Yes, it does say that

Leave aside for a moment (in fact forever) the fact that this week's purulent guff from Amanda Platell - in which she says that fatties shouldn't be treated by the NHS because they're fatties - is dismally argued, tiresome and all-round shite. No, have a quick look at the Mail's front page.



Yes. Yes, it does say that. It really does offer a free box of chocolates for every reader, above a plug for an article slagging off tubbies.

Hero soldier slags off Gordon Brown

You'd think, wouldn't you, that this would be a massive story broken by The Sun, which claims to be the champion of 'our boys'. It's a serviceman, the most highly decorated of his era, a man who has shown incredible heroism while serving his country, who wants to put the case against Gordon Brown and New Labour for the shoddy way in which he feels ex-service personnel are treated. It's a case that ticks all of the right boxes, isn't it? Hero stands up for his fellow soldiers. Not only that, but it also dovetails in with the anti-Labour agenda of most of the tabloid press. So it's a win-win, isn't it?

But no. In fact the brave soldier in question has taken his concerns to the BBC instead, to the Today programme on Radio 4.

But surely those who worked themselves into a frenzy over that bloke's bid to build a bungalow - you know, the rather unfortunate episode that led Noel Edmonds to go over the edge while presenting his self-aggrandising "Bonkers Britain" vanity project on Sky One, and which has thankfully been put on the road to being resolved, no thanks to that pathetic trial-by-TV circus - will be coming out in support of this chap. Won't they?

The Sun hasn't got the story on its website yet, curiously enough - even though they've carried stories about this soldier before, to much praise from online readers. I'm sure it's going to be there, but it just doesn't seem to be there yet. More important stories on there right now concern these hot topics of newsworthy interest:
- Gary Lineker's girlfriend in a bikini
- David Walliams having sex with someone
- Jessica Taylor wearing a catsuit
- Zara Phillips has had her handbag stolen
- Kevin Federline looks a bit fat, according to someone.

Ah well, I'm sure they'll get around to it and give it a good show. I don't think the potential problem in this case is that Johnson Beharry is black; it's just that it's a little more of a subtle story than a guy who's got physical injuries - Beharry is talking about post-traumatic stress disorder and psychological problems suffered by service people.

The problem is, these things are quite often dismissed out of hand as not even existing by the tabloids; that somehow, if you're claiming to have 'stress' or even PTSD, you're making it up, or malingering, or trying to get a bit of compo from NuLab. That's why I'm glad that someone as respected and articulate as Beharry is taking up the cause: it might actually get some genuine recognition for these conditions, not just among service personnel but in general. This has got to be a campaign worth backing.

Mind you, you have to bear in mind that according to the Mail's BNP-style definitions, he's not British. I wonder if he'll be described as such when they come to run the story? Come on, James Slack*. I dare you to cover this story, and call Johnson Beharry a British hero. Which of course he is, in more ways than one: not just a brave soldier - whatever you think of the war out there - but also brave to talk about issues like psychological problems in public.

* Sunny Hundal rather wonderfully referred to Slack as 'Slacker' throughout his excellent piece on the Mail's Britishness on CiF this week. I don't know if he did it on purpose, but I loved it.

Friday links 27/2/09: Watch this if you can

Go on, watch it. Try it. Watch it all the way through. Can you do it? Can you? No? Of course not. Sure, we've all tried to watch it, but there comes that point about 5 seconds in where the buttock-clenching awfulness of it seeps into your internal organs and you feel a desperate need to throw your computer out of the window. Either that or turn the bloody thing off, so I turned it off. Unfortunately, the stilted nonsense is transcribed below in all its miserable shitness.
For a bit of light relief after that, let's talk about torture. Chicken Yoghurt examines the scarily disturbed individual that is Donald Rumsfeld. Will he ever be indicted? No, he'll be dead sooner than that, I'm afraid.
Septicisle looks at the latest bit of old cobblers circulating about 'British Muslims' attacking 'our boys'. One point which might be well worth making - do these 'British Muslims' even count as British under the James Slack criteria? I'm guessing they don't.
The Quail makes fun of what I assumed at first to be a Chris Morris-style spoof story. Worth saying, perhaps, that the man in question hasn't been convicted of anything - he's just a suspect. Not that that's stopped our friends at the Mail from going "Urgh! A radioactive paedo!"
In the light of U2's taxpayer-funded willy-waving over at the BBC, it's worth remembering that Bono doesn't like paying tax at all, if he can help it.
Johann Hari looks at Clint Eastwood's career from the far-right vigilantism of Dirty Harry to his latest effort, Gran Torino. I'm seeing it tonight so I haven't read all the way through this for fear of spoiling the plot.
Eric reports on an epic BNP fail - they've used a Spitfire in promotional material for forthcoming European elections. But the Spitfire in question is Polish. Doh!
The Bleeding Heart Show has a measured look at welfare and whether New Labour has done enough to eradicate poverty.
Lenin and Mutantblog both look at the problematic approach of attempting to justify 'British jobs for British workers', from the trade union movement and the Labour party.

Low-cost travel to Dublin, Ireland, Europe

"If the plane has to land in an emergency, insert your card into the chip and pin device... A member of crew will be on hand to collect your £25 emergency disembarkation fee."

Cheap flights to Ireland and Europe

...and anywhere else are much better if you go by any airline other than Ryanair. Not only are mobile phones to be allowed on their planes ("I'M ON THE FACKING PLANE, INNIT?" all the way to Ibiza. All. The. Way. I know I've said this before, but the point really doesn't need labouring too much. Have you ever been on a train? Sat next to someone babbling away endlessly about stuff you don't care about? Yes? How about a bus? How about a bus where some teenage girl is barking at her mates down the phone to come and meet her, ringing each one and shouting loud enough to crack marble? Been on one of them? Want to have that same experience on a plane, do you?) but normally-publicity-shy Ryanair Big Daddy Michael O'Leary is now pretending claiming that now you may have to spend a penny TO SPEND A PENNY (lolz, innit?) if you have the epic misfortune to be stuck in one of their fart-filled Coke cans lurching bumpily into one of those airports that actually turns out to be ten billion billion billion miles away from where you really wanted to go and that in fact going by taxi rather than shitty aeroplane may have been better in the long run.

Anyway, Ryanair this week snorted that it didn't have time to give a shit about 'lunatic bloggers', but as such a lunatic blogger myself, I'm a bit annoyed about the shittest airline on planet earth deciding that it isn't interested in lunatic bloggers like me. There may be times when lunatic bloggers such as I may need to fly from our local airport to somewhere in Europe, or maybe even further afield, for a City Break or a short holiday. Naturally, we'll try not to fly Ryanair, given their inherent shitness; but now it seems that lunatic bloggers also have yet another reason to eschew the most fucking dreadful and unpleasant company in the history of civilisation.

I mean, it takes something to make easyJet feel like you're being treated to a luxury ride on your very own chauffeur-driven cloud, but Ryanair manages it. If ever you wanted your holiday to feel worse than regular life, then you know which plane to catch and which routes to go on. Here's an airline that used to (and may still do, for all I know) itemise its charges for people with disabilities, as if it were trying to make everyone without disabilities pissed off at having to pay for the extravagance of treating other human beings as if they're human beings rather than the scum they so clearly are for being cripples and spazzes. But why stop there? Why not itemise how much from each ticket goes to O'Leary's bank account? Why not itemise how much from each flight goes into the pockets of some total arse in their PR department? Why not itemise how much from each flight goes to pointlessly fucking awful publicity campaigns in which O'Leary dresses up in a variety of not-fucking-any-funny-or-entertaining-or-good-in-the-slightest costumes? Here's an idea for the next hilariously brilliant campaign: stick the fucker in a giant lead safe and drop it off the end of a pier. I promise to buy a ticket to somewhere on Ryanair for everyone in my family (I won't go, obviously) if I get to see him drown live on TV. How about that? No?

Anyway, there's been the suggestion that lunatic bloggers shouldn't just sit there and take it, and should get their revenge. I don't know if it'll work, but let's have a crack. If you think Ryanair is a pile of shit, as I do, having had the appalling misfortune to have flown with them in the past, and if you're a lunatic blogger like me, then maybe you might consider writing a lunatic blog post about just how fucking terrible you think they are. Perhaps include important Search Engine Optimisation words in the title of the post, like I have - "Cheap flights to Ireland" and so on.

