The Daily Mail Tendency

And again - The Mail and Privacy

2009-03-26T06:49:00.000-07:00

From The Daily Mail on Fred Goodwin's house on Google Street View:

The house – shown repeatedly on television news bulletins over the last few weeks – is also clearly featured on Google Street View.

The controversial online device, which shows detailed photographs of millions of
homes, means vandals and burglars can now case targets without leaving home.

Yep, they don't need to leave their home. The can look on The Daily Mail website where every single shot of Fred Goodwin's house from Google Street View is reproduced, including an aerial photo.

Fucking morons.

The Mail and Privacy

2009-03-20T06:10:00.001-07:00

With some relish, The Daily Mail comments on some of the complaints about Google's new Street View service. They say that some people have complained about the pictures on the service, meaning those images have been blacked out or removed. They note:

Images of several homes were removed along with a one picture showing a man emerging from a sex shop in Soho, central London.

Perhaps the gentleman being pictured leaving a sex shop wanted his privacy to be respect. So how do The Daily Mail respect that privacy? Only by printing the fucking picture on their website.

The publication of the picture is either grossly unsympathetic, or grossly hypocritical. But this being The Daily Mail it could, of course, be a mix of the two.

Oh the irony!

2009-03-17T09:48:00.000-07:00

The mentality of The Daily Mail can be nicely summed up as follows: "Those bloody foreigners, coming over here, taking our jobs! They should be fucking stopped, I tells ya! We shouldn't let the ruddy sods in unless they jump through every hoop we set for them, and pass several tests that make sure they are of sufficient calibre to come to the nation that created St Diana and St Jade (Peace Be Unto Them)."

Unless, of course, it is a British national trying to get into a foreign country. So the fuck what if Australia wants this nurse to take an English test? If she was really committed to working in that country, she would shut her pie hole and take the test. Rather than bellyaching to The Daily Hate. Yes, a person from England taking an English test may seem a little crass - but since when has bureaucracy either here or in Australia (or, indeed, anywhere in the world) been know for its sense? And if she is English, then passing this test should be pretty fucking simple.

And the irony is nicely summed up by a commenter; AJD, from Barnsley:

She should be thankful that they're considering letting her work over there at all. The hypocrisy of people who moan about foreigners coming to work here but who then themselves go and demand to be let into another country is staggering.

Quite. But I some how doubt that those writing for The Daily Wail will ever think like that. They are probably too busy singing "Rule Britainnia" under their breaths, inbetween raging against immigrants trying to come into this country and crying out against countries that won't let our people in without passing some basic cunting tests.

Comment of the Day #2

2009-03-11T10:44:00.000-07:00

From a comment on the horrific shootings in Germany:

We are a filthy, decadent and depraved society. The question is not - how come these things occur? But how come they don't occur every day? So roll on consumerism, materialism, atheism - we ain't seen nothing yet.
- Joseph, Halton, England, 11/3/2009 13:59

Thanks for your insights, Joseph. Just to clarify - are you talking about British society? Because you might want to note that this happened in Germany. Unless you see Germany as identical to Britain... And nice to see that you are almost relishing the idea of further mass shootings to back up your incoherent burblings on consumerism etc. Still, there actually is a silver lining to these things happening every day. It increases the changes of people like you getting shot sqaure in the middle of your stupid, moronic fucking face.

Page - Defending the Dictators

2009-02-11T01:42:00.000-08:00

In his deeply predictable piece on the Carol Thatcher controversy, our hero Robin Page strays into that oh-so-tempting territory for morons everywhere – the defence of the dictator:

When I first went to Malawi it was run by a “wicked dictator”, Dr Hastings Banda. The airport was efficient and the planes ran on time; the new capital showed vision with large plots of fast growing eucalyptus planted throughout the city for wood and charcoal; the roads were repaired and the streetlights worked. Outside the land was tended and for the first time for decades Malawi could feed itself. But oh, woe, pc Britain in the form of Tory Lynda Chalker, Baroness Wallasey, decided that Malawi was undemocratic.

Yet even the most basic internet research* presents a more sinister side to Banda than perhaps Page would like to admit to:

Within Malawi, views on him ranged from a cult-like devotion to fear. While he portrayed himself as a caring headmaster to his people, his government was rigidly authoritarian even by African standards of the time. Although the constitution guaranteed civil rights and liberties, they meant almost nothing in practice, and Malawi was essentially a police state. Mail was opened and often edited. Telephones were tapped. Needless to say, overt opposition was not tolerated. Banda actively encouraged the people to report those who criticized him, even if they were relatives. Telephone conversations were known to be cut off if anyone said a critical word about the government. Opponents were often arrested, exiled (like Kanyama Chiume) or died suspiciously (like Dick Matenje or Dr Attati Mpakati).

Banda was the subject of a very pervasive cult of personality. Every business building was required to have an official picture of Banda hanging on the wall, and no poster, clock or picture could be higher than his picture. Before every movie, a video of Banda waving to the people was shown while the anthem played. When Banda visited a city, a contingent of women were expected to greet him at the airport and dance for him. A special cloth, bearing the president’s picture, was the required attire for these performances. Churches had to be government sanctioned. All movies shown in theaters were first viewed by the Malawi Censorship Board and edited for content. Videotapes had to be sent to the Censorship Board to be viewed by censors. Once edited, the movie was given a sticker stating that it was now suitable for viewing, and sent back to the owner. Items to be sold in bookstores were also edited. Pages, or parts of pages, were cut out of magazines like Newsweek and Time. The press and radio were tightly controlled, and mainly served as outlets for government propaganda. Television was banned.

His government supervised the people's lives very closely. Early in his rule, Banda instituted a dress code which was rooted in his socially conservative predilections. For example, women were not allowed to bare their thighs or to wear trousers. Banda argued that the dress code was not instilled to oppress women but to encourage honour and respect for them. For men, long hair and beards were banned as a sign of dissent. Men could be seized and forced to have a haircut on the discretion of border officials or police. Kissing in public was not allowed, nor were movies which contained depictions of kissing. Pre-Banda history was discouraged, and many books on these subjects were burned. Banda also allegedly persecuted some of the northern tribes (particularly the Tumbuka), banning their language and books as well as teachers from certain tribes. Europeans who broke any of these rules were often "PI'ed" (declared Prohibited Immigrants and deported).

