Wednesday, November 05, 2008

The Daily Mail: Utter, utter cunts

[This piece has been submitted by The Long-Legged Tailor*.]

Despite being nearly two weeks old, the Brand/Ross affair (I, and I hope every other intelligent person refuses to use the term “Sachsgate” with anything other than the fucking contempt it deserves) continues to bubble away merrily, mainly because of that most odious of rags, The Daily Mail. Indeed, this scandal has basically revealed why it is the most illiberal mass of horse shit in the already rancid manure pile that is the mainstream media.

The Daily Mail, as well as the media in general, presume that they are well within their rights to tell us what we should and should not be offended by.

For example, the on Friday, Mail boldly proclaimed that:
The Mock The Week 'joke' about the Queen was far from the only offensive material on the BBC recently.

Ex-fucking-cuse me? You utter fucking cunts, offensive to whom? It certainly wasn’t offensive to me, nor do I expect to most of the 3 million odd viewers that Mock the Week gets. Not only this, but why put joke in an inverted comma? Even if you don’t find it funny, it’s still a joke, you cunts. Because I can tell you this, I, and again, probably most of the 3 million who watch Mock the Week certainly did.

But of course, because some of your hysterical members of staff find it offensive, the whole fucking country must find it offensive, shouldn’t they? Well fuck you, I am not going to let anyone, let alone the cunts at the Daily Mail dictate what I should and should not find offensive.

Do you know what I find offensive? A government that will happily piss our money up the wall while constantly passing immoral, illiberal acts of legislation because they think they know how to control my liberty better than myself.

Fuck them, fuck the Daily Mail and fuck the media as a whole, to be quite honest. Until those cunts stop telling people how they should think and those very people stop blindly listening, we’re not going to be able to make any real progress in purging ourselves of our current pathetic system.

* "The long-legged tailor always comes /
To naughty little suck-a-thumbs...


haddock said...

so, what is the Libertarian position ? To close down The Mail ? To tell us what we should or should not be offended by. Much as DK can choose what to put on his blog, the Mail can decide what to put in their newspaper....if you don't like what they print, don't fucking read it.
Some of us agree with you that the government is offensive.... but also find Ross and Brand offensive.
I'm intrigued, I'd like to learn how you can tell what 3 million people think ....I suspect it's a guess, with nothing at all to substantiate it.... rather like the figure of 3 million in fact.

Anonymous said...

Haddock, the Guardian reported that on Aug. 28th Mock the Week got 3.3 million viewers.

Anonymous said...

The libertarian position, as per bloody usual, is to swear a lot on the internet.

The Mail can say what it likes as far as I'm concerned - they don't force anyone to pay for their salaries, like the BBC does.

Anonymous said...

The beauty of this story is that the Daily Hate has daily pictures of Georgina Bailey looking all gawfy and fetishy. I'd plow her 'til next July, I tell ya.

Anonymous said...

Haddock nails it.

If thine newspaper offend thee, don't read it.

John Pickworth said...

Not one of your better posts DK.

I agree the newspapers should be carrying more important stuff but they stopped doing that a long time ago.

Fact is the dead tree press are behoven to their political friends and their yacht owning pals. They'll continue to publish faux outrages to keep the spotlight off their sponsors and their plundering of our riches.

Shaun said...

I believe Lord Salisbury referred to the Daily Mail as the paper 'for those who can read but cannot think' back in 1888. So little changes.

From backing Hitler in the 30s to opposing an liberalisation of anything at all (theatre censorship, tv programmes, cannabis, assisted suicide, licensing laws and on and on), The Daily Mail and its shrill little goblins like Mad Mel Phillips continues to spew poisonous bile into the political atmosphere. I wouldn't ban it - aside from anything else, I'd hate to drive this sort of dangerous nonsense underground - but I do think it needs to be publicly vilified and refuted at every opportunity.

Anonymous said...

