tonyh29 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Jon, on 01 Oct 2013 - 10:02 AM, said: Which thread should this be in? unless Ed has defected to the Tory or Lib party , it should go in the Next leader of the Labour party thread I'm just being a pedant as Blandy moaned at me the other week for putting an Ed post in here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 peterms, on 01 Oct 2013 - 09:48 AM, said: Jon, on 01 Oct 2013 - 09:37 AM, said: Even Dave has offered some degree of support for his position on this. Quote Mehdi Hasan @mehdirhasan 4m Cameron refuses to condemn Mail attack on dead dad while Jeremy Hunt joins in. Is Tory Party coordinating its attacks with the Mail? #nasty David Cameron admitted he had not read the orginal article nor Mr Miliband's response, but said: "All I know is that if anyone had a go at my father, I would want to respond very vigorously. "There's not a day goes by that you don't think about your dad and all that he meant to you, so I completely understand why Ed would want to get his own point of view across." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 The response of the Tory party has been somewhat iffy hasn't it. Cameron certainly fell short of what he should have said and some of the other stuff just confirms long held suspicions of what motivates them. A perfect own goal during their conference and actually quite a disturbing one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 (edited) peterms, on 01 Oct 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:peterms, on 01 Oct 2013 - 10:08 AM, said: For anyone who might have thought the term "Daily Heil" simply indicates that the Mail is pretty right wing, it actually refers to the keen support of its proprietor for Nazis, and Hitler. Miliband's father fought Hitler; Lord Rothermere sucked up to him. This is what makes the Mail's position not just nasty, offensive and wrong, but also mindbendingly hypocritical. Rothermere sold the paper some years ago did he not .. anyone would think we were in the DPRK and the sins of the Father type scenario It would be like calling the Mirror offensive and wrong and holding them responsible for Morgan's actions in falsifying fake pictures of Iraq torture Edited October 1, 2013 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 I doubt ed would have done that if it was about camerons father though drat The paper should not be publishing rubbish like that, its undefendable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Actually dem I think he would have done. Cameron has a duty not only as leader of political party but also as pm to decry what happened. So far he has failed to do that for shame . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 drat01, on 01 Oct 2013 - 11:06 AM, said: Actually dem I think he would have done. Cameron has a duty not only as leader of political party but also as pm to decry what happened. So far he has failed to do that for shame . I think it's shocking that Cameron hasn't commented on this and he should be sacked immediately , he can't possibly have anything else going on in his life and it's shameful he hasn't commented on the story there is also a story on page 7 that I'm eagerly awaiting his urgent press release on , not to mention I'd like to know his views on the Everton game last night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Nice (typical) deflection tony. So you think this is not a leading story and worthy of comment? Cameron was asked and failed to condemn it so sort of pisses on your chips somewhat 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 didn't Tony post just above that Cameron did comment on it?. And is it really a leading story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 didn't Tony post just above that Cameron did comment on it?. And is it really a leading story?at least read what is written please . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Rothermere sold the paper some years ago did he not .. anyone would think we were in the DPRK and the sins of the Father type scenario It would be like calling the Mirror offensive and wrong and holding them responsible for Morgan's actions in falsifying fake pictures of Iraq torture Nice use of irony - sins of the father. Remind me what the original smear was again? The Mirror sacked Morgan for those photos. In other words, they accepted responsibility, and acted. Has the Mail apologised for its past Nazi sympathies? It continues to be an outlet for the most hateful frothings of the rabid right. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 drat01, on 01 Oct 2013 - 11:13 AM, said: Nice (typical) deflection tony. So you think this is not a leading story and worthy of comment? Cameron was asked and failed to condemn it so sort of pisses on your chips somewhat I already posted Cameron's comment in this thread He said he hadn't seen the article and defended Ed's right to reply Perhaps once he has read the article he might make a comment ,it would be rather stupid of him to comment on it before hand , don't you think ? whilst we are waiting for Cameron to have his breakfast and read the papers , could you find me the link to Ed's condemnation of this disgraceful headline ... or if that is too difficult , how about his condemnation of Labours candidate in Eastleigh John O'Farrell who said he regretted that Thatcher hadn't died in the Brighton Bomb or perhaps you can just hide behind "Ahhhh but " instead 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 didn't Tony post just above that Cameron did comment on it?. And is it really a leading story? You must see the yawning gulf between those vacuous comments, and criticising the story. The criticism of Cameron is that he has not criticised the Mail's story - not that he has not uttered a few words on the general subject in response to a direct question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 I did read it and he did comment on it. He defended ED on the radio. It is the 5th Story on the BBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Rothermere sold the paper some years ago did he not .. anyone would think we were in the DPRK and the sins of the Father type scenario It would be like calling the Mirror offensive and wrong and holding them responsible for Morgan's actions in falsifying fake pictures of Iraq torture Nice use of irony - sins of the father. Remind me what the original smear was again? The Mirror sacked Morgan for those photos. In other words, they accepted responsibility, and acted. Has the Mail apologised for its past Nazi sympathies? It continues to be an outlet for the most hateful frothings of the rabid right. it was a deliberate use of the words as it was used in this very forum a few days back (possibly in the Labour thread) I'm assuming your accepting responsibility and acted line also extends to Murdoch ... no thought not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Perhaps once he has read the article he might make a comment ,it would be rather stupid of him to comment on it before hand , don't you think ? He was quite happy to attack Hilary Mantel's piece on Kate Middleton, which he hadn't read. There is more reason for him to comment on this issue, as it's about a million miles closer to his responsibilities, the role of the press, and the conduct of political debate. Not that I believe he hasn't read it, or at least have a very accurate understanding of exactly what the Mail said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 colhint, on 01 Oct 2013 - 11:24 AM, said: I did read it and he did comment on it. He defended ED on the radio. It is the 5th Story on the BBC. Only the 5th ..outrageous .... it must be the forces of repression and They are everywhere ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 it was a deliberate use of the words as it was used in this very forum a few days back (possibly in the Labour thread) I'm assuming your accepting responsibility and acted line also extends to Murdoch ... no thought not Are you unaware of the long and disreputable history of Murdoch's delays and evasions and concealment over the whole hacking saga? Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 (edited) peterms, on 01 Oct 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:peterms, on 01 Oct 2013 - 11:31 AM, said: tonyh29, on 01 Oct 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:tonyh29, on 01 Oct 2013 - 11:26 AM, said: it was a deliberate use of the words as it was used in this very forum a few days back (possibly in the Labour thread) I'm assuming your accepting responsibility and acted line also extends to Murdoch ... no thought not Are you unaware of the long and disreputable history of Murdoch's delays and evasions and concealment over the whole hacking saga? Seriously? I think the phrase is deflection if the Mirror are forgiven , then surely Murdoch is ... it's an easy enough question , a simple yes or No is all it requires Edited October 1, 2013 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 peterms, on 01 Oct 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:peterms, on 01 Oct 2013 - 10:08 AM, said: For anyone who might have thought the term "Daily Heil" simply indicates that the Mail is pretty right wing, it actually refers to the keen support of its proprietor for Nazis, and Hitler. Miliband's father fought Hitler; Lord Rothermere sucked up to him. This is what makes the Mail's position not just nasty, offensive and wrong, but also mindbendingly hypocritical. Rothermere sold the paper some years ago did he not .. anyone would think we were in the DPRK and the sins of the Father type scenario It would be like calling the Mirror offensive and wrong and holding them responsible for Morgan's actions in falsifying fake pictures of Iraq torture They're attacking Miliband by smearing his father, but it's not fair to point out distasteful facts about the Dail Mail's history? What's good for the goose... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts