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

[zuriblue]

Of course they wouldn't have noticed.

So, instead, they'd still be talking about Virgin Trains East Coast's bailout and Anne Milton (who was going to replace Jeremy H*nt as Health Secretary) having a husband who is a senior director of Virgin Healthcare.

Where's that like button?

 

[EM2]

I'm wondering if those decrying Virgin's 'censorship' by not selling/distributing the Daily Mail because of its values would say the same if it were the Daily/Sunday Sport?

 

[Tetchytyke]

It is quite amusing to watch the rightwing commentators - who usually sneer at "snowflake" behaviour - wail and cry about Virgin ceasing to stock the Mail when anyone at a VTWC station can happily wander into Smiths and buy a copy.

It's always the same. I used to work for a students' union in London which voted to stop selling the Daily Mail in campus outlets, which the University happily agreed with. Wailings of censorship and totalitarianism promptly ensued, from people who should know better. The fact that the nearest outlet to my desk in the SU was the Sainsbury's over the road, which still happily sold it (along with about five other newsagents in the next two streets), didn't seem to count for much.

It's odd, really. The likes of Farage are surely all in favour of communities "taking back control"?

I'm wondering if those decrying Virgin's 'censorship' by not selling/distributing the Daily Mail because of its values would say the same if it were the Daily/Sunday Sport?

If they whinge about the Daily Mail not being sold, they should whinge about the Daily Express not being sold. And if they whinge about the Daily Express not being sold somewhere, they should be fair and reasonable and demand that all Richard Desmond's publications be sold on board a train. Horny Housewives, anyone?

 

[LLivery]

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?

It is up to the company whether they wish to sell the rag. Today's headline in the Mail is exactly the kind of nonsense people hate them for. I believe advertising in a paper, thereby actively funding a paper that is against your beliefs as a person/company makes no sense and is hypocritical. As for online, Google isn't gaining commision from allowing access to the Daily Mail's website. It gains from adverts, unlike retailers which literally gain from every sale. Preventing someone from accessing the paper is censorship and is wrong; telling someone to buy it somewhere else is fine.

 

[AlterEgo]

It is up to the company whether they wish to sell the rag. Today's headline in the Mail is exactly the kind of nonsense people hate them for. I believe advertising in a paper, thereby actively funding a paper that is against your beliefs as a person/company makes no sense and is hypocritical. As for online, Google isn't gaining commision from allowing access to the Daily Mail's website. It gains from adverts, unlike retailers which literally gain from every sale. Preventing someone from accessing the paper is censorship and is wrong; telling someone to buy it somewhere else is fine.

Presumably the reverse is true and if you have a property or commodity which has adverts on it, which you get paid for, but don’t necessarily agree with, you’re some sort of hypocrite?

 

[LLivery]

Presumably the reverse is true and if you have a property or commodity which has adverts on it, which you get paid for, but don’t necessarily agree with, you’re some sort of hypocrite?

If I owned a paper or something else with adverts in it, I wouldn't accept requests to posts ads from a Far Right party or any other kind of hateful organisation. Accepting money for it seems hypocritical to me - I'm not going to be bought. Furthermore, as Paperchase found out, it's bad PR.

 

[Hornet]

More like national insecurity

There are a few insecure European Nations out there.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/european-countries-banned-burqa-130228107.html

Merkel is not a great fan either.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said the wearing of full-faced veils should be prohibited in the country "wherever it is legally possible".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38226081

As for the Daily Mail, like the Star, Scum, Torygraph, Express and Guardian, papers I would not waste my hard earned on. Print Journo's are probably 3rd in line against the wall after HR and Customer Relations Reps.

 

[underbank]

If they whinge about the Daily Mail not being sold, they should whinge about the Daily Express not being sold. And if they whinge about the Daily Express not being sold somewhere, they should be fair and reasonable and demand that all Richard Desmond's publications be sold on board a train. Horny Housewives, anyone?

Difference is that the Daily Mail has the second highest circulation of a UK daily newspaper. The Daily Express has only a quarter of the Mail's circulation. Very strange for any outlet selling newspapers to boycott the second most popular one!

 

[thenorthern]

As I say I think Virgin Trains should have just quietly stopped selling it without making a big deal about it. Lets face it though how many of the people who are congratulating Virgin Trains on Twitter for it are now going to travel on Virgin Trains more because of the decision? Almost none. At the same time The Daily Mail will probably now write more negative stories about Virgin Trains because of the decision.

