Mob rule, innit.

People shout on twitter, they get what they want, when profits and image are at slight risk.

More ridiculous was the B&B who didn't want the gay couple sharing a double. His property, his rules.

COYP

If you had told me twenty years ago that this country would be like this I just wouldn't have believed you.

Load of lefty purity testers successfully bullying companies.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Not yet but newspapers are hanging on by the skin of their teeth and if a journalist is clearly costing the paper advertising revenue he’s far more likely to be shown the door. I hope people continue to be free to express their opinions and others continue to be free to laugh at those opinions or not as the case may be. Risk of causing offence can’t be allowed to stifle polite debate. It gives a group (whichever) the ability to steamroller over everyone else’s views.

Of course it's inappropriate if an opinion contrasts massively with a company's all-families-welcome ethos! This is, after all, a very successful business that would like all types of families to continue spending near to a grand during a half term. Again, really doesn't seem nuts to me. Am I missing something, or does this seem like a simple rule of advertising?

Alternatively, perhaps the opinion isn't as widely held as you think?

What this company and other such spineless fools need to realise is that they are on the slippery slope which allows a minority of people to become 'offended' by inceasingly ridiculous things and stiffle free opinion.

Don't play this game.
It is clearly an attack on the newspaper for publishing a particular opinion.

Do tell me how it is inappropriate to post an ad' next to a story. It happens all the time. How does a totally separate unrelated story reflect on an advertisement?
If they don't like the Daily Mail it didn't stop them advertising in it in the first place did it.