Slashdot Mirror

"Hard to know whom to believe" is a fair comment, but the answer is very rarely "The Daily Mail".

It is a trashy tabloid that styles pretends it is a serious broadsheet. Pretty much a joke to most people in the UK.

http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/

Examples of their douchebaggery: http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/

I don't quite know why you are attacking him/her here. The Daily Mail is well known in the UK for being a lousy publication, regardless of political affilliation.

My father is a life long conservative party member and has read the Mail and Express on a regular basis for a good 15-20 years now. Even he laughs at how sensationalist and irrational many of the big headlines are - he continues to read it because the category of articles align with his interests and because it provides entertainment value, but not because it is a example of good journalism.

As for the GP "throwing in the word 'racist'", the phrase used was actually "borderline-racist", which you have dubiously cherry picked to emphasise your point. The way you explain afterwards that racism is inconsequential because everyone is a little bit racist indicates enough.

Every week on the front of the Daily Mail you will see a story about immigrants taking our jobs, banning the Burkha, muslims involved in benefit fraud etc. The link you were provided even has images of Daily Mail front page headlines to illustrate this, here's a little sample:

• Ban The Burkha Here In Britain
• UK Foreign Baby Boom - 1 in 4 Children Born To Immigrants
• Now Migrants Are Smuggled In Club Class
• Fanatic Freed To Spread Hate
• "It Was Just Like Being Whipped By The Taliban"
• "Terror Suspect Enjoys Tea At Country House"
• He Is A Fanatic Now Get Him Out Of Here
• £2 An Hour Migrant Workers
• Immigration: Britain Is To Blame
• Scandal As British Jobs Go To Immigrants
• Soft Touch Britain: Jobless Immigrants [get benefits]
• Families Must Sell Land For Gypsy Campsites

Is any of this explicitly racist? No. But the way they focus so intently on issues involving foreign workers, immigrants, Muslims, terror suspects, gyspies and all those other "undesirables" does indicate that they are in that borderline. After all, why all the focus on anything that isn't white and middle aged if there is no underlying racism involved? There are always other stories to sell, the tell is which ones are picked frequently.

Back to your assertion that everyone is a little bit racist. I don't disagree with that... studies have been done showing that most people do have a subconscious racial preference (newscientist magazine even has an article this week about ways to explore your brain, which mentions this and provides a link to some online tests to demonstrate). Just as people have subconscious preferences for almost any groups of things that can be categorised.

However, if you really believe that because you subconsciously have some slight preference for one race over another, it is ok to single out that lesser valued race and spread disingenuous stories about them, then I pity you. Not being a racist arsehole isn't about the much publicised extremes of political correctness, and it isn't about pretending you don't have a single shred of even benign bias for one race over the other, it's about consciously trying to treat people equally regardless of how they look and how your

I don't quite know why you are attacking him/her here. The Daily Mail is well known in the UK for being a lousy publication, regardless of political affilliation.

My father is a life long conservative party member and has read the Mail and Express on a regular basis for a good 15-20 years now. Even he laughs at how sensationalist and irrational many of the big headlines are - he continues to read it because the category of articles align with his interests and because it provides entertainment value, but not because it is a example of good journalism.

As for the GP "throwing in the word 'racist'", the phrase used was actually "borderline-racist", which you have dubiously cherry picked to emphasise your point. The way you explain afterwards that racism is inconsequential because everyone is a little bit racist indicates enough.

Every week on the front of the Daily Mail you will see a story about immigrants taking our jobs, banning the Burkha, muslims involved in benefit fraud etc. The link you were provided even has images of Daily Mail front page headlines to illustrate this, here's a little sample:

• Ban The Burkha Here In Britain
• UK Foreign Baby Boom - 1 in 4 Children Born To Immigrants
• Now Migrants Are Smuggled In Club Class
• Fanatic Freed To Spread Hate
• "It Was Just Like Being Whipped By The Taliban"
• "Terror Suspect Enjoys Tea At Country House"
• He Is A Fanatic Now Get Him Out Of Here
• £2 An Hour Migrant Workers
• Immigration: Britain Is To Blame
• Scandal As British Jobs Go To Immigrants
• Soft Touch Britain: Jobless Immigrants [get benefits]
• Families Must Sell Land For Gypsy Campsites

Is any of this explicitly racist? No. But the way they focus so intently on issues involving foreign workers, immigrants, Muslims, terror suspects, gyspies and all those other "undesirables" does indicate that they are in that borderline. After all, why all the focus on anything that isn't white and middle aged if there is no underlying racism involved? There are always other stories to sell, the tell is which ones are picked frequently.