One of the reasons why this has become a big issue is that free speech is becoming a sensitive topic, with Waitrose being told to stop Daily Mail offers, Lego being told to stop giving away free things in The Daily Mail, advertisers being petitions to boycott the Daily Mail by people who don't read it, right wing activists being banned from universities and people calling on media outlets not to interview right wing people. There comes a point though when you have to start questioning who is the oppressive ones the people calling for a right wing government or the people trying to silence the people calling for a right wing government.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

One of the reasons why this has become a big issue is that free speech is becoming a sensitive topic, with Waitrose being told to stop Daily Mail offers, Lego being told to stop giving away free things in The Daily Mail, advertisers being petitions to boycott the Daily Mail by people who don't read it, right wing activists being banned from universities and people calling on media outlets not to interview right wing people. There comes a point though when you have to start questioning who is the oppressive ones the people calling for a right wing government or the people trying to silence the people calling for a right wing government.

Like you, I share concerns about free speech now being a sensitive topic, as well as cases of where the right-wing get shut down or banned. Nevertheless, bigotry isn't exclusive to the far-left, it's just disguised a lot better on the far-right to the point where they can sometimes be seen as a voice of reason. It's how the alt-right got so popular; people were so disillusioned with the left that they thought they had someone to listen to. But for the most part I don't act on emotions, in fact I keep them away from decision-making. As such I could also end up seeing the alt-right views of identiterianism and white nationalism behind the deceptive nature, and though some have accused me of being alt-right, anybody who knows me would know it wasn't the case.

The question of the oppressed and the oppressor in a first world society is entirely subjective to where you are on the spectrum though. You might think that your voice is being censored because the Daily Mail is no longer being sold on trains or being offered at Waitrose, or Lego being told to stop giving away free things in it. On the contrary though, people who want to boycott and ban it think the Daily Mail is a tool of the oppressor who are out to divide and rule people it sees as scum (ie. Muslims and unemployed people). But me? Well, truth be told I don't wish to ban the Daily Mail because we cannot pick and choose who gets the right to free speech or freedom of the press, even if it is somewhat hateful. Free speech includes hate speech unfortunately.

Nevertheless, I don't expect anyone to get on board the platform of the Mail, which is extremely unreliable to the point where Wikipedia doesn't recognise it as a valid source, and can often be very deceptive and print deliberately provocative headlines to get readers and sales. A train company deciding they don't wish to sell it isn't censorship, and if a store makes the choice to stop selling it, it isn't censorship. The right to free speech gives you a platform to voice your opinion. It does not mean people have to listen or agree with you, as is the case on these Forums with many hating the Daily Mail. The argument of censorship is just the Daily Mail taking a victimhood mentality, and quite honestly I despise it when people do that. Unfortunately though it does seem to get a lot of attention, and sometimes even power.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Daily Mail withdrawn from public display at local library due to "constant defacement" (you have to sign a copy out from the information desk)

 

[thenorthern]

Boris Johnson has got involved now, he doesn't seem to mention Syria, Jerusalem, North Korea or many other issues like a Foreign Secretary should but obviously this is so important. Number 10 has said its a matter for Virgin Trains but its important to have a free press.

Labour has said that if they were in power a nationalised operator would not restrict sales of the paper, given that most of the people congratulating Virgin Trains are from the left of centre politically and are most likely Labour voters its kind of ironic that they are voting for a party that not only wants to see the demise of Virgin Trains but also wants to bring back on board sales of a newspaper that they are trying to stop.

Essentially Virgin Trains have created controversy when there didn't need to be any, they could have stopped selling The Daily Mail quietly but instead they have created a political row.

 

[TheNewNo2]

It is quite amusing to watch the rightwing commentators - who usually sneer at "snowflake" behaviour - wail and cry about Virgin ceasing to stock the Mail when anyone at a VTWC station can happily wander into Smiths and buy a copy.

That's the thing though - the right wing do not understand the left's criticisms. Things like Trigger Warnings are not about censorship or shielding people from bad things, it's about saying "there are bad things here, be warned". Few people however would object to being warned that you were about to discuss the plot of the latest episode of Game of Thrones, and it's the same damn thing. I've seen people argue that "you don't get warnings about bad things in real life", which is true, but is no reason to spring a surprise rape on someone. Not allowing far right speakers to speak on campus is not censorship, it's simply not giving a platform to someone who would deny the rights of others. You have a right to speak, you do not have a right to be listened to.

