Daily Mail readers

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200819/ad24ffd4f1fba5f8a3e4bd808f08b085.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200819/3c13094d5519c2ea3b51baa45d01be2a.jpg

How much of a total ****bag do you need to be to celebrate the death of 16 year old?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Berwickhibby]

If there was ever a rèason to ignore the Mail .... this is it

[Moulin Yarns]

Or was he a chancer coming here?

#askingforafriend.

[Killiehibbie]

Nice people. How soon can we get rid of them?

[Keith_M]

I'd imagine Nigel Farage (https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/how-to-be-a-heroic-migrant-hunter-by-nigel-farage-20200812199343) has added his tuppence worth in there somewhere...




https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/media/5669619/web_comment-cartoon.jpg

[Pretty Boy]

I don't understand how people find it so easy to dehumanise people. I think every single person commenting there is a total **** but I don't want their children to die.

[Smartie]

I don't understand how people find it so easy to dehumanise people. I think every single person commenting there is a total **** but I don't want their children to die.

They're subhuman **** and they exist amongst us in higher numbers than any of us would probably want to acknowledge.

It's why you need to speak out against papers like the Daily Mail and the Sun (when their editorial direction is pointed in a nasty direction) and all of those who sail in them who would prefer not to be associated with the uglier side of those papers. They are a force for evil, comments pages like this allow folk to legitimise their abhorrent opinions and meet like-minded folk.

I try to avoid reading stuff like this as it makes me so angry. Not sure whether the "head in the sand" approach is appropriate but it is a battle that I don't see me being able to contribute to in any sort of positive way. They are the way they are. I almost wish the story wasn't written in the first place, in order to allow these folk a platform in order to air such views.

It's genuinely disgusting.

[hibsbollah]

I don't understand how people find it so easy to dehumanise people. I think every single person commenting there is a total **** but I don't want their children to die.

Also, you know that the majority of those sick ****ers would deny their racism. They would talk about swamped public services or security concerns instead. There would be howls of gammon snowflake outrage if you dared call them racist. It’s quite a new development, this cowardice. I kind of preferred it when they were wearing hoods and burning crosses.

[Hibee87]

Also, you know that the majority of those sick ****ers would deny their racism. They would talk about swamped public services or security concerns instead. There would be howls of gammon snowflake outrage if you dared call them racist. It’s quite a new development, this cowardice. I kind of preferred it when they were wearing hoods and burning crosses.

100% the same ones trawling social media and ironically typing 'All Lives Matter' on the BLM posts.

[Sir David Gray]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200819/ad24ffd4f1fba5f8a3e4bd808f08b085.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200819/3c13094d5519c2ea3b51baa45d01be2a.jpg

How much of a total ****bag do you need to be to celebrate the death of 16 year old?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The highlighted comments are reprehensible and totally unacceptable however from what you have posted it appears these comments were posted on the Facebook page of the Daily Mail which is frequented by people from all over the world.

I'm not sure where you got this particular screenshot from but if you have looked at the comments yourself then you will see many comments criticising those who have left the sort of comments you have highlighted above.

These people must surely be representative of Daily Mail readership as well?

Just a flavour of the comments from the other side;

I hope anyone that hit the laugh button isn’t a parent! God forbid.
Honestly, find in you’re hearts to actually care.

There are some very sick, mentally disturbed individuals in these comments. If you think this is funny, I’d recommend seeking professional help. A sad indication of the way this country is going...no compassion or care for anyone but yourselves.

I can't believe all the vile comments that young man is somebody's son grandson brother God rest his soul what happened to humanity and compassion

The people laugh reacting are horrid - he was only 16 and searching for a better life. Rest in Peace; sweetheart 💜

Imagine if someone took that attitude to your child drowning in the sea.. Why do you think your children are worth so much more? .. The laugh reacts are sickening.

Why would people laugh react to this? What’s wrong with you ? A child died. A CHILD DIED. Please enlightened me on why that is funny.

There's also currently almost four times as many sad crying emojis reacting to the post than there are laughing emojis.

On the Facebook post of the more left wing Independent newspaper we have the following comments on the same story;

These people need to be made aware that there will be no future for them in Great Britain and no matter how many snowflakes think differently the government must send them back ,why come across free countries to get here answer because we are too soft with migrants sorry but it needs to be said.

made the wrong choice....end of the day he was a criminal

Pretty sure at 16 he knew what he was doing, he knew the risks, and unfortunately it didn’t work out. If he was so desperate why didn’t he stop in another safe country he’s gone through in Europe? Pretty sure they don’t give them benefits and a house

At least his body made it to France.

One less on benefits then.

Serves them right

I was wondering how long it would take for a sob story, to come along and be foisted upon us to soften us up, and personally I'd be a bit more sceptical, would you put it past the people traffickers to drown this boy? After all it worked so well with the kurdy boy (who's father is to blame for his drowning) so yes the lefty media will be tripping over themselves to push this story, but will never publish pics of non migrant children who are victims of this "refugee" nonsense

Should’ve stayed in Greece

ARE YOU FOR REAL !!!
THEY HAVE CROSSED THE WHOLE OF EUROPE TO GET HERE, THEY ARE NOT DESPERATE,ONLY FOR WHAT THEY ARE GIVEN WHEN REACHING HERE.
IF YOU ARE SO WORRIED ABOUT THEM, YOU TAKE THEM IN, BUT YOU WONT, BECAUSE YOU ARE LIKE ALL OF THOSE OTHER SNOWFLAKES,ALL TALK AND NO ACTION.
😡😡😡😡😡😡😡

Sadly it doesn't seem to be just Daily Mail readers who are unable to express basic human compassion.

[lapsedhibee]

The highlighted comments are reprehensible and totally unacceptable however from what you have posted it appears these comments were posted on the Facebook page of the Daily Mail which is frequented by people from all over the world.

I'm not sure where you got this particular screenshot from but if you have looked at the comments yourself then you will see many comments criticising those who have left the sort of comments you have highlighted above.

These people must surely be representative of Daily Mail readership as well?

Just a flavour of the comments from the other side;

I hope anyone that hit the laugh button isn’t a parent! God forbid.
Honestly, find in you’re hearts to actually care.

There are some very sick, mentally disturbed individuals in these comments. If you think this is funny, I’d recommend seeking professional help. A sad indication of the way this country is going...no compassion or care for anyone but yourselves.

I can't believe all the vile comments that young man is somebody's son grandson brother God rest his soul what happened to humanity and compassion

The people laugh reacting are horrid - he was only 16 and searching for a better life. Rest in Peace; sweetheart 💜

Imagine if someone took that attitude to your child drowning in the sea.. Why do you think your children are worth so much more? .. The laugh reacts are sickening.

Why would people laugh react to this? What’s wrong with you ? A child died. A CHILD DIED. Please enlightened me on why that is funny.

There's also currently almost four times as many sad crying emojis reacting to the post than there are laughing emojis.

On the Facebook post of the more left wing Independent newspaper we have the following comments on the same story;

These people need to be made aware that there will be no future for them in Great Britain and no matter how many snowflakes think differently the government must send them back ,why come across free countries to get here answer because we are too soft with migrants sorry but it needs to be said.

made the wrong choice....end of the day he was a criminal

Pretty sure at 16 he knew what he was doing, he knew the risks, and unfortunately it didn’t work out. If he was so desperate why didn’t he stop in another safe country he’s gone through in Europe? Pretty sure they don’t give them benefits and a house

At least his body made it to France.

One less on benefits then.

Serves them right

I was wondering how long it would take for a sob story, to come along and be foisted upon us to soften us up, and personally I'd be a bit more sceptical, would you put it past the people traffickers to drown this boy? After all it worked so well with the kurdy boy (who's father is to blame for his drowning) so yes the lefty media will be tripping over themselves to push this story, but will never publish pics of non migrant children who are victims of this "refugee" nonsense

Should’ve stayed in Greece

ARE YOU FOR REAL !!!
THEY HAVE CROSSED THE WHOLE OF EUROPE TO GET HERE, THEY ARE NOT DESPERATE,ONLY FOR WHAT THEY ARE GIVEN WHEN REACHING HERE.
IF YOU ARE SO WORRIED ABOUT THEM, YOU TAKE THEM IN, BUT YOU WONT, BECAUSE YOU ARE LIKE ALL OF THOSE OTHER SNOWFLAKES,ALL TALK AND NO ACTION.
😡😡😡😡😡😡😡

Sadly it doesn't seem to be just Daily Mail readers who are unable to express basic human compassion.
Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if all the comments quoted here and in the Heil were generated by Cummings' AI chums to further his divide-and-rule policy.

[Rocky]

The highlighted comments are reprehensible and totally unacceptable however from what you have posted it appears these comments were posted on the Facebook page of the Daily Mail which is frequented by people from all over the world.

I'm not sure where you got this particular screenshot from but if you have looked at the comments yourself then you will see many comments criticising those who have left the sort of comments you have highlighted above.

These people must surely be representative of Daily Mail readership as well?

Just a flavour of the comments from the other side;

I hope anyone that hit the laugh button isn’t a parent! God forbid.
Honestly, find in you’re hearts to actually care.

