The Daily Mail: ‘Are we sorry we backed the Nazis?’

Steve Bell is on top form in today's Guardian, and his latest cartoon requires no further comment from me.

Steve Bell is on top form in today’s Guardian, and his latest cartoon requires no further comment from me.

20 Responses to “The Daily Mail: ‘Are we sorry we backed the Nazis?’”

  1. Alec

    It does require more comment from you, James. For instance, are you highlighting the man’s deeply pedestrian mindset and inability to take any criticism, or do you think it’s reasonable?

    If the former, great! If the latter, ungreat. The 1930s took place, wait for it, between 84 and 75 years ago. The bloke in the left of the picture is as dead as that squirrel, and has been for 74 years… his son and grandson are also dead. On the other hand, the individuals currently being discussed for their morally crippled decisions still are alive and in positions of influence, and demonstrating a singular inability to accept that maybe just maybe they may have done something wrong.

    The use of the term “buggery”, given the active story, is particularly distasteful.

    ~alec

  2. Highgatecemetry

    The Mail has a historic record for lies and distasteful alliances, In the 20s they were responsible for the Zinoviev letter which was a lie. The have variously supported Mussolini, Hitler, Franco and Apartheid. I’m buggered if I’d buy the steaming pile of ordure

    .

  3. John

    I confess I do. Makes a great backup if the toilet paper runs out, and my cat loves it. Fortunately he can’t read.

  4. swatnan

    There’s no need to join the Tories in the gutter.

  5. Selohesra

    Corporate & collective guilt are very different from individual guilt – should we really still be blaming the Germans for the National Socialists?

  6. Alec

    … and? Even if that’s the case, so the hell what? It has nothing to do with the price of cheese. Even Harman now admits the DM had a point.

    If something’s right or wrong, you should be able to defend or refute it on its own term. That you, the OPed author and the deeply, deeply unfunny Bell are doing everything you can type or scribble to deflect attention from the morally crapulent decisions by Harmen et al. shows that not so deep down you jolly well know it’s a disgrace.

    The DM, for instance, believes that the rape packs targeting vulnerable girls in large English cities are filth. Based on your obscene whataboutery, you would do everything to deny them the point/

    ~alec

  7. BenM_Kent

    “Even Harman now admits the DM had a point.”
    Does she? Where?

  8. Alec

    Here, even if she doesn’t quite grasp the concept that she ever should be expected to justify herself. Histrionics about smear jobs have changed to “regrets” at the historical situation… just as Millipede has whittered that she is someone of high integrity… I don’t consider anyone who can’t see the problem with having helped normalize predatory paedophiles to have that much integrity, but hey she’s Labour.

    Oh, look, Michael Gove has a funny face!

    ~alec

  9. Cole

    Sadly, there’s not much evidence that the Nail’s mindset has moved on much…

  10. Cole

    Oh come on. The Harman thing is just another Mail anti-Labour smear. No doubt there will be more of them in the run-up to the general election. That’s what they’ve been doing for decades.

  11. Alec

    No it’s not and no I won’t.

    Harman, you and a lot of others have badly misjudged this. Most people – even those who disagree with the DM’s editorial position – feel a sense of revulsion at dirty old men eying up young boys, and would leave any organization which didn’t cast them aside with great force.

    ~alec

  12. blarg1987

    Let’s clarify what is going on here:

    My understanding is that the whole Harman affair is to do with the fact she was in an organisation (not the leader of or could dictate policy) that had another organisation associated with it that wanted the laws changed to justify things that the vast majority of people would agree are distateful and wrong.

    What one has to be careful of is once you open the floodgates you may indirectly imply yourself. For example you may have shares in your pension fund that are invested in a company that droped a bomb on a house that killed an innocent family. Does that mean by association you should bear some responsibility for something that is partially out of your control?

    What the Guardian is rightly picking up on is the double standards of the Daily Mail, yes it is right for the Mail to pick up the story, however they are in an untenable position to claim to be protective of children, when they do have a certain habit of writing articles and displaying people under the age of 16 in a certain manner which is morally wrong.

    If they truly want to set the standard on the Harman story then they should atone for previous articles and set the example. They should not be pointing one finger when they have four others pointing back at them.

  13. rob

    Well put

  14. robertcp

    It is terrible and amazing that PIE was involved with NCCL and this seems to be the view of its successor organisation.

  15. David John Moore

    smart man well put

  16. Alec

    What the Guardian is rightly picking up on is the double standards of the Daily Mail,

    Bell is most definitely not doing that. Doing that would involve referring to, say, contemporary inclusion of adolescent girls on Daily Mail pages. This has zero relevance to the topic being discussed and serves only as a foil to shut down the outrageous abuse of press power… daring to criticize a Labour grandee in ways he and others were cock-a-hoop when they thought they were going to out a Tory grandee as a child abuser (the difference being, that was utterly false and the charges here are undeniably accurate).

    Atonement only can be offered by those who actually committed the deed. The Daily Mail has nothing to atone for regarding their 1930s editorial position, any more than the likes of the Peace Pledge Union for their newsletter’s more-than-objectively pro-Nazi position at the same time. It has gone through several changes of ownership and editorial control.

    (Bringing-up Rothermere and Hitler was tendentious even when it ran on Ralph Miliband. Now, bringing-up their more recent praise of Marine le Pen, and Dacre’s father who worked out the Second World War on the theatre front was another matter.)

    And the tasteless audacity of chortling about being buggered.

    As for Harman, she was the organization’s legal officer… she should know all about collective responsibility from her Cabinet days. For the record I don’t think she was thinking about it too hard. Her type had other things on her mind… using it as a career move within Labour Party structures. Well, that works both
    ways. If they want to take the kudos of holding a certain trendy position, they damn well should take the flack when it goes pear shaped.

    ~alec

  17. blarg1987

    It is relevent as it is pointing out the Daily Mail can say and do what it wants and does nto need to apologise for anything (which is relevent as my comment above).

    “Atonement only can be offered by those who actually committed the deed.”
    Again the Daily Mail has commited the deed, with many recent articles depiciting people undert the age of sexual consent in a sexually suggestive manner, this is something it shuld apologise for,

    “As for Harman, she was the organization’s legal officer… she should know
    all about collective responsibility from her Cabinet days.”
    She was a legal officer before she becomae a cabinet minister, if you are referring that she should take collective responsibility now, then by that logic should Kenn Clark, Lord Tebbit, Lord Haseltine all take collective responsibility for being in the cabinet that allowed a rumoured pedophile (which now is shown to be an actual pedophile) to share chrismas with the then sitting PM, the same lofgic applies to both cases.

  18. Alec

    Even Patricia Hewitt disagrees with you!

    Sniveling cowards, the lot of them.

    ~alec

  19. Blarg1987

    She isn’t as she is taking personal responsbility for her part in the whole affair. Note she defended Harman in the article different from collective responsliability you alluded to earlier. She did not say other people should apologise so my point is still valid.

  20. guest

    “The DM, for instance, believes that the rape packs targeting vulnerable girls in large English cities are filth.”
    And so they are, but the hypocritical DM also encourages them with its titillating pictures of young girls in scanty clothes.

Leave a Reply