All adult citizens were required to be members of the MCP. Party cards had to be carried at all times, and had to be presented in random police inspections. The cards were sold, often by Banda's Malawi Youth Pioneers. In some cases, these youths even sold cards to unborn children.

So, Robin Page – champion of freedom and would-be leader of the new peasant’s revolt – is prepared to support a totalitarian dictator with a hideous cult of personality because, amongst other reasons, he made the planes run on time?

I really *cannot* think why Farage and Cameron would want to distance themselves as much as possible from this clichéd freak.

*The research constituted putting Banda’s name into Wikipedia.

2009-02-10T09:49:00.000-08:00

The Daily Mail is concerned about actor Mischa Barton looking too thin. The actress is quoted in the article as being happy with her weight, but this does not stop them from adopting a very pious, holier-than-thou and concerned tone in the article.

Of course, if Mischa Barton does have a slimming problem, it will be difficult to know why she has developed such a problem. It couldn't be down to something as simple as news outlets, such as The Daily Mail, printing pictures of her cellulite, could it? And they would never print such a in the same article as the one expressing concern about her weight loss, would they?

Page and UKIP

2009-02-10T05:47:00.000-08:00

Trixy explains her problem with Daily Mail Tendency favourite Robin Page. Her issues with him focus on his wrecking operations within UKIP although - as regular readers of this blog will know - there is no shortage of reasons to have serious issues with Page...

Littlejohn.Yet Again.

2009-02-03T08:19:00.000-08:00

I shouldn't read Richard Littlejohn. He just pisses me right off. But I do, and as soon as I do, I feel the need to vent on this blog.

So let's take a look at what the ever ignorant Littlejohn has got himself into a tizzy about today - some nurse being kicked in the teeth for offering to pray for patients. He asks what her crime was, before noting that none of the outrageous crimes he offers were actually the problem:

No. Her 'crime' was to offer to say a prayer for one old lady on the ward. It's what we used to call an act of Christian charity.

Yes, we used to call it that. However, times have moved on. And an evangelical zeal for an outmoded and out of date fictional religion isn't quite as smiled on as it once was.

Mrs Petrie, a committed Christian since she was aged ten when her mother died of breast cancer, routinely offers to pray for her patients' speedy recovery. Many of them find it a great comfort.

What fucking difference does it make that Petrie's mother died of breast cancer when she was 10? Nothing - unless you are cynically trying to create sympathy for a supposed carer who said the wrong thing. And as we shall see, Petrie doing this routinely is part of the problem.

In this case, 79-year-old May Phippen said: thanks, but no thanks. No offence given or taken. But when Mrs Phippen mentioned it to another nurse, all hell broke loose.

How do you know no offence was taken? Have you asked May Phippen? And perhaps the other nurse was offended that Petrie was using and abusing her position as a carer to push her evangelical Christian beliefs onto a sick woman. I know I fucking well would be offended by that. Or does the opinion of the other nurse not count? Because, perhaps, she is a nurse and not a patient.

Mrs Petrie had previously been warned about her conduct after she asked a male patient if he would like a prayer card. He thought nothing of it, but his 'carer' threw a wobbly and reported her to hospital authorities.

Oh, ok, so Petrie has previous form for pushing her beliefs onto others. And has been warned about it before. To push her beliefs onto someone once could be classed as ill-thinking ignorance. To do so again shows a contempt for anyone who does not believe the same thing as Petrie. A contempt that should not be present in a nurse.

Administrator Alison Withers wrote to her: 'As a nurse you are required to uphold the reputation of your profession. Your NMC (Nursing Midwifery Council) code states that "you must demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity", and "you must not use your professional status to promote causes that are not related to health".'

So as a nurse, Petrie has to adhere to a particular code of conduct - as so many people have to do when holding down a job. If she breaks those rules, she gets herself into trouble. As she might have picked up from her first fucking warning. For fuck's sake.

(Withers) didn't explain how innocently volunteering to pray for a patient brought the game into disrepute or how it compromised Mrs Petrie's discharge of her professional duties.

Yes she did. In the letter. Petrie can't push her religious beliefs onto others. Petrie did so, and brought her profession into disrepute. Really fucking simple.

If I was in hospital, I'd be flattered if someone wanted to pray for my recovery. It wouldn't matter to me what God they believed in.

If you were in hospital, Littlejohn, you fucking cunt, you'd be lucky if someone wanted to pray for your recovery.

they could draft in a Red Indian to perform a raindance at the end of my bed if it meant I got home sooner. I wouldn't care less about my nurse's religious belief, provided it didn't involve blood-letting and human sacrifice.

Red Indian? Ah, casual racism, our old friend.

The power of prayer has long been acknowledged as part of the healing process. That's why hospitals have chaplains and there are Bibles in bedside cabinets.

No. That is palpable bullshit. A positive mental attitude is seem by some as part of the healing process, and some would argue (in an extremely unconvincing way) that prayer forms part of that positive mental attitude. But it has not been acknowledged that prayer is part of the healing process. Atheists get better too. And the reason why there are Bibles in bedside cabinets is down to the pushiness of evangelical Christian organisations. Prayer is about as likely to improve your health as blood-letting and human sacrifice.

The truth is that Christianity forms no part of the 'diversity' agenda.

True. I'd agree with that Christanity is fundamentally intolerant. They don't *get* diversity. They never will. Their pious, sickening belief that they are absolutely right will always hold them back from embracing the ideas of beliefs of those who believe something different to them.

As I wrote on Friday, in relation to the gay adoption scandal in Edinburgh, the only religion that official Britain recognises is 'diversity' itself.

Diversity isn't a religious, you fucking moron. It is a means of making sure that the different types of religion in this country are allowed to flourish, without being oppressed by a rival religion. This is basic, basic stuff.

Just imagine how they would have reacted had Mrs Petrie been a Muslim offering to pray to Allah for a patient's recovery. Anyone who objected would be accused of a 'hate crime' and dumped in a skip at the back of the mortuary.

No, that's not correct. There would be an outcry (rightly so). Probably led by you, Littlejohn.

