Free copy of that rag newspaper delivered to your door today and tomorrow

[Annasfield]

Not only are they allowed to continue publishing their filth, we're now having it forced through our front doors.

If like us, you don't want your copy you can return it to them at News International's cost.

Return address for all...

FREEPOST

The Sun

London

E98 1AX

Remember their phone hacking? Their lies about Hillsborough and the many many other disgusting things that have been printed?

Don't buy or accept the Sun.

[Bluerevolution]

[*Bob*]

It's just arrived.

Probably straying into territory of 'the unquestionable' here .. but what would it take for The Sun to be forgiven Merseyside way?

[Loz]

Yeah, I think the obvious answer to that, *Bob* is "nothing". If 25 years doesn't do it, nothing will.

[Otta]

They cut too deep.

I was a kid in London who didn't gigve a toss about football at that ahe and certainly didn't support Liverpool. I never had any links to anyone hurt on that day. As a result I don't have as strong feelings about The Sun as those that were hurt by it's actions, but I can totally put myself in their place and I think I'd find it hard to forgive the stuff they wrote if it was about people I knew.

But Liverpool aside, it's still a rag, and the worst of the tabloids.

[Jah Lush]

Vile rag. Tore it up and binned it. Gotcha!

[Otta]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But Liverpool aside, it's still a rag, and the

> worst of the tabloids.

Actually, I mean it's the worst of the red tops. The Mail is also a tabloid in my book, and that's the absolute pits.

[Annasfield]

They knew not to bother posting it in Liverpool, but it was arranged to be delivered in the surrounding Merseyside areas. Loads of the posties have refused to deliver it in Skem and then other areas have done the same.

Fair play to them

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyside-posties-take-stand-against-7255204

[StraferJack]

Noone I know has received a copy in my neighbourhood

Imagine if govt made a promise like this and didn't deliver - they would be all over it with front page "INCOMPETENT!" headlines

But then again, if any other publication/website insisted on pushing tits through a door they would be going with "FILTH!" headlines (I expect they have pre-empted that one by not having page 3 today tho?)

[*Bob*]

Sorry, Jack. No tits in this one.

[Annasfield]

It might get delivered tomorrow. You could leave a sign on your door saying you don't want it.

[StraferJack]

I don't care enough about it to be honest Anna. I do understand why people take a stance like yours, and I have done myself in teh past, but I don't think it's as toxic as it was 25 years ago. Not that I like it much in it's current incarnation especially

I didn't mean my post to be just an anti-sun rant (I can do that at the drop of a hat) - I just thought under-delivering on their promise to deliver to every house was ironic and I was heavy handed in lampooning the type of stance they take

[rodneybewes]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's just arrived.

>

> Probably straying into territory of 'the

> unquestionable' here .. but what would it take for

> The Sun to be forgiven Merseyside way?

I don't think it's unquestionable territory, it's a very valid question and one I've thought of myself.

To start with I don't think it helped that the editor MacKenzie apologised publicly and then subsequently told a group of businessmen at a lunch that he had had to say it and that he was "not sorry then and I'm not sorry now." He then kept his mouth shut until David Cameron told him he should acknowledge his lie and apologise - a couple of hours later he did so. He then asked for an apology from the police for misleading him - we now know for a certainty what many people suspected - that journalists at the tabloids and police were entirely in each others pockets. You can't blame people for thinking he'd say anything to get himself out of a mess, and he represented the Sun at that time. Once you've had one hollow apology you're entitled to distrust the next one, surely?

Quite apart from Hillsborough I'm no big fan of the Sun for various reasons but I do feel that their Editor, Dominic Mohan, gave a sincere apology and he obviously had nothing to do with the reporting then, and I feel for him having to make it being blameless himself. But you must understand the feeling on Merseyside about the Sun. If it had happened and the truth had come out a week, a month or even a year later and the Sun had apologised they would probably be selling papers on Merseyside now. But when you link that to literally decades of trying to find justice before the final (and I think sincere) apology, having been through decades of people still blaming the fans quite wrongly for causing it, you can understand it will be a long time before that goes away.

Remember, they didn't just blame the fans for their own deaths, they accused them of murdering those who died, pissing on their corpses, looting their bodies, sexually abusing a dead woman. And that held for decades. Up until very recently I heard a lot of people who should know an awful lot better repeating those lies for truth. Imagine everyone who'd been affected by that tragedy hearing that all that time. That's for nearly thirty years. Finally the real truth has emerged, although there's still much to uncover.

