Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Life In The Uk Is Cheap
First seventeen pages of the Daily Mail today about two Ex Red Carpet hustlers/wannabee TV executives.
Meanwhile in the real world we have a tribal feud among Sikhs in East London over the weekend leaving three fatally stabbed.
No mention in the paper or t'il now ,apparently, on AB.
Is life becoming so cheap in the UK as akin to a 3rd World Country?
Meanwhile in the real world we have a tribal feud among Sikhs in East London over the weekend leaving three fatally stabbed.
No mention in the paper or t'il now ,apparently, on AB.
Is life becoming so cheap in the UK as akin to a 3rd World Country?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by retrocop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Retro, from the Mail online:-
https:/
https:/
The bias of one 'item of interest' is not led by importance in terms of real life, it's led by sales, which is the raison d'etre of any newspaper.
The Mail has seventeen pages of coverage about Harry and Meghan because it knows that this is a major interest story for its readership.
It is likely to continue for the foreseeable future, so if that is not of major interest to you, the best advice is simply to read another paper with an editorial slant more suited to what you think is important.
The Mail has seventeen pages of coverage about Harry and Meghan because it knows that this is a major interest story for its readership.
It is likely to continue for the foreseeable future, so if that is not of major interest to you, the best advice is simply to read another paper with an editorial slant more suited to what you think is important.
It happened at 7.40 last night.
And we all know the Daily Mail has an obsession with the Sussex family (which presumably is who you mean)
So for their paper version to have rustled up much on this never mind 17 pages, would have been pretty extraordinary.
It features prominently in the online editions of several papers now.
And we all know the Daily Mail has an obsession with the Sussex family (which presumably is who you mean)
So for their paper version to have rustled up much on this never mind 17 pages, would have been pretty extraordinary.
It features prominently in the online editions of several papers now.
retrocop - // You appear to dismiss three deaths as non news.! I am perfectly aware the choice I have in which paper I peruse.I happen to read several. //
New year - same nonsense from you!
I don't 'appear to dismiss' anything at all - if you re-read my post, you will see that it is confined to comment about the editorial policy of a national newspaper.
It makes no mention - far less any comment - about the tragic loss of three lives, and your shot is, as usual, cheap, nasty and invented.
If you want your OP debated, that's fine, but try and stick to the responses you get, not decide I said something which I didn't say, and then use it to make an unfounded slur on my sympathies for murdered individuals.
I know your desire to have a pop at me brings the red mist, and as my post walks in through the door, your reason jumps out of the window, but in the spirit of that new year, try and confine your hostility within the boundaries of what I say.
If you can't find anything there to moan about, it does your credibility on this site - such as it is - no good whatsoever, simply to invent a viewpoint and then take a nasty unfounded malicious swipe at it simply because it makes you feel better.
New year - same nonsense from you!
I don't 'appear to dismiss' anything at all - if you re-read my post, you will see that it is confined to comment about the editorial policy of a national newspaper.
It makes no mention - far less any comment - about the tragic loss of three lives, and your shot is, as usual, cheap, nasty and invented.
If you want your OP debated, that's fine, but try and stick to the responses you get, not decide I said something which I didn't say, and then use it to make an unfounded slur on my sympathies for murdered individuals.
I know your desire to have a pop at me brings the red mist, and as my post walks in through the door, your reason jumps out of the window, but in the spirit of that new year, try and confine your hostility within the boundaries of what I say.
If you can't find anything there to moan about, it does your credibility on this site - such as it is - no good whatsoever, simply to invent a viewpoint and then take a nasty unfounded malicious swipe at it simply because it makes you feel better.
danny - // AH, The mail has given quite a lot of coverage to the stabbings.Did you not click on the link? //
As I pointed out to retrocop, and am happy to point out to you, my post did not mention the murders of the three gentlemen, my post was about the editorial approach of the paper.
Retrocop's typical foaming hysteria about 'life becoming cheap' is misplaced, as usual, but he never lets his ability to get hold of the wrong end of any stick get in the way of making up rubbish so he can criticise it.
As I pointed out to retrocop, and am happy to point out to you, my post did not mention the murders of the three gentlemen, my post was about the editorial approach of the paper.
Retrocop's typical foaming hysteria about 'life becoming cheap' is misplaced, as usual, but he never lets his ability to get hold of the wrong end of any stick get in the way of making up rubbish so he can criticise it.
it is cheap when an englishman/journalist is awarded a Freedom of Speech prize, by a foreign country that stands unacknowledged in his homeland & instead sneered at. Mention his name on some forums is liable to risk a bann!
https:/
https:/
//Retro - you really need to keep a lid on your little vendetta. You're like a bullying teenager! //
ummm
I have no vendetta and am not bullying anyone. I can't help but notice it is Andy Hughes who is jumping in at any opportunity at making his usual snide remarks after I post. I gave my honest appraisal on the film 1917 thread. It was my opinion which is just as valid as anyone elses.He had to add some snide and trite remark afterwards.
I have posted about three deaths in London and I get snide remarks as in this unwarranted nonsense. He sees hostility where it doesn't exist.
//If you want your OP debated, that's fine, but try and stick to the responses you get, not decide I said something which I didn't say, and then use it to make an unfounded slur on my sympathies for murdered individuals.
I know your desire to have a pop at me brings the red mist, and as my post walks in through the door, your reason jumps out of the window, but in the spirit of that new year, try and confine your hostility within the boundaries of what I say.
If you can't find anything there to moan about, it does your credibility on this site - such as it is - no good whatsoever, simply to invent a viewpoint and then take a nasty unfounded malicious swipe at it simply because it makes you feel better. //
ummm
I have no vendetta and am not bullying anyone. I can't help but notice it is Andy Hughes who is jumping in at any opportunity at making his usual snide remarks after I post. I gave my honest appraisal on the film 1917 thread. It was my opinion which is just as valid as anyone elses.He had to add some snide and trite remark afterwards.
I have posted about three deaths in London and I get snide remarks as in this unwarranted nonsense. He sees hostility where it doesn't exist.
//If you want your OP debated, that's fine, but try and stick to the responses you get, not decide I said something which I didn't say, and then use it to make an unfounded slur on my sympathies for murdered individuals.
I know your desire to have a pop at me brings the red mist, and as my post walks in through the door, your reason jumps out of the window, but in the spirit of that new year, try and confine your hostility within the boundaries of what I say.
If you can't find anything there to moan about, it does your credibility on this site - such as it is - no good whatsoever, simply to invent a viewpoint and then take a nasty unfounded malicious swipe at it simply because it makes you feel better. //
