Guilty Because He Looks A Bit Weird

I have no idea if Chris Jeffries killed poor Johanna Yeates, and I am sure no one else knows exactly who did kill her (except for the killer) at the moment either. But isn't the amount of insinuation about the man from both the press and from general conversation (I overheard one woman say he must be guilty as he has a "paedophiles face". Really) really quite unsettling, way beyond what should be appropriate for the current stage of the enquiry. Apart from the controversy about him (or not) reporting Johanna leaving her flat the day she vanished, the accusations that he might have done it include:

*He is a "Peeping Tom" (well that was some blokes wifes opinion anyway. Not that the Mirror didn't let it stop them printing a "Jo suspect is "Peeping Tom" headline.)

*He has a daft hairdo

*He made former tenants wife "uncomfortable."

*He entered said flat (of which he was landlord) without asking

*He had mucky fingernails.

*He likes poems (he's an English teacher.) and got wrapped up in reading them aloud.

*He looks funny.

*He had a strange coat.

*Some of his former pupils called him "Strange Mr. Jeffries."

*Some other pupils thought he was gay on the single basis of him not being married.

*He read poems by writers who were obsessed with things like death (Also known as nearly everyone who writes poems.)

*He let out a flat (Johanna's flat) to a fellow teacher 12 years ago who was done for sexual assault of a minor years later.

*He was a bit eccentric, and people who commit murder on telly are always eccentric.

Stuff like this is not very helpful. It is way too early in the enquiry to start muck raking about a bloke who let us make this clear: - MAY NOT HAVE ACTUALLY DONE ANYTHING BY THE WAY! A slightly eccentric English master at a posh school is certainly nothing new, and being "a bit strange" doesn't immediately mean you have a propensity to strangle young women to death, and all the "psycho poses" like the one above don't really change that.

Ze Filthy Hun Ban OUR Poppy Sellers? Errrr Not Really.

Around about this time the press start reporting stories about poppy sellers and remembrance day. They aren't usually stories about really understanding the true concept of remembrance day, or a reflection on the vast human cost of war, or even the tireless and largely voluntary work poppy sellers and the British legion undertake on the high streets of Britain which allows Remembrance Sunday to continue well after many of the combatants of the two world wars are no longer here today, and in the case of the war it was originally intended to remember - pretty much every one of them. No it is usually an excuse to print some story about some "elf n safety jobsworth" banning pins, or in most cases an excuse to bash Germany, and exert the basest of "patriotic" sentiment about how Britain won the war, kind of missing the actual point of remembrance day, but we'll touch on that later.

For this post we look at this story about how German owned Aldi banned poppy sellers from one of their stores, by not actually banning them at all. We start with this ominous opening narrative.

"Once they fought them on the beaches. Seventy years later it seems they are fighting them in the aisles."

Seventy years. Perhaps we should start doing a bit more live and let live, after seven decades??

"But this time the enemy is the German-owned Aldi supermarket"

Oh do fuck off with the rhetoric. The Third Reich was a tad worser than a low budget supermarket chain. Glad to see that grown up British attitude to Germany shining through.

"It has infuriated war veterans by refusing to let them sell remembrance poppies in one of its stores."

I could see how that would cause ructions. But this sounds like a solid piece of Mail flat earth news though. So let's read on.

"Volunteers from the Royal British Legion asked the manager whether they could set up a stall in the supermarket to to raise money for the charity in the run up to Remembrance Sunday."

I can see why they would do that, a large catchment area of people in one visible space.

"The reply seemed little more than a declaration of war."

Oh Jeez Louise, can they give the war slurs a rest?

"The veterans were told they would not be allowed in the store itself. They would have to stand outside in the cold – and for two days only."

Hmm that's a bit tight. We are talking only one store aren't we, not a blanket ban throughout Aldis though? As it isn't clear in the article.

"The veterans usually run their annual Poppy Appeal stall in the Co-op supermarket at Great Harwood in Lancashire."

This year, however, it is closed for a refit, so they wrote to the no-frills Aldi, the town’s only other supermarket, to see if it could help."

Right it is only one store.

Aldi responded to the story with this quote.

"Last night Aldi, which had pointed out the veterans could shelter under the ‘protective overhead canopy’ outside the store, made a sudden retreat.

It announced the Great Harwood veterans could come in from the cold after all.

‘Requests to collect in-store or leave collection tins in-store are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and due to Mr Myerscough’s age, we will gladly allow him to collect in store,’ a statement said."

Well I'll admit that the store in question was perhaps being a bit tight in not letting older fund raisers into the main store building in the height of autumn. That isn't the problem with the story. It was a bad call on behalf of whoever runs this store. There is no indication that anyone of German origin initiated this call, so the German connection is irrelevant and no indication that they were banning the poppy sellers from fund raising full stop either. The Mail can't help get a Nazi dig in anyway.

"The Aldi chain was founded by Karl and Theo Albrecht, both of whom fought for the Nazis in the Second World War. Theo died earlier this year, leaving Karl as the world’s tenth richest man, worth £14.7billion."

In what capacity they fought for the Third Reich is not mentioned. I could point out that the Mail and the Nazis weren't exactly strange bedfellows during the 30's but that would just be petty.