There are some very sick, mentally disturbed individuals in these comments. If you think this is funny, I’d recommend seeking professional help. A sad indication of the way this country is going...no compassion or care for anyone but yourselves.

I can't believe all the vile comments that young man is somebody's son grandson brother God rest his soul what happened to humanity and compassion

The people laugh reacting are horrid - he was only 16 and searching for a better life. Rest in Peace; sweetheart ��

Imagine if someone took that attitude to your child drowning in the sea.. Why do you think your children are worth so much more? .. The laugh reacts are sickening.

Why would people laugh react to this? What’s wrong with you ? A child died. A CHILD DIED. Please enlightened me on why that is funny.

There's also currently almost four times as many sad crying emojis reacting to the post than there are laughing emojis.

On the Facebook post of the more left wing Independent newspaper we have the following comments on the same story;

These people need to be made aware that there will be no future for them in Great Britain and no matter how many snowflakes think differently the government must send them back ,why come across free countries to get here answer because we are too soft with migrants sorry but it needs to be said.

made the wrong choice....end of the day he was a criminal

Pretty sure at 16 he knew what he was doing, he knew the risks, and unfortunately it didn’t work out. If he was so desperate why didn’t he stop in another safe country he’s gone through in Europe? Pretty sure they don’t give them benefits and a house

At least his body made it to France.

One less on benefits then.

Serves them right

I was wondering how long it would take for a sob story, to come along and be foisted upon us to soften us up, and personally I'd be a bit more sceptical, would you put it past the people traffickers to drown this boy? After all it worked so well with the kurdy boy (who's father is to blame for his drowning) so yes the lefty media will be tripping over themselves to push this story, but will never publish pics of non migrant children who are victims of this "refugee" nonsense

Should’ve stayed in Greece

ARE YOU FOR REAL !!!
THEY HAVE CROSSED THE WHOLE OF EUROPE TO GET HERE, THEY ARE NOT DESPERATE,ONLY FOR WHAT THEY ARE GIVEN WHEN REACHING HERE.
IF YOU ARE SO WORRIED ABOUT THEM, YOU TAKE THEM IN, BUT YOU WONT, BECAUSE YOU ARE LIKE ALL OF THOSE OTHER SNOWFLAKES,ALL TALK AND NO ACTION.
��������������

Sadly it doesn't seem to be just Daily Mail readers who are unable to express basic human compassion.
Try these then, moderated comments direct from the Daily Mail website. Look at the votes alongside them and tell me they're not representative of the Mail readership.

https://twitter.com/DMReporter/status/1296047535799312385?s=19

[lord bunberry]

We’re all guilty by association from anyone from another country looking in. I’ll shut the door on our way out.

[One Day Soon]

Nice people. How soon can we get rid of them?

What do you have in mind?

[hibsbollah]

100% the same ones trawling social media and ironically typing 'All Lives Matter' on the BLM posts.

:agree: I’ve had a couple of defriended friends do that. We all know what he REALLY means...

[Sir David Gray]

Try these then, moderated comments direct from the Daily Mail website. Look at the votes alongside them and tell me they're not representative of the Mail readership.

https://twitter.com/DMReporter/status/1296047535799312385?s=19

Just for the sake of balance, I also saw the following comments on the same page;

The government should be providing special Eurostar services from Calais to the UK so these poor people can arrive here safe and sound.

It is just awful in every way. Awful that there is such discrepancy in standards / safety of living across the world that people feel the need to pay to sit on unsafe boats and undertake often treacherous journeys in search of a better life. Awful that the governments are unable to manage this in a better way. Awful that these criminal enterprises are making fortunes off these people. Awful that so many brits don't care about any of it, and just want to blame immigrants for all of their woes which - realistically - are more the fault of the rich than the poor. Awful that anyone would resort to violence in any case.

Those poor children going through a terrifying journey across the water like that. It's heartbreaking.

Anyone who can escape from that hell is welcome to live on my street any day.

This is the Country we have become , nasty , hateful and spiteful. Disgusting behavior . I live in Kent, we are not being over run. Kent houses more underprivileged children from London Boroughs than it does immigrant children .

Awful. Lock the attacker up for life. These people need our compassion, not being attacked.

Disgusting, we should be welcoming these people into our country, not treating the like this.

[Moulin Yarns]

What do you have in mind?

I'm imagining a transatlantic cruise, all first class, and arranging a meeting with an iceberg, because I imagine most are also flat earthers and climate change deniers, and not enough lifeboats.

#mybad.

[wpj]

I'm imagining a transatlantic cruise, all first class, and arranging a meeting with an iceberg, because I imagine most are also flat earthers and climate change deniers, and not enough lifeboats.

#mybad.

So bad but made me laugh.
My parents read the Daily Mail everyday and the amount of times a conversation started with "I read in the paper today that......" followed by some utter pish.
Good telly guide though 😉

[Hibrandenburg]

The highlighted comments are reprehensible and totally unacceptable however from what you have posted it appears these comments were posted on the Facebook page of the Daily Mail which is frequented by people from all over the world.

I'm not sure where you got this particular screenshot from but if you have looked at the comments yourself then you will see many comments criticising those who have left the sort of comments you have highlighted above.

These people must surely be representative of Daily Mail readership as well?

Just a flavour of the comments from the other side;

I hope anyone that hit the laugh button isn’t a parent! God forbid.
Honestly, find in you’re hearts to actually care.

There are some very sick, mentally disturbed individuals in these comments. If you think this is funny, I’d recommend seeking professional help. A sad indication of the way this country is going...no compassion or care for anyone but yourselves.

I can't believe all the vile comments that young man is somebody's son grandson brother God rest his soul what happened to humanity and compassion

The people laugh reacting are horrid - he was only 16 and searching for a better life. Rest in Peace; sweetheart 💜

Imagine if someone took that attitude to your child drowning in the sea.. Why do you think your children are worth so much more? .. The laugh reacts are sickening.

Why would people laugh react to this? What’s wrong with you ? A child died. A CHILD DIED. Please enlightened me on why that is funny.

There's also currently almost four times as many sad crying emojis reacting to the post than there are laughing emojis.

On the Facebook post of the more left wing Independent newspaper we have the following comments on the same story;

These people need to be made aware that there will be no future for them in Great Britain and no matter how many snowflakes think differently the government must send them back ,why come across free countries to get here answer because we are too soft with migrants sorry but it needs to be said.

made the wrong choice....end of the day he was a criminal

Pretty sure at 16 he knew what he was doing, he knew the risks, and unfortunately it didn’t work out. If he was so desperate why didn’t he stop in another safe country he’s gone through in Europe? Pretty sure they don’t give them benefits and a house

At least his body made it to France.

One less on benefits then.

Serves them right

I was wondering how long it would take for a sob story, to come along and be foisted upon us to soften us up, and personally I'd be a bit more sceptical, would you put it past the people traffickers to drown this boy? After all it worked so well with the kurdy boy (who's father is to blame for his drowning) so yes the lefty media will be tripping over themselves to push this story, but will never publish pics of non migrant children who are victims of this "refugee" nonsense

Should’ve stayed in Greece

ARE YOU FOR REAL !!!
THEY HAVE CROSSED THE WHOLE OF EUROPE TO GET HERE, THEY ARE NOT DESPERATE,ONLY FOR WHAT THEY ARE GIVEN WHEN REACHING HERE.
IF YOU ARE SO WORRIED ABOUT THEM, YOU TAKE THEM IN, BUT YOU WONT, BECAUSE YOU ARE LIKE ALL OF THOSE OTHER SNOWFLAKES,ALL TALK AND NO ACTION.
😡😡😡😡😡😡😡

Sadly it doesn't seem to be just Daily Mail readers who are unable to express basic human compassion.

Anyone who funds that rag by buying it is also responsible for the odious hate mongering it prints. They don't print news, they cut their propaganda to their audience.

[One Day Soon]

I'm imagining a transatlantic cruise, all first class, and arranging a meeting with an iceberg, because I imagine most are also flat earthers and climate change deniers, and not enough lifeboats.

#mybad.


I think I've seen this plotline somewhere else before?

[Smartie]

My mum reads The Scotsman and to be honest her views are totally aligned with your average Daily Mail reader.

She surrounds herself with the bitterest hags you can imagine and I think this is where she gets most of it from.

I'm sure she's appalled by how rounded and compassionate I've grown to be, and probably loses sleep that I've got a different approach to protecting her granddaughter from the dangers of the world than she did with us.

The stuff she'd say all the time when we were wee that seemed on the face of it to be harmless but really wasn't - "I just find it such a shame that Rangers sign aw these foreign fowk when maist wee Scottish laddies would love tae play fur them."

[Rocky]

Just for the sake of balance, I also saw the following comments on the same page;

The government should be providing special Eurostar services from Calais to the UK so these poor people can arrive here safe and sound.

