The Mail Online is the best source of news period.

SuperInfinity · 27-01-2011 01:43AM

Sean_K wrote: »

Absolutely not.

Are you saying it "happens all the time"?

If so, cite.

It doesn't need citation, it's undisputed common knowledge. Just like if I say that homeless people are more likely to be alcoholics, get your own finger out and search for it if you're so ignorant.

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 27-01-2011 01:46AM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

It doesn't need citation, it's undisputed common knowledge. Just like if I say that homeless people are more likely to be alcoholics, get your own finger out and search for it if you're so ignorant.

This thread is the number one search result on google for botched autopsies in foreign countries.

Not exactly a precedent.

That sort of hysteria about botched autopsies is the bread and butter of the DM.

walshb · 27-01-2011 01:46AM

Sean, by saying "it happens ALL the time," I didn't mean all the time. You know what I meant. It does happen. Of course not ALL the time.
I am confused now....

Mr Benevolent · 27-01-2011 01:47AM

This is the best online newspaper. Despite its name it's fairly unbiased, and that's coming from an atheist.

AnonoBoy · 27-01-2011 01:47AM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Are you mad?

Some of these articles are showing the good the vaccine is doing, others are showing the bad points of it.

Others are scaremongering about it without any actual proof.

They're implying in the articles that the vaccine has paralysed women but there seems to be little proof that the two things are connected. However that doesn't stop the Mail running articles that say 'Twelve-year-old girl paralysed 'after being given cervical cancer jab'. Now to the casual reader that would seem to be saying the vaccine caused it.

It's shoddy shoddy journalism.

I defy you to find a similar untrustworthy stance on an issue like this in The Irish Times, The Guardian or even The Irish Independent.

Millicent · 27-01-2011 01:47AM

walshb wrote: »

Now you are talking. But, see, the Gately family never wanted the second autopsy, so who the hell can query or check the Spanish autopsy?

We will never ever know if the autoposy was correct, as no second one corroborated the Spanish one.

It's not all that uncommon for a family to seek a second autopsy. Why would you think that they would be giving two fingers to the Spanish?

That would be giving two fingers to the Spanish as a second autopsy is exceptionally rare and usually only occurs when some new evidence arises to indicate something was amiss with the first autopsy. That tends to be the case in suspected murders. There is no evidence here to say that there is, none at all and it's potentially libellous to suggest that there is.

And, not entirely sure of Spanish laws, but I'm guessing both the family, spouse and insurance/will officials can request the records of the autopsy and contest them if something is amiss.

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 27-01-2011 01:48AM

walshb wrote: »

Sean, by saying "it happens ALL the time," I didn't mean all the time. You know what I meant. It does happen. Of course not ALL the time.
I am confused now....

It happens in a small number of isolated incidents.

Millicent · 27-01-2011 01:51AM

Sean_K wrote: »

It happens in a small number of isolated incidents.

If anyone can find me a link to one high-profile case, I'll give them one shiny new penny!

AnonoBoy · 27-01-2011 01:53AM

walshb wrote: »

What is the big deal with querying or commenting on the general lifestyle of gay men? They do have a lifestyle, do they not? What is homophobic about querying their lifestyles, providing examples?

Statements like the following contain homophobic undertones:

Jan Moir wrote:

Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships.

His death had nothing to do with civil partnerships or the gay rights movement.

For once again, under the carapace of glittering, hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see.

'A different and more dangerous lifestyle' - a not too subtle jibe that being gay is a dangerous lifestyle. If she could back this up with some evidence that gay people are more likely to die young then it might be acceptable but I doubt she could find those statistics.

walshb · 27-01-2011 01:53AM

Sean_K wrote: »

It happens in a small number of isolated incidents.

Ok, but, would you consider it odd for a family to ask for a second autopsy (home country) on their loved one, if that loved one died under those circumstance, abroad, young man, and dies like he did?

I would have thought that asking for a second autopsy would be a given...