It stinks all right

There's a smell to the Mail's coverage of immigration. Like when you're talking to someone and something wafts up your nostrils, leaving you to wonder, is that...did they just fart? through the rest of what they say. I have a horrible nagging suspicion about the Mail's output. Is the paper being racist when it bemoans the number of white people leaving the country? How about when it reports that the majority of knife crime perpetrators are black, while most victims are white when in fact the majority of victims' ethnicity is unknown? What if it added an explanation to say that the victims whose ethnicity was unknows were probably black gang members? Or what about when it switches the words 'ethnic minority' to 'immigrant' in a table it has already dishonestly included and exaggerated? How about when it suggests that people actually born in the UK should be counted as immigrants? If there were an episode of Eastenders that featured only black cast members, and the paper disapproved of that? Would it be right to wonder if there were a certain amount of racism behind the objection? There is a sort of plausible deniability behind some of this stuff, but that is steadily shrinking with slips like these recent ones.

Yes, this ^^^.

I don't know if the Mail is a racist newspaper. I don't know if its writers or journalists or subs or even readers are racist.

(I don't even mind if some of them are, so long as they're upfront and honest about it - as I've always said, I don't really object to genuine racists. Sure, I may violently disagree with them in rather fundamental ways, but at least they aren't weaselly about it. At least they don't hide behind a mask of respectability. It's one thing to say "I don't like black people" and quite another to say "Of course, the problem is that so many Muslims don't integrate, which is a terrible thing for social cohesion"; it's one thing to say "I don't like foreigners" and another to say "Well of course, most knife crime perpetrators are black and most victims are white - I don't know that for a fact, but I'm going to tell you it's a fact, and you may well believe me, because not only am I presenting it to you as a fact but I'm coating it with the veneer of honest investigation and journalistic endeavour. You may well have every reason to suppose, given that I've told you that I've researched this, that I've researched this, and this is what I've found out. You'd be wrong, but that's your lookout matey".)

But if it isn't racist, and isn't trying to be racist, then it's saying an awful lot of things that racists will agree with - and not because they're unpleasant or awkward truths that an objective journalist must state for the record so the readers can know the truth. Quite often they're not saying the truth at all. Sometimes, even, they've tried so hard to make their version of the truth look like the truth, whereas in fact the truth is more complex or simply not that at all, but something entirely different, that you have to wonder what they're trying to achieve, if not to please racists. You have to wonder, if they're not racist, why they're coming out with this stuff all the time.

Every now and then, as with the columnists, the mask slips just a little bit. Just enough to show you what's going on. And it's not a pretty sight. Yesterday's truly disgraceful attempt to claim all second and third generation people from immigrant families as not being British - a definition which Norman Tebbit, for example, and even many out-and-out racists would disagree with - was one of those times. I wonder, for example, how second and third generation soldiers out fighting for their country feel when they're told that, according to one of the biggest newspapers in Britain, they're not actually British? I wonder how anyone should feel with this kind of description? Was it just a mistake, or was it a rather telling slip? Was it one shoehorning of statistics too many from a tired journalist trying to cobble together some statistics into the cookie cutter of "NULAB IS LYING TO US ABOUT IMMIGRATION BECAUSE IT HATES EVERYONE" for the millionth time?

Or was there something else behind it? I really don't know. But the evidence is beginning to pile up. Because I'm such a bleeding heart at heart, I still do try my best to keep an open mind about whether the Daily Mail is a racist newspaper, despite seeing racism in it. I'd really rather hope that it isn't. I don't want it to be. What would that say about the British press? What would that say about the readers? What would that say about Britain, for those of us British enough by the Mail's rather stringent rules to be called British?

It stinks all right, it really does.

Rihanna 'likes a bit of rough'

Really? Really. And OJ Simpson is a 'bad boy'. A 'bad boy'? A bad boy.

Blimey.

...as a pancake

Thanks to Iain for the tipoff on this one. The Mail printed a load of complete bollocks on pancakes the other day as a bit of Shrove Tuesday nonsense - I've given up compassion for Lent this year, by the way, so I'll see you over at Harry's Place - but as this commenter points out, there's something slightly askew with the magical pancake formula:

According to that formula, if you left the pancake batter standing for ten years, (s-e) would be large, and so the pancake would be near perfect. If you let it stand for the same time as you left the pancake to cool, (s-e) would be zero and the pancake would be infinitely bad.

Hmm. Maybe just not bother running complete crap stories about magic formulas? Or check them out first before you put them in a national newspaper? Nah...

I hope to see this story...

...exposed as a pack of lies on the Mail's website too. Here's hoping.

Yes, the Muslim bus driver who was entirely falsely accused of forcing his passengers off his bus to pray has received a payout from the Sun.

Loughrey said the newspaper now accepted that the allegations were entirely false and that Raulynaitis did not order any passengers off, there was no rucksack and no one refused to reboard because they feared he was a fanatic.

I'd say that's pretty much a complete capitulation.

*update* The Mail did carry an article slagging off the story by Peter Oborne some time ago, which is all to the good. But as you'll see, its readers didn't believe him.

Lovely morning

Links first today again, due to a long sleep and a heavy workload.

Sunder Katwala at Liberal Conspiracy asks who the Mail thinks is British, and Sunny follows it up over at Pickled Politics.

What a mess. Last week, as you'll recall, the Mail's very own Melanie Phillips attempted to attack the BNP (while shadowing some of their arguments), and was turned on by commenters on the Mail's website. Was this an organised action by the BNP, as these things often are, or is that the way Mail readers really feel about these things? Who knows, but James Slack's latest atrocity against journalism should no doubt delight the far right and those supporters who were upset last week by what they probably saw as Melanie Phillips's glaring bleeding-heart liberalism.

People sometimes ask me why I get upset with the Mail. Well, here you go. This is the language of the extreme right. Not the ordinary right. Not New Labour. Not the Conservative Party. Maybe not even UKIP. This is much more extreme than that. And this has been written, not in the opinion section under a columnist's byline, where it can be written off as being part of a 'broad church' of opinion. No, this has been written by a journalist, supposedly as a news story. Yuck. I feel dirty having even read it.

Ben Six on whether Jack Straw is a sociopath or not. I'll stick my neck out and say yes, he strikes me as a bit like Richard III.

'Too much anger can kill you' says the Mail. It also says 'Cancer in a glass of wine'. Yes, you read that right. CANCER IN A GLASS OF WINE. Really? Really. Surely not, you're taking the piss? No, I'm not. Have a look for yourself. And check out the rest of the blog while you're there; I've only just found it.

Jack of Kent looks at the disturbing individuals trying to pretend that homeopathy can help people with AIDS in Tanzania.

Finally, Lenin takes apart Obama's TARP.

...and this is why Geert Wilders should have been allowed in

Now people are demanding that anyone they don't like should be refused entry to the country. On this occasion the 'people' are the Conservative Party and the Daily Mail, both of whom are - coincidentally, I'm almost certain - in favour of Lebanese journalist Ibrahim Moussawi being barred, the argument being that "Well, that right-wing nut wasn't allowed in, what about this raving Islamist who hates Jews then, eh? Eh?"

It's a fairly despicable thing to do. Wilders should have been allowed in, and so should Moussawi be - that's the sensible thing to think. Are the Tories arguing that Wilders shouldn't have been let in, then - in essence demanding a more hardline approach to everyone they don't like? In which case, where does it end? The trouble is, every person the Tories/Mailies don't like will now be

Now I don't know what form Moussawi has in terms of extremism. What can the Mail tell us?

But the Home Secretary is under pressure to refuse an entry visa to Moussawi, who has allegedly described Jews as 'a lesion on the forehead of history'.

Well has he or not? If he's a journalist, surely this has been published somewhere? If he said it somewhere, surely it was reported by someone else somewhere? I'm not saying this man does or doesn't have poisonous views; I'm just wondering whether to believe an 'allegedly' is good enough to decide.

Now look at this difference between Press Gazette

Moussawi edits the newspaper Al-Intiqad, which is linked to Lebanese political and military organisation Hezbollah.

and the Mail

Editor for the newspaper of Lebanon-based terrorist organisation Hezbollah, he is a former political editor of the Iranian-backed group's TV station, which is banned in many countries including France, Spain and the U.S, as its output is seen as anti-Semitic.

But does that mean he is anti-Semitic? Just because, for example, certain Mail columnists are anti-Islamic, does that mean everyone at the Mail is? It would be rather foolish for anyone to assume so. I don't see a compelling lot of evidence why this man shouldn't be allowed into this country.

