Monday, 8 February 2010
They don't care
The Express says sorry about telling a complete whopper last week:
In fact, it wasn't just the EU 'spouting off' according to the Express. As Tabloid Watch recorded, they'd actually said "Euro meddlers rule we can't have milk jugs". Which is something entirely different and implied that the EU would be banning them. Which of course they weren't.
I imagine if you're a teacher you often have to deal with kids who won't accept any form of punishment, and keep doing the same thing; or if you're a magistrate you'll keep seeing the same recidivist faces turning up in court, for the same old crimes. The Express is a bit like that, I think. It's never going to change its ways. It'll say sorry when there is a subject of the story who can prove they've done wrong, or threaten to sue.
Much easier, then, to simply target a huge mass of people instead:
The use of the word 'handed' is ridiculous - immigrants presumably get jobs by turning up to job interviews. The use of 'invasion' is unforgivable, and a disgrace to any pretence of journalism at the Express.
Just like those pesky kids in school, or recidivist cons, it's not that the Express doesn't know any better; it knows better, all right. It'll say sorry sometimes, but then just keep on doing what it's doing. Keep on spreading the same old pack of lies; keep on using the same dog-whistle terminology over immigration. They're not going to change because they just don't care.
FURTHER to our article “Now the EU spouts off...about our milk jugs” on February 3, we have been asked to point out that there is no proposed EU ban on milk jugs or any other milk containers.
The tests referred to in our articles were carried out by the University of Valencia, not at the behest of any agency of the EU.
The European Commission entirely shares the advice of the UK’s Food Standards Agency, that milk jugs that are clean and stored appropriately before and after filling are totally in line with EU legislation.
In fact, it wasn't just the EU 'spouting off' according to the Express. As Tabloid Watch recorded, they'd actually said "Euro meddlers rule we can't have milk jugs". Which is something entirely different and implied that the EU would be banning them. Which of course they weren't.
I imagine if you're a teacher you often have to deal with kids who won't accept any form of punishment, and keep doing the same thing; or if you're a magistrate you'll keep seeing the same recidivist faces turning up in court, for the same old crimes. The Express is a bit like that, I think. It's never going to change its ways. It'll say sorry when there is a subject of the story who can prove they've done wrong, or threaten to sue.
Much easier, then, to simply target a huge mass of people instead:
The use of the word 'handed' is ridiculous - immigrants presumably get jobs by turning up to job interviews. The use of 'invasion' is unforgivable, and a disgrace to any pretence of journalism at the Express.
Just like those pesky kids in school, or recidivist cons, it's not that the Express doesn't know any better; it knows better, all right. It'll say sorry sometimes, but then just keep on doing what it's doing. Keep on spreading the same old pack of lies; keep on using the same dog-whistle terminology over immigration. They're not going to change because they just don't care.
Sunday, 7 February 2010
Liz Jones fucks it up
This article, by Liz Jones, is perfectly acceptable:
Unfortunately this isn't the article that appeared in today's Mail, because for some reason it was decided by someone - presumably Jones herself - to introduce Emma Watson into the article, not with a shoehorn so much as a nine-pound hammer:
You could be forgiven for thinking the 'we' in that instance refers to 'we at the Daily Mail'. Let's not forget the newspaper's delight at her 'wardrobe malfunction' and how they used the opportunity to use another upskirt photo; or how they used paparazzi photos of her in a bikini; or how they said:
Jones isn't criticising her own employers, though, but society at large for valuing 'virginal' beauty above all other characteristics. I'm not so sure that you can uncouple that from what the mainstream media have to say about women's bodies from how women are seen, but there you are. Perhaps you can, perhaps you can't. All I do know is that Liz Jones had a perfectly reasonable article there, wrecked beyond belief by a clunky, jarring comparison between successful, young Emma Watson and the fate of Medine Memi. Surely there are better cases to choose when highlighting Western hypocrisy towards women's rights?
So, it's not that bad really. It just could have been so much better. Someone could have turned around, at any point, and said: Do you know what, Liz, this doesn't quite work... but no-one did, and so we're left with something pretty feeble instead.
The body of 16-year-old Medine Memi – her first name means ‘civilisation’ - was discovered tied to a chair in a hole in the garden of her home in a small village in south-eastern Turkey.
She had been buried alive as punishment for having talked to boys on the telephone. We know she was buried alive because of the amount of soil found in her stomach and lungs. Her father and her grandfather have been arrested.
Medine lived in a country mired in the dominance of a medieval, backwards-thinking, feudal patriarchy, albeit one that has been taking steps to stamp out violence towards women in its bid to be allowed into the European Union.
In 1998, the country’s supreme court overturned a law that criminalised adultery. In 2004, it introduced mandatory life sentences for those who carry out so-called ‘honour’ killings.
But despite these measures it continues to fail to protect its women and children. Four out of ten women in Turkey are beaten by their husbands. Half of all murders are ‘honour’ killings.
In an attempt to circumvent the stiffer sentences, ‘honour suicides’ have mushroomed.
Batman, a town in the south-east of Turkey, has been nicknamed ‘Suicide City’: three-quarters of all suicides here are committed by women – nearly everywhere else in the world, men are three times more likely to kill themselves.
Women who are told to kill themselves are usually given three options: a noose, a gun or rat poison. They are then locked in a room until they have done the deed.
Despite all of the above, President Obama made no mention of this shocking record on women’s rights in the speech he made during a visit to Istanbul last year in which he urged the EU to welcome Turkey with open arms.
He concentrated instead on the far less controversial issue of global warming.
Girls in Afghanistan are staying home because of a spate of acid attacks. In Italy, a country where until 1981 ‘honour’ was an ‘extenuating circumstance’ for murder, a young Moroccan woman was murdered last autumn by her father for wearing jeans.
In Iran, honour killings are legal. In Pakistan, a 17-year-old girl who, it was claimed, became pregnant by a man who was not her husband was forced to give birth before having her baby thrown to its death in a canal. The teenager was then mauled by dogs before being fatally shot in the head.
But can we in the West really claim the moral high ground when it comes to condemning these ‘honour’ killings’?
I would counter that the number of women harmed psychologically and physically by the West’s obsession with extreme youth far outstrips the number of women who are murdered for adultery, or even for the ‘crime’ of being the victim of rape in Islamic countries.
Every society has things it should be ashamed of. We have battered wives, domestic violence, child abuse, rape. These crimes are not done in the name of religion, other than as part of our cult of worshipping only women who are barely adolescent.
Violence against women is widespread in all countries. In Britain, 45 per cent have experienced some form of domestic abuse. In Germany, that figure is 37 per cent. Let’s not make this a war against Islam.
Let’s make it a war between genders, and try to fix it with education and emancipation, not prejudice.
Unfortunately this isn't the article that appeared in today's Mail, because for some reason it was decided by someone - presumably Jones herself - to introduce Emma Watson into the article, not with a shoehorn so much as a nine-pound hammer:
You could be forgiven for thinking the 'we' in that instance refers to 'we at the Daily Mail'. Let's not forget the newspaper's delight at her 'wardrobe malfunction' and how they used the opportunity to use another upskirt photo; or how they used paparazzi photos of her in a bikini; or how they said:
Emma Watson shows how much she's grown up at Harry Potter premiere
Jones isn't criticising her own employers, though, but society at large for valuing 'virginal' beauty above all other characteristics. I'm not so sure that you can uncouple that from what the mainstream media have to say about women's bodies from how women are seen, but there you are. Perhaps you can, perhaps you can't. All I do know is that Liz Jones had a perfectly reasonable article there, wrecked beyond belief by a clunky, jarring comparison between successful, young Emma Watson and the fate of Medine Memi. Surely there are better cases to choose when highlighting Western hypocrisy towards women's rights?
So, it's not that bad really. It just could have been so much better. Someone could have turned around, at any point, and said: Do you know what, Liz, this doesn't quite work... but no-one did, and so we're left with something pretty feeble instead.
A bit icky
The Mail is covering this story today:
And on every photo of the seven-year-old girl, there's this:
For me, that's just a little bit icky.
And on every photo of the seven-year-old girl, there's this:
For me, that's just a little bit icky.
