The Table of Statistics the Press Complaints Commission Would Rather You Didn't See

by Guest Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:52 am

You might think that any institution dedicated to upholding an industry's code of practice would want to be clear how many times that code was broken and which companies were the most frequent offenders. Not the Press Complaints Commission (PCC).
Answering questions before the Commons media select committee this week, the PCC director, Michael McManus, seemed surprised when MPs suggested that such data would be valuable to the public:
"I think they're put out in public, I mean we're not a secretive organisation. I mean you know this is publicly available information and you know, people are free to analyse it in ways they want. I don't think it should be seen as some sort of conspiracy or witholding of information."
But it's not an oversight or an accident that the PCC fails to spell out to the public which newspapers attract the most complaints and which papers breach the code most often.
Look at this table of complaints about UK national daily and Sunday newspapers for 2013, compiled by Hacked Off from the PCC Monthly Complaint Summaries, and you will soon get an idea of who benefits if the public doesn't see these figures.

The Table of Statistics the Press Complaints Commission Would Rather You Didn't See 2014-01-31-PCC2013complaints-thumb

(It may be of interest that the editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre, sits on the committee, called PressBoF, that dominates the PCC. He also chairs the Editors' Code Committee. Meanwhile, one of the three directors of the company that owns both the PCC and its planned successor, IPSO, is Peter Wright, editor emeritus at the Mail group.)
The PCC has been told to change, and has refused. The PCC chair, Lord Hunt, who is ultimately responsible for the published statistics, told MPs he had read the whole Leveson Report. Among the parts he seems to have missed is this one:

The PCC has not been transparent about its own performance and the performance of newspapers. Figures published purporting to demonstrate both were not easy to understand, meaning that the public could not readily assess the performance of the PCC in particular or of the newspapers which came into contact with it. - Source, p1559

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/professor-brian-cathcart/pcc-complaint-statistics_b_4701685.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Lol no suprise the Mail tops the list with over a third

by Andy Sun Feb 02, 2014 9:25 am

Owned by Nazi sympathisers and draft dodgers.
Says it all really.

by Fred Moletrousers Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:41 am

Handy Andy wrote:Owned by Nazi sympathisers and draft dodgers.
Says it all really.

Could you tell us who, among the current board of directors, are Nazi sympathisers or draft dodgers?

They would have to be extreme old, bearing in mind that the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei was forcibly disbanded in 1945 and in the UK National Service formally ended with the demobilisation of the last conscripted serviceman in 1963.

by Fred Moletrousers Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:53 am

PhilDidge wrote:You might think that any institution dedicated to upholding an industry's code of practice would want to be clear how many times that code was broken and which companies were the most frequent offenders. Not the Press Complaints Commission (PCC).
Answering questions before the Commons media select committee this week, the PCC director, Michael McManus, seemed surprised when MPs suggested that such data would be valuable to the public:
"I think they're put out in public, I mean we're not a secretive organisation. I mean you know this is publicly available information and you know, people are free to analyse it in ways they want. I don't think it should be seen as some sort of conspiracy or witholding of information."
But it's not an oversight or an accident that the PCC fails to spell out to the public which newspapers attract the most complaints and which papers breach the code most often.
Look at this table of complaints about UK national daily and Sunday newspapers for 2013, compiled by Hacked Off from the PCC Monthly Complaint Summaries, and you will soon get an idea of who benefits if the public doesn't see these figures.
(It may be of interest that the editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre, sits on the committee, called PressBoF, that dominates the PCC. He also chairs the Editors' Code Committee. Meanwhile, one of the three directors of the company that owns both the PCC and its planned successor, IPSO, is Peter Wright, editor emeritus at the Mail group.)
The PCC has been told to change, and has refused. The PCC chair, Lord Hunt, who is ultimately responsible for the published statistics, told MPs he had read the whole Leveson Report. Among the parts he seems to have missed is this one:
The PCC has not been transparent about its own performance and the performance of newspapers. Figures published purporting to demonstrate both were not easy to understand, meaning that the public could not readily assess the performance of the PCC in particular or of the newspapers which came into contact with it. - Source, p1559

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/professor-brian-cathcart/pcc-complaint-statistics_b_4701685.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Lol no suprise the Mail tops the list with over a third

It doesn't surprise me either. The Daily Mail's editorial policy is controversial and it deliberately sets out to generate public discussion on a wide range of issues that many people, particularly politicians of all parties and "celebrities" who expect fawning and adoring coverage and then squeal like stick pigs when their peccadillos are exposed, would rather see concealed from public scrutiny.

Since it has an estimated daily readership of around four million and is so often the subject of comment - both anti and pro - on social media sites and forums such as this, I would be amazed if the paper did not rack up the highest number of complaints.

As Oscar Wilde famously said, "if there's anything in the world worse than being talked about, it is not being talked about."

The admirable Paul Dacre and his bosses must be revelling in it.

by Guest Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:58 am

Fair point me Lord, as you know my issue is mainly over how newspapers can be and are irresponsible at times with some articles and how they are rarely held accountable when they do.

by Fred Moletrousers Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:11 pm

PhilDidge wrote:Fair point me Lord, as you know my issue is mainly over how newspapers can be and are irresponsible at times with some articles and how they are rarely held accountable when they do.

