Mind you, these are Melanie Phillips's readers, so what do you expect?
Friday, 30 January 2009
Yeugh
It's the question as much as anything else. These are the kind of people who'd go ballistic at any suggestion that the nanny state should interfere in their lives, if it came to fining them for speeding or any such trifle; yet all of a sudden the power of the state becomes oh-so-vital if it means you can 'allow' (or more particularly not allow) such horrendous perverts as gay people to be allowed to adopt:
Mind you, these are Melanie Phillips's readers, so what do you expect?
Mind you, these are Melanie Phillips's readers, so what do you expect?
Linkipoos, 30/1/09
Cor, it's the end of January already, and a forecast of chillier times ahead prompts the inevitable "there's going to be weather" story in the Mail. A bunch of flowers, though, for this magnificently withering response from Mail reader 'Dave', who scribbles:
Well, quite. Elsewhere there's a winter of discontent brewing away, with strikes in France and in our own country. It's a bit of a brain-exploder for the Mail and friends, who would so dearly love to side with the 'British jobs for British workers' and anger over imported labour if it weren't for the fact that those evil bastard trade union scum were involved. Much as many would like to crayon the problems as being dirty wops v honest Brits, I don't think that's really the case, and tend to agree with A Very Public Sociologist that it's more about class than race.
Other choice cuts: Johann Hari on why David Cameron sees FDR's New Deal as a big mistake, and why DaveCam is therefore a plank.
Septicisle on the overbearing rubbishness of the House of Lords.
Bloggerheads on the frankly rather embarrassing 'Lionheart' and the latest on Glen Jenvey.
David Semple on why news media are not just biased, but also bad at their jobs in the first place.
Pigdogfucker cuts through the crap when it comes to the mock-horror over gay adoption, and, on a similar subject, Rhetorically Speaking manages to make it through Mad Mel's blisteringly nonsensical take on the subject.
That's all for the time being. Bit busy but will be back later. In the meantime, I'm in desperate need of a chocolate giraffe. All suggestions gratefully received!
Astonishing - cold weather expected during winter. Thanks so much for drawing our attention to it.
Well, quite. Elsewhere there's a winter of discontent brewing away, with strikes in France and in our own country. It's a bit of a brain-exploder for the Mail and friends, who would so dearly love to side with the 'British jobs for British workers' and anger over imported labour if it weren't for the fact that those evil bastard trade union scum were involved. Much as many would like to crayon the problems as being dirty wops v honest Brits, I don't think that's really the case, and tend to agree with A Very Public Sociologist that it's more about class than race.
Other choice cuts: Johann Hari on why David Cameron sees FDR's New Deal as a big mistake, and why DaveCam is therefore a plank.
Septicisle on the overbearing rubbishness of the House of Lords.
Bloggerheads on the frankly rather embarrassing 'Lionheart' and the latest on Glen Jenvey.
David Semple on why news media are not just biased, but also bad at their jobs in the first place.
Pigdogfucker cuts through the crap when it comes to the mock-horror over gay adoption, and, on a similar subject, Rhetorically Speaking manages to make it through Mad Mel's blisteringly nonsensical take on the subject.
That's all for the time being. Bit busy but will be back later. In the meantime, I'm in desperate need of a chocolate giraffe. All suggestions gratefully received!
Thursday, 29 January 2009
I've got a picture of you, and you look slightly different
One of the things that genuinely seems to puzzle the Mail is the way in which people can change their appearance. People gain and lose weight; they age as they get older; women may change in size and appearance when they are pregnant.
Simple enough facts obvious to anyone, you might think. But no, if you're the Mail it's vital news that needs to be revealed to a stunned public, who are apparently unaware that people get older, thinner, fatter or change shape when pregnant.
Maybe Mail journalists skipped biology classes at school, and are therefore totally ignorant of these perfectly normal and well recorded phenomena. Or maybe they're a trashy bunch of bastards who hate everyone who doesn't meet their oh-so-exacting standards of what is and what isn't perfection. Hmm.
You'll remember, of course, how the Mail roared at 1970s TV stars Richard O'Sullivan and Paul Daniels for having dared to have grown older over the past 30-odd years (while at the same time pretending to care about Andrew Sachs's feelings in the Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross affair); you'll also recall the Procrustes Bed of thinness and fatness that makes almost every single celebrity too tubby or too skinny to be acceptable.
Yet still, these things astonish the Mail on a daily basis. Much as I may think Steve "Love the show" Wright is about as entertaining as nailing my face to a moving car, who gives a shit if he's put on a bit of weight? Well, the Mail consider it stunningly important:
Guffaw.
I imagine that's because he presents a radio programme. Could be something to do with that, couldn't it?
Next for the sneering picture caption of the 'before and after', it's Celebrity Big Brother walkaway Mutya Buena:
Guffaw. Hang on a minute, that headline's a bit familiar...
Ah yes. Top work, Mail website headline writers. What superb skills there. Have you got a shortcut key for 'piled on the pounds'?
Who gives a flying fuck? Not this reader:
I think you're on the wrong website, Harriet.
That's nothing, though, compared to the mysterious phenomenon of women's bellies expanding when they're pregnant - and then *whispers* magically getting smaller again. What on earth could explain this sorcery? Not the Mail, who have vital photographs showing a woman walking out of her front door:
Apparently it is a fucking surprise to you lot. But then there's the curious case of what happens when women have children... they lose that big tummy. I wonder why? I wonder how? Can we connect the two events of being pregnant and putting on weight? Surely not! It seems the Mail still haven't twigged, as they snap Natasha Kaplinsky at some boring lunch bollocks event type shit:
Come again?
Right. Who the hell does the Mail employ to write web headlines? If it were Abu Hamza you could understand all the spelling mistakes... but I imagine someone actually got paid real money to write this cobblers.
Whoop-de-doo. Astonishing scenes there, as a woman who has recently given birth has somehow, miraculously, lost about seven pounds or so of weight - who knows how? Who knows how this strange event happened? What kind of wizardy made this bizarre thing occur?
Anyway, just for a bit of fun, I thought I'd try a bit of 'now and then' photographs myself. Have a look at this slaphead:
Ho ho! I wonder if he looks the same now, the bald bastard?!
Ooh look! Isn't he older? Isn't he older? Hasn't he got older? Hasn't he PILED ON THE POUNDS? Hasn't he though? Ooh, look, he's slightly different from how he used to look, look at that, the bastard! How dare he look slightly different from what he used to look like! How dare he!
Another face from the past now. Here's a former TV presenter, pictured in the days before he jetted off to Florida:
And here's how he is today:
Ooh, hasn't he PILED ON THE POUNDS? Hasn't he? Hasn't he? Doesn't he look older than he did when he was younger? Doesn't he though? Isn't he? Hasn't he PILED ON THE POUNDS and got a few EXTRA CHINS? How dare he go through the ageing process! How dare he!
If anyone has any photos of Peter Hitchens looking skinny / Melanie Phillips looking vaguely human, then they would work quite as well too, I think.
Simple enough facts obvious to anyone, you might think. But no, if you're the Mail it's vital news that needs to be revealed to a stunned public, who are apparently unaware that people get older, thinner, fatter or change shape when pregnant.
Maybe Mail journalists skipped biology classes at school, and are therefore totally ignorant of these perfectly normal and well recorded phenomena. Or maybe they're a trashy bunch of bastards who hate everyone who doesn't meet their oh-so-exacting standards of what is and what isn't perfection. Hmm.
You'll remember, of course, how the Mail roared at 1970s TV stars Richard O'Sullivan and Paul Daniels for having dared to have grown older over the past 30-odd years (while at the same time pretending to care about Andrew Sachs's feelings in the Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross affair); you'll also recall the Procrustes Bed of thinness and fatness that makes almost every single celebrity too tubby or too skinny to be acceptable.
Yet still, these things astonish the Mail on a daily basis. Much as I may think Steve "Love the show" Wright is about as entertaining as nailing my face to a moving car, who gives a shit if he's put on a bit of weight? Well, the Mail consider it stunningly important:
Steve Weight in the afternoon: Radio 2 DJ has piled on the pounds
Guffaw.
He is one of the biggest names in radio. Now it seems Steve Wright has the frame to match. Not to mention a chin or three.
The 54-year-old DJ, who presents his popular three-hour show on Radio 2 each weekday afternoon, is more famous for his voice than his appearance.
I imagine that's because he presents a radio programme. Could be something to do with that, couldn't it?
Next for the sneering picture caption of the 'before and after', it's Celebrity Big Brother walkaway Mutya Buena:
Celebrity Big Brother star Mutya Buena piles on the pounds after walking out of show
Guffaw. Hang on a minute, that headline's a bit familiar...
Steve Weight in the afternoon: Radio 2 DJ has piled on the pounds
Ah yes. Top work, Mail website headline writers. What superb skills there. Have you got a shortcut key for 'piled on the pounds'?
Celebrity Big Brother star Mutya Buena looked to have gained a few dress sizes as she dropped in at a showbiz party.
The 23-year-old, who walked out of the Big Brother house a week before the final, donned an unflattering black dress as she attended the Nokia 5800 launch party at Punk night club.
With a rounder middle and fuller face, her appearance was a million miles away from the slender look she displayed before entering the house.
Who gives a flying fuck? Not this reader:
She looks happy, stop picking on people because of their weight.
Harriet, Weston super mare
I think you're on the wrong website, Harriet.
That's nothing, though, compared to the mysterious phenomenon of women's bellies expanding when they're pregnant - and then *whispers* magically getting smaller again. What on earth could explain this sorcery? Not the Mail, who have vital photographs showing a woman walking out of her front door:
All buttoned up in a classic raincoat, Dancing On Ice presenter Holly Willoughby looks every inch the expectant mother.
Five months into her pregnancy, it is no surprise the 27-year-old looks so swell as she steps out of her London home.
Apparently it is a fucking surprise to you lot. But then there's the curious case of what happens when women have children... they lose that big tummy. I wonder why? I wonder how? Can we connect the two events of being pregnant and putting on weight? Surely not! It seems the Mail still haven't twigged, as they snap Natasha Kaplinsky at some boring lunch bollocks event type shit:
Natasha Kaplinsky's pay packet set to shrink... but not as her post-baby body
Come again?
Natasha Kaplinsky's pay packet set to shrink... but not as her post-baby body
Right. Who the hell does the Mail employ to write web headlines? If it were Abu Hamza you could understand all the spelling mistakes... but I imagine someone actually got paid real money to write this cobblers.
Natasha Kaplinsky will return to work next month with a slimmer pay packet - and waistline.
The newsreader looked thinner than ever as she mingled with the likes of Kirsty Young, Fiona Bruce and Sarah Brown at the Wellbeing of Women's Annual Lunch Debate in central London today.
Wearing a grey trousers and matching knit top, it was clear the 36-year-old has shed her baby weight - and then some - less than five months after welcoming her first child.
Whoop-de-doo. Astonishing scenes there, as a woman who has recently given birth has somehow, miraculously, lost about seven pounds or so of weight - who knows how? Who knows how this strange event happened? What kind of wizardy made this bizarre thing occur?
Anyway, just for a bit of fun, I thought I'd try a bit of 'now and then' photographs myself. Have a look at this slaphead:
Ho ho! I wonder if he looks the same now, the bald bastard?!
Ooh look! Isn't he older? Isn't he older? Hasn't he got older? Hasn't he PILED ON THE POUNDS? Hasn't he though? Ooh, look, he's slightly different from how he used to look, look at that, the bastard! How dare he look slightly different from what he used to look like! How dare he!
Another face from the past now. Here's a former TV presenter, pictured in the days before he jetted off to Florida:
And here's how he is today:
Ooh, hasn't he PILED ON THE POUNDS? Hasn't he? Hasn't he? Doesn't he look older than he did when he was younger? Doesn't he though? Isn't he? Hasn't he PILED ON THE POUNDS and got a few EXTRA CHINS? How dare he go through the ageing process! How dare he!
If anyone has any photos of Peter Hitchens looking skinny / Melanie Phillips looking vaguely human, then they would work quite as well too, I think.
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
Jenvey: Eek
The toothless PCC have creaked into action and are investigating the Glen Jenvey affair. I don't really hold out a big world of hope that they'll publicly censure the Super Soaraway, but perhaps we might find out a little more about whether Jenvey really is 'Abuislam' and whether the Sun bothered to check anything in the story for annoying little details like facts before they splashed it on the front page.
Awwwwwwwwwwww
Look, it's a little furry baby otter who's gone round Scotland in a postbag! Brill! Like Ring of Bright Water but without the shovel. Ace. Look at his her little face and tell me it's not great! You can't!
A bitter irony
The BBC's reporting of the recent violence in Sri Lanka has been exemplary - despite the fact that reporters aren't allowed into the disputed region, it has maintained decent and constant coverage of the conflict, reflecting both sides of the divide. It's the kind of thing Auntie used to call 'impartiality' before that lantern-jawed prick in charge of them decided that 'impartiality' meant 'cravenly chucking your journalistic integrity into the skip because you're shitting yourself about a few angry letters from people who hate you anyway and will always hate you, and will condemn you as having a liberal-left bias even if you tattoo Ronald Reagan onto your face'.
Anyway, I mention this because the Red Cross says there is a real danger of a humanitarian crisis unfolding in the region. It could turn into a grave problem for those people caught up in the crossfire between the Tamil Tigers and Government forces. And it's just the sort of thing where overseas aid, delivered by NGOs under trying circumstances, could make a real difference and save lives.
Unfortunately the Mark Thompson doctrine will clearly dictate that the BBC should not show any appeal because it might upset the Sri Lankan Government. A shame, because this conflict and the resulting humanitarian disaster has received far less publicity than that which has taken place in Israel and Gaza (ironically despite such sterling journalistic efforts from the BBC). It's just the sort of instance where TV appeals could raise awareness. But if Thompson is going to be consistent, he will veto any such instances out of hand, for fear of possibly compromising the BBC's impartiality.
But then again, has the DG been invited over for a chummy meeting in Colombo to discuss matters with the Sri Lankan authorities, not bothering to have similar meetings with the Tamil separatists? Are there dozens of stridently pro-Sri Lanka columnists in the national press, including a bizarre old bat who claims everything in the world ever is a conspiracy against Sri Lanka and yet still gets treated as if she's a voice of something even approaching reason?
So maybe it's not quite the same thing.
Anyway, I mention this because the Red Cross says there is a real danger of a humanitarian crisis unfolding in the region. It could turn into a grave problem for those people caught up in the crossfire between the Tamil Tigers and Government forces. And it's just the sort of thing where overseas aid, delivered by NGOs under trying circumstances, could make a real difference and save lives.
Unfortunately the Mark Thompson doctrine will clearly dictate that the BBC should not show any appeal because it might upset the Sri Lankan Government. A shame, because this conflict and the resulting humanitarian disaster has received far less publicity than that which has taken place in Israel and Gaza (ironically despite such sterling journalistic efforts from the BBC). It's just the sort of instance where TV appeals could raise awareness. But if Thompson is going to be consistent, he will veto any such instances out of hand, for fear of possibly compromising the BBC's impartiality.
But then again, has the DG been invited over for a chummy meeting in Colombo to discuss matters with the Sri Lankan authorities, not bothering to have similar meetings with the Tamil separatists? Are there dozens of stridently pro-Sri Lanka columnists in the national press, including a bizarre old bat who claims everything in the world ever is a conspiracy against Sri Lanka and yet still gets treated as if she's a voice of something even approaching reason?
So maybe it's not quite the same thing.
Dear Daily Mail,
...do you think you could make it a bit more difficult for me please?
1. 'Disturbing world of amoral teens in cyberspace'
2. Pics of models in skimpy clothes, showing their bums!
3. 'Semi-naked' dancers!
4. Pussycat Girls in their undies!
1. 'Disturbing world of amoral teens in cyberspace'
When one considers our society, it’s no surprise that our children have lost all sense of modesty.
2. Pics of models in skimpy clothes, showing their bums!
Do you think my bum looks bare in this? Paris fashion week uncovered
3. 'Semi-naked' dancers!
What a striker: The beauty did not appear to have impressed Capello
4. Pussycat Girls in their undies!
Lead singer Nicole gives viewers an insight into what her boyfriend Lewis Hamilton gets to see behind closed doors as she dirty dances in a selection of lacy underwear.
Wading in
The response to Rebekah Wade's speech earlier this week is a perfect example of why newspaper journalism is getting more and more crap and can't be trusted. Instead of reasoned analysis of a speech full of bullshit from someone who has made appalling errors of judgment and printed downright lies, there was just supine bleating from journalists - the likes of Greenslade, whose horrible face makes any issue of the Guardian less pleasant - towards 'one of their own' rather than looking at whether what she said really stacked up.
Luckily, The Sun Lies exists on the web.
Luckily, The Sun Lies exists on the web.
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
Well now...
...this could be exciting.
Then again, it could be as unexciting as when the original draft of the 'sexed up' dodgy dossier was brought out.
But here's hoping it utterly ruins the career of 'peace envoy' Blair.
Then again, it could be as unexciting as when the original draft of the 'sexed up' dodgy dossier was brought out.
But here's hoping it utterly ruins the career of 'peace envoy' Blair.
Bending over backwards to try and appease people who will always hate you
...sums up for me the BBC's pathetic stance towards the angry types who will always, constantly, unwaveringly accuse it of left-wing bias even if it painted itself blue, broadcast David Cameron's face on a 24-hour loop and changed its name to the British Conservative Party Broadcasting We Love Tories Corporation.
Sunny over at Liberal Conspiracy voices a concern that those of the left have had for a while - that the Beeb is abandoning true journalistic principles in order to placate its more strident and vocal critics, often people who hold the corporation and everything it stands for in contempt in the first place. The Beeb's stridently snotty director-general and sometime Jerusalem visitor Mark Thompson, a man who has evidently mistaken strength for stubbornness, says it's all about balance and 'impartiality'. But is he right? Let's assume for a moment the Beeb did screen the appeal - would the roars of disapproval from the usual suspects really have been intolerably bad? Would impartiality really have been compromised? Not for a minute.
There's still time to put that appeal up, you know.
Sunny over at Liberal Conspiracy voices a concern that those of the left have had for a while - that the Beeb is abandoning true journalistic principles in order to placate its more strident and vocal critics, often people who hold the corporation and everything it stands for in contempt in the first place. The Beeb's stridently snotty director-general and sometime Jerusalem visitor Mark Thompson, a man who has evidently mistaken strength for stubbornness, says it's all about balance and 'impartiality'. But is he right? Let's assume for a moment the Beeb did screen the appeal - would the roars of disapproval from the usual suspects really have been intolerably bad? Would impartiality really have been compromised? Not for a minute.
There's still time to put that appeal up, you know.
Littlecock in 'not universally loved and admired' shocker
Astonishing scenes on the Mail's website, as comments which don't necessarily agree with Florida-based gobby shithouse Richard Littlejohn, or call for him to be Prime Minister, have been allowed through by the moderators.
Are they secret leftist Guardianista moles, daring to besmirch the brilliance of their star columnist's page with people who say anything other than "Hilarious! Britain is shit - Clive, Dubai" or "You should be PM, I hate elfnsafety, England has gone to the dogs - John, Spain"? Is there a new comments policy in place? Or has Tricky Dicky finally been told that he can't chuck his toys out the pram every time someone disagrees with views that are frankly rather disagreeable, even for the Mail - and given that he's being paid over and above what any other journalist in the country (apart from Jonathan Cainer) receives, many times over, he should shut his fucking mouth and accept some criticism? I'm guessing it's not the latter, somehow, but we'll see. I tend to think it's just a blip and normal sycophantic-only service will be resumed in the very near future.
Anyway, as you know I don't link to Littlejohn, but here are some choice cuts harvested from the Mailwatch forum:
Ha ha! *applause*
Wonderful, wonderful! We won't have long to enjoy this, so let's keep it up. I couldn't give a tupenny if it gets voted down billions by the Littlejohn fans; it's great to see any kind of dissent at all. Well done, Daily Mail!
Are they secret leftist Guardianista moles, daring to besmirch the brilliance of their star columnist's page with people who say anything other than "Hilarious! Britain is shit - Clive, Dubai" or "You should be PM, I hate elfnsafety, England has gone to the dogs - John, Spain"? Is there a new comments policy in place? Or has Tricky Dicky finally been told that he can't chuck his toys out the pram every time someone disagrees with views that are frankly rather disagreeable, even for the Mail - and given that he's being paid over and above what any other journalist in the country (apart from Jonathan Cainer) receives, many times over, he should shut his fucking mouth and accept some criticism? I'm guessing it's not the latter, somehow, but we'll see. I tend to think it's just a blip and normal sycophantic-only service will be resumed in the very near future.
Anyway, as you know I don't link to Littlejohn, but here are some choice cuts harvested from the Mailwatch forum:
When a scheme sounds preposterous as it is there is no need for the trick of saying what it might turn into and then going on about the imaginary version as if it was the story all along. And I should be very surprised if any UK inspectors come knocking on your door, Richard. Unless they're on holiday or lost.
Ha ha! *applause*
I particularly like the skill with which you pull figures of 8,000 and tens of millions of pounds out of the air at one point, and then castigate the government for allegedly pulling another figure out of the air just paragraphs later.
You also deserve applause for stating that people who have never been to trial were definitely working for Al Qaeda. Here's hoping that doesn't get your paper into any legal trouble.
Another tour de force! You should be Prime Minister, etc.
Wonderful, wonderful! We won't have long to enjoy this, so let's keep it up. I couldn't give a tupenny if it gets voted down billions by the Littlejohn fans; it's great to see any kind of dissent at all. Well done, Daily Mail!
Best thing I've read in ages
Every so often you read something that makes you say "Yes!" in your head. But then there are other things that make you say "Yes!" aloud, then wander round the room doing a funny kind of dance, lolloping about with sheer instinctive joy. This is one of those. Read it now, love it forever.
I thought I had a tough job wading through the tabloids to write my rubbish blog, but no. Ron Rosenbaum has bought an entire Billy Joel box-set in order to explore just why he's so shite.
Hat tip to Aaron for finding this gem.
I thought I had a tough job wading through the tabloids to write my rubbish blog, but no. Ron Rosenbaum has bought an entire Billy Joel box-set in order to explore just why he's so shite.
I'm reluctant to pick on Billy Joel. He's been subject to withering contempt from hipster types for so long that it no longer seems worth the time. Still, the mystery persists: How can he be so bad and yet so popular for so long? He's still there. You can't defend yourself with anti-B.J. shields around your brain. He still takes up the space, takes up A&R advances that would otherwise support a score of unrecognized but genuinely talented artists, singers, and songwriters, with his loathsomely insipid simulacrum of rock.
...
And I think I've done it! I think I've identified the qualities in B.J.'s work that distinguish his badness from other kinds of badness: It exhibits unearned contempt. Both a self-righteous contempt for others and the self-approbation and self-congratulation that is contempt's backside, so to speak. Most frequently a contempt for the supposed phoniness or inauthenticity of other people as opposed to the rock-solid authenticity of our B.J.
Hat tip to Aaron for finding this gem.
Monday, 26 January 2009
Anorexia's bad but look at this fat cow! vol 1,332,296
Remember 'Anorexia's bad but look at this fat cow!'?
Well... anorexia's bad...
...but look at this fat cow!
From your caring Daily Mail:
I wonder why on earth people do get eating disorders, when a healthy-looking woman is slagged off for not being rake-thin? Hmm. It's a puzzler all right.
Well... anorexia's bad...
...but look at this fat cow!
From your caring Daily Mail:
But it seems her now more relaxed approach to fitness and a good dose of her family's Texan cuisine over the Christmas holidays have caught up with her.
Perhaps feeling self-conscious about her expanding waistline, Jessica opted for some high-waisted baggy jeans and a slimming black vest as she performed at the Kiss Country Chili Cookout in Pembroke Pines.
I wonder why on earth people do get eating disorders, when a healthy-looking woman is slagged off for not being rake-thin? Hmm. It's a puzzler all right.
Nowtrage
From St Charlie of Brooker:
Expect to see more nowtrage over this latest tweet from Jonathan Ross:
EVIL ROSS AND BRAND TO DOUBLE TEAM OAPs ON TWITTER IN TAXPAYER FUNDED BID TO SPITROAST GRANNIES AND FUCK THEM IN THE FACE!
or something like that.
And yes, I am on Twitter too much.
(nowt-rage) - Noun. Lame tabloid outrage. See also Nowtrageous - Adj; 'This Ross OAP gag story in The Sun is truly nowtrageous."
Expect to see more nowtrage over this latest tweet from Jonathan Ross:
Just spoke to russell. he wants to be on twitter. Will try to help him set up account. 'citing !
EVIL ROSS AND BRAND TO DOUBLE TEAM OAPs ON TWITTER IN TAXPAYER FUNDED BID TO SPITROAST GRANNIES AND FUCK THEM IN THE FACE!
or something like that.
And yes, I am on Twitter too much.
...and so to the Mail.
After a weekend of BBC bashing, it's nice to take a step back and have a look at their tormentors-in-chief. I'm talking about the Mail, of course, whose agenda against Auntie has been embarrassingly obvious for rather a long time. The Mail, whose commitment to delivering unrealistic profits to shareholders despite the fact there's a recession quality journalism means they have decided to wield the axe on my local papers, the Bristol Evening Post and Western Daily Press, sacking 45 journalists.
Anyway, you would have thought the Mail would see an open goal with the BBC's decision not to screen an appeal on behalf of aid agencies tackling the humanitarian disaster in Gaza; and to be fair they did have a half-hearted crack at it yesterday, attempting to claim that the real 'crisis' wasn't lots of people starving to death and having been made homeless by heavy artillery blowing up schools and hospitals, but at Broadcasting House. But it's a bit of a sticky one for the Mail, given that they haven't exactly been shining beacons of impartiality themselves, making it clear who they thought was the 'enemy' in the recent violence. A complex political and historical situation, with right and wrong on both sides, terror and violence both state-sponsored and otherwise? Er, no, it's goodies and baddies as far as the Mail's concerned.
So the Mail aren't pressing their nemesis the Beeb too much over the DEC/Gaza business. I presume they must actually agree with the decision, much as they might enjoy watching Auntie squirm. Incidentally, I can't wait to read the reams of bollocks that Mad Mel comes up with this week squawking about how, actually, the BBC and their director general - who visited Israel to talk to Ariel Sharon, but couldn't be fucked to meet with any Palestinian representatives - are in fact shadowy figures who, like that bastard Barack Obama and everyone in the world except her and about three other people, wants to destroy Israel.
Instead, they are targeting that tax-funded popinjay Jonathan Ross once again, with that story about him and his mate having had a conversation on a radio programme which someone took a bit more personally than perhaps they should have done. More of that in a minute, but don't forget in all this whipped-up hysteria and bandwagon-jumping that no-one in the country give a shit about it - until the entire British press took up arms against the floppy-haired soi-disant 'presenter'.
