Virgin trains stop selling the Daily Mail (3 Viewers)

[Otis]

Excellent news!

I detest that horrible rag.

Of course Farage has got involved, but Virgin are saying they are hardly selling any copies of it anyway. Virgin say they only sell one copy for every four trains.

Don't like censorship, but in this case I will make an exception, because it's for a worthy cause.


Virgin West Coast train firm stops selling Daily Mail - Virgin Trains halts Daily Mail sales

 

---

[Grendel]

Absolutely pathetic. That dickhead Branson behind this is he?

 

[Otis]

Absolutely pathetic. That dickhead Branson behind this is he?

It is pathetic. Just one copy for every four trains? I would say that is worse than pathetic.

It's pitiful.

 

[Grendel]

It is pathetic. Just one copy for every four trains? I would say that is worse than pathetic.

It's pitiful.

Banning certain sections of the media? Yeah not surprised whose liking the anti democratic feel as well

 

[olderskyblue]

It is pathetic. Just one copy for every four trains? I would say that is worse than pathetic.

It's pitiful.

hmm. Whatever you might think of the paper (I assume you read it regularly to be able to form your opinion on it?) you don't think its anything to do with this headline last November then?

'Branson buried his head in my boobs': Joss Stone backing singer claims Sir Richard Branson, 67, put his face in her cleavage and made a boat noise at his luxury Necker Island resort

• Antonia Jenae claims the Virgin boss put his face in her breasts at a party in 2010
• She was invited to the island with Joss Stone after they played Go Green Festival
• She said: 'His behaviour was disgusting. I feel like it was sexual assault'
• A statement from a Virgin Management spokesman said Sir Richard had no recollection of the incident

 

[Otis]

hmm. Whatever you might think of the paper (I assume you read it regularly to be able to form your opinion on it?) you don't think its anything to do with this headline last November then?

'Branson buried his head in my boobs': Joss Stone backing singer claims Sir Richard Branson, 67, put his face in her cleavage and made a boat noise at his luxury Necker Island resort

• Antonia Jenae claims the Virgin boss put his face in her breasts at a party in 2010
• She was invited to the island with Joss Stone after they played Go Green Festival
• She said: 'His behaviour was disgusting. I feel like it was sexual assault'
• A statement from a Virgin Management spokesman said Sir Richard had no recollection of the incident

Nope. Don't read it at all. Dont need too. Easy to see their headlines on the Internet though and the controversy they get in. Their headlines are there for everyone to see and their stores analysed and dissected.

I see last year Wikipedia banned them as a source except for in extreme circumstances, calling them an unreliable source.

When I was in my younger days, when people were accused of being untruthful everyone used to go round and say 'Stop telling Daily Mails!'

 

[Grendel]

Nope. Don't read it at all. Dont need too. Easy to see their headlines on the Internet though and the controversy they get in. Their headlines are there for everyone to see and their stores analysed and dissected.

I see last year Wikipedia banned them as a source except for in extreme circumstances, calling them an unreliable source.

When I was in my younger days, when people were accused of being untruthful everyone used to go round and say 'Stop telling Daily Mails!'

So you’ve never read it. Brilliant.

 

[M&B Stand]

Slippery slope

 

[Otis]

So you’ve never read it. Brilliant.

Didn't say I have never read it. I said I don't read it.

Daily Mail has 'mastered the art of running' fake news stories, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales says

 

[Ian1779]

Banning certain sections of the media? Yeah not surprised whose liking the anti democratic feel as well

It's not really a certain section, more the shit, xenophobic one.

 

[Grendel]

Didn't say I have never read it. I said I don't read it.

Daily Mail has 'mastered the art of running' fake news stories, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales says

So you think someone who used to sell users access to pornography amongst other dubious activities is a source worth quoting?

Fucking hell

 

[Otis]

It's not really a certain section, more the shit, xenophobic one.

It's a terrible newspaper. You don't have to read it to see that.

I have read it in the past and then stopped reading it because of the things they write.

You only need to look at the headlines. Compare the newspaper headlines of all the papers and their agenda becomes clearly apparent. Incredibly xenophobic and anti immigrant.

 

[Otis]

So you think someone who used to sell users access to pornography amongst other dubious activities is a source worth quoting?

Fucking hell

Just picked the first story I saw.

Their transgressions are well documented and they are a constant object of ridicule.

 

[Grendel]

Just picked the first story I saw.

Their transgressions are well documented and they are a constant object of ridicule.

Do you know anything about Wales? Let’s start with this - who is he a non executive director of?

 

[Otis]

Do you know anything about Wales? Let’s start with this - who is he a non executive director of?

I can see this going off on a right old tangent.

As I say, I just picked the first story I saw. Just type Daily Mail into the internet and see how many bad stories there are about them. False stories, xenophobia, being sued.

