Thanks for your view. It's more or less what I hear from everyone who doesn't like that I consider their favoured newspaper to be imperfect. I do check it freq

Thanks for your view. It's more or less what I hear from everyone who doesn't like that I consider their favoured newspaper to be imperfect. I do check it frequently, yes. I do note that it continues to be dross. The soft porn is exactly as expected; just enough to satisfy its target audience without having to cross the line into actual porn like The Sun or similar, enabling Mail readers to feel good about themselves. I don't avert my eyes from it. I like looking at attractive women, although when I want porn, I just go to the internet. Why the hell would I avert my eyes? The obscenities in the Mail are in the written text; not the pictures. "Any chance of a few links to the painstakingly gathered statistics that,no doubt overwhelmingly support your searing analysis." I think you're being facetious, so no, do your own research. There is lots and lots out there. Start with (the sadly no longer maintained) DailyMailWatch and go from there. What I've said isn't new. Please either say what you mean (which is at least something the Mail manages to do) or take your passive-aggressive nonsense somewhere else. You read the Mail? Then you know what I've said is true, unless actually you only read the mail and you just don't realise, in which case you've got a sample-size of one and anything you say about the subject is hopelessly ill-informed.