Mud stirring from the Daily Mail

[JimPhipps]

They'll just issue one of their notoriously tiny retractions.

I'd recommend everyone installing an ad-blocker. The site stops you from viewing anything.

JimPhipps - You need a "hated by the Daily Mail" badge. Stephen Fry is quite proud of his.

Exactly.

 

[Sabella's Socks]

The writer gets so many facts wrong, it makes one wonder whether any actual journalism was involved.

You're obviously not familiar with the Daily Mail.

It's an absolute cancer in society.

 

[ComedyClub]

So, in your book anybody who is involved with any organisation that said stuff 90 years ago is fair game to tar with the same brush?
You can come to the pub and slag my German mates off for things their great grandads might have said. It'll be an interesting evening, seeing how your liberal credentials hold up to scrutiny.
Likewise to anybody working for BMW, Bosch, VW, Mercedes??

There have been accusations of racism against the Daily Mail.[156] In 2012, in an article for The New Yorker, former Mail reporter Brendan Montague criticised the Mail's content and culture, stating: "None of the front-line reporters I worked with were racist, but there's institutional racism [at the Daily Mail]."[14]

Homophobia accusations
After High Court judges ruled in 2016 that parliamentary approval must be sought for activation of Article 50, the leading headline on the Mail's front page read "Enemies of the People".[157] The paper's front page and other coverage drew much criticism from the legal world, as well as from high-ranking politicians.[158] On its website, the Mail described one of the judges as "openly gay." Critics accused the Mail of unnecessarily highlighting the judge's sexual orientation due to anti-gay motives. The Mail later removed the description.[159] One law professor commented: "I have never seen this kind of invective against judges, either here or abroad, in the national media."[160]

Sexism accusations
In 2014, after Emma Watson spoke at the launch of the United Nations HeForShe campaign, the Mail was criticised for focusing its coverage on Watson's dress and appearance, rather than the content of her speech, in which Watson complained how media had sexualised her in their coverage from when she was 14.[161] The Mail was much criticised for running the front-page headline "Never mind Brexit, who won legs-it", accompanying a photograph of Theresa May meeting with Nicola Sturgeon in March 2017, running more than a page of coverage on the two leaders' appearance.[162] Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Labour Party, stated "It's 2017. This sexism must be consigned to history. Shame on the Daily Mail."[163][162] The International Business Times quoted an unnamed Daily Mail staff member describing the headline as "moronic", and out of touch with the Daily Mail's largely female readership.[164]

Unfortunately your recent example is blurred and can't be read, and no doubt is actually relevant to a sensible conversation.
Linking people to fascism is out of order in my book, unless they actually are, then by all means shoot at will.

There have been accusations of racism against the Daily Mail.[156] In 2012, in an article for The New Yorker, former Mail reporter Brendan Montague criticised the Mail's content and culture, stating: "None of the front-line reporters I worked with were racist, but there's institutional racism [at the Daily Mail]."[14]

Homophobia accusations
After High Court judges ruled in 2016 that parliamentary approval must be sought for activation of Article 50, the leading headline on the Mail's front page read "Enemies of the People".[157] The paper's front page and other coverage drew much criticism from the legal world, as well as from high-ranking politicians.[158] On its website, the Mail described one of the judges as "openly gay." Critics accused the Mail of unnecessarily highlighting the judge's sexual orientation due to anti-gay motives. The Mail later removed the description.[159] One law professor commented: "I have never seen this kind of invective against judges, either here or abroad, in the national media."[160]

Sexism accusations
In 2014, after Emma Watson spoke at the launch of the United Nations HeForShe campaign, the Mail was criticised for focusing its coverage on Watson's dress and appearance, rather than the content of her speech, in which Watson complained how media had sexualised her in their coverage from when she was 14.[161] The Mail was much criticised for running the front-page headline "Never mind Brexit, who won legs-it", accompanying a photograph of Theresa May meeting with Nicola Sturgeon in March 2017, running more than a page of coverage on the two leaders' appearance.[162] Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Labour Party, stated "It's 2017. This sexism must be consigned to history. Shame on the Daily Mail."[163][162] The International Business Times quoted an unnamed Daily Mail staff member describing the headline as "moronic", and out of touch with the Daily Mail's largely female readership.[164]

This was what I posted which came out blurry.

JimPhipps I'm sure you and Giansiracusa would have a good case for libel. I mean.. it wouldn't be the first time they've been shot to pieces for it.

