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

124»

Comments

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,480
    Story on the news - snow in ski resort. I must be missing something.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 247
    Alistair said:

    kle4 said:

    Oh god, another Roy Moore?!

    Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of criminal contempt and later pardoned by Donald Trump, will run as a Republican to replace retiring Senator Jeff Flake.

    The 85-year-old was found guilty of violating a 2011 order to stop detaining migrants.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42624410

    Will they learn?

    No. No. No.

    Lay all day every day.
    This could tip the balance, giving the Democrats one of the two seats they need to control the senate.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,497

    Story on the news - snow in ski resort. I must be missing something.

    These days nobody is sure the Pope is a Catholic and there are too few bears left to shit in the woods. So 'snow in a ski resort' is the only thing they can add to 'May screws up reshuffle.'

    (Yes, I am still fuming.)
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,033

    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.
    Virgin refusing to stock the Mail for commercial reasons alone is a sound business move. They weren't making any money from the sales of it I'm sure and most commuters who want one can (and probably do) get it from the station before boarding anyway.

    But even if it were just a boycott as a free business they're free to do that too. Just like Liverpool newsagents have been free as a business to boycot The Sun for decades now.

    A right to free speech is not the same as a right for other commercial companies to have to carry your speech. There's also a big difference between commercial companies making commercial decisions and eg universities where free speech is supposed to be protected.
    Delurking for a minute .....

    From my position of complete ignorance of the matter (except for what I've read here on PB) there's one thing that does strike me as a bit of a concern.

    If Virgin has indeed declared the Daily Mail to be out of line with its values, what happens to any Virgin employees who like to read the Daily Mail?

    Good evening, everybody.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,691
    Good to see the Mayor of Liverpool has got his priorities right:

    https://tinyurl.com/ycf4q572

    The mayor of Liverpool has asked police to investigate whether Ross Barkley’s cut-price transfer from Everton to Chelsea constitutes fraud.

    Anderson has now written to the FA chairman, Greg Clarke, and the Premier League executive chairman, Richard Scudamore – in an official capacity and using mayor of Liverpool headed paper – alleging the transfer “could be seen as a deliberate attempt to drive down a player’s value in the transfer market so as to benefit the player, his agent and the buying club”. And he claims to have contacted “the appropriate police authorities” with a request they investigate the deal for fraud.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,497
    Sean_F said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Sean_F said:



    Try to persuade not to post pictures of their private parts on social media.

    That's actually quite a low risk thing to do, given the extent to which one thing looks like another. Much more important, if your wife shops you for dishonesty over speeding points and you want to have a chat with your son about it, do it face to face and not by bloody text. And if you are planning to poison your spouse refrain from googling "best way to poison your spouse".
    As Richard Dreyfus put it "I got that beat."

    A firm I worked for had a client called Ken Richardson who owned Doncaster Rovers, and its ground. He wanted to sell the ground to a supermarket, for an enormous profit, but the council would not grant planning permission.

    So, he decided to force the council's hand by burning down the football stadium. He hired an arsonist who claimed to be ex-SAS. He and his mooks got themselves filmed on CCTV, filling up jerry cans with petrol at a local petrol station. Better still, one of them left his mobile phone behind in a rucksack at the stadium. Then he topped it off by leaving a message on Richardson's answer phone "I've done that job for you, Ken."

    I've just read this article on that. His acolyte really is one for the Book of Heroic Failures:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ex-owner-of-doncaster-rovers-jailed-for-arson-plot-1078635.html
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 862

    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.
    Virgin refusing to stock the Mail for commercial reasons alone is a sound business move. They weren't making any money from the sales of it I'm sure and most commuters who want one can (and probably do) get it from the station before boarding anyway.

    But even if it were just a boycott as a free business they're free to do that too. Just like Liverpool newsagents have been free as a business to boycot The Sun for decades now.

    A right to free speech is not the same as a right for other commercial companies to have to carry your speech. There's also a big difference between commercial companies making commercial decisions and eg universities where free speech is supposed to be protected.
    Deciding not to stock a product for business reasons, fine. Deciding not to stock it for political reasons is opening up a whole can of worms.

    They have said it is because the paper is not in line with their "values" - which causes us to ask the question - what are their values in the first place? As a company they certainly aren't universally loved, and moreover they run the risk of being interpreted as "those of our customers who read the Mail aren't in line with our values, either". Now it seems strange to me that p***ing off 6 million potential customers by implying that they are wrong for their choice of paper would seem like a good idea to them. On top of that they have annoyed people like me who would never buy a copy of the daily mail, but would defend to the death your right to do so, and so forth. It seems to me as if they have quite needlessly waded into a political debate when their job is to move passengers from A to B, not to pass comment on their choice of reading material.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,007

    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.
    Virgin refusing to stock the Mail for commercial reasons alone is a sound business move. They weren't making any money from the sales of it I'm sure and most commuters who want one can (and probably do) get it from the station before boarding anyway.

