One last push, friends...

Regardless of what else happens at the polling stations and in postal votes this week, one need shines out above all others - to stop the BNP.

Their attempts to portray themselves as a mainstream party have been blown out of the water by some brave journalists and many more activists and bloggers spreading the word. Their leaflets have been shown to be a lie, containing words from people who don't exist, ripped from photo archives to represent 'ordinary' voters when they are nothing of the sort. Their leader has been shown to be a weasel who has tried to hide the racism and prejudice of his party. Their activists have been shown to be thugs and criminals.

They have clung to the wreckage and bleated about 'freedom of speech' when their own values are so opposed to freedom it's disgusting. They have whined about conspiracies when all there has been has been a conspiracy of good, ordinary decent people against a hateful, nasty, spiteful little bunch of fascist toerags who deserve nothing but contempt. They have complained that they are 'mainstream' while refusing to allow membership or rights to those whose ethnicity can't be tied down to a set of stringent whites-only criteria.

There's more to do. They're still out leafleting and spreading their lying message of hatred and fear to those they think might vote for them - the poor, the unemployed, the fed-up, the redundant. Now is the time to ensure those messages are countered at every turn - to make it clear that voting BNP isn't a protest vote, but an assault on democracy.

No matter how much our leaders have damaged their credibility by their venal expenses culture, their troughing at taxpayers' expense and their general ignorance of why on earth people might actually be a bit fed up about the whole business, snottily countering that their plundering of tax pounds was 'within the rules', this is no time to turn to the BNP - nor any other party pushing a ban on immigration, even if they do pretend that it isn't racist. This is a time to vote for someone you do believe in. Putting an X next to anyone who doesn't stand for hatred is not a pat on the back for the status quo - it's our duty as voters and citizens to try and ensure the voices of prejudice don't get their way, because that would damage democracy even further.

We've learned a lot over the past few weeks. We've learned the BNP are twats. We've learned that they're ridiculous, and can be comically amateurish and cack-handed when it comes to presentation. We've learned that there are just about enough decent journalists still knocking about to say to hell with trying to treat racists with kid gloves.

But for all the fun we've had in a shared endeavour against the forces of prejudice and hatred, now comes the serious bit. Let's annihilate the fuckers at the ballot box. Just one Euro MP for them would be one too many, and would be a national disgrace. We can make sure it doesn't happen.

Invasion of the caterpillars

It's fairly textbook stuff for the Mail to want to panic its readers. And to my mind there's not a whole world of difference between this scream story about caterpillars coming over here, invading our country and making us ill, and the panic-porn they regularly publish about the thousands of immigrants at Calais waiting to come over and claim a life of benefits - and guess who's paying?!?!?!?!?!?

Previously only found on the south-east coast the insects have been swarming north over the last few years thanks to Britain's increasingly warm weather.

Hang on though, what's this? Is the Mail actually accepting that climate change and warmer temperatures is... factual? Because I think if they are they should have a little word with Melanie Phillips and Richard Littlejohn (and just about all the rest of their columnists) first - because they don't believe that any such thing is happening at all, and that it's all a massive conspiracy by someone, probably the PC Brigade or the evil taxing socialist left, to make us not be able to drive our 4x4s two fucking yards down the road to drop little Toby, Tabatha and Tom off at school.

In this instance, though, climate change or rising temperatures can be accepted as fact, because that increases the inevitability of the invasion of these furry little criters, which can - wait for it - give you a nasty rash. Aaargh! Call out the army! Get them back from Afghanistan to deal with these caterpillars! For fuck's sake! Now!

Other sightings have been made throughout Essex, Sussex and Kent, with a family restaurant near Folkstone forced to close part of its car park over health fears.

But... wait a minute. Isn't this health and safety (sorry, elf'n'safety, see, that gets funnier and funnier every time you read it, doesn't it?) gawn bladdy mad? Why on earth would a restaurant close a bit of its car park over fears over caterpillars? What kind of PC Brigade silliness is this? Why can't we let our children get a slight rash from caterpillars? Is this the cotton-wool generation gone mad?

Ah, but once again, that's not the important thing in this story. Whereas the Mail would usually snort with derision at such an activity, in this context it's an important detail in order to shock the reader ever further into believing that the country is under attack JUST YARDS FROM A SCHOOL and that somehow it could be the end of the world as we know it, due to these foreign blighters!

It is believed that our warm spring weather has aided the spread of the caterpillar, which have never been seen before in Wiltshire.

Who believes that exactly? I don't remember it being a particularly warm spring, but there you go. But still, again, I mustn't keep forgetting. This isn't about the facts; this isn't about anything other than giving the Mail readers a bit of a shock over the breakfast table. We've seen it before with black squirrels, ladybirds, Spanish bluebells and all sorts of 'invading' flora and fauna.

Look at the first sentence of that last Mail article, though, and doesn't it remind you of something else?

They are taking over our waterways, hunting down our native animals and spreading disease.
So fearsome is the invasion of foreign plants, animals and insects that combating it costs Britain £2billion a year, the Government said yesterday.

The same ingredients are there, aren't they? Invasion from abroad. Infection (of disease, Islamism). Government (ie taxpayer) has to fork out. It's a BAD THING! It's just the same template applied to a different set of 'invaders'.

Just how realistic is this threat? Just how much of a danger are these caterpillars? Just how much evidence does the Mail ignore in order to reach this conclusion and scare its readers? And then, if they can do that about this story, then why not do it about those other stories about foreign invaders - immigrants and asylum seekers? How accurate are they? As accurate as this - or less? Or are they just designed to shock and scare, regardless of the truth?

Alastair Campbell gives mental health issues a bad name

An open letter to Mind

I'm sorry to have to write to you like this, but I was rather incensed by what I read this week regarding you giving Alastair Campbell the award of Mind Champion 2009.

Look, I'm sure that Mr Campbell has done a lot of campaigning for mental health issues. I'm sure he's tried to show his good side to you and through you. I saw him popping up on Comic Relief and I'm sure he's done other stuff that I haven't noticed.

But to take this man's latter career in isolation is to ignore a raft of rather uncomfortable things from his past. The bullying of journalists and their bosses when they acted like journalists and not like New Labour stooges. The off-the-record briefings against people who dared to disagree with him and his party.

Who is it who was involved with selling a deception to the British public about war with Iraq - an illegal war which has caused not only death to thousands of innocent people, but also untold psychological and mental health problems to combatants (on all sides) and civilians alike? Did Mr Campbell give much consideration to that, do you think?

And who was it who turned up on television to dance on Dr David Kelly's grave when the Hutton report was published? Far from showing respect to someone with mental health issues, who had tragically taken his own life, Mr Campbell decided he wanted to roar about how he had been vindicated and how the BBC had been proven wrong. Mental health didn't seem at the forefront of his mind then.

You've got form in this area, of course. You have previously awarded the Mind journalist of the year award 2007 to Mr Campbell's former New Labour chum, Derek Draper - a man whose public disgrace over plans to smear about political opponents this year will hopefully mean he is never trusted again, professionally or personally.

Speaking as someone who has cheerfully had mental health problems for more than a decade, I feel disappointed that you can give such an award to Mr Campbell. I don't want to be associated with people like that. There's enough of a stigma already surrounding mental health issues without having to be compared with people like him.

Friday links 29/5/09 - get it right

Nostalgia first, and a trip back to 1983 - when Peter Bowles, of all people, was advertising scaffolder-juice Carling Black Label in his cut-glass RP, telling a man who'd recently avoided an encounter with a Su Pollard-alike that he'd 'got it right'. I don't quite know why I'm putting this here, other than it's just simply bizarre.



Speaking of getting it right, you'll remember from the other day the story of the peaceful Luton Muslim protest that accidentally got labelled as an Islamist anti-war protest that had sparked a bunch of racist thugs, whose side the Mail took, claiming they were the real ones fighting 'extremism'. 5cc has more on the story and other Mail oopsies here - it really does tear to shreds the pathetic attempts from the likes of Paul Dacre to claim that the fear of humiliation via the PCC is what keeps our journalists on the straight and narrow.

