Miliband's father

[aintforever]

The thing the left don't seem to get is that the Mail and most of their readers DO consider someone with his beliefs as hating the country, just as countless Scots and Northerners think that Maggie hated them. It was not a lie,made up to smera Red Ed, they believe it. I think it's muddle headed thinking, but I wish people would stop saying it was a lie, it was a badly thought through opinion.

 

I'm sorry but that is nonsense. He obviously didn't like certain institutions or aspects of our culture when he was 17 but to say "he hated Britain" is just a plain lie. It was made on purpose just to be controversial.

 

There are plenty of things I don't like about Britain but if you were to say I hate my country you would be lying.

Edited 4 October, 2013 by aintforever

[Jonnyboy]

The right think they have a monopoly on patriotism just because.

 

Do the left scream "you hate Britain" when a tory accuses British universities of having sociology lecturers?

 

It's the same in America where the tea party types will insist Obama hates America.

 

Bonkers.

[solentstars]

Does anyone really take DM seriously? I have known a few the intimate details of a few stories that they have run, and the truth is very far from what they have written. And this is when they aren't trying to be malicious. So I do wonder whether any of their stories are accurate.

 

But with this Milliband thing, I don't know why they sent an undercover reporter to the 29th floor of some hospital building to snoop on a Milliband's uncle's memorial. The next general election is 18 months or so away, and the dirty tricks are starting in earnest. UKIP has received a wee bit from DM, but this is far too personal and comes across as nothing less than being spiteful.

no i doubt anyone takes the mail seriously...prefer to watch tv news anyway .

[OldNick]

"Revealed: David Cameron's father built up legal offshore funds in Panama and Geneva"

'

Which part of that didnt you understand?

The headline 'Cameron's father built up fortune in tax haven' not the second line in lower case/smaller print. Subliminal in its nature.

[pap]

daily mail have just changed the layout on the crossword to try to get back alot of there older readership

 

Nice.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I'm sorry but that is nonsense. He obviously didn't like certain institutions or aspects of our culture when he was 17 but to say "he hated Britain" is just a plain lie. It was made on purpose just to be controversial.

 

There are plenty of things I don't like about Britain but if you were to say I hate my country you would be lying.

 

Im sorry but I dont accept that it was an out and out lie. This paper and most of their readership, rightly or wrongly equate his extreme views with "hating the country". just as some lefties believe that Thatcherite Tories hate the north or the poor.

 

How do you judge whether somebody loves or hates anything or anyone, if their behaviours and views can not be used in judgement. Can we only say that someone hates something if they've said so explicitly? Could you say that Nigel F hates immigrants, or Godfrey Bloom hates women, or even that David Cameron hates public sector workers. Im sure that all 3 would say they didn't , that all 3 would have friends that defended the accusation. But would the person who alledged the hate be lying or giving an opinion baased on his interpration of their deeds and words?

 

Love or hate of a country is purely subjective. I dont sing or stand for the national anthem, as i am a republican. Does that mean i love my country less than a guy , hand over heart singing it at the top of his lungs. I've read loads of forums where players are accused of not having pride when playing for England , or not caring. The accusations are made based on the accusers opinion , it is not a question of lying or being truthful.

Edited 4 October, 2013 by Lord Duckhunter

[Verbal]

The thing the left don't seem to get is that the Mail and most of their readers DO consider someone with his beliefs as hating the country, just as countless Scots and Northerners think that Maggie hated them. It was not a lie,made up to smera Red Ed, they believe it. I think it's muddle headed thinking, but I wish people would stop saying it was a lie, it was a badly thought through opinion.

 

This is not and never has been an argument what "their readers" believe. It is an argument about a paper with a clear history of praising the Nazis to the skies - and with a profoundly anti-semitic owner (the grandfather, I think, of the present one) blaming Jews for communism - trying to pin a "hate" badge on a Jewish refugee who was a (anti-Stalinist) socialist.

 

It obviously IS a lie to say that Ralph Miliband "hated Britain" for, among other things, being against the idea of monarchy. On that basis, YOU clearly "hate Britain" because you've stated here many times that you are anti-royal.

 

Having said that, the demand for an "apology" from the Mail is absurd. The paper has a long history of this kind of thing, and the whole kerfuffle has reminded people who knew, and informed people who didn't, that there once was a paper so disgraceful and hateful that it could carry the headline "Hurrah for the Blackshirts". That is easily enough punishment for the paper - and no wonder the current Lord Rothermere is fretting. The Daily Mail have made complete fools of themselves.

[Sheaf Saint]

Im sorry but I dont accept that it was an out and out lie. This paper and most of their readership, rightly or wrongly equate his extreme views with "hating the country". just as some lefties believe that Thatcherite Tories hate the north or the poor.