What's really chilling about this case is that neither of the patients complained. It was only when news reached the ears of another nurse and a 'carer' that the full inquisition swung into action.

So the opinions of nurses and carers - who may be acting on the concerns of their patients - aren't allowed to have opinions? Fuck that. If I encounter racism in my working environment, I will challenge it. The same for those who try to foist their religious beliefs on others.

What kind of sick society have we become where self-righteous sneaks can ruin someone's career?

What kind of sick society would allow an evangelical Christian to push their beliefs onto others - including sick patients in their care?

This is what the small print at the bottom of all those public sector job adverts means in reality. 'Diversity' is just another way of persecuting decent people trying to go about their daily business. This is 'investing in diversity' in action. What else do you think all those equality managers do all day?

Diveristy is not used for persecution; it is used to prevent persecution. And those who follow the diversity opinions of their workplaces - largely by keeping their beliefs to themselves in the workplace - don't have an issue. It is those, such as Petrie, who are too socially maladjusted or too ignorant to keep their private views private, who run into problems.

And as for those diversity managers - well, they have to deal with the likes of Petrie all day, I'd imagine.

The most intolerant people in Britain are always those who preach 'tolerance' most loudly.

No. The most intolerant people in Britain are those who read The Daily Mail. Closely followed by religious zealots.

How does victimising Mrs Petrie square with not promoting 'causes that are not related to health'? Isn't that exactly what the hospital authorities themselves are doing?

No. They are penalising Petrie for promoting causes that are not realted to health.

Why should Mrs Petrie, or anyone else, have to 'demonstrate a personal commitment to equality and diversity'? She can harbour whatever beliefs she likes, provided it doesn't interfere with her professionalism.

It does interfere with her professionalism if colleagues, carers and potentially patients are being exposed to a religion that they don't with to be exposed to. Imagine if a Muslim nurse offered a prayer to Allah for Richard Littlejohn. Despite his protests to the contrary earlier in his article, I think he would die - right there and then - from an indignant apoplexy.

There's only one word to describe hatchet-faced harridans like administrator Alison Withers and the tell-tale creeps trying to get a dedicated nurse such as Caroline Petrie sacked for dispensing a little Christian kindness.

Sick.

The old school yard taunt of "takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Littlejohn Strikes Again

2009-01-30T06:14:00.000-08:00

From Richard Littlejohn's column about children being adopted by a gay couple rather than their grandparents. After strongly implying they have been kidnapped and the distressing thing is that there hasn't been mass hysteria about this "kidnapping", he writes:

Why? Because they’ve been taken by social workers, not paedophiles. So that’s all right, then.

Well, frankly, yes. It is far better that they have been taken by social workers rather than paedophiles. What the fucking hell is Littlejohn saying here? That he would rather have them taken by paedophiles? Or that all social workers are paedophiles? What fresh insanity is this? Does this man even think before he spews this sort of crap from his stupid, stupid mouth?

Oh, sorry, I know the answer to that question...

Anti-Obama. Already.

2009-01-30T06:04:00.000-08:00

Eight days into his new job, and – farcically – Obama already has those who are ready to write him off. One such person is Mary-Ellen Synon. In what is an audacious piece of spin, she manages to take what has been a strong first week in the Oval Office and turn it into a scenario where Obama is losing. Badly. Let’s take a look:

Yesterday, just eight days after the inauguration, President Obama had his £576bn so-called stimulus bill passed by the House of Representatives - but without a single vote from any Republican.

Imagine: Republicans not voting for a Democrat measure. This really is unprecedented, isn’t it? The next thing you know, we’ll be hearing that the Republicans and Democrats are different parties who don’t agree on everything. What crazy times we live in.

Congressman Eric Cantor, one of the leading House Republicans, says an analysis of the Bill shows it is mostly pork: just 12 cents of every dollar in the spending will go to any genuine economic stimulus, such as creating jobs.

Yep, and you could put the same question to a House Democrat who would give you a completely different answer. The truth is normally somewhere in the middle of the two views, but seriously, a House Republican who voted against the measure is not going to be, on any level, an unbiased analyst of the legislation. Plus, this Cantor fella is going to be an outspoken critic of Obama. After all, he could be one of the people who runs for the Republican nomination in the future.

Yet Obama was keen to have support from the Republicans. He didn't get it, because what he really wanted was submission from the Republicans.

I know what she was trying to say, but reading that paragraph just makes no sense. He wanted support, but actually he wanted submission. So he didn’t want support then? Contradicting yourself over the course of two, short sentences really does undermine what you have to say.

Clearly the Republicans on the Hill don't reckon they are going to get any backlash from the voters in their districts because they have given a No to The One. They understand that already their voters don't like what Obama is doing, or indeed the arrogance with which he is doing it.

Couple of points on this one. Firstly, the next election for representatives is just under two years away – even if there is a backlash, then the chances are that the voters will have forgotten about it before those legislators try for re-election. And it is also worth noting that most of these people will be from Republican leaning districts, meaning that their voters probably don’t support Obama anyway.

Just two days after the inauguration, when Republican legislators told the president they objected to the massive spending bill, Obama dismissed them with two words: 'I won.'

Well, I hate to break it to you, but he did win. And the Democrats won control of Congress, partly in response to Republican policies. The Republicans can object as much as they want, and with some justification, but last November the voters spoke and gave the Democrats the right to implement their policies – for better or for worse.

That was a particularly stupid mistake by the new president. Hard-left Democrats may cheer at such gloating, but most Americans don't like that kind of contempt being shown to Congress.

Really? The voters don’t like that kind of contempt? Are you sure? ‘Cos let’s look at two examples of Presidents who showed contempt to Congress. FDR was re-elected in 1936, 1940 and 1944 – despite shitting on Congress, the Supreme Court and the Constitution. And LBJ won one of the most spectacular landslides in US electoral history despite bullying and cajoling Congress until basically it was his bitch. Showing contempt to Congress may not be a great thing to do constitutionally, but it certainly doesn’t seem to worry the voters that much.

Indeed, as the American website Politico points out, with those two words 'Obama brought the curtain down on the 48-hour era of bipartisanship.' He liberated the Republicans from any mainstream media pressure to offer support to Democrat policies. He dismissed 'bi-partisanship,' so why shouldn't they?

