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

[Bromley boy]

I am not telling you not to use them just that lots of people consider such statements to be bland, silly & meaningless.

Statements like the following?

anything that annoys Kippers and foaming Tories is fine by me.

People in glass houses, etc.

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.

With respect, we don’t both know that. As I say with reference to the definition above, if the company has removed a paper from sale because of disagreeing with its political stance, as they’ve said they did, this falls within the definition of censorship as broadly understood and reflected by the OED. It doesn’t need to totally ban the sale in order to fall within this definition.

If 1.6m+ people want to read the mail (and god only knows why they do - it’s utterly sh*te!), they may be a little affronted that their chosen railway carrier is moralising to them about what they should or shouldn’t be able to buy on board.

To be honest the more I think about this story the less it stacks up. If the mail is the second most popular paper in the U.K., isn’t it a little strange that VTEC don’t sell enough copies to make carrying it commercially viable? Add to that the silly press statement and the reversal of the decision today to resume the status quo so that nothing has really changed.

If it was just commercially unviable they’d have simply removed it from sale without making a drama about it.

Just smacks of a publicity stunt, surely?

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

But it puts all the guff about brand values into perspective. Virgin is a hard nosed corporate animal like any other, and mr beardy didn’t become a billionaire just by being a nice fluffy bloke who flies round the world in hot air balloons....

As I say - nothing wrong with that in itself - but the hypicrosy of pretending otherwise is paper thin. Virgin is a dark satanic corporate mill just like any other!

 

[Bromley boy]

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.

Absurd perhaps, but a thought experiment to show that it’s possible to censor material without banning it outright. Redacting it, removing it from sale (but not banning from being read on board) are both examples of censorship falling short of an outright ban.

 

[fowler9]

What Newspapers do they sell on Virgin West Coast?

 

[Bromley boy]

What Newspapers do they sell on Virgin West Coast?

After today’s announcement, the only one I know for certain they sell is the daily mail!

Such a cheap publicity stunt which has worked, to be fair, we are all discussing it.

Were virgin and the mail both in on it?!

 

[DarloRich]

To be honest the more I think about this story the less it stacks up. If the mail is the second most popular paper in the U.K., isn’t it a little strange that VTEC don’t sell enough copies to make carrying it commercially viable? Add to that the silly press statement and the reversal of the decision today to resume the status quo so that nothing has really changed.

Just smacks of a publicity stunt, surely?

Probably - it is also possible that people don't buy newspapers very much these days and if the sales figures are to be believed few of those 1.6m Mail buyers use Virgin. I don't know anyone who takes one on a daily basis these days ( other than free sheets)

But it puts all the guff about brand values into perspective. Virgin is a hard nosed corporate animal like any other, and mr beardy didn’t become a billionaire just by being a nice fluffy bloke who flies round the world in hot air balloons....

It is a different, independent company though. How much of Virgin Health does he own?

Anyway - lets just agree it is crappy newspaper

 

[Bromley boy]

Probably - it is also possible that people don't buy newspapers very much these days and if the sales figures are to be believed few of those 1.6m Mail buyers use Virgin. I don't know anyone who takes one on a daily basis these days ( other than free sheets)

Very true and this entire discussion will become a moot point in short order. Print copies of a newspaper on sale in a confined environment such as a train or airliner will soon be a thing of the past. I’m surprised they’re still available in 2017 - I haven’t bought a physical paper for years!

It is a different, independent company though. How much of Virgin Health does he own?

I havent checked and you may well be right that it’s now a separate company allowed to retain the name. I know Branson has divested himself personally from ownership of different portions of the empire over the years. I suppose my point generally is that he’s (very cleverly) built the virgin brand to be seen as “fluffy”, whereas in reality it’s anything but. It’s a profit making group of companies like any other.

Certainly the comments on this forum recently about working for VTEC as a driver were less than complimentary!

 

[WelshBluebird]

Hence why I don't understand why anyone could be rich and still have socialist principles.