So I think what would it take is not the right question. How long will it take is the better one. After all, the living victims have had the injustice for nigh on 30 years and only now has it been acknowledged. Maybe they'll buy the Sun in Merseyside in 30 years time.

[rodneybewes]

And thank you to Annasfield for bringing this up. I posted mine straight back.

[ratty]

May not be as toxic as 25 years ago. Still owned by the same toxic coont though!

[steveo]

Kelvin Mckenzie - good ole Alleyn's boy

I've known a few of those

They are all mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence

[Bluerevolution]

http://brown-moses-hackgate.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-suns-launches-42-billion-marketing.html?m=1

Brown Moses Blog - The Hackgate Files

Wednesday, 11 June 2014

The Sun Launches A ?4.2 Billion Marketing Campaign?

A guest post by Chris Brace.

Every now and then the Newspapers in this country come up with a marketing wheeze that seems to be going to cost an arm and a leg, and you can?t quite see how anyone will ever make a profit. One example is the 1980?s Newspaper Bingo Craze, but the current free giveaway Sun offer seems to go way beyond that.

The paper is in the middle of a three day scheme where every household in England is to receive a copy of the paper except those in the city of Liverpool, for Hillsborough related reasons.

That?s 22 Million copies due to appear through the letterboxes of the nation in the next 48 hours.

There are odd things about living in a house with a retired printing engineer. He just doesn't appreciate books and newspapers in the same way most people do. Whereas for me it?s the content that is king, for him the construction methods are frequently the things that are the most interesting.

While the Sun freebie would have headed straight for the recycling, someone picked it up and found there were staples on the spine. And that activated his interest. Who could have printed this edition as usual Newspaper printing machines tend not to have stapler units?

If you take a look at your newspaper there is an easy way to find this out, there is a small section of text in every edition that tells you these things. This is called the Imprint.

The imprint will have the name and address of the Newspaper, the Publisher, the Printer, and then the words ?Registered as a newspaper at the Post Office? followed by copyright declarations.

This small section has to be there by Law so that Libel Claimants know where to send legal claims, or the Police Know whose door to kick in if your newspaper is trying to Bring down the Government , and publisher and printer can be fined for excluding it.

The relevant laws are the Printers Imprint Act of 1961 and the Newspapers, Printers, and Reading Rooms Repeal Act 1869 One of the relevant section reads as follows

Every person who shall print any paper or book whatsoever which shall be meant to be published or dispersed, and who shall not print upon the front of every such paper, if the same shall be printed on one side only, or upon the first or last leaf of every paper or book which shall consist of more than one leaf, in legible characters, his or her name and usual place of abode or business, and every person who shall publish or disperse, or assist in publishing or dispersing, any printed paper or book on which the name and place of abode of the person printing the same shall not be printed as aforesaid, shall for every copy of such paper so printed by him or her forfeit a sum not more than [level 1 on the standard scale]:

A Level 1 fine on the standard scale is Up to ?200 since the Criminal justice act 1991 came into force and that amount is due for every single copy of the newspaper that doesn?t include the required details.

The Free giveaway Sun issue that?s being pushed through 22 million doorways as we speak, Guess what it?s missing?

Somehow the Imprint has failed to make it to the printed copy.

How this has happened is something of a mystery, as it is usually part of the standard computer generated outside leaf of the newspaper, and printers are well aware of their legal responsibilities. If they print a newspaper without an Imprint, not only are they fined, and the publisher fined, but they also are not allowed to claim the cost of the printing back from the publisher. A double hit on anyone who might consider doing this.

So what is the situation? 22 million copies at up to ?200 fine per copy That?s a fine of up to ?4.4 Billion.

Some articles on this obscure piece of law say that it?s only a ?50 fine, but they may be based on the previous fines schedule, but even that would amount to a ?1.1 Billion fine.

It may however be that with the current schedule, the expected fine is ? of the maximum, It?s just something that happens so rarely there aren't that many court cases to refer to. One thing that is certain is that there will be a queue of Liverpool lawyers and MPs demanding the Attorney General takes the appropriate legal action over this illegality.

If this does end up in court, it could end up the most expensive publicity campaign in newspaper history.

