The Daily Mail Thread

[lightupvirginmary]

I am making this on behalf of MLE who is in love with The Daily Mail. We were only brought together because we are closet Nazis/racists/homophobes/ women haters. Our love of Moz is all a cover!
Not a day goes by when we don't discuss Littlejohn or Platell. My friend came round and was frankly embarrassed by us blathering on about it's merits.
Does anyone else read The Daily Mail just because it's so repugnant it makes it good?
Today littlejohn called transexuals 'looby loo'. No mention of 'elf n safety though.
*wait for no one to reply*

 

[Mr Smith]

I'm a Daily Sport man myself.

 

[lightupvirginmary]

I'm a Daily Sport man myself.

It's probably marginally less offensive.

 

[Mr Smith]

It's probably marginally less offensive.

I admit I am a bleeding heart liberal

 

[I am a Ghost]

I look at the online version for the latest skanky pics of Winohouse and what past-it British actress has trout-pout etc. etc.
And the "Angry Of Mayfair" comments on the latest "Muslim Employee Sues Tesco For Having To Handle Alcohol" type stories of course...

 

[lightupvirginmary]

I look at the online version for the latest skanky pics of Winohouse and what past-it British actress has trout-pout etc. etc.
And the "Angry Of Mayfair" comments on the latest "Muslim Employee Sues Tesco For Having To Handle Alcohol" type stories of course...

Oh yeah, Littlejohn said 'go back to your own country' about that case.
He also commented on the 'have a go hero' guy killed this week for defending a homeless lithuanian man 'shouldn't a homeless lithuanian be in lithuania?'

He's all heart is Littlejohn.

We also found this good site dedicated to the slagging on the Mail (even though it is too, too easy). it's worth a look.

http://bigdaddymerk.co.uk/mailwatch/forum/index.php

 

[lightupvirginmary]

I admit I am a bleeding heart liberal

It could be worse, you could be a Guardianista, baying for the blood of Thatcher. They sure don't like that shit.
I am also a Guardianista, I like comment is free, anyway (esp. Chalie Brooker).

 

[Mr Smith]

How do you confuse a Daily Mail reader?

Tell them Romanian immigrants kill paedophiles.

 

[Deleted member 3241]

In Richard Littlejohn's defence,he HAS had his fair share of troubles and I'm not just talking about that face or his unfortunate surname.People tend to dismiss his views as archaic or label him as the sort of heartless f*** who would say we should be happy when refugees from war torn countries drown on their way in.Indeed,he was once voted 'irritant of the year'.What these people forget,though, is that Mr LittleJohn has the 'gay agenda' to contend with.The man is constantly being hounded by the gays and their proselytizers!

The country is swamped with them.Big,strapping lads,armed with lube whose only desire,it would seem,is to give him a good seeing to.All sending him love notes and leaving suggestive messages on his answering machine.The influx of gay immigrants isn't helping him much either.This is a form of persecution

In light of this,it's not hard to fathom why the poor dear is so chronically unpleasant.His hostility merely masks his acute social fear and vulnerability.

So perhaps if the 'homosexualists' just left Rich alone, he would stop being such a c***.

 

[lightupvirginmary]

In Richard Littlejohn's defence,he HAS had his fair share of troubles and I'm not just talking about that face or his unfortunate surname.People tend to dismiss his views as archaic or label him as the sort of heartless f*** who would say we should be happy when refugees from war torn countries drown on their way in.Indeed,he was once voted 'irritant of the year'.What these people forget,though, is that Mr LittleJohn has the 'gay agenda' to contend with.The man is constantly being hounded by the gays and their proselytizers!

The country is swamped with them.Big,strapping lads,armed with lube whose only desire,it would seem,is to give him a good seeing to.All sending him love notes and leaving suggestive messages on his answering machine.The influx of gay immigrants isn't helping him much either.This is a form of persecution

In light of this,it's not hard to fathom why the poor dear is so chronically unpleasant.His hostility merely masks his acute social fear and vulnerability.

So perhaps if the 'homosexualists' just left Rich alone, he would stop being such a c***.

You're right, and it's not only those into 'unnatural sex' (see: George Michael)after RJ many straight women who of course, should be at home looking after the children, also find him irresistable, myself included. He is often the subject of many a misguided mastorbatory fantasy.
But stop being a c***?\Not whilst there's all those 'elf n safety Nazis not emptying our bins to contend with. Mind how you go!

 

[Zelda Zonk]

How do you confuse a Daily Mail reader?

Tell them Romanian immigrants kill paedophiles.

Hahaha. That's funny!

 

[Deleted member 3241]

You're right, and it's not only those into 'unnatural sex' (see: George Michael)after RJ many straight women who of course, should be at home looking after the children, also find him irresistable, myself included. He is often the subject of many a misguided mastorbatory fantasy.But stop being a c***?\Not whilst there's all those 'elf n safety Nazis not emptying our bins to contend with. Mind how you go!

I am SOOO guilty of this.

 

[lightupvirginmary]

I am SOOO guilty of this.

Rather him than Amanda Platell. Or... maybe not.

