Just when you think the Daily Mail can not sink any lower....

They only order 2 copies. Usually send 1 back.

 

70% of the Mail's readership are women as well.

Not very nice of the left to target the sisterhood is it, very sexist.

 

It's still completely ******** to say you can't criticise anyone who's died, in fact it's ridiculous.

 

With your user name lol

 

And how long was Thatcher dead exactly before you were attacking her?

 

Didn't say owt that weren't true though abart the ********

 

Your straw man argument is just embarrassing now.

 

As is the argument that you can't criticise someone as he's only been dead 20 years.

 

You can criticise anyone, dead or alive. There are plenty of dead people that deserve nothing but contempt. The fact that they died shouldn't change your opinion of them or allow us to forget their wrong doings. Respect for the dead is not something I automatically sign up to. Respect for the good, living or dead, is a far better philosophy as far as I'm concerned. Not that I care for the rejoicing that is sometimes displayed when a person who is disliked suffers misfortune or dies, but that doesn't mean history should be changed or opinions on their deeds not expressed.

If The Daily Mail's article was an exposé of a man that needed taking to task then it would have been legitimate. It wasn't, it was attacking the father to discredit the son. The Daily Mail do not believe its readership are even remotely interested in the life of a very minor political figure almost 20 years after his death. Their only motivation was to besmirch Ed Miliband. Nothing wrong with that in principle, their job is to hold politicians accountable and as a publication that disagree with Ed Miliband and the Labour Party's politics it's up to them to explain to their readers why. Criticism of Ed Miliband is legitimate. Criticism of his policies is legitimate. Holding him accountable for the political beliefs of his father is not. None of us should be judged on the actions and beliefs of our parents and forebears. You would think the Daily Mail would subscribe wholeheartedly to this considering the questionable actions of the owner's lineage. No doubt they do, and were not only offending the moral values of a large proportion of society, but breaking their own code of conduct too.

If the article had been accurate, even if the motives were questionable, it would still have been a justifiable news story. It wasn't. It was a hatchet job of the worst kind, filled with inaccuracies and down right lies.

If you can't see that, or won't acknowledge it, you're either blind or being deliberately obtuse.

 

Great point well made, Jay.

 

The headline of the Daily Mail article was poor and tabloid-hyperbolic and the evidence they produced to show that Miliband hated Britain was pretty thin as well (what he wrote as a teenager) but the fact is he was Britain's leading Marxist and Marxists don't believe in nations, that's one of the central tenets of Marxism and Britain is a nation and so therefore it was factually correct to say that Ralph Miliband hated Britain.

It's also legitimate for the Daily Mail to examine to what extent Ralph Miliband has informed his son's views and thinking, given that he is the leader of the opposition and could be the next Prime Minister and how deleterious Marxist policies would be to this country and it's citizens' individual freedoms (see every Communist country ever).

 

Being against the concept of nations ≠ "hating Britain" in particular as you so boorishly put it.