Back to your assertion that everyone is a little bit racist. I don't disagree with that... studies have been done showing that most people do have a subconscious racial preference (newscientist magazine even has an article this week about ways to explore your brain, which mentions this and provides a link to some online tests to demonstrate). Just as people have subconscious preferences for almost any groups of things that can be categorised.

However, if you really believe that because you subconsciously have some slight preference for one race over another, it is ok to single out that lesser valued race and spread disingenuous stories about them, then I pity you. Not being a racist arsehole isn't about the much publicised extremes of political correctness, and it isn't about pretending you don't have a single shred of even benign bias for one race over the other, it's about consciously trying to treat people equally regardless of how they look and how your

I don't quite know why you are attacking him/her here. The Daily Mail is well known in the UK for being a lousy publication, regardless of political affilliation.

My father is a life long conservative party member and has read the Mail and Express on a regular basis for a good 15-20 years now. Even he laughs at how sensationalist and irrational many of the big headlines are - he continues to read it because the category of articles align with his interests and because it provides entertainment value, but not because it is a example of good journalism.

As for the GP "throwing in the word 'racist'", the phrase used was actually "borderline-racist", which you have dubiously cherry picked to emphasise your point. The way you explain afterwards that racism is inconsequential because everyone is a little bit racist indicates enough.

Every week on the front of the Daily Mail you will see a story about immigrants taking our jobs, banning the Burkha, muslims involved in benefit fraud etc. The link you were provided even has images of Daily Mail front page headlines to illustrate this, here's a little sample:

• Ban The Burkha Here In Britain
• UK Foreign Baby Boom - 1 in 4 Children Born To Immigrants
• Now Migrants Are Smuggled In Club Class
• Fanatic Freed To Spread Hate
• "It Was Just Like Being Whipped By The Taliban"
• "Terror Suspect Enjoys Tea At Country House"
• He Is A Fanatic Now Get Him Out Of Here
• £2 An Hour Migrant Workers
• Immigration: Britain Is To Blame
• Scandal As British Jobs Go To Immigrants
• Soft Touch Britain: Jobless Immigrants [get benefits]
• Families Must Sell Land For Gypsy Campsites

Is any of this explicitly racist? No. But the way they focus so intently on issues involving foreign workers, immigrants, Muslims, terror suspects, gyspies and all those other "undesirables" does indicate that they are in that borderline. After all, why all the focus on anything that isn't white and middle aged if there is no underlying racism involved? There are always other stories to sell, the tell is which ones are picked frequently.

Back to your assertion that everyone is a little bit racist. I don't disagree with that... studies have been done showing that most people do have a subconscious racial preference (newscientist magazine even has an article this week about ways to explore your brain, which mentions this and provides a link to some online tests to demonstrate). Just as people have subconscious preferences for almost any groups of things that can be categorised.

However, if you really believe that because you subconsciously have some slight preference for one race over another, it is ok to single out that lesser valued race and spread disingenuous stories about them, then I pity you. Not being a racist arsehole isn't about the much publicised extremes of political correctness, and it isn't about pretending you don't have a single shred of even benign bias for one race over the other, it's about consciously trying to treat people equally regardless of how they look and how your

I don't quite know why you are attacking him/her here. The Daily Mail is well known in the UK for being a lousy publication, regardless of political affilliation.

My father is a life long conservative party member and has read the Mail and Express on a regular basis for a good 15-20 years now. Even he laughs at how sensationalist and irrational many of the big headlines are - he continues to read it because the category of articles align with his interests and because it provides entertainment value, but not because it is a example of good journalism.

As for the GP "throwing in the word 'racist'", the phrase used was actually "borderline-racist", which you have dubiously cherry picked to emphasise your point. The way you explain afterwards that racism is inconsequential because everyone is a little bit racist indicates enough.