    But even if it were just a boycott as a free business they're free to do that too. Just like Liverpool newsagents have been free as a business to boycot The Sun for decades now.

    A right to free speech is not the same as a right for other commercial companies to have to carry your speech. There's also a big difference between commercial companies making commercial decisions and eg universities where free speech is supposed to be protected.
    At a moral level, if not a legal one, I think one can fairly criticise a monopolist for not providing a platform for views its owner disagrees with.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 503
    Sean_F said:

    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.
    Virgin refusing to stock the Mail for commercial reasons alone is a sound business move. They weren't making any money from the sales of it I'm sure and most commuters who want one can (and probably do) get it from the station before boarding anyway.

    But even if it were just a boycott as a free business they're free to do that too. Just like Liverpool newsagents have been free as a business to boycot The Sun for decades now.

    A right to free speech is not the same as a right for other commercial companies to have to carry your speech. There's also a big difference between commercial companies making commercial decisions and eg universities where free speech is supposed to be protected.
    At a moral level, if not a legal one, I think one can fairly criticise a monopolist for not providing a platform for views its owner disagrees with.
    My Virgin active gym was still stocking the Mail for gym members to read this evening. Seems it's not s Virgin brand wide policy!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 26,029
    edited January 9
    kyf_100 said:

    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.
    Virgin refusing to stock the Mail for commercial reasons alone is a sound business move. They weren't making any money from the sales of it I'm sure and most commuters who want one can (and probably do) get it from the station before boarding anyway.

    But even if it were just a boycott as a free business they're free to do that too. Just like Liverpool newsagents have been free as a business to boycot The Sun for decades now.

    A right to free speech is not the same as a right for other commercial companies to have to carry your speech. There's also a big difference between commercial companies making commercial decisions and eg universities where free speech is supposed to be protected.
    Deciding not to stock a product for business reasons, fine. Deciding not to stock it for political reasons is opening up a whole can of worms.

    They have said it is because the paper is not in line with their "values" - which causes us to ask the question - what are their values in the first place? As a company they certainly aren't universally loved, and moreover they run the risk of being interpreted as "those of our customers who read the Mail aren't in line with our values, either". Now it seems strange to me that p***ing off 6 million potential customers by implying that they are wrong for their choice of paper would seem like a good idea to them. On top of that they have annoyed people like me who would never buy a copy of the daily mail, but would defend to the death your right to do so, and so forth. It seems to me as if they have quite needlessly waded into a political debate when their job is to move passengers from A to B, not to pass comment on their choice of reading material.
    And the Mirror values obviously are....cos they are one of the good guys...from faking stories about soldiers to a level of phone hacking that made News of the World look like part time amateurs...
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 862
    kle4 said:

    Oh god, another Roy Moore?!

    Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of criminal contempt and later pardoned by Donald Trump, will run as a Republican to replace retiring Senator Jeff Flake.

    The 85-year-old was found guilty of violating a 2011 order to stop detaining migrants.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42624410

    Will they learn?

    That would be Joe "Tent City" Arpaio, who created a prison in the middle of the desert made of tents where the convicts (many of them migrants) were forced to wear pink.

    https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/aug/21/arizona-phoenix-concentration-camp-tent-city-jail-joe-arpaio-immigration

    One imagines he'll play well with the Trump supporting crowd.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 26,029
    edited January 9
    brendan16 said:

    Sean_F said:

    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.
    Virgin refusing to stock the Mail for commercial reasons alone is a sound business move. They weren't making any money from the sales of it I'm sure and most commuters who want one can (and probably do) get it from the station before boarding anyway.

    But even if it were just a boycott as a free business they're free to do that too. Just like Liverpool newsagents have been free as a business to boycot The Sun for decades now.

    A right to free speech is not the same as a right for other commercial companies to have to carry your speech. There's also a big difference between commercial companies making commercial decisions and eg universities where free speech is supposed to be protected.
    At a moral level, if not a legal one, I think one can fairly criticise a monopolist for not providing a platform for views its owner disagrees with.
    My Virgin active gym was still stocking the Mail for gym members to read this evening. Seems it's not s Virgin brand wide policy!
    Virgin Active is 80% owned by Christo Wiese. Virgin is like Trump, most of the companies carrying the brand name aren't controlled by beardy Branson.

