The Pen is Mightier than the Sword

I had decided to myself to not really comment on the whole Sky football sacking thing. I don't know a lot about football and it wasn't really an incident I knew all that much about. However there have been a series of correspondents to the incident who have followed one familiar theme. That football is a mans game, and that a bit of sexist banter (though telling a female colleague to shove a microphone into your pants seems like stepping over the line a bit.) is just something that women should have to put up with. This is a pet hate of mine. It seems that a certain generation of some men (and it is usually men) have the opinion that casual racism and sexism is both trivial and indeed rather daring. Some of those with this world view have sent letters into the Bolton News (my local paper), one from my old friend Arnold Harrison, the stupidest man in Lancashire, and this offering of verbal crud from Colin Higson of Over Hulton.

ONCE again Steve Jones[1], leading exponent of the PC brigade and all things thereto, twists the facts to suit his argument.

First he says Gray and Keys are entitled to their own views (that itself is an astounding admission for one of his ilk).

Then he goes on to say they should keep their views to themselves (he could take a bit of his own advice and stop lecturing the rest of us with his drivel). If he had taken the trouble to obtain the facts he would have known that they were doing exactly that. It was some other PC maniac that decided on his or her own bat to broadcast a private conversation (nice people, these PC nuts).

If Mr Jones (I apologise if it is wrong or sexist to call him Mr) has ever attended a football match he would know that spectators male and female accuse match officials of not knowing the laws of the game, being blind (sorry visually handicapped ) and having all sorts of afflictions.

He should have heard the woman near me berating the referee’s assistant at the Reebok this week.

Was that sexist? No. She was just doing what all football fans including Gray and Keys do all the time and if by some unfortunate circumstance we are to have female officials forced upon us they will get it, make no mistake, every match as their male colleagues do.

If Mr Jones doesn’t like it he should take up his bed and walk to the top of Rivington Pike away from his keyboard never to regale us with his boring comments ever again.

Colin Higson Over Hulton

This is precisely the kind of mentality that get on my royal tits. Notwithstanding that asking is calling someone "Mr" unPC the stupidest rhetorical question in the history of the universe. No it is that this, and the comments lie it is just blatant apologism for sexist bullying. So I e-mailed this response to the letters page, trying to articulate as best as I can my distaste for this kind of attitude. Hopefully they may actually print it as well.

There have been some worrying letters on this page (Colin Higson “All football supporters have a rant” Feb 5th 2011) and others, as well as in general discussions about the nature of Sky football pundit Andy Grays sacking and Richard Keys resignation in regards to the whole off air furore about their comments about referee Sian Massey. It seems that some people seem to think that blatant sexism is just “something women should put up with.” Because as Colin Higson et al can tell us, just because something like arbitrary discrimination on the basis of someone’s gender is one of this biggest insults to female dignity and liberty going – doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a bad thing[2].

Let us summarise what happened, and why Gray and Keys left. Gray and Keys dismissed the competency of a referee of who they knew nothing about, almost purely on the basis of the XX composition of her chromosomes. How, may I ask; is that any more morally justifiable than when I overheard a guy I once worked with; who upon seeing the new manageress (she was a black lady) sneered “they’ll promote anyone these days.”[3] That comment and this incident highlight why racism and sexism are such moral evils. Writing off the collective worth of a whole subset of humanity on nothing more than them being “the wrong sort.”

Prejudiced comments in (supposed) privacy may be one thing. But school bully boy Grays compounded the sin by making lewd comments about placing a microphone to a female colleague, whilst his trusty little sidekick Keys cackled along like the snivelling little toady he is. Anyone who made these comments would have been disciplined by their boss in any workplace in the UK.

I am sick and tired of chauvinistic bigots dismissing their abuse as a “bit of friendly banter”. Spineless bullies who victimise easy targets always “justify” it in this way.

So let us not say these two buffoons are martyrs to the PC brigade, because they aren’t.

[1] Steve Jones isn't me by the way, and his letter was very good and well argued IMHO.

[2] Yes I blatantly nicked that pun from Ben Goldacres "Bad Science" book.