What the Mail and Tories are trying to do is say "Why did you not let in this anti-Islamic nutjob when here's an anti-Jew that you've invited with open arms?" and therefore imply that NuLab and evil Jacqui Smith are less bothered by Islamic extremists (WHO ARE THE REAL DANGER!!!!111!!!) than they are by anti-Islamic not-so-extremists. That's bollocks, of course, but the stupid decision not to let Wilders into the country means the Government has opened itself up to this kind of attack.

Max Hastings: Really an unpleasant cunt

Shorter Max Hastings: It's regrettable that these people do get tortured on our say-so, but on the other hand Binyam Mohamed did leave the country and therefore should never be allowed back. And besides, he probably hates 'our way of life', not that I have any evidence in the slightest; it's just a gut feeling.

Morning all

Here are some links. It's my version of the 'Daley Dozen' but it's not 12 and John Redwood is never linked to, so it's a vast improvement imho.

Ben Goldacre on the evidence that got ignored in order to reach the "Facebook causes cancer!" bollocks conclusion.
Ben Six on the 'Xtians are being persecuted, help!' meme.
Jaime on the completely manufactured outrage over the 'all-black' episode of EastEnders.
Septicisle on Jack Straw saving his own arse, and the Tory Troll on Boris doing the same.
Sunny at Pickled Politics asks what the point is in supporting nutjobs.
David Semple on Postman Pat's P45.

Jenvey: The fallout continues...

Now Alan Sugar is taking legal action over the complete bollocks Sun splash that said he was a terror target.

What a mess.

Ouch

Sometimes the best thing you can do when you read a headline like

Why do we love Jade Goody and vilify a University Challenge brainbox for being bright?

is to shrug your shoulders and say "We don't, you silly man. You're just trying to connect things that aren't connected."

But to do so would be to miss out on some truly awful logic from some twit at the Mail. So here goes:

The nation is now captivated by the impending death of a young woman famous only for being famous, and her wedding to a violent ex-con.

and

Across the country, bitter bloggers have sniped at a woman who knows about everything from Rudyard Kipling to Kazakhstan banknotes, from Homer to human genetics.

says the Mail's Harry Mount, who can't write very well. But then that would make me a 'bitter blogger' to say that, I guess. Is there really an outpouring of hatred for someone who was good on a quiz show? I don't think so. She was on the telly this morning - you know, that insufferable inane balls on the BBC which is basically Radio Times TV - and treated really well. And came across quite decently, I thought. But then what do I know?

Anyway, Jade Goody is not being celebrated for being thick; people are feeling compassionate towards a young mother dying of cancer. Is that such a terribly bad thing? (Yes, if you read the Mail commenters, but more of them in a tick). It's just a simple question of 'people off the telly are under scrutiny from the general public, some of whom are numpties'. So if you want you can find people saying anything about anyone.

*update* and it turns out that these 'internet bloggers' aren't bloggers at all but, er, Mail readers. The Mail is slagging off its own readers. Bite the hand that feeds, won't you? Next you'll have Mel Phillips slagging off the BN...oh.

I have nothing against Jade Goody: it would be odd to feel anything other than sympathy for any mother dying so young. But that doesn't take away from the fact that she has achieved little of lasting merit in her short life.

Unlike you, of course, Harry. Of course we can't all be David Cameron's cousin so we can't all get a job scribbling for the Mail and writing shit books that no-one reads. Oh how other human beings should kneel down before your mighty achievements.

You used to be able to take a taste for reading and an interest in the outside world for granted in the average Briton. Now you're considered a Nobel Prize-winning freak if you know the first few elements in the periodic table, or can remember a line of Macbeth.

Er, no. Where does this come from? Who's saying this? Well, no-one, which is why it's such a classical strawman. Some people somewhere have shown sympathy for Jade Goody. Jade Goody = thick so therefore people love thickies. Some people somewhere have had a go at the brainy one off university challenge. This person = clever so therefore people hate clever people. Except that's not what's happened at all - and I do believe that Gail Trimble herself has dismissed this rather simplistic (and not very intelligent) argument.

But then I have to correct myself. Because Harry's argument is almost validated in the comments, which show that a large proportion of the readership of the Mail are not only thick but also vicious little bastards:

I am flabbergasted by the assertion that we "love" Jade Goody. I for one have never thought her anything other than a gormless fool foisted upon us by "reality television". Whilst her cancer is undoubtedly a tragedy for Goody and her family, it is a tragedy experienced by (too) many families and not one that deserves so much media coverage.

and

Very good article. And sadly accurate. If I gave my teenage niece the choice of being salaciously famous like Goody or intelligent and well spoken like Trimble, the girl would chose Goody. But she is kinda thick.

and

jade goody is a plank, only for a trashy t.v. programme is she known.How can she be called a celebrity.

and

It seems to me there's a lot of guff about "diversity" in this country when it comes to race, religion, disabilities. But heaven help you if as a young woman you deviate from the wag/slapper bubble-headed norm.

on the one hand, although there's

While no fan of Jade, I would argue with your observation that 'she has achieved little of lasting merit in her short life.' What more lasting merit than to live on in your two children? That said, I think the main reason for people's sympathy towards Jade is the 'there but for the grace' factor. Anyone of us could have our lives cut short as suddenly as Jade has. Finally - although I don't share the hatred towards Gail - perhaps one of the reasons she attracts such jealousy is because she's obviously had the benefit of expensive private education - and one would assume a financially secure life so far - something not many of us can afford for our children anymore.

Although that of course has been voted down by fellow readers.

WARNING: The Daily Mail makes you autistic

...if you believe the Daily Mail.

Yes, hot on the heels of last week's "Facebook = cancer innit?" load of old drivel comes this week's teh evil internetz scream story.

The template is pretty much the same. Someone somewhere has said something, not even linking stuff but more wondering aloud whether there might be a connection between one thing and another. But eek! Children are being destroyed by it (just as they were by television, comics, radio programmes, computer games, videos etc etc)

And once again, if you believe that increased amount of communication via a screen - including receiving your news through it, meeting people on it using Mail Dating or using the Mail messageboards, for example - is really dangerous to you or your children's health, then you should unplug the internet and chuck your PC out the window. I could kind of understand if the Mail were just a newspaper and didn't have an online presence, but this story is on the ruddy internet itself, no?

Anyway:

She pointed out that autistic people, who usually find it hard to communicate, were particularly comfortable using computers. 'Of course, we do not know whether the current increase in autism is due more to increased awareness and diagnosis of autism, or whether it can - if there is a true increase - be in any way linked to an increased prevalence among people of spending time in screen relationships. Surely it is a point worth considering,' she added.

No shit! Thank goodness we have a scientist-type brainiac to tell us that she doesn't know what the fuck's going on. Phew! But... is the computer making people autistic? Really? There's no evidence, but maybe something's happening somewhere, is about all she's saying.

What's all this shit really about?

But while the sites are popular - and extremely profitable - a growing number of psychologists and neuroscientists believe they may be doing more harm than good.

Aha. Of course, if these sites were owned by the Mail...

Go here first

Here's some places to look at today.

Former Guantanamo inmate Moazzam Begg on Binyam Mohamed and Shaker Aamer, who's still there.
Sarah Ismail at Liberal Conspiracy about the disgraceful treatment of TV presenter Cerrie Burnell.
Septicisle on the truly dreadful Chris Grayling and a reminder of just how bad the Tories can be.
George Monbiot on the 'sanitised tea-towel history' of the National Trust.
The Quail on Melanie Phillips and the BNP.
And Rumbold at Pickled Politics on how Mel's fellow Mail columnist Peter Hitchens is trying to wrestle away her mantle as most dimwitted human being in Britain.

Great new Mail game for the Wii

It's right here. And it is, as we used to say in my school, skill.

Mel Phillips: Not right-wing enough for Mail readers

Even Mel isn't extreme enough for people commenting on her article about the 'odious' BNP today. As Eric notes, the comments praising the BNP are voted up to the nines, while those complaining are given a right old beatdown. That's pretty grim reading actually, but it's not unusual.

Just as with Littlejohn, the columnists may claim to find the BNP unpleasant and appalling, and I'm pretty sure they do, but when you write a hell of a lot of things they agree with then you've got the kind of fans you might not necessarily want to invite over for a barbecue.