Why shouldn’t they anyway? Why shouldn’t the Democrats bin bi-partisanship? Why isn’t a little debate and disagreement between the two parties a good thing? Why is there this reverence for consensus? If the two main parties are meant to agree on everything, then they should just form one big party. Fundamentelly, bi-partisanship has a limited life-span anyway, what with there being two parties with clear differences in ideology and policy.

The big spending and the big arrogance are why Obama's support is already falling. During the transition from the Bush administration to the new administration - that is, during the weeks in which Obama kept near-quiet and had to do nothing - his ratings in the Gallup opinion poll were 83 percent. After just three days in office, Gallup showed his support had already dropped by 15 points to 68 percent.

Four points.

1. 68% is still pretty spectacular.
2. It is easy to be so popular when you have to do nothing – it is still good to be at 68% when you start doing stuff.
3. 68% is still far more than the percentage of Americans who voted for Obama last November and still represents support from the vast majority of Americans.
4. 68% is far better than the utterly appalling polling figures that the last President was getting.

As any economist will tell you, what is important in a statistic is not the number, it's the trend. In this case, the trend is down, and fast. Americans are already having buyer's regret about their new president.

I’d also imagine that most economists will want more than two numbers before they start assessing trends.

Then of course there is his naiveté in foreign policy. A few days ago he gave an embarrassingly-wet interview on Arab-owned television and offered unconditional talks to Iran.

Because, of course, Bush’s policy of being simultaneously angry, silent and aggressive towards Iran worked so well. Actually offering them talks is a novel policy. Furthermore, offering talks is just that – talking. Obama hasn’t offered unconditional concessions, he has offered a conversation with a regime that we should, as a hemisphere, start trying to have more of a constructive relationship with.

Iranian president Ahmadinejad replied, as one knew he would, with a fierce demand that he wouldn't talk to Obama until the Americans had issued an apology - ie, grovelled - for unspecified 'crimes' and had withdrawn all their troops from all other countries.

Yeah, and who looks like the ignorant, unreasonable cunt now – Obama, or Ahmadinejad? Frankly, I think Obama has done a great job in stitching Ahmadinejad up nicely.

(Note: some countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait actually want the American forces there. I don't. But then, I alas am not the king of Saudi Arabia nor one of the ruling al-Sabahs of Kuwait. And judging by my brief time with one of the al-Sabahs, more the pity for Kuwait.)

(Note: I’m not arrogant enough to assume that anyone cares what I think about American forces in the Middle East. And that lack of arrogance is one of the reasons why I could never write for The Daily Mail.)

And there is Obama's naiveté about Islamic terrorists. He wants to close the prison at Guantanamo.

Yep, he wants to close the unconstitutional prison that is synonymous with torture and acts as a lightning rod for fundamentalists everywhere. Frankly, he deserves a round of applause for that.

Fine by me. But he has made that his policy without first figuring out where he is going to put the 245 remaining inmates, some of whom are undoubtedly keen to get back to the job of mass-murdering.

If they are guilty of something, they can be put through the courts and imprisoned. If they are innocent, then they should go free. After all, the fundamental foundation of almost any justice system is being innocent until being proven guilty. Basic, basic stuff.

Two men already released from Gitmo turned up six days ago on a video posted on a jihadist website. A US counter-terrorism official told AFP news service that one of them is a Saudi man called Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri who on his release was taken into the senior ranks of Al-Qaeda in Yemen.

A few questions:
1. When were these people released? Under Obama?
2. What were they doing on the website? What were they saying?
3. What were they in Gitmo for? Was there any evidence to keep them there?

If he or any of the other 245 turns up as part of another jihadist atrocity, the new president is going to have to have more to say than, 'Gosh, whoops.'

Yep, and the FBI and CIA are going to have to justify why they didn’t at least keep a watchful eye over people America has already imprisoned for being fundamentalists. But again, if there is no evidence, people should be released. You can’t imprison people because you think they might do something bad in the future. This is the real world, not Minority Report.

And he is going to have to find another job after 2012. By that time, Americans will be looking for change they can believe in.

So, Obama – currently with 68% approval rating, having got his stimulus package through the House of Representatives and having done the popular and decisive move of closing Gitmo, can be written off already? Sweet Jesus, what does a President have to do to get re-elected in the demented mind of this writer? Walk on fucking water whilst bringing peace to all mankind?

And what change they can believe in for 2012? Sarah fucking Palin? Do me a favour. As it stands, Obama will win in 2012. And win big. I’d also imagine he has better things to do over the course of the next four years than worry about the opinion of hacks writing for The Daily Mail…

They can't count

2009-01-29T03:51:00.001-08:00

You'd think that an article entitled 'Should you let your teenage daughter's boyfriend sleep in her room? A married couple argue' would be about someone who is in their, well, teens, wouldn't you?

Well, have a look and you'll see how old the innocent young cherub whose unsullied bedchamber is in question actually is. Honestly, do they have to make this so easy?

Rating Comments

2009-01-29T02:44:00.000-08:00

I think it is important to be balanced, even if you are dealing with people as idiotic as the writers and readers of The Daily Mail. So I will concede that whilst the content makes my eyes want to dissolve as I struggle with depths of hatred displayed on that site, the actual website itself works quite well. There are a number of good features, including - as the Moai points out - a search engine that happily throws up numerous examples of hate articles in moments.

Another feature I like is the facility on the comments section, where you can give the comments you like a green thumbs up, and the ones you don't a big fat red thumbs down.

Now, I'm not for one second arguing that the readers of this blog should go onto the website and mark down all the crass, vitriolic hate-filled comments. Partly because even the numb-nutted twunts commenting on The Daily Mail website have the right to have their opinions heard. But more importantly, there are just too many crass comments to even begin to vote them down.

What I would say, though, is this - if you are on that website and see a good comment, encourage both the author of that comment and others to read that comment by giving it a big thumbs-up. And you will normally be able to tell which are the most rational comments. They'll be the ones with very few votes...

Just so everyone is clear...

2009-01-27T06:49:00.000-08:00

...Hanging bankers from lamp posts would do no one any good - but this bonus gravy train is just an insult to us all

It is worrying that The Daily Mail feels a need to clarify that hanging bankers wouldn't so any good for their readers...