Astonishingly, Nadine Dorries is still not getting it right either - but is somehow allowed to continue as an MP by David Cameron. If he really wanted to restore the public's faith in our elected politicians he'd do the decent thing and give her the brandy and Luger - though she'd probably drink the Luger and shoot herself with the brandy. Now she says she is refusing to print comments from anyone who 'misinterprets' what she says. The cheek of it! Dorries, meanwhile, is using the 'Withdrawn!' tactic over at her blog, having now hastily taken down a post slagging off a fellow MP which was complete and utter bollocks - but, Dorries being Dorries, is steadfastly refusing to tell us the real reasons why. Perhaps because it was a crock of shit? I quote:

However, the one thing I have learnt over the last few weeks is that in the battlefield of politics, one needs to be absolutely honest AND precise. Nothing less will do.

Hahahahaha! Yes, it's Nadine Dorries saying that!

The Daily Quail profiles Nadine's boss here, with a marvellous look at how the £30m man-of-the-people is like you, only better:

Discussing his 'common man' credentials with The Times, David Cameron seemed flustered and confused, pausing for long periods to imagine what being worth less than £30m might feel like.
Asked how many properties he owns, he replied assuredly: 'I own a house in North Kensington...and my house in the constituency in Oxfordshire and that is, as far as I know, all I have.'

Adam Bienkov reports on how Boris is playing hardball with the RMT over their 5 per cent pay demand, while revealing:

Mayor of London in 2007-8
£137,579
Mayor of London in 2009
£143,911
That's a 5 per cent increase.

Ah yes, but, you see, the important thing to remember is, if the plebs get a five per cent rise, that's and will cripple the economy, but if a multimillionaire gets a five per cent rise, then that's only right and proper, isn't it?

Septicisle looks at how the Sun are dealing with the big stories of the day, including how the mother of Baby P has been committing the terrible crime of eating chocolate. Oh noes! Thank goodness for the Sun, giving us the scoop on that one!

Uponnothing reports on how a man who breaks the rules and wastes his allotment space at a time when there's a huge demand for it is being supported by the Daily Mail, because... well I can't work out the because, actually, but there you go.

Between the Hammer and the Anvil reports on Clive James's fairly shoddy journalism of late, as the saga of the poetry nonsense at Oxford rumbles on. Call me a thick prole if you like but I couldn't give a shit who's head of poetry at Oxford. I couldn't care less. All I'd like is for it not to be James, given the content of that abysmal tripe.

Meanwhile, my local paper has finally woken up to the 'Polish Spitfire' BNP story that everyone else in the country could have read, oh, months ago if they'd known where to look. Still, better late than never. And at least they got it right.

If you want to look at a real BNP fail, remind yourself of "Billy the Brit" by having a look at Tim Ireland's marvellous parody here.

Are you in this picture?

If you are, could you let me know what it's of. Because I'm almost certain it's not what the Daily Mail says it's of. As Richard Bartholemew points out, it's not of the protesters in Luton who disrupted a march by soldiers. So what's it really of?

And if you are in the picture and you are not an Islamist who protested about British soldiers, how do you feel about being portrayed as such by the Daily Mail? What do you think about being accused of being responsible for racist violence? #

Just wondering...

*update Thursday* Mystery solved, it appears - see Mr Bish's comment below. The photo appears to be a peaceful Islamic (not Islamist) event which took place in Luton in March. It wasn't covered by the Mail as far as we can find out, nor any other papers - presumably, precisely because it was peaceful and uneventful.

Maddieballs roundup

Anorak:

And what of Alan and Cindy Thompson?
...
Alan and Cindy Thompson were questioned for three hours at the weekend by officers from Leicestershire Police’s Madeleine McCann task force.
...
Is this the same Alan and Cindy Thompson who..?
...
The next day the Dawn newspaper, one of the biggest newspapers in Pakistan, reported that this couple had found the secret lair of Osama bin Laden.

Has the Madeleine McCann story jumped the shark yet? I keep wondering because dozens and dozens of new suspects keep being revealed. New witnesses, previously unaware of the most high-profile child disappearance in Europe, have suddenly had their memory jogged and come forward to give vital information.

But now, I sense there may be something approaching closure, with the arrival of stories about Raymond Hewlett. He is a convicted paedophile for whom we shouldn't have a tremendous amount of sympathy. But it's pretty obvious from even a rudimentary study of the case that he didn't abduct Madeleine McCann - and even paedophiles don't deserve to be framed for things they didn't do.

A couple of things to bear in mind. A convicted paedophile is the lowest of the low in the public's estimation, so it would be virtually impossible for him to sue for defamation if lies were printed about him - you pretty much can't libel someone who is already rightly viewed with contempt, even in the UK. Also, he may be dying - he's 64 (or 62, depending on which stories you read) and has been treated for throat cancer. This second element to the story is important - the dead can't sue; and "Did he take Maddie secrets to the grave?" stories are probably already being prepared for if and when he does succumb to his cancer. Sorry if this sounds brutal, by the way, but it's a brutal business.

The behaviour of the McCanns' minders seems utterly bizarre towards Hewlett. They demand he speaks to them. He says OK, I'll speak to you:

"I have nothing to hide. I am willing to talk with them," [Hewlett] said, denying any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance from a holiday apartment in Portugal two years ago.

But then Clarence Mitchell turns around like a kid in a playground:

But it was too late.
Mr Mitchell told Sky News: "He should have indicated yesterday that he was happy to talk to us."

Yes, he's someone who is supposedly a massive suspect and of great interest, and he agrees to speak to you, and then you turn around and say because he didn't say he wanted to speak to you yesterday rather than today, you're not going to do anything about it? Do you want to find this child or not? If this is such an important lead, why are you behaving so petulantly?

But no-one more official than the McCanns' hired detectives thinks Hewlett has anything to do with the McCann case. He was cleared in the police investigation and detectives do want to speak to him about historic events, but not in Praia de Luz:

The public prosecutor's office of Aachen confirms there is no connection with the Maddie case in the British official aid request. "It is a request about two cases, one regarding a rape and one attempted rape,in 1975", says Robert Deller of the public prosecutor's office of Aachen.

Meanwhile, the Mail is on the case too. I can't help feeling that they want us to read between the lines. Having been burned by the McCanns' legal team before because of printing false allegations, they are tiptoeing around the subject. See if you can work out what they're trying to say here:

D

etectives hunting for Madeleine McCann believe the Algarve is awash with child molesters, it emerged yesterday.
They have discovered there have been seven sexual assaults involving the children of tourists in the region in the last four years.
The detectives have narrowed their search to a handful of predatory paedophiles - two of whom still live in the resort of Praia da Luz.

Sexual assaults - but how many abductions? The McCann team says:

'There are 38 known sex offenders in the Algarve,' the source said. 'The area is a magnet for paedophiles. There have been seven sexual assaults involving the children of tourists in the Algarve in the last four years.
They all have the same modus operandi as Madeleine's disappearance - that is, a break-in at a holiday apartment and children molested.

Let's leave aside the 'was the apartment actually broken into?' question. There was no evidence of molestation of Madeleine McCann - is that's what is being suggested by the McCann team?

But it's not about the truth; it's about creating noise. All these leads, sightings, witnesses and so on - what do they come to? Where do they bring us? Do they really show us what happened? Well:

The Portuguese authorities said there had been no "concrete and credible facts" to justify reopening the case.

And that's the top and bottom of it.

I'd like you to go here

Here's some great stuff I've found, read and digested over the past few hours.

David Turner's Procrastination Station - a nice bit of thoughtful origami sent off to BNP headquarters to try and encourage them to be less hateful. I particularly enjoyed: "Have some cake. I find I always hate less after some cake". Well, who doesn't?

Staying with the BNP, Sarah Ditum has wrapped up her recent blog posts over at Liberal Conspiracy regarding the kid-glove treatment of the BNP by lazy or misguidedly 'objective' journalists. Compare and contrast the powder-puff treatment of racists in some local papers, if you will, with the Manchester Evening News, which is actually telling its readers the truth. It just goes to show that the 'Oooh no, we've got to be objective and nice to everyone' attitude is a smokescreen - I'm not saying it's a smokescreen for BNP sympathies because I'm sure that's not the case, but it's a smokescreen for a lack of courage, knowledge, conviction and a fear of getting a few angry letters from racists, who for some reason editors don't like upsetting.