Good fat and bad fat

This comment nicely sums up a bit of snobby rubbish from Jay Rayner:

Jay Rayner: "What we are witnessing is...symptomatic of an age-old and deeply chronic divide in this country between those who give a toss about what they eat and those who, frankly, do not"

No, my overprivileged friend, what we are witnessing is the fact that there are many people in the UK whose lives are about little more than survival.

The last thing somebody living on the financial edge needs is a fat, effete, absurdly goateed, man gloating over their decision to eat a Big Mac rather than prepare a delicious mung bean and nettle salad.

It's horribly reminiscent of Brass Eye's distinction between "good" and "bad" AIDS: good obesity, ie Rayner's, comes from organic cream and foie gras; bad obesity comes from KFC and kebabs. The Guardian/Observer should consider a regular Kick the Poor Monthly for their more callous columnists to freely pour bile over the poor.

...what he's missing

I've been meaning to write a post about this bizarre type of story for ages, but have kept forgetting about it. It strikes me as one of the oddest tabloid story-types, but you see it again and again.

Basically it goes like this: a couple have split up. The woman (it's always the female) is spotted / papped / does a photoshoot in which it's generally agreed she looks quite pleasant. Therefore "showing the man what he's missing!"

Here's a textbook example from the Mail:

Jilted Jo shows Ronnie what he's missing as she models for Vivienne Westwood at London Fashion week

What?

Former model Jo Wood showed her estranged husband Ronnie what he was missing when she returned to the catwalk for the queen of British fashion Dame Vivienne Westwood last night.

Ok, just repeat it then.

My beef with all this is: surely, having been in a relationship with the woman for several years, he knows exactly what 'he's missing'? Surely he would be aware of what his ex-partner looked like wearing clothes without the need for her to show him, via the rather circuitous route of mediating this message through the tabloid press, which he may not be reading anyway. Surely a more sensible way, if you were to try and show someone what they were missing, would be to send them a photograph and write on it "See what you're missing". At least you'd know then that they'd see it, no?

Who gives a shit what 'he's missing' anyway? Maybe she can't stand him any more. Maybe she doesn't give a monkey's whether he's missing her or not? Maybe they don't like each other much? Does any of this matter? No, because this woman's sole purpose in life is, it seems, to attract a man, and if she doesn't do that, then she will pine for him forever, desperately showing him 'what he's missing' in a misguided attempt to woo him back.

But you'll see this story repeated again and again. The names will change, but the words will be pretty much the same. God knows why it's so popular, but it is.

Run it up the flagpole...

No comments on this story yet on the Mail's website, which concerns a BBC (ah, of course) presenter with a disability, who has apparently been criticised by people on the internet. But I'm sure they'll start flowing in.

One blogger wrote: 'Is it just me, or does anyone else think the new woman presenter on CBeebies may scare the kids because of her disability?

See how the Mail embraces blogs when it's important to potentially slag off the BBC?

And no, I'm sure the presenter doesn't scare anyone, except idiots. And if idiots are scared, then I couldn't care less. And if parents are petrified about having to discuss things with their children involving other human beings, then they really ought to have considered whether they were grown-up enough to be procreating in the first place.

Friday links 20/2/09 - and have a lovely weekend

I'm off to That London this weekend. Wish me luck; it'll be very scary I should imagine, all those glittering intellectual types making me feel silly. Anyway, before I head off, here are some links to things that have interested me. Enjoy, have a lovely weekend, see you on Monday, and as ever thanks for reading:

Sometimes the NUJ really doesn't do itself any favours. It's the union of journalists, and a rather good one on the whole, yet occasionally gets things spectacularly and clunkingly wrong when it comes to journalism and public relations. First, read this from Adam Tinworth, then note the ridiculously stupid "bloggers delight in lower standards" shite from Chris Wheal in the comments. More on that over here. It's dismally lazy to label all bloggers as having lower standards; sure there are many who do, but also many more who have higher standards than you'll often find in the national press. Me, I just rejoice in having a blog.
I've found a nice shiny new Mail blog via 5cc, it's called Buff The Banana With Paul Dacre and it's all about the kind of wank-fodder trash you'll find in the Mail. Go there and enjoy this post on Pamela Anderson.
Johann Hari argues for a liberal solution to rising crime.
David Neiwert skewers Ann Coulter for soft-pedalling on white supremacists.
Adam Bienkov on how Boris Johnson has managed to unite thousands of people - against his dumb island airport idea.

And that's that. So see you all in a bit.

Express: comically racist

That the Express is hilariously bad has been known for some time. Remember the plate of toast to explain to readers what 'bread and butter' meant? It's also fairly obvious that the Express and Star have decided to plump for the racist readership, firmly depicting ethnic minorities as "them" and white Brits as "us".

Now, today, there's a spectacular combination of racism and hilarious awfulness, so wonderful that you really must see it:



There's the classic "us and them" of course - Muslims couldn't possibly be "us", could they? It makes it fairly clear to Muslim potential readers of the Express that they're not wanted, and that racist idiots are to be welcome with open arms.

And hang on a minute, what's that list of 'our' culture underneath the headline? Shakespeare, hmm OK. That's British culture.
Harry Potter - oh for fuck's sake. Is this what we've come to as a nation? Some shite wizard book for kids (read by adults on the Tube as if it's a good thing to do)? You can shove that shit anyway.
Cricket - cricket? Would a Muslim school really ban cricket? Many Muslims play it.
Music - A bit of a wide stroke there, no explanation of what music is being 'banned'.
Ludo - Is that really a cornerstone of British culture? Do you see kids hastily convening in the playground for a game of ludo or two? No...?
Monopoly - Is an American invention anyway, not British, but fine. Maybe some people think it's bad to teach kids to be greedy and to succeed by crushing everyone else; personally I reckon it's just a game. But anyway.
Chess - whoa now! Chess - 'our' culture? Er, I don't bloody think so. Wherever you want to think chess came from - the Indian or Arab world, it's certainly not British!

Now I'm no fan of 'faith schools', as I don't think any school should preach religion to its kids; but these places do exist because of demand from parents. Let's not forget it was Tony Blair who initiated the new wave of faith schools, though of course separate Catholic/Proddy schools have existed for donkeys' years anyway.

The Express, in the story, gets the fuel for its racism from one of the many 'think-tanks' that have quietly taken root over the past few years, many of which seem to have rather common ground when it comes to their views on Islam.

And look how the headlines begin to crumble already:

A number of Muslim schools are promoting Islamic extremism and encouraging pupils to grow up despising Britain, a think tank report claims today.
Youngsters are discouraged from playing cricket and board games, listening to western music and even reading Shakespeare plays or Harry Potter books by fanatics targeting classrooms, the research says.

So that's just 'discouraged' rather than 'forbidden', then. And 'western music'? Do me a favour. Who are these 'fanatics targeting classrooms'? Do they really exist or are they just a convenient bogeyman for another anti-Islam 'think-tank' to spread its own brand of 'extremism' via the tabloids?

The vile diktats to Muslim pupils, some of primary school age, appear on school websites or on other internet sites linked directly to school sites and operated by fund amentalist groups. Critics last night called for strict vetting of Muslim education to root out extremist influence. Moderate Muslim groups welcomed the findings and called for the attempts by extremists to target children to be stamped out.

So... are the schools themselves doing this? Because this has been the implication so far. I love the sudden appearance of 'critics' to make it clear that everyone thinks this is all genuinely happening and is A Very Bad Thing. I daresay some extremists are attempting to target Muslim children, but are the schools complicit in this, as has been suggested?

It highlights a number of websites, including one “fatwa” site linked to a school which warned a boy that his ambition of playing cricket for Pakistan was “a sacrilegious waste of time”. Another said children should be banned from reading “shameless fiction” or play ing games such as Ludo or Monopoly. It also said: “The person who plays chess is like the one who dips his hands in the blood of a swine.”

So is the school linking to this 'fatwa' site or is the 'fatwa' site linking to the school? That kind of matters.

The website of a Muslim girls’ school in London said: “Our children are exposed to a culture that is in opposition to almost everything Islam stands for.”

Hmm, well that depends how you look at it, doesn't it? If you believe the Express and its friends at the Star, then 'our culture' (the state broadcaster) puts Muslims before YOU. Perhaps here are other people taking a slightly different view of things. A lot of modern culture is, after all, torn to shreds by moralists like Melanie Phillips, who are anything but Muslim. Ah, if only they knew the common ground they shared, I'm sure Mel could go and cuddle a Muslim and vice versa. Or, maybe not.