[3] I have to confess that this never actually happened in the way I said it did. It is a retelling of a quip Tory MP and twat David Heathcote Amery reputedly exclaimed when he saw the black MP Dawn Butler in the members gallery at Westminster. I changed the details as there is a tiny chance that the letters editor might have got cold feet about printing something potentially seen as libelous. But the sentiment of my argument still stands.

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.

Halal Hulabaloo

There has been quite a lot of feedback in the papers from "outraged" readers in regards to the Mail on Sundays "expose" on the widespread distribution of halal meat to well known stores and food outlets without this being made clear to buyers / eaters, or even mentioned at all. I didn't actually think that it was not that well known that cheap halal meat was frequently sold - not just to take aways, but to other places too. Despite what the coverage may say this isn't in case it offends Muslims. It is just pretty good value for retailers and food outlets buying in bulk. There is really one profit that these guys are in awe to, and it ain't Mohammad.

Now back to the outcry. There is the question of the ethical nature of halal based killing of food animals, and whether it is right to keep schtum about how the meat we eat is killed (and treated.), and I have no stick with that, they are valid ones. As for the cruelty of the halal method? Despite the silliness of having to get a green light from God before killing an animal for food, as many religious purity ceremonies don't make much sense. Well the sad fact is there aren't many "pleasant" ways of systematically killing meat mammals and poultry birds with advanced nervous systems. It is a case of trying to meet the least bad option really. But that really is to miss the real gripe of many of the letters. A gripe they try to cover up (badly) in the language of animal welfare. It is grimly humorous to see complainants writing in, trying to make out that they are some kind of Linda McCartney clone, when you know that their sole contribution to animal welfare was to feel a bit bad eating gammon and pineapple at the Brewers Fayre, after watching "Babe" on Sky Movies the night before. The complainants are mostly more teed off that they may have unwittingly become involved in an Islamic tradition, than what was going through a sheep's mind before it was revolving on a rotating spit in a kebab house window.

One letter to the Mail on Sunday really encapsulated that - when you took out all the more evasive weasel wording - it was a "bloody Muslims" rant fest at heart, was the one I have reproduced below by Mrs Felton, who gives the game away with all the huffy solipsistic sanctimoniousness and fake; turned up to eleven - moral outrage of chintz soaked suburbia, that only a pissed off Mail letter writer can master

"In his letter regarding Halal meat being sold when not specified as such, Fiyaz Mughal [the Director of Faith Matters] states that the 'respect of religious beliefs is what makes us a tolerant society'

Where is the respect for my religious beliefs, when I am expected to eat meat that has been ritually slaughtered?

I find the whole concept deeply offensive on a spiritual and moral level, and I am furious that I have probably consumed halal meat unwittingly. It seems a case of some animals being more equal than others.

C. Felton (Mrs.) Gillingham Kent. "

Now I summoned all my "Northernbloke" lackeys together, which was easy as it consists of just me, and we came up with this equation. The "Mrs C Felton of Kents, animal welfare to "they've got all sorts of yuman rights these days" percentage differential, which is expressed as follows.

%AGE OF MRS C FELTONS WAKING MOMENTS DEVOTED TO THE WELFARE OF COWS THAT ARE BURGER FODDER. - 0.00%

%AGE OF MRS C FELTONS OUTRAGE AT "NOW MUSLIMS BAN PROPER ENGLISH AND CHRISTIAN MEAT." -100zillion %

Mrs Felton and many like her who write in at their "outrage", couldn't give a flying fuck about how some cows spent their last few hours on this earth, and that for me is the only real potential ethical problem there is with this sort of thing. I can't change their views. But I do get pissed off that they are so bloody mealy mouthed and backhandedly snide about what they really mean. If you want to be controversial go the whole hog. Write in and say "You can sod right off if you think I'm eating smelly muslimist meat." It may not be nice sentiment, but at least it would be honest.

