Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Why I hate the Daily Mail.

Well, the Miliband stuff is beyond anyone’s pale.

I disagree with Ed Miliband on much but there is a hop, skip and jump between that and the virtual grave-robbing they’ve done recently.

But that (vile though it is) is not the real reason. The real reasons are the comments section called [out of their] Right Minds. It’s like a mirror image of the Guardian’s Comment is Free.

But nah, it ain’t even that. Nor is it the obsession with house prices (like the cost of a basic essential going-up is like a good thing?) or their idea that the entire population of Bulgaria is going to sell children to peadophiles in Midsommer next Thursday.

No. It is (and I have previously mentioned this) the right sidebar called “Femail”. Now apart from the name being hideously cute like a kitten that has just puked on a Persian rug it is (very) soft porn whilst the main editorial rants and raves about porn as though it were the work of Satan himself. The hypocrisy is risible in it’s obviousness. I have seen “Femail” sidebar stories trumpeting some starlet’s weight loss post-partum to size 6 (UK) next to polemics against the “media” (which clearly doesn’t include the Mail) for encouraging eating disorders in kids. Or some rant or rave about binge drinking or whatever next to some pic of some X-Factor wannabe falling out of her dress (and a nightclub) simultaneously.

But the Miliband thing is a shark-jump.

I wouldn’t wipe my arse with the Mail – even if I were Venezuelan.

And this is not because I like Ed Miliband. It is because this is plain nasty. If I disagree with the leader of the opposition I shall so and why. I won’t go after his dead father.

And this is the same paper that has campaigned for mandatory IP porn filters that you have to opt out of to protect the kids. But when it gets called on this dreadful stunt starts wibbling about “press freedom”. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the paper ought to have been banned. I’m not saying they ought to be censored (or whatever) but… If they have the right to offend (and they do) then I have the right to be offended. By their grossness over the late Mr Miliband and their serial set of double standards that makes Dr Erwin Schrödinger’s moggie know whether it is coming or going.

Oh, and their football coverage is shite. Their coverage of WAGs (and their handbags that cost more than my wife’s car) on the otherhand…

115 Comments

  1. John Galt says:

    Not so sure what you mean by “management”, I’m pretty new here but I’ve never deferred to Cats on any other basis than his gaff, his rules. More akin to Pancho Banes than anything else and when patronising or censorious we’ve all called it.

    Cats hasn’t changed as he’s always criticised our use of demotic Anglo/Saxon and we’ve always called him out for being an old woman.

    We could go elsewhere and pour out our libertarian yearnings, but here the pillows are comfy and the audience receptive. Who gives a crap if we have our head up our ass sometimes or on certain issues, that’s life, human nature loud and proud.

    Just sigh, say “Ugh! boys” and come back next week when RAB will be narrating tales from the dark side of 1970′s UK civil service life, Paul Marks on the meaning of “agency” or myself on life as a colonialist badly dressed neo-Tolkienist puddle jumper.

    We’re like Scottish weather – four seasons in one day, so if you don’t like it now just come back later and things will be different. Not necessarily better or worse but certainly different.

  2. Lynne says:

    JG, it’s not the language thing. I moderated mine yonks ago and, even though I was mad with Cats for the crass and long-winded way he went about asking me, my posts were better for it.

    But to be told that we’ve made this blog a “hate” site is weapons grade bollocks and I called them on it. Simples.

  3. Locke says:

    Lynne, don’t you guys hate marxists?
    That is the pretty clear message I get from the comments on this site. Violent hatred. When combined with a fairly broad definition of marxism, it’s a little worrying.

  4. CountingCats says:

    Locke,

    Long time, no see.

    I guess it isn’t Marxists per se I dislike, just apologists for mass murder, genocide and an ideology of universal slavery, even if that does include pretty much all Marxists, by definition.

    Marxism, of course, being such an ideology of universal slavery…

  5. John Galt says:

    Yup, have to agree with Cats there, by their works shall you know them.

    This is why I can’t see any difference between Marxists, Communists, Socialist, Common Purpose, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, Hizb ut Tahrir, etc.

    They all want to enforce their own political/religious ideology upon us whether we like it or not and are prepared to kill dissenters to meet these aims.

    That’s why they are all “collectivists” and as a libertarian I will always oppose them utterly.

  6. Lynne says:

    Locke, what Cats said.

    I don’t like Marxists or any kind of authoritarian ideology. That doesn’t mean I want to kill them or commit violent acts against them. Criticising them and their deeds hardly constitutes a violent act.

  7. Locke says:

    Can we gain the ability to make a choice by fighting others?
    Surely Libertarianism only makes sense to the extent that free will is (at least to some extent) independent of society. When we fight, we aren’t wresting a metaphysical prize from an opponent – we are aiming to change social conditions.
    Granted – certain social systems might be more condusive to individual choice than others – but to say that “my concern for *individual freedom* is so great I will *destroy* you” strikes me as odd. If we wish to be concerned primarily for the individual and the individual’s ability to make choices then we are necessarily (morally?) bound to behave in ways different to those with different values.

