Luckily we can look forward to the Miliband era where journalists will have to be licensed by Hacked Off, the Murdoch papers and the Mail will be closed down, and the only paper running intrusive personal attacks will be the Guardian.
I think the Mirror will be allowed to apply "enhanced journalistic techniques" as well, Richard. What fun it will be!
On a serious note, there must be a lot of political capital to be had in aiming a good kicking at Associated Newspapers.
"The Editor of the Mail on Sunday has since confirmed to my office that a journalist from his newspaper did indeed attend the memorial uninvited with the intention of seeking information for publication this weekend.
Sending a reporter to my late uncle’s memorial crosses a line of common decency. I believe it a symptom of the culture and practices of both the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday."
On this one, I'd say he has them 'bang to rights...'
Can't see even the declining band of Dacre fans trying to defend this one.
Oh I don't know tim , this could be one of those buy popcorn events. Ed thought he'd have a straight in out dingdong with the Mail and move on. If the Mail has just got the bit between its teeth and is now on a prove a point crusade, Ed's just tumbled into a two year guerilla war ahead for himself and his party. he's now having to fight on 2 fronts.
Could be interesting. I ain't keen on Milliband or The Mail, so I'm hoping for fireworks. All we need is Bad Al to step in again and start posting people's home addresses (does Al post on here?) and we could have quite a fight.
" I believe no purpose would be served by me complaining to the Press Complaints Commission because it is widely discredited.
Instead, I am writing to you as the owners of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday because I believe it is long overdue that you reflect on the culture of your newspapers. You should conduct your own swift investigation into who was responsible at a senior level for this latest episode and also who is responsible for the culture and practices of these newspapers which jar so badly with the values of your readers.
There are bigger issues for the people of Britain in the midst of the worst cost of living crisis for a century than intrusion into the life of my family. But the reaction of many people to the Daily Mail’s attacks on my father this week demonstrates that the way your newspapers have behaved does not reflect the real character of our country.
It is now your responsibility to respond."
Disagree - the MoS have crossed a line attending a private memorial - it would be very borderline doorstepping attendees at a public one - but this is clearly an intrusion into the family's privacy - I hope Rotheremere recognises that quickly.....
Does that mean *all* newspapers should stop sending reporters to such events
I don't think any newspapers should be going to private family memorial services - unless by invitation......
On a serious note, there must be a lot of political capital to be had in aiming a good kicking at Associated Newspapers.
I wouldn't have thought so; of course there are plenty of Mail-haters, but they vote Labour, or perhaps LibDem, anyway. But most people don't hate the Mail, indeed it's extremely widely read. As a general principle, politicians getting into a war with the media don't come out well.
Writing a public letter is playing politics with it - its escalating the spat yet again - that's my point.
You dont think there was a political point behind the intrusion into the family event in the first place?
Ralph Miliband died in 1994. What is the relevance of a MoS reporter attending a memorial service 20yrs after his death?
Their gate-crashing of the memorial of a private individual who died this year was obviously a political act. Do you think they were paying their condolences?
I wouldn't have thought so; of course there are plenty of Mail-haters, but they vote Labour, or perhaps LibDem, anyway.
I dunno - I've been struck by how many people on facebook have been sharing anti-Mail stuff these last few days. Yeah, that selection is definitely biased towards metropolitan lefties but not exclusively so (or anywhere near it) by any means. I personally dont have time to dislike the Mail group while the Express is still around.
Writing a public letter is playing politics with it - its escalating the spat yet again - that's my point.
You dont think there was a political point behind the intrusion into the family event in the first place?
Ralph Miliband died in 1994. What is the relevance of a MoS reporter attending a memorial service 20yrs after his death?
Their gate-crashing of the memorial of a private individual who died this year was obviously a political act. Do you think they were paying their condolences?
It was his uncle and it was apparently advertised in a newspaper notice - by definition that isn't private and nothing to do with Ralph's memory either.
There's a huge % of outrage for the sake of it to my mind.
" I believe no purpose would be served by me complaining to the Press Complaints Commission because it is widely discredited.
Instead, I am writing to you as the owners of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday because I believe it is long overdue that you reflect on the culture of your newspapers. You should conduct your own swift investigation into who was responsible at a senior level for this latest episode and also who is responsible for the culture and practices of these newspapers which jar so badly with the values of your readers.
There are bigger issues for the people of Britain in the midst of the worst cost of living crisis for a century than intrusion into the life of my family. But the reaction of many people to the Daily Mail’s attacks on my father this week demonstrates that the way your newspapers have behaved does not reflect the real character of our country.
It is now your responsibility to respond."
Disagree - the MoS have crossed a line attending a private memorial - it would be very borderline doorstepping attendees at a public one - but this is clearly an intrusion into the family's privacy - I hope Rotheremere recognises that quickly.....
Does that mean *all* newspapers should stop sending reporters to such events
I don't think any newspapers should be going to private family memorial services - unless by invitation......
They all do though.
I look forward to Ed Miliband writing to the relevant publishers when it happens to someone else, regardless of their leanings.
Why is Miliband still banging on about this days after the original article? So his father had political views which are now discredited and “The Mail” printed the unjustified headline that he hated Britain. Well politics is unfair and unjust as Cameron, Blair and Brown could tell him. Move on. He runs the risk of appearing thin-skinned and unable to accept the spitefulness and pressure of life at the top. In short it comes close to re-inforcing the impression of someone out of his depth.
Clark is a freelance, blogger and confirmed wanker.
He is a regular contributor to The Guardian, The Australian, The First Post, Morning Star, New Statesman, The Spectator, R.F.O., Daily and Sunday Express. His work has also appeared in
Why not, just for once - just for once, in your vapid, aimless life on pb - admit that you were simply wrong? It might make you feel better.
Clearly the Guardian found his stance on Slobodan so offensive they have carefully hired him to write dozens more articles, afterwards.
Really. Just say I WAS WRONG. We all make daft errors. You made a daft error. Refusing to admit it paints you as a bit of a berk.
Now I must go and do some work for one of the newspapers that employs me.
decent article Mr T.
I was however hoping some of you DT chaps might point out the obvious. The Mail instead of saying everyone in Britain should read what RM wrote should have taken the opposite tack and pointed out that he wrote clear unadulerated bilge, and instead of "ideas" his head was emptier than than the treasury under Liam Byrne.
Pride goes before a fall-Isn`t this a perfect illustration of that?
They could have let the matter lie but had to dig deeper and deeper trying to find evidence that a man who died 20 years ago hated Britain and all they managed is to cross a line of common decency.
