Thursday, July 26, 2007

Missing Madeleine: McCann's local paper bans 'spiteful' campaign...

Thursday's Times reports that the McCann's local newspaper has banned spiteful and defamatory comments about Madeleine's parents.

Nick Carter, Editor of the highly respected Leicester Mercury, writing in his own paper, says:

A tiny minority of people seem to want to say nasty, spiteful and defamatory things about the McCann family.

They are bombarding our site, and we had no choice but to block comment entirely on reports about the family.
After the deluge of comments dumped on my blog over the past few days after I commented on Madeleine's abduction, I have every sympathy with Mr Carter...

13 comments:

ElmerQGooseburger said...

Thank you FDP for the joke...

"the highly respected Leicester Mercury..."


Hightly respected by whom? Would you care to qualify that remark Mr D? Or is this merely FDP indulging in a spot of brown-nosing or brotherly, Masonic back slapping??

Right now - and for some little while - the rump of the British Mainstream Media - whether it be the BBC, Sky, ITN, The Times, The Sun, all of them - have been eyed not with respect, but with increasing suspicion, disbelief and cynicism by the Great British Public.

The Great British Public know they are being jerked off by the MSM, the MSM know we know it, and we know they know we know it, yet this charade, this "Pact of Silence" on the part of British TV and newspapers persists.

Both respect for, and trust in established Media like the BBC, is probably at its nadir (though will fall further). The BBC, Murdoch, Rothermere and the rest of the cartel garner next to nothing in terms of respect.

So much for the rump of the MSM.

The flanks, such as your beloved Leicester Mercury, with its new! improved! 2007! exercise in book-burning, commands zero respect, and earns less.

It is not simply the case that this excuse for a newspaper had issues with libellous comments.

For weeks, it has been systematically declining to print or exhibit any comment even mildly critical of, or which questioned the actions of, this pair of self-serving, manipulative, deluded and feckless fools.

Far from being "highly respected"' The Mercury is, of course, a mere provincial rag, a septic pile on the anus that is the Daily Mail and General Trust Group.

In the vein of the curtailment of free speech - something clearly close to the heart of Nick Carter - I will make no further comment, should I conclude that he is a yellow-bellied, lickspittle toadie in obeyance of the "real" editors, Harold "Harry" Rothermere and his cronies.

Do I win £5.00?

Tanglewood said...

Well done elmergooseburger!
Have stopped buying the Daily Mail, which used to be my 'fix' for the day. Now I read Mike Hitchen.
It is so refreshing to read your honest words.
Justice for little Madeleine, who was left ALONE to look after her two year old siblingS!!!

Michael Oakeshott said...

And I thought the loonies had returned to the asylum. You will go a long way to hear such a paranoid and nonsensical rant as that. A name like Elmerqgooseburger...it would be hard to come up with a post that is more stupid than that name. But you managed it. Well done indeed.

Now push you silly little toad, noone is listening.

fairdealphil said...

1. Why do I believe the Leicester Mercury is highly respected...?

It's a personal opinion, based on 30-years plus experience as a trained journalist, mostly here in the East Midlands.

I've also worked in Leicester and know that my opinion is widely shared by community leaders there.

I may not always agree with its content, but the truth is the Mercury is the most widely respected newspaper in the East Midlands.

Have you ever actually picked up a copy of the Leicester Mercury...?

2. Am I brown-nosing...?

No. And unlike some, my head is not up my ass either...

3. Guilty of brotherly, Masonic back slapping...?

You couldn't be more wrong. On my Register of Interests at Lincolnshire County Council, each year I insist on adding the following words - much to the annoyance of others:

"I am not and never have been a Freemason, member of any Lodge, Orange Order or any similar organisation."

4. You say "the BBC, Sky, ITN, The Times, The Sun, all of them - have been eyed not with respect, but with increasing suspicion, disbelief and cynicism by the Great British Public."

Maybe true, but I thought we were talking here about the Leicester Mercury...

5. you talk about "this pair of self-serving, manipulative, deluded and feckless fools"...

You call his newspaper "a septic pile on the anus that is the Daily Mail..."

And you question why the editor has sensibly barred you from commenting...?

6. You say: 'The Mercury is, of course, a mere provincial rag...'

Provincial and proud of it.

7. The Editor of Leicester Merc a yellow-belly..?

Don't know, but if true, I hold him in even higher exteem and he's in good company.

I'm definitely yellow belly and proud.

You're not from round here, are you?

Try wikipedia.

fairdealphil said...

esteem

Brynley said...

Elmer Goooseburger has achieved something I thought I would never see.

Making even Michael Oakeshott sound reasoned and balanced.

fairdealphil said...

brynley:

i thought you'd gone into hibernation...welcome back.

how's your rubbish?

fairdealphil said...

wonder if michael agrees - if only broadly - with my post on Royal Navy and Afghanistan...?

Two agreements in a week really would be something...!

Brynley said...

Phil, my rubbish remains uncollected. I take it down the dump in Pinfold Road, Bourne, since you ask.

fairdealphil said...

brynley:

you - and others - have done elmer cheeseburger an apology...

you've been missing out his q.

i'm sure it's important to him/her.

Brynley said...

I don't think Elmer believes in queuing.

Michael Oakeshott said...

Broadly I agree that the order is a good thing. I am glad the army will have more of what it needs.

But you went for a cheap political point when it would have been better not to. It is not only the Tories who see that our military is over-stretched, and has been under-funded. I have no problem with using our army across the world, and am glad to have been involved in liberating Afghanistan and Iraq. Keeping the bases fully staffed in Ireland will be essential to support the unionists there(which we should always do). And it looks increasingly likely that Britain will have to act soon with America to protect the world from Iran. It is very hard to see how we can successfully accomplish these worthy aims with an army of 100k men. I would suggest increasing pay to aid recruitment, stop doing away with regiments, and increasing miliary expenditure sharply(probably double it for starters). We could do this by cutting the NHS(nuking it might be better), privatising the BBC(ditto, a disgraceful corrupt criminal organisation), rationalising education or even by making Iraq more profitable(historically speaking, a lot of the oil there belongs to us anyway - I would reverse the Saddam theft and get it flowing again - anyone who gets in the way should be slaughtered like the dog they are).

So in short there are only two threats to UK foreign policy.

1. A democrat President in 2008. The disgraceful Obama looks unelectable in any case. It would be better if a Republican were returned. It never helps to choke in the face of terror(see Italy, Spain). Enough Americans realised this in 2004(who would Bin Laden vote for?). Hopefully they will do the decent thing in 2008. A vote for Obama is a vote for Al Qaeda.

2. Our low military budget, over-streched army and the low morale of our army. If we are to use our army to re-order this world, then it should be given the necessay priority in budget terms.

fairdealphil said...

if anyone wishes to comment on Michael's contribution (above), I've repeated it on please the appropriate post relating to Taliban and aircraft carrier ordered yesterday.

thanks - phil.