    We have to go to the gun fight with a knife – If our primary concern is the individual, then we cannot view the destruction of our enemies as a means to an end.

    So, when I read “have to match them”… “no quarter asked or given”… “get those Chez T-shirt wearing marxists”…. “Pinochet wasn’t so bad”… I don’t imagine that the writer is primarily concerned with liberty. I imagine that they are primarily concerned with property – getting what they think is theirs. This is the hallmark of fascism.

  8. Lynne says:

    Locke, I wasn’t able to give you a full response earlier because my other half was dragging me out of the door – I’d promised to buy him lunch.

    There are a few things you need to know about me.

    1) I am as equally scathing of the Cameroons as I am with the Cleggerons and the Milibandistas. I don’t care what colour banner politicians serve under. If they are self-serving incompetents, liars and thieves I despise them all equally. There are notable exceptions and one or two of those are level-headed, serving Labour MPs believe it or not.

    2) I come from an extended family who were all staunch Labour supporters. Some of them still are and that includes my sister who has always voted Labour and probably always will. She is my best friend and closest confidante. My Grandmother, after she discovered my “treacherous” Conservative tendencies, refused to speak to me for several years. Eventually, once she realised her huge sulk wasn’t going to alter my opinion, we kissed and made up. It didn’t make me love the crotchety old witch less; when I was a kid she was the best gran you could hope to have. She just needed time to realise that, even though I had broken with family voting tradition, the world wasn’t about to end. Just because I don’t agree with their politics it doesn’t mean I hate them. And just because I come from a family of traditional socialists I am not about to hate myself.

    3) A number of my friends and acquaintances are Labour supporters. Somehow I’ve managed to not violently hate them especially when we socialise. Their voting Labour doesn’t make them bad people. It also doesn’t mean I can’t be friends with them.

    4) I despise militant trades union leaders and their apparatchiks who think they can dictate how the State should rule over us. That doesn’t mean I violently hate people who are members of unions. I have belonged to two unions in the past – the Police Federation and the (useless, very leftist) CPSA. Up until very recently my significant other half was a rep for Unison although he isn’t a Labour supporter or a militant. Somehow I manage to not violently hate him either.

    5) I have only contempt for the press. I quit buying newspapers years ago. That goes double for our State broadcaster. While I still watch programmes on the BBC (well I have to pay for it after all), I switch channels immediately if an otherwise interesting science or nature programme embarks on the tiresome yet inevitable AGW soliloquy.

    So you see, Locke, it is not people I have a problem with. It is those who would curtail our freedoms that you need to worry about as far as my critical leanings are concerned. And not all of them are Marxists or members of the Labour party by any stretch of the imagination.

    As for:

    So, when I read “have to match them”… “no quarter asked or given”… “get those Chez T-shirt wearing marxists”…. “Pinochet wasn’t so bad”… I don’t imagine that the writer is primarily concerned with liberty. I imagine that they are primarily concerned with property – getting what they think is theirs. This is the hallmark of fascism.

    That is something I’m not guilty of. I take their arguments apart using researched facts not rhetorical threats. And yes, I am scathing. Industrial strength stupidity and malfeasance in public office has that effect on me. And so does being accused of “hate” in this thread when my responses, up until that point, were clearly moderate and inoffensive.

  9. Locke says:

    Lynne,
    Uh huh… So presumably you reject the immoderate statements made by others in this thread? (And the rather stupid one about Obama not being American?)

    Anyway -
    1) Me too.
    2) Good lord – it truly is amazing how the other half live. Don’t really understand political tribalism. If your grandmother was a member of my family we would have just laughed and laughed and laughed at her…
    3)OK
    4)Sounds sensible
    5)You can get them for free online these days – but yes, probably better not to bother.

  10. John Galt says:

    Lynne – I came from a similar background to yourself, with a heritage of Irish crofters, Manx teachers, Yorkshire sheep farmers and coal miners. They had voted Labour and before that Liberal unto the very founding of Nineveh and Tyre.

    It is not the politico’s that I am opposed to, their philosophies and their heroes from Marx, Hitler, Castro, Guevara and through to Pol Pot have never frightened me as they promise the earth and deliver Gehenna.

    What I talk about in opposition is not the philosophy of ideas, even the madcap idiocies of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Schickelgruber. They can indulge in their fantasies of a workers state until the cows come home and I will just chuckle into my pint by the fire.

    If the price of showing a potential future PM as a Marxist is accusations of slandering the dead, then that is a small price to pay to keep Ed Miliband out of No. 10.

