DM's response to the criticism is up in their top headline

(24 Posts)
Bramshott Sun 07-Apr-13 14:37:49

Sorry, but if you're a national newspaper with a circulation of 2 million daily, you just don't make that kind of offensive 'mistake' on your front page.

blush misquoted again.

Fecking app.

Thanks Feenie. So everyone who just sees the front page sees "vile product of benefits culture" as the headline against six smiling children. Like I say, if it had been a photo of Philpott sticking up two fingers, no confusion.

Feenie Fri 05-Apr-13 21:33:46

Vile product of welfare uk.

They put "vile product of benefit scum" or something over a picture of children. If it had been a picture of Philpott they might have a leg to stand on.

NiceTabard Fri 05-Apr-13 19:11:54

Oh right. So you don't actually know then.

lemonmuffin Fri 05-Apr-13 19:04:46

They haven't announced that afaik.

It just seems fairly obvious to me that they meant the father rather than those young children.

NiceTabard Fri 05-Apr-13 19:00:06

Where have they announced that lemonmuffin?

lemonmuffin Fri 05-Apr-13 18:51:12

It was a mistake. They meant the father, not the children.

dotnet Fri 05-Apr-13 17:51:17

Bramshott I agree with you. I saw a Mick Philpott thread yesterday and couldn't quite understand what everybody was getting so aerated about. It was only when I went down to the supermarket and saw a DM on display 'in the flesh' that the penny dropped.

Yes, it was shocking - it DID look as if the dead children were being described as 'vile products of the benefits culture'.

Awful - and a really terrible mistake - if it was a mistake.

I bet it wasn't.

Bramshott Fri 05-Apr-13 10:07:35

So setting aside their claim that it was being on benefits which caused MP to become an arsonist, are they still arguing that it was just him they were calling a "vile product" and that the six children just happened to be in the photo they used?? hmm

GrowSomeCress Fri 05-Apr-13 09:54:34

Mandragora I didn't think they would apologise but I didn't really think they would bother to respond at all - and I definitely didn't think the response would be, as someone else said, quite so crowing.

Feenie Fri 05-Apr-13 09:53:05

They have a poll to ask if they were right, but warn that the left will hijack it. hmm

NiceTabard Fri 05-Apr-13 09:51:52

Oh sorry I didn't get your tone there.

MandragoraWurzelstock Fri 05-Apr-13 09:51:51

Yes sorry OP. I think I saw the word 'response' and thought, Oh they will be clarifying/apologising.

Why did you think they would be apologising? Or didn't you?

GrowSomeCress Fri 05-Apr-13 09:49:52

Just to clarify, when I said "not quite an apology is it!" I was making a joke... because it's obviously the complete opposite.


GrowSomeCress Fri 05-Apr-13 09:48:59

... I know it's not an apology. It was a sarcastic joke.

NiceTabard Fri 05-Apr-13 09:43:39

that's not an apology. Have they said it is an apology? Why do you think it is an apology? It isn't.

they actually said they were "slated"??? What are they, 12????

GrowSomeCress Fri 05-Apr-13 09:40:42

It was the last sentence that did it for me - could they get any more smug and paranoid at the same time?

MandragoraWurzelstock Fri 05-Apr-13 09:37:21

that's not an apology.

Eskino Fri 05-Apr-13 09:36:35

That's the opposite of an apology!

They are positively crowing about it.

GrowSomeCress Fri 05-Apr-13 09:33:53

Sorry, should have done that!

"This week the Mail was slated for making the perfectly reasonable point that arson killer Mick Philpott was a product of the benefits system. Today it is George Osborne's turn. Now tell us what YOU think. But, beware, the Left WILL try to hijack the result"

NiceTabard Fri 05-Apr-13 09:31:40

can you cnp i don#t want to click the bastards

GrowSomeCress Fri 05-Apr-13 09:24:41

(apologies if it's already been posted)

not quite an apology is it!

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now