It was his uncle and it was apparently advertised in a newspaper notice - by definition that isn't private and nothing to do with Ralph's memory either.
Sweet lord - what do you think they were doing there then?
Luckily we can look forward to the Miliband era where journalists will have to be licensed by Hacked Off, the Murdoch papers and the Mail will be closed down, and the only paper running intrusive personal attacks will be the Guardian.
Perhaps you're just being jocular Richard but what you're saying is plain nonsense. I suggest you learn from what happened to the Republicans in the US. They went apocalyptic on Obama rather than make measured criticisms of him that could have worked to their advantage and ended up with a bloody nose.
FWIW I think if Ed has publicised his letter to Rothermore it's a mistake.
SeanT – “The Guardian’s refreshingly pleasant tolerance of unusual journalists does not begin and end with Clark. They are also happy to hire enemy spies who work constantly to undermine Britain, in fact, I understand they positively prefer it.
Hmm, I wonder which category the boy racer and convicted felon Chris Huhne falls under?
@Josias - actually, it's just inconvenient for your argument that there is no comparison between online publishing and home building as businesses. We have nothing to do with UK infrastructure, we are not part of finding a solution to the UK's housing shortage. Sorry, that's just a fact. If developers do not like whatever new regime is introduced they can sell up. I would be very surprised if the scheme ends up including self-build projects, but if it does I'll join you in condemning it.
Writing a public letter is playing politics with it - its escalating the spat yet again - that's my point.
You dont think there was a political point behind the intrusion into the family event in the first place?
Ralph Miliband died in 1994. What is the relevance of a MoS reporter attending a memorial service 20yrs after his death?
Their gate-crashing of the memorial of a private individual who died this year was obviously a political act. Do you think they were paying their condolences?
It was his uncle and it was apparently advertised in a newspaper notice - by definition that isn't private and nothing to do with Ralph's memory either.
There's a huge % of outrage for the sake of it to my mind.
Are you not uncomfortable with a journalist turning up at a memorial service and questioning relatives about a high profile spat between a major politician, and a sister paper of the journo?
I definitely am, and this just plays straight into the hands of the likes of Hacked Off. It's blatant feckwittery.
What is he thinking of? Really? This is overplaying one's hand in a serious way. He's coming across as a thin-skinned whiner.
You have to stop thinking of how you view these things and instead think of it from the point of view of someone who isnt completely biased against him.
Incredibly Neil - you being a Greenie isn't exactly a yardstick for public opinion either.
Plato, you'd fighting a losing battle on this one.
I'm sure that it wasn't quite as aggressive as some of the reports imply (the reporter probably just hung around outside the church). But to be absolutely clear - that sort of behaviour just isn't on. I also expect that - right or wrong - it will cause a wave of instinctive revulsion in most people. Not that it will affect VI one bit, it will just make more people realise the Mail can be really jerky at times.
"The Editor of the Mail on Sunday has since confirmed to my office that a journalist from his newspaper did indeed attend the memorial uninvited with the intention of seeking information for publication this weekend.
Sending a reporter to my late uncle’s memorial crosses a line of common decency. I believe it a symptom of the culture and practices of both the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday."
On this one, I'd say he has them 'bang to rights...'
Can't see even the declining band of Dacre fans trying to defend this one.
Since when are memorial services private? An announcement is made by the family in a newspaper and all are welcome to attend, friend and foe alike. Local newspaper journalists have been attending the memorial services for Lib Dem Councillors since time, er, immemorial.
Just what is Ed Miliband trying to hide?
He'll be posting Stasi guards at the church gates next.
Writing a public letter is playing politics with it - its escalating the spat yet again - that's my point.
You dont think there was a political point behind the intrusion into the family event in the first place?
Ralph Miliband died in 1994. What is the relevance of a MoS reporter attending a memorial service 20yrs after his death?
Their gate-crashing of the memorial of a private individual who died this year was obviously a political act. Do you think they were paying their condolences?
It was his uncle and it was apparently advertised in a newspaper notice - by definition that isn't private and nothing to do with Ralph's memory either.
There's a huge % of outrage for the sake of it to my mind.
Are you not uncomfortable with a journalist turning up at a memorial service and questioning relatives about a high profile spat between a major politician, and a sister paper of the journo?
I definitely am, and this just plays straight into the hands of the likes of Hacked Off. It's blatant feckwittery.
I don't approve, but then I'm not writing public letters moaning about it when involved in a very public spat re free of opinion in the press.
I don't know how many other PBers have been personally monstered by the Mail but I have - its horrible to be rung up by friends saying *ooh eer* and that still doesn't make me want to stop freedom of the press. I was a private citizen who didn't do anything criminal or even worthy of a reprimand, but a jealous colleague made up a juicy anecdote and eh voila.
When the LotO gets all hoity-toity like this - well I do wonder if my back is broader than his.
How do you judge Ed's conduct in all this? I just don't know, and I have already speculated more than I normally care to.
Your own views would be very welcome.
Very good questions, and we do have to be careful. As ever in such cases, the events are murky and peering through the fog to get to the truth is difficult. However, I would carefully posit the following:
1) McBride's post on his behaviour whilst at the Treasury poses questions as to why no-one asked why people were being sidelined in that manner. It's a natural curiosity, is it not, to ask whether justice is being done? A simple question: "How do you know that (s)he leaked the information?" Remember, Ed was one of the three top people in the department at the time, working closely with Brown and Balls.
2) It was publicly insinuated that McBride was a bad 'un years before his downfall.
3) Labour ministers were being smeared by both the Blairite and Brownite camps. It was reported enough in the newspapers that the sources were within Labour. Reputations were ruined, but Ed felt unable to complain publicly about the pain being caused to his colleagues. He suddenly finds his voice when someone tries to ruin his own father's reputation.
Basically, I'd say if he didn't know what was going on, then he's guilty of gross incompetence. If he did know and did nothing, then it is cowardice or malice. Either way, it doesn't look good for him.
A vaguely possible alternate history? In 2008 Ed threatens to resign because of McBride's antics, and goes public with his reasons. Then either Brown sacks McBride, to everyone's advantage, or Ed resigns. If the latter, David brother reigns as well, as does Purnell. Brown cannot withstand the pressure of the resignations, and resigns himself. David is then elected as leader by the party.
That would at least have been a moral response. But his anger and faux-morality stinks given the context of Labour between 1992 and 2010.
"The Editor of the Mail on Sunday has since confirmed to my office that a journalist from his newspaper did indeed attend the memorial uninvited with the intention of seeking information for publication this weekend.