Harry's Place also has a rather excellent piece showing why Nick Griffin's attempts to portray himself as a nice, mainstream figure are a pack of lies, as well as exposing why the World War 2 sentiments of the BNP leaflets are contradicted by BNP members' support for the Nazis. We kind of knew that, didn't we? But it's good to see the evidence - which, fair's fair, was collected by the Daily Mail. A shame, then, that the paper's readers appear to be backing the BNP, but never mind.

Also:

Adam Bienkov on another dodgy election leaflet, which this time comes from Labour.

Uponnothing on how political correctness is actually a good thing.

Johann Hari wonders why David Cameron's utter nonsense is getting such an easy ride.

News Arse - Please Just Ignore Global Nuclear Armageddon, Pleads Telegraph

And finally, here are some knitted meercats in Star Trek uniforms. Great!

Mail fail roundup: Dale fail and sexism fail

Just a quick update on recent Mail fails. I always like to keep up to date with how many thousands of pounds gets splurged on legal fees and payouts to people who've had rubbish written about them by Britain's biggest sack of lying shit most trusted newspaper, so if you see one that I don't know about, please don't hesitate to drop me an email to let me know.

Fail #1 came with Iain 'champion of blogging and free speech (unless I don't like that person, in which case I'll send snotty solicitors' letters)' Dale, who was hauled out of his regular role in linking to complete crap written by Nadine Dorries and John Redwood by the Mail on Sunday at the peak of the Derek Draper / Damien McBride business. The article he wrote was based on a single uncorroborated source, which Dale claims to be a senior Labour figure. But it was wrong:

As the Court heard today, Associated Newspapers Limited now accepts that these allegations are entirely untrue. In fact, Mr Watson was not copied into any of the emails exchanged between Mr McBride and Mr Draper.

Aside from the damage done to Dale's reputation - and how the tears have flowed in my household after hearing the news - it must have dented the Mail's wallet to the tune of several large ones. The poor lambs.

And now this:

A statement issued today by Carter-Ruck said the article contained a number of "false, defamatory and deeply offensive allegations about the three women" and that the Mail had accepted the allegations were "untrue and should never have been published".

Oopsy now! Here's an intriguing part of the story, though:

The Mail blamed the offending elements on an unnamed executive who controlled a rewrite of the story, the statement from Carter-Ruck said, rather than the journalists who interviewed the women.

Oh?

Its story was headlined: "For most women, giving birth is the most fulfilling event in their lives. But some are so afraid of missing out on their careers and losing their figures they refuse to go through pregnancy and choose adoption instead. Practical, or just plain selfish?"

So this isn't just a Mail fail, then. It's a Mail fail that came from a senior journalist who decided that a story sympathetic to people who'd been interviewed wasn't good enough - that there wasn't enough boot-sticking-in and this needed to be corrected, even if it risked upsetting the subjects of the story.

Worth remembering for anyone who plans on being interviewed by the Mail, no matter how sympathetic the journalist in question might appear to be - that can all change back at the newsroom.

It's fun to laugh at the Mail being beaten up and haemorrhaging money because of stupid sexism and idiots who don't check their stories properly - and don't get me wrong, I love it - but there's a serious side to all this. Every one of these shit stories could have been a good one. Every penny given to Carter-Ruck and their clients means money can't go to real journalism at the Mail. And at a time when the Mail's profits are falling off a cliff (again, the heart bleeds) then that's at a premium.

As I've always said, I don't want the Mail to disappear. I don't hate it. I just wish it was good. No sign of that happening any time soon, I'm afraid...

So who are the extremists?

Before we go over to today's Mail atrocity, I just want to ask you this question. You'll get the answer right, because I know you're very bright. Who do you think is portrayed as 'extremists' by the Mail in a story - (a) a bunch of nuts in balaclavas waving England fans taking over a town centre, terrifying families, smashing up shops, beating up people and getting arrested, or (b) people who weren't even at the event?

Of course, you're right.



I know you knew that was coming. But it's a point worth making. If a bunch of Muslim protesters marched into Luton town centre, causing loads of trouble and getting arrested, do you think this would have got the same kind of coverage? I'm thinking it wouldn't. I don't think it would all be told from the protesters' point of view, anyway.

A group called March for England was said to have organised the rally as a peaceful protest against Muslim extremists. They were joined by a local group United People of Luton.

Yes, I'm sure they were 'said to have' done that. But it didn't turn out especially peaceful, did it? And was it really a march against Muslim 'extremism'? Because nine paragraphs in to this story, we discover this:

One Asian man was hit across the face with a banner and left with a bloody nose.

And was he an 'extremist'? Or even a Muslim? Or just a chap with a brown face who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? So was this really a march against 'extremism' or something a shade more sinister?

Police said during the disturbance three car windscreens were smashed and a window at a take away restaurant in Chapel Street had been broken.

Were these car windscreens car windscreens that were preaching Islamist extremism? Was the takeaway a radical Islamist takeaway? Or was this, perhaps, not the 'peaceful' protest that it was 'said' to have been?

What of the groups involved? You'd've thought that the Mail journalists would have at least done a rudimentary Google search to see who they were dealing with. March for England, for example, claims to condemn racism, but have a little read of their spiel on the front page and you be the judge:

It is time to unite against everything that is ruining our country. Our country has been sold and ruined by government, it is time to let the government hear our voice. Immigration, E.U, Terrorism, And so much more is threatening our country. The government has lost control on Immigration which is straining our services and tax’s for those wishing to not contribute back into the system. The E.U is full of corruption and its rulings are harmful to us as a nation. Islamic extremists planning to harm this country and spread the twisted violent version of islam needs to be stopped, which is putting the lives of innocent and moderate muslims at risk from being part of a united society living in harmony. It is time to remove that notion that flying the St George flag is racist or signs of hooliganism e.t.c. It is time to be counted. We aim to confront and protest and march against groups or government to show we the people in this democratic country that we have a voice and we will use it.
IT IS TIME FOR ENGLAND TO AWAKE !!!!.
We have been brainwashed to tarnish march’s that show pride and our countrys flag’s as Right Wing or Racist … WELL WE ARE MARCHING ON TO CHANGE THAT TARNISH !!! TO CLAIM BACK OUR FLAG WHICH SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH RACISM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

So was a lot of 'pride' on show with smashed shops and car windscreens, and an Asian bloke being smashed in the face? The claim that people of all races were coming together for March for England appears to be a little bit contradicted by the photos - but perhaps there are other photos showing a hugely diverse crowd marching, rather than just the white faces in the Mail pictures. Who knows?

United People of Luton, on the other hand, are roundly backed by that well-known voice of diversity, intelligence and wisdom Lionheart:

People from around the World who are watching the Islamification of Great Britain will know of the ugly scenes that greeted our brave soldiers of the Royal Anglian Regiment in Luton Town Centre on March 10th.

Yes, I think you get the general idea there. Nice of the Mail not to fucking bother in the slightest to do even the most basic checks on who was involved with this protest, though. There's an interview with some anonymous protester face who says this:

'Our community has been racially attacked for the last 10 years.
'A mosque in the town got set on fire a few weeks ago and it made national news but churches in Luton are regularly being set fire to.

Evidence for this...? No...? But fine, just let him claim it without checking whatsoever, that makes it all OK, doesn't it?

In the comments, you get a flavour of what some Mail readers think of this protest. What do you think they make of balaclava-wearing drunken idiots smashing stuff up and terrifying families in a middle-England town centre? Do you think they disapprove?



But remember, it's the Muslims who are the extremists. Let's not forget that.

'No border controls' - Iain Dale's reality

I'm not the kind of person to kick a man when he's down, even if he's the most pompous twit going. Oh, who am I kidding? Of course I am. Anyway, look, Iain Dale may have apologised for a dreadful piece of personal-agenda-driven single-source journalism which has (hooray! thanks Iain! Buy you a pint sometime!) likely cost the Mail on Sunday a few tens of thousands of pounds. But I don't think he's apologised for this:

What do you expect when you have no border controls?