I'm afraid that is one of the prices that we have to pay for a free press, Didge. The alternative would be, at the best, a compliant and muted media as exists in some European countries and at worst newspapers, radio and television operating only under the scrutiny and direction of a one-party dictatorial government.

Whether newspapers are being "irresponsible" on this issue or that depends largely on a complainant's own opinions, whether they be individual or collective.

If the Daily Mail chooses to expose what it sees as benefits cheats, that is its right. The editor, as the executive ultimately responsible for all content, no doubt honestly believes that he is being demonstrably responsible.

If the Daily Mirror chooses to tolerate benefits cheats, that again is its right and the editor is entitled to his opinion too.

Don't you express opinions that rankle with other people?

Don't I?

Doesn't everybody on this board?

If someone hates a newspaper so much that they are driven into paroxysms of rage by what they read inside it, it is entirely up to them whether to risk a stress-induced coronary - or simply not to buy the paper in the first place.

by Guest Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:23 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:Fair point me Lord, as you know my issue is mainly over how newspapers can be and are irresponsible at times with some articles and how they are rarely held accountable when they do.

I'm afraid that is one of the prices that we have to pay for a free press, Didge. The alternative would be, at the best, a compliant and muted media as exists in some European countries and at worst newspapers, radio and television operating only under the scrutiny and direction of a one-party dictatorial government.

Whether newspapers are being "irresponsible" on this issue or that depends largely on a complainant's own opinions, whether they be individual or collective.

If the Daily Mail chooses to expose what it sees as benefits cheats, that is its right. The editor, as the executive ultimately responsible for all content, no doubt honestly believes that he is being demonstrably responsible.

If the Daily Mirror chooses to tolerate benefits cheats, that again is its right and the editor is entitled to his opinion too.

Don't you express opinions that rankle with other people?

Don't I?

Doesn't everybody on this board?

If someone hates a newspaper so much that they are driven into paroxysms of rage by what they read inside it, it is entirely up to them whether to risk a stress-induced coronary - or simply not to buy the paper in the first place.

Not saying we should not have a free press Me Lord, only that sometimes as you give good examples here they do and can incite people or further inflame a volatile situation and if it shows this leads to violence, then at present the newspapers are thus not accountable for playing a part. They may have only helped push someone who already holds such views, but as you and I both know newspapers are in fact nothing more than propaganda machines. History also shows us how they can also manipulate people in society especially with misleading articles. I am all for every news story being told, but all are guilty of misdirection of a story that can have a completely false view of the story being told. Now again this misdirection manipulates the story to such an affect where something was innocuous to something that makes people outraged, which we have seen time and again, thus playing onto peoples fears, it seeks to further enhance that fear.

Okay maybe I do single out the Mail more than others mainly because to me they do so more than others, but my point is on all newspapers and how such at times poor and misdirection of a story can have damaging affects created where people start to form poor views of others. Is that not fair to say?

by Guest Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:23 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Handy Andy wrote:Owned by Nazi sympathisers and draft dodgers.
Says it all really.

Could you tell us who, among the current board of directors, are Nazi sympathisers or draft dodgers?

They would have to be extreme old, bearing in mind that the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei was forcibly disbanded in 1945 and in the UK National Service formally ended with the demobilisation of the last conscripted serviceman in 1963.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/06/dailymail-oswald-mosley

And I tend to agree
As the conclusion says

Damn the Mail if you will for what it publishes now.(and thats what i do ) But Rothermere the Second, Rothermere the Third (Vere) and now Rothermere the Fourth (Jonathan) cannot be held responsible for the views of the first of their line.

by scrat Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:25 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Handy Andy wrote:Owned by Nazi sympathisers and draft dodgers.
Says it all really.

Could you tell us who, among the current board of directors, are Nazi sympathisers or draft dodgers?

They would have to be extreme old, bearing in mind that the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei was forcibly disbanded in 1945 and in the UK National Service formally ended with the demobilisation of the last conscripted serviceman in 1963.

Your defence of the dailyfuckwit might seem admirable if it were not for the fact that it's neo nazi agenda is so anti-British.

Of course one could point to the fact that you've labelled Wallace a Marxist because of his father, but that in turn would point to the fact you're a hypocrite,,,,M'lud!

by Guest Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:32 pm

scrat wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Could you tell us who, among the current board of directors, are Nazi sympathisers or draft dodgers?

They would have to be extreme old, bearing in mind that the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei was forcibly disbanded in 1945 and in the UK National Service formally ended with the demobilisation of the last conscripted serviceman in 1963.
Your defence of the dailyfuckwit might seem admirable if it were not for the fact that it's neo nazi agenda is so anti-British.

Of course one could point to the fact that you've labelled Wallace a Marxist because of his father, but that in turn would point to the fact you're a hypocrite,,,,M'lud!

He proves that one over and over.

by Guest Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:34 pm

So once again sensible debate has being turned into a cat fight!

Can we please stick to the debate at hand please personal views on posters make no relevance to the debate

by scrat Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:39 pm

PhilDidge wrote:So once again sensible debate has being turned into a cat fight!