I'm loving the way the Mail piece had to go back to April (broadcast time but no date) to find a fifth piece of filth to complete the piece.

haddock said...

bloody hell, now I should believe things printed in the Guardian !
The figures are statistically generated from a sample.... which is nerdspeak for 'a guess '
The Mail is said by its detractors ( most of them in the chattering class)to be 'populist'.... I, for one, believe that anything populist... being what the people actually want ( not what they are told by the masters that they are going to get ) is the very basis of democracy.... and for libertarianism.... and should not be used as a sneering insult.
Those who would be our new masters under a different mask will no doubt disagree.

Anonymous said...

I'm loving the way that it printed, verbatim, all the 'offensive' gags it could find and, without a trace of irony, apologised to its readers if they offended any of them.

Roger Thornhill said...

Just because someone has the right to print trash does not mean others cannot point it out and criticise them for it. Two sides of the same coin.

Anonymous said...

The key difference between the mock the week attack and the Ross/Brand mess is one of choice. If the Ross/Brand rudeness was merely about listeners being offended, then the obvious response would be: don't listen to it then. Which is exactly the defence that Mock the Week can offer - nobody forces anyone to watch Mock the Week.

Russell Brand did not say something "offensive" on his radio programme though, he actively sought out a particular pensioner to verbally abuse over the phone.

The two are so utterly non equivalent that I find it beggars belief that anyone can't tell the difference.

I personally feel perfectly comfortable telling jokes about disabled babies to my friends. That doesn't mean I would ring up parents of disabled babies and mock and abuse them.

Anonymous said...

The estimable Mr Pickworth has taken the words right out of my mouth.

A low brow newspaper carries on giving the BBC a thoroughly condign kicking and you moan about them telling you what to think? Ever heard of the enemy of your enemy just possibly being your friend?

"You FCs! you FFCs!, you FFFFFFCs!" We've heard it all before. If there's one learning point recently reinforced by the Ross and Brand episode it is that any idiot can shock.

You need to clear your head with a walk round the block and some fresh air. When you get back, we look forward to hearing something sensible.

Timothy Wallace said...

'fuck the media as a whole?

Including all those blogs, then?

pagar said...

In fairness to DK it wasn't his post........

Anonymous said...

The whole point is not so much that people mind the "jokes", it's that it's all so one-sided. Remember when Ann Widdecombe was always the target for snide remarks about her looks? Fair enough, but why were there never any remarks about ugly Labour women? I never heard any insults directed towards that smug gorgon Mo Mowlam, for example. Mock the Week, OK, but mock everyone. I think Islam is a blight on democracy and personal freedom, but when do we ever hear quiz panelists make any remarks about it? What gets people's goat is not the poor-quality satire, it's the fact it's always directed at the same targets, inspired by the assumption that everyone holds the same opinions as the well-paid, self-regarding, hypocritical twats who take it in turns to suck on the BBC's tit.

Anonymous said...

Mowlam only lost her looks when she got brain cancer. She was actually a slim pretty blonde when she got into parliament, and not the podgy asexual killjoy that was Widdecombe.

It had nothing to do with her politics. Even the most anti-Labour misogynist would struggle to get away with nasty comments about the looks of a terminal cancer patient.

Anonymous said...

Eh, calm down, calm down! It's not one of the Mail's finest hours by any means (and I don't recall them being alone on this bandwaggon), but the vitriolic hatred spewing forth is worthy more of a Grauniad reader or a trendy Leftie comedian on Radio 4 than a libertarian. And it's the sort of nonsense espoused and supported by the Grauniad that has done more to damage civil liberties in this country than any ill-judged morality rant by the Mail.

haddock said...

"in fairness to DK it wasn't his post........"

in fairness to the people who leave comments here, it is DK's blog and is under his editorial control.
The tone of this post is very DK-like ( see his previous post on anyone who doesn't think exactly like him is a cunt )

and pagar, why should people be urged to be fair to DK? fairness does not show itself much in his rants against people who do not favour abortion......nor is it his trade mark.

Anonymous said...

The Devil rants at those telling him how to think and behave, the Mail rants in self-inflated outrage at vulgar pranks.

"A dog scratches where it itches. Different dogs itch in different places."

Anonymous said...

