# Manchester Evening News goes free



## Wookey (Apr 20, 2006)

I've just been told that as of next month, the MEN will be free in the city centre of Manchester every day - 55,000 copies delivered across Manchester to offices and outlets. You'll only have to pay for it in the suburbs.

Extraordinary, really. But I think a very clever move.  

That, plus sales of 144,000, will make us the largest regional newspaper in the country I think.


----------



## Alf Klein (Apr 20, 2006)

Wookey said:
			
		

> I've just been told that as of next month, the MEN will be free in the city centre of Manchester every day - 55,000 copies delivered across Manchester to offices and outlets. You'll only have to pay for it in the suburbs.
> 
> Extraordinary, really. But I think a very clever move.
> 
> That, plus sales of 144,000, will make us the largest regional newspaper in the country I think.



Will there be more adverts in it when it becomes free?

It's crap any way, at least, it was last time I had a look.


----------



## Wookey (Apr 20, 2006)

> Will there be more adverts in it when it becomes free?



I doubt it. The pagination will stay the same.



> It's crap any way, at least, it was last time I had a look.



Cheers.


----------



## chriswill (Apr 20, 2006)

I only get it on thursdays for jobs.



Other than that its just emergancy toilet roll.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Apr 21, 2006)

Given that it's owned by a trust, don't they have any kind of legal obligation to that trust not to deplete its resources?  Is it a financially viable proposition?

Y'know I really worry about Guardian Media Group...  firstly the change to Berliner format instead of tabloid, which resulted in vast expense for new printing presses, when surely it would have been more cost effective to go tabloid, can subcontract out to other commercial facilities... didn't make sense to me...

Then all the job losses...

Now this?

It's been such a fantastic institution, with it's Manchester roots in radicalism, and now it just seems to me to be becoming more of a mismanaged commercial monolith.  It's like the Chinese economy is referred to as being socialist with Chinese characteristics, a face saving euphemism for capitalist.  Now the GMG is like a trust with commercial characteristics, seemingly increasingly a euphemism for greedy capitalist corporate structure.

Maybe I'm very wrong, and it will turn out to be the best thing that's happened to it, but given the unnecessary expense of the Berliner format, the job losses, I have little faith... very very sad.


----------



## Fledgling (Apr 21, 2006)

Alf Klein said:
			
		

> Will there be more adverts in it when it becomes free?
> 
> It's crap any way, at least, it was last time I had a look.



I've never read it, ever. Even when they offer Mars Bars with it. But it's popular in manc so can't it being withdrawn yet. Guess I'd read it if I lived in manc but barely sells where I ued to live just outside the city.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Apr 21, 2006)

Wookey said:
			
		

> That, plus sales of 144,000, will make us the largest regional newspaper in the country I think.



Won't quite a lot of these 144,000 peeps stpo buying it when they get a free one!?


----------



## editor (Apr 21, 2006)

Wookey said:
			
		

> IYou'll only have to pay for it in the suburbs.


'Burbists!


----------



## Wookey (Apr 21, 2006)

> Given that it's owned by a trust, don't they have any kind of legal obligation to that trust not to deplete its resources? Is it a financially viable proposition?



Well, the money that's made off cover-price is negligable, tbh. The revenue stream for the paper is advertising - and by pumping 55,000 copies free into the working ABC's of the city centre, it sounds good for the display advertisers, and essentially ups the readership without costing an arm and a leg.



> Y'know I really worry about Guardian Media Group... firstly the change to Berliner format instead of tabloid, which resulted in vast expense for new printing presses, when surely it would have been more cost effective to go tabloid, can subcontract out to other commercial facilities... didn't make sense to me...



Despite people quite liking the new format, if you look at the cost of investment versus increased sales, then financially the Berliner was not a good move at all. It cost dear, and won't be recouped for years. As you say, the new prints were a huge investment, in a medium that people are abandoning in droves. I don't think that was clever either.



> It's been such a fantastic institution, with it's Manchester roots in radicalism, and now it just seems to me to be becoming more of a mismanaged commercial monolith. It's like the Chinese economy is referred to as being socialist with Chinese characteristics, a face saving euphemism for capitalist. Now the GMG is like a trust with commercial characteristics, seemingly increasingly a euphemism for greedy capitalist corporate structure.