The right wing do end up being the caricature they create of the left.

This subject came up on the TfL Yammer group, and it was proposed that the Evening Standard and Metro be removed from LU property because they're published by the Daily Mail Group. I have to say I'm in favour of this idea in principle, simply because those free papers create a large fire, safety and delay risk.

 

[fowler9]

Boris Johnson has got involved now, he doesn't seem to mention Syria, Jerusalem, North Korea or many other issues like a Foreign Secretary should but obviously this is so important. Number 10 has said its a matter for Virgin Trains but its important to have a free press.

Labour has said that if they were in power a nationalised operator would not restrict sales of the paper, given that most of the people congratulating Virgin Trains are from the left of centre politically and are most likely Labour voters its kind of ironic that they are voting for a party that not only wants to see the demise of Virgin Trains but also wants to bring back on board sales of a newspaper that they are trying to stop.

Essentially Virgin Trains have created controversy when there didn't need to be any, they could have stopped selling The Daily Mail quietly but instead they have created a political row.

We still have a free press. Virgin are allowed to sell what the hell they want though, doesn't Boris support that?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

The right wing do end up being the caricature they create of the left.

That and vice versa. For sides that are so opposed to each other they certainly have more in common with each other than they do with the centre-ground. It's almost as if they fuel each other and make the other more powerful even.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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!

Of course they wouldn't have noticed.
So, instead, they'd still be talking about Virgin Trains East Coast's bailout and Anne Milton (who was going to replace Jeremy H*nt as Health Secretary) having a husband who is a senior director of Virgin Healthcare.

Oh the irony... That in a thread that is largely lambasting the Daily Mail for false news, we get references to the so-called bailout - a story being pushed by many on the left, but which is arguably just as false as anything the Mail comes up with. This thread discusses the situation regarding the VTEC franchise, and makes it clear that it was largely a question of Network Rail not being able to meet its infrastructure obligations that the franchise was based on, which would have made it basically impossible to continue the franchise without extensive renegotiation. So, not a bailout at all.

I don't like the Mail, and personally I'm quite happy that Virgin West Coast will no longer stock it. To my mind, it'd be nice if lots of other places followed suit. The Mail's reporting is often inaccurate and in my view panders to many people's prejudices in a way that must surely cause a lot of unnecessary hatred. But it's perhaps worth remembering that 'fake news' doesn't always only come from the right-wing! (And yes I am aware that CentralTrainer was actually quoting the Mail - which perhaps goes to show how inaccurate that paper can be!)

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Boris Johnson has referred to removing the paper as a "pompus" and "absurd" move. It's funny too, there's a Daily Mail headline that reads...

Boris Johnson is to keep his job as Foreign Secretary amid fears he'd 'blow it all sky high' if Theresa May demoted him in New Year reshuffle

Do forgive my ignorance, but who exactly was scared of Boris Johnson being removed from the position of Foreign Secretary? If anything actually scares me, it'd be the fact he's still got the bloody job. He's a total and utter embarrassment to the UK, and the best Theresa May could do for this country is keep him away from power. He's shown himself to be willing to stab his allies in the back for his own agenda, so he's not someone I would like to be anywhere near Downing Street. Dare I say I'd prefer Jeremy Corbyn that close to power, at least he's not changed a lot of principles or ideals just to get ahead in his career, even if he is a bit of a plant-pot.

 

[B&I]

I'm torn about this. On the one hand, I dislike anyone telling anyone else what they can and cannot think. On the other hand, HAHAHAHAHAHA AT THE MAIL AND ITS READERS

 

[Domh245]

On the one hand, I dislike anyone telling anyone else what they can and cannot think.

That isn't what is happening. You are still more than welcome to read a copy of the Daily Mail on a Virgin Trains service, you just won't be able to buy it from the onboard shop any more, you'll have to buy it before you board.

 

[B&I]

It's always the same. I used to work for a students' union in London which voted to stop selling the Daily Mail in campus outlets, which the University happily agreed with. Wailings of censorship and totalitarianism promptly ensued, from people who should know better. The fact that the nearest outlet to my desk in the SU was the Sainsbury's over the road, which still happily sold it (along with about five other newsagents in the next two streets), didn't seem to count for much.

