the long-awaited 'why the telegraph is going downhill' thread

[ItWillNeverWork]

Another silly article in the Telegraph advocating capping the pound. Don't they remember what happened last time they tried it? I'm sure Lamont and Major do.

Why, what happened? Wouldn't it be a good thing if British goods were cheaper abroad? If we're importing more than we are exporting, then isn't this a bad thing in the long run?

 

[stavros]

According to the current Private Eye, the Telegraph had to disable the reader comments on their Mandela pieces last week after some less than respectful opinions were aired. They didn't give any details of their contents, but one presumes they chime with Thatcher's opinion of him circa 1980s.

 

[Quartz]

Why, what happened?

We had a recession as a result of the readjustment of the pound after Lamont stopped shadowing the ERM.

ETA: Oh yes, it destroyed the Tories' reputation for economic management and directly led to the Labour victory in 1997

 

[Gingerman]

According to the current Private Eye, the Telegraph had to disable the reader comments on their Mandela pieces last week after some less than respectful opinions were aired. They didn't give any details of their contents, but one presumes they chime with Thatcher's opinion of him circa 1980s.

I can just imagine what sort of comments any Mandela article in the Torygraph would attract if they allowed it,the sort that would'nt look out of place on a site like Stormfront.....

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

We had a recession as a result of the readjustment of the pound after Lamont stopped shadowing the ERM.

ETA: Oh yes, it destroyed the Tories' reputation for economic management and directly led to the Labour victory in 1997

I thought it was the ERM that prolonged the recession. Like how Greece's continued membership of the Euro (alongside Austerity, obviously) is preventing a recovery?

 

[Greebo]

Why, what happened?<snip>

Black Wednesday. I was working for one of the companies which went under as a direct consequence of that day.

 

[ViolentPanda]

According to the current Private Eye, the Telegraph had to disable the reader comments on their Mandela pieces last week after some less than respectful opinions were aired. They didn't give any details of their contents, but one presumes they chime with Thatcher's opinion of him circa 1980s.

They were a fair bit worse than even some of the opinions expressed by the Federation of Conservative Students on Mandela back during Thatcherdom. I had the misfortune of seeing one of the articles before the comments were closed - we're talking about quite a bit of naked racism, and a fair amount of actual mouth-foaming hate.

it's like I've always said: "Scratch a Telegraph reader, and nine times out of ten, a dirty racist cunt will emerge from beneath the surface".

 

[ViolentPanda]

I can just imagine what sort of comments any Mandela article in the Torygraph would attract if they allowed it,the sort that would'nt look out of place on a site like Stormfront.....

There were plenty of uses of "nigger" and "coon", and laments that Rhodesia and SA hadn't been ethnically-cleansed except for a population of helots.
The usual sort of thing, basically.

 

[stavros]

Ooh goodie. I'm going back to my parents tomorrow for a couple of weeks, allowing me to indulge in Telegraph browsing.

One of the things that confuses me about my Dad is that whilst he regards the Daily Mail as hate-filled scum, he wouldn't dream of reading a paper other than the Telegraph.

 

[stavros]

From the main leader column today;

There are unlikely to be any victory parades when British forces finally wind up combat operations in Afghanistan at the end of 2014 and return home. The widespread support that attended the initial intervention in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks has waned, in part because successive governments have failed to provide an adequate exposition of the mission’s objectives.

Widespread support?!

 

[ViolentPanda]

From the main leader column today;



Widespread support?!

The Telegraph is read (and written for) by the sort of idiot who assumes that because only 2 million people marched against the war, that 58 million or more must have tacitly approved of it.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

The Telegraph is read (and written for) by the sort of idiot who assumes that because only 2 million people marched against the war, that 58 million or more must have tacitly approved of it.

The march was against the Iraq war there was over 50% support for Afghanistan iirc

 

[Pickman's model]

From the main leader column today;



Widespread support?!

do you remember the autumn of 2001?

 

[stavros]

do you remember the autumn of 2001?

I do, and I remember there was support to "do something". It was the use of widespread that grated with me.

 

[Pickman's model]

I do, and I remember there was support to "do something". It was the use of widespread that grated with me.

there was support from people in every county

 

[stavros]

Surrendering any right they might have had to be taken seriously, the Telegraph name a baby as their Briton of the Year.

 

[brogdale]

Surrendering any right they might have had to be taken seriously, the Telegraph name a baby as their Briton of the Year.

et Teresa May?

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Only 20 free articles a month. That's new, isn't it?

 

[RedDragon]

Only 20 free articles a month. That's new, isn't it?

It has been in place for about a year or so, frankly it's a godsend.

 

[Quartz]

Only 20 free articles a month. That's new, isn't it?

Just block all cookies from *.telegraph.com and you're golden.

 

[Quartz]

Surrendering any right they might have had to be taken seriously, the Telegraph name a baby as their Briton of the Year.