 

[Mozzer's Left Eyebrow]

Speaking of Platell did you see her piss-poor excuse of an 'expose' on lapdancing clubs? It was one of the laziest pieces or journalism I've ever seen, yes even worse than Littlejohn's. I had to wade through a thousand words just to discover that she found the premises a bit shoddy, the drinks were expensive and - horror of horrors - she 'imagined' (although couldn't be bothered to actually find out) that the girls were offering extras.

Even worse than that there was picture of the crow-faced bint right at the top of the page, putting me right off my coco pops.

Littlejohn has been on form of late though, I caught him saying mind how you go, you couldn't make it up, gissa job, the gravy train and guv all in the space of a week!

 

[Mozzer's Left Eyebrow]

There's not much point slagging Littlejohn, it's just too easy but Brooker did it so well in his column it was just toooo much.

"Substantially higher up the sales list, currently at number 32, is a book that absolutely can be judged by its cover, largely because its cover features the words "Richard Littlejohn". In fact, just for fun, let's review it by its cover. That seems fair. So, the full title is Littlejohn's Britain, which is spelled out in hideous red lettering with a thin white border, across two lines, spaced slightly too far apart, as though the designer were consciously emulating a cheap pizza delivery menu. It's so ugly, it seems almost deliberate - as though they made this section of the cover as offensive and nasty as possible in a desperate last-minute bid to distract attention from the large photograph of Richard Littlejohn that hovers below it.

A noble effort. But it doesn't work. I can't help noticing Littlejohn's picture, even when my eyes are looking elsewhere, because his face smells - or at any rate, I think it does. I can smell it in my brain. Even when it's just a photo. It smells like someone breaking wind in a pair of cheap nylon trousers while eating a scotch egg in a hot car passing the Tilsworth Golf and Conference Centre on the A5 outside Dunstable. But worse.

Fortunately, it's not a facial close-up. Unfortunately, his whole body's on there. Littlejohn is pictured standing astride the United Kingdom, like a colossus (or, more accurately, like Fred Talbot, the weatherman who used to do the forecasts on This Morning). Surrounding him are three things presumably intended to sum up the very worst of "modern Britain": a speed camera, a recycling bin, and the London Eye - a triumvirate so utterly despicable, Littlejohn can't even muster the will to shake a fist in their direction. Instead he merely shrugs with exasperation: his arms are outstretched, palms up, and he stares down the lens, bemused, as though saying, "Cuh! Speed cameras, eh? It's basic concern for human safety gone mad! Recycling bins? Typical! And if that bloody ferris wheel doesn't sum up Blair's Britain, I don't know what does. You couldn't make it up!"

Weirdly, they've chosen not to include any of Littlejohn's other bugbears on the cover: there are no gays or asylum seekers here. Unless, perhaps, they're crushed beneath Littlejohn's feet. It's hard to tell from the preview image on Amazon. I mean, I'd go into a bookshop and examine it in closer detail, but then I'd get Littlejohn on my hands, and my fingers would have that scotch-egg- car-fart stink on them for the rest of the day."

 

[lightupvirginmary]

Speaking of Platell did you see her piss-poor excuse of an 'expose' on lapdancing clubs? It was one of the laziest pieces or journalism I've ever seen, yes even worse than Littlejohn's. I had to wade through a thousand words just to discover that she found the premises a bit shoddy, the drinks were expensive and - horror of horrors - she 'imagined' (although couldn't be bothered to actually find out) that the girls were offering extras.

Even worse than that there was picture of the crow-faced bint right at the top of the page, putting me right off my coco pops.

Littlejohn has been on form of late though, I caught him saying mind how you go, you couldn't make it up, gissa job, the gravy train and guv all in the space of a week!

Platell just got spotted in Spearmint Rhino and had to think of a convincing excuse quick.
'These places degrade us all'... just like your face, love.

 

[lightupvirginmary]

There's not much point slagging Littlejohn, it's just too easy but Brooker did it so well in his column it was just toooo much.

"Substantially higher up the sales list, currently at number 32, is a book that absolutely can be judged by its cover, largely because its cover features the words "Richard Littlejohn". In fact, just for fun, let's review it by its cover. That seems fair. So, the full title is Littlejohn's Britain, which is spelled out in hideous red lettering with a thin white border, across two lines, spaced slightly too far apart, as though the designer were consciously emulating a cheap pizza delivery menu. It's so ugly, it seems almost deliberate - as though they made this section of the cover as offensive and nasty as possible in a desperate last-minute bid to distract attention from the large photograph of Richard Littlejohn that hovers below it.

A noble effort. But it doesn't work. I can't help noticing Littlejohn's picture, even when my eyes are looking elsewhere, because his face smells - or at any rate, I think it does. I can smell it in my brain. Even when it's just a photo. It smells like someone breaking wind in a pair of cheap nylon trousers while eating a scotch egg in a hot car passing the Tilsworth Golf and Conference Centre on the A5 outside Dunstable. But worse.