Every week on the front of the Daily Mail you will see a story about immigrants taking our jobs, banning the Burkha, muslims involved in benefit fraud etc. The link you were provided even has images of Daily Mail front page headlines to illustrate this, here's a little sample:

• Ban The Burkha Here In Britain
• UK Foreign Baby Boom - 1 in 4 Children Born To Immigrants
• Now Migrants Are Smuggled In Club Class
• Fanatic Freed To Spread Hate
• "It Was Just Like Being Whipped By The Taliban"
• "Terror Suspect Enjoys Tea At Country House"
• He Is A Fanatic Now Get Him Out Of Here
• £2 An Hour Migrant Workers
• Immigration: Britain Is To Blame
• Scandal As British Jobs Go To Immigrants
• Soft Touch Britain: Jobless Immigrants [get benefits]
• Families Must Sell Land For Gypsy Campsites

Is any of this explicitly racist? No. But the way they focus so intently on issues involving foreign workers, immigrants, Muslims, terror suspects, gyspies and all those other "undesirables" does indicate that they are in that borderline. After all, why all the focus on anything that isn't white and middle aged if there is no underlying racism involved? There are always other stories to sell, the tell is which ones are picked frequently.

Back to your assertion that everyone is a little bit racist. I don't disagree with that... studies have been done showing that most people do have a subconscious racial preference (newscientist magazine even has an article this week about ways to explore your brain, which mentions this and provides a link to some online tests to demonstrate). Just as people have subconscious preferences for almost any groups of things that can be categorised.

However, if you really believe that because you subconsciously have some slight preference for one race over another, it is ok to single out that lesser valued race and spread disingenuous stories about them, then I pity you. Not being a racist arsehole isn't about the much publicised extremes of political correctness, and it isn't about pretending you don't have a single shred of even benign bias for one race over the other, it's about consciously trying to treat people equally regardless of how they look and how your

I don't quite know why you are attacking him/her here. The Daily Mail is well known in the UK for being a lousy publication, regardless of political affilliation.

My father is a life long conservative party member and has read the Mail and Express on a regular basis for a good 15-20 years now. Even he laughs at how sensationalist and irrational many of the big headlines are - he continues to read it because the category of articles align with his interests and because it provides entertainment value, but not because it is a example of good journalism.

As for the GP "throwing in the word 'racist'", the phrase used was actually "borderline-racist", which you have dubiously cherry picked to emphasise your point. The way you explain afterwards that racism is inconsequential because everyone is a little bit racist indicates enough.

Every week on the front of the Daily Mail you will see a story about immigrants taking our jobs, banning the Burkha, muslims involved in benefit fraud etc. The link you were provided even has images of Daily Mail front page headlines to illustrate this, here's a little sample:

• Ban The Burkha Here In Britain
• UK Foreign Baby Boom - 1 in 4 Children Born To Immigrants
• Now Migrants Are Smuggled In Club Class
• Fanatic Freed To Spread Hate
• "It Was Just Like Being Whipped By The Taliban"
• "Terror Suspect Enjoys Tea At Country House"
• He Is A Fanatic Now Get Him Out Of Here
• £2 An Hour Migrant Workers
• Immigration: Britain Is To Blame
• Scandal As British Jobs Go To Immigrants
• Soft Touch Britain: Jobless Immigrants [get benefits]
• Families Must Sell Land For Gypsy Campsites

Is any of this explicitly racist? No. But the way they focus so intently on issues involving foreign workers, immigrants, Muslims, terror suspects, gyspies and all those other "undesirables" does indicate that they are in that borderline. After all, why all the focus on anything that isn't white and middle aged if there is no underlying racism involved? There are always other stories to sell, the tell is which ones are picked frequently.

Back to your assertion that everyone is a little bit racist. I don't disagree with that... studies have been done showing that most people do have a subconscious racial preference (newscientist magazine even has an article this week about ways to explore your brain, which mentions this and provides a link to some online tests to demonstrate). Just as people have subconscious preferences for almost any groups of things that can be categorised.

