buctootim

Bit like conspiracists do to people who have lost limbs in a bombing you mean?

priceless.

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.

Go **** a squirrel Whitey, theres still time.

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

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.

Thats only a reasonable position to take if you think the role of newspapers is only to print what people want to read and that they owe no obligation to objective truth. Its one thing to present the facts through a left / right / green prism as the Guardian / Telegraph / Independent do and another to print something you know to be untrue because thats what your readers want to hear. People who hate a country don't choose to fight for it and then choose to live in it when he could have returned to his home country or even emigrated to Israel. He also wasn't a revolutionary - any changes he might have wanted to see to UK institutions would have been made by consent through the ballot box - which makes the whole 'evil lagacy' and 'he hated Britain' because he wanted to change things specious. I think we all know what was behind the article - and it wasn't seeking truth and balance. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-miliband-v-daily-mail-francis-maude-criticises-newspaper-over-pretty-revolting-story-8856146.html

Q. How do you like your eggs in the morning? A. Unfertilised obviously doesn't translate well into Spanish.

No I'm training it to read the Daily Mail. Once the easy stuff is out of the way we're going for housetraining. Seriously I don't know why you don't just say - "yes it was distasteful it was an error of judgement". At least four past and current Conservative ministers have come and and said that. The Mail really is on a downward trashy slope on all kinds of fronts. Read the Telegraph instead - right wing but with facts in it. You really cant trust the Mail to report even a blue tinged version of the truth anymore, and havent been able for several years.

If you read that story he's had four kids in 7 years with three different women. One born in December 2012 with one woman and another in September 2013 with a different one.

Im not debating with you any more Wes. I've got a cat.

"Revealed: David Cameron's father built up legal offshore funds in Panama and Geneva" Which part of that didnt you understand?

Do you take pleasure in being deliberately obtuse? The Guardian piece is factual. There is no value judgement and more to the point no outright lies about Cameron senior hating this country or wanting to destroy the welfare state.

I think its perfectly reasonable to look into a leading politicians upbringing to see what kind of school they went to, how wealthy / deprived their parents were. As far as I'm aware no-one criticised Cameron's parents and nor should they. Its more about keeping politicians 'honest and true' and not lying / misrepresenting their backgrounds in order to appeal to some demographic or other. Labour environment minister Michael Meacher got caught out a few years ago after claiming he was the son of a farm labourer - it turned out dad owned the farm and half the adjoining county. That's a proper function of the press. The Mail turned that function on its head by lying about a politician's background and the politician (and others) had to correct them.

Surely the point is that absolute power over others corrupts absolutely and by now everyone knows that unregulated capitalism, corporatism, collectivism or any variant of dictatorship don't work. A regulated market economy in a social democracy is what nearly every country in the world has now settled on as the best way forward. The debates now are about nothing more radical than whether taxation should be 40% or 42% of GDP and bus fares for OAPs should be free. Thats why the Daily Mail hatchet attempt was so pathetic.

Heidi Klum

Never a good idea to make this kind of thing public imo, no matter how loopy the ex is. Edit just seen post above about chat shows. I guess he feels he needs to put record straight. Still not sure its a good idea though.

won away

...

Just as you can equally argue that an unregulated market free for all is the natural product of anarchism. The point really is about whether or not its right attack a dead man based on a false premise about his beliefs and patriotism in order to score points against his son, whose politics you happen to disagree with. I agree it makes for a very dirty campaign.

I didn't say you couldn't speak. It was just surprising to me that you feel qualified to attack Miliband senior's politics and patriotism without knowing what he stood for or believed in. In one thread you demonstrated that you didn't know the difference between the New Left movement of the '60s and New Labour in the '90s and thought that by teaching Marxism people would get frustrated and turn to anarchy. Those are big gaffes even by Daily Mail standards. ps I'm very interested in the different forms of anarchy. Can you expand on that?

Going back a bit further the people from what is now South Hampshire and the IOW were Jutes (from Jutland), different from the Angles, Saxons and Celts in most of the rest of the country. Pompey and Southampton are forever intertwined.....

Deliberate or selective inaccuracy instead then? I don't think it was a flawed analysis honestly made. There are lots of things I dislike about Britain too but it would be a lie / deliberate selective inaccuracy to say I hated Britain - I love it and have no wish to live anywhere else, regardless of who is in government. I don't know anything about Straw's fathers war past, but I assume they didnt go after him because it was unfair - he wasnt a public figure and it wasnt Straw's fault. By contrast he was roundly criticised for many of his own actions and beliefs.

quite, people posting up pictures of politicians with people is meaningless - especially when its just somebodies mum taking a picture.