It is just awful in every way. Awful that there is such discrepancy in standards / safety of living across the world that people feel the need to pay to sit on unsafe boats and undertake often treacherous journeys in search of a better life. Awful that the governments are unable to manage this in a better way. Awful that these criminal enterprises are making fortunes off these people. Awful that so many brits don't care about any of it, and just want to blame immigrants for all of their woes which - realistically - are more the fault of the rich than the poor. Awful that anyone would resort to violence in any case.

Those poor children going through a terrifying journey across the water like that. It's heartbreaking.

Anyone who can escape from that hell is welcome to live on my street any day.

This is the Country we have become , nasty , hateful and spiteful. Disgusting behavior . I live in Kent, we are not being over run. Kent houses more underprivileged children from London Boroughs than it does immigrant children .

Awful. Lock the attacker up for life. These people need our compassion, not being attacked.

Disgusting, we should be welcoming these people into our country, not treating the like this.
And how did the votes look on those?

[Killiehibbie]

What do you have in mind?

An independent country as no 'unsinkable' boat is big enough for all them.

[MKHIBEE]

What do you have in mind?

Some uninhabited island in the middle of an ocean

[Killiehibbie]

Some uninhabited island in the middle of an ocean

Antarctica would do.

[Ozyhibby]

Some uninhabited island in the middle of an ocean

The Australian solution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[One Day Soon]

An independent country as no 'unsinkable' boat is big enough for all them.

Why would another country want them?

[Sir David Gray]

And how did the votes look on those?

I'm not sure I didn't check.

My point was that it's unfair to paint a picture which suggests that all Daily Mail readers enjoy reading about people drowning in the English Channel and being physically assaulted as they enter the UK.

[Rocky]

I'm not sure I didn't check.

My point was that it's unfair to paint a picture which suggests that all Daily Mail readers enjoy reading about people drowning in the English Channel and being physically assaulted as they enter the UK.

Ok here's one that you quoted, nice thing to say tbf:

"Those poor children going through a terrifying journey across the water like that. It's heartbreaking."

And a whopping 48 Daily Mail readers agreed with an upvote. 860 voted against it right enough.

That enough evidence for you or are you going to search for more "balance"?

[EAZY-ME]

Those idiots should be shoved on a raft and sent somewhere else...utterly shameful comments. The poor people are just looking for a better life. R.I.P

[Smartie]

I'm not sure I didn't check.

My point was that it's unfair to paint a picture which suggests that all Daily Mail readers enjoy reading about people drowning in the English Channel and being physically assaulted as they enter the UK.

I think you need to be very careful about how "wanting to provide a sense of balance" might come across here, in the same way that the "all lives matter" brigade have a valid point that isn't really the point.

[Hibrandenburg]

I'm not sure I didn't check.

My point was that it's unfair to paint a picture which suggests that all Daily Mail readers enjoy reading about people drowning in the English Channel and being physically assaulted as they enter the UK.

Maybe not, but they do help finance the rag that helps sow the seeds of hate that have made open racism socially acceptable again.

[Saturday Boy]

About twenty years ago, there was a rather poor taste joke doing the rounds.

How do you confuse a Daily Mail reader? Tell them that homosexuals are the natural prey of asylum seekers.

Sadly nothing much has changed.

They specialise in whipping up anxiety and fear among the usually elderly readers and then keep it going.

They thrive on confirmation bias.

[lord bunberry]

These people are beyond help, but I would challenge any of them to look into the eyes of their own families and say they wouldn’t do the same. Most of them don’t deserve or even look to take advantage of the circumstances they find themselves in.

[Sir David Gray]

I think you need to be very careful about how "wanting to provide a sense of balance" might come across here, in the same way that the "all lives matter" brigade have a valid point that isn't really the point.

I'm sorry I don't get the relevance of that at all. The thread title is "Daily Mail readers" followed by some very unpleasant comments about a young man who drowned in the English Channel which suggests to me like everyone who reads the Daily Mail is being tarred with the same brush of being happy to read about someone drowning.

Still no response to the equally repugnant comments left on the Independent's Facebook post which I highlighted earlier on. I suppose that doesn't fit with some people's narrative though so it's much easier just to gloss over that.

[Sir David Gray]

Ok here's one that you quoted, nice thing to say tbf:

"Those poor children going through a terrifying journey across the water like that. It's heartbreaking."

And a whopping 48 Daily Mail readers agreed with an upvote. 860 voted against it right enough.

That enough evidence for you or are you going to search for more "balance"?

Thanks for looking it up for me. Do we know if there's the ability for people to dislike a post multiple times on that platform? Genuinely do not know the answer to that but may help to explain such a disparity in the numbers, particularly if there's a bot involved.

[Rocky]

I'm sorry I don't get the relevance of that at all. The thread title is "Daily Mail readers" followed by some very unpleasant comments about a young man who drowned in the English Channel which suggests to me like everyone who reads the Daily Mail is being tarred with the same brush of being happy to read about someone drowning.

Still no response to the equally repugnant comments left on the Independent's Facebook post which I highlighted earlier on. I suppose that doesn't fit with some people's narrative though so it's much easier just to gloss over that.

That response would make more sense if you hadn't already covered it in your own post. Facebook attracts people from all over the world I think you said? That not fit your narrative any more?

Don't kid yourself that you're providing balance. You're just pushing your own agenda the same as anyone else.

[Rocky]

Thanks for looking it up for me. Do we know if there's the ability for people to dislike a post multiple times on that platform? Genuinely do not know the answer to that but may help to explain such a disparity in the numbers, particularly if there's a bot involved.

Have a word with yourself, you're having a mare.

[Sir David Gray]

That response would make more sense if you hadn't already covered it in your own post. Facebook attracts people from all over the world I think you said? That not fit your narrative any more?

Don't kid yourself that you're providing balance. You're just pushing your own agenda the same as anyone else.

Right but why are we putting Daily Mail readers under the microscope when there have been similar remarks left on the Independent's Facebook article?

Can we not just highlight that there are some very sick minded people in the world without making any reference to which newspaper they may choose to read?

[Sir David Gray]

Have a word with yourself, you're having a mare.

I'll take that as a no then.

[Mon Dieu4]

I'm sorry I don't get the relevance of that at all. The thread title is "Daily Mail readers" followed by some very unpleasant comments about a young man who drowned in the English Channel which suggests to me like everyone who reads the Daily Mail is being tarred with the same brush of being happy to read about someone drowning.

Still no response to the equally repugnant comments left on the Independent's Facebook post which I highlighted earlier on. I suppose that doesn't fit with some people's narrative though so it's much easier just to gloss over that.

I'd imagine the majority of people giving the more human responses on the Mail Website aren't actually avid readers of the Mail, they are more than likely scunnered people countering the hate fuelled posts and articles that rag prints, everything or anything the Mail touches is pure poison

[Pretty Boy]

I'm sorry I don't get the relevance of that at all. The thread title is "Daily Mail readers" followed by some very unpleasant comments about a young man who drowned in the English Channel which suggests to me like everyone who reads the Daily Mail is being tarred with the same brush of being happy to read about someone drowning.

Still no response to the equally repugnant comments left on the Independent's Facebook post which I highlighted earlier on. I suppose that doesn't fit with some people's narrative though so it's much easier just to gloss over that.

The two aren't comparable. Horrible people will comment on The Independents social media output, for better or worse social media has given everyone a public voice.

The difference is the Daily Mail actively produces content specifically targeted at the kind of people who revel in the death of a 16 year old boy. They have contributed to the general dehumanising of refugees and migrants with the usage of terms like 'swarm' and 'infestation'. They publish editorials calling for a 'harder stance' and that suggest using military force against them. They provide or have provided a platform to people such as Richard Littlejohn and Katie Hopkins.

The Independent may attract comment from a few racist ****bags, the Mail actively courts them. That's the difference.

[hibsbollah]

I'd imagine the majority of people giving the more human responses on the Mail Website aren't actually avid readers of the Mail, they are more than likely scunnered people countering the hate fuelled posts and articles that rag prints, everything or anything the Mail touches is pure poison

:agree: You’re probably right here, the mail online has a ridiculously big readership, it’s one of the most popular sites in the world if I remember right, most global visitors and the ones who were being sympathetic to the plight of the refugees are probably drawn to the celebrity stuff they do and don’t realise the papers nasty editorial position on most things.

[Sir David Gray]

I'd imagine the majority of people giving the more human responses on the Mail Website aren't actually avid readers of the Mail, they are more than likely scunnered people countering the hate fuelled posts and articles that rag prints, everything or anything the Mail touches is pure poison

There's quite a lot of assumptions being made there.

[Sir David Gray]

The two aren't comparable. Horrible people will comment on The Independents social media output, for better or worse social media has given everyone a public voice.

The difference is the Daily Mail actively produces content specifically targeted at the kind of people who revel in the death of a 16 year old boy. They have contributed to the general dehumanising of refugees and migrants with the usage of terms like 'swarm' and 'infestation'. They publish editorials calling for a 'harder stance' and that suggest using military force against them. They provide or have provided a platform to people such as Richard Littlejohn and Katie Hopkins.

The Independent may attract comment from a few racist ****bags, the Mail actively courts them. That's the difference.

