James Delingpole Makes Stuff Up.

I was having a quick browse through Johann Hari's articles archive to see if he had some more posted up, when I found this short rebuke towards a Spectator article penned by the right wing polemic James Delingpole, who describes himself as "right on everything." Hmmm. This article is unusual for him in that it isn't an almost obsessive tract on "how climate change is just made up by communists to steal middle class peoples cash.", which for about 95% of what he writes. (It's ironic that climate change deniers like Delingpole always say "warmists" are obsessed and zealous about CC, when they themselves never bloody shut up about how it's a con.) Indeed it got him and the Telegraph in well deserved hot water, when he stupidly, and in my opinion, deliberately splashed the address of a man who wrote a letter that took a Tory candidate to task for the contradiction of Cameran being pro green, whilst the party seemed anti. (Story and letter sent here.) It was a moderate letter, but Delingpole said he was a "eco fascist" and inevitably some of the (ahem more "passionate" CC deniers) followers of his stuff got this guys address e mail and picture of his house published online, where it remained on the Telegraphs site for 20 hours. I wonder who the real CC fanatics really are sometimes? No, the article; entitled "Most gay men have realised that the Oppressed Victimhood party is totally over" is about how "playing the gay victim card" doesn't carry as much weight as it used to. I think it's in response to a survey on homophobia increasing/decreasing. I don't know in which context he is writing about. He is a terrible writer. Like most of Delingpoles writing it is loopily right wing, overblown and full of shitty pretentious metaphors, and name dropping philosophers to make you look better read. The stuff that only bad writers who are trying to look cleverer than they really are use. But it also exemplifies the casual nastiness that drips through pretty much all he writes. Stuff like this.

"Some of my best friends are gay — but now I can go one better than that: one of them is HIV positive. ‘But that’s brilliant news!’ I told my friend when he spilled the beans the other day. ‘Now I can go round claiming victim cred by association. And if anyone makes an Aids joke I can be, like, seriously offended and put on a solemn voice and say: “Actually, you know, if you had an HIV positive friend like I do...”.’

My friend agreed that being HIV positive was a very handy thing to be, in this respect. But on further consideration, we decided it would have carried more victim cred weight in the days before anti-retroviral drugs when a) it was a death sentence; and b) being gay won you many more oppressed-minority brownie points."

Yeah I mean HIV ain't that a big deal. Is James Delingpole the only man on Earth who could use the news that someone close to him was terminally ill, as an anti -PC tract.

Twat.

Normally I wouldn't comment on stuff that Delingpole writes. It really speaks for itself. But for two things I will. Firstly Delingpole has never read any of Johann Haris work when he writes.

"And obviously, there’s no hope whatsoever for the impossible Johann Hari who, even as the wall is pushed on top of him, will be squealing with his last breath that it’s all the fault of Western imperialism and white heterosexist Islamophobia. Generally, though, I think even the most obtuse homosexual male has realised that the Oppressed Victimhood party is, like, so totally over."

Hari, in typical style gave this robust rebuttal.

"I found this slightly odd, since I am so critical of Islamic fundamentalists that I have received a substantial number of death threats from them. I worked undercover at the Finsbury Park mosque after 9/11 to expose Islamists; I have debunked Hizb ut Tahrir as a bunch of theocratic fascists on live television; and after I wrote an article criticising the 'Prophet' Mohammed for having sex with a pre-pubescent girl when he was 53 years old, there was a three-day riot by over 3000 people in Calcutta calling for me to be imprisoned or killed. At no point did I blame "Islamophobia" for this lunatic behaviour. On the contrary: I was highly critical of the people who put this case."

Say what you will about Hari, he can't be considered some apologist for militant Islam. Any cursory check of his anti-religious articles will confirm all what he says in his rebuttal. It is also not taking into account how he bravely, was not swayed into self censorship vis a vis the Calcutta riots here. It is barmy to say he makes excuses for Islamic fundamentals.

Secondly, like many of these sorts of articles, it belittles genuine efforts to curb prejudice and inequality as "victim politics" and "bolshy minorities." It is also peppered with homosexual innuendo and blanket stereotyping.

" If I were gay, I think I’d feel a bit miffed about this. It would be a bit like having your Uniqlo 20 per cent press discount card withdrawn or being told that now your favourite club’s under new management you can no longer jump to the front of the queue. But I’m afraid homosexuals are going to have to get over it in much the same way Jews have had to get over it."

"In an odd way, though, I think this process has done both Jews and homosexuals the power of good. Obviously, I deplore the way they are persecuted, but you only have to look at how the cult of victimhood has sapped the strength of so many ‘ethnic communities’ in guilt-ridden Western cultures to realise that, actually, playing the oppressed minority card is ultimately self-destructive."

"if there’s one thing that ever makes me want to vote BNP, it’s when I hear a black person playing the race card or a Muslim talking about Islamophobia."

He ups the ante by claiming that these guys should really "put up and shut up", as many a defender of bullying and discrimination have proclaimed.

"Of course, I understand why these people do it. It’s a tough, competitive world and if pleading victimhood can give you that extra edge, well, why not? Also, let’s be honest, it can be tremendously good fun working oneself up into a lather of indignation over some perceived slight — and what is more satisfying than doing so on behalf not merely of yourself, but of the entire black/gay/Jewish/disabled/female/Muslim ‘community’?"

The problem is that when you play this game, you are not only undermining your own cause — think, for example, of how much funnier black comedians are when they don’t project guilt-trip vibes about their skin colour: Chris Rock, say, or Reginald D. Hunter — but you are also contributing to the moral and intellectual degeneracy of the broader culture. You are endorsing a bizarre, sick value system which rewards people not for their strengths but for how useless and feeble and needy and bitter they can prove themselves to be."

The real problem I have with this kind of thing is that it shows no insight into how better rights for minorities came about (it also implausibly implies that they are "better off" than the mainstream. Handy to dismiss them as pampered ingrates.), or even that discrimination exists at all. Whenever I hear this kind of sentiment (and it is common in right wing memes) I have to ask do these people think that anti discrimination just came out of the blue. No it didn't. The suffragettes, Martin Luther King, and the footage from Hitlers camps shocked people into their plight, and caused a change in attitude towards minorities. The mainstream sometimes weren't aware of their plight, so there was little incentive to change this. If these people did as Delingpole asked and kept "quiet", then women would still be waiting for votes that would never come to them. Gays would be breaking the law by having a relationship straight people would take for granted. I'm sure some do use "the victimhood card" for their own personal gain. But it is a small price for society being shocked into improving treatment of minorities. If they had not been so vocal in calling for them, they would never have got them, because no-one else would have done it for them. Is this perhaps the root of some of the harder rights distaste of the "bolshys", it forces them to see a discriminatory aspect of society that they don't want to see, and would rather ignore.