I can see that, for sure. W're currently balloting for strike action against management changes, so watch this space. The staff are trying to do something about it.



> Maybe I'm very wrong, and it will turn out to be the best thing that's happened to it, but given the unnecessary expense of the Berliner format, the job losses, I have little faith... very very sad.



Personally, I think it's a good move to reinvigorate the title, and from a convergence point of view it can only help me as a digital journalist to have more cross-refs to my online content getting out to more people. News consumption has chagned radically in the last 5 years, and maintaining the old cover-price model for a daily local newspaper is, imo, untenable. The pay-for-news model has been undermined by free news provision online, and reliance on the newspaper as the main stage of the company has to change.

I believe that concentrating on improving ad revenue through online, mobile and TV services in Manchester, and using the newspaper as essentially a huge  free daily advert across the city centre is a good move - it recognises the changed news consumption pattern, and uses the paper's strengths (longevity, authority, high-profile) to boost the new services that readers actually want now.


----------



## Wookey (Apr 21, 2006)

> Won't quite a lot of these 144,000 peeps stpo buying it when they get a free one!?



Some will get a free newspaper during the day, and not buy one in the suburbs in the evening on the way home - but the most important thing is to get the newspaper read by as many people as possible. Losing the money from the cover-price is the least of our worries, coz it's essentially small change. That cost can be absorbed. But a paper with a falling readership is only headed in one direction, and stemming that is the priority.


----------



## Wookey (Apr 21, 2006)

> 'Burbists!



Unashamedly so. We're all urbanites now.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Apr 21, 2006)

One thing I've noticed very quickly in Spain is how much better the local and regional press is here.


----------



## sorearm (Apr 21, 2006)

You slay moomins wookey? you HEARTLESS BASTARD!    

I've found the MEN increasingly pants over the last couple of years, it does feel full of adverts and the friday edition is just a joke (having just "read" it)... ah well, we'll see how things go eh?

v. interesting and good points btw wookey




			
				Wookey said:
			
		

> I've just been told that as of next month, the MEN will be free in the city centre of Manchester every day - 55,000 copies delivered across Manchester to offices and outlets. You'll only have to pay for it in the suburbs.
> 
> Extraordinary, really. But I think a very clever move.
> 
> That, plus sales of 144,000, will make us the largest regional newspaper in the country I think.


----------



## moose (Apr 22, 2006)

*drunken spelling*

I reckon the Berliner move was a good one - certainly in circulation, and definitely for aesthetic reasons.


----------



## chio (Apr 22, 2006)

I like the latest Guardian design as well - definitely the best-looking paper in the shop.

As for this free paper move, I'll remain to be convinced. I personally don't read a paper I've been given for free in the same way that I read one I've been in a shop and paid for - I tend to just flick idly through a freebie. But if the actual content of the MEN's going to be unaffected by this (ie. it's not going to end up really rubbish, like the Metro) then I can't see how anything will change other than me saving 35p!

sorry for incoherent dross, not thinking particularly straight at present


----------



## moose (Apr 22, 2006)

You still here?


----------



## chio (Apr 22, 2006)

moose said:
			
		

> You still here?



Just about  not very well, though.


----------



## marco mark (May 5, 2006)

Wookey said:
			
		

> I've just been told that as of next month, the MEN will be free in the city centre of Manchester every day - 55,000 copies delivered across Manchester to offices and outlets. You'll only have to pay for it in the suburbs.
> 
> Extraordinary, really. But I think a very clever move.
> 
> That, plus sales of 144,000, will make us the largest regional newspaper in the country I think.




Are they trying to catch up with the Oldham Chronicle


----------



## soulman (May 8, 2006)

My heart sinks for Mancunians, real mancunians.


----------



## Lynseybabe (May 8, 2006)

Have you ever read it? Awful. Worse than any right-wing national paper I've ever seen. No decent writers. In fact, if there are you wouldn't know because they aren't allowed to write except within strict confines. Or at least that's how they read.