You don't believe that actually happened, do you? Let's run that one past you one more time:

What do you expect when you have no border controls?

And again, because you're still trying to work it out:

What do you expect when you have no border controls?

Aha, you're thinking to yourself, come off it Vowl, you're taking this quote out of context aren't you. OK well here's the quote in full:

Uponnothing, sorry but that is a very ill informed comment. Questioning whether multiculturalism has worked is nothing new. David Davis wrote an article in 2005 on the subject which people of all political persuasions endorsed. It's nothing to do with Phillips being black. I mention it becuase of his position with the Equalities Commission.
And we do have uncontrolled immigration. What do you expect when you have no border controls? What feeds the BNP is when we regard immigration as a subject which isnt talked about in polite society.

It's a classic argument, which I had a look at the other day - that somehow the spectral Left are responsible for the BNP because immigration is a taboo subject thanks to the evil PC Brigade and their nasty ways. As an aside, Dale is also on record as saying the BNP are left-wing, which neatly combines two bogeymen in one.

There's an additional element to all this. And that's the classic Daily Mail argument, to claim that the BNP are essentially bad lot while almost simultaneously using their arguments. Just look at today's front page:



Well, I imagine there have been fascists on the Palace lawn before - Lord Rothermere's granddaddy, for one. And yes, it's to be welcomed that the Mail should turn its nose up at the BNP - but on the other hand, they spend a lot of their time recycling lies about immigration which the BNP then go on to use. Are they really that far away from the far-right bogeymen? If I were a BNP member (and thankfully I'm not) I'd probably take the Mail and Express as newspapers; I'd also be a bit miffed that these two papers, while constantly providing me with a diet of lies about immigration that reinforced my prejudices, then claimed to distance themselves from the party that has the strongest anti-immigration agenda. That would be puzzling.

Now there's nothing inherently wrong with agreeing with things the BNP says as a concept. Let's imagine the BNP suddenly did a Time Trumpet and bolted on a green policy agenda to their racism - it's not actually beyond the realms when you consider that the founders of the Soil Association had fascist links, 'purity of blood and soil' and all that - then of course you can agree with those bits that you agree with. So it would be foolish to imagine that one simply can't agree with anything they say.

On the other hand, what sort of honest debate is to be had about immigration when people say things like this?

What do you expect when you have no border controls?

Because, as anyone who's ever had to queue in a zig-zag for half an hour at Bristol Airport on a wet Wednesday night, there are such things as border controls. They actually do exist. I have seen them. With. My. Eyes. I've even (badly) blogged about the bloody thing previously. They do exist. So what's Dale saying? That they don't exist? Really? Surely not. Perhaps the point is that they're so insignificant as to be non-existent? Maybe. But the rules are tighter than they have been for decades, so that's demonstrably not true. And far from being 'uncontrolled', which Dale claims, non-EU immigration is stringently controlled.

As Upon Nothing puts it:

What is interesting is that the BNP sometimes bemoan the lack of real debate about immigration and that Iain does the same here. However, how can we have a real debate when you (and the BNP) have already drawn the conclusion that 'we do have uncontrolled immigration'. The statement that we 'have no border controls' is utterly ludicrous and cannot possibly be backed up by Iain.

There will be no real debate about immigration - sensible or otherwise - until people like Dale wake up to the fact it is controlled, and that there are border controls, rather than peddling a set of hysterical half-truths and outright nonsense. You can slag off the BNP as much as you like and think that gets you off the hook, but if you believe the same rubbish they do, and say the same rubbish they do, then that doesn't place you a million miles away from them.

This is what happens when you treat the BNP with kid gloves

Sarah Ditum has been looking at coverage of the BNP in her local paper, the Bath Chronicle, this week. Now she's managed to unearth another dreadful piece of PR thinly disguised as news.

Now there are arguments as to why local rags cover the BNP this way. They're misguided or naive or just plain stupid - who knows the reasons for it. All I do know is they're wrong.

As the editor of the paper says in his clumsy comments under Sarah's first article, the BNP like to feel that the press are against them. He's right about that, but wrong about just about everything else.

Let me explain to this newspaper editor why the BNP thinks the press are against them. They think that not because they are paranoid fools - although that may well be true - but because it's true. Why? Well the press are against the BNP because the press is composed of human beings, most of whom are intelligent and rational people, most of whom despise fascism, racism, prejudice and hatred. It's not a liberal-left leaning of the local press; it's not some New Labour plot to infiltrate newspapers with lefties. No, most right-wing people hate the BNP too, and quite rightly so. (I'll come to Iain Dale and the Daily Mail later today in another post, and how people who claim to hate the BNP then go and parrot their exact arguments.)

Being against fascists and racists does not 'play into their hands'. Putting nicey-nicey PR puff pieces in your newspapers which makes people with monstrous views out to be Mr and Mrs Lovely Next Door is actually what plays into their hands - and that's what the local press have been misguidedly and stupidly doing. It's crap journalism rather than anything more sinister, but it's still witheringly disappointing for all of us who harbour hopes of there still being a British press to be proud of anytime in the near future.

Yes, the BNP are a legitimate political party. Yes, they should be treated as such. But they are not a party whose manifesto contains things you'd find in other parties' manifestos. These things should be made clear - the desire for "repatriation" of immigrants; the fact they don't even regard second or third generation immigrants born in Britain to be British; their horrible stance and attitude towards women's issues; the fact they only allow people from a certain background to be members of the party and to stand for election. If that's all covered, then fine, I don't mind them being covered at all. If reporters covering the BNP ask them questions about these things, then fine, I don't mind them being covered at all. But if reporters just unquestioningly copy and paste large chunks of press releases and think that's all right, and think that by doing the same with other parties then they're somehow being objective and fair, then that's ridiculous. If they think it's all right to include phrases like 'white indigenous population' without even bothering to wonder if that phrase itself might be a sack of lying horseshit, then that's not all right by me.

It's beyond lazy; it's dangerous. It legitimises people who aren't legitimate. It treats BNP candidates with a respect their policies do not deserve. Oh and spare me the pious lecture about 'objectivity' and 'fairness'. Since when did journalists shit themselves and hide behind mealy-mouthed nonsense when there were threats to society, liberty and law and order about? Since when were the BNP fair? Since when did they deserve to be treated the same as everyone else? Since when was a policy lying about immigration, lying about nationality and lying about race equivalent to a policy about schools or hospitals? It's not the same thing at all. To give it equivalence is a lie, and a failure of journalism, and fails the readership.

The other argument that comes in, of course, is that the readers can make up their own minds. And of course they can. But what are they to make of the BNP when the reasons why other candidates refuse to share a platform with them are withheld because the reporters don't think they should know, because they're big clever reporters who know what's going on and if the readers got told they'd use the information foolishly? What are readers - clever or not? If clever, then let's give them a proper debate. If not, then let's not credit them with the intelligence to be able to pick out the lies from the image of the nice family with the hateful leaflets.

Another argument is 'what about if we banned other parties we didn't like?' - well, no-one is asking for a ban. No-one wants the BNP to be banned - I'd just like to see them challenged and questioned, by a reporter with the stones to do it, rather than simply having their false, wrong and lying arguments parroted and chucked into the ether with the equivalence of genuine political parties, as if they're somehow the same thing. They're not the same thing. Racism is not the same as real policies. It isn't, it will never be, and to imagine it is, I'm afraid, is a very dangerous thing.

No, let's treat readers with real respect, and the BNP with the contempt they deserve. Is it editorialising? I don't give a shit if it is. Readers deserve to have politicians questioned thoroughly and accurately, and if they're lying to be shown to be liars. That's what readers should have at the very least - the very least. But the local press, in a misguided and clumsy attempt to wash their hands of the fascists, are the ones who are really playing into their hands.

Hope and fear among Mail readers

What are we to make of Mail readers? You know, it's wrong to try and classify them as some giant mass of seething fear, hatred and bigotry. Because that's not the case. Sure, there's a lot of fear, hatred and bigotry in there, but that doesn't mean that everyone who happens upon the Mail website is (a) the target Mail audience anyway or (b) even if they are, they may be intelligent folk who disagree with some of the more frenzied excesses of the Mail's editorialising.