Stories like this, apart from being reported in the most childish and John Bull pub patriot manner, are actually in my opinion a mockery of what remembrance day is all about. It wasn't conceived as a day to point fingers at the other combat nation, or to dwell on who started what, and who won whatever battle. It was a reminder of the enormous human cost, a cost borne on for the most part on ordinary guys from all walks of life. Thrust into the fiery receiving end of the worst excesses of human evil and destructiveness, and that each red poppy signified a life lost, a soul snuffed out, a loved one vanquished. That is the horrific end product of the worst of human nature unleashed and that is the real purpose of remembrance day. It is now almost seven decades since the end of the last world war, and it seems that the likes of the Mail haven't really learned much at all in that time.

Class Doesn't Define Morality.

I've been forced to have a small hiatus on here as my bloody computer has been playing up all week. But as it is now running OK, I can post a few things that have been going on this last week; but was unable to comment on as my laptop, like all other computers - hates me. Pretty much everyone knows that Wayne Rooney, a sort of northern Mr Potato Head, crossed with a dented mirrors reflection of Shreks face - has been caught paying "wannabee WAG" Jennifer Thompson, as well as other girls too - over a grand for casual sex and threesomes. This has unsurprisingly caused a bit of a stir. Rooney is married to Coleen obviously, and she is of course expecting his child. It has cemented the opinion of many that footballers are overpaid women haters who use their knobs to double up as a brain. Miss Thompson herself has come under the spotlight also. She comes from a privileged background, with a father who is high up in the oil business, as well as attending Lords independent, a small prestigious private school in Bolton. This causes a schizoid response in the press, and is the reason for my post, I actually think the story is more depressing than interesting.

I was interested by a headline from Bel Mooney, the Mails agony aunt, who penned the article with the following rhetorical question:

What have we come to when middle-class girls like this see whoring as a career choice?

The article itself is not quite the snobbish class fest it appears. It's pretty depressing that for all the advances in women's rights, girls are succumbing to a world that feeds into some of the basest level of misogyny in our supposedly more enlightened times. There is also the concerns of their physical and psychological welfare. I can't imagine that anyone could be really happy within themselves at this kind of thing. I don't dispute Bels sentiment in that regard. It is the underlying assumptions in the headlines. There is a potent undercurrent in the likes of the Mail with stuff like this, that being middle class; or what is termed being from "a respectable family" (the game often gets given away) means you are automatically morally better off, not just financially. This is bull, and I find it is patronising to the many hard working working class people who want the best for theme selves and their families too. It must be a shock to see that an affluent background doesn't always seem to guarantee a strong moral calibre. There is also no strong negative correlation between family income and lower levels of casual sex / sexual partnerships. Middle class kids can and do go off the rails too, it ain't always a working class game. I'd arguably say that some middle class kids are more vulnerable to having rebellious phases of booze and Skins parties, especially if they have weak parents who can stump up the cash to fund this lifestyle. Working class kids often have less leisure time and have to take up employment earlier than their better off counterparts, denting the time and cash they have to pursue such a lifestyle. She apparently built up her circuit base in Bolton's largest nightclub J2. This requires access to at least some easy cash supply. It's not like stuff like this is new anyway. Many women of all levels of society, and from pretty much any time period you care to mention have found that wealthy men, and ugly men with cash will pay handsomely in lavish places to get their rocks off. It's not all impoverished women in back alleyways having sex for 50 quid a shot to survive. Now I'm certainly not condoning prostitution as a career option, not at all. Prostitution is very risky to the [for the purpose of this argument] women herself. Their is the risk of STD's and STD transmission. Sex work can often put prostitutes in the orbit of criminal circles etc. However Jennifer is not the first women to discover that pussy can translate to poundsigns.

There we are. It's also interesting to see that she appears to be the guiltier party of the two [Rooney and herself] if we take into account of the press coverage. But that is another story.

A Level Cliches

Today is A - Level results day, and for the 29th year in a row the pass rate has gone up, and for 13 years the amount of A grades have also increased. This being the case, we know this allows the press to wheel out a few annual results day cliches that I tried to list in full here, what with August being a slack season news wise, and the right wing press being indulgent in a bit of generational bashing - well that's an added bonus! So with this in mind, I decided to a bit of "cliche bingo" to see which of my predictions got printed. I didn't get them all, but like many students today; I was impressed with the results I got.


1.) PICTURE OF THREE POSH LOOKING GIRLS JUMPING UP IN THE AIR CLUTCHING THEIR RESULTS PAPER FULL OF STRAIGHT A'S.

If we only relied on the press coverage we'd think that only 7 lads in the country ever passed exams at all. As usual, no ugly girls ever pass exams at all. There must be some Logan's Run for mingers going on in our sixths forms!

This is a well known cliche, and the blog below has collected a load of pictures of pretty posh girls getting their results. So I award myself a zillion points so far.
http://sexyalevels.tumblr.com/

4.) PRECOCIOUS KID PASSES EXAM.

Self explanatory. More points.

6.) THEY'RE GETTING EASIER.

Now was there really any chance of this one getting missed? I predicted the following being brought up.

*"A-Levels were once the gold standard".

*"New Labours attempt to get half of people in university." and "social engineering"

*"grade inflation."

I don't personally think A-levels are a walk in the park these days. But predicting the cliched narratives of a Mail editorial certainly are. They truly were the gift that kept on giving here:

*"But what does it tell you about our ‘gold standard’ exams, when some 3,500 students who win three straight As today are expected to be rejected by universities?"

Gold standard. Ding.

*"For 13 years, Labour cynically raised their hopes, tinkering with the exam system to cast a rosy light on its own record, while promising to find university places for half the nation’s school-leavers."

"But that attainment gap will not be closed the Labour way – simply by disguising it or rigging the university admissions system, in a botched attempt at social engineering."

Labour; 50 percent in uni. Social engineering. Ding. Ding.

"How is anyone to distinguish between the brilliant and the merely excellent, when at least 60,000 papers are predicted to be awarded the new A* supergrade for scores of more than 90 per cent?"

Inflating grades. Ding!

Oh yeah, they try and shirk off that they are not belittling the students, with this opening statement, and other lame platitudes to duck out of their argument. (which is really just a rehash of the "I'm not racist but...", put into another context.)

"With their required grades achieved and their university places secure, the Mail offers every one of them our warmest congratulations."

they're still a piece of piss though!

"The Mail has nothing but admiration for those who have scored top grades."

Bollocks.

Well it's GCSE results next week. Same old score then. Oh well, eyes down.

Grand Theft Bullshit

Although this story is a day or two old, it ties in with the complete bullshit that the Star is passing off as news. It regards proposals for a film, book and a supposed GTA version of Raul Moats killing spree in Rothbury. Now I thought that savvy journalists would have taken one look at the badly photoshopped "cover art" shown in the article, and deduced it was the work of a spotty teenager trying to impress his stupid mates on 4chan, NOT a real game development. Hell I should think anyone who has the mental ability to open a door would have heard the sound of a penny dropping when confronted with the picture above. It really begs the question? Who is letting this stuff through?

As even Forrest Gump could figure out that GTA Rothbury was a hoax, I assume that the hacks did too. So I was appalled to read the following quote from the Grandmother of Samantha Stobbart, the poor women who was Moats ex lover, and was shot by him (her new boyfriend of course was tragically killed). She has obviously told of the existence of this "game" second hand so she will give the appropriate "outraged relative" quote that the press love.

"I can't believe someone wants to make money out of people who have been killed. It's sick. -It's blood money. The GAME is beyond belief."

So there we go. To get a few choosy outrage soundbites (tabloids love demonising video games.), the Star has approached a member of the family; of a direct victim of a horrific affair, and have compounded their grief with tales of a video game (admittedly the book and possibly the film were inevitable, and will likely be produced. A publisher sheepishly admits that it [book] is really a given.) that doesn't even exist! Which anyone could have figured out had they bothered to check. Let me repeat that, a genuine victim of a terrible human tragedy was informed about a non existent game, in order to get the emotive soundbites for a headline.

Is this considered acceptable journalism by Desmond?

The article was pulled quicker than achy wisdom teeth from the Stars website so here is a larger version of the cached article above.

Article here.

The Fine Line Between Wheely Bins and Tyranny (Huh!)

In my July 20th post I looked at a Mail story and the subsequent editorial comment on a council survey done on the refuse of 10'000 households in varying demographic areas, to see who and what is recycled/recycling and chucked/chucking, and where it is being done. (NOT specifically logging waste to individual houses, which is downplayed) The piece has been spun into a preposterous tale of Stasi councils rifling through the spied on and reviled Middle England's dustbins to dig dirt on them. Any legitimate issues with the councils behaviour and spending are tossed aside in a hugely exaggerated story. And that, in my opinion was the real point of the non stories hyper coverage. That this kind of thing is designed to simultaneously piss off the target audience it is intended for, and to paradoxically play to some of their egos. We all have our bins emptied, and have recycling ones, so the story could have potentially affected you. But this conspiracy against Middle England really only exists in the editorials of overzealous Mail / Express articles. Perhaps on some level it is comforting for the sort of bombastic person who would get irked about this tale to feel that they are considered dangerous rebels who must be slapped down (presumably tyranny by recycling.), and that the powers that be lie awake at night worrying about them. These are the sort of people who write those staggeringly pompous; love notes to their own smug profundity, "Straight to the point" letters to the Mail. I actually feel sorry for these people, they are so lacking in self awareness and perspective that they probably never realise that the editors of the letters page will be laughing themselves stupid at the authors of them as they quickly composite them on, and that is not because they are any good. Better to think you matter a lot, than realise you matter quite a little in the great scheme of things. Dacre knows this and that is why we get articles like: Are the race Stasi rifling through your bin, by Leo McKinstry, who pulls no punches in knitting together right wing memes on just about everything from Marxism, to race, to PC, to apartheid, to stealing bills, to communism. It's pure Mail propaganda of linking the most arbitrary things to bizarre conclusions, and turning the hyperbole squarely up to eleven. Check this out.

"Emptying the bins used to be a straightforward municipal task, perhaps the most basic but universally valuable job carried out by local councils.

But thanks to the malign culture of political correctness, which has swept through the public sector over the past two decades, refuse collection has been transformed into a weapon of ideological bullying.