It's easy enough to dismantle this load of old bollocks, but I like doing it, so I will.
Right, let's see if we can find evidence to prove the headline. Did Ross make a 'sick joke' about an Alzheimer's sufferer?
I see. He (and it wasn't even Ross, but his little mate who does the show with him and presses the buttons for him) mentioned an old lady. But it must have been this particular old lady because she's the only person in the entire village who is an old lady! It must have been her! And so therefore SACK HIM! Er, them! Everyone! Sack everyone! Die! The Mail are lifting a lot of this from the News of the Screws, who first decided to concoct this crap in the first place.
But, can we ring a couple of rentaquote cunts to prop up the flimsiness of this shite story? Yes we can!
I don't know which David Davies it was, but I'm guessing it was the one they regularly ring up for anti-immigration quotes when no-one else will say anything extreme enough for their tastes. Christ, they must have had a hell of a ring-around.
"Will you slag off Jonathan Ross?"
"No."
"He said he wanted to fuck an old granny."
"No."
"He said he wanted to jizz in her face."
"No."
"Fuck you then, I'll go to David Davies."
And Mediawatch - some astroturf pressure group as well. Hardly convincing, but hmm, yes, it's an avalanche of hatred, all against that bastard Ross!
But JR's little mate says:
Not that that's going to stop the Mail from ignoring that entirely and saying he's definitely on about that one woman, because they said so. Of course you could look at it another way - what good has this done the woman in question, having her son blab a load of shit to the tabloids just to fit in with their anti-BBC agenda?
Oh, and there's a wealth of Pavlovian comments under the story, as you'd expect from something describing the hated Ross and the Stalinist bastards at the BBC. More on those later, once I've had a lie down with a wet flannel on my face.
Anyway, you would have thought the Mail would see an open goal with the BBC's decision not to screen an appeal on behalf of aid agencies tackling the humanitarian disaster in Gaza; and to be fair they did have a half-hearted crack at it yesterday, attempting to claim that the real 'crisis' wasn't lots of people starving to death and having been made homeless by heavy artillery blowing up schools and hospitals, but at Broadcasting House. But it's a bit of a sticky one for the Mail, given that they haven't exactly been shining beacons of impartiality themselves, making it clear who they thought was the 'enemy' in the recent violence. A complex political and historical situation, with right and wrong on both sides, terror and violence both state-sponsored and otherwise? Er, no, it's goodies and baddies as far as the Mail's concerned.
So the Mail aren't pressing their nemesis the Beeb too much over the DEC/Gaza business. I presume they must actually agree with the decision, much as they might enjoy watching Auntie squirm. Incidentally, I can't wait to read the reams of bollocks that Mad Mel comes up with this week squawking about how, actually, the BBC and their director general - who visited Israel to talk to Ariel Sharon, but couldn't be fucked to meet with any Palestinian representatives - are in fact shadowy figures who, like that bastard Barack Obama and everyone in the world except her and about three other people, wants to destroy Israel.
Instead, they are targeting that tax-funded popinjay Jonathan Ross once again, with that story about him and his mate having had a conversation on a radio programme which someone took a bit more personally than perhaps they should have done. More of that in a minute, but don't forget in all this whipped-up hysteria and bandwagon-jumping that no-one in the country give a shit about it - until the entire British press took up arms against the floppy-haired soi-disant 'presenter'.
It's easy enough to dismantle this load of old bollocks, but I like doing it, so I will.
Sack him, says the son of Jonathan Ross's latest victim as he makes sick joke about Alzheimer's sufferer
Right, let's see if we can find evidence to prove the headline. Did Ross make a 'sick joke' about an Alzheimer's sufferer?
Although Mrs Guzman was not named, she is well known in the Andalusian village of Conchar, near Granada, where Mr Davies has his villa.
I see. He (and it wasn't even Ross, but his little mate who does the show with him and presses the buttons for him) mentioned an old lady. But it must have been this particular old lady because she's the only person in the entire village who is an old lady! It must have been her! And so therefore SACK HIM! Er, them! Everyone! Sack everyone! Die! The Mail are lifting a lot of this from the News of the Screws, who first decided to concoct this crap in the first place.
But, can we ring a couple of rentaquote cunts to prop up the flimsiness of this shite story? Yes we can!
Last night there were new calls for Ross to be sacked. Tory MP David Davies said: 'There is a place for humour but it has to be appropriate to the time of the day. And that clearly wasn't.'
Mediawatch director John Beyer said: 'Jokes like this are not on. He should have gone months ago.'
I don't know which David Davies it was, but I'm guessing it was the one they regularly ring up for anti-immigration quotes when no-one else will say anything extreme enough for their tastes. Christ, they must have had a hell of a ring-around.
"Will you slag off Jonathan Ross?"
"No."
"He said he wanted to fuck an old granny."
"No."
"He said he wanted to jizz in her face."
"No."
"Fuck you then, I'll go to David Davies."
And Mediawatch - some astroturf pressure group as well. Hardly convincing, but hmm, yes, it's an avalanche of hatred, all against that bastard Ross!
But JR's little mate says:
After the scandal broke, Mr Davies claimed that the woman he was talking about was not real.
He said in a statement: 'The story was poetic licence based on the warm and affectionate behaviour in Spanish village life. I did not identify an individual because there isn't one.'
Not that that's going to stop the Mail from ignoring that entirely and saying he's definitely on about that one woman, because they said so. Of course you could look at it another way - what good has this done the woman in question, having her son blab a load of shit to the tabloids just to fit in with their anti-BBC agenda?
Oh, and there's a wealth of Pavlovian comments under the story, as you'd expect from something describing the hated Ross and the Stalinist bastards at the BBC. More on those later, once I've had a lie down with a wet flannel on my face.
Can you imagine...
...the uproar if the director-general of the BBC visited Palestine for secret talks on the corporation's coverage?
Well then imagine the lack of uproar when he went to Israel instead.
I imagine that was showing due impartiality. The not going to Palestine bit or talking to Palestinians. You know, that bit. That was where he was at his most impartial. I mean, it's such a long way away from Israel, so why bother?
Thank goodness he's here today to tell us all, like the patronising overpaid cunt he is, about things that 'could be interpreted as taking a political stance'! Thank goodness he has never done any such thing. Phew!
All of a sudden, I have quite a lot of empathy with those on the right who begrudge paying their licence fees. Can I grumble about mine, but for entirely different reasons?
Well then imagine the lack of uproar when he went to Israel instead.
I imagine that was showing due impartiality. The not going to Palestine bit or talking to Palestinians. You know, that bit. That was where he was at his most impartial. I mean, it's such a long way away from Israel, so why bother?
Thank goodness he's here today to tell us all, like the patronising overpaid cunt he is, about things that 'could be interpreted as taking a political stance'! Thank goodness he has never done any such thing. Phew!
All of a sudden, I have quite a lot of empathy with those on the right who begrudge paying their licence fees. Can I grumble about mine, but for entirely different reasons?
Sunday, 25 January 2009
The right place for them to be advertising...?
(click for to make big)
From an article by Sunny Hundal over at Pickled Politics...
Hmm. Can't quite see how many PP regulars will enjoy the BNP website - or indeed whether people who'd like to meet Pakistan women would also click onto the British National Party site.
I hope the fuckers don't appear on here or I'll have to rethink Google Ads altogether. *update* I've blocked them, hopefully.
At least there's one group of people pleased by the BBC's decision...
...These Daily Mail readers:
I bet the BBC are happy they've made that kind of person happy. And:
Another satisfied licence fee payer.
Sue's happy too.
See, these are the voices in favour of the BBC. People who think the Red Cross are a bunch of anti-Israeli bastards. And here's another person who agrees with the BBC:
Shimon agrees with the BBC's decision. Thank goodness he has been placated!
So there you are. Thank goodness for Auntie Beeb carefully steering the middle way, making sure they don't upset anyone important! Incidentally, there is quite a variety of views on offer in this discussion (though the vast majority are against the BBC, whichever side they're on) and those views above are not really the majority. There's this, for example:
...which has been rated down by readers, despite the fact that it's anti-BBC. I wonder why on earth that might be?
Whats up? Have HAMAS run out of rockets? Or do they need the west to rebuild the schools and hospitals as they have no launch sites left?
This is on a par with the IRA fundraising in the US in the 70's and 80's.
Nothing to do with us, keep our noses out, if they need money, go ask the Saudis. I note the Arab world don't seem to want anything to do with these scum. (Iranians are NOT Arabs!)
- F.U., Coventry, England, 23/1/2009 9:10
I bet the BBC are happy they've made that kind of person happy. And:
The Palestinians want aid, some has even been offered by Israel, why is the Barmy Broadcasting Corporation getting it's collective knickers in a twist about asking for some more? Or is it that the NGO's themsevles are continuing to give a twisted anti Israel/pro Hamas view of events? Yet many in the media took their words as gospel during the conflict! Funny ol' world!
- Nuff Said, Anytown, England, 23/1/2009 8:17
Another satisfied licence fee payer.
I agree with this decision. Hamas has cuased untold damage to Israel. Why should Gaza be rewarded for terrorist activity against Israel.
- Sue, Southampton, 24/1/2009
Sue's happy too.
The BBC made the right decision. I cannot give to this charity because Gaza is ruled by a terrorist organisation and I would be concerned about the money being used to sponsor terrorism. I also don't trust some of the charities involved in this appeal since they have shown anti-Israeli bias in the past.
- Simone, Kent, UK, 24/1/2009 10:29
See, these are the voices in favour of the BBC. People who think the Red Cross are a bunch of anti-Israeli bastards. And here's another person who agrees with the BBC:
I'm convinced that most of the British anger comes from colonial guilt. The
Brits, conquered, occupied and suppressed other countries and people for
centuries. Now they are projecting their anger and guilt on the Israelis who
haven't done any of the above.
I feel sorry about you - The sharia law will come very soon
- shimon, The occupied Londonistan, 24/1/2009 15:56
Shimon agrees with the BBC's decision. Thank goodness he has been placated!
So there you are. Thank goodness for Auntie Beeb carefully steering the middle way, making sure they don't upset anyone important! Incidentally, there is quite a variety of views on offer in this discussion (though the vast majority are against the BBC, whichever side they're on) and those views above are not really the majority. There's this, for example:
It is a very 'ill' decision made by the BBC bosses. It reflects BBC biased approach towards certain ethnic group. As a muslim, I feel sad and discriminated by BBC and declare by boycott against BBC chanells and services. I convey my thanks to Daily Mail for highlighting such an important and sensitive issue.
- Shiraz Talib, Burton on Trent UK, 23/1/2009 18:01
...which has been rated down by readers, despite the fact that it's anti-BBC. I wonder why on earth that might be?
The BBC still washes its hands like a bunch of cowards
From Lenin:
And maybe it would, but maybe some people should be offended every now and then if it's worth doing so to bring attention to what is a genuine humanitarian crisis.
Details of the appeal over at Liberal Conspiracy.
Mark Thompson, editor-in-chief of BBC News, has written a pathetic self-justificatory piece on the BBC's editors' blog. He repeats his argument that one of the criteria for rejecting the appeal was a concern that the aid would not be efficiently delivered. Now, I ask you: what the fuck does an overpaid BBC editor know about the delivery of aid? What do they know that 13 humanitarian organisations don't? He also repeats his claim that it would be 'contentious' to highlight the humanitarian situation there, because there is an ongoing debate about who bears responsibility. But that is nonsense. There is no contention about whether there is a humanitarian crisis: the only sense in which broadcasting such an appeal would be 'contentious' is that it would potentially offend the hardcore supporters of Israel.
And maybe it would, but maybe some people should be offended every now and then if it's worth doing so to bring attention to what is a genuine humanitarian crisis.
Details of the appeal over at Liberal Conspiracy.
Friday, 23 January 2009
More on the spineless bastards
It's not just the BBC, of course, who have decided to reject a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal over the very real humanitarian crisis in Gaza for fear of 'compromising their impartiality'. But they are doing it.
There is a crisis. It is happening and people are in danger. And if some people are going to be pissed off that you broadcast an appeal to help those who are in danger and suffering, then quite frankly they can go and fuck themselves. And if it's not 'impartial' to try and help the dying, then I'd rather be at risk of compromising my impartiality than be a spineless bastard.
There is a crisis. It is happening and people are in danger. And if some people are going to be pissed off that you broadcast an appeal to help those who are in danger and suffering, then quite frankly they can go and fuck themselves. And if it's not 'impartial' to try and help the dying, then I'd rather be at risk of compromising my impartiality than be a spineless bastard.
The large print giveth and the small print taketh away
Barack Obama is unravelling some of the more vile aspects of the Bush regime, for example by allowing stem cell research to go ahead and by closing the torture camp at Guantanamo.
But then this sort of thing is still going on. And will probably be going on for quite a while yet.
But then this sort of thing is still going on. And will probably be going on for quite a while yet.
The Mail: Full of cunts
No, literally. And I do love the way that the world's favourite daily dose of "Ooh the chattering classes have been allowing their children to touch a lady's ankle from as young as 27" should mix that uptight sexual stuffiness with foamingly prurient shots of women's crotches.
Exhibit A: Here's Signourney Weaver opening her legs on the telly. You could only see it for a brief moment on the telly, but luckily enough for Mail readers - who of course are very interested in such matters - they've taken a screenshot to show you just how terrible it really was. And then chirped away with a few lines of bollocks beneath:
'Fortunately we pored over the photos in excruciating detail, and now you can...'