Sending a reporter to my late uncle’s memorial crosses a line of common decency. I believe it a symptom of the culture and practices of both the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday."
On this one, I'd say he has them 'bang to rights...'
Can't see even the declining band of Dacre fans trying to defend this one.
Since when are memorial services private? An announcement is made by the family in a newspaper and all are welcome to attend, friend and foe alike. Local newspaper journalists have been attending the memorial services for Lib Dem Councillors since time, er, immemorial.
Just what is Ed Miliband trying to hide?
He'll be posting Stasi guards at the church gates next.
chortle.
the tories start the day lined up for a kicking on U25 benefits and Ed rushes in with what about meeee ?
Does this guy understand his job is to scrutinise HMG and not let them off the hook ?
"In fact I came away from the Labour conference rather more optimistic about our own prospects than I have felt for some time. Ed Miliband made no real attempt to deal with Labour’s big negatives – that they are the party of welfare and cannot be trusted with the public finances. This suggests he has decided that, for the time being at least, he has all the support he needs and does not need to reach out any further to voters who are still considering the Tories.
If that really is the case, that does not mean we can afford to run a core vote strategy of our own. It means that with a broad appeal we have the opportunity to hold onto wavering Tory voters, and attract new ones. I am looking forward to hearing this week about the policies and message with which the party is planning to achieve that goal."
If a journalist gatecrashed a private memorial service in my family to try to get dirt on someone and was detected, he'd be lucky to escape without a good kicking. He can thank his lucky stars that the Milibands come from north London intellectual stock.
Unlikely, the Mail have dug themselves into this, and outside a few PB tories (and I suppose Dan Hodges and toby Young) that's plainly obvious
alex thomson @alextomo Heading to Mail HQ now - let's see if Geordie Greig will speak to us to clarify if he's apologised or unapologised
I disagree, outside the political bubble the vast majority of people could not care less. Its one of those stories that does not grab interest for people who are not already interested. People rightly or wrongly think politicians have spats with papers all the time and this will just be seen another one. The Mail rightly deserved condemnation for an over the top attack on a dead man, after that its a bit meh.
If a journalist gatecrashed a private memorial service in my family to try to get dirt on someone and was detected, he'd be lucky to escape without a good kicking. He can thank his lucky stars that the Milibands come from north London intellectual stock.
That's another day's headline sorted: 'Milibands Too Weedy to Kick Hack'
I disagree, outside the political bubble the vast majority of people could not care less. Its one of those stories that does not grab interest for people who are not already interested.
That may be your experience but from my point of view I havent seen friends and acquaintances react to a "political" story as much as they have to these Mail shenanigans in quite some time. It certainly knocks conference season out of the park when it comes to resonance.
If a journalist gatecrashed a private memorial service in my family to try to get dirt on someone and was detected, he'd be lucky to escape without a good kicking. He can thank his lucky stars that the Milibands come from north London intellectual stock.
That's another day's headline sorted: 'Milibands Too Weedy to Kick Hack'
TLF Travel Alerts @TlfTravelAlerts Stop. All is Still. A place you do not know, but know it you Will. All change. All? Fear. This train terminates Here. #nationalpoetryday
If a journalist gatecrashed a private memorial service in my family to try to get dirt on someone and was detected, he'd be lucky to escape without a good kicking. He can thank his lucky stars that the Milibands come from north London intellectual stock.
That's another day's headline sorted: 'Milibands Too Weedy to Kick Hack'
"Would you let a pacifist in charge of our defence?"
If a journalist gatecrashed a private memorial service in my family to try to get dirt on someone and was detected, he'd be lucky to escape without a good kicking. He can thank his lucky stars that the Milibands come from north London intellectual stock.
Does your family print and distribute invitations to memorial services, antifrank?
Unlikely, the Mail have dug themselves into this, and outside a few PB tories (and I suppose Dan Hodges and toby Young) that's plainly obvious
alex thomson @alextomo Heading to Mail HQ now - let's see if Geordie Greig will speak to us to clarify if he's apologised or unapologised
I disagree, outside the political bubble the vast majority of people could not care less. Its one of those stories that does not grab interest for people who are not already interested. People rightly or wrongly think politicians have spats with papers all the time and this will just be seen another one. The Mail rightly deserved condemnation for an over the top attack on a dead man, after that its a bit meh.
If it was just that, I'd agree with you, but now, the MoS have waded in and gatecrashed a Milliband family memorial service, trying to question relatives on the previous spat. That's just plain wrong.
That may be your experience but from my point of view I havent seen friends and acquaintances react to a "political" story as much as they have to these Mail shenanigans in quite some time. It certainly knocks conference season out of the park when it comes to resonance.
We will have to agree to disagree. The people of Cardiff (the ones I have come into contact with) are more interested in talking about the monsoon rain we are having. I would guess if you are the sort of person that has a distaste for the Mail this will just enhance your distaste.
Regular readers know I am no fan of Mr Oborne but this is worth sharing
"Right at the end of the [Newsnight] interview Mr Campbell responded to an allegation by Mr Steafel that he had "expertise in the matter of spreading poison" with the assertion that his own reputation was clean. This is what he said: "I've just been at the Tory Party Conference and you'll find a lot of Tories up there who will remember that when I was a journalist on the Daily Mirror I respected politics and I respected politicians."
This protestation that he treated politicians with respect is so completely contemptuous of the truth that I feel a kind of moral obligation to correct it. No political journalist in my lifetime has treated politicians with such utter, total and complete contempt as Alastair Campbell did during his career for the Daily Mirror and Today newspaper (and later as a government adviser inside Downing Street.).
Would Ed have objected if it was a local reporter attending with the intention of writing a puff piece in the Hampstead and Highgate Express?
That's what you think the Mail on Sunday was after? A puff piece on the deceased uncle?
Neil
I have been through all this crap personally. There is nothing you can do to stop reporters attending a memorial service. You just hope against experience that the family politely ignores them.
It is when a unknown mistress of 20 years standing turns up unannounced that the real fun begins.
"YouGov’s research finds that concern over a non-white Prime Minister is strongest among UKIP supporters with almost six in ten (59%) of the party’s backers being “uncomfortable” at the possibility. 45% state they are “very uncomfortable” with the idea.
The findings show sizable numbers of people who support other political parties are also resistant to a government led by someone from an ethnic minority.
Over four in ten (41%) people who plan to vote Conservative, nearly three in ten (28%) Labour supporters and a quarter (25%) of Liberal Democrats say they are “uncomfortable” at the prospect of a Prime Minister from an ethnic minority."