In the hands of the commissars who have come to predominate in British official life, the bin service is now used as an instrument not just for enforcing the fashionable green agenda, but also for encouraging an authoritarian mix of state intrusion and race-fixated social engineering.
Putting out our rubbish is becoming like something out of George Orwell’s epic novel 1984, where all the private activities of British citizens were ruthlessly monitored to ensure compliance with the state’s dogma."

That ticks every fucking box!

"Hidden cameras have also been deployed by some councils to spy on what people are throwing away."

Bollocks.

"Are they going to send any financial information they find to HM Revenue and Customs? Will they examine private letters for any potentially homophobic or racist content?"

Nope

"When Sir William Macpherson, the chairman of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, notoriously urged in 1999 that racially prejudiced remarks, even within the privacy of the family home, should be prosecuted, the proposal was condemned as paving the way for the introduction of Orwellian ‘thought crimes’ into our society.

Now the bin snoopers could have made this a reality.Such a fear is not nearly as outlandish as it might seem."

Oh come of it Leo.

"It is absurd that this destructive approach should be extended to bin collections. If the commissars are going to act on the information they clandestinely acquire, then the only result can be more racial divisions, more pointless labelling of people by race, more irrelevant campaigns and more suspicions among neighbours."

Huh?

The other half of this ridiculous article focuses on the councils obsession with race, even though it's only a broad demographic study into refuse trends. Anyway many people are interested in demographic habits. TV likes to chase the youth market, and the "urban" market (aka; Black people), they all aren't into cultural engineering McKinstry lays into the usual right wing spiel about cultural Marxism, and white guilt, and pandering to minorities, cultural engineering -the usual. None of which has any relevance to the article it spawned from. He concludes with this:

"We should all unite, black and white, to throw out this ludicrous, Big Brother intervention in our lives, and demand that councils do what we pay them to do: empty our bins weekly."

It's not just that fact that stuff like this is used ostensibly to high handedly condemn "dodgy practices", but is really just indulging egos. It is that this stuff always elicits a lot of righteous emotion for such low grade causes. Why not expend collective energy on a really worthwhile objective? Something a bit more noble than bloody bins.

More Bin Nonsense in the Mail (Again!!)

Wheelie bin stories / Bin collection stories are one of the more perennial and odd Daily Mail obsessions. They seem to deliberately single out stories like this one about councils checking whats been binned at selected regions as part of a survey into recycling. The story isn't very interesting so I'll boil it down. Some councils have continued to survey varying demographics to see who bins what, and who recycles / doesn't, by inspecting the contents of about 10'000 peoples trash. Thus they can see if the poor are recycling more, or do ethnic minorities throw more away. A survey. In order not to prejucdice results (people might change thier recycling habits if they are told beforehand ), the residents whose waste got checked were not informed before hand. That is the Mails gripe on the story. (it even gets an editorial comment piece.) Yet again the "Dustbin Nazis" and "Big Brother" councils are victimising taxpayers by the tyranny of dustbin collections... or something like that, it's the usual spiel you get. My interest in the story isn't the story itself, I really have bigger things to worry about. I suppose it could be considered a waste of tax payers money or invasive. Many private companies can pass on customer details. That is how cold callers obtain your number. But this affair is to look at general trends, not to trace specific waste habits of individuals. No my focus is on why bin stories like these are so popular in the Mail, and I think it is for two separate reasons.

Paul Dacre has an instinct for giving his core readers stories they want to hear, and he usually has a good success rate for doing so. There are many readers of that paper who are retirees, and are bored and chippy retirees at that. Everybody has their bins emptied, it affects everyone. Providing a narrative about Orwellian councils picking fights with householders over putting a garden pea in the paper bin, or sticking microchips in the wheely bins of Middle England (the headline is worded to imply the reader is being targeted) brings out that frustrated low level libertarian ire. Getting worked up about stuff like this, is a game for those with time on their hands. It gives bored; irked at life, and frustrated people something external (and accessible;- vis a vis; to their own lives) to focus on, and something to do. Think of having to write all those angry letters.

The second is related to the first, but distinct too. A large minority of that papers target grassroots audience are habitual complainers, and habitual complainers as I said; on a certain level enjoy complaining. Habitual complainers also have that unusual mix of being at odds with the world, but simultaneously self centred about their perceived role in it. There are practical objections to this kind of council action, and to the motives of councillors and people in authority. I think good cases (though IMHO this story is really not a big deal) can be made for both. But these concerns aren't REALLY why this kind of thing is prominent in the Mail. The overall narrative of this emphasis on "bin spies" is that the tyrannical councils really are spying on the rubbish contents of Middle England. (or Dacres interpretation) You are right to think that they are watching you. They do consider you a mortal danger. In short you matter to the powers that be. I don't think it is too much of an exaggeration to say that there are those who would secretly pleased to have been "spied on". Better to think that the secret police are sifting through your bin bags, what with you being a dissident and all, than just a random demographic survey of recycling habits. It's tough to think that your opinions and promenance may count for little in the greater scheme of things. And if you are going to be the next Rob Roy, you should decide is it about a cause, or about making yourself feel good?

I'm not green lighting cynical inaction due to larger disinterest at a cause. I've never believed that at all. Complacent certainties can be challenged, and sometimes should be. You can make a difference in your own way (but you may not get much credit for it. Doing it for that is the wrong reason to partake in this kind of thing in the first place) But let us separate righting legitimate grievances, or genuine injustices, from just indulging an ego trip as some kind of latter day Robin Hood thing.

