ot jeremy corbyn

[ragingpup]

Assuming that anyone other than us is still actually reading this thread, they will be able to see what you wrote about Mail readers and will be able to draw their own conclusions about what you were saying, just as Shark27 and I have. How is a post that begins You think the Mail is only targeting immigration to sell papers to the bigots? not accusing Mail readers of being bigots?

As I mentioned earlier, your Rees-Mogg conspiracy theory smacks of desperation. Do you have any evidence to support it or is it just something you have made up to explain the apparent contradiction between the Mail’s clear anti-immigration stance and the repeated assertion from the Left that the Tories and big business like mass immigration?

Okm then, help me out - what exactly did you mean when you wrote that the Mail is "simply pandering to the tastes of a particular mind set"? What exactly is that mind set with which you are tarnishing the names of our good Mail reading friends? Be specific and cc Shark27 into the reply. Thanks.

[KerrAvon]

Okm then, help me out - what exactly did you mean when you wrote that the Mail is "simply pandering to the tastes of a particular mind set"? What exactly is that mind set with which you are tarnishing the names of our good Mail reading friends? Be specific and cc Shark27 into the reply. Thanks.

In what way have I tarnished the name of Mail Readers? I said that the Mail panders to a particular mind-set. I made no comment upon whether I considered that to be a desirable or undesirable mind-set. You are reading something into my words that isn’t there, perhaps as a result of your own prejudices.

At a basic level, the most obvious aspect of a Mail reader is that they have an inclination to read the Mail. From my limited experience of the paper (I sometimes read it when waiting for a haircut as my barber puts it out), I would say that other common traits of readers would be:

1. Opposition to immigration;
2. Support for the reintroduction of the death penalty;
3. A degree of contempt for ‘political correctness gone made’; and
4. An inability to see how unpleasant Katie Hopkins is.

Whilst I would disagree with all of those points to one extent or another, none of those traits automatically makes Mail readers bigots, which is what you clearly asserted when you said You think the Mail is only targeting immigration to sell papers to the bigots. I can’t make out whether that isn’t what you meant to say or whether you are taking a leaf out of The Great Leader’s book and are twisting and turning when confronted with something that you now regret saying.