Exhibit B: The Mail answers the big questions:
Well quite. From a newspaper that snorted at their nemesis the BBC for covering a hamster on the news, this is clearly the kind of highbrow, vital story that needs to be looked at in depth - with accompanying photos, wouldn't you know, of lady's crotches.
How exciting! And thankfully there are loads and loads and loads of pictures of these women wearing not very much clothing so you can see just how appalling it really is.
Tomorrow: tits or bum? Which one's best?
Exhibit A: Here's Signourney Weaver opening her legs on the telly. You could only see it for a brief moment on the telly, but luckily enough for Mail readers - who of course are very interested in such matters - they've taken a screenshot to show you just how terrible it really was. And then chirped away with a few lines of bollocks beneath:
On the show to promote her new movie Prayers For Bobby, Sigourney unwittingly aped the famous scene in the movie Basic Instinct, in which Sharon Stone's character flashed the police while crossing her legs.
However, unlike Sharon's character in the 1992 film, fortunately Sigourney had underwear on.
'Fortunately we pored over the photos in excruciating detail, and now you can...'
Exhibit B: The Mail answers the big questions:
Whose dancing is the dirtiest? Lady Gaga tries to out-thrust the Pussycat Dolls onstage
Well quite. From a newspaper that snorted at their nemesis the BBC for covering a hamster on the news, this is clearly the kind of highbrow, vital story that needs to be looked at in depth - with accompanying photos, wouldn't you know, of lady's crotches.
Not to be outdone by the 22-year-old New Yorker the headline act were soon kicking and twisting their way around the dancefloor, with Lewis Hamilton's girlfriend Nicole Scherzinger grabbing her crotch as she thrust forwards.
How exciting! And thankfully there are loads and loads and loads of pictures of these women wearing not very much clothing so you can see just how appalling it really is.
Tomorrow: tits or bum? Which one's best?
Friday links, Jan 23rd 09
Littlejohn: prick.
Mel: Mad.
BBC: Spineless bastards who should be asamed of themselves.
Single women: some sort of bad thing, apparently.
Pilger: Hello goodbye.
Peston: I'm missing you already, now Stephanie's back.
Tommy Sheridan: Hairy.
Lenin: Not in love with Obama.
Mel: Mad.
BBC: Spineless bastards who should be asamed of themselves.
Single women: some sort of bad thing, apparently.
Pilger: Hello goodbye.
Peston: I'm missing you already, now Stephanie's back.
Tommy Sheridan: Hairy.
Lenin: Not in love with Obama.
If they had any common sense, they would offer him a job...
...but no. Let's waste a shitload of money hauling him across the Atlantic to make an example of him. Anyone with a brain can see he's not a terrorist; anyone with any sense would want to use his skills.
If you're treating someone who's not a terrorist like a terrorist to show terrorists how you deal with terrorists, then that's nonsensical, seeing as terrorists are terrorists and therefore not very likely to be swayed by the prospect of being brought to justice. So, it can't be that; it must be that someone who isn't a terrorist is being treated like a terrorist to try and show the public how terrorists will be dealt with. Which prompts the reasonable question: why not just fucking tell them? Or is that the contempt with which the public are viewed? That they won't understand something unless you show them, as if they are naughty and slightly slow children?
If you're treating someone who's not a terrorist like a terrorist to show terrorists how you deal with terrorists, then that's nonsensical, seeing as terrorists are terrorists and therefore not very likely to be swayed by the prospect of being brought to justice. So, it can't be that; it must be that someone who isn't a terrorist is being treated like a terrorist to try and show the public how terrorists will be dealt with. Which prompts the reasonable question: why not just fucking tell them? Or is that the contempt with which the public are viewed? That they won't understand something unless you show them, as if they are naughty and slightly slow children?
Not exactly a surprise
It's the old chestnut, the political compass, via Jennie. Apparently it says I'm 'libertarian', though. Not sure if I agree with that, having read quite a few views from people who call themselves 'libertarian' and who actually appear to be complete racist shites.
Thursday, 22 January 2009
TV presenter in 'presents TV show' uproar
Tax-funded Kremlin satellite office of socialist claptrap and lily-livered soi-disant 'diversity' the BBC has rightly come under fire from those brave boys at the Mail once again today for allowing a TV presenter to present a TV programme.
As I pointed out this morning, the Mail's obsession with attacking the Beeb isn't always entirely a misguided enterprise; anything or anyone that exposes to a wider audience the fact that Chris Moyles is a talent-free cataract of steaming liquid crap can't be entirely wrong, even if it is the Daily Mail saying it.
After all, Richard Littlejohn wrote something the other day that was vaguely positive towards Barack Obama; though one suspects, rather wearily, that it is merely the kind of 'Get out of jail free' card the weaselly little shite will pull out of his pocket the next time he's entirely correctly accused of being a racist bastard. "Ah no," he'll pipe up from his Florida mansion while pretending to be the voice of the British public - especially the 'silent majority' who are, without a shadow of a doubt or contradiction, also the real secret 'oppressed minority' - "I said something that wasn't horrible about Barack Obama, and he's kind of brown. So there!" And he'll still be the champion cunt of all known cunts, but all the same you have to step back and admire the cunning of the little shit.
But this article about Jonathan Ross doing his job is so tediously dull that it tells us nothing, and so hastily written that it's fucking amateurish:
'Where were we?' maybe?
Many of them working for one tabloid or another, I should imagine. Anyway there's some guff about a supposed contract that Tom Cruise probably doesn't have and is almost certainly made up, and then:
Latest antics?
What a conspiracy the Mail have unearthed... Stephen Fry is a 'fellow BBC presenter' and therefore also taking the shilling from the state-owned Trotskyite PC-gone-mad scum! He won't appear on the programme and beat Ross around the head with a shit-covered baseball bat, as any right-minded citizen would do, then! Outrageous.
And anyway, who the fuck is 'The Tom'?
If this is the best the Mail can come up with in its latest salvo, the licence fee is pretty safe for a while yet.
As I pointed out this morning, the Mail's obsession with attacking the Beeb isn't always entirely a misguided enterprise; anything or anyone that exposes to a wider audience the fact that Chris Moyles is a talent-free cataract of steaming liquid crap can't be entirely wrong, even if it is the Daily Mail saying it.
After all, Richard Littlejohn wrote something the other day that was vaguely positive towards Barack Obama; though one suspects, rather wearily, that it is merely the kind of 'Get out of jail free' card the weaselly little shite will pull out of his pocket the next time he's entirely correctly accused of being a racist bastard. "Ah no," he'll pipe up from his Florida mansion while pretending to be the voice of the British public - especially the 'silent majority' who are, without a shadow of a doubt or contradiction, also the real secret 'oppressed minority' - "I said something that wasn't horrible about Barack Obama, and he's kind of brown. So there!" And he'll still be the champion cunt of all known cunts, but all the same you have to step back and admire the cunning of the little shit.
But this article about Jonathan Ross doing his job is so tediously dull that it tells us nothing, and so hastily written that it's fucking amateurish:
Referring to his enforced time away from TV, Ross kicked off his show with a knowing 'So, where we?'.
'Where were we?' maybe?
A long queue of audience members snaked around part of the BBC building early this morning as they waited to get in.
Many of them working for one tabloid or another, I should imagine. Anyway there's some guff about a supposed contract that Tom Cruise probably doesn't have and is almost certainly made up, and then:
And if Jonathan Ross's latest antics are anything to go by, the presenter may have some difficulty keeping to the actor's strict guidelines.
Latest antics?
Guests on the programme, to be broadcast a day later, include the Tom, Ross's fellow BBC presenter Stephen Fry and comedian Lee Evans.
What a conspiracy the Mail have unearthed... Stephen Fry is a 'fellow BBC presenter' and therefore also taking the shilling from the state-owned Trotskyite PC-gone-mad scum! He won't appear on the programme and beat Ross around the head with a shit-covered baseball bat, as any right-minded citizen would do, then! Outrageous.
And anyway, who the fuck is 'The Tom'?
If this is the best the Mail can come up with in its latest salvo, the licence fee is pretty safe for a while yet.
The Mail aren't always wrong
...and it would be silly to imagine they are, much as I despise their continued existence.
No, here's a good example of when their rabidly nonsensical anti-BBC agenda actually hits the target fair and square: Chris Moyles is a fucking prick.
Tee hee Moylesy, what a card!
Look, there's a possibility that it didn't offend anyone. But going through the radio channels of a morning and finding his voice coming at you is like biting into a mince pie and finding a cat-shit in there. So, while I couldn't bring myself to jump on the Mail's boat and throw tomatoes at Russell Brand, any criticism aimed at Moyles is fair enough. He's an ignorant fuckwit. He didn't make the joke to be offensive; he did it because he's pigshit-thick. And the sooner the cunt gets off the radio the better. If that puts me on the Mail's side, I guess I don't mind being there every now and then.
No, here's a good example of when their rabidly nonsensical anti-BBC agenda actually hits the target fair and square: Chris Moyles is a fucking prick.
'I went off to Ireland and other places to film and unlike a lot of the Who Do You Think You Are? shows I didn't go to Auschwitz,' Moyles said.
'Pretty much everyone goes there whether or not they're Jewish.
'They just seem to pass through there on their way to Florida.'
Tee hee Moylesy, what a card!
Look, there's a possibility that it didn't offend anyone. But going through the radio channels of a morning and finding his voice coming at you is like biting into a mince pie and finding a cat-shit in there. So, while I couldn't bring myself to jump on the Mail's boat and throw tomatoes at Russell Brand, any criticism aimed at Moyles is fair enough. He's an ignorant fuckwit. He didn't make the joke to be offensive; he did it because he's pigshit-thick. And the sooner the cunt gets off the radio the better. If that puts me on the Mail's side, I guess I don't mind being there every now and then.
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
Cheap democracy
At £36 a pop, that's not bad at all. Though I'd prefer someone other than Jack Cunningham for my money. Click here (WARNING: Website contains too much lilac) to do your bit.
Fame at last!
After a couple of years of trying, I've finally got a comment published on the Mail's website! It's about how the evil BBC have decided to give top brass a pay freeze in the current economic climate. More in hope than expectation I put in my submission, but wait, it's only bloody there! (click for embiggen)
Marvellous.
Marvellous.
A dilemma at the newsagent
I only had a single £1 coin, just a mere nugget, as I popped into the paper shop this morning. And it was there I was faced with a dilemma.
Should I buy a copy of the Independent?
Should I buy the entire Evening Standard newspaper operation from the Mail group?
Or should I buy a Twix and still have change for a cheeky Raspberry Ruffle later?
Mmm... delicious.
On reflection, had I bought the Evening Standard, I could at least have kicked Gilligan out onto his fat arse. (But I do love Twixes)
Should I buy a copy of the Independent?
Should I buy the entire Evening Standard newspaper operation from the Mail group?
Or should I buy a Twix and still have change for a cheeky Raspberry Ruffle later?
Mmm... delicious.
On reflection, had I bought the Evening Standard, I could at least have kicked Gilligan out onto his fat arse. (But I do love Twixes)
The big blog bran tub
There's something rather fun and hypnotic about this. You can sit there just spectating as they pass by; and every time you see one you like, you can stop and get off. Excellent distraction.
I wonder why there was fury?
Apparently businesses are furious that they're no longer allowed to deduct holidays from people who have the temerity to have an illness:
Can you guess which major media company has attempted to take away employees' holiday days for being sick?
Go on, guess.
Employees on long-term sick leave are still entitled to paid holiday, EU judges have said.
Their ruling clears up years of dispute over whether holiday rights are lost during prolonged illness.
Critics said the judgment would impose yet more burdens on hard-pressed businesses already struggling in the recession.
Can you guess which major media company has attempted to take away employees' holiday days for being sick?
Go on, guess.
Tuesday, 20 January 2009
'But no-one believes the Sun...'
Well, apart from the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, Teletext, Digital Spy, Ha'aretz, the Irish Herald, the Irish Independent, the Evening Standard, and dozens of other news sources across the world, from India, Denmark, Singapore, Greece, Germany, the Czech Republic, the US, Brazil, Romania, Holland, Canada, Austria, France...
That's churnalism for you, the unquestioning ctrl+C and ctrl+V of information, be it truthful, or be it utter bollocks, as we discovered through the Glen Jenvey saga.
As Sim-O also points out, the 'but no-one believes the Sun' argument is a load of old cock. Do the readers believe the TV guide tells you what programmes are on at what time? Hell yes. Do they believe the football fixtures are at the correct times? Of course. So do they believe what they read in the news section? Hell yes, or they wouldn't have bought the fucking thing in the first place. It's not a bit of fun for blokes in white vans; a hell of a lot of people genuinely believe it, especially when it's passed on unchecked through a source that's perhaps more trusted than the Currant.
And again today: the Sun today has come out with some shit about the Black Death killing some Muslim militants. Is it true? Who the fuck knows. But the BBC have decided to run a story about the Plague anyway in their science section. Why not analyse whether the Sun's story was true in the first place instead? Ah, but that would take far longer...
No-one believes the Sun? Everyone believes everyone when you've got a deadline to hit and neither the resources nor the time to check the facts.
That's churnalism for you, the unquestioning ctrl+C and ctrl+V of information, be it truthful, or be it utter bollocks, as we discovered through the Glen Jenvey saga.