"...The news is particularly good on economic issues. We have opened a clear lead on the question of helping business to grow and recover, and steering the economy through difficult times. Accordingly, Cameron and Osborne have established a decisive lead over Miliband and Balls on overall trust to manage the economy in the best interests of Britain.
This reflects an improvement in economic optimism, with voters now more likely to be positive than negative about economic prospects both for the country as a whole, and for themselves and their families.
All of these things are grounds for a degree of optimism in relation to the national picture… but the research in the marginal seats I published recently was more sobering. In the 32 most marginal Conservative seats where Labour are second, Labour’s vote share has stagnated since 2011. Unfortunately, the Conservative share has eroded further, while UKIP’s has crept up to 11 per cent, compared to just 3 per cent in these seats at the last election..." http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2013/10/from-lordashcroft-what-i-told-the-tories-in-manchester.html
@Josias - actually, it's just inconvenient for your argument that there is no comparison between online publishing and home building as businesses. We have nothing to do with UK infrastructure, we are not part of finding a solution to the UK's housing shortage. Sorry, that's just a fact. If developers do not like whatever new regime is introduced they can sell up. I would be very surprised if the scheme ends up including self-build projects, but if it does I'll join you in condemning it.
No, it's inconvenient that you cannot broaden your mind to see how restrictive and troublesome this will be for building companies. But that's not your industry, so it's fine.
So let's take a view to see what could happen. Say I want to demolish an existing house in a town centre and build five two-bedroom flats. I'm a small building firm, local to the area, who does one or two projects of this size a year.
Because of local complexities, it may take two years or longer to get planning permission. After that I have three years to do the work. So I need to know that the business case is there in the future. I talk to the bank, who are agreeable in principle, but will understandably not commit until the final plans are accepted.
So I put in my plans today. In June 2015 the council finally give some altered plans final approval. The bank has given me the thumbs-up. But the council have put in a couple of conditions for a few changes to the road and drainage that are to be done as part of a group of changes by the council; you cannot start work until they are completed. You pay for your part of the work, and wait. And wait.
You finally get the go-ahead to start work a year later in June 2016. But what was a good business opportunity when you put your plans in are now looking shaky. You talk to another bank, but due to the glacial ways these things work, it is now June 2017. There is only another year before the planning lapses, and they are concerned you will not be able to start work before it lapses. They refuse a loan.
So today I need to know the situation in 2016-2018, when the planning may lapse. That is a massive burden for small developers. And the penalty for getting it wrong is land confiscation.
Given we do not know what the final scheme will be, things like the above is all too likely.
I think it should happen to publishing companies, just to see how you'd like it ...
"There are bigger issues for the people of Britain in the midst of the worst cost of living crisis for a century than intrusion into the life of my family."
Why are you banging on about this then you cretin.
Would Ed have objected if it was a local reporter attending with the intention of writing a puff piece in the Hampstead and Highgate Express?
That's what you think the Mail on Sunday was after? A puff piece on the deceased uncle?
Neil
I have been through all this crap personally. There is nothing you can do to stop reporters attending a memorial service. You just hope against experience that the family politely ignores them.
It is when a unknown mistress of 20 years standing turns up unannounced that the real fun begins.
I'm sure journos turn up at these sort of things a lot, but by doing it now, at this service, it was always going to end up badly for the MoS. It's a disaster of their own making, and while Milliband might appear whiney, the Mail papers are going to look nasty, and are only furthering the cause of press regulation.
"...As of this morning, the Guardian has published approximately 3,894 articles on the Miliband-Mail spat, a frenzy of moral superiority which culminated in an editorial, couched in lofty tones of weary disappointment, in which the Guardian gently reminded its readers that the Mail used to support the blackshirts in the 1930s.
And this is true. The Mail did publish some odious bilge back in the day. But is the Guardian completely blemishless when it comes to Dubious Opinions From The Past?
Here’s the Guardian in 1919, getting an interview with Lenin. The Guardian finds him “pleasant” and “refreshing”. This, of course, is the same pleasant refreshing Lenin who, alongside the humorous, delightful Stalin and the wryly charming KGB pleasantly refreshed 30 million Russians into their graves, in a decades-long campaign of torture, starvation, imprisonment, slave labour and brutal purges." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100239508/the-guardian-and-the-murderers-of-the-left-a-love-story/
LOL Asian UKIP spokesman defending accusations of racism. Beeboids don't know how to handle it, they're dying to call him racist but can't because he's Asian.
Would Ed have objected if it was a local reporter attending with the intention of writing a puff piece in the Hampstead and Highgate Express?
That's what you think the Mail on Sunday was after? A puff piece on the deceased uncle?
Neil
I have been through all this crap personally. There is nothing you can do to stop reporters attending a memorial service. You just hope against experience that the family politely ignores them.
It is when a unknown mistress of 20 years standing turns up unannounced that the real fun begins.
@Mr TFS – “If it was just that, I'd agree with you, but now, the MoS have waded in and gatecrashed a Milliband family memorial service, trying to question relatives on the previous spat. That's just plain wrong.”
Agree, and in poor taste too – but it is not the first time a ‘private’ affair has been gate crashed by the media and it will certainly not be the last.
Having initially some sympathy for Ed and ambivalent on whether it was a wise idea for Ed to get involved I am now firmly convinced it was a mistake. He should have taken it on the chin as other politicians have done in the past as this is beginning to look petulant and unseemly imho.
Interesting thread for Tory watchers. It separates the ubers from the pom poms from the thinkers. The only obvious thinker is Carlotta which isn't a surprise but seeing Nabavi write the sort of partisan gibberish normally associated with Plato is
Would Ed have objected if it was a local reporter attending with the intention of writing a puff piece in the Hampstead and Highgate Express?
That's what you think the Mail on Sunday was after? A puff piece on the deceased uncle?
Neil
I have been through all this crap personally. There is nothing you can do to stop reporters attending a memorial service. You just hope against experience that the family politely ignores them.
It is when a unknown mistress of 20 years standing turns up unannounced that the real fun begins.
I'm sure journos turn up at these sort of things a lot, but by doing it now, at this service, it was always going to end up badly for the MoS. It's a disaster of their own making, and while Milliband might appear whiney, the Mail papers are going to look nasty, and are only furthering the cause of press regulation.
sorry TFS I can't find much sympathy for EM.
