5 ms·

Four paragraphs of lamentations about exclusion, inequality, sanitization, poor, young, etc. before any hard facts and seven before the actual topic is brushed.

Four paragraphs of lamentations about exclusion, inequality, sanitization, poor, young, etc. before any hard facts and seven before the actual topic is brushed. Oh, and no sources or references for the events he describes. Asbos have been granted which forbid the carrying of condoms by a prostitute, homeless alcoholics from possessing alcohol in a public place, a soup kitchen from giving food to the poor, a young man from walking down any road other than his own OK, it's not a news article but there are blogs much better than this. Apart from people who already know what he's writing about and agree with him, who would want to read this piece of pure mood affiliation? No wonder they're in the red. EDIT: This https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy13/liberty-s-briefing-on-the-draft-anti-social-behaviour-bill-feb-2013-.pdf https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy13/libert... [pdf] is supposedly the source, according to the "fully referenced" version on his website. The word 'soup' is not used there at all. I will not shed one tear for a profession that cannot master a hyperlink.

atmosx 13y ago
What do you mean they are in the red? Are you talking about their financial situation?
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  He is probably referring to the fact that the Guardian newspaper does not make a profit ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian ). It's not relevant, as I'm sure that George Monbiot does not care about this, the Guardian is aware of it, and none of these parties would give a flying feather what spindritf's opinion on this topic is.
  - andyjohnson0 13y ago
    Same with The Times and Independent. The Telegraph is the only national non-tabloid newspaper in the UK that makes a profit. http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/may/24/telegraphmediagroup-barclay-brothers http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/may/24/tele...
  - pavlov 13y ago
    I guess this "they're not even making money, so nyah!" attitude is an appeal to the authority of a supposed efficient marketplace. Taken to absurdity, it works like this: A: "Simone Weil was an influential philosopher." B: "Ah, but did she get rich with her writing? No? Then Ayn Rand was clearly more influential."
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Especially since he doesn't seem to have an opinion on anything relevant to the extremely important change the article brings to light, but would rather discuss the editorial quality of the article itself. An analogy would be people on the sinking Titanic discussing the poor command of the english language by those lads who asked them to get in the boats.
SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
> Oh, and no sources or references for the events he describes. Did you see this part? > A fully referenced version of this article can be found at monbiot.com
- Robin_Message 13y ago
  One question is then, why does the Guardian chose to publish a broken version of the article?
  - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
    This is not a one-off, they always do that, so it must be a choice. At a guess they want it to look like it does in the newspaper. You could call that keeping things the same across two different media, or you could call it replicating the limitations of paper, online.
- Svip 13y ago
  Strange he doesn't link directly to the article: http://www.monbiot.com/2014/01/06/dead-zone/ http://www.monbiot.com/2014/01/06/dead-zone/ Imagine reading this article in a few months, then this article would have been buried further down on monbiot.com (Perhaps he is not permitted directly to the article from the Guardian's website.)
  - glomph 13y ago
    Generally the guardian doesn't include links to the authors site as these are published online exactly like they are in the newspaper.
- mseebach 13y ago
  Did you check the referenced version? Under this injunction, the proscribed behaviour becomes a criminal offence. Asbos have been granted which forbid the carrying of condoms by a prostitute, homeless alcoholics from possessing alcohol in a public place, a soup kitchen from giving food to the poor, a young man from walking down any road other than his own, children from playing football in the street(3). 3: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy13/liberty-s-briefing-on-the-draft-anti-social-behaviour-bill-feb-2013-.pdf http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy13/liberty... Of the five mentioned ASBOs, exactly zero are mentioned in the provided reference.
andyjohnson0 13y ago
Written evidence to UK Parliament Home Affairs Select Committee hearings on "Anti-Social behaviour Orders - Analysis of the first six years" http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhaff/80/80we20.htm http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/c... "Again this year, in Manchester, the Council used its powers to obtain an ASBO to stop mobile soup vans operating in the city centre. These vans provide food and assistance regularly each evening to about 100 homeless people. The Council however argued that after the vans had left there was a mess all over the place and people had complained. Probation staff argued that the same could be said about every kebab shop, pub, chip shop and off-licence in the city." [section d, para 3]
mavhc 13y ago
Which is why Wikipedia is better and more reliable than newspapers. In order of hiding reality: Conspiracy videos that take 50 minutes to get to any vague kind of point at all, Infographics, Newspapers, Wikipedia.
abvdasker 13y ago
Grow up.

