Mehdi just wiped the floor with the Tories & their press on Question Time

just that.

 

They had no answers to him. The guy from the Daily Mail was a right top class pillock

 

He didn't have much to say when it was pointed out that The Guardian had smeared Camerons dad or when the Mirror had gone through bins to fine nappies of his dead son.

 

'He didn't have much to say when it was pointed out that The Guardian had smeared Camerons dad or when the Mirror had gone through bins to fine nappies of his dead son.'

Fancy that.

 

Did either of them say he hated Britian or was "evil"?

I don't think they did.

But actually Medhi did say that was also wrong.

 

Presumably he was also able to point to a similar outcry and opprobrium from the left when the Guardian/Mirror behaved this way towards Cameron?

No, thought not, that doesn't count, it's only a problem when it's aimed at 'one of theirs'.

 

Yes it does count. It is not right or decent. In this matter it's not 'us and them' it's right and wrong.

I'm not David Cameron's biggest fan or a tory but to exploit what was a personal tragedy for Cameron and his family just to sell copy is wrong on so many levels.

 

Don't they all just deserve each other?

politicians, newspapers, religion. All total *****.

Cba with any of 'em, except for the sports pages in the paper.

 

Anyone with any kind of class at all would just hold their hands up on this one, admit The Mail have gone too far, agree that attacking someone's long dead father isn't the way to robustly challenge our politicians and save their political battles for another day. It's not even a political issue as far as I'm concerned, it's just common human decency. At the very least they would address the issue at hand and say why The Mail were right to print what they did, if that is their position.

Those without any will ignore the article, almost pretending it was never written, and go on the attack looking for any scrap of wrong doing from those on the political left from any time in the last 150 years.

Have people from both sides of the political divide made errors of judgement, said things they shouldn't or acted in an appalling or ridiculous manner over the last century or so? Of course they have. Does this in any way excuse The Daily Mail for its latest outburst? Does it ******* hell.

And since when does not liking an article in one newspaper mean we have to be held account for everything The Guardian or a Labour politician has ever written or said? Just because we don't like this particular article does not mean we agree with everything The Guardian print nor does it mean we agree with every policy a left leaning politician has ever put forward. I never realised that to say we don't like something coming from the right means we then have to defend every single action, speech or newspaper column from anyone from the political left in modern history.

The issue at hand is the article in The Daily Mail. If you want to defend it, be my guest. All you're doing at present is ignoring it and trying to divert attention away from it by bringing up anything at all that you consider are failings from the other side. You're not alone, that appears to be the tactic of everyone on the political right. Rather than trying to shift focus, address this issue. Do you like the article, do you think printing it was the right thing to do? If you don't, you won't lose face. You can still be a dyed-in-the-wool Tory and disagree with an article in The Mail. By doing so you might actually garner some respect, something you're completely failing to do with your current line of argument. If you do agree with the article and state why, you might not get many people agreeing with you, but at least you'll be addressing the subject at hand rather than simply ignoring it and attacking the left. I'm guessing you don't though, as then there would be no need for all the diversion tactics.

 

Well I read the Daily Mail. There, I said it. I read it because I am to the right of centre politically and therefore there is much that is printed in the paper that I agree with, which would be the same if I bought the express - it would be one or the other. There are however, plenty of times that I don't agree with a story in the mail - it often comes across too much as "Mr Angry from the Suburbs" and it annoys the hell out of me sometimes when it picks up on an issue and doesn't let it go for weeks, shaking it like a dog would to get the last dregs out of it. But that is the same as any national newspaper.

On this issue...no I definitely do not agree with what they printed - I think it was nasty, it was personal, it was unncessary and it served no purpose because the supposed rationale for printing it just doesn't ring true - the arguments were far too flimsy. I think they should apologise to Milliband and move on.

What does strike me though is the question of how many people who are expressing indignation (quite rightly) about the way in which the paper ran the story are the same ones who perhaps were dancing in the street singing that they were going to have a party now Thatcher's dead before HER family had even had the chance to bury her. Don't tell me that it is different - it is still an issue of common decency.

 

This. Agree 100%.

 

If you are a Tory, read the Torygraph or perhaps the Times. The Mail and Express are comics.

 

That is everything I should like to say

Cheers Jay

 

It is different though isn't it?

Maragaret Thatcher was the leader of this country and divided opinion throughout. The papers merely reported that and the feelings of many people up and down the country. What has Ralph Miliband ever done to make the general public have an opinion on him? Was he ever in the public eye? Did you know about him before his sons got into politics?

Massively different.

 

Lots of people had very strongly held opinions about Margaret Thatcher - I understand that. But she had been out of politics for 23 years, was an old woman who had developed dementia, and ultimately was a person who had just died, who had a family who were grieving for her and had not yet had the chance to bury her - you don't think dancing in the street because she's dead is a question of common decency?. We'll just have to agree to differ.

 

You talk way too much sense for this board Jay.

 

I have to say I do agree with you.

 

I never said it was decent. I said it's something that you can't compare. If the people had danced on the street when Milliband's father died then the papers would've been well within their rights to report it and throw a jab or two in.

The simple fact is that the Daily Mail have attacked the dead father of a politician because they don't want him to be PM.

 

Likewise.

If only we lived in a civilised society where celebrating the death of someone we didn't like or attacking those already dead who can't defend themselves was seen as abhorrent ?

What makes it worse is those who do one or the other can only see the bad in the opposite and try and justify what they see as acceptable.

 

I was pretty happy when she died. It sounds horrible and I know I'm too young to remember her in power but I've heard from enough people and read enough to know that she did a lot to hurt this area, this community and my family in particular.

I'm not particularly proud of my reaction but I'm not going to get upset about it. Maybe it wasn't decent. However, I'm not a national newspaper. If we're comparing the morals of a national newspaper to that of individuals and saying they have the same responsibilities it's getting a bit difficult to debate in my opinion.