Ed is a professional politician who gets media training and is surrounded by an army of advisors. The Mail published a hatchet job on his dad as lots of papers have on politicans over the years. Professional politicans shrug this style of attack off as tomorrow it's chip paper.
Ed decided to make it an issue. It was a conscious decision, in his shoes it couldn't be anything else. Now he's got himself involved in a struggle with the Mail which can only go downhill on both sides. It was stupid politics and if the Mail have dragged Ed's wider family into the fight Ed made it easy for them.
"There are bigger issues for the people of Britain in the midst of the worst cost of living crisis for a century than intrusion into the life of my family."
Why are you banging on about this then you cretin.
Ed = a poor man's Kinnock.
It's the reference to his "worst cost of living crisis" which makes it so tacky.
LOL Asian UKIP spokesman defending accusations of racism. Beeboids don't know how to handle it, they're dying to call him racist but can't because he's Asian.
lucy manning @lucymanning Understand Mail on Sunday to apologise to Ed Miliband. Lord Rothermere will be writing to him. Editor calling him. Staff suspended.
Terrible for Ed, PB Tories and Dan Hodges reaction awaited.
Excellent news for politicians and their families.
And readers here, since you won't be posting endless streams of comment about Cameron's relatives anymore.
Dont like the Mail or the tabloid approach to news reporting generally, too personalised and lacking analysis for my taste. But Ed M is coming across the whiny kid in class. Yes he may have grounds to feel aggrieved but whingeing and complaining doth not a leader make. Not prime ministerial.
Judge a man by the people he chooses to be friends with.
Ed Miliband was comfortable being a close friend of McBride for many years while McBride was muckspreading filth that did real damage to many people. Ed seeks to have us believe that he knew nothing about what McBride was up to.... It is reasonable to believe that a single act of filth is something Ed M may not have known about, but we now know about dozens of examples of McBride's filth. Then when McBride was exposed in the media with hard evidence, only then, years after it started, did Miliband chose to denounce McBride. If we are to believe EdMiliband (and Balls) then their story only stacks up if they really are naive fops oblivious to the filth going on around them. A trait that is entirely unsuitable in our Leaders.
"PM Ed Miliband has written to Ban Ki Moon at the UN to complain about "how weally weally mean it is that Argentina has invaded the Falkland Islands".
Miliband demanded Moon call the Argentinian PM and give her a really good ticking off. "This invasion is vewy diswacting from my policy agenda to nationalise Sky Sports - he whined to the assembled state owned media representatives..."
Breaking news: Geordie Greig, editor of The Mail on Sunday, today said he 'unreservedly' apologised 'for a reporter intruding into a private memorial service for a relative of Ed Miliband'
"The Editor of the Mail on Sunday has since confirmed to my office that a journalist from his newspaper did indeed attend the memorial uninvited with the intention of seeking information for publication this weekend.
Sending a reporter to my late uncle’s memorial crosses a line of common decency. I believe it a symptom of the culture and practices of both the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday."
On this one, I'd say he has them 'bang to rights...'
Can't see even the declining band of Dacre fans trying to defend this one.
Since when are memorial services private? An announcement is made by the family in a newspaper and all are welcome to attend, friend and foe alike. Local newspaper journalists have been attending the memorial services for Lib Dem Councillors since time, er, immemorial.
Just what is Ed Miliband trying to hide?
He'll be posting Stasi guards at the church gates next.
I doubt that a memorial service for Guys Hospital work colleagues and family in the hospital will have been publically advertised, maybe someone can look.
tim
There was an obituary in The Times in April (and in many medical publications) following the death of Professor Harry Keen. The Memorial Service was announced in The Times and Ed Miliband himself spoke at the service.
There has been plenty of favourable coverage, particularly in the medical press, of Professor Keen's life.
Is the new rule for a politically controlled Press that only eulogies may published when relatives of politicians die and only journalists who are likely to write such eulogies are permitted to speak to the family?
Yes, the Mail acted in questionable taste, but it really would be the onset of communist style press control if we banned national newspapers from attending such events.
I imagine Miliband's motivation is to so disgrace the tawdry rag that only those with thick plain brown envelopes would be shameless enough to be seen carrying one in public.
Breaking news: Geordie Greig, editor of The Mail on Sunday, today said he 'unreservedly' apologised 'for a reporter intruding into a private memorial service for a relative of Ed Miliband'
Dont like the Mail or the tabloid approach to news reporting generally, too personalised and lacking analysis for my taste. But Ed M is coming across the whiny kid in class. Yes he may have grounds to feel aggrieved but whingeing and complaining doth not a leader make. Not prime ministerial.
If the Mail had published a personal attack on Ed himself, I agree it would be whinging to complain. But this is a wholly unsubstantiated attack on a man who died 20 years ago, which the Mail has compounded by sending a reporter to a private memorial service to uncover some more dirt. It's not acceptable behaviour
Interesting thread for Tory watchers. It separates the ubers from the pom poms from the thinkers. The only obvious thinker is Carlotta which isn't a surprise but seeing Nabavi write the sort of partisan gibberish normally associated with Plato is
On this topic, Cameron distanced himself and the Party pretty smartly from the Mail. That was sound, and what you would expect from a basically decent human being.
I too was surprised at some on here he didn't follow the example.
The really odd thing is that the original Mail article really wasn't anything out of the ordinary. OK, the 'hated Britain' bit of the headline was tendentious and not really backed up by the body of the article, but it was nothing unusual. The Mail is full of articles like that, and the Guardian, Mirror and lots of blogs and Labour politicians regularly say equally tendentious things, claiming that the 'Tories hate the poor' or 'Thatcher hated the Scots' or 'Cameron wages war on the disabled' or other similar offensive nonsense, and no-one bats an eyelid.
Breaking news: Geordie Greig, editor of The Mail on Sunday, today said he 'unreservedly' apologised 'for a reporter intruding into a private memorial service for a relative of Ed Miliband'
But not the article - good show.
Well duh - Geordie Grieg is not the editor of the Mail, which published the article.
The really odd thing is that the original Mail article really wasn't anything out of the ordinary. OK, the 'hated Britain' bit of the headline was tendentious and not really backed up by the body of the article, but it was nothing unusual. The Guardian, Mirror and lots of blogs and Labour politicians regularly say equally tendentious things, claiming that the 'Tories hate the poor' or 'Thatcher hated the Scots' or 'Cameron wages war on the disabled' or other similar offensive nonsense, and no-one bats an eyelid.
poorbastardmarvin @poorbastardmarv When the Guardian says Cameron hates the disabled, despite having his son Ivan die, do we get to shutdown the Guardian?