atmosx 13y ago

What do you mean they are in the red? Are you talking about their financial situation?

SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
He is probably referring to the fact that the Guardian newspaper does not make a profit ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian ). It's not relevant, as I'm sure that George Monbiot does not care about this, the Guardian is aware of it, and none of these parties would give a flying feather what spindritf's opinion on this topic is.
- andyjohnson0 13y ago
  Same with The Times and Independent. The Telegraph is the only national non-tabloid newspaper in the UK that makes a profit. http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/may/24/telegraphmediagroup-barclay-brothers http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/may/24/tele...
- pavlov 13y ago
  I guess this "they're not even making money, so nyah!" attitude is an appeal to the authority of a supposed efficient marketplace. Taken to absurdity, it works like this: A: "Simone Weil was an influential philosopher." B: "Ah, but did she get rich with her writing? No? Then Ayn Rand was clearly more influential."
- coldtea 13y ago
  Especially since he doesn't seem to have an opinion on anything relevant to the extremely important change the article brings to light, but would rather discuss the editorial quality of the article itself. An analogy would be people on the sinking Titanic discussing the poor command of the english language by those lads who asked them to get in the boats.

SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago

> Oh, and no sources or references for the events he describes. Did you see this part? > A fully referenced version of this article can be found at monbiot.com

Robin_Message 13y ago
One question is then, why does the Guardian chose to publish a broken version of the article?
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  This is not a one-off, they always do that, so it must be a choice. At a guess they want it to look like it does in the newspaper. You could call that keeping things the same across two different media, or you could call it replicating the limitations of paper, online.
Svip 13y ago
Strange he doesn't link directly to the article: http://www.monbiot.com/2014/01/06/dead-zone/ http://www.monbiot.com/2014/01/06/dead-zone/ Imagine reading this article in a few months, then this article would have been buried further down on monbiot.com (Perhaps he is not permitted directly to the article from the Guardian's website.)
- glomph 13y ago
  Generally the guardian doesn't include links to the authors site as these are published online exactly like they are in the newspaper.
mseebach 13y ago
Did you check the referenced version? Under this injunction, the proscribed behaviour becomes a criminal offence. Asbos have been granted which forbid the carrying of condoms by a prostitute, homeless alcoholics from possessing alcohol in a public place, a soup kitchen from giving food to the poor, a young man from walking down any road other than his own, children from playing football in the street(3). 3: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy13/liberty-s-briefing-on-the-draft-anti-social-behaviour-bill-feb-2013-.pdf http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy13/liberty... Of the five mentioned ASBOs, exactly zero are mentioned in the provided reference.

andyjohnson0 13y ago

Written evidence to UK Parliament Home Affairs Select Committee hearings on "Anti-Social behaviour Orders - Analysis of the first six years" http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhaff/80/80we20.htm http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/c... "Again this year, in Manchester, the Council used its powers to obtain an ASBO to stop mobile soup vans operating in the city centre. These vans provide food and assistance regularly each evening to about 100 homeless people. The Council however argued that after the vans had left there was a mess all over the place and people had complained. Probation staff argued that the same could be said about every kebab shop, pub, chip shop and off-licence in the city." [section d, para 3]

mavhc 13y ago

Which is why Wikipedia is better and more reliable than newspapers. In order of hiding reality: Conspiracy videos that take 50 minutes to get to any vague kind of point at all, Infographics, Newspapers, Wikipedia.

abvdasker 13y ago

Grow up.