However, if you really believe that because you subconsciously have some slight preference for one race over another, it is ok to single out that lesser valued race and spread disingenuous stories about them, then I pity you. Not being a racist arsehole isn't about the much publicised extremes of political correctness, and it isn't about pretending you don't have a single shred of even benign bias for one race over the other, it's about consciously trying to treat people equally regardless of how they look and how your

I don't quite know why you are attacking him/her here. The Daily Mail is well known in the UK for being a lousy publication, regardless of political affilliation.

My father is a life long conservative party member and has read the Mail and Express on a regular basis for a good 15-20 years now. Even he laughs at how sensationalist and irrational many of the big headlines are - he continues to read it because the category of articles align with his interests and because it provides entertainment value, but not because it is a example of good journalism.

As for the GP "throwing in the word 'racist'", the phrase used was actually "borderline-racist", which you have dubiously cherry picked to emphasise your point. The way you explain afterwards that racism is inconsequential because everyone is a little bit racist indicates enough.

Every week on the front of the Daily Mail you will see a story about immigrants taking our jobs, banning the Burkha, muslims involved in benefit fraud etc. The link you were provided even has images of Daily Mail front page headlines to illustrate this, here's a little sample:

• Ban The Burkha Here In Britain
• UK Foreign Baby Boom - 1 in 4 Children Born To Immigrants
• Now Migrants Are Smuggled In Club Class
• Fanatic Freed To Spread Hate
• "It Was Just Like Being Whipped By The Taliban"
• "Terror Suspect Enjoys Tea At Country House"
• He Is A Fanatic Now Get Him Out Of Here
• £2 An Hour Migrant Workers
• Immigration: Britain Is To Blame
• Scandal As British Jobs Go To Immigrants
• Soft Touch Britain: Jobless Immigrants [get benefits]
• Families Must Sell Land For Gypsy Campsites

Is any of this explicitly racist? No. But the way they focus so intently on issues involving foreign workers, immigrants, Muslims, terror suspects, gyspies and all those other "undesirables" does indicate that they are in that borderline. After all, why all the focus on anything that isn't white and middle aged if there is no underlying racism involved? There are always other stories to sell, the tell is which ones are picked frequently.

Back to your assertion that everyone is a little bit racist. I don't disagree with that... studies have been done showing that most people do have a subconscious racial preference (newscientist magazine even has an article this week about ways to explore your brain, which mentions this and provides a link to some online tests to demonstrate). Just as people have subconscious preferences for almost any groups of things that can be categorised.

However, if you really believe that because you subconsciously have some slight preference for one race over another, it is ok to single out that lesser valued race and spread disingenuous stories about them, then I pity you. Not being a racist arsehole isn't about the much publicised extremes of political correctness, and it isn't about pretending you don't have a single shred of even benign bias for one race over the other, it's about consciously trying to treat people equally regardless of how they look and how your

I don't quite know why you are attacking him/her here. The Daily Mail is well known in the UK for being a lousy publication, regardless of political affilliation.

My father is a life long conservative party member and has read the Mail and Express on a regular basis for a good 15-20 years now. Even he laughs at how sensationalist and irrational many of the big headlines are - he continues to read it because the category of articles align with his interests and because it provides entertainment value, but not because it is a example of good journalism.

As for the GP "throwing in the word 'racist'", the phrase used was actually "borderline-racist", which you have dubiously cherry picked to emphasise your point. The way you explain afterwards that racism is inconsequential because everyone is a little bit racist indicates enough.

Every week on the front of the Daily Mail you will see a story about immigrants taking our jobs, banning the Burkha, muslims involved in benefit fraud etc. The link you were provided even has images of Daily Mail front page headlines to illustrate this, here's a little sample:

• Ban The Burkha Here In Britain
• UK Foreign Baby Boom - 1 in 4 Children Born To Immigrants
• Now Migrants Are Smuggled In Club Class
• Fanatic Freed To Spread Hate
• "It Was Just Like Being Whipped By The Taliban"
• "Terror Suspect Enjoys Tea At Country House"
• He Is A Fanatic Now Get Him Out Of Here
• £2 An Hour Migrant Workers
• Immigration: Britain Is To Blame
• Scandal As British Jobs Go To Immigrants
• Soft Touch Britain: Jobless Immigrants [get benefits]
• Families Must Sell Land For Gypsy Campsites

Is any of this explicitly racist? No. But the way they focus so intently on issues involving foreign workers, immigrants, Muslims, terror suspects, gyspies and all those other "undesirables" does indicate that they are in that borderline. After all, why all the focus on anything that isn't white and middle aged if there is no underlying racism involved? There are always other stories to sell, the tell is which ones are picked frequently.

