Virgin Trains Halts Daily Mail Sales

[bots]

Virgin Trains has announced that it has stopped selling the Daily Mail newspaper on its West Coast trains.

A spokesperson for Virgin said it regularly reviewed products sold on its trains, adding that "after listening to feedback from our people" it decided to stop stocking copies of the paper.

A Daily Mail spokesman called the decision "disgraceful".

Last year, stationery chain Paperchase apologised for a promotional giveaway in the Mail following criticism.

The Virgin spokesperson added that when it stocked the paper, which it stopped carrying in November, it only sold one copy for every four trains.

The spokesperson told the BBC that the paper had never been stocked on its East Coast trains under the management of Virgin/Stagecoach

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42621425

[arista]

Train Company getting a bit Political.

[Greg!]

:clap1:

[Greg!]

Although I'm a hypocrite as I have been known to browse the showbiz sidebar on the odd occasion.
http://www.brantsteele.com/images/bigbrother/uk/07/dawn.png

[Vicky.]

The mail is utter trash, but I don't see the point in people complaining that its sold tbh. If you don't like it...just don't buy it? Easy enough done surely

[Kizzy]

Well done Branson now stop buying up all the mother *******ing NHS and we good :)

( sorry just been watching vines )

[Crimson Dynamo]

oh its Virgin is it..


:idc:

[MB.]

The mail is utter trash, but I don't see the point in people complaining that its sold tbh. If you don't like it...just don't buy it? Easy enough done surely

Well it sounds as if nobody on Virgjn Trains was buying it in the first place, so there shouldn't be a problem

[Vicky.]

Well it sounds as if nobody on Virgjn Trains was buying it in the first place, so there shouldn't be a problem

But it says specifically

after listening to feedback from our people

So people were moaning that they even carried the paper at all. What kind of idiot moans about them selling a ****ing newspaper just because they disagree with the paper D:

One copy every 4 trains does seem very low mind. i thought the mail was one of the most bought in the country :laugh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Online is much better anyroad so most folks will look on their phone

like this story

'I didn't make the racist connection!' Loose Women's Saira Khan defends H&M over 'Monkey in the Jungle' hoodie admitting she would BUY IT for her mixed-race son

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5250983/Loose-Womens-Saira-Khan-defends-H-M.html#ixzz53iJdLR00


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/01/08/21/47E9BF2500000578-5248023-image-a-2_1515446192580.jpg

[Withano]

Come thru lefty liberal cucks, first virgin trains, then the world :clap1:

[user104658]

Online is much better anyroad so most folks will look on their phone


You are vastly over-estimating Virgin Train's ability to provide working WiFi. As soon as you go out of 3G range, you're not going to be browsing anything at all :joker:.

[bots]

You are vastly over-estimating Virgin Train's ability to provide working WiFi. As soon as you go out of 3G range, you're not going to be browsing anything at all :joker:.

they have internet plugged in on the train. I think you have to pay for it though

[user104658]

they have internet plugged in on the train. I think you have to pay for it though

Though I haven't been on one for a while, in my experience, it basically NEVER works.

[Livia]

I despise the Daily Mail, but this is nothing but censorship.

If you don't like someone's opinion, shut them down. People can't be allowed to have an opinion that is different from the expectation of the Guardian readers who obviously made this decision.

[Oliver_W]

Wasn't it things like the Guardian who ran the lie about Corbyn not being able to find a seat?

[Livia]

Wasn't it things like the Guardian who ran the lie about Corbyn not being able to find a seat?

Oh no... the Guardian is the absolute bastion of all things truthful. Ask anyone who reads it and quotes it as evidence!

[Northern Monkey]

If it’s genuinely the case that it’s not selling to their customers then fair enough,You can’t begrudge them making way for something more profitable.People can just buy it at John Menzies or WHS Smiths in the station.
I do think they’ve given in to pressure from a few sensitive lefties though who get triggered by the very sight of it:laugh:

[Northern Monkey]

Oh no... the Guardian is the absolute bastion of all things truthful. Ask anyone who reads it and quotes it as evidence!

That paper is fecking laughable with its bias.

[Livia]

If it’s genuinely the case that it’s not selling to their customers then fair enough,You can’t begrudge them making way for something more profitable.People can just buy it at John Menzies or WHS Smiths in the station.
I do think they’ve given in to pressure from a few sensitive lefties though who get triggered by the very sight of it:laugh:

Yes. And as always, the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

[Alf]

Can't they buy a newspaper from a newsagents before they get on the train?

[Livia]

Can't they buy a newspaper from a newsagents before they get on the train?

That's not the point, Alfie. This is a rail company deciding which newspaper is and isn't appropriate for their passengers. Their adult, paying passengers.

[Alf]

That's not the point, Alfie. This is a rail company deciding which newspaper is and isn't appropriate for their passengers. Their adult, paying passengers.Probably just billionaire Richard Branston still narked over Brexit, so he's throwing his toys out the pram.

[Livia]

Probably just billionaire Richard Branston still narked over Brexit, so he's throwing his toys out the pram.

LOL wouldn't surprise me at all.

[joeysteele]

I'm not a follower of any so called newspaper/s.

However of them all,I really enjoy any negative action against both the Sun and this equal pile of gutter trash,the Daily Mail.

So pleased to read this.

[Livia]

I'm genuinely surprised, joeysteele, that you would stand up for censorship of any kind.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[Underscore]

So what? Companies are free to sell what they want, it's a hallmark of free enterprise.

Personally I would not have newspapers sold at all because of the environment and my views on it.

[Underscore]

If Virgin Trains were to start selling, I don't know, dildos on a train then it's none of my business.

[Alf]

I'm currently having an Eartha Kitt on a Virgin train. There's no toilet paper. A copy of The Guardian is the only available option.

[joeysteele]

I'm genuinely surprised, joeysteele, that you would stand up for censorship of any kind.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

You are right,I am usually against censorship Livia, so I can see where you are coming from.

Sadly I just believe the UK is definitely now badly served by its newspaper media across the board.
I'd never waste a pence buying one now myself.

So while against censorship usually, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't cheer this move.
I'd never have the Sun or Daily Mail anywhere if I had authority to remove them.
Then again,I'd likely replace all so called newspapers with children's comics anywhere.
A much better read in my view.

You are correct however, I have stood against censorship just about all the time we've conversed on here.
It does represent another change in me I guess.

[Brillopad]

You are right,I am usually against censorship Livia, so I can see where you are coming from.

Sadly I just believe the UK is definitely now badly served by its newspaper media across the board.
I'd never waste a pence buying one now myself.

So while against censorship usually, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't cheer this move.
I'd never have the Sun or Daily Mail anywhere if I had authority to remove them.
Then again,I'd likely replace all so called newspapers with children's comics anywhere.
A much better read in my view.

You are correct however, I have stood against censorship just about all the time we've conversed on here.
It does represent another change in me I guess.

You certainly seem to fear the Daily Mail as you go way over-the-top in your hysterical reaction to a newspaper. This is Britain we don’t censor adults reading whatever paper they wish and to even suggest this speaks volumes in my opinion.

I can’t bear the Guardian and it’s left-wing drivel but you would make a huge fuss if someone tried to ban that no doubt. This is a free country and you cannot control free thought how ever much you would like to.

[Brillopad]

I'm currently having an Eartha Kitt on a Virgin train. There's no toilet paper. A copy of The Guardian is the only available option.

:joker:

[Brillopad]

Probably just billionaire Richard Branston still narked over Brexit, so he's throwing his toys out the pram.

That’s what I thought. Branson has gone way down in my estimation due to his tantrums since Brexit. What a joke. I won’t be using his bloody trains or planes - arrogant man.

[Tom4784]

That's not the point, Alfie. This is a rail company deciding which newspaper is and isn't appropriate for their passengers. Their adult, paying passengers.

I think you're reaching a bit by calling it censorship and such. Censorship would be if they banned the Daily Mail on their trains, they haven't, they simply don't sell it any more.

The newspaper wasn't selling, you don't stock the shelves of a shop with products that don't sell, you stop ordering it and get something else in instead.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Thankfully all of Tibb supported the Irish bakery when they did a similar thing

Right?

[joeysteele]

You certainly seem to fear the Daily Mail as you go way over-the-top in your hysterical reaction to a newspaper. This is Britain we don’t censor adults reading whatever paper they wish and to even suggest this speaks volumes in my opinion.

I can’t bear the Guardian and it’s left-wing drivel but you would make a huge fuss if someone tried to ban that no doubt. This is a free country and you cannot control free thought how ever much you would like to.


Oh don't be so ridiculous.
What would I fear the Daily Mail for.

I have no wish to control free thought at all,if anyone is going over the top,it is you again as usual.

I never read any newspapers, I see no need for them as really a growing number of younger people particularly don't either.
I used to odd times buy and read the Independent,since that went online only,it's gone even more bonkers too in my view.