----------



## chio (May 9, 2006)

Lynseybabe said:
			
		

> Have you ever read it? Awful. Worse than any right-wing national paper I've ever seen. No decent writers. In fact, if there are you wouldn't know because they aren't allowed to write except within strict confines. Or at least that's how they read.


Erm, OK. And you'd know this because... ?


----------



## Wookey (May 9, 2006)

chio said:
			
		

> Erm, OK. And you'd know this because... ?



Too late, she was banned as a fake.


----------



## Wookey (May 9, 2006)

soulman said:
			
		

> My heart sinks for Mancunians, real mancunians.



And why, my dear fellow, would you embarass yourself by saying something as fruitless as that?


----------



## soulman (May 9, 2006)

Wookey said:
			
		

> And why, my dear fellow, would you embarass yourself by saying something as fruitless as that?



You really think working class Mancunians don't deserve something better than this Murdoch type shite from the 'journalists' at the MEN. On the frontpage today - 



> FEAR OVER PERVERTS NEXT TO NURSERY
> 
> A CENTRE for rehabilitating offenders - which could include paedophiles - is to be set up next to a family centre and a nursery.



It could include anyone being rehabilitated from a prison environment but there's nothing like stirring up fear of paedo nonces to sell newspapers and instill fear in people. 

Cue embarassing  defence of mainstream media practices from Wookey. Or maybe not...


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (May 10, 2006)

soulman said:
			
		

> You really think working class Mancunians don't deserve something better than this Murdoch type shite from the 'journalists' at the MEN. On the frontpage today -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In degfence od||MEN...

havev you ever worked worked forv propbation service?

ple

a few years ag i worked as a temp afdministrator for prob service.

a huge percentge of index cards for peop;eon community srevice have a red sti cker in corner,

i asked:  what does red sticker mean?

sex offenders.  people who are not allwoewd to do community service, i.e. paintin g buildings at youtrh centres/ schools etc.

it's a scarily high percentage.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (May 10, 2006)

soulman said:
			
		

> You really think working class Mancunians don't deserve something better than this Murdoch type shite from the 'journalists' at the MEN. On the frontpage today -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In degfence od||MEN...

havev you ever worked worked forv propbation service?

a few years ag i worked as a temp afdministrator for prob service.

a huge percentge of index cards for peop;eon community srevice have a red sti cker in corner,

i asked:  what does red sticker mean?

sex offenders.  people who are not allwoewd to do community service, i.e. paintin g buildings at youtrh centres/ schools etc.

it's a scarily high percentage.

P;EASE kjnow what the f*** you're talking about before ranting.  thank you


----------



## soulman (May 10, 2006)

AnnO'Neemus said:
			
		

> In degfence od||MEN...
> 
> havev you ever worked worked forv propbation service?
> 
> ...




No i've never worked for the Probation Service although I had the misfortune to meet a few. Prison officers without the uniform as I remember. Has anything changed Ann?


----------



## moose (May 10, 2006)

AnnO'Neemus said:
			
		

> a huge percentge of index cards for peop;eon community srevice have a red sti cker in corner


You OK, Ann? Your posts are usually immaculate!


----------



## Wookey (May 11, 2006)

soulman said:
			
		

> You really think working class Mancunians don't deserve something better than this Murdoch type shite from the 'journalists' at the MEN. On the frontpage today -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wouldn't defend a single particular headline, no, because it's not a very good measure of a newspaper that prints three or four headlines a day, and has printed every day for over 100 years. Why don't you line up the last 100 issues and count how many paedo stories make the front page? I would be hard-pushed to find another one, to be honest, and I know because I've worked here for the last 400 issues.

If you don't like the paedo stories (which I don't, tbh) then that's fair enough - but I do think it's a bit patronising to readers to acknowledge that stories like that sell newspapers - but that the working classes deserve better. 

It's the working classes which are buying the paper, very often. They do like paedo stories. They lap them up, in fact. Go figure.