A Nasty Gaffe Gord.

Well the Brown stuff has certainly hit the fan for the PM today. After being confronted by 65 year old widow, Gillian Duffy on an estate in Rochdale, Greater Manchester. Her conversation (CLICK HERE TO SEE IT ALL.)with the PM revolved around the fact that she pays tax on her dead husbands pension after it was tagged on to hers. How he planned to clear the national debt, and the bit that has caused the controversy, why are there so many Eastern Europeans (in her opinion) "coming over here" (actually the number is dropping.) She says the following:

"You can't say anything about the immigrants! Because you're [Brown?] saying that .... your a." (mumbles something, might be about to say racist but cuts off.)

"But all those Eastern Europeans what're coming in. Where they flocking from?"

Eastern Europe would be a good bet!!

Brown retorts to her that it [immigration in the EU] swings both ways, vis a vis Brits going over there, them coming over here to work etc.

She then asks about why there are tuition fees, and possibly implies that foreign students (it's hard to know if that what she means, so she might not mean that.) are causing financial strain for others.

It is not what she said that has caused the outcry about the story it is comments unwittingly recorded, of which Brown made to his advisers after their talk had ended that have caused the controversy. (Listen to them here.)

Brown is heard angrily muttering that the talk was a "disaster" and "ridiculous" and that she was "sort of bigoted women."

Ooops.

Now Mrs. Duffy's conversation with Brown was rather ranty, and some of her "evidence" seemed to owe more to tabloid headlines than to a general grasp of affairs. Her comments about the Eastern Europeans may not be pleasant to many (though there are quite a few who think the same as her.), and were; like most of what the rest of what she said, a mix of half truths, and stuff she had read in the paper. The comments struck me more born out of taking too much of what you uncritically read about immigration, than pure bigotry. Mix that in with a general dissatisfaction that many working class people have with a political system, and country that seems to cater (in their opinion, and to some extent mine.) to middle classes, and Middle England.

The worst thing to come out of this, and my hunch is that it may bite back at Brown this next week. Is that the press and the BNP will seize on this as yet more proof that the main parties don't want to discuss immigration, and that anyone who does is called a racist. The problem is that the three parties have allowed the press and the more right wing parties to set the debate. We hear the "sponging asylum seeker" and "immigrants ate my granny, and her swans" tales, and not the actual state of immigration. The whole thing has been derailed, and the parties seem timid in trying to recapture the debate. In actual fact they seem to actively pander (well the Lib Dems don't.) to the more lurid anti-immigration tracts. It can be no surprise that anti immigrant sentiment is high if this is the case, and people are only getting that side. This has unwittingly played into the wrong hands, and has almost said "yeah what we say about the parties being out of touch is true." It's a real shame, as Brown (in the video before the "comments") is able to refute some of the more fanciful comments she made, so much so that she seems to falter under how he dissects her points, and they end it on amicable terms. She seems genuinely confused and upset from the unintentionally broadcast reaction. Now more than ever these guys seeking power, need to re engage with disillusioned working people. This gaffe has done precisely the opposite.

Oh Look Joan Collins is Bitching About Horrid Modern TV. (Like thats new.)

I've always thought Joan Collins was a bit of a muppet. Partly it's because she writes articles like this: Why IS our reality TV so vulgar and boring? . Then there's the fact that she thinks she's like the biggest thing to come out of Hollywood ever. When she's really only remembered for being in Dynasty, which was just like Dallas, but shitter. As well as getting squashed by a truck in Star Trek. But I think what really cemented my opinion of her was when she said she was joining UKIP because Britain was being overrun by the E.U. Yes she was such a patriot, yet she had to live in St Tropez.

Collins latest masterpiece is a usual "ex luvvie gripes about how "hard" it is to be an actor, and how TV ain't what it once was. Just a mix of guns, swearing and sex. Though on her wikipedia page it says she is starring in a film called "Fetish" this year, so make what you will of that. She then waxes starry eyed lyrical about staying in posh hotels in Hollywood, whilst watching films and rubbing shoulders with Liberace (Liberace! This from a women who says modern actors are sex obsessed for Gods sake.) and his lovely false teeth (no really). Yeah it sounds a right fucking graft Joan. Sign me up! Then we hear the charming tale about how she fantasised about being Loretta Young when she was playing Alexis in Dynasty. I mainly fantasise about pills and whisky in my job Joan. Then there's the usual reality TV bashing these articles inevitably descend into.

I have three gripes about the article itself. Firstly Collins seems to think she's a really big star when she isn't. She was just someone in "If it's Tuesday. This Must be Belgium." "Can Hieronymus Merkin Ever Forget Mercy Humppe and Find True Happiness?" that Flintstones film and "Empire of the Ants." Severe chutzpah overload, but that's nothing new with actors. Secondly she -and this is a pet peeve here;- thinks acting is "hard work", a nurse wiping senile peoples bums is "hard work." or construction workers building stuff in all weathers is "tough graft". Being paid a zillion pounds to wear a silly wig and read a script, having loads of fans, and getting pissed at the Oscars isn't quite in the same league. Thirdly, she isn't really bothered about the "coarseness" of stuff like "Britains Got Talent". That would be to miss the point. She, like many actors of that generation, doesn't want the likes of us to get our boots into that most exclusive of clubs, fame. Yeah those kinds of shows are a bit tacky, and I have questions about how much of this kind of thing is just laughing at weirdos. But it's not surprising that lots of regular people want to be famous. Most jobs are rubbish. It's no fun working for a sexually frustrated middle manager called Barry, on the accounts department at Telford World of Polystyrene. It is, if you are getting paid to stay in nice hotels, and have people wanting your autograph. Joan Collins knows this, and she can bullshit her way around saying how hard it is the "fame game" when it isn't. Because in the end, she just wants her in and us lot out.

It's also kind of ironic that she says people seem to have no dignity on these shows in their quest to get famous. Some women got her tits out or something on BGT. But most of these actors will literally jump through hoops to get higher levels of fame. They can talk all the like about the "glamour" and "dignity" of showbiz. Most thesps would pull their trousers down and take up a squatting position in the big top of a packed out circus whilst a dozen dwarves dressed as clowns took it in turns to kick their bare arse cheeks for comedic effect, if they thought it would re-kindle their career. I am sure Joan Collins would dress up as a giant comedy parrot (with her making comedy squawks and "pieces of 8" noises to add to the illusion)to accompany the guy dressed up as a sailor in the admiral car insurance advert, if she thought she would hit the big time, she never actually really hit. That should give you a hint about how much of a "hard life" this acting business is.

