Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Suddenly Oprah Winfrey becomes second favourite for next Presi

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited January 9 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Suddenly Oprah Winfrey becomes second favourite for next President

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly the American presidential election cycle seems to move. Donald Trump has only been in the White House since January last year and now all the talk is of the 2020 contest with a focus on who would be his Democratic opponent should he decide to run again.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,776
    First. Oh and bread and circuses. Trump followed by Oprah would be a sign of the end stage of a Republic.
  • A TV personality who has never held elected office becoming President?

    Nah, the Americans will never go for it.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 124
    dixiedean said:

    First. Oh and bread and circuses. Trump followed by Oprah would be a sign of the end stage of a Republic.

    Oprah 2020, 2024. The whole cast of "Rick and Morty" for 2028 (they don't get reelected); the "poop" emoji 2032, after which they don't bother any more.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,579
    edited January 9
    To be fair, it makes a bit more sense than the Michelle Obama idea.

    Oprah, as far as I can tell, does seem to be one of the few women in any field who's got a public persona of being defiant and strong-minded, yet also at the same time being warm and "relateable" (Hillary scored well on the "tough" scale, but failed badly on the "warm" scale - one of the big reasons for her underperformance with white women in particular, who should've been easy pickings in a contest against Trump). On paper, it looks like an Oprah candidacy could work.

    But of course, there's the small matter of whether she's actually any good at politics/campaigning....
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,502
    She could be very good, certainly better than Trump.

    But it's a bit sad isn't it that to succeed in politics you have to be more than good on TV, you have to come from it.

    Wonder what that means for UK politics 10-15 years hence.

    Kilroy to return?
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 347
    This is perhaps Trump's best shot at getting re-elected.

    It isn't just that Oprah is a liberal luvvie, following on from Obama she will re-inforce an impression that the Dems have become primarily a black party. Whilst energising black turnout she will push swathes of poor whites further into Trump's hands.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,494
    edited January 9
    I still think the Democratic base will be more in the mood for Bernie or Warren anti corporation populism than replacing a billionaire celebrity with a billionaire celebrity but if only Oprah looks like she could beat President Trump she has a chance certainly.

    Let us not forget it was Trump's anti immigration, anti globalisation populism that won him the Republican nomination rather than just his celebrity.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,589
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,051
    The only question is whether to lay at 12/1 or wait to see if Oprah shortens further.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,389
    If Oprah wants it, Oprah gets it.

    But does Oprah really want to spend her days getting North Korea to disarm its nukes?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,051
    Come off it. Virgin aren't obliged to stock either the Mail or the Morning Star. The Mail can print what it chooses. It doesn't have the inalienable right to insist that others inflict it on their own customers.
  • 323 million people and they only get to choose from a few political families or millionaire TV celebs. Sad.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 4,228
    And JRM second favourite over here. I'd kill to see him and Oprah doing the special relationship routine.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,589
    FPT - for what it's worth, I think Poles are quite Eurosceptic, but also very pro EU as they're they are the major military bulwark for Europe with Putin's Russia*, and know how in the past they've been crushed when completely on their own.

    [*That's notwithstanding the fact they actually border Belarus (basically a Russian satellite) and Ukraine (divided) which doesn't necessarily mean very much]
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,776

    If Oprah wants it, Oprah gets it.

    But does Oprah really want to spend her days getting North Korea to disarm its nukes?

    Or maybe she could try a new tactic.
    "You get a nuke, you get a nuke, EVERYBODY gets a nuke!"
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 1,924
    edited January 9
    Jonathan said:

    She could be very good, certainly better than Trump.

    But it's a bit sad isn't it that to succeed in politics you have to be more than good on TV, you have to come from it.

    Wonder what that means for UK politics 10-15 years hence.

    Kilroy to return?

    Oprah is an embracer of anti-vaccine conspiracy enthusiasts. In some ways she is a mirror image of Trump.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,776

    Come off it. Virgin aren't obliged to stock either the Mail or the Morning Star. The Mail can print what it chooses. It doesn't have the inalienable right to insist that others inflict it on their own customers.
    Of course if the railways were nationalised, the Minister could insist on which newspapers were carried. As it stands, free market, free choice.
    A private company has made a decision.
    People are free to boycott Virgin products in response.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 1,925
    Why? The Daily Mail is nothing more than a xenophobic right wing rag. Racist c*nts!

    Well done Virgin Trains!
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 844
    edited January 9
    Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

    A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

    I don't want a piss-poor train operating company that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

    Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,575
    After four years of Trump, Americans could be forgiven for wanting a return to relative political normality. If Trump's not running again for whatever reason a moderate Republican would probably beat Winfrey. She'd probably beat Trump though.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 1,925
    kyf_100 said:

    Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

    A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

    I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

    Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...
    ...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

    You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,589

    Come off it. Virgin aren't obliged to stock either the Mail or the Morning Star. The Mail can print what it chooses. It doesn't have the inalienable right to insist that others inflict it on their own customers.
    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

    If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

    Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

    There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,494
    Essexit said:

    After four years of Trump, Americans could be forgiven for wanting a return to relative political normality. If Trump's not running again for whatever reason a moderate Republican would probably beat Winfrey. She'd probably beat Trump though.