No Room For Gays. That's a Real Desmond Editorial. No Really

The combination of the words Gay and Asylum Seekers, in regards to the outcome of the Supreme courts decision to allow the two gay men, from Iran and Cameroon to be granted asylum in the UK, is enough to make the tabloids go completely insane. Transferring them into foaming at the mouth loonies, running about like mad men. Well almost anyway. The editorials from the asylum bashers are what we would expect. They can't outright say that the two men should have been sent back, and that homosexuals should be left to their fate. That looks pretty shitty, even if spun well. Instead they change the subject (as tabloids are want to do with stuff like this) and invoke the slippery slope argument that if you let two gay men stay, then you open the floodgates (you have a feeling that the writer of the editorials would have wanted to use the term "back passage" instead?) I won't provide the quotes exactly it's standard "they'll all be coming here" fayre, purely speculative and impossible to substantiate. But hell, it hits all the right notes.

Depressing stuff. But as I said, the tabloids were hardly going to give it a "right on" where they? No, what did surprise me was the Stars editorial, headed "NO ROOM FOR GAYS" Homophobia and racism in one package. Desmond's papers are literally not even trying to mask their bigotry with weasel words and bad euphemisms, as the others do.


"OPENING the floodgates to gay asylum seekers is absolute madness.

The idea is bound to be abused. Every illegal desperate to get into Britain will try claiming they’re gay to ensure they stay here.
Some people will do whatever it takes if it means a cushy life in Britain.
This cannot be allowed to happen. The Supreme Court doesn’t want to send back anyone who fears they may suffer in their home country because they’re gay.
That’s admirable ideology. But it’s not practical in the real world.
Their ruling means millions more people will now be eligible to stay in Britain.
And the resulting flood of numbers could push our creaking infrastructure over the edge.
We simply cannot afford to keep taking the world’s outcasts.
Britain is struggling with record debt and millions out of work.
We must look after our own first.
This decision must be overturned.
We cannot solve the world’s problems on our own. "

I literally think the people who write this stuff, think that the readers will imagine that from now on all immigrants will enter Britain dressed as Daffyd of Little Britain, and will keep dropping the phrases "Oooh you are awful!" and "hello ducky!", whilst doing bad impressions of John Inman. The new ruling changes some of the criteria for dealing with those fleeing from homophobic regimes that imprison or execute gays. (which dents the Stars theory that every immigrant can play the "gay card" . Wouldn't work if you were; say Chinese.) It really isn't a case of showing up at your immigration center dressed as the Village People, and saying "I'm gay can I live here." to which they will reply "Of course you can, here's a million pounds in benefits". The tabloids have also seized on a quotation by one of the judges in the case saying that gays should be free to listen to "Kylie Minogue and drink cocktails". It was taken out of its original context, saying that if straight men can pursue stereotypical "guys stuff", then gay men should be able to do vice versa, NOT that the judge literally said they were given asylum on behalf of their human rights to have the freedom to listen to Kylie Minogue CD's. This was seized on to make the judges seem ludicrous and out of touch with all the rest of us, and to trivialise what was a very serious case.

The editorials always claim it's about pragmatic issues with asylum, such as living space and the resources that are required to "keep" these people. I wouldn't have a problem with these being brought up. They are valid concerns and should be addressed. There is always that "Of course genuine asylum seekers should stay" spiel too. But I see no evidence that these editorials care about either. They make claims about resources that are completely unsubstantiated for one thing. The other is that they never clarify what a genuine asylum seeker is to their minds. We are talking about people who "WILL BE MURDERED OR JAILED ON PAIN OF DISCLOSURE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION". Let us not forget that the two men were both outed as well. I can't really see how the "genuineness" of that need for asylum can be topped. It's like that "better suited place" for an unpopular thing. It can't be placed, as it defeats the point. These pieces are there to fling shit, nothing more. It's pushing racism towards vulnerable people, and window dressing it as a genuine concern for the immigration question. Admittedly the windows in Desmonds empire have no glass in them. And it fucking stinks.

I Wonder Why This Made the Front Page

I came across this headline on the Express in Sainsburys this morning. Yes apparently a decision to put a bit of film on some ground level glass panels at a swimming baths in Walsall is the single most important thing to have happened in Britain this week, in Express land. I'm not surprised they went with this story, when I saw it. Firstly it's been doing the rounds from about Sunday. Secondly it's a PA story from the local papers, and since the Express long ago gave up trying to report real news, when you can just pinch it from wire agencies and stick your own take on it instead. And lastly, it can be used as a stick to beat the evil Muslims with, which gets a story a zillion star points in the Express. The paper now frequently prints headlines purely designed to stir up resentment towards Muslims, as it knows it works a treat on their more "extreme" readership.