It's odd, really. The likes of Farage are surely all in favour of communities "taking back control"?



If they whinge about the Daily Mail not being sold, they should whinge about the Daily Express not being sold. And if they whinge about the Daily Express not being sold somewhere, they should be fair and reasonable and demand that all Richard Desmond's publications be sold on board a train. Horny Housewives, anyone?

What about the Morning Star? Or Reader's Female Comrades and Equal Participants in the Struggle against Capitalism and Imperialism?

 

[yorkie]

I'm torn about this. On the one hand, I dislike anyone telling anyone else what they can and cannot think. On the other hand, HAHAHAHAHAHA AT THE MAIL AND ITS READERS

You can think that this story has anything to do with anyone telling anyone else what they cannot think if you want to think that.

But that doesn't make it true

 

[B&I]

As I say I think Virgin Trains should have just quietly stopped selling it without making a big deal about it. Lets face it though how many of the people who are congratulating Virgin Trains on Twitter for it are now going to travel on Virgin Trains more because of the decision? Almost none. At the same time The Daily Mail will probably now write more negative stories about Virgin Trains because of the decision.

One of the reasons why this has become a big issue is that free speech is becoming a sensitive topic, with Waitrose being told to stop Daily Mail offers, Lego being told to stop giving away free things in The Daily Mail, advertisers being petitions to boycott the Daily Mail by people who don't read it, right wing activists being banned from universities and people calling on media outlets not to interview right wing people. There comes a point though when you have to start questioning who is the oppressive ones the people calling for a right wing government or the people trying to silence the people calling for a right wing government.

The right to free speech includes the right to criticise other people's views, however odd this concept may seem to Daily HATE readers, who, as they say where I come from 'can give it out, but can't take it'. And in any case, persuading Lego not to take part in cross-promotion with the Mail is not exactly up there with book-burning.

 

[B&I]

That isn't what is happening. You are still more than welcome to read a copy of the Daily Mail on a Virgin Trains service, you just won't be able to buy it from the onboard shop any more, you'll have to buy it before you board.

I know it isn't really, but I wanted to create a false appearance of balanced consideration for (unsuccessful) comic effect. While I don't believe in legal prohibitions on expression, except in extreme cases, I have no problem with people telling people (as a matter of social pressure) not to think whatever hate-filled drivel the Mail is peddling to foster a political environment conducive to the fiscal position of its oh-so-patriotic proprietor (domiciled in France for tax purposes).

 

[Tetchytyke]

This thread discusses the situation regarding the VTEC franchise, and makes it clear that it was largely a question of Network Rail not being able to meet its infrastructure obligations

Some people are of that opinion, but have not given concrete examples of a) which obligations have not yet been met and b) where it was agreed these were obligations that would affect the promises of the franchisee.

My opinion? Virgin have knackered the growth on the ECML and Failing Grayling couldn't afford another private franchise failure for political reasons. It's a bailout.

 

[Clip]

I'm wondering if those decrying Virgin's 'censorship' by not selling/distributing the Daily Mail because of its values would say the same if it were the Daily/Sunday Sport?

Do they sell or provide free the above named papers?

 

[EM2]

Do they sell or provide free the above named papers?

That's not my point. My point is that if they did, and then decided not to do so, for the same reasons, would there be the same outcry?

 

[Clip]

That's not my point. My point is that if they did, and then decided not to do so, for the same reasons, would there be the same outcry?

well its a moot point as its never going to arise is it?

 

[EM2]

well its a moot point as its never going to arise is it?

Well, admittedly it's more of a thought experiment, but I just wonder whether those shouting 'Censorship!' would do the same for other publications.

 

[Clip]

Well, admittedly it's more of a thought experiment, but I just wonder whether those shouting 'Censorship!' would do the same for other publications.

I'm sure they would but then again those who are shouting 'censorship' obviously don't understand what they are talking about as not selling something is very far from censorship

 

[Clip]

This subject came up on the TfL Yammer group, and it was proposed that the Evening Standard and Metro be removed from LU property because they're published by the Daily Mail Group. I have to say I'm in favour of this idea in principle, simply because those free papers create a large fire, safety and delay risk.

They pay a pretty penny to TfL for this though don't they?