For goodness sake moan at someone else, I made my comment,I responded to Livia.
I have no wish to extensively engage in your distortion of my words, or frankly as to whatever you may irrationally infer as to what you may invent, as to my overall thinking.

It amazes me why you ever respond to me,I just about never do to you,as very little interests me to even do so in the first place anyway.

[Tom4784]

Thankfully all of Tibb supported the Irish bakery when they did a similar thing

Right?

A business refusing to follow through on an order because of homophobia is not the same as a business deciding not to sell something because it wasn't selling.

Try harder with your bait.

[Crimson Dynamo]

A business refusing to follow through on an order because of homophobia is not the same as a business deciding not to sell something because it wasn't selling.

Try harder with your bait.

Incorrect Desmond they stopped it because of pressure from staff about LBGT matters if you read about the incident, and Brexit

[Crimson Dynamo]

And practicing Christian Bible beliefs is not homophobia

Its God's will

[Kazanne]

I despise the Daily Mail, but this is nothing but censorship.

If you don't like someone's opinion, shut them down. People can't be allowed to have an opinion that is different from the expectation of the Guardian readers who obviously made this decision.

I agree with this, everyone should be able to express their opinions regardless of whether we agree or not.

[Tom4784]

Incorrect Desmond they stopped it because of pressure from staff about LBGT matters if you read about the incident, and Brexit

'it only sold one copy for every four trains.'

That statement holds more weight tbh, if a product does not sell (especially one with such a short shelf life like a newspaper) then you don't continue to sell it. It wouldn't surprise me if other newspapers have been discontinued on their trains over the years for similar reasons.

Business is business and shelf space is limited. You don't keep buying stock that doesn't sell. That's just common sense.

[Tom4784]

I agree with this, everyone should be able to express their opinions regardless of whether we agree or not.

Except it isn't censorship and it's both silly and incorrect to make out that it is.

[Tom4784]

And practicing Christian Bible beliefs is not homophobia

Its God's will

The courts disagree.

[Withano]

You certainly seem to fear the Daily Mail

How can you fear that what does not exist (on virgin trains)

[user104658]

I only really have three things to say on this one, I guess...

1) I do generally disagree with censorship so if they are selling and that's just an excuse, or if they were banning them totally but not other papers, I wouldn't agree with it.

2) I do however despise the mail, and the sun, and yes also the Guardian since it went full tabloid and I personally believe that the press should be more accountable to some sort of independent body for the accuracy and content of what is allowed to be published as "news". I'm not saying that trashy magazines shouldn't exist but they should only be allowed to publish as what they are - I don't like that increasingly divisive and negative opinion pieces are constantly published as objective fact and news. It's a mess and clearly damaging to both individual intellectual integrity, and to society as a whole.

3) All that said, the most important one: Virgin is a private enterprise and they can choose to stock, or not stock, anything they want. That's really the bottom line here. If the railways were still publicly owned then there would be an expectation of, and moral responsibility to provide, balance... But it isn't, and Daily Mail readers, who I would imagine tend to be Tory voters, can't really complain too much about that as it was their chosen representatives who sold it off in the first place...

[Brillopad]

Oh don't be so ridiculous.
What would I fear the Daily Mail for.

I have no wish to control free thought at all,if anyone is going over the top,it is you again as usual.

I never read any newspapers, I see no need for them as really a growing number of younger people particularly don't either.
I used to odd times buy and read the Independent,since that went online only,it's gone even more bonkers too in my view.

For goodness sake moan at someone else, I made my comment,I responded to Livia.
I have no wish to extensively engage in your distortion of my words, or frankly as to whatever you may irrationally infer as to what you may invent, as to my overall thinking.

It amazes me why you ever respond to me,I just about never do to you,as very little interests me to even do so in the first place anyway.

You want to shut it down - smacks of fear to me. It’s a successful newspaper and no doubt you think if people couldn’t read it they might move more to the left. Wishful thinking.

[user104658]

You want to shut it down - smacks of fear to me. It’s a successful newspaper and no doubt you think if people couldn’t read it they might move more to the left. Wishful thinking.Tabloid trash like the Mail, The Sun AND yes, The Guardian and drivel like Huffington Post too all contribute to the progressive dumbing-down of society, create damaging stereotypes, and set people at each other's throats to stop anything meaningful from being achieved.

You mock Joey for being "scared" of this but really, being afraid of that seems quite sensible.

[Brillopad]

Tabloid trash like the Mail, The Sun AND yes, The Guardian and drivel like Huffington Post too all contribute to the progressive dumbing-down of society, create damaging stereotypes, and set people at each other's throats to stop anything meaningful from being achieved.

You mock Joey for being "scared" of this but really, being afraid of that seems quite sensible.

That may be but Joey seemingly only wants to allow one side to be presented, one set of opinions to be heard which is not what the West is about. Strange point of view for a lawyer.

Why not start with stopping the sale of a certain so-called ‘right-wing’ paper on trains then slowly chip away at anything not approved of by the lefties until one point of view is the only point of view. A lefties dream.

[joeysteele]

I only really have three things to say on this one, I guess...

1) I do generally disagree with censorship so if they are selling and that's just an excuse, or if they were banning them totally but not other papers, I wouldn't agree with it.

2) I do however despise the mail, and the sun, and yes also the Guardian since it went full tabloid and I personally believe that the press should be more accountable to some sort of independent body for the accuracy and content of what is allowed to be published as "news". I'm not saying that trashy magazines shouldn't exist but they should only be allowed to publish as what they are - I don't like that increasingly divisive and negative opinion pieces are constantly published as objective fact and news. It's a mess and clearly damaging to both individual intellectual integrity, and to society as a whole.

3) All that said, the most important one: Virgin is a private enterprise and they can choose to stock, or not stock, anything they want. That's really the bottom line here. If the railways were still publicly owned then there would be an expectation of, and moral responsibility to provide, balance... But it isn't, and Daily Mail readers, who I would imagine tend to be Tory voters, can't really complain too much about that as it was their chosen representatives who sold it off in the first place...

Really strong points and post TS as near always.

Even moreso as to your 3rd point.

[smudgie]

Don't all the main stations have news vendors.
If you really want one you will buy before getting on the train.:shrug:

[GiRTh]

I dont agree with censorship but if they say its not making them money then its their decision.

[user104658]

Why not start with stopping the sale of a certain so-called ‘right-wing’ paper on trains then slowly chip away at anything not approved of by the lefties until one point of view is the only point of view. A lefties dream.

The thing is though Brillo, Virgin is allowed to sell whatever it wants on its trains... and not sell whatever it doesn't want to sell. Because it's a private company that is allowed to do whatever it thinks is best for its finances (or actually, just make whatever business decisions it wants for whatever reasons it wants).

And that private enterprise concept is 100% Right Wing. If someone / the government / the law were to step in and tell them that they're not allowed to stop selling the Daily Mail... that would actually go AGAINST right-wing economic ideology.

[Brillopad]

The thing is though Brillo, Virgin is allowed to sell whatever it wants on its trains... and not sell whatever it doesn't want to sell. Because it's a private company that is allowed to do whatever it thinks is best for its finances (or actually, just make whatever business decisions it wants for whatever reasons it wants).

And that private enterprise concept is 100% Right Wing. If someone / the government / the law were to step in and tell them that they're not allowed to stop selling the Daily Mail... that would actually go AGAINST right-wing economic ideology.

IT is but it is also a business so if it pisses off enough of its passengers it’s profits could do a nosedive. He may be the ‘great’ Richard Branson but we are also seeing what a sulky, arrogant twat he is who uses his position to stamp his size 10s about Brexit. However such a sulky twit is neither appealing or infallible. There are plenty of other trains.

[Tom4784]

IT is but it is also a business so if it pisses off enough of its passengers it’s profits could do a nosedive. He may be the ‘great’ Richard Branson but we are also seeing what a sulky, arrogant twat he is who uses his position to stamp his size 10s about Brexit. However such a sulky twit is neither appealing or infallible. There are plenty of other trains.

I don't think people will, enmasse, boycott Virgin Trains because of a newspaper it no longer sells. You're trying to make out that this is a political thing to do the usual 'evil lefties!' schtick but you're ignoring what is truly important here, they sold ONE copy for every FOUR trains. Think of how many unsold newspapers that is on a daily basis. It's ridiculous to think that any company would continue to sell a product as unprofitable as that.

Richard Branson is a figurehead and I'm not sure what Brexit or his opinion regarding it has to do with anything related to the topic at hand. We're approaching the two year mark since the brexit vote, perhaps it's time you stop being bitter about the past? I don't even really understand why you're so bitter about it all, You got the result you wanted and the Tories are still in power, you got everything you wanted so why keep reliving the past? This is everything you voted for, embrace it.

