It is pathetic. Just one copy for every four trains? I would say that is worse than pathetic.Absolutely pathetic. That dickhead Branson behind this is he?
It is pathetic. Just one copy for every four trains? I would say that is worse than pathetic.
It's pitiful.
It is pathetic. Just one copy for every four trains? I would say that is worse than pathetic.
It's pitiful.
Nope. Don't read it at all. Dont need too. Easy to see their headlines on the Internet though and the controversy they get in. Their headlines are there for everyone to see and their stores analysed and dissected.hmm. Whatever you might think of the paper (I assume you read it regularly to be able to form your opinion on it?) you don't think its anything to do with this headline last November then?
'Branson buried his head in my boobs': Joss Stone backing singer claims Sir Richard Branson, 67, put his face in her cleavage and made a boat noise at his luxury Necker Island resort
- Antonia Jenae claims the Virgin boss put his face in her breasts at a party in 2010
- She was invited to the island with Joss Stone after they played Go Green Festival
- She said: 'His behaviour was disgusting. I feel like it was sexual assault'
- A statement from a Virgin Management spokesman said Sir Richard had no recollection of the incident
Nope. Don't read it at all. Dont need too. Easy to see their headlines on the Internet though and the controversy they get in. Their headlines are there for everyone to see and their stores analysed and dissected.
I see last year Wikipedia banned them as a source except for in extreme circumstances, calling them an unreliable source.
When I was in my younger days, when people were accused of being untruthful everyone used to go round and say 'Stop telling Daily Mails!'
Didn't say I have never read it. I said I don't read it.So you’ve never read it. Brilliant.
Banning certain sections of the media? Yeah not surprised whose liking the anti democratic feel as well
Didn't say I have never read it. I said I don't read it.
Daily Mail has 'mastered the art of running' fake news stories, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales says
It's a terrible newspaper. You don't have to read it to see that.It's not really a certain section, more the shit, xenophobic one.
Just picked the first story I saw.So you think someone who used to sell users access to pornography amongst other dubious activities is a source worth quoting?
Fucking hell
Just picked the first story I saw.
Their transgressions are well documented and they are a constant object of ridicule.
I can see this going off on a right old tangent.Do you know anything about Wales? Let’s start with this - who is he a non executive director of?
I can see this going off on a right old tangent.
As I say, I just picked the first story I saw. Just type Daily Mail into the internet and see how many bad stories there are about them. False stories, xenophobia, being sued.
Bottom line is, I stopped reading all the newspapers. Don't read any of them any more and feel I can get a more balanced view by looking on the internet and seeing a story from both sides.
I understood he left the Guardian group didn't he? Thought there was a conflict of interest.It’s not a tangent at all. You quoted the fact that Wikipedia banned the mail as it’s unreliable. I hate to break this to you but Wales is a non executive director of the Group that owns the Guardian and the Observer.
He is viewed by many as a particularly unpleasant character and yet you don’t bother to check the reliability of the source you quote. Which is what you accuse the Mail of is it not?
I understood he left the Guardian group didn't he? Thought there was a conflict of interest.
And no, it's not particularly what I have an issue with. It is more an issue of stance.It’s not a tangent at all. You quoted the fact that Wikipedia banned the mail as it’s unreliable. I hate to break this to you but Wales is a non executive director of the Group that owns the Guardian and the Observer.
He is viewed by many as a particularly unpleasant character and yet you don’t bother to check the reliability of the source you quote. Which is what you accuse the Mail of is it not?
And no, it's not particularly what I have an issue with. It is more an issue of stance.
If someone is murdered they cover the story. If someone is murdered by an immigrant they go to town with the fact that it was an immigrant that carried out the crime.
It is their general stance on things I have the most problem with.
If I picked the wrong story I picked the wrong story. There's stacks out there though of Daily Mail stories.
I honestly don't know anyone who likes the paper, I seriously don't. I know people who read the Times and the Telegraph and the Guardian and then all the other tabloids, but no-one who has any good to say about the Mail.
But like I say, I stopped reading them all. Over the years I have read the Guardian, the Sun, Mail, Independent, Mirror, Express, pretty much the lot.
I stopped reading them all. Find to have editorial pieces giving your stance, but I really dislike front page headlines pushing an agenda on a news story (such as a murder by an immigrant)
My stance is that if Virgin do not want to sell the Mail they have every right to do so.As a civil libertarian (if you are one) you should be disgusted at the stance taken. I am I would equally be if it was the guardian - I paper I find subversive and vile but has a right to be read.
My stance is that if Virgin do not want to sell the Mail they have every right to do so.
If newsagents in Liverpool don't want to sell the Sun they have every right too.
Surely a business such as these can stock whichever newspapers they want can't they.
If I wanted to buy the Independent, but WH Smith refused to sell it, I wouldn't have a problem with that and would simply go to a newsagent that does sell it.
Turning it on its head, do you think Virgin Trains should be forced to sell it?
He banned the Mail or classed them as unreliable while in his non exec capacity. He then resigned in a conflict of interest but curiously still had several guardian publications promoting him and his cause.
Tough one.You haven’t actually answered my point. I will answer yours but I need to understand your perspective first. Do you agree with suppression of freedom of speech or not?
Tough one.
Was watching a debate on the Big Questions on Sunday. I find it hard to come down on one particular side or another to be honest.
I do think complete freedom of speech can be dangerous, so restrictions of some sort do need to be put in place.
You can say you have freedom of speech to say whatever you want as long as you don't offend someone. But then what do you define as offensive?
It's a very tricky subject and hand on heart I do waver on it. Hard to be definitive I find.
I just don't see why Virgin trains should have to sell the paper. Surely they can sell any range of papers they want.
I would have a problem more so if they only stocked left wing papers, or only right wing papers.
As long as they have a selective balance I don't see the problem. Sounds like they still sell the Express and Telegraph.
Nope. Don't read it at all. Dont need too. Easy to see their headlines on the Internet though and the controversy they get in. Their headlines are there for everyone to see and their stores analysed and dissected.
I see last year Wikipedia banned them as a source except for in extreme circumstances, calling them an unreliable source.
When I was in my younger days, when people were accused of being untruthful everyone used to go round and say 'Stop telling Daily Mails!'
Banning certain sections of the media? Yeah not surprised whose liking the anti democratic feel as well
Banning certain sections of the media? Yeah not surprised whose liking the anti democratic feel as well
As a civil libertarian (if you are one) you should be disgusted at the stance taken. I am I would equally be if it was the guardian - I paper I find subversive and vile but has a right to be read.
I know what you mean. The Daily Mail called those who wanted to uphold the democratic sovereignty of parliament traitors. Can’t get anymore undemocratic than that.
I believe in freedom of speech but I also believe in press responsibility. The Mail often doesn't live up to that responsibility.
Buy the rag somewhere else if he doesn’t sell it. Don’t see the problem.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?