Saturday, 6 February 2010
Terry's not All Gold
If nothing else good comes out of the John Terry saga, at least we won't ever see the "Terry's all gold" headlines ever again. They started surfacing at the start of the millennium and have carried on, pretty much unashamedly, ever since. Yes, his name's Terry. Yes, he's quite good at things. Yes, you could say he's "all gold". And yes, "Terry's All Gold" is a chocolate box assortment, the sort you'd buy if you you're too cheap for Milk Tray and don't like all that dirty dark chocolate in Black Magic. But that's pretty much the end of it. If John Terry played a really good game of football then celebrated with a low-end chocolate box assortment, then you could really go to town on the whole Terry's All Gold thing. But no matter. There won't be any of that shit any more. Actually I say "there won't be any of that shit any more" but I'm pretty convinced there will be a lot more of that shit in the very near future, as soon as he's promised to clean up his ways and stop being such a silly boy. I'm sure the 'Terry's All Gold', which is presumably on a template on tabloid newspaper subs' desktops, can get dusted off for a new outing, sooner or later.
Poor old Terry. It takes quite a lot to make me feel sympathy for such an odious character, but I did a bit this week. A bit. Don't get me wrong, I don't love him all of a sudden or something, and I certainly don't think any more of him this week than I did last week, but blimey. Being John Terry must feel a bit like being Ray Liotta in Goodfellas - constantly followed, knowing you're going to be found out, with a helicopter circling overhead - except it doesn't belong to the CIA or FBI, it belongs to Sky News. Ah, what would the BBC's detractors have to say if Auntie had taken a helicopter up to film a man's car driving along a road? All of a sudden, Terry was OJ. Except he hadn't fled from police and wasn't a suspect in a murder investigation; he got caught doing the nasty on his wife and family. What a spectacular week for Sky News - having made Peter Andre cry in a fairly tawdry bit of telly, they decided to aim just that bit lower. Many congratulations for trying to outdo themselves, though; it just goes to show they're always striving to be thought of as more awful than they already are.
But after all this, the England football team has a new captain. In place of someone who cheated on his wife, which was nothing to do with football, is someone who's currently going through a four-match ban for being violent on the football field; someone who previously forgot to take a drugs test and went out shopping. It's nice to know that the England football team, like Sky News, is always aiming a little bit lower. In case Rio Ferdinand - catchphrase "YOU'VE BEEN MERKED BRUV! HAHAHAHA!" during those never-to-be-forgotten World Cup Windups of years gone by - gets injured, there's always Steve Gerrard, a man who covered himself in glory last year by punching a DJ in the face, but who got away with it because he claimed he was punching the man in the face in self-defence because he got threatened. You might say "Ah but he wasn't convicted", which is true; but nor has Terry been convicted of any criminal offence, yet he still hasn't punched anyone in the face, has he? Well, not yet anyway. Perhaps tomorrow's News of the World will bring further revelations and perhaps that will make it even worse for him; we'll have to wait and see - well, I won't because I won't be buying it, but everyone else can make up their minds.
Everyone's aiming lower. Terry aims to outdo himself; the journalists reporting him aim to outdo themselves; and those replacing Terry as the figurehead of the England team haven't exactly covered themselves in glory in the past. Perhaps the thinking is that they've got their misdemeanours out of the way and the captaincy - the thought of holding that trophy aloft if England were to win the World Cup and to be taken into immortality - will be a good behaviour bond for them. That might be smart thinking, if it's been done that way. Might be.
In the meantime, the Terry story shows no signs of going away; as much as it's damaging to him it's obviously more damaging to those close to him, his family and friends. But now it's reached the point of no return, and it's a fairly easy free hit for everyone to have a bash at writing about it - and I'm no different, of course. I see (but which I hadn't seen) Jan Moir and Liz Jones have had a bash at it in the Mail, in their usual insipid and largely unreadable way. I almost end up feeling sorry for them as well. They must really hate themselves, having to write that guff every week, having to dredge up such clumsy tedium.
Hmm. It seems I've ended up feeling sorry for everyone. I must be a soft touch. This will pass, I'm sure, but in the meantime I can only apologise.
Poor old Terry. It takes quite a lot to make me feel sympathy for such an odious character, but I did a bit this week. A bit. Don't get me wrong, I don't love him all of a sudden or something, and I certainly don't think any more of him this week than I did last week, but blimey. Being John Terry must feel a bit like being Ray Liotta in Goodfellas - constantly followed, knowing you're going to be found out, with a helicopter circling overhead - except it doesn't belong to the CIA or FBI, it belongs to Sky News. Ah, what would the BBC's detractors have to say if Auntie had taken a helicopter up to film a man's car driving along a road? All of a sudden, Terry was OJ. Except he hadn't fled from police and wasn't a suspect in a murder investigation; he got caught doing the nasty on his wife and family. What a spectacular week for Sky News - having made Peter Andre cry in a fairly tawdry bit of telly, they decided to aim just that bit lower. Many congratulations for trying to outdo themselves, though; it just goes to show they're always striving to be thought of as more awful than they already are.
But after all this, the England football team has a new captain. In place of someone who cheated on his wife, which was nothing to do with football, is someone who's currently going through a four-match ban for being violent on the football field; someone who previously forgot to take a drugs test and went out shopping. It's nice to know that the England football team, like Sky News, is always aiming a little bit lower. In case Rio Ferdinand - catchphrase "YOU'VE BEEN MERKED BRUV! HAHAHAHA!" during those never-to-be-forgotten World Cup Windups of years gone by - gets injured, there's always Steve Gerrard, a man who covered himself in glory last year by punching a DJ in the face, but who got away with it because he claimed he was punching the man in the face in self-defence because he got threatened. You might say "Ah but he wasn't convicted", which is true; but nor has Terry been convicted of any criminal offence, yet he still hasn't punched anyone in the face, has he? Well, not yet anyway. Perhaps tomorrow's News of the World will bring further revelations and perhaps that will make it even worse for him; we'll have to wait and see - well, I won't because I won't be buying it, but everyone else can make up their minds.
Everyone's aiming lower. Terry aims to outdo himself; the journalists reporting him aim to outdo themselves; and those replacing Terry as the figurehead of the England team haven't exactly covered themselves in glory in the past. Perhaps the thinking is that they've got their misdemeanours out of the way and the captaincy - the thought of holding that trophy aloft if England were to win the World Cup and to be taken into immortality - will be a good behaviour bond for them. That might be smart thinking, if it's been done that way. Might be.
In the meantime, the Terry story shows no signs of going away; as much as it's damaging to him it's obviously more damaging to those close to him, his family and friends. But now it's reached the point of no return, and it's a fairly easy free hit for everyone to have a bash at writing about it - and I'm no different, of course. I see (but which I hadn't seen) Jan Moir and Liz Jones have had a bash at it in the Mail, in their usual insipid and largely unreadable way. I almost end up feeling sorry for them as well. They must really hate themselves, having to write that guff every week, having to dredge up such clumsy tedium.
Hmm. It seems I've ended up feeling sorry for everyone. I must be a soft touch. This will pass, I'm sure, but in the meantime I can only apologise.
Friday, 5 February 2010
Listen up. Things are going to change
...though not completely, so don't worry.
As I wrote about a little while ago, there are going to be a few changes around the shambles that is here. I've already started making some of them - you may have noticed; you may not; you may be one of those people who stumbles across this place looking for some other place, or runs off in despair, having read a couple of paragraphs. I don't mind.
There will be a couple of other things changing too. Not just cosmetic, though that's going to happen. And soon. And I hope you like it. But I'll let you know about it all once it's done. Or rather, you'll see it. And go "Wow, how exciting!" or something.
As I wrote about a little while ago, there are going to be a few changes around the shambles that is here. I've already started making some of them - you may have noticed; you may not; you may be one of those people who stumbles across this place looking for some other place, or runs off in despair, having read a couple of paragraphs. I don't mind.
There will be a couple of other things changing too. Not just cosmetic, though that's going to happen. And soon. And I hope you like it. But I'll let you know about it all once it's done. Or rather, you'll see it. And go "Wow, how exciting!" or something.
Let he who is without... and all that
Sometimes it's wrong to sneer. Sometimes it's perfectly right, because some things deserve to be sneered at, but sometimes it's wrong. I find today's Guardian article by Roy Greenslade* about the new London Weekly newspaper a bit too sneery for its own good:
What a hoot!