[Withano]

Why not start with stopping the sale of a certain so-called ‘right-wing’ paper on trains then slowly chip away at anything not approved of by the lefties until one point of view is the only point of view. A lefties dream.

You certainly seem to fear the loss of the Daily Mail. I didn't know right-wingedness was held together by a single tabloid. Interesting.

[Kizzy]

Don't worry, you've still got the Sun, evening standard, telegraph,express and the times with which to get your tory propaganda fix.

[Brillopad]

I don't think people will, enmasse, boycott Virgin Trains because of a newspaper it no longer sells. You're trying to make out that this is a political thing to do the usual 'evil lefties!' schtick but you're ignoring what is truly important here, they sold ONE copy for every FOUR trains. Think of how many unsold newspapers that is on a daily basis. It's ridiculous to think that any company would continue to sell a product as unprofitable as that.

Richard Branson is a figurehead and I'm not sure what Brexit or his opinion regarding it has to do with anything related to the topic at hand. We're approaching the two year mark since the brexit vote, perhaps it's time you stop being bitter about the past? I don't even really understand why you're so bitter about it all, You got the result you wanted and the Tories are still in power, you got everything you wanted so why keep reliving the past? This is everything you voted for, embrace it.

Says the leftie who would rather see Brexit fail big time just so those that voted for it could ‘regret’ their decision. Such a truly painful case of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face takes being bitter to a whole new level.

If I’m ‘bitter’ about anything it’s the continued attempts by anti- Brexiteers to reverse a public vote that didn’t go their way - a vote that, as you say, occurred nearly two years’ ago. Nothing bitter there then.

[Brillopad]

Don't worry, you've still got the Sun, evening standard, telegraph,express and the times with which to get your tory propaganda fix.

Oh dear you are seriously pissed off with a lot of papers. Never mind you still have the Guardian for your nightly bedtime read.

Small comfort I know but, like the sorest of losers, the paper can be relied upon at least to keep on trying to overturn that true bastian of democracy the public vote. They will of course change the wording to that of getting a vote on the terms of leaving etc, etc but they are kidding no one but their hardline supporters. .

[Kizzy]

Oh dear you are seriously pissed off with a lot of papers. Never mind you still have the Guardian for your nightly bedtime read.

Small comfort I know but, like the sorest of losers, the paper can be relied upon at least to keep on trying to overturn that true bastian of democracy the public vote. They will of course change the wording to that of getting a vote on the terms of leaving etc, etc but they are kidding no one but their hardline supporters. .

The Guardian is centrist.

[Crimson Dynamo]

The Guardian is centrist.

:laugh2:

[MTVN]

I find it surprising that the Mail would be a bad seller for them given that it sells more than most newspapers in basically every retailer in the country. No way do they sell more Guardians than Mails. Even if it was generally going unsold I assume they have newspapers on a sale or return basis so they wouldn't be making much loss on it

[Livia]

You certainly seem to fear the loss of the Daily Mail. I didn't know right-wingedness was held together by a single tabloid. Interesting.

That's your take on this? Interesting.

I don't believe that the Daily Mail is not selling and that's the reason they've removed it.

I hate the Daily Mail. I hate censorship more.

[Livia]

I find it surprising that the Mail would be a bad seller for them given that it sells more than most newspapers in basically every retailer in the country. No way do they sell more Guardians than Mails. Even if it was generally going unsold I assume they have newspapers on a sale or return basis so they wouldn't be making much loss on it

Egggggzackly.

[user104658]

I find it surprising that the Mail would be a bad seller for them given that it sells more than most newspapers in basically every retailer in the country. No way do they sell more Guardians than Mails. Even if it was generally going unsold I assume they have newspapers on a sale or return basis so they wouldn't be making much loss on it

They over-charge for papers and also, to find a newspaper on a train all you have to do is have a look around because there are always loads abandonned.

So I think the answer is probably that Virgin is trying to make some sort of point for publicity / populism and the financial "hit" of not offering them for sale will be totally insignificant (especially given the ridiculous cost of rail tickets these days).

Again though... private enterprise, their decision, not much point whining about it :shrug:.

[MTVN]

They over-charge for papers and also, to find a newspaper on a train all you have to do is have a look around because there are always loads abandonned.

So I think the answer is probably that Virgin is trying to make some sort of point for publicity / populism and the financial "hit" of not offering them for sale will be totally insignificant (especially given the ridiculous cost of rail tickets these days).

Again though... private enterprise, their decision, not much point whining about it :shrug:.

I doubt there will be a financial hit but as for whining, well it was people whining that got the Mail off sale in the first place so whining does work sometimes.

Imo a decent and conscientious company should provide a level of choice to their customers even if it's not a huge seller

[Livia]

They over-charge for papers and also, to find a newspaper on a train all you have to do is have a look around because there are always loads abandonned.

So I think the answer is probably that Virgin is trying to make some sort of point for publicity / populism and the financial "hit" of not offering them for sale will be totally insignificant (especially given the ridiculous cost of rail tickets these days).

Again though... private enterprise, their decision, not much point whining about it :shrug:.

Imagine the reaction if it was the Guardian they stopped making available.

And yeah, there are always papers abandoned. Can't remember the last time I actually bought a newspaper.

[bots]

Of course virgin trains are entitled to stock what sells and ditch what doesn't. What I found interesting from the article is that its poor sales weren't the focus, it was we are inclusive and have taken advice from our employees, which is complete poo. No company refers to their workers for a business decision like whether to stock a paper or not. Its ludicrous. We haven't had good smarties sales this month, lets poll our employees and ask them what they think. Egg and ham sandwiches are down this month, lets ask the group what they think .... its just silly

[Tom4784]

Says the leftie who would rather see Brexit fail big time just so those that voted for it could ‘regret’ their decision. Such a truly painful case of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face takes being bitter to a whole new level.

If I’m ‘bitter’ about anything it’s the continued attempts by anti- Brexiteers to reverse a public vote that didn’t go their way - a vote that, as you say, occurred nearly two years’ ago. Nothing bitter there then.

It's not 2016 any more. There's no point in living in the past because the present you voted for isn't going the way you want.

[Tom4784]

Of course virgin trains are entitled to stock what sells and ditch what doesn't. What I found interesting from the article is that its poor sales weren't the focus, it was we are inclusive and have taken advice from our employees, which is complete poo. No company refers to their workers for a business decision like whether to stock a paper or not. Its ludicrous. We haven't had good smarties sales this month, lets poll our employees and ask them what they think. Egg and ham sandwiches are down this month, lets ask the group what they think .... its just silly

Exactly.

[Brillopad]

It's not 2016 any more. There's no point in living in the past because the present you voted for isn't going the way you want.

It will.

[Kizzy]

Hmmm, the right speak and it's 'free speech', the left?.... Whining :/

[Tom4784]

That's your take on this? Interesting.

I don't believe that the Daily Mail is not selling and that's the reason they've removed it.

I hate the Daily Mail. I hate censorship more.

Again, it's only censorship if they ban the Daily Mail on their trains, they simply don't sell it.

[Tom4784]

It will.

Then why don't you focus on that instead of the past? You keep bringing up remainers and lefties and to me, it just seems like a distraction from the fact that the things you voted for aren't going the way you want them. If you think things will go your way then why aren't you focused on the future?

Leave won, the Tories are still in charge and you can only say 'Leftie this, remainer that.' You don't have much faith in your choices, do you?

[Kizzy]

Again, it's only censorship if they ban the Daily Mail on their trains, they simply don't sell it.

Good point.

[jaxie]

Who asked the rail service to choose what people read?

Strange censorship.

[user104658]

Who asked the rail service to choose what people read?

Strange censorship.

They're not... they're choosing what to sell.

I personally think the most obvious answer here, though, is for them to just completely stop selling papers on the trains. Realistically, anyone who wants to read a newspaper on the train is able to buy one on the way to the station, or even at the station. I actually can't imagine that they sell many copies of any paper.

[Withano]

That's your take on this? Interesting.

I don't believe that the Daily Mail is not selling and that's the reason they've removed it.

I hate the Daily Mail. I hate censorship more.

No that isn't my take on this, does that even count as a take :suspect: did you quote the wrong person?

[Withano]

Imagine how many trains virgin runs every day... hundreds for sure, thousands probably. And they sell one in every four trains. Imagine how much that would cost for the sake of a couple guys with poor taste in journalism. Let's be sensible about this @whineyrighties. It's not worth the hassle.

It'd be like kicking up a fuss cos they only have mars bars and not milkyways. Get out of here with your obscure taste, you should have planned ahead

[MTVN]

Imagine how many trains virgin runs every day... hundreds for sure, thousands probably. And they sell one in every four trains. Imagine how much that would cost for the sake of a couple guys with poor taste in journalism. Let's be sensible about this @whineyrighties. It's not worth the hassle.