I understand what you are saying about their editorial stance on certain topics but that still doesn't mean that all Daily Mail readers are happy to read about this young ma drowning, which this thread title implies is the case.

[Mon Dieu4]

There's quite a lot of assumptions being made there.

assumptions that I'm more than happy to make, as Prettyboy has eloquently mentioned earlier, the Mail know exactly what they are up to and play up to their own crowd, I'm not some "snowflake", more than happy for peoples views to be to the right of mine and will defend their right to it but the Mail is and always will be a total *****rag

[Rocky]

I understand what you are saying about their editorial stance on certain topics but that still doesn't mean that all Daily Mail readers are happy to read about this young ma drowning, which this thread title implies is the case.

A three word thread title of "Daily Mail readers" implies that "all Daily Mail readers want immigrants to die?" Do you actually write for them cos that's Mailesque levels of gaslighting.

[lord bunberry]

The two aren't comparable. Horrible people will comment on The Independents social media output, for better or worse social media has given everyone a public voice.

The difference is the Daily Mail actively produces content specifically targeted at the kind of people who revel in the death of a 16 year old boy. They have contributed to the general dehumanising of refugees and migrants with the usage of terms like 'swarm' and 'infestation'. They publish editorials calling for a 'harder stance' and that suggest using military force against them. They provide or have provided a platform to people such as Richard Littlejohn and Katie Hopkins.

The Independent may attract comment from a few racist ****bags, the Mail actively courts them. That's the difference.
Correct. While it’s fair enough to point out alternative viewpoints it’s the general tone of the article and more so the replies from the sort of people the article was aimed at that makes it so despicable. The Daily Mail and other similar publications wield far too much power in this country. We even have the so called cuddly ones appearing on programs like question time and daily paper reviews on news channels. They’re over represented imo.

[Mon Dieu4]

:agree: You’re probably right here, the mail online has a ridiculously big readership, it’s one of the most popular sites in the world if I remember right, most global visitors and the ones who were being sympathetic to the plight of the refugees are probably drawn to the celebrity stuff they do and don’t realise the papers nasty editorial position on most things.

Yep, internet clicks and advertising is one of the only things keeping it going, as you say they have done a great job worldwide with their website, it's really quite ingenious getting the filthy foreigners to keep you afloat without them even knowing :agree:

[Rocky]

If anyone wants a good insight into Daily Mail readers psyche simply go to any story that involves "foreigners" and look at the Best rated and Worst rated comments. It's an absolute cesspit.

[makaveli1875]

The Holy ground mafia go to town on another unsuspecting victim.
It's like a motorway car crash, you know you shouldn't but can't help yourself from taking a wee peek at the carnage

[calumhibee1]

I understand what you are saying about their editorial stance on certain topics but that still doesn't mean that all Daily Mail readers are happy to read about this young ma drowning, which this thread title implies is the case.

:agree:

[Smartie]

The Holy ground mafia go to town on another unsuspecting victim.
It's like a motorway car crash, you know you shouldn't but can't help yourself from taking a wee peek at the carnage

We will all form an opinion that goes against the grain from time to time. If you choose to voice that opinion then you can expect to be robustly challenged on it.

The Daily Mail is a controversial publication (to be polite about it) that divides people. Anyone choosing to defend that paper or it's readership should expect to be challenged.

Whether or not a Daily Mail reader stops short of wanting teenagers to die is neither here nor there. There is a shared sentiment amongst them that some of us will never approve of and will seek to challenge at every turn.

[Rocky]

I lost my parents to the Daily Mail. They're fundamentally really good people but they just couldn't see what it was doing to them. The best thing about lockdown and them shielding was the fact that they couldn't get out for a paper (and my brother refused to buy it with their shopping). The transformation in them over the past five months has been amazing.

[calumhibee1]

The Holy ground mafia go to town on another unsuspecting victim.
It's like a motorway car crash, you know you shouldn't but can't help yourself from taking a wee peek at the carnage

Yup. Its the same on every thread with the same folk every time.

[makaveli1875]

We will all form an opinion that goes against the grain from time to time. If you choose to voice that opinion then you can expect to be robustly challenged on it.

The Daily Mail is a controversial publication (to be polite about it) that divides people. Anyone choosing to defend that paper or it's readership should expect to be challenged.

Whether or not a Daily Mail reader stops short of wanting teenagers to die is neither here nor there. There is a shared sentiment amongst them that some of us will never approve of and will seek to challenge at every turn.

I wasn't aware that folk were defined by the newspapers they read but everyday a school day

[Smartie]

I wasn't aware that folk were defined by the newspapers they read but everyday a school day

Not all newspapers.

The Daily Mail, yes.

Unless you have a part of your soul that is stimulated by a certain type of message, you wouldn't go near it.

[Pretty Boy]

I wasn't aware that folk were defined by the newspapers they read but everyday a school day

It's surely gives an indication of people's views? If readi g the Mail is not indicative of their views in itself then it's perhaps fairer to say that reading news and opinion aligned to a particualr viewpoint will shape and impact on your own views.

I accept people read material they may not agree with to broaden the range of opinions they are exposed to but I'm sceptical as to whether that applies to many people who read the likes of the Sun and the Mail habitually.

[easty]

A three word thread title of "Daily Mail readers" implies that "all Daily Mail readers want immigrants to die?" Do you actually write for them cos that's Mailesque levels of gaslighting.

Gaslighting...yawn

[easty]

Am I allowed to read the Daily Mail sports pages, or does that still mean I’m in favour of kids drowning?

I prefer the Mail Online Sports to the BBC sports pages, but I’m also in favour of making it easier for migrants to come here. It’s a conundrum.

[calumhibee1]

Am I allowed to read the Daily Mail sports pages, or does that still mean I’m in favour of kids drowning?

I prefer the Mail Online Sports to the BBC sports pages, but I’m also in favour of making it easier for migrants to come here. It’s a conundrum.

:agree:

Load of pish. Post earlier in the thread saying anyone that buys/reads the mail is responsible for the content they print. Absolute nonsense. Much the same as the suggestion that all/majority of DM readers are pleased a 16 year old drowned.

We all support Hibs who had Nike as a sponsor a few seasons ago. We’re presumably all in favour of slave labour.

Ever bought anything from Apple? Their disproportionately white workforce has come about to due to systemic racism. You bought that iPhone, you support it.

Same folk on every thread on the Holy Ground are utterly determined to declare everyone and anyone that doesn’t share their viewpoint on every subject as some form of bigot - usually in a pathetic vague way where they can then give it the ‘well if that’s what you took from it then that speaks volumes’ way when they’re challenged on it. It’s chronic.

[Smartie]

Am I allowed to read the Daily Mail sports pages, or does that still mean I’m in favour of kids drowning?

I prefer the Mail Online Sports to the BBC sports pages, but I’m also in favour of making it easier for migrants to come here. It’s a conundrum.

Interesting point.

As far as I'm aware the sports pages don't venture into hateful political territory, so you're off the hook. :greengrin

I don't read any newspaper in particular and I don't subscribe to any.

When it comes to sports stories I'll click on any old link and I don't really form any opinion based on the publication, whether it is the Sun, the Guardian or the Telegraph.

Anything apart from the Daily Record tbh. That's the only rag that I object to on sporting principles.

Believe it or not, I'm quite open minded when it comes to judgment of newspapers. I can give the Sun the benefit of the doubt at times. It goes through spells of being a horrific, malevolent rag and through slightly less offensive periods. Sadly, it is going through an awful spell right now and has done for some time.

The Daily Mail is always something I object to in the strongest possible terms. Maybe I'm a hypocrite (well, of course I am) but I would have no qualms about clicking on a Daily Mail link if they got the scoop about Leigh Griffiths returning to Easter Road and I wanted to read it.

[RyeSloan]

I’ll admit to reading some of the daily mail’s output but it’s entirely through their financial and money output via the This is Money app. (As an aside the podcast of the same name is a habitual listen of mine and always comes across as informative, balanced and accessible)

Anyway the app is a bit clunky but has some interesting financial and shares articles (if you find such things interesting!) that I peruse...they do though have the ability to leave a comment.

Most articles have a few comments on them, most pretty mild, some occasionally interesting and informative esp. the specific share articles etc.

The fun starts tho on any generic article that gets included from their main paper / website around taxes or benefits or whatever. Then there is suddenly thousands of comments (the app shows comments from the website and the app) a lot of them rather eye watering to read. Not always quite as horrible as people celebrating a teenagers death but wow the nasty vitriol that gets spewed is quite something.

Sure there is quite a few dissenting / balancing comments but nothing compared to the, let’s call them, uncaring ones.

So while I’m with SDG that you can’t tar everyone with the same brush (my Neebs reads the DM and a nicer old dear you will never meet) and I suppose to some degree I’m indirectly in that bucket as well but there definitely is something about that website that seems to attract a certain type of comment.

[Mon Dieu4]

I’ll admit to reading some of the daily mail’s output but it’s entirely through their financial and money output via the This is Money app. (As an aside the podcast of the same name is a habitual listen of mine and always comes across as informative, balanced and accessible)

Anyway the app is a bit clunky but has some interesting financial and shares articles (if you find such things interesting!) that I peruse...they do though have the ability to leave a comment.