As Sim-O also points out, the 'but no-one believes the Sun' argument is a load of old cock. Do the readers believe the TV guide tells you what programmes are on at what time? Hell yes. Do they believe the football fixtures are at the correct times? Of course. So do they believe what they read in the news section? Hell yes, or they wouldn't have bought the fucking thing in the first place. It's not a bit of fun for blokes in white vans; a hell of a lot of people genuinely believe it, especially when it's passed on unchecked through a source that's perhaps more trusted than the Currant.
And again today: the Sun today has come out with some shit about the Black Death killing some Muslim militants. Is it true? Who the fuck knows. But the BBC have decided to run a story about the Plague anyway in their science section. Why not analyse whether the Sun's story was true in the first place instead? Ah, but that would take far longer...
No-one believes the Sun? Everyone believes everyone when you've got a deadline to hit and neither the resources nor the time to check the facts.
Please do not connect these two things.
Johann Hari says that those who shout the loudest about gay people are probably revolted by their own secret tendencies:
While in a completely unrelated post about entirely different matters, No Sleep Til Brooklands looks at Richard Littlejohn and the great lie of 'saying the unsayable':
Sorry to have put these two completely unrelated subjects - Richard Littlejohn and homophobes who are ashamed of their own feelings - in the same post.
Of course, not all of these hate-mongers are secretly gay. But we know from decades of sexual research that almost everyone -- especially as a teenager -- has a period when they have omnivorous sexual urges, with attraction to the 'wrong' gender cropping up for a while. (Like most gay boys, I had a burst of heterosexual experiences when I was 15 and 16.) The question is: how do you deal with them? If you see this as an interesting, natural part of human experience, they will soon fade from your mind. If you see them as shameful or immoral, they will fester -- and you will subconsciously project them outwards, onto the demonic, disgusting fags, who should be punished for tempting you.
While in a completely unrelated post about entirely different matters, No Sleep Til Brooklands looks at Richard Littlejohn and the great lie of 'saying the unsayable':
Today's is a particularly great whinge. Entitled Getting up the noses of the 'guilt-tripping white folks', its tediously familiar theme is that he, Richard Littlejohn, is being shouted down by some kind of politically correct elite and prevented from saying the things he's been saying for decades. That's Richard Littlejohn, the national newspaper columnist paid a reported £800,000 a year for columns that receive glowing comments from his devoted readers; author of six published books, regular guest on Question Time and erstwhile presenter of numerous TV and radio shows. You'd think it would be difficult to claim persecution as a right-wing columnist in an overwhelmingly right-wing media, but of course, for people to keep reading his column he has to give the impression of being some kind of brave, lone voice staring into the abyss; only he and his readers can see where Britain is going wrong and the liberal elite are too concerned with racism and global warming to do anything about it.
Sorry to have put these two completely unrelated subjects - Richard Littlejohn and homophobes who are ashamed of their own feelings - in the same post.
Old man in 'looks like old man' scandal
Do you remember the shocking news that human beings have a change in appearance with the passing of time, ably illustrated by the Mail's exciting story about a man looking older at the age of 64 than he did when he was in his 20s? (Good heavens, we must think of a name for this incredible hitherto unheard-of phenomenon; maybe we could call it the 'ageing process' or something?)
Well, now they're at the forefront of this breaking news story: men who are 70 dress slightly differently to men who are younger than them. Surprising, astonishing, incredible!
And yes, Paul Daniels (for it is he) looks 70 and dresses 70. Of course if it'd been a woman of 70 dressing younger than her age, the claws would really have been out, but supposedly an OAP like Daniels should look like a ruddy magician even when he's on the beach.
Cunts in the comments, you say? Why of course:
Cunt.
Fuck off.
Hang on a minute, though; here are a couple of interesting items in one post. Firstly, evidence that not all expat Mail commenters are complete arses all the time; and secondly, perhaps this person's comment didn't get allowed through first time? They appear to have copied and pasted it from the original:
More defence of Daniels:
Too right, Sheilagh. But no doubt there will be another 'scandal of old person looking old' or 'man on holiday goes on beach' shocker tomorrow. Can't wait!!!
Well, now they're at the forefront of this breaking news story: men who are 70 dress slightly differently to men who are younger than them. Surprising, astonishing, incredible!
And yes, Paul Daniels (for it is he) looks 70 and dresses 70. Of course if it'd been a woman of 70 dressing younger than her age, the claws would really have been out, but supposedly an OAP like Daniels should look like a ruddy magician even when he's on the beach.
Cunts in the comments, you say? Why of course:
Never mind the socks, it looks like Debbie's had a nasty reaction to gravity.
Steve Goodwin, Leeds, UK, 20/1/2009 0:21
Cunt.
He doesn't look too bad for 70. She looks REALLY old for 50.
Pat, Banglamung, Thailand, 20/1/2009 2:44
Fuck off.
Hang on a minute, though; here are a couple of interesting items in one post. Firstly, evidence that not all expat Mail commenters are complete arses all the time; and secondly, perhaps this person's comment didn't get allowed through first time? They appear to have copied and pasted it from the original:
Why do people have to follow the so called fashion rules of the tabloids. Fashion is fun, but mostly for the younger set, or more wealthy individuals.
I feel embarrassed by this example of exploitation of two people taking a break. This is just another reason why I am a Brit living abroad.
So judgmental. So petty.
Karen, Ex-pat, California, USA
kmh567, Windsor, California, USA, 20/1/2009 3:32
More defence of Daniels:
Why are people so nasty nowadays?
I amnot a particular fan of Paul Daniels, but for goodness sake he is 70, and he looks respectable. They are on holiday as private citizens, leave them alone.
I really do not like the way society is going, such bitchiness and lack of respect . We need a radical about turn and get back to repecting our elders and each other.
Sheilagh, Runcorn, England, 20/1/
Too right, Sheilagh. But no doubt there will be another 'scandal of old person looking old' or 'man on holiday goes on beach' shocker tomorrow. Can't wait!!!
Monday, 19 January 2009
Let's wait and see
Dudley Moore once explained American politics rather succinctly: "The Americans, like us in England, have a two-party system. They have the Republican party, which is like our Conservative party, and they have the Democratic party, which is like our Conservative party."
All those vaguely on the left of the political spectrum may be hoping Barack Obama is going to be radical, leftish, exciting, new... I'm not so sure. At the very least, they conclude, he can't be any worse than George W Bush. I'm not so sure of that either, though I hope he isn't, of course. For Obama was not elected on a promise to be radical. He has never pretended during campaigning to be a socialist nor an extremely liberal man; therefore there is no reason to suppose that he will make a sudden transformation when he comes into office this week.
The legacy of Bush continues - war, death, economic disaster and growing inequality both at home and abroad. Idiots like Julie Burchill may conclude he was actually the most fantastic human being alive because he gave a shit about Aids in Africa, but they're reprehensible scum who should be buzzsawed to death for the sheer mendacity of their nonsense. Yes, Bush gave a shit - that's what you're supposed to do. What sort of fucked-up world are we in where you have to praise someone for having basic humanity, as if it's a big deal and a wonderful surprise?
Let's have another gentle reminder of Bush the humanitarian:
That's something to be proud of, isn't it? Unfortunately for them, Binyam Mohamed's torturers were unable to get him to confess to a non-existent plot, even despite their best efforts, so there is hope that he may finally be heading home.
But will Obama close Guantanamo and end extraordinary rendition? Will there be no waterboarding under this new president? Given that he claims his priority is the economy, is he still prepared to waste billions of tax dollars on war and torture? People may have hopes that a new era is beginning; I'd love for it to be so. But as we shouldn't forget the crimes of Bush, that snivelling coward who couldn't be bothered to do anything for poor black people in New Orleans but rushed to the scene when it was rich whites in California, who made the rich richer and increased inequality by scrapping inheritance tax, who blocked stem-cell research because of the right to life of foetuses but had no problem with ending the lives of real Arabs in war or prisoners in Texas, let's not assume things can only get better. We made that mistake on May 1, 1997.
All those vaguely on the left of the political spectrum may be hoping Barack Obama is going to be radical, leftish, exciting, new... I'm not so sure. At the very least, they conclude, he can't be any worse than George W Bush. I'm not so sure of that either, though I hope he isn't, of course. For Obama was not elected on a promise to be radical. He has never pretended during campaigning to be a socialist nor an extremely liberal man; therefore there is no reason to suppose that he will make a sudden transformation when he comes into office this week.
The legacy of Bush continues - war, death, economic disaster and growing inequality both at home and abroad. Idiots like Julie Burchill may conclude he was actually the most fantastic human being alive because he gave a shit about Aids in Africa, but they're reprehensible scum who should be buzzsawed to death for the sheer mendacity of their nonsense. Yes, Bush gave a shit - that's what you're supposed to do. What sort of fucked-up world are we in where you have to praise someone for having basic humanity, as if it's a big deal and a wonderful surprise?
Let's have another gentle reminder of Bush the humanitarian:
One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts. He did it once, and they stood still for maybe a minute, watching my reaction. I was in agony. They must have done this 20 to 30 times, in maybe two hours. There was blood all over. “I told you I was going to teach you who’s the man,” [one] eventually said.
They cut all over my private parts. One of them said it would be better just to cut it off, as I would only breed terrorists.
That's something to be proud of, isn't it? Unfortunately for them, Binyam Mohamed's torturers were unable to get him to confess to a non-existent plot, even despite their best efforts, so there is hope that he may finally be heading home.
But will Obama close Guantanamo and end extraordinary rendition? Will there be no waterboarding under this new president? Given that he claims his priority is the economy, is he still prepared to waste billions of tax dollars on war and torture? People may have hopes that a new era is beginning; I'd love for it to be so. But as we shouldn't forget the crimes of Bush, that snivelling coward who couldn't be bothered to do anything for poor black people in New Orleans but rushed to the scene when it was rich whites in California, who made the rich richer and increased inequality by scrapping inheritance tax, who blocked stem-cell research because of the right to life of foetuses but had no problem with ending the lives of real Arabs in war or prisoners in Texas, let's not assume things can only get better. We made that mistake on May 1, 1997.
Sunday, 18 January 2009
Some links to enjoy
Bit short of time, so have some links instead to places I enjoyed visiting in cyberspace this weekend.
Alone in the Dark is one of many to be dismayed by Peter Hitchens's utter shite about poverty being a lie created by New Labour to destroy the middle class. The only thing I'd add about the supposedly egalitarian merits of 11+ is that wealthier parents simply invest their cash in more coaching and tutoring for their little darlings in order to pass the exam.
Flying Rodent has an excellent new rule for internet discussion:
Rhetorically Speaking looks at the ad hominem argument against Heathrow protesters - they're actors and therefore their views mean nothing - a view began by Richard Littlejohn and quickly steamed into by Iain Dale and Geoff Hoon.
Pigdogfucker, meanwhile, has a couple of stellar entries - on why it's bollocks to call all people with jobs 'hardworking' as opposed to all 'feckless' folk on benefits; and ; and a damning verdict on a putrid piece of child manipulation.
And it's lovely to be reminded of some good old fashioned misogyny in this delightfully frank letter from the Walt Disney Studios back in 1938.
Alone in the Dark is one of many to be dismayed by Peter Hitchens's utter shite about poverty being a lie created by New Labour to destroy the middle class. The only thing I'd add about the supposedly egalitarian merits of 11+ is that wealthier parents simply invest their cash in more coaching and tutoring for their little darlings in order to pass the exam.
Flying Rodent has an excellent new rule for internet discussion:
"If NY Times columnist and philosopher-golfer Thomas Friedman favours a particular policy, it follows that said policy is bound for disastrous failure and should be vociferously opposed."
Rhetorically Speaking looks at the ad hominem argument against Heathrow protesters - they're actors and therefore their views mean nothing - a view began by Richard Littlejohn and quickly steamed into by Iain Dale and Geoff Hoon.
Pigdogfucker, meanwhile, has a couple of stellar entries - on why it's bollocks to call all people with jobs 'hardworking' as opposed to all 'feckless' folk on benefits; and ; and a damning verdict on a putrid piece of child manipulation.
And it's lovely to be reminded of some good old fashioned misogyny in this delightfully frank letter from the Walt Disney Studios back in 1938.
Saturday, 17 January 2009
Derek Draper: A complete and utter penis
ARE YOU SO NAIVE THAT YOU THINK I/WE WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER HUNDREDS OF COMMENTS? YOU MAY GET 0, 11, 8 and 2 (YOUR LAST FOUR POSTS) WE GET HUNDREDS EVERY DAY. WE ARE BUILDING IS A CONVERSATION AMONG A COMMUNITY NOT A BI-LATERAL SERIES OF DISCUSSIONS WITH SELF-IMPORTANT BLOGGERS. ONCE AGAIN, MASS MEDIA VS GEEK GHETTO. I HAVE TO SAY I AM GETTING BORED OF THIS
...
WHY DO I CARE IF YOU'RE CLEAR OR NOT? WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?
Pffft. I swear Jeremy Kyle has him on his programme just to make him look handsome and halfway human in comparison.
Friday, 16 January 2009
Cuntywankbastard
Amusing, especially when you consider that Richard Desmond isn't entirely known for the delicately fragrant nature of his language.
On a similar theme, Graham Linehan muttered the other week about how there was too much swearing on the tellybox, prompting a spectacularly to-the-point response from PDF.
Thursday, 15 January 2009
Most bizarre Google ad ever...?
From alongside this very blog:
(?)
Big Wet Fannys
Thinking of buying? Compare 100s of retailers' prices at Shopping.com
uk.shopping.com
(?)
Exciting new Mail pictures service!
