The Mail-What a RAG!

getz

landsleaving wrote: »

If it was a different paper I'd agree, because they'd say that directly. The mail just blatantly lies and its readers lap it up. Blind leading the blind.

OK so you read it,do you ?

Donkey Oaty

Millicent wrote: »

Looked it up. Donkey Oaty is indeed right. A child born of foreign national parents here will be granted citizenship on application if the parents have been resident (not citizens) here for 3 of the last 4 years.

Link.

Have been resident "legally". Important distinction. And the onus is on them to prove it.

Naikon

People read these rag papers? I doubt most people take those articles seriously. It's the mail after all.

Donkey Oaty

Naikon wrote: »

People read these rag papers?

Not only do they read them, they believe them.

landsleaving

getz wrote: »

OK so you read it,do you ?

Well, I have, yes. How could I criticise it if I hadn't? I don't read it regularly, I don't buy it, but certainly I've read enough articles on their website to form a reasonably informed view of their modus operandi. Simply by bowsing after hours in fact, you come across enough of their pieces to get an accurate view of their attitudes.

Why, do you read it? And do you agree with it?

Donkey Oaty

Naikon, I replied to a post that you subsequently edited - which replied to my comment, which you couldn't possibly have seen!

Let's agree that some people believe what they read and some don't.

Naikon

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Naikon, I replied to a post that you subsequently edited - which replied to my comment, which you couldn't possibly have seen!

Let's agree that some people believe what they read and some don't.

I noticed that too. I didn't see anything funny enough. I added the sentance back in just in case:pac:

RoundyMooney

I see we've moved on to a more accurate definition of citizenship now, so I won't repeat what's been said on that.

Getting back to the Mail, I'm not going to defend them, they're a business and well able to fight their own corner.

I am curious though, why do they get such a bad press (hur hur)?

Is it because they are unashamedly right wing? Cos, you know it's possible to be right wing, and factual. I'd like to think I've right wing leanings, and find a lot of comfort in the fact that the DM follows stories that other outlets shy away from, for fear of being accused of, I dunno, being overly right wing or un PC?

I have the site bookmarked and look at it a wee bit; some recent articles include (my paraphrasing-and my take on the article comments, something you don't get in the paper edition):

Fat English Chav pisses on war monument, in between bouts of fellatio in public (overwhelmingly negative response),

Ike's WWII driver (90+) dies after a robbery attempt on his person (again overwhelmingly negative, as one would hope),

NY muslim taxi driver stabbed by WASP loon amid Ground Zero mosque tensions (widespread sympathy toward the innocent taxi driver),

I could go on, but I really don't see a bias in the reporting per se. I'm sure there are examples, but it's a damn sight better than our own home grown rag, the Indo.

To go back to the original point, at the present time, a (let's say Asian, but it's irrelevant) baby born to immigrant parents and brought back to their home-what demographic would he or she fall into for the present purposes of keeping track of numbers?

I'd hardly call him or her flippin Irish at that point, now would I? Despite of course the fact that they may well become a citizen and assimilate themselves into the native community in years to come.

Millicent

RoundyMooney wrote: »

I see we've moved on to a more accurate definition of citizenship now, so I won't repeat what's been said on that.

Getting back to the Mail, I'm not going to defend them, they're a business and well able to fight their own corner.

I am curious though, why do they get such a bad press (hur hur)?

Is it because they are unashamedly right wing? Cos, you know it's possible to be right wing, and factual. I'd like to think I've right wing leanings, and find a lot of comfort in the fact that the DM follows stories that other outlets shy away from, for fear of being accused of, I dunno, being overly right wing or un PC?

There are many, many more accurate right wing newspapers. It's not their political ideology that is at fault. They're more than entitled to that. It's the fact they play to the lowest common denominator and frequently and consistently bend facts or completely falsify them to sell papers.

