To think Paperchase shouldn't have apologised?

[jenniferl1983]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42057493

Paperchase have apologised for a promotional giveaway that was featured in the Daily Mail. They were lobbied by the campaign group Stop Funding Hate and have now promised they ''won't ever do it again''.

AIBU to think they shouldn't have backed down so easily on the back of some social media messages? Businesses seem now to be so scared of causing a media furore that they now apologise for anything (see the 1 gender fluid man who got Topshop to change their dressing room policy).

This isn't an incident where someone has received appalling or dangerous service or been discriminated against, it's just a promotion in a newspaper. I don't understand the ott grovelling.

I am not a daily mail reader but we are a free country where people are allowed to have a whole spectrum of opinions.

The Mail is allowed to have its own opinions; it should not, however, be allowed to have its own facts. And that, essentially, is what it does.

YABU, I’m very glad they’ve listened to their customers and will be going out of my way to shop there. But then I do quite enjoy being a member of the vocal minority lefty liberal Guardian-reading elite....

I think this is brilliant! I have always loved Paperchase and am so impressed that they were humble enough to admit they were wrong.

I am going on their website now to order some stuff... haven't been on there for a while and this has made we want to buy from them.

I don't like the Daily Mail one jot but I gave up on Stop Funding Hate when they published a letter from Trans Media Watch decrying the big bad Mail for questioning the ethics of giving puberty blockers to children. The letter was inaccurate and dishonest whereas the original article was actually ok. What an upside down world we live in.

Lego and Paperchase are on my Christmas shopping list.

By the way, everyone, don't forget the Lego 'Women of NASA' as a potential Christmas present.

The Mail is allowed to have its own opinions; it should not, however, be allowed to have its own facts. And that, essentially, is what it does
This.
I don't mind what a paper wants ti publish as long as it is factually true and doesn't mislead or fan the flames of social tensions.
The DM does both of them.

They spouted Brexit spin (their choice) but also actively mislead and willingly represent asylum seekers as migrants when the 2 are different (not their choice. It is a lie to claim they are the same thing).

Then they identify people who have wanted checks and balances and parliamrntary soverignty through brexit as some enemies of thr people and enjoy claiming any accountability of brexit is 'blocking thr will of thr british people'.
So it would seem they want parliament to be soverign except when they want ministers to be unaccountable.

That's before you get onto their anti women crap about hoe women 'flaunt their baby bump' aka pregnant woman goes to the shop.

I'm glad paperchase have pulled out.

Many advertisers pull links in the US when the host of a show is linked to something they don't want to be associated with.

Paperchase - and other advertisers - are associating themselves with a paper that promotes hate and division in this country in many ways.

They were reminded that there are people who are their customers and who don't want to be linked to them.

Interesting. I have mixed feelings on these things. On one hand boycotting and/or publicising what you feel is an organisation's unethical connections is a valid tool of protest. On the other hand it is worrying how an mob of internet trolls can make organisations turn and run in fear from groups that have opinions the mob does not like. So legitimate protest or underhanded intimidation of fund provider's to the free press? Personally I'm just not sure on this one. The methods are in my mind political intimidation of paperchase. But then it's people's freedom of speech to troll, tell a company what they think of their bedfellows and/or say that a message being propagated is not ok. I understand the mail's frustration but then if your going to be a shit bag of a paper people are going to use their voice against you and maybe companies will not want to be linked with you. I suppose I'm more uneasy about the efforts seems to be targeted at shutting the paper down rather than simply providing counter argument. Surely we must be a bit careful of culture of using intimidation? A culture where to express an alternative opinion carriers real serious extra judicious conciquences. I really not made my mind up but I must admit my gut is a little uneasy the methods being used by this army of trolls.

But then I do quite enjoy being a member of the vocal minority lefty liberal Guardian-reading elite

You forgot to mention Corbynista

The Mail also employs Hopkins as one of their columnists. Even the Sun dropped her. Hopkins is well known for being one of those people who spreads hatred and causes division.

I detest the Daily Mail and everything it stands for, so I shall be thrilled if it becomes an utterly toxic brand that no one will leave adverts with.

