Littlejohn Is Empathetically Stunted

The Daily Mail and its hard core readership aren't exactly brimming with the milk of human compassion. It is all to often a deeply depressing insight into the dark recesses of bigotry and cynicism passing off as pessimistic insight. A gloomy mush of narrow intolerance and mean mindedness. But I swear Richard Littlejohn actually manages to scale newer and higher heights of this kind of shit in his columns. His writing can still create shock in those who thought they were immune to being surprised at the vileness the Mail will stoop to. Like his column piece that attacked the naming of the victims of the Ipswich murders as sex workers. (I mean this etymological nitpicking is in perfectly good taste in regards to women who had been horribly murdered.) Or taking the piss out of netting put down to stop the brutally overworked Chinese workers jumping to their deaths. This article however broadly attacks the decision to have a minutes silence for the victims in Japan at a premier league football game. Now that is fair enough. You can have your own views on whether these things are profound moments of reflections, or just largely demonstrative window dressing. That is the role of newspaper columnists. But he somehow turns it into some attack on the Japanese atrocities in WW2 (which being over 70 years ago means it is really relevant to today's events in Japan.), and that Japan may as well be on Mars as it is so alien and whatever. It is just so bizarre and horrendously bad taste at the same time. I mean how mean minded does he think his readers are? Here are some of the worst bits.

We get a subtle "charity begins at home" dig.

"Our natural inclination is to wonder how we can help. But besides sending specialist search teams and offering heartfelt sympathy, there is nothing we can do. Japan is an advanced, wealthy nation, which will recover and rebuild over time. It doesn’t need our money."

Fair enough. This sentiment is expressed with some glib crudeness. But the CBAH argument isn't really an argument but an attitude. Perhaps an unpleasant one, but many hold it. It is really the second part of the paragraph that sets the misanthropic tone of the article;

"Despite filling our homes with Japanese electronics and our garages with cars made by Nissan and Toyota, despite the vivid images on TV and assorted social networks, it remains a faraway country of which we know little and understand less."

Although not explicitly said out loud. This appears to imply that as Japan is a long way away, then we should care a little bit less or something like that. You see I kind of thought that basic human empathy would kick in at the plight of any group of people who had suffered a huge loss of life in such a tragic event, regardless of whether they were in Manchester or on Mars.

"Anyone who has visited or worked in Japan will tell you it is like landing on another planet. Beyond the baseball caps and Western clothes, the Japanese people have a distinct culture of their own, which is entirely alien to our own values."

So what? It's not that fucking alien. Lots of Japanese people died horribly. Lots have lost everything they had. Whole towns on the North East coast are gone! I've never been to Japan, but I know that they have suffered really badly with this. It's basic fucking human empathy to sympathise with people in this situation. Why bring this up???

"They are militantly racist and in the past have been capable of great cruelty."

First point. It's sort of racist to call a n entire collective people "militantly racists". Secondly this applies to pretty much every nation on Earth. It's just that some of us British weren't on the end of it, which can change your perspective.

This is when he brings up the war.

"It is wrong to visit the sins of previous generations on their modern descendants,"

Yes it is.

"Yet many surviving members of the Burma Star Association still harbour deep animosity to everyone and all things Japanese"

Now I understand their anger, and the horrible suffering that they endured, and no one can tell them that they are not entitled to think that way. But that doesn't mean that this is a good way to feel. The people who died last week were innocent of the crimes their ancestors commit ed. Littlejohn is sort of implying that the one minute silence was inappropriate because of this (he uses the example of his wife's grandad who was tortured by the Japanese in the war.). But the people who died didn't commit these crimes. As I said, I can understand why the victims of such appalling treatment feel this way. But that does not mean it is a good thing. When you cannot divorce your hostility, even to innocent people who were not responsible for what their ancestors did. That most peoples common humanity comes to light in such a dreadful event, and that boundaries and even past hostilities are overridden in times like this. I find it baffling as to what point he is trying to make. At least the victims of Japanese war crimes had reason to feel this way. Littlejohn doesn't.

Littlejohn bizarrely tries to tie it in with the whole death of Princess Di thing:

"Ever since the hysteria surrounding the death of Lady Di, when half of the nation seemed to take leave of its senses, a section of the population seizes any excuse for a sobfest."

Yeah, the Diana thing was OTT. But this was a huge natural disaster. The two events are really incomparable. To say there has been a sobfest is an exaggeration. People see lots of shattered lives and are moved by it. The mawkish bastards! Hell, Diana's death was a tragedy. She was a young women with two young kids. The scenes after her death were OTT, but it was still a tragic event (for her loved ones especially) nonetheless.

"There is nothing more meaningless than seeing highly-paid, precocious superstars linking arms and standing in silent tribute to victims of an earthquake on the other side of the world."

Again this "other side of the world" spiel. whether they live 100 miles or 10 000, it was still a dreadful tragedy.

"Sam Kirkpatrick, a reader from Stanwick, Northamptonshire, saw a woman taking part in a road race this weekend wearing a T-shirt imploring spectators to: ‘Pray for the Japanese people.’

The implication being: not just that she was advertising the fact that she is a caring soul, but if you don’t pray for Japan you must be a heartless bastard."

How does Sam know why she was wearing it? She may have been a Christian charity raiser or something.

There is a certain amount of demonstrative posing that goes on with tragedies like this. I have no doubt about that. But a lot of the spirit behind the silences, and the lady with the "prey for Japan" T-shirt is well intentioned (though the debate about its effectiveness is another matter.). So at least give them credit for trying. I honestly suspect Littlejohn is both envious and genuinely flummoxed that people behave this way. That people actually can care about shit that doesn't directly relate to them. That Richard Littlejohn cannot relate to the basic human empathy most of us take for granted.

Does Littlejohn Think Homosexuality and Paedaphillia are Interchangeable

Just spotted this one from Littlejohn on that Sharia Schools thing, about how his naive schooldays were so perfect in the innocent olden days of yore.