The Joker Did It!

2009-01-26T03:50:00.000-08:00

It must be difficult to report on tragedies; especially tragedies that involve kids. You have to report the facts, yet do so in a way that is sympathetic to those who have lost so much but at the same time avoid the sensationalism that it is so easy to drift towards. Unless, of course, you write for the Daily fucking Mail, in which case you should grab any floating rumour and print it as fact.

Take this factoid about the terrible nursery killings in Belgium:

The knifeman, said to have a history of mental illness, wore a bulletproof jacket and make-up similar to The Joker in the Batman films.

Really? Did he wear that sort of make-up? If he did, what bearing does that have on his crimes? If he didn’t, or if you aren’t sure, why report it?

And… guess what; the make-up may not have been that much like the Joker as the Mail first suspected. As they themselves are now reporting.

Ten other children, including a one-month-old baby, were knifed by the man who had smeared black and white warpaint on his face and sprayed his hair red.

Let’s just remind ourselves of what the Joker looks like in the films. This, this and this. White face paint, green hair. Not black and white make-up, except for a little bit around Heath Ledger’s Joker’s eyes. Not red hair. Small, yet essential, details that renders the reporting in the first article absolutely incorrect. But, and let’s be honest about this, The Daily Mail printing shite is nothing new.

But let’s stop for a moment, an posit a “what if.” What if this killer had been wearing Joker style make-up? What difference would that make? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out the direction The Daily Mail would have taken this in. Ban the filthy Dark Knight - before our kids get killed too! Except there is nothing in The Dark Knight that might make even an unbalanced person attack children. Even though the Joker is utterly psychotic in the film, he doesn’t (according to my memory at least) threaten children directly. One of the characters – Two-Face – does, but the nursery killer doesn’t seem to have burnt off half his face to be like that fictional entity.

Put simply, The Daily Mail added a comparison to their article on the murder of children and babies that managed to both be wrong and irrelevant. Such are the standards of journalism in our favourite hate rag.

Calm, reasoned commentary on dirty paedos

2009-01-23T06:21:00.000-08:00

The Daily Mail has an article about two unpleasant, evil individuals with a predilection for underage rape. Of course, this being The Daily Mail, the article also manages to be unpleasant, not least because it appears to be at pains to point out that the paedophile couple were also gay. Like that makes a blind bit of fucking difference; unless, of course, The Daily Mail is happier with heterosexual paedos. It is certainly difficult to imagine then starting the headline to this article with the phrase "Heterosexual paedophile Lovers..."

But as angry, incoherent and unpleasant as the article is, it takes the comments from readers to really drag us into an insane alternate universe, where anger and hate are the only emotions. Yet we’re going to start with a surprisingly restrained example:

Claire:
Why were their human (if you can even call this pair human) rights more important than the children's?
Well, let's hope these amoral perverts get a very long time in prison

Amoral? Come on, Claire, you can do better than that. I think you can go the whole hog and call them immoral.

Political point-scoring is also on the agenda:

R. F.
One more reason why we must pull out of Europe

I can think of many reasons to pull out of Europe, R.F.; this isn’t one of them. Unfortunately, pulling out of Europe is going to do nothing to stop paedophiles in Blackpool.

Lalla:
Well this in England! Thank God I don't live there anymore.

I’m thanking God for that as well, Lalla.

This excerpt from a comment also made me raise my eyebrows and shake my head in weary disbelief:

John:
And they 'wept as they were convicted following the trial'. Self pity? Another reason to lock them up for life

I love that. Assume they were weeping out of self-pity. Rather than shame, or guilt, or fear of having their dicks ripped off in prison by other convicts. And once you have made that assumption, condemn them more for it! Yeah! YEAH! Had they not have been crying in self-pity (possibly) then I dare say John would have let them off with a thirty year sentence. But as soon as he got a whiff of (possible) self-pity, that was them fucked. Lock ‘em up for life.

But the best comment, the most pungent turd on the pile of effluent crap attached to this sewer of an article, is this one:

Eileen:
This appalling, criminal behaviour is now openly tolerated, even enouraged in today's pc, Human Rights Act Britain. Will we ever get wholesome, decent government again? I am no coward, but I fear for the future and I definintely fear the State!

We’re going to have to assume that Eileen meant “encouraged” when she wrote “enouraged.” Big assumption, I know, but maybe Eileen was so consumed by self-righteous rage that she was thumping the keyboard rather than typing. But I’m intrigued that she thinks paedophilia is being tolerated and encouraged here in the UK – especially since this article is about paedophiles being convicted for their crimes. Maybe she knows something we don’t. Maybe she has seen Gordon Brown and David Cameron secretly teaming up to cheer paedos on as they go about their child rape. And I wonder when we will get wholesome, decent government again. If only that nice Mr Macmillan was still in power, he’d sort it all out. And as for Eileen fearing the state, well, I can see where she’s coming from but seriously, she needs to get her priorities straight. She should fear the gay paedos first, then the state. Those paedos; they should be the really scary ones. Even for shrill women venting on shitty websites.

The crimes described in the article are horrific; the article and the comments show nothing more than unfocussed, impotent rage. I don’t know what The Daily Mail wanted to achieve with this shrill, tasteless article – all they have done is give an outlet to those whose more important emotion is hate.

2009-01-22T05:35:00.001-08:00

This is apparently news.

Well, I suppose it is a slow news week. Nothing else is going on in the world, after all...

Creating problems

2009-01-20T04:15:00.000-08:00

The Mail has a wonderful tendency to shoot itself in the foot from time to time, and thanks to the wonders of their own, surprisingly efficient, search engine, one can usually spot this and find the right evidence. Thus:

'Parents are calling for more men to become teachers because they fear their children lack male role models, research showed yesterday.' link

Well, yes, why not? Male teachers are, apparently, a good thing. But, why are men put off teaching? What has created this atmosphere of mistrust, where a man who wants to work with youing people is regarded with immediate, deep, long-lasting, kneejerk suspicion? Well, let's do a search on the Mail website.

The Mail has a depressing large effect on the perceptions of a worryingly high percentage of this country. And this story is a very good illustration of this point.

