Center Parcs pulls Daily Mail ads due to homophobia



Brexit said:
Does anybody disagree with Littljohn's point? Doesn't seem unreasonable once you get past the intentionally controversial headline.
Click to expand...

Because the entire article is riven with barely concealed homophobic and transphobic bile.

“Oh I’m not homophobic, but I’m going to spend the next 1000 words telling you why I hate the idea of two men sharing a picture of an ultrasound.”
 
West_Winger said:
Because the entire article is riven with barely concealed homophobic and transphobic bile.

“Oh I’m not homophobic, but I’m going to spend the next 1000 words telling you why I hate the idea of two men sharing a picture of an ultrasound.”
Click to expand...

That's a bit of an exaggeration. Just like his writing.
 
errant said:
he knows what he's doing, generating clicks for revenue. feeds both sides of the anger beast...


after the demise of the ket-monster hopkins the mail needs a clickbaiter in chief...
Click to expand...

Aye, he knows what he's doing. There's no doubt about that.
 
Brexit said:
Does anybody disagree with Littljohn's point? Doesn't seem unreasonable once you get past the intentionally controversial headline.
Click to expand...
I couldn't give a fuck what his point is. Who actually does? Why would anyone care what he thinks about anything. It was the headline that caused all the bother and fair play to businesses not wanting to be associated with pointlessly controversial headlines like that. Hopefully others follow suit.
 
Littlejohn is a f***ing bellend but people are playing the man and not the ball on this one.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that all things being equal; a child benefits more from having a mother and father.
 
Brexit said:
That's a bit of an exaggeration. Just like his writing.
Click to expand...

Not even slightly. He’s frothing at the mouth because, shock horror, there’s a picture of an ultrasound and, more shock horror, they happen to be male! Then for some unknown reason he goes off on a rant because a trans woman is breastfeeding.

GK said:
I couldn't give a fuck what his point is. Who actually does? Why would anyone care what he thinks about anything. It was the headline that caused all the bother and fair play to businesses not wanting to be associated with pointlessly controversial headlines like that. Hopefully others follow suit.
Click to expand...

The Mail lost millions last year as advertisers pulled out (fnar fnar) and this year looks like going the same way. With the Express now being owned by MGN the far right will struggle in the next few years imo.
 
West_Winger said:
Not even slightly. He’s frothing at the mouth because, shock horror, there’s a picture of an ultrasound and, more shock horror, they happen to be male! Then for some unknown reason he goes off on a rant because a trans woman is breastfeeding.



The Mail lost millions last year as advertisers pulled out (fnar fnar) and this year looks like going the same way. With the Express now being owned by MGN the far right will struggle in the next few years imo.
Click to expand...
Yes that and the fact that a lot of the Daily Hiel's current readership will be dead. (Frightened to death by its headlines probably) :D
 
West_Winger said:
The Mail lost millions last year as advertisers pulled out (fnar fnar) and this year looks like going the same way. With the Express now being owned by MGN the far right will struggle in the next few years imo.
Click to expand...

i'd be interested to know the difference in print vrs online advertising venue... they seem good at clickbait and whilst a different operation to the printed format, that website generates a lot of clicks.
 
errant said:
i'd be interested to know the difference in print vrs online advertising venue... they seem good at clickbait and whilst a different operation to the printed format, that website generates a lot of clicks.
Click to expand...

It’s hilarious - they try and claim they’re 2 separate entities but then Dacre and the annual accounts always forget this and talk about them being one.
 
West_Winger said:
It’s hilarious - they try and claim they’re 2 separate entities but then Dacre and the annual accounts always forget this and talk about them being one.
Click to expand...
i thought he had a right rant about the online editor which made it out in to the public domain? does he control online content anarl?
 
Brexit said:
Does anybody disagree with Littljohn's point? Doesn't seem unreasonable once you get past the intentionally controversial headline.
Click to expand...
I disagree. As far as I am aware all the evidence points to children getting the best from a loving, nurturing family. It seems to make no difference if the parents are same sex, different sex or single parent. It also seems to make no difference if the loving and nurturing comes from a nanny type figure rather than parents.

Unfortunately I read/heard this a while ago so can’t point you to any peer reviewed papers.

Because an opinion is based on convention such as Littlejohn’s, it doesn’t mean it is correct (even if on the face of it it would seem logical).
 

Back
Top