James Delingpole Makes Stuff Up.

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

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

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

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

Twat.

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

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

Hari, in typical style gave this robust rebuttal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Nasty Gaffe Gord.

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

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

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

Eastern Europe would be a good bet!!

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

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

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

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

Ooops.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy 20th. Hubble (For Tomorrow)

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

Take to the skies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Bollocks.

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

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

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

No you're just heavily implying it.

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

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

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

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

As for flying under the clouds:

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

Just minor stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

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