Have a look at two stories today in the Mail. The first is about science and evolution; the second is about Donald Rumsfeld's rather startling Christian propaganda in the Iraq war.

The Mail says:

The news is certain to anger Muslim critics of the invasion, whose claims that a Christian superpower was trying to overthrow an Islamic nation were rebuffed at the time by the White House.

It's a typical attempt by the Mail to slant the story in a particular way - as if only Muslims could possibly be angered by such an appalling atrocity against humanity. But it's not just Muslim voices who respond to this story. Take a look at the best-rated comments:



Well now, that's quite encouraging, in a way, isn't it? You might not expect that Mail readers would behave that way. But then you have to always keep an open mind about these things.

Secondly, with the story about a fossil of a primate having been found in the United States, you might expect that Mail readers might agree with the Mel Phillipses of this world and claim an intelligent design/creationist view of 'science'. And some do, but look at how they take an absolute pasting:



So there are reasons for some optimism. We mustn't just lump all Mail readers together; there's hope for some who appear on the website, at least, although that may be an altogether different readership from those who pick up a newspaper - after all, I turn up on the Mail's website every day, don't I?

Links 19/5/09

Hello. Here are some things I've read and enjoyed lately. Go and have a look, and maybe you'll enjoy them too.

Rhetorically Speaking - Flying the Flag of Stupidity:

More importantly, the Mail appears to be arguing that showing support for a group of people who are still routinely the subject of abuse - both verbal and physical - is "taking sides," as if to presume there's some kind of debate over whether such treatment is justified or not. This is turn, depends on the right-wing rhetoric that argues recognising and addressing the discriminatory treatment of gay and trans people is the equivalent of "special treatment."

Septicisle - The Truth About Alfie Patten Emerges:

It was arguable that even if Patten was the father, the effect on him from being thrust onto the front page of the nation's biggest selling newspaper was hardly likely to prove conducive to him being fully involved in the child's upbringing. Now that it turns out that Patten was not the father, there simply isn't an argument: if his parents hadn't gone looking for money, and if the Sun hadn't been looking for the latest terrible example of Broken Britain, then he would still probably have had to deal with learning that he was not the father after all, but not in the full public glare. This is the sort of thing which scars people for life: newspapers know this all too well, but Patten is the sort of individual who may as well not exist except as a commodity, someone to be used and abused and then forgotten about.

The Daily Quail - Miley Cyrus: Mm, Isn't it?:

Cyrus's sensual sandy frolicks follow a 'frenzy' earlier this month when she arrived in Leicester Square wearing a really short skirt that 'showed off her long legs', according to Daily Mail Reporter, who had been watching from a tree-top perch with a pair of binoculars and a fake moustache.

Chicken Yoghurt - Gordon Brown & The World Cup: Desperate, Much?

So, what other personal missions has he declared he’s embarking on since becoming Prime Minister almost two years ago? A personal mission to secure peace in Iraq and Afghanistan? A personal mission to force through the vital measures needed against climate change? A personal mission to make sure we have a more equitable society? A personal mission to secure the release of his heroine, Aung San Suu Kyi?
Er, not so much, no...

Ben Six - Give Me One of Those Old-Type Natural Fouled-Up Stories:

Since mid-afternoon, significant edits have sneaked into the piece unannounced. They came – judging by the “last updated” bar – at 12:24 AM, and the piece is no longer credited to David Rose, but to Vanessa Allen, a regular Mail churnalist whose output can be summated in this handy screen grab from Journalisted...

amelie baby britain british christmas dna gerry gerry mccann haringey kate madeleine madeleine mccann mccann mccanns murat portugal portuguese praia rothley sean

Work at 12.24? It’s a tough life. Especially when there are interminable Madeleine McCann suspects to be hunted down and raved about.

Sarah Ditum - British johns for British working girls:

So what’s a brave company like that doing running banner ads for the BNP on their websites? Maybe it wasn’t the exploitation of the sex trade that got to them. Maybe they were actually taking a stand against the illegal immigrants offering five-quid oral and taking British johns from British workers.

George Monbiot - As the political consensus collapses, now all dissenters face suppression:

Our grossly unfair electoral system, which responds to the concerns of just a few thousand floating voters and shuts out the minor parties; the vicious crackdown on dissent within parliament by whips and spin doctors; the neoliberalism forced upon governments by corporate power and the Washington consensus; the terror of the tabloid press – all combine to create a political culture which cannot respond to altered realities without collapsing. What cannot be accommodated must be suppressed.

The Human Rights Act is here to save the day!

Hurrah to the Act which has come to the aid of 'our boys' out on the battlefield, protecting them from harm and making sure that they're sent out with the right kit. Surely that's something worth celebrating?

Ah, but when the Act in question is the despised [Littlejohn] Yuman Rites [/Littlejohn] Act, then that causes a problem for our friends in the tabloids. Sure, they support our troops, but they can't be seen to be supportive of an Act they have constantly vilified down the months - can they?

Well, I can't find the story at all in the Sun, although to be fair to them they were supportive of the action when it was first victorious in court. The Sun, after all, always puts 'our boys' first. So I imagine this causes fewer problems for them than their friends in Fleet Street.

The Express doesn't know which way to go. It has an interview with a soldier's mother praising the verdict, but in their story about the court ruling, they make it clear it's a 'controversial' decision and frame the decision as a loss for the Government and the MoD rather than a victory for ordinary soldiers.

With the Mail, it's rather more clear cut where their sympathies lie - this is the HRA, for God's sake, and they must be against it! And they're also against compensation claims (even for soldiers killed because they didn't have the right kit). So they're fiercely opposed to the decision:

It could open the floodgates for lawsuits by the families of troops killed or injured abroad because they were sent into conflict without the right equipment.
And military experts warned that it could lead officers to avoid taking action during battle because of the risk of being sued.

It could OPEN THE FLOODGATES for people to legitimately sue the Government when their relatives are sent into battle with the wrong kit. Yeah, bastards. Classical Mail quote here:

Major General Julian Thompson, a former Royal Marines officer and Falklands war commander, said: 'Taken to its ridiculous logical conclusion, you could find officers telling troops not to take up a position because someone might get killed, and instead sitting tight and doing nothing.

Taken to its ridiculous conclusion, the Mail would rather slag off a piece of legislation it doesn't like at the expense of justice for brave soldiers killed doing their duty while hopelessly equipped. I don't know how well that sits with a patriotic newspaper, but there you go.

This commenter on the website is, of course, roundly voted down by fellow Mail readers:

It's just as well that the servicemen had the Human Rights Act to rely on, isn't it? If the people who want to abolish it had had their way, this case wouldn't even have got to court.
- Lizzy, Aberystwyth, 18/5/2009 13:25

Which is a shame, really, because that's a very good point.

It's not a protest, numbnuts

Firstly, you absolutely must go here and read this. It's a wonderful piece that removes all the fluff and nonsense that surrounds the issues of why people vote for fascist scum, leaving you with one inescapable conclusion: that scum are scum and vote for scum because they're scum.

But no. People - ironically, it's often the exact kind of people who would be deliberately simplistic about issues like crime, claiming that kids who nick a penny chew from the pick'n'mix are 'feral' and so on - like to get all complicated about the reasons why people vote BNP.

First, they blame the lefties. That's the most important group to blame. People who believe in something other than what the BNP believe in are somehow to blame for the rise in the BNP, because they are not doing what the BNP wants. The logic goes like this: we haven't given the BNP what they want, therefore they are getting more support. I'd say this: you shouldn't give the BNP what they want, because on almost every subject ever, they're as wrong as wrong can be. Whether you give them more or less support because you deny them what they want isn't really relevant if what they want is completely and utterly discriminatory, unfair, unpleasant, nasty, racist and anti-freedom.