    I doubt the Republican primary base will nominate a 'moderate Republican' anytime soon and certainly not an establishment one and even more certainly not if Trump runs again
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,575
    Jonathan said:

    She could be very good, certainly better than Trump.

    But it's a bit sad isn't it that to succeed in politics you have to be more than good on TV, you have to come from it.

    Wonder what that means for UK politics 10-15 years hence.

    Kilroy to return?

    In America a celebrity like Trump or Winfrey can just throw their hat in the ring (at a convenient four-year interval) and they're away. Over here they'd have to get elected and serve as an MP then wait for a leadership election to come up.

    I won't be putting any money on Prime Minister Bradley Walsh. Yet.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 608
    I think this illustrates quite well how the betting markets respond to the short term and immediate circumstances of the moment without any deep analysis behind their movements -which is why they get it so spectacularly wrong most of the time. Oprah makes a good speech on Monday and becomes the second favourite to be the next President on Tuesday.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,597

    Come off it. Virgin aren't obliged to stock either the Mail or the Morning Star. The Mail can print what it chooses. It doesn't have the inalienable right to insist that others inflict it on their own customers.
    I knew the end was nigh for this once great nation when I couldn't purchase a copy of Razzle on the 14.40 to Inverness; just a short step to the gEUlags.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,589
    murali_s said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

    A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

    I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

    Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...
    ...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

    You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?
    I'm afraid it is a newspaper. If it were a Nazi rag (it isn't) it would fall foul of a number of pieces of anti-discrimination and anti-terrorist legislation.

    Since it doesn't, and fully complies with the law, it's an attempt to close down public argument of a point-of-view it doesn't agree with.

    I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,937
    mwadams said:

    dixiedean said:

    First. Oh and bread and circuses. Trump followed by Oprah would be a sign of the end stage of a Republic.

    Oprah 2020, 2024. The whole cast of "Rick and Morty" for 2028 (they don't get reelected); the "poop" emoji 2032, after which they don't bother any more.
    The poop emoji would just be a rehash of what we have now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,494
    edited January 9
    Essexit said:

    Jonathan said:

    She could be very good, certainly better than Trump.

    But it's a bit sad isn't it that to succeed in politics you have to be more than good on TV, you have to come from it.

    Wonder what that means for UK politics 10-15 years hence.

    Kilroy to return?

    In America a celebrity like Trump or Winfrey can just throw their hat in the ring (at a convenient four-year interval) and they're away. Over here they'd have to get elected and serve as an MP then wait for a leadership election to come up.

    I won't be putting any money on Prime Minister Bradley Walsh. Yet.
    That is because the US President is the equivalent of the Queen, the UK PM is the equivalent of the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

    Though Mayor of London offers a chance to get elected to the post straight away as Bloomberg became Mayor of NYC
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,575

    Come off it. Virgin aren't obliged to stock either the Mail or the Morning Star. The Mail can print what it chooses. It doesn't have the inalienable right to insist that others inflict it on their own customers.
    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

    If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

    Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

    There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.
    +1
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,239
    edited January 9

    Come off it. Virgin aren't obliged to stock either the Mail or the Morning Star. The Mail can print what it chooses. It doesn't have the inalienable right to insist that others inflict it on their own customers.
    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

    If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

    Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

    There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.
    Apparently on all the services where papers are available Virgin sold only 70 copies each day.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,589
    kyf_100 said:

    Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

    A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

    I don't want a piss-poor train operating company that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

    Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...
    Indeed. It's very disappointing to see people I respect on this forum dismiss this.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,937
    Essexit said:

    Jonathan said:

    She could be very good, certainly better than Trump.

    But it's a bit sad isn't it that to succeed in politics you have to be more than good on TV, you have to come from it.

    Wonder what that means for UK politics 10-15 years hence.

    Kilroy to return?

    In America a celebrity like Trump or Winfrey can just throw their hat in the ring (at a convenient four-year interval) and they're away. Over here they'd have to get elected and serve as an MP then wait for a leadership election to come up.

    I won't be putting any money on Prime Minister Bradley Walsh. Yet.
    Lord Attenborough PM ?

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,589
    murali_s said:

    Why? The Daily Mail is nothing more than a xenophobic right wing rag. Racist c*nts!

    Well done Virgin Trains!
    Thank you. You make my point for me.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,095


    I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.

    Noone has banned anybody from selling anything though ?
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 1,925

    murali_s said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

    A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

    I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

    Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...
    ...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

    You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?
    I'm afraid it is a newspaper. If it were a Nazi rag (it isn't) it would fall foul of a number of pieces of anti-discrimination and anti-terrorist legislation.

