Of course it doesn't, the reason I brought religion into the equation is because the Mail did in the article - my entire point. In fact, it should be pointed out that there's as yet no evidence to suggest this man is of any faith - I've tried to research several articles but none of them specify whether he does or doesn't, so the Mail's decision to devote an entire section entitled 'NO LOO ROLL: HOW MUSLIMS, HINDUS AND OTHERS USE WATER WHEN THEY GO TO THE TOILET' is really quite unnecessary, no?

I am aware of the content of that section once you've read between the lines, but that subtitle is totally inflammatory, why not entitle it 'How Mr Chowdhury can't use culture as an excuse - here's how it works:' or words to that effect? Because they're trying to get their readers to go 'ewwww! So this is what they're all doing! They need to learn how to live like us!'.

Newspapers do not explicitly say things like that, they imply them and try to incite their readers to pick up on discreet messages in a bid to further their particular agenda. Just because it doesn't actually say 'this is yet another example of how these different religions and cultures are so disgusting and not like us', doesn't mean the meaning isn't there. All it takes is a little bit of objectivity and trying to assess how this story can be used to further a title's often well known editorial stance.

My view of the publication? You aren't serious, right? The Daily Mail is a well known fervent defender of British culture and its traditional, more conservative values. It is also not a huge fan of immigration, Islam or other non-Christian religions for that matter. This is not something I'm making up - it's well documented. Of course other titles have either similar or differing agendas - I'm not trying to deny that, supply me with an article from The Mirror or The Guardian and I'll show you how they're trying to push an anti-Tory, progressive, liberal agenda. I'm not being biased, just being objective. I am not passing judgement on the Mail's attempts at using this story to further their cause (though I do obviously have my opinions on it), merely pointing out that's what they're doing - because they are.

No, because the man himself said the reason he used the bottle was for a cultural reason.

Yes for a CULTURAL reason, which, as you said, is different from a religious reason. So if he didn't specify he's of any faith, why the inclusion of two religions in the subtitle and a whole section devoted to it?

Because the section explaining it is about a cultural etiquette, it's not just religious people who do those kinds of things.

Err... I can only assume that anyone who doesn't realise that this is the Mail "having a dig" at non-native-British ethnicities is being willfully blind.

And I can only assume someone who thinks every single story has no truth to it automatically because of a paper's political leanings is being wilfully stupid.

Where do you get off? I wasn't partaking in your angle on the discussion, which seems to be Mail, Mail, rant rant nothing new there so nothing to discuss as it's said on every thread with a Mail link. You decided to drag me into your discussion by quoting my post and telling me (and Kaz) that we had missed your point. No I didn't I just didn't acknowledge your point, now you are telling me I shouldn't be commenting at all because I didn't read the article in full, anything else I can do to make your stay more comfortable? :joker:

:joker:

:joker:

I thought not reading the Mail was something everyone should aspire to :laugh:

Whether the story is untrue, partially true, or entirely true has absolutely no bearing on the paper's motivations for posting it. Entirely irrelevant to their agenda.

So therefore irrelevant to this thread and the situation we're discussing.

According to...?

Ahh, TiBB, where an article is more controversial than someone using their hand to wipe a ****.

Yourself? You just said so in the post I quoted.

The truth or untruth of this article is irrelevant to the paper's agenda. This thread being about the article itself, the paper's overall agenda is of no relevance to discussing the truths of the man in this article. :hee:

When discussing a published article... the agenda, political leanings, and motivations of the publisher are irrelevant? Really, though? :shrug: I suppose I wished in a world this simple, it must involve a lot less stress. And... thought. Pesky old thought and analysis :fist:.

You yourself said it was irrelevant.

Pointing out the rather obvious political leanings of the Daily Mail isn't really adding anything new to the thread about this particular story.

:joker:

But the Daily Mail has an agenda!!! :rant:

The sky is blue!!!! :rant:

Ahh TiBB, where points are continuously missed and people's posts aren't bothered to be read and understood properly!

Exactly. So again, why include the names of two religions in the subtitle of that section?

Eh? Please direct me to the point in this thread where I've made any suggestion that this story isn't true? In actual fact I made two posts stating very clearly that this story is disgusting, the man should be prosecuted and that in pointing out what the Mail is using this story for, I'm not trying to absolve him of anything.

So where have I insinuated this story isn't true?

Err...yes you were:

I didn't drag you into anything, you decided to drag yourself into a discussion I was having with Vicky in a post that was quite obviously directed at me (although conveniently not quoted), so I responded.

You then said, and I quote, 'what the Mail is doing is neither here nor there', thereby entering yourself into the discussion regarding the article's intentions - so yes you did acknowledge my point, and really, partaking in a discussion about an article when you've not read said article is, well...uh...pointless?

Nah I understand your point completely. The daily mail is a pile of **** and I think the only fan of the DM on here is LT. But the fact that you're more bothered about the article than the fact that this person could have made some people really sick, says it all really.

Again, where the **** have I said I'm not bothered about the actions of this man? Said it's anything other than disgusting? Said that he shouldn't be prosecuted? People clearly don't bother reading threads because I've said the opposite of these things on several occasions :conf: highlighting how stories of this ilk are used to further the agenda of a national newspaper does not absolve anyone of anything, but is still important - especially when people start reciting the same messages in their posts

(as a side note, there are far more people than just LT on here that don't know or don't care what the Mail's about)

I agree with everything you have said. This article is a good representative sample of the Daily Mail. Welcome to the modern Britain. Like a new soap powder - it washes whiter than white..

All I can say is, you can't keep addressing peoples objections when those objections are not only disregarded but dismantled. If people are personally offended by your confidence, then be content with that.

Conveniently not quoted!, :umm2: because I wasn't addressing your point, hard for you to digest I know. You have an over inflated sense of your own importance, most of the time I don't read your posts

:clap2:

Welp how does a thread about someone wiping their arse with their bare hands have huge massive paragraphs of debate :worry:

Don't worry, I'm often in the minority on here but it doesn't and won't stop me pointing out and standing up for what's right. Thank you though, I'm glad someone agrees and I really appreciate you saying that

So do pray tell, what you were referring to when you said 'as usual this has turned into a "which is better" debate'? Because from the looks of things there wasn't any other discussion going on.

That's quite hilarious coming from you but sure :shrug: that makes two of us then, I tend to only read yours when you've quoted me...if only you'd have the decency to do the same before you do eh?

There you go Jack. Maybe you should read the thread, this is the post that prompted my comment :hee:

Bottom line is,he is a dirty, unclean bastard whatever culture ,creed or religion he is or follows !!!!

I only look at the DM for the celeb bikini shots

#letLTlive

What a load of ****

Indeed, hope he is banned from owning or working in kitchens for life if he thinks this behaviour is okay.:fist:

Cultural or not it's a grim practice :/

:joker: