Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Post a reply

:
In an effort to prevent automatic submissions, we require that you enter both of the words displayed below into the text field underneath.
Smilies
:header: :woteva: :yikes: :smilin: :bawlin: :wubbers: :canny: :nelix: :trollface: :wurms: :doomed: :wubwub: :leer: :grrrrr: :cuppaT: :more beer: :ooer: :whistle: :link: :cronos: :whogives: :dafinger: :Lucia: :pukeup: :Hiya: :paranoid: :bored: :gigglesnshit: :Wiiiine!: :choc: :flog: :twirl: :pmsl: :brickwall: :dunno: :pointlaugh: :cheers: :yess: :bum: :snooty: :thud: :shell: :shake head: :thumbsup: :hap: :hand: :shame: :popcorn: :monkey: :off head: :bell: :shoot: :mrgreen: :roll: :oops: :razz: :laughing: :cool: :kinell: :wink: :drool: :grub: :awesome: :slap: :again?: :burfday: :srs?:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Post by Stooo » Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:57 pm

Punk wrote:The cartoon summed up the lies printed by those two fake news rags perfectly. Some idiot believed the rubbish and thought he would do some damage to reclaim the streets. :off head:


At that time of night they're reclaiming the streets from the council cleaning gangs.

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Post by Punk » Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:34 pm

The cartoon summed up the lies printed by those two fake news rags perfectly. Some idiot believed the rubbish and thought he would do some damage to reclaim the streets. :off head:

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Post by Stooo » Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:31 pm

Si_Crewe wrote:
Stooo wrote:lol


Meh,

I didn't even bother reading that.

Persumably it was a load of wordy shite about how sickening the Granduia are when they're willing to stoop to those depths to make a jibe at a competitor.

If that's the case, I agree completely. That Ganiuard cartoon was an utter fucking disgrace.
What's more, you fucking-well know that if the Mail had published a cartoon of, say, the Manchester attack which showed the bomber reading the Guarnida you'd be critical of it.


Let's see if they do...

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Post by McAz » Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:24 pm

Punk wrote:
McAz wrote:
Punk wrote:One only has to read the comments section on Mail political stories to confirm that the level of brightness is rather low.

True - but the Mail's fuss over bugger all may just cause a few of its readers to overcome their fear of real newspapers with long words and reason and actually try the Guardian. It's rarely a good idea to give yards of free advertising to a rival.


Mail readers would only buy The Guardian if it started running fake news stories about immigrants, the EU, bogus Asylum Seekers etc :cheers:


Yes, of course - what was I thinking? :gigglesnshit:

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Post by Si_Crewe » Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:04 pm

Stooo wrote:lol


Meh,

I didn't even bother reading that.

Persumably it was a load of wordy shite about how sickening the Granduia are when they're willing to stoop to those depths to make a jibe at a competitor.

If that's the case, I agree completely. That Ganiuard cartoon was an utter fucking disgrace.
What's more, you fucking-well know that if the Mail had published a cartoon of, say, the Manchester attack which showed the bomber reading the Guarnida you'd be critical of it.

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Post by Punk » Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:53 pm

Stooo wrote:
McAz wrote:
Punk wrote:One only has to read the comments section on Mail political stories to confirm that the level of brightness is rather low.

True - but the Mail's fuss over bugger all may just cause a few of its readers to overcome their fear of real newspapers with long words and reason and actually try the Guardian. It's rarely a good idea to give yards of free advertising to a rival.


Not going to happen when they get diversions like this:

Earlier this week, a Guardian writer attacked the Daily Mail for carrying comments by the controversialist Katie Hopkins. That was a lie. The Guardian and its writer know that Ms Hopkins has nothing to do with the Daily Mail, but works for Mail Online — a totally separate entity that has its own publisher, its own readership, different content and a very different world view.


Yes the print Mail is anti-porn but MailOnline is almost soft core porn :smilin:

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Post by Stooo » Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:45 pm

McAz wrote:
Punk wrote:One only has to read the comments section on Mail political stories to confirm that the level of brightness is rather low.