Fortunately, it's not a facial close-up. Unfortunately, his whole body's on there. Littlejohn is pictured standing astride the United Kingdom, like a colossus (or, more accurately, like Fred Talbot, the weatherman who used to do the forecasts on This Morning). Surrounding him are three things presumably intended to sum up the very worst of "modern Britain": a speed camera, a recycling bin, and the London Eye - a triumvirate so utterly despicable, Littlejohn can't even muster the will to shake a fist in their direction. Instead he merely shrugs with exasperation: his arms are outstretched, palms up, and he stares down the lens, bemused, as though saying, "Cuh! Speed cameras, eh? It's basic concern for human safety gone mad! Recycling bins? Typical! And if that bloody ferris wheel doesn't sum up Blair's Britain, I don't know what does. You couldn't make it up!"

Weirdly, they've chosen not to include any of Littlejohn's other bugbears on the cover: there are no gays or asylum seekers here. Unless, perhaps, they're crushed beneath Littlejohn's feet. It's hard to tell from the preview image on Amazon. I mean, I'd go into a bookshop and examine it in closer detail, but then I'd get Littlejohn on my hands, and my fingers would have that scotch-egg- car-fart stink on them for the rest of the day."

I would love to see Brooker and Littlejohn have a scrap.

 

[Mozzer's Left Eyebrow]

Oh God I just saw this in today's Mail, it's honestly too much for me - are these people on crack?


THE MONEY DOCTOR: Temptress drugged me and emptied my accountBy Margaret Stone
Last updated at 11:27 PM on 09th December 2008
Comments (0) Add to My Stories I work in Argentina, and at the end of October I travelled to Brazil. I met an attractive girl in a bar and bought drinks for us both. She spiked my drink with a drug and my next recollection is being woken in a hotel bedroom to find my personal possessions had been stolen, including my Lloyds TSB debit card.

While I was in a comatose state, she made 26 transactions on this card and drained my current account of £4,436. As soon as I was fit, I informed Lloyds TSB of the theft and I obtained a police report.

Initially, Lloyds TSB's fraud department told me I would be refunded within a week. Now they are refusing to pay up and say I was negligent because the young woman used my PIN to make purchases in central Sao Paulo. They say I must have given it to her. I've no recollection of what happened after I was drugged, but I did not knowingly give her permission to use my card or PIN.

J.M., Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Before contacting Lloyds TSB, I discussed the outline of your case with the Financial Ombudsman. I doubt it's of much consolation, but they have seen broadly similar cases of cards being taken in dubious circumstances and fraudulently used. It basically all comes down to the question: did you authorise use of the card or PIN? If not, you would have a strong case to take to FOS - fortunately, that won't be necessary.

I put it to Lloyds that it was very difficult indeed to uphold the view that you, the victim, had 'authorised' an unknown young woman, in the process of drugging you, to use your card. I am glad to say that it has now decided to refund the £4,436 that was fraudulently taken from your account. It wasn't an easy decision for the bank. The majority of the transactions involved your PIN (rather than a signature) and it feels that you haven't proved you didn't reveal that number. On the other hand, nor can the bank prove you did. So it has decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Jane Birkin]

I have only one word to describe the Daily Fail:
c***S.

 

[I am a Ghost]

Oh God I just saw this in today's Mail, it's honestly too much for me - are these people on crack?


THE MONEY DOCTOR: Temptress drugged me and emptied my accountBy Margaret Stone
Last updated at 11:27 PM on 09th December 2008
Comments (0) Add to My Stories I work in Argentina, and at the end of October I travelled to Brazil. I met an attractive girl in a bar and bought drinks for us both. She spiked my drink with a drug and my next recollection is being woken in a hotel bedroom to find my personal possessions had been stolen, including my Lloyds TSB debit card.

While I was in a comatose state, she made 26 transactions on this card and drained my current account of £4,436. As soon as I was fit, I informed Lloyds TSB of the theft and I obtained a police report.

Initially, Lloyds TSB's fraud department told me I would be refunded within a week. Now they are refusing to pay up and say I was negligent because the young woman used my PIN to make purchases in central Sao Paulo. They say I must have given it to her. I've no recollection of what happened after I was drugged, but I did not knowingly give her permission to use my card or PIN.

J.M., Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Before contacting Lloyds TSB, I discussed the outline of your case with the Financial Ombudsman. I doubt it's of much consolation, but they have seen broadly similar cases of cards being taken in dubious circumstances and fraudulently used. It basically all comes down to the question: did you authorise use of the card or PIN? If not, you would have a strong case to take to FOS - fortunately, that won't be necessary.

I put it to Lloyds that it was very difficult indeed to uphold the view that you, the victim, had 'authorised' an unknown young woman, in the process of drugging you, to use your card. I am glad to say that it has now decided to refund the £4,436 that was fraudulently taken from your account. It wasn't an easy decision for the bank. The majority of the transactions involved your PIN (rather than a signature) and it feels that you haven't proved you didn't reveal that number. On the other hand, nor can the bank prove you did. So it has decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Any "temptresses" who want to drug me and follow the above plan, please PM me. We'll split all purchases/refunds..