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

[dk1]

VTWC considering reintroducing the Daily Mail

Good news. Just been announced by the BBC.

 

[Clip]

The thing is, is that Nigel is right. You just can't ban things, as that to me is laying down and allowing the enemy to treat you as a doormat..

Nigel is not right and neither are you - they have not banned anything.

 

[Clip]

Here's the link

https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/virgin-trains-and-daily-mail

Richard Branson and business partner Brian Souter were not aware of the removal until it made it into the media

Given that statement one wonders if they will indeed start stocking the Daily/Sunday sport and an array of jazz mags because, as he quite clearly states:

Brian and I agree that we must not ever be seen to be censoring what our customers read and influencing their freedom of choice. Nor must we be seen to be moralising on behalf of others.

 

[DarloRich]

that is a shame. i like seeing Tories and kippers wibble themselves blind over things that don't really matter

 

[NSEFAN]

The whole saga seems like a publicity stunt to me. It has kept VT in the headlines for a couple of weeks at a time of year when fewer people are travelling and potential customers need reminding of their existence.

 

[AlterEgo]

Here's the link

https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/virgin-trains-and-daily-mail

Richard Branson and business partner Brian Souter were not aware of the removal until it made it into the media

I like how a company has to publish a correction about a story they ran on the Daily Mail. Makes a change!

 

[Kite159]

Unless they have come to some background deal so that Virgin pays DM less money to have their newspapers, I would put 10p on the newspaper being quietly dropped from sale once more before Easter.

Although some people might actually now know that Virgin sell that particular newspaper in the shop to save giving their money to other newsagents in the station, so sales might increase.

 

[YorkshireBear]

As much as I despise the Daily Mail that seems to be the correct decision.

 

[dk1]

As much as I despise the Daily Mail that seems to be the correct decision.

Totally agree. I do like it for the financial/business side of things but to censor your customers reading choice is simply wrong.

 

[Domh245]

Totally agree. I do like it for the financial/business side of things but to censor your customers reading choice is simply wrong.

There never was any censorship...

 

[DarloRich]

Totally agree. I do like it for the financial/business side of things but to censor your customers reading choice is simply wrong.

BUT THERE WAS NO CENSORSHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[YorkshireBear]

BUT THERE WAS NO CENSORSHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Indeed. Although you are not replying to me I just wanted to say that is not the reason I think this is the correct decision.

While not censorship I do not think an effective way to fight views such as those in the Daily Mail is to ban them as that does not help anyone.

 

[dk1]

BUT THERE WAS NO CENSORSHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You caps lock is stuck on.

 

[Bromley boy]

BUT THERE WAS NO CENSORSHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Looking at the OED definition of censorship:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship

the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Restricting sales of one particular paper, or source of news, to advance a political agenda certainly seems to be something that could fall within this definition of censorship.

If virgin aren’t selling many copies then fine, make a commercial decision not to stock it. That’s very different from withdrawing it because someone in Virgin’s corporate responsibility team (or whoever made the decision) objects to its editorial stance. Even as someone who doesn’t read the mail personally, I can see how that might alienate many people.

Reinstating it is the right decision in my view, although, as others have said, this does smack of a publicity stunt.

 

[bb21]

You caps lock is stuck on.

Well he struck the key too hard and accidentally broke it.

Part of me feels like there is a massive con going on, and the only losers are the audiences like us who are not in the loop.

As for beardy, he really is a media slut.

 

[Howardh]

Wonder if Virgin Trains will take a full page ad out in...the Daily Mail?

**Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest....**

 

[Hornet]

The Professionally Offended must have been choking on their cornflakes this morning. A mighty kerfuffle over something most of us couldn't give a toss about.

 

[DarloRich]

Looking at the OED definition of censorship:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship



Restricting sales of one particular paper, or source of news, to advance a political agenda certainly seems to be something that could fall within this definition of censorship.

If virgin aren’t selling many copies then fine, make a commercial decision not to stock it. That’s very different from withdrawing it because someone in Virgin’s corporate responsibility team (or whoever made the decision) objects to its editorial stance. Even as someone who doesn’t read the mail personally, I can see how that might alienate many people.

Reinstating it is the right decision in my view, although, as others have said, this does smack of a publicity stunt.

So by the same token Virgin must be censoring The Morning Star and Penthouse or Rail....................

 

[Bromley boy]

So by the same token Virgin must be censoring The Morning Star and Penthouse or Rail....................

Penthouse isn’t a news publication so isn’t really relevant.

The morning star is a niche newspaper with a minuscule circulation. The decision not to stock it is no doubt a commercial one. Most people will never have heard of it. A train is not a newsagents and space is limited.

By contrast Virgin has decided to stock the mail previously, as one of the most popular British newspapers, and has then gone on record to state it is being withdrawn because the company disagrees with its editorial stance. This does seem to fall neatly within the definition of censorship I posted above.

Unfortunately, as usual, people are failing to look beyond their own dislike of the mail to see the real issue here.

The argument seems to be “It can’t be censorship because I don’t like the publication that is being taken off sale”. Well if you’re happy with that you won’t be able to complain when something you do support is given the same treatment.

Be careful what you wish for!

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Penthouse isn’t a news publication so isn’t really relevant.

The morning star is a niche newspaper with a minuscule circulation. The decision not to stock it is no doubt a commercial one. Most people will never have heard of it. A train is not a newsagents and space is limited.

By contrast Virgin has decided to stock the mail previously, as one of the most popular British newspapers, and has then gone on record to state it is being withdrawn because the company disagrees with its editorial stance. This does seem to fall neatly within the definition of censorship I posted above.

Unfortunately, as usual, people are failing to look beyond their own dislike of the mail to see the real issue here.

The argument seems to be “It can’t be censorship because I don’t like the publication that is being taken off sale”. Well if you’re happy with that you won’t be able to complain when something you do support is given the same treatment.

Be careful what you wish for!

The issue here mate is that the best reason for choosing not to stock the Mail is because they only sold 70 copies a day, and as such it wouldn’t be profitable to keep selling it. Instead they decided it would be better to virtue signal about it and give themselves a moral high ground. After suing the NHS last year I think Virgin needed their name to be a bit less tainted, especially in the time of fare rises.

As a private company, Virgin has the right to stock what it wants and can choose at any time if it doesn’t wish to sell anything. The Mail is no exception even despite being a big newspaper. It’s not like you’re not allowed to buy it elsewhere and bring it on board. The issue here is Virgin took a moral high ground, and the Mail retaliated along with those who didn’t like the decision.

To make things worse, if Branson is now saying that VT can’t be seen as censoring it’s passengers, it’ll have to face the arguments of “why not the Guardian?”, “Why not the Morning Star?”. Why stop at newspapers? Why not sell Playboy magazine? If you ask me, had this actually been a ban I would’ve been against it, but Virgin making a commercial decision not sell something that isn’t profitable for them is basic capitalism. The turned a non-story into a huge issue, that’s what they’re truly guilty of if you ask me.

 

[DarloRich]

Penthouse isn’t a news publication so isn’t really relevant.

The morning star is a niche newspaper with a minuscule circulation. The decision not to stock it is no doubt a commercial one. Most people will never have heard of it. A train is not a newsagents and space is limited.

By contrast Virgin has decided to stock the mail previously, as one of the most popular British newspapers, and has then gone on record to state it is being withdrawn because the company disagrees with its editorial stance. This does seem to fall neatly within the definition of censorship I posted above.

Unfortunately, as usual, people are failing to look beyond their own dislike of the mail to see the real issue here.

The argument seems to be “It can’t be censorship because I don’t like the publication that is being taken off sale”. Well if you’re happy with that you won’t be able to complain when something you do support is given the same treatment.

Be careful what you wish for!

It isnt censorship. It really isnt. A company decided not to sell something.

IF the daily mail (turd as it is ) were actually being banned (as opposed to not being sold in one shop) I would agree with you. That would be wrong and very dangerous. I checked at whsmith tonight and copies could still be obtained.

virtue signal

don't use phrases like this - they are silly and meaningless - and suggest the very thing you have just complained about!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The whole saga seems like a publicity stunt to me. It has kept VT in the headlines for a couple of weeks at a time of year when fewer people are travelling and potential customers need reminding of their existence.

Mr. Hammer, allow me to introduce you to Mr. Nail-head.

The lesson here is to treat EVERYTHING coming out of any company's PR department with a whole cellar of salt.

Oh, and if ever you find yourself thinking "Nigel [Farage] is right" it's time to put down the beer and go to bed.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

don't use phrases like this - they are silly and meaningless - and suggest the very thing you have just complained about!

You're telling me not to use certain phrases? Oh dear, let us not go down a different path regarding censorship. Besides, it is not meaningless at all, it's definition is actually in line with what Virgin have done...

virtue signalling
noun

1. the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.

 

[Bromley boy]

After suing the NHS last year I think Virgin needed their name to be a bit less tainted, especially in the time of fare rises.

Agreed - pathetic isn’t it. Virgin’s corporate values indeed. That company exists to make a truck load of money for Beardy. No issue with that in itself but annoying when they try to pretend it doesn’t.

Suing the NHS is a good example of this.

It isnt censorship. It really isnt. A company decided not to sell something.

IF the daily mail (turd as it is ) were actually being banned (as opposed to not being sold in one shop) I would agree with you.

Look again at the definition.

You’re making the mistake of assuming anything less than a total ban isn’t censorship.

Thought experiment. If VTWC permitted sale of the mail but redacted certain articles it considered disagreeable, would this be censorship in your view?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Agreed - pathetic isn’t it. Virgin’s corporate values indeed. That company exists to make a truck load of money for Beardy. No issue with that in itself but annoying when they try to pretend it doesn’t.

Suing the NHS is a good example of this.



Look again at the definition.

You’re making the mistake of assuming anything less than a total ban isn’t censorship.