Question of the Day

2009-01-14T06:34:00.000-08:00

Is David Bowie to Blame for the Credit Crunch? asks The Daily Mail.

No*, replies The Daily Mail Tendency.

*The actual answer was "No, of course he fucking isn't, you dumb bunch of wankstains. Now piss off and stop printing this shit." However, we went for the more concise reply. Sort of.

Robin Page and Prince Harry.

2009-01-12T05:42:00.000-08:00

I don't really have anything to say about the Prince Harry debate - racist comments happen all the time, and this isn't the first (nor will it be the last) time that a member of the armed forces or the Royal Family makes a random racist comment. Harry shouldn't have said what he said; but seriously, I find it difficult to get worked up about this sort of thing. That is until I read the words of Robin Page.

I've already commented on Robin Page; however, I think he is going to be the gift that keeps on giving here at The Daily Mail Tendency. His contribution to the debate seems to show his customary intellect and sagacity:

In a private video that has taken two years to surface, you and your Metropolitan friends believe that the use of the word "Paki" - short for "Pakistani" is offensive and unacceptable. Even though it was said in a completely inoffensive way and as part of normal conversation.

So, an offensive word said in an inoffensive way as part of a normal conversation is ok? In that case, I'm going to call you a total fucking moronic piss bastard shit of a moron, Robin. But that's ok. Because the way I said it was inoffensive.

My view is simple - as far as the ordinary people I met yesterday are concerned,far more were offended by the politically correct reaction to Prince Harry,than they were by Prince Harry and his use of the word"Paki".

Would that be your family, Robin? And your friends in your local boozer? Did you see anyone yesterday other than yourself? Who are these ordinary people? Because I can't help but feel that they are the kind of people who repeat "political correctness gone mad" over and over again, like a broken record. On speed.

"And does all this PC nonsense mean that we can no longer use the words Ozzie, Kiwi, Paddy, Jock, and Taffy;"

Uh-huh. Good work, Robin, you are starting to understand the basics of racism.

"...and should I become offended if I am called a "Brit."

As an aside, that sentence should have ended with a question mark. But I have to say I will be offended if I am called a Brit, if only because it might mean people are mistaking me for the utterly revolting Robin Page.

"Interestingly it is the politically correct themselves who are quick to label white South Africans as "Boers".

I have never, ever seen or read of any politically correct person referring to the South Africans as Boers. I'd love to know where Robin gets his facts from; I suspect it is all third-hand hearsay.

Perhaps too Dave, you don't have any friends with nick-names, in the sterile world you clearly inhabitat. Among my friends there are "Biggles" (he wears a crevat), "Gay Boy the Second" (he went to public school), "Wing Nut" (he has prominent ears), "Silage" (his feet hummed when he was at school), "Sooty" (he had jet black hair - now white), "Dingle" (nobody can remember how Dingle got his name - not even Dingle), and then there is "Badger" (who has got a fixation on badgers and behaves like one).

Presumably by "inhabitat" Page means "inhabit". Unless he is accusing Cameron if living in a posh furniture store.

And "Gay Boy the Second"? Homophobia doesn't seem to be a concept that Robin understands. Mind you, that isn't surprising since he hasn't quite grasped the concept of racism yet. As he goes on to prove:

"Oh, and I forgot, "Jock"; you'll never believe this - he's Scottish."

Nothing racist there at all. Except the friends I have from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would all be offended if I referred to them by terms of racial abuse; in fact, if I went on doing it, they would cease to be my friends. But maybe my friends have more self respect that Mr Page's.

Golly (oh sorry, I shouldn't have written that in these sensitive times)

No, you probably shouldn't.

- there's plenty in all this to keep the "hate crime", "thoughtcrime" and race relations industry going for some time - and make no mistake - race relations has become an industry, to gain publicity; to gain advantage and to gain financial reward for some perceived and obscure slight.

Or some actual and deliberately offensive insult.

Interestingly as a countrymen, simply defending the countryside and my culture, I am regularly abused - sometimes by the politically correct themselves. In multicultural Britain our own rural culture seems to be excluded from the outrage industry that is plugged in so effectively to the word "Paki".

Probably because you rural culture contains people like you, Robin; and you come across as a racist homophobe. I can't think why the politically correct aren't rushing to defend you and your ways, Robin. Maybe it's because whenever they approach you, you shove a shotgun in their face and shout "Gerroff my land."*

But there is a personal ancedote (that most reliable of sources) to back up this accusation of intolerant "politicall correct" people:

Once I received a letter saying "I hope you and your family drive over a cliff. You c....". The writing was not joined up and the author claimed to be a teacher from London. Almost certainly he would have been politically correct.

Why do you think he's politically correct? Because he's from London? Because he claims to have been a teacher? Because his writing wasn't joined up? What? Judging by how your personality comes across, Robin, he could just have been someone who met you. And really really hates you - and genuinely wants you to drive off a cliff. Nothing to do with political correctness...

But he ends his article with a stirring call to arms (if you are Compo from Last of the Summer Wine):

So come on Dave get real - one of the ways to show "real" is shed political correctness.

That leaves me quite unsure about what "real" means in the world of Robin Page. But, like most people who both read and write for The Daily Mail, "real" probably means "what I think and do and nothing else!" Which is why Cameron (as he full well knows) would be well advised to ignore the like of Robin Page - it is pandering to that sort of person that lead William Hague to electoral oblivion in the 2001 election.

*Yep, this is abusing someone coming from the country. But having been raised in the countryside myself, it is of lasting shame to me that walking, talking fuckwitted cliches like Page actually walk this earth.

Comment of the Day

2009-01-06T04:16:00.000-08:00

Or, perhaps, Moron of the Day would be more appropriate.

A comment from someone called kay from an article about a tall woman granted asylum:

how comes she is receiving benefits and has a house, and our own children can not get on the waiting lists

Your children can't get on the waiting list for a house, eh? Maybe you should try applying, kay, because you (and I'm making a big assumption here) are an adult. For some crazy motherfucking reason people are reluctant to give houses to kids...

The pictures are as bad as the words

2009-01-06T02:26:00.001-08:00

They don't just lie with words, and lie badly; they lie with pictures too, and if anything, with even more transparency. The most amusing Photoshop Disasters site has a selection of corkers from the Wail - take a look. Just what have they got against Anne Diamond's neck? Was it done with a crayon, by a child?