Right at the end of the story, the Express put in the 'balance':

But the Association of Muslim Schools UK dismissed the report as misleading, intolerant and divisive.
“It contains rhetoric which is not only inaccurate but also breeds distrust and disharmony and adds nothing positive or constructive to the debate,” it said.
“We are particularly disappointed but not surprised that the report has been drafted and edited by individuals who have a track record of producing literature that is divisive, poorly researched and does not stand up to serious independent scrutiny. The authors did not visit a single Muslim school.”

And for some reason



Well I wonder why that is...? Surely the Express can trust its readers to come up with an informed and sensible debate about this issue - can't they?

Other places to explore and enjoy

Just a few bits and bobs. Late afternoon, want to go home, etc. But here's some stuff I read & enjoyed, and maybe you will too.

No Sleep Til Brooklands - Balloons, arses and Facebook: those pressing Mail issues in full
Lady McScamp - What did the baby do? and Man Murders Woman, a look at the kind of language reserved for men and women in the same story.
Bloggerheads - The Royal Academy of Media Watchery
Septicisle on Abu Qatada and the rather embarrassing second-time-unlucky for the 'liquid bombs' trial.
Alone in the Dark manages to wade through Allison Pearson on Jade Goody.

And that's about it for a bit; digest and enjoy.

WARNING: The Daily Mail gives you cancer

...if you believe the Daily Mail.

According to this pile of cack in today's 'health' section (or, as I like to refer to it, the 'load of old cobbled-together wank to make you shit yourself about cancer because of what some nutjob has said somewhere')...

Social networking sites such as Facebook could raise your risk of serious health problems by reducing levels of face-to-face contact, a doctor claims.
Emailing people rather than meeting up with them may have wide-ranging biological effects, said psychologist Dr Aric Sigman.
Increased isolation could alter the way genes work and upset immune responses, hormone levels and the function of arteries. It could also impair mental performance.

Hang on, though. If you believe that - and why the fuck would you, given that it's bound to be a load of cod science with little or no real evidence to back it up, but bear with me - then you have to conclude that all forms of interaction over the internet as opposed to face-to-face communication pose the same risk. In other words, reading the Daily Mail, either in electronic form or in paper form, could increase your risk of of cancer, according to the Daily Mail itself.

Since when did the Mail turn into Why Don't You?* I mean, honestly. What a crock. Read this shit:

Interacting 'in person' had effects on the body not seen when writing emails, Dr Sigman claimed. Levels of hormones such as the 'cuddle chemical' oxytocin, which promotes bonding, altered according to whether people were in close contact or not.

Well yes, I imagine if you locked yourself in a room with a computer and never saw the outside world, you wouldn't be as happy. I doubt it has a great deal to do with 'cuddle chemicals' though. And I imagine the 'increased risk of cancer' comes from the lifestyle associated with being more sedentary, lack of exercise, different diet etc, rather than teh internetz themselves. Not that the Mail will let that spoil a great scare-em-shitless bollocks science story.

To be fair to Mail readers, most of the commenters rubbish the story with a rather wearily dismissive air, as if they've heard this shite so many times before, but full marks must go to this contributor for shoehorning in the Government to something entirely unconnected and blaming NuLab for everything bad ever:

This is what happens when our so-called government decide to give every kid a computer - the kids learn violence from the terrible computer games and when they do eventually go out, they enact what they've seen on screen.
What's wrong with promoting sports and playing outside? Oh... I know... its because the computer companies give Mr. Darling loads of money to make sure we keep promoting them!
- Matt, London, UK, 19/2/2009 4:39

I mean, that takes skill. But Matt, you're sitting at a computer, aren't you...? Aren't you worried?

* For those of you who don't remember the dark days of 1980s summers, which stretched out into six weeks of funless oblivion thanks to the TV awfulness of Why Don't You?, this was a TV show that told you not to watch TV and instead "Go out and do something less boring instead". Thereby defeating the point of itself. And yet while it was presented by bowlcut preteens in bright yellow t-shirts, it still had higher journalistic standards than today's Mail.

Jacqui and Duffy

Jacqui Smith isn't stupid, I'm pretty sure of that. Sure, she deliberately ignores experts' advice if it isn't what she wants to hear, but that doesn't make her thick: it makes her a whole lot worse, given that implies either a steely determination to believe that she and she alone has the answers to things she can't possibly know as much about as other people whom she ignores; or on the other hand suggests that nothing other than lowest-common-denominator political grandstanding, even if it goes against the truth, is preferable to being honest and possibly alienating the Daily Mail.

On the day after it's announced that the home secretary is under investigation, you'd expect that story - of one of the most powerful politicians in the land being scrutinised for possible abuse of that power - to be something rather important. Above all, you might be tempted into thinking that it would feature on the front pages of national newspapers. Well, may I offer you the Family Fortunes ehhhhhhhh-urggggggggh noise, my friend. Because we forgot about two things: firstly, the existence of a blonde woman who sings songs about stuff; and secondly, there's an evil Musselman about, and he's been called OSAMA BIN LADEN'S RIGHT-HAND MAN IN EUROPE OR SOME SHIT LIKE THAT and he's going to get TEN BILLION POUNDS OF TAXPAYERS' MONEY JUST FOR BEING EVIL AND IT'S ALL NEW LABOUR'S FAULT AND NOW I NEED A LIE DOWN WITH A DAMP PAIR OF Y-FRONTS OVER MY CLAMMY FACE BECAUSE I GOT TOO EXCITED ABOUT THE SHEER UNFAIRNESS OF IT ALL.

Now, not everyone likes Duffy, I'll give you that. I rather do, I'm afraid. I know my fellow blogger Septicisle will be aghast at this confession, but I've got the album, and I think it's rather good (apart from that whiney one in the middle that goes on forever, they could have done without that, track 5 I think it is). I'm quite glad she won some awards and stuff last night at that thing that seems ever more anachronistic as the time ticks by, the Brit Awards. But even I think some of the bollocks on the front pages is a bit daft. Obviously the 'quality' papers wank themselves into a foaming frenzy over someone like Duffy, so she goes slap bang onto the front of the Telegraph, Guardian and Times:





Yes, because winning three awards is really 'sweeping the board', isn't it? Give me strength, what kind of bloody world is this? Can you imagine a load of cock like this for the male winner of the Brit for best non-blonde non-attractive female? Still, that's rather polite when you compare it to the Mirror



Up the Duffy! What, is she pregnant? No, but it's, oh, kind of, you know? No, not really, you'll have to explain it to me. Anyway, apparently she's Queen of the Brits, for some bloody reason, according to the ever-less-good comic at the Indy



(nice picture of Tiger Woods, mind.) Anyway, it's left to the Mail and Express to do that voodoo that they do so well, juxtaposing the Anglo-Saxon blonde (Celtic?) QUEEN OF POP/THE BRITS with the swarthiness and dark-skinned malevolence of Abu Qatada:



*

...and still not a sign of Jacqui Smith anywhere, although of course who was it who took great delight in telling the world she'd signed the papers trying to get this Bad Man out of our country and off to a torture chamber fair trial in the Middle East? Of course it was. Like I said at the start of this rambling nonsense, she's not stupid. Now of course I have no sympathy for someone like Qatada, though all that needs to be asked is that he's treated exactly the same as any other citizen would be in similar circumstances. Is that really the case, when he's described - with no evidence ever to back it up - as being Osama Bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe? If you say it enough times, I guess you make it into a fact; that appears to be the strategy.

But how handy to have a bogeyman you can wheel out when things are getting a bit frisky back at home and your finances are being looked into. If only we all had an Abu Qatada to deflect the news away from us when things started getting a bit nasty. But then, that's why Jacqui's where she is, and that's why we're where we are. We just don't have that ambition.

* What's all this 'guess who pays' business, Mr Mail? You know very well it's AND GUESS WHO'S PAYING?!?!?!! 3/10. See me.

How dare they give a shit about people with disabilities!

...is basically the thrust of this anti-Beeb missive from the Mail, grumbling about the fact that telephone numbers are to be read out by newsreaders.

Supposedly it's to 'avoid offending' people who are blind are partially sighted.

Or possibly - just possibly, mind you - it's so that they actually might have a chance of knowing what the fucking numbers are. You know, just a thought.

