How reputable/reliable is the Guardian?

[stappard]

guardian is the traditional left/liberal centered UK newspaper. the times uk is the tory/conservative soapbox. the evening standard tend to run down the middle.

not really true considering that this years election was the first in many years that the times have supported the tories.

[feral witchchild]

This is the article I originally posted. The things described in this are so heinously fucked up that I sincerely wanted one of you to tell me that this was sensationalist tripe. Kind of naive on my part in retrospect, but I really can't deal with the fact that this kind of shit is a part of our collective reality.

[danoldboy]

That is grim to say the least.

[magma]

Wow, that's really fucking horrible.

[ketamine]

What'd I miss??

[firky]

Like every paper it does not exist to inform people of the news but to sell adverts that it's demographic readership (ABers in this case), it's one of the better papers but it's a bit of a middle-class liberal rag, that's why the term 'guardian reader' is a disparaging term used to describe po-faced pseudo-liberals. There's been some truely horrific articles in the guardian that were with the best of intentions.

[the acid never lies]

guardian is the traditional left/liberal centered UK newspaper. the times uk is the tory/conservative soapbox. the evening standard tend to run down the middle.

not really true considering that this years election was the first in many years that the times have supported the tories.

I'd say they did so unintentionally by supporting the Lib Dems - perhaps the Guardian is more traditionally 'liberal' (small state, economic + social liberalism) than it is 'left' (in the sense of collective ownership)

[ketamine]

Again... WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL POST?

[collige]

This is the article I originally posted. The things described in this are so heinously fucked up that I sincerely wanted one of you to tell me that this was sensationalist tripe. Kind of naive on my part in retrospect, but I really can't deal with the fact that this kind of shit is a part of our collective reality.

Jesus christ..........

[helix]

Again... WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL POST?

This is the article I originally posted. The things described in this are so heinously fucked up that I sincerely wanted one of you to tell me that this was sensationalist tripe. Kind of naive on my part in retrospect, but I really can't deal with the fact that this kind of shit is a part of our collective reality.

[ketamine]

Wish I hadn't asked...

[64hz]

Again... WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL POST?

just read the thread mate...

This is the article I originally posted. The things described in this are so heinously fucked up that I sincerely wanted one of you to tell me that this was sensationalist tripe. Kind of naive on my part in retrospect, but I really can't deal with the fact that this kind of shit is a part of our collective reality.

[ketamine]

As a side question, I wonder if the detectives who have to confiscate and watch hours of that stuff eventually wind up secretly enticed by it...

[ahier]

looks like the original post was in the observer, not the guardian. i know there is some connection between them but not really sure what it is

oh i just checked, turns out its just the sunday version

anyway, i imagine there was a fair amount of truth in that article, though around the time of publishing there was a lot of media hype about paedophilia, so i imagine they snapped up a chance to give a new take on it.
i jus googled, found another article about it, http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europ ... rome.porn/ but really there isnt very much info about.

[symmetricalsounds]

As a side question, I wonder if the detectives who have to confiscate and watch hours of that stuff eventually wind up secretly enticed by it...

or if they are just screwed up fuckers to start with and purposefully request that position.

[ahier]

As a side question, I wonder if the detectives who have to confiscate and watch hours of that stuff eventually wind up secretly enticed by it...

or if they are just screwed up fuckers to start with and purposefully request that position.

or if they jus want to stop people from doing despicable things and are willing to sacrifice their own ignorance and break moral boundaries to do that? i know i couldnt do it but im glad there are people who can, im sure they dont jus lt anyone wander in and view them

[symmetricalsounds]

As a side question, I wonder if the detectives who have to confiscate and watch hours of that stuff eventually wind up secretly enticed by it...

or if they are just screwed up fuckers to start with and purposefully request that position.

or if they jus want to stop people from doing despicable things and are willing to sacrifice their own ignorance and break moral boundaries to do that? i know i couldnt do it but im glad there are people who can, im sure they dont jus lt anyone wander in and view them

well given how many police officers are bit screwed up to start with i wouldn't be surprised at all.

[ahier]

As a side question, I wonder if the detectives who have to confiscate and watch hours of that stuff eventually wind up secretly enticed by it...

or if they are just screwed up fuckers to start with and purposefully request that position.

or if they jus want to stop people from doing despicable things and are willing to sacrifice their own ignorance and break moral boundaries to do that? i know i couldnt do it but im glad there are people who can, im sure they dont jus lt anyone wander in and view them

well given how many police officers are bit screwed up to start with i wouldn't be surprised at all.

well there is that, but id rather give them the benefit of the doubt when they are dealing with such serious issues. call it too trusting but if you got too paranoid about it nothing would get solved. id rather there was police doing this than police running around arresting kids for smoking weed or breaking play parks

[feral witchchild]

As a side question, I wonder if the detectives who have to confiscate and watch hours of that stuff eventually wind up secretly enticed by it...

I think most people have enough of a moral core to not be enticed by that kind of thing, but who knows. :/

[magma]

guardian is the traditional left/liberal centered UK newspaper. the times uk is the tory/conservative soapbox. the evening standard tend to run down the middle.

not really true considering that this years election was the first in many years that the times have supported the tories.

I'd say they did so unintentionally by supporting the Lib Dems - perhaps the Guardian is more traditionally 'liberal' (small state, economic + social liberalism) than it is 'left' (in the sense of collective ownership)

They did explain themselves at the time... it was pretty much the combined anti-Tory plus PR argument, but they advised tactical voting for Labour against Tory opponents. I'd say they were pretty much flagbearers for the Rainbow Coalition which never came to be.