Correction - moderators please move up as an addition

They've been trawling Twitter for comments about the BBC's anti Thatcher "bias" when just as many people have been complaining on Twitter that the BBC have been to gushing about the old bag.
Massive fail!

Can't find the DM articles - you sure they arn't fake?

Anyway, DM readers are notorious thick anyway (as pointed out on this site, 99.99% of them are idiots), therefore I think we can safely ignore these "thumbs up" values, since they are made by DM readers

"Anyway, DM readers are notorious thick anyway (as pointed out on this site, 99.99% of them are idiots), therefore I think we can safely ignore these "thumbs up" values, since they are made by DM readers"

You might wanna rethink your opinions on a few things, the mail is read by over 6 million a week, including myself (it's important to know what the enemy are saying). That large a chunk of the population are not just 'idiots'. What the mail teaches us is how easily propaganda infects people, how easy it is to manipulate to stir up hate, how the media can happily act as a thought-control wing for the most extreme state policies, and how great the need is for our kids to be able to think critically and challenge what they are told.

It does not tell us that people are idiots, and I really fucking hate this elitist faux-anarcho standpoint where ordinary people are idiots because they don't share our opinion on things.

The Press Gazette reports the Daily Mail's print circulation as a full 4 million LESS than the figure that's being bandied about on Indymedia - 1,863,151 as of January 2013 (not 6 million). The Economist claimed the DM website has "100 million unique visitors per month", but take such an amazingly round (and amazingly huge) figure with a hefty pinch of salt... remember when the BNP recycled the "hits" produced by denial-of-service attacks launched against them by hackers as "proof" their website was the "most popular" in UK politics. I read the DM website regularly, and millions of readers do so because of the celebrity gossip and cute animal pictures, it doesn't mean we buy-in to their politics

 http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/uk-national-newspaper-sales-relatively-strong-performances-sun-and-mirror

As for the troll who tries to make us think s/he's one of us by saying "we can safely ignore these thumbs up values, since they are made by DM readers", if you read the comments they're obviously NOT made by traditional Daily Mail readers, and whether the thumbs-up come from traditional readers is impossible to prove either way.

Either way Daily Mail readers are mostly not stupid - they are for instance people who made a rational decision about the Tory policy of buying votes in exchange for massively discounted sales of council houses. Bearing in mind purchasers could re-sell those properties at full market value, that amounted to a massive gift of State resources (our resources) in exchange for votes. It would be fatuous to claim that (mostly poor) people who made the most of that opportunity were being stupid, and it would be pointless (and possibly counter-productive) to wag the finger at working-class people for being selfish when this policy offered their families far better options for practical self-improvement than radical politics.

Not only did Thatcher unsuccessfully try to exclude the poor from voting, trying to take Britain back to a 17th century style Poll Tax, using discounted sales of Council houses, she SUCCEEDED in reintroducing the system of Rotten Boroughs

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_Boroughs -

The Ballot Act of 1872 introduced the secret ballot, which greatly hindered patrons from controlling elections by preventing them from knowing how an elector had voted. **** At the same time, the practice of paying or entertaining voters ("treating") was outlawed ****

Since last night the number comments on the 1st Daily Mail article's gone DOWN - from 5,711, to (at the time of writing) just 362 comments. To show the Daily Mail's contempt for public opinion, Daily Mail hacks are deleting thousands of comments which don't agree with their stance on Margaret Thatcher, but, as you can see from this morning's screen-shot of the new "Best Rated" comments (made 2 hours ago), even with active censorship the new comments still aren't saying what the Daily Blackshirt wants to hear!

Jeremy "Kill All Strikers" Clarkson will be attending Thatcher's funeral

Link for 1st article -  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2306001/Margaret-Thatcher-state-funeral-campaign-Maggie-deserves-transforming-Britain-say-Tory-MPs.html

Link for 2nd article -  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2306155/Margaret-Thatcher-funeral-date-plans-Wednesday-April-17-St-Pauls-Queen-WILL-attend.html

I would be very surprised if the Daily Mail's web site didn't allow them to edit comment ratings.

That anti-thatcher comments are still the highest rating comments in spite of the DM's pro-Thatcher bias and their ability to rig comment ratings, says a lot about how out of touch they are!

Victorian values?!

I think you will find this site deletes lots comments that the moderators don't agree with either.

Typically, the web-site's owner can choose what they do with their own website.......
BECAUSE THEY OWN IT !!!!!!!!!!!

It is NOT a public service. It is a private website, where the owners can do what they want.
If you started a web-site, you too could delete comments off it aswell. It is totally legal.

If you want to dictate what the Daily mail does with its own site, then you will need to buy a majority of the shares of the company.

The article above here never said the Daily Mail didn't have a right to moderate comments. If you bother to read the screen-caps, they all start with the words "the comments below have been moderated in advance". The point is that thousands of comments were posted on the Daily Mail website, were approved by the moderators, were published, read, and thumbs-upped (or down) by tens of thousands of Daily Mail readers, and THEN removed, the next day, because they were a political embarrassment.

Again. this article is not challenging the Daily Mail's right to do that, it's challenging the Daily Mail's MOTIVE for doing that (but you knew that already). Yes, you are an "ahole" - thanks for proving that.

...

Similar pattern where I live