/ Jo Cox - Mail's take on it.

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Stuart (aka brt) - on 24 Nov 2016
drunken monkey - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Utterly disgusting - yet predictable from that hate inducing gutter rag.
yorkshireman - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Could you please copy and paste the article so I don't have to soil my internet history with a visit to that disgusting corner of the web (and contribute to their advertising revenues)?
jkarran - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to yorkshireman:

The few words in the link summarise it pretty well. They're attempting to deflect blame for the murder onto Jo Cox and the local council.

Possibly a new nadir for the Mail.
jk
Jimbocz - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
I'll copy the worst bit:

Mrs Hallas, who is the killer£s step-father£s half-sister, said he was a loner who £flipped£ at the thought of leaving the only home he had ever known.

£You£ve got to look at the background,£ she said. £They kept pestering him to get him out of the house.

£He£d lived there for all his life, even from being little he had lived there with his grandma.

£So that was his home, that was his abode and they were trying to get him out. And when it all came out, they were trying to get him out for a family that had come from abroad wanting a three or two bedroomed house.£

Of course, the article only hints at the truth, that no one actually knows if the council was asking him to move and certainly no one actually knows if the council was going to rent the house to foreigners. That doesn't stop the Mail from writing a load of racist rumours disguised as news.

On another subject, why shouldn't that guy be forced to move out of that three bed house he was living in by himself? Assuming that the council could find him somewhere else to live, he should GTFO. If you want to choose where you live, get a job and pay your own rent.
Post edited at 16:01
DerwentDiluted - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
Off on a tangent somewhat, but more hypocrisy from Dacre. West Highland Free Press | Anti-EU editor pockets European subsidies
http://www.whfp.com/2014/01/24/anti-eu-editor-pockets-european-subsidies/
Post edited at 16:32
1poundSOCKS - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Jimbocz:

> no one actually knows if the council was asking him to move

Surely somebody does?
damhan-allaidh on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to DerwentDiluted:

Like That Man in the USA who used available loopholes (now closed) to avoid paying tax, Dacre would probably argue he was doing the same by taking advantage of legally available subsidies. Don't blame me, gov, blame the system.
Hugh J - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to jkarran:
> The few words in the link summarise it pretty well. They're attempting to deflect blame for the murder onto Jo Cox and the local council.

> Possibly a new nadir for the Mail.

Whilst I agree that the summary is in bad taste and possibly misleading, there are things in the article that are pertinent and seem well research..

The article makes a comprehensive and evidenced account of Mair's Neo-Nazi associations.

Here are also some quotes conveniently missed out by Jimbocz:

"A callous and calculating request to finally address the Old Bailey courtroom from the dock after his conviction was rejected by the trial judge."

"And another neighbour Kathleen Cooke, 63, added: "They were offering him somewhere, it wasn't as if they were throwing him out, and he just said "why should I move?" "

P.S. I also think the DM, The Sun, The Star, The Express (amongst others) are dispicable "gutter rags", but they also have the right to report how they feel is acceptable, which is OK by me provided that they are not publishing outright lies or are outside of decency. The edited summary at the top maybe getting close to that, but the rest of the article is fairly well balanced compared to some of the crap they more typically write.
Post edited at 16:46
kamala - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

The very next words after the bit quoted above were:

"Mair may have been mistaken that it was a foreign family who were being lined up to move into his home.

But the claims that Kirklees Council did want to move him were backed by next door neighbours Katie and Brian Greene. And another neighbour Kathleen Cooke, 63, added: ‘They were offering him somewhere, it wasn’t as if they were throwing him out, and he just said “why should I move?”"

I hold absolutely no brief for the Mail but I thought the article showed a significant amount of research into his background, made no bones about his being an out-and-out active racist (without suggesting it was a good thing to be), and suggested a plausible reason, not for why he "should" have done it, but for why he *did* do it.

Clearly some subjects and trigger words elicit instinctive knee-jerk reactions from both sides and newspapers, especially rabble-rousers like the Mail, may take those triggers into account to achieve a desired response.