Happy 20th. Hubble (For Tomorrow)

As you may know (and if you've seen the art work on todays Google homepage, you probably have an idea.) today is the 20th anniversary of the Hubble telescope being launched into space to give us practically all the spectacular (an understatement) "real view" (that is what a human would see, not infra red or x ray images.) images of space that are ingrained in popular circles. Yes Hubble is the embodiment (but not the first) of an idea by a bloke called Lyman Spitzer in 1946. Spitzer, like every other astronomer, knew that whilst the atmosphere was very useful for the act of breathing, and keeping us warm, and safe from cosmic radiation, was a bit of a pisser for stargazing. That murky turbulent wall of gas, just gets in the way of taking good pictures, distorting images, and blocking out more distant and harder to see stuff. But stick a telescope in orbit and you kill two birds with one stone. Firstly there is no atmosphere (well hardly any. It's about 350 km up, depending on orientation. There's a trace of atmosphere which will eventually drag it down to burn up point in a few decades time. There is a mission planned to artificially do this in about 2014.), so you can get crisp images, and don't have to worry about clouds, turbulent flow and physical pollution and secondly there is no light pollution, so you have optimal viewing conditions. This is music to every astronomers ear. Although not the first, Hubble is the most well known space telescope. There is something about the way it shows us the grandeur of the cosmos, in human terms, rather than a radio or microwave construct of the cosmos, that probably accounts for it's endearing appeal to the layman. It is no exaggeration to say that Hubble is probably the most well known artificial satellite to the general human race. Stop someone in the street, anyone; they'll know what Hubble is. Everyone remembers the dodgy mirror that had to be replaced. We all know it looks like a big domestic hot water boiler (it's about the size of a single decker bus) covered in tin foil, or a big packet of biscuits with two solar panels attached. Hubble, and it's images have become an icon. It's in Naked Gun 2. The Disney world ride "Mission to Mars", as an object everyone knows what it is. It's images (mistakenly called photographs. Hubble doesn't have a giant reel of film in it!!) of stunning nebula's, and pillars of gas light years high, that are more beautiful and weirder than any SF effects artist could dream up alone, are used for space shots in sci fi films. (Babylon 5 used a lot of the images for nebula effects.) Sombrero Galaxies, storms on Neptune Aurora on Saturn (a favourite of mine and pictured.) Dust clouds that result in the birth of stars. What perhaps people don't know is how appropriate the name Hubble is for a device that has opened up our knowledge of space, and given us perspective on how the universe is physically composed. Edwin Hubble, the astronomer who it is named after; is largely remembered for showing us that the universe consists of more than the Milky Way galaxy, than was originally thought. He also went a long way towards implementing the "smearing of light" that fast moving object (like galaxies) obtain, and using it to calculate how far away they are. He gave us a key ability to define the shape of the universe, our place on it, and the sheer scope of it. It is a sweet irony that the telescope that bears his name continues his work, and allows us to peer further than we thought possible.
Hubble telescope has; in my mind done us all a favour by promoting public awareness of astronomy. Anyone can request to take up some of Hubbles extremely rationed time to look at whatever bit of sky they wish (though how far your request might go to be submitted is another matter). Hubble owes its continuing functioning existence to it's fans. Nasa had to reject their original plan to let it run its course in orbit, by not servicing it after the Shuttle Columbia was destroyed in 2003. It seems likely that it will continue; from its fourth service in 2009 to be our roving eye in space til 2014, when the larger and more sophisticated James Webb telescope is put into action. Sadly Hubble won't be retrieved by a shuttle and put on display in the Smithsonian Institute, after it's operational life is over, as the shuttle is due to be canned. But still, what a career though.

Take to the skies.

Well it looks like Lord Adonis has announced that all UK airports are back in business again. Which is good news for holiday makers, those stranded, plane spotters and airline companies. It probably isn't so welcome by those on the Heathrow / Gatwick /Manchester airport flight paths, Greenpeace and people with a phobia of flying. But it does seem to draw a line under a situation that uniquely left Europe without the ability to use (pretty much all of) air travel since about the early 20th century.

It's been a funny old week without the sound of jet engines, or the presence of vapour trials a few miles up. The stranded passengers that were caught up in it (my own parents couldn't go away on holiday.) seem to have pretty much taken it on the chin, resigned that it is just one of those things. It also gave several tabloid writers an excuse to bemoan the "health and safety, nanny state, PC, whatever; gone mad Britain" despite the fact that most of Europe was under lock down. We also had attempts to blame Gordon Brown for geological phenomena. Lame ass jokes about Iceland giving us ash not cash, which wasn't funny when I first heard it, and gets exponentially rubbisher on repeated hearings. Lastly it brought out all the armchair speculators, saying it was an overreaction. Those who had the advantage of subjective "good old common sense", and not the responsibility for passenger welfare. So I think it's fitting that perhaps the last of the articles we will get on it is this slightly barmy one by Harry Phibbs. It seems that the EU has used it as a plan to steal good old British Airspace (airspace is; for obvious reasons, quite a transnational affair. Making it more parochial would be a headache for Air Traffic Control, to put it mildly.) with the "elf n safety zealots." Phibbs comes to this conclusion that it was all a bit of a waste of time, with this priceless observation.

"Safety first,’ is a powerful mantra. But looking up at the sky it appeared safe enough to me. No ash to be seen."

Truly an embodiment of the spirit of the scientific method. Harry asks rhetorically; which professionals can we trust. The answer should probably start off with, not Harry Phibbs.

More Northernbloke dispatches from the Ministry of Bullshit & Making stuff up on the fly, Part 1.

About two stories today. The outcome of Tilern de Biques discrimination case, and why "elf n safety jobsworths" who now control the UK; banned flying in Slovenia.

I didn't want to say out loud in my last post that even though the final settlement hadn't been reached, Miss de Bique had no hope in heaven or hell of getting a million quid out of the MoD. She instead ended up with £17 000 instead. It seem she came a cropper when she turned down a more "child friendly" work pattern that the army offered her, which has left her with a considerably sized deficit in the actual amount she wanted. This of course hasn't stopped the press pillorying her. We have Patrick Mercer (Tory MP and ex - soldier) saying that she didn't even deserve that. A charming character assassination of her in the Mail today. We have a preposterously shrill finger wagging from the ludicrous Amanda Platell, claiming absurdly that this woman has singlehandedly betrayed every lady soldier; everywhere, and has done more damage to women soldiers than any male chauvinist could ever dream to do. ( these bolshy lot, they do bring it on themselves don't they?) Now I'm not saying [Platell] is exaggerating, but what I am saying is she is exaggerating a bit to puff up her opinion column.

