Metropol

Chie wrote:One of their front page headlines last week refered to Kevin McGee as the 'husband' of Matt Lucas - complete with single quotation marks

Actually, what they did was use something like "ex-partner" originally, then when the comments weren't bile filled enough for their liking the husband comments became more and more frequent in the article.

Hymagumba wrote:Actually, what they did was use something like "ex-partner" originally, then when the comments weren't bile filled enough for their liking the husband comments became more and more frequent in the article.

I saw the front page myself - it was 'husband' on the front page in big letters. Not the main headline, but in the bit at the top between the masthead and the main story.

Chie wrote:

Hymagumba wrote:Actually, what they did was use something like "ex-partner" originally, then when the comments weren't bile filled enough for their liking the husband comments became more and more frequent in the article.

I saw the front page myself - it was 'husband' on the front page in big letters. Not the main headline, but in the bit at the top between the masthead and the main story.

ah because the website kept changing throughout the day, perhaps it was as other editions came out.

Strange.

Looking at the above picture, shouldn't this turdysome big cuntweed be playing Edna Turnblad in Hairspray??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1221101

Interesting that she doesn't mention which article or which paper started this issue up. I wonder if that was sub-edited out.

I can't believe they actually got that vulgar MASSIVE TWITTER LOGO GLOWING INSIDE MY RETINA BECAUSE I'M SUCH A RAGING TWEETER pic from a stock agency, and not from getting the work experience to knock up in Photoshop something which subtly communicates a degree of fear about the interwebs embedding themselves in our sensory organs.

Does the logo often appear backwards on the site?

Jovis wrote:Does the logo often appear backwards on the site?

As often as its viewpoints do.

Ho ho ho.

The PCC has received more complaints over the weekend (21000 and counting) about Jan Moir's article than it received IN TOTAL in the last five years about every other issue, and they are, in their words, "individually written complaints", not copy and paste jobs.

Ideally, this would lead to a drop in circulation for the Daily Heil.

Doubt it would happen in reality though, it seems typical that when facing a backlash, the right-wingers somehow group together as a more sturdy polemic - 2004 US election, anyone?

What do others here think of Ms Moir's "apology" printed on Friday?

Personally I consider it as offensive as the original article in that rather than apologise and leave it at that, she says she's sorry for the offence and the timing but goes on to repeat all her earlier suggestions and attempts to justify them.

To quote Victoria Coren on Twitter: "To Moir: To Accidentally Reveal Dumb Prejudice You Didn't Know You Had".