It'd be like kicking up a fuss cos they only have mars bars and not milkyways. Get out of here with your obscure taste, you should have planned ahead

Again though newspapers are supplied on a sale or return basis so it doesn't cost them much at all

[Withano]

Again though newspapers are supplied on a sale or return basis so it doesn't cost them much at all

Seems like a bit of a faff

[jet]

Seems like a bit of a faff

No, the faff is the nonsense that they only sell one for every four trains. The Daily Mail is Britain's best selling newspaper. Strange that its only people who travel on Virgin trains that don't buy them and buy other papers instead. You think that's likely do you? Get real. :laugh:

[Brillopad]

Then why don't you focus on that instead of the past? You keep bringing up remainers and lefties and to me, it just seems like a distraction from the fact that the things you voted for aren't going the way you want them. If you think things will go your way then why aren't you focused on the future?

Leave won, the Tories are still in charge and you can only say 'Leftie this, remainer that.' You don't have much faith in your choices, do you?

You have some strange logic going on there. I have total faith in MY choices - what I don’t have faith in is the sore losers who just keep trying and trying to overturn the vote under the guise of this and the guise of that. People so arrogant they think they need to save all the Brexiteers from themselves whilst at the same time getting what they want.

[Withano]

No, the faff is the nonsense that they only sell one for every four trains. The Daily Mail is Britain's best selling newspaper. Strange that its only people who travel on Virgin trains that don't buy them and buy other papers instead. You think that's likely do you? Get real. :laugh:

I cant think of anybody who would buy a paper for the train tbh. The metro is free, and everyone uses their phones for news anyway. For that reason, I'd imagine the only people who would buy papers on trains are more upper class prrhaps, and I dont think thats the DM's target audience.

I dont really care though, this is literally affecting tens of people a tiny amount. They now have to buy their paper before the train. Oh ****ing no.

[Jamie89]

It sounds like a business decision rather than censorship to me. There's probably a lot of newspapers and magazines they don't stock but it's not as though any of them are banned.

And do we know that people were complaining about it being sold? I read 'feedback' as possibly just being something like those customer surveys... "which of our newspapers do you enjoy reading" sort of thing, rather than people actually complaining about them being sold, unless I'm mistaken? Seems more likely though given the terminology in the article and the fact they weren't actually selling very many of them.

[jet]

I cant think of anybody who would buy a paper for the train tbh. The metro is free, and everyone uses their phones for news anyway. For that reason, I'd imagine the only people who would buy papers on trains are more upper class prrhaps, and I dont think thats the DM's target audience.

I dont really care though, this is literally affecting tens of people a tiny amount. They now have to buy their paper before the train. Oh ****ing no.

Did you read the article?

And Drew McMillan, head of colleague communication and engagement at Virgin, told staff in an internal memo: "Thousands of people choose to read the Daily Mail every day. But they will no longer be reading it courtesy of VT.
"There's been considerable concern raised by colleagues about the Mail's editorial position on issues such as immigration, LGBT rights and unemployment.
"We've decided that this paper is not compatible with the VT brand and our beliefs.
"We will continue to offer The Times to customers, but we won't be stocking the Daily Mail for sale or as a giveaway.
"This won't suit all of our customers or all of our people - it's certain to draw some criticism. But we've listened to many colleagues over the last few months, and we feel that this is the right move to take."

The article states they still sell the Mirror, the FT and the Times.

I'm surprised at how many on here are making excuses for this censorship and ignoring all this and only bleating about 'they only sell 1 for every 4 trains. It's quite hilarious to read. :laugh:

[Withano]

Did you read the article?



The article states they still sell the Mirror, the FT and the Times.

I'm surprised at how many on here are making excuses for this censorship and ignoring all this and only bleating about 'they only sell 1 for every 4 trains. It's quite hilarious to read. :laugh:

...dont use their service then.. it really doesnt matter all that much, hardly anyone would even notice it was gone.

[jet]

...dont use their service then.. it really doesnt matter all that much, hardly anyone would even notice it was gone.

The point is how many left minded are appearing to condone this censorship.
You are just letting yourselves down.

[Withano]

The point is how many left minded are appearing to condone this censorship.
You are just letting yourselves down.

It has nothing to do with censorship though (for me). They could stop selling any paper for any reason, and guess how much I'd care. Its only funny (for me) because of how right minded people feel as if this is some sort of personal attack and the beginning of the end or something. Thats letting the side down, they need a can-do attitude! Prosper through it, Jet. I believe in you.

[jet]

It has nothing to do with censorship though (for me). They could stop selling any paper for any reason, and guess how much I'd care. Its only funny (for me) because of how right minded people feel as if this is some sort of personal attack and the beginning of the end or something. Thats letting the side down, they need a can-do attitude! Prosper through it, Jet. I believe in you.

Yeah right, way to wriggle out. It's blatant censorship, anyone that can read can see that. I'm neither left or right minded, btw, I'm firmly middle of the road, it's just Corbyn I can't stand. Censorship is wrong, no matter what side it comes from.

[Withano]

Yeah right, way to wriggle out. It's blatant censorship, anyone that can read can see that. I'm neither left or right minded, btw, I'm firmly middle of the road, it's just Corbyn I can't stand. Censorship is wrong, no matter what side it comes from.

Ok, I still don't believe it is censorship, and I still don't care that others do.

[user104658]

Yeah right, way to wriggle out. It's blatant censorship, anyone that can read can see that. I'm neither left or right minded, btw, I'm firmly middle of the road, it's just Corbyn I can't stand. Censorship is wrong, no matter what side it comes from.

It simply is not censorship, though... the paper isn't banned, it just isn't being sold, and as the railway is privately owned, they can do whatever they want? If the railway was government owned I would agree with you, but Thatcher sold it. It's honestly that simple.

It's like when people bleat about "censorship" here on TiBB :joker:. NO it is a privately owned site and the owners can delete whatever they want, whenever they want and don't have to answer to anyone at all for it if they don't want to. That's private venture :shrug:. In both cases your option is to vote with your feet; if you don't like it... don't buy Virgin Train tickets.

[Jamie89]

I'm surprised at how many on here are making excuses for this censorship and ignoring all this and only bleating about 'they only sell 1 for every 4 trains. It's quite hilarious to read. :laugh:

The way I see it, is that as a train company they shouldn't really be obliged to sell any particular type of newspaper (or any product)... (I would actually find it more worrying if they were told they had to stock certain papers), so then it just comes down to what's best for them as a business in terms of sales and the image they want, and surely they should be free to make that decision? Or should all trains have to sell every newspaper? (and if so...why is that so important?) If they were to ban people having the DM on their trains then that'd be different and I'd be dead against it but that's not what's happening here so I can't see that anyone is being adversely affected by it.

[jet]

I disagree. A large company funded with millions of taxpayers money and paying customers shouldn't dictate what papers those customers are able to buy based on their own prejudices. It IS censorship, because they are censoring what their customers may want to read, whilst providing other papers which are in line with their own way of thinking.
It's saying 'Pay to travel with us, but while doing so, I want you to read this, not that.' Censorship, pure and simple.

[Tom4784]

You have some strange logic going on there. I have total faith in MY choices - what I don’t have faith in is the sore losers who just keep trying and trying to overturn the vote under the guise of this and the guise of that. People so arrogant they think they need to save all the Brexiteers from themselves whilst at the same time getting what they want.

And who would that be, exactly?

[Tom4784]

Did you read the article?



The article states they still sell the Mirror, the FT and the Times.

I'm surprised at how many on here are making excuses for this censorship and ignoring all this and only bleating about 'they only sell 1 for every 4 trains. It's quite hilarious to read. :laugh:

You can choose to ignore evidence that doesn't suit your own narrative but don't belittle people for actually paying attention to what's been said whether it benefits their point of view or not.

You would not walk into a shop and scream censorship if they didn't stock your newspaper of choice so why scream censorship here?

I'm guessing it's because you seem to misunderstand that the railways are privatised and they can choose what they want to sell on those trains. It's not a government controlled venture, it's a business. Would you cry censorship if it was a left leaning paper? I'm guessing you would be quite silent on the issue if that was the case.

Also the censorship argument falls flat on another level, The Daily Mail is not banned on these trains, you aren't going to get it taken off you if you read it on a Virgin train so to cry censorship is just plain silly, choosing not to sell an item is not censorship. It's just a ridiculous reach to say that it is.

[Brillopad]

You can choose to ignore evidence that doesn't suit your own narrative but don't belittle people for actually paying attention to what's been said whether it benefits their point of view or not.

You would not walk into a shop and scream censorship if they didn't stock your newspaper of choice so why scream censorship here?

I'm guessing it's because you seem to misunderstand that the railways are privatised and they can choose what they want to sell on those trains. It's not a government controlled venture, it's a business. Would you cry censorship if it was a left leaning paper? I'm guessing you would be quite silent on the issue if that was the case.