The cunt quoted by the Mail told its (former) sister paper the Standard:

'All the BBC's bigname presenters received this email from Peter Horrocks saying that whenever they refer to an on screen phone number or email address they should no longer say, 'You can see the number on the screen now', because it might offend blind people - and could even be illegal.
'But where does it end? Does that mean presenters will be banned from saying: 'If you don't want to know the football scores look away from the screen now', because that could be just as offensive. It's insanity.'

Where does it end? I imagine it ends there, given that it ends there. You fucking pointless piece of garbage. Of course they won't be 'banned' from saying that. How dare newsreaders at the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation be told that they need to give a shit about people who may have disabilities!

Er, no. It's not "PC gone mad" every time you give a shit about someone. It's just good manners, most of the time.

Idiots and fools

Melanie Phillips: I don't mind homophobia, so long as it's not Islamic.
And Mail readers just can't helping embarrassing themselves when they're talking about the BNP.

The Brains Trust in action

One thing I love - well, I say 'love' but I mean 'feel a bit of sick in my mouth' - about the way the Mail covers stories is the way it gently pushes its readers into the desired pigpen, even if it doesn't do it itself. Today's story about a tragic accident that killed a child is a perfect example.

The story is this: a buggy with children in it rolled down a slope, and one of the children drowned. At first, most media outlets, including the Mail, were sympathetic and restrained about the people involved - perhaps because of the reason that a child had just died and that was quite a bad thing to happen.

But fear not. A few days have passed so it's time to put the boot in all the way up to the laces.

Father of toddler who drowned in sea 'let go of buggy handles to kiss mistress'

You can almost smell the disapproval searing through the words. If he hadn't been doing that, then the child would have lived! It's all his fault! He was a shit parent! That's the implication:

The father of a two-year-old girl who drowned after her pushchair rolled into the sea is said to have let go of the handles to kiss his mistress.
Andrew Hopper has admitted he was with his lover when the tragic accident took place.
A gust of wind blew Rebecca Hopper and her eight-month-old brother Lewis into the sea as their father embraced his female companion, believed to be a work colleague.
The pair had been strapped into a double buggy when Mr Hopper let go for a matter of seconds.

So it was a gust of wind, not the evilness of lust and depravity, that really cost the child its life. And the thing about 'mistress'... are the couple together or are they separated? It's not made clear in the story - not that it's anyone's bloody business except theirs, obviously; it's just that once again, the implication is that the husband was playing away behind his wife's back and had even brought the kids along to a romantic tryst with her. But that may not be the case at all. This couple may be separated and she may simply be his new partner. Describing the woman concerned as a 'mistress' puts a whole different slant on things, doesn't it?

There is no mention of an eyewitness, no corroboration for this allegation about the kiss. Nothing is said at all. No-one is quoted. This could be because (a) it's lifted from another news source or (b) they couldn't give a shit about whether this really did happen or not. I'm guessing the former but I won't rule out the latter.

I'm not so sure that the death of a small child is really the kind of story where the Brains Trust of Daily Mail commenters should be allowed to spray around their views like a garden sprinkler full of liquid shite, but there you go. They clearly feel more confident in their readers than I do. Let's see what kind of wise words these readers come up with, given that no witness is quoted, this story isn't verified, and the family situation hasn't been made clear:

An accident for sure. Plain and simple. I feel for him. But he perhaps shouldn't have been smooching the mistress and been with the wife?
- Dee Miller

Perhaps they were separated? Perhaps you could think about things before you jump to conclusions?

That man should be totally disgusted with himself. What sort of woman goes for a little stroll with someone else's husband and babies!!!! I hope the feel guilty for the rest of their lives, they deserve nothing but pain, how tragic that two little children had to become so tragically involved with the sick games of adults. If I were the babies Mother I would seriously look at whether that man is fit to see poor baby Lewis.
- Kathryn, Shrivenham,

Yes, let's not bother with waiting to see what the facts of this case really are - we've been told to knee this grieving parent in the nuts, so let's just do it. He clearly deserves 'nothing but pain'. There really are some vicious people in the world, aren't there? Let's remind you once again: this was a tragic accident; we don't know the family situation; no witness is quoted in the story; we don't know what happened. But fuck all that:

A tragic accident yes, caused by the stupidity of a man who's brain was quite clearly in his trousers! What a selfish man to have taken his 2 babies along to a date with his mistress, that poor girl would have been old enough to understand the woman he was kissing was not her mummy!! And what of the woman? What kind of woman chases a man who is married with a young family? The term "homewrecker" could not be more fitting if not an understatement!! Selfish selfish people!!!
- Jo, kent,

Because when you have an affair with someone (and we don't even know that's the case in this particular instance) that means you're recklessly endangering your children. That's quite obvious, isn't it?

I suspect (though I'm not sure) that this nonsensical comment might be a spoof:

This makes me sick.
If he had let go of the handles to kiss his wife, that little angel might still be alive today.
- Jonny, glasgow,

Hmm not sure. Anyway, here's someone making a fairly valid point, in my opinion:

Kick a man while he's down - you make it sound like he did it on puropse? He was having an affair, so what? It could just as easily have happened had he ben kissing the woman he was married to. It was an ACCIDENT, very tragic but still, an accident.
- Sarah, Surrey, 18/2/2009 13:00

And another:

Oh here we go again - are you people so morally superior that you can sit in judgement on this poor family. That so called "pig" is going to have to live with this for rest of his life, surely punishment enough without being judged.
You`ve no need to call him names, I`m sure that nothing you can think of will be any worse than what he`s calling himself.
Pity his poor wife - of course - but remember that he`s human, unlike you people who obviously believe that you`re Gods.
- julie harte

And my favourite:

Not one person wildly speculating here can say, hand on heart, that they know the true facts of this dreadful tragedy.
Please, have some compassion and - for once - stop judging. Unless you know the exact circumstances it would be both wise and humane to refrain from posting such vitriolic messages.
In the middle of this story a family is grieving. They certainly don't need strangers gossiping, blaming and second guessing.
Jules in Norwich - you sound almost gleeful. Shame on you all.
- Louise, London, 18/2/2009 11:55

It's a fairly pointless discussion, though. What have we learned? That some idiots are quick to judge, quick to pile in with anger and froth when they don't know the facts, and when newspapers shepherd them towards certain conclusions. It just seems a bit distasteful when there's a dead child in the equation, that's all.

Links and oopsies

A few oopsies to begin with. The PCC has ruled against Woman magazine for saying some shit about Natalie Cassidy. Press Gazette don't mention the punishment meted out to the trashy mag, but I imagine it's really harsh, demonstrating the power of the PCC that makes all publishers quake in their boots. Yes.
The Irish Daily Mirror has been fined 50,000 euros for saying a boy had a bag of cocaine, whereas in fact it was baby powder.
Squeaky bum time at the Independent, also, for repeating some shit off the internet. The irony shouldn't be lost on the victim, though, who is the founder of Wikipedia.
In 'It couldn't happen to a nicer fella' rumours, there are uncorroborated reports that Chris Hitchens, who at least isn't the most awful fuckwit in his family and who to be fair has written at least one book I've read and enjoyed, has been given a proper pasting by some thugs for writing over some graffiti in Lebanon. I remember when Robert Fisk was beaten up in Afghanistan, many of Hitch's mates took a huge sneery delight in his misfortune, saving particular venom for Fisk's rather self-deprecating assertion that he deserved it. I wonder if they'll roar with happiness this time?
Headline of the day goes to the New York Times - DEBATE RAGES OVER ELK FEEDING. How can you not click on that?
The Quail follows up yesterday's story on dads in our trusted news sources. The scary thing is, it's not a million miles away from the reality.
Ben Six on Geert Wilders.
Septicisle asks how low we can go. I fear the answer may be a lot lower.

Anyway, that's it for now. As ever I'll be back with some shit of my own in a bit.

Oh that's textbook Mail

Sometimes the Mail doesn't quite hit the target - they manage to get all steamed up about something done by someone somewhere, which is clearly all the fault of liberal bastards, but they don't quite create the level of absurd logic required to process that 2+2=503. That sort of story I regard as a 'single down to third man' type of tale - sure, it's effective, it keeps the scoreboard ticking over, but it's not really something to marvel at.

This kind of shit, on the other hand, is a creamy cover drive blasted past the despairing dive of a fielder's fingertips, racing off to the boundary and flying into a stack of plastic pint glasses. You don't even have to run for this one: just stand there, hold the pose and admire the classical grace of the shot.

