Is the sexual orientation of a judge relevent?

Keep waving ( and signaling) that virtue flag you carry about djen.

I've been buying Lego for children and grandchildren for nearly fifty years. I've never bought anything remotely warlike, and they've never asked for it. It's how you bring them up.

But that's not the point is it?
They point is that they do make these aggressive warlike figures and all the equipment to go with them. If you choose not to buy it, that is your choice.
You may choose not to buy the Daily Mail too.

That is your choice.

I am not defending the Daily Mail in any way, I am just trying to work out WHY Lego has taken this stance when they make belligerent, aggression-inducing toys?
It is along the same lines as buying guns for children - there was an outcry about that. Just because the weapon is Lego sized does not make it any better or different.
I was shocked when I saw what was in the lego packs and said so to DH at the time.
For them to take the moral high ground now is hypocritical in my opinion.

No-one seems to see the point I am making.

I can't imagine Mattel would stop selling Barbie for the same reason
don't start me on Barbie ddil

I don't think Lego has a Calais Jungle Pack or Battle of the Job Centre etc etc!

It does have tie-ins to films etc such as Star Wars /Ninjago etc but all in fantasy ranges. I agree they are warlike but they are not 'enemies' that could also be your neighbour.

I think the objection is about the the media manipulation of the truth that has caused minority groups and vulnerable people to feel afraid for their safety. That cannot be good in anyone's boo can it?

book not boo!

Do you really think LEGO is aggression-inducing? I think even children have more sense than to think that they're going to be attacked by a minute piece of plastic. The point is that they can beat the evil the baddies represent, just like the characters in Roald Dahl's books always come to a bad end.

LEGO doesn't want to be associated with the hate-mongering of the Daily Mail. It has customers from many different countries to consider - not just in the UK. It's the company's prerogative and it seems to have been greeted positively by Lego fans worldwide.

Well, it's cost Lego nothing has it? Plus it gets brownie points!

Good publicity just before Christmas!
(or not depending on who buys the Lego )

I can't understand anyone defending even fantasy war toys, but there you are, takes all sorts.

LEGO the Good against the Evil Monster DM! Yes! I think good has triumphed over evil!

As an aside, the 'girlie' FRIENDS roller coaster is tipped to be one of the best selling toys this Christmas. It's great! Engineering skills needed and a working light.

The people who buy LEGO are usually adults - whoever the end user. Believe it or not, there are millions of adults worldwide who still play with their LEGO, especially Technic, and spend years making their own models. They're not just nerds either. The cyclist, Mark Cavendish, bought himself a LEGO set to relax before his Olympics race. Some of the people on international chat sites are business people. What they share is an international outlook and a childlike desire to live in a simpler world. Very few of them have any time for media-inspired hatred and bigotry.

And for those who wonder why people get pissed off with the Mail and the Sun, todays special has been to take some shots of Jeremy Corbyn on his way to the Cenotaph, cropped out the veteran he was with and tried to imply he was dancing along the road. Obviously they were planning a JC didn't wear a suit/wear a tie/wear a poppy/etc/etc story, didn't get one an in desperation made one up.
Lowest of low.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/no-jeremy-corbyn-wasnt-dancing-9252300
I'm pissed off because when someone says that this or that party leader is "unelectable" it means that a very small number of billionaire newspapers owners will do their darndest to the prejudice UK voters against him/her. And some of these characters are not even British and don't live here. (Murdoch being the prime example)

rosesarered We haven't got a free press. The vast majority of newspapers in this country are owned by right wing multi-millionaires (several of whom live overseas). At general elections, these papers invariably advise their readers to vote Conservative.

I agree wholeheartedly with JessM that the Corbyn incident amply demonstrates why the Mail often deserves its rabble rousing reputation.

The trouble is, Jess, that people don't wonder why people get pissed off. They're too busy defending their views and don't care about anybody else. The truth doesn't matter any more, doncha know? It's been consigned to history along with 'experts'.

The man that Corbyn was with was a 92 year old that Corbyn took along to the cenotaph. They were in a hurry because Corbyn had been on the Andrew Marr show.
Obviously whoever did that article doesn't watch Andrew Marr, or he would have known.
On the other hand, why expect Mail and Sun political writers to watch Andrew Marr?

Oh they probably do in the hopes someone they disagree with will say something they can pick on.

So what's new? It has always been so , the world hasn't change since the coming of Corbyn , I find it difficult to believe long time Labour Party members are so shocked by this.

The free press IS still the free press Eloethan no matter which newspaper is affiliated with what political Party, it means they can print their views.

Many other countries in the world envy us here in the West, having a press that can print what it wants to.
Nobody has to swallow news stories hook line and sinker.
but far better to have even those stories printed than being gagged by the dead hand of the State.

Did you read durhamjen's link? If not, to summarise:

The DWP has been forced to release secret documents illustrating how they control and manipulate the media:

The DWP monitors and analyses both mainstream and social media to reduce and manage negative coverage.

The reports show that on a nearly monthly basis from March 2014 to September 2015 the DWP “spiked” (persuaded journalists not to run) a total of 385 stories.

In August 2015 the DWP “proactively briefed” the media about long-awaited statistics which showed the amount of ESA claimants who had died after being found fit for work, and successfully spiked coverage in a range of news outlets.

The reports confirm that the DWP considers the right-wing press to be supportive of them, and highlights cases where they have used them to “set the record straight” and further government policy.

Without actually having a process whereby the government blatantly censors press stories, it appears that there is a more informal mechanism used to prevent stories from being aired. This principally seems to be the co-operation of "the right wing press" - and the majority of our papers and their proprietors are right wing - in ignoring or manipulating stories that reflect negatively upon the government's policies.

How then can we say we have a "free" press? It may be freer than in some countries but why must we always excuse our own position by pointing to somewhere else where the situation is even worse?

We've never had a free press in the sense that every story they get hold of is printed. Government has always had the final say.

I fully understand that state security needs protecting and cannot be discussed openly but facts and figures on the impact of government policies should not be 'hidden'! Otherwise how can the electorate make properly informed decisions when it comes to voting!

Same with EU negotiations .. the electorate need to have at least some broad brush info: on what a government is aiming for..what they are prepared to negotiate on what they are not etc.

I would say that our press is as free as it gets!

There will always be some stories that are not in the National interest tp print, especially if it will cause panic or unrest.

Same with EU negotiations .. the electorate need to have at least some broad brush info: on what a government is aiming for..what they are prepared to negotiate on what they are not etc.

I agree, pen, but I don't think the government knows yet. There have been a few stated aims. I think there will be more in due course. You have to remember that nobody expected the EU referendum vote to go the way it did so of course the government was not prepared. They are preparing their case as we speak.

For those who want to pick me up on defending our prime minister's decisiob not to give away details of her negotiating strategy, please note the expression "broad brush" above. I think she or other government ministers will give us a broad brush outline when they have one.