Also the censorship argument falls flat on another level, The Daily Mail is not banned on these trains, you aren't going to get it taken off you if you read it on a Virgin train so to cry censorship is just plain silly, choosing not to sell an item is not censorship. It's just a ridiculous reach to say that it is.

To limit access is censorship. It hasn’t limited access to other papers so it is categorically censorship. They haven’t banned it, too controversial, but limited access to it with the hope perhaps they can ‘encourage’ customers to read something a bit more to their liking. Quite pathetic really.

[Tom4784]

To limit access is censorship. It hasn’t limited access to other papers so it is categorically censorship. Bluster away but it’s a load of old toss and everyone knows it.

Except it isn't censorship, it hasn't been banned from Virgin trains, you can still buy it from train stations and you can still read a copy on Virgin trains. you can try to denounce facts that don't suit your agenda as 'old toss' but it doesn't make them any less valid or the argument that this is censorship any less flawed.

[jet]

You can choose to ignore evidence that doesn't suit your own narrative but don't belittle people for actually paying attention to what's been said whether it benefits their point of view or not.

You would not walk into a shop and scream censorship if they didn't stock your newspaper of choice so why scream censorship here?

I'm guessing it's because you seem to misunderstand that the railways are privatised and they can choose what they want to sell on those trains. It's not a government controlled venture, it's a business. Would you cry censorship if it was a left leaning paper? I'm guessing you would be quite silent on the issue if that was the case.

Also the censorship argument falls flat on another level, The Daily Mail is not banned on these trains, you aren't going to get it taken off you if you read it on a Virgin train so to cry censorship is just plain silly, choosing not to sell an item is not censorship. It's just a ridiculous reach to say that it is.

Did you say it was entirely the choice of Asher's Bakery, a private company, and totally agree with them when they refused to decorate a cake for a customer because it was against their beliefs? (I didn't agree with them, btw).

Virgin don't simply not stock the newspaper, they have withdrawn the sales and stated that the content is against their beliefs, never mind what the paying customer wants. You can't cry a private company can do what they want just when it suits you.

...and you obviously don't read posts properly. I have already stated that I am middle of the road politically and I think censorship is wrong from both sides.

Would YOU cry censorship if it was a left leaning paper?

[joeysteele]

I cant think of anybody who would buy a paper for the train tbh. The metro is free, and everyone uses their phones for news anyway. For that reason, I'd imagine the only people who would buy papers on trains are more upper class prrhaps, and I dont think thats the DM's target audience.

I dont really care though, this is literally affecting tens of people a tiny amount. They now have to buy their paper before the train. Oh ****ing no.


Absolutely.
If I use a train,which is rare but odd times I do.
I don't think I've come across anyone reading a so called newspaper.
As you state,people are usually on their phones/tablets etc.

You see magazines at times too.

Good points from you too Withano

[Tom4784]

Did you say it was entirely the choice of Asher's Bakery, a private company, and totally agree with them when they refused to decorate a cake for a customer because it was against their beliefs? (I didn't agree with them, btw).

Virgin don't simply not stock the newspaper, they have withdrawn the sales and stated that the content is against their beliefs, never mind what the paying customer wants. You can't cry a private company can do what they want just when it suits you.

...and you obviously don't read posts properly. I have already stated that I am middle of the road politically and I think censorship is wrong from both sides.

Would YOU cry censorship if it was a left leaning paper?

The bakery has been brought up before. If you think that refusing service to a customer on account of their sexuality is anything like a company simply deciding not to sell a newspaper that isn't selling on their trains then well that speaks for itself.

One is discrimination, the other isn't. It's quite simple. If you think those examples are comparable then you have a critical lack of understanding of both situations....unless you are actually trying to paint Daily Mail readers are a persecuted minority and if that's the case then I'd have no choice but to openly laugh at such a ridiculous statement.

What you are doing here is best described as reaching. If something isn't selling, you use the space it's occupying to stock something that will, basic retailer common sense. You talk about what the paying customer wants but if only a few copies are being sold over multiple trains then it's fairly obvious that the majority of Virgin customers don't care to read the Daily Mail.

Again, the Bakery comparison is so flawed that I can't believe you are making it with a straight face. Do you honestly believe that a company choosing not to stock a product that does not sell is comparable to denying service to someone because of homophobia? Really?

I wouldn't give a **** if it was a left leaning paper, I work in retail. I deal with stock orders and making sure we have what we need and where it needs to go to sell. I understand Virgin's decision because it would be a decision I'd make if a product was taking up space on my shelves and it wasn't selling.

I also don't read newspapers since I prefer to get my news from multiple sources online to paint a better picture of the true story so print media can die for all I care.

[Maru]

If it's truly due to sales, then the question is what does sell on trains and how much business does it really generate? Need some statistics here :laugh: If they cut the Daily Mail but they don't sell that much anyway, then I don't see how it matters. It's an meaningless publicity move then.

Other outlets seem to agree with this being a "ban" (even though it's not technically true) and a "censorship" move, even those that agree with it... so no one can argue there isn't a valid argument for that motive in a left-leaning/mainstream media environment... for example...

Virgin is not censoring the Daily Mail – hate just doesn’t match its brand identity
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/daily-mail-virgin-trains-hate-brand-identity

Before you congratulate Richard Branson on banning the Daily Mail from his trains, remember what he’s doing to the NHS
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/virgin-trains-richard-branson-daily-mail-censorship-nhs-privatisation-a8151366.html

It's not quite NK-style censorship, but it's definitely discouraging reading of those materials--if there is a reasonable amount of sales to remain profitable to carry anyway...

I do think though this is exactly where free market comes into play. If it effects business enough, then they will change their strategy. If not, then it will be more of the same... :shrug: Very simple.

I don't think it's an over-reaction though to react to the dwindling prominence of right-leaning media (I guess that's what the Mail is? I always thought it was mostly US media copy-pasta and TMZ-esk articles...).

I'm more concerned about the quality of media coverage these days rather than which way it leans. The vast majority of the complaints about 'biased' media on social media could easily be eliminated if there was a push for a higher standard of journalism... but instead everyone enjoys to read their daily snipes about the village next door, so what we have is click-bait and specific story-lines meant to check certain boxes. Media companies have become so bold now (as evidenced by this news and the reaction) that they don't even bother to check their bias and lack of honesty. And why should they? It's $$$, cheaper to make and the public begs for more. It's like the McDonalds strategy for news.


Also, I can personally attest that I've lost 10 lbs and feel a general sense of well-being when looking in the mirror ever since I cut CNN. I now recommend this diet to everyone I know.

[Vicky.]

If it was just about sales, then why the 'after listening to feedback from our people' quote about it, and why an announcement in the first place? Makes no sense to me. If its not selling, stop selling it. No need for a hooha unless its just for attention, which thinking about it whilst typing this, it probably is. Publicity stunt.

[user104658]

To limit access is censorship. It hasn’t limited access to other papers so it is categorically censorship. They haven’t banned it, too controversial, but limited access to it with the hope perhaps they can ‘encourage’ customers to read something a bit more to their liking. Quite pathetic really.

This would suggest that they do stock or have stocked every newspaper available, which is obviously nonsense. Have they been "limiting access" to the dozens of publications that have never been stocked? The second part (encourage / force customers to read what they want them to read) is again nonsense because hardly anyone buys newspapers on trains anyway.

Yes it's a publicity stunt, that's pretty obvious, but again... Private enterprise. They can sell what they want, advertise what they want, and pull whatever publicity stunt they want. I'm amazed how many people are all for free market capitalism when it suits them, and then dead against it when it doesn't.

[jet]

The bakery has been brought up before. If you think that refusing service to a customer on account of their sexuality is anything like a company simply deciding not to sell a newspaper that isn't selling on their trains then well that speaks for itself.

One is discrimination, the other isn't. It's quite simple. If you think those examples are comparable then you have a critical lack of understanding of both situations....unless you are actually trying to paint Daily Mail readers are a persecuted minority and if that's the case then I'd have no choice but to openly laugh at such a ridiculous statement.

What you are doing here is best described as reaching. If something isn't selling, you use the space it's occupying to stock something that will, basic retailer common sense. You talk about what the paying customer wants but if only a few copies are being sold over multiple trains then it's fairly obvious that the majority of Virgin customers don't care to read the Daily Mail.

Again, the Bakery comparison is so flawed that I can't believe you are making it with a straight face. Do you honestly believe that a company choosing not to stock a product that does not sell is comparable to denying service to someone because of homophobia? Really?

I wouldn't give a **** if it was a left leaning paper, I work in retail. I deal with stock orders and making sure we have what we need and where it needs to go to sell. I understand Virgin's decision because it would be a decision I'd make if a product was taking up space on my shelves and it wasn't selling.

I also don't read newspapers since I prefer to get my news from multiple sources online to paint a better picture of the true story so print media can die for all I care.