I am also quite sure that foreigners dying on Irish shores under such circumstances, that their families would seek a second autopsy from their country. Rules out any possibility of slackness, or anything else

Millicent · 27-01-2011 01:57AM

walshb wrote: »

Ok, but, would you consider it odd for a family to ask for a second autopsy (home country) on their loved one, if that loved one died under those circumstance, abroad, young man, and dies like he did?

I would have thought that asking for a second autopsy would be a given...

I am also quite sure that foreigners dying on Irish shores under such circumstances, that their families would seek a second autopsy from their country. Rules out any possibility of slackness, or anything else

It's just not standard procedure. You can insist on something all you want but a medical professional is not going to grant you a second autopsy just because you want it. There has to be some sort of mitigating circumstance to warrant one and "I don't trust the Spanish" is not one.

walshb · 27-01-2011 01:58AM

Millicent wrote: »

And, not entirely sure of Spanish laws, but I'm guessing both the family, spouse and insurance/will officials can request the records of the autopsy and contest them if something is amiss.

Yeah, but guess what, Gately is gone, burned to ashes, even if new evidence came to light, what can they do? No, I wouldn't have accepted that.

Not saying the Spanish did get it wrong, but from what I read and heard, a second autopsy would have been the way to go.

walshb · 27-01-2011 02:00AM

Millicent wrote: »

It's just not standard procedure. You can insist on something all you want but a medical professional is not going to grant you a second autopsy just because you want it. There has to be some sort of mitigating circumstance to warrant one and "I don't trust the Spanish" is not one.

You sure of that? So, a family cannot have a second autopsy done by Ireland? Can't do it? Pay for it? Has to be ONLY if there is mitigating circumstances?

Millicent · 27-01-2011 02:02AM

walshb wrote: »

Yeah, but guess what, Gately is gone, burned to ashes, even if new evidence came to light, what can they do? No, I wouldn't have accepted that.

Not saying the Spanish did get it wrong, but from what I read and heard, a second autopsy would have been the way to go.

But why? This is what I'm driving at. What have you possibly heard that would warrant the breaking of well-establish precedents and autopsy procedure? What would suggest that the Spanish autopsy was inaccurate or unsatisfactory?

Millicent · 27-01-2011 02:06AM

walshb wrote: »

You sure of that? So, a family cannot have a second autopsy done by Ireland? Can't do it? Pay for it? Has to be ONLY if there is mitigating circumstances?

AFAIK, a family can request a second autopsy if they can prove it is needed or can just request one, but unless there is good reasoning to request one, they can (and would most likely) be refused.

SuperInfinity · 27-01-2011 02:11AM

Millicent wrote: »

But why? This is what I'm driving at. What have you possibly heard that would warrant the breaking of well-establish precedents and autopsy procedure? What would suggest that the Spanish autopsy was inaccurate or unsatisfactory?

I personally wouldn't have worded it like that myself and don't agree with how they worded it. This was perhaps one lapse in the Daily Mail, taking one line out of millions and millions that have been written so far.

Maybe the Daily Mail is a bit like After Hours... not moderated as much as many others of its kind are. Sometimes people here say things that others find offensive. Maybe we don't need to be led by the hand through to our opinion. I know I've personally disagreed with lots of things the Daily Mail has said.

AnonoBoy · 27-01-2011 02:13AM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I personally wouldn't have worded it like that myself and don't agree with how they worded it. This was perhaps one lapse in the Daily Mail, taking one line out of millions and millions that have been written so far.

I'm pretty sure there's been more than one. Littlejohn himself is probably worth a whole year's word of unmoderated After Hours.

filthymcnasty · 27-01-2011 02:18AM

The Mail, its not all bad- some informative articles on there.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1350919/Why-ARE-womens-breasts-getting-bigger-The-answers-disturb-.html

Debthree · 27-01-2011 02:24AM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I think it is both the most enjoyable and optimal way of consuming news.

.... the website is just so good.

You are a sad strange little man.

Johro · 27-01-2011 02:25AM

bluewolf wrote: »

News period?
Sounds yucky

It gets worse.
V V

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I think it is both the most enjoyable and optimal way of consuming news.

