Lewes Forum thread

My turn for oops: I forgot to add the link

Lovely.

Disgusting rag. All who read it should have their heads chopped off (not that anyone would notice).

Please, don't slag off the DM, you're only going to get the forum's resident loon all a-foaming again.

Daily Mail? I thought only those DFL's read that paper. True Lewesians read far more reliable sources of information or at least use their brain.

I don't read the DM !! I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole....I don't actually buy any papers, prefering instead to pick up news from the internet as it happens or the local news bulletins. If I do buy a paper, it's usually the Independent or Guardian, or the Observer. AND, I'm not a loon, and I certainly don't foam at the mouth !!

SQ. Should we be surprised? You must have had your head in the sand for years if you have only just relased that the tabloid press (not JUST the DM) is full of total rubbish mostly made up or massaged to fit some agenda or other. A pox on all the gutter press.

The Independent is no longer independent as if one now looks closely it no longer stated under the masthead that it is independent and free from party political views and free from proprietorial influence, and the Guardian/ Observer...talk about wearing blinkers...blimey DFL, maybe Lewes has changed you too much from a rabid right winger to a leftie BBC yoghurt knitting pulse eating hippie. Come back to the centre ground and observe both the right and left....

DFL I think you will find that our angry little chum Ex Pat, is directing his dreary interne-ese at me. There was rather an interesting article in the Times yesterday about how the left have retreated into a tiny vocabulary of invective With no money left to waste they have nothing else to say.
The Mail was top of the league table for use of illegal information but the Trinity group were the worst Company.
I think it is altogether more serious that the FT ceaselessly proselytized for our entry to the Euro at the time or that the BBC missed the story on the entire Middle east so keen were they to criticise only Israel.
As Orwell noticed , if you give people little things to think about they miss the big things.

'Come back to the centre ground and observe both the right and left....'

I've always wondered where this strange idea that 'the truth' is midway between two positions comes from. It's just lazy triangulation.

Paul, Orwell also said of his experiences in Spain: 'There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilised life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England... to the vast majority of people Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all. And it was here that those few months in the militia were valuable to me. For the Spanish militias, while they lasted, were a sort of microcosm of a classless society... The effect was to make my desire to see Socialism established much more actual than it had been before.'

Like I said in a previous thread, we must get away from the stereotype right this, left that, we live in a "pick and mix" world. Conservatism doesn't always mean right of centre, likewise Labour is not necessarily leftist or socialist or any other "ist" you want to give it, Politics is "morphing", it's about time we started thinking outside of those boxes....long live people-ism !

DFL, because the parties are simply career vehicles for the same sort of professional politicians, don't run away with the idea that there isn't a real political clash in the real world.

Clifford, I think you're missing my point - there's plenty of political clash in the world, it's just that we have stereotyped it into specific boxes e.g. tory, labour, right, left, socialism, thatcherism etc.. we need to get away from that sort of thinking i.e. politics across the spectrun needs to be reviewed and used where needed irrrespective of politically perceived alignment.

You're right DFL, I don't understand what you're saying. If you don't define your position (which means using a word) how can there be debate and argument? 'Socialism', for example, is not the same as 'capitalism'.

Clifford, I liked your Orwell quote very much. However I think he makes a mistake, if I may take that liberty, in assuming that the two societies were similar and would therefore react in similar ways to the stresses of war.

One of the biggest challenges I think we have in Britain is the class system. It colours everything about the way that we interact, and I don't think it existed in the same way in Spain, and certainly not to the same extent at the time he was writing.

I have often wondered how class affects the Conservative Party. My guess is that it's pretty profound, with self-proclaimed "Working Class Tories" delivering a series of well aimed kicks up the landed gentry in the 70s and 80s. I also note that at the moment it's the moneyed ones who have the upper hand - how many of the cabinet are Old Etonians exactly?

@Hedley Lamarr: "Should we be surprised? You must have had your head in the sand for years if you have only just relased that the tabloid press (not JUST the DM) is full of total rubbish"

I think what is particularly shocking is the quotes attributed to members of the judiciary and the Knox family ("They will be appealing the verdict" etc). It's one thing to prepare a story; it's another thing entirely to make up quotes wholesale. Until now everyone knew that they did it but had no proof, and anyone who challenged the Daily Mail's veracity was accused of left-wing bias.

