The Political Thread

[Ancient Otter]

A certain section of the US media would like this to become Obama's Waco. If the Federalés start alleging that the excellently named Clive Bundy has been sleeping with underage calves in his herd and training them in the use of assault weapons, you'll know the tanks are about to move in.

There's a ad on that site for a competition to win a AR-15! That reminds me of a story I forgot to link to ages ago, where a local militia controlled by a police chief held a town under siege. There is a follow up to that story here.

[Frank]

Champion of justice, The Daily Mail, runs story exposing the sickening corruption behind the nation's sinister network of food banks, where folk can - get this - apparently just walk in and get food! A furious and scandalised - but obviously bewildered - nation respond by mistakenly increasing donations to the Just Giving page of the charity which administers the volunteer-staffed food banks by a factor of six.

[TordelBack]

...the sickening corruption[/url] behind the nation's sinister network of food banks, where folk can - get this - apparently just walk in and get food!

Truly despicable crap, bordering on inhuman.  Anyone who thinks that for someone using a foodbank it is as simple as 'just walk in and get food' has never, ever, had to depend on public charity from strangers.    The 'means test' is that you are using a foodbank.

[Steve Green]

Champion of justice, The Daily Mail, runs story exposing the sickening corruption behind the nation's sinister network of food banks, where folk can - get this - apparently just walk in and get food! A furious and scandalised - but obviously bewildered - nation respond by mistakenly increasing donations to the Just Giving page of the charity which administers the volunteer-staffed food banks by a factor of six.

I saw that earlier today, unbelievable.

[Richmond Clements]

Can I suggest contacting this organisation and reporting them: http://www.charityfraudline.co.uk/about

[Frank]

Anyone who thinks that for someone using a foodbank it is as simple as 'just walk in and get food' has never, ever, had to depend on public charity from strangers. The 'means test' is that you are using a foodbank

Lord Rothermere's own article details how a nice pensioner took down his lying hack's contact details and asked why he needed to use their services - "our reporter explained he had been unemployed for a few months and had been caught out by higher than expected winter fuel bills and was strapped for cash and food. He added that his wife had left her job and was not earning and that they had two children to care for. After asking for details of how much Jobseekers' Allowance was received, the assessor's questions turned to the dietary requirements of the reporter and his family". The only folk The Mail have uncovered abusing the services of food banks are themselves.

It's not an original point, but there's a fantastic irony in them running this bizarrely mean-spirited, pointless shrug of a story during the weekend when Christians meditate on the ultimate act of selfless sacrifice by the fella who treated a bunch of strangers to all the loaves and fishes they could eat. Look at their liar's big haul, by the way; I could get that lot - intended to feed a family of four - from Tesco's value range and Lidl for a little over a tenner. It looks like the greedy fraudsters have helped themselves to some of the charity's own-brand biscuits too:

[ZenArcade]

Just reading this now, it is never the time to pull off this bogus headline grabbing vileness; but coinciding with Easter (and all of what it means to a great many people) is awful. Z

[Professor Bear]

Tell me you are even remotely surprised that the current government has declared war on the concept of charity.  Tell me you believe they even know what charity is.

The Mail is at least consistent in its vileness, though it's just towing the government line, which is that food banks are bad not because of what they are, but because they have entered the popular lexicon, IDS having accused food bank charities of trying to grab headlines and manipulate how people feel with statistics that probably weren't accurate, which is entirely consistent for a man who decried benefits fraudsters and then 24 hours later supported Maria Miller without an ounce of shame.

[Trout]

It's kind of a pish story, too. What a disaster!

[Hawkmumbler]

Horrible, vile piece of work. Isn't about time someone, anyone, knocked the Mail off their high horse of descrimination?

Oh, but the comments are a picture of stupidity to boot. A given on the Mail site. The readership is just a wretched as the paper itself.

[TordelBack]

The readership is just a wretched as the paper itself.

That would presumably be the Mail's argument (in essence, if not expression) - it certainly shifts enough copies/clicks.  However, the swing in donations would suggest some decency that isn't being catered for.

[Old Tankie]

The Mail must be doing something right.  The readership is obviously very diverse, lovers and haters seem to read it in equal measure, which of course is, I should imagine, The Mail's business plan.  Sauchie, for example, seems to be an avid reader!

[Hawkmumbler]

Herm...I should probably have punctuated that statement with "Some of (the readership...)". My apologies for sounding rude.

[TordelBack]

Herm...I should probably have punctuated that statement with "Some of (the readership...)". My apologies for sounding rude.

No, I think you were right the first time. I'd like to tell you that you were wrong, because my parents and in-laws read the MoS and have as long as I can remember, but then I was at an Easter lunch with them yesterday and had to listen to my mother's 'hilarious' anecdote about being terrified on a plane because the co-pilot's name was Mohammed.  'Wretched' is the word.

All of us who follow Twitter links to the latest Mail outrage, and then spread the word, are complicit in it maintaining its current successfully horrid direction.

[Professor Bear]

My usual schtick when discussing the Mail is to point out that it started life as a tabloid that took potshots at national heroes and whose founder was a personal friend of Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, but I have come to realise that this is grossly unfair to its current staff and editors and there's a great deal of difference between the Mail of yesterday and the Mail of today: the Mail of yesterday was anti-British, anti-poor, anti-labour, anti-semetic, anti-suffrage, anti-immigration, anti-arts and was full of slanted editorial pieces that pushed an imperialist viewpoint that technically didn't qualify as "outdated" because it was based on a notion of the country that never truly existed outside the minds of the worst kind of manipulative bigots, while the Mail of today sexualises children.

All of us who follow Twitter links to the latest Mail outrage, and then spread the word, are complicit in it maintaining its current successfully horrid direction.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/kitten-block/

YOUR WELCOME1