Millicent · 27-01-2011 02:27AM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I personally wouldn't have worded it like that myself and don't agree with how they worded it. This was perhaps one lapse in the Daily Mail, taking one line out of millions and millions that have been written so far.

Maybe the Daily Mail is a bit like After Hours... not moderated as much as many others of its kind are. Sometimes people here say things that others find offensive. Maybe we don't need to be led by the hand through to our opinion. I know I've personally disagreed with lots of things the Daily Mail has said.

Did you mean to quote that comment? That one was in reply to a point by WalshB.

And there has far and away been more than one lapse in the Daily Mail.

K-9 · 27-01-2011 02:30AM

walshb wrote: »

Yes, and the body was brought home and burned without even a second autopsy from the home country, Ireland. You think the Spanish gave a rats ass how he died. They could have been paid off for all you know. Half ass autopsy, get it done, ask no questions....

Jan Moir asked tough questions, people didn't like that, because it was about an Irishman, a gay Irishman who
died under circumstances that were a little odd.

Didn't she or the paper apologise later for the article?

Usually when somebody apologises that means they admit they were wrong and they try and learn from it. Others just complain about the "world's gone mad" or pc gone mad, bit like Richard Keys.

AnonoBoy · 27-01-2011 02:34AM

K-9 wrote: »

Didn't she or the paper apologise later for the article?

Usually when somebody apologises that means they admit they were wrong and they try and learn from it. Others just complain about the "world's gone mad" or pc gone mad, bit like Richard Keys.

Quite an unconvincing apology: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/16/jan-moir-stephen-gately-response

Jan Moir wrote:

In writing that 'it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships' I was suggesting that civil partnerships - the introduction of which I am on the record in supporting - have proved just to be as problematic as marriages.

That's funny because in the context of the original article that makes no sense. Why would a marriage being problematic have absolutely anything to do with Gately's death?

Oh wait that's right.... it doesn't!

Ms. Moir just misjudged public opinion and when her article got a record number of complaints she had to backtrack.

Millicent · 27-01-2011 02:40AM

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Quite an unconvincing apology: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/16/jan-moir-stephen-gately-response

That's funny because in the context of the original article that makes no sense. Why would a marriage being problematic have absolutely anything to do with Gately's death?

Oh wait that's right.... it doesn't!

Ms. Moir just misjudged public opinion and when her article got a record number of complaints she had to backtrack.

I wonder if she actually thinks that is an apology. It still sticks the same oar in to stir the matter and completely reiterates what people were complaining about in the original article. What sort of mental gymnastics did it take her to believe that was an actual apology? It just rubs more salt on the wounds.

SuperInfinity · 27-01-2011 02:50AM

Debthree wrote: »

You are a sad strange little man.

Go back under whatever rock you crawled out from. You make about a post and a half a month (over nearly two years) and THIS is one of what you post? If you made 200 a day I might expect this type of quality in some of them.

At least others who don't agree with me are constructive or make valid points, but you are just a sad strange little woman.

There's the rock, it's not going to come over you itself.

Debthree · 27-01-2011 03:00AM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Go back under whatever rock you crawled out from. You make about a post and a half a month (over nearly two years) and THIS is one of what you post? If you made 200 a day I might expect this type of quality in some of them.

You? YOU who admits to loving the scummy, disgusting, tacky, vile rag that is the Daily Mail talk about quality??? Bwahahahahahahahah! I just love the irony.

you are just a sad strange little woman.

Nah that doesn't have a good ring to it. FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIL!

K-9 · 27-01-2011 03:01AM

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Quite an unconvincing apology: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/16/jan-moir-stephen-gately-response

That's funny because in the context of the original article that makes no sense. Why would a marriage being problematic have absolutely anything to do with Gately's death?

Oh wait that's right.... it doesn't!

Ms. Moir just misjudged public opinion and when her article got a record number of complaints she had to backtrack.

I think there was a thread here picking loads of holes in the apology.

One thing is for sure, they'd print similar again. It goes down well with the readership.