Most articles have a few comments on them, most pretty mild, some occasionally interesting and informative esp. the specific share articles etc.

The fun starts tho on any generic article that gets included from their main paper / website around taxes or benefits or whatever. Then there is suddenly thousands of comments (the app shows comments from the website and the app) a lot of them rather eye watering to read. Not always quite as horrible as people celebrating a teenagers death but wow the nasty vitriol that gets spewed is quite something.

Sure there is quite a few dissenting / balancing comments but nothing compared to the, let’s call them, uncaring ones.

So while I’m with SDG that you can’t tar everyone with the same brush (my Neebs reads the DM and a nicer old dear you will never meet) and I suppose to some degree I’m indirectly in that bucket as well but there definitely is something about that website that seems to attract a certain type of comment.

Interesting point and I suppose it's if you can separate one side of it for the other, I wouldn't want to put any money in their coffers but equally there will be companies that I will do that with

the BBC is a prime example, at times I find some of their Politcal output infuriating and I know however impartial they claim to be they will always be part of the establishment but on the flip side no one does nature documentaries better than them so it balances out with me as I can separate them in my head

I find the Mail overtly racist and xenophobic, they aren't exactly sly about it where as the likes of Nike, Apple etc don't exactly publicise the fact their products are made in sweat shops so it's easier to switch off from it

I'm the first to admit that I'm very fickle and two faced on many subjects :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

For my sins, I am an avid viewer and collector of recipes and I can’t imagine I will ever make them all, let alone tweak or refine them. Nevertheless the Mail was usually a good source for recipes once you got past the more sensationalist articles about whether Meghan Markle liked avocados etc.

The thing that struck me most was that the Mail put their recipes within the ‘Femail’ section of their site. No lack of genderisation there! The paper has a chequered history for various reasons but no denying it has a solid constituency.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

[Beefster]

I thought after the outrage about the post using three ********s with an anti-English banner to imply that Scotland is anti-English would mean that maybe we would see a reduction in stereotyping based on a tiny minority of a population. Evidently, stereotyping is only bad when it doesn’t tie in with your worldview.

PS I don’t read any Daily Mail output.

[hibsbollah]

I thought after the outrage about the post using three ********s with an anti-English banner to imply that Scotland is anti-English would mean that maybe we would see a reduction in stereotyping based on a tiny minority of a population. Evidently, stereotyping is only bad when it doesn’t tie in with your worldview.

PS I don’t read any Daily Mail output.

It’s fascinating how a thread that was expressing outrage at posts that were revelling in a migrants death has now become a thread complaining about the oppression of the Daily Mail reader. This thread has taken a very strange turn. You seem to be grabbing on to this weird straw man that the thread was stereotyping every reader of that website as the same. I can’t see any posts suggesting that. Even if there was some generalisation to make a point, what’s the thing most worth being outraged about? The Mail does also do some cracking recipes, I believe.

[Kato]

I think it's outrageous that Daily Mail readers are being stereotyped. Or something.

[calumhibee1]

It’s fascinating how a thread that was expressing outrage at posts that were revelling in a migrants death has now become a thread complaining about the oppression of the Daily Mail reader. This thread has taken a very strange turn. You seem to be grabbing on to this weird straw man that the thread was stereotyping every reader of that website as the same. I can’t see any posts suggesting that. Even if there was some generalisation to make a point, what’s the thing most worth being outraged about? The Mail does also do some cracking recipes, I believe.

This thread has taken a turn because people have become fed up of the crusade yourself and a couple others are on to declare everyone on here a bigot if they don’t agree with your every word.

It was pointed out on another Holy Ground thread by numerous posters recently as well so let’s not pretend that it’s purely on the back of this thread.

[hibsbollah]

This thread has taken a turn because people have become fed up of the crusade yourself and a couple others are on to declare everyone on here a bigot if they don’t agree with your every word.

It was pointed out on another Holy Ground thread recently as well so let’s not pretend that it’s purely on the back of this thread.

So you’re taking your huff from another thread (I’m assuming you mean the Black Lives Matter thread) onto this thread? That’s a bit babyish. I didn’t call you or anyone else a bigot, unless you want to provide evidence? It sounds like you’re the one who has a problem with folk not ‘agreeing with your every word’. I couldn’t give a flying one whether you agree with me or not.

[calumhibee1]

So you’re taking your huff from another thread (I’m assuming you mean the Black Lives Matter thread) onto this thread? That’s a bit babyish. I didn’t call you or anyone else a bigot, unless you want to provide evidence? It sounds like you’re the one who has a problem with folk not ‘agreeing with your every word’. I couldn’t give a flying one whether you agree with me or not.

I wasn’t involved in the recent discussion on the BLM thread where you were all called out for it. So no, I’m not taking some huff onto another thread.

As I said earlier, the posts from the same folk are always deliberately vague enough that the posters can say “I’ve never called anyone a bigot” but the insinuation is always there.

[Pretty Boy]

This thread has taken a turn because people have become fed up of the crusade yourself and a couple others are on to declare everyone on here a bigot if they don’t agree with your every word.

It was pointed out on another Holy Ground thread recently as well so let’s not pretend that it’s purely on the back of this thread.

Are people who celebrate the death of a 16 year old based on the fact he was trying to migrate to this country not bigots? The first post only makes mention of that. It doesn't say 'all Daily Mail readers are bigots'.

As with many threads it developed and became a more general discussion about the Daily Mail. Once again I don't see anyone explicitly say that 'all Daily Mail readers are bigots'. The point people have tried to make is that the content of the Mail and it's output, the people it platforms and the editorial stance it takes makes it a likely destination for people who are bigots to get their news and in turn that shapes their views. That still not saying 'all Daily Mail readers are bigots'. It's been pointed out that the Mail website is ingenious in it's design. Clickbait headline and celebrity tittle tattle segue into some more questionable output.

The link below (which has a lot of, but not exclusively, Mail content) is quite an interesting example of how the slant put on reporting can influence people's thinking, and perhaps even draw on subconscious prejudices, so they view 2 similar actions in a completely different light:

https://www.boredpanda.com/uk-media-double-standarts-royal-meghan-markle-kate-middleton/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

Again the link doesn't suggest 'all Daily Mail readers are bigots' but exemplifies how people can be led by the media.

Finally I think people are doing SDG a disservice by suggesting he is the victim of some kind of coordinated attack or a slander of his character. He has posted on this forum for years and whilst I don't always agree with him, in fact I rarely do, I have always respected his willingness to stand his ground and argue his case despite often holding opinions that differ massively from many who post here.

[calumhibee1]

Are people who celebrate the death of a 16 year old based on the fact he was trying to migrate to this country not bigots? The first post only makes mention of that. It doesn't say 'all Daily Mail readers are bigots'.

As with many threads it developed and became a more general discussion about the Daily Mail. Once again I don't see anyone explicitly say that 'all Daily Mail readers are bigots'. The point people have tried to make is that the content of the Mail and it's output, the people it platforms and the editorial stance it takes makes it a likely destination for people who are bigots to get their news and in turn that shapes their views. That still not saying 'all Daily Mail readers are bigots'. It's been pointed out that the Mail website is ingenious in it's design. Clickbait headline and celebrity tittle tattle segue into some more questionable output.

The link below (which has a lot of, but not exclusively, Mail content) is quite an interesting example of how the slant put on reporting can influence people's thinking, and perhaps even draw on subconscious prejudices, so they view 2 similar actions in a completely different light:

https://www.boredpanda.com/uk-media-double-standarts-royal-meghan-markle-kate-middleton/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

Again the link doesn't suggest 'all Daily Mail readers are bigots' but exemplifies how people can be led by the media.

Finally I think people are doing SDG a disservice by suggesting he is the victim of some kind of coordinated attack or a slander of his character. He has posted on this forum for years and whilst I don't always agree with him, in fact I rarely do, I have always respected his willingness to stand his ground and argue his case despite often holding opinions that differ massively from many who post here.

There was a post earlier on the thread which stated that if you read the DM then you’re at fault for the content it puts out. I don’t read the DM, never have, have no interest in it, but the suggestion that if you read the DM then you’re at fault for bigoted content being published is absolutely suggesting that all DM readers are bigots.

[Pretty Boy]

There was a post earlier on the thread which stated that if you read the DM then you’re at fault for the content it puts out. I don’t read the DM, never have, have no interest in it, but the suggestion that if you read the DM then you’re at fault for bigoted content being published is absolutely suggesting that all DM readers are bigots.

I wouldn't read that as saying all readers are bigots.

Ultimately people produce goods that others want to consume. If their website continue to get hits and hard copies of their paper continue to sell then they will continue to produce the content they do. Like anyone else they are catering to their audience.

Does that mean everyone who reads the Mail or sections of it is a bigot? Of course not. I don't think you can completely dismiss the idea that that continuing popularity drives the editorial stance of the outlet though. It's not exclusive to the media either. If you shop in Primark you have to accept your throwaway, fast fashion has a dark side. If you use Amazon or Sports Direct you have to accept you are play a part in driving poor working conditions. The list is essentially endless and I don't believe anyone can claim to be whiter than white.

[hibsbollah]

I wasn’t involved in the recent discussion on the BLM thread where you were all called out for it. So no, I’m not taking some huff onto another thread.

As I said earlier, the posts from the same folk are always deliberately vague enough that the posters can say “I’ve never called anyone a bigot” but the insinuation is always there.

You don’t appear to have any evidence that I’ve done anything wrong (apart from insinuating that I’m making insinuations and being vague, ironically) so I’m happy to ignore that and continue on topic.

[Ozyhibby]

There was a post earlier on the thread which stated that if you read the DM then you’re at fault for the content it puts out. I don’t read the DM, never have, have no interest in it, but the suggestion that if you read the DM then you’re at fault for bigoted content being published is absolutely suggesting that all DM readers are bigots.

You may not be a bigot if you buy the Daily Mail but you certainly are willing to turn a blind eye to bigotry while helping fund it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

I read the Daily Mail. I read any old newspaper that crosses my path, which is lots in my work. I don't finance any of them however and the thought of giving the likes of The Daily Mail anything dosh wise is abhorrent to me. I believe however if you want to criticise anything you should be familiar with it and I can safely give my opinion that The Daily Mail is a racist, xenophobic rag and if your willing to allow any agreement within yourself with it's editorial stance on most "foreign" people or stick up for it then if someone calls you out on it you've got a lot of tricky explaining to do.

[calumhibee1]

You don’t appear to have any evidence that I’ve done anything wrong (apart from insinuating that I’m making insinuations and being vague, ironically) so I’m happy to ignore that and continue on topic.

If you think any of my posts have been insinuating anything then I’m not quite sure you know what an insinuation is. I’ve been quite clear that yourself and your clique on the Holy Ground have made any form of debate/discussion impossible on this forum. As was mentioned on the BLM thread by other posters, It’s a case of agree with me and my pals or we’ll just gang up on you and make it a waste of your time trying to have a discussion.

I’m not that frequent a poster on the Holy Ground but I used to read it a lot. Your wee crowd have made it almost unreadable, something which from the replies in the BLM thread, other posters also think.

[calumhibee1]

You may not be a bigot if you buy the Daily Mail but you certainly are willing to turn a blind eye to bigotry while helping fund it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nonsense. Have you ever been to Ibrox or Celtic Park? Or a game against the OF at Hampden? Even a home cup game? I presume the fact some of that money is going in the coffers of the OF makes you willing to turn a blind eye to bigotry while helping fund it by that logic?

[Rocky]

You may not be a bigot if you buy the Daily Mail but you certainly are willing to turn a blind eye to bigotry while helping fund it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's unfair and it's certainly not true of my family members and I'm sure the majority of people who read it aren't consciously turning a blind eye to bigotry.

The content is much more insidious than that and in my experience the people who read it don't even realise their outlook is being shaped by it (as all of our outlooks are shaped by the content we consume).

The online comments section is another matter and is inhabited by the absolute worst kind of people. That clearly indicates that the editorial content is attractive to a certain type of person but also doesn't indicate that every person who reads the paper is a bigot or consciously condoning bigotry.

[Smartie]

If you think any of my posts have been insinuating anything then I’m not quite sure you know what an insinuation is. I’ve been quite clear that yourself and your clique on the Holy Ground have made any form of debate/discussion impossible on this forum. As was mentioned on the BLM thread by other posters, It’s a case of agree with me and my pals or we’ll just gang up on you and make it a waste of your time trying to have a discussion.

I’m not that frequent a poster on the Holy Ground but I used to read it a lot. Your wee crowd have made it almost unreadable.

The debate on this thread has been good imo.

Exactly as Pretty Boy says above - SDG has a fairly unusual and unpopular viewpoint here but he's fought his corner. I don't think people have rounded on him - just that the general consensus on here probably disagrees with his point of view. The Daily Mail gets that reaction from people.

If I went onto FollowFollow or the Daily Mail Facebook page and made certain comments, I'd expect a certain tone of response. Under those circumstances it's normally more satisfying to either get torn in or avoid it altogether rather than moan about an entirely predictable and reasonable response for that particular site demographic.

[Sir David Gray]

I thought after the outrage about the post using three ********s with an anti-English banner to imply that Scotland is anti-English would mean that maybe we would see a reduction in stereotyping based on a tiny minority of a population. Evidently, stereotyping is only bad when it doesn’t tie in with your worldview.

PS I don’t read any Daily Mail output.

Well said. :top marks

[bigwheel]

That's unfair and it's certainly not true of my family members and I'm sure the majority of people who read it aren't consciously turning a blind eye to bigotry.

The content is much more insidious than that and in my experience the people who read it don't even realise their outlook is being shaped by it (as all of our outlooks are shaped by the content we consume).

The online comments section is another matter and is inhabited by the absolute worst kind of people. That clearly indicates that the editorial content is attractive to a certain type of person but also doesn't indicate that every person who reads the paper is a bigot or consciously condoning bigotry.

I think this is a great summary..on some topics I find the daily mail vile, but it’s readers will be many and diverse. Different I suspect from those who levitate towards commentating hateful things on such online articles discussed on this thread.

Despite my discomfort with a lot of their work, the Daily Mail’s boldness on the Stephen Lawrence killing (for instance ) at the time was as good a piece of journalism in the UK for many a year ..

Ps. it’s healthy to read opinions from all range of media. It helps people form their own richer views on subjects. Only reading one viewpoint will not help form a understanding of all perspectives

[lapsedhibee]

I thought after the outrage about the post using three ********s with an anti-English banner to imply that Scotland is anti-English would mean that maybe we would see a reduction in stereotyping based on a tiny minority of a population. Evidently, stereotyping is only bad when it doesn’t tie in with your worldview.



What's your 'tiny minority' calculation about DM readers here? Think the banner issue was three people, and three out of 5 million's definitely a tiny minority.

The DM used to publish a great Tax Guide annually.

[Rocky]

What's your 'tiny minority' calculation about DM readers here? Think the banner issue was three people, and three out of 5 million's definitely a tiny minority.

The DM used to publish a great Tax Guide annually.
Going by the online comments section, which is what was being discussed earlier, the "tiny minority" is somewhere between 90-95%. Which some would describe as an overwhelming majority. As I've said above though I don't believe the online readership section is fully representative of the print readership.

[Moulin Yarns]

Going by the online comments section, which is what was being discussed earlier, the "tiny minority" is somewhere between 90-95%. Which some would describe as an overwhelming majority. As I've said above though I don't believe the online readership section is fully representative of the print readership.

You mean it could be higher? :rolleyes:

[hibsbollah]

Obviously you can disagree or agree with a papers editorial direction but it’s the inaccurate and misleading stories that are more of a worry.

Mediabiasfactcheck.com has the Daily Mail ranked Low for the Accuracy if it’s stories, the second lowest of its ratings. Wikipedia has it as an ‘untrustworthy source’, so does Microsoft Edge. Apologies are usually hidden away in the back pages. But of course by the time the PCC have forced them to make amendments, the story is already into public consciousness. Even more so with online content.

[lapsedhibee]

Mediabiasfactcheck.com has the Daily Mail ranked Low for the Accuracy if it’s stories, the second lowest of its ratings.

Same rank as The Daily Sheeple. :hmmm:

[bawheid]

You do have to worry about anyone that buys the Daily Mail. Particularly if the paper’s stance on various topics has been pointed out and they continue to buy it.

[CropleyWasGod]

You do have to worry about anyone that buys the Daily Mail. Particularly if the paper’s stance on various topics has been pointed out and they continue to buy it.

What about those who read it, purely to get a handle on what "others" are saying?

I regularly read the Record and Sun websites for that very reason.

[Mon Dieu4]

What about those who read it, purely to get a handle on what "others" are saying?

I regularly read the Record and Sun websites for that very reason.

That's a very good point and not one I'd thought about, I follow all manner of unsavoury people on Twitter for that very reason but if out of context if you saw who I follow you with think I'm some kind of lunatic

[JeMeSouviens]

I wasn't aware that folk were defined by the newspapers they read but everyday a school day

Weighting opinion polls by newspaper readership was something all the big pollsters used to do.

[CropleyWasGod]

That's a very good point and not one I'd thought about, I follow all manner of unsavoury people on Twitter for that very reason but if out of context if you saw who I follow you with think I'm some kind of lunatic

You're on Hibs.net. That part is self-evident :greengrin

There is merit in knowing how others think. It challenges one to consider one's own views; moving in friendly circles (what do the kids call it? An echo-chamber?) all the time isn't always helpful in that.

That said, I've been checking out some of the QAnon followers recently, and **** me that's depressing..............

[JeMeSouviens]

This thread has taken a turn because people have become fed up of the crusade yourself and a couple others are on to declare everyone on here a bigot if they don’t agree with your every word.

It was pointed out on another Holy Ground thread by numerous posters recently as well so let’s not pretend that it’s purely on the back of this thread.

