Can You Be Fined For Emptying A Swimming...
Civil0 min ago
What A Repulsive Website
What a repulsive website the Daily Mail Online is.
I've just perused its report on the launch of the WE Day UK young people's charity event at Wembley Arena the other day (No, I won't provide a link, that just puts me in the same boat) at which Prince Harry gave a short supporting speech.
The article includes over 20 pictures of Prince Harry's alleged soon-to-be-fiancee in various poses and with a medley of expressions.
How intrusive.
How rude.
How insensitive.
Why are the Royal's close friends put to such unpleasant exposure ?
I've just perused its report on the launch of the WE Day UK young people's charity event at Wembley Arena the other day (No, I won't provide a link, that just puts me in the same boat) at which Prince Harry gave a short supporting speech.
The article includes over 20 pictures of Prince Harry's alleged soon-to-be-fiancee in various poses and with a medley of expressions.
How intrusive.
How rude.
How insensitive.
Why are the Royal's close friends put to such unpleasant exposure ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
if you don't like the Mail website, then look at it frequently, because apparently the more hits they get, the more it costs them
http://
http://
Kromo "They're scum, frankly. They represent the worst aspects of British society" - yes indeed, they cater for the lowest common denominator, as do most of the papers. It is also why the TV soaps are so popular, it is also why facetube,Twotter etc seem to occupy the vacuous minds of the masses. All the above do so because that is what the public want and that earns them money. We all may espouse our "superior" views but the bottom line is that most of the public have the intellect of a potato. That's why the politicians have such a hard time trying to attain popularity among a public that is more worried about the features of their phones than the running of the country.
I actually think soaps etc are pretty benign. Plus social networks can actively help people engage with serious issues - the number of times I've been to public lectures, demonstrations, or similar events that use facebook exclusively as publicity. And that's before you get on to the multiple information sources that facebook (or AB) exposes you to.
The Mail however is actively malignant and has, for example, been responsible for huge numbers of children going without vaccinations. It has abused the trust of its readership. And yes you could say that the public are thick or that they shouldn't trust the Mail in the first place, but that's even more of a reason for our press to act responsibly.
The Mail however is actively malignant and has, for example, been responsible for huge numbers of children going without vaccinations. It has abused the trust of its readership. And yes you could say that the public are thick or that they shouldn't trust the Mail in the first place, but that's even more of a reason for our press to act responsibly.
" has, for example, been responsible for huge numbers of children going without vaccinations" - A great example of the stupidity of people, I assume you are referrring to the MMR fiasco. Some parents where so afraid of MMR that they bought single vaccines off a bloke in a pub car park rather than take the official ones. Now what is riskier?
16 July 1993, says Wiki.
Of course, other newspapers have had their moments. Anyone writing a history of gaydar may find this Sunday Mirror piece useful
https:/
Of course, other newspapers have had their moments. Anyone writing a history of gaydar may find this Sunday Mirror piece useful
https:/
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.