The next issue I want to press on is about the grounding of all planes, due to the dust that has been kicked up by that Icelandic volcano (which has resulted in many a lame ass bank joke.). Littlejohn has wasted no time whatsoever in giving his thruppenceworth on the issue. He tries to equate what has happened with the moratorium on flights with the "elf and safety" mentality that has enslaved the British Isles. Which is funny because flights are banned in:

Austria, Belgium, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, UK

(to be honest he does mention that the ban is pan-Europe. But what is that little matter, if you want to make a lame analogy.)

As usual, this article has a veritable feast of idiotic thinking, and complete bollocks. Stuff like this:

"With depressing predictability, the British authorities responded with their usual impersonation of headless chickens in hi-viz jackets.

It was a breathtaking demonstration of the elf 'n' safety paranoia which has engulfed this country over the past decade.


No doubt there was a risk of volcanic ash clogging up the jet engines of airliners. But did that justify the knee-jerk stupidity which closed every airport immediately?


The decision to shut down the south of England was taken when the dust cloud was still north of the Outer Hebrides."

The ban extends out of "bonkers Britain" to most of Europe. I doubt very strongly this decision was taken lightly. I hardly call preventing airliners being at risk of engine failure due to dust clogging as "knee jerk stupidity" If you have the welfare of 500 passengers in a 5 mile high tin can, it tends to drive you to air to caution. About the south shutting, when not under the cloud. Ever heard of the phrase "baton down the hatches, there's a storm on the way." Takes a long time to close down busy airports, a logistical nightmare. And I do believe that Transatlantic flights are directed round the Hebrides region from British airports (It's amazing what you learn if you ever applied, but didn't get selected to be an air traffic controller!), aside from the fact that dust clouds are in motion in atmospheres.

"Was there really an imminent danger of planes falling out of the sky like flies? Or was this just another manifestation of the 'can't be too careful' culture which seeks to erase every scintilla of chance from our everyday lives?"

If you are tasked with passengers welfare, yes. Yes pyroclastic dust is very risky to an exposed jet engines air intake turbines.

"We see it everywhere. The moment a car skids on the motorway, the police close the road in both directions."

Bollocks.

"The brain-dead imbeciles in charge take a perverse delight in causing the maximum possible inconvenience. Reaction to any incident is blind panic."

Fuck you, they are trying, under difficult circumstances to stop 500 dead passengers being deposited in a burning field in the Holland countryside. This is just the worst case of armchair refereeing, and a bit rich from a paper that did the utmost to spread fear about MMR vaccines, as one example.

"In this particular case, no one is advocating compromising airline safety"

No you're just heavily implying it.

"but TV news was showing film taken within the ash clouds over Scandinavia. You could see the wings of the plane the footage was shot from.

Why was it safe for that reconnaissance aircraft to fly into the eye of the storm and not safe for the 11.15 from Gatwick to take off for Madrid?

Since the volcanic nimbus was not visible from the ground, wouldn't it have been possible for planes to fly beneath the clouds? "

It wasn't that "safe" for the reccy plane. The difference is that it was flown by a few crew, who were volunteers, and knew the risks. It didn't have 500 passengers in it, including women, the elderly and children amongst them,

As for flying under the clouds:

1. Uses more fuel, due to thicker atmosphere.
2. More noise.
3. Increases strain on turbines (you'd be surprised what air hitting at 500 mph can do. Things behave weird at that speed.)
4. Greater risk of 500 mph bird strikes.
5. Can't take advantage of the Jet stream
6. More turbulence
7. In the path of low flying airspace.
8. Increased risk of hitting surface elevations.

Just minor stuff.

In fact the only thing that's more missing than aircraft over Europe, is facts in this article.

I find stuff like this doubly offensive, because the Mail is always the first to demand heads roll, when something bad (and even unexpected) happens, even towards people who may have quite a tenuous role in what has happened. Yeah it's a ballache if you're stranded at the Birchanger Green Travelodge because the flight from Stanstead to Alicante is grounded. But you're still in one piece. Call me old fashioned but averting plane crashes is not something to be sniffed at. It's funny how those who dismiss this stuff as "elf n safety gone mad", are the first to start calling for sackings the minute anything bad happens. Bit of a contradiction there.

Questions about the Mails coverage of Tilern de Bique (aka that woman who is at the centre of the army child care thing.)

If the Mail decides you have been awarded the "wrong" sort of compensation, then there's a good chance you might get slapped all over the front page, with one of those "bloody typical compo gone mad" headlines. Ones involving the armed forces, and MoD personnel who are deemed the "wrong sort" of recipient can receive a particularly hard time. (stuff like when they say that an MoD "pen pusher" got ten zillion quid for a paper cut, that sort of thing) This time it is the turn of Tilern de Bique, an ex soldier who is hoping to sue the MoD for a million pounds (this has been misunderstood by some commenting on it, as she has actually been AWARDED that amount.) in an industrial tribunal, after she rejected the 100 000 pounds offered. (she had enlisted for two decades, but only ended up doing 5 years, and this is the lump sum she claims she will lose after she has lost all her army pension and other pay.) The cause of the dispute is claimed to be due to the fact that she felt compelled to leave the army as a comms line technician, because she was a single mother who couldn't provide child care that corresponded to her hours. So there is accusations that she was given hours the army said she wouldn't get. Counter accusations have been that she knew what she was signing up to, and should have provided adequate cover, and thus had no excuse for missing parades to bring her kid up. I won't go into much into the details, as the result isn't out yet, and pouring through the rival claims is time consuming.

