to want HATE campaigns against foreigners in the popular Press to stop...

Cop out, roses, at 09.55.
You do not have to have the actual paper in your hand to know what the headlines are.
To risk being accused of censorship, you shouldn't be on this thread if you don't want to know the headlines that the DM has been spewing.

My parents used to read the DM and they were not racist. However, I know that they would not be reading it now because of its overt racist articles.

www.sub-scribe.co.uk/2016/11/how-lego-changes-game-by-doing-nothing.html

www.sub-scribe.co.uk/2016/09/the-press-and-immigration-reporting.html

Before I go for a looong rest - just wondering if the following conversation has ever happened to others:

'How dare you criticise me for reading the Daily Mail. That is censorship and you have no right to judge people for the paper they read'

Moi ' have you seen the front page of the Sun today?

'Ah, The Sun- yes terrible - what vile rubbish - Sun readers are scum'.

Moi ' hmmmm '

Of course it hasn't, because I would never dream of criticising someone for reading a certain newspaper.

Not even Guardian readers?

How on earth can POGS be accused of 'spoiling for a silly fight'? She has been called racist with no justification at all by some posters who seem to go by the mantra of 'You can agree with me, or you can be wrong'. Shameful behaviour by people who should know better.

Didnt' explain the context of the conversation- I had not criticised the person for reading the DM- but had made a comment about the front cover.

Look at all the papers from al other the world in 1922-33 - bending over backwards to say Hitler was not anti-semite and was quite inocuous. I know many will throw their hands up in the air, and say 'there is no comparison' - and I'd reply 'are you really sure?

The saddest and the scariest thing is, that if a bunch of grannies on a Forum can be so divided - imagine how divisive the real world out there is becoming, on both sides of the pond.

Allez, j'y vais - au revoir.

I didn't actually call POGS racist. I said by returning her Lego she was implying that she supported a racist newspaper.
That's actually calling the DM racist.
POGS knows all about semantic games.

No durhamjen, I would never criticise anyone for reading the Guardian.

I might question their belief that the Guardian is the only newspaper that's worth reading, but that's not the same thing at all.

Maybe you didn't durhamjen , at least not in actual words, but Nelliemoser certainly did.

You are now just spoiling for a silly fight POGS.
granjura I do not think that POGS is spoiling for a silly fight - I think she is expressing her views and being misinterpreted. I do see what point she is making by returning her Lego. And I do see others' points of view regarding the responsibility of the press to present the news without breaking any laws but we cannot go so far as to gag the press in a free society.

I also had some other thoughts about the Lego/Daily Mail but I'll put those in a separate post.

Is it just me - or does anyone else see the irony in Lego dissasociating itself from the Daily Mail and refusing to co-operate with that publications in any more free offers of Lego?

Lego has stopped its association with the Daily Mail because an online group called Stop Funding Hate has accused DM headlines of fuelling hatred against migrants.

Lego is, of course, entitled to do so BUT this action has been taken by a firm whose image has changed beyond recognition from the red/blue/white/green bricks I remember from my DC's young days.
DH bought those copies of the DM and MOS so that we could obtain the packs of Lego for the DGC (thanks for the offer Ddill btw!) and I remarked to DH how much Lego has changed over the years.
It is now very gender-specific - a no no for many people

Lego nowadays has little figures with aggressive little faces, brandishing guns, swords, travelling in fighter jets, featuring war, repelling invaders - in fact much of LEGO IS FULL OF HATE!

Is it only me who sees the irony in this?
Do Lego not see the connection themselves?

Probably they are more concerned with increasing their profits.

For those who have not seen any Lego lately I meant to post a link featuring some of the figures it offered recently in the DM:

www.lego.com/en-gb/ninjago/characters

and that is just the tip of Lego's warmongering iceberg.

From their website:
Beyond irony:

Baddest Bad Guy
Throughout history many enemies have threatened the island of NINJAGO and all who live there. Face your fears by confronting the worst of the worst. Recreate a scene featuring the villain who you think is the baddest of the bad to earn all-new printable door hangers!

jalima so who is Lego targeting?

Pretty obvious whitewave

Children! with their subliminal messages of hate, aggression and fear of the unknown foreigner!!

It really is beyond belief that they have such double standards in their quest for profit.

That is not a defence of any publication but I am just trying to look at the whole issue of Lego -v- Daily Mail from an impartial point of view and rationalise their decision.

OK accepting that Lego is a biased hate filled aggressive toy, would you accept that the same is true of the Daily Mail?

I would say that some headlines (didn't see the one in question) could be construed an incitement to fear, annoyance, anger about benefit scroungers etc, but I have not seen anything on the occasion I have read it which incites people to go out and kill other people.

Which is precisely what Lego is doing by putting those ideas into the minds of children.

Whilst their gender-specific bias aims such Lego as 'Frozen' and 'Friends' at girls.

Really, if one takes a stance against the Daily Mail, one should be taking a close look at the ethics of Lego toys too.

Lego declined to specify the reason for ending its cooperation with the Daily Mail, but said in an email that it spends “a lot of time listening to what children have to say.

Have they listened to two boys playing with their Lego fighter jets, knights with swords, fighters with vicious looking guns?

Double standards and glass houses come to mind.

Obviously no-one else sees the irony.

I doubt that children have been inundating Lego with pleas to stop dealing with the Daily Mail!

And after all, what has Lego actually done? The promotion had come to an end and there are no plans for any more in the near future. Hardly a big sacrifice, is it? But it makes them look good...

In a nutshell:
A firm which peddles aggression and hatred to children through its toys is disassociating itself with a newspaper which it claims peddles hatred to adults.

The following is what the company registered as Lega publish and use as guidelines for weopans and conflict in the Lego experience.

" A large number of Lego figures use weapons....... Conflict is prevalent in play of the 4-9year old boy..... Lego recognise this inner drive and need to experiment with their aggressive feelings in order to learn about about aggressive feelings in themselves and others children......Lego sees conflict play as perfectly acceptable and integral fact of childhood development.

Lego recognises/acknowledges a child's well proven ability to tell play from reality...... in order to maintain this balance between play and conflict we have unwritten rules....
Avoid realistic weapons and military equipment ... refrain from frightening/ violent situations when communicating Lego products.

There will be no association with issues that glorify conflict, and unethical or harmful behaviour.