RoundyMooney

I think most of em are at that game, to be fair.

edit @ Millicent; I'm not going to go down the hoary old road of demanding references from you, that just bores us all to death. If you have examples though, even just one, I would be genuinely interested in reading them

landsleaving

RoundyMooney wrote: »

I think most of em are at that game, to be fair.

Yeah, but the mail do it so obviously. It's as if they're baiting people who don't share their attitudes by saying 'Look, look what we can print, and people believe us. Lol @ u ya liberal twits!' :pac:

Millicent

RoundyMooney wrote: »

I think most of em are at that game, to be fair.

If by most of them you mean The Daily Express, Sunday Express, The Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, I'll agree. Also, the Irish Independent and the Sunday Independent. Of them, the first four aren't welcome in my house, because they are consistently egregious in their reporting of "facts". I'm not one for bandwagons but I have studied these papers and come to this conclusion myself. There is no other publication like the Daily Mail for spin, lies and conjecture.

Millicent

RoundyMooney wrote: »

I think most of em are at that game, to be fair.

edit @ Millicent; I'm not going to go down the hoary old road of demanding references from you, that just bores us all to death. If you have examples though, even just one, I would be genuinely interested in reading them

No probs, give me five.

Donkey Oaty

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Getting back to the Mail, I'm not going to defend them...

And then you continue like a true Daily Mail journalist.

RoundyMooney

I honestly have never taken the Express, so I couldn't comment on it.

Wouldn't wipe me harris with anything Tony O Reilly related though (the Independent Group).

As I say, I read the Mail online, the comments almost moreso than the articles.

RoundyMooney

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

And then you continue like a true Daily Mail journalist.

Such as...?

Y'see this is the kind of sweeping crap I'm trying to get to the bottom of, trying to see if there's any basis for.

Millicent

Here we go:

Press Complaints Commission- 75 for Daily Mail (a couple are for Hull Daily Mail though for some reason, despite me using quotation marks to search) and 58 for Mail on Sunday as opposed to 23 for The Guardian.

http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/

http://www.septicisle.info/labels/Daily%20Mail-watch.html

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/10/hateful-daily-mail.html

Donkey Oaty

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Such as...?

Y'see this is the kind of sweeping crap I'm trying to get to the bottom of, trying to see if there's any basis for.

Spoken like a true Daily Mail reader.

Millicent has highlighted some things above. You could google "Daily Mail apologises" for some others. Some good comments and links on their pages sometimes, but you have to be interested in the issue to delve further.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with you, Roundy - although actually I am (standard Daily Mail tactic).

It's journo-porn for people who aren't interested in anything much.

RoundyMooney

Fuck me, you're patronising, aren't you?

Millie, thanks for those, I'm looking at them now, (as I was before tilting-at-windmills advised me to).

I think if they toned down the sensationalism and checked their facts, they'd save quite a sizeable chunk of their profits...

There are a lot of retractions there.

Millicent

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Fuck me, you're patronising, aren't you?

Millie, thanks for those, I'm looking at them now, (as I was before tilting-at-windmills advised me to).

I think if they toned down the sensationalism and checked their facts, they'd save quite a sizeable chunk of their profits...

There are a lot of retractions there.

The thing about saving their profits is, they actually make much more money by marketing sensationalism to the gullible and the zealous. That's their mode of operation and they are cynically aware of what they are doing.

You're welcome, btw.

RoundyMooney

Millicent wrote: »

The thing about saving their profits is, they actually make much more money by marketing sensationalism to the gullible and the zealous. That's their mode of operation and they are cynically aware of what they are doing.

That's a common problem (like Ford back in the 70s, who decided it was easier to pay out damages for a small number of projected deaths, than recall every one of their Pinto models for a modification to the fuel tanks that cost something like ten bucks a car-a bit less extreme, but it's the same mindset).

Anyway, I always read the thing with a healthy dose of cynicism (as I do always tbh), probably more now though. I got another couple of bookmarks out of this, which is no harm to balance things a bit

Donkey Oaty

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Fuck me, you're patronising, aren't you?