And yes, newspapers exploit fears, in order to sell copies, in order to please advertisers, in order to make money, in order to employ me. Every national, regional and local paper does this - and believe it or not, always has done. That's the way mainstream newspapers in the UK work. It's a capitalist model. It's hardly up to me to defend it. Why should I defend the choices of working class people - they can read what they like, I'm not gonna judge too harshly.


----------



## soulman (May 11, 2006)

Wookey said:
			
		

> I wouldn't defend a single particular headline, no, because it's not a very good measure of a newspaper that prints three or four headlines a day, and has printed every day for over 100 years. Why don't you line up the last 100 issues and count how many paedo stories make the front page? I would be hard-pushed to find another one, to be honest, and I know because I've worked here for the last 400 issues.
> 
> If you don't like the paedo stories (which I don't, tbh) then that's fair enough - but I do think it's a bit patronising to readers to acknowledge that stories like that sell newspapers - but that the working classes deserve better.
> 
> It's the working classes which are buying the paper, very often. They do like paedo stories. They lap them up, in fact. Go figure.



Come on you're going to have to do better than that. I take it you can substantiate your assertion that working class people like paedo stories, lap them up even.  




			
				Wookey said:
			
		

> And yes, newspapers exploit fears, in order to sell copies, in order to please advertisers, in order to make money, in order to employ me. Every national, regional and local paper does this - and believe it or not, always has done. That's the way mainstream newspapers in the UK work. It's a capitalist model. It's hardly up to me to defend it. Why should I defend the choices of working class people - they can read what they like, I'm not gonna judge too harshly.



Ah I see the working class choose a capitalist model just as they choose the medium to indoctrinate themselves. So many choices eh Wookey?


----------



## Wookey (May 12, 2006)

> I take it you can substantiate your assertion that working class people like paedo stories, lap them up even.



I have reams of independent research as well as discrete user figures which show that crime stories are unfailingly the most popular stories with Class C readers. I would show you to prove it, but the information is expensive and commercially sensitive.

We don't choose paedo stories because of a conscious decision to scare people, or because we don't like paedos - they sell papers, people want them. It's a commercial decision.



> Ah I see the working class choose a capitalist model just as they choose the medium to indoctrinate themselves.



The working classes also read my Stand Up For Salford campaign, running weekly for the last year, which tries to counteract the negative stereotypes held about inner-city working class areas such as the one I live in.

They also like the Sort It Out feature, in which the newspaper approaches local government and services on their behalf to tackle a long-standing community issue such as leaking pipes, dangerous roads, untended parks, fast traffic on housing estates, etc.

They also like celebrity stories (second most popular after crime) - and I wouldn't patronise them by assuming they are choosing that for any other reason than they are intested in it.

By the way, you still haven't addressed the fact that, despite claiming the M.E.N is poor quality because it prints stories about paedophiles, that kind of story is very rare, and even rarer on the front page. In the last year, it's the only major story on paedophiles we've done - and represents a tiny fraction of 1% of our overall news output.

Are you ready to admit that you've over-reacted on the paedo story in a bid to support your assertion that the M.E.N is not good enough for working class readers?

If not, now the paedo story has been put in it's true context, do you have any valid reason for saying that the M.E.N is not good enough for the working classes of Manchester?

*Remember, I am a member of the working classes of Manchester, and the MEN sits on our tea table today, and on the tea tables of my mates, just as it has done since we were kids.

Our output includes active respresentation of worker's union rights, asylum seekers (unlike the nationals), health and education issues, and local government.

If we didn't ask people what they are interested in, we wouldn't know what to write, and we wouldn't be the biggest regional newspaper in the UK.

The concept that the working classes read a newspaper that is irrelevant to them contradicts what they say to us, and what the readership figures say to us. That's the bottom line of your innacurate view of things.


----------



## soulman (May 13, 2006)

Wookey said:
			
		

> I have reams of independent research as well as discrete user figures which show that crime stories are unfailingly the most popular stories with Class C readers. I would show you to prove it, but the information is expensive and commercially sensitive.
> 
> We don't choose paedo stories because of a conscious decision to scare people, or because we don't like paedos - they sell papers, people want them. It's a commercial decision.



Expensive, commercially sensitive and unavailable to the 'Class C readers' whose needs you claim the MEN meets with headlines like the one I posted.   




