Branson overrules VTWC - Daily Mail once again to be available onboard

[al78]

"Attack on freedom of speech" LMAO. The Daily Mail's version of free speech is the freedom to deliberately publish BS to mislead people and tell them what to think. Society would be better off without that so-called "freedom of speech". With freedom, comes responsibility, in the case of newspapers that should be the responsibility to publish factual and objective information.

 

[A0]

Lord Rothermere was a friend of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and directed the Daily Mail's editorial stance towards them in the early 1930s. His 'Youth Triumphant' article praised the accomplishments of the Nazis and the accomplishments. It could be argued that it's not entirely far-fetched to suggest the Daily Mail has some Nazi sympathisers, though I think a lot of readers aren't like that personally. Nevertheless, the Mail isn't exactly renowned for progressive and liberal views, nor for any reliable truth-telling.

You can read a little bit more about it's support of fascism here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Support_of_fascism

If you want to talk about progressive views in the UK media - in the 1940s and 1950s the Guardian was a supporter of eugenics.......

 

[thenorthern]

Was The Daily Mail given out for free in First Class? I have regularly seen The Times given out free in First Class but never The Daily Mail, I think I have seen The Metro given out which is owned by The Daily Mail but isn't The Daily Mail itself.

Regardless of what I read I would say The Times is best to give out for free in First Class as its not got the controversial headlines as seen in The Sun and The Daily Mail but at the same time its not left wing and constantly trying to warn people about Brexit and Donald Trump like The Guardian does.

 

[Matt_pool]

The Daily Fail is full of absolute rubbish though which mainly attacks people on benefits and immigrants.

You just need to read some of the comments on the Mail Online website to get a picture of how deluded its readers are!

 

[northwichcat]

Daily Mail's response

The Daily Mail spokesman hit back, saying that at a time when fares were rising, it was "disgraceful" that Virgin was announcing that "for political reasons it is censoring the choice of newspapers it offers to passengers".

He added: "It is equally rich that Virgin chose to launch this attack on free speech in the Aslef trade union journal.

"For the record, Virgin used to sell only 70 Daily Mails a day. They informed us last November that to save space, they were restricting sales to just three newspapers: the Mirror, FT and Times.

"They gave no other reason, but it may be no coincidence that all those titles, like Virgin owner Sir Richard Branson, are pro-Remain."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42621425

 

[CardiffKid]

I don't understand your point?

The Daily Mail spreads hatred and fear. Virgin WC have simply decided to stop selling it.

Good for them I say.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

"For the record, Virgin used to sell only 70 Daily Mails a day. They informed us last November that to save space, they were restricting sales to just three newspapers: the Mirror, FT and Times.

"They gave no other reason, but it may be no coincidence that all those titles, like Virgin owner Sir Richard Branson, are pro-Remain."

So apparently the fact the Virgin company chose to stop selling a certain product that doesn't bring in much profit and revenue isn't a good enough reason? If the spokesman really cared about the choice of newspapers offered, then why don't they offer all of the Mail's competitors? Or is that not how it works?

It may be no coincidence that Virgin now only sells pro-Remain papers, but even if it was for political reasons it doesn't really change things. If something can't be sold, then you either improve it to the consumer's wishes or you just don't try to sell it. It isn't rocket science, it's basic capitalism really. It's not like the Mail has been banned on board anyway.

 

[RAPC]

I agree with you there. If it wasn't profitable, then not selling it was the simple answer. Making something political is just completely unnecessary.

Completely agree. It is an unnecessary bit of posturing to PR this stance as you will only alienate some of your customers / potential customers, without any tangible upside. If you don't want to stock it either commercially, or down to political reasons, then don't stock it.

The Daily Mail may not be to my editorial taste, but as a grown up I have the mental capacity to read and filter the editorial bias that many publications have and form my own judgement.

 

[CentralTrainer]

I see the Dacre doggies were apoplectic thundering “It is disgraceful that, at a time of massive customer dissatisfaction over ever-increasing rail fares, and after the taxpayer was forced to bail out Virgin’s East Coast mainline franchise - a decision strongly criticised by the Mail - that Virgin Trains should now announce that for political reasons it is censoring the choice of newspapers it offers to passengers”. Bleat. Sniff. Snot fair!

VT and VTEC are two different organisations, but ignorance never bothers the Mail. Also, VTEC has never offered the Mail for sale, and there was no protest about that. Moreover, the Mail admits “For the record Virgin used to sell only 70 Daily Mails a day”. So what on earth are they carping about? Oh right, the papers they still stock “like Virgin owner Sir Richard Branson, are pro-Remain”. So it’s “political censorship”. Yawn.

The Dacre doggies seem unaware that they have run a whole series of articles about Branson which have ranged from the disobliging to the plain abusive and defamatory (hello Quentin Letts (let’s not), claiming the Virgin boss was behind a mythical “plot to hijack Brexit”). They thereby converted someone to the ideas put forward by groups like Stop Funding Hate before they had even thought of enlisting his help.

