That Harold Shipman – he was trained as a doctor, so therefore all medical training turns those who receive it into "vile" killers.

Similarly, working in construction turns everyone into a Fred West.

Looking after your dear old mum makes you a Kray.

Every school caretaker is a Huntley.

And so on.

* This post was brought to you courtesy of [iDaily Mail[/i logic.

Don't forget truck driving will also turn you into a prostitute-slashing serial killer

[size=30I wonder where I went wrong?[/size

Very true.

One could, of course, add that being an aristo obviously turns you into a nanny killer.

Working in a job centre makes you a Denis Nilson. Or perhaps that was because of his time in the Army?

What would I be in the eyes of The Daily Mail as I work for The British Library ?

By way of an experiement, I tuned into Vanessa Feltz's radio programme this morning and was pleasantly surprised that during the time I listened (around 40 minutes), not one person phoned, e-mailed or texted in favour of the Wail's vile headline.

No doubt there will be many complaints to the PCC but to what end? I cannot imagine a PCC committee chaired by Paul Dacre will find against the Wail and even if it did, what pathetic sanction would they impose?

[url=http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=librarian+killer&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=librarian+sentenced&oq=librarian+sentenced&gs_l=serp.3...15991.17221.1.17449.10.6.0.0.0.1.946.1967.2j0j2j1j6-1.6.0...0.0...1c.1.8.psy-ab.mKvmQLS1sgU&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44697112,d.d2k&fp=38b9ab6ba850cb5a&biw=1454&bih=1073Take your pick![/url

I pointed out, on the [iMail[/i's Facebook page, that a rag that profits from sexualising underage girls on its website has absolutely no right to comment on any moral matter. It's been 'liked' a fair few times.

And the comments seem to be mostly condemnatory of the headline. Apparently the leader is worse. I can't bring myself to check.

Just don't go down any aisles with me !!!

I'm surprised it's remained to be liked. No doubt some minimum-waged/non-waged intern, will be getting his/her ar[is[/ie kicked sometime soon

Possibly abused by editor Paul Dacre, the master of 'double c*nting' apparently – particularly in editorial meetings that have become known as 'The Vagina Monologues'. Family values, eh?

I don't think they care, to be honest.

It's just about hits on the website. Which is why I haven't provided a link here.

Okay, hits/profit – and ideology. And it's an ideology that, unless the rag in question really does contradict itself, sits entirely happily with describing an eight-year-old child as a "leggy beauty", having paid a paparazzi for pictures of the child in question leaving a gym class with her mother.

I suppose the Daily Mail reckon all Tory MP's are engaged in auto eroticism as well does it. Mind you, it would be nice if the likes of Gideon, Dave and that pr!ck Gove did a Milligan some time soon.

Wasn't it autoerotic asphyxiation that Milligan partook in with an orange in his mouth and a stocking over his head ?

Although one of our GP's is going down for an estimated 10 years plus at sentence today for over 40 sexual assualts on patients, some of which he filmed on a wrisch camera.
Thought the bloke was a complete c#$%, and that was before we found out about this.

It is a bit of a one-off though.

Think the orange incident was another Tory, Milligan had a cord around his neck for sure. Must be all that whipping and flogging they get at private schools.

Milligan had an orange segment in his mouth at the time of his death, according to the coroners report IIRC.

Same geezer.

The one (and thus far, only) time I've been able to yell: 'Hold the front page!'

Yes I was in no way suprised that that rag turned the news into a massive dig at the wellfare state.
They truly are slimy bottom feeding scum (And I don't use that word normally or lightly) just like their sister paper. The only difference is the the S** don't try and pass themselves off as a fair newspaper.

The [iSun[/i was a tad more controlled – it kept the comment to the leader. In the first edition, it said: "We hope he never sees freedom.

"Likewise, let's hope this is the last time the State unwittingly subsidises the manslaughter of children."

In the second edition: "We hope he never sees freedom.

"And let's hope this is the last time the State unwittingly subsidises a monster like Philpott."

TBH you can slightly see their point there as the state subsidising monsters isn't a good thing (Although how to stop it is another thing). At least they haven't just jumped in feet first and acted like scum at a feeding frenzy.

Well, the state would have to be able to work out which were the monsters and were not, to start with.

And since most parents receive child benefit, pensioners receive a state pension – and fuel payments etc – it's unlikely that the state would ever be able to stop this.

The key word, though, is the "subsidising", which neatly makes a quite specific link between benefits and people who commit crimes like this.

The whole Mail thing is factually flawed too. When Philpott tried to kill his former girlfriend, he was AWOL from the Army. Which rather suggests that he was not remotely a "product" of something that subsequent to that.

That must be literally the first time that has happened. Ever.

Which was why I stated that stopping it was another thing. Being honest I hadn't made the connection to subsidising that you had either.

The way I read it was if they could stop funding monsters they should but they can't (Because its impossible to know who is/isn't a monster) so they won't.
Anyone who knows me or has seen me post know I'm no lover of the S** or an anti wellfare state activist but I just didn't see it as you did on this score.

Anakin – I don't for a minute think you're a fan of the [iSun[/i: don't worry!

Bear in mind that, in effect, seeing the messages behind words is part of what I do for a living.

Fair enough but can I state that the readers of the said paper have (Being kind) the IQ of a slug.
Now with that being said is it at all possible that the message that you think is there isn't as even the S** isn't so stupid as to add a message that their own readers are too thick to pick up on.

It's the Mail, and you're surprised?

Take a look at Dally as to why you shouldn't be.


BTW, where is that particular example of reasoned though?