    In fact, what does he actually own a controlling stake in these days? e.g. Virgin Atlantic isn't his anymore, he is again a minority shareholder.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,007
    kyf_100 said:

    kle4 said:

    Oh god, another Roy Moore?!

    Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of criminal contempt and later pardoned by Donald Trump, will run as a Republican to replace retiring Senator Jeff Flake.

    The 85-year-old was found guilty of violating a 2011 order to stop detaining migrants.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42624410

    Will they learn?

    That would be Joe "Tent City" Arpaio, who created a prison in the middle of the desert made of tents where the convicts (many of them migrants) were forced to wear pink.

    https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/aug/21/arizona-phoenix-concentration-camp-tent-city-jail-joe-arpaio-immigration

    One imagines he'll play well with the Trump supporting crowd.

    Joe Arpaio is thoroughly corrupt and dishonest, which is why he ended up losing an election in a solidly Republican area.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,691

    brendan16 said:

    Sean_F said:

    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.
    Virgin refusing to stock the Mail for commercial reasons alone is a sound business move. They weren't making any money from the sales of it I'm sure and most commuters who want one can (and probably do) get it from the station before boarding anyway.

    But even if it were just a boycott as a free business they're free to do that too. Just like Liverpool newsagents have been free as a business to boycot The Sun for decades now.

    A right to free speech is not the same as a right for other commercial companies to have to carry your speech. There's also a big difference between commercial companies making commercial decisions and eg universities where free speech is supposed to be protected.
    At a moral level, if not a legal one, I think one can fairly criticise a monopolist for not providing a platform for views its owner disagrees with.
    My Virgin active gym was still stocking the Mail for gym members to read this evening. Seems it's not s Virgin brand wide policy!
    Virgin Active is 80% owned by Christo Wiese. Virgin is like Trump, most of the companies carrying the brand name aren't controlled by beardy Branson.

    In fact, what does he actually own and control these days? e.g. Virgin Atlantic isn't his anymore, he is again a minority shareholder.
    And VTWC is 51:49 Virgin:Stagecoach, while VTEC is 10:90 Virgin:Stagecoach
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 26,029
    edited January 9
    tlg86 said:

    brendan16 said:

    Sean_F said:

    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.
    Virgin refusing to stock the Mail for commercial reasons alone is a sound business move. They weren't making any money from the sales of it I'm sure and most commuters who want one can (and probably do) get it from the station before boarding anyway.

    But even if it were just a boycott as a free business they're free to do that too. Just like Liverpool newsagents have been free as a business to boycot The Sun for decades now.

    A right to free speech is not the same as a right for other commercial companies to have to carry your speech. There's also a big difference between commercial companies making commercial decisions and eg universities where free speech is supposed to be protected.
    At a moral level, if not a legal one, I think one can fairly criticise a monopolist for not providing a platform for views its owner disagrees with.
    My Virgin active gym was still stocking the Mail for gym members to read this evening. Seems it's not s Virgin brand wide policy!
    Virgin Active is 80% owned by Christo Wiese. Virgin is like Trump, most of the companies carrying the brand name aren't controlled by beardy Branson.

    In fact, what does he actually own and control these days? e.g. Virgin Atlantic isn't his anymore, he is again a minority shareholder.
    And VTWC is 51:49 Virgin:Stagecoach, while VTEC is 10:90 Virgin:Stagecoach
    Virgin Media is probably the best example. He is all over the advertising and promoting the brand, but Liberty Global own it and he simply licenses himself / the brand.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 503
    edited January 9
    Alistair said:

    Only on PB could a private business stopping stocking a badly selling newspaper be a sign of oppression.
    Oddly the Guardian do not exactly draw attention to the fact that Virgin trains don't stock the Guardian either and haven't for years. Do Virgin trains find their opinions offensive - or was that a commercial decision as no one bought it at all?

    My point being its a commercial decision dressed up as preaching and being high minded. Does Virgin trains think its travellers who read the Mail are racists and homophobes?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,001
    Sean_F said:


    At a moral level, if not a legal one, I think one can fairly criticise a monopolist for not providing a platform for views its owner disagrees with.

    I think that's right - it's a small example of the considerable problems in having public services run by unelected monopolists. But it's a minefield. Given that maybe 30% of the electorate really like Corbyn, should they in fact carry the Morning Star, as the only reliably pro-Corbyn paper? Given that some similar proportion are really strongly anti-EU, should they carry the Express, as the only paper near UKIP?