But there's enough of what looks like solid research in this particular piece to inform us and give us pause for thought about what influences people to do what they do: economic pressures, housing, existing mental health issues, family breakdown etc.
(Just in case I need to be clear, none of that explains why some people suffer exactly the same pressures without doing awful things. If we could only answer this question...)

And I continue to mourn the loss of Jo Cox who was the kind of person the world needs many many more of.
kamala - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

Beat me to it!
Jimbocz - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

Since you think I "conveniently " left out those quotes, it's up to you to tell us how they disprove my point , which was that the bits I quoted are racist rumours masquerading as actual news.

If you can't do so, I'd like an apology.
Jimbocz - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to kamala:
Sorry, "Mair may have been mistaken that it was a foreign family who were being lined up to move into his home." is not good enough.

Perhaps something like "Mair may have been mistaken but we'll never know based upon the racist rumours that we have printed here. "

The implication of the article is that if it weren't for the council moving those foreigners into his grandmother's house, this wouldn't have happened.
Post edited at 17:13
Hugh J - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Jimbocz:

The bits you quoted were quotes from a "relative" of Mair's and not racist rumour propogated by the Mail itself.

Apology withheld - keep your knee under control !!!
Jimbocz - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

Not good enough. The Mail readers got the message, they just let the relative say it.

I don't envy your position, defending that awful piece of Journalism.
kamala - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Jimbocz:

What would be good enough, in light of the council's lack of reply?
They've stated what he believed, and stated that it's uncertain he was correct, though they tried to check. Which bit is a racist rumour?

As I said, they've not been giving reason why he should have attacked Jo Cox, they've been explaining why he did: if he was acting on a particular belief, then that's a fact regardless of whether his belief was correct or not.

And perhaps it should make us wonder how we can reduce the number of such unfounded beliefs. It may well be that reining in inflammatory headlines would be a way to go - though difficult to reconcile with the concept of a free press.

Or, perhaps the house really was needed for an immigrant family - in which case, how can we make people care more that it's going to people who need housing, rather than where those people have come from? In the case of unmitigated racists like Mair that may be an impossible task. Yet still worth considering how we can get more reason and compassion back into the public discourse.

So somewhere under all this is the very valid point that the press, particularly the "popular" press, have had a large part in encouraging division and ill-feeling in society - but that this particular article, apart perhaps from its headline, may not be the best example.
Hugh J - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Jimbocz:
Have you actually read that article or just the bits you wanted to?

The article comments on (with evidence):

Mair's links to a number of fascist groups.
Mair's fractured family history.
Mair's mental health problems.

Although Kamala says "Beat me to it", I could not have put it more eloquently than he / she does.

I too continue you mourn the loss of Jo Cox. The first thing I thought of on the morning of 24th June was "What must Brendan Cox be thinking?".
Post edited at 17:31
summo on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
I'm not defending the mail and haven't read the article, only the extract above. It's curious were he not a murderer, people would be defending his desire to stay in a 3 bed etc.. saying he is being forced to move out by an unfeeling council, was probably under pressure to afford the evil tory bedroom tax.

I'd be more curious why he wasn't working, ie... he previously had mental health problems and if any warning signs were visible in the past. Plus where did he obtain the gun etc...

The whole incident is tragic, but today far more people will be seriously injured, some may have died because of alcohol consumption related incidents and no one says a thing, or does anything about it. It seems depending on the nature of the crime, a larger knee jerk reaction is required. And, before I get flamed I do think her death was tragic and he was driven to hate for whatever reason etc..
Post edited at 17:33
wintertree - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

So I read that story as saying "appallingly racist person committed appalling murder and here is our best effort at determining their motive. We think it might be for these given reasons tinged by racism".

Some people seem to be reading it as a piece that blames immigrants. To read it that way you have to be quite twisted up inside by hate at the paper in question, to the point you interpret everything in support of that hate. Which is rather ironic.

Edit: trying to understand the causal chain to a bad event is not the same as placing the blame for an event. I thought the mail did a surprisingly good job of doing the former without doing the later. If the readership are going to interpret it as the later, should we censor the news to stop them?
Post edited at 18:05
deepsoup - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to yorkshireman:
> Could you please copy and paste the article so I don't have to soil my internet history with a visit to that disgusting corner of the web (and contribute to their advertising revenues)?

