Well, then, my apologies. Still, calling it essentially an unreliable rag that can't be trusted without something to back it up does tend to let others make their own assumptions about your views. As to showing only the seamy underbelly of England - well, as we used to say in Journo101 - Good News is No News.
Edit: And yes, I'm well aware of the problem of citing sources people feel strongly about one way or another. I dared to lnk to a Fox News story that completely derailed the subject into "Faux News ebuhl Right-Wingars" - when, in fact, the byline was Associated Press. That's part of the problem - people are so invested in hating some organization that they think is not only wrong, but outright lies, that they can't accept anything from them, even if it's actually sourced and factual. It's not a matter of just not relying on it without double-checking, its a case of active hatred. So... basically, any time I read something interesting on Fox, I find a link to the same story from another souce to avoid that problem. I think its wrong, but it saves a lot of frothing insanity from the other side.