    What I object to though is when they assume the mantle of state power by unchallenged promises of beneficence and thereby force those of us who will not submit to their will through their monopoly on legalised violence within the state.

    Then there will be blood, for such is the difference between those who would be free and those who would be slaves.

    I don’t think that is unreasonable or an unnecessary escalation of violence.

  11. John W says:

    Miliband junior says his aim is to fulfill the the ambitions of his father.
    DM is the only newspaper to indicate the ambitions of Miliband’s father include a Total State.
    Miliband junior, fresh from dancing on Thatcher’s grave, says it’s wrong to criticize the dead.

    Sheeple, climb on Miliband’s bully pulpit and denounce the DM for saying A is A.

  12. Lynne says:

    So presumably you reject the immoderate statements made by others in this thread? (And the rather stupid one about Obama not being American?)

    It is not something I would have said. I am not going to fall out with them for being immoderate or overly zealous in their opinions or because they said something in the heat of them moment. It is up to them to defend what they said. Most of it is rhetoric anyway. We’ve all said daft things we didn’t really mean at some time in our lives. All of us.

    As for Obama – who knows? Both sides of the “birther” polemic seem to have valid arguments. It isn’t something I’m particularly interested in or have looked deeply into. As with many political conspiracies, I tend to treat them with indifference unless proof positive is produced one way or the other at which point they become fact based controversies or evidential so whats.

    I try not to say anything I can’t defend in an argument or discussion. I endeavor to check facts before engaging my keyboard. I put a lot of work into my major posts which is why I do not post very often. One solid argument based on facts or logical analysis is worth a thousand immoderate statements. However, I have been known to open up with both proverbial barrels if someone crosses the line with me as happened in this thread. I have a broad sense of humour but it has its limits. Maligning my integrity for no good reason is one of those limits.

  13. Lynne says:

    What I object to though is when they assume the mantle of state power by unchallenged promises of beneficence and thereby force those of us who will not submit to their will through their monopoly on legalised violence within the state.

    Then there will be blood, for such is the difference between those who would be free and those who would be slaves.

    I don’t think that is unreasonable or an unnecessary escalation of violence.

    JG, I vehemently hope it will never come to that. Civil war is an ugly, unforgiving thing that opens up a gulf of hatred for generations. What price freedom when you stand over the broken body of a fellow Brit, friend or family member? I would prefer to starve the beast. They can’t imprison us all.

  14. RAB says:

    Oh I do so love to be called stupid Locke, brings out the absolute best in me… locks and loads…

    “We have to go to the gun fight with a knife – If our primary concern is the individual, then we cannot view the destruction of our enemies as a means to an end.”

    What kind of horseshit is that for logic? If there is a gunfight going on, I’m bringing a bloody gun or I’m dead. I am never going to instigate a gunfight, but I will defend myself with any means possible if others come looking for a fight. My survival not their destruction is my primary concern. I am happy to leave them alone to their own devices, if they will offer the same courtesy to me.

    Now then this stupid comment wot I made… What did you not understand about my explanation of it? Barry is a second generation immigrant to the USA. Yes I accept he was born there, (I am not a Birther, that was Nick’s daft comment), and as a matter of fact I find the American rules on who can be President rather odd, given that actual immigrants to the UK can become Prime Minister if enough people vote for them. We may have had Prime Minister Peter Hain, if things had all gone horribly wrong. And Henry Kissinger actually ran the USA for decades without being President or allowed to be. Power often isn’t in the Office itself but behind the scenes. Look to who Barry’s friends and advisors are.

    What I said about Barry I will stand by. He hates his country and wishes to change it into a copy of Socialist Europe. He has never been attached emotionally, culturally or in any other way but superficially, to the country he purports to lead.

  15. CountingCats says:

    Locke,

    So presumably you reject the immoderate statements made by others in this thread?

    I have no responsibility for comments other people make. I can’t possibly. The only comments I have responsibility for are those I make myself.

    We have to go to the gun fight with a knife – If our primary concern is the individual, then we cannot view the destruction of our enemies as a means to an end.

    No we do not, or at least I don’t. The non aggression principle, which I subscribe to, dictates that I do not initiate the use of force, or violence, and that includes using the violence of the state to bend others to my will. However, if others do so initiate, I am entitled to defend myself as I see fit.

    If others force a gun fight on me, I will certainly bring along razor wire, caltrops, a dozen uzis, a sherman tank and a bazooka if I see them as being of benefit to me. Having the US Airforce at my back would be a definite plus.

    Winning the moral argument against people who don’t share my morals is pretty pointless, especially if I am dead and they are not. Winning the physical argument is to be preferred. To a slave, winning a moral victory over slavers is pretty poor consolation.

    BTW, your premise, concern for the individual, does not lead to your conclusion, It is a non sequitur.

    Try considering the non aggression principle instead as a starting point. Google it.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: