Virgin Trains To Stop The Daily Mail On Their Passenger Service

[emmie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42621425

[ludwig]

The Mail have criticised Virgin - perhaps with good cause, and this is Virgin's revenge, which they're fully entitled to take.

That's all there is to be said about it really.

[sp1814]

The ‘liberal left’ also don’t appreciate so-called family newspapers that sexualise 14 year old girls.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/avn35k/all-grown-up-sexing-up-the-internet-with-the-daily-mail

“All grown up” they write as they print pictures of prepubescent children.

Hence - scumbag.

[naomi24]

Pre-pubescent children at 14?

[Jackdaw33]

That's what I was thinking.

[hereIam]

I have never understood this hatred of the Mail, is it so different to all the others ???

[Jackdaw33]

The Mail has a right-wing agenda and therefore is loathed by those who bat for the other side.

[naomi24]

hereIam, you don't understand it because you're dopey and uneducated and the haters are smart and highly intellectual. They rhymed 'Mail' with 'Wail' didn't they - and some of them can even spell! How clever is that? ;o)

[hereIam]

Daft isn't it naomi - I could NEVER get that worked up about a flamin' paper .....

[naomi24]

Nor me ... but there's nowt as queer ... and all that.

[diddlydo]

The Mail has a sensationalist right-wing agenda which is why I loathe and despise it. The Torygraph is right-wing obviously but at least its journalists can write proper English without the sensationalism.

[naomi24]

So much angst...

[sp1814]

naomi24

Not all children have reached puberty at 14.

But that’s not the point.

No paper should be sexualising 14 year old girls.

And personally, it’s not the political leanings of the Mail that I find so egregious...it’s the way it swipes content and dresses it up as its own. It’s the volume of Kardashian-related items. It’s the dodgy sexual politics. It’s the dog-whistle articles. It’s the hypocracy.

However, someone earlier said that people on this site (AB) would like to see it banned if we could.

Nonsense. In the same way that I don’t think that Breitbart of Fox should be banned, I don’t think that the Mail should. But there’s nothing wrong with voicing criticism of the paper.

[naomi24]

SP, can't think why you read it then.

Incidentally, that publication you linked to is an odd one.

[ludwig]

Virgin don't have to buy the Mail (for selling on to their customers), in the same way that none of us have to buy it.

It might have been more interesting if they'd been honest about the reasons instead of the high falutin' guff such as ..

//concern raised by colleagues about the Mail's editorial position on issues such as immigration, LGBT rights and unemployment.//

..but too much to expect really. No big deal.

[sp1814]

diddlydo

//but at least its journalists can write proper English without the sensationalism.//

Spot on.

I would read the Telegraph if it weren’t behind a paywall, because I like to hear views from the Right, so I can think about their arguments (it’s way we get the Spectator and the New Statesman at home - to get views from the Right and Left).

What Daily Mail supporters fail to realise is that people who hate the paper do so not just because of its politics. If that were true, then there would be equal irritation at the Telegraph and other right-leaning publications.

[sp1814]

naomi24

I only go there when its linked to by threads on AB.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//some of them can even spell!//

But not always, and not all of the time.

[naomi24]

Indeed, v_e. A touch of the Eric Morcambes. Mainly the right letters but not necessarily in the right order.

[naomi24]

'Morcambes' being an example. ;o)

[Jackdaw33]

Should you wish to criticise spelling you need look no further than the Grauniad.