Here's a screenshot with the gist of it for you: http://www.deepsoup.f2s.com/UKC/mail_jo_cox.png
marsbar - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Its an interesting theory. It doesn't make me any more sympathetic for him tbh, although it does raise further questions about his mental health. Councils generally ask single people living in family homes to consider downsizing. Given the waiting lists for council houses this does seem fair enough. I don't think they could force him out, however, they could refuse to pay for 1 person to live in a 3 bedroom house, again fair enough. Why should my taxes pay for a single man to live rent free in a 3 bedrooom house? Some councils allow tenants to rent out spare rooms.

What I do know is that if he had gone to see Jo Cox with his worries she would have tried to help him sort this out. Instead he killed her.
Big Ger - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to wintertree:

> Some people seem to be reading it as a piece that blames immigrants. To read it that way you have to be quite twisted up inside by hate at the paper in question, to the point you interpret everything in support of that hate. Which is rather ironic.


A quality often displayed here.

Gerry_Doncaster - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Well one thing is for certain. That vile pathetic cowardly piece of subhuman racist filth doesn't need to worry about ever being kicked out of his new place of residence.
jkarran - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

I'll confess, my ungenerous summary was coloured by reading the top rated comments under the piece. The target audience got the message loud and clear.
Jk
sg - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to deepsoup:

Exactly - look at the headline people; that's what the Mail readers will do. "...he grew up in..."; "...could end up being occupied by immigrant family..."; "...MP wouldn't help him...". The casual Mail reader will do what any headline reader will do, pick out the words and phrases that resonate with them.

Justifying this kind of journalism is utterly shameful. Yes we live in a free country and a free press is a good thing, but the subeditor who put this together - and is no doubt a highly intelligent graduate - should be ashamed of it.
Tyler - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to jkarran:
I've tried never to use the phrase 'dog whistle in this context but it is entirely appropriate here, it's as though the they are saying 'of course he went too far but you can see the sort of things that might tip people over the edge' but this that you've written is completely untrue:

> reading the top rated comments under the piece. The target audience got the message loud and clear.

The top rated comments are condemnatory of the Mail and the article, surprisingly balanced!
Post edited at 21:48
FactorXXX - on 24 Nov 2016
Big Ger - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Tyler:
reading the top rated comments under the piece. The target audience got the message loud and clear.

> The top rated comments are condemnatory of the Mail and the article, surprisingly balanced!

Those holes in the foot must hurt, jkarran.
Post edited at 23:09
Hugh J - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:

Hmmm…. which of these headlines is the more inflammatory?

Jo Cox murderer Thomas Mair became deranged white supremacist after mum left him for black boyfriend

or

Did Neo-Nazi murder Jo over fear he'd lose council house he grew up in?
DubyaJamesDubya - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to yorkshireman:

> Could you please copy and paste the article so I don't have to soil my internet history with a visit to that disgusting corner of the web (and contribute to their advertising revenues)?

Have to agree it seems to be the norm now to post threads with no more than a link and a (sometimes misleading) title.
Hugh J - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to sg:
> Exactly - look at the headline people; that's what the Mail readers will do. "...he grew up in..."; "...could end up being occupied by immigrant family..."; "...MP wouldn't help him...". The casual Mail reader will do what any headline reader will do, pick out the words and phrases that resonate with them.

> Justifying this kind of journalism is utterly shameful. Yes we live in a free country and a free press is a good thing, but the subeditor who put this together - and is no doubt a highly intelligent graduate - should be ashamed of it.

Shameful? No it isn't.

Despite being someone who despises ALL of the tabloid press in this country, I can find nothing particularly abhorrent in this article. If the Mail readers do as you say they will do, it is no ones fault but their own or, to be more precise, the lack of a balanced view this shitty little country with it's piss-poor educational system has given them.