			
				Wookey said:
			
		

> The working classes also read <snip>
> 
> By the way, you still haven't addressed the fact that, despite claiming the M.E.N is poor quality because it prints stories about paedophiles, that kind of story is very rare, and even rarer on the front page. In the last year, it's the only major story on paedophiles we've done - and represents a tiny fraction of 1% of our overall news output.
> 
> ...



It's not that it's a headline piece about paedophiles, or in fact not about paedophiles but about a rehabilitation centre, that interests me. That just happened to be a headline on the day I searched the paper. What does interest me is your defence of 'journalism' that's based on creating fear, and your continued assertion that working class people get the media they want or deserve while refusing to point to any quantifiable research indicating that.    





			
				Wookey said:
			
		

> <snip - more free advertising for capitalist media>
> 
> If we didn't ask people what they are interested in, we wouldn't know what to write, and we wouldn't be the biggest regional newspaper in the UK.
> 
> The concept that the working classes read a newspaper that is irrelevant to them contradicts what they say to us, and what the readership figures say to us. That's the bottom line of your innacurate view of things.



Ah I see. You journalists write what you're told your readership expects. Hmmm...


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (May 13, 2006)

moose said:
			
		

> You OK, Ann? Your posts are usually immaculate!


I recently had two ops on my buggered up wrist - a bone graft from my hip, and then my tendons snapped so I've had tendon transplant/graft/reconstruction and i'm wearing an amazking contraption called a dynamic splint with an outrigger.. whixch looks a bit lije this:

http://www.benefitsnowshop.co.uk/shop/detail.asp?bid=&item=2248&sectionId=477

Tytping with one hand is really terdious and if i try to dp it proper.ly and correct all my mistakes it takrsd aaaaaaaaaaaages. 

So i'm afraid i've hasfd to let my stanbards slip


----------



## moose (May 13, 2006)

Blimey - I'll let you off then! 

Getx well snoo.


----------



## Wookey (May 14, 2006)

> It's not that it's a headline piece about paedophiles, or in fact not about paedophiles but about a rehabilitation centre, that interests me. That just happened to be a headline on the day I searched the paper.



So if it didn't interest you, why did you raise it?

And if it was a random headline, why did you try to extrapolate from it to a wider critique of the newspaper in general?

Your approach makes no sense to me, you're going to have to explain what you mean.



> What does interest me is your defence of 'journalism' that's based on creating fear, and your continued assertion that working class people get the media they want or deserve while refusing to point to any quantifiable research indicating that.



I'm not defending anything, I'm explaining how it works in terms you'll understand. I've pointed you to both empirical independant research (ABC, JICREG), plus our own marketing research which uses reader questionnaires, plus the user figures for my site which, thanks to modern software, enable me to see how many users have visited which story, from where, to where and for how long. In fact, there has never been a better time in history for me to say that I confidently know _exactly _what stories the public like from my site, and what broadly interests them from a mainstream regional new site in general. I have the black and white figures to descibe their conscious and subconscious choices as consumers _in detail.
_

The fact that a story about Polish migrant workers being unionised, which is the type of news that I like to read about, will garner 300 readers, while a story about cheerleaders having their skimpy uniforms banned by the authorities garners 300,000 hits, should tell you what you need to know about people's tastes and choices in what they expect from my site.



> Ah I see. You journalists write what you're told your readership expects. Hmmm...



No, not Hmmm. What is Hmmm? Can you articulate what you mean by Hmmm?

Hmm is a sneering and chin-rubbing reponse that allows to you attempt to rile me with a damning judgement, without actually saying what you mean so I can deconstruct it like the flimsy armchair revolutionism I expect it to be. You must think my head buttons up the back.

Either say what you mean, and preferably within the sphere of your own contribution to society, or quit talking out of your arse. Hmmm wastes my time and yours.


----------



## soulman (May 16, 2006)

Wookey said:
			
		

> So if it didn't interest you, why did you raise it?
> 
> And if it was a random headline, why did you try to extrapolate from it to a wider critique of the newspaper in general?
> 
> Your approach makes no sense to me, you're going to have to explain what you mean.