    Better, surely, to save a few bob and not offer any newspapers.

    But, as I said earlier, as a monopoly they can Do Whatever They Like. Is there even one passenger who is dependent on them who will no longer use them?
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 615
    kyf_100 said:

    kle4 said:

    Oh god, another Roy Moore?!

    Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of criminal contempt and later pardoned by Donald Trump, will run as a Republican to replace retiring Senator Jeff Flake.

    The 85-year-old was found guilty of violating a 2011 order to stop detaining migrants.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42624410

    Will they learn?

    That would be Joe "Tent City" Arpaio, who created a prison in the middle of the desert made of tents where the convicts (many of them migrants) were forced to wear pink.

    https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/aug/21/arizona-phoenix-concentration-camp-tent-city-jail-joe-arpaio-immigration

    One imagines he'll play well with the Trump supporting crowd.

    In 2016 he lost re-election as Sheriff of Maricopa County, which has 60% of the population of the state, by a margin of 11 percentage points. However on the same day Maricopa County voted for Trump by a 3 point margin, and the state as a whole by a a 4 point margin.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,007
    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Sean_F said:



    Try to persuade not to post pictures of their private parts on social media.

    That's actually quite a low risk thing to do, given the extent to which one thing looks like another. Much more important, if your wife shops you for dishonesty over speeding points and you want to have a chat with your son about it, do it face to face and not by bloody text. And if you are planning to poison your spouse refrain from googling "best way to poison your spouse".
    As Richard Dreyfus put it "I got that beat."

    A firm I worked for had a client called Ken Richardson who owned Doncaster Rovers, and its ground. He wanted to sell the ground to a supermarket, for an enormous profit, but the council would not grant planning permission.

    So, he decided to force the council's hand by burning down the football stadium. He hired an arsonist who claimed to be ex-SAS. He and his mooks got themselves filmed on CCTV, filling up jerry cans with petrol at a local petrol station. Better still, one of them left his mobile phone behind in a rucksack at the stadium. Then he topped it off by leaving a message on Richardson's answer phone "I've done that job for you, Ken."

    I've just read this article on that. His acolyte really is one for the Book of Heroic Failures:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ex-owner-of-doncaster-rovers-jailed-for-arson-plot-1078635.html
    Look up Flockton Grey, as well.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,230
    edited January 9
    A PPP poll last March had Oprah Winfrey leading Trump 47% to 40% in a hypothetical 2020 poll.

    White votes preferred Trump 50% to 38% but Winfrey won Hispanic voters 57% to 23% and Black voters 86% to 3%.


    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_31517.pdf
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 9,536
    Sean_F said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Sean_F said:



    Try to persuade not to post pictures of their private parts on social media.

    That's actually quite a low risk thing to do, given the extent to which one thing looks like another. Much more important, if your wife shops you for dishonesty over speeding points and you want to have a chat with your son about it, do it face to face and not by bloody text. And if you are planning to poison your spouse refrain from googling "best way to poison your spouse".
    As Richard Dreyfus put it "I got that beat."

    A firm I worked for had a client called Ken Richardson who owned Doncaster Rovers, and its ground. He wanted to sell the ground to a supermarket, for an enormous profit, but the council would not grant planning permission.

    So, he decided to force the council's hand by burning down the football stadium. He hired an arsonist who claimed to be ex-SAS. He and his mooks got themselves filmed on CCTV, filling up jerry cans with petrol at a local petrol station. Better still, one of them left his mobile phone behind in a rucksack at the stadium. Then he topped it off by leaving a message on Richardson's answer phone "I've done that job for you, Ken."

    The arsonist didn't just claim to be ex-SAS, he WAS ex-SAS.

    It is to be hoped that our special forces are normally more competent than he proved to be.

    Given that Doncaster council was riddled with corruption re planning permission issues Ken Richardson must have thought he was pushing on an open door in staging the fire.

    The ground has now been redeveloped as upmarket housing - it was on a very valuable piece of real estate.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,480
    The only newspapers available on Northern trains are discarded copies of the Metro left behind by other passengers.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 862

    Sean_F said:


    At a moral level, if not a legal one, I think one can fairly criticise a monopolist for not providing a platform for views its owner disagrees with.

    I think that's right - it's a small example of the considerable problems in having public services run by unelected monopolists. But it's a minefield. Given that maybe 30% of the electorate really like Corbyn, should they in fact carry the Morning Star, as the only reliably pro-Corbyn paper? Given that some similar proportion are really strongly anti-EU, should they carry the Express, as the only paper near UKIP?

