Why Is The Daily Mail Blocking Comments On This Story

[sp1814]

Two young men have ruined their lives, and taken another...but the strange thing here is that the Daily Mail have blocked comments on the story.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3469474/Man-gets-32-years-sickening-murder-Muslim-pensioner.html

Normally, we see comments blocks on online news sources when the trail is underway, but in this case, the trail is over and the sentences have been delivered.

So can anyone explain why comments are suspended???

[naomi24]

SP, well, it seems no one knows so there's no point in turning the question over and over. Perhaps someone will come along later and throw some light on it.

[sp1814]

naomi24

Strange though, isn't it?

[naomi24]

Wonder if anyone has called them to ask? An idea?

[sp1814]

What the Daily Mail or the Associated Press?

[naomi24]

Your question relates to the Daily Mail - but either.

[Gromit]

It is interesting to look at the comments that are there.

// I'm shocked. Sympathy to this poor man's family. //
- Gets down voted by 235 readers

// They are BOTH murderers - FILTH! //
- Gets down voted by 245 readers.

// I'm ashamed of these savages - they're beyond despicable. //
- Gets down voted by 222 readers

// Extremists //
- 278 readers disagree

[sp1814]

naomi24

That's a good idea, but I get so many interesting and informative answers from AB contributors (with the obvious exception of a couple), that I normally default to posting here.

Besides which, if you look through many of the questions across the site, and delete all those that could possibly answered more directly elsewhere, AB would get awfully 'thin',

But I will take your suggestion on board.

[sp1814]

Gromit

That's a little bit depressing.

[naomi24]

SP, I didn't suggest the AnswerBank shouldn't be your first port of call - but it seems you've hit a brick wall here. If you really want an answer perhaps it's time to try a more direct approach.

[sp1814]

naomi24

I'm going to see whether anyone else has an idea, as this thread has only been around for a few hours.

Just think how long it'd take to even get a response from the Mail or AP!

[Svejk]

He got exactly the kind of reply he was seeking with the second reply to this thread, naomi.
'probably because they would be flooded with sick and ignorant racist remarks.
Baths
x x '
Unfortunately, that was immediately blown out of the water and we now have to endure a tedious 'back-tracking' operation.

[sp1814]

Svejk

Go back to the first page and look at my first response after the second post.

Hat does that tell you?

I really didn't see that as being the reason.

Also, is there any way you could avoid being a jerk in future?

Seriously.

Try to stick to the subject at hand, like most others here are doing. You often have interesting things to say, but it's disguised by the fact that you couch a lot of what you personal and irrelevant digs.

[Svejk]

touched a nerve?

[sp1814]

Svejk

No...seriously.

Sometimes we all post things to threads which are of no value, because we want to score points.

I know I certainly do. Please believe me what I say that you are generally really interesting, because you usually have a point of view that I don't encounter...it's just a bit boring when you choose to 'dive bomb' rather than engaging with the debate.

You might want to take TTT, AOG or New Judge as examples. I disagree with them on about 95% of subjects, but they all seem to be able to put forward some strong arguments.

You have a habit of doing (for want of a better word) nyer nyer nyer nyer nerrr.

You see the difference?

The occasional dive bomb is brilliant, but you know...

[naomi24]

SP, //I'm going to see whether anyone else has an idea, as this thread has only been around for a few hours. //

Your choice, of course, but the words 'dog' and 'bone' spring to mind.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// If I had asked, "Why Do You Think Daily Mail Readers Are Not Allowed To Comment This Story?" then you would be perfectly correct that I was lining up to take a swipe at the readership of the paper. ///

Do not quite follow you here, surely if you had asked that you would not be lining yourself up to take a swipe at the readership but at the paper itself for not allowing it's readers to comment?

[Togo]

Don't you just know that when someone says 'I thought it was quite clear' that they knew it wasn't?

[mccfluff]

SP - it seems your thoughts re articles from ap news were correct

"Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your email and your interest in reader comments. Articles published in our news wires section are not open for reader comments. With hundreds of new articles published by MailOnline every day it is simply not practical to open wires stories for comment. However, you are welcome to submit comments to the second article you have linked to below.

Yours sincerely"

(I emailed DM just in case that's not clear...)

[sp1814]

Thanks mccfluff - that makes perfect sense!

Best answer for you.

[-Talbot-]

A best answer has been selected by sp1814. Now the best answer has been selected, it will be shown in the appropriate place ...







Eventually!