The nature of the claim, and the amount she wants (she hasn't been awarded a million) are the source of much of the contention in the commentary on the case. The sum she wants has been contrasted with what was finally awarded to the paratrooper Ben Parkinson, who was badly maimed by a mine in Afghanistan. (finally awarded £570 000, assuming with all military privileges in tact, such as pension etc. After initial £150 000 was offered, to much public anger.). The amount of money subjectively justified, to what plaintiffs should receive is a matter of opinion, and can't really be objectively set in stone. I feel that some of the injured soldiers have been short changed by the MoD personally. A mine will mess you up bad, and providing the best care available to those who are willing to get blown up, so we don't have to is of course paramount. On the other hand I know of many cases of where child care provision has been inadequately accounted for in the workplace, despite assurances that it would be, and I don't think it is an issue to be dismissed as a self indulgent one, as the articles imply (They are quite different cases of affairs as well, that's why she's going through an employment tribunal. So it's hard to compare them together). But the real thing that does bother me about the comm entry on it is how DeBique has been vilified as a gold digging opportunist. A feckless single mother (is there any other kind in Mailworld?) who cried victim, when she couldn't be bothered to turn uop for work. She has had articles about her being a disgrace to women soldiers. A betrayer of "our boys". Her Myspace profiles have been sifted through to try and portray her as a bit of a slapper, and a "women of loose morals", because she wrote vaguely saucy comments just about everyone under the age of 35 has put on their social networks. This let's remember, is before we really know the ins and outs of it. She may be just a base opportunist, or she may have been forced out of the forces. I like to think we should make our minds up when we know the full outcome, and what actually happened. Not smear someone who may be the legitimate victim of employer malpractice.

In a way I'm not surprised she has received this treatment by the Mail. She just about ticks every box on their hate list. She's black. She's a woman. She's a single Mun. She's not British. Part of her claim involves accusations of racism, and that withering Mail euphemism; "hurt feelings." She's (was) a lady soldier, why was she not at home? She said racy things at one time in her life. Yes she's not only betrayed the army, she's betrayed all proper women who stay at home and cook and clean, and don't get ideas like doing men's work, and then having the brass neck balls to get above her station and demand adequate child care in the workplace! And to top it off she's a Johnny foreigner from the dusky regions. Wouldn't have happened in Churchills day!

BBC's "Survivors" hasn't survived the chop.

Well it's been confirmed after a lot of rumours, that the remake of 70's post apocalyptic drama "Survivors", also called, surprisingly "Survivors" (2008-2010), has been axed and will not be returning for the third season it would have had, had it continued. Largely due to the fact that it was a sci-fi show with decreasing ratings (unlike say Torchwood), and also because (IMHO); lets face it, it was a bit shit as well.

Survivors had a great premise, wipe out just about every human being with a virus, and see how a bunch of "normal people", and others try to eke out a living, with all the comforts and familiarity they took for granted totally stripped away. It's the classic eschatological; fantastic fish out of water - scene setting; that sci -fi writers are so keen to utilise, and when well done it's an ideal environment for a good bit of sci-fi.

Perhaps because I purchased a copy of Alan Weismans. "The World Without Us." , that despite a promising start, the series never capitalises on the premise of this new, nearly post human world (which, the human part would fall apart very quickly, as "World" describes"), in some of the rural scenes, apparently the end of mankind, will be a bit like having a rubbish camping trip, with no one about, and no electricity. Hmmm. The good, apocalyptic sci fis, like the first episodes of the newer "Battlestar Galactica" and Stephen Baxter's novel, "Flood" manage to convey the dire (and unusual) situation these people face, in their now destroyed worlds, in the context of keeping it with a tight character piece. Survivors doesn't do this. The show had an aimless quality, where the characters more often than not, encountered the dull plot of the week, and everything would be fine by the credit roll. There was little scope to see how society adopts to this new world. Indeed when they discovered a colony set up by the highest surviving government official, they fled it due to the harsh rules, so in a way the series ducked the bigger questions of how a new order would be built, in exchange for our characters walking around the Peak District, pretending to be in an apocalyptic wasteland.

The plotting did have the odd good bit now and then, but the origin of the virus plot was far too tenuously spread, and went on for so long without giving us anything to go on, it just became boring. The characters and (bad) script were uninteresting (especially the Doctor, and the Asian guy.) and poorly realised. We couldn't really relate to Abby Grant (the lead) finding her son, as much as the show wanted. The dodgy hard man Tom character, should have been an intriguing one, but spent 90% of his screen time, glaring at stuff in a menacing way. It was all in all, a very long - drawn out, and lacklustre series. And I'm not surprised that it hasn't been renewed, it certainly didn't deserve to be.

Sachsgate. The Saga continues. (No really.) Groannnn!

I really thought that the Daily Mail couldn't possibly wring out any more drips of bile from the "Sachsgate" (the answerphone messages, Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand left on Andrew (Manuel) Sach's phone on their Radio 2 show.) fallout, I was wrong. Because today we have this latest twist in the tale.

To be fair to Ross (The interview that spawned this article is here.) He describes the suspension, and the turmoil, and sudden change in his circumstances as "fun". Likewise, he describes the media furore and the huge over reaction; as "hilarious" and an "intrinsically unimportant" (which it was definitely, on this point) issue in the greater scheme of things. Whether you conclude that [the interview] paints Ross as an irreverent eccentric who sees life as one tragi -comic, whimsical adventure, or an egotistical, overpaid man -child who lives for the day, to hell with everything else. (and I feel that from the tone of the interview, it's the former, sprayed with hints of the latter) I felt that it is wrong to think that it is an attack on Andrew Sachs, but perhaps an up yours to the Mail, and others. A man trying (perhaps a bit to hard) to keep up a cheery; one fingered salute against a fierce barrage of shit. Who is being defined by his critics from the rougher edges of his whimsical exuberance, than the more esoteric side he'd rather be noted for.

There's not much more to add to the narrative of this whole sorry saga. It started with the incident happening and largely passing unnoticed. MoS gets wind of it, and start a feverish campaign to "ban this filth" against a long term hate target(s) (Ross seems to be a particular Dacre hobby horse. Possibly because of his reputed wages at the bloated money burning communist furnace, that is the BBC or what the hell ever it is. Brand also has a few crosshairs on his forehead. He's screwed more people than Bernie Madoff did in a lifetime, scarcely appropriate behaviour for the Amphill WI jam making and annual hot cross bun reviewing Middle England ladies society, and he's also a bit weird looking and thus reduces house prices.) Get people to ring ofcom to complain about second hand stuff they never even listened to. Cue Auntie desperately try to reign in the storm by suspending the pair (Brand is eventually fired) and sacking the controller of R2 (Lesley Douglas). See the BBC fail to understand that their enemies aren't interested in being placated, they wan't them finished, and denounce the BBC anyway. Let's face it, if the DG of the Beeb allowed the pair to have been disemboweled by Melenie Philips herself and Steven Glover had then boiled them alive in hot tar, on the Television Centre car park, the Mail would have ragged the Beeb for inflating petrol prices for the gratuitous use of oil. This is the kind of mentality the organisation is up against.