    Better, surely, to save a few bob and not offer any newspapers.

    But, as I said earlier, as a monopoly they can Do Whatever They Like. Is there even one passenger who is dependent on them who will no longer use them?
    The thing is, even though they are separate / franchised / sold off or whatever, it does the Virgin brand as a whole harm.

    Perhaps if as a commuter I have no choice but to use Virgin Trains, I may still reconsider a Virgin gym membership or Virgin broadband.

    It has been noted downthread that copies of the Daily Mail are still available in Virgin gyms, but the average punter probably isn't going to pick up on that distinction.

    VT had the option of quietly retiring the Daily Mail on grounds of "it doesn't sell enough, so we're not stocking it any more".

    Instead they chose to score brownie points with the PC crowd and wade into a political argument when their business is running trains.

    As I said earlier, I don't want any brand - whether it be a train operating company or a brand of breakfast cereal - passing judgement on people's political opinions.

    Brands should stay well out of politics, they will invariably offend as many people as they please. Six million people read the Mail online or in print, that is an awful lot of potential customers to blow a raspberry at and tell them that they're guilty of wrongthink.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 26,029
    edited January 9
    “Players are always throwing matches because they’ve got a flight to catch and need to get to the next tournament, and the prize money they’ll make from winning won’t cover the cost of changing their flight,” she says.

    ...

    The lack of security around the court leads to greater opportunities for corrupt behaviour – reports in 2016 claimed umpires at Futures events were colluding with betting syndicates to cheat odds for personal gain – while players are also regularly asked to make their own line calls due to the lack of independent judges.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2018/01/09/truth-behind-pro-tennis-away-elite-cheating-claims-financial/
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 26,029
    edited January 9
    Man City 0-1 Bristol City (HT)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,543
    Wikipedia disowned the Mail as no longer an authoritative source of reliable news. Those companies that are taking a similar position deserve respect for trying to put some ethics into their businesses.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 26,029
    edited January 9
    IanB2 said:

    Wikipedia disowned the Mail as no longer an authoritative source of reliable news.

    That was Guardian FAKE NEWS....
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,691

    Man City 0-1 Bristol City (HT)

    It's their Middlesbrough.

    They've had their Pires moment (Kompany should have been sent off at Leicester)
    They've had their Van Nistlerooy moment (Palace away)

    So they are going to go unbeaten all season but they'll lose to Man Utd in the Champions League Quarter Final and lose to Chelsea in the FA Cup Semi Final.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,543

    IanB2 said:

    Wikipedia disowned the Mail as no longer an authoritative source of reliable news.

    That was Guardian FAKE NEWS....
    No, it's Wikipedia policy
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,396
    edited January 9
    RoyalBlue said:
    One day it is one thing, the next day the opposite. Corbyn`s Labour is as bad as May`s Conservatives. Nether one thing nor the other. Desperate times for the country.

    Why don`t Labour and the Conservatives just merge? Instead of pretending they are different.

    It would save the rest of us a lot of time.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,547
    Sean_F said:

    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.
    Virgin refusing to stock the Mail for commercial reasons alone is a sound business move. They weren't making any money from the sales of it I'm sure and most commuters who want one can (and probably do) get it from the station before boarding anyway.

    But even if it were just a boycott as a free business they're free to do that too. Just like Liverpool newsagents have been free as a business to boycot The Sun for decades now.

    A right to free speech is not the same as a right for other commercial companies to have to carry your speech. There's also a big difference between commercial companies making commercial decisions and eg universities where free speech is supposed to be protected.
    At a moral level, if not a legal one, I think one can fairly criticise a monopolist for not providing a platform for views its owner disagrees with.
    Except Virgin isn't a monopolist in the supply of newspapers. If you can buy the paper at a WH Smiths at the station while waiting for your train to arrive then you're not exactly being prevented from buying your paper and taking it onto the train now are you?
  • tlg86 said:

    Good to see the Mayor of Liverpool has got his priorities right:

    https://tinyurl.com/ycf4q572

    The mayor of Liverpool has asked police to investigate whether Ross Barkley’s cut-price transfer from Everton to Chelsea constitutes fraud.

    Anderson has now written to the FA chairman, Greg Clarke, and the Premier League executive chairman, Richard Scudamore – in an official capacity and using mayor of Liverpool headed paper – alleging the transfer “could be seen as a deliberate attempt to drive down a player’s value in the transfer market so as to benefit the player, his agent and the buying club”. And he claims to have contacted “the appropriate police authorities” with a request they investigate the deal for fraud.

