We are currently in the thros of an election campaign, and what is interesting is to watch how the ‘papers’ side (and in some cases, change sides) with the political parties that they support.
In an online site ‘TV_tropes’ is an interesting synopsis on British Newspapers; and today I would like to have a look at the Daily Express which is owned by Richard Desmond, a porn baron. In the past the editorial slant of a paper could be gauged by The Daily Express seems to be in a quandary about whether it is far right conservative and with all that entails like being against porn, against ‘gays’, well anything that is not ‘family’ orientated, but whilst doing so it still promotes the porn channels programmes for Mr Desmond.
It also seems to be almost disappearing down the track which the National Enquirer has developed – sensationalism without necessarily accuracy.
Back on Jul 9 last year Ann Widdeombe, a former Tory minister, wrote on the ongoing legal case about Ashers’ and the request for them to make a cake which related to Marriage Equality. This article was updated Jan 19 this year.
I respect anyone who is willing to put their views forward, something which in a free country we are all entitled to do. However, where I do differ from Ms Widdicombe is I like to be accurate.
In her last paragraph she says:
“In a free country the baker should be able to refuse to take part in what is effectively PR for gay marriage in the knowledge that any customers who do not like that decision are free to buy their morning loaf elsewhere. But then it is a long time since Britain and freedom were synonymous.”
The part in this statement which I believe is incorrect, is that of ‘take part in what is effectively PR for gay marriage’. The request for a cake was not made to generate a court case, indeed it was a pure and simple payment and transaction, the same as any that you or I would do in any retail shop. It was not a setup stunt, with the intention of generating publicity – I know that both sides of this story would probably like it not to have happened in the way it has.
This is pure and simple a question of you pay and expect to receive the goods in question.