A poll last year (conducted by “Abortion Rights”) showed that 13% of people in this country are opposed to abortion. Are you saying that the Daily Excess has no right to get them to buy it?

No, I’m saying that the Daily Excess is a pile of steaming crap that wouldn’t know what a fact was if you embossed it on a baseball bat and then beat it into the paper’s editorial team.

And what proportion of the Great British Newspaper-Buying Public would you say also fitted that description?

The basic problem is that the Excess is trying to find a gap in the market between the Wail and the Sin. There is no such gap.

@3

the Excess is trying to find a gap in the market between the Wail and the Sin. There is no such gap.

Latest figures from ABCs suggest otherwise…
672,951 readers apparently.

Anyway, the Express has told an outright lie in this story (“thousands” of Poles rather than, ahem, 59); who do we complain to?

The fact is that this “story” is off the back of an anti-retriction feminist polish organisation in Poland. Its cheaper and safer to fly to the UK have an abrotion and return home than it is to pay for an illegal one. Its absurd and that’s what the feminists were arguing. I’m sure they’d be gutted it was abused by the Express this way.

Likewise, I beleive that the costs of the abortion – which no doubt caused “outrage” – are claimed back from the Polish Govt. Utter non-starter unless you’re a bit racist/xenophobic.

This is the best published and recent official estimate I know of for the unpaid costs to the NHS of health tourism by visitors to Britain, whether for abortions or other reasons:

“The Department of Health is trying to recover £22 million from foreign nationals who have had NHS treatment in the past two years and not paid their bills.”
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/health/article7042750.ece

Nice to see the Express and Mail continue their fight for the decreasing number of stereotypical middle class 1950s readers…

There is obviously an issue with people having healthcare then not paying, but I can’t see this being a major concern for anyone with brain cells and the correct information.

“The Department of Health is trying to recover £22 million from foreign nationals who have had NHS treatment in the past two years and not paid their bills.”

To put that in perspective, the projected NHS budget for 2010/11 is a £102.3 billion making that a 0.02% default rate.

Jeebus, the banks would think all their Christmases has come at once if their level of defaults was that low.

Unity,

The only difference is that I do not (or should not, thanks Mr Brown) pay if a bank has a shortfall, but I do pay towards the NHS. And if the £22 million is accurate, that’s a lot of money I personally have to pay…

[9] Er, about 50p each.

The Daily Express is definitely the poorest tabloid of all.

Not only is it venomous, but also it’s dull as shit.

To me it’s the equivalent of a bitter, splenetic, non-sweet, curtain-twitching old hag making up old bollocks about neighbours who kicked the bucket decades before and no-one gives a shit about anymore.

At least the Daily Mail’s type of bollocks, though also atrocious and posionous, is slightly juicier. I mean, if you have to read crap, make it some juicy crap.

Or, at least with the Daily Star you know what to expect, lots of tits and “vixens” and “babes”. Again, I despise it, it’s demeaning, cheap, etc but at least it’s got a point – it’s designed for masturbatory purposes.

As for The Sun…general populistic shit for a) the British equivalent of bible belters…b) chavs who don’t get he irony of being insulted day in day out by the very same paper they are reading c) people whose lives would be without purpose if they didn’t read about paedos all the time d) lynch mob vigilantes who like tits and war games on PSP2.

But the Daily Express…What exactly is the point of it?

Mike, Unity, the cost is estimated to be £22m over two years – I think you’ve overestimated things somewhat (i.e. it’s about 25p each).

But the Daily Express…What exactly is the point of it?

The latest conspiracy about Princess Di(ed)?

“And it tells them it is cheaper to fly to the UK to end an unwanted pregnancy than to pay for an illegal ­backstreet ­termination in Poland.”

Tch! Typical sneaky Poles, eh? Coming over here, having (59) abortions on the NHS, when they should be doing their patriotic duty and placing their lives and fertility at risk with a good, HONEST “illegal ­backstreet ­termination” in their own country!

As usual, there’s one rule for the politically correct, and another for the gone mad.

I have never stood who the Express is aimed at. My history and politics tutor at college said it was the Daily Mail for men, although I’m not sure how.

Back in my days as a stereotypical Mail reader I could never see the point of the Express.

I have never stood who the Express is aimed at.

Curiously, the Express was the only established national newspaper that wasn’t mentioned in the classic ‘Who reads the papers?’ sequence in Yes Prime Minister.

At the time that episode originally aired, the Indy could only have been going for six months t best and although the Daily Star has been going since 1978 it was still seen very much as a Northern tabloid and not part of the Fleet Street establishment.

Mike at 10,

“[9] Er, about 50p each.”

OK. So somewhere along the line I made an error on a scale of a thousand…

I correct, that’s not a lot each, although it is a lot…

Mind you, I’m probably now qualified to be an Express journalist. That level of intellectual rigour is exactly what seems to be required.

[16] Oh, don’t be so modest. I reckon The Guardian would take you on, too.

@15 Unity: “Curiously, the Express was the only established national newspaper that wasn’t mentioned in the classic ‘Who reads the papers?’ sequence in Yes Prime Minister.”

A bit of context might help. The Daily Express was the UK’s best selling newspaper from the early 1930s to the early 1960s. The owner, Beaverbrook, was considered as a political king maker by the establishment, and its gossip columnists made and broke careers. Its significance in 20th century UK society should not be forgotten.

The paper’s decline was very rapid initially (and this was in the era when people actually purchased newspapers) and circulation has been stagnant throughout my adult life. Bizarrely, this implies that the old readers who pass away are being replaced.

For those who purchase the Daily Express title rather than copies, perhaps there is some deluded thought that they might restore it to its former glory and inherit the mantle of Beaverbrook. However, as Unity implies in his comment about _Yes, Prime Minister_, that is a vain conceit.

Well I suppose it beats working in a meat packing factory for a year undercutting wages before you qualify for full UK benefits, couldn’t we convince them to keep these kids and throw in a free council house too?

At last we’ve found a job that the Poles don’t want to do, but our people will !

“At last we’ve found a job that the Poles don’t want to do, but our people will !”

Our people? That is such an UnBritish phrase…

@19 Big Al: “Well I suppose it beats working in a meat packing factory for a year undercutting wages before you qualify for full UK benefits…”

Do you know anyone who has ever worked in a meat packing factory?

i worked in a meat packing factory. Padleys, just outside of Lincoln.

They had different hats for different ‘status’ of workers. My snood was orange because i was scum sent in from an agency – it was mooted (by a union steward i was on the line with) that the difference in colours was there to show that there was a disposable army of labour availible and therefore those on (pitifully waged) permanent positions had less job security and could be replaced at any time.
I never witnessed an undercutting of wages, just (alledged) passive intimidation of the existing workforce.