Daily Mail Subscription Rise

Fiddlestick

keithwjones wrote: »

Since March I signed up to Daily Mail Subscription at £10.40 per month.

You have my sympathies.

Oliver14

dfh2012 wrote: »

TAnd their editor said today that it showed everyone that black readers were as important to the DM as white readers.

The fact that the DM had to say that says a lot.

Heisenberg_2

marywooyeah wrote: »

there's an online version you can read for free.

There is and as much as The Mail is slated almost universally I think it is one of the most accessible online newspapers in the UK.

I probably only spend about £5 a year on physical newspapers annually what with the Mail, The Guardian and all the other online news sources.

I still find it amusing and unfathomable when I read the indignant and outraged comments that appear on the site - lol!

It's free and I choose to read it. I'm not forced to so I don't get the ire that the comments display.

Also, if I subscribed to something and didn't like the product or service I could just take it up the !!! and whinge about it. Alternatively I could cancel my subscription.

Not too sure what I'd do really?......

Heisenberg_2

dfh2012 wrote: »

To be fair to the DM, they did cover the Stephen Lawrence murder in great detail. And their editor said today that it showed everyone that black readers were as important to the DM as white readers.

I haven't read the story in full but that is not what I got from the headlines I skimmed earlier.

I read it as if The Mail were shouting from the tree tops all those years ago that they were right in accusing the people they did.

It is very much like what the NOTW used to do but a middle class version.

Personally I think they need to be VERY careful because I can see verdicts getting overturned on the basis of "trial by media".

From the stories that The Mail has itself recently published about "tainted evidence", the fact that it has taken 18 years to come to this decision, the videos from the hidden cameras that the police installed.

Whatever your opinion - and mine is that they more than likely ARE guilty. What I struggle to get my head around is why on earth it has taken 18 YEARS to reach this decision?!!

Unfortunately something stinks in this case - sorry.

Heisenberg_2

dfh2012 wrote: »

I don't think we can blame the DM for the collapse of the previous trials. Also, I noticed that the DM were sensitive enough to blank out words like n...., p.... whereas the supposedly liberal guardian printed the offensive words in full.

And while I fully sympathisise with the distraught parents- remember, the men were aquitted once and it does not seem fair for them to stand trial twice for the same crime. Morever, the evidence against them is so flimsy. It is almost as if they had to be convicted to show that something was being done about the awful murder. As they were led away, one of the accused said to the jury- "you have convicted an innocent man. I hope you can live with it." I doubt anyone who was guilty will be able to say so with such conviction.

Unfortunately I do completely agree with you. The Mail's new stance is "what about the other three"!

The "other three" who weren't on trial for murder and are by default innocent?

I truly believe that all of the original suspects were there and know exactly what happened but only one or maybe two actually committed the actual assault which ended up being fatal.

I know this sounds insensitive but I don't understand why this one crime has such coverage and public outrage. I know for certain that, especially on The Mail, the readers are hardly barely tolerant of "coloured" people!

I don't get why the politicians that have been brazenly ripping every person off for years, don't get hounded for their crimes of stealing, openly off the public?

Murder? Stealing from the public purse. Forcing elderly people into giving away everything they have worked for. Forcing people into debt to pay for care homes for their relatives and stretching their finances so much that they only see suicide as the option.

Whilst they claim for anything and everything under the sun all paid for by the public purse.

One guy who has become a martyr or thousands of people who have lost everything - helped by politicians greed. Hmmm.....

Rex_Mundi

dfh2012 wrote: »

And while I fully sympathisise with the distraught parents- remember, the men were aquitted once and it does not seem fair for them to stand trial twice for the same crime. Morever, the evidence against them is so flimsy. It is almost as if they had to be convicted to show that something was being done about the awful murder.

The law of only being able to stand for trial once if you were found innocent was 800 years old. It was introduced to protect people from malicious prosecution by the nobility. Since then, methods of collecting evidence, police methods and forensic science (+the rights of all of us) has moved on to a different realm.

dfh2012 wrote: »

As they were led away, one of the accused said to the jury- "you have convicted an innocent man. I hope you can live with it." I doubt anyone who was guilty will be able to say so with such conviction.

It's quite amazing really. If you speak to prisoners, you will find out that (apparently), prisons are FULL of innocent people.

Heisenberg_2

Rex_Mundi wrote: »

The law of only being able to stand for trial once if you were found innocent was 800 years old. It was introduced to protect people from malicious prosecution by the nobility. Since then, methods of collecting evidence, police methods and forensic science (+the rights of all of us) has moved on to a different realm.

Yes - it's amazing that these "methods of collecting evidence, police methods and forensic science" only take near on 2 decades after the crime was actually committed to "get a result"!

As far as I remember Diana died after Steve - what was the conclusive evidence on her death?

Oh - yes - the answer was that Henri Paul was a drunk driver evading the press! Makes complete sense because she didn't have any bodyguards or protection at at all!!

Rex_Mundi

Heisenberg wrote: »

Yes - it's amazing that these "methods of collecting evidence, police methods and forensic science" only take near on 2 decades after the crime was actually committed to "get a result"!

This conviction was brought about by new evidence not available at the original trial.

This shows not only that the change in law was right to allow another trial, but also, even in the past few years forensic science has progressed massively over what was technically able just a short time ago.

Heisenberg_2

The new forensic evidence is at the least "convienient" and at best "tenuous".

This thread is actually nothing to do with this one case. I have looked for a better place to discuss it but can't find one.

For the record I think that the guys are guilty and probably the other 3.

The issue I have with it is The Mail's glee and just the whole way it has been handled.

In reality it is a completely hollow victory as they are only going to be punished as juveniles.

Any lawyer interested in "human rights" regardless of guilt, is going to have a field day with The Mail and I honestly expect these "convictions" to be overturned within 2 years. And then a big compensation claim being made.

The bottom line is that the police were laughably incompetent and I doubt that a lot of their methods were actually above board.

Rex_Mundi

Heisenberg wrote: »

This thread is actually nothing to do with this one case. I have looked for a better place to discuss it but can't find one.

I agree, we are probably talking about this case in the wrong thread. It is already being discussed HERE

I think that anyone that subscribes to the Daily Mail has enough to worry about (like their sanity)