They make it far too easy

2009-01-05T04:30:00.000-08:00

One of my new year resolutions is to blog at least once a week, and, seeing as I have the inestimable Nameless One now living around the corner from me, I might have to actually do it. But, of course, sometimes, the Mail gifts you a story that is so gloriously barmy, that blogging about it is a pleasure. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you:

Sex clinics 'to open' in EVERY school so pupils as young as 11 can be tested... without parental consent

link

It's sheer Daily Mail reader bait, with 125 comments so far. There are some truly barmy statements in its as well, such as:

'It found that single-sex, faith and independent schools were less likely to have clinics. ' - and this is a good thing? Does this mean that we can expect a middle-class, god-bothering baby boom shortly?

'Some colleges offer condoms only in emergencies but others provide them in vending machines. ' - isn't it a bit late by then? Putting a condom on post coitus does not strike me as massively effective, but, what do I know? Oh...

'A major study in the U.S. found the evidence was 'not strong' that clinics increase contraceptive use or bring down teen pregnancies. ' - but there IS evidence. F*cking morons.

'Confidential clinics in schools are part of a mix that is removing the restraints which previously limited underage sexual activity. - bloody hell, now it's all getting a bit kinky.

But, dear readers, the best bit is undoubtedly the pictures. My sweet Lord. Look at that first one, on the stairs. What sort of audience are they trying to attract?

So, we gather that the Mail is very much opposed to teenagers rutting. Which is fair enough. But, if that is the case, what is THIS recruitment advertisement all about? I quote:

'The Morris Ring is hoping a winter recruitment drive could attract some new younger members in time for the spring when most troupes perform the dances they have been practicing.
Paul Reece, chairman of the Advisory Council of the Morris Ring, said: 'There is still time for new blood to get ready for the Spring fertility offensive.'

Ye Gods!

They make this far, far too easy.

Idiot of the Day

2009-01-05T04:02:00.000-08:00

And we're back! With the Idiot of the Day.

There is something about this guy that sums up everything that is wrong with everything. Ever. He is the cliched view of what a Tory is. All that is missing in his picture is a rifle and a dead burglar lying in his front room with a gunshot wound in his back.

Partly it is the picture, which makes him look like a cross between the Wurzels and a retard character from Last of the Summer Wine. But it also statements like this:

"I am one of the last English peasants and I want a new Peasants' Revolt - but who is out there to lead it?"

You want a new Peasants' Revolt? Well, I'm all for opposing the government, but given your appearance, general concerns and terrible, terrible writing, I hope you get your peasants' revolt. You should lead it. And I hope that the government crushes it - and you - without mercy. Thus allowing us with opposable thumbs to take up the fight against the consensus with a little more coherence, relevance and common sense.

Oh, and he would be writing for The Daily Fucking Mail, wouldn't he?

Cross-posted to The Appalling Strangeness.

Testing, testing

2009-01-05T03:31:00.000-08:00

This blog will shortly return to life...

The Moai

2007-12-06T05:43:00.000-08:00

Take a look at this article in The Guardian, which deals with Sir David King's attack on, amongst others, The Daily Mail.

Of course, I enjoy reading anything that has a pop at The Daily Hate. But there is a very interesting comment in the article from King:

King said the Daily Mail had waged a "brilliant campaign" on GM food. "The use of the word 'Frankenfood' by the Daily Mail I would have to say was a piece of brilliant journalism. It brought through all of the fears, these gut fears, about tinkering with the genetic code and these mad scientists in their laboratories."

We can attack The Daily Mail and other hatemongers in the media for their angry, poorly researched ignorance, but actually they know exactly what they are doing. They very carefully, very clinically, provoke people to rise to their ignorant, ugly campaigns.

Which is what makes them all the more dangerous.

Foxy Knoxy and the Presumption of Guilt

2007-11-12T02:26:00.001-08:00

Being innocent until proven guilty is a central platform of many justice systems, not least in this country. And, of course, our media is more than happy to adhere to this. Unless the case happens to involve the brutal murder of a photogenic, female, English student abroad and the suspect(s) happen not to be English. And have committed the fatal flaw of having MySpace and Facebook pages filled with photos.

Meredith Kercher’s murder was pretty horrific, and just a preliminary reading of any article about the killing will give you such terrible words as "raped", "held down" and "throat slashed". However, to date, no-one has been convicted of this crime, and so much of the coverage of the suspects is completely irrelevant. And perhaps inevitably, The Mail is leading the way with inane, judgmental shite printed in the toilet paper that constitutes that hate rag.

Much of the focus is on Amanda Knox. It is difficult to know why, although I rather suspect it is because Knox herself looks good on camera and, more crucially, gave herself the punchy online name of "Foxy Knoxy."

For the Mail is now incapable of Amanda Knox anything other than Foxy Knoxy. And if you type the words "Foxy Knoxy" into The Daily Mail’s search engine, you come up with a massive 82 results. Which is not bad going for a suspect in a murder committed just 12 fucking days ago!

And look at some of the neutral, non-judgmental headlines:

Foxy Knoxy: Inside the twisted world of flatmate suspected of Meredith's murder

Which contains such gems as:

"In a series of meandering short stories, she outlines a string of scenarios which includes two brothers discussing the drugging and rape of a young girl."

Because, of course, writing bollocks stories on line is a sure sign that you are a foaming mouthed, evil rapist murderer just waiting to strike. And:

"Last night a fellow student said she had not liked Knox. "I never really liked her on a personal level. Me and a friend found her a bit brash. When she introduced herself to the class she just went up to one random guy and didn't go up to anyone else. She talked a lot and laughed at her own jokes.""

Fucking hell, what an evil cow. Not liked by fellow students. A bit brash. She must have done it!

But the second headline is more compelling, and insulting:

Foxy Knoxy, the girl who had to compete with her own mother for men

The summary of the story reads:

"Her father walked out when she was only four and her mother then married a toyboy... the disturbing past of the student accused of killing her British flatmate."