And I don't understand how you can work in an industry or area dependant on EU funds but vote to leave the EU.
Or be in an unskilled minimum wage job but vote for a party who wants to reduce workers rights.
Etc etc.

These differences occur all over the political spectrum. What is obvious from that is people have different motives for voting how they do!

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Anybody who is wishing to continue the debate of being rich while having socialist principles can carry on with this thread that has been created with original posts moved there in order to keep this thread about the Daily Mail relevant to the original topic of discussion.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Absurd perhaps, but a thought experiment to show that it’s possible to censor material without banning it outright. Redacting it, removing it from sale (but not banning from being read on board) are both examples of censorship falling short of an outright ban.

Do bear in mind though that they only stopped selling the paper on board trains. The paper could always be bought at the station. I can't by the Dewsbury Reporter at Kings Cross, but they're not censoring it: it would just be silly for them to stock it because they'd rarely sell one.

Selling papers on board at all is unusual anyway, only VTWC do so (unless papers are sold on board the sleepers or Eurostar). So to call it even the very tip of some "censorship" iceberg is severe hyperbole.

 

[Bromley boy]

I can't by the Dewsbury Reporter at Kings Cross, but they're not censoring it: it would just be silly for them to stock it because they'd rarely sell one.

But with respect, this posting shows that you’ve not understood my original point, or even the subject this thread is discussing!

Nobody at any point has said failure to stock X regional publication is censorship.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

But with respect, this posting shows that you’ve not understood my original point, or even the subject this thread is discussing!

Nobody at any point has said failure to stock X regional publication is censorship.

I know they haven't, because it would be ridiculous. Hence me using that as an example of just how ridiculous it is to suggest that the original decision was anything even close to censorship.

This whole story is ridiculous, and I'm annoyed with myself for even engaging with it.

 

[zuriblue]

So basically VTWC have confirmed that they will continue to sell papers that cause outrage, fury and despondency or, as they are otherwise known, Anytime Tickets.

Coat on, taxi ordered.

 

[Airline Man]

I see they've reversed their decision to denounce and purge the Daily Mail.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42687568

Virgin Trains is to reverse its decision to stop selling the Daily Mail on its West Coast services.

Virgin Group boss Sir Richard Branson said he instructed the firm to restock the paper while a review takes place.

Virgin Trains had said the decision came after "feedback from our people". But Sir Richard said he was unaware of the move and the operator must never be seen to be "censoring" customers.

The Daily Mail said it welcomed the "support for freedom of speech".

In November, Virgin Trains staff were told in an internal memo "considerable concern" had been raised about the Mail's position on issues such as immigration, LGBT rights and unemployment.

The memo added the paper was "not compatible" with the company's beliefs.

Last week, Virgin said it regularly reviewed its on-board products and it had never sold the newspaper on its East Coast trains, which is under the management of Virgin and Stagecoach.

 

[Tetchytyke]

As for beardy, he really is a media slut.

He's very clever. We're still talking about this, rather than Anne Milton (who was going to replace Jeremy Hunt in charge of the NHS) and her "senior director of Virgin Health" husband. Virgin Health, of course, is one Virgin company that IS 100% Beardy.

As for censorship, I want to know why I can't buy Socialist Worker and Asian MILF Gangbang VIII on board Virgin Trains. It's censorship. Who can I write to to express my disgust?

 

[Tetchytyke]

If the mail is the second most popular paper in the U.K., isn’t it a little strange that VTEC don’t sell enough copies to make carrying it commercially viable?

Not as surprising as you would expect, given that the Mail's circulation figures are bumped up by almost 70,000 daily bulk sales (i.e. papers bought at a discount and given away for free). The Mail's circulation is also down 8% year-on-year.

 

[Railops]

Probably - it is also possible that people don't buy newspapers very much these days and if the sales figures are to be believed few of those 1.6m Mail buyers use Virgin. I don't know anyone who takes one on a daily basis these days ( other than free sheets)

As you are doubting newspapers sales figures can you provide some evidence that they're bogus and what organisation is behind this deception.

