New from the UK...

her meal is hardly unhealthy....further, true unhealthyness doesn't come from just one or a few meals, its what you routinely feed yourself. i can enjoy a pizza and milkshake, then work it off and i'm far from unhealthy.

this is a lame snipe at the first lady
 
That's not fair Low, the Daily Mail has run many campaigns down the years. They were and are vehemently against the decision to go to war in Iraq for instance.

Oh come on, Tom. It has long been known as the Tory party house mag.
Here is just one op. piece:

- there are no extreme right wing papers in this country? In recent months, the Daily Mail has alleged links between Ed Miliband and Stalin and claimed that "liberalism" is caused by a faulty gene. Meanwhile, the Daily Express has run a poll asking its readers if they think our schools are being ruined by foreign children. In what way do you regard these things as "centre" anything?


and here is another in greater depth:

Founded in 1896 by the Harmsworth brothers, Alfred (later Lord Rothermere) and Harold (later Lord Northcliffe), and aimed at a more populist readership than the established dailies (with a purchase price of ½d rather than the 1d charged by the rest of the London dailies).

From the outset it was rabidly conservative, attracting some criticism for its pro-Empire stance and lack of objectivity during the 1899-1902 South African War (the “Boer War”). In 1934 Lord Rothermere wrote an infamous op-ed, “Hurrah for the Blackshirts”, in praise of Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists. Even after the Mail dropped its support for the BUF after violence at a 1934 meeting at Kensington Olympia, it nevertheless maintained a sympathetic stance towards Hitler right up until 1939.

It maintains this right-wing conservative (with a “c” as well as with a “C”) to the present day, being anti-Europe, anti-immigration, anti-taxation, anti-abortion, anti-permissive, anti-(the list goes on and on…). Articles tend to be written in one of two tones – either sycophantic praise of the lifestyles of middle-class role models and their trappings, or (more usually) moral outrage at the ever-increasing wickedness and instability of the modern world. It’s frequently lampooned by Private Eye for this, especially over house prices – rises, falls and stagnation are all given mock headlines describing them in fearful and pessimistic terms – and has acquired the nickname the Daily Heil in some quarters.
 
I'll let that debate between you two guys....normally our lefties like to quote the UK media for some reason....
 
Oh come on, Tom. It has long been known as the Tory party house mag.
Here is just one op. piece:

- there are no extreme right wing papers in this country? In recent months, the Daily Mail has alleged links between Ed Miliband and Stalin and claimed that "liberalism" is caused by a faulty gene. Meanwhile, the Daily Express has run a poll asking its readers if they think our schools are being ruined by foreign children. In what way do you regard these things as "centre" anything?


and here is another in greater depth:

Founded in 1896 by the Harmsworth brothers, Alfred (later Lord Rothermere) and Harold (later Lord Northcliffe), and aimed at a more populist readership than the established dailies (with a purchase price of ½d rather than the 1d charged by the rest of the London dailies).

From the outset it was rabidly conservative, attracting some criticism for its pro-Empire stance and lack of objectivity during the 1899-1902 South African War (the “Boer War”). In 1934 Lord Rothermere wrote an infamous op-ed, “Hurrah for the Blackshirts”, in praise of Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists. Even after the Mail dropped its support for the BUF after violence at a 1934 meeting at Kensington Olympia, it nevertheless maintained a sympathetic stance towards Hitler right up until 1939.

It maintains this right-wing conservative (with a “c” as well as with a “C”) to the present day, being anti-Europe, anti-immigration, anti-taxation, anti-abortion, anti-permissive, anti-(the list goes on and on…). Articles tend to be written in one of two tones – either sycophantic praise of the lifestyles of middle-class role models and their trappings, or (more usually) moral outrage at the ever-increasing wickedness and instability of the modern world. It’s frequently lampooned by Private Eye for this, especially over house prices – rises, falls and stagnation are all given mock headlines describing them in fearful and pessimistic terms – and has acquired the nickname the Daily Heil in some quarters.

I never disputed that it is on the right in British terms, compared to the Grauniad and Independent but that's not saying much. I always find that the ones that are most vehemently against it are also those that haven't read it and get their opinions from second hand sources. I also think that you've been out of the country too long else you would know that most Brits are against the EU and their mission to turn it into the United States of Europe. Why do you think that Gordon Brown did his utmost to stop a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty after promising one in the election manifesto? I am sure you wouldn't be so happy living in Hong Kong if the Chinese suddenly decided to tear up the one nation, two systems agreement claiming it was just a "tidying up exercise".

Gordon Brown made one decent decision when he stopped that bastard Blair from getting us into the Euro, it's just a shame that he totally fucked up the economy and destroyed our pensions. Just imagine what kind of exquisite shit we would be in now if we had joined, we would have neither control over our currency or interest rates and a massive deficit as well. Even so we still ended having to bail out the Greeks and maybe the Portuguese, Italians and Spanish as well. I can state with absolute certainty that if there was a referendum tomorrow on leaving the EU there would be a massive yes vote.

As for immigration, you won't find many people asking for more, Labour for years tried to shut down debate by playing the race card. Even one of their own scriptwriters Andrew Neather said that a conscious decision was made in 2000 to get the Conservatives by opening the doors wide open to immigration. The Office for National Statistics has just released a report stating that over 3 million immigrants have come here during the 13 years of Labour rule.

As for abortion, that's just bullshit, what they are against are late terminations over 22 weeks which I happen to agree with.

I missed one point, who is exactly in favour of more taxation? I'm sure that the taxation levels in Hong Kong are much lower than the UK.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top