The years linking the end of the last millennium to the days before 911 seem now to look like some Golden Age where the worst thing we had to worry about was the new Oasis single. Now we’re happy if we look forward to a month without nuclear war or Nazis stamping over us, and one of the bits of the media that reflects today’s horror is Charlie Brooker’s Black Mirror.
Back in 2001 Brooker was still trailing in the slipstream of Chris Morris and best known for his work as a games journalist and one of the great websites of the age, TV Go Home best know for giving us Nathan Barley, who started out as simply Cunt.
In 2001 Brooker and Channel 4 produced a 6-part series based upon the site which although patchy still has enough delights to make it a bit of a lost gem of British comedy. Daily Mail Island in particular seems like a piece of prophesy thanks to Brexit making Brooker’s satire seem oddly dated, and that was why Brooker stopped the site as culture had caught up with satire.
The series hasn’t ever enjoyed an official release which is odd considering how marketable Brooker is in 2017 especially, but the series is up on YouTube and should be enjoyed as it really does hit the mark more than it misses.
It escaped my attention til now but Farmer wrote a short film, Who is to Blame, and it deals with who our Mail commentator blames for the state of the country in the run-up to Brexit. It is brutally, hilariously funny and will offend all the right people so enjoy…
The general consensus is the Daily Mail is a filthy, bigoted rag that offends people in order to make money and spread hate/ Today, their cartoonist Mac has had his latest piece published and it’s as if it’s pre-war Nazi Germany and that isn’t hyperbolic.
That cartoon above was printed in a UK newspaper in the year 2015 and just to prove it’s not hyperbole to compare this with Nazi propaganda have a look at this.
The depiction of human beings as rats is a deliberate, not to mention, evil attempt at dehumanise people, in the case of the Daily Mail, it’s Muslims, immigrants and refugees as they push the idea of ‘open borders’ (we don’t have open borders) and a ‘flood’ (we don’t have unlimited immigration, or endless amounts of refugees entering the UK) of people.
It’s bullshit. Racist fucking bullshit.It also helps ISIS/ISIL/Daesh in their goal to cause division, and in particular against Muslims because they think it’ll help drive people to their repulsive brand of fascism and here’s the Daily Mail publishing something that helps spread hatred not to mention it reduces vulnerable people to the place of rodents.
This is vile cartoon and I despise the person that drew it, the paper that published it and those that look at it and don’t question it. Fuck the Daily Mail. Fuck the bigoted Nazi arseholes that work for it and fuck the people that lavishly fucking lap their filth up.
Anyone buying The Daily Mail or The Sun should read this, have a word with their conscience and not just stop buying those rags, but pass this on to someone else who buys them and another person and another til people stop buying them, or clicking on their sites.
The only way to hurt these people is through the pocket.
I am writing to you in your position as chairman of the Editor’s Code of Practice to complain about you in your position as editor of the Daily Mail.
Specifically I am writing to complain about an article you commissioned in your own newspaper, the Daily Mail, in which you and your newspaper grossly maligned and bullied two young children, aged 3 and 6 years old.
Although the children’s faces were (poorly) blanked out in your article, the full identity of their parents was revealed so the identities of the two children were in effect not kept secret.
I therefore believe the article was a gross intrusion into the children’s right to privacy and could have a detrimental affect on their education, home life and health.
Daily Mail readers are scum. This is well known. Every now and then (or every week) they confirm this.
This is what Mail readers think of Malala winning a Nobel Peace Price . Forget about compassion or admiration about a girl who stood up to a fascistic regime and nearly died because of it. No, now we’re looking after her in the UK and we’re ‘better together’ you have bitter racists attacking her for being browner than they are.
Fuck the Mail. Fuck their readers. They’re scum. Malala has done more to help the world in her short life than any reader of the Daily Mail ever could.
I’ve been following the Harriet Harman/Daily Mail argument over the last few days and apart from it being a case of the entire argument being the Mail using the ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ argument in order to try to get Harman to ‘apologise’ for something she’s not responsible for, it’s also a horrendous example of the horrendous hypocrisy of the Mail, not to mention a prime example of how dangerous it is.
Now I’m not defending Harman from those (including myself) who say she’s a dreadful MP,and one of the worst examples of why Labour no longer appeal to many of their core vote. She’s all of that, but that’s not what the Mail is saying here. This is a slur of the worst possible kind as pointed out in this article by Zoe Williams. It’s purely an attempt by the Mail to get the name ‘Harriet Harman’ and the word ‘paedophile’ to go together like cheese and onion.
The Daily Mail is hardly the bastion of moral fibre, and especially as this is a paper who panders to paedophiles in order to sell papers or get the clicks. As Harman points out in this Tweet, the Mail operates from a position where trading in pictures of underaged girls is the norm. Type ‘all grown up’ into the search bar of the Mail’s website and you’ll see what I mean, but should you want to avoid giving the Mail another click I’ll go wading into the sewer for you, here’s the number of items returned when I typed the phrase in today.