Anonymous - you may think Mowlam was a slim, pretty blonde, I didn't. She was just another arrogant politico. That's the's a constant diet of "Tory bad, Labour good". Misogynistic comments about Widdecombe seem to be acceptable (who cares, really? I'm sure she doesn't), so why show restraint with others? I'm quite aware of Mowlam's later illness, and making remarks about her appearance would just be nasty. By the way, is a comment about a woman automatically misogynistic?

Anonymous said...

It's a language problem. People are sloppy. They scream "that's offensive" when they mean "that's offensive to me".

What's wrong with offensiveness. Offensive words never killed anyone. Get over it (unless you are a muslim of course)

AND I really do think every view on everything should be opposed. Every political initiative should be opposed with every weapon available on principle simply to test the bugger by fire and hell and damnation. If the idea or suggestion survives it may be a good un.

This message comes to you by courtesy of Adnams Broadside.

Anonymous said...

I regard the Daily Mail as turgid rubbish, so I don't buy it.

I regard Ross and Brand's programs, plus Mock the Week and crap like Little Britain, turgid rubbish.

I'm forced to pay for it.

THAT'S what's offensive DK. Get your priorities straight.

Anonymous said...

Chris, I am a female Tory and I don't for one minute think that Labour women haev it better than we do.
You are clearly reading selectively. There are lots of negative comments about Jacqui Smith, Tessa Jowell and Harriet Harman that are based solely on their frumpy appearance, turkey necks, cleavages and whatnots..It is directed at women in power usually, and not restricted to any party. Take the party-biased-blinkers off for goodness sake.

Mowlam was an exception because of her cancer, and your personal tastes on whether you find her pretty are irrelevant. Quite a number of people did and said so.

I never said the comments about any of these people were necessarily misogynistic. All I said that even people who were anti-labour and misogynistic, shied from talking about Mowlam's looks in later life.

Not that complicated a point to grasp, is it?

Anonymous said...

Joe is spot on. You are forced to pay for BBC "entertainment" on pain of state punishment-like it or not. You become involuntary sponsors therby of the likes of Ross and Brand-collaborators in what the BBC does.

I am not "offended" by Rossnbrand's babyish antics and alleged attempts at humour(I don't believe in that concept of "offense", unless the insult is directly aimed at me I am not "offended"); what was wrong with what the pair did in many eyes-mine included-is they used a national radio broadcast to gratuitously ridicule and insult an innocous elderly individual. Sachs was not a legitimate target for such a "prank". A hypocritical powerful politician or media opinionater might have been, though the so called "joke" would still have been as funny as terminal cancer.

Anonymous said...

I'm in agreement with Haddock - it's the Mail's business what they print, and with the two Anons who argue Slutsgate was not offensive but simply cruel abuse of an entirely innocent and unsuspecting party.

It would have been just as wrong had it never been broadcast.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I found the Sachs incident distasteful, this joke I find unfunny (but not distasteful), and Clarkson's I thought was funny.

But the simple answer is to let people choose not to pay. If someone is so offended that they want to never watch the BBC again, then they should be allowed to do so, and to not have to pay for it.

Personally, I'd rather not pay for the BBC because of the lack of programmes that interest me and left-wing bias in their news output.

Anonymous said...

If it offends you - don't buy the paper!

If others agree with you, it will go bust.

The BBC on the other hand used my money to pay Brand and Ross - so then it becomes my issue.

DK - do you really need to be told these things?

Anonymous said...

I think one can distinguish between telling jokes about Her Majesty's genitalia, which I find crude and unnecessary, but others apparently enjoy, and actually leaving offensive phone messages for an elderly gentleman and broadcasting that.

My problem with Ross and Brand isn't the gutter humour, but the fact that they telephoned Andrew Sachs and abused him.

Anonymous said...

I never heard the phrase 'Sachsgate' but I find it very amusing. Thanks for expanding my vocabulary.

Anonymous said...

I have to say that themock-the-week comment was offensive to mebecause I value service .. something that politicians wouldn't understand

Anonymous said...

A superb article. Brilliant stuff. Naturally, I couldn't agree more.

The natural Libertarian position, in my view, is to brutally hold the fascist Mail to account and to highlight exactly why that evil, pernicious, nasty, deranged newspaper should be pilloried and exposed for what it does in the name of 'news'.