This is exactly the kind of leftist knee jerk reaction that the Brexit supporters have been telling us has been pissing them off. I'm starting to agree with their thoughts that if you don't agree with those on the left they will brand you as idiotic, bigoted or lunatic or all 3 at once. An attitude that is fascistic and perhaps (ironically) right wing. It seems to me that they have some validation in this thought and as someone who is more left leaning than right, it's starting to piss me off too.
Post edited at 07:43
Stuart (aka brt) - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to no one in particular:

Makes one wonder why they put it on page 30... The headline did its job.
Ross Spours - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

It's not "his" house is it? It's a council owned house! Also one person in a three bedroom, seem a fair deal if he was moved to another house and a family allowed to move in!
marsbar - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
Https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/24/daily-mail-jailing-jo-coxs-murderer-front-page

Thoughts as to why they didn't put it on the front page?
Post edited at 08:48
jkarran - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Tyler:

They might be now but they certainly weren't yesterday when I first came across it, it's had a day trending on Facebook and forums like this attracting indignation since then. Yesterday it'd been commented on by mail readers.
Jk
RyanOsborne - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to marsbar:


> Thoughts as to why they didn't put it on the front page?

Presumably because they judged that their readers didn't care about it as much as they cared about the other stuff in the first 30 pages?
r0x0r.wolfo - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to summo:
> I'm not defending the mail and haven't read the article, only the extract above. It's curious were he not a murderer, people would be defending his desire to stay in a 3 bed etc.. saying he is being forced to move out by an unfeeling council, was probably under pressure to afford the evil tory bedroom tax.

Usually when the mail is describing a unemployed man living alone in a three bedroom council house the article will contain the words 'BENEFIT CHEAT' 'SCROUNGER' 'SPONGE' but he seems to have been spared the usual daily hate because he's a white supremacist murderer.
Post edited at 09:25
marsbar - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

Presumably a Black or Asian terrorist would have been all over the front page. White supremacist on benefits is only on page 30, and it's not his fault he murdered someone, cause they were going to take "his" house away and give it to foreigners.
marsbar - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
From the Mail it's usually the women (single mothers) or the foreigners that get demonised. I'm waiting for a article where they blame his mother for this. It's all her fault for running off with a black man.

Edit, the Sun already did. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2252585/jo-cox-thomas-mair-murderer-killer-nazi-family/
Post edited at 09:31
Bogwalloper - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

> Usually when the mail is describing a unemployed man living alone in a three bedroom council house the article will contain the words 'BENEFIT CHEAT' 'SCROUNGER' 'SPONGE' but he seems to have been spared the usual daily hate because he's a white supremacist murderer.

Also, let's not forget that the Mail fully supported the bedroom tax.

Wally
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
How much do the public know about this man?
He commits an extremely unusual crime by murdering an MP.
Most people, I'm guessing, would have a passing interest in what brings a person to such an action.
Yet the news media seems unable to provide more than a few 'facts' e.g. he had books about Nazis, he'd researched guns on the internet, etc.
Many people fit the stereotype of white supremacist if you listen to the banter in many pubs across the UK. But most don't murder somebody.
Why did he murder Jo Cox?
We don't actually know, do we?
Some decent investigative journalism might shed more light on this unusual case.
winhill - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Ross Spours:

> It's not "his" house is it? It's a council owned house! Also one person in a three bedroom, seem a fair deal if he was moved to another house and a family allowed to move in!

30 years ago it would have been unthinkable for councils to be throwing people out of their homes, Thatcher's children think it's unreasonable not too!

It's somewhat ironic that on a thread complaining about the Daily Mail, we get what seem to be more Daily Mail readers:

> why shouldn't that guy be forced to move out of that three bed house he was living in by himself?

> Why should my taxes pay for a single man to live rent free in a 3 bedrooom house?
Pete Pozman - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to DerwentDiluted:

That makes him smart...
Jimbocz - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to winhill:

It's not ironic that people who think can have two ideas in their heads, one that says printing a bunch of race baiting rumours and baseless theories as news is poor journalism, and another that says it makes sense for people who live in council houses that are way bigger than their needs should be encouraged to move.

Some people can think independently enough to entertain both left and right ideas at the same time if they both make sense.
marsbar - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to winhill:
If so much of the social housing hadn't been sold off, supposedly to those living there, but in reality ending up in the portfolio of private landlords, then there wouldn't be such pressure on social housing.

