I got that wrong by saying dehydration, because I added that word in at the end and didn't reread it before pressing send. I meant thousands of people were dying. And I did not say each year.
Don't you understand that the public has lost faith in the Establishment? Don't you understand that we are against their gagging orders that seek to hide from us the real truth?
It was the Mail that campaigned so strongly about the mothers who were jailed under this medical/psychiatric diagnosis of "Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy".
It was the Mail that demanded, day in day out, the resignation of the NHS Chief, whom they termed "The Man With No Shame", and it was the public who paid for their copy of the Mail every day and cheered them on as the government continued to maintain that they had full confidence in him.
"It reminds me of vaccine scaremongers"
And it was the Mail that published the story that Labour's Policy Review Chief, Cruddas, had even contemplated a policy that made some benefits partially conditional on vaccine jabs.
"Taking child benefit away from parents whose children are not given the MMR vaccine is an "interesting idea", Labour's policy chief has said, while stressing it is not being considered."
"Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls has dismissed the idea out of hand, saying that making state assistance dependent on parental choice on vaccinations would be "punitive"."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24210843
The Mail published its story because they know its readers care about things like this and that we don't find these ideas "interesting" and that "punitive" is not a strong enough word for us, we believe they are pernicious.
The Mail reader does not trust the Establishment, we do not trust some politicians and spin doctors who take us to war on the basis of dodgy dossiers, and we do not trust some of the same people who want to regulate our free press or change the culture of our Daily Mail newspaper, and we do not have faith in some of our Medical Establishment either, such as the NHS Chief, dubbed "The Man With No Shame" by the Daily Mail.
They said what the Mail thought was scaremongering and crap over the Liverpool Care Pathway, but after months and years of pressure from the Mail, the politicians eventually had to hold a review into the policy and they eventually scrapped it because they found some aspects of it unacceptable.
"When the Mail first highlighted readers’ harrowing stories about the suffering inflicted on patients and their families in the name of the Liverpool Care Pathway, the medical establishment reacted with fierce hostility.
When we called for an inquiry into the NHS-approved guidelines on end-of-life care, we were contemptuously accused of scaremongering and interfering in matters we didn’t understand.
Complaints were lodged with the Press regulatory body, seeking disciplinary action against us
//www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2364743/Liverpool-Care-Pathway-abolished-Victory-decency-end-life-care.html
The reason that the Mail is so adamant that it will fight attempts to have any form of state regulation of our free press is because it knows that this could be the slippery slope that leads to the Establishment shutting up the voice of dissent and preventing the awkward revelations of the truths behind their gagging orders. The Mail represents the views of millions of people and it follows their views rather than leads them and it is in fact way behind them, but at least it is with them, unlike so much of the rest of our Establishment media, even though the public actually funds some of it.
In the course of writing replies to this thread, I stumbled on the Spectator. i don't read the Spectator as I usually only find time to read the Mail. But there is some brilliant writing on there and I will have to try and find time in future to start reading it.
This is something written by Rod Liddle and it is what many of us really think is behind the Establishment's attacks on the Mail and its attempt to have some form of state regulation of our free press.
"As some of us said at the time of Leveson, the metro-liberal left does not really give a toss about intrusion into the lives of drug-addled slebs. It wishes instead to stop newspapers saying stuff with which they fervently disagree. David Sillitoe’s piece for the BBC last night confirmed this; and if the BBC can make use of Alastair Campbell for this purpose, then so be it."
blogs.spectator.co.uk/rod-liddle/2013/10/alastair-campbell-moral-arbiter-pull-the-other-one/