I raised it because it's an example of 'journalists' creating fear without any basis in reality. It's an extension of the 'politics of fear' that's become the norm now. 




			
				Wookey said:
			
		

> I'm not defending anything, I'm explaining how it works in terms you'll understand. I've pointed you to both empirical independant research (ABC, JICREG), plus our own marketing research which uses reader questionnaires, plus the user figures for my site which, thanks to modern software, enable me to see how many users have visited which story, from where, to where and for how long. In fact, there has never been a better time in history for me to say that I confidently know _exactly _what stories the public like from my site, and what broadly interests them from a mainstream regional new site in general. I have the black and white figures to descibe their conscious and subconscious choices as consumers _in detail.
> _



Oh but you are defending it Wookey and that's understandable when you've invested so much in your career choice. You don't have to explain it in terms you think I'll understand. Just explain it in terms you understand. 




			
				Wookey said:
			
		

> The fact that a story about Polish migrant workers being unionised, which is the type of news that I like to read about, will garner 300 readers, while a story about cheerleaders having their skimpy uniforms banned by the authorities garners 300,000 hits, should tell you what you need to know about people's tastes and choices in what they expect from my site.



Is your site an official offshoot of the MEN or something you've created for yourself Wookey?




			
				Wookey said:
			
		

> No, not Hmmm. What is Hmmm? Can you articulate what you mean by Hmmm?
> 
> Hmm is a sneering and chin-rubbing reponse that allows to you attempt to rile me with a damning judgement, without actually saying what you mean so I can deconstruct it like the flimsy armchair revolutionism I expect it to be. You must think my head buttons up the back.
> 
> Either say what you mean, and preferably within the sphere of your own contribution to society, or quit talking out of your arse. Hmmm wastes my time and yours.



Hmmm means I'm thinking, is that such a bad thing to do?


----------



## Wookey (May 16, 2006)

> I raised it because it's an example of 'journalists' creating fear without any basis in reality. It's an extension of the 'politics of fear' that's become the norm now.



The people who came to us asking for us to investigate the story of an unannounced offenders' centre in their neighbourhood _were_ fearful. They hadn't been told of the plans, they weren't consulted by the Probation Service, and in that vacuum of information they were worried about the plans for the new centre.

The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service promised to install security cameras on site, pledged to see children in another office entirely, and said they would speed up their plans to move to another office entirely.

No newspaper created this fear - lack of communication, worry over child abusers in the community, and official reticence to honestly converse with community members caused that fear.

The next day, we printed a clear and unambiguous clarification, as the story progressed, that the Probation Service had confirmed for the first time that sex offenders would not be using the site. As one of my readers put it: 



> Okay, who's going to get the flaming torches alight and lead the march into Withington? Cue: the nimby's that know that offenders have to be rehabilitated... but don't want them in their back yard. I am the father of an eight-year-old, living close to this proposed facility and, while I'm concerned about the nature of the paedophile 'clients', I'm more concerned about the burglars, sneak thieves and drug addicts. I wouldn't mind, but the overwhelming majority of the 'previous' offenders will be from the area, anyway. (Puts tin hat on and awaits incoming.)
> Realist, Didsbury



This man is telling me he's worried about the institution's clients. Do I ignore him because I happen to think his fears are unfounded? That's not my job. My job is report the story of worried citizens, then report the response to that from officials, then keep an eye on the story to ensure the officials keep to their word. My own philosophy on convicts in the community or the perceived dangers of convicted paedophiles is neither here nor there. I'm a hired writer. If someone tells me they're scared, I'll report that they're scared - whether I think they are right to be scared or not. The ability to subsume one's ego and one's own political viewpoint is essential if you are a radical person working in the mainstream press. The readers' don't want my world view, they want their own world view reflected back at them - and I'm very au fait with what that world view is, on account of the extensive research I'm pointed you to which you seem unwilling to want to recognise.



> Is your site an official offshoot of the MEN or something you've created for yourself Wookey?



It's the M.E.N site, in which I control news coverage. Care to comment on the facts I presented as regards what people decide they want from my site?