The reason it matters is that the DM is for many people their only source of news and opinion and they don't "know" that it's biased mendacious nonsense. Readers of the red-tops probably do know that they shouldn't rely on them, but given how often DM readers quote from it as if it were handed down from heaven on tablets of stone. It's nasty insidious stuff and it has politicians and the media on the run. That worries me because I think it's bad for a democratic society.

Southover Queen - What Orwell meant by the class system was the division in the capitalist society between the owners of the means of production, distribution and exchange and the workers, who have nothing to sell but their labour. Nothing has changed. Class doesn't just mean having a posh accent or drinking wine instead of beer and, of course, there are different cultural manifestations in different cultures. But what Orwell was talking about is the fundamental of class in all capitalist societies.

It was the Daily Mail that published the immigrant's cat story that Theresa May quoted today.

Indeed, Clifford. However, the class system here comes with added bells and whistles, and moving from the workers to the owners class doesn't necessarily mean you've transferred in the eyes of society. It isn't like that in Spain in the same way.
@Eek: thanks for that! I figured as much: it's exactly the kind of story they'd have concocted. Even Ken Clark can't bring himself to let her get away with that.

The classic class breakdown is fast morphing into; The Poor, The Workers and The Owners. The workers do the all work and pay all the taxes, the owners do neither. The poor are merely there to terrify the workers.
SQ - good point about DM readers' naivety though. I don't read newspapers at all, I don't think any of them are impartial enough for me, but the staggering scale of the DM's distortions and lies puts it in a league of its own.
So what can we do about it? As suggested in Nick Davies' (utterly brilliant) Flat Earth News, all papers should be made to print, alongside their masthead, an independently verified index of how many of their stories in the last month/week were actually true. (If I remember correctly, he said The DM would be lucky to achieve 45%)
Alas, no government will enforce such an act, they rely on the press' freedom to disseminate their own distortions.

As much as it really pains me to say it, I feel I have to in the interest of balance in this debate:
Am I the only one who noticed that it wasn't only the DM that ran this story? The article via the original link clearly states that other online publications ran a 'guilty' story too.
As much as the DM deserves it, it would be hypocritical of me not to point this fact out.
I do, however, completely agree about the made-up quotes the DM 'sourced'.

There really are some weird opinions from people who use this site! So, ET, someone who works his/her fingers to the bone to build up a business and then, after it has reached a point where they can relax a bit and really enjoy the fruits of their labour, suddenly becomes an "owner" and, by your definition a pariah! It beggars belief. I really cannot understand how people can think this way. I once tried to think like a Socialist Worker type leftie but I just couldn't do "bitter" and "chip" so I gave up and just settled into a happy middling sort of existence. Yes, there are inequalities - there always have been - but we are human for goodness sake and flawed!

Hedley ,it is the besetting sin of Marxism that it assumes a static state economy hence the obsession with cutting the pie as opposed to making it. A good example of this is the notion of mutuals which has been touted for about 100 years .The problem is why would anyone start a business risk their cash and life chances, just to share out the winnings, if they are lucky enough to win.
The Daily Mail is a purveyor if rumour true , as are the countless internet sites the state would also like to police along Ex Pats Stalinist lines.

SQ - I answered your point about class in terms of the decline of mobility during along period of redistribution .I produced my evidence and your response was to claim I was quoting from the Daily Mail.
This is the problem , Theresa May raises an entirely sound point that judicial activism in Strasbourg is a loathed foreign diktat backed by the threat of Franco German EU protectionism in effect. The only part of this you are interested in was the rhetorical phrase about a cat. That is not the point .

What do you mean, "it's not the point"? Of course it's the point. Theresa May is using gross misrepresentation lifted directly from the DM to rouse the rabble at a conference. Her transparent intention is to spread alarm and dismay about the Human Rights Act, which the Tories wish to abolish. I don't know why you say I'm not interested: I just don't agree with you.