Back to your assertion that everyone is a little bit racist. I don't disagree with that... studies have been done showing that most people do have a subconscious racial preference (newscientist magazine even has an article this week about ways to explore your brain, which mentions this and provides a link to some online tests to demonstrate). Just as people have subconscious preferences for almost any groups of things that can be categorised.

However, if you really believe that because you subconsciously have some slight preference for one race over another, it is ok to single out that lesser valued race and spread disingenuous stories about them, then I pity you. Not being a racist arsehole isn't about the much publicised extremes of political correctness, and it isn't about pretending you don't have a single shred of even benign bias for one race over the other, it's about consciously trying to treat people equally regardless of how they look and how your

I don't quite know why you are attacking him/her here. The Daily Mail is well known in the UK for being a lousy publication, regardless of political affilliation.

My father is a life long conservative party member and has read the Mail and Express on a regular basis for a good 15-20 years now. Even he laughs at how sensationalist and irrational many of the big headlines are - he continues to read it because the category of articles align with his interests and because it provides entertainment value, but not because it is a example of good journalism.

As for the GP "throwing in the word 'racist'", the phrase used was actually "borderline-racist", which you have dubiously cherry picked to emphasise your point. The way you explain afterwards that racism is inconsequential because everyone is a little bit racist indicates enough.

Every week on the front of the Daily Mail you will see a story about immigrants taking our jobs, banning the Burkha, muslims involved in benefit fraud etc. The link you were provided even has images of Daily Mail front page headlines to illustrate this, here's a little sample:

• Ban The Burkha Here In Britain
• UK Foreign Baby Boom - 1 in 4 Children Born To Immigrants
• Now Migrants Are Smuggled In Club Class
• Fanatic Freed To Spread Hate
• "It Was Just Like Being Whipped By The Taliban"
• "Terror Suspect Enjoys Tea At Country House"
• He Is A Fanatic Now Get Him Out Of Here
• £2 An Hour Migrant Workers
• Immigration: Britain Is To Blame
• Scandal As British Jobs Go To Immigrants
• Soft Touch Britain: Jobless Immigrants [get benefits]
• Families Must Sell Land For Gypsy Campsites

Is any of this explicitly racist? No. But the way they focus so intently on issues involving foreign workers, immigrants, Muslims, terror suspects, gyspies and all those other "undesirables" does indicate that they are in that borderline. After all, why all the focus on anything that isn't white and middle aged if there is no underlying racism involved? There are always other stories to sell, the tell is which ones are picked frequently.

Back to your assertion that everyone is a little bit racist. I don't disagree with that... studies have been done showing that most people do have a subconscious racial preference (newscientist magazine even has an article this week about ways to explore your brain, which mentions this and provides a link to some online tests to demonstrate). Just as people have subconscious preferences for almost any groups of things that can be categorised.

However, if you really believe that because you subconsciously have some slight preference for one race over another, it is ok to single out that lesser valued race and spread disingenuous stories about them, then I pity you. Not being a racist arsehole isn't about the much publicised extremes of political correctness, and it isn't about pretending you don't have a single shred of even benign bias for one race over the other, it's about consciously trying to treat people equally regardless of how they look and how your

I don't quite know why you are attacking him/her here. The Daily Mail is well known in the UK for being a lousy publication, regardless of political affilliation.

My father is a life long conservative party member and has read the Mail and Express on a regular basis for a good 15-20 years now. Even he laughs at how sensationalist and irrational many of the big headlines are - he continues to read it because the category of articles align with his interests and because it provides entertainment value, but not because it is a example of good journalism.

As for the GP "throwing in the word 'racist'", the phrase used was actually "borderline-racist", which you have dubiously cherry picked to emphasise your point. The way you explain afterwards that racism is inconsequential because everyone is a little bit racist indicates enough.

