to be glad that the Guardian is making enormous losses

[longfingernails]

www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-losses-reported-to-have-escalated-by-a-further-10m-to-68-7m-for-the-last-financial-year/

Great stuff. Their chatterati condescension, Islington moral vacuum and politically correct echo chamber has been a malignant blot upon our society for decades.

Let it wither upon the Viner.

The Guardian does write about that, Gary Younge has written about it on many occasions for one, there will have been others.

It was the Manchester Guardian once upon a time!

Until 1959, but it still wasn't the main paper of the Labour party even then, that would be the Mirror.

But race/culture was a contributing factor to the other similar cases around the UK, when your trying to address a problem you don't automatically discount out of hand because you don't agree with the assertion. It was a failure of everyone involved but it takes an ostrich not to see an agenda in play when along with other things, Tower Hamlets is played out as islamaphobia instead of corruption.

I also didn't say that the guardian was read by labour heartlands, I'm countering the often mis artibuted title of 'who else stands up for the working class' rethoric that is also evident in this thread, and whilst the mirror is the natural paper to the utter contempt of guardian a lot of them read the Sun.

No one denied it wasn't a factor, the guardian never ignored this, but on here the constant refrain is that they ignored it, when all of the articles acknowledged it but made calls to identify further underlying issues, the main one being that it happened to young people who were ignored for reasons of their social status.

The fact is, and I admire the Guardian for fighting this corner, it was a complex situation and needed far more nuance to the understanding of it other that "Evil Asians" which because it didn't take that stance it is being slated here.

Also off to subscribe, thanks OP

I haven't RTFT, a quick glance at the mud slinging & name calling put me off.

I will be very sad if the Guardian goes bust. As someone from the NW I like the fact it knows it's roots & isn't London centric as much as other papers, which might be why it is less popular.

I also think it is a valuable counterpoint to the fucking daily mail. I would be sad if we lost it

I don't think anyone is even alluding to the fact that they should report 'le evil Asians'.

I think it's a case of people, and it's a lot, across the whole political spectrum, can see an obvious blind spot with there investigative journalism, they may pay lip service to a common factor across cases such as Rotherham and try, rightly IMO, point out that other common factors are at play, but because of the identity politics game they have championed they then without any sense of irony, ridicule, show utter contempt for, or run peices that appeal to their readership which exasperates an issue.

Although they didn't ignore Rotherham, they did run many op-ed's before that basically boiled down to 'islamophobia' to suggest such a thing (same with tower hamlets corruption scandal), and with cologn they did report it, but the delay in there reporting (not the only one I admit) hence the shit show that was all the below the line comments over New Years, but that the early edits kept certain demographics out of the frame, some of the early CIF articles, I think one by Deborah Orr was just a complete victim blaming masterpiece that turned many long time guardian reader of as the mask had been lifted.

As I said before, for me the hypocrisy of the guardian runs a lot deeper than identity politics, however, I think they have got themselves into a situation where they are worried of accepting that there maybe some flaws in the ideology they have so fervently pushed for a few years, or even worse, and this holds true for many of the most ardent guardian fans, that they may say something that people on 'the right' may agree with, or acknowledge that those on the right have some valid points.

but because of the identity politics game they have championed they then without any sense of irony, ridicule, show utter contempt for, or run peices that appeal to their readership which exasperates an issue against the poor working class

Damnit

I think you're looking for flaws and finding them anywhere you think you can. Rotherham was certainly not ignored, nor was the racial part played down, but as I have said, and rightly so, it drew attention to further detail of the facts.

The Orr piece certainly isn't victim blaming, its a criqitue of the attitudes of the police towards children that they think don't matter, THIS attitude was rife within this case, from the social workers and police saying things about it was the girls "lifestyle choices".

With Cologne there was an effective media blackout until the 5th of Jan, when the Guardian reported it.

Yet again your attempts to make this about one issue, when it is clearly about a range of others undermine your argument, the Guardian does not simply champion identity politics in one way, it is liberal across the board and critiques all kinds of things in different areas.

The Guardian has some very high quality writers - and some less so. I'd hate to have no choice of English as in non-Scottish quality paper. And all those potential job losses.

The contiuation that you make this about "identity politics" whilst ignoring the fact that this was straight reported in the Guardian and commented upon, with the services involved heavily criticised is disingenuous.

I'll add my own POV to this which matches some met in the Guardian.

