Rant Daily Mail

Old, but brilliant.

 

Can't beat yes (prime) minister.

 

Shame on Susan to buy into that crap... if she was not misquoted.

People used to say the same about comic books and television. On the former, Fredric Wertham was the Jack Thompson of his day. Just read from page 88 onwards in Comic Book Nation: The Transformation of Youth Culture in America by Bradford W. Wright. We've all heard it before.

Perhaps the problem with bad kids is more about >gasp< bad parenting in a bad society?

 

Bad kids = How they want to be, if someone wants to stab someone, they will, if they want to smoke weed, they will, when I'm having a bad time, I feel like going outside and smacking the first person I see in the face, but I don't.

But if I was living on a council estate, with a shite family, with no money, then I would, why? cause I have nothing to lose. And if I wanted to be an even bigger tosser I could kill or GBH someone and get a nice cushty room in a prison with food everyday, a gym, tv, the works.

 

The daily mail is such a crap paper, even dogs hesitate to wipe their ar$es with it. Go for Guardian instead! (makes for rather interesting reading). All papers are biased though, as is all media, though this doesn't stop it being entertaining. The only real info we can guarantee to be correct, is that which we see before our very own eyes.

As for the article... what a load of sensationalist bull$hit. Its an example of:
1. What not to name an article (Bahh!)
2. Why to shoot 'Rosie Millard' (who wrote it)
3. Why people shouldn't lie about family past times for newspapers (they cook and play violin?)
4. How not to cut your family's hair (and your own)
5. Reasons to slap your children (honestly... I would)
6. How not to raise kids (I know a lot of people who manage to do it properly)
7. How not to write an article (I thought I was reading Jane Austen at some point in that)

 

Y'know i was thinking the exact same thing, its like the sun or mirror for the middle class!

 

Personally I'll read either the Guardian or the Independent. The latter's usually got slightly better content but sometimes goes too far out of its way to run a different front-page story to the other papers ('Save the Bumblebee' etc) whilst the Guardian tends to have excellent political coverage. The Times and the Telegraph are both a bit Tory for my liking, although provide probably the best quality if you're reading political articles- but being more middle/upper-class papers makes these stories less relevent to me anyway.

 

There isn't much left that beats the times tbh. The indie was for years "IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ" whiney nonsense, the FT ain't exactly a joyous read despite it's generally OK political stances, the Guardian...might as well be a tabloid (plus I hate ****ing hippies). The torygraph isn't worth it either, since the tories stopped being real tories.

There just ain't nowt left really.

 

Theres always the Scotsman up here, not thats its any better than the rest.

 

I don't even bother with Scottish papers to be honest. My experience with Scottish papers, much like Scottish politics, is that anyone who's capable enough to actually work in the field is in UK wide journalism (or politics). We get left with the dregs on the Scottish stuff.

 

Those kids look quite young. It's not as if any of them have developed much in the way of self-control. Wouldn't be surprised if she's one of those parents that gives the kid what they want so they stop throwing a tantrum. Dumb, dumb, dumb...

 

I agree with you 110% i think its the surroundings and just the kid in general, of course parenting helps but its not the biggest aspect of how the kid is going to turn out.

 

+1
Hence the reason why I don't read papers.

 

There's that, in part, but that goes mainly for those with poorly evolved moral reasoning. Bad is what you get caught doing, good is what you can get away with. Plenty of celebrities and politicians illustrate by example. Those with more sophisticated moral reasoning will consider social approval --again, not a big consideration when living on a council estate. At best you just learn to pretend better, and become a good sociopath. Again, many people in authority show us the guiding light --particularly politicians and the clergy.

Then there is the development of an internal moral code: you do the right thing because you believe it is the right thing to do. Not many parents left that install those values, and very few live examples exist. Mother Theresa died some time ago, after all.

 

Buy them a multi player console. Get them a wii or something. If you really want to raise your children right, stick them on Halo 3 with a mic, and let them loose. They will every thing they want to know about sex and drugs.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she accept lots of money from arms dealers and gangs, and set up hospices only so she can surround herself with suffering rather than help the people?

 

You're wrong.

It's easy for Western critics to stand on the sidelines and watch a nun with very limited resources trying to run hospices for the lowest of the low, poorest of the poor across the whole of the developing world with cultures based on caste systems, heavy social stigmas around illness and poor utilities, let alone any national health service to speak of. She did what she could with what she had.

There have been plenty of outrageous allegations, but little proof. Some journalists mistake iconoclasm for hard-hitting journalism, but just because you can make a noise doesn't mean you have anything to say.

 

All exactly what I was thinking while I sat here reading that stupid woman going on...

Meh... I geuss some people are just beyond help

 

No, some people will just create the outcome that they are looking for.