True - but the Mail's fuss over bugger all may just cause a few of its readers to overcome their fear of real newspapers with long words and reason and actually try the Guardian. It's rarely a good idea to give yards of free advertising to a rival.


Not going to happen when they get diversions like this:

Earlier this week, a Guardian writer attacked the Daily Mail for carrying comments by the controversialist Katie Hopkins. That was a lie. The Guardian and its writer know that Ms Hopkins has nothing to do with the Daily Mail, but works for Mail Online — a totally separate entity that has its own publisher, its own readership, different content and a very different world view.

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Post by Punk » Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:43 pm

McAz wrote:
Punk wrote:One only has to read the comments section on Mail political stories to confirm that the level of brightness is rather low.

True - but the Mail's fuss over bugger all may just cause a few of its readers to overcome their fear of real newspapers with long words and reason and actually try the Guardian. It's rarely a good idea to give yards of free advertising to a rival.


Mail readers would only buy The Guardian if it started running fake news stories about immigrants, the EU, bogus Asylum Seekers etc :cheers:

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Post by McAz » Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:38 pm

Punk wrote:One only has to read the comments section on Mail political stories to confirm that the level of brightness is rather low.

True - but the Mail's fuss over bugger all may just cause a few of its readers to overcome their fear of real newspapers with long words and reason and actually try the Guardian. It's rarely a good idea to give yards of free advertising to a rival.

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Post by Stooo » Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:35 pm

Red Okktober wrote:
Stooo wrote:lol


I'm not so sure why you're laughing Stooo.

I read neither the Mail nor the Guardian, so am impartial on this one, but if it's true what's mentioned in that editorial, then it's a fair and reasonable thing to say.

Do you believe the Guardian is beyond reproach because you share a lot of their views, so therefore they can never be wrong?

What would you say if a cartoon appeared n the Mail, say of the Westminster Bridge killer wearing a Guardian T shirt? I suspect you'd be among the first to complain.


My lol was ironic, I'm sure that it isn't just me...

Image

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Post by Punk » Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:32 pm

Red Okktober wrote:
Stooo wrote:lol


I'm not so sure why you're laughing Stooo.

I read neither the Mail nor the Guardian, so am impartial on this one, but if it's true what's mentioned in that editorial, then it's a fair and reasonable thing to say.

Do you believe the Guardian is beyond reproach because you share a lot of their views, so therefore they can never be wrong?

What would you say if a cartoon appeared n the Mail, say of the Westminster Bridge killer wearing a Guardian T shirt? I suspect you'd be among the first to complain.


Have you read Flat Earth News about newspapers and their dodgy practices? Just wondering. The Sun was featured and was the Daily Mail plus one broadsheet. No guesses for which one. :whistle:

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Post by Red Okktober » Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:27 pm

Stooo wrote:lol


I'm not so sure why you're laughing Stooo.

I read neither the Mail nor the Guardian, so am impartial on this one, but if it's true what's mentioned in that editorial, then it's a fair and reasonable thing to say.

Do you believe the Guardian is beyond reproach because you share a lot of their views, so therefore they can never be wrong?

What would you say if a cartoon appeared n the Mail, say of the Westminster Bridge killer wearing a Guardian T shirt? I suspect you'd be among the first to complain.

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Post by Punk » Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:24 pm

One only has to read the comments section on Mail political stories to confirm that the level of brightness is rather low.

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Post by Stooo » Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:48 pm

Guest wrote:Image




FIRST, an apology to our readers. We realise that they are not interested in our differences with other newspapers, which inevitably risk being seen as self-obsessed navel-gazing. But this week the Guardian published a cartoon so sick and disgusting — so deranged and offensive to the four million decent, humane and responsible people who read us — that we owe it to every one of them to lay to rest this malicious smear.

