The Daily Fail fails again! Page 74

  • Page

    of 85 First / Last

  • FWB 24 Mar 2013 21:48:09 44,584 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Exactly the kind of publicity the DM thrives on. They live for this. So much so they don't even bother checking their articles for basic facts for English. Kings of trolling.
  • kalel 25 Mar 2013 11:00:49 87,697 posts
    Seen 36 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I'm in two minds over this one.

    On the one hand I strongly disagree with Littlejohn's opinion on this, and I think this talk of "protecting" children is way off the mark. I don't think it's knowingly hateful, but it is indicative of a prejudiced attitude, and it's an attitude that will be perpetuated by "protecting" children from this kind of thing (whereas exposing them will ensure they are open-minded and accepting).

    However, I think he is entitled to his opinion, and despite the tragedy of the outcome, I can't see how it's entirely or directly his fault. There is a bit of a witch-hunt response here.
  • kalel 25 Mar 2013 11:03:28 87,697 posts
    Seen 36 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    BTW, it's worth reading the actual original article before forming an opinion, as The Guardian in turn have their own agenda here.
  • nickthegun 25 Mar 2013 11:03:54 59,940 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    His opinion on its own is one thing. In this instance it was coupled with a campaign of insidious doorstepping.

    So, yeah, in isolation, he can say what he wants but when its coupled with the, frankly, outrageous behaviour of the paper it becomes a bit more of a problem because then he is then the figurehead for the campaign.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    someone say something funny

  • kalel 25 Mar 2013 11:06:42 87,697 posts
    Seen 36 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I don't really know what the actual details of the "press hounding" are, only what's implied by Facebook rants and such. If it is as bad as suggested and Littlejohn is somehow responsible, then fair enough. As ever with these things though, a strong sense of outrage seems to be clouding the issue.
  • Inertia 25 Mar 2013 11:19:50 677 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @kalel

    First off for a journalist to single out an individual who has no public role, through national press, for something that is perfectly legal should be challenged. Secondly freedom of speech is only good if it works hand in hand with personal responsibility. It's all well and good saying what you want but it's more important to be responsible for your words and actions. It's blatantly bullying of an individual with no concern for their life and the consequences. She had done nothing wrong accept offend the journalists view of the world. He got paid to bully her. And now you think it's clouding the issue to take offence at this practice.

    If you had done this at work, written and printed a page and put it on the notice-board and your colleague committed suicide. What are your chances of working there do you reckon? High or low? Exactly if anyone in any other work place had done that they would be sacked, and maybe prosecuted.
  • nickthegun 25 Mar 2013 11:22:09 59,940 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    I don't really know what the actual details of the "press hounding" are, only what's implied by Facebook rants and such. If it is as bad as suggested and Littlejohn is somehow responsible, then fair enough. As ever with these things though, a strong sense of outrage seems to be clouding the issue.
    By accounts of friends, family and colleagues, the person in question was repeatedly doorstepped and they were repeatedly contact, often through unorthodox means, for pictures and dirt despite repeatedly refusing.

    It just seems like a fairly drastic action for a suburban transsexual.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    someone say something funny

  • kalel 25 Mar 2013 11:26:51 87,697 posts
    Seen 36 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I don't work as an opinion piece journalist for a right-wing newspaper.

    If you take LittleJohn's article in isolation and for a minute ignore the (suggested) consequences, while I disagree with what he said, I think it's important that the debate is had rather than pushed under the carper. A lot of people will agree with what he said, but those people can perhaps be persuaded otherwise through reason, but only if the debate is there to have in the first place. That is why we have freedom of speech, and imo it does work. It's far more dangerous to suppress these views, than to let them be aired and argued with.
  • kalel 25 Mar 2013 11:29:39 87,697 posts
    Seen 36 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    I don't really know what the actual details of the "press hounding" are, only what's implied by Facebook rants and such. If it is as bad as suggested and Littlejohn is somehow responsible, then fair enough. As ever with these things though, a strong sense of outrage seems to be clouding the issue.
    By accounts of friends, family and colleagues, the person in question was repeatedly doorstepped and they were repeatedly contact, often through unorthodox means, for pictures and dirt despite repeatedly refusing.

    It just seems like a fairly drastic action for a suburban transsexual.
    It does, and I think the Mail itself has something to answer for if this is true. Whether that has anything to do with Littlejohn or not is a different matter.
  • Inertia 25 Mar 2013 11:35:12 677 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @kalel

    It's not that the subject is beyond debate. But the individual he picked on had done nothing wrong whatsoever legally. You can have the argument of teachers being transsexuals and the effects this may or may not have on their children. That's perfectly valid, even better, if you bring a handful of sociological papers to the article that back up any of your claims. But to name an innocent individual is clearly going to cause some problems in their life. That is the problem why name this individual.
  • nickthegun 25 Mar 2013 11:39:13 59,940 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The fundamental problem is not that someone has this opinion published, but enough people subscribe to this opinion that its worth publishing.

    If society didnt give a shit about this person teaching in a school it would have gained no traction and littlecock would receive no airtime.

    But people do. They buy the paper to read what he has to say so, to be honest, fuck those people. Fuck them more than their repressed homosexual leader.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    someone say something funny

  • disusedgenius 25 Mar 2013 11:41:15 5,333 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Inertia wrote:
    But the individual he picked on had done nothing wrong whatsoever legally.
    What does that have to do with someone's opinion?
  • kalel 25 Mar 2013 11:45:44 87,697 posts
    Seen 36 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Inertia wrote:
    @kalel

    It's not that the subject is beyond debate. But the individual he picked on had done nothing wrong whatsoever legally. You can have the argument of teachers being transsexuals and the effects this may or may not have on their children. That's perfectly valid, even better, if you bring a handful of sociological papers to the article that back up any of your claims. But to name an innocent individual is clearly going to cause some problems in their life. That is the problem why name this individual.
    OK, agreed, and as is ever the case with these things, it will come down to the question of whether there is a strong public interest in the privacy of the person in question being invaded. In this case, it seems like this was all public domain anyway, so perhaps even that is moot.