Every week on the front of the Daily Mail you will see a story about immigrants taking our jobs, banning the Burkha, muslims involved in benefit fraud etc. The link you were provided even has images of Daily Mail front page headlines to illustrate this, here's a little sample:

• Ban The Burkha Here In Britain
• UK Foreign Baby Boom - 1 in 4 Children Born To Immigrants
• Now Migrants Are Smuggled In Club Class
• Fanatic Freed To Spread Hate
• "It Was Just Like Being Whipped By The Taliban"
• "Terror Suspect Enjoys Tea At Country House"
• He Is A Fanatic Now Get Him Out Of Here
• £2 An Hour Migrant Workers
• Immigration: Britain Is To Blame
• Scandal As British Jobs Go To Immigrants
• Soft Touch Britain: Jobless Immigrants [get benefits]
• Families Must Sell Land For Gypsy Campsites

Is any of this explicitly racist? No. But the way they focus so intently on issues involving foreign workers, immigrants, Muslims, terror suspects, gyspies and all those other "undesirables" does indicate that they are in that borderline. After all, why all the focus on anything that isn't white and middle aged if there is no underlying racism involved? There are always other stories to sell, the tell is which ones are picked frequently.

Back to your assertion that everyone is a little bit racist. I don't disagree with that... studies have been done showing that most people do have a subconscious racial preference (newscientist magazine even has an article this week about ways to explore your brain, which mentions this and provides a link to some online tests to demonstrate). Just as people have subconscious preferences for almost any groups of things that can be categorised.

However, if you really believe that because you subconsciously have some slight preference for one race over another, it is ok to single out that lesser valued race and spread disingenuous stories about them, then I pity you. Not being a racist arsehole isn't about the much publicised extremes of political correctness, and it isn't about pretending you don't have a single shred of even benign bias for one race over the other, it's about consciously trying to treat people equally regardless of how they look and how your

I don't quite know why you are attacking him/her here. The Daily Mail is well known in the UK for being a lousy publication, regardless of political affilliation.

My father is a life long conservative party member and has read the Mail and Express on a regular basis for a good 15-20 years now. Even he laughs at how sensationalist and irrational many of the big headlines are - he continues to read it because the category of articles align with his interests and because it provides entertainment value, but not because it is a example of good journalism.

As for the GP "throwing in the word 'racist'", the phrase used was actually "borderline-racist", which you have dubiously cherry picked to emphasise your point. The way you explain afterwards that racism is inconsequential because everyone is a little bit racist indicates enough.

Every week on the front of the Daily Mail you will see a story about immigrants taking our jobs, banning the Burkha, muslims involved in benefit fraud etc. The link you were provided even has images of Daily Mail front page headlines to illustrate this, here's a little sample:

• Ban The Burkha Here In Britain
• UK Foreign Baby Boom - 1 in 4 Children Born To Immigrants
• Now Migrants Are Smuggled In Club Class
• Fanatic Freed To Spread Hate
• "It Was Just Like Being Whipped By The Taliban"
• "Terror Suspect Enjoys Tea At Country House"
• He Is A Fanatic Now Get Him Out Of Here
• £2 An Hour Migrant Workers
• Immigration: Britain Is To Blame
• Scandal As British Jobs Go To Immigrants
• Soft Touch Britain: Jobless Immigrants [get benefits]
• Families Must Sell Land For Gypsy Campsites

Is any of this explicitly racist? No. But the way they focus so intently on issues involving foreign workers, immigrants, Muslims, terror suspects, gyspies and all those other "undesirables" does indicate that they are in that borderline. After all, why all the focus on anything that isn't white and middle aged if there is no underlying racism involved? There are always other stories to sell, the tell is which ones are picked frequently.

Back to your assertion that everyone is a little bit racist. I don't disagree with that... studies have been done showing that most people do have a subconscious racial preference (newscientist magazine even has an article this week about ways to explore your brain, which mentions this and provides a link to some online tests to demonstrate). Just as people have subconscious preferences for almost any groups of things that can be categorised.

