Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Yug wrote: ↑Wed Jan 14, 2026 11:52 am Opinion piece in the Grauniad

When crowds direct offensive chants at Keir Starmer, who’s to blame? I’m afraid he is

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ir-starmer

Actually, no. Starmer isn't to blame. It's the cunts in the news media, including this rag, who aren't doing their jobs. Newspapers are supposed to be informing their readers. Publishing speculation as though it were fact, ignoring positive things the government is doing, and just shit-stirring in general isn't informing people. It's the opposite, and I never expected to see a time when the Guardian became as bad as the Daily fucking Mail. But here we are. It's quite shocking to see that the Tory-leaning Yorkshire Post is more even-handed and grown up than the Polanski Propaganda Rag.

Newspaper journalism in the UK is just about dead.

Jonathan Liew is a Guardian columnist

Yes. He is. It's painfully obvious that he is when you've just read a pile of shite which, apart from the good spelling and grammar, wouldn't be out of place in the S*n.

I remember thinking it was a bit unfair on Corbyn when they roped in the art critic to have a go at him. Now they've got the sports bloke.

The Guardian is awful now. Polanski propaganda rag isn't far off, though it's also incredibly soft on the Lib Dems too (it's apparently still beyond them to phone up one of the people on Bluesky who will explain to them that, no, there isn't a £25bn annual boost that the EU is waiting to hand the UK while it stays out of the Single Market (which Davey's red line on freedom of movement rules out, same as Starmer's and Corbyn's (2017) did).

I couldn't face reading the article, but on the subject of wealth taxes (which tax economists seem to me not to favour on the whole) I see from comments that they got George Monbiot in to tell everyone that the objections from said experts were "excuses".

And today, it's Susie Orbach (who is surely due retirement) on weight loss drugs,

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... lp-1-drugs

Weight-loss drugs do nothing to address the troubled relationships we have with our bodies

The food, beauty and pharmaceutical industries poison our self-image. GLP-1 drugs will only make them richer – and strengthen the hold they have over u

I took them not because of "body image". I took the because I was my weight was making me a higher diabetes risk and I had high blood pressure. I wouldn't have got the prescription if I hadn't had those conditions.

Now, I've put some weight back on. I might in time put it all back on. But in the meantime, I've felt better, and the blood pressure is way down. That's surely positive?

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Jan 18, 2026 11:05 am The Guardian is awful now. Polanski propaganda rag isn't far off, though it's also incredibly soft on the Lib Dems too (it's apparently still beyond them to phone up one of the people on Bluesky who will explain to them that, no, there isn't a £25bn annual boost that the EU is waiting to hand the UK while it stays out of the Single Market (which Davey's red line on freedom of movement rules out, same as Starmer's and Corbyn's (2017) did).

I couldn't face reading the article, but on the subject of wealth taxes (which tax economists seem to me not to favour on the whole) I see from comments that they got George Monbiot in to tell everyone that the objections from said experts were "excuses".

And today, it's Susie Orbach (who is surely due retirement) on weight loss drugs,

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... lp-1-drugs

Weight-loss drugs do nothing to address the troubled relationships we have with our bodies

The food, beauty and pharmaceutical industries poison our self-image. GLP-1 drugs will only make them richer – and strengthen the hold they have over u

I took them not because of "body image". I took the because I was my weight was making me a higher diabetes risk and I had high blood pressure. I wouldn't have got the prescription if I hadn't had those conditions.

Now, I've put some weight back on. I might in time put it all back on. But in the meantime, I've felt better, and the blood pressure is way down. That's surely positive?

Hardly surprising, coming from the author of Fat Is A Feminist Issue. In response to the latter bit of your post - I'm on the tablets and just recently, my figures have got worse WRT my diabetes but I know why: it's that my depression/anxiety has got worse this last few months and food has always been my crutch. Yes, I put half the weight I lost back on too. Things ain't good here, I have to say.

As for the earlier bit of your post: The Guardian leaning towards Polanski's populism and Cuddly Ed because of his "just rejoin" stance comes as no surprise: it comes across as aimed at liberal metropolitans who drive to their local Free Trade organic supermarket in their electric SUV and tut as they step over the homeless by the doorway. Real-life versions of Malcolm and Cressida*, if you will.

*Andy will know to whom I'm referring.

