OnePlus 6 review: Hands-on
I see we have some more soft in the head ideas. talking about there humane rights. this after the man on the news had killed three people, Judge had given him a forever life prison sentence
all I can say is send them to live next door to the ones who suggest this daft idea
The on-line Daily Mail's headline was, actually:
"Triple murderer becomes first Briton to challenge his 'life-means-life' sentence after Strasbourg ruled it was 'inhuman' for prisoners to die in jail"
Quite neutral for them....
And the Guardian said..........?
I imagine that there are very few people in this country, whichever newspaper they read, who would contemplate letting a convicted triple murderer and rapist out of jail.
Selective mocking of newspaper headlines shows bias and maybe a closed mind.
FE's point is that this has nothing to do with the EU. It's the European Court of Human Rights.
I do agree that it's the wrong decision.
"Selective mocking of newspaper headlines shows bias and maybe a closed mind."
So does totally missing the point, as you have, and as pointed out by marvin42.
With EU I only wanted to draw attention to the post, it was easier than full EU court name
I also think that there are very few people in this country, whichever newspaper they read, who would contemplate letting a convicted triple murderer and rapist out of jail.
spider9 made an apt comment. I have noted on the forum that mention of the Daily Mail is rarely complimentary .
Courtesy of a. major grocery chain, Waitrose, we are lucky to have free copies of various newspapers. Last week we enjoyed the Observer, the Guardian and the Mail. All are quite interesting - in different ways but none will be on my shopping list.
"mention of the Daily Mail is rarely complimentary"
Which ought to give an indication of a pattern emerging.
The Daily Mail is a very popular newspaper. Its success is largely due to the work of one man - David English - who worked as Editor for 20 years, and transformed the paper into what it is now. Success is also due to the facts that it aims much of its content specifically at women (Just over 50% of its readership),and its campaigning stance. I have no argument with any of that - it's a remarkable story of how hard work and vision can produce spectacular results.
My dislike of the paper is down to the way it goes scaremongering, like the time it announced that there was 'popular support' among Falkland islanders for a scheme that would give them special Passports with ‘Falkland Islands’ printed on the front. The Mail said the move would "send a clear message to Argentina that the population has no wish to give up British sovereignty." and printed the story under the heading "Falklands risks fresh spat with Argentina as nation seeks to get its own passports". It said that the Falkland islands were opening talks with the government about it.
The thing was, the editor of the Falkland islands own newspaper said she had heard nothing about any such plan, and she thought it "sounded like a vague idea that had been blown up out of proportion." In the end it turned out that the Mail's source was one man in the islands who wanted to push the idea.
It's just once instance of The Daily Mail at work, sensationalising something vague for the sake of a story. There have been many others.
Journalism that is driven by the need to sell copies is all very well, but if you want to be taken seriously as a newspaper you need to base reports on facts, not vague rumours.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.