    Since it doesn't, and fully complies with the law, it's an attempt to close down public argument of a point-of-view it doesn't agree with.

    I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.
    Then we need to tighten our legislation.

    The Daily Mail is nothing more than a medium to spread hate. It should be banned at source...

    It's a despicable racist publication - period.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,589
    Pulpstar said:


    I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.

    Noone has banned anybody from selling anything though ?
    They are stopping offering it as a free newspaper from which their passengers/customers can choose on the basis of the firms "values". That is bad enough.

    They've actually now effectively stigmatised reading the Daily Mail on Virgin Trains.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,051



    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

    If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

    Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

    There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,589

    Come off it. Virgin aren't obliged to stock either the Mail or the Morning Star. The Mail can print what it chooses. It doesn't have the inalienable right to insist that others inflict it on their own customers.
    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

    If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

    Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

    There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.
    Apparently on all the services where papers are available Virgin sold only 70 copies each day.

    Thanks. Do you have a source for that?
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 844
    murali_s said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

    A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

    I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

    Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...
    ...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

    You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?
    It's not Der Sturmer. It's a right wing newspaper that espouses views that I don't necessarily agree with, but do not contravene any laws.

    I find the attempts by "Stop funding hate" to be utterly odious and of far more concern to a functioning and healthy democracy than I do the views of the Mail, that should be debated and challenged as opposed to silenced.

    In politics we have points of view that can and should be expressed and challenged. As I say, if you don't like the Mail, don't buy it. I don't.

    Casino Royale puts it way better than me:



    Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

    The fact that we are losing our ability to tolerate other points of view is extremely alarming. I don't want a train operating company to comment on what it thinks its passengers should or shouldn't read any more than I want my brand of breakfast cereal to tell me who it thinks I should vote for.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,051

    Come off it. Virgin aren't obliged to stock either the Mail or the Morning Star. The Mail can print what it chooses. It doesn't have the inalienable right to insist that others inflict it on their own customers.
    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

    If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

    Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

    There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.
    Apparently on all the services where papers are available Virgin sold only 70 copies each day.

    Thanks. Do you have a source for that?
    It's in the article you linked to!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 10,654
    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

    A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

    I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

    Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...
    ...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

    You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?
    I'm afraid it is a newspaper. If it were a Nazi rag (it isn't) it would fall foul of a number of pieces of anti-discrimination and anti-terrorist legislation.

    Since it doesn't, and fully complies with the law, it's an attempt to close down public argument of a point-of-view it doesn't agree with.

    I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.
    Then we need to tighten our legislation.

    The Daily Mail is nothing more than a medium to spread hate. It should be banned at source...

    It's a despicable racist publication - period.
    What over the top hysterical and silly comments
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,589
    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

    A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

    I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

    Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...
    ...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

    You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?
    I'm afraid it is a newspaper. If it were a Nazi rag (it isn't) it would fall foul of a number of pieces of anti-discrimination and anti-terrorist legislation.

    Since it doesn't, and fully complies with the law, it's an attempt to close down public argument of a point-of-view it doesn't agree with.

    I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.
    Then we need to tighten our legislation.

    The Daily Mail is nothing more than a medium to spread hate. It should be banned at source...

    It's a despicable racist publication - period.
    "Period". "End of".

    A sign-off used by people who aren't confident they can deal with the argument that might follow.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,509
    Have Virgin Trains stopped selling the Mail on Sunday?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,655
    edited January 9
    What a piss poor limited selection of newspapers on virgin trains...you can now only get the mirror, times and ft.

    I actually reckon the real reason for stopping selling the daily mail is virgin don’t sell many papers at all, especially with iPads etc. But opportunity for some good old virtue signalling / PR couldn’t be passed up.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,879

    A TV personality who has never held elected office becoming President?

    Nah, the Americans will never go for it.

    Well surely the incumbent has shown them the dangers of such a daft move.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,041
    What about leaflets critical of Brexit? Should jazz clubs be allowed to stock them?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,937



    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

    If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

    Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

    There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
    Of course they are allowed.
    But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 779
    I'm amazed anyone can get through a copy of the Daily Mail in a cramped Virgin Trains seat. I'd probably clobber the person next to me a few times or cover them in racing tips.

    On size alone, a tablet, book, or Evening Standard at most is all I'd go for.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 6,276

    Come off it. Virgin aren't obliged to stock either the Mail or the Morning Star. The Mail can print what it chooses. It doesn't have the inalienable right to insist that others inflict it on their own customers.
    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

    If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

    Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

    There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.
    Apparently on all the services where papers are available Virgin sold only 70 copies each day.

    Thanks. Do you have a source for that?
    It's in the article you linked to!
    They sell 70 copies to commuters at my local WH Smith! Which highlights how practically difficult it must be to buy a copy on the train, I guess.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 1,925

    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

    A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

    I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

    Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...
    ...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

    You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?
    I'm afraid it is a newspaper. If it were a Nazi rag (it isn't) it would fall foul of a number of pieces of anti-discrimination and anti-terrorist legislation.