Woohoo! In an exciting bid to make shitloads of money open up their photo archives so everyone at home can order a lovely image for the mantelpiece or downstairs bog, the Mail have set up a smart new mini site offering prints of news photos.
Great!
OK then:
Welcome to the online photographic archive of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday.
Featuring thousands of images, it’s a record of 100 years of news. Now you can own a part of this history! Simply choose your favourite picture and a format. We will then deliver straight to your own front door!
Great!
from sporting heroes, entertainment, Wimbledon triumphs and London scenery - we were there! If you can't find a picture you want, contact us and we will try our best to locate it!
OK then:
Dear Daily Mail picture archive,
I've been looking through your exciting archive but have been unable to find the photo I'm looking for. It's a picture of Lord Rothermere standing next to Adolf Hitler, signed by the German Fuehrer. I know it exists because I've seen copies of it, but they're never of quite the quality I need.
I should love to have a copy so very much to remind me of the Daily Mail's values.
Perhaps if you are unable to source a copy, you could ask Jonathan Harmsworth if he has one in the family album?
Yours in hope
Anton.
Fatty! Skinny! The Mail's bed of Procrustes
I should emphasise that it isn't the Mail who are the chief culprits here - that dubious honour belongs to those garish women's magazines you see blaring out at you in vivid yellows and magentas from the news-stands. But it does go to show exactly how far from the principles of journalism and newsgathering the Mail, and its rivals in the national press, have fallen.
But a quick look at the Mail's website - specifically that crock of shit down the right-hand side that gives the same space to celebrity bollocks, tittle-tattle, flim-flam, bric-a-brac and assorted "Ooh look at this bitch!" shite as is given to things that are actually news (regardless of the Mail's treatment of them) - reveals exactly the kind of impossible standards to which people, and more specifically celebrities, are held.
So let's have a look.
Fatty!
Bond girl Gemma Arterton is too fat for the Mail's exacting tastes:
Skinny!
Lindsay Lohan, on the other hand, is apparently too skinny:
Fatty!
Boy George tips the scales the wrong way for the Mail's journalists, who no doubt have perfect figures:
Even when there's a relatively positive weight story, with Kerry Katona talking about her diet, if the Mail won't put the boot in, the readers certainly will:
Cunt. Another reader says:
Hmm. That attitude reminds me of someone. Well not 'someone' but an entire newspaper...
But a quick look at the Mail's website - specifically that crock of shit down the right-hand side that gives the same space to celebrity bollocks, tittle-tattle, flim-flam, bric-a-brac and assorted "Ooh look at this bitch!" shite as is given to things that are actually news (regardless of the Mail's treatment of them) - reveals exactly the kind of impossible standards to which people, and more specifically celebrities, are held.
So let's have a look.
Fatty!
Bond girl Gemma Arterton is too fat for the Mail's exacting tastes:
The 22-year-old actress appeared at the Orange British Academy Film Award nominations looking distinctly jowly, as she posed up before making the announcements.
Skinny!
Lindsay Lohan, on the other hand, is apparently too skinny:
Wearing a pair of skinny jeans, Lindsay's thighs looked almost as slim as her calves as she strolled along the street in Beverly Hills.
Fatty!
Boy George tips the scales the wrong way for the Mail's journalists, who no doubt have perfect figures:
Bloated, sullen-looking and unrecognisable from his Eighties heyday, it seems bad karma has caught up with the Karma Chameleon.
Even when there's a relatively positive weight story, with Kerry Katona talking about her diet, if the Mail won't put the boot in, the readers certainly will:
Those pictures of her in the past few days in shiny silver leggings, she certainly did not look "too thin" or even at all thin in my opinion. What is she on?
Cunt. Another reader says:
Her current husband Mark would also like Kerry to put on: 'I would like to put on half a stone back on.'
Katona: 'I'm eight stone now but I want to be eight and a half. I'll be happy then because I don't like being this thin.'
She should have said: "I want to be eight and a half. Mark will be happy then, because he doesn't like me being this thin."
Seems to me that no matter what she does, Mark will never be happy.
Hmm. That attitude reminds me of someone. Well not 'someone' but an entire newspaper...
Let's make the world's worst airport even bigger!
The good thing about not tying yourself to a political party is that you don't have to tie yourself in knots when they come up with something truly fucking ridiculous - as Labour have done today by giving a cheery wave to the expansion of the world's worst airport, Heathrow in (actually quite a long way to the west of) London.
It's also a move that has been backed by the trades unions, understandable given their desire to see people with jobs rather than not with jobs, but that's still plain bloody wrong, given that there are many infrastructure projects the Government could put into place that would not only keep people in gainful employment, or create new jobs, but also be of net benefit to the environment.
And so I'm more than happy to put myself on the side of the Tories and the Lib Dems when it comes to this issue (leaving aside Bonkers Boris and his batshit insane plan to build Tracy Island out in the Thames Estuary and somehow magic a world-class airport out of nothing).
The environmental concerns are one thing, of course, not just from the destruction of the land needed to make the new runway but the increased flights that would come off the back of it. But above all, my chief concern is this: Heathrow is the world's most awful fucking airport. In my limited flying experience it is, 100%, the worst place to try and get a plane and go to somewhere else by taking a plane. It is a shithole. It is a mess. It's got five bloody terminals, its own lanes on the M25, a billion car parking spaces, yet you're guaranteed to be in a meandering traffic queue from the moment you come within 50 miles away to the time you finally leave your car and cry salt tears at the enormity of the parking charges. You could always take the Heathrow Express for a small fortune (or indeed free if you're a murderous grinning cunt who used to be Prime Minister) but don't think that'll save you. You could always take the tube, and be stuck staring into the blackness for the next 50 minutes while a billion people attempt to cram into your carriage and the stink of soot and dust sinks gently into your already-carbonised lungs.
You'll be in a queue, in a queue, in a queue, in a queue, in a queue, forever and ever and ever, from the time you get there to the time you leave. The only surprise is that they don't make you stand up and queue when you're on the plane - for sure, it's the only place you'll be able to find a seat and a bit of peace and quiet.
Heathrow is dreadful. It is a giant turd splodged out to the west of London, unfriendly, unpleasant, unhelpful to visitors even if they can speak perfect English and totally hateful towards those who can't. It's as if you're not allowed a job there if you're capable of some humanity towards others or have ever broken into a smile; only the surly, grumpy and perpetually unhelpful are permitted to work in its charmless clanging corridors and vast open spaces. Every single terminal is crap. Every thing in every terminal is crap.
It's almost like it's been designed to piss you off and make you hate your journey, and by extension it's the worst possible advertisement for Britain. You want a coffee? Yes, that'll be £58.50 please, and it'll be shit, and cold, and will be slung at you by someone who stares at you as if you've raped and murdered their entire family. You want a sandwich? Sure, have some sludge in a stale triangle of poisonous bread for a week's wages. You want to know where something is? Sure, ask that bastard over there who'll snarl and bark at you in the most indecipherable cockernay accent possible. You need a piss? Sure, go into the smelliest, nastiest bogs in the entire world.
Welcome to Britain! Welcome to London! Welcome to the capital city in one of the world's largest economies - everything's shit, and everything costs a fortune, and no-one will smile, and everyone will hate you. And it's pissing down, and stinks of aviation fuel, and someone will bump into you and call you a cunt as soon as you start thinking that it's not all that bad.
We shouldn't be inflicting Heathrow on any more people than is absolutely necessary. It is an appalling airport, almost entirely without redeeming features. It is a horrible place. Please, let's not make it any bigger.
It's also a move that has been backed by the trades unions, understandable given their desire to see people with jobs rather than not with jobs, but that's still plain bloody wrong, given that there are many infrastructure projects the Government could put into place that would not only keep people in gainful employment, or create new jobs, but also be of net benefit to the environment.
And so I'm more than happy to put myself on the side of the Tories and the Lib Dems when it comes to this issue (leaving aside Bonkers Boris and his batshit insane plan to build Tracy Island out in the Thames Estuary and somehow magic a world-class airport out of nothing).
The environmental concerns are one thing, of course, not just from the destruction of the land needed to make the new runway but the increased flights that would come off the back of it. But above all, my chief concern is this: Heathrow is the world's most awful fucking airport. In my limited flying experience it is, 100%, the worst place to try and get a plane and go to somewhere else by taking a plane. It is a shithole. It is a mess. It's got five bloody terminals, its own lanes on the M25, a billion car parking spaces, yet you're guaranteed to be in a meandering traffic queue from the moment you come within 50 miles away to the time you finally leave your car and cry salt tears at the enormity of the parking charges. You could always take the Heathrow Express for a small fortune (or indeed free if you're a murderous grinning cunt who used to be Prime Minister) but don't think that'll save you. You could always take the tube, and be stuck staring into the blackness for the next 50 minutes while a billion people attempt to cram into your carriage and the stink of soot and dust sinks gently into your already-carbonised lungs.
You'll be in a queue, in a queue, in a queue, in a queue, in a queue, forever and ever and ever, from the time you get there to the time you leave. The only surprise is that they don't make you stand up and queue when you're on the plane - for sure, it's the only place you'll be able to find a seat and a bit of peace and quiet.
Heathrow is dreadful. It is a giant turd splodged out to the west of London, unfriendly, unpleasant, unhelpful to visitors even if they can speak perfect English and totally hateful towards those who can't. It's as if you're not allowed a job there if you're capable of some humanity towards others or have ever broken into a smile; only the surly, grumpy and perpetually unhelpful are permitted to work in its charmless clanging corridors and vast open spaces. Every single terminal is crap. Every thing in every terminal is crap.
It's almost like it's been designed to piss you off and make you hate your journey, and by extension it's the worst possible advertisement for Britain. You want a coffee? Yes, that'll be £58.50 please, and it'll be shit, and cold, and will be slung at you by someone who stares at you as if you've raped and murdered their entire family. You want a sandwich? Sure, have some sludge in a stale triangle of poisonous bread for a week's wages. You want to know where something is? Sure, ask that bastard over there who'll snarl and bark at you in the most indecipherable cockernay accent possible. You need a piss? Sure, go into the smelliest, nastiest bogs in the entire world.
Welcome to Britain! Welcome to London! Welcome to the capital city in one of the world's largest economies - everything's shit, and everything costs a fortune, and no-one will smile, and everyone will hate you. And it's pissing down, and stinks of aviation fuel, and someone will bump into you and call you a cunt as soon as you start thinking that it's not all that bad.
We shouldn't be inflicting Heathrow on any more people than is absolutely necessary. It is an appalling airport, almost entirely without redeeming features. It is a horrible place. Please, let's not make it any bigger.
Why violent class war wouldn't entirely be a bad thing
The Mail yesterday pretended there was class war afoot: Evil NuLab were supposedly chewing up middle-class babies by the atrocity of trying to make less good schools as good as good schools.
But today, in the Mail, comes evidence - if evidence were needed - that some form of class war wouldn't be an entirely bad thing. Read this, if you can, from start to finish, and tell me that it wouldn't be so much of a crime if this woman were to be drowned in a washing-up bowl of boiling dogshit, with her corpse tarred and feathered and hung from a gibbet on Westminster Bridge as a warning to others. Tell me that would be wrong. Go on, tell me. I know you can't.
Oh, you poor cunt. Imagine the shame and degradation of having to buy a dress for such a disgracefully awful cut-price markdown. Two hundred and forty-nine pounds! Why, I can find such a pathetically small amount of money just fishing around in my pocket looking for a Chewit, can't I? Isn't it abominable having to eschew the delights of Harvey Nicks for shops where - gasp - people who didn't go to quite the same schools as we did might be allowed through the doors?
Yes, it's Petronella Wyatt, being made to shop in Poundland! Guffaw! Let's have a fucking laugh-and-point at how the poor people, often *whispers* black don't you know, do their shopping! Isn't it a hoot! See, it's the credit crunch and some people who are really rich might have to look down the bargain aisle in Waitrose rather than having an F&M hamper for that Glyndebourne picnic! Oh the delight of it all! Isn't it simply hilarious?!
Er, no. You try shopping in shitholes for weeks on end and you see what a fucking treat it is. You see if you're still laughing as you force down the mystery meat in your 900th Farm Foods ready meal in a row, Petronella. Mind you, you don't need to, you get paid a fucking fortune because you're already rich to write articles at 'let's pretend we're poor because isn't it funny?'. Fuck off. If someone blew up your Range Rover with you inside it, I wouldn't shed a tear - unless an innocent person got slightly injured by the shrapnel or a fragment of your skull whizzing through the air, obviously.
I wouldn't mind if she'd managed to write anything remotely funny, self-deprecating or insightful. But no. It's a clusterfuck of crapness, overwhelmingly smug and depressingly dismal.
Eugh.
But today, in the Mail, comes evidence - if evidence were needed - that some form of class war wouldn't be an entirely bad thing. Read this, if you can, from start to finish, and tell me that it wouldn't be so much of a crime if this woman were to be drowned in a washing-up bowl of boiling dogshit, with her corpse tarred and feathered and hung from a gibbet on Westminster Bridge as a warning to others. Tell me that would be wrong. Go on, tell me. I know you can't.
What is a girl like me doing in a shop like this? It was once said that I wore a Christian Dior suit to work. This was a lie. The suit was Giorgio Armani.
My idea of a bargain has always been the Harvey Nichols sale, while my food has been sourced locally from Waitrose.
Lately, in the light, or rather dark, of the credit crunch I have tried to curb my spendthrift ways. Over Christmas, I went as far as to visit the cut-price shop TK Maxx in Kensington, where I bought a dress for £249.