Bottom line is, I stopped reading all the newspapers. Don't read any of them any more and feel I can get a more balanced view by looking on the internet and seeing a story from both sides.

 

[Grendel]

I can see this going off on a right old tangent.

As I say, I just picked the first story I saw. Just type Daily Mail into the internet and see how many bad stories there are about them. False stories, xenophobia, being sued.

Bottom line is, I stopped reading all the newspapers. Don't read any of them any more and feel I can get a more balanced view by looking on the internet and seeing a story from both sides.

It’s not a tangent at all. You quoted the fact that Wikipedia banned the mail as it’s unreliable. I hate to break this to you but Wales is a non executive director of the Group that owns the Guardian and the Observer.

He is viewed by many as a particularly unpleasant character and yet you don’t bother to check the reliability of the source you quote. Which is what you accuse the Mail of is it not?

 

[Otis]

It’s not a tangent at all. You quoted the fact that Wikipedia banned the mail as it’s unreliable. I hate to break this to you but Wales is a non executive director of the Group that owns the Guardian and the Observer.

He is viewed by many as a particularly unpleasant character and yet you don’t bother to check the reliability of the source you quote. Which is what you accuse the Mail of is it not?

I understood he left the Guardian group didn't he? Thought there was a conflict of interest.

 

[Grendel]

I understood he left the Guardian group didn't he? Thought there was a conflict of interest.

He banned the Mail or classed them as unreliable while in his non exec capacity. He then resigned in a conflict of interest but curiously still had several guardian publications promoting him and his cause.

 

[Otis]

It’s not a tangent at all. You quoted the fact that Wikipedia banned the mail as it’s unreliable. I hate to break this to you but Wales is a non executive director of the Group that owns the Guardian and the Observer.

He is viewed by many as a particularly unpleasant character and yet you don’t bother to check the reliability of the source you quote. Which is what you accuse the Mail of is it not?

And no, it's not particularly what I have an issue with. It is more an issue of stance.

If someone is murdered they cover the story. If someone is murdered by an immigrant they go to town with the fact that it was an immigrant that carried out the crime.

It is their general stance on things I have the most problem with.

If I picked the wrong story I picked the wrong story. There's stacks out there though of Daily Mail stories.

I honestly don't know anyone who likes the paper, I seriously don't. I know people who read the Times and the Telegraph and the Guardian and then all the other tabloids, but no-one who has any good things to say about the Mail.

But like I say, I stopped reading them all. Over the years I have read the Guardian, the Sun, Mail, Independent, Mirror, Express, pretty much the lot.

I stopped reading them all. Fine to have editorial pieces giving your stance, but I really dislike front page headlines pushing an agenda on a news story (such as a murder by an immigrant)

 

[Grendel]

And no, it's not particularly what I have an issue with. It is more an issue of stance.

If someone is murdered they cover the story. If someone is murdered by an immigrant they go to town with the fact that it was an immigrant that carried out the crime.

It is their general stance on things I have the most problem with.

If I picked the wrong story I picked the wrong story. There's stacks out there though of Daily Mail stories.

I honestly don't know anyone who likes the paper, I seriously don't. I know people who read the Times and the Telegraph and the Guardian and then all the other tabloids, but no-one who has any good to say about the Mail.

But like I say, I stopped reading them all. Over the years I have read the Guardian, the Sun, Mail, Independent, Mirror, Express, pretty much the lot.

I stopped reading them all. Find to have editorial pieces giving your stance, but I really dislike front page headlines pushing an agenda on a news story (such as a murder by an immigrant)

As a civil libertarian (if you are one) you should be disgusted at the stance taken. I am I would equally be if it was the guardian - I paper I find subversive and vile but has a right to be read.

 

[Otis]

As a civil libertarian (if you are one) you should be disgusted at the stance taken. I am I would equally be if it was the guardian - I paper I find subversive and vile but has a right to be read.

My stance is that if Virgin do not want to sell the Mail they have every right to do so.

If newsagents in Liverpool don't want to sell the Sun they have every right too.

Surely a business such as these can stock whichever newspapers they want can't they.

If I wanted to buy the Independent, but WH Smith refused to sell it, I wouldn't have a problem with that and would simply go to a newsagent that does sell it.

Turning it on its head, do you think Virgin Trains should be forced to sell it?

 

[Otis]

I don't think you can tell a shop what it can and cannot stock, unless something entirely illegal or without license.

 

[Grendel]

My stance is that if Virgin do not want to sell the Mail they have every right to do so.

If newsagents in Liverpool don't want to sell the Sun they have every right too.

Surely a business such as these can stock whichever newspapers they want can't they.

If I wanted to buy the Independent, but WH Smith refused to sell it, I wouldn't have a problem with that and would simply go to a newsagent that does sell it.

Turning it on its head, do you think Virgin Trains should be forced to sell it?

You haven’t actually answered my point. I will answer yours but I need to understand your perspective first. Do you agree with suppression of freedom of speech or not?