Lefties are to blame somehow, because of the things they've done in terms of diversity, human rights and so on. By giving a shit about minorities, they have stoked the fires of the BNP, says the argument. I'd say this: giving a shit about diversity is important, and right, and if you upset people by doing this, then the people you are upsetting are not only idiots but unpleasant idiots. If you positively discriminate in favour of minorities, constantly discriminating against the so-called 'indigenous population' then that's a different matter - but this isn't happening. There is no 'indigenous population' anyway. I don't go out on my council estate and see mud-painted natives going fishing with a coracle. There's no such 'indigenous population' and the term is one used by the far right - and the Daily Mail - as a dog-whistle to appeal to racists.

Political correctness is also blamed. The PC Brigade - remember them, with the big pink diversity van coming to make you tick a few diversity boxes? - have meant that 'ordinary' (white) people have felt 'disenfranchised'. Again, I'd say no. Not letting people get away with saying nigger, wog and Paki is a good thing. Racism is a bad thing. If someone feels disenfranchised because they're not allowed to be a racist, then they're a racist, and if racists feel disenfranchised then that's because the mainstream parties, quite rightly, are not racist and don't like racists belonging to them.

Other targets are blamed. Immigration, which has been happening for donkeys' years now and which is - outside the EU - strictly controlled and more strictly than ever before, is depicted as 'uncontrolled' and a 'mass wave'. Idiots like Christopher Monckton are allowed to say in the national media - unchallenged by Victoria Derbyshire (well obviously) - that two million Muslims have come to Britain since Labour came to power. Benefits are ignored; only the downside is depicted. There is not fair coverage of these issues by newspapers like the Mail. Yet they blame the immigration itself for people being against it, not their one-sided depiction of it.

Moneygrabbing politicians are blamed. The Speaker is blamed. People claiming cash for stuff they shouldn't claim cash for are blamed. And they are to blame for a general malaise in mainstream politics; they are to blame for anger felt by the public; they are to blame for people looking elsewhere when they come to cast their votes. But there's a world of difference between saying "These Labour and Tory politicians are sticking their snouts in the trough" and then going on to make the leap to "I will vote instead for a party that represents views that are vastly removed from the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, which is racist, and which only allows people of a certain ethnicity to belong". That intellectual gulf is just too wide. This isn't a protest vote. If people want to vote BNP, it's not because of disenchantment with the mainstream. You don't vote for people like that unless you believe in them. And if you believe in them, then there's no helping you.

Even the right is blamed. People blame the Conservative Party for being too wishy-washy. They say if only the Tories pandered to the more rabid elements that made them so hated and despised by half the country during the 1980s and early 1990s, then things would be better. They ignore the strides made by William Hague (eroded a bit by Michael Howard and the other one, whatever his name was) to try and politely say no thank-you to "Rivers of Blood" types.

But beneath it all is a truth. People may be disgruntled, but a vote for the BNP is not a protest vote. It is a vote for a system that will disenfranchise far more than merely feel disenfranchised right now. It is a vote for hatred and racism. It is a vote against things that simply do not exist, based on lies and prejudice. It is a vote against reason, and truth, and fairness, and liberty. It is a vote for hate. And those people who choose to vote that way know what they're doing.

They wouldn't change their minds if only the mainstream moved further to the right. They wouldn't change their minds if 'political correctness' were consigned to the bin tomorrow. They wouldn't change their minds even if the liberal-left elite running our country, which doesn't even exist, suddenly existed only in order to disband itself. They won't change their minds. They are wrong, and they hold wrong views because they're wrong. And that's why everyone with any decency must fight against them - left, right, libertarians, socialists, all of us. I don't care what makes us different, but what unites everyone must be the fight against hatred and the fight against lies. That fight is the fight against the BNP - so let's get on with it.

The Mail and gay adoption: what can be done?

It's easy, when confronted with a slew of articles pointing in the same misguided direction, to simply get angry. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course, but perhaps there's another way to confront a series of false accusations from one particular newspaper as regards one particular issue. Just as the Federation of British Poles managed to convince the Mail to print an article by them after dozens of misleading stories, a suggestion comes from this blogger about what do when it comes to gay adoption stories.

So, at the tail-end of last week, we had the Mail responding to those who had (counterproductively) called homophobes 'retards' with an insult of their own, 'Nazis'. It's a story I covered here and over at Mailwatch, in the latter piece pointing out that Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn wasn't afraid to use the term 'retard' to talk about Gordon Brown. Highly amusing (or indeed hypocritical), then, that Littlejohn pretended to be so offended by the use of the term the next day.

Following on from that, there was Amanda Platell, with a piece so truly reprehensibly awful that in a fair and decent world she would be receiving a P45 by return post. Alone in the Dark points out that not only is Platell as breathtakingly hypocritical as Littlejohn - pretending to be upset by abusiveness when she has been appallingly abusive herself in the past, and got paid for it - she's just plain wrong:

It is not heresy to suggest “that married heterosexual couples make the most suitable candidates to be adoptive parents” – it is merely incorrect, based on an ignorance on the research that shows gay and lesbian couples to be as suitable as straight couples. To suggest that view is “backed by an increasing weight of academic evidence” is factually incorrect, and I would encourage readers to complain to the PCC to ask them to correct this.

Which is the springboard for the Don't Get Mad, Get Accurate blog. The idea is a simple one - complain to the PCC when the Mail consistently runs an editorial line which is not only unsavoury but demonstrably factually incorrect despite being presented as fact. We all know the shortcomings of the PCC, but this is about generating momentum as well as complaints. So if you think that Amanda Platell and and other Mail reporters are wrong to say that there is evidence that gay parents are not as good as heterosexual parents, and if you think it's wrong that only one opinion about gay parenting is allowed in this newspaper, then it's time we asked the PCC to adjudicate, particularly in the light of their being no balancing opinions whatsoever in the Mail, and no evidence cited whatsoever.

I wholeheartedly agree. There is no point in writing directly to Amanda Platell (or indeed Littlejohn) and being abusive. That kind of thing only gives these scumbags the chance to play the victim and pretend that there's some kind of liberal-left conspiracy to silence their dissenting voices. Which isn't the case at all. They're highly paid columnists for a newspaper with a huge circulation, and they deserve to be held to account when they distort the truth - which they are definitely doing over gay adoption. And the newspaper they write for needs to be held to account, too.

What to do with your BNP leaflet...?

Most of us have had them by now. And we've all thought of stuff to do with them. The cat litter tray is a good idea, for example, as is the bin under a pile of rotting potato peelings. The smooth, shiny texture isn't really absorbent enough to wipe your arse with, and there's enough shit in the leaflet already without you needing to add to it. No, I knew there had to be some better, more creative thing to do.

And by the magic of Twitter, I found it. Here. And once again it comes from Dave Turner, the man who brought you the genius of #thebnparetwats.

Let's not stop at papier mache Mosques though, much though that's going to be great. (Can I just ask that it's an almost full-size Mosque, with a full-volume call to prayer played through loudspeakers five times a day? That would be great.)

Is there anything else we can make out of our BNP leaflets to mean those trees weren't cut down purely for the purposes of hatred? Is there some other way we can turn them into something positive and good? I think it's time to dust off those old Susan Stranks books and see if there isn't something truly marvellous we can do with a few bits of string and a blob of Copydex.

Here are just some suggestions. You may have others:

- A life-sized model of Nick Griffin, complete with red clown's nose. On top of a fucking great big bonfire of unread and thrown-away BNP leaflets. Set fire to outside his house.
- A giant union jack flag covered with the faces of Britain's leading black and Asian politicians, business people, sports people and entertainers. Flown outside Griffin's house.
- Re-delivered leaflets to every home in Britain, with a sticker on the front saying "This is a complete load of bullshit from racist scum. We know the rest of them are shite, but no-one's as shite as the BNP".

Incidentally, it was most welcome to see the Daily Mail calling the BNP "vile racists and thugs" today. Unfortunately, their readers appear to have disagreed with this assessment, if you care to have a look at the comments. Oh well, that's the price you pay for telling lies about immigration all the time...

BNP leaflets update

Tim has the latest on the BNP leaflets disaster.

It's now abundantly clear that the BNP have broken the terms and conditions of the licence for use of photos - if you're a postie who wants to conscientiously object to having to put this filth through people's doors, for example, you now have a perfect reason not to do so. It's not just poisonous shit, but misleading poisonous shit which is using people's pictures without permission, claiming that trusted figures (eg doctors, soldiers) are supporting the BNP when there is no evidence of this.