Exactly as Maisy pops and Ceto have said, it's not about alternative opinions, it's about actually lying in order to spread hate. There are no sanctions as the government pay tribute to them rather than challenge them so I think it's perfectly right that some other group should. This article made me feel sick
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5050887/What-women-gain-squawking-sex-pests-Niqab.html

The usual blaming women for everything ( this time for having the temerity to object to being sexually assaulted), not lies in this case just sickening misogyny

I suppose I'm more uneasy about the efforts seems to be targeted at shutting the paper down rather than simply providing counter argument

There are still plenty of advertisers who will advertise in it. It has a massive readership who have plenty of money to spend. They will happily ignore the hatred the Mail promotes if they can sell their products.

*place not leave

It's the day and age we live in and without being controversial is exactly why there's currently a long running thread about a 19 year old trans person in the role of woman's officer. People stamp their feet and demand NO and loudly protest on Twitter and all reasonable debate is drowned out. This is the society we have created. This is also why, in effect, Brexit happened and Trump got elected. Fine, if you want to hound people/companies but don't be surprised when #NoDebate is a thing.

My concern is that this is the thin end of the wedge, and that we should not continue to allow loud and vocal groups to think they can force their views about legal behaviours on all and sundry through threats on social media. Otherwise, where will it end ? Clearly a lot of you are anti-DM and agree with this one. But what about when you don’t agree ? How much are you prepared for these sorts of groups to start dictating and changing areas of your life that you are happy with ?

I'm terribly liberal, but am still uneasy about the spectacle of liberals bullying a company into apologising for a perfectly legal action. However much I despise the Mail, it's a major newspaper and advertising with it isn't a crime.

I think stunts like this weaken my liberal position, because it enables the other side to go 'Hey, remember that time you were as bullying as fuck?' and be right.

My concern is that this is the thin end of the wedge, and that we should not continue to allow loud and vocal groups to think they can force their views about legal behaviours on all and sundry through threats on social media

Boycotts have always happened. Barclays in South Africa was a big one way before social media. They do have an effect. Social media is just a different way of expressing concerns that people have always done.

In the old days, people would write strongly worded letters or gone to protest outside a company.

Nowadays, protest is much easier.

It's always going to be difficult and actually I think the mail will be the architects of their own demise. Re thin edge of the wedge - we have to look at the difference between freedom of speech and hate speech (which our law currently provides for) or we will end up with the problems the states have
We have to be more questioning particularly as groups masquerade as something that they are not. E.g
Britain first.

Why should they be the arbiters of what is allowed to be published?

Because the Mail lies, it stirs up hatred, it deliberately maligns and defames anyone who isn’t white, British born, rich and middle class and writes poisonous articles full of inaccuracies and outright lies in order to further their hateful agenda.

Thin end of what wedge?

Consumer boycotts - or threats of such - have been a thing for a long, long time. As others have said, I remember boycotting South African produce during apartheid (while our government continued with support of the regime - a regime that was an appalling affront and appears more so as the years go by - what the hell were they doing supporting it?).

It's a fairly weak little weapon, really.

Frankly, the Daily Mail are big, huge, powerful trolls - trolling reality day by day. One day, it will appear inconceivable that people found it acceptable, rather than seeing it as the hate-filled, casual-with-the-facts, propaganda sheet it is. Advertisers legitimate its claims to be anything other than a money-spinning propaganda sheet. The veneer of respectability has to be removed.

Sagamartha, I don’t have a problem with boycotts as such. It’s the way that any group with some kind of grievance can start a very loud, aggressive and in some cases threatening campaign, and suggest that anyone that doesn’t agree with it should be ashamed of themselves, or worse.

Bettering humanity and standing up to right wing misogynistic, homophobic, racist bigots isn’t “some kind of grievance” though, it’s doing the right thing!

YABU. Remember when loads of mumsnetters stopped using their nectar cards because it started up something with the DM? DM are shit, they deserve all the resistance they get, they publish things they know aren’t true and then give a meek apology after the damage has been done

YABU. Stop Funding Hate is an absolutely brilliant organisation, targeting the Daily Mail where it's vulnerable - ad revenue.