The story is pretty boring in itself. A modern swimming baths had a fully glass fronted panel, allowing passers by, on the streets to see the bathers in the pool. Some bathers (never stated how many) objected to this, and some of the objectors were said to be Muslims. And this has brought it to prominence. The full spectrum of papers have run with it, and it has been turned into a "Muslims demand special treatment" story. The Sun even has a handy picture of a Muslim woman in a full veil (completely unrelated to the story) in case we forget what a Muslim is.... I suppose? Then they say the exterior glass panels have been replaced by opaque ones. Not true of the 250 panels, 58 have been coated with a film layer, as can be actually seen on the photos of the supposed blacked out swimming baths (sheesh.), on the bloody articles itself. Then we have all the rhetoric about outrage, and PC gone mad, and "its one rule for them." from furious pool users. The kind of soundbites that are a written substitute for "angry pose" photos, so beloved of the press. Hell even the Taxpayers Alliance got their (non taxpayer funded, I might add.) tuppenceworth in about it It was a perfect storm for this kind of shit. Editors know that the ones who get the hump about this, will allow their ire to override their ability to see it as an overblown storm in a teacup.

I don't know if the people responsible for covering the panels are overreacting. I don't really care either. It's faintly absurd for me to be blogging about the window arrangements on a provincial swimming pool in the West Midlands. But that is paradoxically the point. These non stories are being used to stir up hatred towards the Muslim population. There is no other purpose to this kind of thing, they aren't trying to say anything insightful on community relations, or integration. This story, and others like it are designed to portray all Muslims as ingrates who are privileged above everybody else, and catered to every whim they can think of by the councils / politicians. And that the press are doing this so blatantly - Lets piss off our readers off more; with the latest outrage. This kind of sentiment has been stirred up in the past to horrible ends, and it is discomforting to see it on display so much.

It might have worked a bit too well on the Express article. All the comments have been taken down. But a sample of the Suns comments, show how it went down.

" Why are we doing everything to please Muslims. if we go to their country we have to abide by their laws and yet they come here and we roll out the red carpet, give them nice big houses and pay them to live here. If they dont like our ways then don't come here. what is wrong with this bloody country. Im ashamed to be british.The english that use the pool should refuse to use the pool until it changes, that way the council wont be able to afford to stay open."

"Hate our way of life but love our benifit system!!!"

"If these women wish to swim in a public pool in privacy perhaps they would like to go back to a muslim country and do it."

These do seem to assume that all Muslims are both immigrants, and claiming benefits. No evidence that those who complained are either. But shows how blanket stereotypes take effect. Also most Muslims in the UK are British, so deporting them would be tricky.

" Why aren't hundreds of people from this borough complaining about this? If hundreds of people complain, then it will have to be put back to normal. Remember that local councillors have to be elected so if they won't fix it, vote for the opposition next time."

Because most people have better things to worry about.

Sometimes a Cigar is a Cigar

There's been a right hoo hah over nothing regarding a story about how the PC Brigade / militant non smokers have defaced the name of Britain's greatest war leader, in their non ending mission to establish a PC sandal wearing utopia of left wing debauchery or whatever. Yes it seems that a copy of a 1948 picture of Churchill opening a military facility, has had the cigar he is smoking removed from the picture. (See Above.)

The sans cigar doctored photo has subsequently been superimposed on to a wartime image wall montage of a WW2 "Britain At War" museum in London. From the admittedly tenuous information we can get from the story, it seems the alteration was not noticed by the owners or staff at the museum (they certainly didn't doctor the photo themselves.). And it is implied that this has been the case for over 20 years. That is until a visitor by the name of David McAdam spotted it, and was only too keen to jump to lofty conclusions.

"I pointed out this crude alteration to a museum steward who said she hadn't noticed the change before, nor had anyone else pointed it out.

Viewing the now disfigured image reveals just how unhinged the vociferous anti-smoking lobby has become. So much for the notion that only communist tyrants airbrushed history."

The museum owners don't know who altered the image and why they did, and even when it was altered. That didn't stop a colleague of the Churchill Archives Centre, jumping to more conclusions either.

"'The cigar is part of what makes Churchill an iconic figure and of course it was very much part of his image as war leader - it went hand in hand with his victory salute and the uniforms he wore.

What's politically correct for 2010 was not politically correct for 1940."

To be fair I suppose he is only reacting to second hand stuff he is being asked to comment on. So it's a fair mistake. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the boneheaded sort of people who get really wound up about spurious stories like this, will openly abuse the owner of the museum for being the PC fanatic he isn't. It would be regrettable if he lost business over it. Indeed - hidden amongst all the self righteous huffing, the article in the Mail does explain that the museums owners didn't know that the picture was altered, and indeed why it was altered. But looking further into the story I discovered this interesting article on the Heresy Corner blog that possibly explains where the cigar went. It would be hugely ironic that (if the doctorer is this man) the Mails getting worked up about PC zealots airbrushing out cigars, when the airbrushing was done by a libertarian blogger pranking about, in response to what he saw as a PC zealot, in regards to a vocal complainer wanting smoking scenes edited out of Tom and Jerry cartoons!

The irony increases up a notch again with this ridiculous story. The Mail has gone and done what the mischievous libertarian blogger did in regards to the earlier "PC gone mad story"! Photoshopping various iconic images of hard men poses to take into account the sensibilities of the PC / H&S brigade. Stuff like those builders sitting on a suspended girder on a Manhattan skyscraper now wearing hard hats, and Arnie the Terminator on his motorbike now wearing a crash helmet. This at least highlights how easy it is for a doctored photo to enter the public domain, and being distributed. A plentiful; futuristic, fertile source of shit, that can be flung at the PC zealots when hard news is a bit thin on the ground.

Superb.

Silly Season Kicks off with Dubious "England T-Shirt Ban."

I had a strong feeling we would, sooner or later have another "banned England shirt" story following on from the "ban" on England World Cup paraphernalia in pubs story , which was distinguishable for being complete bullshit, but about a contentious issue that is mired in half truths, and complete fabrications. A toxic combination if ever there was one. But sadly dynamite for disreputable tabloid agendas. That is presumably why we get this article about a women whose kids were apparently chucked off the bus for wearing England shirts that "offended" the driver, who was of Eastern European birth.

Actually from the women's transcript of the "encounter" we learn she won the argument (with the help of other "irate passengers", none who seemed to be pissed off enough to come forward.) and was allowed to stay:

"Miss Fardon, who also has a ten-year-old step-son, from Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, said: 'He (the driver) said: "He won't be wearing that during the World Cup, will he?"

'I said Dylan would and the bus driver said: "I find that really offensive. You should dress your family in less offensive clothes."

'I was completely gobsmacked. He said we'd have to get off the bus but I argued with him and other passengers backed me up, so he let us on."

The story; I suspect -is PA wire copy, stuck in the mail to fill space, and raise the readers blood pressure (the online article, which is now missing from the news stories page, as well as in today's printed paper -has 30 comments all in arms about the supposed incident). The article is loaded with quotation marks and "supposeds" and "allegedly" comments, indicating no ones checked to verify the veracity of the article, which would presumably be easy, as the driver on that specific route should be easy to track down. Indeed the bus company responded to the article with this:

"Paul De Santis, Commercial Director for First said: "We have carried out a full investigation and can't find any evidence to substantiate this claim. No driver fitting the description given was working on any routes in this area at that time. Our buses were busy around the time yet no one else has been in touch with us about this alleged incident. "We expect the highest level of professionalism from our drivers and such an act would not be tolerated. However, in this instance it now appears that no such incident took place."

In a longer version of this statement, First busses even say they are going to put banners on thier busses supporting England in the World Cup, which doesn't allay feelings that this story is either a misunderstanding or fabricated.

This kind of thing is what tends to kick off (sorry) the so -called "silly season" in the media, when at the summer wind down, editors have to look for stuff to fill pages to compensate for the down turn of hard news. Unfortunately these kinds of story can have a knock back. That pub ban is still being circulated as truth on facebook, and this story has spawned a group set up by a mate of the women in question calling for the elusive drivers head to roll. It also paradoxically has comments casting yet more doubt on the offended woman's side of the story, but how seriously we can take these is still a matter of some doubt. As with the pub story we have the unpleasant ant immigrant comments that use isolated incidents, and even pretend ones as a stick to beat all immigrants. It is not too much to say that on many levels, those who protest the loudest want these stories to be true, and will accept them at face value.

It would be horrifying to think that someone who was not ethnic British could be on the receiving end of furore at such dubious anecdotes.

Is This For Real?

I found this extraordinary article from Liz Jones yesterday, and I have to ask myself "is she for real", cause if she isn't she's apparently hoodwinked some free cash. Seems Liz has totally cleaned her self out of cash. The articles are full of hubristic self pitying, and an ability to pin the blame on everything but herself. If she is completely broke (and I have doubts she is, and that she even writes this stuff as "straight") it is the result of her ball breaking profligacy (she had a small animals psychic at one point, and a shower tray that was made out of some limestone that was quarried from one special place.). She also appears to have blown loads on bloody designer label bullshit, no sane person needs at all, and on the kind of ludicrously expensive, and pretentious self indulgencies, that crafty salesmen can push to pampered rich people in order to deflate bank balances. (the adjective spiritual will almost certainly be used in the sales pitch.)And her taking on some more injured animals (which is noble at first. But not if you can't afford to keep them.). Which she describes in these unintentionally funny lines, that just seem a bit too Marie Antionetteish to ring quite true.

"Michael needs an operation to remove a cyst on his eyelid. Grace Kelly needs to be spayed now that she is a year old and has had her first period. Dream is still on anti-cellulite medication, and needs a visit from a vet at least once a week, a visit from an equine podiatrist every two weeks. Jess needs her teeth cleaned: she has terrible breath, and could develop an infection if this is not sorted out as soon as she has lost a little more weight. Benji is due his inoculations. The chicken with the strange lump and feather loss has been diagnosed with cancer and requires home visits from Tara the small animal vet (the animals are small; Tara is normal-sized); I won’t take the chicken to the surgery because she becomes too stressed."

The articles are interspersed with the usual blame everyone but herself, and "oh did I tell you my ex was a bastard" stuff, as she bares her very soul for her readers. But what is disturbing is that some of her readers have donated money (one donated a scratch card. Hey it's the thought that counts.), and some of these readers don't seem to be well off. She lists some:

‘Liz, I have a two-bedroom flat in Kennington you’re welcome to share.’ The next read: ‘As we’re pensioners we’d be unable to solve your long-term problem but can send some money towards food and petrol. Patrick and Rita.’

‘I’ve sent £20. Please don’t return it – I wanted to show you not all people are greedy. I’d like you to enjoy a bottle of wine, and battle on! Ann.

