Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

To think the Daily Mail should be banned for inciting general hatred?

68 replies

CheesyWotzits · 07/10/2011 19:07

I think it should

OP posts:

Original poster

CheesyWotzits · 08/10/2011 21:53

dementedma - I think you're missing the point. It's not as simple as just not reading it, the problem is that an awful lot of people do read it and take it seriously and so the paranoia, fear & hatred spreads.

OP posts:

Pendeen · 08/10/2011 23:27

YABU.

What would you ban next?

The Torygraph? BNP? Enid Blyton? Channel 5? Voting for a party with which you disagree? Offering an opinion different from yours?

Who decides what should be banned? On what basis?

How come you think your judgement is more valid than someone elses'?

beatenbyayellowskull · 08/10/2011 23:51

YANBU. It's toxic.

It's emotive, manipulative and feeds on - and creates - prejudice and fear.

shuckleberryfinn · 09/10/2011 00:13

Sod that. More worrying is how few adults are capable of critical thinking regardless of where they read something.

scottishmummy · 09/10/2011 00:13

if your mum et al like and believe the dm they already had that attitudinal mindset and belief.the dm is not so omnipotent to convert unsuspecting citizens ti odious views. hate this illiberal ban it ethos.you give too much credence to dm

Tortington · 09/10/2011 00:16

do like the online celeb gossip. but think it should be banned

sunnydelight · 09/10/2011 05:41

YANBU. When most people read pure tat like the The Sun etc. they know what they are reading, but a lot of DM readers actually thing they are reading a "proper" newspaper. I can't can't believe that it hasn't been shut down for many incidents of "incitement to racial hatred" years ago.

lassylass · 09/10/2011 08:37

""1 in 3 muggers are black"

Why not go with "2 in 3 muggers are white"?"

Not a great example smackapacca, because its not a story the DM would choose to run. Reverse the statistics and I could see it, but then why would they draw attention to the 1 in 3 white? The not too subtle point they want us to take away from the story is that two thirds of mugging crime is 'imported'. (while ignoring that it was imported over the last 60 years and can hardly be regarded as an import any more).

They dont like immigration. Its a perfectly valid position to take, and any sensationalist story with a grounding in truth that shows the effects of immigration in a bad light is what they will print.

Grannies who parrot back the same kind of views as the DM had those views in the first place. That is their right and they are certainly in line with the majority mindset.

spiderpig8 · 09/10/2011 08:39

"1 in 3 muggers are black"

Why not go with "2 in 3 muggers are white"?

because you have to look at it in context to the total population black:white ratio.The black population is far less than 1/3 of the total population

Richlinn · 09/10/2011 08:53

I like the DM and the Telegraph. Everyone is entitled to their views. Personallly, this country is now going to Hell in a handcart - look at the riots. I would like to see a robust border agency, the abolition of the european human rights policy, the forced repatriation of immigrants who break our laws, corporal punishment, severe prison terms and the right to use full force against burglars. The liberal do-gooders are the main cause of our ills, so there you go. Happy venting.

scottishmummy · 09/10/2011 11:51

its too simplistic to suggest cause and effect from dm
just because dm says something odious doesn't mean it permeates to the masses as real.id suggest if you read the dm you probably already concur with some of its views. we tend to gravitate to books,papers that reflect our views.

with dm i think its not totally causal, i think many reader hold those pov and the dm just reflects it back to them.and all this hand wringing about it causing unpleasant opinions is completely off mark.

its really illiberal to ban on basis of dont like
dont read dm but certainly i dont want it banned,its a v bad precedent

maypole1 · 09/10/2011 12:01

I judge guardian readers their the real danger be warned we should round them all up and slap them with a wet haddock

maypole1 · 09/10/2011 12:03

sunnydelight many who read the guardian think their reading a real paper its like being at a lefty dinner party the menu lentils and soya

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 09/10/2011 12:04

It shouldn't be banned, but its "stories" should be more rigorously vetted because they post blatant UNTRUTHS very often.

PetiteRaleuse · 09/10/2011 12:12

No, it shouldn't be banned. It is vile but the freedom of the press in this country is something to be treasured. Plus it is good to know what the enemy is thinking.

Dillydaydreaming · 09/10/2011 12:35

Utterly vile.... apparently if you are the parent of a child with ADHD you get "a free car courtesy of the tax payer".

< observes DS with autism, development delay and ADHD. looks out of window for free car but doesn't see one.>
Goodness me could the Mail be wrong?

beatenbyayellowskull · 09/10/2011 12:49

Should free speech have a proviso that it is not entirely made up?

Andrewofgg · 09/10/2011 15:14

Fanjo vetted by whom?

Flip

1 2 3