    Since it doesn't, and fully complies with the law, it's an attempt to close down public argument of a point-of-view it doesn't agree with.

    I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.
    Then we need to tighten our legislation.

    The Daily Mail is nothing more than a medium to spread hate. It should be banned at source...

    It's a despicable racist publication - period.
    What over the top hysterical and silly comments
    You condone racism buddy?

    I am all for free speech but I am against hate speech. Big difference there...

    Again, well done Virgin Trains!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,589

    Come off it. Virgin aren't obliged to stock either the Mail or the Morning Star. The Mail can print what it chooses. It doesn't have the inalienable right to insist that others inflict it on their own customers.
    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

    If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

    Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

    There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.
    Apparently on all the services where papers are available Virgin sold only 70 copies each day.

    Thanks. Do you have a source for that?
    It's in the article you linked to!
    Sorry, my bad, I must have missed the number in that article originally.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,051
    Nigelb said:



    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

    If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

    Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

    There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
    Of course they are allowed.
    But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

    Presumably they've looked carefully at their customer base and decided what best matches them. If they've got it wrong, I expect they'll rethink.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,776
    Stop Funding Hate ought to be celebrated by all right-leaning and thinking folk. They are causing companies to look at a cost benefit analysis of the impact of the products they stock.
    What could be more free market?
    As ever, others are free to organise, campaign and boycott as they wish.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,618

    Pulpstar said:


    I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.

    Noone has banned anybody from selling anything though ?
    They are stopping offering it as a free newspaper from which their passengers/customers can choose on the basis of the firms "values". That is bad enough.

    They've actually now effectively stigmatised reading the Daily Mail on Virgin Trains.
    Is this on Virgin West Coast? They're a funny lot over there.

    Never seen it on the East Coast.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,516
    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

    A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

    I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

    Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...
    ...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

    You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?
    I'm afraid it is a newspaper. If it were a Nazi rag (it isn't) it would fall foul of a number of pieces of anti-discrimination and anti-terrorist legislation.

    Since it doesn't, and fully complies with the law, it's an attempt to close down public argument of a point-of-view it doesn't agree with.

    I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.
    Then we need to tighten our legislation.

    The Daily Mail is nothing more than a medium to spread hate. It should be banned at source...

    It's a despicable racist publication - period.
    What over the top hysterical and silly comments
    You condone racism buddy?

    I am all for free speech but I am against hate speech. Big difference there...

    Again, well done Virgin Trains!
    It would would be more honest for you to admit that you do not favour freedom of speech for your political opponents.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,589



    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

    If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

    Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

    There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
    If it's a business decision driven by customer demand, yes. If it's a political decision driven by a loud, vocal minority who are causing trouble, no.

    The latter are far more damaging and wide-reaching. And in this case it wasn't customers - it was Virgin Trains and their employees.

    We know that, because they've told us.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,516

    What a piss poor limited selection of newspapers on virgin trains...you can now only get the mirror, times and ft.

    I actually reckon the real reason for stopping selling the daily mail is virgin don’t sell many papers at all, especially with iPads etc. But opportunity for some good old virtue signalling / PR couldn’t be passed up.

    Hardly anyone now reads the Mirror.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,589
    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

    A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

    I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

    Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...
    ...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

    You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?
    I'm afraid it is a newspaper. If it were a Nazi rag (it isn't) it would fall foul of a number of pieces of anti-discrimination and anti-terrorist legislation.

    Since it doesn't, and fully complies with the law, it's an attempt to close down public argument of a point-of-view it doesn't agree with.

    I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.
    Then we need to tighten our legislation.

    The Daily Mail is nothing more than a medium to spread hate. It should be banned at source...

    It's a despicable racist publication - period.
    What over the top hysterical and silly comments
    You condone racism buddy?

    I am all for free speech but I am against hate speech. Big difference there...

    Again, well done Virgin Trains!
    "I am all for free speech, but.."

    The sentence of tyrants.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,879
    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

    A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

    I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

    Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...
    ...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

    You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?
    I'm afraid it is a newspaper. If it were a Nazi rag (it isn't) it would fall foul of a number of pieces of anti-discrimination and anti-terrorist legislation.

    Since it doesn't, and fully complies with the law, it's an attempt to close down public argument of a point-of-view it doesn't agree with.

    I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.
    Then we need to tighten our legislation.

    The Daily Mail is nothing more than a medium to spread hate. It should be banned at source...

    It's a despicable racist publication - period.
    Someone linked to their website yesterday. It's pretty much just soft porn. From my brief perusal there did not seem to be any discrimination as to colour in the endless photographs of women looking "fit" in bikinis, underwear, barely there dresses or whatever kissing whoever with suggestive looks (I've a nasty feeling I was supposed to know who these people were).