Here's my piece on the matter, which I wrote on 28 October.

My regards

John Demetriou

Devil's Kitchen said...

"so, what is the Libertarian position ? To close down The Mail ?

And so haddock articulates precisely why I left UKIP: because I am not a moron or a BNPer with a brain. Or, of course, in haddock's case, a BNPer who just doesn't have the balls to admit who he is.

You see, the Mail publishes crap: your humble Devil takes an article from some one who wishes to reply to said crap...

... and a whole load of commenters attack said poster for attacking the Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail has a right to publish hate: your humble Devil has a right to respond.

As usual, the people commenting on this blog have, on the whole, disappointed me.

Tell you what: just for the sake of convenience, why don't you all fuck off and join those who think that Boris was right to ban booze on public transport: you'll not be missed here.

You massive fucking morons.


Anonymous said...

It seems that our precious Libertarians have been offended and that will never do.
There's also a snob element at work here - our offence is more intellectual than yours, so you must be utter morons.
Scratch the surface and all that.

Anonymous said...

This could get worse- i fear for the future of comedy. Every Frankie Boyle joke (and the queen joke was tame compared to his others) is going to get a Mail headline until mock the week and shows like it are driven off the air.

Anonymous said...

The readers have disappointed you Chris?

Boo fucking hoo. Still, pretty much what we can expect from an old Etonian down on his luck having to work for a living. Actions have consequences, and you constantly try to hide from those consequences, resorting to the Twat's Defence of 'its only a blog...'.

Of course you can do what you want. But invite comments and we'll say what we want. And we'll exercise our right not to buy any fucking stupid books by 'the Devil'.

haddock said...

"Or, of course, in haddock's case, a BNPer who just doesn't have the balls to admit who he is."

What a fuckwit hypocrite you are DK, anyone clicking on my name will be taken to my blogger profile.... and from there to my blogs. Are you suggesting that I should give my real name to justify having an opinion ?... if you are then cast your mind back to the outrage you expressed when you were outed by your real name being used by a fellow blogger. What a cunt.... no argument except ad hominem and the rapid descent to "he's BNP you know" ( which you fucking well know I am not.)
So DK, what will you do ? ban all those who don't trot along behind you?
If you can't take the heat of criticism you should stay out of your own Kitchen.

it's not just Geoff Hoon who's a cunt, get your head out of your arse, start using your power of debate and see if that improves the ratio of those coming here to read what you have to say to those who come to see just what sort of cunt you are making of yourself today.
At the moment you are doing the Libertarian Party a great disservice in that we might think all members are such as yourself.... The Kilroy Silk of the Libertarian Party.... good if all publicity is in fact good but a fucking liability on consideration that it isn't.

Anonymous said...

Daily Mail puts out its opinion, DK (or his associates) put out theirs, they disagree, no compromise is reached, the world keeps turning.

As for my opinion, on that Mail article, the second joke, i.e. That Mitchell And Webb Look one, is hilarious. I laughed reading it so I'm guessing I'd have laughed a lot hearing it. The irony is of course that it's actually about the topic being discussed: censorship of comedy.

6000 said...

I love posts like this.
Very annoyed. Keyboard nearby. Internet connection. Spew forth.

100% agreement from here.

Anonymous said...

DK the standard of your debate is seriously deteriorating - get off the pills man ...

Anonymous said...

Woss and Bwand should be sacked under the job descriptions act - they simply weren't that funny!!!

Thud said...

Dk...yet again you come across as a spotty little ponce who spits out his dummy at the first hint of criticism..Haddock is pretty much hitting this mail crap on the nail.The bnp accusation sounds rather gyardian reader like....but then thats pretty much your background.

James Higham said...

Well, that just about sums it up, DK.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Can I just interject here? I feel like calling someone a cunt, but I can't figure out who.

Any suggestions?

Anonymous said...

You're the biggest cunt here.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Well hello, Dolly,
You're looking swell, Dolly,
It's so nice to have you back where you belooooong ...

... which is not anywhere near your wife's fetid wizard's sleeve, obviously!

NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...