Yeah, it's not like the Guardian would ever do celebrity news, is it? Oh hang on, what's this? Speaking of Bruce Willis, here's an interview with his daughter, Rumer, in the pages of the, let me, see, Guardian!
Ah, I see. Those are the lofty heights to which the London Weekly should aspire. Greenslade blog again:
Ho ho. Searching for Phil Tufnell in the Guardian's website, though, brings up this masterpiece of journalistic brilliance, the Strictly Come Dancing Liveblog:
And you have to admire the sheer nerve of the Guardian of taking the piss out of someone else for making spelling mistakes. Here's today's Corrections and Clarifications column, by the way:
Oh well, it was only page five of a national newspaper. Carry on having a right old laugh at the London Weekly, eh!
It might look a bit amateurish, this newspaper, but blimey. Let he who is without... and all that, surely? I make more than my fair share of speling errers here, after all...
* Or someone else, in fact. If he's not writing it, why is his enormous face at the top though? You don't get "Littlejohn - written this week by a putrid hyena that's been run over by a truck" do you? Though that may, of course, be an improvement.
But it has launched. To wide derision. We have finally got a copy in the office and are scanning some more pictures for your delectation.
What a hoot!
Page two asks: "Do you have any celebrity gossip? E-mail showbiz@thelondonweekly.co.uk" above stories such as "Bruce Willis won't say No to kids" and "Jude Law maturing into happiness".
Yeah, it's not like the Guardian would ever do celebrity news, is it? Oh hang on, what's this? Speaking of Bruce Willis, here's an interview with his daughter, Rumer, in the pages of the, let me, see, Guardian!
Do your parents [Demi Moore and Willis] give you acting tips?
They've always given me advice. If I had an audition or something, I'd work with them on it, or if I had a script that I was reading I'd ask them to check it out. They're extremely supportive. I couldn't ask for anything more.
Ah, I see. Those are the lofty heights to which the London Weekly should aspire. Greenslade blog again:
Page three may actually includes some fresh, "exclusive" content: "The London Weekly talks to Former England cricket professional, jungle king and dancing star Phil Tufnell who is set to make 2010 a year to remember with his New Year resolution to quit smoking." So, Phil, drop us a line and let us know how your interview with London's newest paper went.
Ho ho. Searching for Phil Tufnell in the Guardian's website, though, brings up this masterpiece of journalistic brilliance, the Strictly Come Dancing Liveblog:
6.41pm: A big drum-roll to welcome the finalists. Ola is wearing a dress that has horrific shoulder-pads. Natalie's dress has a pretty sequinned bodice and a feathery skirt. Bruce makes a funny-because-it's-true joke about Chris crying if he loses because Ola will beat him.
And you have to admire the sheer nerve of the Guardian of taking the piss out of someone else for making spelling mistakes. Here's today's Corrections and Clarifications column, by the way:
In an auction story, Giacometti's thin man makes fat price, the artist made additional appearances as Giacommeti and Giacommetti (4 February, page 5).
Oh well, it was only page five of a national newspaper. Carry on having a right old laugh at the London Weekly, eh!
It might look a bit amateurish, this newspaper, but blimey. Let he who is without... and all that, surely? I make more than my fair share of speling errers here, after all...
* Or someone else, in fact. If he's not writing it, why is his enormous face at the top though? You don't get "Littlejohn - written this week by a putrid hyena that's been run over by a truck" do you? Though that may, of course, be an improvement.
Orly?
The Telegraph is proud to bring you this breaking news:
Orly? Because I thought the ban was only in one Tesco store, in St Mellons:
According to the Telegraph:
I'm pretty sure it was just in one store. Perhaps Danielle Lloyd lives in St Mellons, in which case, fair enough. But she doesn't:
I think it's fair enough to ban anyone from wearing £120 tracksuits anyway - unless they're Jimmy Savile. But I can't help wondering if this is just a bit of maggot-dangling from Lloyd, which has been eagerly snapped up by thecelebrity obsessed tabloid press top-selling quality broadsheet in Britain. As it was, the original story is a fairly brilliant bit of news about nothing anyway, getting Tesco bang into the headlines for no good reason whatsoever. And now a bonus - a double dose of churnalism. Well, every little helps.
Danielle Lloyd 'targeted' by Tesco pyjama ban despite wearing £120 tracksuit
Danielle Lloyd, the glamour model, has complained that Tesco staff tried to bar her from a store after mistaking her designer tracksuit for pyjamas.
Orly? Because I thought the ban was only in one Tesco store, in St Mellons:
A Tesco store has asked customers not to shop in their pyjamas or barefoot.
Notices have been put up in the chain's supermarket in St Mellons in Cardiff saying: "Footwear must be worn at all times and no nightwear is permitted."
According to the Telegraph:
The supermarket giant has introduced a dress code banning people from shopping in their pyjamas, it emerged last week.
I'm pretty sure it was just in one store. Perhaps Danielle Lloyd lives in St Mellons, in which case, fair enough. But she doesn't:
But Lloyd, 26, said she was wearing a Juicy Couture tracksuit when staff at the Tesco Express in Theydon Bois, Essex, accosted her over her attire.
I think it's fair enough to ban anyone from wearing £120 tracksuits anyway - unless they're Jimmy Savile. But I can't help wondering if this is just a bit of maggot-dangling from Lloyd, which has been eagerly snapped up by the
It's compassion Friday!
The story - a teenage girl tried to enter Britain illegally by hiding in a car dashboard. The newspaper - the Mail. The response?
Not all comments were voted as popular by fellow readers, though, and some received red arrows of disapproval:
Ah, it makes you proud, doesn't it. No...?
Not all comments were voted as popular by fellow readers, though, and some received red arrows of disapproval:
Ah, it makes you proud, doesn't it. No...?
Thursday, 4 February 2010
ZaNuLab jumps the shark
You thought it was only ham-faced idiots greencrayoning ill-thought-out responses to online news articles who thought that 'ZaNuLabour' was still funny, didn't you? As with 'Harperson', it's the kind of feeble poo-throwing that provokes not even so much as the chortle it probably didn't even bring about in the first place - but it's been so long ago, and I've seen it repeated so many times, that it's almost become the real name of the Labour Party*. But... it's not just the online comment bumgrapes who use the term. Now it's real MPs.
Now I'm all for MPs being allowed to say what they like and not being tied to some kind of on-message party machine, and to have the ability to express themselves in whatever way they see fit, but Jesus. ZaNuLabour? In what way are Labour supposedly acting like ZaNuPDF, according to Rob Wilson MP? Oh, by introducing electoral reform. They're just like them in that regard, I see. Silly me. I didn't realise that introducing electoral reform - and we can argue later about the late, late stage at which it's been brought in, the hastiness of it, presumably as a sop to the left or to attract wavering Lib Dems, or whatever, and the supposed rubbishness of the story itself - was a bit like how Robert Mugabe might behave. Now it all makes perfect sense. It's 'rigging the electoral system'. Somehow. And there's even a hilarious joke about Lib Dems in there!
Sparkling.
Thanks to @liquidindian for spotting it!
* Ah, you might say, but wasn't 'Tory' originally an offensive slang term? It was, yes. But it was reclaimed. People like the Tory Reform Group**, the sort of Tories a dripping-wet leftie like me can think of as being anything other than despicable, are quite happy to use the term.
** Ah, you might say, but surely they just chose that name to avoid the rather oxymoronic idea of 'Conservative Reform'. Which is possible but I'm sure they could have thought of another name if Tory had really been so much of a problem.
Now I'm all for MPs being allowed to say what they like and not being tied to some kind of on-message party machine, and to have the ability to express themselves in whatever way they see fit, but Jesus. ZaNuLabour? In what way are Labour supposedly acting like ZaNuPDF, according to Rob Wilson MP? Oh, by introducing electoral reform. They're just like them in that regard, I see. Silly me. I didn't realise that introducing electoral reform - and we can argue later about the late, late stage at which it's been brought in, the hastiness of it, presumably as a sop to the left or to attract wavering Lib Dems, or whatever, and the supposed rubbishness of the story itself - was a bit like how Robert Mugabe might behave. Now it all makes perfect sense. It's 'rigging the electoral system'. Somehow. And there's even a hilarious joke about Lib Dems in there!
Sparkling.
Thanks to @liquidindian for spotting it!