> Hmmm means I'm thinking, is that such a bad thing to do?



I don't believe you need to pause to think on a bulletin board in the same way we would in a face to face conversation, so forgive me if I disbelieve you. That Hmmm was not a mere indication of thought, it was loaded, and you insult my intelligence by trying to suggest otherwise.

But let's assume you were thinking, for the sake of argument - why did you have to think about the concept of newspapers giving their readers what they expect? Why does that require thought? Don't you think, seeing that we are a product, that giving the readers what they expect is a rather sensible thing to do?

I don't think the offenders' centre story was at all indicative of our news output, in fact a quick string search shows I've not published another similar story in the last year. You don't seem to want to recognise the socially-relevent stories we do, the charities we support, our liberal attitude to asylum seekers, our campaign to counter-act stereotypes of inner-city living in Salford, our campaign to protect the emergency services from violence, or our campaigns to have the reconstruction of the City of Manchester done in full co-operation with its citizens. How can you have such a blinkered view of what we cover and why?

And then it dawns on me - you don't even read it, do you?


----------



## soulman (May 19, 2006)

Just follow what you're told mate. It's so much easier.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (May 20, 2006)

soulman said:
			
		

> Just follow what you're told mate. It's so much easier.


What soulman, no comments on the MEN's recent front page splash about suicide by inmates at styal women's prison?  

but then it doesn't sit easily with your jaundiced view about MEN being full of anti-crim hype and hysteria does it, when they run a front page story about the failures of the prison service and how it's failing to protect some of the most vulnerable members of society, women prisoners, many of whom have mental health and drug addiction problems, for whom prison isn't really an appropriate place...





And really, please don't start with your snide comments in relation to this, I actually knew one of the women who committed suicide there a couple of years back when there were six suicides in the space of a year, so please leave your vitriolic comments out of it, okay?


----------



## soulman (May 20, 2006)

AnnO'Neemus said:
			
		

> What soulman, no comments on the MEN's recent front page splash about suicide by inmates at styal women's prison?
> 
> but then it doesn't sit easily with your jaundiced view about MEN being full of anti-crim hype and hysteria does it, when they run a front page story about the failures of the prison service and how it's failing to protect some of the most vulnerable members of society, women prisoners, many of whom have mental health and drug addiction problems, for whom prison isn't really an appropriate place...
> 
> ...




You ask why no comments and then say you don't want any comments. If the ed wants to allow you free advertising space on the boards that's up to him but I think there's lot more worthy causes than some capitalist rag.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (May 21, 2006)

soulman said:
			
		

> You ask why no comments and then say you don't want any comments.


sensible, rational comments about the subject matter are of course welcome.

i was just alerting you to the fact that i knew someone who had committed suicide at styal so you could avoid foot-in-mouth syndrome and any unnecessarily vicious or personal comments.




			
				soulman said:
			
		

> If the ed wants to allow you free advertising space on the boards that's up to him but I think there's lot more worthy causes than some capitalist rag.


Huh?   

What am i supopsed to be advertising?


----------



## moose (May 21, 2006)

Soulman - don't use people's real names.


----------



## soulman (May 21, 2006)

Soz, sorted.


----------



## Wookey (May 29, 2006)

> Just follow what you're told mate. It's so much easier.



Do you feel like adding something constructive to this thread or are you just going to spray student-level cynicism at it from afar?

I've tried to explain that the nature of my output addresses many socially responsible issues, from unionism and environmentalism to education and local government. I spent a 24 hour shift recently publishing the entire results of the local elections live as they came in - not the most interesting shift, I'll grant you, but I feel it is important to publicise local democracy, and lots of people are interested in it. In that one shift I could have published thousands of paedophile stories, but I didn't, I've published one this year, the one you're using to prop up your misinformed criticisms.


----------



## soulman (May 29, 2006)

Can't see another blatant advert for a regional newspaper in one of the other regional threads. Why is there one here?


----------



## Wookey (May 30, 2006)

soulman said:
			
		

> Can't see another blatant advert for a regional newspaper in one of the other regional threads. Why is there one here?



Because I'm special. Now fuck off.


----------