I think the point of the thread was to declare that people commenting positively about the death of a migrant in the channel are bigots?

Which seems pretty self-evident, no? :dunno:

[hibsbollah]

What about those who read it, purely to get a handle on what "others" are saying?

I regularly read the Record and Sun websites for that very reason.

This is a good point, if you look at comments underneath a lot of The Guardian articles there is a large minority of right wing people trying to get a rise out of, or just wanting to debate with, liberal snowflakes. It probably goes both ways. My only experience of this kind of fence jumping was going on kickback for windup purposes, but I’ve grown out of this now :hide:

[Beefster]

It’s fascinating how a thread that was expressing outrage at posts that were revelling in a migrants death has now become a thread complaining about the oppression of the Daily Mail reader. This thread has taken a very strange turn. You seem to be grabbing on to this weird straw man that the thread was stereotyping every reader of that website as the same. I can’t see any posts suggesting that. Even if there was some generalisation to make a point, what’s the thing most worth being outraged about? The Mail does also do some cracking recipes, I believe.

I’m not outraged. I’m not even slightly perturbed about the stereotyping tbh. Just pointing out the hypocrisy that goes on in this sub-forum. It’s silly to pretend that the thread title isn’t stereotyping Daily Mail readers. That’s ignoring the fact that it’s actually Facebook users in this instance but it would be equally silly to imply that all Facebook users are immigrant-hating, Brexit-loving twats.

Any group that doesn’t fit into the mainstream worldview on here is generally stereotyped negatively. If it happens with any group that fits into the worldview, we get a stream of indignation about how x number of idiots doesn’t represent etc etc. I‘m guilty of it myself - I’ve just about posted a few times on the Trump thread doing a similar thing about Trump supporters.

For what it’s worth, the Facebook comments are disgusting. That’s social media for you. It’s easy to find the dregs of humanity.

[Rocky]

I’m not outraged. I’m not even slightly perturbed about the stereotyping tbh. Just pointing out the hypocrisy that goes on in this sub-forum. It’s silly to pretend that the thread title isn’t stereotyping Daily Mail readers. That’s ignoring the fact that it’s actually Facebook users in this instance but it would be equally silly to imply that all Facebook users are immigrant-hating, Brexit-loving twats.

Any group that doesn’t fit into the mainstream worldview on here is generally stereotyped negatively. If it happens with any group that fits into the worldview, we get a stream of indignation about how x number of idiots doesn’t represent etc etc. I‘m guilty of it myself - I’ve just about posted a few times on the Trump thread doing a similar thing about Trump supporters.

For what it’s worth, the Facebook comments are disgusting. That’s social media for you. It’s easy to find the dregs of humanity.
I've not been talking about Facebook, I've been talking about the Daily Mail website which, by definition, is frequented by Daily Mail readers. Here's a selection of comments:

"The police will hunt down the attacker and imprison him plus undoubtedly fine him for breach of Covid regulations. He will be accused of racism and hate. Meanwhile the same police and border force will welcome thousands of illegals, potentially highly dangerous criminals from enemy countries, to the U.K., helping them over from France and into the tens of thousands of 4 star hotel rooms with free food and pocket money that poor British people could only ever dream of."
Upvotes 11,405, Downvotes 482; 96% in favour

"There will be many more attacks soon if this illegal entry is not stopped,, Why keep landing them, send them back!!"
Upvotes 8,275, Downvotes 229; 97% in favour

"If the Government won't deal with it then this is what happens."
Upvotes 9,254, Downvotes 409; 96% in favour

"Horrific. Makes me ashamed to be British."
Upvotes 349, Downvotes 2,930; 11% in favour

"Those poor children going through a terrifying journey across the water like that. It's heartbreaking"
Upvotes 56, Downvotes 901; 6% in favour

"Whilst I dont agree with them coming over illegally in boats I also dont agree with people waiting and intentionally being violent towards them"
Upvotes 244, Downvotes 1,656; 13% in favour

That last one is stark, 87% of voting readers disagreeing that people shouldn't be violent towards migrants? Or maybe they're just pointing out that the comment is inaccurate and these people in boats aren't coming here illegally?

Maybe it does qualify as stereotyping but those look like pretty big sample sizes to me.

[Beefster]

I've not been talking about Facebook, I've been talking about the Daily Mail website which, by definition, is frequented by Daily Mail readers.

The OP is a grab from Facebook.

[One Day Soon]

I've not been around that much recently, is the Holy Ground heading for full-on culture war paggering?

[Hibrandenburg]

There was a post earlier on the thread which stated that if you read the DM then you’re at fault for the content it puts out. I don’t read the DM, never have, have no interest in it, but the suggestion that if you read the DM then you’re at fault for bigoted content being published is absolutely suggesting that all DM readers are bigots.


Yes and no. Yes, it's an indisputable fact that the DM has published utterly hateful and racist articles and reports and has a long history of doing so right back to the first half of the last century and if you buy it then you're helping fund it. No, it's not suggesting that all who read it are bigots, but all who buy it are helping fund a hate filled rag. I don't see what's to argue about there. Some people won't give a **** what's in it and others will, each to their own. And yes, you're Celtic/Rangers analogy is correct.

[Sir David Gray]

Nonsense. Have you ever been to Ibrox or Celtic Park? Or a game against the OF at Hampden? Even a home cup game? I presume the fact some of that money is going in the coffers of the OF makes you willing to turn a blind eye to bigotry while helping fund it by that logic?

:agree: Very well put.

[JimBHibees]

I've not been around that much recently, is the Holy Ground heading for full-on culture war paggering?

Great word never seen or heard it for ages. :greengrin

[makaveli1875]

I think the point of the thread was to declare that people commenting positively about the death of a migrant in the channel are bigots?

Which seems pretty self-evident, no? :dunno:

The point of the thread was to point the finger at people who read a certain newspaper . everyone seems to be in agreement that laughing at folk drowning is sick

[Keith_M]

TBF, the thread title is 'Daily Mail Readers'. It does kind of suggest the quoted comments are a typical viewpoint of anyone that reads the Daily Mail.


Beside, everybody knows that The Daily Telegraph is much worse...

[beensaidbefore]

:agree:

Load of pish. Post earlier in the thread saying anyone that buys/reads the mail is responsible for the content they print. Absolute nonsense. Much the same as the suggestion that all/majority of DM readers are pleased a 16 year old drowned.

We all support Hibs who had Nike as a sponsor a few seasons ago. We’re presumably all in favour of slave labour.

Ever bought anything from Apple? Their disproportionately white workforce has come about to due to systemic racism. You bought that iPhone, you support it.

Same folk on every thread on the Holy Ground are utterly determined to declare everyone and anyone that doesn’t share their viewpoint on every subject as some form of bigot - usually in a pathetic vague way where they can then give it the ‘well if that’s what you took from it then that speaks volumes’ way when they’re challenged on it. It’s chronic.


:top marks

[Keith_M]

...

Ever bought anything from Apple? Their disproportionately white workforce has come about to due to systemic racism.
....


Some statistics:

63% of the US Population are classified as Non Hispanic White
54% of Apple's Technology Workforce are Non Hispanic White

5.3% of the US Population are classified as Asian
23% of Apple's Technology Workforce are Asian


Does that mean that Apple are systemically racially biased in favour of Asians (and against white people)?

:dunno:

Sources:
https://imdiversity.com/diversity-news/apples-tech-jobs-held-mostly-white-asian-men/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States#Racial_cat egories

[calumhibee1]

Some statistics:

63% of the US Population are classified as Non Hispanic White
54% of Apple's Technology Workforce are Non Hispanic White

5.3% of the US Population are classified as Asian
23% of Apple's Technology Workforce are Asian


Does that mean that Apple are systemically racially biased in favour of Asians (and against white people)?

:dunno:

Sources:
https://imdiversity.com/diversity-news/apples-tech-jobs-held-mostly-white-asian-men/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States#Racial_cat egories

I didn’t actually check the stats on Apple, I just made it up as an example situation :greengrin I’m sure there will be plenty huge companies that fit the scenario though.

[Mibbes Aye]

I didn’t actually check the stats on Apple, I just made it up as an example situation :greengrin I’m sure there will be plenty huge companies that fit the scenario though.

I know social media is packed full of lies and twists on the truth but a post like that makes it impossible to afford you any credibility as a poster. Why make things up? Just to seek attention?

[Hibernia&Alba]

It isn't just The Daily Mail either. I expect the the comments sections of The Sun, Express, Daily Star, Telegraph are the much the same. The Sun and Mail are by far the most poisonous and bigoted, in my humble opinion, filled with misinformation on so many issues. Horrendous.

[hibsbollah]

It isn't just The Daily Mail either. I expect the the comments sections of The Sun, Express, Daily Star, Telegraph are the much the same. The Sun and Mail are by far the most poisonous and bigoted, in my humble opinion, filled with misinformation on so many issues. Horrendous.

It’s off topic slightly but the Mail and The Times have been giving Boris a beasting in the last few months, which is a major departure and the reason for this change isn’t immediately obvious. The Sun and his chums at The Telegraph still seem to be resolutely behind the Tories.