Le Creuset Fiend @LeCreusetFiend Oh, God. The Guardian are liveblogging it. You have to effing laugh, really, or you'd just end it all.
Breaking news: Geordie Greig, editor of The Mail on Sunday, today said he 'unreservedly' apologised 'for a reporter intruding into a private memorial service for a relative of Ed Miliband'
But not the article - good show.
The article wasn't in the Mail on Sunday.
As I said he's only apologised for the journo being at the service - stands full square behind the article on Ed Snr.
"There are bigger issues for the people of Britain in the midst of the worst cost of living crisis for a century than intrusion into the life of my family."
Why are you banging on about this then you cretin.
Ed = a poor man's Kinnock.
It's the reference to his "worst cost of living crisis" which makes it so tacky.
No, ‘tacky’ is the wrong word – This open letter undermines Ed’s initial intention which was to defend his father’s reputation. – It’s now beginning to look fabricated outrage and politically motivated. Which no doubt will be the Mail’s angle on it for tomorrow’s installment.
Gordon Brown praised Dacre.... great personal warmth and kindness Nick Davies' ....Flat Earth News book: "Politicians works hard socially as well as politically to make the Mail their friend. Gordon Brown caught the tone in a videoed message for Paul Dacre's tenth anniversary as editor: Paul Dacre has devised and delivered one of the great newspaper success stories. He also shows great personal warmth and kindness as well as great journalistic skill." http://liberalengland.blogspot.com/2013/10/gordon-brown-on-paul-dacre-great.html
Lucy manning @lucymanning Apology will be coming from Mail on Sunday shortly....
More fool them.
Time to recite the PB Tory mantra my wee fife and drum chum
The PB Tories are always wrong The PB Tories never learn.
The Mail apologising does not make Ed right I'm afraid old chap - another short term win with long term consequences.
But if you are only obsessed with the next yougov I guess you might be happy.
At some point you'll recognise that when the thickest of the thick on here are in agreement with you you're likely to have called it wrong. Still not there yet I see.
The invective sort of suggests you think Ed's had a lucky escape. However I think he's now got a bit of a problem, the press have seen the man sweat and bluster. Sharks smekk blood in the water, he'll have to look over his shoulder from now on.
@Josias - So what you seem to be saying is that a scheme whose details you have not seen and whose details we do not know will not be flexible enough to take into account special cases. OK.
Anyway, clearly we do not agree that there is a big difference between an online publishing company and one that focuses on developing land to build homes. I suppose it's possible that there are significant overlaps which I am missing, but you have not been able to show them. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree and wait to see what the scheme actually entails.
It seems the MOS reporter actually spoke to Professor Keen`s daughter and asked her for a comment about the Ralph Miliband story at her father`s memorial.
That's how I see it,miliband should back off now or he could over do his position and the mail better watch out for companies that advertise with them,labour bloggers/supporters pushing for a boycott.
The really odd thing is that the original Mail article really wasn't anything out of the ordinary. OK, the 'hated Britain' bit of the headline was tendentious and not really backed up by the body of the article, but it was nothing unusual. The Mail is full of articles like that, and the Guardian, Mirror and lots of blogs and Labour politicians regularly say equally tendentious things, claiming that the 'Tories hate the poor' or 'Thatcher hated the Scots' or 'Cameron wages war on the disabled' or other similar offensive nonsense, and no-one bats an eyelid.
the Mail ran an article that Lembit Opiks uncle was in the SS. I don't recall the wails and outrage, I guess the Libdems just are made of sterner stuff than Ed.
The really odd thing is that the original Mail article really wasn't anything out of the ordinary. OK, the 'hated Britain' bit of the headline was tendentious and not really backed up by the body of the article, but it was nothing unusual. The Mail is full of articles like that, and the Guardian, Mirror and lots of blogs and Labour politicians regularly say equally tendentious things, claiming that the 'Tories hate the poor' or 'Thatcher hated the Scots' or 'Cameron wages war on the disabled' or other similar offensive nonsense, and no-one bats an eyelid.
But Richard, it put EdM in an invidious position, deliberately so I should imagine.
Either he doesn't respond, in which case he appears weak, or he does respond, and risks appearing a whinger.
The unfairness in the attack was of course that it invoked his dead father, who could not defend himself or his son. That kind of offends against the good old British sense of fair play, one of those core values which the Mail would generally like to portray itself as defending. I doubt Dacre even carried a majority of his own readers on this one.
Comments
On a serious note, there must be a lot of political capital to be had in aiming a good kicking at Associated Newspapers.
Could be interesting. I ain't keen on Milliband or The Mail, so I'm hoping for fireworks. All we need is Bad Al to step in again and start posting people's home addresses (does Al post on here?) and we could have quite a fight.
However, I'm not sure that Ed is wise to get involved in a spat with them. Blaming the media rarely works.
There's a huge % of outrage for the sake of it to my mind.
I look forward to Ed Miliband writing to the relevant publishers when it happens to someone else, regardless of their leanings.
He runs the risk of appearing thin-skinned and unable to accept the spitefulness and pressure of life at the top. In short it comes close to re-inforcing the impression of someone out of his depth.
They could have let the matter lie but had to dig deeper and deeper trying to find evidence that a man who died 20 years ago hated Britain and all they managed is to cross a line of common decency.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/commons-speaker-john-bercow-branded-weasel-after-carbump-row-in-chelsea-8856064.html
FWIW I think if Ed has publicised his letter to Rothermore it's a mistake.
Hmm, I wonder which category the boy racer and convicted felon Chris Huhne falls under?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100239508/the-guardian-and-the-murderers-of-the-left-a-love-story/
I definitely am, and this just plays straight into the hands of the likes of Hacked Off. It's blatant feckwittery.
I'm sure that it wasn't quite as aggressive as some of the reports imply (the reporter probably just hung around outside the church). But to be absolutely clear - that sort of behaviour just isn't on. I also expect that - right or wrong - it will cause a wave of instinctive revulsion in most people. Not that it will affect VI one bit, it will just make more people realise the Mail can be really jerky at times.
Just what is Ed Miliband trying to hide?
He'll be posting Stasi guards at the church gates next.
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/385723209272016896/photo/1
I wonder where this idea that UKIPpers are closet racists came from?
I don't know how many other PBers have been personally monstered by the Mail but I have - its horrible to be rung up by friends saying *ooh eer* and that still doesn't make me want to stop freedom of the press. I was a private citizen who didn't do anything criminal or even worthy of a reprimand, but a jealous colleague made up a juicy anecdote and eh voila.