"We didn’t even know what homosexuality was, even though we’d been warned to steer clear of that chap who was always hanging round the swimming pool."

Hmmm that sort of sounds like an implication that being a gay man means that you have an unhealthy interest in young boys. So it's not too surprising people may be a bit sceptical at the sincerity of comments from Littlejohn such as this:

"Though homosexuality wasn't exactly my idea of a night out, I thought it outrageous that gays were subjected to discrimination in areas such as employment, housing and pensions.

I've always argued in favour of civil partnerships."

He couldn't possibly be making that up.

Bashing the Bishop Pete of Willesdon

Bishop Pete of Willesdon, bloody Willesdon? Do they have an Archbishop of Wythenshawe? A Vicar of the parish made up of the Burger King on the Northbound Trowell Services on the M1? -. I digress. Bish Pete is officially the most horridest man in Christendom after he made some stupid comments on Facebook about the royal family, Katie and Williams wedding likely lasting seven years, Chas's ears, the royals being a bunch of philanderers -and a tasteless joke about a princess and a bridge column in a tunnel in Paris (I made the last one up by the way). Why do I mention this preposterous story? Well Melanie Philips; Peter Oborne; Richard Littlejohn, and some prat no-ones ever heard of on the Torygraph blogs are saying that this [Anglican] godbloke; who has made republican comments as well - should be sacked as technically the Queen is a sort of his boss (what about God?? Is she like the Department manager and he's the MD or something?), and he swore an oath of allegiance to her, so technically he has committed the ecclesiastical equivalent of slagging his boss off online. This is all interspersed with how republicans are just a bunch of mean minded; disloyal killjoys, blah blah -who should just shut their faces. So much for the ostensibly libertarian Torygraph, yeah free speech if you sing to the right songsheet more like.

It's not the unedifying and slightly weird "reverential" forelock tugging that seems to be going on with some of the conservative commentators response to our royal betters tieing the knot, that bugs me about this story, though I do hear "get a fucking grip it's 2010 for gawds sake!" screaming in my mind with some of the coverage this weddings getting. No it's how they are reacting to an institution [The C of E ] they supposedly revere as an essential part of our "Judeo Christian bedrock values". In case they haven't noticed the C of E is dying on its arse a bit at the moment. The guys comments were a bit in bad taste yeah, but come on! The C of E is losing followers. Joe public loses interest with stuff like this. It's trivial. It really highlights the bubble some of these people are in in regards to the role of the Anglican church in regards to modern Britain. It is almost pitiable to see these guys getting worked up at the "harm" this is doing to the church. Yeah it causes harm, it shows how out of touch it is, getting worked up about it. People won't want to know. Kick this bloke out! Yeah it's not like the C of E is having staffing crises is it? Do get a grip.

And on a final note. As I said his comments were a bit of a case of republican sour grapes. But I know that some of the homophobic comments from that same institution are a lot worse, and are directed at people who don't have the material trappings of bishop Petes targets either. I wonder why these commentators (I'll let Oborne off the hook) don't get half as worked up about that sort of sentiment?

Littlejohns Poppycock.

Richard Littlejohn once commented in a webchat discussion with some Mail readers that his role [in journalism] was to "sit at the back and throw bottles". In that quote he had unintentionally admitted that his "journalism" was the most laziest and cynical imaginable. Don't offer measured criticism, don't highlight valid points or make insightful statements. Just sit at the back like some spotty kid who derides everything as "this is just like shit". A monkey can do this sort of thing, and I think it is why; more than anything - I hold his columns in as much contempt as I do. His latest attack is on BBC presenters and others who have been wearing poppies before they officially start collections for them (on Thursday), whilst simultaneously deriding them for not wearing them before hand. Whatever your opponent does, attack them. If they don't do something you approve of, deride them as "out of touch" or "unpatriotic" or whatever. If they do do it, accuse them of being cynical (that's rich) and being tokenistic, and for good measure "out of touch" It really is a win - win scenario, or also known as shitty journalism too. Here is the article in full.

"Not wearing a poppy used to be a badge of honour on the Left. Now they have worked out that the Armed Forces are held in the highest esteem, they have gone completely the other way as they seek to reconnect with the British public.

Some Left-leaning broadcasters and mainstream politicians are sporting poppies already, even though there are more than two weeks to go to remembrance Day.

Members of the shadow cabinet look as if they've crawled through a field in Normandy on their way to the studio.

Someone should quietly explain that wearing a poppy in the middle of October is as inappropriate as having Easter eggs at Christmas."

It also seems the Royal Legion agree, which is why a spokesman said:

"But we would never say an individual’s wearing their poppy too early"

Of course any genuine Poppy Appeal supporter wouldn't. Only someone trying to have a cheap pop at someone they don't like would say something like that that.

Littlejohn and the Chilean Miners.

Can you actually fucking believe Littlejohn is actually bitching about the amount of coverage that the rescue of the Chilean miners received on Wednesday from Sky, the BBC and other media outlets? There is gratuitous sensationalism and emotionalism out there I'll grant, but this kind of story was pretty unique. I'd have been more surprised if it hadn't received as much coverage as it did, and I don't begrudge the story that. It was one of those rare stories in the media, a happy ending to what could have been a disaster. Most mining accidents rarely end any other way. It was a genuine human interest story, and a true tale of triumph over adversity, pulling together, and the test of human spirit in tough times. It was pretty horrendous for 33 men to be stuck in a horrible place for over two months, people - even complete strangers are bound to feel for the men and their families, and be glad to see them rescued. The static nature of the accident and the slow unfolding of the rescue effort explains why there was rolling news coverage at the site. It meant the reports of the rescues would be drawn out, and would give them something to actually put on 24 hour news for a change (though I doubt any but the hardest followers watched the whole thing live, as Littlejohn claims.) I imagine that there was a mawkish element to some of the commentary and reportage, but I think a lot of people were genuinely concerned that the miners would all be rescued safely. The rescue itself could have gone wrong. I think people were impressed by the miners resilience in a situation you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy, trapped in the bowels of the Earth in awful conditions for that time.

