Where were the News of the World when they were needed?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph....ring-of-scandals.html

Wow, the NOTW would have had a heyday with this bunch of MPs.

[anotheoldgit]

It would seem that if you are in the 'GANG' (the nasty left) you can say anything you like, but when found out all that is needed to be said is "it was a humorous comment" or "I was being sarcastic".

But if one from the 'Right' should make such a comment then it is open season for any of the hovering vultures to swoop down, and accuse one of being a Nazi, for daring to make statements such as /// should preferably be gassed without delay! ///.

I still maintain that this was a horrible statement to make, and I myself do not expect or want any personal apologies, from such persons who can make such comments, but I do believe an apology should be made to those who experienced such horrors in the past.

[andy-hughes]

OK, let's clear this up once and for all shall we?

I am not part of any 'gang', and I do not believe i was 'found out' at all.

As i explained, the point I made was sarcastic, an exaggeration of the Mail's 'middle England' tone which constantly seeks to infer that some sections of society are not 'deserving' of certain aspects of the Welfare State.

If you believe that anyone from the 'Right' is castigated for a similar stance, that is between the poster and yourself - if you wish to defend the 'Right's' stance - I do not feel myself to be involved in that argument.

If anyone else (and thus far on this occasion that is no-one except yourself) wishes to take issue with anything I post, on any thread, at any time - then I am delighted to enter a discourse with them, and I will - and have on many occasions, apologised if i have been hasty, or have expressed myself badly.

However, as i have already said, and i reiterate for the final time - my point about being 'gassed without delay' was posted to underline my perception of the Mail's point of view on thie issue of IVF, and again I reiterate, if anyone was in any way offended by that sarcasm - and has not yet felt the need to take up the issue with me - then please accept my sincere apologies.

I never ever set out to upset anyone unknowingly - and you and i have exchanged enough points of debate for you to be fully aware of that - i think you are misunderstanding my point.

I hope this clears up the matter once and for all.

[anotheoldgit]

I am afraid we must agree to disagree over the 'gassing' comment, sarcastic or not, there was just no need for such a comment.

Obviously I do not know how your mind works, but even in jest I would never have dreamed to make a comment about gassing anyone, no matter how much I hated a person or a newspaper.

but then you go on to say,

/// As i explained, the point I made was sarcastic, an exaggeration of the Mail's 'middle England' tone which constantly seeks to infer that some sections of society are not 'deserving' of certain aspects of the Welfare State.///

For whatever reason you hate the Daily Mail, I just do not know, but I myself could never hate any publication as much as you appear to.

But why do you need to make up things that the DM has never suggested or said?

And also what do you have against 'Middle Englanders'?

I would appreciate it if you could supply proof of the Daily Mail ever inferring that some sections of society are not 'deserving' of certain aspects of the Welfare State.

That is of course not including those that the majority would agree, should never receive certain aspects of the Welfare State.

[andy-hughes]

We will agree to disagree then, and let that particular aspect of the issue lie.

As I have previously posted - i am fairly sure in a reply to yourself, i do not 'hate' the Mail, I have read it daily for the last thirty-plus years, it is delivered to my house every morning.

What I have against 'Middle Englanders' in the context in which I have used the phrase - is their attitude to life, which includes looking down on people less fortunate with the inference being that inability to live a certain way equates with a lack of deservedness for the support which society as a whole can offer.

As I have stated many times, the Mail's attitude is just that - an attitude, which obviously does not lend itself to being a proveable entity.

"That is of course not including those that the majority would agree, should never receive certain aspects of the Welfare State."

and whom would 'they' be pray? As far as i am aware, the ethos of the Welfare State is to provide support for those in need.

I am not in the position of speaking for 'the majority' who seem to have a judgement system in place for those who do or do not deserve its support - a position which can only be uniquely assumed by those who are not in need of that support, otherwise they may well be a little more compassionate in their outlook.

So since you appear to have an apparent knowledge of the views of 'the majority' - and those who "should never receive certain aspects of the Welfare State" i await to be educated - as i am sure to others on the AB.

The Floor is yours ...

[anotheoldgit]

/// i await to be educated - as i am sure to others on the AB.///

/// The Floor is yours ...///

I was always brought up to believe in "sarcasm was the lowest form of wit".

I would not normally reply to anyone who so pompously hands down the gauntlet in such a way, I do not need your permission to reply.

/// and whom would 'they' be pray? As far as i am aware, the ethos of the Welfare State is to provide support for those in need.///

'THEY' being British citizens, our Welfare State is not to provide support for all the world's needy.

And anyone who thinks it should, must definitely be in the minority.

[andy-hughes]

I was always taught that one matches one's wit to one's company.

I was not being sarcastic - a little flippant maybe, but that is not really a haning offence is it?

However, as I have said, and as i do - if i caused offence, please accept my apology.

I agree entirely, 'our' Welfare State is not in place to aid the world's needy - but it is place to aid the needy in the UK, and i reiterate, there are some in 'Middle England' who decide that some people are not 'deserving' of support, and it is those moral high-grounders with whom I take issue.

Hopefully honour is now satisfied on both sides?

[anotheoldgit]

/// and i reiterate, there are some in 'Middle England' who decide that some people are not 'deserving' of support, and it is those moral high-grounders with whom I take issue.///

At first I was going to agree with your last line "Hopefully honour is now satisfied on both sides"?

But it is your inference to 'some in Middle England' that I still cannot fully understand.

If we are classes as 'Middle Englanders' have I or The Daily Mail ever stated that some of our own citizens are not deserving of support from our Welfare State?

Who are these people in 'Middle England' that you refer to, and how can it be possibly be classed as 'taking the moral high-ground' by making such inferences, surely that is a contradictory of words?

[andy-hughes]

I do not presume to affirm a 'class' for you AOG - that is not for me to say.

Again, I refer to the Mail's position where it regularly slants its news coverage to infer that single mothers and unemployed are in some indeterminate way, seeking to sponge off a Welfare State supported by tax payers. I believe it does this because such a position chimes with the attitude of a lot, but obviously not all, of its readers.

To the best of my knowledge, you have not stated the same position directly on here.

The concept of 'Middle England' taking the 'moral high ground' offers no contradicition that I can see.

[anotheoldgit]

Don't you consider also that anyone who "seeks to sponge off a Welfare State supported by tax payers". (your words, not mine or the DM's), should not be 'named and shamed', after all they are perhaps preventing the real needy from gaining their true entitlements.

[andy-hughes]

Once again I must request please that you pinpoint the quote I made about 'sponging' off the Welfare State. I am inclined to think that this again will be a sarcastic reference to the Mail / Middle England attitude to recipients, i do not use the term 'sponge' in normal posting language. And no, I do not subscribe to the moral rightiousness of 'naming and shaming' individuals - but that the legal process takes its course. The notion of 'naming and shaming' leads to an inappropriate sense of moral outrage, which in tern can lead to vigilante attitudes, and in some cases, actions.

[andy-hughes]

I am intrigued as to how my taking you to task over your perceived moral credit for the NOTW which should, you appear to suggest, allow them mitigation in the matter of 'a few phones being hacked' - has suddenly taken a tack whereby i am castigated for a lack of response on another thread entirely. Since I am always keen to answer your points and questions - would it be posible for you to return to mine, which was in fact on this thread, on not another which appears to have taken over.