 

[Auld Reekie Blade]

Where to begin?

The writer wrote this article knowing that Yusuf Giansiracusa was not involved in the court case; still he wrote the article. It's anything for eyeballs, I suppose. And what better for eyeballs than something connected to a Premier League side.

This is a retread of 22 year old story ... and not a particularly good one. The writer gets so many facts wrong, it makes one wonder whether any actual journalism was involved.

Not only does the writer fail to get Yusuf's name right, he accuses him of involvement in the case. Wrong! It was me and two Saudi lawyers. We did not demand specific relief (beheading and whipping, as the writer reports), but only that the private right be respected. Yes, this included the possibility of a death sentence; but the judge alone came up with the sentences and the remedies per the law.

The writer tries to make my involvement in the case into a negative. It was not. My involvement created the pathway to the settlement that saved these two British nurses from the penalties notoriously associated with their crimes. Their lawyers on the other hand failed at every turn to get them off or to get them relief of any kind. For our part, we saw to it that justice was seen to be done and that a settlement was brought about, sparing one and all (save only the victim) from the worst possible outcomes.

Lawyers represent people in shitty, unwanted circumstances. That's the job. In this case, I did my job and did it successfully. Together with my team, we got justice for the victim's family, who in settlement received not cash, but a namesake hospital wing for women and children; we made a horrific loss into something that honored and preserved the memory of the victim, while providing needed medical care for others. We arranged a settlement that saved the perpetrators from the worst consequences of their conduct and rescued Saudi-British relations from potential disaster. Call me crazy, but doing one's job as a lawyer sometimes makes things better.

It doesn't always work out this way. It might not have in this case, but because lawyers did their job, it did. I do not expect everyone to understand this, but, hey, that's okay.

Where did this 22 year old retread story come from? Who pushed the story? I don't know and won't join in any speculation. I do know the story is a crappy, inaccurate portrayal of something that happened decades ago and has literally nothing to do with our football club.

Well said sir!

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

There have been accusations of racism against the Daily Mail.[156] In 2012, in an article for The New Yorker, former Mail reporter Brendan Montague criticised the Mail's content and culture, stating: "None of the front-line reporters I worked with were racist, but there's institutional racism [at the Daily Mail]."[14]

Homophobia accusations
After High Court judges ruled in 2016 that parliamentary approval must be sought for activation of Article 50, the leading headline on the Mail's front page read "Enemies of the People".[157] The paper's front page and other coverage drew much criticism from the legal world, as well as from high-ranking politicians.[158] On its website, the Mail described one of the judges as "openly gay." Critics accused the Mail of unnecessarily highlighting the judge's sexual orientation due to anti-gay motives. The Mail later removed the description.[159] One law professor commented: "I have never seen this kind of invective against judges, either here or abroad, in the national media."[160]

Sexism accusations
In 2014, after Emma Watson spoke at the launch of the United Nations HeForShe campaign, the Mail was criticised for focusing its coverage on Watson's dress and appearance, rather than the content of her speech, in which Watson complained how media had sexualised her in their coverage from when she was 14.[161] The Mail was much criticised for running the front-page headline "Never mind Brexit, who won legs-it", accompanying a photograph of Theresa May meeting with Nicola Sturgeon in March 2017, running more than a page of coverage on the two leaders' appearance.[162] Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Labour Party, stated "It's 2017. This sexism must be consigned to history. Shame on the Daily Mail."[163][162] The International Business Times quoted an unnamed Daily Mail staff member describing the headline as "moronic", and out of touch with the Daily Mail's largely female readership.[164]

There have been accusations of racism against the Daily Mail.[156] In 2012, in an article for The New Yorker, former Mail reporter Brendan Montague criticised the Mail's content and culture, stating: "None of the front-line reporters I worked with were racist, but there's institutional racism [at the Daily Mail]."[14]

Homophobia accusations
After High Court judges ruled in 2016 that parliamentary approval must be sought for activation of Article 50, the leading headline on the Mail's front page read "Enemies of the People".[157] The paper's front page and other coverage drew much criticism from the legal world, as well as from high-ranking politicians.[158] On its website, the Mail described one of the judges as "openly gay." Critics accused the Mail of unnecessarily highlighting the judge's sexual orientation due to anti-gay motives. The Mail later removed the description.[159] One law professor commented: "I have never seen this kind of invective against judges, either here or abroad, in the national media."[160]

