Only The Daily Mail...

[alfredmizen]

Ok. Understood

But do you think it is wrong that a single man, living in a three bedroom social house should be asked to move to a smaller one?

No I Don't.

 

[SussexSeahawk]

I genuinely find it strange, how you, SHC and others can find such inane piece in a daily newspaper, which clearly doesnt in any way try and sympathise or even begin to condone the killers motives at any level, so offensive.

It clearly does sympathise with Mair. While it doesn't condone his actions, the piece takes the actual story: which is "Mair was being forced to downsize home" and turns it into "Mair thought his home might go to immigrants and Jo Cox did nothing to help him".

Of course they were trying to get the reader to sympathise with Mair: in particular getting other like minded readers who are also scared of immigrants taking their houses for them.

The most outrageous part of this though is: "and Jo Cox did nothing to help him", making it seem as though if Jo Cox had been a better person with political views closer to Daily Mail readers maybe she would still have been alive.

 

[LlcoolJ]

How does someone write a piece like that and sleep at night. Pure evil.

 

[spring hall convert]

I genuinely find it strange, how you, SHC and others can find such inane piece in a daily newspaper, which clearly doesnt in any way try and sympathise or even begin to condone the killers motives at any level, so offensive.

What I find massively interesting is the majority of the article is about Mair being a Nazi. So why is the headline about his (probably unjustifed) fear of an immigrant taking this house? It misrepresents the content of the article. It's almost like the reporter is trying to do his job and the sub-editor didn't think the content suited the editorial of the paper.

Remember also at the time of this murder, the front covers of the Mail, Sun and Express were becoming increasingly hysterical about immigrants in the lead up to the referendum. Could that have influenced Mair? We don't know, much like we don't know if this influenced him. No mention of that in the Mail article. It's almost like they're a bit embarrassed by something.

I cannot think how anyone can see anything other than the killer being a deranged fantasis or other, or are us poor people meant to see some political consequence of Brexit or maybe its just the poors trait of being a little bit thick and racists all at the same time.

Fine but you can't have it both ways though, if Mair is a 'deranged fantasist' then so are the killers of Lee Rigby. If Lee Rigby's killers are Islamic fundamentalists, then Mair is a Neo-Nazi. Stop making excuses for him, his crime was clearly ideologically driven.

You cant on the one hand think its an outrage and then be disappointed it wasn't on the front page, unless you crave being really really outraged all of the time.

Of course you can be. Are you seriously telling me that there was a bigger news story yesterday than the perpetrator of the first political assassination in this country in 25 years being found guilty and sentenced to life without parole, for a premeditated, ideologically driven attack? Again, when Lee Rigby's killers were sentenced it was pages 1-7. This story wasn't on the front page because it didn't suit the Daily Mail's editorial stance to give big space to a home grown white fascist terrorist. It's supposed to be a newspaper, nnot filetring the news to its own increasingly myopic viewpoint.

That they then saw fit to perpetrate rubbish like this article is just salt in the wound.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The wording and the MP wouldn't help him makes it sound like the victim deserved to die.

It's very derogatory to Jo's memory, and isn't an excuse for murder.

 

[alfredmizen]

What I find massively interesting is the majority of the article is about Mair being a Nazi. So why is the headline about his (probably unjustifed) fear of an immigrant taking this house? It misrepresents the content of the article. It's almost like the reporter is trying to do his job and the sub-editor didn't think the content suited the editorial of the paper.

Remember also at the time of this murder, the front covers of the Mail, Sun and Express were becoming increasingly hysterical about immigrants in the lead up to the referndum. Could that have influenced Mair? We don't know, much like we don't know if this influenced him. No mention of that in the Mail article? It's almost like they're a bit embarrassed by something.



Fine but you can't have it both ways though, if Mair is a 'deranged fantasist' then so are the killers of Lee Rigby. If Lee Rigby's killers are Islamic fundamentalists, then Mair is a Neo-Nazi. Stop making excuses for him, his crime was clearly ideologically driven.



Of course you can be. Are you seriously telling me that there was a bigger news story yesterday than the perpetrator of the first political assassination in this country in 25 years being found guilty and sentenced to life without parole, for a premeditated, ideologically driven attack? Again, when Lee Rigby's killers were sentenced it was pages 1-7. This story wasn't on the front page because it didn't suit the Daily Mail's editorial stance to give big space to a home grown white fascist terrorist. It's supposed to be a newspaper.