Now I think that the calls were (no pun intended) a a bad call. There are questions to how much Sachs was aware of what was finally transmitted. Unlike the famous Brass Eye "Cake" spoof, where people were again unaware they were the butt of a joke at their expense, Sachs hadn't done anything to warrant it. In the cake sketch, celebrities were willing to swallow whole blatant bullshit to look good. For me this is why I think someone should have said "hang on" before transmission, and have contacted Sachs, as to what would be put out (it was put out 2 days after recording) and if he was OK with it. For what happened to the trio after the backlash, Sachs was surprisingly dignified about the affair, taking care to not give the press the vengeful soundbites they wanted, (in substantial contrast to the Mail), and just seemed to want the whole thing to blow over. Really an apology to Sachs (which seems to have been how he wanted it to end. He was always very politely keen to bring the whole thing to an end, from what he said at the time), and a bollocking at BBC HQ should have been the end of it. But in the end who really thinks this was just about looking out for a Fawlty Towers legend?

More Tabloid Immigrant Horde Figures. More Statistics pulled out of the Metaphorical Rectal Areas.

As today's post concerns numbers and statistics, I ended up remembering the memorable equation that an old genius of arithmetic (i.e just me attempting a lame attempt at ironic humour) taught me on "Tabloid headline statistics" that:

Numbers of Migrants headlines + Jobs + Tenuously Assigned Percentage + Jobs (subset: stealing our) = Utter bollocks + Ruddy faced tabloid reader choking on breakfast cereal x Incoherent badly spelt comments about immigrants taking over on websites / 300 odd comments in the green.

Yes whenever we see a Daily Express headline with some scary looking figures lifting the lid on the true extent of the "barbarian hordes" foothold on "our jobs", it is a good idea to follow the "proof" back to the source, in order to see how accurate (or better still how inaccurate) these figures are. Now I'm no big fan on digging through statistics, so if you want a meatier analysis of the stats try Left Foot Forward, Hagley Road or for a full breakdown of the actual statistics, try office of National Statistics which were the genesis for the Spectator article that spawned the Express headline above.

Now this article basically came about by the following two partially related sets of statistics. Just shy of 1.67 million new jobs (thought the Express has been shy on what classifies as a job for the purpose of this article.) have been created since 1997. However the number of workers not UK born has increased by 1.64 million. Therefore they've come to the conclusion that foreigners have nicked all the new jobs. However they neglected to mention that they've been working on selective data. The following groups are excluded or conflated, from the Spectator article.

• Excludes UK workers over state pension age – a method that excludes 1,419,000 workers. (5 % of workforce.)

• Conflates “non-UK born” with “nationality” – there are many (around 1,432,000) non-UK born (5% of the workforce now falls of the radar.)

Excludes public sector jobs – meaning that around 20 per cent of the jobs (public sector jobs excluding those in financial corporations) in the entire UK economy are discounted.

The researchers for the article in the Express have no excuse for "missing" the last point, as it's splashed across the graph at the top of the Spectator article, as bright as a summers day. Call me old fashioned, but "forgetting" to mention that large swathes of the working population don't even register on these figures, does seem to indicate that this number was shoehorned to appeal to anti-immigrant sentiment, not to highlight the true state of the jobs situation. Not even taking into account any of these factors; which would alter the true number of UK / non UK born employment figures:

* An increasingly aging population.

* More Working age Britons working / living in the EU, and elsewhere

* Student and Temporary Workers.

* No attempt to factor in correlations between incomers, and emigres.

* An increased public sector (not factored) that the press are at pains to highlight.

* The Express is sub edited by burks.

It actually transpires (see Left Foot Forward link provided) that the real number of new jobs since '97 that are done by non - UK nationals is the slightly lower 49.7%. If this discrepancy of figures is, as the press are keen to point out; "contributing to the debate." Then perhaps that debate has been derailed. The press will always complain that they are being called "racist" for questioning the benefits of immigration, and that debates are being stifled in the name of political correctness. Like anything else, there are problems with immigration as well as benefits. Housing and accommodating, in a time of diminishing is one area that comes to mind (even general population increase from anyone, not exclusively immigrants will increase this.) We have issues of immigrants being exploited in the work place. Incentives to big corporations to encouraging investing in local employment in deprived and unemployed areas. Communication and language gaps etc. They are all issues that should be highlighted. As well as the many benefits of immigrant workers, (and increased mobility.) and the frequently overlooked fact that all over the world, and in all 5 continents people are moving more freely than ever. People are more able to uproot from their birthplace, and do so. Almost all countries are subject to a more fluid demographic shifting. But articles like these just derail any of this. It seems that the press themselves are guilty of obfuscating the immigration question, and actively giving aid and comfort to the xenophobes and other unsavoury base prejudices. That isn't an open debate, it's just pandering to peoples worst instincts.

Littlejohn doesn't know what "Circular Logic" is.

Unsurprisingly Littlejohn has stuck his oar in on Chris Graylings comments about the gay couple turned away from the B&B story which were leaked to the Observer. Where he claims that he believes that B&B owners should be allowed to turn away gay couples if they object to it. (in opposition to his party's official stance on homosexuality, and the current discrimination laws.) There's only one way Littlejohn articles go, when gays and "liberal diversity" and "tolerance" are mentioned and it duly goes there.

"The Observer newspaper prides itself on its impeccable 'liberal' credentials. Indeed, the latest edition carries a splendid editorial in support of free speech.

Yet the very same paper splashed on its front page a vituperative attack on the shadow home secretary Chris Grayling, who had the audacity to suggest that perhaps people who run bed and breakfast establishments should have the right to decide who sleeps under their own roof "

That's called free speech. I mean the Observers editorial hardly going to agree with him anyway. Anyhoo, we continue:

"That is a perfectly respectable view to take. But Grayling's remarks were secretly taped and passed to The Observer, which decided that this was a major scandal, whose importance outweighed anything else which had happened in the world last week.

It was cited as evidence that the entire Conservative Party is anti-gay."

I don't know whether it paints the entire party as anti-gay, (I don't think Grayling is a homophobe either. I actually think his comments are a lukewarm "endorsement" of allowing B&B owners to "use their consciences" to say the least.) and the question of how the paper obtained the speech is another matter (like the Mail wouldn't have done something similar to taping private(ish) speeches?). But it is still quite a serious revelation. So stick with me my lovelies, as I explain why.

A) It contradicts the official Tory party line on their stance on homosexuality. He says he believes (on some level.) that it should be possible for B&B owners to bar gays if they want to. This does raise questions to how much of a shift in attitudes to gay rights has actually occurred as a whole.

B)As shadow Home Secretary he is unique in actually having some chance (unlike most people)of being able to go some way to implementing what he has said. (Though I don't think, if he gets the job; that he really has any intention of changing the existing laws.