Sexism accusations
In 2014, after Emma Watson spoke at the launch of the United Nations HeForShe campaign, the Mail was criticised for focusing its coverage on Watson's dress and appearance, rather than the content of her speech, in which Watson complained how media had sexualised her in their coverage from when she was 14.[161] The Mail was much criticised for running the front-page headline "Never mind Brexit, who won legs-it", accompanying a photograph of Theresa May meeting with Nicola Sturgeon in March 2017, running more than a page of coverage on the two leaders' appearance.[162] Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Labour Party, stated "It's 2017. This sexism must be consigned to history. Shame on the Daily Mail."[163][162] The International Business Times quoted an unnamed Daily Mail staff member describing the headline as "moronic", and out of touch with the Daily Mail's largely female readership.[164]

This was what I posted which came out blurry.

JimPhipps I'm sure you and Giansiracusa would have a good case for libel. I mean.. it wouldn't be the first time they've been shot to pieces for it.

All relevant stuff, and the reason why most sensible people don't go near the rag.
My only gripe was about the 1930s Nazi stuff. What people are doing now or in the sensible past is what's important.

 

[ComedyClub]

All relevant stuff, and the reason why most sensible people don't go near the rag.
My only gripe was about the 1930s Nazi stuff. What people are doing now or in the sensible past is what's important.

I get that GCB, but like I said, I was simply bringing up the past (just as they did in this article) if a two bit rag of a paper can do such a thing, why can't others as a reminder to their past. The only difference, is the facism links actually happened. And didn't need to be adjusted to fit an agenda.

 

[Bladesman]

I see Kev has been busy in his free time.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

I get that GCB, but like I said, I was simply bringing up the past (just as they did in this article) if a two bit rag of a paper can do such a thing, why can't others as a reminder to their past. The only difference, is the facism links actually happened. And didn't need to be adjusted to fit an agenda.

It's up to you. I think stooping to the same level is unnecessary and detracts from a sensible discussion, and will be counter-productive in lots of instances.
By that, I mean most people don't need convincing that paper is horseshit.
Using the nazi stuff seems to be straight from the Leavers Are Racists handbook, that was nasty and counter-productive too.
I think speaking sensibly and avoiding hyperbole is the best tactic, and has the benefits of good discussion with better outcomes. In my opinion.

 

[Harrisblade]

It's up to you. I think stooping to the same level is unnecessary and detracts from a sensible discussion, and will be counter-productive in lots of instances.
By that, I mean most people don't need convincing that paper is horseshit.
Using the nazi stuff seems to be straight from the Leavers Are Racists handbook, that was nasty and counter-productive too.
I think speaking sensibly and avoiding hyperbole is the best tactic, and has the benefits of good discussion with better outcomes. In my opinion.

I'm sure the Mail will agree with that!

The man who hated Britain

On a hot summer day, a young man made his way alone to Highgate Cemetery in North London to make a lifelong vow, writes GEOFFREY LEVY.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[ComedyClub]

It's up to you. I think stooping to the same level is unnecessary and detracts from a sensible discussion, and will be counter-productive in lots of instances.
By that, I mean most people don't need convincing that paper is horseshit.
Using the nazi stuff seems to be straight from the Leavers Are Racists handbook, that was nasty and counter-productive too.
I think speaking sensibly and avoiding hyperbole is the best tactic, and has the benefits of good discussion with better outcomes. In my opinion.

Completely agree. Though, it does show that you can peddle anything in the past (however irrelevant) to push your agenda. Just as they have in this instance. And it's more a... Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones about the past.

 

[Roygbiv]

I like how there is one comment on the article that says "quite right too!"

 

[Blade 1971]

If guilty of the alleged crime then the death penalty is what they deserve.

Shame we don’t do that in this country.

Jesus wept. Literally.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Completely agree. Though, it does show that you can peddle anything in the past (however irrelevant) to push your agenda. Just as they have in this instance. And it's more a... Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones about the past.

Sorry but I think you're wrong here. Suggesting a news media can't run any articles involving something in the recent past because of something it did in the distant past is unreasonable.
If it bothers you that much, then you need to make sure you never purchase anything German, because every company that existed in WWII has blood on its hands, every company founded in the decades after the war will have direct connections to a very unsavoury past and modern Germans don't escape their past easily either. However, they have moved on, or at least try not to harp back to it at every opportunity.

 

[Deleted member 1486]

All relevant stuff, and the reason why most sensible people don't go near the rag.
My only gripe was about the 1930s Nazi stuff. What people are doing now or in the sensible past is what's important.