It is just pathetic that you are still spouting the rubbish about the DM not selling on their trains when it is the best selling newspaper by far and they are still selling the FT, The Times and the Mirror AND they have clearly stated the reasons they are not selling the Mail is that it doesn't tally with their own views Why are you ignoring that?

You state that a private company has a right to do what they want. Asher's Bakery turned down a customers request based on their beliefs. Are you saying that Christians have no right to believe what they do based on their belief in the Bible? I didn't agree with them, but feel they have a right to those beliefs just as I feel that right leaning paying customers have a right not to be dictated to as to what reading material is made available on their train journey based on the political affiliations of a company that is funded by millions of taxpayers money.
I guess it's fine to censor right leaning publications and now Christian beliefs too. Whatever is happening to freedom of speech and democracy. Scary.

[Kizzy]

I think the difference is that one company ( Virgin) is choosing to renounce something that is associated with fascistic views and one ( the bakers) demanded the right to enforce their fascistic views, neither of which have a place in civilised modern society.

If you want to argue for the rights of people to be as fascistic as they want, go for it.

[jet]

I think the difference is that one company ( Virgin) is choosing to renounce something that is associated with fascistic views and one ( the bakers) demanded the right to enforce their fascistic views, neither of which have a place in civilised modern society.

If you want to argue for the rights of people to be as fascistic as they want, go for it.

Yes, you want to stamp out anything and everything that doesn't tally with your leftie fanaticism. How tolerant and civilised.
I have news for you - the world is made up of all sorts and always will be. If you accepted that you might cheer up.

[Tom4784]

It is just pathetic that you are still spouting the rubbish about the DM not selling on their trains when it is the best selling newspaper by far and they are still selling the FT, The Times and the Mirror AND they have clearly stated the reasons they are not selling the Mail is that it doesn't tally with their own views Why are you ignoring that?

You state that a private company has a right to do what they want. Asher's Bakery turned down a customers request based on their beliefs. Are you saying that Christians have no right to believe what they do based on their belief in the Bible? I didn't agree with them, but feel they have a right to those beliefs just as I feel that right leaning paying customers have a right not to be dictated to as to what reading material is made available on their train journey based on the political affiliations of a company that is funded by millions of taxpayers money.
I guess it's fine to censor right leaning publications and now Christian beliefs too. Whatever is happening to freedom of speech and democracy. Scary.

Do you know what demographics are? Just because something is considered the best selling product doesn't mean it will be the best selling product across the board with all audiences and outlets. The demographic for Virgin trains obviously either doesn't buy Daily Mail or they bought it elsewhere and not on the train. Saying '_____ is the best selling item' doesn't automatically shut down an argument because it's not a true statement across the board. There's a few demographics that the Daily Mail has no hold with and if it's the case that most Virgin train users are apart of that demographic then it's only smart business sense to cater to your target audience, if sales are low because people buy their Daily Mail elsewhere then what is the point of wasting shelf space if your customers have bought the product elsewhere? It's not censorship, if the rail industry was still government owned then you might have an argument or if Daily Mail was completely banned on the train as well but this? This is a weak argument for censorship.

When did I say a private company has the right to do what they want? I said they have the right to choose what products they sell. Don't misrepresent my words to serve your warped argument. As for the Bakery stuff, I'm going to walk you through it since you don't understand what happened there and why it makes your attempt at a comparison so ridiculous.

A person walks into a bakery to order a cake, the bakery are like 'sure, that's fine, what's the specs?' He explains what the cake is for and they refuse him service because he is gay. This is not choosing what products to sell or not sell, this is denying someone service based on nothing more than their sexuality. That is discrimination. The Christian defence is dumb and insulting towards Christians. Did these bakers demand to know whether every child they made a birthday cake was conceived out of wedlock? I doubt it and I doubt the bakers would mind offering products that would have gone against the teachings of their religion because they pick and chose the parts of the religion to follow so they CHOSE to discriminate against a gay person. Nobody follows their religion to the letter, it's impossible so if someone chooses to use their religion to justify discriminating against someone then that is THEIR choice and the consequences of that choice are theirs' alone to deal with. Religion is not a shield for people who discriminate against others.
Trying to compare this with a retailer choosing not to sell a product is silly, tonedeaf and just beggars belief tbh. One of the most laughable comparisons I've seen in a long while.

Who is dictating what people can or cannot read on trains? How many times does it need saying that no one is stopping people from reading the Daily Mail? If the Daily Mail actually ****ing sold on these trains then they wouldn't have taken them off sale. Common sense SHOULD dictate that people either buy their copies elsewhere or the Virgin Train demographic simply doesn't care for that paper.

As for the whole taxpayer business....You are aware that the train industry is privatised, yes? The government sold it off years ago. You can't claim use the taxpayer line against a private company.

As for your last hysterically funny line, how has freedom of speech or democracy as a whole been affected by this incident? Can you explain that to me? I'm utterly fascinated to hear what you have to say on the matter.

[Tom4784]

Yes, you want to stamp out anything and everything that doesn't tally with your leftie fanaticism. How tolerant and civilised.
I have news for you - the world is made up of all sorts and always will be. If you accepted that you might cheer up.

Didn't you claim you were centre leaning before? it doesn't look like it here.

[jet]

This is Branson, the great right wing detractor:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/10/truth-richard-branson-virgin-rail-profits

Let's deal with the open-air subsidies first. If you tot up all the direct subsidies Branson's west coast mainline service received between 1997 and 2012, and convert them to today's prices, you get a sum of £2.79bn handed over by us – before a single ticket has been sold. And it is certainly before you factor in the service's upgrade (worth around £9bn, and paid for by the public), and the fleet of Pendolino trains (again, largely subsidised by the government).

By 2012, Virgin Trains enjoyed spanking new rolling stock, a more frequent service and a superfast line that whisked passengers from London to Manchester in just two hours. With all that going for it, plus a booming economy up till 2007 and rising fuel prices, the company couldn't help but pull in the customers.

Most of the improvements were subbed by taxpayers, with Virgin paying the state an agreed amount in the last two years of the franchise. Yet Branson and his shareholders could declare a cumulative net profit of £538m and trouser £499m in total dividends. No wonder some canny infants like to play with train sets.

[jet]

Didn't you claim you were centre leaning before? it doesn't look like it here.

Sorry to disappoint what you thought was a gleeful little finding. I'm neither a leftie or a rightie fanatic. I'm centre. Get it?

[jet]

Do you know what demographics are? Just because something is considered the best selling product doesn't mean it will be the best selling product across the board with all audiences and outlets. The demographic for Virgin trains obviously either doesn't buy Daily Mail or they bought it elsewhere and not on the train. Saying '_____ is the best selling item' doesn't automatically shut down an argument because it's not a true statement across the board. There's a few demographics that the Daily Mail has no hold with and if it's the case that most Virgin train users are apart of that demographic then it's only smart business sense to cater to your target audience, if sales are low because people buy their Daily Mail elsewhere then what is the point of wasting shelf space if your customers have bought the product elsewhere? It's not censorship, if the rail industry was still government owned then you might have an argument or if Daily Mail was completely banned on the train as well but this? This is a weak argument for censorship.

When did I say a private company has the right to do what they want? I said they have the right to choose what products they sell. Don't misrepresent my words to serve your warped argument. As for the Bakery stuff, I'm going to walk you through it since you don't understand what happened there and why it makes your attempt at a comparison so ridiculous.

A person walks into a bakery to order a cake, the bakery are like 'sure, that's fine, what's the specs?' He explains what the cake is for and they refuse him service because he is gay. This is not choosing what products to sell or not sell, this is denying someone service based on nothing more than their sexuality. That is discrimination. The Christian defence is dumb and insulting towards Christians. Did these bakers demand to know whether every child they made a birthday cake was conceived out of wedlock? I doubt it and I doubt the bakers would mind offering products that would have gone against the teachings of their religion because they pick and chose the parts of the religion to follow so they CHOSE to discriminate against a gay person. Nobody follows their religion to the letter, it's impossible so if someone chooses to use their religion to justify discriminating against someone then that is THEIR choice and the consequences of that choice are theirs' alone to deal with. Religion is not a shield for people who discriminate against others.
Trying to compare this with a retailer choosing not to sell a product is silly, tonedeaf and just beggars belief tbh. One of the most laughable comparisons I've seen in a long while.

Who is dictating what people can or cannot read on trains? How many times does it need saying that no one is stopping people from reading the Daily Mail? If the Daily Mail actually ****ing sold on these trains then they wouldn't have taken them off sale. Common sense SHOULD dictate that people either buy their copies elsewhere or the Virgin Train demographic simply doesn't care for that paper.

As for the whole taxpayer business....You are aware that the train industry is privatised, yes? The government sold it off years ago. You can't claim use the taxpayer line against a private company.

As for your last hysterically funny line, how has freedom of speech or democracy as a whole been affected by this incident? Can you explain that to me? I'm utterly fascinated to hear what you have to say on the matter.