‘I can let you have some money for food, and I do not want it back!!! I too have been without food, electric, hope! I’m a 63-year-old widow. I wish I could help more. Maria.’

And: ‘I’ve lost my company, my wife and my children. I get ten calls a day from debt collectors. In January I tried to take my own life. A.’

And: ‘I could do you a food parcel. It would be more Sainsbury’s than Harrods, but you could pick it up as you pass on the M4. David.’

I have £20 to last me until the 24th when I might or might not be paid but you’re welcome to £10. Caroline.’

On Monday, in among the bills, were dozens of letters, mostly addressed to ‘Liz Jones, somewhere on Exmoor’. I opened the first. A £10 note tumbled out. ‘You worry me!’ wrote Carole.

‘Tinned dog food is expensive. Gracie stress wees because she needs more of you! Don’t you dare buy Cava with this!’

There's a few things in there that make me think shes just made these "comments" up herself. I can't see someone sending her money cause she has none herself, not even for food and petrol (by the way how is she going to pick up the hamper on the M4? With no fuel.) and then tell her to buy some plonk. I also have a hard time believing Caroline would donate half a 20 pound allowance that's to last a fortnight - so blase. Tinned dog food is dirt cheap. The tinned dog food Liz buys would clean out an ASDA till person a years wages.

Gracie fucking stress wees!

Now if her money worries are true, that is of course traumatic for her, and if she is suicidal (as she claims) she should seek help (both financially and mentally.). But she only has herself to blame for getting into this mess. She must earn a 6 figure salary (unlike her "benefactors") and should want for little. It should be easy to live within your means. Unlike many in debt she has assets to flog to raise the money her creditors want. Ditch the car, the stupid shower and all the Gucci handbags and other tat, rather than some poor pensioners who may or may not exist.

It's hard to say whether the money problems and the donators are real. If Liz Jones wants to portray herself as a narcissistic knob for the benefit of her readers, that's her concern. I'd like to think that not even Mail on Sunday sub eds would allow Liz Jones to raise money under false pretence. But if I read half of what Nick Davies "Flat Earth News" exposes, you do think to yourself? Would they?

Not Being the Suns Mouthpiece.

The fallout from the increasingly preposterous "Duffygate" affair on Wednesday has been taken up by the press, to increased levels of bizarre after Gordon Brown went round to her house in Rochdale to apologise in person for the "bigot" comments that were unwittingly broadcast for the benefit of everyone who cared to listen. We have had the rather unedifying spectacle of 50 eager reporters, cameramen, the odd PR man all decamping on the front door of a working class widow in her late sixties, waiting for her to deliver a few tasty morsels about the PM who was caught ragging her behind her back. Now it isn't really a surprise the press would do this, and I can't really say that I'd really blame her if she, as a women of limited means wanted to make a few bob by talking to the press. Apart from a PR man from Bell Pottinger (more on them later.), she had refused to say anything. But what was unusual, and was picked up on by the other reporters was the absence of any Sun reporters in the scrum. Surely a newspaper so visibly supporting David Cameron would relish a story that would damage the opposition? Where could they be? Then they all realised like any other object composed in 3 dimensions, a house has a rear that is obstructed to those seeing it from the front, and they scarpered to the back where 2 guys from the Sun were apparently taking photographs in her kitchen (they'd snuck in through hedges at the back. I doubt a flipping big camera being shoved in the foliage does wonders for the Leylandi.) and were seen coming out of her house looking remarkably dejected. According to Fleet Street gossip, Richard Moriarty - a Sun reporter, had good reason to look glum. He had offered her (reportedly) between £20 000 to £70 ooo to spill the beans. But he had also asked could she really lay into Brown, and would she mind endorsing David Cameron as well. As a Labour voter she stuck to principle and told him to get lost. It's certainly a strange affair when PM's and high ranking journalists are more afraid of standing up to Rupert Murdochs empire, rather than a paunchy pensioner from a provincial Northern town. Now normally I would stop the article here, as a charming tale of one - nil for "normal folk" putting the political / media elite to shame. But it produced further twists, and accusations of foul play, that wedged it all out of proportion for a while.

Bell Pottinger had set alarms ringing (see what I did there.) to those who knew about that PR company, and thought something iffy was afoot. The founder of it; Tim bell, was a big advertising guru for Maggie Thatcher in the 70's, and the currant chairman is a Tory activist who had gloated about Browns misfortune on his blog. Did the Bell Pettinger guy visiting Mrs Duffy also want her to shovel some shit at Brown? Astonishingly this wasn't the end of the suspicions that the whole thing was a bit dodgy. There was a counterclaim leveled against the firm that another Labour supporting director (who was Tony Blairs director of communication, after Alastair Campbell.) had stepped in before the hostile [to Labour] press to negotiate some form of damage limitation exercise with her! And that's not even getting into the role that the firm played in faking the moon landings (I made that last one up.). the actual reason the Bell Pottinger guy was there was that Mrs. Duffy had panicked about the press intrusion, rang her daughter to see what to do. The daughter just happened to work for a solicitors that used the services of a PR firm called... Bell Pottinger, who she asked to help her mum out. No greater conspiracy after all.

The twists and turns of this strange affair highlight the shady world of media PR pretty well. What they don't highlight is a sense of proportion and priority in media coverage of this election.

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.

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."

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.