    I'm talking from a legal/code of conduct standpoint here, as this surely has to be the criteria for him to be sacked. I agree morally he's in the wrong here, but that's the Mail for you.
  • Inertia 25 Mar 2013 11:45:50 677 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    Inertia wrote:
    But the individual he picked on had done nothing wrong whatsoever legally.
    What does that have to do with someone's opinion?
    Racism is an opinion, homophobia is an opinion and this was an opinion along those lines. Also as I said you can have an opinion without naming the individual.
  • glaeken 25 Mar 2013 11:53:24 11,177 posts
    Seen 23 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    The balance of power is always massively out of whack when the press decide to pick on an individual. Especially when the individual is not a celebrity. They really have no way to defend themselves. If they are given a right to reply in whichever paper targeted them it's going to be used in whatever context that paper wants to probably support whatever their point was in the first place.

    If you think about it though the tabloid press in particular are always doing this. The mail in particular regularly goes after some person who seems to be doing rather too well off of benefits. It's really a reflection of human nature. Like it or not people love to look down on someone and enjoy nothing more than a right good vilifying.

    Oh and just to add Littlejohn is a cock of the highest order. A professional obnoxious cunt.

    Edited by glaeken at 11:55:40 25-03-2013
  • disusedgenius 25 Mar 2013 12:03:09 5,333 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Inertia wrote:
    Racism is an opinion, homophobia is an opinion and this was an opinion along those lines.
    So you're saying that racism and homophobia are okay if the law agrees?
  • Chopsen 25 Mar 2013 12:03:43 16,000 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Does free speech mean that there should be an equal access to voicing your opinion?

    Specifically, if you're an opinionated rent-a-gob jounrnalist, are you actually undermining free speech in a general sense by exploiting your position to get your voice across? The public debate is skewed towards what certain individuals have to say, due to the inherent imbalance in non-uniform access to expression.

    I'd conclude that genuine impartial free speech is therefore illusionary. Even access to the internet does not address this, as it does not come with a ready-made audience in the way that more traditional media does. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason not to punch Littlejohn in his face.

    Edited by Chopsen at 12:04:13 25-03-2013
  • Deckard1 25 Mar 2013 12:09:35 27,999 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Just to add to chopsens point, I'd like to point out that the guy looked a pretty good tranny as well. Obviously its difficult to tell without seeing the hands, but I'd definitely be unsure if I ever met him, which is the best that most of them can hope for.
  • Inertia 25 Mar 2013 12:09:44 677 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @disusedgenius

    I think I said it was an opinion. Not whether I agreed with it. And technically it is OK if the law legislates for it, no?
  • nickthegun 25 Mar 2013 12:10:47 59,940 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The thing is, he would probably enjoy it.

    'PLEASE CHOPSEN, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER?'
    *punch*
    'PLEASE CHOPSEN, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER?'

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    someone say something funny

  • disusedgenius 25 Mar 2013 12:12:03 5,333 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Inertia wrote:
    And technically it is OK if the law legislates for it, no?
    It doesn't come into it, is my point.
  • Inertia 25 Mar 2013 12:21:57 677 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    You can't sack someone on a moral point it has to violate a legal right of the employer or claimant. So you need laws to change to make these moral choices a legal violation. Otherwise people just rant but nothing changes and there is always another story following just behind.

    I remember Ian Hislop arguing that all the readers of the News of the World should be brought into the Leveson inquiry as they were funding these illegal activities. :)
  • Chopsen 25 Mar 2013 12:29:10 16,000 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    People don't have to break the law to be sacked.
  • Bremenacht 25 Mar 2013 12:37:44 18,275 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I bet the kids would have accepted the difference, even if the parents, Daily Mail or the rest of the world couldn't.
  • HarryPalmer 25 Mar 2013 12:38:54 3,322 posts
    Seen 23 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    The Daily Mail loves this shit. I can't imagine they will bat an eyelid. They're already blaming twitter.
  • RobTheBuilder 25 Mar 2013 12:51:02 6,521 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Everyone was so focused on how kids would be affected by a transsexual teacher (very little), and seems to ignore now how they affected by a teacher killing themselves (a lot)
  • CosmicFuzz 25 Mar 2013 13:02:16 24,360 posts
    Seen 59 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Is Littlejohn a cunt? Yes.
    Did he cause her death? Unclear.

    We're back! Our gaming podcast Open Source returns after a break with a look at Destiny, Minecraft and more. Check us out! (And give us a rating on iTunes please!) :)

  • CosmicFuzz 25 Mar 2013 13:04:10 24,360 posts
    Seen 59 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    And as Chopsen says, he can be fired without having broken any laws. If his actions completely drove the whole world against DM I would imagine he would be let go, regardless of the fact he hasn't broken the law.

    He really is a horrible, horrible person though.

    We're back! Our gaming podcast Open Source returns after a break with a look at Destiny, Minecraft and more. Check us out! (And give us a rating on iTunes please!) :)

  • RobTheBuilder 25 Mar 2013 15:05:50 6,521 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Petition has reached 110k signatures :)
  • RobTheBuilder 25 Mar 2013 15:06:35 6,521 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    CosmicFuzz wrote:
    Is Littlejohn a cunt? Yes.
    Did he cause her death? Unclear.
    Did he contribute to and drive the actions that caused her death: Yes
  • Page

    of 85 First / Last

Log in or register to reply