insane but he was certainly disturbed and obsessive.

The paper reported if you can call it reporting that Jo Cox didn't help Mair stay in his house when he asked her.
Now why on earth should any MP help a single man stay in a three bedroom house when it was needed for a family?
The not so subtle inference from the Mail is that Jo Cox favoured immigrants over Mair and that's why she didn't help him.

The paper isn't offering that as an opinion. It's reporting what is believed to be the reason Mair felt he'd been let down by his MP.

I'm no apologist for the Mail but I don't see their coverage as other than straightforward reporting. I haven't read the comments but I presume they come from readers who have put their own interpretation on Mair's actions and motivations.

The 'far right ' only have a few thousand similar atrocities before they are in the same league as the religion of peace.

It's. not straightforward reporting.
If it was they would report when Jo Cox didn't help him and if by "help" they mean that he should stay living where he was.
It is speculation but the headline especially heavily hints that Jo Cox had somehow treated him badly.
It is horrible journalism.

You're doing what you're accusing the paper of doing and drawing your own interpretation.

Perhaps you'll be happier when there's censorship.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-Muslims.html

Nighty-night all.

There is a difference.
I am making my conclusion on the story the Mail published.
I can point to lines in their story that led me to my interpretation of what they wrote.
They cannot or have not done this.

You suggested I should listen, have you forgotten? I seldom last for even the whole monologue as I find it dull but I have been trying it.

Do you think in that circumstance the Guardian world have had it on page 1?

If you don't like the Mail don't read it - you are just boosting their advertising revenue. I don't listen to JOB because I don't find it a pleasing experience.

It's how the fascist left have operated since time immemorial. The State taking control of opposition newspapers and either closing them down or relieving them of editorial freedom. Seems Mr O Brian was starting the journey today.

The currently fashionable label for this is Liberal Fascism. Roughly, it's those who seek to control us by telling us what's 'good' for us. Don't bother to think for yourself because the state knows best. It's not a new thing; Orwell warned of it in the 1930s. Brexit must have them waking at 3am in an icy sweat.

Morning all.

The trailers for this week's In Conversation actually sound quite good - Marcus Wareing and Monty Don.

We had several 'oldies' from Steve this morning, including Parkinson's encounter with Emu and Fiona Bruce interviewing the Prince Philip.

[quote=gurney-slade;84683215]The currently fashionable label for this is Liberal Fascism. Roughly, it's those who seek to control us by telling us what's 'good' for us. Don't bother to think for yourself because the state knows best. It's not a new thing; Orwell warned of it in the 1930s. Brexit must have them waking at 3am in an icy sweat.

Morning
Ah looks like the Mail apologists are out in force.
That's a good thing for its good to know where people's moral compasses are ste and if they have one at all.
Morning all

Morning all

Confirming my theory that you either:
A] Don't read posts properly
B] Don't understand what you're reading
C] Choose to ignore what you've read

Ferarri and his caller wrongly saying that the "oh what a tangled Web we weave" was a William Shakespeare quote.
Maybe all those nasty immigrants are eroding English culture after all.

[quote=BanglaRoad;84683541]
Or defending press freedom.

Oh I read your claim.
Then I read your post about liberal fascism
Just because you say something doesn't make it true.

[quote=Lone Drinker;84683840]
Looks more like a defense of horrible in undo.
What we have here is a story the Mail has published being criticised Why you think that is an attack on freedom of the press needs further explanation

So you don't believe anything you read or is it just anything you choose not to believe? How do you decide which it is?

I'm giving J O'B a chance this morning. I think he could get himself tied up in knots with this one!

He's already drawn a false equivalence between the results of a yes/no referendum and a parliamentary election. Yes, if the Tories win, Labour voters still get represented by Labour MPs. But they don't get to overturn the result of the election.

Hes doing "Remoaners" again? with Blair & Major as his allies!

I tried to give James O'Brien a go also but he seemed to be shouting somewhat incoherently into the microphone so I have switched to another station.