However social housing is subsidised, even for those paying their own rent. I don't think it makes me a Daily Mail reader to suggest that such subsidies are made based on need not want.

I find it interesting that you use the emotive word home, not the factual word house. You don't normally go for emotive arguments. Likewise, throw out, when that wasn't the case.

He needed somewhere to live. He wanted to stay in a house that was bigger than he needed for emotional reasons.

The welfare state is only going to be viable if it gives people what they need, not what they want. I appreciate that he lived there with his Granny, but does that give him the right to a three bedroom house for life, not in my opinion.

If he was younger and saying the same thing he would have no doubt been called an entitled special snowflake millennium by now.

He killed someone ffs. He wasn't being thrown out of his home, he was being asked to consider a move.

Anyway, I never claimed to be a lefty, but that doesn't make me a daily mail "reader"
Post edited at 11:27
Mike Stretford - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to winhill:

> 30 years ago it would have been unthinkable for councils to be throwing people out of their homes, Thatcher's children think it's unreasonable not too!

Rubbish, sensible use of council accommodation occurred 30 years, I know that from personal experience.

David Martin - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to winhill:

> 30 years ago it would have been unthinkable for councils to be throwing people out of their homes, Thatcher's children think it's unreasonable not too!

I think there is a fair argument to say, if someone else is paying for "your" home it isn't necessarily your home. You are a guest. And if you are being loaned something free of charge that is better/larger than what other people are paying their hard-earned money for then its only reasonable you be moved to something more suitably sized. Where I live, people live five to a room without complaint. A three bedroom house is a relative mansion, and to whinge at being required to downsize seems somewhat out of touch.
Pete Pozman - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
The Daily Mail has dug deep to find something to ease the conscience of its readers. He shouted "Death to Traitors" as he murdered his MP. I was rocked when a bloke called me a traitor because I pushed a remain leaflet through his door. This was on the day, a week after her death, that there was a gathering in front of Batley Town Hall to remember Jo. I was there and saw a man with a big LEAVE badge standing by the Town Hall door so that Jo's sister would have to pass him. This was after she and some children had made the most moving of speeches calling for Love not Hate.
If you like the Daily Mail I'm sorry but you are on the wrong side. Walk away.
marsbar - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

He doesn't say he liked it, quite the opposite.
Pete Pozman - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to marsbar:

If "one likes..."
ads.ukclimbing.com
Stuart (aka brt) - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> He doesn't say he liked it, quite the opposite.

I didn't read Pete's post as me liking it, least I hope he's not suggesting that! Eyeballs out icon...

For clarification, I really, really don't like much of what's in the Mail.

They do sport quite well though.
marsbar - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Sorry, my misunderstanding
Ross Spours - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to winhill:
If the implication was I'm a Daily Mail reader - I read the Guardian.

It's simple utilitarian reasoning: the man does not need three bed rooms but a family does. Thus a family of 3/4 can benefit, as opposed to just one man - the most people benifit by the house changing hands, for me at least it would be easy to justify.
Post edited at 13:33
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to marsbar:
I thought the Mail might have mentioned or linked to their Brendan Cox resignation story from last year.
Post edited at 14:09
Pete Pozman - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to marsbar:

Not a problemo.
Pete Pozman - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Ross Spours:
The Daily Mail doesn't want people to be aware of the stark choices they need to make so it muddies the water. A new term (to me) was being used in the Trump campaign. He'd be asked about his disgusting attitude to women and after the most cursory of apologies he would "pivot" onto how he was going to smash ISIS. I thought at the time, is that it? And it was.
The Mail doesn't want its readers to think that "Britain First!" is an invalid thing to shout, so it makes out that This man was upset because Jo wasn't trying hard enough to help him keep his house and the council are somehow implicated in his behaviour.
It's quite plausible to judge that someone who had a little shrine to Nazism in his house, researched terrorist methods, collected weapons and then stabbed a defenceless woman 15 times with a dagger and shot her in the head three times whilst shouting Britain First, Death to Traitors is a an extreme right wing terrorist.
But the Mail chooses to bury the horror deep within the paper, back with cruise adverts and Alzheimer cures, then muddies the water with a load of stuff about the council, the bedrooms, his mum's partner etc
It's called burying bad news. The bad news being ,if you are inclined shout "Britain First" you are on Thomas Mair's side.
Post edited at 14:44
marsbar - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