It is actually ironic that the Mail and Littlejohn are partly responsible for the way the rescue was covered. What do I mean? I mean that although it is true that bad news sells, too much bad news can put people off. Papers like the Mail are so unremittingly negative and hateful to everything that you end up needing a break from it all. People don't want wall to wall negativity, it's bad for the soul. They want to see a happy ending, walk about in the sun, see that good stuff happens to good people. The rescue of the miners, whilst perhaps not the biggest news story in the greater scheme of things (though not to the families.) reminded us that it wasn't all doom and gloom all the time. We were routing for these guys and luckily the rescue payed off, and that is as happy an ending as you can get really.

This being a Littlejohn article, all this talk of nice stuff was overlooked totally. I mean this quote probably speaks volumes about the sort of bloke he is.

"I don't know any of these people [the miners]. Nor does anyone else in Britain. So why invest so much time and emotional energy in the fate of total strangers?"

Oh it's called basic human compassion Richard. For people in a truly shitty and unique situation.

"discovered this week that twice as many men have died in accidents on British building sites since 2001 as have been killed in action in Afghanistan. But you won't be seeing a Panorama special on them any day soon."

This from a guy who takes the piss out of "elf n safety"... oh, every day. He then says in the same article.

"Call me callous, but I couldn't help wondering what would have happened if 33 men had been trapped down one of our few remaining British mines.

Under our modern elf 'n' safety culture, the emergency services are actively discouraged from risking their own lives to save others."

Yeah I'm sure everyone would have just shrugged their shoulders, packed up the rescue equipment and gone home leaving them stuck down there forever.

Idiot.

A Masterpeice of Hypocracy. The Mail Lecturing People on Creating Helath Scares!

The bare brass faced balls of the Daily Mail and it's columnists is truly the stuff of legends. How Richard Littlejohn, the star columnist of a paper that sells more health scares, does x cause cancer? (Answer to tabloid rhetorical questions are usually no.) Why brushing your teeth causes rectal prolapses, and grapes make you go psychotic "health" articles. Shit like that. Yes, -how Littlejohn, sitting in his tacky villa in Florida can type the following article and keep a straight face at the ironic chutzpah of writing an article condemning overreactions to health scares in a paper that does more health scare stories, than a PG factory churns out teabags. Actually I do understand how he can, that six figure; closer to seven salary of his. That's what.


Here it is in full then.


"Labour blew £1.2 billion on the swine flu epidemic that never was.

A new study says all the money spent on patronising advertising campaigns, vaccinations, anti-virals and face-masks probably saved just 26 lives.

Each case cost £46million, which would have paid for six months of cancer drugs for 3,000 patients.

And no one can be sure if those 26 people wouldn’t have died anyway. Swine flu claimed fewer lives in Britain than a normal winter flu outbreak.

That’s despite hysterical predictions from the ludicrous Liam Donaldson, chief medical officer and Whitehall’s resident Dr Death, that 65,000 people would die.

We’ve been here before. Labour’s default mode whenever a potential public health problem arose was blind panic.

During the foot-and-mouth scare, every farm in Britain was turned into an al fresco Argentinian barbacoa pit.

Millions of animals were slaughtered unnecessarily, causing untold hardship in rural communities.

Five minutes after a sheep sneezed in Lanarkshire, Gordon Brown was summoning a press conference to announce that he was taking charge.

It was more Corporal Jones than Winston Churchill.

Same with headless chicken flu and the non-existent SARS epidemic, which was going to lead to thousands of corpses on the London underground.

The Tories have form in this area, too. Remember the great heterosexual Aids epidemic myth, which consumed hundreds of millions of pounds in the 1980s?

Perhaps it is too much to hope that the new Government will introduce a sense of proportion.
At the moment the risk-averse ‘if it saves one life’ tendency holds sway.

We simply can’t afford to keep throwing billions at every health scare. Rule one: Don’t panic."


I've a few rebuttals on what's been written, so here we go:


1. Regarding Labour "blowing" 1.2bn on combating swine flu. Hindsight is 20/20 (his argument about money wasted that could have been used in cancer drugs is the same thing.). The outbreak may never have happened anyway. The preparations may have prevented it from spreading in the first place. The H1N1 strain (not technically swine flu, but a hybrid of 3 strains of flu) was reported to have been responsible for 457 UK deaths. SARS about 775 worldwide. So there was a danger, and they weren't "the scares that never were." Real, human casualties occurred. It's easy to sit there as an armchair spectator afterwards, proclaiming that there may never have been an outbreak after all. Truth is influenza has a nasty habit of mutating, SARS is a RNA based pathogen, and thus more prone to mutation and species jumping than a DNA based one. It's hard to detect before hand if a virus will mutate (evolution is a reactive force after all.). Containment (after preliminary victims were identified as succumbing to these viruses) is the best option.


2. You can't compare funding cancer drugs (of which the juries out on their effectiveness) with preventing a viral pandemic. They are completely different things. The cost of prevention, is much less than the cost of a pandemic (in both lives and money).

3. It's all good and well complaining about the powers that be are so obsessed with "elf n safety" in regards to "if it saves one life" mentality. But we all know that if it was a Mail columnists family member, or the right kind of "face fits" victim who succumbed, then they would scream blue murder at the governments /NHS callousness in allowing their loved ones to die. The "if it saves one life" mentality perhaps doesn't seem as rigid, if it is someone close to you who needs saving.

4. About foot and mouth. The main reason so many cattle were destroyed was that although it didn't kill all of them, it damaged their ability to produce milk. They were essentially almost worthless on the market. Handy going to uni with someone who was a dairy farmer!

5. Hmm heterosexual AIDS?? Yeah we didn't get an epidemic here. But there's this place called Africa, and you might say it's a bit of a problem over there. It's hard to predict the extent of an epidemic, before it has occurred.

