[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

The Guardian is centrist.

[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

[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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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.

[Kizzy]

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

[jaxie]

Who asked the rail service to choose what people read?

Strange censorship.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jaxie

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]

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[Withano]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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]

Originally Posted by Withano

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.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by jet

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.

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.

[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 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/commenti...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/...-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... 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.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by jet

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

This is Branson, the great right wing detractor:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...n-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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jet

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?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.