It no longer fits their narrative. Even the Daily Mail know that accusations against a loving father who just lost his wife won't look good. The point of that story at the time was to get at his wife via him, now there is no point and it would cause the wrong sort of outrage if they did.
marsbar - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Quite.
Ross Spours - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:
Eh, why was this addressed to me? I'm not a Daily Mail reader... I'm really rather liberal!
Post edited at 15:08
Pete Pozman - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Ross Spours:

Just latched on to the fact you were discussing the house business ( I agree with your view on that by the way) . It was the fact that anybody is concerned with how many bedrooms he had or didn't have because the Daily Mail diverted people's concerns that way that got me going. Apologies to you . I think I need to stop flailing about madly.
winhill - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Rubbish, sensible use of council accommodation occurred 30 years, I know that from personal experience.

A secure tenant 'forced' out of their home by a council due to under occupation? Do tell.
winhill - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> I find it interesting that you use the emotive word home, not the factual word house.

It's a legal phrase not an emotional one, check the legislation.
winhill - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to David Martin:

> I think there is a fair argument to say, if someone else is paying for "your" home it isn't necessarily your home. You are a guest. And if you are being loaned something free of charge that is better/larger than what other people are paying their hard-earned money for then its only reasonable you be moved to something more suitably sized. Where I live, people live five to a room without complaint. A three bedroom house is a relative mansion, and to whinge at being required to downsize seems somewhat out of touch.

I think this reflects the change in attitudes, even Thatcher didn't introduce legislation that would allow councils to tip people out due to under occupation but now people want the law to go even further than Thatcher and force people out of their homes.

When the bedroom tax was introduced a few councils offered no evictions, because they thought people would fall into arrears, which is grounds for eviction, unlike under occupation which isn't (if under occupation was grounds for eviction the bedroom tax might not be needed at all).

Mair wasn't the tenant, so can be evicted regardless of occupation, that is what he was supposed to be worried about, because his relationship was too distant to succeed.
marsbar - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to winhill:

He wasn't forced out of his house. You are talking absolute bull. He was asked to consider a smaller property.

I can't believe you are defending a murdering Nazi. Oh wait, I can.
Hugh J - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to marsbar:

Sorry marsbar, you need to watch that knee! It is not what winhill is saying.
winhill - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> He wasn't forced out of his house. You are talking absolute bull. He was asked to consider a smaller property.

> I can't believe you are defending a murdering Nazi. Oh wait, I can.

That is scummy even for you.
kemmar - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

Find myself much in agreement with your 2nd paragraph Hugh, and the despising of the press in the 1st. Its disappointing that no one else has responded, in some way, to your comment. So many folk just dont seem to get it. The space made for the Farage and Trump set was created by, not by the introduction, but by the imposition of minority beliefs at such a pace that most of the UK population are still stunned. The majority of people, like Jo Cox, have lots of kindness in their heart. But change has to evolve at its own pace, not in a way akin to introducing salmon to the Yemen.
FactorXXX - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

But the Mail chooses to bury the horror deep within the paper, back with cruise adverts and Alzheimer cures, then muddies the water with a load of stuff about the council, the bedrooms, his mum's partner etc
It's called burying bad news. The bad news being ,if you are inclined shout "Britain First" you are on Thomas Mair's side.


I don't read the Mail so can't answer this, but are you trying to say that the Mail have only ever reported the Jo Cox story on page 30 in this one edition. Or, that this particular story about Jo Cox was on page 30?
sg - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

> Shameful? No it isn't.

> Despite being someone who despises ALL of the tabloid press in this country, I can find nothing particularly abhorrent in this article. If the Mail readers do as you say they will do, it is no ones fault but their own or, to be more precise, the lack of a balanced view this shitty little country with it's piss-poor educational system has given them.

Wow, more fool me. I'm not having a go at Mail readers any more than any other readers (that's why I said, 'like all readers'); I'm having a go at the journalism and, specifically, the subeditor who put the headline together. That's why I said 'read the headline', rather than read the article. I may be wrong, but all journalism involves shaping a story in a various ways and the selection of words to go in this headline deliberately skews it to make a direct link between the possibility of immigrants moving into council houses and Mair killing Jo Cox.
Now, you can blame the Mail readers for their ignorance if you like; I'm blaming the journalism of the Mail (in this specific case). All mass media outlets are engaged in a dance with their readership / audience. They have to both react to the views their readers are likely to espouse and lead them in the light of new events (ie the news). But of course, in that dance / relationship, the media / journalists are closer to the power end of the relationship because they have easier access to the facts of the matter, whereas the readership are more likely to be bringing their opinions and values alone.
The readers also have great power, because they are also voters, and they are regularly given a chance to exercise that power; however, that's a different relationship. Each party - the media, the public and the governing institutions has a certain responsibility (I would argue) and in this particular case (I'm not on a general Mail rant, note) I'd say the media are not exercising that responsibility appropriately, given their undoubtedly wide reach and concomitant influence.
So, blame the ignorance of the Mail readers if you will (or our country's poor education system, if you prefer) - but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect all of us to believe or be influenced by some of what we read / see in the media /on the internet (I know I'm guilty of that, because I don't have the facts of the planet at my fingertips).

> This is exactly the kind of leftist knee jerk reaction that the Brexit supporters have been telling us has been pissing them off. I'm starting to agree with their thoughts that if you don't agree with those on the left they will brand you as idiotic, bigoted or lunatic or all 3 at once. An attitude that is fascistic and perhaps (ironically) right wing. It seems to me that they have some validation in this thought and as someone who is more left leaning than right, it's starting to piss me off too.
Gosh, not sure how to respond to this bit. I didn't say the article should be banned, or the journalist, or the newspaper. I gave my opinion that the headline was shameful, and that justifying it was shameful (my main mistake, clearly). I suppose I wrote that because I feel that the headline is an example of where the dance I refer to above involves the journalist leading the reader to a new opinion which is potentially dangerous and divisive. With hindsight, maybe I shouldn't have said that I think defending it is shameful, but given the additional rhetoric that goes with most of those defences, then I'm just about happy to stand by what I said.
Anyway, thanks for the reply. Sorry if my response came across as knee jerk or dangerously leftist, I was referring to the journalism rather than Brexit and specifically I was referring to the subeditor's choice of headline.
sg - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to kemmar:

> Find myself much in agreement with your 2nd paragraph Hugh, and the despising of the press in the 1st. Its disappointing that no one else has responded, in some way, to your comment. So many folk just dont seem to get it. The space made for the Farage and Trump set was created by, not by the introduction, but by the imposition of minority beliefs at such a pace that most of the UK population are still stunned. The majority of people, like Jo Cox, have lots of kindness in their heart. But change has to evolve at its own pace, not in a way akin to introducing salmon to the Yemen.

I understand that social change is a long and difficult process. It is also hard won. I think that's why so many people who are dismayed at the rise of Farage and Trump, are so anxious and are so prepared to use strong language - they are acutely aware of what's at stake.
I think that attitude change and social change more broadly is a slightly different issue to the large changes to the economy that seem to have been such factors in the big electoral decisions this year. Personally, I'm more than prepared to accept that many of those voting anti-establishment have lost out, in some ways, to globalisation; specifically in terms of the long term structural changes to the economy and the loss of industrial and manufacturing jobs. But I'm not happy that so many within the establishment (ie parts of the media) are prepared to conflate this with a wide range of other issues in such a way that I believe to be divisive. I hope that doesn't come across as too inflammatory.
Hugh J - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to sg:
Well, that's far more reasoned and it's appreciated. Personally I think the far more pertinent problem with the article in question is the fact that such an important issue was buried on page 30. I did mention that I thought the headlines were in bad taste, but the article itself was quite balanced and I accept your criticism of the sub-editing.

