The Grauniad seems to be dying - hurrah!

complimentary - The Scott Trust that controls the Guardian media group sold 49.9% of Autotrader in 2008 which will have offset those losses.

According to todays Standard the Guardian/Observer made losses of £301.4 million from 2005 to 2011. How has this paper survived so long? What do the shareholders think?

not round here all the staffies would get him first!

Heartening as always to hear Claig pointing out the truth and watching the oh so superior 'free thinking liberals' getting their knickers in a twist.

Daily Mail is great. I love it.
Littlejohn makes me hoot with laughter.
I'd love to set him loose on a parkful of lefty wets, all whinging about free speech and oppression and global warming and see him demolish them like a Staffy with a Yorkie.

Onehellavabroad. Claig is far from unstable. Claig as far as I can se aligns herself with the majority. The Guardian does not, and that is why this pretentious north London rag is making a £33 million loss!
The paper is boring in the extreme, if the majority are against something they are for it! The Iraq War. Totally suppported Tony Blair. The Libya conflict? Would like more involvement. They don't do religion, rather like the arsehole Alistair Campbell. Unless of course it is to support the building of a mosque at ground zero, they then see the protestors against it as 'hate filled' old bigots. They do support Christianity of course when they wish their dc to get into sought after faith schools. They then have a conversion to God for a few months, whilst buying copies of the 'Atheists Guide to Christmas', they know it will be a jolly good read as the Guardian says it is! They are rather keen on higher education, as long as the hard pressed proletariat pays for it!
They protect their own (quite right!) and live in immigrant free areas such as Hampstead or Hampstead Garden Suburb, they are 'for' mass immigration (as long as it only affects the poor). No they are free thinkers, as long as you think the same. The Guardian reader if she is a woman does not were make-up. Its wot chavs do innit? (They must in public recognise each other!) No as far as the Guardian and its readers are concerned they despise the working classes, and as Janet Street-Porter would say, They dont "give a faaaark".

sorry, advice was meant for OneHelluvaBroad, obviously not for complimentary.

complimentary, MrsKarbonara is right, some of my comment son the Daily Mail are done in jest, with, of course, a strong dashing of truth ever present.

'You come across as unstable, frankly.'
I am not sure that frankly would appreciate being called unstable.

Please book an appointment with a medical practitioner for a checkup, your powers of perception may be deficient, you may be unable.

Why is Claig on a wind-up mission? Why do some resort to insults? The lowest form of debate in my opinion. Have to go out, but will be back to debate the rather serious matter of the Guardian going under!

Oh wind your neck in, claig. You come across as unstable, frankly.

MrsKarbonara is right. It is a little bit of a windup, and the long words add to the wind up. But those long words and Shakespearean rhymes are not unusual, they are just the daily currency of the Daily Mail.

Sarah Palin may be a very clever politician. But her ignorance on many subjects is well documented.

are you referring to those "scientists" known as "climate change scientists"?
the science that Sarah Palin has, I think , described as "snake oil science"?

That has to be the funniest defence of the Daily mail I've ever seen.

I was actually thinking about a piece where they were taking an astrologer seriously about something, but yes, their populist climate change denialism ain't good.

The Guardian was kept alive for years by the revenues it made from Autotrader which the scott Trust which controls Guardian Media Group still owns 50.5% of. Its other main source of revenue was Govt advertising revenue for civil service, charity, quango jobs. Now that revenue stream is facing massive cuts - hence the need for job cuts.

It's ok guys, Claig is on a mission. A wind up shall we say. Always makes me hoot with laughter.

Well done for pricking that bubble of pomposity, with all your long words and Shakespeare rhymes, we all needed that, thankyou.

But your progressive newspapers peddle the myth to you that you are brighter than her and that she is stupid. Wake up, she's not stupid, and you've been had.

OneHelluvaBroad, I'd put money on it, that as a Governor of Alaska and Vice-Presidential candidate and possibly the next President of the United States of America, that Sarah Palin is a lot brighter than you.

No I don't write for the Daily Mail; if I did I wouldn't be writing about it on a forum. I find it amusing to defend the Daily Mail against progressives who always disparage it. I find it amusing to prick their bubble of pomposity.

Are you a fan of Sarah Palin? Oh, that explains it all. Not the brightest, really, is she?

Do these scientists not like the Daily Mail because it questions them and asks for proof of their pandemics and messages of doom and destruction? Is it because the Daily Mail, in the spirit of the great Galileo, holds the torch of truth and proof up to their claims and exposes the patent flaws where they exist.

claig, do you write for the DM? I fail to understand why anyone could get so worked up in its defence, otherwise. You rarely talk of anything else. Very odd.

Also, re: 'disliked because it is uppity, challenges the official view, and is always on the side of the people as opposed to the progressives?'

What on earth are you banging on about? You sound like Norma Tebbit and Mary Whitehouse's slightly slow lovechild.

What 'people' is it on the side of? Ad how does it 'challenge the official view'?

Bollocks.

'And ones which make scientists bang their heads on the lab bench'

are you referring to those "scientists" known as "climate change scientists"? the science that Sarah Palin has, I think , described as "snake oil science"?

I don't often read the Guardian, but it would be a shame if it went under. We need there to be a spectrum of serious print media available.

Is the Daily Mail disliked because it is uppity, challenges the official view, and is always on the side of the people as opposed to the progressives?

No - because it consistently produces stories that make most women squirm. And ones which make scientists bang their heads on the lab bench. And racist crap, of course.

Anyone else know 'people' who are actually also quite 'progressive' ?

Is the Dialy Mail so popular with the populace, as complimentary showed with its 2.5 million daily readership, because it is with the people and not the politically correct progressives?

Is the Daily Mail disliked because it is uppity, challenges the official view, and is always on the side of the people as opposed to the progressives?