Can we please stick to the debate at hand please personal views on posters make no relevance to the debate

Didglet chap!,,being lectured by you on forum etiquette, HAR HAR HAR, stop deflecting or do one.

by Guest Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:52 pm

scrat wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:So once again sensible debate has being turned into a cat fight!

Can we please stick to the debate at hand please personal views on posters make no relevance to the debate
Didglet chap!,,being lectured by you on forum etiquette, HAR HAR HAR, stop deflecting or do one.

No learn to grow up and have respect for the forum, there was a sensible debate until you opened your potty mouth.
I do not deny I have in the past, that is the past, this is now, thus no deflection, your post was nothing short of an attack on the poster with little debate, it was nothing more than childish

by Fred Moletrousers Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:10 pm

PhilDidge wrote:So once again sensible debate has being turned into a cat fight!

Can we please stick to the debate at hand please personal views on posters make no relevance to the debate

What do you expect when Scrat and Catman decide to join in? Those two clowns do for sensible debate what Cornish wreckers did for the reputation of lighthouses.

by Fred Moletrousers Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:14 pm

Korben Dallas wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Could you tell us who, among the current board of directors, are Nazi sympathisers or draft dodgers?

They would have to be extreme old, bearing in mind that the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei was forcibly disbanded in 1945 and in the UK National Service formally ended with the demobilisation of the last conscripted serviceman in 1963.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/06/dailymail-oswald-mosley

And I tend to agree
As the conclusion says

Damn the Mail if you will for what it publishes now.(and thats what i do ) But Rothermere the Second, Rothermere the Third (Vere) and now Rothermere the Fourth (Jonathan) cannot be held responsible for the views of the first of their line.

My point exactly. The manic political barrel scraping that we have seen about this issue makes about as much sense as blaming the Queen for her uncle's flirtation with the Nazi leadership.

by Fred Moletrousers Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:32 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I'm afraid that is one of the prices that we have to pay for a free press, Didge. The alternative would be, at the best, a compliant and muted media as exists in some European countries and at worst newspapers, radio and television operating only under the scrutiny and direction of a one-party dictatorial government.

Whether newspapers are being "irresponsible" on this issue or that depends largely on a complainant's own opinions, whether they be individual or collective.

If the Daily Mail chooses to expose what it sees as benefits cheats, that is its right. The editor, as the executive ultimately responsible for all content, no doubt honestly believes that he is being demonstrably responsible.

If the Daily Mirror chooses to tolerate benefits cheats, that again is its right and the editor is entitled to his opinion too.

Don't you express opinions that rankle with other people?

Don't I?

Doesn't everybody on this board?

If someone hates a newspaper so much that they are driven into paroxysms of rage by what they read inside it, it is entirely up to them whether to risk a stress-induced coronary - or simply not to buy the paper in the first place.

Not saying we should not have a free press Me Lord, only that sometimes as you give good examples here they do and can incite people or further inflame a volatile situation and if it shows this leads to violence, then at present the newspapers are thus not accountable for playing a part. They may have only helped push someone who already holds such views, but as you and I both know newspapers are in fact nothing more than propaganda machines. History also shows us how they can also manipulate people in society especially with misleading articles. I am all for every news story being told, but all are guilty of misdirection of a story that can have a completely false view of the story being told. Now again this misdirection manipulates the story to such an affect where something was innocuous to something that makes people outraged, which we have seen time and again, thus playing onto peoples fears, it seeks to further enhance that fear.

Okay maybe I do single out the Mail more than others mainly because to me they do so more than others, but my point is on all newspapers and how such at times poor and misdirection of a story can have damaging affects created where people start to form poor views of others. Is that not fair to say?

Well the Mail is the biggest (second biggest, actually) circulation national daily newspaper and arguably one of the most influential in the field of politics because (if I remember my stats correctly) about one third of its readership declared themselves as Labour supporters or potentially Labour supporters when the last survey was completed and its social grouping penetration also shows it at the top end of the league with the former B and C1 catergories.

You are, like the rest of us, fully entitled to your opinion on whether it sets out to "incite and inflame", particularly to the point of violence. But it is just your opinion based, presumably, on the opinions of the opinion formers (sorry for the repetition) who you like to follow.

I have differing opinions, and those are no less valid than yours or, indeed of anyone else, particularly as I can at least justifiably claim to be passing judgement on my professional peers.

Actually the greatest provocateur so far as incitement and inflaming of the public is concerned is television, but that's a different argument.

by Guest Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:36 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Not saying we should not have a free press Me Lord, only that sometimes as you give good examples here they do and can incite people or further inflame a volatile situation and if it shows this leads to violence, then at present the newspapers are thus not accountable for playing a part. They may have only helped push someone who already holds such views, but as you and I both know newspapers are in fact nothing more than propaganda machines. History also shows us how they can also manipulate people in society especially with misleading articles. I am all for every news story being told, but all are guilty of misdirection of a story that can have a completely false view of the story being told. Now again this misdirection manipulates the story to such an affect where something was innocuous to something that makes people outraged, which we have seen time and again, thus playing onto peoples fears, it seeks to further enhance that fear.

Okay maybe I do single out the Mail more than others mainly because to me they do so more than others, but my point is on all newspapers and how such at times poor and misdirection of a story can have damaging affects created where people start to form poor views of others. Is that not fair to say?

Well the Mail is the biggest (second biggest, actually) circulation national daily newspaper and arguably one of the most influential in the field of politics because (if I remember my stats correctly) about one third of its readership declared themselves as Labour supporters or potentially Labour supporters when the last survey was completed and its social grouping penetration also shows it at the top end of the league with the former B and C1 catergories.

You are, like the rest of us, fully entitled to your opinion on whether it sets out to "incite and inflame", particularly to the point of violence. But it is just your opinion based, presumably, on the opinions of the opinion formers (sorry for the repetition) who you like to follow.

I have differing opinions, and those are no less valid than yours or, indeed of anyone else, particularly as I can at least justifiably claim to be passing judgement on my professional peers.

Actually the greatest provocateur so far as incitement and inflaming of the public is concerned is television, but that's a different argument.

“I've always been a Daily Mail reader. I prefer it to a newspaper”
~ Oscar Wilde on The Daily Mail.

by Guest Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:40 pm

Interesting fact
Despite enjoying a circulation of several million copies per day, it has been suggested that the actual "total effective readership quotient" is Nigel Farage.

by Guest Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:42 pm

During the 1930s the Daily Mail briefly supported the Blackshirts and Nazis before they realised the former were too moderate while the latter were German and therefore European.

Nowadays the paper campaigns against abortion of heterosexual foetuses, while also maintaining the entirely logical and consistent position of demanding the withdrawal of welfare payments to fallen women to support their unwanted (insert own expletive ).

by Guest Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:46 pm

The Typical Daily Mail News Story

GUARDIAN-READING FEMINIST GYPSY ASYLUM-SEEKERS CONTINUE REIGN OF TERROR

An asylum-seeking, DEGENERATE, liberal, feminist, Muslim, satanic heavy metal-worshipping paedophile has continued to terrorise a quiet community of law-abiding, white, middle-class protestants today. Perhaps one just like YOURS!

Asylum-seeker homosexuals SWIM up the River Thames to London and infiltrate Parliament to send house prices crashing

The homosexual, French, GYPSY, poor person was observed acting in a completely YOBBISH style by starving in the gutter and coughing up blood in a most UNCIVILISED manner while praying to CULT-leader Xenu. This all illustrates the continued DECLINE of Britain under the corrupt, "politically correct" COMMUNISTIC regime of Nu Labour's bonkers Brown. The British value system has fallen apart. Kick them out! Kick them all out!! And we're not talking about "the jams" either!!

In other news, scientific studies have proved that there is a direct link between SERIAL KILLING and use of the teenagers' drug skunk-cannabis, video games, cheese and reading the Daily Mail. Think of the house prices! OH GOD, WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE HOUSE PRICES?!!

This sort of thing is typical of the Decade Of Horror that is Brown's Britain. Only YOU can stop this by going out and STORMING PARLIAMENT (with angry letters)

Today's super-strength skunk cannabis is now 500 hundred times stronger, this is not the skunk smoked by the previous generation, no sir. Just one puff of this super-strength skunk cannabis will turn you into a trembling schizophreniac- with no respect for People Carriers or Sainsbury's.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Daily_Mail

by Guest Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:58 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Not saying we should not have a free press Me Lord, only that sometimes as you give good examples here they do and can incite people or further inflame a volatile situation and if it shows this leads to violence, then at present the newspapers are thus not accountable for playing a part. They may have only helped push someone who already holds such views, but as you and I both know newspapers are in fact nothing more than propaganda machines. History also shows us how they can also manipulate people in society especially with misleading articles. I am all for every news story being told, but all are guilty of misdirection of a story that can have a completely false view of the story being told. Now again this misdirection manipulates the story to such an affect where something was innocuous to something that makes people outraged, which we have seen time and again, thus playing onto peoples fears, it seeks to further enhance that fear.

Okay maybe I do single out the Mail more than others mainly because to me they do so more than others, but my point is on all newspapers and how such at times poor and misdirection of a story can have damaging affects created where people start to form poor views of others. Is that not fair to say?

Well the Mail is the biggest (second biggest, actually) circulation national daily newspaper and arguably one of the most influential in the field of politics because (if I remember my stats correctly) about one third of its readership declared themselves as Labour supporters or potentially Labour supporters when the last survey was completed and its social grouping penetration also shows it at the top end of the league with the former B and C1 catergories.

You are, like the rest of us, fully entitled to your opinion on whether it sets out to "incite and inflame", particularly to the point of violence. But it is just your opinion based, presumably, on the opinions of the opinion formers (sorry for the repetition) who you like to follow.

I have differing opinions, and those are no less valid than yours or, indeed of anyone else, particularly as I can at least justifiably claim to be passing judgement on my professional peers.

Actually the greatest provocateur so far as incitement and inflaming of the public is concerned is television, but that's a different argument.

Sorry me Lord but that really does not answer my points or how even the TV can do the same, I do though think the media in general are very influential in manipulating people to their view points, where in the case of ethnic of religious people is seeking to create divide , I need not go into what relevance how popular something is that this in anyway excuses the methods used to misdirect stories to the affect it has on a populations view of people/ By saying its popular all you are saying is that in some hoe justifies when it does do wrong, sorry there is no logic to that point.

Again there have been studies on this and certain papers will post anything which can be used to form a fear of a group. This has been seen to work exceptionally so well, that people in again polls themselves have formed views wrongly on many things in society. No they did not gain this perception seeing things in everyday life, they gained this from the media, internet TV, all playing a part. When they did this pool so many peoples perceptions were wrong, which is showing how things like the media do manipulate the perceptions of people.

So again there is a very underhanded process going on with the media, I do not want any stop to free press but as seen the manipulation can be so effective it can change the views and perceptions of people in society[/quote]

by scrat Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:20 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
scrat wrote:
Didglet chap!,,being lectured by you on forum etiquette, HAR HAR HAR, stop deflecting or do one.

No learn to grow up and have respect for the forum, there was a sensible debate until you opened your potty mouth.
I do not deny I have in the past, that is the past, this is now, thus no deflection, your post was nothing short of an attack on the poster with little debate, it was nothing more than childish

Didglet chap, before you apologise perhaps you could point out the potty mouth incident, now Ive also checked the bovverd pocket and guess what,,,M'lud is nowt but a snivelling, grovelling, and begging nasty party sycophant who defends fascists, racists and homophobes, such is the level he has sunk too,,,he has bleated no end about Marxist Ed because his father held some Marxist views.

M'lud now defends Dacre despite the fact that his father was a draft dodger and the owner at that time was a neo nazi.

I hardly believe that exposing M'luds hypocrisy requires your intervention, but hey if your remit is to protect traitors and hypocrites from exposure, then go for it.

I'll conduct myself as I so please.

by Guest Sun Feb 02, 2014 6:15 pm

Actually, I would introduce press censorship, along non political/non party lines

as now they would be free to publish anything they reasonably wish to BUT
the constraint would be.....

They CAN ONLY publish THE ACTUAL AND VERIFIABLE TRUTH....no "opinion" no "speculation"
just facts....

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:40 am

scrat wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

No learn to grow up and have respect for the forum, there was a sensible debate until you opened your potty mouth.
I do not deny I have in the past, that is the past, this is now, thus no deflection, your post was nothing short of an attack on the poster with little debate, it was nothing more than childish
Didglet chap, before you apologise perhaps you could point out the potty mouth incident, now Ive also checked the bovverd pocket and guess what,,,M'lud is nowt but a snivelling, grovelling, and begging nasty party sycophant who defends fascists, racists and homophobes, such is the level he has sunk too,,,he has bleated no end about Marxist Ed because his father held some Marxist views.

M'lud now defends Dacre despite the fact that his father was a draft dodger and the owner at that time was a neo nazi.

I hardly believe that exposing M'luds hypocrisy requires your intervention, but hey if your remit is to protect traitors and hypocrites from exposure, then go for it.

I'll conduct myself as I so please.

Thank you for proving my point, your arguments are childish view points on the poster and not the debate, your view on Me Lord are very much irrelevant to the debate and all I am asking is you debate the topic without your constant hissy fit style posting. Your assumptions on him are poor to say the least and just shows you have no faith in your ability to actually debate by making such personal assumptions onto him

Shame really as you have some very interesting views that do not need personal abuse of posters to make them valid, the point you are missing

by scrat Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:28 am

PhilDidge wrote:
scrat wrote:
Didglet chap, before you apologise perhaps you could point out the potty mouth incident, now Ive also checked the bovverd pocket and guess what,,,M'lud is nowt but a snivelling, grovelling, and begging nasty party sycophant who defends fascists, racists and homophobes, such is the level he has sunk too,,,he has bleated no end about Marxist Ed because his father held some Marxist views.

M'lud now defends Dacre despite the fact that his father was a draft dodger and the owner at that time was a neo nazi.

I hardly believe that exposing M'luds hypocrisy requires your intervention, but hey if your remit is to protect traitors and hypocrites from exposure, then go for it.

I'll conduct myself as I so please.

Thank you for proving my point, your arguments are childish view points on the poster and not the debate, your view on Me Lord are very much irrelevant to the debate and all I am asking is you debate the topic without your constant hissy fit style posting. Your assumptions on him are poor to say the least and just shows you have no faith in your ability to actually debate by making such personal assumptions onto him

Shame really as you have some very interesting views that do not need personal abuse of posters to make them valid, the point you are missing

So the "potty mouth" incident was just a figment of your own imagination, and basically your feigned outrage was just a precursor in order to deflect?

I have had the pleasure of exposing M'luds lies since the old sky days, on the forum "in a flap" the dailyfuckwit is the bible, a coincidence perhaps as it is also the topic of this discussion as well as being the chink in M'lud armour, he will quote the dailyfuckwit verbatim and he will defend such lies at any given opportunity.

He tells us that the dailyfuckwit cannot be answerable for the actions of its past, the fact that the nazi draft dodging father of the current editor held these views and which M'lud has stated had no bearing whatsoever on the son.

And yet M'lud calls Wallace a Marxist because of the views of his war hero father.

Perhaps, hypocrisy is something that eludes you, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone else.

Now, return with an apology for your lies and efforts of deflection,,,,and then retreat back under your rock.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:43 am

scrat wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Thank you for proving my point, your arguments are childish view points on the poster and not the debate, your view on Me Lord are very much irrelevant to the debate and all I am asking is you debate the topic without your constant hissy fit style posting. Your assumptions on him are poor to say the least and just shows you have no faith in your ability to actually debate by making such personal assumptions onto him

Shame really as you have some very interesting views that do not need personal abuse of posters to make them valid, the point you are missing
So the "potty mouth" incident was just a figment of your own imagination, and basically your feigned outrage was just a precursor in order to deflect?
No you clearly said "dailyfuckwit" potty mouth

I have had the pleasure of exposing M'luds lies since the old sky days, on the forum "in a flap" the dailyfuckwit is the bible, a coincidence perhaps as it is also the topic of this discussion as well as being the chink in M'lud armour, he will quote the dailyfuckwit verbatim and he will defend such lies at any given opportunity.
Boring all, what you are doing is thus not debating and in fact boring the pants off people with your views on someone and loses track of the actual debate

He tells us that the dailyfuckwit cannot be answerable for the actions of its past, the fact that the nazi draft dodging father of the current editor held these views and which M'lud has stated had no bearing whatsoever on the son.
How can a paper be answerable for the actions of its past with those be now dead who were involved? So you are saying guilt is passed onto children now and they should answer for the crimes of their parents? That is absurd

And yet M'lud calls Wallace a Marxist because of the views of his war hero father.

Perhaps, hypocrisy is something that eludes you, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone else.#
No just some of your views are absurd and clearly you have no wish to debate the topic but the poster

Now, return with an apology for your lies and efforts of deflection,,,,and then retreat back under your rock.

No lies you have a potty mouth again with the drivel you just posted

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:45 am

scrat wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Thank you for proving my point, your arguments are childish view points on the poster and not the debate, your view on Me Lord are very much irrelevant to the debate and all I am asking is you debate the topic without your constant hissy fit style posting. Your assumptions on him are poor to say the least and just shows you have no faith in your ability to actually debate by making such personal assumptions onto him

Shame really as you have some very interesting views that do not need personal abuse of posters to make them valid, the point you are missing
So the "potty mouth" incident was just a figment of your own imagination, and basically your feigned outrage was just a precursor in order to deflect?

I have had the pleasure of exposing M'luds lies since the old sky days, on the forum "in a flap" the dailyfuckwit is the bible, a coincidence perhaps as it is also the topic of this discussion as well as being the chink in M'lud armour, he will quote the dailyfuckwit verbatim and he will defend such lies at any given opportunity.

He tells us that the dailyfuckwit cannot be answerable for the actions of its past, the fact that the nazi draft dodging father of the current editor held these views and which M'lud has stated had no bearing whatsoever on the son.

And yet M'lud calls Wallace a Marxist because of the views of his war hero father.

Perhaps, hypocrisy is something that eludes you, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone else.

Now, return with an apology for your lies and efforts of deflection,,,,and then retreat back under your rock.

Just for the record, in case anyone here actually believes that crap, the "lies" which he talks about were my alleged membership and support of BNP, including being their (presumably full time and paid) publicist. it was a charge that he repeated with monotonous regularity.

The lying, devious bastard finally - after being challenged time and time again to justify his claims - actually edited one of my posts in which I had made clear that I loathed the BNP to suggest that I supported them.

He did that by deliberately changing the wording in my comment and then re-posting it as a "quote."

And that is what Scrat is: A liar, a cheat and a fraud. Someone with a proven record of deliberately editing the posts of others in order to "back up" his endless filthy lying, not only about the Tories but about anyone that his two remaining warped and defective brain cells believe to be a Tory.

The Whelans, McBrides and Campbells and the rest of the mendacious scum that infest the top echelons of the Labour Party must be truly proud of this snivelling, brainwashed little clone.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:49 am

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
scrat wrote:
So the "potty mouth" incident was just a figment of your own imagination, and basically your feigned outrage was just a precursor in order to deflect?

I have had the pleasure of exposing M'luds lies since the old sky days, on the forum "in a flap" the dailyfuckwit is the bible, a coincidence perhaps as it is also the topic of this discussion as well as being the chink in M'lud armour, he will quote the dailyfuckwit verbatim and he will defend such lies at any given opportunity.

He tells us that the dailyfuckwit cannot be answerable for the actions of its past, the fact that the nazi draft dodging father of the current editor held these views and which M'lud has stated had no bearing whatsoever on the son.

And yet M'lud calls Wallace a Marxist because of the views of his war hero father.

Perhaps, hypocrisy is something that eludes you, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone else.

Now, return with an apology for your lies and efforts of deflection,,,,and then retreat back under your rock.

Just for the record, in case anyone here actually believes that crap, the "lies" which he talks about were my alleged membership and support of BNP, including being their (presumably full time and paid) publicist. it was a charge that he repeated with monotonous regularity.

