The Guardian supported slavery. What’s your point? I don’t think any of the people working there now were involved with that.
“Supported” isn’t correct (certainly not in the way that the Daily Mail supported Hitler and Moseley). The Manchester Guardian’s founder, John Taylor, drew on cotton investments based on slavery. This happened 200 years ago.
People working at The Sun today have been involved in Page 3. Topless pics in The Sun ended 8 years ago.
So the Guardian founder was actively involved in the slave trade? And the Guardian has benefitted directly from his involvement in slavery? All while painting themselves as bastions of morality?
Makes topless photos seem kind of tame.
Not sure why I’m trying to defend The Guardian - which I actually think is not much better than the rest of the media (I do hope you support reparations to the descendants of the enslaved seeing that you are rightly appalled at common British investments a couple of centuries ago).
I do think that trying to defend smutty pics of teens as tame while getting worked up about Huw Edwards allegedly paying for smutty pics of teens is contradictory, though.