Yeah, it's only the left leaning demographics who can afford those Branson fares.
Once again you have ignored the fact that Virgin clearly stated their reasons for withdrawing the DM was because they didn't agree with their views.
I believe this is the second time you have ignored this, which I bolded as an important point in my previous posts to you.
I find you smoke screen a lot and therefore are too frustrating to converse with, so your fascination will not be satisfied.

[Tom4784]

Sorry to disappoint what you thought was a gleeful little finding. I'm neither a leftie or a rightie fanatic. I'm centre. Get it?

Then why are you only going on about the left? Doesn't seem very centre to me.

Yeah, it's only the left leaning demographics who can afford those Branson fares.
Once again you have ignored the fact that Virgin clearly stated their reasons for withdrawing the DM was because they didn't agree with their views.
I believe this is the second time you have ignored this, which I bolded as an important point in my previous posts to you.
I find you smoke screen a lot and therefore are too frustrating to converse with, so your fascination will not be satisfied.

Again, you mention the left? It seems to me like you're not as centre as you think you are.

Figures speak louder than words or reasoning to me especially if the reasoning seems like spin to me that contradicts the figures.

As for the rest of the post, it basically reads as follows 'I made a silly comment making out that a shop not selling the Daily Mail is an attack on Freedom of Speech and Democracy and I've been asked to explain why and now I've realised I've ****ed up so I will try to find any reason I can to avoid answering the question.

also, if you're gonna go on about smokescreens and avoidance, I wouldn't go about it by ignoring all of my previous post just to focus on the last sentence, that makes you a hypocrite.

[Brillopad]

I think the difference is that one company ( Virgin) is choosing to renounce something that is associated with fascistic views and one ( the bakers) demanded the right to enforce their fascistic views, neither of which have a place in civilised modern society.

If you want to argue for the rights of people to be as fascistic as they want, go for it.

There is nothing civilised about the way you would shove your left-wing views down the throats of others and dictate free thought given half the chance. You are the fascist.

[Brillopad]

Then why are you only going on about the left? Doesn't seem very centre to me.



Again, you mention the left? It seems to me like you're not as centre as you think you are.

Figures speak louder than words or reasoning to me especially if the reasoning seems like spin to me that contradicts the figures.

As for the rest of the post, it basically reads as follows 'I made a silly comment making out that a shop not selling the Daily Mail is an attack on Freedom of Speech and Democracy and I've been asked to explain why and now I've realised I've ****ed up so I will try to find any reason I can to avoid answering the question.

also, if you're gonna go on about smokescreens and avoidance, I wouldn't go about it by ignoring all of my previous post just to focus on the last sentence, that makes you a hypocrite.

So now you want to dictate what part of your posts people respond to! :sleep:

[Ammi]

...I think for me the difference with this and the bakery situation as well is because the bakery were showing prejudice against individuals and there are laws to protect individuals, as there should be...individuals are ‘the little people’...going up against any organisation in having their voice heard isn’t something they can easily do so there are laws there to protect them and to be their voice for them...but this is taking a stand against a company...(..that’s not necessarily agreeing with Richard Branson because I think he’s being quite small minded and short sighted..)..but then he can just because he can...I can’t say for insance, I won’t serve you because it’s you and because I disapprove of you as a person for instance..but I can say, oh I won’t shop at Tesco because I disapprove of their ethics as a company....This concerns two companies, rather than individuals who are being show prejudice...a better analogy for me would be...I won’t deal with you as a company because because I believe your products are sourced unethically/you uphold sweat shop labour/ support cruelty to animals etc, so You go against my beliefs and it’s my right to not support your company etc etc...whatever opinions are of his decision and stance in this...so long as he’s not libellous or slanderous then he can do it becUse he can do it...and I guess because he’s felt something goes against his ethics so through his business and company he’s chosen not to support the Daily Mail....

[Shaun]

I'd have thought this is all a fuss over nothing when train stations more often than not have multiple shops that, presumably, stock the paper anyway :laugh: Don't think I've ever seen anyone buy a paper on a train.

[Northern Monkey]

If it was just about sales, then why the 'after listening to feedback from our people' quote about it, and why an announcement in the first place? Makes no sense to me. If its not selling, stop selling it. No need for a hooha unless its just for attention, which thinking about it whilst typing this, it probably is. Publicity stunt.

That’s a good point.Of course they have every right to stop selling it.They’re a private company.But why not......just stop selling it.Why make a political statement if it was because of sales figures

[Kizzy]

Yes, you want to stamp out anything and everything that doesn't tally with your leftie fanaticism. How tolerant and civilised.
I have news for you - the world is made up of all sorts and always will be. If you accepted that you might cheer up.

What like eugenicists? :smug:

[Crimson Dynamo]

I think the difference is that one company ( Virgin) is choosing to renounce something that is associated with fascistic views and one ( the bakers) demanded the right to enforce their fascistic views, neither of which have a place in civilised modern society.

If you want to argue for the rights of people to be as fascistic as they want, go for it.

and who decides what and what isnt "fascist"?


oh, its you


:skull:

[user104658]

Hmm. For my own stance, I actually don't feel any differently about the bakery situation.

I can't remember the exact specifics but my stance on it is, if they refused to sell someone a generic or advertised cake because that person is gay (or any other arbitrary reason) then they are breaking the law.

However, if they were simply refusing to make a CUSTOM cake then - while I personally think they are backwards and bigoted for doing so - yes I would still say that it is 100% their business if they want to say "No, we don't sell that / can't do that".

Saying "We don't sell that" is COMPLETELY different to saying "I will not sell something that we do sell to YOU, because of something about you."

Now again I will say that it would be perfectly just if everyone else decided not to shop at the bakery again and they went bust because of their decision... But that's their business decision to make.

Same goes for the trains. If Virgin loses money because of not selling the Daily Mail then that's the risk they decided to take. It's not censorship, or fascism, or anything of the sort and if DM readers believe that things like public transport providers should be forced to be politically neutral... Then they should probably stop supporting the party (the Tories) that sold them off to private entities in the first place, and continue to try to sell off everything else.

[Northern Monkey]

Hmm. For my own stance, I actually don't feel any differently about the bakery situation.

I can't remember the exact specifics but my stance on it is, if they refused to sell someone a generic or advertised cake because that person is gay (or any other arbitrary reason) then they are breaking the law.

However, if they were simply refusing to make a CUSTOM cake then - while I personally think they are backwards and bigoted for doing so - yes I would still say that it is 100% their business if they want to say "No, we don't sell that / can't do that".

Saying "We don't sell that" is COMPLETELY different to saying "I will not sell something that we do sell to YOU, because of something about you."

Now again I will say that it would be perfectly just if everyone else decided not to shop at the bakery again and they went bust because of their decision... But that's their business decision to make.
.
This was my take on it too.From what a remember of it the couple were apparently fairly regular customers.They weren’t refused service because they’re gay.They were just wanting a product that the bakery didn’t offer.If the bakery lost business because of their decision then it’s their own fault.

[jet]

Then why are you only going on about the left? Doesn't seem very centre to me.



Again, you mention the left? It seems to me like you're not as centre as you think you are.

Figures speak louder than words or reasoning to me especially if the reasoning seems like spin to me that contradicts the figures.

As for the rest of the post, it basically reads as follows 'I made a silly comment making out that a shop not selling the Daily Mail is an attack on Freedom of Speech and Democracy and I've been asked to explain why and now I've realised I've ****ed up so I will try to find any reason I can to avoid answering the question.

also, if you're gonna go on about smokescreens and avoidance, I wouldn't go about it by ignoring all of my previous post just to focus on the last sentence, that makes you a hypocrite.


:joker: Hilarious. You talking about yourself and not even copping it.
You are well known for your avoidance and smokescreens!
I always try to respond to any post as fully as I can, but by the time it got to your last post and your continuous avoidance tactics I simply couldn't be bothered.

[Tom4784]

So now you want to dictate what part of your posts people respond to! :sleep:

Do you actually have anything to add or?

[Tom4784]

:joker: Hilarious. You talking about yourself and not even copping it.
You are well known for your avoidance and smokescreens!
I always try to respond to any post as fully as I can, but by the time it got to your last post and your continuous avoidance tactics I simply couldn't be bothered.

I answered your question and you've avoided acknowledging it because you don't have an answer for what I said in my post so you're projecting everything on to me.

I answered your question, now respond to what I've said or admit you've lost the argument.

[Vicky.]

This was my take on it too.From what a remember of it the couple were apparently fairly regular customers.They weren’t refused service because they’re gay.They were just wanting a product that the bakery didn’t offer.If the bakery lost business because of their decision then it’s their own fault.

Was a while back, but I am fairly sure it was a custom cake, which the bakery did offer but they were not willing to put the message on, which was something (again from memory) about celebrating gay marriage..so it was the message they were asked to put on that they disagreed with, not that the customer was gay.

