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.

Yet people still advertise on AIBU

As always, it's the vocal idiots who look to bully their ideas through.

Are we flowerpots. Oh! I thought we were disagreeing, but always happy to be corrected. If so then hurrah for us!

BiglyBadgers
Are we flowerpots Unless I have genuinely missed something! I'm not sure what else you posted, but just on your replies to me I agree completely, I only corrected you on the reason I would boycott Paperchase now, that it wasn't to do with the DM but their response, but the rest about rights etc, of course I agree.

wherestheweightlosspill

1. does two wrongs make a right? (Personally I have no love for the daily mail and it's vileness)

2. as far as I'm aware (although happy to be corrected) DM has never successfully pressurised anyone into removing their services from a media source?

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

This. Everything is fine in silencing your opponents until one day your opinion is classed as "hate" (Germaine Greer for example) and you get silenced. All very Orwellian.

It's a bit like the elections. The left doesn't like the right winning so organises protest marches and say awful things about people who voted Tory on social media, etc etc. When the left wins, the right sighs, sucks it up and waits for labour to balls it up before getting voted back in!

Do as I say, not as I do, seems to be the mentality of some people.

Flowerpots I think we are disagreeing on the fact that I don't feel that there is a problem with Paperchase choosing to stop advertising in the mail because of boycotting. You clearly do feel this is a problem to the extent that you are considering boycotting them for paying attention to people boycotting them. Which is sort of odd when you think about it.

It's a bit like the elections. The left doesn't like the right winning so organises protest marches and say awful things about people who voted Tory on social media, etc etc. When the left wins, the right sighs, sucks it up and waits for labour to balls it up before getting voted back in!

Of course, because the right never ever attacks anyone online or carries out hate crimes. Go tell that to Diane Abbott.

BiglyBadgers I see. No, I do not feel there's a problem with them stopping advertising because of boycotting, as a concept. I feel there's a problem with them stopping advertising because of this particular boycott, based on premises and definitions of phenomena which are dictated by a biased group, and that Paperchase has misconstrued this boycott by this specific campaign group as representing all their customers, when it clearly does not.

1Dad2Kids - but I don't believe that telling a company you no longer wish to shop with them because of their ethics is a 'wrong' whereas bullying people (immigrants, women, high court judges etc.) is a 'wrong' in my view. Therefore for me it isn't '2 wrongs' - but of course everyone is entitled to their opinion on that.

I can't say if DM have ever pressurised anyone into removing services from a media source but I can say they've caused a lot of distress and pain to actual people, e.g high court judges which feels like something much worse that a company deciding to change where they advertise.

Like I say, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'm just a bit surprised that a very polite campaign (look at the SFH messages, they are generally not threatening, aggressive etc.) of using your choice of where to shop based on your ethics has caused such a backlash.

Good for them.

To support their decision to apologise and cut ties with the DM I have just been in and bought some unicorn handwarmers.

Diane Abbott is a terrible example. I doubt even Corbyn really thought she could be a good Home Secretary. He might even have won without her terrifying incompetence! It wasn't just the right attacking her.

The point is, people are entitled to think what they want. If you want to try and change what they think, there are better ways to do it than by trying to shut down elements of the press, which makes me uncomfortable - however much i dislike the mail myself, I think a range of debate is important. And I think the Mail scores more own goals than anything else anyway!

I might go and buy a few copies of the DM to even it up, Mrs Rhubarb!

The DM should think themselves lucky they continued to exist after their support of the Nazis. Treacherous, hateful, bigoted, duplicitous, sexist excuse of a newspaper.

Rebecca It is your entirely tiny, trivial right as a consumer to exercise you so small as to be meaningless power in that way.

Go and do it.

Dacre and Rothermere won't even notice, frankly. But I'm sure, in your head, you can tell yourself you have saved the poor, beleaguered things from the terrible bullies behind Paperchase's apology. You can feel a warm glow of having protected them.

I'll repeat - this (Stop Funding Hate) is such a tiny action. I teeny, tiny act of censure, not censorship. A tiny drop in an ocean. I cannot, for the life of me, see why the people getting in a froth about it can't see the disproportion.

shutitandtidyupgitface - but if you hurt it's ability to gain revenue from advertisers etc is could well result in it closing down

Oh come on, youre not that naive. All that is happening here is MORE free advertising for both the DM and paperchase.

@Slarti

Love it!

I assume you boycott the Sun because they don't trust Scousers, The Indy because it's owned by the Russians, Guardian because it's only read by twats, BBC because it's in the pocket of the ruling party, FT because it's a bit confusing, Telegraph because it leans to the right ...

How do you get the news or do you stay ignorant?

This whole thread is an instructive example of how people will flock to defend a bully, no matter how powerful.

Because the Daily Mail is powerful. Very, very, very powerful. They can say what they like- absolutely what they like, in the majority of cases. They have a very powerful team of lawyers to defend themselves, and to launch a libel case against them is way beyond the reach of the average person. So, they can, and do, lie with impunity. It perfectly sums up the Stanley Baldwin quote on the press: "Power without responsibility - the prerogative of the harlot" (not that I have anything against harlots myself- I've known some great harlots in my time ).

Most of the kinds of people that the DM likes to attack are even less powerless than the average person- immigrants, gypsy/ travellers, the poorest of society. They have no way of effectively fighting back against the campaigns of hatred against them. And these campaigns are horribly effective- when disability "benefit scroungers" were the focus of the hatred attacks on the disabled soared, when it was migrants, so did the attacks on them.

So, now there is a way for those attacked and bullied by the Mail- and those who care about them- to have some kind of a voice. Is this not free speech too? Or does free speech belong only to the wealthy and powerful?

Argh. Less powerful. Or more powerless....

stubbornstains

What is your definition of hate?

You think travellers are powerless? Have you ever had to deal with evicting them or clearing up what they leave behind?!

This whole thread is an instructive example of how people will flock to defend a bully, no matter how powerful

If that is what you have gathered, you haven't understood the first thing about it.

Diane Abbott is a terrible example. I doubt even Corbyn really thought she could be a good Home Secretary. He might even have won without her terrifying incompetence! It wasn't just the right attacking her.

Your ignorance around the levels of abuse suffered by women in particular on the left is astonishing. Dianne Abbott is a very good example exactly because of the type of reaction you give suggesting that abuse is ok if it is against someone you so not like. Abbot did not just get critisicm because people thought she was a bad mp, she had be subjected to constant racist and misogynistic abuse since she became an MP. She had had more abuse directed to her than any other MP, in fact half of abusive tweets sent to MPs over a 6 month period were to her. And I repeat, this is not critisicm, this is abuse.
www.newstatesman.com/2017/09/we-tracked-25688-abusive-tweets-sent-women-mps-half-were-directed-diane-abbott

Anyway, this is a sidetrack, I just couldn't let your ignorant comments pass.

Well, you've just illustrated biglybadgers point perfectly, ilovegin.