* Ah, you might say, but wasn't 'Tory' originally an offensive slang term? It was, yes. But it was reclaimed. People like the Tory Reform Group**, the sort of Tories a dripping-wet leftie like me can think of as being anything other than despicable, are quite happy to use the term.
** Ah, you might say, but surely they just chose that name to avoid the rather oxymoronic idea of 'Conservative Reform'. Which is possible but I'm sure they could have thought of another name if Tory had really been so much of a problem.
Ban this sick filth!
I do love the spam-handedness with which newspapers try to grasp hold of Twitter, like whoever wrote this headline in the Daily Express. Twitter page? But yes, I am sure that 'Diana fans' will have been upset by this - as upset as they ought to have been by the ridiculous conspiracy theories constantly dragged out repeatedly on the front page of one daily newspaper, over a period of years... ah, but if only I could remember the name of that newspaper...? Hmm. I'm sure it'll come to me.
Ah. Hang on... yes...
And this isn't the first time that the Express have thrown their hands up in faux outrage over a Diana spoof, either:
Quite right too. We wouldn't want to besmirch the memory of Diana with anything tawdry, would we?
Via, of course, the brilliant @dianainheaven.
MigrationWatch job application
Dear Sir Andrew,
I am very excited by the opportunity advertised on your website for the position of director of research, with a corking starting salary of £45k. I mean, kerching! But I'm getting ahead of myself. What I mean to say is "I should like to offer my humble services and I am looking forward greatly to the challenge. I'm a confident self-starter with a bulging contacts book and yadda yadda you get the general idea with all that."
Admittedly, I haven't attended one of the 20 universities you consider good enough, and I don't know very much about statistics. But I think with this role, an absence of knowledge about statistics is very much an advantage. How else could I be expected to prepare a press release which implies that it's Britain's immigration policies which have meant our total of migrants is three times the world average, when the reality is very different, other than being ignorant about statistics? How else, other than by an ignorance about statistics, would I be able to put together an opinion poll with the options "Delighted", "Wouldn't mind", "Slightly worried", "Very worried" and "Don't know", about some extrapolated figures that may not even prove to be accurate? If I knew about statistics, surely I wouldn't do that.
I mean, the only other explanation would be that you deliberately skew statistics in order to reach a pre-decided conclusion or create the wrong impression, misleading journalists and their readers alike; but I know that's not the case, because in your job advertisement you're very clear about being an 'independent' think-tank - and independent think-tanks wouldn't have agendas, would they?
You say in the job advert that "MW is now recognised as the leading source for independent expert commentary on matters relating to migration into and out of the United Kingdom," and that sounds like an organisation I'd love to be part of. I should love to highlight the positive effects that immigration has had on Britain as well as those that may be perceived as negative. I know that as a leading source of independent expert commentary, you wouldn't want to be seen as being just a bunch of red-faced old bastards going "Wuurgggggggh! Foreigners!" and complaining about every aspect of immigration; so I'm sure you would like to use statistics to show that immigrants aren't all bad, and have benefited our country greatly. At MigrationWatch, we - look at me! "We". Feet under the table already! - need to provide the real facts that will help the public decide about immigration; and I know that, as an independent think-tank, you wouldn't simply want to say the same thing again, and again, and again, and again, always putting one side of the argument and never the other - that's not in the spirit of independence, is it?
We could, for example, use some statistics to try and calculate how much tax and national insurance our hard-working immigrants are paying - not just the big-earning footballers, of course, but the humble shopworkers and tradespeople as well - and compare it with greedy tax avoiders who are draining the life out of Britain. These are just a couple of suggestions; I hope you don't mind. I'm very keen to show you that I'd be able to take on a variety of roles for this vacancy.
If you do not consider me suitable for this position, I do have another suggestion as to the ideal candidate: Chris Grayling. I have a feeling he might be seeking alternative employment in the very near future, and he clearly has the kind of grasp on statistics that you're looking for. If, for whatever reason, you would prefer not to have me working for you, it would be nice if he could get a look-in, as he's having a hell of a time at the moment.
Thank you very much for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
With love,
Anton.
I am very excited by the opportunity advertised on your website for the position of director of research, with a corking starting salary of £45k. I mean, kerching! But I'm getting ahead of myself. What I mean to say is "I should like to offer my humble services and I am looking forward greatly to the challenge. I'm a confident self-starter with a bulging contacts book and yadda yadda you get the general idea with all that."
Admittedly, I haven't attended one of the 20 universities you consider good enough, and I don't know very much about statistics. But I think with this role, an absence of knowledge about statistics is very much an advantage. How else could I be expected to prepare a press release which implies that it's Britain's immigration policies which have meant our total of migrants is three times the world average, when the reality is very different, other than being ignorant about statistics? How else, other than by an ignorance about statistics, would I be able to put together an opinion poll with the options "Delighted", "Wouldn't mind", "Slightly worried", "Very worried" and "Don't know", about some extrapolated figures that may not even prove to be accurate? If I knew about statistics, surely I wouldn't do that.
I mean, the only other explanation would be that you deliberately skew statistics in order to reach a pre-decided conclusion or create the wrong impression, misleading journalists and their readers alike; but I know that's not the case, because in your job advertisement you're very clear about being an 'independent' think-tank - and independent think-tanks wouldn't have agendas, would they?
You say in the job advert that "MW is now recognised as the leading source for independent expert commentary on matters relating to migration into and out of the United Kingdom," and that sounds like an organisation I'd love to be part of. I should love to highlight the positive effects that immigration has had on Britain as well as those that may be perceived as negative. I know that as a leading source of independent expert commentary, you wouldn't want to be seen as being just a bunch of red-faced old bastards going "Wuurgggggggh! Foreigners!" and complaining about every aspect of immigration; so I'm sure you would like to use statistics to show that immigrants aren't all bad, and have benefited our country greatly. At MigrationWatch, we - look at me! "We". Feet under the table already! - need to provide the real facts that will help the public decide about immigration; and I know that, as an independent think-tank, you wouldn't simply want to say the same thing again, and again, and again, and again, always putting one side of the argument and never the other - that's not in the spirit of independence, is it?
We could, for example, use some statistics to try and calculate how much tax and national insurance our hard-working immigrants are paying - not just the big-earning footballers, of course, but the humble shopworkers and tradespeople as well - and compare it with greedy tax avoiders who are draining the life out of Britain. These are just a couple of suggestions; I hope you don't mind. I'm very keen to show you that I'd be able to take on a variety of roles for this vacancy.
If you do not consider me suitable for this position, I do have another suggestion as to the ideal candidate: Chris Grayling. I have a feeling he might be seeking alternative employment in the very near future, and he clearly has the kind of grasp on statistics that you're looking for. If, for whatever reason, you would prefer not to have me working for you, it would be nice if he could get a look-in, as he's having a hell of a time at the moment.
Thank you very much for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
With love,
Anton.
Hooray for freedom!
Last year a tabloid newspaper reported that a Premier League manager had been caught visiting a brothel, but did not name him or identify the location.
At the time, the newspaper blamed “creeping privacy laws” for preventing it from publishing further details.
It followed a number of cases in which wealthy and famous individuals had successfully used the Human Rights Act to gag the media.
But a landmark ruling by Mr Justice Tugendhat last week swung the pendulum back in favour of freedom of speech, when he revoked an injunction granted to John Terry, the Chelsea and England captain, which had blocked reporting of his extra-marital affair.
Thank goodness for that pendulum swinging back in favour of freedom of speech - otherwise we wouldn't know which football manager it was who visited a brothel. I mean, can you imagine a world in which we weren't allowed to be told about who had done that? You know, someone who'd never said anything about family values, or campaigned on such, and so wasn't a hypocrite, but who just happened to visit a brothel, because he wanted to pay someone to have sex with them? Can you imagine a world in which we weren't allowed to know that?
Isn't it a much more wonderful world in which we can look around us and thank ourselves for the freedom - freedom! - to know who's been to a brothel and who hasn't. Ah, freedom. Free at last! Hooray for the pendulum of freedom!
I imagine the newspapers will use the pendulum of freedom, so wonderfully swinging back in the direction of the righteous and just, in order to expose genuine corruption, point out wrongdoing, and set things to rights. And it won't just be a series of shabby exposes of sex antics of celebrities, will it? I mean, they will use this freedom properly, won't they...?
Now the claws really come out
John Terry has been rightly vilified for what he's done to his wife and family. I might not think he deserves to lose the England captaincy for his off-the-field awfulness - there'd be a pretty short list to take over from him if that was how we judged our footballers - but he's not some misunderstood diamond geezer either.
Liz Hunt guessed - and that's all it was - in the Telegraph that men were more sympathetic towards Terry than women after the revelations came out. Oh, and wrote some shit as well:
Yeah, hilarious.
YouGov, on the other hand, came out with something that said women were more forgiving of Terry than men. Who knows whether that's true or not? What you can be pretty sure of is that the claws were eventually going to come out for the woman involved in this story, Vanessa Perroncel. And so they have.
One? Who's 'one' when one's at home? Four people - count them, four people - laid this cable in the Mail today. Were they all wondering, as one, these things?
Yeah, brilliant. Keep going, this is tremendous.
I don't quite understand that. Who else? Well probably someone else, I don't know. I don't think the pregnancy was really planned, hence the abortion. And I love the disdain with which "someone touting their story around Fleet Street" is regarded by a newspaper which has gleefully joined in with the story - including articles like this one. They don't want to miss out on the feeding frenzy, but of course they want you to know it's a very shabby business.
Let's not.
The men in this story, then, are portrayed as mere victims of the sexually insatiable Perroncel. "Poor" Wayne Bridge, for example. They are just a list of unfortunates who were incapable of not having sex with her. It's a fairly dismal way of looking at women - the predatory female who leaves a train of victims in her wake, as if all her partners were somehow powerless to prevent themselves from succumbing.
One wonders, does one? I don't know, how about bothering them to try and find out? Oh, you have. There are some fairly bland quotes from an uncle of Perroncel's, presumably the only slightly derogatory things he said in an hour-long interview, plucked out of thin air and transported to this story, to give the maximum impact against her.
How dare someone go out and enjoy themselves, ever? With someone else, as well - how could they? Shameless! Might they have toasted the judge? Who knows? Who cares? Does it matter? It's something that no-one will ever know, and it's pointless to speculate.
Terry has emerged from this mucky saga as very damaged goods, and rightly so of course as far as his public profile is concerned. But this just goes to show that it's always the female for whom the real venom is reserved. Why that might be, it's hard to say. But the claws are coming out.
Liz Hunt guessed - and that's all it was - in the Telegraph that men were more sympathetic towards Terry than women after the revelations came out. Oh, and wrote some shit as well:
For obvious reasons, I'll dispense with the claims made for Terry's virtues off-pitch. Consider instead whether he's still deserving of the accolades applied to his performances on-pitch. "Bonkers bravery"? Well, he's been bonking bravely, for sure. "Faultless positioning"? Faultless indeed – until he was exposed, very publicly, as having played off-side. Still, his ''distribution'' remains impressive, if you take into account the alleged liaisons with Jenny, Karina, Nicola and Shalimar et al that filled the weekend tabloids.
Yeah, hilarious.
YouGov, on the other hand, came out with something that said women were more forgiving of Terry than men. Who knows whether that's true or not? What you can be pretty sure of is that the claws were eventually going to come out for the woman involved in this story, Vanessa Perroncel. And so they have.
There is a word the French use to describe women like Vanessa Perroncel. The word is effronte, and it means barefaced, or shameless.
One could think of a number of other adjectives to describe the pneumatic Miss Perroncel, but 'shameless' is probably the most polite.
One? Who's 'one' when one's at home? Four people - count them, four people - laid this cable in the Mail today. Were they all wondering, as one, these things?
We have now been given the names of another two Stamford Bridge stars who allegedly succumbed to Miss Perroncel's charms, bringing the grand total to seven - four of whom were named publicly in a red-top newspaper yesterday.
Perhaps by the end of the week she will have been linked to a full team of 11 highly paid Chelsea footballers.
Yeah, brilliant. Keep going, this is tremendous.
Who else but Miss Perroncel could have had an affair with England captain Terry, fallen pregnant by him, had an abortion, wrecking God knows how many lives in the process, then touted her story around Fleet Street - for a figure in excess of £250,000 - promising to set the record straight as though she was the victim of this shabby debacle which threatens to derail England's World Cup campaign?
I don't quite understand that. Who else? Well probably someone else, I don't know. I don't think the pregnancy was really planned, hence the abortion. And I love the disdain with which "someone touting their story around Fleet Street" is regarded by a newspaper which has gleefully joined in with the story - including articles like this one. They don't want to miss out on the feeding frenzy, but of course they want you to know it's a very shabby business.
Of course, as we know, poor Wayne was not the first Chelsea player to fall for the French beauty.
Let's go through the list.
Let's not.
The men in this story, then, are portrayed as mere victims of the sexually insatiable Perroncel. "Poor" Wayne Bridge, for example. They are just a list of unfortunates who were incapable of not having sex with her. It's a fairly dismal way of looking at women - the predatory female who leaves a train of victims in her wake, as if all her partners were somehow powerless to prevent themselves from succumbing.
There is also a fifth player, who cannot be named for legal reasons.
Our own inquiries have also linked Miss Perroncel to another two current Chelsea stars.
One wonders what her family makes of it back in France.
One wonders, does one? I don't know, how about bothering them to try and find out? Oh, you have. There are some fairly bland quotes from an uncle of Perroncel's, presumably the only slightly derogatory things he said in an hour-long interview, plucked out of thin air and transported to this story, to give the maximum impact against her.
The judge initially granted the gagging order.
The following night, Miss Perroncel was living it up at London's Chinawhite nightclub with Elen Rives, the former partner of Chelsea star Frank Lampard, who was celebrating her 35th birthday.
Miss Rives is believed to be one of the few WAGs standing by Miss Perroncel.
Might the two have toasted the judge who ruled that John Terry's dirty secret was to remain just that?
'Wayne (Bridge) was horrified that Vanessa and Elen Rives spent that Saturday night drinking and partying at Chinawhite,' says a friend.
'She was there throwing herself about on the dance floor, flirting and thinking she had escaped.'
As we said, shameless.
How dare someone go out and enjoy themselves, ever? With someone else, as well - how could they? Shameless! Might they have toasted the judge? Who knows? Who cares? Does it matter? It's something that no-one will ever know, and it's pointless to speculate.
Terry has emerged from this mucky saga as very damaged goods, and rightly so of course as far as his public profile is concerned. But this just goes to show that it's always the female for whom the real venom is reserved. Why that might be, it's hard to say. But the claws are coming out.
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
In for a penny, in for a pound
After ensuring my place in hell yesterday thanks to calling the Pope a "ridiculous old cunt" and "an elderly virgin who believes in magic", I may as well add treason to the list. I say 'treason' but I wouldn't think it treacherous to label a well-meaning twerp a well-meaning twerp. And yes, it's Prince Charles, the future face on our stamps and banknotes, that I'm on about.
Hang on, so did the entirely unfair and unjust principle of hereditary monarchy - I imagine you'll distance yourself from those outdated ideas as well, Charles? No, thought not. Put the Enlightenment into context, in an era when this fool's ancestors ruled through the 'divine right of kings', and it's perfectly understandable why Charles should dislike it so much. Gone are the dog days when monarchs fought it out among themselves to see who had the biggest guns and the fastest ships; now the wretched proles are allowed to take charge through some ghastly principle of democracy. Ugh. Isn't it?
I'm with him on the bird boxes though. Nice to have birds nesting in places. But don't ideas about conservation come from, oh I don't know, more than 200 years ago? Should we ignore them, because they're old, and therefore automatically outdated, unlike the principle of some people getting huge privileges just because of which fanny they slipped out of, which is somehow all right in Charles's modern-thinking world?
Our future head of state, ladies and gentlemen.
''I was accused once of being the enemy of the Enlightenment. I felt rather proud. I thought hang on a moment, the enlightenment started over 200 years ago," he said.
Hang on, so did the entirely unfair and unjust principle of hereditary monarchy - I imagine you'll distance yourself from those outdated ideas as well, Charles? No, thought not. Put the Enlightenment into context, in an era when this fool's ancestors ruled through the 'divine right of kings', and it's perfectly understandable why Charles should dislike it so much. Gone are the dog days when monarchs fought it out among themselves to see who had the biggest guns and the fastest ships; now the wretched proles are allowed to take charge through some ghastly principle of democracy. Ugh. Isn't it?
The Prince also proclaimed that he battled hard on issues despite facing ''unbelievable abuse''.
This comment came as he talked about his recommendations that bird boxes be built on Foundation properties.
I'm with him on the bird boxes though. Nice to have birds nesting in places. But don't ideas about conservation come from, oh I don't know, more than 200 years ago? Should we ignore them, because they're old, and therefore automatically outdated, unlike the principle of some people getting huge privileges just because of which fanny they slipped out of, which is somehow all right in Charles's modern-thinking world?
Our future head of state, ladies and gentlemen.
Express Have Your Say: My brain hurts
If you've ever listened to the Jeremy Vine show and thought "Blimey, some of the rum old suspects who phone up are a bit on the bewildering side", or even popped onto the BBC's Have Your Say forum and thought that the people posting messages were often a tiny bit angry, you've not seen anything until you've been onto the Express Have Your Say section.
Here's today's subject up for debate:
Ho ho. Has the 'Harperson' hilarity still not gone away?* Is it still just as pant-wettingly jocular as it always was? See, she's a woman, but the word 'man' is in her name, and she does equality shit and all that, so she's 'Harperson', do you see? Do you get it? It's brilliant, isn't it? It's all grown up and funny and that. Isn't it? Yes. Harperson. Not HarMAN, but HarPERSON. It's the joke that keeps on giving. Just when you think it's not possible for it to be funny any more, it creeps up on you and surprises you, and gets you roaring with laughter again. No point trying to fight it. She's Harperson now. Our journalistic discourse is so advanced that national newspapers can simply change someone's name, it's all funny, and everyone laughs. Can't wait until David Camercunt takes power, that'll be brilliant.
Well, there you have it. These are the lofty heights scaled by Express Have Your Sayers. I'm underselling it really. You try and wade through the debate and you'll find yourself incapable of carrying on. I think it's a first, because this is something that's genuinely unreadable. You can't read it. Go on, try. I'll be here waiting. Try reading the comments. You can't! No-one can. No-one could possibly be able to read it all. There is no way of getting through it all - if you can manage it, I salute you.
But then that level of debate is brought about by the SHOUTY RUBBISHNESS of the questions:
And I think it's there that I've found one of the most perfect internet comments ever. In fact I'm beginning to suspect there are ever more sophisticated bots that turn up on internet sites and leave random comments from a template. Surely it can't be real people doing this, can it?
They will have to get used to beening a Christian country, though, that's true. Ah well, not quite ironed out all the bugs yet.
* You may well, at this point, call me out as a hypocrite for my frequent use of 'Littlecock' to refer to the Daily Mail's star columnist Richard Littlejohn. You may well, quite rightly, suggest that it's not particularly grown-up of me to do so, when there are so many more ways of making him out to be stupid than simply mucking about with his name. That is true, and, insomuch as I do these things, I am a hypocrite. However, for as long as slightly changing people's names in a pointless attempt at humour ("Ram Jam Choudhary", for example, in a recent column that was so brilliant and so incisive, he should be Prime Minister) is Littlecock's stock in trade, he'll always be Littlecock around here.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Everybody Geerts
In all this excitement about some bigoted old ex-Hitler Youth fool popping over to Britain to spread prejudice develop closer links with the many millions who adore him up and down the country, another story has slipped under the radar. It's a story about another hatemongering idiot making a visit to the UK - Geert Wilders, the anti-Muslim filmmaker who was previously invited over by UKIP big cheese Lord Pearson but wasn't allowed into the country over security fears.
I wonder if there aren't some comparisons we could make between the two, both of whom should, I think, be welcomed through gritted teeth and allowed to do whatever the hell they like, so long as it's not chucking horse-shit at a mosque or absent-mindedly doing Nazi salutes. They're both deeply unpleasant human beings who cause division and anger - but that doesn't mean they should be prevented from visiting. I'm a little squeamish about the red-carpet treatment offered up to them, from the politicians who court the hateful ferret Wilders and those who will welcome Il Papa, but I suppose that's the price you pay for being a free society. A little squeamishness is OK.
One thing that strikes me is that there shouldn't be double standards. For example, I'm very relaxed about immigration, and about allowing immigrants to behave pretty much however they want and say whatever they like, so long as it's within the law of the land. I think that's fine. So it would be a bit wrong if I suddenly said that different principles should apply to guests or visitors. If the Pope wants to visit Britain and tell us we're all shit, that's very much up to him. Unlike the Vatican, we're quite comfortable with dissent. And if Wilders wants to pop over here and spout his bullshit, that's fine too, as long as he isn't especially provocative about where he does it. Freedoms of this country shouldn't just be there for those who were born here, in my opinion.
And yes, we'll be footing the bill. I don't like it, but I'm afraid these things happen. My tax pounds, few though they are, go to paying for all kinds of things I don't like - including wars and needless deaths. They pay for a lot worse things than simply allowing some ridiculous old cunt to be prejudiced without getting a bullet through his head. And all sorts of murdering bastards have been welcomed on state visits down the years, munched swan with Her Maj and had cheery talks in Number 10; sometimes you wonder if the carpets are coloured red because it hides the bloodstains. For diplomatic purposes, Cardinal Ratzinger, like dignitaries from other vile regimes, is someone we bow and scrape to. I don't like it any more than I liked seeing George Bush getting all chummy with the royal family or Tony Blair. But. It's one of those times when you have to wince and remember that you're being the bigger person.
I know the odious Ratzinger is not just a very nasty piece of work, but also someone who has openly criticised the policies of the current Government, but that shouldn't affect our ability to be decent towards him either. We can't just say that we'll provide decent security for the people we like, and not the ones we don't. Ratzinger, like Wilders, deserves not to be assassinated.
The same freedoms of course extend to anyone who wants to protest about the visits of these hideous men. If they want to shout abuse at Il Papa while he's on his way to a meet and greet, then that's fine, and people doing the protesting should have their right to do it protected. If people want to call Wilders all kinds of names as the silly-haired bastard is on his way into the House of Lords, that's fine too. And our tax pounds will pay for that, as well, and I don't object at all.
All I would say is that Wilders, unlike Il Papa, would probably delight in a victim mentality. He'd love to be prevented from screening his shit-smeared film and claim that he's the one on the receiving end of prejudice, rather than being the instigator of prejudice. Little racists like him love to portray themselves as being the true minority; they crave the victim status of the genuine minorities they loathe so much. Let anyone have their say, by all means, but not prevent him from speaking, as that's playing into his hands. As well as that, it plays into his agenda, and that of certain media outlets; they will get to show Muslims as being shouty, aggressive, people who close down debates and squash freedom - they may well be portrayed that way anyway, but the less ammunition that gets handed over for free, the better, I think.
I wonder if there aren't some comparisons we could make between the two, both of whom should, I think, be welcomed through gritted teeth and allowed to do whatever the hell they like, so long as it's not chucking horse-shit at a mosque or absent-mindedly doing Nazi salutes. They're both deeply unpleasant human beings who cause division and anger - but that doesn't mean they should be prevented from visiting. I'm a little squeamish about the red-carpet treatment offered up to them, from the politicians who court the hateful ferret Wilders and those who will welcome Il Papa, but I suppose that's the price you pay for being a free society. A little squeamishness is OK.
One thing that strikes me is that there shouldn't be double standards. For example, I'm very relaxed about immigration, and about allowing immigrants to behave pretty much however they want and say whatever they like, so long as it's within the law of the land. I think that's fine. So it would be a bit wrong if I suddenly said that different principles should apply to guests or visitors. If the Pope wants to visit Britain and tell us we're all shit, that's very much up to him. Unlike the Vatican, we're quite comfortable with dissent. And if Wilders wants to pop over here and spout his bullshit, that's fine too, as long as he isn't especially provocative about where he does it. Freedoms of this country shouldn't just be there for those who were born here, in my opinion.
And yes, we'll be footing the bill. I don't like it, but I'm afraid these things happen. My tax pounds, few though they are, go to paying for all kinds of things I don't like - including wars and needless deaths. They pay for a lot worse things than simply allowing some ridiculous old cunt to be prejudiced without getting a bullet through his head. And all sorts of murdering bastards have been welcomed on state visits down the years, munched swan with Her Maj and had cheery talks in Number 10; sometimes you wonder if the carpets are coloured red because it hides the bloodstains. For diplomatic purposes, Cardinal Ratzinger, like dignitaries from other vile regimes, is someone we bow and scrape to. I don't like it any more than I liked seeing George Bush getting all chummy with the royal family or Tony Blair. But. It's one of those times when you have to wince and remember that you're being the bigger person.
I know the odious Ratzinger is not just a very nasty piece of work, but also someone who has openly criticised the policies of the current Government, but that shouldn't affect our ability to be decent towards him either. We can't just say that we'll provide decent security for the people we like, and not the ones we don't. Ratzinger, like Wilders, deserves not to be assassinated.
The same freedoms of course extend to anyone who wants to protest about the visits of these hideous men. If they want to shout abuse at Il Papa while he's on his way to a meet and greet, then that's fine, and people doing the protesting should have their right to do it protected. If people want to call Wilders all kinds of names as the silly-haired bastard is on his way into the House of Lords, that's fine too. And our tax pounds will pay for that, as well, and I don't object at all.
All I would say is that Wilders, unlike Il Papa, would probably delight in a victim mentality. He'd love to be prevented from screening his shit-smeared film and claim that he's the one on the receiving end of prejudice, rather than being the instigator of prejudice. Little racists like him love to portray themselves as being the true minority; they crave the victim status of the genuine minorities they loathe so much. Let anyone have their say, by all means, but not prevent him from speaking, as that's playing into his hands. As well as that, it plays into his agenda, and that of certain media outlets; they will get to show Muslims as being shouty, aggressive, people who close down debates and squash freedom - they may well be portrayed that way anyway, but the less ammunition that gets handed over for free, the better, I think.
Taxi for the Mail
Let's assume I am in the PC Brigade. I wouldn't mind being a member, after all. I'd like to hope you get a nice uniform with shiny buttons which is tailored to meet all cultural sensitivities, and you get to drive a big A-Team style van, and burst out the back of it with M-16s whenever someone does something naughty, and chomp cigars, and fire at the ground so no-one dies but they all get a bit scared, or something. Imagine that! You'd all want to be in the PC Brigade then, wouldn't you?
Anyway, replace the phrase "PC Brigade" with "vast majority of people, who think that unnecessarily upsetting others is a bad thing", and yes, I'm in the PC Brigade. One thing that really intrigues me about those lodged against us in 'the Brigade' is their constant feigning of surprise whenever they do something provocative, as if there couldn't possibly be anything offensive or derogatory about what they're doing. Sometimes, though, the mask slips just a little bit, so you can see the horrors that lie beneath. And sometimes the journalists who take aim at we proud footsoldiers of political correctness (which is, no doubt, shortly to go mad) reveal a little bit about their agendas too.
The charade that these drivers, as well as the Mail, are playing is to imagine that there might not be anything offensive or derogatory about what they're doing, and to ask why on earth anyone might be upset by such an innocent and entirely reasonable thing. "Us?" they'll say, doing that 'looking over the shoulder for someone else and then pointing at themselves' bit, "but what have we done?" - and they buff their halos and get on with things.
The Mail reports the story with the usual outrage over the outrage of others - outrage being a commodity that only they're allowed to have, after all:
At which point you, me, just about everyone in the world, says: "Oh come off it, for fuck's sake". But the Mail doesn't. And look what else it does:
All reported as fact, and designed to lead you into a certain direction: that drivers who don't speak good English - i.e. the evil foreign ones - are also inherently dishonest. But there is no evidence to back it up. We've just got someone's word for it. Like the story about someone who says she wasn't allowed to buy a quiche without getting her ID out, it's just one person's word. Perhaps Mail journalists live in a world in which people always tell the truth, or don't make stuff up - stop giggling at the back - and they're just so naive they don't realise that these things go on. Or maybe they don't give a shit about what's fact and what's opinion.
Where else do we find evidence of the 'use of sat navs' or overcharging? Nowhere. Still, it's been said now, hasn't it? But that doesn't matter. The story has gone up like a big bat-signal to the anti-PC Brigade types who electronically green-crayon in their responses, including:
Beansontoast has captured the classic outraged anti-PC frenzy of anger. He or she is angry, but not quite sure why. They're annoyed they even read it, but they aren't sure why they're annoyed. Who's country is it anyway? Yours and mine, Beansontoast, yours and mine, and seeing as I'm a fully paid-up member of the PC Brigade, we have to try and get along with each other, or things will get awfully tricky. I'm not sure whether they want the PC Brigade to move somewhere else - that's not clear - or whether they think these taxi drivers who aren't the sort of people to put flags in their windows saying "English speaker" should move somewhere else. And yes, we do have to do as we're told in other countries - and in this one. If you're told your poxy dog-whistle flag campaign is racist, then it might well be because it's racist.
Anyway, replace the phrase "PC Brigade" with "vast majority of people, who think that unnecessarily upsetting others is a bad thing", and yes, I'm in the PC Brigade. One thing that really intrigues me about those lodged against us in 'the Brigade' is their constant feigning of surprise whenever they do something provocative, as if there couldn't possibly be anything offensive or derogatory about what they're doing. Sometimes, though, the mask slips just a little bit, so you can see the horrors that lie beneath. And sometimes the journalists who take aim at we proud footsoldiers of political correctness (which is, no doubt, shortly to go mad) reveal a little bit about their agendas too.
The charade that these drivers, as well as the Mail, are playing is to imagine that there might not be anything offensive or derogatory about what they're doing, and to ask why on earth anyone might be upset by such an innocent and entirely reasonable thing. "Us?" they'll say, doing that 'looking over the shoulder for someone else and then pointing at themselves' bit, "but what have we done?" - and they buff their halos and get on with things.
The Mail reports the story with the usual outrage over the outrage of others - outrage being a commodity that only they're allowed to have, after all:
But the flags have been branded 'racist' by trade representatives, councillors and racism campaigners who have demanded they are removed.
Taxi drivers have hit back, claiming the stickers are simply a protest to force the council to make sure new drivers can speak good English.
At which point you, me, just about everyone in the world, says: "Oh come off it, for fuck's sake". But the Mail doesn't. And look what else it does:
The stickers were placed in the cars after drivers received complaints about the standard of spoken English among them.
There have also been complaints from passengers about drivers using sat navs and over-charging.
All reported as fact, and designed to lead you into a certain direction: that drivers who don't speak good English - i.e. the evil foreign ones - are also inherently dishonest. But there is no evidence to back it up. We've just got someone's word for it. Like the story about someone who says she wasn't allowed to buy a quiche without getting her ID out, it's just one person's word. Perhaps Mail journalists live in a world in which people always tell the truth, or don't make stuff up - stop giggling at the back - and they're just so naive they don't realise that these things go on. Or maybe they don't give a shit about what's fact and what's opinion.
Where else do we find evidence of the 'use of sat navs' or overcharging? Nowhere. Still, it's been said now, hasn't it? But that doesn't matter. The story has gone up like a big bat-signal to the anti-PC Brigade types who electronically green-crayon in their responses, including:
I hate these sort of stories Im annoyed I even read it,whos country is this anyway the PC brigade move somewhere else.
We have to do as we are told in other countries.
- beansontoast, woolacombe, 02/2/2010
Beansontoast has captured the classic outraged anti-PC frenzy of anger. He or she is angry, but not quite sure why. They're annoyed they even read it, but they aren't sure why they're annoyed. Who's country is it anyway? Yours and mine, Beansontoast, yours and mine, and seeing as I'm a fully paid-up member of the PC Brigade, we have to try and get along with each other, or things will get awfully tricky. I'm not sure whether they want the PC Brigade to move somewhere else - that's not clear - or whether they think these taxi drivers who aren't the sort of people to put flags in their windows saying "English speaker" should move somewhere else. And yes, we do have to do as we're told in other countries - and in this one. If you're told your poxy dog-whistle flag campaign is racist, then it might well be because it's racist.
The freedom to be a bigot
It's often the people who dislike freedom the most who fight the hardest to gain ownership of the word. So it is with Pope Benedict. Here's an elderly virgin who believes in magic, who oversees an organisation which concealed systematic child abuse for decades, whose views we're supposed to take seriously.
But then it dovetails in nicely with certain agendas. This isn't an attack on any kind of equality, you understand: it's an attack on the Labour party.
