Lord Duckhunter

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

It's not quite as black and white as some make out. There have been some great pieces and campaigns over the years. The Stephen Lawrence one drew praise from all quarters and they were the paper that first named the killers. They also ran a story in the mid 60's stating there were 4,000 potholes in Blackburn, Lancs. One of their lunatic fringe middle class reader's used it in a song.

Pretty good summary. Michael White was on the Guardian political podcast with Toynbee. He made a quite similar point, as well as acknowledging that some of the Guardian's output regarding Thatcher was offensive. He also said that it was part Father/Son, but also part apolitical calculation. One to show Red Ed was willing to stand up to bully's, but two to try and close down Mail criticism of his part in the McBride stuff. Said he can now defend any press mention of what he knew and what he didn't know about McBride/Brown operation, by saying "look what the press did to my dad, they're trying to smear me again". This was the most sensible thing I've heard a member of the Left establishment has said about the whole thing. Toynbee was as poisonous as ever. As well as ranting about the mail, attacked Cameron's response as half hearted and disgracefully wondering why David Milliband was being so quite. Perhaps he didn't love his Dad as much as good old Ed, Polly. 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.

Correct, he played one first class game for Essex in 1962.

worked it out. It would have been better if you put "Which Boxer" instead of who The ring was at cruffs I presume?

Im puzzled by the "physically". Was there another less strenuous occasion as well?

Which Essex cricketer got a hat trick for England , but never managed to take a wicket playing for his county.

Looking at some old maps on Google, it's pretty borderline. If it was in Sussex, then Wessex would be just perfect for me. Includes Southampton the city of my birth, and Poole the town I call home and the birth place of my better half and kids, but excludes Skates and other assorted Brits I'd rather not share nationality with.

Course it's not. Yesterday he said the nasty people running the show had defected to UKIP, before backtracking, and now he's saying "there are a lot of decent Tories who know this is out of order.so some idiots think it's all right to attend a family funeral without.a invite says more about how low there morals go". Which is garbled nonsense, but seems to imply that although decent Tories know it's out of order, some think it's ok. I may have mistranslated , because in his rush to attack Tories, he types before he thinks. 2 Daily Mail hacks doing this is as relevant to the Tory party as The Daily Mirror making things up about British troops was to the Labour Party.

I've never considered my self British. I'm English, but I'm not particularly into this patriotic lark. Football aside, I'm not really that proud or emotional about the City I come from or Hampshire. Having lived in Poole the past 23 years and all the kids were born and breed here, I consider myself a proud Poole man first and foremost. There used to be an old lush who drank in my local, who kept banging on about The Kingdom of Wessex. I'm not sure if The Skates were in the Kingdom, if not, then I'll start using that as my nationality when asked.

Perhaps you could point us in the direction of the Tories that thought it was ok to go to the funeral, or are you making things up again?

Brian Reade and Toynbee are two that wrote particularly vicious articles about Thatcher when she died. So it is not confined to the daily mail, just as phone hacking was not confined to the news of the world. My view is Thatcher, red Ralph or any other political person is fair game, dead or alive. Others may think that such attacks are wrong and disgusting. However , some people appear to want it both ways. If its somebody they hate and it appears in a paper they dont mind, then its legitimate. Put it in the Daily Mail about an old leftie and its moral outrage here we come. Its laughable that people like Alistair Campbell are outraged by this, that people like Campbell are somehow morally superior then the daily mail defies belief.

That's not what you said. You said that the people "running the show" and compared these to the " decent Tories " running the party now. You are backtracking when caught making things up.

What a load of nonsense. Red Ed himself said that red Ralph's politics were a legitimate discussion point. His problem was with one specific accusation only. That he hated our country. As for the nasty party, I suggest you read the McBride book. Perhaps you could also point out who used to run the show and then defected to ukip? Just a couple of names will do. Ran the show and then defected to ukip, I'm sure you know your stuff and didn't just think that was a good line, that is factually incorrect. I await the names with interest. It makes me laugh that in a thread about making something up to suit a political agenda ( this case the mail) you make something up that suits yours. Thatcher, Joseph, howe , hestletine, Clarke, portillo, Lawson, major, Lamont, tebbitt, Hurd, are ones I can think of off the top of my head. These ran the show, who are the ukip defectors?

The most laughable defence on here, "not a politician". This isn't some sort of ordinary voter, he spouted his political "views" the whole of his adult life. Not even Red Ed is trying to pretend that he somehow wasn't involved in politics. There is a very clear set of circumstances that have led to this article, it wasn't just some sort of random "lets have a pop at Red Ed, by dissing his dad (had that been a tabloid tactic then Jack Straw's coward of a father, would have been an easy target during the new labour years) Basically Damien McBride alleged in his book that Ed stabbed his brother in the back to protect his Fathers legacy. In light of that, his Father's "legacy" is clearly a legitimate target for discussion and wider comment. Add to this the modern politicians use of their families as props, to show "where they came from" and "who they are" (he has mentioned his Mum and Dad and apple pie in plenty of political speeches) And the fact that Red Ralph was clearly deeply involved in politics, and you can see why the story had legs. The issue then becomes whether Red Ralph's political views and his clear hatred of certain aspects of British life, constitutes a hatred of "his country". Personally, I don't think it does, but can see how some people may think so. I don't think Mrs Thatcher had a hatred of the North or of Scotland, but can well understand people who think she may have done. Had the Daily Mirror written an article "the women who hated Scotland" which then went on to pinpoint statements and policies that they believed proved their point, whilst disagreeing with it,I would have no issue with it. I certainly wouldn't be foaming at the mouth in moral outrage. I also doubt very much that the Mirror would allow carol Thatcher a rebuttal the following day. Brian Reade called Thatcher "evil" in the Mirror, a statement every bit as nasty as anything written about Red Ralph . In my opinion the left and many posters on here are getting their knickers in a twist because of the publication that the article appeared in. It is an opportunity to show their moral outrage at the bogey man Mail, whilst defending an old Leftie. A great win-win for them.

The moral outrage from some on here appears to contain caveats. By asking whether they were outraged by some of the vicious stuff written about Thatcher, we can establish whether this is a principled disgust or a political one. But you knew that all along.

It's no more offensive than what Brian Reade and toynbee wrote about carol Thatcher's dead mother.

Love the lefties outrage at insults towards the dead, just a shame the outrage only extends to a Marxist and not Mrs Thatcher.