Moron Gets Bitchslapped on Mail Website Comments

The Mails Websites comments board are the most tangible proof ever in the whole of our entire existence that stupidity is the second most abundant thing in the universe after Hydrogen. But every so often there is a commentator who dares raise their heads above the pulpit of idiocy, to metaphorically bitch slap a prize pillock squarely back to their stupid zone. So without further ado, here's Alan from Birmingham giving a thicko some helpful information on gay marriage, and that Pee Cee stuff thats gone mad:

It is time for the UK to stop being dictataed to by minority groups of whatever cause and looked to what benifits the majority. The above was one of the prime reasons for abandoning the UK for Spain. - T Jones, Alicante,Spain, 20/7/2010 10:23

So one of the "prime reasons" for abandoning Britain was gay marriage? You do realise you left Britain for a country that was the third in the world to give gay couples the right to marry? Long before we did. Maybe you should learn some Spanish and pick up a paper now and then?- Alan, Birmingham, 20/7/2010 15:38

Genius!

James Delingpole Makes Stuff Up.

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

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

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

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

Twat.

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

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

Hari, in typical style gave this robust rebuttal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not Gettin Down With the Kidz, or with Streetview either.

The Internet has been under fire on two fronts by the Daily Mail this week. This is hardly the most surprising revelation in the world, from a paper that thinks anything and everything that has happened in the UK since 1961 has been directly passed out of the fiery bum of Satan and then been shite splashed (with the help of the PC brigade and liberals probably) all over the the beige and posy clad metaphorical front lawns of the law abiding respectable people of Middle England. (also known as middle class white people) This also includes the world wide web (which the mails website, and the reader comments often agree with. Irony lives on), which apparently exists to directly beam hard core pornography and drugs into middle class toddlers brains. But what has got on the Mail readers collective noggin this week is; firstly the news that Google maps has extended Street View coverage to almost all the UK, and secondly and more seriously, the role of Facebook in the horrific murder of 17 year Ashleigh Hall by serial sex offender Peter Chapman, whom she met online and was lured to her death by Chapman who had impersonated a teenage boy on the net, more on this later.
I for one am glad that Street View has almost full coverage of the UK. I never knew how we managed to survive without being able to use the computer to look at strange looking people with blurred faces curiously gawping at a Streetview car in a provincial street in Doncaster. It's very addictive being able to have a nosey around old places you used to live and work, and of course has the added advantage of not having to physically travel there, which is great as I am too lazy to be bothered driving the 130 miles just to nostalgically ponce around in the centre of Worcester. But it seems (to be fair the Mail doesn't take sides) some aren't too happy. Now this isn't a new story in the UK as the residents of Broughton, Milton Keynes Village blocked a google car photographing their street (all of Broughton is covered. I decided in the interests of the residents privacy, to have a nosy anyway.) lest it invites burglars to steel their DVD players. Strangely they didn't seem to bothered to pose for the multimillion selling Mail, in the obligatory "angry people in the papers" picture, taken in broad daylight (yes) in their secluded street To be honest you can't really make out the interiors of peoples houses, the unrasterised pictures are similar quality to the pictures from the Mars Rover. The cameras are there for quantity not quality. The only thing me and a team of experts (which consisted of just me) could deduce about footage of my own house was that it was made of bricks and had windows. Street View is really; for all intents and purposes no more intrusive than walking down someones street, as for being an invasion of privacy (which is notoriously difficult to legislate what cast iron constitutes privacy), I don't think the exteriors of houses count as this. They also aren't real time pictures, as the Pugh cartoon in the Mail depicting a man spying on what his neighbours are doing doesn' t seem to understand. But we still get the unintentionally funny comments on the the article about it. Comments like this:


"Good job I didn't see it, I would have thrown a brick at the car, no one asked me if I wanted my house splashed all over the Internet, so much for Data Protection, and what about all the kids who play in my street are they photographed as well.? this is a buglers dream come true. Typical Nu Labour, snooping and spying on all of us, I'm never using google again, hope they go bust, there are plenty of search engines out there that don't help NU Labour spy on us and our children."

How it helps people who play the bugle is unclear, and how is it Nu Labours fault what a private company does?