 

How do you judge whether somebody loves or hates anything or anyone, if their behaviours and views can not be used in judgement. Can we only say that someone hates something if they've said so explicitly? Could you say that Nigel F hates immigrants, or Godfrey Bloom hates women, or even that David Cameron hates public sector workers. Im sure that all 3 would say they didn't , that all 3 would have friends that defended the accusation. But would the person who alledged the hate be lying or giving an opinion baased on his interpration of their deeds and words?

 

Love or hate of a country is purely subjective. I dont sing or stand for the national anthem, as i am a republican. Does that mean i love my country less than a guy , hand over heart singing it at the top of his lungs. I've read loads of forums where players are accused of not having pride when playing for England , or not caring. The accusations are made based on the accusers opinion , it is not a question of lying or being truthful.

 

All of which might just about be understandable, if not for the glaring fact that they have refused to apologise and have repeated their 'opinion' when challenged about it. The man's son has come out publicly and said he did not hate Britain. A former Conservative cabinet minister who studied with him has stated publicly that he did not hate Britain. Have the Mail responded to this by saying "well you can understand why we thought he did, but fair enough - you knew him better than we did and we happily accept we were wrong"? No. Instead they have repeated their claim and are standing by it despite not having any actual evidence to support it. You can try and defend it all you like, but there is not a shred of doubt that this was a deliberate and calculated attempt to smear the Labour leader, rather than just a poorly-judged opinion.

[Lord Duckhunter]

This is not and never has been an argument what "their readers" believe.

 

It obviously IS a lie to say that Ralph Miliband "hated Britain" for, among other things, being against the idea of monarchy. On that basis, YOU clearly "hate Britain" because you've stated here many times that you are anti-royal.

 

s.

 

I was replying to the very specific point that The Mail "lied" about Red Ralph. I don't accept that its a lie, it was an opinion formed by Red Ralph's beliefs and words. You reinforced my point by concluding that my Republican views mean I hate Britain. You weren't lying you were just reaching a conclusion based on yours and my beliefs. Had The Mail said that Red Ralph hated Britain and had told many people this and had written it down, then that would be slander and a lie. But surely even you can see that they have applied their values and reached the opinion that he hated Britain.

 

Maybe the headline should have been " in our opinion this man hated Britain" but newspapers don't work like that, left or right. I don't recall too many "in my opinion's" added to some of the stuff written about right wingers over the years.

[Lord Duckhunter]

All of which might just about be understandable, if not for the glaring fact that they have refused to apologise and have repeated their 'opinion' when challenged about it. The man's son has come out publicly and said he did not hate Britain. A former Conservative cabinet minister who studied with him has stated publicly that he did not hate Britain. Have the Mail responded to this by saying "well you can understand why we thought he did, but fair enough - you knew him better than we did and we happily accept we were wrong"? No. Instead they have repeated their claim and are standing by it despite not having any actual evidence to support it. .

 

In the eyes of the Mail and many of their readers, then evidence is in his writings and his opinions. However wrong that is, that is what they think. If Woy Hodgson shared Red Ralph's politics The Mail would run with "this man hates England, how can he manage them". For it to be a lie The Mail hack would have to think " I know he didn't hate his country, but I'll write it anyway". My opinion is that the hack, really does believe that people holding Red Ralph's views did hate the country. Clearly that is wrong, but I don't believe it to be a lie. As for apoligising, they ain't going to back down over a journo's opinion , especially if backed into a corner by lefties. Thereby maybe a token political Blair like apology, but I doubt it.

Edited 4 October, 2013 by Lord Duckhunter

[badgerx16]

I was replying to the very specific point that The Mail "lied" about Red Ralph. I don't accept that its a lie, ......

 

Lord Moore : "The Daily Mail is telling lies about a good man who I knew"

[Verbal]

I was replying to the very specific point that The Mail "lied" about Red Ralph. I don't accept that its a lie, it was an opinion formed by Red Ralph's beliefs and words. You reinforced my point by concluding that my Republican views mean I hate Britain. You weren't lying you were just reaching a conclusion based on yours and my beliefs. Had The Mail said that Red Ralph hated Britain and had told many people this and had written it down, then that would be slander and a lie. But surely even you can see that they have applied their values and reached the opinion that he hated Britain.

 

Maybe the headline should have been " in our opinion this man hated Britain" but newspapers don't work like that, left or right. I don't recall too many "in my opinion's" added to some of the stuff written about right wingers over the years.

 

but they DID write that Ralph Miliband "hated Britain - and it wasn't framed as an "opinion" piece, as the Mail have now admitted.