The calumny in question was a crude drawing of the van in which a white man, believed to be a racist thug and drunken social inadequate, mowed down Muslim worshippers earlier this week. Emblazoned on the side of the vehicle were the words: ‘Read the Sun and Daily Mail.’

The implication was as unmistakable as it was poisonous. The Guardian was telling its followers that the Daily Mail and its readers are vicious bigots with the blood of innocent, peace-loving Muslims on their hands.

If this had been an isolated example of the Left’s bilious malice, we might have let it pass with nothing more than a shudder of revulsion. After all, cartoonists, including our own, are traditionally allowed great licence.

But this is far from a one-off insult to our readers, who — as should go without saying — were as horrified and appalled as the rest of the country by the Finsbury Park attack.

No, hardly a day passes without another drip, drip, drip of mendacious vitriol and bile from Guardian writers, attacking us and our readership and, by implication, all fair-minded, small-c conservatives who make up the great majority in this country.

Earlier this month a Guardian online columnist, Sophie Heawood, tweeted: ‘Genuinely excited for a future in which the Daily Mail readers are all dead.’

She later deleted it, but nothing can wipe out the bigotry and hatred in her original tweet.

In March, attacking us for lightheartedly comparing Theresa May’s legs with those of Nicola Sturgeon, the Guardian’s jejeune and excitable Leftwing columnist Owen Jones described the Mail thus: ‘It comes to something when this open sewer is still capable of shocking us with its stench.’

Earlier this week, a Guardian writer attacked the Daily Mail for carrying comments by the controversialist Katie Hopkins. That was a lie. The Guardian and its writer know that Ms Hopkins has nothing to do with the Daily Mail, but works for Mail Online — a totally separate entity that has its own publisher, its own readership, different content and a very different world view.

The Guardian knows this, because the Mail has told it countless times, but, hey, why let a little lie get in the way of a good smear?

Only yesterday, the Guardian published a half-witted reader’s letter, accusing the Mail of complicity in acts of mindless violence — including last year’s hideous murder of the Labour MP Jo Cox, whose husband the Mail interviewed over two pages last week, urging readers to join in one of his reconciliation street parties at the weekend.

With an awe-inspiring lack of selfawareness or respect for the truth, its correspondent ranted: ‘The main organ of hate speech in Britain, as everyone knows, is the Right-wing extremist Daily Mail, also the main author of Brexit. So why on earth is it not being held to account?

‘If any actual person stood on the street shouting the sort of bile that paper produces daily, they could be prosecuted for hate speech. Surely it is time to launch a group action by victims, on behalf of us all, against the Daily Mail for hate speech and general incitement to violence.’

For the Guardian’s editor to publish such deluded, defamatory nonsense — which in itself is a naked incitement to violence (though the paper clearly lacks the nous to see this) — speaks volumes about the hatred that grips this ‘voice of liberalism’.

But then the examples of its over-thetop ranting are countless, accusing the Mail without a shred of foundation of fanning the flames of Islamophobia and racism and generally advocating Right-wing extremism.

Of course, it wouldn’t matter so much if these infantile lies were confined to the pages of a little-read dying paper. But in this age of social media, they are spread and amplified through the great distorting echo-chamber of the internet, where the mob really does rule — and gleefully repeated by BBC ‘comedians’ when they are not indulging in their normal staple of lavatorial humour.

For the record — not that this matters to the fake news the Guardian creates about the Mail — this paper has always been against UKIP, so much so that Nigel Farage blamed us for his lack of electoral success.

For the record, the Mail was consistently against Blair’s and Cameron’s wars in Iraq and Libya, arguing that such illegal incursions would stoke a sense of grievance among Muslims worldwide — a grievance that has been the animus behind so many of the terrorist attacks in Britain today. We were also the first paper unequivocally to condemn Guantanamo Bay and consistently opposed Britain’s involvement in torture. Is to argue that Islamophobic?