That’s nearly twenty thousand results for one phrase which isn’t a phrase used in everyday usage and certainly not in the context the Mail uses it in. Here’s an example of a typical ‘all grown up; article featuring Chloe Moretz. There are thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands of articles on the Mail site just like this. This isn’t one or two articles slipping through the net. This is an organised policy of the paper to print pictures of children and try to add a sexualised context to them. This is sexualising children to sell papers so anyone defending this paper is also by action defending the sexualising of children.
I suggest any sane, decent fair-minded people sign this petition started by the journalist Owen Jones. Make it clear that we in the general public have had enough of the Daily Mail, it’s editor Paul Dacre and the poisonous cancer upon Britain that is that paper. Make it clear you’ve had enough. Write to advertisers saying you will no longer buy their products should they advertise in the Daily Mail as they implicitly support sexualising children for the benefit of people who like images of children in a sexualised context, or paedophiles to give then their right name.
Enough is enough. Time for us, the public, to fuck the Daily Mail up.
I was going to do something nice on the blog tonight but the whole business with the Daily Mail’s attack on Ed Millband’s father, Ralph Milliband has repulsed me, as has their defence of it. I’m not a Labour voter these days, and Ed Milliband is as much a socialist as I am George Clooney, but there’s a line and the Daily Mail leaps over the line, drops it’s trousers and shits all over it while blaming it on other people.
It’s an insult to refugees like Ralph Millband to be libelled this way. He fought for his adopted home against the Nazis and tried to help guide the UK out of the horrors of WW2 to a better world, a Land Fit for Heroes. He didn’t cheer on fascists like The Daily Mail did, or support Hitler like the Daily Mail did, or suggest that the UK would be a better place if we sided with the fascists as the Daily Mail did.
It’s owner, Lord Rothermere, was a friend of Hitler’s.
I can go on, but the Mail’s history with fascism is well known, but it’s always good to remind people that actually, the Daily Mail, it’s editor Paul Dacre, and it’s staff show nothing but contempt for the majority of people in this country.
I suggest if those don’t work, writing to the Daily Mail. Make clear what you think. You see anyone reading the rag, call them for it. It’s time to let the Mail, Paul Dacre and all those buying the rag what it is, and what they are for supporting this fascist mouthpiece that treats the people of Britain with contempt.
As the economy struggles and everyone feels the pinch, the country is more divided than ever about how much of our taxes should be spent on benefits for the unemployed.
In an ambitious experiment, Nick Hewer and Margaret Mountford want to discover how much benefit is enough to live on and if work is worth it. Four claimants and four taxpayers come face-to-face to explore each other’s lives, examine their values and speak their minds. Will the tax payers feel that benefits are too high, or not enough? And will the claimants decide that hard work is good for them, or will the sacrifice be too much?
Set in Ipswich – a town with typical figures for unemployment – this first episode sees the taxpayers spend time shopping, socialising and going through the claimants’ spending to see exactly how their hard-earned taxes are being spent. They must decide if they think the claimants are given enough benefits money or not enough and, with the battle lines drawn between ‘scroungers’ and ‘strivers’, this series brings the two sides together to discover if any of them can agree.
Some points should become apparent to anyone with a basic understanding of the benefits system such as the line about ”our taxes” being spent on the unemployed which is deliberately loaded to exclude the unemployed from the rest of society. It’s not ”their taxes” because they’re just unemployed so they’re lower than filth and it’s our money they’re spending on mobile phones and flat screen telly’s right?
Wrong. Everyone who’s ever worked has paid National Insurance among a variety of other taxes. The majority of people unemployed or on benefits have either paid taxes, or are claiming benefits while still in work to supplement their income because they’re not paid enough, but obviously this was more about appealing to the Daily Mailschool of political and social thought. The reality is harder, complicated and ultimately boils down to there not being any jobs, pay rises, or anything to promote economic growth to help everyone rather than the fortunate few.
The programme itself featured the sort of crass victimisation of the unemployed you expect from the Mail and it’s ilk, so you had a ”taxpayer” question a mother on camera whether she needs to give her children more than one hot meal a day and whether buying a whole chicken is economical enough as she’d be better off buying fillets as a whole chicken has bones in it.
Yes, this actually happened on national telly. Why the mother didn’t deck the ‘taxpayer’ is beyond me.
It is however the idea that because someone is claiming benefits that they’re almost a lesser species, and certainly irresponsible, stupid and moronic that’s the most offensive. It’s the stream of lies and propaganda shat out into the public as making the debate about ‘skivers’ and ‘strivers’ in the first place is simply idiotic as it’s really about why our elected government have so singularly failed to serve it’s people. People are being blamed for the biggest failure in government in our lifetimes but instead of dragging those responsible through the street by their bollocks before throwing them in prison, we have the sight of unemployed people trying to justify their lives on BBC One all in the name of ‘education’. The Idea that those on benefits should be justifying everything is quasi-fascistic, and the strong authoritarian streak from people in this programme was fucking sickening.
So I suggest watching this on iPlayer, and then promptly complain to Ofcom and the BBC, before making sure that you wash the dirty feeling you’ll have watching this off your skin, and then make sure that the next time someone goes ‘scroungers’ in reference to people on benefits make sure to put them straight. It’s the least you can do.