    I have read on here that it is one of the most visited websites on the web. That is truly depressing. But I don't see how anyone can take the political views of such a publication seriously let alone get wound up about them.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,589
    Nigelb said:



    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

    If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

    Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

    There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
    Of course they are allowed.
    But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

    The article makes a good point. It might not be a coincidence that the FT, Mirror and the Times are all pro-Remain newspapers, and Branson is the suzerain of Virgin and a very strong Remainer.

    So it risks ending up being an unhealthy reinforcement of the divisions caused in our country by Brexit.

    Lovely.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,655
    Sean_F said:

    What a piss poor limited selection of newspapers on virgin trains...you can now only get the mirror, times and ft.

    I actually reckon the real reason for stopping selling the daily mail is virgin don’t sell many papers at all, especially with iPads etc. But opportunity for some good old virtue signalling / PR couldn’t be passed up.

    Hardly anyone now reads the Mirror.
    I do find all the stuff spouted by the stop funding hate against the sun, but never the mirror. If one takes a look on the website of both these days they are basically identical, the only difference is with the mirror it carries an extra line or two that says “ultimately it is the fault of the tories”.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,516
    dixiedean said:

    Stop Funding Hate ought to be celebrated by all right-leaning and thinking folk. They are causing companies to look at a cost benefit analysis of the impact of the products they stock.
    What could be more free market?
    As ever, others are free to organise, campaign and boycott as they wish.

    Two can play at that game.

    I don't think we would benefit from being a society where Conservatives organised boycotts of any company that was linked to the left, and vice versa.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,051



    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.

    If it's a business decision driven by customer demand, yes. If it's a political decision driven by a loud, vocal minority who are causing trouble, no.

    The latter are far more damaging and wide-reaching. And in this case it wasn't customers - it was Virgin Trains and their employees.

    We know that, because they've told us.
    That's also quite normal. One of the titbits in Fire & Fury is that three of the most prestigious law firms turned down the opportunity to defend President Trump in the Mueller investigations because, among other reasons "All of them were afraid they would face a rebellion among the younger staff if they represented Trump". In a people business, you have to take note of your people.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,776
    The answer to this is to pass legislation outlining which publications must be sold where and when.
    It is the only liberal way!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,879



    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.

    If it's a business decision driven by customer demand, yes. If it's a political decision driven by a loud, vocal minority who are causing trouble, no.

    The latter are far more damaging and wide-reaching. And in this case it wasn't customers - it was Virgin Trains and their employees.

    We know that, because they've told us.
    That's also quite normal. One of the titbits in Fire & Fury is that three of the most prestigious law firms turned down the opportunity to defend President Trump in the Mueller investigations because, among other reasons "All of them were afraid they would face a rebellion among the younger staff if they represented Trump". In a people business, you have to take note of your people.
    It makes me glad I don't have any staff tbh. A law firm turning down the chance to represent the POTUS? Wow. Virtue signalling at its most extreme.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,516
    dixiedean said:

    The answer to this is to pass legislation outlining which publications must be sold where and when.
    It is the only liberal way!

    Not really. Virgin can do as they please, and we are free to criticise them.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,589
    Sean_F said:

    What a piss poor limited selection of newspapers on virgin trains...you can now only get the mirror, times and ft.

    I actually reckon the real reason for stopping selling the daily mail is virgin don’t sell many papers at all, especially with iPads etc. But opportunity for some good old virtue signalling / PR couldn’t be passed up.

    Hardly anyone now reads the Mirror.
    If forced to pick from that lot, I'd pick The Times.

    In the same way, out of sheer boredom, I sometimes pick up the Evening Standard on the train home.

    If the real reason is that only older people buy the Daily Mail in hard-copy these days, and everyone else is just browsing its website on their iPads discreetly instead, then I'd just keep it to that basic business decision.

    Virgin Trains might have thought they'd get some good PR out of this, probably because those that make such decisions all talk to people who agree with them, who'd have applauded it, but what they've done here is chosen a side that risks - quite aside from anything else - becoming more damaging for their business and brand in the long-run.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,509



    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.

    If it's a business decision driven by customer demand, yes. If it's a political decision driven by a loud, vocal minority who are causing trouble, no.

    The latter are far more damaging and wide-reaching. And in this case it wasn't customers - it was Virgin Trains and their employees.

    We know that, because they've told us.
    That's also quite normal. One of the titbits in Fire & Fury is that three of the most prestigious law firms turned down the opportunity to defend President Trump in the Mueller investigations because, among other reasons "All of them were afraid they would face a rebellion among the younger staff if they represented Trump". In a people business, you have to take note of your people.
    I thought you were going to say, they turned it down because they were worried about what would happen to them if they lost.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,516

    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

    A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

    I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

    Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...
    ...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

    You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?
    I'm afraid it is a newspaper. If it were a Nazi rag (it isn't) it would fall foul of a number of pieces of anti-discrimination and anti-terrorist legislation.

    Since it doesn't, and fully complies with the law, it's an attempt to close down public argument of a point-of-view it doesn't agree with.

