Sign up to Gransnet Daily
Our free daily newsletter full of hot threads, competitions and discounts
Subscribe
A survey by Kings College into British attitudes to different forms of inequality found just one point of agreement - that geographical inequalities need to be tackled.
By far the most disturbing inequality at the moment concerns unemployment. Nearly 50% think people have lost their jobs because of under achievement. Only 31% think job loss is attributable to bad luck. Apparently, by 57% to 39% Conservative voters are more likely to accept poor performance as the reason for job losses.
Who are these people? Everywhere there are shuttered shops, boarded up pubs, bars and restaurants. Theatres, cinemas and concert halls are closed. Do they not think that the pandemic is the reason for the increases in unemployment? When they see a closed shop or pub do they think that the people employed therein were under performing?
Whenever I see or read about the goodness of people I think perhaps the world is going to change. But then I read the survey and realise that it's not going to.
grandmajet The Guardian is very good at providing both sides of any argument, usually through the opinion columns.
For example, over the years I read Owen Jones supporting Corby, then attacking him and now being more balanced.
Whilst the journalists criticise the Tory Party they also criticise the LP on occasion, often fiercely. This is more than cn be said for most papers.
Growstuff, I’m not sure Max Pemberton would like being described as a celebrity medic, his column is very caring and insightful.
I’ve lately been a bit irritated by the ubiquitous Dr Sarah Jarvis - does she actually spend any time at all being a GP these days, she’s always on telly or the radio?
As I said, I read both the Mail and the Guardian to try and get two aspects on the same story, maybe some regular Guardian only readers should read a different paper from time to time - and I mean read, not just grunt disapprovingly at the headlines.
M0nica
grandmajet I completely agree. It has excellent financial and medical sections and runs public interest campaigns. It is currently raising money to provide children and families with computers, it ran a campaign for PPE at the start of the epidemic. It has campaigned tirelessly for proper social care for the elderly
It was the Daily Mail that determinedly supported and campaigned for a proper investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence when all other papers had moved on. It named the killers and supported his parents. A fact they themselves acknowledged.
As for all you Guardianistas. Now I know that you are not people, you are aethereal others, living on a plane quite separate and way above us ordinary people. Perhaps we should prepare a shrine for you where we burn candles and pray for your intercession.
I think the quotes in "'people' voted leave" are yours rather than the original posters M0nica. Now I am really disapointed by this but I know you will not mind me criticising your style as you indulge in this yourself but generally your posts are interesting. I have a feeling some are running out of defensive steam.
lemongrove
Dinahmo
grandmajet I would be grateful (I mean this sincerely) if you would explain why you read the Mail. I have picked it up a few times over the years, when left on a plane or a train and found very little of interest.
? oh dear Dinahmo that’s funny, you sound like a High Court judge ( and just as out of touch) by your comment.
As always, it seems we can rely on this poster for the personal attack rather than a comment about the thread.
Why do that?
grandmajet
Dinahmo, I get nectar points and I like the puzzles pages!
I often don’t like the Mail headlines, but I started reading when they went in a big way for the killers of Stephen Lawrence, and have read it ever since. The Guardian I read as an alternative view, but often the Mail is much more balanced than its attackers suggest, if you look further than the headlines.
It knows its readership and panders to them. There's nothing "balanced" about the contents of the DM.
M0nica
grandmajet I completely agree. It has excellent financial and medical sections and runs public interest campaigns. It is currently raising money to provide children and families with computers, it ran a campaign for PPE at the start of the epidemic. It has campaigned tirelessly for proper social care for the elderly
It was the Daily Mail that determinedly supported and campaigned for a proper investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence when all other papers had moved on. It named the killers and supported his parents. A fact they themselves acknowledged.
As for all you Guardianistas. Now I know that you are not people, you are aethereal others, living on a plane quite separate and way above us ordinary people. Perhaps we should prepare a shrine for you where we burn candles and pray for your intercession.
What I've seen of the Daily Mail medical reporting isn't impressive and seems to be from celeb medics and picks up on click bait and scare stories.
I suppose it depends what you mean by news, but it seems like "Hallo" magazine printed on newsprint.
It's not my "go to" source for anything remotely serious.
They were fierce in their criticism of the government over the Windrush scandal.
Also very supportive of anti racism in sport.
Paul Dacre took a personal interest in the Lawrence case once he realised he knew Mr Lawrence senior. As the BBC reported:
"The support came after editor Paul Dacre realised he had met Stephen when Mr Lawrence was decorating his house.
"Mr Lawrence told BBC London 94.9's Eddie Nestor: "I did a lot of work in Paul Dacre's house."
That may be considered as admirable on Paul Dacre's part, and the Lawrences were naturally very grateful for the paper's campaign, but one wonders if PD would have been so keen to champion the Lawrence's cause if he had not had a longstanding knowledge of the family.