I'd have cited the middle class fascist couple from Absolutely myself.

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Sun Jan 18, 2026 11:49 am I'd have cited the middle class fascist couple from Absolutely myself.

I'd forgotten them, but I did reply "Get to Swansea!" at my sister the other day as they're having a break there...

Boiler wrote: ↑Sun Jan 18, 2026 11:41 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Jan 18, 2026 11:05 am The Guardian is awful now. Polanski propaganda rag isn't far off, though it's also incredibly soft on the Lib Dems too (it's apparently still beyond them to phone up one of the people on Bluesky who will explain to them that, no, there isn't a £25bn annual boost that the EU is waiting to hand the UK while it stays out of the Single Market (which Davey's red line on freedom of movement rules out, same as Starmer's and Corbyn's (2017) did).

I couldn't face reading the article, but on the subject of wealth taxes (which tax economists seem to me not to favour on the whole) I see from comments that they got George Monbiot in to tell everyone that the objections from said experts were "excuses".

And today, it's Susie Orbach (who is surely due retirement) on weight loss drugs,

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... lp-1-drugs

Weight-loss drugs do nothing to address the troubled relationships we have with our bodies

The food, beauty and pharmaceutical industries poison our self-image. GLP-1 drugs will only make them richer – and strengthen the hold they have over u

I took them not because of "body image". I took the because I was my weight was making me a higher diabetes risk and I had high blood pressure. I wouldn't have got the prescription if I hadn't had those conditions.

Now, I've put some weight back on. I might in time put it all back on. But in the meantime, I've felt better, and the blood pressure is way down. That's surely positive?

Hardly surprising, coming from the author of Fat Is A Feminist Issue. In response to the latter bit of your post - I'm on the tablets and just recently, my figures have got worse WRT my diabetes but I know why: it's that my depression/anxiety has got worse this last few months and food has always been my crutch. Yes, I put half the weight I lost back on too. Things ain't good here, I have to say.

I'm very sorry to hear that. I had lots of tiredness that might have been a problem for someone busier than me, but otherwise positive.

A serious appraisal article would be very welcome. What wasn't was somebody writing the same article they have for donkeys years in that Guardian "the real issues" style they have. Not to say she's wrong about these things, but if you're writing about weight loss drugs, write about them. I don't even understand how you'd get prescribed them because of body image anyway.

Here's another for the "real issues" (ie what the speaker wants to talk about anyway).

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -southport

Southport attack
Response to 2024 summer riots failed to address root causes and links to racism, report says

Government culpable for only banging up violent criminals, and not stopping scumbags from having scumbag thoughts.

The report, by criminologist Dr Jon Burnett, studied a sample of court cases related to the riots. He found that the Conservative prime minister Rishi Sunak’s “stop the boats” slogan and the policy framework around it, which he said was continued by Labour when they took power, “was repeatedly echoed (either by defendants or by broader mobilisations they were among)”.

Other defendants echoed dominant narratives that the state had not gone far enough, accusing the government of aiding and abetting an “invasion”, Burnett wrote.

The idea that any of these people are picking up signals from Starmer is frankly preposterous. He'd literally been PM for 5 minutes when they kicked off. All he'd done then was stop Rwanda and that barge. The only signal they could have got from him at that stage was that he was massively opposed to them, not that he agreed with them. And that's what the second quote seems to be saying. The root causes, if you want to put it like that, I don't think that's always useful, is horrible people being shitheads, urged on by other horrible people. In those terms, the Government's effort to clear "hotels" and reduce "boats" seems like about all it can do.

There's no point trying to reason with the flag shaggers over migration, because for them it's a visceral issue. Quote all the stats and case studies you like - they won't care. The only level of nuance you'll get is "how quickly can we get them out?", rather than any discussion of the rights, wrongs and other complexities.

You can do what's morally right, but why would we expect that to be the same thing as dealing with root causes of people setting hotels on fire? The assumption with some commentary seems to be that it is. The assumption of the government is that it does whatever it takes (within the ECHR) to reduce numbers and the salience of the issue. I don't find the Government's position any more "deluded" than the implication that these people would go away if the Government spent its time defending the Refugee Convention.

I'm not demeaning people who want to make moral arguments when I say this. In practical terms, they might have worked better with Labour's electoral coalition than what it's doing. But I think it's a mistake to think they make immoral people go away.