The Daily Mail’s
legendarily foul mouthed editor tried, and
failed, to turn his paper’s faux outrage
over Channel 4’s Big Fat Quiz Of The Year
2012 into a second Sachsgate. But Paul
Dacre’s inner boiling anger is never stilled: the Mail has now turned to mounting a series of hatchet jobs on the
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) instead.
Why? Because I f***ing can, c***
This typically slanted and mean spirited campaign of
falsehood and misinformation reached its zenith on Saturday with “Why
did the RSPCA shoot dead more than 40 sheep in a grisly dockside massacre? Mail
investigates horrific slaughter of animals unloaded from French lorry”.
The RSPCA responded
by calling the piece “utterly inaccurate”
and noting that it was not the first Mail
smear of them.
The campaign by the Dacre attack doggies started after the
RSPCA led a
successful prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt: those accused of “unlawfully hunting a wild fox with dogs”
pleaded guilty. A video presented to the court showed hounds being encouraged
to go after the fox, which was then literally torn apart. But there was another
angle: one of the accused claimed the Heythrop was being picked on.
Why so? Well, Young Dave has ridden with this hunt, and once
the suggestion of unfair interference had been made, it was not a long journey
to reach the assertion that the RSPCA had become some kind of vehicle for
political interference. And the Mail
thrives on smearing organisations using claims of politicisation, so the
attack on the RSPCA began in earnest.
“Revealed:
RSPCA destroys HALF of the animals that it rescues - yet thousands are
completely healthy” screamed the headline as the agenda – that the
charity should keep its nose out of prosecutions and stick to whatever the Mail deems is properly charitable stuff –
was relentlessly driven home. In support were obedient pundits like the odious
Quentin Letts (let’s not).
Letts span the behaviour of the Heythrop Hunt as
some kind of rather minor affair – they had merely “erred”, he asserted. “Has one
of Britain’s oldest and most-cherished charities become a branch office of the
London legal profession, and a highly politicised one at that?” he asked
readers, in the style of Fox News Channel (fair and balanced my arse).
And Dacre knows that other media outlets will ride on the Mail’s coat tails – this
from the Telegraph is typical –
and thus amplify his campaign. But what is its point? If the RSPCA does not mount
prosecutions against those who perpetrate cruelty to animals, then what is its point? One thing is for sure, there
will be more of this, especially now the charity has cried foul. That will just
fire the Mail up for more.
The moral world of
Paul Dacre must be a truly miserable place to be right now.
5 comments:
Attacking the RSPCA is pretty risky for the Mail. I imagine there's a considerable crossover between it's readership and RSPCA supporters.
Keep it up Paul some of us knew this and have waited 20 years for this expose'
The name "e-vigilante" is an anonymous fraud. Thought you'd like to know.
Well said Tim. This shameful D M 'article' is a pathetic attempt at journalism, hardly any facts just inaccuracies & lies. Disturbing too that people believe this rubbish.
The Times were trying, unsuccessfully, to discredit Brian May because of his campaign against the badger cull, then last week The Telegraph were having a go at the RSPCA, for goodness sake, how predictable that the D M had to join in.
Because as far as the DM is concerned, it should stick to shaking collecting tins and looking after photogenic puppies and kittens. Nothing controversial, nothing that asks difficult questions in the shires...
Post a Comment