• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Wikipedia Bans Daily Mail as 'Unreliable' Source

Which of the two do you trust more/would use for information

  • Daily Mail

    Votes: 8 14.3%
  • Wikipedia

    Votes: 48 85.7%

  • Total voters
    56
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

PermitToTravel

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2011
Messages
3,044
Location
Groningen
I think the only real chemical difference is that asbestos is a bigger molecule.

Talc: Mg3Si4O10(OH)2
Chrysotile (White Asbestos): Mg3(Si2O5)(OH)4

They are not identical but its not like they are all that different chemically at least.

Water: H2O
Bleach: H2O2
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I can't see that the actions of the Mail in the 1930s are particularly relevant 80 years later. But there is plenty of more recent evidence being quoted here of irresponsible behaviour.

One example is the headine dubbing the Brexit case judges as enemies of the people after they applied the law as they saw it. It is essential for democratic debate that everyone respects the other person's point of view (subject only to the relatively few legal restrictions on free speech), disagrees if they wish but refrains from personal attacks.

I am deeply concerned that public opinion is being led by a small group of individuals who either control most of the media or have been brought to prominence by those who do. People do have legitimate concerns about being ignored, with governments of whatever party not really attempting to govern for the whole population but for enough of it in the right places to secure them a majority. But by employing a mixture of intimidation, outright falsehood and putting a particular spin on what is nominally true, a large number of people have been persuaded to vote as if as turkeys for Christmas, for something that is unlikely to improve their situation one bit. Now that does have real and troubling echoes of the 1930s.
 
Last edited:

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,510
I can't see that the actions of the Mail in the 1930s are particularly relevant 80 years later. But there is plenty of more recent evidence being quoted here of irresponsible behaviour.

It does become relevant when they start to get fixated on what other people were doing in the 1930s, like Ralph Miliband for example. It's also interesting to see how little has changed. The article about "German Jews pouring into this country" could very easily have been written today about Syrian refugees.
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
The Daily Mail fails to follow its own narrative even on different stories on its own front page it is difficult to keep up with. They provide such an orgy of evidence that it is hard to keep up with sometimes. All Newspapers provide contradictory opinion pieces from time to time as they should, but not stuff quoted as being news.
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,003
May I enter this debate at a somewhat late stage to ask if anyone can give the top five British newspapers in terms of average daily circulation figures that will also show those numerical figures in addition.

Public executions were always very popular. It didn't mean that they were right though!
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,003
An interesting insight of reasoning. Could you therefore, using the same reasoning, give your similarly based thoughts on a newspaper that you see at the opposite end of the political spectrum by citing its actual name then the name that you would use it in similar fashion as you do above.

NOTE : Any RMT press release is not allowed to be used in this instance.

Socialist Worker / Socialist Wa*ker :lol:
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,003
I see your point, but if you notice an error on Wikipedia you can change it. When you see an error or a downright falsehood in the Daily Heil, there's nothing doing.

The two are fundamentally different in both their aims/purposes and methods.

I know not to read the Daily Vomit (either of them, Express or Mail) but I am aware of the risks of indoctrination of people who simply believe everything they read in print as 'gospel'. Because it is in a national newspaper it must be right. As any PR person will know, a headline today is worth far more than a correction days or weeks later. Few 'ordinary' people, other than the offended person, read them.

As for Wikipedia, I'm not certain of it generally. It is certainly a useful, quick source of information. I have noticed glaring errors in the past but the correction method, for a new user, is very off-putting. It makes me think of it as a privileged club managed by some very retentive individuals who want to be in charge (of something, somewhere). As was shown fairly recently, it is easy for some people (political SPADS, civil servants, PR companies) to massively and constantly edit Wiki pages to their masters / clients wishes.

As for it's railway pages (a subject we may all know something about) it is comprehensive but inaccurate so cannot be relied on as a primary source.
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,003
I can't see that the actions of the Mail in the 1930s are particularly relevant 80 years later. But there is plenty of more recent evidence being quoted here of irresponsible behaviour.

I can, it is still owned by the same family. Editorial independence - yeah whatever!
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
Well there's always the "Mirror". To-day I see there's an article in which the human rights poster girl Chakrabai (she who was bought by Corbyn) making excuses for the human filth Phil Shiner.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/disgraced-lawyer-who-made-soldiers-9807554

I must be the only person who doesn't see the problem with alleged misconduct by British soldiers being thoroughly investigated. Especially given the historical actions of Western soldiers in the Middle East.
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,201
I can, it is still owned by the same family. Editorial independence - yeah whatever!