When the LotO gets all hoity-toity like this - well I do wonder if my back is broader than his.
1) McBride's post on his behaviour whilst at the Treasury poses questions as to why no-one asked why people were being sidelined in that manner. It's a natural curiosity, is it not, to ask whether justice is being done? A simple question: "How do you know that (s)he leaked the information?" Remember, Ed was one of the three top people in the department at the time, working closely with Brown and Balls.
2) It was publicly insinuated that McBride was a bad 'un years before his downfall.
3) Labour ministers were being smeared by both the Blairite and Brownite camps. It was reported enough in the newspapers that the sources were within Labour. Reputations were ruined, but Ed felt unable to complain publicly about the pain being caused to his colleagues. He suddenly finds his voice when someone tries to ruin his own father's reputation.
Basically, I'd say if he didn't know what was going on, then he's guilty of gross incompetence. If he did know and did nothing, then it is cowardice or malice. Either way, it doesn't look good for him.
A vaguely possible alternate history? In 2008 Ed threatens to resign because of McBride's antics, and goes public with his reasons. Then either Brown sacks McBride, to everyone's advantage, or Ed resigns. If the latter, David brother reigns as well, as does Purnell. Brown cannot withstand the pressure of the resignations, and resigns himself. David is then elected as leader by the party.
That would at least have been a moral response. But his anger and faux-morality stinks given the context of Labour between 1992 and 2010.
the tories start the day lined up for a kicking on U25 benefits and Ed rushes in with what about meeee ?
Does this guy understand his job is to scrutinise HMG and not let them off the hook ?
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2013/10/what-i-told-the-tories-in-manchester/
"In fact I came away from the Labour conference rather more optimistic about our own prospects than I have felt for some time. Ed Miliband made no real attempt to deal with Labour’s big negatives – that they are the party of welfare and cannot be trusted with the public finances. This suggests he has decided that, for the time being at least, he has all the support he needs and does not need to reach out any further to voters who are still considering the Tories.
If that really is the case, that does not mean we can afford to run a core vote strategy of our own. It means that with a broad appeal we have the opportunity to hold onto wavering Tory voters, and attract new ones. I am looking forward to hearing this week about the policies and message with which the party is planning to achieve that goal."
But I have seen much worse from the direct families of the deceased at various funerals and memorial services.
Would Ed have objected if it was a local reporter attending with the intention of writing a puff piece in the Hampstead and Highgate Express?
TLF Travel Alerts @TlfTravelAlerts
Stop. All is
Still.
A place you do not know, but know it you
Will.
All change. All?
Fear.
This train terminates
Here.
#nationalpoetryday
If this row escalates,can`t see how the government can go easy on the press without appearing to be cowed by them.
He only gets out of bed to rant when its him or his luvvy mates under attack.
Pathetic worm of a man.
If it was just that, I'd agree with you, but now, the MoS have waded in and gatecrashed a Milliband family memorial service, trying to question relatives on the previous spat. That's just plain wrong.
"Right at the end of the [Newsnight] interview Mr Campbell responded to an allegation by Mr Steafel that he had "expertise in the matter of spreading poison" with the assertion that his own reputation was clean. This is what he said: "I've just been at the Tory Party Conference and you'll find a lot of Tories up there who will remember that when I was a journalist on the Daily Mirror I respected politics and I respected politicians."
This protestation that he treated politicians with respect is so completely contemptuous of the truth that I feel a kind of moral obligation to correct it. No political journalist in my lifetime has treated politicians with such utter, total and complete contempt as Alastair Campbell did during his career for the Daily Mirror and Today newspaper (and later as a government adviser inside Downing Street.).
His personal conduct was far, far worse and more demeaning than any Daily Mail journalist. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100239575/alastair-campbell-treated-politics-with-more-contempt-than-any-daily-mail-journalist/
I have been through all this crap personally. There is nothing you can do to stop reporters attending a memorial service. You just hope against experience that the family politely ignores them.
It is when a unknown mistress of 20 years standing turns up unannounced that the real fun begins.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/03/35-electorate-uncomfortable-with-ethnic-minority-/
"YouGov’s research finds that concern over a non-white Prime Minister is strongest among UKIP supporters with almost six in ten (59%) of the party’s backers being “uncomfortable” at the possibility. 45% state they are “very uncomfortable” with the idea.
The findings show sizable numbers of people who support other political parties are also resistant to a government led by someone from an ethnic minority.
Over four in ten (41%) people who plan to vote Conservative, nearly three in ten (28%) Labour supporters and a quarter (25%) of Liberal Democrats say they are “uncomfortable” at the prospect of a Prime Minister from an ethnic minority."
"...The news is particularly good on economic issues. We have opened a clear lead on the question of helping business to grow and recover, and steering the economy through difficult times. Accordingly, Cameron and Osborne have established a decisive lead over Miliband and Balls on overall trust to manage the economy in the best interests of Britain.
This reflects an improvement in economic optimism, with voters now more likely to be positive than negative about economic prospects both for the country as a whole, and for themselves and their families.
All of these things are grounds for a degree of optimism in relation to the national picture… but the research in the marginal seats I published recently was more sobering. In the 32 most marginal Conservative seats where Labour are second, Labour’s vote share has stagnated since 2011. Unfortunately, the Conservative share has eroded further, while UKIP’s has crept up to 11 per cent, compared to just 3 per cent in these seats at the last election..." http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2013/10/from-lordashcroft-what-i-told-the-tories-in-manchester.html
So let's take a view to see what could happen. Say I want to demolish an existing house in a town centre and build five two-bedroom flats. I'm a small building firm, local to the area, who does one or two projects of this size a year.
Because of local complexities, it may take two years or longer to get planning permission. After that I have three years to do the work. So I need to know that the business case is there in the future. I talk to the bank, who are agreeable in principle, but will understandably not commit until the final plans are accepted.
So I put in my plans today. In June 2015 the council finally give some altered plans final approval. The bank has given me the thumbs-up. But the council have put in a couple of conditions for a few changes to the road and drainage that are to be done as part of a group of changes by the council; you cannot start work until they are completed. You pay for your part of the work, and wait. And wait.
You finally get the go-ahead to start work a year later in June 2016. But what was a good business opportunity when you put your plans in are now looking shaky. You talk to another bank, but due to the glacial ways these things work, it is now June 2017. There is only another year before the planning lapses, and they are concerned you will not be able to start work before it lapses. They refuse a loan.