Littlejohn now has to square the paradox, that he thinks the criticism of the comments is just Stonewall bolshiness, with the circle; that he is some major league gay rights champion. Hmm.

"I've been on the receiving end often enough. It comes with the turf."

"Even though I have been vocal in supporting civil partnerships and equal rights for gay couples in areas such as housing, health and pensions, I have been tarred as a 'homophobe' because I don't believe 'post-dusk social networking' in public toilets is a way to behave and think that adoptive children should be placed with a man and a woman wherever possible."

So does Littlejohn have "issues" with homosexuality? How would we know? I can only go on what he writes, but you do wonder when he uses things we associate with a prejudice, like:

*Describing a minority rights program as a bunch bolshy fanatics trying to "force" people to their agenda. This implies a latent fear or undue defensive fixation of the group in question.

"The usual hysterical suspects queued up to demand Grayling's resignation. Hereditary Labour lackey Dame Ben Summerskill, the hate-mongering bigot who runs the homosexual pressure group Stonewall, predictably went ballistic.

His tried-and-tested tactic is always to howl down and smear anyone who questions any aspect of his own selfish agenda."

If you go to the Observer link, you can see what Summerskill actually said, and it really was quite muted. Oh and calling a homosexual man a dame, implies all gay men are an effeminate stereotype. That's textbook prejudice.

"Self-styled 'liberals' are now trying to destroy the career of a decent politician simply for expressing a point of view which I would guess is held by at least half the population. Secret tape recordings, smear campaigns. These are the disreputable weapons of fascists, not liberals.

I have often argued in this column that those who force 'tolerance' down our throats are among the most intolerant bullies on Earth. They only tolerate opinions which chime with their own world view. Anyone who dissents must be traduced and punished.
They enforce their beliefs with totalitarian ruthlessness and, under New Labour, often with the full support of the law."

*The critic trying to deflect the criticism from the other side, not by refuting the claims, but by counterclaiming that they are the discriminated against, thus changing the nature of the debate, without quelling the claims.

"Those who speak out against the fashionable Leftist agenda are not merely wrong, they are denounced as inherently evil.
Until the election campaign loomed, anyone who expressed even the mildest reservations about the uncontrolled level of immigration was trashed as 'BNP', 'Little Englander' or 'racist' - the guardianistas' favourite term of abuse.

Along with many of our other traditional liberties, New Labour has mounted a sustained assault on freedom of speech."

"But, as I wrote last week, 'diversity' and 'tolerance' is a one-way street."

"I am reliably informed there are gays-only boarding houses which exclude heterosexuals, but I have yet to hear of one being prosecuted for operating such a policy."** Which sources, and what B&B's?

*A bizarre obsession with a minority, much more than we would expect from a casual commentator. Freudian innuendo.

"Marina Hyde of the Guardian has helpfully compiled a log of Dick’s references to homosexuality. In 2003, he referred “24 times to gays, 17 to homosexuals, 15 to cottaging, seven to rent boys, six to lesbians, six times to being "homophobic" and four times to "homophobia" (note Richard's scornful inverted commas), twice to poovery and once to buggery. That's a mere 82 mentions in 90-odd columns.” In 2004, he excelled himself, and “referred 42 times to gays, 16 times to lesbians, 15 to homosexuals, eight to bisexuals, twice to "homophobia" and six to being "homophobic" (note his scornful inverted commas), five times to cottaging, four to "gay sex in public toilets", three to poofs, twice to lesbianism, and once each to buggery, dykery, and poovery. This amounts to 104 references in 90-odd columns.”

"force 'tolerance' down our throats"

"I have been tarred as a 'homophobe' because I don't believe 'post-dusk social networking' in public toilets is a way to behave"

*Then there are just gay bashing articles.

"Officers from Scotland Yard's special hate crimes unit are investigating a formal complaint brought by the Gay Police Association, which has had enough of the writer's homophobic comments. The GPA is particularly outraged by an article Mr Littlejohn penned for The Sun that referred to cottaging as a "career move" for gay police officers. These comments and other homophobic sentiments were published under the heading "Just a little light spanking, sarge" on 6 January. The GPA accuses Mr Littlejohn of stirring up hatred not only against gay police officers but against the gay community as a whole.

There is no specific law in Britain making it a criminal offence to stir up homophobic feeling. It is understood that the Met's Racial and Violent Crimes Task Force is examining existing laws to see if there are any grounds for prosecution. The GPA said it has also contacted the Commission for Racial Equality to make it aware of the article.

The catalyst for Mr Littlejohn's rant against gay police officers was a proposal by senior officers to introduce new quotas to ensure homosexuals and lesbians are properly represented in the police service. In his article, Mr Littlejohn directly accused Commander Brian Paddick, the highest profile openly gay police officer, of using his sexuality to gain promotion.

"You used to get nicked for cottaging. Now it's a career move. Commander Paddick, the man who turned Brixton into an open-air drugs den, has milked his homosexuality for all it's worth in his relentless assault on the greasy pole."

The columnist also lashed out at Inspector Paul Cahill, the chairman of the GPA. "Inspector Brian [sic] Cahill, 32-year-old chairman of the Gay Police Association, has been awarded the MBE. Good luck to him but what marks him out from hundreds of other inspectors other than his predilection for same-sex sex?"

The columnist also informed readers that he had "assumed all policewomen are lesbians anyway, unless provided with incontrovertible proof to the contrary".

You can't claim to be a defender of gay rights with a record. You can't claim that you are a passionate defender of free speech, when you order a retraction from a spotty student on "Question Time" for pointing out that the leader of the BNP bigged up your column. You can't claim that your opponents are bastards for screaming down their critics as "fascists, and then bang on about "elf n safety Nazis." every bloody week. That's just circular reasoning, and makes you look like a bit of a tit.

So much for writing just a "short entry on this subject."

Great Review on Youtube by "Red Letter Media"

If you ever want to see how Youtube might become one of the most promising doorways to small but talented amateur film makers. Then look no further than Red Letter Medias absolutely brilliant critiques cum deconstructions, cum ripping George Lucas a new one,- reviews of the Star Wars prequels. It is no exaggeration to say that these reviews are some of the most astounding bits of film making; from a layman in his home, to grace the youtube site. They combine top rate execution, with a brilliantly prepared and hugely insightful delivery, and have the added benefit of being ballachingly funny.