Given the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday follow very different editorial policies (as regularly noted by Private Eye) and their owner is actually a Remainer then there is certainly a degree of editorial independence
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
Well there's always the "Mirror". To-day I see there's an article in which the human rights poster girl Chakrabai (she who was bought by Corbyn) making excuses for the human filth Phil Shiner.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/disgraced-lawyer-who-made-soldiers-9807554

Chakrabarti's stock is at a terminal low, having been effectively purchased by Corbyn.

That notwithstanding, she is correct to raise concerns that some elements are using Phil Shiner as an excuse to drive through changes which essentially bar UK servicemen from prosecution in this country.

Phil Shiner basically paid informants to come up with dodgy witnesses over spurious allegations surrounding the Battle of Danny Boy in Iraq. This was his downfall; that was grossly dishonest and he was quite rightly struck off. The soldiers in that case were shown to have done no wrong.

However, Shiner successfully prosecuted allegations surrounding the death of Baha Mousa. The MoD actually admitted substantial breaches of human rights in this case: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-death-of-tortured-iraqi-civilian-801761.html

The trial judge in that case, where one soldier was found to have delivered inhumane treatment, openly stated that the soldiers involved had covered up the incident - par for the course in the Army (this applies to any army and is not peculiar to the British Armed Forces), for those of us who happen to be more familiar with it than just watching Trooping of the Colour.

It is fair to slate Shiner for what he is, but I implore everyone to resist attempts by this government to indemnify soldiers from all wrongdoing.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
I must be the only person who doesn't see the problem with alleged misconduct by British soldiers being thoroughly investigated. Especially given the historical actions of Western soldiers in the Middle East.

god you cant say that! Wearing a uniform should be a free pass to immunity from prosecution for any actions! Don't you read the Daily Mail ;)

The right wing simpletons who spout this kind of stuff seem to miss that the point that holding our own people to the required standards shows how we are better than the people we are trying to fight! We don't machine gun civilians or use them as human shields. They do.

It should be seen as a positive that almost all cases were dismissed. It shows we have a good quality, disciplined army who understand their role and their responsibilities. It shows our soldiers are well trained and well led and performed their roles in an exemplary fashion in terrible circumstances. They, and we should, be proud of that.
 

Phil.

Established Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
1,323
Location
Penzance
I must be the only person who doesn't see the problem with alleged misconduct by British soldiers being thoroughly investigated. Especially given the historical actions of Western soldiers in the Middle East.

Alleged misconduct is one thing.
Paying people to say things is another.
 

Phil.

Established Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
1,323
Location
Penzance
Chakrabarti's stock is at a terminal low, having been effectively purchased by Corbyn.

That notwithstanding, she is correct to raise concerns that some elements are using Phil Shiner as an excuse to drive through changes which essentially bar UK servicemen from prosecution in this country.

Phil Shiner basically paid informants to come up with dodgy witnesses over spurious allegations surrounding the Battle of Danny Boy in Iraq. This was his downfall; that was grossly dishonest and he was quite rightly struck off. The soldiers in that case were shown to have done no wrong.

However, Shiner successfully prosecuted allegations surrounding the death of Baha Mousa. The MoD actually admitted substantial breaches of human rights in this case: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-death-of-tortured-iraqi-civilian-801761.html

The trial judge in that case, where one soldier was found to have delivered inhumane treatment, openly stated that the soldiers involved had covered up the incident - par for the course in the Army (this applies to any army and is not peculiar to the British Armed Forces), for those of us who happen to be more familiar with it than just watching Trooping of the Colour.

It is fair to slate Shiner for what he is, but I implore everyone to resist attempts by this government to indemnify soldiers from all wrongdoing.

No-one wants to indemnify any members of the armed forces. The ordinary person in the street just wants smart-arse lefty lawyers hounding them for doing an almost impossible job to be halted. Ex soldiers who served in Northern Ireland are being investigated but the bad guys on both sides were let out of jail on a free ticket with a letter telling them that they were free from further prosecution. The organiser of the Hyde Park bombings refers.
 

Phil.

Established Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
1,323
Location
Penzance
I can't see that the actions of the Mail in the 1930s are particularly relevant 80 years later. But there is plenty of more recent evidence being quoted here of irresponsible behaviour.

