Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
I would assume they are trying to inflame passions and increase readership - why let facts get in the way of a good story...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99
But isn't it more sinister than that? Here we have a British court making a judgement on British law and the right media, who have readerships of many millions, come out with these extreme positions.
Troubling times ..
|
It's not entirely new though. The Mail especially has long had an issue with what they perceive as a liberal, activist, judiciary that rides roughshod over the will of the people. It also fits into their general disdain for elites. The vilification of the judges in this case is right up their street because it's so easily spun as these 'unacceptable judges' dismissing 'the people' even though that isn't what the case was about.
It will be interesting to read if Private Eye has anything about the internal deliberations on that headline and if Darce ordered it himself dismissing any objections.
---------- Post added at 17:23 ---------- Previous post was at 17:17 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
I wouldn't want to be over dramatic but some of those headlines could have sparked some civil unrest given the ignorance of some of the readers.I could imagine quite a few stoodents getting all worked up after reading them
|
Most students hate those papers though.
I think the headlines were very irresponsible, borderline dangerous. There seems to be an increasing willingness to undermine democratic institutions for little gain. If you forget for a moment the issue about Parliament vs the Crown the idea the judiciary should be accountable to the people rather than the law is disturbing.