egafd.com

"Since he isn't ever likely to give up his non-dom status, would you prefer he closed the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday and put thousands of people out of work?"

As usual you completely and utterly miss the point.

The point is as follows:

On the one hand you have the Daily Mail that routinely pillories the unemployed , berates Ralph Miliband for "hating" British values because he had left wing views and pours vitriol on trade unions.

On the other hand you could argue that a British value is one of fair play where everyone pays their fair share in tax as the vast majority of members of trade unions who are PAYE do. After all "we are all in this together". In short, the Daily Mail is the opposite of what most people would call "British values" e.g. paying your fair share, defending your country in times of war when called upon and having a sense of common deceny.

So the point is the vomit-inducing hypocrisy not about forcing the closedown of a business.

David Johnson wrote:
>
> As usual you completely and utterly miss the point.
>
> The point is as follows:
>
> On the one hand you have the Daily Mail that routinely
> pillories the unemployed ,

So do most members of the public. If you believe opinion polls, they would suggest the public are in favour of workfare. Doesn't the Mail merely reflect (and perhaps reinforce) a popular public view?

berates Ralph Miliband for "hating"
> British values because he had left wing views

It's slightly more than having left-wing views. One of Paul Dacre's chums is Gordon Brown who even you would say has left wing views. But since the Mail is on the right of the political spectrum isn't it expected that it will attack left-wing figures ? past and present ? especially if their views influence today's politicians? The Guardian and Daily Mirror do not run many articles praising Tories.

and pours vitriol
> on trade unions.

Again, it supports a capitalist system so of course it will rail against anything it sees harming that status quo. And I speak as a member of two trade unions.

>
> On the other hand you could argue that a British value is one
> of fair play where everyone pays their fair share in tax as the
> vast majority of members of trade unions who are PAYE do.

Yes but if they could avoid (legally of course) some tax, don't you think they would? Do you think Bob Crowe doesn't employ an accountant?

> After all "we are all in this together".

Says David Cameron; the Mail has never espoused that line nor do most people.

In short, the Daily
> Mail is the opposite of what most people would call "British
> values" e.g. paying your fair share, defending your country in
> times of war when called upon and having a sense of common
> deceny.
>

I don't believe it is.

Well given my main point is that the Daily Mail is guilty of vomit-inducing hypocrisy, it is worth going back to a definition of hypocrisy.

"the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc., contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour"

Let's see how they measure up against this definition.

1. The Daily Mail berates the unemployed as feckless, workshy and skivers who want something for nothing. In reality, the Mail owners are non-doms and have offshore accounts. In short they are scroungers who scrounge money off the state in terms of the taxes they should be paying but are not. Although tax avoidance is legal, the Mail owners wheeze is tax loopholes for the rich before those loopholes are closed down and become illegal tax evasion. Tax avoidance is legal, but then so is being unemployed.

2. The Mail berates Ralph Miliband for "hating Britain" even though in the 1940s Miliband joined up to the Royal Navy of his own free will and was involved in the Normandy landings of 1944. The Daily Mail on the other hand showed their "hating Britain" by publishing headlines such as "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" in the 30s.

3. On the subject of "decency" and "British values" which the Mail bangs on about ad nauseum, ask yourself

a. Do the British people think it is "decent" that the owners avoid huge amounts of tax by a tax dodge whilst the vast majority of UK workers on PAYE pay their full whack?

b. DO the British people think it is "decent " that the Daily Mail attacks war veterans such as Ralph Miliband who is unable to defend himself whilst publishing pro-Fascist headlines? etc etc?

Your comments about Daily Mail supporting the capitalist system and people on PAYE may well try and avoid tax if they could are stating the bleeding obvious and irrelevant to my underlying point about the Mail hypocrisy and the difference between their stated values as a paper and their actions in reaility.

THis is my last post to you in this thread.

David Johnson wrote:

>
> Let's see how they measure up against this definition.
>
> 1. The Daily Mail berates the unemployed as feckless, workshy
> and skivers who want something for nothing. In reality, the
> Mail owners are non-doms and have offshore accounts. In short
> they are scroungers who scrounge money off the state in terms
> of the taxes they should be paying but are not.