    I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.
    Then we need to tighten our legislation.

    The Daily Mail is nothing more than a medium to spread hate. It should be banned at source...

    It's a despicable racist publication - period.
    What over the top hysterical and silly comments
    You condone racism buddy?

    I am all for free speech but I am against hate speech. Big difference there...

    Again, well done Virgin Trains!
    "I am all for free speech, but.."

    The sentence of tyrants.
    Similar to "I'm not a racist, but....."
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,389
    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

    A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

    I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

    Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...
    ...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

    You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?
    I'm afraid it is a newspaper. If it were a Nazi rag (it isn't) it would fall foul of a number of pieces of anti-discrimination and anti-terrorist legislation.

    Since it doesn't, and fully complies with the law, it's an attempt to close down public argument of a point-of-view it doesn't agree with.

    I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.
    Then we need to tighten our legislation.

    The Daily Mail is nothing more than a medium to spread hate. It should be banned at source...

    It's a despicable racist publication - period.
    How old are you - 13?

    Just grow up. You devalue the term "racist" by such casual useage.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,879
    Why is everyone on Virgin trains not logged on to PB anyway? Seems a waste of a journey to me.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,142
    edited January 9

    @DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,051
    DavidL said:



    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.

    If it's a business decision driven by customer demand, yes. If it's a political decision driven by a loud, vocal minority who are causing trouble, no.

    The latter are far more damaging and wide-reaching. And in this case it wasn't customers - it was Virgin Trains and their employees.

    We know that, because they've told us.
    That's also quite normal. One of the titbits in Fire & Fury is that three of the most prestigious law firms turned down the opportunity to defend President Trump in the Mueller investigations because, among other reasons "All of them were afraid they would face a rebellion among the younger staff if they represented Trump". In a people business, you have to take note of your people.
    It makes me glad I don't have any staff tbh. A law firm turning down the chance to represent the POTUS? Wow. Virtue signalling at its most extreme.
    To be fair, they also mentioned that they were "afraid Trump would publicly humiliate them if the going got tough, and afraid Trump would stiff them for the bill".
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,879



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,442
    DavidL said:



    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.

    If it's a business decision driven by customer demand, yes. If it's a political decision driven by a loud, vocal minority who are causing trouble, no.

    The latter are far more damaging and wide-reaching. And in this case it wasn't customers - it was Virgin Trains and their employees.

    We know that, because they've told us.
    That's also quite normal. One of the titbits in Fire & Fury is that three of the most prestigious law firms turned down the opportunity to defend President Trump in the Mueller investigations because, among other reasons "All of them were afraid they would face a rebellion among the younger staff if they represented Trump". In a people business, you have to take note of your people.
    It makes me glad I don't have any staff tbh. A law firm turning down the chance to represent the POTUS? Wow. Virtue signalling at its most extreme.
    Law firms can decide who they want to represent, rail companies can decide which papers they want sell.
    What's the problem?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,516

    Nigelb said:



    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

    If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

    Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

    There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
    Of course they are allowed.
    But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

    The article makes a good point. It might not be a coincidence that the FT, Mirror and the Times are all pro-Remain newspapers, and Branson is the suzerain of Virgin and a very strong Remainer.

    So it risks ending up being an unhealthy reinforcement of the divisions caused in our country by Brexit.

    Lovely.
    The BBC gives the real reason:

    "The Mail has recently been critical of Sir Richard after the government agreed to bail out the Virgin/Stagecoach East Coast franchise"

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,879

    DavidL said:



    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.

    If it's a business decision driven by customer demand, yes. If it's a political decision driven by a loud, vocal minority who are causing trouble, no.

    The latter are far more damaging and wide-reaching. And in this case it wasn't customers - it was Virgin Trains and their employees.

    We know that, because they've told us.
    That's also quite normal. One of the titbits in Fire & Fury is that three of the most prestigious law firms turned down the opportunity to defend President Trump in the Mueller investigations because, among other reasons "All of them were afraid they would face a rebellion among the younger staff if they represented Trump". In a people business, you have to take note of your people.
    It makes me glad I don't have any staff tbh. A law firm turning down the chance to represent the POTUS? Wow. Virtue signalling at its most extreme.
    To be fair, they also mentioned that they were "afraid Trump would publicly humiliate them if the going got tough, and afraid Trump would stiff them for the bill".
    The last point seems extremely sound but even the bar has heard of payments to account.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 303
    Sean_F said:

    dixiedean said:

    Stop Funding Hate ought to be celebrated by all right-leaning and thinking folk. They are causing companies to look at a cost benefit analysis of the impact of the products they stock.
    What could be more free market?
    As ever, others are free to organise, campaign and boycott as they wish.

    Two can play at that game.

    I don't think we would benefit from being a society where Conservatives organised boycotts of any company that was linked to the left, and vice versa.
    Or perhaps boycotted EU goods...