Now I'm not saying that there aren't doctors or soldiers or nice mums or friendly retired people in the BNP, because I'm sure there are. But let's see the real people rather than representations of what these people look like. Or if they don't want to pose for photos, that's fine - let's just have the testimonies, assuming that they're real.

But this doesn't say that. This says "Why we're all voting British National Party" - with pictures of people who almost certainly aren't because they're (a) American and (b) not complete scum. These people aren't voting British National Party. They're just models who've had their faces roped in to a far-right election pamphlet. How do you reckon they feel about that? How do you think the doctor, the soldier, the granny, those people would all feel if they knew their photos were being used to tell people to vote for a shambolic cesspit of extremist lies, racism and hatred?

Interesting, of course, that my Daily Mail-owned local paper, the Bristol Evening Post, which happily printed dozens of comments attacking the posties for refusing to deliver BNP leaflets - including the classical "So what if a Muslim was a bastard, what then? Oh no, it'd be double standards" strawman - (but not my comment praising the posties, predictably enough) hasn't covered anything to do with the fact that these leaflets have now been exposed as misleading and breaking the terms of usage with the photos.

No, of course not. That would require a bit more than a Google search - and well, if you're not looking, you don't find things out, do you?

Incidentally, my postie put the BNP leaflet through the door yesterday. Disappointing. It went straight into the cat's litter tray, of course.

"A bloody conclusion"

The troops have nearly completed their mission in Sri Lanka - but at what cost? It looks like the LTTE are finished, but hundreds of civilians are dying. Is it just because it's in the name of anti-terrorism that the rest of the world is turning a bit of a blind eye?

And why is it that this war hasn't troubled the upfront pages of the national newspapers in recent months? People are suffering and dying in huge numbers; the conflict is taking its toll on an innocent population who just happened to have made home where the violence is now taking place. Why is it so hard for the media to care about something like this?

No sense of humour

Sometimes it's confusing. You get told that Iain Dale is Britain's leading blogger, which he is, but then he comes out with stuff that's just weird, which makes you wonder why so many people read him every day.

First he slags off Jack Jones when the corpse is still warm. Fair enough, I guess.

Then he says the Left need to get a sense of humour. Fair enough, I guess, though I have to confess he's never raised a smile with me except for when he genuinely thinks Nadine Dorries or John Redwood is intelligent. Then I piss myself.

Yet when Mark Thomas, with a sense of humour, decides to get ready to celebrate Thatcher's death, he gets all touchy and calls it 'sick'. Tch.

Come on Iain, what are we supposed to do? Get a sense of humour, man!

BNP uses foreigners in election leaflets

Go here and read this story about the folks appearing the BNP leaflets up and down the country. At first glance it would appear that these are the ordinary folk who are voting BNP because they're fed up about stuff like immigration. But wait a minute... they're not at all! They're just stock images!

This 'doctor', for example, who claims that he's upset by immigration and what it's done to the health service (as Mike Power points out, filling in vacancies and treating British patients) isn't a BNP voter at all. He's a model who is easily found in iStock's photo library. Not only that, but he's almost certainly American - you know, a foreigner! The BNP can't even be bothered to use British models when they're pretending that people are saying stuff.

So, not only are BNP voters cowards - I don't mind if my doctor is a BNP voter and proud of it, so long as he's a good doctor (although if he were a BNP voter he'd clearly have to be as thick as shit, so therefore I would have some concerns about his professional abilities) - but their party can't even be bothered to give some money to hardworking white British models to represent them - they'd rather pay money to an American company using American models! Not only that, but look at this image of the good doctor! Shaking the hand of a black man! Nooooo! He's got the Black Lurgy now!

Relatedly, here's a story that makes me proud to live in Bristol, of posties sticking two fingers up to the BNP and refusing to deliver their election leaflets. Which, as it turns out, are not just hateful, but also rather misleading. Where does it say that the people in the pictures aren't the people giving the testimonials? Do those giving the testimonials really exist, do we think? Who knows. What I do know is that each and every BNP fail is a marvellous thing.

It's Eurovision!

And to get you in the mood, here's Teutonic Terry Nutkinsalike Guildo Horn, prancing around the stage in 1998 for Germany, clambering over the balcony and being over-friendly with front-row dignitaries. A wonderful moment to treasure. Ah, those were the days... 1998, when Europe had voted for the UK because they thought the New Labour Government brought hope... how wrong they all were. Guildo would have done a better job.

Mail: People who complain about homophobia are Nazis

It seems simple enough, in Mail land. If you complain about people's attitudes towards homosexuality, then you are a 'Nazi'. A 'Nazi' in the Littlejohn/Gaunt mould, that is, ie someone who has views that you don't can be called a Nazi. As the man who led to the end of Gaunt's career in radio pointed out, though, you need to put something in front of 'Nazi' to be able to get away with it - the Mail has chosen 'adoption' this time. Because the Nazis were so fond of homosexual people, weren't they? It's a really good analogy, Mr Mail.

But Gaunt was making a point against adoption services too, calling them Nazis for not allowing smokers to adopt. Anyone who's been watching the recent series of documentaries on Channel 4 about adoption (and I'm guessing that excludes the entirety of the Mail workforce) will have seen just how hard it is to adopt a child, even if you *do* pass all the criteria and tests, and even if you've done all the training - and yes, especially if you happen to be a same-sex couple.

People like the Mail and Gaunt ignore all the evidence. In their minds, adoption agencies hand over children like sweets to gay couples and ignore nice middle-class folk. There's no evidence for this, but this is what they think, so this is what they describe as being the truth.

And there's another point worth making. The Mail described people who complain about homophobia as 'Nazis' in one story, but guess what? When the 'homophobia' in question comes from their nemesis, then it's perfectly acceptable to be offended on behalf of the gay community:



Those folk who complained about Ross aren't 'Nazis' at all, of course. They're perfectly acceptable individuals. And look at the irony:

Ross was involved in a light-hearted discussion about prizes in a competition themed around the fictional teen pop star when he joked: ‘If your son asks for a Hannah Montana MP3 player, you might want to already think about putting him down for adoption before he brings his...erm...partner home.’

Up for adoption, Wossy? But as we already know, adoption agencies are infiltrated by evil forces designed to make children gay and favour gay couples over nice straight ones. And the people who enforce this are NAZIS.

Links 13/5/09

Yesterday's "The BNP are twats" jamboree was a delight. But it's worth remembering that the BNP are twats who don't think they're twats.

Adam Bienkov describes how Richard Barnbrook talked shit, and refused to apologise, then went on to say that there was nothing wrong with talking shit, despite being an elected representative, and that somehow talking shit didn't matter in the big scheme of things. And now Barnbrook's been suspended. And his credibility is fucked, along with that of his shabby bunch of racist bastards party. Good.

Angry Mob, meanwhile, has the Daily Mail dictionary. Which is a wonderful thing to behold.

Rhetorically Speaking: Nadine Dorries says that pro-abortion groups are like Al-Qaeda. And yet somehow she is still regarded by idiots on the right as being intelligent or somehow worthy of respect, and will get given slots on stuff like Question Time ahead of people who are genuinely worth listening to.

Chicken Yoghurt: Kelvin Hopkins for Prime Minister. He sounds all right, doesn't he?

Ben Six makes Stephen Fry look like a twit - by channeling Stephen Fry.

Penny Red: "I'm not down with the kitten microwavers, but at the end of the day, I prefer people".

George Monbiot: Climate change evacuation has begun.

House of Twits: Everyone in the world can neatly be divided into Labour, Tory and Lib Dems. The fuckwits.

Pickled Politics: Extremist comes to London, no-one minds.

More stuff later.

The BNP are twats

Marvellous scenes over at Twitter, where #thebnparetwats has raced onto the 'trending topics' section.



It's even been as far up as fourth - if it overtakes Star Trek than that's even better...

And nice to see them labelled as 'twats'. I often prefer 'scum' as the label below shows, but perhaps 'twats' is better - it conveys a bit more derision than hatred. Hmm, I'll think about it.