Half the "news" they present is beautiful people in idyllic locations. The other half is designed to present the reader with reasons why they aren't living a similar lifestyle. The reason is never due to class, relative lack of privilege/opportunity, lack of fair taxation, banks and big business, the government, etc... In the land of the Daily Mail the world is always falling apart because of immigrants, benefit claimants, muslims, single mothers, people who live on council estates, blah, blah....

It is 1930's Nazi party style misdirection. They (the Daily Mail) constantly appeal to base emotions, particularly the fear and disgust of the outsider/other. So it absolutely is relevant to remind people that they were a fascist supporting organisation (and some might say, still are).

 

[ComedyClub]

Sorry but I think you're wrong here. Suggesting a news media can't run any articles involving something in the recent past because of something it did in the distant past is unreasonable.
If it bothers you that much, then you need to make sure you never purchase anything German, because every company that existed in WWII has blood on its hands, every company founded in the decades after the war will have direct connections to a very unsavoury past and modern Germans don't escape their past easily either. However, they have moved on, or at least try not to harp back to it at every opportunity.

I have German friends, eat German food and regularly visit Germany. My issue isn't with Germany or history. It's an important and powerful part of history, and by that I mean world history. What I do have a problem with is a paper company with a somewhat... Murky past, throwing the past of a member of the board to fit and suit an agenda.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

I have German friends, eat German food and regularly visit Germany. My issue isn't with Germany or history. It's an important and powerful part of history, and by that I mean world history. What I do have a problem with is a paper company with a somewhat... Murky past, throwing the past of a member of the board to fit and suit an agenda.

If you are that involved with Germany and consider the Nazi era a powerful part of history, then you should know better than to use it as a cheap shot. The link between the article (something from the past) and the media reporting it (had a shameful chapter in the distant past) is weak, to say the least.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Half the "news" they present is beautiful people in idyllic locations. The other half is designed to present the reader with reasons why they aren't living a similar lifestyle. The reason is never due to class, relative lack of privilege/opportunity, lack of fair taxation, banks and big business, the government, etc... In the land of the Daily Mail the world is always falling apart because of immigrants, benefit claimants, muslims, single mothers, people who live on council estates, blah, blah....

It is 1930's Nazi party style misdirection. They (the Daily Mail) constantly appeal to base emotions, particularly the fear and disgust of the outsider/other. So it absolutely is relevant to remind people that they were a fascist supporting organisation (and some might say, still are).

I've just had a quick look at their home page and there aren't any articles like you describe. One about a hotel in Turkey. It's a laughable rag, but there's more of an agenda against it than any sort of agenda it allegedly has. They - like so many others - just want clicks so they can make money.

 

[ComedyClub]

If you are that involved with Germany and consider the Nazi era a powerful part of history, then you should know better than to use it as a cheap shot. The link between the article (something from the past) and the media reporting it (had a shameful chapter in the distant past) is weak, to say the least.

Definitely think it's a powerful part of history. To the stage I began reading mein kampf. Though that's due to an interest in the how and whys of the beginning of the war. Like I say, i was merely using it as an example of glass houses.

 

[Birdwell Blade]

Sometimes people hide links and you don't know where you're going until the Heil pops up.

An ad-blocker is the internet equivalent of double bagging.

brilliant quote

 

[essexblade73]

I've just had a quick look at their home page and there aren't any articles like you describe. One about a hotel in Turkey. It's a laughable rag, but there's more of an agenda against it than any sort of agenda it allegedly has. They - like so many others - just want clicks so they can make money.

The fact that they rabble rouse the racists in this country, giving them some form of legitimacy, trumps any of the clickbaity celeb shite they also print. The heil is a dangerous rag that should be shutdown.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

The fact that they rabble rouse the racists in this country, giving them some form of legitimacy, trumps any of the clickbaity celeb shite they also print. The heil is a dangerous rag that should be shutdown.

Banning media that doesn't toe the correct line is a dangerous way to go.

 

[essexblade73]

Banning media that doesn't toe the correct line is a dangerous way to go.