 

Anyway, it's even more fatuous than a mere lie, and it doesn't amount to an "opinion" worthy of a Jew-hating pub bore, let alone a national newspaper. It's completely devoid of intellectual content. There is simply no connection between a socialist outlook and a "hate" towards a country. Even at the most basic level, ask yourself: who "hated Britain" more? Someone who fled the Nazis as a hated Jew and served in the RN during the war? Or a paper that sided with the Nazis against the Jews and that now flings mud at a dead Jewish refugee?

[pap]

This has been a very interesting debate.

 

I like Verbal's point so much that I'd like to expand on it. When it comes to hating Britain, and specifically Britons, the rabid right wing can't be beat. I don't know if Thatcher actually hated the North, but she was leader of the country when the North was being shut down, simultaneously demonising the poor she helped to create. Similarly, I'm not sure whether she hated Scotland, but she decided to trial the poll tax there first.

 

Onto some of our right wing crew on here. When you rail against scroungers, certain parts of the country, etc, it's not that much of a stretch to say that you hate Britain too, or at least parts of it. Verbal is bang on when he talks of the Mail hating Britain. What other newspaper demonises the community it is supposed to serve as frequently?

 

Of course, the mistake I've intentionally made is assuming that the Mail is serving the whole country. It isn't. It's a paper written by c*nts for c*nts. Lest anyone think I'm being hypocritical, let me sincerely state that I don't hate c*nts, but it is a shame that their insecurities, whattabouterries and envy cast such a big shadow over British life.

[Jonnyboy]

Red Ralph, Red Ed, Red Ken, oooohhhhhh the communist bogeymen are out to get your grandmother's best china!

[Lord Duckhunter]

This has been a very interesting debate.

 

I like Verbal's point so much that I'd like to expand on it. When it comes to hating Britain, and specifically Britons, the rabid right wing can't be beat. I don't know if Thatcher actually hated the North, but she was leader of the country when the North was being shut down, simultaneously demonising the poor she helped to create. Similarly, I'm not sure whether she hated Scotland, but she decided to trial the poll tax there first.

 

Onto some of our right wing crew on here. When you rail against scroungers, certain parts of the country, etc, it's not that much of a stretch to say that you hate Britain too, or at least parts of it. Verbal is bang on when he talks of the Mail hating Britain. What other newspaper demonises the community it is supposed to serve as frequently?

 

Of course, the mistake I've intentionally made is assuming that the Mail is serving the whole country. It isn't. It's a paper written by c*nts for c*nts. Lest anyone think I'm being hypocritical, let me sincerely state that I don't hate c*nts, but it is a shame that their insecurities, whattabouterries and envy cast such a big shadow over British life.

 

My point all along is that people should be allowed to publish what they want, within reason. The Mail can say what they did, and Brian Reade can call Thatcher evil. The debate then becomes what is "within reason"? I dont want people like Toynbee or Alistair Campbell defining what is reasonable, anymore than I want Nigel Farage doing so. What is the famous quote something along the lines of " I dont agree with your opinion , but will fight for your right to air it " (im in the middle of a 14 hour shift, so apologies if that's wrong). That seems to have gone out of modern political debate. Now everybodies "outraged" , but only on their terms. If you accept that Thatcher & Camerons family or motives or views are fair game, then surely Red Snr and Jnr are as well. It maybe that you feel that smears, insults and interpretations have no part in political life, then that's a coherent moral line. Being outraged on the basis of where it was published or who it was about is not.

 

Bearing in mind that we all have differing morals and beliefs , who decides where the line is. The Establishment seems to want to, and this Ralph stuff plays into that. We have the bloke (Alistair Campbell) with Dr Kelly's blood on his hands touring the media outlets moralising , the bloke who smeared countless people, who bullied and lied for 10 years, deciding where the decency line is.

 

Rather than the Establishment id prefer it if the public drew the line. We have laws around slander and libel ( I know that this won't affect Red Ralph),and public decency offenses, but other than that the line can only be drawn by market forces. If people are really outraged by the mail, they'll stop buying it. It'll need to adapt or go bust. I find it deeply depressing that The Sun is the countries number 1 seller, it reflects terribly on the nation. But, its not for me to try and change the sun, or for politicians to legislate and neuter it.

 

The press will cross the line but id rather that then the political classes giving us moral guidence. The press are a mirror of our society and its pretty ****ing ugly sometimes. But instead of adressing that our great leaders attack the messinger. Why dont they look in the mirror and ask " after educating the whole population for 12 years, why is The Sun the best selling paper" . Why does The Mail sell so well, politicians won't attack the readers, cause they vote. Much easier to attack the messenger. Instead of attacking the sun and page 3, why dont they attack the blokes who buy it? Buyers vote....