"I have every right to privacy ! How dare this shameless country post pictures of my house on the Internet for the whole world to see !!! For all suckers saying anyone one see my house walking down the street , it is like saying, people can see me walking down the street but that doesnt mean I want pictures of me posted on the Net !!!

Fiona Sunderland"


God why can't these people see that what a private company does, is not the same as what a government does. I like comments like these, they seem to be so pompous, they think that everyone will think "Thank God for Streetview, I can now try to see if I can see Fiona from Sunderlands knickers on her washing line, from her street!" It's sad but true that Fiona's house, like my own house is of no interest at all to 99.9% percent of Street Viewers.

The second Internet gripe regards young peoples safety on Facebook. As we know Ashleigh Hall was lured to her death by a sex offender on the networking site, and that it was a tragic and senseless, but thankfully rare example of the absolute worst case scenario in meeting people on line. Now I know that meeting strangers on line can have dangerous consequences, and that the unworldiness of lonely youngsters, and the natural impulsiveness of teenagers can override their better judgement, and anyone willing to promote guidance for vulnerable kids about the risks of contact with on line is OK by me. But what I object too in this affair is the Mail blatantly distorting the risks posed by social networking (in this case Facebook), with lurid articles like this.

Now Williams-Thomas says that the editors added the Facebook references to the article after he had submitted it. (and the printed paper itself implicitly says he used facebook.), and in true Soviet Unionesque revisionism, the facebook references have now gone. I'm sure this has nothing to do with Facebook threatening to sue the Mail . But a cursory read of the article by anyone familiar with the website will easily show that he hadn't used it at all. I mean it can't even do the things he says it can.


"Even after 15 years in child protection, I was shocked by what I encountered when I spent just five minutes on a social networking [EXPLICITLY NAMED AS FACEBOOK IN THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE] site posing as a 14-year-old girl. Within 90 seconds, a middle-aged man wanted to perform a sex act in front of me.
I was deluged by strangers asking stomach-churning questions about my sexual experience. I was pressured to meet men with whom I'd never before communicated.
So I wasn't surprised that a vulnerable teenager, Ashleigh Hall, was groomed on Facebook before being brutally raped"


None of this can be done on facebook. You can't talk to people unless you are friends (on the site) with them, and this means you have to search for someone (who has to be signed up on facebook) you want to befriend, you've got some odds against you to locate a middle aged paedophile in one minute thirty ( sending a friend request, (and receiving a confirmation from the other person) This takes longer than 90 seconds. For a start they would have to be on-line the same time to immediately respond. You can't post real time videos either. Facebook is for the main part, communal. So these men would be posting the stuff he says they were in full view of everyone who is their "friends" news feeds. You know stuff that would draw attention, and the sort of stuff that would be kind of incriminating if the cops got hold of it.

The Streetview stuff is water of a ducks back for me. If people want to look stupid, commenting on a facility they know nothing about then that's up to them. But the Facebook (apart from being mislabeling and libelous to that company) thing misleads and obfuscates parents or friends who may not know much about the risks of the Internet, and can be mislead about where the danger really lies. So they may not be aware, or looking in the wrong places about the dangers to vulnerable people on the Internet. It does have dangerous places on it, and people need the facts, not misleading scare stories that look good for a tabloid audience. That won't help, and certainly won't stop the next Ashleigh Hall from potentially happening.

Don't like immigrants? Become an immigrant then. Christ! How consistant.

Now if you are an assiduous reader of the surprisingly good, and endearingly folksy local newspaper the Bolton News, and you stumble across to the often unintentionally hilarious letters page, you may be aware of the wisdom that is David from Malaga. Although he hasn't written in for a while, (so I can't quote him) he's your typical ultra anti - European Union ranter, you know the spiel, trying to destroy the country by banning bandy bananas and the Union Jack, that sort of thing. Now anti - EU sentiment is nothing new, but I'm sure it's never crossed Davids mind when he sits there typing this stuff, beside his pool in his tacky looking villa, that he looks a bit of a hypocrite claiming to hate the EU, and love his country so much that he took advantage of the horrid EU to piss off for good, from the country he claims to love so much. So I wasn't really surprised to discover that another scream it from the rooftops, tinpot patriot, former Australian fish fryer, turned MP Pauline Hanson has decided that she loves her country so much, she's going to emigrate to another one, The UK. She cites:

"Sadly, the land of opportunity is no more applicable. It's pretty much goodbye for ever. I've really had enough."