    Didn't Liverpool sell Fernando Torres to Chelsea for £50m?

    Now if that isn't fraud......
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 26,029
    edited January 9
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Wikipedia disowned the Mail as no longer an authoritative source of reliable news.

    That was Guardian FAKE NEWS....
    No, it's Wikipedia policy
    No it isn't,

    https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/04/20/1346254/wikipedias-ban-of-the-daily-mail-didnt-really-happen

    Don't believe everything you read in the Guardian.

    It wasn't wikipedia, it was an volunteer editor on one sub-forum asked for discussion about how reliable was the Daily Mail (not open to all of wikipedias "editors"). Just 77 talked about, 2/3 said they aren't. Nothing to do with the Wikipedia foundation.

    And despite that little group, Daily Mail links are still allowed.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,105
    edited January 9
    PClipp said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    One day it is one thing, the next day the opposite. Corbyn`s Labour is as bad as May`s Conservatives. Nether one thing nor the other. Desperate times for the country.
    The people would surely turn en masse to the only party of Remain, if they had the chance...

    Oh wait, they did, and still the LDs lost...
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 862

    Sean_F said:

    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.
    Virgin refusing to stock the Mail for commercial reasons alone is a sound business move. They weren't making any money from the sales of it I'm sure and most commuters who want one can (and probably do) get it from the station before boarding anyway.

    But even if it were just a boycott as a free business they're free to do that too. Just like Liverpool newsagents have been free as a business to boycot The Sun for decades now.

    A right to free speech is not the same as a right for other commercial companies to have to carry your speech. There's also a big difference between commercial companies making commercial decisions and eg universities where free speech is supposed to be protected.
    At a moral level, if not a legal one, I think one can fairly criticise a monopolist for not providing a platform for views its owner disagrees with.
    Except Virgin isn't a monopolist in the supply of newspapers. If you can buy the paper at a WH Smiths at the station while waiting for your train to arrive then you're not exactly being prevented from buying your paper and taking it onto the train now are you?
    But you are being made to feel like a criminal for choosing to read it. In saying the Daily Mail is not compatible with their "values" (whatever those are) they have essentially said anyone who reads the Daily Mail isn't compatible with their "values" either. Now if I were a DM reader - why on earth would I want to give a company that clearly disdains me my hard earned cash?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,691

    tlg86 said:

    Good to see the Mayor of Liverpool has got his priorities right:

    https://tinyurl.com/ycf4q572

    The mayor of Liverpool has asked police to investigate whether Ross Barkley’s cut-price transfer from Everton to Chelsea constitutes fraud.

    Anderson has now written to the FA chairman, Greg Clarke, and the Premier League executive chairman, Richard Scudamore – in an official capacity and using mayor of Liverpool headed paper – alleging the transfer “could be seen as a deliberate attempt to drive down a player’s value in the transfer market so as to benefit the player, his agent and the buying club”. And he claims to have contacted “the appropriate police authorities” with a request they investigate the deal for fraud.

    Didn't Liverpool sell Fernando Torres to Chelsea for £50m?

    Now if that isn't fraud......
    I think Everton have done well to get £15 million for Barkley. He's very average.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,547
    kyf_100 said:

    Sean_F said:

    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.
    Virgin refusing to stock the Mail for commercial reasons alone is a sound business move. They weren't making any money from the sales of it I'm sure and most commuters who want one can (and probably do) get it from the station before boarding anyway.

    But even if it were just a boycott as a free business they're free to do that too. Just like Liverpool newsagents have been free as a business to boycot The Sun for decades now.

    A right to free speech is not the same as a right for other commercial companies to have to carry your speech. There's also a big difference between commercial companies making commercial decisions and eg universities where free speech is supposed to be protected.
    At a moral level, if not a legal one, I think one can fairly criticise a monopolist for not providing a platform for views its owner disagrees with.
    Except Virgin isn't a monopolist in the supply of newspapers. If you can buy the paper at a WH Smiths at the station while waiting for your train to arrive then you're not exactly being prevented from buying your paper and taking it onto the train now are you?
    But you are being made to feel like a criminal for choosing to read it. In saying the Daily Mail is not compatible with their "values" (whatever those are) they have essentially said anyone who reads the Daily Mail isn't compatible with their "values" either. Now if I were a DM reader - why on earth would I want to give a company that clearly disdains me my hard earned cash?
    Nonsense are you being made to feel like a criminal. The Mail chooses to make a big deal about its "values" being anti-immigration etc - it is how it makes money. It could choose to be more neutral on issues like migration and simply report the news without such a strong editorial slant (as is more common overseas) but it chooses to proudly beat its chest about where it stands.