Looking at my post again, I probably was.

Genuine apologies, Roundy - didn't mean to be.

Millicent

RoundyMooney wrote: »

That's a common problem (like Ford back in the 70s, who decided it was easier to pay out damages for a small number of projected deaths, than recall every one of their Pinto models for a modification to the fuel tanks that cost something like ten bucks a car-a bit less extreme, but it's the same mindset).

Reminds me of a great Fight Club quote:

Narrator: "A new car built by my company
leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The
rear differential locks up. The car crashes
and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now:
should we initiate a recall? Take the number
of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the
probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the
average out-of-court settlement, C. A times
B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost
of a recall, we don't do one."
Business woman on plane: "Are there a lot of
these kinds of accidents?"
Narrator: "You wouldn't believe."
Business woman on plane: "Which car company do
you work for?"
Narrator: "A major one"

Long but relevant.

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Anyway, I always read the thing with a healthy dose of cynicism (as I do always tbh), probably more now though. I got another couple of bookmarks out of this, which is no harm to balance things a bit

And good, I'm glad to hear it. Never take anything they say verbatim- always research to find out the truth and you won't go too far wrong.

dead air

The irony seems to be lost on this contributor to the mail's comment section:

So the BNP is right all along. Makes the rest look a little foolish.
- B J Deller, Malaga Spain, 26/8/2010 14:55

Biggins

The Brtish Times report:

Migration into Britain jumps by over 20 per cent

Net migration to the UK rose by more than 20 per cent last year, official figures showed today, putting further pressure on the coalition to introduce a cap on migration.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show 4 per cent fewer people arrived in the UK last year — 567,000 compared with 590,000 in 2008 — but the number leaving dropped further, by 13 per cent.

The number of visas issued to students rose 35 per cent to 362,015 in the year to June, despite a series of scandals uncovered by The Times.

Other figures released by the Home Office showed the number of asylum seekers arriving in Britain fell sharply in the second quarter of 2010.

The Home Office said there were 4,365 applications for asylum between April and June — a 29% fall on the 6,110 applications in same period last year.

Two-thirds of this decrease was due to a drop in applications from Zimbabwe, down to 405 from 1,560 in the same period last year.

The number leaving the UK was also down in the second quarter, with 14,130 people removed or departing voluntarily from the UK, 14 per cent fewer than the 16,345 who left in the same period last year.

There was a 15 per cent fall to 2,380 in the number of asylum seekers leaving and a 13 per cent fall to 11,750 in the number of people departing in non-asylum cases.

The number of people granted settlement in the UK rose 37 per cent to 224,390 in the year to June, up from 163,660 in the year to June 2009, the Home Office figures showed.

The figures also showed the number of asylum applications fell last year.

Asylum applications, excluding dependants, were down 6 per cent to 24,485 from 25,930 in 2008, while applications including dependants were down 2 per cent to 30,675 from 31,315 in 2008.

In the 12 months to the end of June 2010, the overall number of visas issued was up 8 per cent and broke the two million mark, rising to 2,076,925, compared with 1,917,460 in the year to June 2009.

This included a 35 per cent increase in the number of student visas, an 18 per cent fall in visas for highly skilled workers — down to 28,410 from 34,555 — and a 9 per cent drop in the number of visas for skilled workers — down to 66,140 from 72,570.

The number of temporary employment visas was also down 17 per cent to 66,495 from 79,890 in the year to June 2009.

The British Times Paper: http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2172/wwwthetimescoukttonewsu.jpg

---

Separate from that I was informed today that the 110 that refused to go in Mosney previous, are currently being moved out of Mosney this/next week.
(Their benefits, etc has been transferred to Dublin)
After that, there will be only 600+ then to be housed in Mosney.
Its currently in the long term process of being wound down as a centre for those coming in to stay.

SEPT 23 1989

No problem with the Mail because FF have no control of it