The lying, devious bastard finally - after being challenged time and time again to justify his claims - actually edited one of my posts in which I had made clear that I loathed the BNP to suggest that I supported them.

He did that by deliberately changing the wording in my comment and then re-posting it as a "quote."

And that is what Scrat is: A liar, a cheat and a fraud. Someone with a proven record of deliberately editing the posts of others in order to "back up" his endless filthy lying, not only about the Tories but about anyone that his two remaining warped and defective brain cells believe to be a Tory.

The Whelans, McBrides and Campbells and the rest of the mendacious scum that infest the top echelons of the Labour Party must be truly proud of this snivelling, brainwashed little clone.

I thought that you were very much against abusive language.
Fucking hypocritical Tory scumbag.

by scrat Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:50 am

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
scrat wrote:
So the "potty mouth" incident was just a figment of your own imagination, and basically your feigned outrage was just a precursor in order to deflect?

I have had the pleasure of exposing M'luds lies since the old sky days, on the forum "in a flap" the dailyfuckwit is the bible, a coincidence perhaps as it is also the topic of this discussion as well as being the chink in M'lud armour, he will quote the dailyfuckwit verbatim and he will defend such lies at any given opportunity.

He tells us that the dailyfuckwit cannot be answerable for the actions of its past, the fact that the nazi draft dodging father of the current editor held these views and which M'lud has stated had no bearing whatsoever on the son.

And yet M'lud calls Wallace a Marxist because of the views of his war hero father.

Perhaps, hypocrisy is something that eludes you, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone else.

Now, return with an apology for your lies and efforts of deflection,,,,and then retreat back under your rock.

Just for the record, in case anyone here actually believes that crap, the "lies" which he talks about were my alleged membership and support of BNP, including being their (presumably full time and paid) publicist. it was a charge that he repeated with monotonous regularity.

The lying, devious bastard finally - after being challenged time and time again to justify his claims - actually edited one of my posts in which I had made clear that I loathed the BNP to suggest that I supported them.

He did that by deliberately changing the wording in my comment and then re-posting it as a "quote."

And that is what Scrat is: A liar, a cheat and a fraud. Someone with a proven record of deliberately editing the posts of others in order to "back up" his endless filthy lying, not only about the Tories but about anyone that his two remaining warped and defective brain cells believe to be a Tory.

The Whelans, McBrides and Campbells and the rest of the mendacious scum that infest the top echelons of the Labour Party must be truly proud of this snivelling, brainwashed little clone.

Perhaps you can put that in a pamphlet for Nick!

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:47 pm

Catman wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Just for the record, in case anyone here actually believes that crap, the "lies" which he talks about were my alleged membership and support of BNP, including being their (presumably full time and paid) publicist. it was a charge that he repeated with monotonous regularity.

The lying, devious bastard finally - after being challenged time and time again to justify his claims - actually edited one of my posts in which I had made clear that I loathed the BNP to suggest that I supported them.

He did that by deliberately changing the wording in my comment and then re-posting it as a "quote."

And that is what Scrat is: A liar, a cheat and a fraud. Someone with a proven record of deliberately editing the posts of others in order to "back up" his endless filthy lying, not only about the Tories but about anyone that his two remaining warped and defective brain cells believe to be a Tory.

The Whelans, McBrides and Campbells and the rest of the mendacious scum that infest the top echelons of the Labour Party must be truly proud of this snivelling, brainwashed little clone.

I thought that you were very much against abusive language.
Fucking hypocritical Tory scumbag.

Unfortunately, it is all too easy for anyone to become infected by guttersnipes such as yourself and Scrat.

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:50 pm

scrat wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Just for the record, in case anyone here actually believes that crap, the "lies" which he talks about were my alleged membership and support of BNP, including being their (presumably full time and paid) publicist. it was a charge that he repeated with monotonous regularity.

The lying, devious bastard finally - after being challenged time and time again to justify his claims - actually edited one of my posts in which I had made clear that I loathed the BNP to suggest that I supported them.

He did that by deliberately changing the wording in my comment and then re-posting it as a "quote."

And that is what Scrat is: A liar, a cheat and a fraud. Someone with a proven record of deliberately editing the posts of others in order to "back up" his endless filthy lying, not only about the Tories but about anyone that his two remaining warped and defective brain cells believe to be a Tory.

The Whelans, McBrides and Campbells and the rest of the mendacious scum that infest the top echelons of the Labour Party must be truly proud of this snivelling, brainwashed little clone.
Perhaps you can put that in a pamphlet for Nick!

Even that repulsive prospect would prove marginally preferable to performing the same service for that trade union puppet Red Ed...if for no other reason than that it would not make me puke quite so much.

by scrat Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:03 pm

A guttersnipe, haven't been called that in years M'lud, I suppose there is some element of truth in that.

Anyway, the thing is, you have attacked the good name of a war hero, in preference to a nazi draft dodger.

The dailyfuckwit is apparently "potty mouth", although in my opinion it is completely representative and descriptive of the type of Briton who would drag this great nation back into the dark ages.

You've been exposed as a hypocrite M'lud, sometimes it's best to just accept the facts and learn to live with them.