[Special K]

This story has generated far more publicity for Milliband than he has managed to do himself through his ineffective leadership in the whole time he's been in charge. Both in the headlines as a victim and with a whole lot of public sympathy to boot. He must be loving it.

[alpine_saint]

This story has generated far more publicity for Milliband than he has managed to do himself through his ineffective leadership in the whole time he's been in charge. Both in the headlines as a victim and with a whole lot of public sympathy to boot. He must be loving it.

 

Yep. I wonder which side is really trying to manipulate public opinion in this cricus. Hopefully the backlash will start soon.

 

Brilliant rebuttal of Labours latest toys-out-of-the-pram temper tantrum by Alex Brummer in the Mail this morning.

[OldNick]

[quote=pap;

 

Of course, the mistake I've intentionally made is assuming that the Mail is serving the whole country. It isn't. It's a paper written by c*nts for c*nts. Lest anyone think I'm being hypocritical, let me sincerely state that I don't hate c*nts, but it is a shame that their insecurities, whattabouterries and envy cast such a big shadow over British life.

One thing that nobody seems to have pointed out about re Millibands father and fighter 'for Britain' being Jewish I suspect he was fighting to stop Hitler. I doubt love of Britain his new home came into it for a second.

As for Mail readers, I think there are millions of hardworking people who buy it/read it. I think that Guardian readers (well the ones on here) come across as arrogant and would be the first to tell people how to run their lives 'as they know best' after all they must be superior and bright as they read that daily. (I do not buy any newspaper, they all show bias in one way or another)

Pap and also those c@@@s as you call them probably don't think the Boston bombing, 9/11 is a conspiracy

[Batman]

mail readers are thick morons

guardian readers think those in boston are crisis actors

 

 

different sides of the same coin

 

just buy the sport and look at boobs

[alpine_saint]

I thought the Sport was out of print.

[trousers]

I don't know if Thatcher actually hated the North, but she was leader of the country when the North was being shut down

 

In the same way that Labour were at the helm when the financial crash of 2008 hit...The "decline" of industries that sustained 'the north' was inevitable regardless of who was in power. Indeed, the preceding Labour and Tory governments in the 70s were already closing or running down industries at a significant rate. Manufacturing as a whole didn't decline under Thatcher.

 

I'm not sure whether she hated Scotland, but she decided to trial the poll tax there first.

 

The un-paraphrased / non-mythological version of events...

 

http://davidaslindsay.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/thatcher-and-scotland.html?m=1

 

Myth Number Three - Margaret Thatcher set out to "test" the Poll Tax on Scotland

 

Another myth, that Mrs Thatcher ‘tested’ the Poll Tax on Scotland is perhaps the most corrosive and persistent of them all. The chronology of the Poll Tax, however, offers no evidence for this oft-quoted claim. Ministers were already working on alternatives to the Rates – not exactly the fairest form of local taxation itself – when Scotland endured a rather traumatic revaluation in early 1985. The resulting political outcry that generated did spur Mrs Thatcher on, but her intention was always to phase in the Poll Tax on a Great Britain-wide basis over several years. Crucially, those who had her ear on Scottish issues – George Younger, Jim Goold, the Scottish Tory Chairman, and Willie Whitelaw – all thought differently and persuaded her to let the Scottish Office legislate early and separately ahead of the 1987 general election. She only agreed to this reluctantly and her bitterness is clear from her memoirs. ‘If, as the Scots subsequently claimed, they were guinea pigs for a great experiment in local government finance’, she wrote in The Downing Street Years, ‘they were the most vociferous and influential guinea pigs which the world has ever seen.’

 

Indeed, therein lay an obvious retort to the ‘guinea pig’ argument: why, having ‘tested’ the Poll Tax unsuccessfully in Scotland was it then applied to England and Wales with no major changes? So, a badly thought out and unfair tax? Certainly; A tax maliciously ‘tested’ on Scotland? Certainly not.

Edited 5 October, 2013 by trousers

[Wes Tender]

One thing that nobody seems to have pointed out about re Millibands father and fighter 'for Britain' being Jewish I suspect he was fighting to stop Hitler. I doubt love of Britain his new home came into it for a second.

 

I think I made this point earlier. It is entirely possible given his earlier views that he had motives other than just the patriotism that drove his fellow British shipmates. And yet the left line is that nobody who fought for their country could possibly hate it. Quite possibly he hated Hitler more than he loved Britain.

 

And it is interesting to hear that R Miliband had been bitterly disappointed that we won the Falklands war. Apparently this isn't some idle conjecture, but was picked up from his Biography. If that is true, then it gives extra weight to any opinion that he hated Britain.

[aintforever]

I think I made this point earlier. It is entirely possible given his earlier views that he had motives other than just the patriotism that drove his fellow British shipmates. And yet the left line is that nobody who fought for their country could possibly hate it. Quite possibly he hated Hitler more than he loved Britain.

