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.

A statement yesterday from John Lewis:

'Withdrawing advertising on the basis of editorial coverage would be inconsistent with our democratic principles, which include freedom of speech and remaining apolitical.'

Three cheers for John Lewis. I am sick of demonising the political opposition. It's a dangerous game. You can see the results in the USA. The Republicans started using this tactic and it has brought them and the Nation to the brink of destruction.
Let's hope Britain can show more self control.

Bought the DM today. Wouldn't read it normally, but can't be fucked with people dictating to me what's acceptable and what isn't.

Those that are defending the DM would you be as comfortable listening to their hate speech if we replaced what ever buzzword they are currently using i.e. immigrants, gypsies, feckless poor to white people and then all of it was coming out of the mouth of someone who had anything other than white skin and wasnt a christian but followed another faith?

See the problem is that boycotting is all fine and dandy until the powerful start to label your holy cow as the bogeyman and support for it as a "hate crime".

For example, as other threads have shown, if you are are biologically female and object to a trans female sharing a dressing room (so basically an anatomically male individual sharing a female dressing room with women and girls), then some people now think you are committing a "hate" crime. So the rights of women to have their own space to get undressed (biologically female individuals) can now be trumped by people who identify as female even if they are biologically male. This is all very Orwellian and anti-scientific.

I don't think anyone is defending the DM in any way. We are defending free speech, freedom of opinion, a lack of hypocrisy etc.

YAbu. Yes they should have apologised and the dm should be prosecuted for its rabid vitriolic drivel

Pathetic move from Paperchase.

If you don't like it don't read it. People on here must be reading the Mail cover to cover every day because they seem so very knowledgeable about it. I think it's the secret vice of the permanently offended.

Wrong on both counts Frederick. Paperchase made the decision; they should have stood by it and then not done it again. The apology has caused more problems.

Where's your legal evidence for a prosecution please, if you're really proposing spending huge amounts of tax payers' money on bringing one.

Good for John Lewis. I say that as someone who doesn't read or like the DM and clicks on links to the website as little as often.

the dm should be prosecuted for its rabid vitriolic drivel

Who exactly should be prosecuted and what for?

Shut it - Personally I think all its readers and every writer. Individually. That'll teach them all to have rabid and vitriolic views and it will be a great way to spend public funds!

shutit - Who exactly should be prosecuted and what for?

Presumably for Thought Crime. Now get back to the Ministry of Truth and re-educate yourself in Right Think!

the dm should be prosecuted for its rabid vitriolic drivel

Rebeccaslicker
Personally I think all its readers and every writer. Individually. That'll teach them all to have rabid and vitriolic views and it will be a great way to spend public funds!

What crime would you prosecute DM journalists and its >60m readers/month for precisely?
Do you subscribe to the view that the DM is full of hate speech which other posters, similar to your tone claim?
If so, could you explain what hate and hate speech is please, as none of these other posters seems to be able to.

I think Rebecca was being sarcastic.

Oh, was she!

Ha, I most certainly was! But given some of the views on this thread I can forgive you for thinking I was being serious

Rebeccaslicker
Ha, I most certainly was! But given some of the views on this thread I can forgive you for thinking I was being serious

That is so very, very true. There have been such absurd posts, yours fitted in just oh so well!

Perhaps the DM’s writers and the Guardian’s writers could be banged up sharing cells. They deserve each other.

This thread has gone a little crazy... it's not about prosecuting anyone. I just cannot understand why all those who are worried about free speech have such a problem with my free will to not shop somewhere that financially supports nasty ideology. Surely that's my right and isn't infringing on anyone's right to buy the Daily Mail if you choose to. For those saying they can't see any hate speech, I linked to an article which branded all women complaining about sexual assault as 'squawkers' who need to shut up or end up in a society where they need to wear a niqab. Pretty hateful..... This little one from Jan Moir is pretty hateful too.... the family, the evidence all says it was a natural death but he was gay therefore nasty business must have been involved.... www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html
You don't have to look too far. But feel free to buy it, feel free to read it, you're absolutely right, no-one can stop you, but neither can they stop me telling a company I don't agree with their ethics and I'm choosing to move my custom...
Fair?