The Daily Mail always has acted as a sort of monitor of Tory thinking, or rather of Tory thinking of the unthinking variety. The Daily Mail predigests and processes the news in such a way as to build and reinforce prejudice, and it's presented in such a way that the reader doesn't analyse or question the facts. At the moment, high on the DM agenda are the BBC (the best broadcasting/media bargain in the world, IMHO), "benefit scroungers" and "illegal immigrants". It's quite subtle too - well written and very readable, so that it slips down unimpeded.

@Potato: that is absolutely true. Many commentators have remarked that there was such an attendant media frenzy surrounding this, and all of them wanted to be first. I'm sure they had all prepared versions which would cover "guilty" or "innocent" verdicts. The difference in the DM's version were the various "quotes" and the fact is that while many of us media watchers know that the DM distorts and lies to suit its own agenda, up to now there simply hasn't been a cast iron objective example which can stand alone. That's important, because writers like Nick Davies are always accused of pursuing their own agenda against publications such as the DM and their evidence is dismissed as equally biased. This gives the lie to that.

Mr Newman said : "Theresa May raises an entirely sound point that judicial activism in Strasbourg".

Er.. no. She didn't. She raised a spurious point based-on an anecdote from the Daily Mail that actually had nothing to do with the Human Rights act or Strasbourg at all. Her specific words were ...

"We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act…the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, and I am not making this up, he had a pet cat"

She refers to "stories" and not evidence because she has no actual evidence. As the Fact Check site says "FactCheck also understands that the man’s case had nothing to do with the Human Rights Act. The immigration judge allowed him to appeal on the basis of a former Home Office policy."

So not only was the point about the cat invalid, the whole case had nothing to do with the Human Rights Act anyway.

Completely agree SQ - I just wanted to focus the point against the DM on the actual content of the story (i.e. the made-up quotes, etc.) rather than on the story itself (as other publications were equally guilty of that error).
There seem to be two very specific arguments here:
(i) The press in general are willing to pre-write stories in an attempt to be the first with the scoop (which is difficult in the internet age). This, in my opinion, can't be right and is an example of what is wrong with journalism in general (although it is somewhat a grey area).
(ii) The DM in particular feel it is acceptable to take this to its illogical conclusion and fabricate evidence and sources that do not exist in order to 'sex-up' a story in a way that fits with their agenda. I think everyone would agree that this is completely wrong. And, in my opinion, there should be a way to punish the paper for willfully printing garbage.

Eee- Criticism both of the legitimacy and effect of the human Rights Act is not invalidated by the use of a improperly sourced example, her subject was the ECHR not cats capiche?
Another story is the use made by John Hirst an unrepentant killer of the European Courts to obtain voting rights for prisoners despite the dismay and loathing of the entire electorate outside a few extremists. Happy with that are you ? I daresay you are .
SQ - The Conservative Party are not alone in disliking the imposition of foreign laws we did not ask for or ant any point express any desire for.

Hedley, no one's (yet) suggested the rich shouldn't be idle once they've made their millions, that's a different argument. If only they would move on and let someone else have a go it might actually help matters.
What I believe is that they should n't be allowed to escape taxation the way they do, nor should they have an over representation in government the way they do.
Like the Daily Mail, you're infer a false generalisation - that the obscenely wealthy have 'worked their fingers to the bone' to get there. That's very rarely the case - far far more often its a result of nepotism, inheritance or, often, machiavellian business practice. Not really what the rest of us would consider hard working.
(And if we were to really reward those that 'work their fingers to the bone', why are lawyers so much richer than nurses?)
I guess all this post really deserves to be in another thread too. This one's about the Daily Mail and how its (and others are) allowed to print the lies it does.
Oh dear, Paulie, my poor boy, what on earth do you mean by;
"The Daily Mail is a purveyor if rumour true , as are the countless internet sites the state would also like to police along Ex Pats Stalinist lines." (sic throughout)
Is that your new line? DM's only fault is rumour mongering? Internet sites shouldn't be policed?
'Stalinist' - You use that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

"Criticism both of the legitimacy and effect of the human Rights Act is not invalidated by the use of a improperly sourced example, her subject was the ECHR not cats capiche? "
Of course it's invalidated, if that's the evidence being offered. The sad thing is that I suspect that there are instances of Human Rights legislation being misused or misinterpreted but the only example offered was not relevant and anyway was grotesquely out of context.

