• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Shambles

Dail Mail forced into retraction over Cannabis demo reporting!

Hehe. Always nice to see the Heil having to accept that real world thing they're so terrified of coming into contact with. Wonder how one would define "poorly attended" though. If they were hoping for hundreds of thousands it would indeed be poorly attended, if hoping for a few hundred they did brilliantly. Does rather sound like the typical Heil tactic of pretending things they don't like simply don't exist though - like the thousands of people that really did attend a cannabis rally despite it pissing down. They seem to come from the "If we close our eyes and wish reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally hard then all these terrible things will go away and we won't have to think about them" school of journalism. They must secretly love all these assorted hates they have though cos it is all they write about (aside from thrilling stories about minor slebs wearing shoes or holding handbags or having genitals and so on).
 
celebs should be banned from genitalic possession, clean up the gene pool a little...
 
Well well well, who'd have thought the Daily Mail would get a fact wrong about the drug scene...
 
Shambles said:
Hehe. Always nice to see the Heil having to accept that real world thing they're so terrified of coming into contact with. Wonder how one would define "poorly attended" though. If they were hoping for hundreds of thousands it would indeed be poorly attended, if hoping for a few hundred they did brilliantly. Does rather sound like the typical Heil tactic of pretending things they don't like simply don't exist though - like the thousands of people that really did attend a cannabis rally despite it pissing down. They seem to come from the "If we close our eyes and wish reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally hard then all these terrible things will go away and we won't have to think about them" school of journalism. They must secretly love all these assorted hates they have though cos it is all they write about (aside from thrilling stories about minor slebs wearing shoes or holding handbags or having genitals and so on).
Click to expand...

The Daily Mail doesn't even hate these things. I bet the journalists themselves love a toke. The Daily Mail manufactures outrage because it shifts units. Blame the fuckers that pay for it.
 
parttime crackhead said:
The Daily Mail doesn't even hate these things. I bet the journalists themselves love a toke. The Daily Mail manufactures outrage because it shifts units. Blame the fuckers that pay for it.
Click to expand...

Bang on. The liberal media shift fuck all units in comparison
 
Its actually one of the yanks favorite online news sources, thats how it gets so much recognition, they absolutely lap it up.

You know your an absolute dross of a cunt paper when your main headlines are always questions. I dont know you cunts, how about you inform us about the news you speculative crock of shite.
 
I work in publishing and my editor refuses to run headlines with a question mark.
 
cosmiccars said:
Bang on. The liberal media shift fuck all units in comparison
Click to expand...

We're not in the US, y'know. The Daily Mail is a liberal paper, if we're using 'liberal' in the traditional British sense. They pretty much invented the term 'nanny state' for one, and nobody will ever forget 'Rip-off Britain', will they?

Sorry, nothing personal. It's one of my pet hates. And you have to wonder whether confusion among those under forty as to what 'liberal' actually means contributed to the Liberal Democrats' rise over the past decade.

Ahem. Okay, I'm done. :D
 
^at least now we've got the term 'neo-liberal' getting more use here and in the us to make up for it a bit
 
Yep. Although in most cases it appears to be more or less interchangeable with 'neoconservative'. Which brings us to... ah, fuck it. Shouldn't have opened my mouth in the first place. =D
 
^but like the difference between the old 'liberal' and 'conservative', it's no real difference at all (in fact it's usually the 'liberal' side that persuades the masses and gets the dirty done)
 
i think churchil was in the liberal party at the time he put forward the world's first eugenic law (the feeble-minded persons act in ~1908? - it didn't get through parliament luckily) - so if that's liberal, the daily heil is too!

ontopic - as someone above said, the tabloids (heil included) aren't actually staffed by the low-class idiotic types (no offence :) that they largely cater for. They're owned and run not by the common or garden ignorance-based bigots, but the the much worse intellectual bigots - bigots who are able to know better but choose to be bigoted, either as a tactic to encourage bigotry in the populace for political reasons, or just cos they need to justify their class advantage to themselves (consciously or otherwise)

//i suppose i should say, maybe not all tabloids (i like the morning star for instance...;)
 
Last edited:
Sammy G with respect you know exactly what I meant so that's a bit pedantic. The Mail is not liberal in its attitudes to gays, trannies, druggies, Joe foreigner etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top