 

And it is interesting to hear that R Miliband had been bitterly disappointed that we won the Falklands war. Apparently this isn't some idle conjecture, but was picked up from his Biography. If that is true, then it gives extra weight to any opinion that he hated Britain.

 

From what I read his quotes about the falklands were more to do with his dislike for Thatcher. Whatever the rights and wrongs about the war (there is a wiff of colonialism about it), she did use it to enhance her popularity.

 

He clearly disliked certain institutions and aspects of British culture but so do many of us.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

My point all along is that people should be allowed to publish what they want, within reason. The Mail can say what they did, and Brian Reade can call Thatcher evil. The debate then becomes what is "within reason"? I dont want people like Toynbee or Alistair Campbell defining what is reasonable, anymore than I want Nigel Farage doing so. What is the famous quote something along the lines of " I dont agree with your opinion , but will fight for your right to air it " (im in the middle of a 14 hour shift, so apologies if that's wrong). That seems to have gone out of modern political debate. Now everybodies "outraged" , but only on their terms. If you accept that Thatcher & Camerons family or motives or views are fair game, then surely Red Snr and Jnr are as well. It maybe that you feel that smears, insults and interpretations have no part in political life, then that's a coherent moral line. Being outraged on the basis of where it was published or who it was about is not.

 

Bearing in mind that we all have differing morals and beliefs , who decides where the line is. The Establishment seems to want to, and this Ralph stuff plays into that. We have the bloke (Alistair Campbell) with Dr Kelly's blood on his hands touring the media outlets moralising , the bloke who smeared countless people, who bullied and lied for 10 years, deciding where the decency line is.

 

Rather than the Establishment id prefer it if the public drew the line. We have laws around slander and libel ( I know that this won't affect Red Ralph),and public decency offenses, but other than that the line can only be drawn by market forces. If people are really outraged by the mail, they'll stop buying it. It'll need to adapt or go bust. I find it deeply depressing that The Sun is the countries number 1 seller, it reflects terribly on the nation. But, its not for me to try and change the sun, or for politicians to legislate and neuter it.

 

The press will cross the line but id rather that then the political classes giving us moral guidence. The press are a mirror of our society and its pretty ****ing ugly sometimes. But instead of adressing that our great leaders attack the messinger. Why dont they look in the mirror and ask " after educating the whole population for 12 years, why is The Sun the best selling paper" . Why does The Mail sell so well, politicians won't attack the readers, cause they vote. Much easier to attack the messenger. Instead of attacking the sun and page 3, why dont they attack the blokes who buy it? Buyers vote....

 

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?24915-Libel-Reminder-Use-of-Main-Board-Rules-Useful-Links#.Uk_clBAUmls

 

So you are aware of the libel laws in this country and seem to accept them, but in the very same post choose to issue what is just about as serious a libel as I've ever seen posted on here.

 

You may be hearing from the mods I should think.

[Viking Warrior]

So pap if your saying the mail is written for c**** by c****

Is the mirror written by ******s for ******s

And is the the socialist worker written for a******* by a********

 

It works for both sides of the argument loony left versus fascist right .

[SuperMikey]

So pap if your saying the mail is written for c**** by c****

Is the mirror written by ******s for ******s

And is the the socialist worker written for a******* by a********

 

It works for both sides of the argument loony left versus fascist right .

 

99% of people on the planet are either ****s or ******s.

[Wes Tender]

From what I read his quotes about the falklands were more to do with his dislike for Thatcher. Whatever the rights and wrongs about the war (there is a wiff of colonialism about it), she did use it to enhance her popularity.

 

He clearly disliked certain institutions and aspects of British culture but so do many of us.

 

Oh, that's alright then. His stance is entirely justified because of his loathing of Margaret Thatcher. One can now clearly see how he might have been motivated to join the Navy during the War more because of his hatred of Hitler than his love for this country. How he must have been elated by every reversal our troops suffered during the Falklands campaign, the sinking of our warships, the killing of our soldiers, the indications that things were going badly and we might not be victorious. Mind you, he really must have been torn between his loathing of the Conservative Prime Minister and the tacit support that his wishes embodied for the Extreme right wing Argentinian dictator who began the war.

 

And I'm grateful for your guidance, that Thatcher only took us into that war to enhance her reputation. And I thought that she had achieved a Parliamentary majority in favour, with the support of the opposition based on a matter of principle, that the population was almost entirely comprised of British citizens who deserved to be defended by their mother country.