To be fair, if the current political construct continues and he survives, he will be King one day.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Just block all cookies from *.telegraph.com and you're golden.

Really that easy? Presumably that doesn't work on the FT?

 

[Quartz]

Really that easy? Presumably that doesn't work on the FT?

I've not tried.

 

[stavros]

To be fair, if the current political construct continues and he survives, he will be King one day.

"Fairness" doesn't really enter the vernacular of the monarchy and their cheerleaders.

 

[Quartz]

"Fairness" doesn't really enter the vernacular of the monarchy and their cheerleaders.

We can set a better example.

 

[stavros]

The Telegraph are appauled at the BBC for having PJ Harvey guest-editing the Today programme, suggesting that Aunty might be slightly to the left of the Third Reich.

 

[nino_savatte]

Damian 'Blood-crazed Ferret' Thompson's provocatively titled blog "How ethnic conflict could dominate this century" is the cue for his readers to engage in some full-on racism. But here, Thompson admits to 'knowing someone' on the 'fringes' (sic) on the far right.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...-ethnic-conflict-could-dominate-this-century/

I once knew someone on the fringes of the far Right. He wasn’t too keen on buying a round, shall we say. Nor were his fellow activists. Whether this was because they were “hard-up”, naturally mean or thought the pub was run by a Jewish conspiracy I can’t say. Still, it kept them sober, which I think we can all agree was a good thing.

What's the betting he still knows them?

But check out this comment.

dickgreendoxon
• an hour ago

• −

The coming Roma-Paki. war, starting in Yorkshire, spreading across much of the land. Iraqi-Kurdish, Indian-Paki. skirmishes in many urban areas.

Not hard to imagine.

'Paki'? Yeah, this one is BNP or similar.

This commenter repeats the by now familiar canard much loved by the right that the BNP is 'left-wing'.

northumbrianmariner
• 3 hours ago

• −

Here we go again, another ignorant word-smith peddling the view that the BNP is a right wing party.

It is not right wing. The BNP is a national socialist organisation with - apart from matters of race and immigration - much the same policies as many in the labour party and other far left extremists support, as shown below (taken from their website on economic policy):

"Britain’s survival depends on a technology-intensive manufacturing base, protected from globalisation and rampant internationalist exploitation – the core of the British National Party’s plan for rebuilding this nation’s economy after decades of Tory and Labour neglect.

Globalisation has caused the export of jobs and industries to the Far East, and has brought ruin and unemployment to British industries and the communities who depend on them.

Accordingly, the BNP calls for the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports. We will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever possible, produced in British factories, employing British workers."

They also advocate worker's control and nationalisation of utilities etc. In other words, a typical far left agenda.

These cunts need to be kicked to death.

 

[Gingerman]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...ould-britain-have-joined-the-first-world-war/
So according to little Danny NUT types resent Gove because they know he'd be a far more impressive teacher than them....and here was me thinking they hate him because hes a total cunt who constantly undermines them and never misses an opertunity to slag them off...gee thanks for putting me straight Danny boy.....

 

[brogdale]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...ould-britain-have-joined-the-first-world-war/
So according to little Danny NUT types resent Gove because they know he'd be a far more impressive teacher than them....and here was me thinking they hate him because hes a total cunt who constantly undermines them and never misses an opertunity to slag them off...gee thanks for putting me straight Danny boy.....

So impressively charismatic that he'd have the kiddywinks in the palm of his hand....

 

[nino_savatte]

With the first episode of Benefit Street creating a real shitstorm it was inevitable that Eddie Munster (Brendan O'Neill) would use his blog to whine that it's a "crime" to "criticise the welfare state".

These attempts to have Benefits Street taken off air follow the publication of much tear-drenched media commentary about what a wicked show it is. It's a "visual vomit-fest", says one columnist. Others, as the Mirror reports, have branded it "propaganda" for the "idiot masses", claiming it is "inciting hatred" of those on benefits. This is where we get to the root of the desire to censor or censure Benefits Street. As with every other modern-day and historical attempt to ban something, to prevent the broadcasting or publication of a view or idea deemed to be "offensive", the attempt to blot out Benefits Street is ultimately driven by a fear of what dumb viewers, the "idiot masses", will get up to if they clamp eyes on this allegedly hateful programme. The widespread concern among Leftish observers that Benefits Street will provoke anti-poor people feelings and behaviour in mass society shows that the hysteria over this show is driven by classic pro-censorship prejudices: by a belief that some people (Them) can't handle exposure to controversial content and thus must have their eyes and ears covered by other, better-informed people (Us).
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...to-criticise-the-welfare-state/#disqus_thread

I would say O'Neill had better hope that he doesn't fall seriously ill or become severely disabled but a cunt like him is bound to have private health insurance as well as oodles of dosh (earned from speaking on behalf of Pfizer and other corporations) to cushion any blow.

You will notice how O'Neill skilfully avoids any mention of the number of hate tweets the programme generated.