Which loosely translates to "My political career is screwed. Better luck next time." (she did 3 years for fraud, claiming she had more party members than she actually did, to be eligible for electoral funding)

Yes Hanson who formed the "One Nation" party, a right wing protectionist, populist organisation, running a severe anti-immigration platform. Hanson, like many of the leaders of these kinds of parties, played the tired old populist "real people" card, by constantly draping herself in the Aussie flag (might bring out the patriot in you, but it is just gesturing), and claiming she was fighting against the out of touch elite who know nothing of what "real people" want:

"My view on issues is based on common sense, and my experience as a mother of four children, as a sole parent and as a businesswoman running a fish and chip shop …"

"I may be only a fish and chip shop lady, but some of these economists need to get their heads out of the textbooks and get a job in the real world. I would not even let one of them handle my grocery shopping."

Now as I've said in this post, this is what these people do, I don't think; on this stand alone issue, that this makes them bad people, they honestly think, like many unintelligent people who enter politics, that cookie cutter rhetoric and simple "common sense" can "solve" very complex and staggeringly mulitlayered social issues.

No what I dislike about her, and what makes this "move" doubly hypocritical, and makes her unlike "David from Malaga" is that Hanson is well known in Australia for her strident views on immigration. Which is why she's come out with nuggets like these.

"I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. Between 1984 and 1995, 40 per cent of all migrants coming into this country were of Asian origin. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate. Of course, I will be called racist but, if I can invite whom I want into my home, then I should have the right to have a say in who comes into my country."

"Arthur Calwell said: Japan, India, Burma, Ceylon and every new African nation are fiercely anti-white and anti one another. Do we want or need any of these people here? I am one red-blooded Australian who says no and who speaks for 90% of Australians. I have no hesitation in echoing the words of Arthur Calwell."

Yes this is depressing stuff, and these crude generalisations, and collective assigning of cultural traits to non-whites, has all those half-said undercurrents of "civilisation" being overrun by the dusky peoples. A lot of this appeals to the basest and murkiest sentiments on immigration. Her attitudes towards the aboriginals are particularly unpleasant.

"I have done research on benefits available only to Aboriginals and challenge anyone to tell me how Aboriginals are disadvantaged when they can obtain 3% and 5% housing loans denied to non-Aboriginals … "

"I am fed up with being told, 'This is our land.' Well, where the hell do I go? I was born here, and so were my parents and children …"

"Australians" were subject to "a type of reverse racism ... by those who promote political correctness and those who control the various taxpayer funded 'industries' that flourish in our society servicing Aboriginals,"

Now I know that anti immigrant sentiment is hardly an unheard of concept in some circles. But it seems the height of twattery, even amongst the standards we usually expect in this kind of talk, to actually begrudge a group of people who genuinely were swamped out, when the continent was settled by Europeans. Now no living Australian (of European origin) is guilty of their ancestors crimes against the indigenous Australians. But there is something perverse about denying those who have been there a hell of a lot longer, some redress for the land they lost.

That's the problem you see, when you hold these extreme and unsustainable views, you can't live up to them. You can't claim to be against immigration and then become an immigrant. Or is it OK if you are white? She say's she isn't racially prejudiced, but singles out Aboriginals of all people as receiving special treatment, without acknowledging the historic wrongs against the indigenous Australians.

As it happens I think she will probably fade into obscurity back in the UK. But I do wonder if a convicted fraudster who has questionable views, and has been touted by an organisation with links to individuals who would commit acts of terror and violence against British people, will raise as many eyebrows as others who may fit this profile. What do you think.

(I know she holds dual citizenship with the UK, because her family used to live here, so technically she isn't an immigrant. But since when have these people bothered with technicality. And if they don't care. I don't care either.)

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.