Brown Moses at 23:46

Share

14 comments:

Chris Nesbitt-Smith12 June 2014 06:38

You answered your own question kinda:

See http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/newspaper?q=newspaper

A newspaper isn't stapled according to the oxford dictionary, so doesn't fall into the same legislation and requirements - which is probably why they stapled it in the first place.

Reply

Replies

funkyderek12 June 2014 06:45

The Oxford Dictionary definition is irrelevant. The Printers Imprint Act of 1961 and the Newspapers, Printers, and Reading Rooms Repeal Act 1869 do not make an exception for printed matter with staples.

The Dancing Cake Tin12 June 2014 06:49

It's still worth a punt.

thebadphotographer12 June 2014 06:52

Also, it calls itself a 'paper' on p2. As does all PR and ad material relating to it.

Chris Nesbitt-Smith12 June 2014 06:54

It could have been printed outside of the UK which would make it exempt from that act.

They could also say it was packing material which is all its good for really anyway ;)

MatGB12 June 2014 11:10

Magazines still require (and have) imprints, and are registered as such.

Reply

ChrisDalton12 June 2014 08:28

I am so glad I am not getting one, I wouldn't fancy wiping my backside with it in case I got nicked by a staple/

Reply

Mark Savage12 June 2014 08:53

lets get this vile waste of paper put in the same place as its sister publication `news of the world` OUT OF BUSINESS.

Reply

yakumo unr12 June 2014 09:18

This comment has been removed by the author.

Reply

PatsyL12 June 2014 09:39

They are being posted in Liverpool and a lot are posting them right back to the sun

Reply

David King12 June 2014 10:42

I intended to line my rabbit hutch with the 'sun' freebie but than thought why should my rabbit (Puzzle) have to stomach this drivel - not sure if I will post it freepost back to the Sun or just Incinerate it hear on earth - Lol

Reply

Jack of Kent12 June 2014 10:56

This is good fun.

But looking at the legislation, it seems there are defences. Am sure News International can work them out.

One thing to note is that page 1 does carry the Sun's url, which connects to a "contact us" page with the full address and so on. Just on the strength of this, the "mischief" which the legislation is aimed at is met. The statutory wording of "place of abode" is sufficiently vague to be read purposely.

And also: one does not have to be a fan of News International to not want news publishers to incur criminal liability on such a basis.

It is a great spot by Chris, but I don't think it is one to take too seriously.

Reply

Julian Bray12 June 2014 22:44

Shame @JackofKent it is the right answer, and just saved Murdoch a couple of billion. Suggest you enhance your hourly rate if you intend making a habit of handing out more gems like this! ;)

Reply

Darryl Collins13 June 2014 01:05

It's a "newspaper"? I thought it was a toilet paper and firelighter promotion!

Reply

Load more...

?

?

Home

View web version

About Me

My Photo

Brown Moses

View my complete profile

Powered by Blogger

[Otta]

rodneybewes Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I do feel that their Editor, Dominic Mohan, gave a sincere

> apology and he obviously had nothing to do with

> the reporting then, and I feel for him having to

> make it being blameless himself.

Agree with that.

[StraferJack]

whenever anything legal hits the news, it's always worth checking jack of kent's twitter feed for a solid legal take on things

"Jack of Kent12 June 2014 10:56

This is good fun.

But looking at the legislation, it seems there are defences. Am sure News International can work them out.

One thing to note is that page 1 does carry the Sun's url, which connects to a "contact us" page with the full address and so on. Just on the strength of this, the "mischief" which the legislation is aimed at is met. The statutory wording of "place of abode" is sufficiently vague to be read purposely.

And also: one does not have to be a fan of News International to not want news publishers to incur criminal liability on such a basis.

It is a great spot by Chris, but I don't think it is one to take too seriously.

[uncleglen]

I don't care so long as the Daily Mirror doesn't follow suit- I cannot abide Kevin Maguire he is also 'mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence'(quote from Time Bandits) since he has been totally brainwashed by the loony left.

[Jeremy]

What am I missing? Why is ANY politician promoting a newspaper?

[StraferJack]

Not newspaper. "Our boys" in a football sense

It's all tawdry tho

[Jeremy]

Not really... they're holding up copies of the sun, not England scarves (do such things exist?). It's advertising. All three of them should have refused.

[aquarius moon]

It's simple:

Just buy THE STAR

(it's only 40p!)

[PokerTime]

Mine came today. It's now lining the litter tray unread :)