"You cannot hope
to bribe or twist,
thank God! The
British journalist.
But, seeing what
the man will do
unbribed, there's
no occasion to."

Now appears to apply to Tory boy bloggers as well!

Lol, Stephen!

I don't understand, are you seriously saying that because I've only used a label twice it's evidence of something wider?

Well that post was a let down. I assumed from the way you built up your opening that 'Dizzy' had spent the previous 12 years slagging off The Sun until it turned to support the Tories. But no, he never bothered to write a word about it, and why would he, it's not worth the time and effort. It's Mr. Ireland who appears to lack much of a social life if all he does all day is moan about The Sun.

However, since you raise the subject, Councillor, the fact that The Sun has to write articles for people with a reading age of 12 might have something to do with the wonderful 'edukashun serviss' provided by the government of the last 12 years. Also, of course, The Sun was spot on with their strictures concerning the behaviour of Liverpool fans at Hillsborough.

The adults who read The Sun were mostly educated by the Conservatives, and I admit, that has been a difficult task to correct because of their continual attacks on education and health services.

Interesting that Mr dizzy has so suddenly discovered the merits of the Sun. as I say, you may disagree with Tim, but he is entirely consistent. Tim doesn't have to 'sit there all day' to write his pieces (perhaps your blog occupies that much of your time, but it looks no better for it) any more than you trip up here spouting drivel "all day"... but it doesn't seem to stop you coming here.

Dizzy is consistent, Bob, but in a different way. Tim is against a pernicious influence (principles) and Dizzy is consistently promoting an agenda. It's a question of values and agendas.

Staines on the other hand...

Consistency is not a particular virtue if it is combined with being wrong! I may be out of date but I believe about 5 million of the ill-educated masses you pretend to care about read The Sun every day. Are they all wrong and Mr. Ireland the only one who is right?

Duffy, you poor deluded old soul. I care about you. Do I think you are anything other than wrong on almost every issue? Of course I do. That's why I care.

It is an interesting way to gather votes by describing the voters who you hope will vote for you as uneducated masses.

Andrew, I can only presume you mean me, because thank whatever Lord you pray to, Duffy isn't standing for election.

But, not to put too fine a point on it... I didn't describe the masses as uneducated. I said The Sun journalists write for those with a reading age of 12, which means that they can attract the maximum readership because those who do have literacy issues can still follow it without any difficulty.

these days, no newspaper can claim the readership of 'masses'.

The tired old tactic used by Andrew here and 'Dizzy' on his site runs as follows:

I point out that someone is treating an audience like sheep. The person acting as (or for) the 'shepherd' then screams to the audience "See?! He thinks you're SHEEP!"... and proceeds to herd them away.

(Note also how 'Dizzy' dismisses my concerns about Page 3 without actually linking to them, as if he doesn't trust his audience to read the information and make up their own minds. Baa-ram-ewe.)

Bob

The Sun's readership demographics http://www.nmauk.co.uk/nma/do/live/factsAndFigures?newspaperID=17 would tend to disprove your theory of Sun readers being educated under Conservative Governments.

Perhaps you should try checking your facts in future rather than resorting to name calling anyone who disagrees with you.

And perhaps, Mr smarty pants, you would like to give us some 'facts'. Because those 'facts' don't prove anything at all. If we take, for instance, the group in the 35-44 age bracket. They are apparently 16.5% of the Sun's readership, god help us. They would have been at school anytime from 1969 to 1985. How have you deduced from that how many were educated under a Labour or Conservative Government.

But since the end of the 2nd world war until 1999 (let's assume the under 5's don't read the Sun yet) the Tories have run the country for 35 years, and Labour for 19. Now there is no way of knowing who reads what newspapers, but it is obvious that more people were educated under the Conservatives than Labour. It is those poor souls who missed out under the Tories that we need to help.

Maths is clearly not your strong suit either - I'm 40 and I left school in 1987.

If you look at the stats on the link I posted the readership of the Sun is fairly constant between the ages of 15 and 54. This age group would have been educated by a mixture of Labour and Conservative Governments meaning that your assertion that people educated by Conservatives are less intelligent and therefore read the Sun falls far apart under the empirical evidence.

Nothing to do with maths. I was assuming that those unable to read left school at 16... and I suspect you will find that is true.

You're right (it had to happen some time) they were educated under a mixture of Labour and Tory governments... but mostly, Tory.

Also, only a Tory could confuse intelligence with education. They are not the same thing, and I made no such assertion.

Did you go to school with Ed Balls, Vernon Coaker and Kevin Brennan? Your maths is as good as their's! Someone who is 34 now was 16 in 1991 not 1985. Someone who is 44 now was 16 in 1981 not 1969!

You're quite right, the dates should be between 1969 and 1991.. (although I could point out that I learnt maths under a Tory regime, so I know who to blame). But it doesn't change the central point, nor make your position any more logical. The reality is, between these dates, and any of the other age ranges too I suspect, the Tories have been responsible for the education of more children than Labour. Therefore, any criticism of people's ability to read falls disproportionately on the Tories.

Have sympathy and understanding. The boy might have been educated under the Thatcher Reich.