But all these rebuttals, really miss the point of his article. Littlejohn is not really interested in how the health system deals with pandemics. It's a win win argument. If there is no pandemic, the government and NHS have overreacted and wasted tax payers money, and thus are the enemy. If there was a pandemic, the government and NHS are incompetent and failed the tax payer who funds them to do the job they are supposed to do, and are thus the enemy. And all this from a paper that can blow any health scare (if there is even any basis at all to justify it) into a hysterical end of the world scenario. They have no right to lecture anyone on "getting it into perspective."

This kind of thing by "hard hitting" columnists like Littlejohn really bugs me. All the snide racism and homophobia, and plain nastiness and ill spirit that saturates his cruddy column is bad enough. But Littlejohn has admitted himself that his job is to "sit at the back and throw bottles", when he was asked why; if he was so pissed off about everything, did he not become an MP himself. The world and his wife can sit at the back dismissing everything as toss. I know full well that Littlejohn lacks the intelligence and gumption to ever try to put forward active solutions, or to have a reasoned debate without resorting to name calling. It stinks when knee jerk cynicism is palmed off as "brave" and "controversial", by the likes of Littlejohn. It's just the laziest and most crude form of punditry going.

Littlejohn and the Speed Camera Argument

Everyone knows that in some sections of the driving community; speed cameras are the luminous yellow traffic anti-Christ. These machines are used to bully the commuting community to a cowering, angst ridden road discipline. They were designed to fleece the motorist to penury, the usual spiel. With the news that the local council are going to decide whether the fixed speed cameras in Oxfordshire should be removed to shore up money for that council. All speed camera fines go into the "Road Safety Grant" set aside for that particular project. By cutting the budget for this grant, the fines will provide 40 million of surplus dosh in the pot, that would normally have been out of reach, in a closed system for road safety projects. Likewise Oxfordshire council can save money by not having to keep the cameras. It is ironic that a move to cut the very same "fleece the drivers" speed cameras, will actually for the first time ever - make some money from speeders. (Indeed the costs of putting the bloody things up in the first place, outweighed the cash put back in the coffers by fines for speeding drivers!) Thus the myth of speed cameras being used to fleece motorists is blown away. And that is the point of this post. I have a little experience with road related issues, so I want to sort of see if some of the rights arguments against them are true. It also helps that Littlejohn has touched on this issue, and as he never does any research on anything, and trots out right wing memes, and paints counter arguments as "extremist" like I don't know what. It was, in a nutshell, a good place to start from. So here we go.

" Both are likely to be disappointed. There has never been any conclusive evidence that cameras have saved thousands of lives, as their more hysterical disciples maintain."

AKA: THE ARGUMENT THAT SPEED CAMERAS DON'T EVEN PREVENT FATALITIES ANYWAY. In one sense it is difficult to gauge if speed cameras specifically prevented or stopped a fatality, as the fatality it prevented never happened, so was never reported. Just an angry blast on a horn of a driver who slowed down in time, at a driver who pulled out without looking, or a kid who ran into the road. But comparisons of fatality levels have been observed to have dropped (up to 40 percent) at blackspots, after cameras are installed. And there is also evidence here that fatalities have dropped steadily since 1994 (two years after they were introduced to the UK.) Speed is a big factor (though not always the cause as we'll see.) in fatalities, and is widespread, as we read here.


" The faster the speed of a vehicle, the greater the risk of an accident. The forces experienced by the human body in a collision increase exponentially as the speed increases. Smart Motorist recommends that drivers observe our 3 second rule in everyday traffic, no matter what your speed. Most people agree that going 100 mph is foolhardy and will lead to disaster. The problem is that exceeding the speed limit by only 5 mph in the wrong place can be just as dangerous. Traffic engineers and local governments have determined the maximum speeds allowable for safe travel on the nation's roadways. Speeding is a deliberate and calculated behavior where the driver knows the risk but ignores the danger. Fully 90% of all licensed drivers speed at some point in their driving career; 75% admit to committing this offense regularly.

Consider this example: a pedestrian walks out in front of a car. If the car is traveling at just 30 mph, and the driver brakes when the pedestrian is 45 feet away, there will be enough space in which to stop without hitting the pedestrian. Increase the vehicle speed by just 5 mph and the situation changes dramatically. At 35 mph, with the pedestrian 45 feet away and the driver braking at the same point, the car will be traveling at 18 mph when it hits the pedestrian. An impact at 18 mph can seriously injure or even kill the pedestrian."


The exponential increase in physical impact even a few mph over the limit, really needs highlighting to those who say that 5 mph over it isn't a big deal.


Littlejohn however goes on.


"Independent research attributes just 7 per cent of accidents to excessive speed."


AKA: SPEEDING DOESN'T EVEN CAUSE MOST ACCIDENTS! WHY SINGLE THAT OUT? THEY'RE JUST BEING LIKE 1984 OR SOMETHING. He doesn't cite where he got this figure from. But surprisingly it is probably about right, roughly in the one in twenty range. Most accidents happen in slower traffic, such as rear ending, not stopping in time at a queue, not looking where you are going etc. So there are few fatalities here, whiplash and stuff. But for fatal accidents the number rises to about 12 percent. (Speeding was defined as the CAUSE of the accident. Not a contributing factor, and not accounting for inappropriate speed for the conditions.) It is still a lowish number, and some may ask, why focus on this so much, and not drink drivers, people pulling out without looking and other stuff that is statistically accounted for the cause of more accidents than speeding alone? The real truth is that traffic enforcement really works best when road users enforce it. External enforcements can be difficult. For all their cynicism of people like police chiefs and politicians. These pundits often fail to understand that these individuals often have less influence to act on stuff like this, than they would like to have. The simple fact is that speed cameras are one of the only real deterrents (and they are more sticking plaster than the deterrent they should be.) to bad driving, and one of the few options the transport police have to prevent (or damage limit) accidents to any large degree. (the Highways Agency redesigning dangerous junctions is another.) Spotting drunk / drugged / ear glued to a mobile / drivers in a squad car owes so much to being in the right place at the right time, that it is really difficult to curb it as much as they would like. As for drivers not paying attention, it's an even worse story, the cops can't drive the cars for them. A static camera can at least secure a higher "hit" rate. Speeding may not be the biggest cause of fatalities, but it is the easiest (and it isn't easy) to attempt to tackle. The increase in police patrols Littlejohn suggests has problems too. Firstly officers are diverted from trying to catch the other types of offender. Secondly when booking one person, they can miss others doing the same. Thirdly they'll just be accused of not "catching real criminals" and time wasting in "persecuting" motorists. So it's swings and roundabouts really.

I'll have to finish on my own feelings as to why speed cameras are so opposed by so many, and my own personal opinion of them (I hope backed up with evidence!). The simple fact about why they are so disliked is neither a surprise, nor a new phenomena. Practically every method introduced to cut down fatalities on our roads was condemned as A) "Won't work." and B) "Infringement of rights." Everything from introducing a 70mph speed limit on the then new M1, to seatbelts, even crash barriers in the central reservation, were vigorously condemned as "a war on drivers". Breathalysers were singled out in particular, and were predicted to close down just about every pub everywhere. A bit of this mentality survived even today, with a small upwelling of hostility, to the proposal to make the permitted blood alcohol level much more rigorous, as - yes "a war on drivers". Cars bring out a swelling of libertarian mentality, being cocooned in your own metal space and all. It is unsurprising when some take umbrage at methods designed to curtail personal freedoms in that space. (and cameras seem a particularly intrusive as well.)

So my own feelings on whether arguments A) and B) have merit. B) is the easiest for me to tackle. On one level they are an infringement of someones right to speed (you get fined obviously.), but peoples right to do stuff is relative to other rights. And the right to drive very fast, wherever you feel like it, doesn't count for much with the right not to be maimed in an accident. So on that score personal safety wins. As for A). Well there is evidence they do prevent accidents, especially at blackspots. But they don't stop speeding, and have limited success in doing so. Traffic will only tend to slow down near them, and then continue. So they only take some of the sting out of the speed problem, and for this reason, I support their use, and think that there are people still here because of those unpopular yellow boxes. But although they will never exclusively stop speeding completely; alone, there is room for optimism. In 1966 there were 8000 fatalities on the road, in 2007 there were 2940, and there were far fewer cars on the road back then. (the original fatality projections for 2000, from the 60's was half a million per year.) So unpopular moves to prevent deaths do work (as well as more robust cars), and perhaps do subconsciously start to be enforced from the drivers themselves (especially in regards to drink driving), not from pressures to enforce them (exclusively enforced by police and cameras.). Education on the issue of speeding can also play its part. It's a long haul, for something as endemic as speeding, but the drops in fatalities is a good sign.

As for taking the static cameras out of Oxfordshire. Well Oxfordshire has lots of long and fast trunk roads to service Oxford, form its rather remote location to the M4, M40 and M5 motorways, so there are some roads that are tempting for speed breakers. But on the plus side the city centre itself is a pain to drive in, so pedestrians are safer than other towns. And cutting speed where pedestrians are most vulnerable is really where the cameras work best. I have no doubt it will be popular with many residents in the area, and the people who want to pass the ban on static cameras know this.

Time will tell.

There is tons of info on speed cameras, and the causes of accidents at the URLs below.

http://www.trafficaccidentadvice.co.uk/speed-camera-questions-answers.html


http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/what-causes-car-accidents.html

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.

How "People Just Making Stuff Up" Conquered the World (Well Sort Of.) Part 1

It's always nice to see that Britain's most highly paid columnist is really doing all the top notch research that justifies every penny of his 6 figure salary. So its not nice to see that this aforementioned columnist (AKA Richard Littlejohn) is doing no research at all. That's why he had to issue a retraction after a headteacher contacted him to say his "elf n safety" story about her banning football, was out of line, due to the fact that she hadn't actually banned it. A small error then;

"SHOULD I STAND IN THE CORNER, MISS?

On Friday, I reported that parents of children at a primary school in Essex were angry that playground football had been banned during the World Cup.

I've since heard from Marion Smith, the head of Thomas Willingale Primary, in Debden, who tells me she has only ever suspended playground football for a week to punish bad behaviour.

She has asked parents to give children lightweight balls to prevent injury, but was devastated by claims that she had banned it completely.

Ofsted has commended the school for its outstanding commitment to all sports, including football.

My comments were based on emails from parents and a report in the local newspaper, but the responsibility is all mine. I owe Mrs Smith and her staff an unqualified apology."

You Reckon??!!

Now I'm not a multimillionaire columnist, but even I know that the simplest and best way to verify the veracity of this story, is to ask the person who issued the ban that wasn't. Rather than rely on a few iffy e-mails. Wouldn't want a head to have to placate a load of parents who take news paper reports at face value do we?

It has been speculated that Littlejohn is not that popular at Mail HQ. That may explain why the comments he gets on the site tend to be more hostile than normal. (Or it could be due to the fact that he writes crap as well) So we end up with some good ones like these getting through the stringent moderators. (that were in the red though. Christ he admitted to screwing up, and still comments lambasting him for sloppy writing get marked down. Jeez!!!!)

"My comments were based on emails from parents and a report in the local newspaper, but the responsibility is all mine. i owe Mrs smith and her staff an unqualified apology".

Having bored us all with pompous calls for politicos to step down for playing fast and loose with the truth over the years I reckon Littlejohn should do the decent thing and resign!"

"See, that's what happens when you don't bother to do basic research before slinging round your kneejerk criticisms: innocent people like Marion Smith who have done nothing wrong get hurt. I hope that this might lead you to doing a bit of work in future checking your facts."

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.

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."

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" )
:<

Oh look Littlejohn bailed me out (but only in a really rubbish way.)

My Nostrodamus powers of prediction were looking a bit iffy about the the gay couple turned away from the Cookham B&B story being ideal material for future passive aggressive articles about bolshy gays and persecuted Christians, the sort of thing that appears every month or two in the papers. It seemed that the story had not warranted the coverage I thought it might have done, and had run its course; the end of the affair completely. But I was wrong as Littlejohn has stuck his thruppenceworth in on it, so I don't have to quite give up the fortune telling job quite yet. It is however nice to know that Britain's best paid columnist has continued his time honoured tradition of just making shit up to get his points across better.

Welcome to Tolerance Towers. Rule 1: No tolerance

"Perhaps if her advert had emphasised 'run by devout Christian' (Rule one, No Poofters), John and Michael may have taken the hint and booked in somewhere else.

Why stay where you're not welcome? I certainly wouldn't check into a temperance hotel."

There was no hint for them to take. They didn't know that she was a devout Christian, the advert says anyone was welcome to stay. There's a nice double implication here that a) they should have known beforehand to expect it, and b) blatant homophobia is just something gay people should just "get used to". (the comment seem to me to be loaded that the couple were really to blame.)

"But this is where it gets out of hand. The police are now investigating Mrs Wilkinson and she's been deluged with hate mail from homosexual fundamentalists."

They complained to the rozzers about a homophobic incident, they are going to investigate. I'd imagine even the most trivial calls (homophobic incidents are hardly "trivial") are "investigated", and are concluded as some loony on the phone thinks Elvises ghost lives in their loft. Tell him whatever. Investigation over.

Back to the case at hand. They have decided that the owner hasn't committed an offence, so if they want compensation to speak to a solicitor. Done (for their part.) Investigate don't mean being charged. Oh and nobody really knows who sent the messages (which are vile, and a horrible way to respond to this) so it may not just be down to "homosexual fundamentalists"**, whatever the hell that means.

"But prosecuting someone for holding sincere Christian convictions and making violent threats against her proves yet again that in New Labour's Britain tolerance is a one-way street."

She WASN'T PROSECUTED FOR IT!! You know a minor case of missing the point completely. Some people sadly do react very badly to emotive issues, this did happen before 1997. I bet he was dying to end that one way street sentence with back alley.

"her B&B in Wokingham"

It's in Cookham, Wokingham is a good 15 miles away

Glad to see that £800,000 salary is being well earned.

** The term "Homosexual Fundamentalist" doesn't make a lick of sense in it's original context. It just means getting back to basics. Is a homosexual fundamentalist, just couples who have man love in the nude? Or is it just a term to imply that gay people are the real zealots. I wonder which it might be?

A Road to Nowhere.

It's almost strange that I would single out this article by Richard Littlejohn on road infrastructure. It is after all by his own standards quite tame. He doesn't resort to playground abuse disguised as cynical irony. He doesn't show a strange and almost obsessive homophobia in the contents, and doesn't dismiss the murder of prostitutes as no big deal. He does however comment on the road network, and as it it happens that is an area I have some (above layman's) knowledge in, and once again the article highlights the strange lack of joined up thinking we get on this topic. It also gives me a post to write, as I'm a bit thin on the ground for material. The crux of the article is about Lord Adonis (Secretary of State for Transport) bemoaning the lack of warning when the Blackwell Tunnel (A102 crosses the Thames here at Woolwich next to the Dome) left traffic stranded for 5 hours (nasty). As I know a little about the history of road building from college, and owing to Litlejohns liberal attitude to factual consistency, this stirred my interest up. Littlejohn goes on:

" Labour came to power promising a 'world-class' transport network and then put Two Jags in charge. His contribution was immediately to cancel vital road-widening and construction projects which had been in the pipeline for years."

Yeah Labour are generally less in love with road building than the Tories perhaps are. But this is not entirely accurate. I assume he means the 1989 [road building] white paper called "Roads for Prosperity." a very ambitious document that would have seen an 8 lane M25 for the whole length, and the M1 from the M25 to the M18 interchanges, just South of Sheffield amongst other things. Not withstanding that the paper was very ambitious (and didn't have the NIMBY factor to contend with.) and that some of it has actually been implemented before Littlejohn typed the article. (the entire 1959 built M1, from Luton to the M25 interchange has been virtually razed to the ground and rebuilt to 4 lanes during the widening of 2008. There are portions of the M25 is due for widening and other things to try to salvage the mess we have during rush hour.) Prosperity was axe as a scheme in 1996!, in part a response, due to the huge uproar at Twyford Down near Winchester some years prior, when the M3 was brutally ploughed through a chalk hill, and a protester chained his neck to a JCB. This is before Prescott even had a chance to paint that bus lane on the M4, due to the fact Labour were voted in the year after!

"You can still see the carnage on the North Circular road, which is lined with boarded-up houses compulsorily purchased 15 years ago in anticipation of a widening scheme which still hasn't happened. Similar projects have been shelved all over Britain."

Since 1996 several major roads have been built. Roads like these:

*M65 extended westwards from Blackburn to M6 and M61 at Preston (1997. Started under Tory govt.)
*M1 realigned and extended at Northern terminus from Leeds to A1(M) at Tadcaster (1999)
*M60 created around Manchester from pre-existing M63 and M66 motorway with new extended line around East of City (2000)
*M6 Toll Road Built (2003)
*A1(M) bypasses of Knottingly and Wetherby (2004 - 2006)
*M6 "Cumberland Gap" built to connect Carlisle to the A74(M) on the Scottish Border (2008)

The North Circular is awful, I'll give him that.

The late nineties and early 2000's saw quite a lot of road building after a gap in the late eighties.

"Perhaps matters might improve if ministers got out more and experienced the real world they have created first hand."

Lord Adonis travelled around the Motorways on a tour last year. I listened to him talk about it on Jeremy Vine on Radio 2. They couldn't use the gents loos at Toddington services apparently, cause they were broken.

"To be fair to Adonis, he has been travelling the length and breadth of Britain by train to investigate the state of our railways."

So by his own admission, he's berating him for not doing something he should have done, and actually did. So errr... Right.

"Typically, though, he has reached the wrong conclusion. He is proposing a £30billion high-speed [rail] link through the Chilterns, when what we actually and urgently need are improvements to existing services, particularly our hellishly overcrowded commuter routes."

Transport has a strange effect on the British psyche. We know that the roads are saturated, and that things like widening the M1 are at best temporary solutions, to at least perhaps get the average mileage notched up a bit. It's a sad irony that the most vocal public opinion, like these guys always seems to favour building our way out of road congestion,with more roads, which frees up yet more cars to come on roads, to cause those roads to build up as well, a vicious cycle. Aside from the obvious and serious environmental issues of more cars on the roads, there is always the inevitable backlash against large roads near residential areas, ironically that is why the North and South Circular is so bad. What should have been upgraded to a Motorway called "Ringway 2", was shelved when they realised how much of residential London would be on the receiving end of a JCB (Who wants a Motorway in the back garden?). Back to the question, I've never agreed with that build loads more roads analysis, and I think organisations like the ABD have an overt political agenda rather than a genuine interest in traffic management. We are in the situation where effective queue busting techniques, like ramp metering, and variable speed limits are unpopular, and seen as "the nanny state", which is unhelpful. It will require a much more joined up and integrated transport system, than the one we have now. We are car junkies, and any attempt to change that habit, and seriously try to reduce road congestion, will be painful and a long transition. If it can be changed, and governments tend to be wary of the motoring lobby. This doublethink about the problems of traffic we have is summed up nicely by this quote

"90 percent of commuters think other drivers should use public transport more often."

Sounds about right.

Richard Littlejohns take on Michael Foot.

I'll try to avoid posting articles on Richard Littlejohn. Trying to pin down exactly what is wrong with the articles he writes is like trying to explain why you didn't think Gigli was a good film, or subtly pointing out to Shane McGowan of the Pogues, just why he should try out those people called dentists now and then. Where, and at what logical point do you even possibly begin to start? It's frankly quite depressing to be faced with most of his articles (a black hole of bad puns, lousy skits on 70's sitcoms about gay policemen or whatever, and all the other thinly veiled prejudices and spite he doles out.) and I leave it to the guys who post on Mailwatch to do that sort of thing. I'd just end up slitting all my arteries with rusty garden shears mid way through an article, at the sheer volumes of drivel Littleprick taps out on his word processor. But as he's written about Michael Foot, like I did I thought I should comment on it.

Now as anyone who knows the name Jan Moir will know, the Mail has no objections about their journos writing speculative innuendo and insinuation about the target of their article, irrespective of if they are still warm in the morgue, and this one is no better (I mean they didn't pull any punches for a former boy band member, what hope did a former Labour leader have?) Michael Foot. Good Old Footy. No dangerous deluded hypocrite. In it we learn that the late party leader was a draft dodger during WW2; that he was a Soviet stooge, oh and he wore a donkey jacket at the cenotaph (sigh). Well I did a bit of research into "Footys" background here and here. It's a wonderful research tool, is t'internet, and don't think I'm pointing this out to lazy columnists. So lets have a look at Dickys claims.

FOOT WAS A BATTLE DODGER.

Littlejohn says Foot all but shirked fighting in the second world war, (fine line between conscientious objector and cowardice) to lap it up in comfort in smart Islington society. Well it does seem he was rejected for military service due to asthma problems. It also is unfair that Littlejohn said that he didn't contribute to the war effort. He wrote a popular book condemning appeasement. He was editor of the Evening Standard during much of the war, a protected position, and considered necessary for the domestic war effort. (Londons largest local newspaper) and was considered one of the most able public morale boosting editors. His pieces outlined the need to defeat Hitler, and the strength and value of British democracy against Nazi tyranny. Now it's a "how long is a piece of string" argument what is considered "doing your bit" in war time. But I think that being an editor strongly supporting the need to act against Hitler was a pretty important responsibility in that war. He also claims Foot let others do the fighting against Francos forces in the Spanish civil war, (he did not fight himself.) but he ignores the fact that Foot did visited dissidents to the Franco regime (I'm sure he'd have loved a left wing critic of his regime chewing the fat with his enemies, in his own prisons) in the 70's and was almost imprisoned for doing so. Not the actions of a cowardly person I think.

FOOT WAS A SOVIET STOOGE.
Littlejohn stops short of calling Foot an outright traitor to Britain during the Cold War. But he does claim that Foot was unaware / unwilling to comment on Stalin's crimes, and the repression the USSR committed on the Warsaw Pact countries. This doesn't seem to be the case if we read up on him. Although he was undoubtedly a socialist, and believed in some aspects of Marx's philosophy, he was vocally disappointed that the USSR was behaving dictatorially, and that a long established liberty supported British based system coupled with socialism would have avoided the bloodshed that occured under the regime. He opposed Stalins tyranny and Gulags, and was pilloried by some on the left for what he said, and condemned the tanks being sent in to Hungary in 1956. He even supported NATO.

He also wasn't an outright pacifist in the sense we would understand it, and the charge levelled by some against anti-nuke protesters. (all wars are unjust all the time.) He was passionately anti -nuke and pro CND. He did however support the action in the Falklands against the junta in Argentina. This contradiction between a hatred of war and a need to preserve democracy even by force bothered him immensely throughout his life.

THE DONKEY JACKET.
If you can't go for the big things, just resort to low rent ad hom attacks. And they say that journalism these days relies to much on dumbing down, and low level cheap sniping. I can't imagine why.

Now let me stress I'm NOT saying he should have been banned from writing it. I just think we need a bit more journalistic rigour when we are writing articles that have some pretty serious insinuations (draft dodging and being a kept creature of a hostile power) in them, towards a man who hasn't even been dead for 3 days. It's not too much to assume that Britains (reputedly) highest paid columnist should perhaps do a bit of homework (I didn't know that much about Foot until I researched for these posts) before committing to print. You know, its like good practice.