Seems daft though to refuse to put a message on a ****ing cake, just because you disagree with it.

[Northern Monkey]

Was a while back, but I am fairly sure it was a custom cake, which the bakery did offer but they were not willing to put the message on, which was something (again from memory) about celebrating gay marriage..so it was the message they were asked to put on that they disagreed with, not that the customer was gay.

Seems daft though to refuse to put a message on a ****ing cake, just because you disagree with it.

Yeah that was the product they didn’t offer...gay messages on cakes.
Up to them imo.They design the cakes.It’s their product.
Daft to us but if it’s against their religion then i think it’s wrong to force them into it.That’s religious discrimination.
Let the people vote with their wallets and not spend their cash in there anymore.

[Vicky.]

Just found the thread about it. Was a Bert and Ernie cake they wanted ( :laugh: ), with a message about gay marriage
http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7025032

If thats the same one

[jet]

I answered your question and you've avoided acknowledging it because you don't have an answer for what I said in my post so you're projecting everything on to me.

I answered your question, now respond to what I've said or admit you've lost the argument.

:umm2:

Giving out orders now are we?
No, twice you ignored the obvious in your replies to me and kept bleating on about how the DM wasn't selling before I decided it was pointless discussing with you. I even bolded the relevant part and asked why you were ignoring it and you responded with faff. You can't have a debate with someone who blocks out things they don't want to see. I am more than willing to respond to anything, but not with you any more. It's a waste of time.

[Tom4784]

:umm2:

Giving out orders now are we?
No, twice you ignored the obvious in your replies to me and kept bleating on about how the DM wasn't selling before I decided it was pointless discussing with you. I even bolded the relevant part and asked why you were ignoring it and you responded with faff. You can't have a debate with someone who blocks out things they don't want to see. I am more than willing to respond to anything, but not with you any more. It's a waste of time.

I've aswered your question, I don'care whether or not you liked the answer but now you are being a complete hypocrite by ignoring most of my posts just to bleat on about me not answering a question when I answered it hours ago. You cna't say I'm avoiding things when I answer your question and then go on to avoid what I've said.

You're just being a hypocrite now and it's fairly obvious that you can't respond to my own arguments which is why you are ignoring them. It's more dignified to admit defeat than it is to take the ball home in a strop.

[jet]

I've aswered your question, I don'care whether or not you liked the answer but now you are being a complete hypocrite by ignoring most of my posts just to bleat on about me not answering a question when I answered it hours ago. You cna't say I'm avoiding things when I answer your question and then go on to avoid what I've said.

You're just being a hypocrite now and it's fairly obvious that you can't respond to my own arguments which is why you are ignoring them. It's more dignified to admit defeat than it is to take the ball home in a strop.

A faffing one liner isn't an answer, but if you consider it is, then fine. You'll twist and turn every which way to avoid being thought of as wrong and Dezzy can NEVER be wrong. So I'll graciously concede defeat to please you. Happy now? :hehe:

[Tom4784]

A faffing one liner isn't an answer, but if you consider it is, then fine. You'll twist and turn every which way to avoid being thought of as wrong and Dezzy can NEVER be wrong. So I'll graciously concede defeat to please you. Happy now? :hehe:

This is a debate, Jet. If you think the answer I gave was 'faff' then explain why. Argue your points because... you know...it's a debate?

I'll argue my points, that's not 'twisting and turning' that's defending my opinions, you're just trying to spin the situation to degrade my argument because you can't argue against it.

[jet]

This is a debate, Jet. If you think the answer I gave was 'faff' then explain why. Argue your points because... you know...it's a debate?

I'll argue my points, that's not 'twisting and turning' that's defending my opinions, you're just trying to spin the situation to degrade my argument because you can't argue against it.

I am under no obligation to continue to debate with anyone who I feel is being continually evasive in regard to certain key points, which I have also experienced with you in previous debates, and that is why I ended my discussion with you.
You replied, accusing me of refusing to continue to debate because I didn't want to answer something you asked me or something I couldn't argue against or whatever. That's not true, but it seems you can't accept that. I know its 100% the truth, so that's okay with me.

I think we just don't gel at all as debating partners. I like to enjoy a debate to some extent, but I find you too frustrating, and perhaps you feel the same about me.
Lets leave it at that, eh?

[Tom4784]

I am under no obligation to continue to debate with anyone who I feel is being continually evasive in regard to certain key points, which I have also experienced with you in previous debates, and that is why I ended my discussion with you.
You replied, accusing me of refusing to continue to debate because I didn't want to answer something you asked me or something I couldn't argue against or whatever. That's not true, but it seems you can't accept that. I know its 100% the truth, so that's okay with me.

I think we just don't gel at all as debating partners. I like to enjoy a debate to some extent, but I find you too frustrating, and perhaps you feel the same about me.
Lets leave it at that, eh?

You can't keep playing the 'evasive' card pretty much a day after I gave you an answer. You're the one being evasive now because you declared my opinion invalid and now you won't explain why. All you've done is snipe at me and insult me while offering nothing of value in terms of the topic.

I'm going to keep pressing the issue because you are being so evasive about it. Explain why the answer I gave you is apparently invalid, this is a debate so defend yourself.

[jet]

You can't keep playing the 'evasive' card pretty much a day after I gave you an answer. You're the one being evasive now because you declared my opinion invalid and now you won't explain why. All you've done is snipe at me and insult me while offering nothing of value in terms of the topic.

I'm going to keep pressing the issue because you are being so evasive about it. Explain why the answer I gave you is apparently invalid, this is a debate so defend yourself.

Oh for goodness sake! Is it really that important to you?
Does this help:

You continuously referred to low sales of the DM as being the reason they stopped making them available on their trains and made no reference at all to the statement about withdrawing them because they didn't agree with the papers views.
I wrote several times in response to this:

Once again you have ignored the fact that Virgin clearly stated their reasons for withdrawing the DM was because they didn't agree with their views.
I believe this is the second time you have ignored this, which I bolded as an important point in my previous posts to you.
I find you smoke screen a lot and therefore are too frustrating to converse with.

Finally, you referred to this lack of response to Virgin withdrawing the papers because it was stated they didn't agree with their views by saying:

Figures speak louder than words or reasoning to me especially if the reasoning seems like spin to me that contradicts the figures.

That is the very epitome of faff to me and at that point I lost the will to carry on talking to you.

Now are you going to come back with more stuff or will you have mercy on me. :bored:

[Tom4784]

Oh for goodness sake! Is it really that important to you?
Does this help:

You continuously referred to low sales of the DM as being the reason they stopped making them available on their trains and made no reference at all to the statement about withdrawing them because they didn't agree with the papers views.
I wrote several times in response to this:



Finally, you referred to this lack of response to Virgin withdrawing the papers because it was stated they didn't agree with their views by saying:



That is the very epitome of faff to me and at that point I lost the will to carry on talking to you.

Now are you going to come back with more stuff or will you have mercy on me. :bored:

I'm allowed to respond Jet, I know the whole idea of freedom of speech being a two way street is such a bother to you but you're gonna have to deal with it.

What I said was true, figures almost always tell the truth, it's the reasoning that provides the spin and in this case I found the reasoning to be at odds with the figures they presented. If sales were that low then why would they need to defend their decision to axe it by saying that it didn't mesh well with their company's views? When they could have just said 'We're getting rid because it doesn't sell on our trains.' and left it at that.

When inconsistencies appear between reasoning and the figures and you have to choose one of them to believe then it's almost always wise to trust the figures themselves because companies can **** themselves over or open themselves up to legal action if they declare that they've sold a false number of a product. To me, the discrepancy is most likely down to poor PR strategy.

[Jamie89]

Virgin Trains to resume Daily Mail sales

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42687568

Richard Branson is saying he didn't know about the decision to stop selling it :unsure:

[bots]

Virgin Trains to resume Daily Mail sales

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42687568

Richard Branson is saying he didn't know about the decision to stop selling it :unsure:

i think someone has had their knuckles pounded with a brick

[Maru]

Virgin Trains to resume Daily Mail sales

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42687568

Richard Branson is saying he didn't know about the decision to stop selling it :unsure:

wtaf :laugh:

[joeysteele]

What a farce.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Common sense at last

A victory for freethinkers everywhere

[Brillopad]

Common sense at last

A victory for freethinkers everywhere

Indeed.

[Brillopad]

What a farce.

Nope - trying to control public choice was the farce.

[Withano]

Whiney righty snowflakes ruining everything tbh

[Vicky.]

Virgin Trains to resume Daily Mail sales

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42687568

Richard Branson is saying he didn't know about the decision to stop selling it :unsure:

How strange :laugh:

I think this has definitely been a PR stunt in this case now tbh. Just to get a bit of attention for Virgin and maybe even to get sales of the mail up as now people will make sure they buy them so that this does not happen again. bravo :D