One example is the headine dubbing the Brexit case judges as enemies of the people after they applied the law as they saw it. It is essential for democratic debate that everyone respects the other person's point of view (subject only to the relatively few legal restrictions on free speech), disagrees if they wish but refrains from personal attacks.

I am deeply concerned that public opinion is being led by a small group of individuals who either control most of the media or have been brought to prominence by those who do. People do have legitimate concerns about being ignored, with governments of whatever party not really attempting to govern for the whole population but for enough of it in the right places to secure them a majority. But by employing a mixture of intimidation, outright falsehood and putting a particular spin on what is nominally true, a large number of people have been persuaded to vote as if as turkeys for Christmas, for something that is unlikely to improve their situation one bit. Now that does have real and troubling echoes of the 1930s.


Ah, another person who thinks that the voting public shouldn't be allowed to vote because the person might vote in disagreement. Classic!
Parliament should act on the will of the people and the will of the people was their wish to leave. Never mind what a millionaire business woman might think, never mind what the loony left think. The people have voted.
 
Last edited:

Phil.

Established Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
1,323
Location
Penzance
I can, it is still owned by the same family. Editorial independence - yeah whatever!

I don't think that any of the family stole the worker's pensions like the owner of that bastion of socialism the Daily Mirror did.
Up the workers!
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
No-one wants to indemnify any members of the armed forces. The ordinary person in the street just wants smart-arse lefty lawyers hounding them for doing an almost impossible job to be halted.

If they committed illegal acts whilst doing their job (some of which may include a variety of human rights abuses such as unnecessary torture, sexual and physical abuse etc), then sorry but it is totally and utterly right that they be "hounded" and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Do you really think that in cases like what AlterEgo linked to, the crimes should be ignored because the soldiers have a tough job?
 
Last edited:

43021HST

Established Member
Joined
11 Sep 2008
Messages
1,564
Location
Aldershot, Hampshire
I don't think that any of the family stole the worker's pensions like the owner of that bastion of socialism the Daily Mirror did.
Up the workers!

Daily mirror? Bastion of socialism? What planet are you on :lol:

It's like saying the Daily Mail is a credible news source.

No-one wants to indemnify any members of the armed forces. The ordinary person in the street just wants smart-arse lefty lawyers hounding them for doing an almost impossible job to be halted. Ex soldiers who served in Northern Ireland are being investigated but the bad guys on both sides were let out of jail on a free ticket with a letter telling them that they were free from further prosecution. The organiser of the Hyde Park bombings refers.

Like any professions, we have a right to scrutinise the actions of soldiers for any untoward actions.

A very polarised opinion indeed.
 
Last edited:

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,003
Given the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday follow very different editorial policies (as regularly noted by Private Eye) and their owner is actually a Remainer then there is certainly a degree of editorial independence

I thought it was just 'the daily' having a go at 'the Sunday' and vice versa. Based upon Private Eye reading, rather than either paper, neither comes out particularly well. Putting points scoring and internal jockeying for position ahead of getting 'news' to the readership. Then again, as an outsider, I don't understand why there isn't simply a seven day paper (applies similarly to other titles) with editors doing four days on and four days off, or similar.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
No-one wants to indemnify any members of the armed forces. The ordinary person in the street just wants smart-arse lefty lawyers hounding them for doing an almost impossible job to be halted. Ex soldiers who served in Northern Ireland are being investigated but the bad guys on both sides were let out of jail on a free ticket with a letter telling them that they were free from further prosecution. The organiser of the Hyde Park bombings refers.

The government do want to take steps to ensure that soldiers cannot be prosecuted or even investigated for human rights abuses (up to and including murder).

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.te...m-legal-witch-hunt-by-opti/amp/?client=safari

The assumption that it's only British servicemen under investigation in NI is wholly incorrect. In fact, a small minority of deaths currently being investigated by the PSNI are attributed to solider action. The vast majority of cases concern republican or loyalist paramilitaries. I explained this here: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2811041&postcount=116

Incidentally, and back on topic, I highlighted the inadequacy of the right wing press reporting in the subsequent post: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2811059&postcount=118

Soldiers are often doing a very difficult job. I have sympathy with the average bloke serving in NI, upholding a rotten civil power. The Army were never going to "win" and I am sure it was a completely thankless job.