[lapsedhibee]

It’s off topic slightly but the Mail and The Times have been giving Boris a beasting in the last few months, which is a major departure and the reason for this change isn’t immediately obvious.

Owners of those two papers want Gove to be PM? :dunno:

[Killiehibbie]

It’s off topic slightly but the Mail and The Times have been giving Boris a beasting in the last few months, which is a major departure and the reason for this change isn’t immediately obvious. The Sun and his chums at The Telegraph still seem to be resolutely behind the Tories.

i would imagine they want him replaced with somebody that will really get the job done.

[Pretty Boy]

Owners of those two papers want Gove to be PM? :dunno:

The Times and The Sun have the same owners but have a very different editorial stance on Johnson currently.

I suppose it could be Murdoch making sure he backs the winning horse long term regardless of what happens.

[Smartie]

I find it quite strange that folk get defensive about being lumped in a group of readers of a newspaper.

At times I don't mind the Sun, at times I hate it, and I've had relatives work for it in the past. I remember picking up a copy of the English edition (the Scottish and English editions are markedly different btw, different editorial stances) at Manchester airport before going on holiday one time and being absolutely appalled by the nature of the paper. At that time a close relative was in a fairly high position within the English edition of the paper and I made a mental note to have a word with him when I got back from holiday. When I got back from holiday he'd resigned, with no other job to go to because his thoughts weren't dissimilar to mine.

I have to own the fact that I have bought a paper - whether it was because I used to be mildly interested in the showbiz stuff or the fact that they often actually have a decent inside line to what is going on at Easter Road - that has committed so many other atrocities. I have to accept that I stand with the white van men of Englandshire and cop the abuse that might go with that, because in the past I've chosen to give them my 20p or whatever. I cannot defend the indefensible over Hillsborough and I reserve the right to praise or criticise their editorial stance, depending on whether or not I agree with it at any given time.

At the end of the day, we share common bond that has possibly been spending a few pennies on the same publication, whether we lapped up all the hateful rubbish or recoiled from it. It's hardly identity defining stuff - like maybe choice of football team, nationality, religious faith, dress sense, occupation or whatever is dear to you.

[G B Young]

Without trawling back through the thread to see what's already been said (and apologies if this has already been done to death) but what actually constitutes a 'reader' of specific newspapers these days? Pre-internet, when newspapers sold by the hundreds of thousands and even millions, most folk stuck to their preferred paper and would be considered a 'reader' of those particular papers. Nowadays I'd suggest only somebody who actually buys the paper or subscribes to it online is actually a 'reader' of it. The content of all papers is by and large widely available online and for anybody to comment on. In fact as far as I can see the OP isn't even a snapshot from the Mail comments but a set of responses to a Facebook post. To imply that all Daily Mail 'readers' harbour such views strikes me as well wide of the mark. These are little more than the vile posts of folk who enjoy the safety screen of social media and will seize on any opportunity to spout poison. Most of whom would never dare utter such filth in 'real life'.

Check out the comments sections of pretty much any media source and you'll find plenty folk on there simply trying to stir things.

[Sir David Gray]

Without trawling back through the thread to see what's already been said (and apologies if this has already been done to death) but what actually constitutes a 'reader' of specific newspapers these days? Pre-internet, when newspapers sold by the hundreds of thousands and even millions, most folk stuck to their preferred paper and would be considered a 'reader' of those particular papers. Nowadays I'd suggest only somebody who actually buys the paper or subscribes to it online is actually a 'reader' of it. The content of all papers is by and large widely available online and for anybody to comment on. In fact as far as I can see the OP isn't even a snapshot from the Mail comments but a set of responses to a Facebook post. To imply that all Daily Mail 'readers' harbour such views strikes me as well wide of the mark. These are little more than the vile posts of folk who enjoy the safety screen of social media and will seize on any opportunity to spout poison. Most of whom would never dare utter such filth in 'real life'.

Check out the comments sections of pretty much any media source and you'll find plenty folk on there simply trying to stir things.

Well said. :agree:

[calumhibee1]

I know social media is packed full of lies and twists on the truth but a post like that makes it impossible to afford you any credibility as a poster. Why make things up? Just to seek attention?

Because it was an example situation - as I said in my post you quoted but you’ve of course chosen to exclude that part in the bit you’ve highlighted - that you’ll see the world over in big companies. I’m not going trawling through the internet to look at the break down of a companies work force to make such a simple point when it doesn’t really need to be specific numbers and companies used to make the point. Quite simple really. Probably should have mentioned it but it doesn’t change the point being made in the slightest.

[Kato]

Because it was an example situation that you’ll see the world over in big companies. I’m not going trawling through the internet to look at the break down of a companies work force to make such a simple point when it doesn’t really need to be specific numbers and companies used to make the point. Quite simple really. Probably should have mentioned it but it doesn’t change the point being made in the slightest.



So what percentage of stats do you actually make up in your posts?

[lapsedhibee]

Because it was an example situation that you’ll see the world over in big companies. I’m not going trawling through the internet to look at the break down of a companies work force to make such a simple point when it doesn’t really need to be specific numbers and companies used to make the point. Quite simple really. Probably should have mentioned it but it doesn’t change the point being made in the slightest.

Probably.

[calumhibee1]

So what percentage of stats do you actually make up in your posts?

60% of the time I do it every time.

[CropleyWasGod]

Because it was an example situation - as I said in my post you quoted but you’ve of course chosen to exclude that part in the bit you’ve highlighted - that you’ll see the world over in big companies. I’m not going trawling through the internet to look at the break down of a companies work force to make such a simple point when it doesn’t really need to be specific numbers and companies used to make the point. Quite simple really. Probably should have mentioned it but it doesn’t change the point being made in the slightest.

Of course it does. If you're going to make a point, you have to use facts and evidence to back it up. If that means "trawling through the internet", so be it.

[Keith_M]

I didn’t actually check the stats on Apple, I just made it up as an example situation :greengrin I’m sure there will be plenty huge companies that fit the scenario though.


The thing is, Calumn, I actually accept the main point you were trying to make, so I should have made that clear.


It's just that I work in IT and the things people claim about the recruitment process irritates me quite a bit, because it's never as straightforward as the spin they try to put on things.

[calumhibee1]

Of course it does. If you're going to make a point, you have to use facts and evidence to back it up. If that means "trawling through the internet", so be it.

Na, it doesn’t. It was a generic example. The point of the post still stands whether it was based on facts and evidence or not. Nobody on here needs evidence that there is big companies that will have a disproportionately low number of black employees.

The most simple of points don’t need facts and evidence at all times - I can say it’s warmer than 10 degrees outside today without having looked at the forecast or been outside. I don’t need facts or evidence to say that.

[RyeSloan]

Na, it doesn’t. It was a generic example. The point of the post still stands whether it was based on facts and evidence or not. Nobody on here needs evidence that there is big companies that will have a disproportionately low number of black employees.

The most simple of points don’t need facts and evidence at all times - I can say it’s warmer than 10 degrees outside today without having looked at the forecast or been outside. I don’t need facts or evidence to say that.

Yet the Parker report suggests that the percentage of FTSE350 companies non white workforce is 14%

2011 Census states that the UK non white population is 14%.

Facts and evidence do come in handy occasionally ;-)

[CropleyWasGod]

Na, it doesn’t. It was a generic example. The point of the post still stands whether it was based on facts and evidence or not. Nobody on here needs evidence that there is big companies that will have a disproportionately low number of black employees.

The most simple of points don’t need facts and evidence at all times - I can say it’s warmer than 10 degrees outside today without having looked at the forecast or been outside. I don’t need facts or evidence to say that.

You made it up, though. The"generic example" was false.

Whatever else you were arguing, that alone undermines any point you were trying to make.

[calumhibee1]

You made it up, though. The"generic example" was false.

Whatever else you were arguing, that alone undermines any point you were trying to make.

It undermines absolutely nothing. This is a football forum, not the board room of a FTSE500 company or a court room.

The point was quite clear - that everyone has bought from a company that has skeletons in their closet to some extent. That doesn’t mean you’re willing to turn a blind eye or funding whatever their form of ‘bigotry’ is.

Quite a simple point really. If you’re having difficulty understanding the point because I hadn’t went searching for data on the Apple work force demographics then I’m sorry but I’m not sure I can help you understand.

[CropleyWasGod]

It undermines absolutely nothing. This is a football forum, not the board room of a FTSE500 company or a court room.

The point was quite clear - that everyone has bought from a company that has skeletons in their closet to some extent. That doesn’t mean you’re willing to turn a blind eye or funding whatever their form of ‘bigotry’ is.

Quite a simple point really. If you’re having difficulty understanding the point because I hadn’t went searching for data on the Apple work force demographics then I’m sorry but I’m not sure I can help you understand.

The post I quoted specifically mentioned employment statistics. RyeSloan shot that down.

I'm not arguing the point you are now making; I happen to agree with that. But you made a **** of the employment argument by just making **** up. Football forum or not, that's not clever 😉