What do I mean? I mean this:

Teachers should tell boys the joys of teen fatherhood, government advice reveals

The simple response is to say "That's bollocks" and jam the paper down the train toilet in disgust - and believe me, it's often tempting - but no, let's look at it in a bit more detail.

As we saw last week, the Mail is a cunning old fox when it's at its best, even apparently fooling an intellectual titan like Melanie Phillips with its fiendishly misleading headline/intro combos. Here's the intro:

Teachers have been instructed to tell teenage boys about the pleasures of early fatherhood.
Government advice tells them to discuss 'parenting aims and aspirations' with the youngsters.
Teenagers should be equipped with the necessary 'skills, knowledge and attitudes' to prepare them to bring up babies, said the Department of Health.
Lessons should include 'the enjoyment of fatherhood'.

This is simply discussing the idea of fatherhood in itself with teenagers, not telling them to be dads while they're still at school. But that's not the impression we were given by the headline and first sentence, is it? But see what the Mail has brilliantly done - implying that 'early fatherhood' is the same as 'teen fatherhood'. Which it isn't. So, a sensible discussion about being a dad when you're a young man, along with the responsibilities and joys thereof, becomes TEH EVIL LEFTIST GOVERNMENT WANTS TEEN BOYS TO BE FATHERS. Wonderful.

By the way, what is this document so coyly referred to in the story? Is it one of the official guidance pamphlets and publications produced by the Teenage Pregnancy Unit (many of which look at strategies to reduce teen pregnancy, by the way)? No, I can't find it there. Ah, here it is.

Ah look, a booklet of pictures by a photographer, designed to make young dads feel like they can really be a part of their children's lives. Doesn't this kind of sound like a good thing, given the extensive research that shows that parents and children do better if the dad's around? No, the Mail says it's pictures of CHILDREN with babies and dismisses it as encouraging teen boys to turn into that 13-year-old dad/not dad. Obviously. And how recent is this 'timely' advice by the way? The Mail says:

The advice, produced six years agopregnancy unit, was designed for teachers and health professionals 'over the next few years' and remains the current Whitehall guidance.

Aha. There we go, very timely this six-year-old advice. But then I get the impression that what has been spliced together is this booklet with some other guidelines, though that isn't explained by the Mail. That may be less to do with the false impression they want to give than the fact that the people who spoonfed them the story did that themselves.

Want to know where this story actually came from? Here's the clue:

However, the Tories warned that the guidelines from the Government's Teenage Pregnancy Unit glamourised teen parenthood and condoned irresponsible sex.
The publication in question includes pictures of boys with babies and was described by Cathy Hamlyn, then head of the pregnancy unit, as a 'timely resource'. Miss Hamlyn said 'popular attitudes to teenage fathers have been shaped by the examples which the media have chosen to feature'.

Have a quick look online, and what do you know, almost exactly the same story has appeared in the Telegraph, albeit slightly less screechingly than it is in the Mail. What on earth could be going on here then...?

Of course. So now it becomes clear. Wonderful shot by the Mail, and you can't fault the footwork, but the applause must really go to the non-striker at the Conservative Party, who provided the ammunition and watched its willing drones do exactly what they wanted.

Try, try again

Here we go again, then. Nice to see the BBC haven't decided it's an AIRLINE BOMB PLOT on their news channel coverage this time, but have gone for the slightly less certain AIRLINE BOMB TRIAL, which is fair enough.

What's all the blackout stuff about...?

Click here or the banner on the bottom of the page to find out more.

A few links and stuff

The Guardian is predictably much more snotty than I was about Jade Goody. Obviously if she'd been middle class they wouldn't have been quite so sniping about it, but... ah well. I keep being reminded of why I hate the press, even the 'left-wing' press.
The Obscurer has a very silly (but funny) Masterchef episode.
I love this blog (found via Justin) about indicting Blair on war crimes. Read the letter and sign the petition.
Sunny at Pickled Politics on Stella Rimington's stating-the-bleeding-obvious-but-still-very-welcome-coming-from-someone-who's-not-that-easy-for-New-Labour-to-dismiss-out-of-hand comments over terrorism and civil liberties.
Septicisle on the 13-year-old dad/not dad and the PCC rather facetiously asking the Sun to 'rehearse' its public interest defence.
Lenin on which kinds of extremism are acceptable and which aren't.

And with that, I'm off for a bit, but I'll be back later.

Jade the obscure

So, farewell then, Jade Goody. You're not quite gone yet, but I am constantly reminded of your imminent death as your face stares out from newspapers and magazines everywhere I go. I did wonder whether now would be the right time to talk about a young mother who is close to death from metastatic cervical cancer; but the story is everywhere, and the comments are everywhere, so I don't suppose that it's something that can be avoided.

The first thing to say, of course, is that the newspapers have done a spectacular 'reverse ferret' when it comes to Goody - ostracised and vilified by the black-and-white thinking of newspapers that are far more racist than she ever was on Celebrity Big Brother, hated for being chubby and gobby when she first turned up on the reality TV show, her cancer diagnosis made it necessary for them to try and give a shit about a fellow human being. Now that the prognosis is terminal, they have becoming cloyingly sentimental, as if they really cared about her all along. See Septicisle's post at The Sun Lies for more on the sheer scale of hypocrisy at Britain's favourite daily dose of bollocks and bullshit.

I certainly don't blame Goody for making money from TV, the tabloids and shitrag women's mags now, at a time when she's more in demand than she ever was at the height of her post-Big Brother fame. She's been on the receiving end of unjustified criticism for no financial benefit whatsoever throughout her short and eventful life, long before that fateful Celebrity Big Brother; now she has a chance to make some money, and we all know that there's no possible way she's motivated by greed. She just wants some cash to set up her kids.

It's quite interesting to compare and contrast Goody with Danielle Lloyd, whose behaviour during the Big Brother controversy was arguably far worse but never got broadcast. Lloyd made up a limerick about Shilpa Shetty involving the word 'tacky' and left it to others to work out what she was driving at; it didn't take a rocket scientist. But while Lloyd was to some extent protected from the eye of the storm by the show's producers for fear of broadcasting something so obviously offensive, Goody was left to bear the brunt of the abuse.

Was that because she was the worst offender - calling Shetty 'Shilpa Poppadom' in a particularly unpleasant moment - or was that because Goody's a natural aunt sally, someone who was already held in some contempt by sneering columnists who despised her lack of intelligence ('East Angular' being 'abroad'), her working-class credentials, her accent, or whatever? Whatever it was, Lloyd has managed to carry on regardless, given that her job revolves around getting her tits out for men to wank over, while Jade found it a whole lot harder, given that her celebrity status depends on actually being liked and people caring about her. Hence the trip to India to join Big Brother there and attempt to build bridges, possibly in an attempt to get the career back on track, equally possibly as a genuine act of contrition, where she learnt about the cancer diagnosis.

I also don't blame Jade for selling exclusives and interviews about her cancer. As a commenter wrote underneath a blog post here yesterday, it's really not a whole world away from John Diamond writing about his throat cancer - just that while Diamond was eloquent enough a writer to do it himself, Jade is telling her story in her own words, but getting others to do the writing. Nothing wrong with that, particularly as it will give an insight into living with cancer and terminal illness that many people will get who might not have read Diamond's book, for example.

The main reason, though, why I don't blame Goody for making money is that a whole load of people have been making hay out of her illness for quite some time. Ever since she received the diagnosis, articles have been written, with and without her consent or knowledge, claiming to have the inside knowledge about what's going on. Photographs have been taken of her, frequently in tears and obvious distress, leaving clinics, hospital visits or even her home, private moments that smack of real intrusion. The justification is "Well, she's sold her story to a TV show" or "It's in the public domain" or whatever. Whatever it is, I don't buy it. Publishing pictures of people in private moments of grief and suffering are a bit beyond the pale, as far as I'm concerned, and there ought to be a bloody good reason for putting them anywhere except the bin. Can we really say that our understanding of this story has been enhanced by photos like that?

Look at today's article in the Mail for an example of what I mean. Some photos have been clearly set up with the family's consent - the one of them on holiday, for example. As for the others, I'm not sure. Maybe they're just pap pictures, and if so, do we really need to see them?