Other coverage in the Mail has not been so admirable regarding matters of ethnicity.
Nobody said that you had to read the DM Dinahmo but your comments about it were fuddy duddy to say the least.
Coming over all superior at others choice of reading matter isn’t a good look.
Lemongrove I'd be interested to learn how I'm out of touch by not reading the Mail. I'm not sure about a High Court Judge but Baroness Hale - that's another matter.
Personally I prefer the quality of the Guardian. When we had a shortage of loo paper earlier in the pandemic I found the guardian paper slightly thicker and more absorbent.
Pantglas Sorry - the Mail was used for a more prosaic reason. Having lots of pages it as very good for house training my puppy and for lining the cat litter tray. I'm too old to was and I have no idea who most of the current celebs are. Actually I haven't seen a copy of the Mail for a long time but on past occasions when i did, I can't say that I was impressed.
Monica ???
Dinahmo
grandmajet I would be grateful (I mean this sincerely) if you would explain why you read the Mail. I have picked it up a few times over the years, when left on a plane or a train and found very little of interest.
? oh dear Dinahmo that’s funny, you sound like a High Court judge ( and just as out of touch) by your comment.
grandmajet I completely agree. It has excellent financial and medical sections and runs public interest campaigns. It is currently raising money to provide children and families with computers, it ran a campaign for PPE at the start of the epidemic. It has campaigned tirelessly for proper social care for the elderly
It was the Daily Mail that determinedly supported and campaigned for a proper investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence when all other papers had moved on. It named the killers and supported his parents. A fact they themselves acknowledged.
As for all you Guardianistas. Now I know that you are not people, you are aethereal others, living on a plane quite separate and way above us ordinary people. Perhaps we should prepare a shrine for you where we burn candles and pray for your intercession.
Dinahmo, I get nectar points and I like the puzzles pages!
I often don’t like the Mail headlines, but I started reading when they went in a big way for the killers of Stephen Lawrence, and have read it ever since. The Guardian I read as an alternative view, but often the Mail is much more balanced than its attackers suggest, if you look further than the headlines.
This Guardianista voted Remain because she never had any intention of doing anything else. Didn't take much notice of the campaigns on either side. Not influenced by my paper of choice.
But, the Guardian hasn't been running shrieking pro or anti EU articles for decades. Just reported the news.
I voted remain because we had not been given enough information as to what would happen if we did leave so felt it was fairer to vote to remain. Though the leave campaign promises of so much to the NHS will be really useful now, so I look forward to that 
there is always a silver lining
I am curious as to whether our left leaning Guardianistas consider themselves to be people or not.
We are told that 'people' voted leave because they read papers that told them to do. Now assuming that all these Guardianistas, are prepared to admit that they are indeed of this world and people just like us, then can we assume that their decsion to vote remain was influenced by what they read in their newspaper?
I’ll own up to reading the MailOnline on a regular basis and any and every newspaper left on a plane or train - Guardian et al!
The financial advice and info in the Mail on a Wednesday enabled me to retire 5 years before SP age due to taking best advantage of George Osborne changes to accessing private pensions.
Perhaps you picked up different day’s copies Dinahmo on your infrequent trips into the gutter with all the boring showbizzy stuff, or femail articles on the best Brazilian wax - poor you?
grandmajet I would be grateful (I mean this sincerely) if you would explain why you read the Mail. I have picked it up a few times over the years, when left on a plane or a train and found very little of interest.
I read the Guardian online, and the Mail in paper form. I voted remain because, although I dislike much about the EU, I thought the process of coming out would be awful. I based my view on hours of my own research.
M0nica
MaizieD But it's much easier to just leap in and rubbish the Guardian, isn't it?
Well you and others who share your view do not hesitate to just leap in and rubbish the Daily Mail. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Perhaps we read the linked articles first, though, MOnica...
MaizieD But it's much easier to just leap in and rubbish the Guardian, isn't it?
Well you and others who share your view do not hesitate to just leap in and rubbish the Daily Mail. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
GrannyRose15
varian
A study has shown how The Daily Mail
The Sun and particularly the Daily Express spent years inciting antipathy towards immigrants to steer their readers towards a leave vote.
www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/26/migrants-are-off-the-agenda-for-the-uk-press-but-the-damage-is-done
www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/26/migrants-are-off-the-agenda-for-the-uk-press-but-the-damage-is-doneOh, come on varian! You can't expect us to take seriously one newspaper's reporting of how another newspaper behaved - even if it is the Grauniad.
I don't think you read the linked articles, GR15. They are reporting the findings of academic studies.
But it's much easier to just leap in and rubbish the Guardian, isn't it?
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