The political correctness angle claimed by those services who failed the children in Rotherham so badly was mendacious. Frankly it was their "get out clause" they could shift the blame from their own failings and easily make it about race, which of course would ignite any anti immigrant feeling and inflame the tabloid reading masses. In essence it was a form of racism in its self and gives the impression that these men were allowed to get away with this because of their race and culture.

In fact when Asian men are over represented in the prison population it suggests that the police have no qualms in arresting them, and this is furthered by the fact that if you are black or Asian then the courts are more likely to give you a harsher sentence than they would a convicted white person for the same crime. No racial or cultural issues abound here so why when it involves the sexual abuse of vulnerable young women?

In essence the entire focusing on race in this case allows us to make it an exception, when what we should be looking at is the fact that police forces across the country have ignored reports for decades regarding all sorts of people and groups from different walks of life. If viewed as a whole the fact that children, especially those that are vulnerable, have been abused, reported it, and their testimony discounted by police forces across the country is indicative of a much larger, much less isolated dereliction of duty on behalf of the police.

The Guardian drew attention to this, whilst you are looking for a critique of culture or race. You are looking in the wrong place.

Smallfox you keep conflating race with culture. Nazir Afzal who prosecuted the Rotherham abusers explicitly referenced the cultural roots of these men's contempt for the girls they raped and tortured. Baroness Sayeeda Warsi has said that the men's inward looking misogynistic culture considered the girls-mostly white and English origin- "fair game". Can you accept that people who share the same ethnic and religious background of the abusers have this opinion or are they just racists too? Nazir Afzal is a very brave man who has faced death threats from his own community for prosecuting cases of forced marriage, FGM and honour killings in his own community. He acknowledges that they are often the victims of racism but also that they have serious problems only they can put right. Why can't you listen to someone like him instead of shouting racism at everyone and misrepresenting the intelligent thoughtful posts on this thread as "Pakistanis is evilz"? It's really juvenile.

While I hear what everybody says on this, I still hold to my opinion on their coverage of Cologne. At the time (and now) I was utterly shocked by the incident. My paper at the time was the Guardian and I kept on waiting to see what they said about it.
I'm not going to go through the timing of the reports, but I distinctly remember how late they were in reporting it (like the BBC), and with a much more ambivalent approach than other papers (minimising the numbers involved, not mentioning the racial make-up of the attackers, and lots of use of the word 'alleged'). At least when other papers reported it, they reflected the level of outrage I felt. As others have said on similar threads, the Guardian really struggles with how to deal with stories like this.
Gaby Hinsliff's piece was the apogee of victim-blaming, accompanied by many others of the same ilk.
Perhaps this is just my perception being flawed, but I still hold to it.

Careful Lucy, with views like that small will pulling out the racist card.

Yes, Lucy, I remember it happening too - with Rotherham and Cologne. I used to check every day in amazement

I used to read the telegraph now and again - it has really gone downhill. I do et least find myself back at the Guardian website for some writers.

Is that true of the Telegraph? I used to read it too, at least the news, not so much the comments, so I don't really cared about their politics (and has great cartoons), but switched to the Guardian since I have to pay for it.

I distinctly remember how late they were in reporting it (like the BBC), and with a much more ambivalent approach than other papers (minimising the numbers involved, not mentioning the racial make-up of the attackers, and lots of use of the word 'alleged'). At least when other papers reported it, they reflected the level of outrage I felt.

Funny, because I'd probably associate it with more serious journalism: alleged until confirmed and not giving outrage but reporting it. Unlike the DM where you get immediate blame and the outrage, whether it's warranted or not.

It's a personal thing g but I used to quite like a look at the Telegraph for variety, last time I bought it there seemed nothing there of substance. A friend gets a hard copy Times and I'm starting to look forward to seeing what's in it when I'm round at hers. The forbidden fruits behind a paywall must be tempting me!

The Telegraph has been shedding staff left, right and centre so I'm not surprised to hear that the quality of the paper has gone downhill.

When something IS outrageous I want it reported as outrageous. Not diminished. I believe that this issue would have been swept under the carpet if it wasn't for social media. The BBC initial coverage was 2 minutes long at the end of the news.

YANBU

It is depressing, and I have stopped getting it free at the supermarket.

I have never been, but am not a Times reader. It is fab and so much less depressing. Well written, I especially like Caitlin Moran and the Saturday magazine.

now a Times reader I meant to say