The reviews are presented as the musings of Harry Plinkett (the screen persona of Mike Stoklasa, a wedding video producer.) a sociopathic elderly pervert who murders prostitutes in his basement and ex wives, when he's not floridly critiquing three films that defiled a trilogy of great ones that came before;- on the alter of profit, and shitty special effects. Plinketts reviews will even be entertaining to a casual, or even a non-fan of Star Wars. They aren't the sort of nitpicky, fan boy review we might expect. The kind of thing where a wheezy looking American with spectacles and a beard point out that that droid standing around in the background in one tiny scene wasn't invented till after the death star blew up. No, this is a (70 and 90 minute respectively for the first two prequels) creative critique of where Plinkett / Stoklasa feels that Lucas sacrificed both story and characterisation, for special effects and shameless promotional merchandising, available in all good retailers. It is particularly telling when his friends can rattle off single word descriptions of the original trilogy characters, but can't describe the prequel characters at all. And when we see the reaction by the creators of "Phantom Menace" after the first rough cut screening at Lucases private cinema. Or when he shows us the contrasts between the cruder effects and choreography of the originals, in comparison to the flawless overkill to boringness we get in the prequels, and how less turned out out be more. I could almost hear Han Solo saying "Hokey FX, and a crappy script, are no match fort a good story at your side kid!" The critiquing of the (many) plot oversights is kept to the major ones, and not bogged down in pedantry. (unless used for comic effect.) This is a game for the fans of the genre, and the Confused Matthew reviews are tailored for a more fan friendly review.

My only criticism about the review is the interludes in Plinketts dingy flat, where we see he has prostitutes tied up in the basement. They seem like filler (I'm not sure what they are really for. Harry is self evidently a dirty old man.), and the (fake) misanthropy clashes with the reviews themselves. We sympathise with Harrys anger toward the way the films came out, with being repelled by graphically seeing what sort of man he is. So they can feel uneven at times.

Mike is obviously well read in the art of film making (he is after all, one himself.), and this is the key to the quality of his work. Besides the fact that he is full of the insider knowledge of a business most people know zip about, - his genuine anger about how three great movies have been harmed by three ill founded ventures; is contagious. With all the resources that these films had thrown at them, we can say along with Harry. "This is the Result???"

And that is the key to the success of the reviews. That is why we don't think that Mike has nothing better to do than bitch about some movie for over an hour. The prequels were; - on one level, a form of vandalism on a cultural icon. This review articulates precisely how personally some fans felt disappointed by these films, in a way that outsiders may think is strange. We saw how (I'll give George credit. HUGE) anticipation, and opportunity to build upon a well loved trilogy - was squandered by a bad script, and FX being used as the end, not the means to the end. Again as Harry once said in a review; "Gee! How uplifting."

Red Letter Medias site is here. http://www.blancscreencinema.com/redlettermedia/index.html

Questions on the latest front in the Drugs war.

As we know, the home Alan Johnson has ordered the dance drug Methedrone (meow meow) to be reclassified from a legal substance up to a Class B drug, which is to be implemented as soon as possible (or if you're a resident of the Isle of Man, it has already been done.) presumably on the basis of a few post hoc anecdotes implicating (that doesn't mean the same thing as CAUSE, Sun and Mail editors BTW) it being involved in the death of some young people. This has caused some ructions amongst Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) advisers against the governments apparent spur of the moment ban on the substance. The latest advisor to have resigned in protest on the banning of a substance so quickly, and with so little evidence that the drug actually is a great enough hazard to health to warrant a ban is ACMD government advisor Eric Carlin. He is pretty damning in what he sees as a bit of gesture politics before an election:

"The decision to criminalise mephedrone, was 'unduly based on media and political pressure"

"A 'lack of interest' in prevention and early intervention with young people."

"We had little or no discussion about how our recommendation to classify this drug would be likely to impact on young people's behaviour. 'Our decision was unduly based on media and political pressure."

"As well as being extremely unhappy with how the ACMD operates, I am not prepared to continue to be part of a body which, as its main activity, works to facilitate the potential criminalisation of increasing numbers of young people."

"I believed the decision to rush through the ban had been politically motivated in order for the Government to look tough prior to the election."

"We've not properly considered it, not assessed how young people use it."

Call me Mr Pedantic, but isn't this what an advisory council on drugs use should be chewing the fat about?

This is I'll admit only the opinions of one man, but when we hear that others associated with this kind of thing have been airing similar sentiments, we must question if the government is actually taking into account what these people say, or are other factors motivating their reaction to drug control? We have this equally terse testimony by Dr. Polly Taylor, who was also a member of ACMD before she quit prior to the ban being announced, and in part due to Professor Nutts sacking late last year:

"In the months following the professor's departure, the Government had failed to give its advisers the independence they deserve. I feel there is little more we can do to describe the importance of ensuring that advice is not subjected to a desire to please ministers or the mood of the day's Press."

This hardly allays my fears that drugs policy is being directed by rational evidence based empirical research on the actual harm to users, and not to placate the editorials of newspapers that, ironically just hate a Labour government no matter what they do.

It has been argued that these people are just throwing their toys out the pram. A bunch of unelected bigwigs who think that they should be calling the shots to an elected government, and having a petulant strop when they are knocked back. It may well be true for some individuals. But the common narrative here seems to be that advisers the government has brought in, have either simply offered advice that no one had any intention of paying heed to, or have simply not even had the chance to advise at all. We seem to have a situation where the press respond to whatever is "the killer drug of the week" on the basis of anecdotal evidence, which leads to lurid headlines, then to the calls to ban substance x, then the ban itself from a government. That isn't joined up thinking on a very serious issue. It sure as hell isn't a sound evidence based methodology on drug prevention, and I can well see why the ACMD are banging their heads on a very large brick wall.

I don't think Alan Johnson is a bad man for banning Methedrone, and I don't sanction drug taking (like anything with risk, it is up to the individual to weigh up the risks, and go from there without pressure.) I also think that prohibition of drugs, while superficially may be seen as the right way to protect people, ends up causing more harm than good. Methedrone has now been taken from legitimate sources to the drug dealers. We now don't know if that meow meow tablet has been cut with god knows what, and that hugely inflated costs should fill the drugs trades coffers nicely. It would be a sad irony if methods brought in to "protect" people from this stuff, just ended up putting them at greater risk.

Littlejohns Magnum Opus

Littlejohns House of Fun. 13 years of [Labour] Madness is probably the most epic paradigmatic revolution of modern literature since Chris Moyles anecdote about comedy Dave inserting pound coins in a pub urinal, in his autobiography (Oh look I'm nicking lines of Stewert Lees Comedy Vehicle.) From what I've seen from the excerpts printed in the Mail in an attempt to flog a few books, it's pretty much par for course from "Britain's most biting Satirist" )
:<