Oh, you poor cunt. Imagine the shame and degradation of having to buy a dress for such a disgracefully awful cut-price markdown. Two hundred and forty-nine pounds! Why, I can find such a pathetically small amount of money just fishing around in my pocket looking for a Chewit, can't I? Isn't it abominable having to eschew the delights of Harvey Nicks for shops where - gasp - people who didn't go to quite the same schools as we did might be allowed through the doors?
Yes, it's Petronella Wyatt, being made to shop in Poundland! Guffaw! Let's have a fucking laugh-and-point at how the poor people, often *whispers* black don't you know, do their shopping! Isn't it a hoot! See, it's the credit crunch and some people who are really rich might have to look down the bargain aisle in Waitrose rather than having an F&M hamper for that Glyndebourne picnic! Oh the delight of it all! Isn't it simply hilarious?!
Er, no. You try shopping in shitholes for weeks on end and you see what a fucking treat it is. You see if you're still laughing as you force down the mystery meat in your 900th Farm Foods ready meal in a row, Petronella. Mind you, you don't need to, you get paid a fucking fortune because you're already rich to write articles at 'let's pretend we're poor because isn't it funny?'. Fuck off. If someone blew up your Range Rover with you inside it, I wouldn't shed a tear - unless an innocent person got slightly injured by the shrapnel or a fragment of your skull whizzing through the air, obviously.
I wouldn't mind if she'd managed to write anything remotely funny, self-deprecating or insightful. But no. It's a clusterfuck of crapness, overwhelmingly smug and depressingly dismal.
Eugh.
Wednesday, 14 January 2009
'War on the middle class'
Hang on, that sounds familiar, doesn't it? Yes, of course, it's a reminder that newspapers don't exist to tell you what's happening but merely to repeat and reiterate a certain set of beliefs. In fact, I think the headline "Labour war on middle classes" is probably in a set of templates at the Daily Mail (and Telegraph) as you can put it on pretty much every story you like.
This time it's about giving teachers more cash if they manage to stick it out for three years at a less good school. Which presses the alarm bells for Mailites: it means giving money to people who work for the public sector (bad); it means trying to reduce social inequality by making all schools as good as each other theoretically, thereby having a potentially detrimental impact on the most expensive house prices (bad); it means all those extra pounds paid by the rich to live in the catchment areas of better performing schools will have been wasted, if that dirty comp down the road encourages better teachers (bad) - so therefore: LABOUR WAR ON MIDDLE CLASSES.
Incidentally, people regard me, for example, as being somewhat of a lesser person (which I may well be) for using such derogatory terms as Littlecock or Littlebrain to refer to that titan of journalism Richard
Anyway, the last time we encountered WAR ON MIDDLE CLASSES, we were talking about last year's Budget - and the fact that putting tax on petrol and booze was somehow targeting the middle class (because no-one else drinks or drives, obviously) - but it fits anything you like.
Labour taxes X: LABOUR WAR ON MIDDLE CLASSES
Labour wants to help poor people: LABOUR WAR ON MIDDLE CLASSES
Government introduces special "middle class" payment only to be paid to people who belong to middle class: LABOUR WAR ON MIDDLE CLASSES
As Neil Buchanan would say, try it yourself.
More insightful journalism from the Telegraph
After that bit of real journalism we had earlier, here's exactly the sort of thing that is obliterating the press in Britain, devaluing the profession of journalism and making a once-respected news source look like a fucking bunch of dribbling sub-GCSE cunts who'd rather be reading Closer than The Economist. I like to call it the 'fuckwitisation of news'.
Anyway, in 'celebrity sightings' we learn these vital bits of information:
- Deborah Harry stands still and has her picture taken. "We don't know who Debbie Harry's surgeon is, but we want his number. Now!..." quips the once-enthusiastic hack tapping away at this load of cock at his or her desk, those dreams of forging a career long since flushed away down the u-bend of churnalism, a little tear of remorse perhaps trickling down their face, unseen by their colleagues, as they continue.
- Kristin Scott Thomas appeared on a TV programme.
- Bob Geldof had dinner with his girlfriend.
- Kate Winslet appeared on a TV programme.
- That boy out of the Harry Potter films (not him, the other one) is appearing in another film soon, and a publicity still has been released to promote it.
- Kelly Brook and Amanda Holden are filming a TV programme.
- The Osbournes have turned up to a party.
- Amy Winehouse has had a go on a trapeze [while taking part in rehab - so thank goodness no-one was there to intrude on this very private moment, apart from the cunt with a big lens lurking in the bushes a few hundred yards away, obviously]
- David Gest and Kerry Katona have appeared on stage toghether.
- Glenn Close has received a star on Hollywood Boulevard.
- Billie Piper went to see a film.
- Matt Dillon and Sarah Jessica Parker went to see a play "...Sarah was quick to cover up a wardrobe malfunction. But not fast enough to prevent Matt Dillon seeing too much and being scarred for life." Astonishing scenes!
- Deborah Harry (again) has appeared on stage.
- Daniel Craig has signed some autographs at a film premiere.
- Roger Moore has been to a bookshop.
- Some other people went to see Daniel Craig's film.
- Michael Phelps has been filming a TV advert. In 'Biejing', apparently.
- Will Smith has been on TV in Spain to promote his latest film.
- Mickey Rourke went to a party.
- Some other people went too.
- Sting turned up to something.
- Delta Goodrem played the piano somewhere.
- Grace Jones was somewhere, singing something.
You can't tell me that's not important. You can? Oh, OK then.
Anyway, in 'celebrity sightings' we learn these vital bits of information:
- Deborah Harry stands still and has her picture taken. "We don't know who Debbie Harry's surgeon is, but we want his number. Now!..." quips the once-enthusiastic hack tapping away at this load of cock at his or her desk, those dreams of forging a career long since flushed away down the u-bend of churnalism, a little tear of remorse perhaps trickling down their face, unseen by their colleagues, as they continue.
- Kristin Scott Thomas appeared on a TV programme.
- Bob Geldof had dinner with his girlfriend.
- Kate Winslet appeared on a TV programme.
- That boy out of the Harry Potter films (not him, the other one) is appearing in another film soon, and a publicity still has been released to promote it.
- Kelly Brook and Amanda Holden are filming a TV programme.
- The Osbournes have turned up to a party.
- Amy Winehouse has had a go on a trapeze [while taking part in rehab - so thank goodness no-one was there to intrude on this very private moment, apart from the cunt with a big lens lurking in the bushes a few hundred yards away, obviously]
- David Gest and Kerry Katona have appeared on stage toghether.
- Glenn Close has received a star on Hollywood Boulevard.
- Billie Piper went to see a film.
- Matt Dillon and Sarah Jessica Parker went to see a play "...Sarah was quick to cover up a wardrobe malfunction. But not fast enough to prevent Matt Dillon seeing too much and being scarred for life." Astonishing scenes!
- Deborah Harry (again) has appeared on stage.
- Daniel Craig has signed some autographs at a film premiere.
- Roger Moore has been to a bookshop.
- Some other people went to see Daniel Craig's film.
- Michael Phelps has been filming a TV advert. In 'Biejing', apparently.
- Will Smith has been on TV in Spain to promote his latest film.
- Mickey Rourke went to a party.
- Some other people went too.
- Sting turned up to something.
- Delta Goodrem played the piano somewhere.
- Grace Jones was somewhere, singing something.
You can't tell me that's not important. You can? Oh, OK then.
Where's the worst place for a BNP scumbag to be working...?
...the answer is in immigration.
Now, I remember the snorts of hilarity that ensued when it was discovered that illegal immigrants were working in immigration. Oh, how the tabloids and broadsheets alike hooted with derision at this attack on Bottler McGobshite and his terrible crumbling empire of NuLab.
I'm sure that similar attention and column inches will be given to this new revelation. Yes. Yes, they will.
Now, I remember the snorts of hilarity that ensued when it was discovered that illegal immigrants were working in immigration. Oh, how the tabloids and broadsheets alike hooted with derision at this attack on Bottler McGobshite and his terrible crumbling empire of NuLab.
I'm sure that similar attention and column inches will be given to this new revelation. Yes. Yes, they will.
Actual journalism and its price
A post-script to the murder of Sri Lankan journalist Lasantha Wickrametunga. His final, breathtaking, piece of writing is now up at Comment is Free but fuck the Graun, go to the Sunday Leader website and read it there, among the many other insightful articles by the same journalist:
It really is an extraordinary piece. I wonder if those journalists trawling Google at their desks for Britney Spears stories can ever really have the same job satisfaction. Or courage. Or integrity. Or should even call themselves journalists at all.
Why then do we do it? I often wonder that. After all, I too am a husband, and the father of three wonderful children. I too have responsibilities and obligations that transcend my profession, be it the law or journalism. Is it worth the risk? Many people tell me it is not. Friends tell me to revert to the bar, and goodness knows it offers a better and safer livelihood. Others, including political leaders on both sides, have at various times sought to induce me to take to politics, going so far as to offer me ministries of my choice. Diplomats, recognising the risk journalists face in Sri Lanka, have offered me safe passage and the right of residence in their countries. Whatever else I may have been stuck for, I have not been stuck for choice.
But there is a calling that is yet above high office, fame, lucre and security. It is the call of conscience.
...
As for me, I have the satisfaction of knowing that I walked tall and bowed to no man. And I have not travelled this journey alone. Fellow journalists in other branches of the media walked with me: most are now dead, imprisoned without trial or exiled in far-off lands. Others walk in the shadow of death that your presidency has cast on the freedoms for which you once fought so hard. You will never be allowed to forget that my death took place under your watch. As anguished as I know you will be, I also know that you will have no choice but to protect my killers: you will see to it that the guilty one is never convicted. You have no choice.
It really is an extraordinary piece. I wonder if those journalists trawling Google at their desks for Britney Spears stories can ever really have the same job satisfaction. Or courage. Or integrity. Or should even call themselves journalists at all.
Tuesday, 13 January 2009
Watch... watch!
I love that programme on ITV4 where the silly-looking masked magician reveals the secrets of magic tricks. In a very small and largely insignificant way, I want to be that silly man in the silly mask, showing you how the Mail conjures up its bollocks stories. Watch... watch how they do it! Like the Paul Daniels Magic Show, it's really something to admire, no matter how much you can't stand the protagonist*.
Have a look at this, and see if you can spot where the sleight-of-hand takes place. My readers are typically ABC1s, intelligent types, often young men called Brian, who like yoghurt but not always black cherry flavour and who can spot a dogturd at a long distance. I know you'll spot it. Don't let me down now.
A clue for you non ABC1s who may not have noticed such a thing:
So what was the reason then? Was it really that she was 'too believable' per se, or that because her identification couldn't be relied upon due to the brevity of it, he didn't feel that it could be relied upon?
A tough choice, but the Mail opts for the fact that this (blonde, young) woman is definitely being discriminated against for being honest in a clear case of ZANULABPCGONEMADBASTARDS rather than, as the judge said: "You cannot be sure she got it right." No, it wouldn't be that. It would be because honesty is not a value to be trusted in MCBOTTLER'S BRITAIN! And the whole country has, oh how can one put it...
Says Paul in Bude. Hooray!
If the Mail had said "because the suspect was black" but printed it next to a photo of a white man, I bet you now that most of the people whose comments got printed under the story wouldn't have noticed.
And that's magic. You'll like it. But not a lot.
* I saw Paul Daniels (and the lovely Debbie McGhee) driving through my home town once. He had a big red Jag and as I recall the numberplate was MA6IC.
Have a look at this, and see if you can spot where the sleight-of-hand takes place. My readers are typically ABC1s, intelligent types, often young men called Brian, who like yoghurt but not always black cherry flavour and who can spot a dogturd at a long distance. I know you'll spot it. Don't let me down now.
A yob accused of robbing a driving instructor walked free from court after a judge ruled his alleged victim was 'too believable' to give evidence.
Mother-of-two Denise Dawson, 36, was praised for being 'honest, utterly decent and brave' when she testified against Liam Perks, 20.
But the trial was stopped on the first day because Judge Jamie Tabor QC ruled her good character may unfairly sway the jury against the defendant.
He decided that her solitary, split-second identification of the man accused of robbing her was simply not enough.
Judge Tabor said he feared the upstanding member of the community might just sway the jury in a case where the evidence fell short.
A clue for you non ABC1s who may not have noticed such a thing:
A yob accused of robbing a driving instructor walked free from court after a judge ruled his alleged victim was 'too believable' to give evidence...
He decided that her solitary, split-second identification of the man accused of robbing her was simply not enough.
So what was the reason then? Was it really that she was 'too believable' per se, or that because her identification couldn't be relied upon due to the brevity of it, he didn't feel that it could be relied upon?
A tough choice, but the Mail opts for the fact that this (blonde, young) woman is definitely being discriminated against for being honest in a clear case of ZANULABPCGONEMADBASTARDS rather than, as the judge said: "You cannot be sure she got it right." No, it wouldn't be that. It would be because honesty is not a value to be trusted in MCBOTTLER'S BRITAIN! And the whole country has, oh how can one put it...
this country has well and truly gone to the dogs.
Says Paul in Bude. Hooray!
If the Mail had said "because the suspect was black" but printed it next to a photo of a white man, I bet you now that most of the people whose comments got printed under the story wouldn't have noticed.
And that's magic. You'll like it. But not a lot.
* I saw Paul Daniels (and the lovely Debbie McGhee) driving through my home town once. He had a big red Jag and as I recall the numberplate was MA6IC.