This personal attack on the Virgin founder will achieve nothing, though. He has no day to day involvement in VT - anyone expecting to see him turn up at VT-run stations like Crewe (or Preston, Carlisle, Lancaster, Rugby, Wigan North Western, Warrington Bank Quay, Wolverhampton, Coventry or several others) will be sorely disappointed.

Nor will there be any effect on revenue - very few travellers are going to turn to alternative transport modes when it takes just over an hour and a half to get from Crewe to Euston, but at least two hours more to do the journey into London by road.

The Mail could have ignored the loss of 70 copies a day. But the iron law of the Vagina Monologue means any naysayer must be rounded on and punished. So out come the personal attacks and smears. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

 

[Geezertronic]

The Daily Mail's version of free speech is the freedom to deliberately publish BS to mislead people and tell them what to think.

That could ultimately be said about any news outlet though whether it be paper, internet or TV based. A wide spectrum of differing versions of the same news story allows the reader/listener to have several views and come to their own decision

The Daily Fail is full of absolute rubbish though which mainly attacks people on benefits and immigrants.

You just need to read some of the comments on the Mail Online website to get a picture of how deluded its readers are!

The same could also be said of the BBC's HYS pages

 

[aylesbury]

Well I shall go on reading the Mail its an excellent paper don't understand the hatred of it on here ,I shall buy my copy before I get on the train and if anyone objects I shall politely tell were them were they can go!!!!!

 

[thenorthern]

I wonder if The Daily Mail will write a lot of bad stories about Virgin Trains now? I think Virgin Trains are making a controversy when they didn't need to be one.

Slightly off topic I notice that Virgin Trains don't sell The Guardian, if it did that would be odd selling a newspaper that published a misleading story that got blown out of proportion a.k.a. traingate and also constantly calls for demise of train operating companies saying they should be nationalized.

The Daily Fail is full of absolute rubbish though which mainly attacks people on benefits and immigrants.

You just need to read some of the comments on the Mail Online website to get a picture of how deluded its readers are!

The Daily Mail can't control what its reader think and can't speak for its readers. Also The Daily Mail isn't intentionally "Fake News" it just publishes stories written in a way you don't like.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Also The Daily Mail isn't intentionally "Fake News" it just publishes stories written in a way you don't like.

The paper specifically prints stories that are not true or not accurate. How is that not "fake news"? (and yes, I know other papers do too, and I think any paper that has printed something that is then found to be incorrect should be forced to print a correction on the same page and same headline size as the original story, so they can't just hide away a tiny correction to a front page headline somewhere in the middle of the paper)

 

[Butts]

Do people really believe everything that they read in Newspapers ?

Perhaps Virgin should give/sell the "I" which is pretty middle of the road and cheap !!

 

[Signal Head]

Just seen this.



I mean seriously? Trian firms are banning newspapers now because a couple of passengers don't like it? The Daily Mail is the second best selling newspaper if people don't like it then they shouldn't buy it however its not really fair on people like me who read The Daily Mail that I can't now buy The Daily Mail because some people don't like whats in it.

I've never seen The Guardian on sale in VT on-board shops either. I've always presumed this had something to do with the publication of articles casting VTWC in a negative light. I don't get upset about it, VT have simply chosen not to sell the paper I read, so I buy it elsewhere.

Are you going to get as upset about the lack of Guardians on board as you appear to be about the decision to stop selling (#1) the DM, after all, there are those who like reading that paper just as much as you like reading your DM?

#1, it's not a ban, you're free to buy your rant rag elsewhere and board with it, which you wouldn't if it were 'banned', get over yourself and stop being an overly dramatic snowflake .

 

[thenorthern]

I've never seen The Guardian on sale in VT on-board shops either. I've always presumed this had something to do with the publication of articles casting VTWC in a negative light. I don't get upset about it, VT have simply chosen not to sell the paper I read, so I buy it elsewhere.

Are you going to get as upset about the lack of Guardians on board as you appear to be about the decision to stop selling (#1) the DM, after all, there are those who like reading that paper just as much as you like reading your DM?

#1, it's not a ban, you're free to buy your rant rag elsewhere and board with it, which you wouldn't if it were 'banned', get over yourself and stop being an overly dramatic snowflake .

Virgin Trains haven't said that The Guardian is against their views and that they don't sell it for that reason, if they did say that they didn't sell The Guardian because it didn't fit in with their views then yes that would be wrong as it would be wrong.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is it politics or morality? I'd expect my employer not to discriminate on grounds of race, sexuality, gender, etc. To me, it seems hypocritical for a business to stand for those beliefs of equality, then fund and profit from the very paper promoting hate and lies. You're free to read what you wish, but Virgin also have a right, like any company not to sell whatever product they wish.

So you think that every newsagent and supermarket in the country is failing in that regard by selling the paper?

If the Mail went online only, would the search engines and hosting companies be failing in that regard by allowing access to it?

Where does it end?