 

[DarloRich]

As you are doubting newspapers sales figures can you provide some evidence that they're bogus and who is altering them in their favour ?

I meant the sales figures suggested by Virgin in justifying their commercial decision.

 

[Railops]

I meant the sales figures suggested by Virgin in justifying their commercial decision.

Yeah, I'm sure you did.

 

[DarloRich]

Yeah, I'm sure you did.

what on earth are you on about you strange little man?

 

[Railops]

what on earth are you on about you strange little man?

Ignoring your abuse as I don't want to sink to your level, you quite clearly made an accusation that newspaper sales figures might be fiddled but now you can't back it up, just admit it.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Yeah, I'm sure you did.

Eh? DarloRich was hardly talking in riddles there.

 

[Tetchytyke]

As you are doubting newspapers sales figures can you provide some evidence that they're bogus

It is a well known industry fact that headline circulation figures are inflated by bulk sales. Bulk sales are the copies sold at a discount to hotels, etc, and handed out free. The Sun has good headline circulation figures but hands out 122,000 bulk copies (or 10% of its total circulation) every day. The Daily Mail hands out about 65,000 bulk copies every day. By contrast, other papers such as the Daily Mirror and The Guardian don't do any bulk sales.

 

[Bromley boy]

Ignoring your abuse as I don't want to sink to your level, you quite clearly made an accusation that newspaper sales figures might be fiddled but now you can't back it up, just admit it.

I think he was making the (correct) point that we are having to take the sales figures, whether from Virgin or any other source, at face value.

 

[Darandio]

As for censorship, I want to know why I can't buy Socialist Worker and Asian MILF Gangbang VIII on board Virgin Trains. It's censorship. Who can I write to to express my disgust?

I'm sensing a gap in the market here given some of the magazine titles that have cropped up in this thread. Branson likes an entrepreneur, i'm wondering if they would allow me to sell a selection of these niche titles onboard. Maybe hop on at Euston and sell a few before getting off at Watford, jump another service and sell a few as far as Milton Keynes.

 

[Railops]

I think he was making the (correct) point that we are having to take the sales figures, whether from Virgin or any other source, at face value.

Do you think he would have questioned the long failing Guardian's sales figures which are so awful they have to beg for money from readers, I think not. it was simply an accusation that somebody is fiddling the Mail figures, when asked for evidence none was forthcoming.

 

[Merseysider]

Do you think he would have questioned the long failing Guardian's sales figures which are so awful they have to beg for money from readers, I think not. it was simply an accusation that somebody is fiddling the Mail figures, when asked for evidence none was forthcoming.

With respect, this is utter wibble. You’re reading far too much into his comments.

 

[GatwickDepress]

As for censorship, I want to know why I can't buy Socialist Worker and Asian MILF Gangbang VIII on board Virgin Trains. It's censorship. Who can I write to to express my disgust?

My big problem with selling the latter is that you have to have watched the previous seven instalments in order to get up to speed with the plot.

 

[Bromley boy]

My big problem with selling the latter is that you have to have watched the previous seven instalments in order to get up to speed with the plot.

If virgin sold this the ontrain WIFI would go into melt down immediately .

 

[jon0844]

He's very clever. We're still talking about this, rather than Anne Milton (who was going to replace Jeremy Hunt in charge of the NHS) and her "senior director of Virgin Health" husband. Virgin Health, of course, is one Virgin company that IS 100% Beardy.

As for censorship, I want to know why I can't buy Socialist Worker and Asian MILF Gangbang VIII on board Virgin Trains. It's censorship. Who can I write to to express my disgust?

Would anyone seriously want to be spotted buying a copy of Socialist Worker?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Would anyone seriously want to be spotted buying a copy of Socialist Worker?

Believe it or not, yes! I know someone who shares articles from The Canary and at one point actually joined the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition. Having gone on protests, I don’t think they would have any qualms about buying a copy of Socialist Worker. Some people can still surprise you!