[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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by jet

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.

Originally Posted by jet

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]

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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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!

[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 Don't think I've ever seen anyone buy a paper on a train.

[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]

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?

[Crimson Dynamo]

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.

and who decides what and what isnt "fascist"?


oh, its you

[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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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

Do you actually have anything to add or?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

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.]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

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.