 

[clint van damme]

He banned the Mail or classed them as unreliable while in his non exec capacity. He then resigned in a conflict of interest but curiously still had several guardian publications promoting him and his cause.

his cause is to privatise the NHS, I doubt the Guardian is promoting that and they probably had more to say about the 200 million bail out of his failed East coast rail franchise than the Mail so I'm surprised by this unless there is something in the aforementioned Joss Stones boobs story.

 

[Otis]

You haven’t actually answered my point. I will answer yours but I need to understand your perspective first. Do you agree with suppression of freedom of speech or not?

Tough one.

Was watching a debate on the Big Questions on Sunday. I find it hard to come down on one particular side or another to be honest.

I do think complete freedom of speech can be dangerous, so restrictions of some sort do need to be put in place.

You can say you have freedom of speech to say whatever you want as long as you don't offend someone. But then what do you define as offensive?

It's a very tricky subject and hand on heart I do waver on it. Hard to be definitive I find.

I just don't see why Virgin trains should have to sell the paper. Surely they can sell any range of papers they want.

I would have a problem more so if they only stocked left wing papers, or only right wing papers.

As long as they have a selective balance I don't see the problem. Sounds like they still sell the Express and Telegraph etc.

I cannot stand the Sun or Mirror either. Would be happy if they banned both those too.

 

[clint van damme]

Tough one.

Was watching a debate on the Big Questions on Sunday. I find it hard to come down on one particular side or another to be honest.

I do think complete freedom of speech can be dangerous, so restrictions of some sort do need to be put in place.

You can say you have freedom of speech to say whatever you want as long as you don't offend someone. But then what do you define as offensive?

It's a very tricky subject and hand on heart I do waver on it. Hard to be definitive I find.

I just don't see why Virgin trains should have to sell the paper. Surely they can sell any range of papers they want.

I would have a problem more so if they only stocked left wing papers, or only right wing papers.

As long as they have a selective balance I don't see the problem. Sounds like they still sell the Express and Telegraph.

I believe in freedom of speech but I also believe in press responsibility. The Mail often doesn't live up to that responsibility.

 

[olderskyblue]

Nope. Don't read it at all. Dont need too. Easy to see their headlines on the Internet though and the controversy they get in. Their headlines are there for everyone to see and their stores analysed and dissected.

I see last year Wikipedia banned them as a source except for in extreme circumstances, calling them an unreliable source.

When I was in my younger days, when people were accused of being untruthful everyone used to go round and say 'Stop telling Daily Mails!'

Otis, otis, otis...

You clearly have not been paying attention to whats said on this site. You cannot have a valid opinion on something if you do not see it regularly. You might catch headlines, but that clearly does not qualify you to have a valid opinion. It's like, well let me think, it's like discussing the City without attending the match... yes, you might have listened on the radio, or seen comments on this site, but without going to the game, it makes your opinion, well, worthless..

 

[martcov]

Banning certain sections of the media? Yeah not surprised whose liking the anti democratic feel as well

They are not banning anything. You can buy this disgusting rag all over Britain. It is not censored. It just doesn’t sell on the trains and it has a history of insulting some people and enraging others. Not surprised people are dropping it from their goods on sale or as give aways.

 

[Nick]

How many people read it as opposed to an app on their phone on the train nowadays anyway?

 

[ccfctommy]

I kind of agree with Grendel here. I hate the Daily Heil, however I have been on a virgin train hundreds of times and I do not think I have ever thought one second about them selling it or not. All I know is I will never buy it. However, I say this as someone who does not do newspapers (any more). Surely, where is the freedom of choice?

Playing devils advocate here, Virgin are a private business and s can do what they want? Especially if it isnt selling right?

 

[skybluetony176]

Banning certain sections of the media? Yeah not surprised whose liking the anti democratic feel as well

I know what you mean. The Daily Mail called those who wanted to uphold the democratic sovereignty of parliament traitors. Can’t get anymore undemocratic than that.

 

[martcov]

As a civil libertarian (if you are one) you should be disgusted at the stance taken. I am I would equally be if it was the guardian - I paper I find subversive and vile but has a right to be read.

Buy the rag somewhere else if he doesn’t sell it. Don’t see the problem.

 

[clint van damme]

I know what you mean. The Daily Mail called those who wanted to uphold the democratic sovereignty of parliament traitors. Can’t get anymore undemocratic than that.

good example of what I was referring to about press responsibility. Whipping up hatred shouldn't be part of their remit, especially, when as you point out, they were clearly wrong in their assumption.

 

[Grendel]

I believe in freedom of speech but I also believe in press responsibility. The Mail often doesn't live up to that responsibility.

In your opinion. Not the opinion of 1.5 million people.

 

[Grendel]

Buy the rag somewhere else if he doesn’t sell it. Don’t see the problem.

You wouldn’t.