Telegraph: Tittle-tattle and celebrity shit
...at least that's what you'll get on the website in a frenzied bid to up the search engine optimisation. But the trouble with such cobblers stories is that quite often they turn out to be total turd, unless they come from an extremely good source. When they don't, they make you look like a fucking idiot.
Which bring me to yesterday's story in the Telegraph in which it was claimed that:
because
Couched in the 'it has been claimed' bollocks or not, you need to be actually saying something that has its roots in accuracy in order to be considered a journalist rather than a blethering chimp at a keyboard.
What a pity that an interview with Cruise couldn't have happened with the old all-guns-blazing Ross in full effect; you can't help but fear he might be muzzled a bit in the wake of the Manuel nonsense, but we'll see.
Anyway, was it true? Erm...
That'll be a no, then.
Time was when the Telegraph really was the benchmark for quality journalism. But why should you believe anything you read in there or on the website, if it's alongside such patent crap as the Cruise story, with no sources mentioned and with 'it has been claimed' and 'allegedly' sprinkled all over the place? The Tele has to decide whether it wants to be trusted or first with the celebrity gossip. You can't have both.
Which bring me to yesterday's story in the Telegraph in which it was claimed that:
Tom Cruise and Daniel Craig 'reluctant to appear on Jonathan Ross'
because
of the Sachsgate scandal and concerns about his "humiliating" interview style, it has been claimed.
Couched in the 'it has been claimed' bollocks or not, you need to be actually saying something that has its roots in accuracy in order to be considered a journalist rather than a blethering chimp at a keyboard.
The actor Tom Cruise, currently on cinema screens in the film Valkyrie, has been lined up in for the comeback show but is allegedly considering pulling out after being informed about the recent controversy surrounding Ross.
What a pity that an interview with Cruise couldn't have happened with the old all-guns-blazing Ross in full effect; you can't help but fear he might be muzzled a bit in the wake of the Manuel nonsense, but we'll see.
Anyway, was it true? Erm...
Hollywood actor Tom Cruise has been confirmed to appear on Jonathan Ross's first chat show when it returns following his three-month suspension.
That'll be a no, then.
Time was when the Telegraph really was the benchmark for quality journalism. But why should you believe anything you read in there or on the website, if it's alongside such patent crap as the Cruise story, with no sources mentioned and with 'it has been claimed' and 'allegedly' sprinkled all over the place? The Tele has to decide whether it wants to be trusted or first with the celebrity gossip. You can't have both.
Only when I laugh
Ah, delight. I loved this story from the Mail about laughter being the best medicine. There's not just the nonsensical premise of it, but the layers of balls upon balls that pretend that it's something other than a meaningless torrent of shite.
Other scientists have calculated that no-one in the entire world laughs for an hour solid, thereby torpedoing the entire story. But shhhhh, you'll spoil thepress release for UK Gold important scientific research:
That'll be pretty fucking mini, the workout.
But where - oh where? - could one find a television channel that provided such mirth and merriment in handy half-hour doses? Won't someone tell me? I want my mini aerobic workouts! Where can I find them? Where?
Ah, I see. There we go, then. Well, it's mission accomplished for the telly people, I suppoose, they've got their load of old cock into the paper to make people more aware of their brand, so hooray. Of course it destroys the reputation of the Mail's science coverage - this is in the Health section, for heaven's sake - but then that's so often full of bullshit and potions that surely no-one other than the tragically naive could possibly believe a single word of it, could they?
Actually, perhaps I've got it all wrong. I pissed myself so much at the ineptitude of this barrel of dogshit that I appear to have lost seven pounds in the past five minutes. Maybe there's something to it after all...
Feeling miserable about piling on the pounds after Christmas? Then lighten up. . . and lighten up.
Scientists have calculated that an hour of laughter can burn off as many calories as 30 minutes of weightlifting.
And following that routine for a year could lead to a loss of around 11lbs - the equivalent of a dress size.
Other scientists have calculated that no-one in the entire world laughs for an hour solid, thereby torpedoing the entire story. But shhhhh, you'll spoil the
A burst of hearty laughter provides the body with a 'mini-aerobic workout', according to neuroscientist Dr Helen Pilcher.
It makes the heart beat faster and boosts blood flow around the body, she says.
The chest is forced to rise and fall, while the abdominal muscles have to work hard to keep up, tightening the tummy. And the benefits don't end there. Laughter requires help from at least 15 facial muscles, keeping them supple and the skin glowing.
That'll be pretty fucking mini, the workout.
She calculated an hour of laughter burns off half an ounce of fat, so giggling away for an hour a day for a year could rid the body of just over 11lbs.
Likewise, a daily half-hour dose of comedy - the equivalent of an episode of Friends or The Office - could leave you more than 5lbs lighter over the year.
But where - oh where? - could one find a television channel that provided such mirth and merriment in handy half-hour doses? Won't someone tell me? I want my mini aerobic workouts! Where can I find them? Where?
Paul Moreton, of UKTV Gold, which commissioned the analysis, said: 'The Daily Laughter Diet is a fun alternative to joining a gym.
'Gold has a schedule packed full of comedy classics. So reach for your remote, not the leftovers.'
Ah, I see. There we go, then. Well, it's mission accomplished for the telly people, I suppoose, they've got their load of old cock into the paper to make people more aware of their brand, so hooray. Of course it destroys the reputation of the Mail's science coverage - this is in the Health section, for heaven's sake - but then that's so often full of bullshit and potions that surely no-one other than the tragically naive could possibly believe a single word of it, could they?
Actually, perhaps I've got it all wrong. I pissed myself so much at the ineptitude of this barrel of dogshit that I appear to have lost seven pounds in the past five minutes. Maybe there's something to it after all...
More different kinds of racism
Beautiful. In this case it's the small print that giveth and the large print that taketh away. Racism is implied to be some kind of bad thing, in one Express blurb at the top of the page; but just millimetres away there's a completely racist load of old cock about the bladdy foreigners coming over ere and taking our jobs innit.
Of course, racists would like you to believe that while dressing up as a black and white minstrel, talking like Jim Davidson's Chalkie White character, using words like sambo and nignog and so on, might be considered somehow wrong (in these PCNazi days), that complaining about immigration isn't. That's the interesting distinction that modern racists make. They're lying cunts, obviously.
Of course, racists would like you to believe that while dressing up as a black and white minstrel, talking like Jim Davidson's Chalkie White character, using words like sambo and nignog and so on, might be considered somehow wrong (in these PCNazi days), that complaining about immigration isn't. That's the interesting distinction that modern racists make. They're lying cunts, obviously.
Monday, 12 January 2009
Now available on Twitter
...I am, anyway. Inspired by the Daily Mail parody, who have been shamelessly booted into a new identity after the Mail chucked its toys* out the pram, I've decided to set one up.
Don't expect anything good/interesting, mind.
What toys would the Daily Mail have, if it were in a pram? A union jack? A cuddly Lord Rothermere doll shaking hands with a cuddly Hitler? Who knows.
Don't expect anything good/interesting, mind.
What toys would the Daily Mail have, if it were in a pram? A union jack? A cuddly Lord Rothermere doll shaking hands with a cuddly Hitler? Who knows.
Comment moderation and the big boys
Two examples of how the big newspapers deal with criticism and attempted corrections. It also shows the value of comment moderation in online news stories*.
1. Telegraph: Runs story about scientist. Scientist aims for right of reply and aims to correct what he sees as factual errors in the comments. Comments rejected. Scientist writes letter. Letter rejected.
2. Sun: Runs lying rubbish about British Jews being targeted by Muslim extremists. Readers attempt to correct what they see as factual errors in the comments. Comments rejected.
Essentially, these papers will allow comments which agree with what they've said, and reject ones that don't. Which is fine, I guess, so long as they don't pretend that there's actually some kind of debate going on.
* My approach to comment moderation on here is pretty straightforward: if it's not libellous, spamming, repetitive or downright pathetic, then it goes through. I'm not one of the 'hear no evil, see no evil' school of thought: I like to see what I'm looking at before it goes online under my blog. I don't mind being told I'm an idiot or that I'm wrong, or even downright abused. You can look back in the archives and see my jolly correspondence with those sages Jeff Marshall and William Gazy to see the kind of thing that I don't mind, though the latter of those chaps was unfortunately really upset when a particularly libellous comment about Inayat Bunglawala didn't get through. Well tough tits. Pre-moderation means I'm responsible for what appears on the website, not you, and therefore I have to exercise a little caution. And at the end of the day, it's my blog, not yours. The classical right-wing cunt response of "Well you ask for comments, therefore I'm allowed to be a total cock under every single one of your posts and say a load of shit that isn't true at all and is completely racist bollocks, otherwise you're a free-speech-hating motherfucker" doesn't wash with me. So fuck off.
1. Telegraph: Runs story about scientist. Scientist aims for right of reply and aims to correct what he sees as factual errors in the comments. Comments rejected. Scientist writes letter. Letter rejected.
2. Sun: Runs lying rubbish about British Jews being targeted by Muslim extremists. Readers attempt to correct what they see as factual errors in the comments. Comments rejected.
Essentially, these papers will allow comments which agree with what they've said, and reject ones that don't. Which is fine, I guess, so long as they don't pretend that there's actually some kind of debate going on.
* My approach to comment moderation on here is pretty straightforward: if it's not libellous, spamming, repetitive or downright pathetic, then it goes through. I'm not one of the 'hear no evil, see no evil' school of thought: I like to see what I'm looking at before it goes online under my blog. I don't mind being told I'm an idiot or that I'm wrong, or even downright abused. You can look back in the archives and see my jolly correspondence with those sages Jeff Marshall and William Gazy to see the kind of thing that I don't mind, though the latter of those chaps was unfortunately really upset when a particularly libellous comment about Inayat Bunglawala didn't get through. Well tough tits. Pre-moderation means I'm responsible for what appears on the website, not you, and therefore I have to exercise a little caution. And at the end of the day, it's my blog, not yours. The classical right-wing cunt response of "Well you ask for comments, therefore I'm allowed to be a total cock under every single one of your posts and say a load of shit that isn't true at all and is completely racist bollocks, otherwise you're a free-speech-hating motherfucker" doesn't wash with me. So fuck off.
The Groucho approach to awards
Sunny, among many others, is dismayed by the prospect of fuckwit Melanie Phillips winning some British blogging award. And I can completely understand. If that no-talent venomous witch were to emerge victorious it would be an appalling travesty, given that her career and blog consist of spouting batshit insane nonsense, often demonstrably untrue and often so wildly far from the truth that you have to wonder exactly what grasp on reality the woman really has. Seriously. It's not as if the "The Jews did 9-11" ravers are given airtime in the mainstream media (and quite rightly so), yet Phillips, just as bonkers but with different political views, is allowed to continue as if she's actually any good.
What the legitimisation of Phillips does is give a totally false impression. As if she's regarded as anything other than a fucking massive fruitcake. Surely most Jewish people wince when they read her column and blog (at least I hope they do), where the conspiracy theories get wilder and wilder than the things she's permitted to publish in the Spectator and Daily Mail. It's complete and utter fucking nonsense. It's drivel. It wouldn't be allowed from any other writer in the country; and if it were from any other political slant, it wouldn't be allowed at all. Not that I really care, but it's damaging to the reputation of the Spectator and the Mail to have such a despicably useless non-journalist twat spouting such cobblers on a regular basis. It demeans every other thing in those publications.
But then, on the other hand, you have to take a step back. The blog awards in question involved various submissions, which were then looked at by the organisers and then put through as finalists. As far as I'm aware, the number of submissions for a particular blog (ie due to a concerted effort from a small group of rather tragic individuals who support Mad Mel and her stupid views) didn't count towards whether or not a certain entry was put through as a finalist.
Therefore, there's only one conclusion to reach: that the people in charge of the awards actually thought it was good.
Much as it's important that Phillips doesn't win, you have to bear in mind that the awards are rather tarnished by the fact that she was selected as a finalist in the first place. You know, someone went to the blog, read what was on there and considered that it was actually any good, and not a pile of steaming shit.
Who would want to win an award whose judges think Melanie Phillips is anything other than a fucking fruitloop?
But still, let's make her lose.
What the legitimisation of Phillips does is give a totally false impression. As if she's regarded as anything other than a fucking massive fruitcake. Surely most Jewish people wince when they read her column and blog (at least I hope they do), where the conspiracy theories get wilder and wilder than the things she's permitted to publish in the Spectator and Daily Mail. It's complete and utter fucking nonsense. It's drivel. It wouldn't be allowed from any other writer in the country; and if it were from any other political slant, it wouldn't be allowed at all. Not that I really care, but it's damaging to the reputation of the Spectator and the Mail to have such a despicably useless non-journalist twat spouting such cobblers on a regular basis. It demeans every other thing in those publications.
But then, on the other hand, you have to take a step back. The blog awards in question involved various submissions, which were then looked at by the organisers and then put through as finalists. As far as I'm aware, the number of submissions for a particular blog (ie due to a concerted effort from a small group of rather tragic individuals who support Mad Mel and her stupid views) didn't count towards whether or not a certain entry was put through as a finalist.
Therefore, there's only one conclusion to reach: that the people in charge of the awards actually thought it was good.
Much as it's important that Phillips doesn't win, you have to bear in mind that the awards are rather tarnished by the fact that she was selected as a finalist in the first place. You know, someone went to the blog, read what was on there and considered that it was actually any good, and not a pile of steaming shit.
Who would want to win an award whose judges think Melanie Phillips is anything other than a fucking fruitloop?
But still, let's make her lose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
