Worst thing ever in the Daily Mail. Fact.
Whatever you may think of the Daily Mail - and it's fair to say that I think they're a bunch of reactionary cunts - it's often said that theirs is one of the best newspapers in terms of quality. Their writers are hailed as incisive and witty. Sure, you may not agree with them, people say, but they certainly do deliver the goods.
Time to blow that myth out of the water.
This tagnut of writing, this arsemaggot of shitness by Andrew Roberts, is the single worst thing I have ever read anywhere ever. Clumsy to the point of ineptitude, it heralds its supposedly hilarious digs at New Labour with all the subtlety of the Charge of the Light Brigade, and with similar success at finding the target.
Poorly written, appallingly structured and badly proofread, here is the evidence that destroys the myth of the Mail as a quality paper. No, it's crystal clear: come up with some shit attacking Labour - specifically chortling at their similarity to Soviet Russia and taking a swipe at the BBC in the process - and you will find yourself in their pages, regardless of the atrociously pisspoor quality, regardless of your abilities, regardless of the fact you're a total and utter wingnut bastard of the highest order.
No related posts.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on Peter Hitchens depresses me. But I won’t kill him.
- Emily on Update
- Angela Webb on This isn’t a flounce
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
January 4th, 2009 - 16:03
It’s like something from Conservapedia.
January 4th, 2009 - 16:40
This leading historian even spelled “Katyusha” wrong. Twice, for God’s sake.
Still, Chairman Scargill, Mail readers banged up in Swindon gulag and Damian Green shot as a traitor?
What went wrong?
January 5th, 2009 - 23:15
Considering the fact that if there had been a war the Soviets would have nuked us and not invaded and that therefore our defences would have been overwhelmed regardless of their state of disrepair, the whole point was moot in any event. The only point of having nukes was that we could have taken a good percentage of Russians with us; pretending anything else is pointless.
July 6th, 2010 - 13:59
Very late to be leaving a comment but this article by Roberts makes zero sense at all. Purely from a military perspective its abject nonsense.
13 aircraft carriers carrying MiG fighters? The Soviet and Russian Navy has never had 13 carriers in total in its entire history. At the time of 1979 there were 5 carriers. Only 2 carrying fighters which far from being MiGs were the very short range and limited Yak-38 and about 40 of them at the most. Easy meat for our Phantom and Lightning fighters. Plus they are flying over East Anglia? Where the USAF had its major UK airbases? I mean at the time the USAF only had 4 squadrons of F-111 bombers, numerous tanker and translport aircraft and oh yes top secret spy planes flying out of Mildenhall and Lakenheath. Yes they would have just got up and left?
A Naval Armada unloading 30 tank divisions? Well D-Day is the largest seaborne invasion ever and was 6 infantry divisions (with supporting armoured brigades) + 3 airborne divisions. That leaves aside that the USSR had only 100 armoured divisions.
Next how this armada made it to the North Sea. Either coming round the top of Norway or through the straits of Denmark from the Baltic. An incident that I think NATO might have noticed. An armada 10-20 times the size of D-Day being quite hard to hide.
Then the landing of 20 parachute brigades thats around 5 divisions. Now that’s a very large number of transport aircraft. How these were expected to fly from the USSR across NATO airspace to the UK is not explained. Nor how they are to avoid being shot out of sky by RAF fighters as clearly the handful of Yaks from the USSR carrier fleet would have lasted about an hour (the Phantom interceptors with radar and long ranged missiles able to engage the Yaks before they were aware that the RAF was out there).
So in summary we have a Soviet Carrier fleet that never existed, the rest of NATO not noticing the largest seaborne invasion force in the World (although I’m not sure there are enough ships in the USSR navy at the time to carry this number of vehicles) oh and a massive air armada of transport planes that have flown several thousand miles through tightly controlled NATO airspace.