Daily Mail Sinks to New Lows

Lo and behold, a person who opposes teaching children not to beat their partners because it is "indoctrination" yet supports the Christian nature of this country and various other BNP policies.

Oh well, fascists aren't often known for intellectual coherency.

I don't think I'm twisting it, I think it's a fairly hysterically-written piece trying to link what the government is doing to promote "healthy, non-violent relationships" (that is all this article is based on, after all) to Harriet Harman and a proposed feminist agenda to repress men.

But she has been widely criticised for her supposedly "anti-men" views before. She has particularly been targeted by outsider pressure groups such as Fathers 4 Justice (I believe two members protested from the roof of her house). Not only that, but she has admitted herself that she "could never be Prime Minister" due to the number of men who would "flee" the country.

So the Mail have written nothing new and outrageous here.
And I cant speak for other women. But I wouldnt want my very young son learning about domestic violence at school. That would be my job. As his mother, I am in the position to tell him what is socially and morally acceptable. Considering so many kids cant spell or write adequately, I'd be far more concerned with that.

I don't support the Christian nature of this country. Anyone who knows me knows I'm an atheist, but I'm not ignorant enough to dismiss the fact that the country is built on Christian principles, values and customs, and that Christian institutions have had a phenomenal impact on British society. I don't think any form of indoctrination is good when it concerns children as young as five. It's on par with child abuse. It's the issue of age more than anything else.

Hold on a flinging-flanging moment.

The Daily Mail is questioning whether or not actually bringing such lessons into the classroom is controversial, not the physical act of beating a woman.
Writers of the Daily Mail, being human, already know that attacking women is unacceptable. They are, however, opposing to such ideals being taught in schools.
And I agree with them. It shouldn't be taught in schools. We should be focusing on getting pupils to read and write competently and solve even the most basic of sums.
Lessons on relationships and social conduct should be kept at home and amongst family and peers.

You left-wingers make me giggle. There's nothing wrong with this article. But being wishy-washy liberals you'll take it out of context, twist it and make it something its not - because it comes from a conservative, or right-winged source.

Really? Because they consistently run stories claiming that the vast majority of rape allegations are acts of vengance by bitter women/part of some feminist conspiracy. Through this irrational denail they reinforce the view that violence against women is not an important issue.

The Mail hates women. Just like it hates gays, blacks, immigrants, or indeed any form of foreigner. No point denying it. Besides their readership agree with you about 'wishy washy liberals' so would probably accept my accusation of bigotry and wear it with pride.

EDIT: Plus their 'femail' magazine/webpage is just utter misogyny.

Hold on a flinging-flanging moment.

The Daily Mail is questioning whether or not actually bringing such lessons into the classroom is controversial, not the physical act of beating a woman.
Writers of the Daily Mail, being human, already know that attacking women is unacceptable. They are, however, opposing to such ideals being taught in schools.
And I agree with them. It shouldn't be taught in schools. We should be focusing on getting pupils to read and write competently and solve even the most basic of sums.
Lessons on relationships and social conduct should be kept at home and amongst family and peers.
You left-wingers make me giggle. There's nothing wrong with this article. But being wishy-washy liberals you'll take it out of context, twist it and make it something its not - because it comes from a conservative, or right-winged source.

Well, it's not really just that, is it?

The stated point of the report is to reduce violent against women. I put it to you that it would be hard to teach children about non-violent relationships, in the setting of reducing violence against women, without reference to the alternative. That is rather an understatement, in fact.
We are talking about teaching children about wife beating, it's as simple as that.

Now, whether you regard that as wrong is another matter.

Domestic violence is wrong everybody should know that. Teaching it to 5 year olds is stupid. You want to tell them about rape and murder too so you can't tell them not to do it.

And why is the emphasis on boys beating girls. I know that it's more common than girls beating boys but that happens too and is just as severe and horrific as the other way around.

If you're teaching about domestic violence cover ALL of it.

That is a rather striking and absurd comment to make so I'll ask you to back that up with sources.

which is why the proposal is for ''educating children and young people about healthy, nonviolent relationships''.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1201418/Liars-rape-strike-heart-justice-system.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1202911/Calais-migrant-cried-rape-revenge-people-smuggler-failed-to-Britain.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198088/Woman-cried-rape-date-man-met-internet-chatroom-jailed-year.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199909/Man-cleared-rape-sues-accuser-300-000.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1186202/The-rape-lies-ruined-lives-Taxi-driver-wife-reveal-devastating-cost-drunk-teenager-cried-rape.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197118/Mother-falsely-accused-husband-rape-wanted-life.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1163642/I-blame-Ulrika-Jonsson-speaks-date-rape.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1184989/Court-rules-taxi-driver-falsely-accused-rape-receive-compensation-legal-first.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056570/My-rape-hell-Wrongly-accused-man-tells-11-month-nightmare.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1051174/When-rape-case-court-Helen-Mirren.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168295/It-happened--I-wrongly-jailed-rape.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1039281/Wicked-woman-ruined-marriage-crying-rape-jailed-months.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1045954/PETER-HITCHENS-How-Left-censored-blindingly-obvious-truth-rape.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050583/Jail-Wren-cried-rape-seducing-lover.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1049854/X-Factor-girl-false-rape-claim-ex-fiance-walks-free-court.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1044160/Dont-blind-drunk-women-rape-bear-responsibility-happens-them.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1046530/Woman-jailed-making-false-rape-claim-family-row-night-out.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-450374/Two-months-girl-rape-lie-ruined-cabbies-life.html

These are all found from 2 pages of typing 'rape' or 'cry rape' on the Mail's search function. (Although there are over 150 pages of such articles).

All of these articles fail to mention the actual known facts about rape: http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=599 (including the crucial point that the police believe that only around 3% of rape complainants are lying).

The irrational populism of the Mail does however lead them to write a few articles about the injustices faced by rape victims.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191938/Conviction-lottery-fails-rape-victims-Just-14-attackers-guilty.html

Perhaps these failings can be explained, in part, through the fact that the Mail is a very widely read newspaper and so its implicit view that rape allegations are very often 'life-destroying lies' is very much within the public consiousness.