However, if you really believe that because you subconsciously have some slight preference for one race over another, it is ok to single out that lesser valued race and spread disingenuous stories about them, then I pity you. Not being a racist arsehole isn't about the much publicised extremes of political correctness, and it isn't about pretending you don't have a single shred of even benign bias for one race over the other, it's about consciously trying to treat people equally regardless of how they look and how your

I don't quite know why you are attacking him/her here. The Daily Mail is well known in the UK for being a lousy publication, regardless of political affilliation.

My father is a life long conservative party member and has read the Mail and Express on a regular basis for a good 15-20 years now. Even he laughs at how sensationalist and irrational many of the big headlines are - he continues to read it because the category of articles align with his interests and because it provides entertainment value, but not because it is a example of good journalism.

As for the GP "throwing in the word 'racist'", the phrase used was actually "borderline-racist", which you have dubiously cherry picked to emphasise your point. The way you explain afterwards that racism is inconsequential because everyone is a little bit racist indicates enough.

Every week on the front of the Daily Mail you will see a story about immigrants taking our jobs, banning the Burkha, muslims involved in benefit fraud etc. The link you were provided even has images of Daily Mail front page headlines to illustrate this, here's a little sample:

• Ban The Burkha Here In Britain
• UK Foreign Baby Boom - 1 in 4 Children Born To Immigrants
• Now Migrants Are Smuggled In Club Class
• Fanatic Freed To Spread Hate
• "It Was Just Like Being Whipped By The Taliban"
• "Terror Suspect Enjoys Tea At Country House"
• He Is A Fanatic Now Get Him Out Of Here
• £2 An Hour Migrant Workers
• Immigration: Britain Is To Blame
• Scandal As British Jobs Go To Immigrants
• Soft Touch Britain: Jobless Immigrants [get benefits]
• Families Must Sell Land For Gypsy Campsites

Is any of this explicitly racist? No. But the way they focus so intently on issues involving foreign workers, immigrants, Muslims, terror suspects, gyspies and all those other "undesirables" does indicate that they are in that borderline. After all, why all the focus on anything that isn't white and middle aged if there is no underlying racism involved? There are always other stories to sell, the tell is which ones are picked frequently.

Back to your assertion that everyone is a little bit racist. I don't disagree with that... studies have been done showing that most people do have a subconscious racial preference (newscientist magazine even has an article this week about ways to explore your brain, which mentions this and provides a link to some online tests to demonstrate). Just as people have subconscious preferences for almost any groups of things that can be categorised.

However, if you really believe that because you subconsciously have some slight preference for one race over another, it is ok to single out that lesser valued race and spread disingenuous stories about them, then I pity you. Not being a racist arsehole isn't about the much publicised extremes of political correctness, and it isn't about pretending you don't have a single shred of even benign bias for one race over the other, it's about consciously trying to treat people equally regardless of how they look and how your

I don't quite know why you are attacking him/her here. The Daily Mail is well known in the UK for being a lousy publication, regardless of political affilliation.

My father is a life long conservative party member and has read the Mail and Express on a regular basis for a good 15-20 years now. Even he laughs at how sensationalist and irrational many of the big headlines are - he continues to read it because the category of articles align with his interests and because it provides entertainment value, but not because it is a example of good journalism.

As for the GP "throwing in the word 'racist'", the phrase used was actually "borderline-racist", which you have dubiously cherry picked to emphasise your point. The way you explain afterwards that racism is inconsequential because everyone is a little bit racist indicates enough.

Every week on the front of the Daily Mail you will see a story about immigrants taking our jobs, banning the Burkha, muslims involved in benefit fraud etc. The link you were provided even has images of Daily Mail front page headlines to illustrate this, here's a little sample:

• Ban The Burkha Here In Britain
• UK Foreign Baby Boom - 1 in 4 Children Born To Immigrants
• Now Migrants Are Smuggled In Club Class
• Fanatic Freed To Spread Hate
• "It Was Just Like Being Whipped By The Taliban"
• "Terror Suspect Enjoys Tea At Country House"
• He Is A Fanatic Now Get Him Out Of Here
• £2 An Hour Migrant Workers
• Immigration: Britain Is To Blame
• Scandal As British Jobs Go To Immigrants
• Soft Touch Britain: Jobless Immigrants [get benefits]
• Families Must Sell Land For Gypsy Campsites

Is any of this explicitly racist? No. But the way they focus so intently on issues involving foreign workers, immigrants, Muslims, terror suspects, gyspies and all those other "undesirables" does indicate that they are in that borderline. After all, why all the focus on anything that isn't white and middle aged if there is no underlying racism involved? There are always other stories to sell, the tell is which ones are picked frequently.