Pace2008 · 27-01-2011 10:23AM

walshb wrote: »

It is an exceptional website. So so detailed and informative, but almost too much bloody detail. The paper is also top notch.

So it's great because it has a lot of stuff in it. Are you also impressed by paintings that have been made with a lot of paint?

Many here slate the paper, but they still read it.

I don't, personally, but I'm sure there are many people who have read Mein Kampf and the Little Red Book yet somehow came out the other end unable to wholeheartedly agree with the authors' sentiments.

It helps expand one's view of the world to get an idea of what goes on inside the heads of demented bigots.

It's not a rag. It is a great read. The Health and education and science sections are so amazing. It covers everything.

It does not matter if it catalogues the sum total of all human experience since the dawn of time if it does it badly. Again, paintings with lots of paint.

Here are 44 examples - drop in the ocean - of the stellar level of health and science reporting published by The Mail. I can't imagine the garbled notions you have as to the workings of the natural world if you're using it as your primary reference source.

Don't bother playing the snob card either. It has nothing to do with reading ability - looking through the attic yesterday, I found an old Beano annual , and happily got stuck into it for over an hour. Nor am I looking down on the demographic that reads it, as it's a publication aimed largely at the middle class, and that's the bracket in which I'd probably best fit.

It's not being slated due to snobbery, but because it isa ****ing rag, depraved and morally bereft on multiple levels, and it plays no small part in making the world a more hateful and all-round ****ty place to live.

SuperInfinity · 27-01-2011 07:15PM

Pace2008 wrote: »

So it's great because it has a lot of stuff in it. Are you also impressed by paintings that have been made with a lot of paint?

This is a false analogy as he didn't say: "because it has a lot of print in it". The correct analogy would be: "Are you impressed by paintings that have been made with a lot of detail in them?" And yes I would be, more detail is rarely a bad thing, especially in the news.

Pace2008 wrote: »

It helps expand one's view of the world to get an idea of what goes on inside the heads of demented bigots.

Now you're flinging the "demented bigots" adjectives at Daily Mail readers without actually calling them "demented bigots". Charming.

Pace2008 wrote: »

Here are 44 examples - drop in the ocean - of the stellar level of health and science reporting published by The Mail. I can't imagine the garbled notions you have as to the workings of the natural world if you're using it as your primary reference source.

I have very little faith in anything any of the media says about health, I really only listen to what they've said in the peer-reviewed article/study they're sourcing it from (and I don't have much faith in that process either a lot of the time...) Having said that, I do trust the Daily Mail to point me to important studies and findings in science. And occasionally I have really hated something the Daily Mail was saying about diet when I personally am a high-fruit type person as I believe it's the diet we were evolved for.

Pace2008 wrote: »

Don't bother playing the snob card either. It has nothing to do with reading ability - looking through the attic yesterday, I found an old Beano annual , and happily got stuck into it for over an hour. Nor am I looking down on the demographic that reads it, as it's a publication aimed largely at the middle class, and that's the bracket in which I'd probably best fit.

Sometimes people do play the snob. I wouldn't really say that the Daily Mail is aimed at the middle class, I would say that it would be the higher class and the middle class along with some of the lower class. How many middle class people do you see going around thinking they're "above" the Daily Mail? A hell of a lot... it's rather sad really. :rolleyes: Among the lower class there's a large percentage of people who don't read ANY newspaper on a regular basis because they have basic literacy problems and don't like reading or paying for things. But of course the lower class that buy newspapers would like the Daily Mail as well just like anyone else and fair play to them for it.

Pace2008 wrote: »

It's not being slated due to snobbery, but because it isa ****ing rag, depraved and morally bereft on multiple levels, and it plays no small part in making the world a more hateful and all-round ****ty place to live.

Well, that's your opinion, you haven't really given any reasons for it though....

upmeath · 27-01-2011 07:19PM

Big fan of The Guardian myself. Liberal commentary and opinion (I find the Mail is full of conservative and often xenophobic garbage), it's well laid out and bang up-to-date. Live twitter and blog feeds on anything of interest.

The Mail Online is the best source of news period.

Comments