So Much for Courageous Columnists.

I imagine columnists, Richard Littlejohn and Amanda Platell -like to think that they are "brave" and "hard hitting", "edgy" etc, when they write their stuff ragging on, often the most vulnerable people in society. People who don't have access to a high circulation newspaper to counter their claims, and the salary that comes with it either. Well I don't buy it, not one bit. I see little evidence of bravery in circulating saloon bar politics, and PC myths to an audience that has many who lap this stuff up anyway. Undercover reporting about crime barons, or foreign journalists uncovering the dictatorships crimes they live under -yes. Daft stories about people sent to prison for 60 years, for putting orange peel in the paper recycling bin, no. At the very least if you want to be edgy, bite the bullet and admit that you support something unpopular or dubious (Let me add the two are often mutually exclusive.) Don't try to lamely fence sit, cause that certainly isn't brave at all. Is it Richard Littlejohn? Who writes this about torture:

"Let them take their claims to the courts in Washington, or Islamabad, and see how It has been stressed repeatedly that no British agent has been involved directly in torture, but knew it was happening and acted on information obtained under duress.

" What are they supposed to do? If MI 5 are informed by Pakistani intelligence of a plot to blow up a shopping centre in Manchester, they would be irresponsible in the extreme if they didn't investigate and do everything in their power to prevent it."

Ooh the ticking time bomb dilemma. But then he adds.

"No, I'm not condoning torture"

You are a bit.

Then there's Amanda Platell, a women so bitchy I have to wear goggles to read her column, lest my eyes are dissolved by the acidy venom of her writing. Here she questions the competence of the women chief constable who headed the Moat standoff in Northumbria, for err... being a bit like an air hostess. But it's nothing to do with her being a women, as Amanda handily points out.

" I'm all for equality in the police force,

but is acting Chief Constable Sue Sim the right person to take charge in the Raoul Moat manhunt?

At a meeting on Thursday to quell local fears, she began the proceedings by performing a health and safety demonstration that pointed out the emergency exits.

To lighten the mood, she jokingly delivered it in the style of a trolley dolly.

I'm sure the residents of Northumbria slept more soundly in their beds that night knowing there may be an armed maniac in their midst, but at least their lady Chief Constable is a good laugh."

It won't stop pithy comparisons to "trolley dolly's" though.

These aren't perhaps the most glaring examples of the "I'm not a racist but..." comments that lead these kind of stories, they are just two in succession that stood out. I always think that kind of back peddling on supposedly condemning what your simultaneously trying to put across is a bit like a kid who says something a bit too tactless about another person and hurts their feelings, but tries to stem the damage done by passing it off as "I was only joking." Or when Bernard Manning used to claim that people shouldn't object to his racist jokes as they were only jokes, and he took the piss out of everyone anyway. Everyone - seemingly 90 percent of the time, meant Asians and Black people. It really is meaningless sentiment, and a lame attempt to distance yourself from opinion brought about by iffy reasoning. It's certainly not what I'd call brave.

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.