Labour equality, not equality. Are the Tories likely to be voting against, then, out of interest? Ah, but that doesn't matter: this is all about the PC evils of Labour being forced onto poor unsuspecting clergy, who only want to make sure the 'natural law' of being able to discriminate against people based on their sexual proclivities is carried out. How on earth can we possibly see anything wrong in that?
The Telegraph's story puts it like this:
Let's suppose a highly respected Muslim cleric had told his fellow believers that the law in Britain should not apply to them in certain aspects of their lives. Do you think the coverage would be the same? Would it be discussed in terms of religious freedom, or the freedom to be a bigot?
But then it dovetails in nicely with certain agendas. This isn't an attack on any kind of equality, you understand: it's an attack on the Labour party.
Labour equality, not equality. Are the Tories likely to be voting against, then, out of interest? Ah, but that doesn't matter: this is all about the PC evils of Labour being forced onto poor unsuspecting clergy, who only want to make sure the 'natural law' of being able to discriminate against people based on their sexual proclivities is carried out. How on earth can we possibly see anything wrong in that?
The Telegraph's story puts it like this:
Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill, currently going through Parliament, contains a new, narrow definition of religious workers. It means clergy will not be allowed to opt out of the rules and so will either have to go against their teachings by employing homosexuals, or face prosecution.
Let's suppose a highly respected Muslim cleric had told his fellow believers that the law in Britain should not apply to them in certain aspects of their lives. Do you think the coverage would be the same? Would it be discussed in terms of religious freedom, or the freedom to be a bigot?
Monday, 1 February 2010
The greatest lie ever told?
Here's an interesting decision from the Pathetically Craven Commission, about an article by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph:
The PCC made it clear they couldn't judge accuracy or otherwise in sources' comments or arguments, which is fair enough. Imagine how much work they'd have to do if they did:
But did Brooker's article do this?
Is that fact or opinion? Only the third sentence is couched in "Dr Morner said". You could argue that the first two are covered by that, but I don't think so.
Also interesting is how the Telegraph offered to remedy things. Initially:
Then, much later, when the PCC had become involved:
So there's the power of the PCC. To make newspapers publish letters they wouldn't otherwise publish. Long after the initial article has appeared. Good skills, too, from the Telegraph, really maintaining its position as Britain's top quality paper.
The article [headlined Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told'] was a column by Christopher Booker on the subject of climate change. The complainant said that this piece - which was primarily an account of the views of Dr Nils-Axel Mörner - contained a number of inaccurate and misleading statements, including that sea levels had dropped around Tuvalu in recent decades, when the scientific evidence indicated that they had, in fact, risen (this was repeated in a second article published on 25 July 2009).
The complainant argued that Dr Mörner's visits to the Maldives ‘to confirm' the position had subsequently been disproved by other scientists. The article had also inaccurately stated that the satellite-based evidence of the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) had been altered to show a global sea-level rise based on the findings of a single tidal gauge in Hong Kong. In fact, this alteration had been scientifically justified, and the final conclusion on the global sea-level rise was based on multiple measurements from satellite altimetry and tidal gauges based around the world.
The PCC made it clear they couldn't judge accuracy or otherwise in sources' comments or arguments, which is fair enough. Imagine how much work they'd have to do if they did:
In this particular case, the Commission started from the position that a complex issue such as climate change will inevitably lead to robust and ongoing debate. It is not of course for the PCC to make findings of fact on where the truth about climate change lies, but to consider whether newspapers have abided by the terms of the Code when presenting information to their readers. For instance, they have the right to publish controversial or minority opinions, but they are obliged to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact.
But did Brooker's article do this?
Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.
Is that fact or opinion? Only the third sentence is couched in "Dr Morner said". You could argue that the first two are covered by that, but I don't think so.
Also interesting is how the Telegraph offered to remedy things. Initially:
The complainant had submitted a letter for publication after these articles appeared, which the newspaper had declined to publish.
Then, much later, when the PCC had become involved:
At a late stage, it offered to publish a letter from the complainant, and to mark its cuttings with it in relation to the Tuvalu issue.
So there's the power of the PCC. To make newspapers publish letters they wouldn't otherwise publish. Long after the initial article has appeared. Good skills, too, from the Telegraph, really maintaining its position as Britain's top quality paper.
Terry and the tabs
It's hard to rouse a great deal of sympathy for John Terry, but I'll give it a bash.
True, he has behaved despicably. Yes, he's got form for being deeply unpleasant. And it goes without saying that he represents the kind of weasel, untouchable arrogance that people think of when they think of Premiership footballers. He's a walking stereotype. He's not the victim in all this, as he was responsible for his choices. Not only that, but he attempted to use big-shot lawyers to try and hush it all up.
Bearing all that in mind, though, let's climb down from that high horse for a moment. Amidst all the self-congratulatory "justice has been done" articles in the News of the World yesterday, what was the substance of the actual story that demanded such a huge legal fight? A married man has had an affair with a colleague's partner. I don't think this is the first time in history it's happened, unpleasant as it is for those people involved.
As I said during the Tiger Woods saga, we don't really learn anything new by all this. I would appear to be in the minority by thinking that people are entitled to their own privacy during these times - though of course that would mean everyone wanting things to stay private. Clearly, someone wanted this to go public, and I don't think it's beyond realms to suspect that a little bit of money has changed hands at some point, via Max Clifford and associates.
Maybe these stories shouldn't be banned altogether by some kind of restrictive law; maybe I am wrong on that one, if there's a danger it could be used by those in power to shield themselves from genuine scrutiny. But then, that would suppose that newspapers actually do a lot of genuine scrutinising rather than just mucky kiss-and-tell stories about famous people, which add nothing whatsoever to our understanding of the world. Might it not be enough to hope that they could be outnumbered, by better stories that are really in the public interest, rather than just detailing the sex lives of the rich and famous for people to pore over on a Sunday morning? It might be too much, I think. And let's not forget, for every celebrity endorsement-gatherer like Terry, there will be hundreds of Mr and Mrs Nobodys, whose privacy could be invaded at any time, if the tabloids - and others - deem that it's necessary. That's the price we pay for our brave boys of the fourth estate having the freedom to write about people having sex with each other.
And yes, Terry is England captain, but what he does in his private life won't really affect his ability to call heads or tails, or hand over the England pennant at the start of an international match. I don't think the parents of the England mascot will demand that someone other than this person who has had an affair holds their son or daughter's hand while they go through the tunnel at Wembley. At least I don't think it will. It's stretching it a bit far to complain about an 'England crisis' just because the skipper has had an affair. Terry was made captain by dint of the fact that he could shake hands properly and was so good at football that he's a shoo-in for pretty much every game, not because of some moral probity which has now been found to be lacking. (I realise that in this view I find myself in agreement with Rod Liddle, but these things happen. I'm sure it would upset him as much as it would me to find we are pointing in the same direction on this issue, if he knew who the hell I was.)
True, these celebrities do court positive coverage by appearing in those ghastly magazines and inviting us into their lovely £3million gated mansion complete with toilets the size of swimming baths and giant pictures of themselves scoring goals plastered all over the walls. And I daresay they do make a bit of money from the odd bit and bob of baloney here and there - Terry's appearance as 'dad of the year' has been cited as evidence that we had the right to know about this affair, for example. But as I said about Tiger Woods, no-one sponsored him just because - or even because at all - he was a clean-cut family guy; they did so because he is the second best golfer in all history. With Terry, it's the same - the vast majority of his endorsements have come about because he's a highly talented footballer, not because of the now-proven-to-be-wrong perception that he's not the kind of bloke who'd have an affair with a fellow England player's partner. The sponsors didn't seem to mind when he roared abuse at Americans after 9-11, though; if they didn't have an inkling he wasn't an all-round stand-up citizen then, then they were being slightly naive.
I'm not saying Terry isn't a ghastly human being, because it appears that he is. He's not committed any crime but he has not exactly acted with a whole world of decency. But in our delight at another sporting personality's fall from grace, let's not clutch our pearls too tightly.
I wish, instead, that we didn't find out about these stories at all. Not because they didn't happen, but because there are so many things out there so much more worthy of talking about. So many more deserving scoops, which might really impact on our lives in a meaningful way. They say you get the press you deserve. Do we really deserve this?
Further reading:
Obsolete: Modern media values
A Very Public Sociologist: John Terry and press freedom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