Yes, this paper argued strongly for withdrawal from the EU (an unforgiveable sin in the eyes of the Guardian’s metropolitan europhile readers). But to claim this paper is the author of Brexit, as the Guardian’s letter writer did this week, is simply insane.

Our views on the EU — held consistently over 25 years — are shared by 17.4million lovers of British democracy from every part of the political spectrum, including huge numbers of traditional Labour voters who certainly don’t read the Mail.

But to the Guardian, of course, those people are stupid, uneducated racists, who are not intelligent enough to understand the virtues of belonging to a vast undemocratic behemoth which has reduced the economies of several member states to ashes.

We also readily declare that we have called for restraints on mass immigration — a wish shared not only by a large majority in Britain but, as a Chatham House survey found this week, by tens of millions of working people throughout Europe.

But, as we never cease to stress, we harbour not the faintest animosity towards others on account of their colour or creed. On the contrary, we have unfailingly acknowledged the contribution to our society made by hard-working settlers from overseas, while expressing strong admiration for many of the virtues espoused by Islam.

Indeed, the Mail has a very considerable readership among British Asians, who share our commitment to family values and aspirations.

No, our sole motives for demanding border controls are to relieve the pressure of numbers on school places, hospital beds, wages, housing, transport and other infrastructure, preserve our national identity and improve our security and social cohesion.

Indeed, we will not take lessons from the Guardian about compassion for members of other races. After the Manchester atrocity, we launched an appeal whose proceeds will be shared among victims and interfaith charities, working to promote harmony between members of different religions.

Within hours of the Grenfell Tower disaster, the Mail’s management were the first to offer practical support, giving £100,000 to the victims, with a promise to match staff contributions up to a further £50,000.

Nor will we take lessons on racism from the Guardian. Our campaign to bring Stephen Lawrence’s murderers to justice, for which the editor of this paper could have been jailed, did more to improve race relations in this country than anything the Guardian has ever achieved.

Nor will we take censure for inciting violence from a paper that damaged the West’s ability to combat terrorism by publishing classified emails leaked by those egregious traitors Assange and Snowden.

For the Guardian — which, because of criminally stupid business decisions has lost hundreds of millions of pounds over the years — we have one question: in the name of sanctimony, what, when you handle your own affairs so badly, gives you the right to sit in judgment on other papers?

Your jaded product is addicted to subsidy and steeped in public sector mentality — which is why you merely preach the same failed answer to every problem: throw more public money at it.

The Mail will, however, confess to one sin in the Guardian’s eyes: we love our country, fear its enemies, and believe everything possible should be done to protect its people.

Nobody is obliged to agree with the Mail’s views. We ask only that the Guardian should stop so malignly misrepresenting them — and stop hating the millions of decent, small-c conservatives who share them.

The truth is that the Guardian and the fascist Left are the REAL purveyors of hate in this country.


lol

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Post by McAz » Thu Jun 22, 2017 2:42 pm

Si_Crewe wrote:
McAz wrote:Very unfunny - but when you control the media and government it's easy to give the appearance of an alternative truth.


Hang on... it's only a few minutes ago that you were arguing that the "appearance of truth" is more important that facts in politics. :scratch:


As for the whole "one law for the rich" thing, I'll concede you're right there, partially at least.
I don't think there are different laws for rich and poor people but I'd certainly agree that rich people have opportunities to use their wealth to gain advantages that poor people don't have available to them.
To argue that would simply be pedantry and I'm not going to indulge in that.

In general, though, I'm not sure what might be done about it.
I'm sure you'd agree that poor people are just as corrupt as rich people. Hell, often the only difference in the value of any wrongdoing.
Seems like whoever yo put in charge, the same problems are going to exist.
Pretty much every type of society on the planet, regardless of the political system in place, proves this is the case.


Nothing puzzling - the rich through their media promote the truth they want you to believe. :dunno:

Of course poor people are no more "moral" than anyone else - but they are not pulling the strings. My concern is for the welfare of the poor - it has been better and can be better again, it's not rocket surgery.

Top