    With Christmas dinner, Grandpa Fox objected to my choice of Fleurie as the wine, as too French. I pointed that his preferred Argentine Malbec was no great respecter of British sovereignty!

  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,813
    edited January 9

    Nigelb said:



    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.
    ....

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
    Of course they are allowed.
    But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

    Presumably they've looked carefully at their customer base and decided what best matches them. If they've got it wrong, I expect they'll rethink.
    Daily Mail sales seem to be 70 per day (Guardian report quoting a Mail statement).

    I think they will end up carrying freesheets and perhaps bulk copies in restaurant cars.

    The stuff about the "Fascist Daily Mail must be banned in 2018 because something something 193x" is just funny. Bankrupt minds howling abuse. Life is more complicated. Here is the Daily Mirror from 1934 (if the embed works):

    image

    There is a backstory to that as well.

    But if you want real appeasement, look in the Peace Pledge Union magazine for that period.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,879

    DavidL said:



    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.

    If it's a business decision driven by customer demand, yes. If it's a political decision driven by a loud, vocal minority who are causing trouble, no.

    The latter are far more damaging and wide-reaching. And in this case it wasn't customers - it was Virgin Trains and their employees.

    We know that, because they've told us.
    That's also quite normal. One of the titbits in Fire & Fury is that three of the most prestigious law firms turned down the opportunity to defend President Trump in the Mueller investigations because, among other reasons "All of them were afraid they would face a rebellion among the younger staff if they represented Trump". In a people business, you have to take note of your people.
    It makes me glad I don't have any staff tbh. A law firm turning down the chance to represent the POTUS? Wow. Virtue signalling at its most extreme.
    Law firms can decide who they want to represent, rail companies can decide which papers they want sell.
    What's the problem?
    No problem, it just seems a curious business decision to me. But I take Alastair's points about Trump wanting to dump on someone else and not pay his bills. Its what children do.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,399
    Essexit said:

    Jonathan said:

    She could be very good, certainly better than Trump.

    But it's a bit sad isn't it that to succeed in politics you have to be more than good on TV, you have to come from it.

    Wonder what that means for UK politics 10-15 years hence.

    Kilroy to return?

    In America a celebrity like Trump or Winfrey can just throw their hat in the ring (at a convenient four-year interval) and they're away. Over here they'd have to get elected and serve as an MP then wait for a leadership election to come up.

    I won't be putting any money on Prime Minister Bradley Walsh. Yet.
    You don't have to be an MP top be PM.

    You just need the party with a majority in the Commons to select you as their leader, as was Lord Home as PM but not MP.

    Easier to get 300odd MPs to vote for you than the populace as a whole.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,142
    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    Thank you for that image...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,589



    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.

    If it's a business decision driven by customer demand, yes. If it's a political decision driven by a loud, vocal minority who are causing trouble, no.

    The latter are far more damaging and wide-reaching. And in this case it wasn't customers - it was Virgin Trains and their employees.

    We know that, because they've told us.
    That's also quite normal. One of the titbits in Fire & Fury is that three of the most prestigious law firms turned down the opportunity to defend President Trump in the Mueller investigations because, among other reasons "All of them were afraid they would face a rebellion among the younger staff if they represented Trump". In a people business, you have to take note of your people.
    I'd then argue those law firms need to grow a pair of bollocks, and would avoid them like the plague in the future.

    In the same way many Chambers have to explain to newly qualified staff why it's so important to offer defence services to clients that look 100% guilty.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,589
    Sean_F said:

    Nigelb said:



    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

    I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

    Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

    If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

    Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

    There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
    Of course they are allowed.
    But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

    The article makes a good point. It might not be a coincidence that the FT, Mirror and the Times are all pro-Remain newspapers, and Branson is the suzerain of Virgin and a very strong Remainer.

    So it risks ending up being an unhealthy reinforcement of the divisions caused in our country by Brexit.

    Lovely.
    The BBC gives the real reason:

    "The Mail has recently been critical of Sir Richard after the government agreed to bail out the Virgin/Stagecoach East Coast franchise"

    Ah.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,618
    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 303
    MattW said:

    Nigelb said:



    Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.
    ....

    They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

    They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

    Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

    True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
    Of course they are allowed.
    But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

    Presumably they've looked carefully at their customer base and decided what best matches them. If they've got it wrong, I expect they'll rethink.
    Daily Mail sales seem to be 70 per day (Guardian report).

    I think they will end up carrying freesheets and perhaps bulk copies in restaurant cars.

    The stuff about the "Fascist Daily Mail must be banned in 2018 because something something 193x" is just funny. Bankrupt minds howling abuse. Life is more complicated. Here is the Daily Mirror from 1934 (if the embed works):

    image

    There is a backstory to that as well.

    But if you want real appeasement, look in the Peace Pledge Union magazine for that period.
    Did Viscount Rothmere really write for the Mirror?