That they then saw fit to perpetrate rubbish like this article is just salt in the wound.

Can you tell me how you arrive at the conclusion that his fear about immigrants taking his home is "probably unjustified " ?

 

[nicko31]

In the printed edition today there no mention of Jo Cox until page 30. If she was murdered by a Muslim would it have been on page 30?

The Express is incompetent

The Mail is pure hate

 

[spring hall convert]

Can you tell me how you arrive at the conclusion that his fear about immigrants taking his home is "probably unjustified " ?

Fair point, I'll clarify.

- Was there a possibility the house could have been given to a family of immigrants? Yes there was.
- Was that possibility more likely than it being given to a non-immigrant family? No it wasn't.

But my point really is that regardless of that, in the context of this crime, does it really matter?

 

[alfredmizen]

Fair point, I'll clarify.

- Was there a possibility the house could have been given to a family of immigrants? Yes there was.
- Was that possibility more likely than it being given to a non-immigrant family? No it wasn't.

But my point really is that regardless of that, in the context of this crime, does it really matter?

And you arrived at this conclusion how ?

 

[JetsetJimbo]

You've got this the wrong way around. If you think this neo-Nazi murderer that you're so keen to defend had good reason to think immigrants were about to steal his house, you have to prove that this was the case; it's not beholden on anyone else to prove it wasn't, because a negative cannot by definition be proven.

 

[alfredmizen]

You've got this the wrong way around. If you think this neo-Nazi murderer that you're so keen to defend had good reason to think immigrants were about to steal his house, you have to prove that this was the case; it's not beholden on anyone else to prove it wasn't, because a negative cannot by definition be proven.

Firstly I'm not defending anyone , secondly the OP has made definitive statements that the likelihood of immigrants rather than British people taking his house isn't the case , I questioned how he had arrived at this conclusion, not difficult really.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Firstly I'm not defending anyone , secondly the OP has made definitive statements that the likelihood of immigrants rather than British people taking his house isn't the case , I questioned how he had arrived at this conclusion, not difficult really.

It is what the Daily Mail is implying with this article. Read the comment from Mair's step father's half sister.

 

[alfredmizen]

It is what the Daily Mail is implying with this article. Read the comment from Mair's step father's half sister.

I don't care what the Mail is implying , I'm asking how SHC arrived at the conclusion that it's not likely to be the case , and like it or not I cannot help but piss myself laughing at "Mair's step fathers half sister" !

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I don't care what the Mail is implying , I'm asking how SHC arrived at the conclusion that it's not likely to be the case , and like it or not I cannot help but piss myself laughing at "Mair's step fathers half sister" !

It's very tenuous, isn't it? As if the Mail was searching for someone who would say something.

 

[BigGully]

It is what the Daily Mail is implying with this article. Read the comment from Mair's step father's half sister.

If you believe as I do that Mair is a deranged individual and some kind of neo nazi, why wouldnt this be a likely trigger, irrespective of whether it might be accurate or not.

It beggers belief that you and others can jump from this to the Mail must be implying something more sinister as if somehow loads of white van men are reading it and saying yep I am with Mair on this one.

Its condescending nonesense.

 

[looney]

Think that's called 'alt-right' now.

Alt right is an umbrella term, neo nazis are 1488ers

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

 

[Two Professors]

Ok. Understood

But do you think it is wrong that a single man, living in a three bedroom social house should be asked to move to a smaller one?

How about a trade union boss on £120,000 pound a year living in a social house?

 

[BBassic]

Think that's called 'alt-right' now.

 

[looney]

View attachment 79724

 

[highflyer]

You've got this the wrong way around. If you think this neo-Nazi murderer that you're so keen to defend had good reason to think immigrants were about to steal his house, you have to prove that this was the case; it's not beholden on anyone else to prove it wasn't, because a negative cannot by definition be proven.

He's not interested in the truth or otherwise of that point - he is distracting attention from the key point that the Daily Mail has an editorial policy to treat islamic terrorists and far right terrorists differently. And are using this headline as a way to imply justification for the murder...while somehow managing to imply that the blame lies in part with immigrants. Which as stated above is an insult to the memory of Jo Cox.
That's the Daily Mail eh. Who knew?