Thought experiment. If VTWC permitted sale of the mail but redacted certain articles it considered disagreeable, would this be censorship in your view?

You're not comparing like with like there though. If they stocked it with redactions then yes, that would be a textbook example of censorship... but nobody suggested that and to do so would be so time-consuming as to be absurd. Your use of that hypothetical concept in this discussion is similarly absurd.

A company decided to stop stocking an product because of poor sales. Not censorship. They then decided to publicise this in order to capitalise on the divisive/controversial reputation of said product. Stupid, but still not censorship.
No restrictions were placed on the posession of said product on the company's property, so STILL not censorship.
This policy then is reported incorrectly as a "ban" and the organic fertiliser collides with the rotary cooling device. The company then reverses their original change in policy and is left looking spineless to the public on both sides.

With some of the stuff coming out of Virgin Rail Group, be it press releases or just advertisements, I do wonder how some of these people are still in jobs!

 

[thenorthern]

Regarding The Daily Mail its what you would expect when shopping for newspapers in any place that sells newspapers along with The Sun (except in Liverpool), The Daily Express, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times, The Daily Mirror, The Daily Star and The Financial Times. More obscure titles such as The Morning Star or The Celtic View is not something you would expect to find at every place that sells newspapers.

Its because Virgin Trains was getting a lot of negative publicity over the issue that they have done a u turn.

 

[DarloRich]

You're telling me not to use certain phrases? Oh dear, let us not go down a different path regarding censorship. Besides, it is not meaningless at all, it's definition is actually in line with what Virgin have done...

I am not telling you not to use them just that lots of people consider such statements to be bland, silly & meaningless. It seems to be used in the main by kippers and other right wingers to complain about things they don't like or agree with.

Agreed - pathetic isn’t it. Virgin’s corporate values indeed. That company exists to make a truck load of money for Beardy. No issue with that in itself but annoying when they try to pretend it doesn’t.

Suing the NHS is a good example of this.



Look again at the definition.

You’re making the mistake of assuming anything less than a total ban isn’t censorship.

Thought experiment. If VTWC permitted sale of the mail but redacted certain articles it considered disagreeable, would this be censorship in your view?

It isnt censorship. We both know that. It is a decision to stop selling a crappy paper. A crappy newspaper still available in almost every other shop in the country for only 65 of your English pennies. There was some sillyness in their statement about values etc but the bottom line is a commercial decision was taken to stop selling something. Just as a decision was taken not to sell the Star or the Morning Star or Auto Trader or Rail. Nothing more. But you know that.

BTW - Virgin Health were entitled to sue the NHS for a failure in the procurement process.

EDIT - it is amusing that the hated Branson seems to have overruled his own company employees. That would be the company that many here seem to think is his own personal fiefdom. It seems he know nothing of the decision until the media told him about it!

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I am not telling you not to use them just that lots of people consider such statements to be bland, silly & meaningless. It seems to be used in the main by kippers and other right wingers to complain about things they don't like or agree with.

Tell me about it. Both sides of extremists have used their favourite buzzwords so a debate can be shut down. Nevertheless, things such as virtue signalling are still occurances even despite meaningless uses of the word. Hence I don’t boil down the use of certain terms and words to particular groups.

Some liberals like myself (you probably won’t believe me there) don’t apply the term snowflake to one side like the far right do with the left for example, because as some on the right have shown, they too are delicate little people who think a company deciding not to sell a certain tabloid paper is censorship and cry about it. Not everyone doing that is far right though, some people like Bromley Boy just have a different take but aren’t really extremists themselves.

You’d be surprised at how the far left and far right are so similar and are guilty of what they accuse the other side of being even despite them opposing each other so much. Both seem to hate liberals though...

 

[DarloRich]

Tell me about it. Both sides of extremists have used their favourite buzzwords so a debate can be shut down. Nevertheless, things such as virtue signalling are still occurances even despite meaningless uses of the word. Hence I don’t boil down the use of certain terms and words to particular groups.

Some liberals like myself (you probably won’t believe me there) don’t apply the term snowflake to one side like the far right do with the left for example, because as some on the right have shown, they too are delicate little people who think a company deciding not to sell a certain tabloid paper is censorship and cry about it. Not everyone doing that is far right though, some people like Bromley Boy just have a different take but aren’t really extremists themselves.

You’d be surprised at how the far left and far right are so similar and are guilty of what they accuse the other side of being even despite them opposing each other so much. Both seem to hate liberals though...

liberals or libertarians? Both are odd

Extremes of any spectrum are always fruit loops. They would both bang on about how awful Branson is but for different reasons that are actually quite similar!

 

[jon0844]

I would say with probably a 90+ percent certainty that the Daily Mail suggested Richard Branson wouldn't be given an easy ride over the decision, perhaps finding himself at the centre of many stories to come.

As a result he's taken the rather odd move of saying that it was like censorship when we all know it wasn't, as anyone could read the Mail (or visit the website) as they wanted.