[Jonnyboy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73ZCrDtAC7A&sns=fb

[Wes Tender]

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?24915-Libel-Reminder-Use-of-Main-Board-Rules-Useful-Links#.Uk_clBAUmls

 

So you are aware of the libel laws in this country and seem to accept them, but in the very same post choose to issue what is just about as serious a libel as I've ever seen posted on here.

 

You may be hearing from the mods I should think.

 

Presumably you are referring to this:-

"We have the bloke (Alistair Campbell) with Dr Kelly's blood on his hands touring the media outlets moralising , the bloke who smeared countless people, who bullied and lied for 10 years, deciding where the decency line is."

 

In light of the accusations made against that cockroach Campbell in this article, I'd say that it was fair comment:-

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10192271/The-betrayal-of-Dr-David-Kelly-10-years-on.html

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Presumably you are referring to this:-

"We have the bloke (Alistair Campbell) with Dr Kelly's blood on his hands touring the media outlets moralising , the bloke who smeared countless people, who bullied and lied for 10 years, deciding where the decency line is."

 

In light of the accusations made against that cockroach Campbell in this article, I'd say that it was fair comment:-

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10192271/The-betrayal-of-Dr-David-Kelly-10-years-on.html

 

Don't tell me what you think - tell me what you can prove.

[Wes Tender]

Don't tell me what you think - tell me what you can prove.

 

Surely if there was a case of libel to answer, then the cockroach Campbell would have sued the Telegraph for publishing that article.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Surely if there was a case of libel to answer, then the cockroach Campbell would have sued the Telegraph for publishing that article.

 

Ask him.

 

My advice to you and others reading this is not to go around accusing named individuals of being responsible for the death of another without being able to provide legal proof of that very serious accusation. What is more, I dare say the owners of this forum would probably prefer you did that somewhere else if they know what's good for them.

[littleoldladysaint]

Sorry, I'm a computer duff and can't do links. Could somebody please visit the Mail's site and do a link showing what this gentleman had to say about the Mail when he wrote to them asking for a job. Thanks

 

Sorry, should have said Mehdi Hasan

Edited 5 October, 2013 by littleoldladysaint
missed detail

[Wes Tender]

Ask him.

 

My advice to you and others reading this is not to go around accusing named individuals of being responsible for the death of another without being able to provide legal proof of that very serious accusation. What is more, I dare say the owners of this forum would probably prefer you did that somewhere else if they know what's good for them.

 

Me? Did I make those accusations?

 

I don't have to ask Campbell why he didn't sue the Telegraph. I'll just conclude that he feared that a court case would vindicate the Telegraph and blacken his name. Do you have an alternative opinion?

[Lord Duckhunter]

[buctootim]

 

Its amazing what you can discover about the Daily Mail in three years. Ive learnt a lot in a week.

 

Even the ps is another Mail smear. He started working for the New Statesman 7 years after that cover was published and under a new editor. He has publicly written and spoken denouncing anti semitism. The pps refers to a biography where he wrote about the political fratricide of the two brothers fighting each other for the leadership - as if we didnt know that.

Edited 5 October, 2013 by buctootim

[buctootim]

My point all along is that people should be allowed to publish what they want, within reason. The Mail can say what they did, and Brian Reade can call Thatcher evil. The debate then becomes what is "within reason"? I dont want people like Toynbee or Alistair Campbell defining what is reasonable, anymore than I want Nigel Farage doing so. What is the famous quote something along the lines of " I dont agree with your opinion , but will fight for your right to air it " (im in the middle of a 14 hour shift, so apologies if that's wrong). That seems to have gone out of modern political debate. Now everybodies "outraged" , but only on their terms. If you accept that Thatcher & Camerons family or motives or views are fair game, then surely Red Snr and Jnr are as well. It maybe that you feel that smears, insults and interpretations have no part in political life, then that's a coherent moral line. Being outraged on the basis of where it was published or who it was about is not.

 

Bearing in mind that we all have differing morals and beliefs , who decides where the line is. The Establishment seems to want to, and this Ralph stuff plays into that. We have the bloke (Alistair Campbell) with Dr Kelly's blood on his hands touring the media outlets moralising , the bloke who smeared countless people, who bullied and lied for 10 years, deciding where the decency line is.

 

Rather than the Establishment id prefer it if the public drew the line. We have laws around slander and libel ( I know that this won't affect Red Ralph),and public decency offenses, but other than that the line can only be drawn by market forces. If people are really outraged by the mail, they'll stop buying it. It'll need to adapt or go bust. I find it deeply depressing that The Sun is the countries number 1 seller, it reflects terribly on the nation. But, its not for me to try and change the sun, or for politicians to legislate and neuter it.