    Why can't other companies do the same? Virgin have always projected a brand image about being eg modern, inclusive, progressive and hip. If Virgin want to cash in on dumping a failing (in their sales) product from their line and bag themselves some free publicity then why shouldn't they?

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander, the Mail isn't the only company allowed values.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 26,029
    edited January 9



    Nonsense are you being made to feel like a criminal. The Mail chooses to make a big deal about its "values" being anti-immigration etc - it is how it makes money. It could choose to be more neutral on issues like migration and simply report the news without such a strong editorial slant (as is more common overseas) but it chooses to proudly beat its chest about where it stands.

    Why can't other companies do the same? Virgin have always projected a brand image about being eg modern, inclusive, progressive and hip. If Virgin want to cash in on dumping a failing (in their sales) product from their line and bag themselves some free publicity then why shouldn't they?

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander, the Mail isn't the only company allowed values.

    I am totally against this harassing of businesses that don't do politics, and simply dare to run a promotion with the Mail e.g. Paperchase. Nobody should be harassing them via twitter for simply going about running their business via a promotion with another legal entity.

    PaperChase should be free to run promotions or advertising with anybody, be it like the Mail or the Mirror, without that a mob trying to ruin their business for doing so.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,547



    Nonsense are you being made to feel like a criminal. The Mail chooses to make a big deal about its "values" being anti-immigration etc - it is how it makes money. It could choose to be more neutral on issues like migration and simply report the news without such a strong editorial slant (as is more common overseas) but it chooses to proudly beat its chest about where it stands.

    Why can't other companies do the same? Virgin have always projected a brand image about being eg modern, inclusive, progressive and hip. If Virgin want to cash in on dumping a failing (in their sales) product from their line and bag themselves some free publicity then why shouldn't they?

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander, the Mail isn't the only company allowed values.

    I am totally against this harassing of businesses that don't do politics, and simply dare to run a promotion with the Mail e.g. Paperchase. Nobody should be harassing them via twitter for simply going about running their business via a promotion with another legal entity.
    Me too. I'm against Twitter harassment of all kinds.

    Virgin choosing to bag themselves some free publicity isn't harassment though - it's Public Relations.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,246
    I'm with Balfour: 'Nothing matters very much and few things matter at all'. The Virgin/Mail shenanigans are an example of the former.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 862


    Nonsense are you being made to feel like a criminal. The Mail chooses to make a big deal about its "values" being anti-immigration etc - it is how it makes money. It could choose to be more neutral on issues like migration and simply report the news without such a strong editorial slant (as is more common overseas) but it chooses to proudly beat its chest about where it stands.

    Why can't other companies do the same? Virgin have always projected a brand image about being eg modern, inclusive, progressive and hip. If Virgin want to cash in on dumping a failing (in their sales) product from their line and bag themselves some free publicity then why shouldn't they?

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander, the Mail isn't the only company allowed values.

    Yes, the Mail proudly beats its chest about where it stands on immigration. As do many of its readers.

    I'm not a DM reader myself nor do I approve of the way it frequently stirs the pot.

    Nonetheless, I don't think it good business sense to tell the six or so million readers of the Mail that they are in any way wrong for holding a political opinion that differs from mine, nor do I think it is the business of a train operating company to do so. They are, by proxy, passing judgement on their own customers which I think is an utterly moronic thing to do.

    The Mail has broken no laws and I find a plurality of opinions in the press to be a sign of a healthy, functioning democracy - attempting to silence the voices of those you disagree with is the polar opposite of that.

    I would have far more respect for Virgin if they came out and said "we don't agree with the editorial stance of the Mail, however we respect our customers right to choose that paper and read it on our trains if they choose to do so, however because of articles x, y and z (insert citations as required) we feel morally obliged to stop selling it".

    Instead what they have done with their cack-handed statement about "values" is make a value judgement about their customers and done it in a way that offends.

    The whole thing smacks of a cheap PR stunt to appease the PC crowd without any real thought that real people, people who actually use their product, might have views contrary to their own.

    When at work, I keep my political views to myself - as is polite and proper. I certainly don't go dangling my views or my political allegiances in my clients' faces.

    If those views involve attempting to stifle a free press, where all viewpoints are able to be represented, which is an essential ingredient of a functioning democracy, Virgin bloody well deserve to be called out on it. The Mail's brand of yellow journalism worries me far less than the extremists who would silence any voices of dissent.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 773
    The Daily Mail has the best Tabloid level coverage of medical issues. Not bad at all and far better than the Express, with its weekly trumpeting of miracle breakthroughs.