*update*



Yes! WE TOOK DOWN STAR TREK! IN YOUR FACE, MULTI-MILLION-DOLLAR MARKETING CAMPAIGN

*update 4.31pm*

We did it!! We made number one! Childish fun, but so wonderful.

Links 12/5/09

There's other things in the pipeline. But for the meantime, links.

Will Sturgeon on journalists' salaries and why MPs still don't get it:

Under heavy fire, [Lord] Foulkes turned the questioning on the BBC journalist, Carrie Gracie, demanding to know how much she earns.
The answer - £92,000 – will be a shock to all, not least the people who have been laid off by the BBC in recent months as the Beeb cited a need to cut costs. But as shocking and unjustifiable as it may be, that’s not the issue here.
Even by asking the question Foulkes demonstrates how detached Westminster has become from a fundamental understanding of why the public are so annoyed - that money paid in taxes is being spent on luxuries and liberties ranging from pornographic movies to landscaped gardens.

Adam Bienkov on the new Standard:

Thankfully much of the spite has been taken out, but there's still not enough left to put in its place.
Where's the voices from outside the Kensington triangle? Where's the London that the rest of us live in?
And more fundamentally, where's the news?

Jamie Sport on the latest 'Muslim moneygrabber story':

It remains unclear why Littlejohn is unable to write words containing more than four syllables without spelling them phonetically.

Ben Six on a kid being gunned down:

I mean, how does one define “involved“? It takes one person to throw a grenade, yes? Sure, there might have been other conspirators, but one would assume that the soldiers didn’t poke around to see if they were lurking, yes? If they’d done so, they’d have realised that they were shooting at a child, yes?

Septicisle on expenses:

The one thing that is abundantly clear is that the politicians themselves can now no longer have any control over their own expenses or their salaries. That not a single one of the 47 MPs named so far by the Torygraph was willing to go on Newsnight to defend themselves was just not a display of cowardice, it was also that they know they simply can't blame a system and not apportion blame on themselves as well.

Lenin on propaganda:

Mullah Omar, the peek-a-boo playing head of the Taliban, has been claiming expenses for a subscription to an online pornography website off of the internet, 'T-Girls Aloud', NATO chiefs said yesterday.

Eric the Fish on the BNP's outlandish claims:

[Nick Griffin said:] " Pensioners in sheltered housing...and tenants of housing associations are told by council politicians, Labour supporting politicians that if they dare to vote BNP they will lose their homes. This disgraceful threat is used against literally hundreds of thousands of ordinary decent people every single election...."
So, any evidence BNP chaps?

Guess. Go on, guess.

Justin on UKIP:

It was the UKIP one that caught my eye, however. I thought I knew a fair bit about British history but I never knew that the late Winston Churchill was a member of UKIP (est. 1993).
This must be a different Winston Churchill than the one who called for a ‘United States of Europe‘ in 1946 and suggested the creation of a European Army under a unified command in 1950. Otherwise UKIP would be guilty of misleading and pointless jingoism and I’m sure that can’t be the case.

Heh. Got my UKIP leaflet through yesterday - and straight into recycling it went. The BNP have got the union jack, UKIP have Churchill... what next? Veritas hijacking Bobby Moore?

Fun quotes of the day

"Can you have negative levels of dignity? Brown’s personal popularity is so low that wearing a donkey jacket to the Cenotaph would actually boost his ratings."

"Normally, to experience this sort of shared mutual shame, you would have to stumble unannounced into a room and unexpectedly catch someone doing something acutely embarrassing, such as masturbating or miming to Kaiser Chiefs in front of a mirror. Following 10 crushed eons of infinite silence, both parties would stare at the ground for a few moments, you'd mutter a dented apology about knocking first next time, inch your way backwards through the door as though quietly observing a religious ceremony, and spend the next half hour standing in the corridor cringing your skin inside out. From then on you'd share your painful-yet-private little circle of grief in silence, the pair of you implicitly understanding that The Incident Must Never Be Referred To Again."

[Michael] Gove claims an expertise in Islamic radicalism despite the fact he does not know any Islamic radicals. He writes of conditions inside communities in Britain he has never met in towns he has never visited. He has never sat in a radical Madrassa in Pakistan or on a hillside in Afghanistan, but tells us what he has been told goes on there. He is a thin-faced recycler of the bigotry of others, a dupe for any apostate looking for new position, an engine to make racism respectable. Gove is a smooth-faced fascist.

"oh, you've put another word in front now, to carry out the legal part... health Nazi, that's alright, you'll probably get away with that one"

There's an ambiguity in the rhetoric used by people who fight bigotry that people like Bill O'Reilly -- people who couldn't care less about fighting bigotry, and indeed do their best to undermine such efforts -- love to exploit. It involves the word "hate."

Email provides no benefits, only 'impotence, disease [and] frustration' according to one embittered ex newspaper editor driven to distraction by the disturbingly fast moving world of anything that uses electricity.

It’s easy to look at the world at some arbitrary point in the past (’Peter’ chooses 1965 as the date when, for him, everything started going badly wrong), pick differences between then and now and see patterns. We could draw graphs linking global temperature and Tesco’s market share, women in parliament and divorce, number of countries in the EU and UK birth rates. Their correlation, however, would not be enough to imply a link, or enough to base policy on. The fact that you’re less likely to be abused if your parents are married is not a good reason to promote marriage if it’s only another way of saying you’re less likely to be abused if you’re well-off. It would be nice to believe, as ‘Peter’ seems to, that marriage is the panacea for all social ills, but it’s almost certainly more complicated than that.

The Ledley King story

Anyone else feel a bit uncomfortable reading the Ledley King story? Obviously it's a big accusation which, if proved correct, will lead to serious charges and could mean real trouble for King. That's if it's all proved correct - and we haven't heard King's full side of the story yet, other than a muffled apology that he probably didn't even write himself.

A couple of things are a bit disturbing, though, in all this. First, that the bouncer involved should have gone to the papers - has he even put in a statement with the police yet? - and described it all. I mean, I don't blame him at all, we all need money to live. But how many other cases of violence are covered like this by the papers? Obviously, it's just because King is a celeb and therefore fair game. And yes, if he did behave how he's alleged to have behaved, then he's a complete arsehole and deserves everything he gets. Footballers have done plenty of stuff like this before, of course, having dust-ups with bouncers and so on.

But if you look back in the archives, you should see a note of caution in all this which means the King case isn't the open-and-shut story that the papers are making it out to be. There was a time when John Terry, now the Chelsea captain, and fellow players were accused of attacking bouncers, including with a bottle. We were told, by the press, there was CCTV footage that proved it all. But they were found not guilty by a jury. The bouncer had been accused in court of making up the story because of drugs debts, which turned out to be not true at all.

Look at this quote from that trial:

He added that Morris threatened to get him sacked, shouting: "Do you know how much I earn? I earn more in a day than you earn in a week. Do you know who we are? We could get you sacked." When he finally asked the players to depart, "they exploded with violence," he said.

And compare it with this from the King story:

The England ace – his shirt ripped open – was also filmed minutes earlier being restrained by doormen after he exploded in boozy violence.

...

The bouncer said: “He was saying, ‘Don’t you know who I am? ‘I’m on £80,000 a week and you’re on £10 an hour.’

I'm sure footballers do say these kind of things to bouncers. I'm sure a lot of them are complete arseholes. But the issue will be whether King said these exact things to this exact bouncer, and whom a jury will believe. King's not been charged with anything, which is why the papers are declaring open season and getting everything out in the open while they can.

But there's another aspect to this case which I find disturbing. Have a look at this front page from the Star:



Who, apart from the blind or terminally stupid, needs to be told that Ledley King is black? What does it add to the story? No-one would have said it if he were white, would they?

Also, there's this from our friends at the Mail:



See, it's not enough to say it's a race attack on an Asian person. The Mail thinks we need to see the word "Paki" really huge in a headline in order to understand what's going on. Although, as is increasingly the case, the headline for the story itself is a very much toned-down version and doesn't include all of that. I hesitate to imagine they're attempting search engine optimisation through the use of the word, but that could be it; whatever it is, it's pretty miserable for a national newspaper to be doing.