I can also accept your views on the relationship between publisher and reader. I work with many people who are, shall we say, less thoughtful than myself. I see many people pick up a paper, look at the pictures, read what's directly underneath it and then turn the page. If you try to talk about something you've read, you'll get a monosyllabic grunt and they'll start looking at the next picture. It seems the only thing worth discussing is the football match that both parties have watched. Perhaps you're lucky enough not to be in that situation, but it's the world I live in and I know these are the type of people that voted for Brexit and I suspect Trump in the US. They seem to have been brought up by being spoon fed and they still wish to be spoon fed. Personally I feel this is due to a dumbing down in education (spoon fed facts to pass exams instead of engaging in reasoned debate), which now also extends to television and even social media. I mean Twitter FFS! How can anyone make a reasoned argument in less than 140 characters?

This is also true of the SJW and PC brigade, they don't want to reason and accept some things are not black and white, they just tell you what is right and what is wrong. I wouldn't even say they think that it's what they think, they just ascert that it's the unquestionnable truth.

Sorry for the earlier hypocritical knee-jerking!
Post edited at 11:34
marsbar - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:
The day he was sentenced it was front page news for every other paper except the Financial Times (fair enough, not a financial issue) and the hate Mail who instead ran this story on page 30 about him being possibly asked to moved with a headline about immigrants taking his council house.

The actual headline

Did Neo-Nazi murder Jo over fear he'd lose council house he grew up in? Terrorist thought property could end up being occupied by an immigrant family - and the MP wouldn't help him

Post edited at 11:30
Hugh J - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to marsbar:
I'm not sure that the headline is (in isolation) that bad, it's certainly better than a headline from the Mirror (a leftist rag):

"Jo Cox murderer Thomas Mair became deranged white supremacist after mum left him for black boyfriend"

The problem is that it is how they chose to "lead" with that headline on the story and that it was way back on page 30. Perhaps, if they have led with something like "Dispicable Neo-Nazi caged for murdering Jo" on the front page and then used this article on page 30 as an editorial piece it would be far more acceptable. But alas, they didn't. And there is the problem.

The article itself is quite well balanced and it is not just about the council house issue. A large (and in-depth) chunk is about his political affliliations and his personal background.
Post edited at 11:57
Hugh J - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to marsbar:
Not sure why someone gave you a dislike for basically saying it how it is?

Guess it must have been the "hate Mail" bit?
Post edited at 12:01
Mike Stretford - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to winhill:

>> Rubbish, sensible use of council accommodation occurred 30 years, I know that from personal experience.

> A secure tenant 'forced' out of their home by a council due to under occupation? Do tell.

In the mid 80s and elderly relative of mine died and her son soon moved out of the 3 bedroom council house, and into a 1 bedroom council flat. The council suggested this move.

Obviously I'm not obliged to answer your latest request, as I never said that, and was commenting on the subject of the thread.
Lenin on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to marsbar:

I have just read this in The Economist http://www.economist.com/news/obituary/21710780-chinese-protester-against-forced-expropriation-was-3... and I could not help but think of this thread on UKC.
Disaffected citizen kills official. In one they are seen as Facist loner scum, in the other a victim of an oppressive state.
wercat on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I perpetrated a small act of resistance this morning against the Rabid Brexit press.

I saw in our local Morrisons a bloody awful raving Mirror headline about a PLOT to interfere with our EU EXiT! I took the entire pile and turned them upside down
Hugh J - on 26 Nov 2016
wercat on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

Thanks, it was the Express. It was a somewhat stressful visit with two very stroppy teenagers - illustrates the problems of eyewitness accounts. Nevertheless the front page headline of the whole stack temporarily became the back page feature
marsbar - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

Oh I have my own stalker, at one point every comment I made no matter how trivial and without opinions got a dislike.
kemmar - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to sg:

Do you mean perceived changes to the economy, or actual changes? You seem the sort of person who will have a grasp on the real changes. Though i have to say, i learned a long time ago that because a person wears a collar and tie or other formal dress, it doesnt mean they know what they are talking about.

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.