This notwithstanding, where soldiers committed abuses, including murder, prosecutions should have followed. It is too late to prosecute anyone now and I would prefer to see every investigation in NI for a pre-1997 issue closed. The blokes that did Bloody Sunday should have been banged up in 1972. The same applies to paramilitaries who killed people. Prosecution should have followed at the time.

What we must do now is understand the lessons of the past - that refusing to prosecute wrongdoing is poisonous - and not allow the government a free pass to ensure soldiers avoid investigation.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
Agreed. And the fact the second thing happened isn't a reason to assume that the first thing didn't ever happen.

Fair enough but the fact that the second thing happened should bring into question EVERYTHING that Shiner has ever done.

That is certainly the case with other bent lawyers' dealings with non UK soldier's convictions.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Ah, another person who thinks that the voting public shouldn't be allowed to vote because the person might vote in disagreement. Classic!
Parliament should act on the will of the people and the will of the people was their wish to leave. Never mind what a millionaire business woman might think, never mind what the loony left think. The people have voted.

Classic of reading what you want to read not what I actually wrote.

In the case of Brexit, the people were presented with a wide range of "promises" about what would happen afterwards. Some were clearly impossible at the time. Some were incompatible with others. Some have since turned out to be impossible, but nobody knew that at the time. And the government has "interpreted" the will of the people, to say that others that may be possible just won't happen. With this range of options it's reasonable to think (but we don't know) that more people might prefer to remain in the EU under the existing rules than would favour any one of the multiple alternatives, and that the final deal might not actually have majority support.

I accept that the government has a mandate to enter negotiations for the best deal to exit. But for democratic accountability this deal must be put to a referendum where the alternative is the status quo (and it is therefore urgent to find out if Article 50 is reversible).

If you favour the will of the people then you can't possibly opposite that.
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
I have a few mates who voted Brexit based on financial principals they felt were sound. Sadly many people voted Brexit based on cricket on the village green on Sunday, fried pork products for all on demand, a turn around on the banning of Christmas, no more Poles, no more Muslims trying to ban Christmas, looking after our own (Unless they are ones we don't like), making our own laws (Unless we don't like them), kicking out child molesters (Who are apparently only Muslim) and all the other stuff the Mail plugs.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
Classic of reading what you want to read not what I actually wrote.

In the case of Brexit, the people were presented with a wide range of "promises" about what would happen afterwards. Some were clearly impossible at the time. Some were incompatible with others. Some have since turned out to be impossible, but nobody knew that at the time. And the government has "interpreted" the will of the people, to say that others that may be possible just won't happen. With this range of options it's reasonable to think (but we don't know) that more people might prefer to remain in the EU under the existing rules than would favour any one of the multiple alternatives, and that the final deal might not actually have majority support.

I accept that the government has a mandate to enter negotiations for the best deal to exit. But for democratic accountability this deal must be put to a referendum where the alternative is the status quo (and it is therefore urgent to find out if Article 50 is reversible).

If you favour the will of the people then you can't possibly opposite that.

What is this mythical "status quo" to which you refer?

The EU is constantly evolving into a more unified state. True, we have (had) Cameron's laughable opt outs, but even if the EU had finally passed them, within a few years the UK would have been on the outside looking in, but in that case still paying the bills.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
What is this mythical "status quo" to which you refer?

The EU is constantly evolving into a more unified state. True, we have (had) Cameron's laughable opt outs, but even if the EU had finally passed them, within a few years the UK would have been on the outside looking in, but in that case still paying the bills.

1 - There is no evidence at all to suggest out various opt-outs (of which there are many, not just anything that Cameron managed to get - things like our opt out of the Euro etc) would be at risk or would lead to us "being on the outside looking in".

2 - Surely that is the situation we are going to be in anyway if we leave? From the outside looking in, but still paying the bills (either paying in the form of a fee to access the single market, or paying in terms of import / export tariffs that will be applied to us if we are not in the single market).
 

Phil.

Established Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
1,323
Location
Penzance
Daily mirror? Bastion of socialism? What planet are you on :lol:

It's like saying the Daily Mail is a credible news source.



Like any professions, we have a right to scrutinise the actions of soldiers for any untoward actions.

A very polarised opinion indeed.

I'm only quoting the Mirror and the party that it supports. They keep telling us to support Corbyn. Isn't he supposed to be some sort of socialist?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top