Daily Mail Censorship

[Baron von Lotsov]

Okay, it seems that you didn't understand what I posted. Nevermind, I will let that slide...as pursuing it might be pointless.

Thank-you once again Baron.

No I didn't. Perhaps you would like to explain what you were on about. I had a guess, but my guess was obviously wrong.

[TannyD]

Actually Hitler started on the disabled before he moved on to Jews. It was a kind of ‘right to die’ issue that was the very first Nazi execution.

The reply you gave in reply to my post which you have quoted suggests that I am unaware of what history says that Hitler did. You post suggests that you think that I think that the Daily Mail were responsible for what was done in the past. The way the post is worded it comes across as a correction of my post, which would make sense if I had said that The Daily Mail were responsible and not Hitler. So what is historically inaccurate about my posts on this thread?

[Baron von Lotsov]

The reply you gave in reply to my post which you have quoted suggests that I am unaware of what history says that Hitler did. You post suggests that you think that I think that the Daily Mail were responsible for what was done in the past. The way the post is worded it comes across as a correction of my post, which would make sense if I had said that The Daily Mail were responsible and not Hitler. So what is historically inaccurate about my posts on this thread?

I didn't think anything was wrong with your post as far as I recall. I was just mentioning something I heard on a documentary on the Nazis sometime back. These forums are about informing people as well. Not everything is some sort of tit for tat argument.

[TannyD]

I didn't think anything was wrong with your post as far as I recall. I was just mentioning something I heard on a documentary on the Nazis sometime back.

Thank-you for clarifying that your post wasn't a correction of what I posted.

These forums are about informing people as well. Not everything is some sort of tit for tat argument.

I am aware of what these forums are about and I do realise that not everything is a tit for tat argument.
But when someone's post is not talking about historical events and someone replies back starting with the word "Actually" is does come across as a correction.

Now as that has now been clarified, are we on good terms?

[Baron von Lotsov]

Another Mail censorship job has occurred today. I said that the country has been flooded with immigrants that do the jobs traditional Labour voters do and so it is a waste of money to train for jobs that are not available. I also pointed out that those with criminal records are generally blacklisted from employment and if their benefits are stopped because they can't get a job then they are likely to turn to crime.

This post tended to argue against the Mail's righteous and ignorant line it takes on the unemployed. They are so stupid that I think that they are the ones that should be kicked out of a job. However they are always right because they simply censor any arguments against their idiotic hyperbole.

'It is time for radical rethink of the welfare state': Senior Labour MP calls for dramatic shake-up of benefits system | Mail Online

[IceDragon]

I haven't posted on the site for years, I had my account closed for suggesting we should give the real IRA the same treatment as the Americans give Al Qaeda. That is how supposedly "right wing" the "paper" is.

[Baron von Lotsov]

I haven't posted on the site for years, I had my account closed for suggesting we should give the real IRA the same treatment as the Americans give Al Qaeda. That is how supposedly "right wing" the "paper" is.

Ah you have gone further than me. I can't say I have had my account closed. I used to read the Mail quite a bit because it used to carry some good information, but I don't know whether it is just I or what, but it seems like a really evil paper these days. Many articles just offend me, like all the murders and what have you. The BBC are good at this, where they just report really horrible things, so you might have woken up smiling but after a bit of that you are totally horrified. It has also gone very fascist. I felt a change when Cameron got into power. Before that it was a good source of lobbying against Nu Labour, but now it is trying to get the Tories to be evil, and of course if they follow the Mail then they will be out of office at the next election and we will have real evil back in power. I used to have it on my bookmarks but yesterday I deleted it. That means it is no longer one of my regular sites.

[IceDragon]

The Mail is just one facet of the system which represents the monolithic, centralised state, be it the Mirror/Guardian approach from the left or the Sun/Mail approach from the right, most newspapers have an agenda, however, it would appear that the Mail is one of the most disingenuous of the bunch. Their answer is to force the government to act on issues that concern their readers, or what they decide concerns their readers, persuade ministers to introduce legislation which is only justifying their own position as the "moral guardian" of middle England, anything which stops people enjoying their manicured lawns. There is what the Americans call "the elephant in the room," which, needless to say, the Mail does an obvious job of ignoring.

[Baron von Lotsov]

The Mail is just one facet of the system which represents the monolithic, centralised state, be it the Mirror/Guardian approach from the left or the Sun/Mail approach from the right, most newspapers have an agenda, however, it would appear that the Mail is one of the most disingenuous of the bunch. Their answer is to force the government to act on issues that concern their readers, or what they decide concerns their readers, persuade ministers to introduce legislation which is only justifying their own position as the "moral guardian" of middle England, anything which stops people enjoying their manicured lawns. There is what the Americans call "the elephant in the room," which, needless to say, the Mail does an obvious job of ignoring.

It's interesting watching the Mail on the issue of unemployment. Most Mail readers repeat time after time again that jobs are scarce so the idea of punishing the unemployed because of this notion they have of "workshy" is met with the comment that there are few jobs anyway and often they combine this to say that immigration is one of the largest causes. Indeed the Mail says this itself, but they still ignore it when talking about unemployment. So it is one certain truth on one issue and an opposing one on the other. So they don't even go by what their readers say and if they say some things then they are censored.

Again the same thing is apparent with political correctness. They will beat up institutions that practice it and yet they are more politically correct than many papers. For example, with that Lawrence murder they went on and on about it so much that the police expended huge resources to try and solve it. The police even went as far as buying a house next door to one of the suspects that was acquitted in the original trial so they could run undercover officers to befriend them in the hope that they might admit to their neighbour that they murdered him! It makes me think that the ones in jail now are quite likely to be innocent because the trial was based on 17 microscopic fibres from one jacket that were found to match another. We have already seen this tampering with forensic evidence before, so it is quite possible the Mail caused a miscarriage of justice. One thing I can't figure though is who the hell is driving this fascism if it is not the reader, and for what purpose.

[aylesford]

The comments section of the Daily Mail has to be the most censored of all the British press. They only post comments that agree with their view or are weak.