David Cameron, Gordon Brown and That Interview

During the past few days in the news, there has been a number of commentaries on an interview on the ITV1 show Piers Morgans Life Stories (ITV 1 10:15pm 14/2/2010). The subject of the interview is none other than Gordon Brown. This interview is considered somewhat controversial as Morgan questions Brown about the death of his premature baby daughter, aged 11 days in 2002, and Brown understandably gets quite visibly upset talking about this. (though it would be an exaggeration to say that he breaks down and cries in the interview, as some have claimed.)








Now it appears that some have taken exception to him giving this interview as Brown has been reluctant to talk about his children in public. His son Fraser (who has cystic fibrosis) is never seen in photographs, as Brown wishes to protect him from the limelight. It has been argued that this line of questioning should not be directed at a prime minister during the run up to a general election, the main lines of argument being that it a) diverts from genuine political issues and b) is even an attempt to garner sympathy before polling day.



Now I personally don't think Brown should have NOT done this interview. Whether we like it our not we live in a more media orientated society, and sadly personality does influence voting more than it should. It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that some of Browns lack of success as a premier is down to his poor PR abilities, and his perception of being a dour, bad tempered loner. Modern politicians have to engage with their electorates on a more human level these days. Whether that gives us better politicians is unclear, but it is silly to think we don't have to do these things, because being "emotionally open" matters to people. It has also come to light that David Cameron has had an interview where he too has reacted; equally understandably, similarly when questioned about his own son, Ivans death last year.


Now let me make it clear, I have no objection to people debating where these kinds of topics in a politicians life have a place. I personally don't think either man did anything wrong at all. It is common knowledge what they have both sadly endured in their personal lives. I also can't get too worked up about public displays of emotion like what we see at Wootan Bassett, as some do. This is a more openly emotive nation (probably more in line with everywhere else to be honest) than in the past, and I don't see that changing any time soon. What I do object too however is some of the vindictiveness of the responses to these stories, and especially the stinks coming from that Pravda for Pricks the Daily Mail. (like that's nothing new.) Remember this is a response to a man describing how his 11 day old child died in his arms.

Here's odious gonk Richard Littlejohns take

I've often wondered why anyone bothers interviewing Gordon, since he refuses to
answer inconvenient or difficult questions, endlessly repeats the line he has
decided to take, and bulldozes on until they run out of time.


Which
makes the fact that he broke down and wept openly over the death of his baby
daughter Jennifer during the taping of an interview with TV's Piers Morgan all
the more despicable.

The heartless bastard, I mean crying over losing a child.

No one is underestimating or belittling the sincerity of his grief, but Gordon
has always been protective of his family's privacy and has consistently vowed
that he would not exploit his children for political gain

He's hardly violating his kids privacy, when it is common knowledge what happened to Jennifer. What is he implying?

But he must have known it was coming. It appears to have been stage-managed,
right down to a tearful Sarah Brown sitting in the audience.
And it smacks
of a cynical attempt to play the victim card, exploiting his family tragedy to
win votes.
The fact that he is now parading his grief on a chat show, in an
attempt to convince the electorate that he is human after all, is a measure of
his desperation and a graphic illustration of his complete absence of principle.

My god he thinks a women crying over her husband recalling the death of their baby is a plot to win votes. God Littlejohn is a prick. As for winning sympathy votes, it doesn't seem to be working, with comments like this.

I'm sorry. I care as much for these morons and their problems as they care
about mine. Zero. Human compassion knows limits and publicly emoting to show
what a nice person you are undoubtedly means the opposite. I only wish I had
taken my chance to emigrate 23 years ago. This country is stuffed and deserves
to be if we elect the sort of offensive parasites we have in recent years.
-
William Orr, Yorkshire,

Fuck off then William, you wanker. The country is better off without the likes of you.

Who cares? Please just get on a run the Country, we are all sinking in debt
and greed from the MP's.
- toto kubwa, Cyprus

Pass the sick bucket.
- Steven Farrow, Kings lynn Nofolk, 14/2/2010 7:44Read more:

Written by tossers for tossers.

Littlejohn's article is nasty, I mean what's new with that? But I think nothing surpasses this disgusting article by Liz Jones.

I want a leader who hurls things at his staff, not a blubbing 'poor
me'

This evening, you'll be able to watch
Gordon Brown squeezing 'poor me-dom' out of every oleaginous pore.
Of the
baby he lost aged only 11 days, he tells Piers Morgan: 'She was baptised and we
were with her and I held her as she... as she died.'
He talks of his son
Fraser, who has cystic fibrosis. 'We sometimes say, "Why, why, why us?"' His
eyes well up during the interview, and he denies accusations in a new biography
that he is a bad-tempered bully.

Now I'm sure being married toNirpal Dhaliwal would screw anyones head. But there is no excuse for an article like this. He's/They are not just blubbing poor me. They lost a child FOR FUCKS SAKE!! I mean you may not like them, or their policies, but my god this is something else entirely. You have to be a major league dick to be so full of hate to a politician, that you don't even feel for them suffering the worst fate imaginable for a parent. Which incidentally is the worst kind of personality based politics you can indulged, which contradicts the bloody thing they are supposed to be condemning! Well what did we expect? Consistency in the Mail?

I don't think there is really more I can add to this. The articles/comments speak for themselves. But I'd like to quote a "Malcolm Armsteen" a commentator from Mailwatch,sums up this kind of journalism very nicely.

This is a new low. This could be titled 'Man Cries at Death of Daughter -
Unusual? - you choose'.The article should never have been written, it is
intrusive, callous and cynical. The comments show that at least some members of
our society - who would no doubt congratulate themselves as being 'Decent
English' - in fact are heartless, cynical and prepared to be vicious in their
senseless tribalism.This is the sort of 'work' that is destroying our society,
not 'feral yoof', immigration or 'socialism'.Malcolm Armsteen, Bolton

I second that.