Back to your assertion that everyone is a little bit racist. I don't disagree with that... studies have been done showing that most people do have a subconscious racial preference (newscientist magazine even has an article this week about ways to explore your brain, which mentions this and provides a link to some online tests to demonstrate). Just as people have subconscious preferences for almost any groups of things that can be categorised.

However, if you really believe that because you subconsciously have some slight preference for one race over another, it is ok to single out that lesser valued race and spread disingenuous stories about them, then I pity you. Not being a racist arsehole isn't about the much publicised extremes of political correctness, and it isn't about pretending you don't have a single shred of even benign bias for one race over the other, it's about consciously trying to treat people equally regardless of how they look and how your

For the love of jebus, ignore the Daily/Sunday Express just as much as the Daily/Sunday Mail. They are terrible, borderline-racist, reactionary publications with a fixation on Big Brother (Orwell, not the terribe reality show) and 'foreign types stealing our jobs'.

There's a site dedicated to the terrible nature of these publications, which is well worth a read, if only for a giggle.

Some?
http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/

At least the Sun doesn't even pretend to try and the Mirror would be half decent if it wasn't so pro-Labour in it's political stance. Even the Express is better quality than the Mail, despite it's Diana fixation. Name a worse tabloid.

Well, let's take a look.

They've consistently reported anti-BBC headlines in the past and were largely responsible in bringing up the Sachsgate scandal from a mere bad-taste joke to an issue that led to the resignation of two senior members of the BBC and a suspension of the third.

The problems go deeper than that, however. I point you to Mail Watch, a website which does well to expose the figure massaging, lazy journalism and (at times) utter lies of the Mail's journalists and editors. For example, they recently ran a story about how a 'hacker had infiltrated a Home Office' web site when, in reality, an external site linked to from the Home Office's web site had had its domain registration expire and bought up by speculators, who hosted some dodgy images on there. It also overstates immigration figures, and employs Richard Littlejohn, who is a cunt.

They also pander to their audiences regularly: for example, they have been caught campaigning both for AND against the HPV (cervical cancer) vaccine in different nations.

In short, even though the idea of a 'search engine tax' is laughable, the Daily Mail is in no way deserving of your trust. Q.E.D.

Well, let's take a look.

They've consistently reported anti-BBC headlines in the past and were largely responsible in bringing up the Sachsgate scandal from a mere bad-taste joke to an issue that led to the resignation of two senior members of the BBC and a suspension of the third.

The problems go deeper than that, however. I point you to Mail Watch, a website which does well to expose the figure massaging, lazy journalism and (at times) utter lies of the Mail's journalists and editors. For example, they recently ran a story about how a 'hacker had infiltrated a Home Office' web site when, in reality, an external site linked to from the Home Office's web site had had its domain registration expire and bought up by speculators, who hosted some dodgy images on there. It also overstates immigration figures, and employs Richard Littlejohn, who is a cunt.

They also pander to their audiences regularly: for example, they have been caught campaigning both for AND against the HPV (cervical cancer) vaccine in different nations.

In short, even though the idea of a 'search engine tax' is laughable, the Daily Mail is in no way deserving of your trust. Q.E.D.

Actually, I'm a Guardian reader. But I do enjoy Mail Watch.

I just don't buy the argument that limiting freedoms increases freedom.

There's something else we need to consider here. We're talking about a story that came from The Daily Mail, a news source as reliably inaccurate as any other supermarket tabloid.

I suspect The Daily Mail writers did their usual bang-up job in the storyroom: found a half-truth, made the rest up. They noticed iPods are manufactured in China and made the rest up.

Until this story is reported in a news source (the Daily Mail being that other thing, a FUD source), it's not worth debating.