 

The press will cross the line but id rather that then the political classes giving us moral guidence. The press are a mirror of our society and its pretty ****ing ugly sometimes. But instead of adressing that our great leaders attack the messinger. Why dont they look in the mirror and ask " after educating the whole population for 12 years, why is The Sun the best selling paper" . Why does The Mail sell so well, politicians won't attack the readers, cause they vote. Much easier to attack the messenger. Instead of attacking the sun and page 3, why dont they attack the blokes who buy it? Buyers vote....

 

I agree with the principle of your post.To work the media needs to not only be free but also fair, otherwise its not serving society and reflecting public opinion but deliberately moulding and shaping it. People need to be able to make informed choices as well as be entertained, otherwise the whole electoral process becomes meaningless. That why I dont really care about the tits or the celebrity trash in the papers but do care about the honesty. Self regulation clearly isnt working. Some kind of public jury system might

Edited 5 October, 2013 by buctootim

[aintforever]

Oh, that's alright then. His stance is entirely justified because of his loathing of Margaret Thatcher. One can now clearly see how he might have been motivated to join the Navy during the War more because of his hatred of Hitler than his love for this country. How he must have been elated by every reversal our troops suffered during the Falklands campaign, the sinking of our warships, the killing of our soldiers, the indications that things were going badly and we might not be victorious. Mind you, he really must have been torn between his loathing of the Conservative Prime Minister and the tacit support that his wishes embodied for the Extreme right wing Argentinian dictator who began the war.

 

And I'm grateful for your guidance, that Thatcher only took us into that war to enhance her reputation. And I thought that she had achieved a Parliamentary majority in favour, with the support of the opposition based on a matter of principle, that the population was almost entirely comprised of British citizens who deserved to be defended by their mother country.

 

This is the quote I have read from him RE the Falklands:

 

'I won't write about the f****** Falklands now. It's a most depressing and bitter business and it seems to have turned Thatcher into a major political figure,' he said.

'I mean that her brand of Toryism may now come to predominate. The Falklands has served her well . . . if she is returned at the next election England will look a very different country than even in 1979.'

 

Can you post the quotes where he says he wants British soldiers to die etc because I havn't read them.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Its amazing what you can discover about the Daily Mail in three years. Ive learnt a lot in a week.

 

The pps refers to a biography where he wrote about the political fratricide of the two brothers fighting each other for the leadership - as if we didnt know that.

 

I think the point is that he sold the serialisation to the mail.

 

He calls it all sorts of things, yet sells his book to them and begs to work for them. Surely you can see what that makes him.

[badgerx16]

....

 

Can you post the quotes where he says he wants British soldiers to die etc because I havn't read them.

 

He can't, because RM NEVER said he opposed the Falklands war, he merely resented the positive boost it gave to MT's popularity, helping her to win an election she would probably, otherwise, have lost : "I mean that her brand of Toryism may now come to predominate. The Falklands has served her well . . .".

[badgerx16]

An annotated breakdown of the DM article;

 

http://33revolutionsperminute.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/the-daily-mails-ralph-miliband-editorial-annotated-version/

[badgerx16]

2 articles from the Telegraph :

 

It's obit on Ralph Milliband

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/politics-obituaries/10347055/Professor-Ralph-Miliband.html

 

and an interview with 'Red Ed'

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/9544522/Ed-Miliband-interview-I-want-to-save-the-capitalism-my-father-hated.html

[buctootim]

I think the point is that he sold the serialisation to the mail.

 

He calls it all sorts of things, yet sells his book to them and begs to work for them. Surely you can see what that makes him.

 

It does make him a hypocrite - money tend to do that to all of us. The Mail on Sunday is a better paper though, different editor.

[TheCholulaKid]

It does make him a hypocrite - money tend to do that to all of us. The Mail on Sunday is a better paper though, different editor.

 

That's got to be a joke, right? A better paper? It's just as ****ing bad. Incidentally, that 'different editor' has been lined up to take over from Dacre when he eventually goes (although events recently haven't reflected well upon Geordie Greig - shame)

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Me? Did I make those accusations?

 

I don't have to ask Campbell why he didn't sue the Telegraph. I'll just conclude that he feared that a court case would vindicate the Telegraph and blacken his name. Do you have an alternative opinion?

 

So you expect me to answer a question I can't possibly answer, while refusing to address the point to the one person who can?

 

I see ...

[pap]

So pap if your saying the mail is written for c**** by c****

Is the mirror written by ******s for ******s

And is the the socialist worker written for a******* by a********

 

It works for both sides of the argument loony left versus fascist right .

 

Classic whattabouttery, Viking Warrior.

 

I don't buy any of those papers, so your point is lost on me. I'll keep saying it until it sinks in. It's all propaganda, all agenda-driven and with the possible exception of the Socialist Worker (which again, I don't buy), all ends in a corporation or a government.