    My mother buys it, though usually just the Sunday.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,253
    kyf_100 said:


    Nonsense are you being made to feel like a criminal. The Mail chooses to make a big deal about its "values" being anti-immigration etc - it is how it makes money. It could choose to be more neutral on issues like migration and simply report the news without such a strong editorial slant (as is more common overseas) but it chooses to proudly beat its chest about where it stands.

    Why can't other companies do the same? Virgin have always projected a brand image about being eg modern, inclusive, progressive and hip. If Virgin want to cash in on dumping a failing (in their sales) product from their line and bag themselves some free publicity then why shouldn't they?

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander, the Mail isn't the only company allowed values.



    I would have far more respect for Virgin if they came out and said "we don't agree with the editorial stance of the Mail, however we respect our customers right to choose that paper and read it on our trains if they choose to do so, however because of articles x, y and z (insert citations as required) we feel morally obliged to stop selling it".

    Instead what they have done with their cack-handed statement about "values" is make a value judgement about their customers and done it in a way that offends.

    Sounds like a better PR statement if they had done it the way you suggest, frankly.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,673
    Could be a new thread out there by now. Try looking, you may be first...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 4,322
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Ooooh, you have skeletons. That sounds interesting.

    What are they? ;-)
    Well, of course I have. Doesn't everyone? If they've lived a full life. (Try anything once, except incest and folk-dancing, as someone once said.)

    But I am also old and wise enough not to answer such a question.

    Nice try, though. :)
    Oh, indeed. And such things seem to rule you out of public office.

    I'd much prefer if they didn't, but that's never going to happen.

    I'll ask again next time I see you after a few gin and tonics ;-)
    I suspect that I am of the generation that could have skeletons and still go into public office, precisely because social media did not exist for most of my life. My depravities are all stored in my memory not in some digital archive somewhere.

    And, having grown up at a time when most people understood the distinction between what is suitable for a private life / intimacy and what is suitable in public, I have never understood - let alone felt the need to - share banal, let alone intimate, details of my life with all and sundry.

    It is why I have spent a fair amount of my professional time in recent years trying to explain to (mostly) young men and women that what they put on chat, email and other media lasts, can be recovered and is usually read by lawyers, judges, regulators and self-appointed busybodies, all of whom are notorious for having no sense of humour and not much sympathy for human folly and frailty either.
    I think social media imprisons far more than it liberates.
    It too often seems to liberate things which should remain imprisoned.

    It is - or can be - a useful tool, provided you understand it and use it, rather than let it use you.

    It is worth remembering that 99% of what is in most peoples' heads is not worth making public.

    Opinions are like bottoms. Everyone has them. But it does not follow that all should be inspected. As someone once said.
    Aren't you forgetting the necessity of regular screening for bowel cancer ?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 26,029
    kle4 said:

    kyf_100 said:


    Nonsense are you being made to feel like a criminal. The Mail chooses to make a big deal about its "values" being anti-immigration etc - it is how it makes money. It could choose to be more neutral on issues like migration and simply report the news without such a strong editorial slant (as is more common overseas) but it chooses to proudly beat its chest about where it stands.

    Why can't other companies do the same? Virgin have always projected a brand image about being eg modern, inclusive, progressive and hip. If Virgin want to cash in on dumping a failing (in their sales) product from their line and bag themselves some free publicity then why shouldn't they?

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander, the Mail isn't the only company allowed values.



    I would have far more respect for Virgin if they came out and said "we don't agree with the editorial stance of the Mail, however we respect our customers right to choose that paper and read it on our trains if they choose to do so, however because of articles x, y and z (insert citations as required) we feel morally obliged to stop selling it".

    Instead what they have done with their cack-handed statement about "values" is make a value judgement about their customers and done it in a way that offends.

    Sounds like a better PR statement if they had done it the way you suggest, frankly.
    Or they could have just dropped it for the clear business reason that they sell bugger all newspapers these days, rather than going all PC buzzword bingo.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,895
    kle4 said:

    Oh god, another Roy Moore?!

    Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of criminal contempt and later pardoned by Donald Trump, will run as a Republican to replace retiring Senator Jeff Flake.

    The 85-year-old was found guilty of violating a 2011 order to stop detaining migrants.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42624410

    Will they learn?

    Given Arizona is trending Blue, with Trump taking it by a much narrower margin than in the recent past, Arpaio would be a bizarre choice from the Republicans.

    Still, they seem to be big on bizarre choices.
This discussion has been closed.