    As far as the PPU, there is a world of difference between appeasment (Then government policy, and seen as settling legitimate greivences from the treaty of Versailles) and active cheerleading for fascists in this country.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,851
    MattW said:

    The stuff about the "Fascist Daily Mail must be banned in 2018 because something something 193x" is just funny. Bankrupt minds howling abuse.

  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,399
    "The Football Association will interview at least one applicant from a black, Asian and minority ethnic background for future roles in the England set-up."

    Should it be "from a black, Asian OR minority ethnic background" or will they be interviewing at least one black, one asian and one of minority ethnic background?

    What about one woman, one disabled, one gay and one transgender?

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 18,174

    The article makes a good point. It might not be a coincidence that the FT, Mirror and the Times are all pro-Remain newspapers, and Branson is the suzerain of Virgin and a very strong Remainer.

    (Snip)

    Virgin only own 10% of East Coast; Stagecoach own 90%, and a quick check indicates that Brian Souter is a weathervane on EU independence: warning about it before the referendum, and afterwards saying it isn't that big a deal.

    I'm not a party to the internal workings of East Coast, but I doubt their 10% gain Virgin (yet alone Branson) that much say ...
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,277
    Some interesting junior ministerial appointments: Robert Jenrick, Kit Malthouse, Oliver Dowden, Lucy Frazer, and Rishi Sunak.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/09/reshuffle-government-tory-cabinet-theresa-may-not-quite-says-new-tory-chair-when-asked-about-party-being-in-a-mess-politics-live

    15:06
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,879
    Scott_P said:

    MattW said:

    The stuff about the "Fascist Daily Mail must be banned in 2018 because something something 193x" is just funny. Bankrupt minds howling abuse.

    And the Islington Gazette. Schizophrenia?
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 6,803
    edited January 9
    murali_s said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

    A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

    I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

    Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...
    ...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

    You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?
    You post about so much hate but all you do is come on here with your vile hatred for anything right-wing .

    You have so much hatred in your heart my lefty friend.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,813

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    Thank you for that image...
    From the reports I have seen there were not that many LBDs, except for one very contrarian bright red one.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 303

    Essexit said:

    Jonathan said:

    She could be very good, certainly better than Trump.

    But it's a bit sad isn't it that to succeed in politics you have to be more than good on TV, you have to come from it.

    Wonder what that means for UK politics 10-15 years hence.

    Kilroy to return?

    In America a celebrity like Trump or Winfrey can just throw their hat in the ring (at a convenient four-year interval) and they're away. Over here they'd have to get elected and serve as an MP then wait for a leadership election to come up.

    I won't be putting any money on Prime Minister Bradley Walsh. Yet.
    You don't have to be an MP top be PM.

    You just need the party with a majority in the Commons to select you as their leader, as was Lord Home as PM but not MP.

    Easier to get 300odd MPs to vote for you than the populace as a whole.
    I would not back Oprah, indeed will not be backing anyone with more than penny longshots until the primaries start. Oprah doesnt need just the voters, she needs the Primaries to go her way. I will save my stakes for then.

    Indeed, for both parties, the way for a candidate to emerge is via the Primary process. It has evolved as a way of testing out potential candidates in the field. Generally it produces two reasonable candidates, with 2016 the obvious exception.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 779
    Nicholas Soames is continuing to tweet his frustration with the reshuffle. I'd always seen him as a loyalist however he's openly concerned over Brexit so I wonder if he has contributed his thoughts to Graham Brady's safe or is planning to do so?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,879
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:



    @ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

    @Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?
    What does it matter what they wear?
    Ask the Daily Mail. It seems to think that it does. And tens of millions of internet users seem to agree.

    But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,277
    DavidL said:

    But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.

    Clearly you need to do more on-line research.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,095
    DavidL said:

    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

    A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

    I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

    Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...
    ...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

    You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?
    I'm afraid it is a newspaper. If it were a Nazi rag (it isn't) it would fall foul of a number of pieces of anti-discrimination and anti-terrorist legislation.

    Since it doesn't, and fully complies with the law, it's an attempt to close down public argument of a point-of-view it doesn't agree with.

    I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.
    Then we need to tighten our legislation.

    The Daily Mail is nothing more than a medium to spread hate. It should be banned at source...

    It's a despicable racist publication - period.
    Someone linked to their website yesterday. It's pretty much just soft porn. From my brief perusal there did not seem to be any discrimination as to colour in the endless photographs of women looking "fit" in bikinis, underwear, barely there dresses or whatever kissing whoever with suggestive looks (I've a nasty feeling I was supposed to know who these people were).

    I have read on here that it is one of the most visited websites on the web. That is truly depressing. But I don't see how anyone can take the political views of such a publication seriously let alone get wound up about them.
    The articles are clearly not proofread and the quality of the reporting definitely 'iffy', but the Mail wins out on SHEER VOLUME of freely accesible content whereas an FT, Telegraph or Times link is completely inaccesible to 99% of the population.
    The only other site that comes close is the Grauniad ;)
This discussion has been closed.