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.

Tugtupite - what a deeply unpleasant post. You think anyone who thinks differently to you is "ignorant and xenophobic underbelly" ?

With an attitude like that, how do you ever hope to change people's opinions? Or do you just prefer telling them what to think?

Good on them.

I will buy some selotape or something in support.

Love trump's hate!

Tugtupite but isn't their a danger to the pecedent you set with that attitude? I don't agree with that paper and the stuff it publishes so it's all fine in your opinion. But what if such tactics are used against an opinion you do believe in? If you don't have a forum for all voices you potentially have a forum for none. I would say at the very least we should have concern at how a small, very passionate, very agresive non elected group can effectively call the the shots through intimidation. I don't very much paperchase had a change of heart based on reason. I suspect they changed their mind based on fear.

1DAD - replace "fear" with "money" and I totally agree with you.

I would argue however, that the DM has been pushing the sort of views that correlate with the rise in hate crime over the last year or so (Katie Hopkins being a prime example) and anything that puts pressure on them to stop doing this is a good thing.

Kind of ironic considering some of the highest incidence of reported hate crimes are perpetrated against Jews (not seen any memorable anti-Jewish hate in the DM) and unfortunately a huge majority of those crimes are perpetrated by "Asians". If people are really concerned about hate crimes they should be looking at the output from the whole spectrum of the media, not just the right wing bogeyman.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40735634.

shutitandtidyupgitface - but if you hurt it's ability to gain revenue from advertisers etc is could well result in it closing down. Papers as a media are having a hard enough time as it is. The whole tactic of the body attacking it is to prevent it's propagation of what it views hate speach. So yes these tactics are an attempt to make it impossible for the paper to carry on. Granted they have their work cut out as it's a big paper. But the ultimate aim of the campaign is to silence them (or prevent them reporting the views that offers them)

Does the mail dictate thought? I've never felt that. I see nowadays that the young people I know who are picking up information from social media are more at risk of falling down some type of ideological hole than the (frankly) older people reading MSM.

I give the general public more credit than many (incredibly polemic!) posters here

Well there you go. I don't think that example of a civil case going against her undermines my case for tolerance at all.

But she tells lies. She tells lies, and they pay her to tell lies. Your mum reading the DM for the nice weekend features on where to get warm cardigans and how a primary school in Chiswick raised £1000 for the donkey sanctuary takes the whole of the paper at face value even when it deliberately prints lies.

That's why the libel case mattered.

Rebeccaslicker the two are the say in buisness. Money is life blood therefore a threat to their very existence.

You know nothing about my family.
But nevertheless a very funny picture you paint though! Thanks.

I agree the libel case matters.

Press freedom also matters. These things are not black and white which brings me back to the very targeted activities of this pressure group I've never heard of..

I was imagining my very lovely GMiL who always has the DM spread over her sofa because she just loves the features sections...

I've never known any adult who takes their newspaper as gospel (except formerly Guardian readers!)
TV news is given a lot more credence ime.

MrsHathaway
But she tells lies. She tells lies, and they pay her to tell lies.*
That's why the libel case mattered.

Well, that's not strictly true. KH tweeted, mistaking JM for another. Something posters on here do all the time. That particular incident, and the libel case, did not involve the DM. There are plenty of individuals writing for other titles,and in other walks of life, who have made genuine errors like this and who have lost libel cases.

What lies as KH told in the DM?

So yes these tactics are an attempt to make it impossible for the paper to carry on.

Really? Is SFH that naive and dumb?

1Dad2Kids - I would say at the very least we should have concern at how a small, very passionate, very agresive non elected group can effectively call the the shots through intimidation

But isn't that exactly what the DM are? small, passionate, very aggressive Dacre and co who are trying to call the shots through intimidation..... May kowtowing to him suggests she is intimidated....

Taylortinker, TV news is given more credit because by law it must be factually correct and unbiased. This is not true of the papers.

So then the public ain't so stupid as is often made out.

Put aside your views about SFH, ignore your feelings about Paperchase and their big shop of pretty things and remember that the Dailly Mail pay Katie Hopkins actual real money. There is no defence for that.

Why is that a problem? Don't like what she says, don't read the DM, nobody is forcing you to read it or agree with her.

I beg your pardon. KH doesn't work for the DM. She works for the MailOnline. Most of her poisonous lies are published on her personal Twitter feed.

But by continuing to employ her, the MailOnline which is legally completely separate from the Daily Mail oh yes nothing to do with them at all is validating those tweets.

I can't link to MailOnline or DM anything because I have it neatly KittenBlocked. Because I #dontfundhate.

It's pathetic of them. A tiny group of loud mouthed people imposing their will and presuming to speak for everyone. I don't agree with everything the DM says but nor do I agree with everything the Guardian says.

Who wastes money in Paperchase anyway. A load of champagne socialists in their London ivory towers rubbing their hands in glee about the rising cost of their house.

MrsHathaway
I beg your pardon. KH doesn't work for the DM. She works for the MailOnline... MailOnline which is legally completely separate from the Daily Mail oh yes nothing to do with them at all

Eh? My reply to you had nothing to do with the MailOnline or the DailyMail differentiation.

I merely said what you wrote wasn't strictly accurate. KH's twitter feed is her personal feed, it is not validated by the DM or any other organisation KH is associated with.

Now you wrote that the Daily Mail pays KH to tell lies. I asked you which lies has KH made in the DM (online, paper, in whatever DM form you choose!)?

I. Was. Wrong.

Sorry.

(and that's more of a retraction than you'll get from DM, KH or MO)

No, you've missed my point. I would boycott Paperchase now not because of their advertising activities with the DM, but because they receive a few tweets and regard that miniscule subset of opinion as all their customers and change their policy based on this handful of people, who are unlikely to even be their customers anyway.

And that is fine too. I don't care why you would like to boycott Paperchase, the point is I would absolutely defend your right to do so even if I did not agree with your reasons or logic. You are entitled to close not to shop somewhere for whatever reason you feel is relevent. Paperchase is entitled to take that into account or not.

I am a guardian reader, but I would not ever say that someone does not have the right to boycot a company who chose to advertise with the guardian if they felt that strongly that the guardian did not match their own ethics or morals. Nobody is being censored, in fact quite the opposite. If you feel strongly than you too have the power to use your consumer choices to make your voice felt. Go for it!

MrsHathaway
I. Was. Wrong.
Sorry.

Ah, I see. Pleased you admit KH does not write lies in the DM.

Hmm...some of that post went a bit impenetrable and confusing. I should concentrate more when I am writing. But I hope your get the general gist.

BiglyBadgers - aren't we agreeing?