| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/26/2009 11:06:48 AM | According to this, yes it can
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2015163/Plastic-surgeon-Martin-Kelly-died-from-heart-condition.html
However, a post mortem at Chelsea And Westminster Hospital found that Mr Kelly died as a result of “dilated cardiomyopathy”.
A Scotland Yard spokesman added: “There will not be an inquest as he died as a result of natural causes.” | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/26/2009 11:13:00 AM |
Hmm........can a 'heart condition' be described as being 'natural'?
Heart conditions used to be natural. People used to die when their hearts stopped going boom boom, boom boom on a regular basis.
However since immigrants came and ate all our swans and disrespected out monarchy by causing interest rate disruptions in our housing market, they have become unnatural and can of course be attributed to all the above causes. There has been an increase in 'heart conditions' - mainly amongst Mail readers, who when they open said paper and read its accurate reportage of the above, get angry and outraged and sadly these heart conditions manifest as heart attacks.
For further information see: www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/ | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/26/2009 11:25:52 AM |
According to this, yes it can
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2015163/Plastic-surgeon-Martin-Kelly-died-from-heart-condition.html
However, a post mortem at Chelsea And Westminster Hospital found that Mr Kelly died as a result of “dilated cardiomyopathy”.
A Scotland Yard spokesman added: “There will not be an inquest as he died as a result of natural causes.”
The Telegraph lifted part of its piece from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilated_cardiomyopathy.
And it 'forgot' to include two references to the fact that DCM is a 'disease':
"DCM is one of the cardiomyopathies, a group of diseases that primarily affect the myocardium (the muscle of the heart)."
Obviously, the spokesman isn't medically trained......
So, can a 'disease' be considered to be 'natural'? | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/26/2009 11:31:25 AM |
So, can a 'disease' be considered to be 'natural'?
What else could it be called? It's not accidental death, drowning, murder, suicide, manslaughter or any other number of causes of death.
Wiki definition:
In medicine, death by natural causes is a loosely-defined term used by coroners describing death when the cause of death was a naturally occurring disease process, or is not apparent given medical history or circumstances. (It may also be described as death by "multiple organ failure".) Thus, deaths caused by active human intervention (as opposed to the failure of medical intervention to prevent death) are excluded from this definition, and are described as unnatural deaths | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/26/2009 11:35:20 AM | It's not an unnatural death such as suicide, I mentioned earlier in the thread the Motherwell captain Phil O'Donnell who died on the pitch at the age of 35. Fit, non smoker, suffered left ventricular failure of the heart. The only thing that could have possibly prevented it was screening.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2287752/Phil-ODonnell-died-of-heart-failure.html
If you are living with a heart condition you don't know you have and you die of it, I don't see how that death could be unnatural. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/28/2009 9:17:08 AM | sorry to roll this back to the beggining but...
peter hitchens?????????????
omfg the biggest arse hole in the press
i loathe that prat
his brother cris is a briliant journo
writes for vanity fair
peter is a zealous big mouthed pr!ck
surely one of ems the milkmans
and no suprise he writes for the uber zealous right wing christian rag
the daily wail
ok rant over
carry on
 | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 11/11/2009 7:16:27 AM | zeegary
<div class="quote">Defamation is where someone wrongly accuses another of misconduct that could affect their reputation.
<div class="quote">
Wrong again, that is slander, defemation is published, slander is spoken. you havent a clue. Very difficult to persue slander in court as it is heresay, defamation is easily proved. | |
|
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 11/11/2009 7:55:55 AM | Defamation - Elements of a Claim
Under Article 10(2) of the Convention, the protection of the reputation of others is a legitimate ground for restricting the right to freedom of expression. Libel and slander are legal claims that protect an individual’s reputation against defamation. An individual is defamed when a person publishes to a third party words or matter containing an untrue imputation against his or her reputation.
Libel and Slander
If the publication is in a permanent form (for example in a book, magazine or film), then the defamation is libel. It is slander if the publication is in a transient form (speech). Signs, gestures, photographs, pictures, statues, cartoons etc. can also give rise to a claim for defamation, but the most obvious types of defamatory statements are written or spoken words.
HTH
ps:
The principal practical difference between claims for libel and claims for slander is what a claimant must prove to succeed in his or her claim. In libel claims, the claimant does not have to prove that he or she has suffered loss or damage as a result of the publication. In contrast, in claims for slander, the claimant must prove actual damage. There are however several exceptions to the rule that actual damage must be proved in claims for slander. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 11/11/2009 8:03:40 AM |
Sorry, but I'm right.
There are no rules governing as to how the defamation takes place - it can be written or spoken.
HTH
I think you'll find there are plenty of "rules" about defamation.
OT;
I have changed my mind about the Daily Mail!
It is good paper!
And much softer than the "Sun"!
It could be improved still further if they added some aloa vera.......(sp?) | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 11/11/2009 8:13:40 AM |
Signs, gestures, photographs, pictures, statues, cartoons etc. can also give rise to a claim for defamation, but the most obvious types of defamatory statements are written or spoken words.
HTH
It certainly did!
I think you'll find there are plenty of "rules" about defamation.