The dailyfuckwit prints poison, and you promote it's neo nazi agenda.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:30 pm

scrat wrote:A guttersnipe, haven't been called that in years M'lud, I suppose there is some element of truth in that.

Anyway, the thing is, you have attacked the good name of a war hero, in preference to a nazi draft dodger.

The dailyfuckwit is apparently "potty mouth", although in my opinion it is completely representative and descriptive of the type of Briton who would drag this great nation back into the dark ages.

You've been exposed as a hypocrite M'lud, sometimes it's best to just accept the facts and learn to live with them.

The dailyfuckwit prints poison, and you promote it's neo nazi agenda.

lies, lies and more lies

you really are quite ill scrat

only a brain dead imbecile would take anything you say even remotely seriously

phil believes you Twisted Evil

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:38 pm

gelico wrote:
scrat wrote:A guttersnipe, haven't been called that in years M'lud, I suppose there is some element of truth in that.

Anyway, the thing is, you have attacked the good name of a war hero, in preference to a nazi draft dodger.

The dailyfuckwit is apparently "potty mouth", although in my opinion it is completely representative and descriptive of the type of Briton who would drag this great nation back into the dark ages.

You've been exposed as a hypocrite M'lud, sometimes it's best to just accept the facts and learn to live with them.

The dailyfuckwit prints poison, and you promote it's neo nazi agenda.

lies, lies and more lies

you really are quite ill scrat

only a brain dead imbecile would take anything you say even remotely seriously

phil believes you

Scrat talks sense!

It just pisses off the RW!

lol!

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:39 pm

scrat wrote:A guttersnipe, haven't been called that in years M'lud, I suppose there is some element of truth in that.

Anyway, the thing is, you have attacked the good name of a war hero, in preference to a nazi draft dodger.

The dailyfuckwit is apparently "potty mouth", although in my opinion it is completely representative and descriptive of the type of Briton who would drag this great nation back into the dark ages.

You've been exposed as a hypocrite M'lud, sometimes it's best to just accept the facts and learn to live with them.

The dailyfuckwit prints poison, and you promote it's neo nazi agenda.

So first you call the pre-war proprietor of the Daily Mail a Nazi (which he wasn't, of course, but let that pass for a moment) and the wartime journalist and father of the current editor a "draft dodger" (actually, he wasn't, and in any case the "draft" never existed in the UK, but again, let that pass).

Now, you appear to have amalgamated both of them into one entirely fictitious, non-existent "nazi draft dodger."

You do seem to be becoming somewhat desperate in your rather pathetic attempt to denigrate one of this country's greatest national newspapers and its illustrious editor.

Are you actually living on the same planet as the rest of us, or is it that you are just becoming somewhat confused by the stupidity of your own argument?

Ps: Is the "war hero" you prattle on about so much the Royal Navy Petty Officer father of the present trade union puppet and so-called "leader" of the Labour Party? You know, the one who you keep telling us "stormed the beaches of Normandy" - in spite of the fact that the D-Day beaches were "stormed" by soldiers and not sailors?

You do tend to get yourself into a bit of a pickle with your flights of fancy and made-up yarns, don't you?

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:41 pm

Catman wrote:
gelico wrote:

lies, lies and more lies

you really are quite ill scrat

only a brain dead imbecile would take anything you say even remotely seriously

phil believes you

Scrat talks sense!

It just pisses off the RW!

I would imagine that what Scrat "talks" would indeed make sense to someone with the intelligence quotient of a mentally challenged amoeba.

by Guest Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:46 pm

Catman wrote:
gelico wrote:

lies, lies and more lies

you really are quite ill scrat

only a brain dead imbecile would take anything you say even remotely seriously

phil believes you

Scrat talks sense!

It just pisses off the RW!

Talks sense did you say, his logic is that now the children of people who have committed crimes are guilty also just from being related.
That is not sense, it is bollocks

by Clarkson Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:01 am

scrat wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Could you tell us who, among the current board of directors, are Nazi sympathisers or draft dodgers?

They would have to be extreme old, bearing in mind that the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei was forcibly disbanded in 1945 and in the UK National Service formally ended with the demobilisation of the last conscripted serviceman in 1963.
Your defence of the dailyfuckwit might seem admirable if it were not for the fact that it's neo nazi agenda is so anti-British.

Of course one could point to the fact that you've labelled Wallace a Marxist because of his father, but that in turn would point to the fact you're a hypocrite,,,,M'lud!

OH DEAR I find myself in agreement with scrat. I do think the Mail is cynical and anti British. You would think with those two qualities it would be revered by the left who are extremely anti British.

by Guest Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:13 am

Clarkson wrote:
scrat wrote:
Your defence of the dailyfuckwit might seem admirable if it were not for the fact that it's neo nazi agenda is so anti-British.

Of course one could point to the fact that you've labelled Wallace a Marxist because of his father, but that in turn would point to the fact you're a hypocrite,,,,M'lud!
OH DEAR I find myself in agreement with scrat. I do think the Mail is cynical and anti British. You would think with those two qualities it would be revered by the left who are extremely anti British.

Most people do not see themselves as British, do you not see yourself as English.

Patriotism is a funny thing, many believe they are, without first defining who they are!

by Sponsored content