 

By all means continue to see things in terms of teams (hey, this is a football site after all) but know that you'll get f**king nowhere with that approach.

 

You're like monkeys throwing sh!t at each other in a zoo, never once wondering who put you in the cage.

 

Look the f*ck up.

[Lord Duckhunter]

It does make him a hypocrite - money tend to do that to all of us. .

 

That's a very capitalist thing to say.

 

The bare faced hypocrisy of the man, was breathtaking. Letts missed an open goal there, and The Mail should have armed Lett's with the facts prior to the show. I'd loved to have seen that application letter rolled out, plus the stuff from his back (serialised in the Mail). I've always thought the bloke was full of hot air, but didn't realise he was a money grabbing hypocrite.

[View From The Top]

Oh, that's alright then. His stance is entirely justified because of his loathing of Margaret Thatcher. One can now clearly see how he might have been motivated to join the Navy during the War more because of his hatred of Hitler than his love for this country. How he must have been elated by every reversal our troops suffered during the Falklands campaign, the sinking of our warships, the killing of our soldiers, the indications that things were going badly and we might not be victorious. Mind you, he really must have been torn between his loathing of the Conservative Prime Minister and the tacit support that his wishes embodied for the Extreme right wing Argentinian dictator who began the war.

 

And I'm grateful for your guidance, that Thatcher only took us into that war to enhance her reputation. And I thought that she had achieved a Parliamentary majority in favour, with the support of the opposition based on a matter of principle, that the population was almost entirely comprised of British citizens who deserved to be defended by their mother country.

 

'I won't write about the f****** Falklands now. It's a most depressing and bitter business and it seems to have turned Thatcher into a major political figure,' he said.

'I mean that her brand of Toryism may now come to predominate. The Falklands has served her well . . . if she is returned at the next election England will look a very different country than even in 1979.'

No references to anything that you mention regarding death of our forces but hey, it's not as if you haven't got form for being a Grade A c**t and making things up but scurrying away back under your rock when you can't back it up.

[Verbal]

I think I made this point earlier. It is entirely possible given his earlier views that he had motives other than just the patriotism that drove his fellow British shipmates. And yet the left line is that nobody who fought for their country could possibly hate it. Quite possibly he hated Hitler more than he loved Britain.

 

And it is interesting to hear that R Miliband had been bitterly disappointed that we won the Falklands war. Apparently this isn't some idle conjecture, but was picked up from his Biography. If that is true, then it gives extra weight to any opinion that he hated Britain.

 

It's entirely possible given their earlier views that the Daily Mail hated Britain with their "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" headlines, their owner's lavish praise for Hitler, and his gimlet-eyed accusation that the "people of the blood" were responsible or communism. It's more likely though that it was merely (!) Jew-baiting.

 

This whole affair is a wonderful demonstration of the law of unintended consequences. It has boomeranged back on the Mail spectacularly. You can tell how deeply sensitive they are to the Jew-hating undercurrents that came with the reminders of their 1930s headlines by the spokespeople they front. Dacre remains in hiding. The most public defenders of their position have been Jon Steafel and Alex Brummer.

 

Funnily enough, I happen to have a nodding acquaintance with Steafel because I bought a house from him in Chiswick in the late 1990s. He is now what he was then - Dacre's deputy, and an all but invisible public presence at the Mail. I suspect that he and Brummer - both of whom are Jewish - have been wheeled out to mount some sort of qualified defence because of the enormous damage this is likely to do to the Mail's commercial interests in the US. Reminders of their anti-Semitism here are revelations in America. And in any business in the US, virulent Jew-hating and Hitler-loving is not a good look, no matter how many years ago it was.

 

As I say, the wonders of unintended consequences.

 

Oh, and on the Falklands comment: come on Lord Tender, do at least some basic ****ing research, rather than fling out an accusation in the hope that it is "true"! You seem to have had implanted the Mail template for smearing dead people.

[alpine_saint]

Oh, that's alright then. His stance is entirely justified because of his loathing of Margaret Thatcher. One can now clearly see how he might have been motivated to join the Navy during the War more because of his hatred of Hitler than his love for this country. How he must have been elated by every reversal our troops suffered during the Falklands campaign, the sinking of our warships, the killing of our soldiers, the indications that things were going badly and we might not be victorious. Mind you, he really must have been torn between his loathing of the Conservative Prime Minister and the tacit support that his wishes embodied for the Extreme right wing Argentinian dictator who began the war.

 

And I'm grateful for your guidance, that Thatcher only took us into that war to enhance her reputation. And I thought that she had achieved a Parliamentary majority in favour, with the support of the opposition based on a matter of principle, that the population was almost entirely comprised of British citizens who deserved to be defended by their mother country.

 

Superb rebuttal, Wes.