Yes, there are, but the quoted section wasn't referring to those rules - merely to the fact that defamation takes various forms. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 11/11/2009 10:23:49 AM | In responce to the original question of the thread:
It's a joke, much like Jasper Carrot used to mock Sun readers back in the day. Mocking Daily Mail readers is simply an update of that joke, one which I have also used.
I think Mail readers are seen as easy targets because of the type of journalism which is approved by those dependent on their individual political beliefs.
I agree with MSG 39 regarding what I think of the Mail and I find it is as much a rag as The Guardian or any other national daily paper is. Doesn't mean I won't read any of these publications if I have nothing better to do, but if people want to seriously stereotype me for what I choose to read then they should consider removal of the blinkers they are wearing.
OP: This is off topic, but "pointing at Brighton and Hove Albion"...what's that all about? | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 11/14/2009 7:16:34 AM | | you say you ' read ' the sun ? lol - can you read the sun ? I know people who have this , I leaf through it in 2 minutes and cant find an in depth article to read ! You can look at it or look through it, or browse through it , but a proper read for an hour or two needs a proper paper. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 11/14/2009 10:44:05 AM | | Another dating site I have visited asks people which paper they read. I have noticed that those who reply Mail and/or the Sun, also drink lager, eat chinese food, like to go somewhere hot for a holiday and think The Shawshank Redemption is the best film ever. Sometimes they like Queen, or the Eagles. This is a cluster of characteristics which indicate to me, limited, unadventurous, conventional, middle of the road thinking and I never go further with these even though I quite like Shawshank R. and (occasionally) chinese food, it's the entirety of the combination that's so deeply depressing. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 11/14/2009 2:37:29 PM | Am I a conventional, unadventurous, middle of the road fascist because I read the Daily Mail sometimes, or do I read the Daily Mail sometimes because I'm a conventional, unadventurous, middle of the road fascist?
Am I only a fascist on the days I read the Daily Mail? Or a fascist on the days I only read the Daily Mail? What am I on the days I read the Times, the Independent, the Mail and the Guardian, apart from very confused? | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 11/14/2009 4:10:35 PM |
Another dating site I have visited asks people which paper they read.
It's quite possibly owned by Allergan or whatever its called, which is owned by the Daily Mail.
If they ask as part of their questions:
a) Do you think immigrants are
1)Bad
2) Very bad
3) Very very bad
b) When the world ends do you want to
1) Look your best
2) Look your best in the latest fashion
3) Look your best in the latest fashion and make sure an immigrant ends before you
c) Who do you think should be Prime Minister
1) david cameron
2) David Cameron
3) Maggie but as she's allegedly gone c 0 ckadoodledoo, David Cameron.
It's probably one of those sites and will be sending you offers for money off the Daily Mail and one way tickets to Poland. | |
|
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 11/15/2009 5:50:37 PM | Satirising the Daily Mail is essentially a lazy joke perpetuated by self-appointed intellectual superiors and fourth-rate comedians harpooning the melodramatic, sensationalist tone of its headline stories.
Saying that, I did find this rather funny:
http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/
 | |
|
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 11/16/2009 6:36:50 AM | I agree, satirising the Mail and it's readers is too easy and therefore lazy. It just can't help itself when it comes to sensationalist headlines and misreported stories.
I viewed one of their reports online recently about some fool of a drunk who got himself battered when he picked on some 'cage fighters' dressed up as women late one friday night, {is it just me or is anyone else curious as to a) how many 'cage fighters' there are nowadays and b) how many of said fighters seem to like cross dressing?}. Anyway, the Mail reported that after giving the drunk a pasting they 'tottered off down the road in their high heels'. On watching the cctv footage that they provided alongside the text, you could clearly see the CDCF's walking in trainers. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh?
The Mail is the thinking man's Sun,... damned by faint praise?
Nothing against the readers of any of these papers, but neither title is the best place for a well reported story.
Trying to find the truth in todays press is not easy, most of us don't have the time to read all of the broadsheets for a balanced view. So we mostly get lazy and read the same paper out of habit or because we like the particular daily crossword/sudoku/astrology/agony aunt column.
p.s. if I told you I read the Guardian, some of you will immediately jump to conclusions about me, but be careful, I could be misreporting the facts | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:39:21 PM |
It's probably one of those sites and will be sending you offers for money off the Daily Mail and one way tickets to Poland.
Why would Daily mail readers be wanting one-way tickets to Poland?
Am I a conventional, unadventurous, middle of the road fascist because I read the Daily Mail sometimes, or do I read the Daily Mail sometimes because I'm a conventional, unadventurous, middle of the road fascist?
Am I only a fascist on the days I read the Daily Mail? Or a fascist on the days I only read the Daily Mail? What am I on the days I read the Times, the Independent, the Mail and the Guardian, apart from very confused?
Good point well put!
Satirising the Daily Mail is essentially a lazy joke perpetuated by self-appointed intellectual superiors and fourth-rate comedians harpooning the melodramatic, sensationalist tone of its headline stories.
Yup!
Although I think you meant 'lampooning'!
OP: This is off topic, but "pointing at Brighton and Hove Albion"...what's that all about?
PM me.....all will be explained! | |
|
| |
Home
login 