So today I need to know the situation in 2016-2018, when the planning may lapse. That is a massive burden for small developers. And the penalty for getting it wrong is land confiscation.
Given we do not know what the final scheme will be, things like the above is all too likely.
I think it should happen to publishing companies, just to see how you'd like it ...
"There are bigger issues for the people of Britain in the midst of the worst cost of living crisis for a century than intrusion into the life of my family."
Why are you banging on about this then you cretin.
Ed = a poor man's Kinnock.
"...As of this morning, the Guardian has published approximately 3,894 articles on the Miliband-Mail spat, a frenzy of moral superiority which culminated in an editorial, couched in lofty tones of weary disappointment, in which the Guardian gently reminded its readers that the Mail used to support the blackshirts in the 1930s.
And this is true. The Mail did publish some odious bilge back in the day. But is the Guardian completely blemishless when it comes to Dubious Opinions From The Past?
Here’s the Guardian in 1919, getting an interview with Lenin. The Guardian finds him “pleasant” and “refreshing”. This, of course, is the same pleasant refreshing Lenin who, alongside the humorous, delightful Stalin and the wryly charming KGB pleasantly refreshed 30 million Russians into their graves, in a decades-long campaign of torture, starvation, imprisonment, slave labour and brutal purges." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100239508/the-guardian-and-the-murderers-of-the-left-a-love-story/
I don't work for the BBC!
Desperate stuff from a desperate man.
Agree, and in poor taste too – but it is not the first time a ‘private’ affair has been gate crashed by the media and it will certainly not be the last.
Having initially some sympathy for Ed and ambivalent on whether it was a wise idea for Ed to get involved I am now firmly convinced it was a mistake. He should have taken it on the chin as other politicians have done in the past as this is beginning to look petulant and unseemly imho.
Ed is a professional politician who gets media training and is surrounded by an army of advisors. The Mail published a hatchet job on his dad as lots of papers have on politicans over the years. Professional politicans shrug this style of attack off as tomorrow it's chip paper.
Ed decided to make it an issue. It was a conscious decision, in his shoes it couldn't be anything else. Now he's got himself involved in a struggle with the Mail which can only go downhill on both sides. It was stupid politics and if the Mail have dragged Ed's wider family into the fight Ed made it easy for them.
Crybaby blubs to teacher.
Bully gets a slapped wrist.
Crybaby is now a grass and a crybaby.
And readers here, since you won't be posting endless streams of comment about Cameron's relatives anymore.
Such behaviour is off the menu now.
But if you are only obsessed with the next yougov I guess you might be happy.
'If only Ed would get so animated and full of fury at the real problems facing the country caused by his mob between 1997-2010.'
That was the period when he lost his moral compass.
He was part of Brown's inner circle,knew exactly what McBride was doing & did nothing.
Did he agree with what was going on or too chicken to do anything about it?we need to know.
Ed Miliband was comfortable being a close friend of McBride for many years while McBride was muckspreading filth that did real damage to many people. Ed seeks to have us believe that he knew nothing about what McBride was up to.... It is reasonable to believe that a single act of filth is something Ed M may not have known about, but we now know about dozens of examples of McBride's filth.
Then when McBride was exposed in the media with hard evidence, only then, years after it started, did Miliband chose to denounce McBride.
If we are to believe EdMiliband (and Balls) then their story only stacks up if they really are naive fops oblivious to the filth going on around them. A trait that is entirely unsuitable in our Leaders.
"PM Ed Miliband has written to Ban Ki Moon at the UN to complain about "how weally weally mean it is that Argentina has invaded the Falkland Islands".
Miliband demanded Moon call the Argentinian PM and give her a really good ticking off. "This invasion is vewy diswacting from my policy agenda to nationalise Sky Sports - he whined to the assembled state owned media representatives..."
Geordie Greig, editor of The Mail on Sunday, today said he 'unreservedly' apologised 'for a reporter intruding into a private memorial service for a relative of Ed Miliband'
There was an obituary in The Times in April (and in many medical publications) following the death of Professor Harry Keen. The Memorial Service was announced in The Times and Ed Miliband himself spoke at the service.
There has been plenty of favourable coverage, particularly in the medical press, of Professor Keen's life.
Is the new rule for a politically controlled Press that only eulogies may published when relatives of politicians die and only journalists who are likely to write such eulogies are permitted to speak to the family?
Yes, the Mail acted in questionable taste, but it really would be the onset of communist style press control if we banned national newspapers from attending such events.
I too was surprised at some on here he didn't follow the example.
When the Guardian says Cameron hates the disabled, despite having his son Ivan die, do we get to shutdown the Guardian?
Le Creuset Fiend @LeCreusetFiend
Oh, God. The Guardian are liveblogging it. You have to effing laugh, really, or you'd just end it all.
Nick Davies' ....Flat Earth News book:
"Politicians works hard socially as well as politically to make the Mail their friend. Gordon Brown caught the tone in a videoed message for Paul Dacre's tenth anniversary as editor: Paul Dacre has devised and delivered one of the great newspaper success stories. He also shows great personal warmth and kindness as well as great journalistic skill."
http://liberalengland.blogspot.com/2013/10/gordon-brown-on-paul-dacre-great.html
OPINIONS
AS
FACTS
Letters: Life of Miliband Sr
Published: 3 October, 2013
• I AM working with Chris Reeves of Platform Films to make a portrait film of the late Ralph Miliband.
We would be very grateful if anyone who knew him would contact asap.
There are two early-90s interviews with him extant.
We would like any memories, pictures, home film etc.
Chris can be contacted on platform.films @virgin.net. I can be contacted at glorialazen by2@virginmedia.co or by phone: 020 7485 8752 or 07986 302303
But don't worry, this isn't the Mail. It's from the Camden New Journal.
That's OK, then.
Anyway, clearly we do not agree that there is a big difference between an online publishing company and one that focuses on developing land to build homes. I suppose it's possible that there are significant overlaps which I am missing, but you have not been able to show them. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree and wait to see what the scheme actually entails.
These people are something else!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216333/Lembit-Opiks-Uncle-Oska-Nazi-collaborator.html
Either he doesn't respond, in which case he appears weak, or he does respond, and risks appearing a whinger.
The unfairness in the attack was of course that it invoked his dead father, who could not defend himself or his son. That kind of offends against the good old British sense of fair play, one of those core values which the Mail would generally like to portray itself as defending. I doubt Dacre even carried a majority of his own readers on this one.
I was surprised to find he carried you.
Your judgement on these things is rubbish and almost beyond belief.
To their great credit the Tory leadership have called this one right.