Commenters to the Mail article seem a bit divided. Some ask if this can't be done in private - it's not clear whether they're blaming the Mail and their pap chums or Jade herself for the stories being in the press. Whether she wants them to be there or not, though, I think they will be. But still, people find it necessary to put the boot into a dying woman:

If she wants to secure a nest egg for her sons why spend a million on a wedding?
I wouldn't wish her conditon on anyone, but if she didn't have this awful disease many who are wishing her well would still regard her as a loud-mouthed, ignorant individual.
The precious time she has left should be spent, privately with her family and friends, but she has no dignity, and greed will prevent this from happening. Her boys well may well grow up thinking that rather than spend her time with them, she spend it earning money.
And for those who say "come on Jade you can make it" - this is not fair as she can't make it. Support her, but don't lie.
Compare her though, to the very sad case of Patrick Swayze - a man who is famous through talent and hard work, rather than infamous for the opposite reasons.
- SV, London, 15/2/2009 16:30

Ouch. But others are a bit more compassionate:

I have never liked Jade but I felt heart sorry for her when I heard what a horrible hand she had been dealt.
She loves her boys so much and she has to be admired in the way she is making them a "memory box" it brought tears to my eyes.
I hope that she gets her wish, a fancy wedding with all the trimmings and that she does earn as much as she wants to secure her boys financial future.
If I could help her financially I would but my advice to her is, You will leave your sons much more than money, a memory box of what their mother was and what she achieved in her short life, how much she loved them and how proud she was to have them as her children.
Go on Jade, get married, make your sons their memory box and when your time comes, be safe in the knowledge that yours sons know and will never forget, just how much you loved them.
Also know that you reached out to so many people who, in their own way loved you. I am sure that in a reality heaven you will be a become a star
- Tom McGuinness, March Cambridge, 15/2/2009 18:31

So there, even now she's near death, so many people are so quick to pass judgement. It's all rather sad. Like I say, I don't blame her at all for wanting to make some money from the parasites who have kicked her down so many times during her life. The best thing she could have now is privacy, but it would appear that it's not to be, as she's constantly followed around wherever she goes. And then one day she'll be gone, and so many newspapers will pretend they gave a shit all along, and then they'll quietly find someone else to pursue, and that will be that.

Jane Horrocks: The voice of the Mysterons

I suppose TV and films have always got it a bit wrong: they've always imagined the voice of totalitarianism and overarching state authority to be booming, scary, RP and male. Even the Mysterons in Captain Scarlett sounded like some toff straight out of Rada projecting to the dress circle.

Whereas of course it wouldn't be like that at all. If you really wanted to indoctrinate people using a voice, you'd use Jane Horrocks - sweet, friendly, Lancastrian, nice. And that's exactly what the Government is doing.

First she turns up on those Learn Direct adverts, each of which is so laughably implausible as to be verging on self-parody. "John was a security guard with no skills or qualifications, and he decided he wanted to be the CEO of a multinational company, so he did a course and then two days later he was!" chirps Horrocks. Is there a single person in the world who actually believes her when she comes out with that shit? No, probably not, but I suppose people accept it a little more when it's coming from nice Jane Horrocks than they would from anyone else.

Then she turns up on my radio. "The DVLA are reasonable people," she purrs. "But if you don't pay your car tax THEN THEY CAN CRUSH YOUR CAR, RAPE YOUR CHILDREN AND BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE WITH YOU INSIDE IT!" OK, I admit, I exaggerate a little bit there, but it's not a million miles away from the truth, is it?

When there's an announcement on the radio asking Jews to wear yellow stars and trade unionists to put red triangles on, I think you know who'll be making it.

Hitchens: Laughably awful

Peter Hitchens is one of those people, like Melanie Phillips, who would be laughed out of any national newspaper office if they attempted to apply for a job anonymously with some byline-free articles sent in as evidence of their writing skills. It's not just that they don't make sense and are crushingly ignorant; they're almost deliberately dumb.

You have to wonder, deep down, if beneath the pathetic rants they churn out every week, is some semblance of humanity, someone who actually knows that what they're coming out with is demonstrably false and utter nonsense; but then, you see Melanie and Peter being interviewed on television and it strikes you: No, they actually think they're right about stuff. They actually believe this shit they come out with.

The left-wing equivalent of Melanie and Peter are those ravers who believe that the whole world is run by a big bad Jewish conspiracy, possibly lizard-based but not exclusively so, and that 9-11 was a great big pantomime involving remote-controlled planes confected by the US and its masters to try and justify an attack on the Muslim world. These people quite rightly never get put into national newspapers, because they're rather unfortunate characters, but then why are the right-wing equivalents welcomed with open arms, despite the fact that their views are so astonishingly simplistic, wrong and based on bonkers assumptions?

Who knows. Anyway, here's a link to a lovely article decimating the Hitch on his various ejaculations of pure shite over the weekend. And jolly good it is too:

It's one thing to say the Earth is flat, quite another to say that the evidence doesn't allow you to call the debate either way.

Who could have made such a comment...?

Mail fashion journalist Katie Nicholl says:

There were catty comments after a snap appeared of Gemma Arterton sporting a double chin but, as befits a Bond Girl, the stunning 23-year-old actress has come out fighting.

...

'Anyway, I’m about to shoot a new movie and the first scenes involve me wearing a brown paper bag over my head, so that should shut people up.’ You tell them, Gemma!

Yeah, you tell them Gemma! Where on earth would such a disgusting comments as this

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.

and this

Maybe Gemma who recently ended a six-month romance with her Spanish stuntman boyfriend, has been consoling herself in the time honoured fashion - with a comforting tub of ice-cream or two.

be found?

Ah yes, hang on a minute, it's coming back to me. They appeared on the Daily Mail's website.

*update* Not only that, but they seem rather sniffy if you try and point that out to them, as well. Bless.

'Husband' and 'wife'

From the BBC:

'Husband' quizzed over stab death

Is he a husband? Is he her husband? Not sure, just bung it in quotes, that'll make it all right!

And from the Screws:



Hmm, so Frank Lampard's been dumped by his fiancee*, how can we convey that in a headline? Fiancee is a bit too long of a word, let's just call her wife and bung it in quotes, that'll make it all right! Sure, she's not actually married to him, but if we call her his wife, and put it in quotes, that makes it all nice and OK again, doesn't it?

* This may be entirely untrue anyway, given that it's on the front of the News of the World.

The Mail gets goatsed

Marvellous. Thanks to iain for the tipoff!

Mel fooled by her own newspaper...?

One of the things I often say about the Mail is that it words things in a particularly sly way, to try and give the impression of A while actually saying B. Today's offering is exactly that, skilfully giving the (wrong) impression that doctors are being bribed to give teenagers contraceptive advice specifically if they don't tell the parents. Of course that's not the story at all, and it's quickly unravelled in the following paragraphs, where it's explained that it's to give contraception advice to anyone, regardless of whether it's underage kids who aren't telling their parents or not.

Unfortunately, one Mail reader at least appears to have been confused enough by this deliberate mislead. The Mail reader in question is Melanie Phillips, who has decided that the false impression created by the headline/intro combo is actually the kernel of the story:

As campaigners have warned, such payments will act as bribes to doctors to give thousands of under-age girls contraception without the knowledge of their parents.

But no, that's not it at all. So there are only a limited number of conclusions we can draw from this:

1. Mel is so thick she got fooled by her own newspaper.
2. She only reads the headline and intro of stories, and never finds out about the qualifying statements beneath.
3. She knows it's not that at all, but says that it's true in order to perpetuate the lie and add her own gravitas to it, because it fits in nicely with her worldview and attacks the people she doesn't like.
4. She truly is the world's worst journalist. Ever.

Who knows which one it is...?

One extra link

This is rather splendid fun, too.

Links for 13/2/09

Ah, love is in the air. Isn't it? I expect to see a sea of irritated-looking men and women battling for overpriced roses and tacky novelty pink-and-black pants this lunchtime, and hurrah for that. In the meantime, here are some links that you might (or indeed might not) enjoy:

Johann Hari on free speech.
David Semple on Darwin's birthday and some seriously unevolved people.
Phil BC and Ben Six on the execrable Labour List, a website so shite that it has made many on the left shake their heads in disbelief as they find themselves agreeing with the Mail (although maybe not quite as much as correspondent LG from Berkshire, who pithily said "Labour scum, but hey what's new?" to expand the debate and really take it somewhere new.)
Adam B on Boris F***ing Johnson.
P Sainath on the wave of suicides among Indian farmers that has so far claimed 182,936 lives. Yes, 182,936 lives.
And for some light relief after reading that, Photoshop Disasters with a spectacularly epic fail.

Incidentally, thank you to everyone for popping in to visit my little website. And Happy Valentine's Day!