 

[AlterEgo]

Lord Rothermere was a friend of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and directed the Daily Mail's editorial stance towards them in the early 1930s. His 'Youth Triumphant' article praised the accomplishments of the Nazis and the accomplishments. It could be argued that it's not entirely far-fetched to suggest the Daily Mail has some Nazi sympathisers, though I think a lot of readers aren't like that personally. Nevertheless, the Mail isn't exactly renowned for progressive and liberal views, nor for any reliable truth-telling.

You can read a little bit more about it's support of fascism here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Support_of_fascism

People who read the Mail aren’t neo-Nazis. This is fairly straightforward and hopefully we don’t have to debate why.

That’s why the poster was saying he didn’t see his point, because it was a joke that didn’t really make much sense.

 

[AlterEgo]

You just need to read some of the comments on the Mail Online website to get a picture of how deluded its readers are!

There’s a lot of deluded stuff posted on this forum as well. There are deluded and strange people across the Internet!

 

[meolebrace]

Noone buys a paper these days? Do they?

 

[Hornet]

Ironic considering the things he dislikes (like the burqa) he wants to ban.

Ironic indeed.

European Court of Human Rights upholds Belgium's ban on burqas and full-face Islamic veils

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ll-face-islamic-veils-headscarf-a7835156.html

 

[Darandio]

Noone buys a paper these days? Do they?

Only a few million.

 

[bb21]

I wonder if The Daily Mail will write a lot of bad stories about Virgin Trains now? I think Virgin Trains are making a controversy when they didn't need to be one.

They do quite enough already so I doubt it's gonna make much of a difference.

 

[AlterEgo]

Moreover, the Mail admits “For the record Virgin used to sell only 70 Daily Mails a day”. So what on earth are they carping about?

Looks like they’re trying to defend themselves after Virgin had a (very unnecessary and self-serving) pop at them.

The Mail is an awful paper but the posturing and outrage from some people against it has always amused me. It is a newspaper - a bad one - and some people like to read bad newspapers.

I’m not defending the Mail. I hate it too, but it’s very fashionable to talk tabloids down to make oneself look better.

If people don’t like the Mail, these people should not buy it (or don’t stock it!). But don’t tell me all how great and wonderful and clever they are for making the decision.

 

[Bayum]

Just seen this.



I mean seriously? Trian firms are banning newspapers now because a couple of passengers don't like it? The Daily Mail is the second best selling newspaper if people don't like it then they shouldn't buy it however its not really fair on people like me who read The Daily Mail that I can't now buy The Daily Mail because some people don't like whats in it.

The Daily Fail may be the second best selling paper... But it clearly isn’t the best selling paper as far as VTWC are concerned - why would they continue to stock a paper that people could buy at the station pre-boarding when they aren’t selling the copies on the train!?

Whether you like it or not, selling a product that doesn’t sell isn’t going to make any business case worth considering.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

People who read the Mail aren’t neo-Nazis. This is fairly straightforward and hopefully we don’t have to debate why.

That’s why the poster was saying he didn’t see his point, because it was a joke that didn’t really make much sense.

My exact words were

'It could be argued that it's not entirely far-fetched to suggest the Daily Mail has some Nazi sympathisers, though I think a lot of readers aren't like that personally.

So no, we don't need to debate why it's straightforward that most people who read the Mail aren't neo-Nazis. On the second point, I didn't realise that it was a joke, otherwise I would've just said nothing in the first place. A poor understanding on my half.

 

[bb21]

Looks like they’re trying to defend themselves after Virgin had a (very unnecessary and self-serving) pop at them.

The Mail is an awful paper but the posturing and outrage from some people against it has always amused me. It is a newspaper - a bad one - and some people like to read bad newspapers.

I’m not defending the Mail. I hate it too, but it’s very fashionable to talk tabloids down to make oneself look better.

If people don’t like the Mail, these people should not buy it (or don’t stock it!). But don’t tell me all how great and wonderful and clever they are for making the decision.

I'd take all the obnoxious posturing Branson has to offer over that publication.

Just for the fun, mind.

 

[lejog]

Also The Daily Mail isn't intentionally "Fake News" it just publishes stories written in a way you don't like.

Its no longer accepted as a reliable source by Wikipedia.

In February 2017, the English Wikipedia community decided that the Daily Mail was "generally unreliable" to use as a reference in Wikipedia. Some in the discussion objected on the grounds that the more formal decision had no precedent, that it would be widely misinterpreted, and that the Daily Mail is useful for some topics, such as sports reporting. The Daily Mail issued a statement objecting to the decision, while other parties expressed little surprise.

 

[GatwickDepress]

I daresay the Andrex I wipe my backside with is paper that provides better quality content than the Daily Mail.

I'm glad that Virgin aren't selling it anymore, although as others have said, its more likely to have come down to the fact selling only seventy copies a day is hardly sustainable.

 

[Butts]

I daresay the Andrex I wipe my backside with is paper that provides better quality content than the Daily Mail.

I'm glad that Virgin aren't selling it anymore, although as others have said, its more likely to have come down to the fact selling only seventy copies a day is hardly sustainable.

Do hope thats the supreme quilts variety

I think Virgin should consider providing back issues of Signal Magazine for those that were partial to the Daily Mail.