Interesting definition of scrounging ? not paying something.


> 2. The Mail berates Ralph Miliband for "hating Britain" even
> though in the 1940s Miliband joined up to the Royal Navy of his
> own free will and was involved in the Normandy landings of
> 1944. The Daily Mail on the other hand showed their "hating
> Britain" by publishing headlines such as "Hurrah for the
> Blackshirts" in the 30s.

But you've just destroyed your own argument ? if it's okay to say that the Mail "hates" Britain because of something it wrote in the Thirties, then it equally must be okay to say Ralph Milliband hated Britain because of something he wrote in the Forties.




>
> 3. On the subject of "decency" and "British values" which the
> Mail bangs on about ad nauseum, ask yourself
>
> a. Do the British people think it is "decent" that the owners
> avoid huge amounts of tax by a tax dodge whilst the vast
> majority of UK workers on PAYE pay their full whack?

I doubt the vast majority of British people ? who don't read the Mail ? are that bothered.

>
> b. DO the British people think it is "decent " that the Daily
> Mail attacks war veterans such as Ralph Miliband who is unable
> to defend himself whilst publishing pro-Fascist headlines? etc
> etc?

The Mail does not publish "pro-Fascist headlines".


>
> THis is my last post to you in this thread.

Hu?bleeding?rrah!

Sigh, just so it is completely clear to you, the reason I don't want to get into long threads with you is because you are absolutely hopeless at a. understanding the point being made and b. using logic.

Here is a classic Essex Ladism - totally confused, missing the point, going off topic.

"2. The Mail berates Ralph Miliband for "hating Britain" even
> though in the 1940s Miliband joined up to the Royal Navy of his
> own free will and was involved in the Normandy landings of
> 1944. The Daily Mail on the other hand showed their "hating
> Britain" by publishing headlines such as "Hurrah for the
> Blackshirts" in the 30s.

But you've just destroyed your own argument if it's okay to say that the Mail "hates" Britain because of something it wrote in the Thirties, then it equally must be okay to say Ralph Milliband hated Britain because of something he wrote in the Forties."

Ooh, you are so cruel and such a good debater, Essex Lad. I am highlighting the HYPOCRISY of the Mail for taking the side of the fascist Blackshirts and then insulting a dead war veteran who chose to fight for Britain.

Duh! This really is my LAST post to you on this thread.

David Johnson wrote:


>
> Here is a classic Essex Ladism - totally confused, missing the
> point, going off topic.
>
> "2. The Mail berates Ralph Miliband for "hating Britain" even
> > though in the 1940s Miliband joined up to the Royal Navy of
> his
> > own free will and was involved in the Normandy landings of
> > 1944. The Daily Mail on the other hand showed their "hating
> > Britain" by publishing headlines such as "Hurrah for the
> > Blackshirts" in the 30s.
>
> But you've just destroyed your own argument if it's okay to
> say that the Mail "hates" Britain because of something it wrote
> in the Thirties, then it equally must be okay to say Ralph
> Milliband hated Britain because of something he wrote in the
> Forties."
>
> Ooh, you are so cruel and such a good debater, Essex Lad. I am
> highlighting the HYPOCRISY of the Mail for taking the side of
> the fascist Blackshirts and then insulting a dead war veteran
> who chose to fight for Britain.
>
So the Mail took the side of the Fascists in the 1930s and then attacks a dead war veteran in 2013 and that makes them hypocrites? And you accuse me of being illogical!!!

Who reads the Daily Mail is the question.
Well, I always thought it was the hanging and flogging set.

RoddersUK wrote:

> Who reads the Daily Mail is the question.
> Well, I always thought it was the hanging and flogging set.
>
Millions of people all around the world read the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline...

'...Millions of people all around the world read the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline...'

I know. Inexplicable, isn't it?

Not really because whether you like it or not ? and I can guess which side of the divide you will be on ? the Daily Mail is a brilliantly produced newspaper. It knows its target market and goes after it.

MailOnline not so much but it is the most popular newspaper website in the world...