Actually she was not discussing the ECHR; she was discussing the adoption of Human Rights legislation in this country, as encapsulated in the Human Rights Act 1998.

I've added a link to the Directgov page outlining those rights: what in there would you like to remove? Or is it just that you'd like to deny some of them to illegal immigrants and prisoners? What about "benefit scroungers" or "teenage mothers"? I don't think you can pick and choose who should have rights in this way because it's just prejudice driven (not you specifically; all of us). If we're going to judge how the legislation is operating by all means let's monitor it and tweak it in parliament if it's needed, but not based on spurious lies generated by the Daily Mail.

Mr Newman said:
"Another story is the use made by John Hirst an unrepentant killer of the European Courts to obtain voting rights for prisoners despite the dismay and loathing of the entire electorate outside a few extremists. Happy with that are you ? I daresay you are ."
A few extremists? Nearly all democratic countries allow prisoners to vote. Even 2 state in the US allow it. Get a grip. What's the big deal?

I'm happy with that and I am not an extremist - or at least I didnt think I was. Some perfectly reasonable arguments for, against and inbetween. You make it sound like it is idea devised by the devil himself.
I'd much prefer to my human rights protected by a european court than some idiot tory that will only be in office a couple more years (if we are unlucky)

Ex Pat
Paulie ? Oh how sweet, the light the soufflé of merriment that ensues when letters are added,
Ok Sex Prat, your go.... and if you think I want to hear last terms tedious Stalin lecture regurgitated think again.Totalitarian if you must ..and I see you must.

Eek I love your begrudging admission of the USA into the community of democracies; arrogant at all ? India , Brazil ,USA, Japan. Looks as if your are selling that excuse for every idiotic mistake of the last fifty years "Falling into line with Europe". In any case that is not the only objection, whether or not you enjoy the spectacle of criminals sticking two fingers up at the rest of us via Europe, and I take it you do, does it not concern you at all that this has been imposed on us from abroad ? Actually ..forget it , of course it doesn`t , bring on the New World Order eh..

Southover Queen - France is a nice country , they have nice laws many of which you would approve of.Why not forget this whole voting charade and hand over the reins to France ?
Personally I have a sentimental attachment to the country and its right to decide for itself, but many have shared you disinterest over the centuries. A certain Mr. Fawkes , for example.

SQ fcs ... don`t you get it ? Parliament cannot do anything about it !! Membership of the Council of Europe is a requirement for membership of the EU. As that Council is signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights we have at about eight removes ceded power from any politician to Strasbourg judges based on a Common Market referendum in which your beloved BBC played a shameful part in misinforming the population as extensively proved since .But lets go back to Daily Mail cats shall we ... , its like living in Noddy land here sometimes.

The HRA has been used in the past to ensure that families get adequate so they can live together, that elderly couples are not forced to end their days in separate care homes after 60 years of marriage and to force a council give adequate social care provision so a disabled mum can care for her child.
Which of those is wrong in your eyes, Paul?

Sorry, the word missing in the second line is "housing".

Paul, as usual you have failed to answer my question. Which of those human rights would you like to remove and from whom?

The Human Rights Act was passed by Parliament in 1998. Of course we can vary it: the question is how? I'd suggest that as usual what we have is a Daily Mail (yes) generated moral panic and that the general effect of giving people - all people - minimal human rights has been hugely beneficial. Of course there is the odd mistake, but generally these things are fixed on appeal. And as we have firmly established the Home Secretary's cat example wasn't even down to the HRA in the first place.

But then I expect you think that the Working Time Directive and the National Minimum Wage are wicked socialist impositions as well.

Kudos to the the posters in this thread. Most comments are considered, well argued and make a lot of sense.
On the other hand Paul Newman seems to have quite seriously lost the plot.

have some fun with this ....