shutitandtidyup, yet again, this is not a free speech or freedom of opinion issue, at least so far as the DM is concerned. On the DM side, what people are objecting to is not their opinions but their use of deliberate lies in order to stir up hatred. However, on the Paperchase side, the issue is people's freedom to choose not to shop with a business which supports the DM's activities and to let said business know. If you have an issue with that, you need to think about your rather selective application of the the "free speech" term.

wherestheweightlosspill

I just cannot understand why all those who are worried about free speech have such a problem with my free will to not shop somewhere that financially supports nasty ideology

Who has said that they have a problem with your free will to not shop somewhere that financially supports what you consider to be a nasty ideology?

This little one from Jan Moir is pretty hateful too.... the family, the evidence all says it was a natural death but he was gay therefore nasty business must have been involved...
I've just read that article. Where is the hate? She writes that she thinks there is more to this than meets the eye. Roll forward a few years, and the family is in total agreement with Jan Moir and hire private investigators too. There have been contradictory reports of who found him by both individuals present. Moir writes of the sanctity of the institution of marriage, and how a couple inviting someone back to their apartment to have sex with one of you/both doesn't hold this up. She is very complimentary of Gately in the article, so where is the hate precisely?

^A post-mortem revealed Stephen died from acute pulmonary oedema, a build-up of fluid on his lungs.
Gately's family have always maintained that drugs were not involved in the singer's death, but it has just been revealed that he at least smoked cannabis on the night he died.
Nevertheless, his mother is still insisting that her son died from a previously undetected heart condition that has plagued the family.
*Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships.
Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. *
Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael.
Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened.^

Forgive me if I'm a snowflake but would anyone be questioning the 'happy ever after myth' of hetrosexual marriage if a married person died while on holiday? And to publish this within days of his death while his family are grieving (also subtly suggesting that the Mother is at best wrong, at worst lying by 'still insisting he died from a previously undetected heart condition') seems pretty heartless and unnecessarily nasty to me.

And this whole thread is about how wrong it is that Paperchase listened to people like me exercising their free will to tell a company they don't want to spend money with them because of their associations isn't it?

Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael

A very generous man who was incredibly loyal to his friends and lost the love of his life to AIDS? How can these people sleep at night?

wherestheweightlosspill

I found your last post really hard to understand not only because it jumped from here to there, but not highlighting anything just makes it hard to follow.

Forgive me if I'm a snowflake but would anyone be questioning the 'happy ever after myth' of hetrosexual marriage if a married person died while on holiday?
No. Why do you ask such a peculiar question?

Jan Moir didn't question the 'happy ever after myth' of this homosexual marriage because a married person died on holiday. She questioned it because the married couple invited a man back to their apartment and it has been reported that evidence was found of sexual activity involving this third party. How did you manage to miss that bit?

And to publish this within days of his death while his family are grieving.. seems pretty heartless and unnecessarily nasty to me.
How is a complimentary article about the sadness and confusion around his death heartless and nasty?

also subtly suggesting that the Mother is at best wrong, at worst lying
Where did Moir say that? Ah yes, nowhere. She suggests there is more to this than was known at the time of the article. Sure enough, Moir is proved right, and the family launch their own investigation too because they agree with her.

And this whole thread is about how wrong it is that Paperchase listened to people like me exercising their free will to tell a company they don't want to spend money with them because of their associations isn't it?
No, it isn't. You obviously haven't read the thread properly.

Gracious! Now, can we get back to my questions to you, which remain unanswered?

1. Who has said that they have a problem with your free will to not shop somewhere that financially supports what you consider to be a nasty ideology?

2. Where is the hate in Jan Moir's article then?

Floellabumbags
Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael
A very generous man who was incredibly loyal to his friends and lost the love of his life to AIDS? How can these people sleep at night?

Eh? How can Moir sleep at night? Because he died seven years later, after this article was written. Because at the time of writing, George Michael - as lovely man as he was - was highly promiscuous, was known to be so, and had publicly declared the problems he felt he had with his own promiscuity. What on earth is wrong what that line?