It's media that stinks of bigotry. We're not in the 1970s anymore. Hopkins and her ilk should be shutdown, they just pray on the weakminded to stir the pot and the results are certain elements of society thinking it's OK to hate anyone who isn't English or White, to hate the poor or anyone they see as inferior to them. It's a disgusting hate filled fanzine for wannabe blackshirts and full set cunnts. It doesnt deliver news just hatred. We shutdown stormfront and this lot are just as bad but in suits.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

It's media that stinks of bigotry. We're not in the 1970s anymore. Hopkins and her ilk should be shutdown, they just pray on the weakminded to stir the pot and the results are certain elements of society thinking it's OK to hate anyone who isn't English or White, to hate the poor or anyone they see as inferior to them. It's a disgusting hate filled fanzine for wannabe blackshirts and full set cunnts. It doesnt deliver news just hatred. We shutdown stormfront and this lot are just as bad but in suits.

As I say, I've just scanned over their main news page and I don't see anything like that. Can you link to an article or two off their current page to highlight what you're talking about?

 

[essexblade73]

As I say, I've just scanned over their main news page and I don't see anything like that. Can you link to an article or two off their current page to highlight what you're talking about?

I don't have the time to go through the past 30 years of their small minded shite. You also need to look further than the front page mate. I suggest you monitor it over the next 12 months and make your own mind up. Orrrrr...you could take a peek at their coverage of the last election, look at 'articles' by such rancid shits as Katy Hopkins and Melanie Phillips.oh and look at their 'coverage' of Prince Harry and Meghan, then tell me they're ok.

 

[Cerberus Blade]

Sheffield United rep was lawyer who demanded British nurse's beheading

Sheffield United's vice chairman Joseph Giansiracusa demanded Britons Deborah Parry and Lucille McLaughlin be executed in Saudia Arabia when he represented the family of their victim.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I wonder who's been briefing the Mail?

I wondered exactly the same, for a nanosecond.

Some people need to learn to let go.

I don’t blame any lawyer for defending their client according to local law. That’s their job. If those penalties are inappropriate that’s a matter for the local jurisdiction, not the lawyers.

We should not view this through a Western lens. We may be right and have the upper moral ground, but that’s for their society to decide.

I know nothing about this Mr Syrian Cruiser. But I was very impressed with Mr Jim Phipps when he was here. He communicated openly and honestly with the fans and conducted himself with the utmost professionalism in extremely difficult circumstances.

I think the article only serves to sully the name of Sheffield United Football Club and no one, past or present, should be involved in stuff like this. Whatever their agenda.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

I don't have the time to go through the past 30 years of their small minded shite. You also need to look further than the front page mate. I suggest you monitor it over the next 12 months and make your own mind up. Orrrrr...you could take a peek at their coverage of the last election, look at 'articles' by such rancid shits as Katy Hopkins and Melanie Phillips.oh and look at their 'coverage' of Prince Harry and Meghan, then tell me they're ok.

I'm not saying they're ok, I've seen some ridiculous articles on there over the years, but if you need to trawl through 30 years of posts to find a few examples that what you're saying is true, then I suspect it isn't. The way you and Flawed described it, there should be ample evidence of hate filled articles on the current pages. I'm not defending the Mail as a whole, I don't think it's worth defending, but your and Flawed's rants against it seem to me to be way over the top.

 

[BigBed]

It's a "news paper", they're all full of shit, the only thing they're any good for, is the puppies to shit and piss on, and they know this, that's why they aren't stapled together!

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Agreed. However, their roots started in fascism. Simply bringing up history, just as they have with a remedial article produced for nothing but clickbait.

If they're your role model for how to behave, that's your choice.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

I have German friends, eat German food and regularly visit Germany. My issue isn't with Germany or history. It's an important and powerful part of history, and by that I mean world history. What I do have a problem with is a paper company with a somewhat... Murky past, throwing the past of a member of the board to fit and suit an agenda.

That seems contradictory.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Half the "news" they present is beautiful people in idyllic locations. The other half is designed to present the reader with reasons why they aren't living a similar lifestyle. The reason is never due to class, relative lack of privilege/opportunity, lack of fair taxation, banks and big business, the government, etc... In the land of the Daily Mail the world is always falling apart because of immigrants, benefit claimants, muslims, single mothers, people who live on council estates, blah, blah....

It is 1930's Nazi party style misdirection. They (the Daily Mail) constantly appeal to base emotions, particularly the fear and disgust of the outsider/other. So it absolutely is relevant to remind people that they were a fascist supporting organisation (and some might say, still are).

Perhaps you missed my first sentence.
Inferring fascist or neo nazi allegiance to organisations and people you don't like has failed disasteously, and led to another 5 years of tory rule.
You choose what's best.