Guardian Hypocricy Exposed

[Old Timer]

I am sure that the many Guardian readers on here will be aware of the campaign of vilification run by the Guardian against Companies, such as Barclay's who use tax efficient methods of avoiding the payment of UK tax.

The Guardian has also been very critical of Companies which have used Hedge Funds to make £m of pounds during the recent financial crisis.

The true breathtaking extent to which the Guardian has been hypocritical can new be seen, as more and more emerges about their own financial arrangements.

Pass the sick bag someone ?

Guardian Hypocricy

 

[4SRKT]

Being a 'Guardian Reader' does not mean that one holds all the same views as the Guardian all the time, any more than reading Tolkien makes one a hobbit.

Attempting to pigeonhole people by the newspaper they read, and by trying to using the term '[insert newspaper name here] reader' as a term of mild abuse is pretty pathetic really.

No story here. Move along please folks in an orderly fashion.

 

[Old Timer]

Being a 'Guardian Reader' does not mean that one holds all the same views as the Guardian all the time, any more than reading Tolkien makes one a hobbit.

Attempting to pigeonhole people by the newspaper they read, and by trying to using the term '[insert newspaper name here] reader' as a term of mild abuse is pretty pathetic really.

No story here. Move along please folks in an orderly fashion.

Nice post.

It was always going to be interesting who would be the first to run along with this line of defence.

Unfortunately your argument is rather damaged by the continuing abuse of anyone who holds other than a Labour view point on here as a "Tory" and a "Daily Mail reader".

I seem to recall the Daily Mail gets quite a lot of vilification on here and I wonder who would have pushed a similar defence if it had actually been the Daily Mail that was in the post title ?

 

[4SRKT]

Nice post.

It was always going to be interesting who would be the first to run along with this line of defence.

Unfortunately your argument is rather damaged by the continuing abuse of anyone who holds other than a Labour view point on here as a "Tory" and a "Daily Mail reader".

I seem to recall the Daily Mail gets quite a lot of vilification on here and I wonder who would have pushed a similar defence if it had actually been the Daily Mail that was in the post title ?

Do I do this? No I don't. If others do, that's their problem. You clearly do think it's acceptable and I don't. Dearie me. Are you unable to see the difference between individuals and groups of people? Do you know what 'stereotyping' is? Your answer reveals that you assumed I am a Guardian Reader and hold a 'Labour' point of view simply because I point out the patheticness of your attempt to vilify a whole group (of Guardian Readers as it happens) in this way. In fact I am someone who dislikes vilification of this type, whether practiced by 'Guardian Readers', you, or anyone else.

You also seem to think you've stumbled on some great hidden secret that the Guardian is hypocritical. Where have you been all this time, or have you never read it? Frothing at the mouth at the discovery that the Guardian is hypocrital is like fainting at the discovery that the Pope is in fact a catholic.

 

[thefab444]

Are you unable to see the difference between individuals and groups of people?

That is the exact truth I'm afraid. For example, if you profess to any belief remotely left wing, Old Timer will immediately assume you agree with, and will support to the death, any decision the Labour party has made in the last 60 years!

 

[4SRKT]

That is the exact truth I'm afraid. For example, if you profess to any belief remotely left wing, Old Timer will immediately assume you agree with, and will support to the death, any decision the Labour party has made in the last 60 years!

And I didn't even express a left wing opinion (although I do hold lots of them). I merely pointed out that it's pathetic to categorise people by the newspaper they read. What's left wing about that?

 

[Ferret]

And I didn't even express a left wing opinion (although I do hold lots of them). I merely pointed out that it's pathetic to categorise people by the newspaper they read. What's left wing about that?

In fairness, castigating somebody over their choice of newspaper is a favourite of Mr Bigland! Always makes me smile that one. Mind you, in fairness, he isn't the only one who says the words 'Daily Mail readers' as if it's something to be ashamed of. Thing is, I read many newspapers - from both the left and the right wing point of view. I sometimes read the Mail, I sometimes read the Times or the Guardian. Sometimes I read the Mirror or the Sun even - I find it pays to read widely. Still, as for The Guardian being caught with their pants down - why am I not surprised? It seems to be the way of the world in which we live.

 

[SS4]

The guardian are hypocritical regarding tax but that doesn't mean what they're printing is wrong. It only shows that the Guardian, like many companies, put profit before Britain

 

[WatcherZero]

Lol, is it that time of the year now? Guido Fawkes has run the same story as 'new exclusive' every six months for the last three years. This time it seems hes brought it out because of Coulson being forced to resign.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Read the original post again. Where was (insert name of "paper" here) reader mentioned?

 

[4SRKT]

"I am sure that the many GUARDIAN READERS on here......"

<yawn>

 

[wintonian]

Well most of the others are either full of smut or make their profit out panicking their readers, I'm sure most if not all the national dailies have some kind of moral black hole.

 

[142094]

I often wonder why anybody buys The Sun. Only thing I can think of is that it is cheaper than bog roll.

 

[Ferret]

I often wonder why anybody buys The Sun. Only thing I can think of is that it is cheaper than bog roll.

Page 3 of course!

I often think the same of The Mirror though - it's no better than the Mail for utter bias.

 

[Ivo]

We don't need Page 3; we've got Sleeper Trains

 

[SS4]

We don't need Page 3; we've got Sleeper Trains

+1

Page 3 has nothing on the metre high club (incidentally it's nice to see SI being used)

 

[The Barlow Boy]

"I am sure that the many GUARDIAN READERS on here......"

<yawn>

Clang!
XX

 

[4SRKT]

The Sun does have some marvellous headlines though. Who can forget the interview the German ambassador gave The Sun in the hope that Britons could become more understanding about Germany and the Germans? The Sun published it under the title 'The Hun talks to The Sun'!

And what about when Elton John got 'married'? 'Elton takes David up the aisle'.....

My favourite ever tho was a Page 3 one in the late 1980s, where the girl was dressed up in nothing but a big Russian fur hat and her modesty. The caption read 'Gorby Blimey! What a Pair o' Stroikas!'

Britain would be a lesser place without this sort of thing.

 

[me123]

I seem to recall the Daily Mail gets quite a lot of vilification on here and I wonder who would have pushed a similar defence if it had actually been the Daily Mail that was in the post title ?

I think I should make a post at this point, given that my signature does poke fun at the Mail. Or, rather, one their best/worst (delete as appropriate) journalists, Richard Littledickjohn.

I'm perfectly aware that the Guardian has many shortfalls. In fact, I actually ignore most newspapers because not one of them (Metro aside, perhaps?) is unbiased. On the contrary, newspapers are probably the most biased forms of media out there. The reason I don't read them is because they don't really tell you the news, rather they force feed you their own ideas and smear anyone who holds any differing views. I don't see why I should pay for that privilege.

Learning this about The Guardian does not surprise me (although I hold a degree of reservation, as the Youtube clip itself is probably biased - see the problem with media reporting about media?). In some cases, they are pretty bad. Maybe not as bad as some of the left wing tabloids, but not far off it. I'd perhaps argue that the Mirror is considerably worse, just as the Star is much worse than the Mail.