Disturbing past? Coming from a broken home is disturbing? Marrying a toyboy is disturbing? Fuck me, don’t let anyone from The Mail watch Hollyoaks, Eastenders or Coronation Street. They’ll be utterly traumatised!

And then we have:

Meredith's father says she found Foxy Knoxy flatmate 'eccentric'

Because Meredith’s father, a distraught, bereaved father and secondhand source, is a completely honest and open, reliable contact simply because his daughter was killed. But even if Meredith did find Amanda Knox "eccentric", "sure of herself" and had been "entertaining men "within a week of arriving" in Italy", so the fuck what? How many other students are eccentric, full of themselves, and sleep around when at university? Hell, you could’ve described me as "eccentric" and "full of myself" when at university. And I would have slept around too, given half a chance.

And I could so on and on and on, highlighting more and more judgmental ignorance and ill-founded attacks on a girl not because she is guilty of murder, but rather because she had the misfortune to become part of a murder investigation at the same time as having an online, accessible identity.

But then I read something at the bottom of the last online article that gave me just a momentary flash of optimism. The first comment reads:

"Perhaps in a case of this seriousness, the media should stop calling her 'Foxy Knoxy' at every opportunity and stick to her real name. She's a murder suspect, not a celebrity."

Then we have:

"This woman - neither convicted nor charged with any crime - is being demonised simply because of her nickname and (alleged) reputation for having fun."

And finally:

"I agree with the others. It is unfair to refer to the suspect as Foxy Knoxy."

Maybe, just maybe, there is some hope for The Daily Hate if the comments on their website are willing to criticise the paper from some of the more outrageously insulting and bullying behaviour.

Abortion

2007-10-25T09:19:00.000-07:00

When a medical professional writes about abortion you might expect an even-handed, well thought through presentation of the facts. Unless, of course, that medical professional happens to be writing in The Daily Mail. Dr Chapman begins her anti-abortion tirade with this sentence:

"For far too long, the debate about abortion has been clouded by blind prejudice from both sides. On the one hand are those who, often for religious reasons, believe the whole concept of abortion is morally repugnant. On the other are the pro-choice zealots who see any suggestion that abortion should be restricted as a threat to women's inalienable rights."

Yep, every debate has zealots on either side. But if you look hard enough (ie at some other than The Daily fucking Mail) then something quite interesting happens. You see a broader debate; you see calm and rational argument. Sadly, Chapman has no time for such rational arguments – instead milking the emotional side of the argument like a dairy farmer with their prize heifer. She goes on:

"Now, at last, we have a real chance to discuss the subject openly, honestly and impartially."

What, with a hysterical, whinging headline like "Why should we doctors save tiny lives in one room... and end them in another?" Do go and fuck yourself, you miserable shithead. You are clearly borderline retarded if you think for one second that your argument is anything other than polemical, emotionally charged tripe. And the very fact that beneath the above sentence there is the picture of a prematurely born baby makes my point – your article isn’t about intelligent, reasoned argument. It is about tugging on the heartstrings of those who read the Mail. Nothing more, nothing less.

"Yesterday, Dawn Primarolo, the Health Minister, told the committee that she has heard no evidence to support a lowering of the upper age limit, nor seen any need to change the existing law. Which makes me wonder exactly where she is getting her evidence from."

Well, not from your hysterical claptrap, Chapman. And thank fuck for that small mercy.

"For in my 37 years as a gynaecologist, I have seen quite enough to persuade me that, for the sake of women and babies, we urgently do need a change in our law - not only to lower the upper time limit but also to help reduce the current rate of 200,000 abortions carried out in Britain each year. Now, let me be absolutely clear: I do not believe we can or should abolish abortion completely."

Oh goody, you don’t want to abandon abortion altogether.

"I have carried out abortions throughout my career where there was a threat to life, and I know very well that there will always be a need for terminations as a last resort for women in great distress."

But you do want to push it back to the limits prior to the legalisation of abortion – back to the era of Vera Drake; of back street abortions, of abortions for the elite rather than the general population. Nice. And who would be a judge of whether the distress is great enough to warrant an abortion, Chapman? Oh, wait, it would be you. Fuck-a-doodle-do. ‘Cos you’re fucking impartial, aren’t you?

Cunt.

"But I also believe that the law should be there to protect life. That is why I would like to see the time limit for abortion set at 17 weeks - a level that would still be considerably higher than France, Germany or Italy, where the cut-off point is 12 weeks."

Right, let me try to get this absolutely fucktarded argument clear in my mind, because it makes about as much sense as a whore teaching a Sunday School class about good moral conduct. First of all, and I really can’t stress this enough, there are laws to protect life! And why on earth should we reduce a woman’s right to choose because we will still be offering a greater time period than various European countries? Let’s play this argument out to the logical extremes. Let’s ban abortion after 4 weeks, because in some states in the US ban abortion altogether except where the life of the mother is threatened or where rape/incest caused the conception. Fuck, let’s bring back executions behind closed doors, because we’d still be better than Iran, where they hang people in public.

"My reasoning owes less to moral or ethical objections than to my decades of medical experience."

Shite. Total fucking shite, Your arguments relate more to ill thought through observations and anecdotal evidence. Your medical training may make you special in your own head, Chapman, but in the real world you come across as a compelling ignorant fuckwit.

"Thanks to advances in scientific knowledge, we now know that it is legal in Britain to abort babies who, if born prematurely, might live - however slim that chance might be."

Yeah, a baby born after 22 weeks might live. But here’s the rub – there is some sort of issue that means the mother/parents of the child don’t want the baby. So what you gonna do? Make the mother have the kid, then put the kid up for adoption. So why stop there? If you abort a baby after 4 weeks there is a real chance that, if not aborted, the baby could live. If you prevent an egg from being impregnated by a sperm then you prevent a child who might live from living. So what, you going to ban contraception?

Oh wait, you can’t. Because then we are heading to the back street abortions again.

"That leaves us doctors in a very awkward position. For example, if I were to deprive a premature 22-week- old baby of oxygen and thus cause a long-term disability, I could (quite rightly) be sued for negligence. And yet the law also allows me to abort that same baby until 24 weeks."

There is also the small question of choice here. If the mother wants you to save her baby born after 22 weeks, as a doctor, you have an obligation to do so. Likewise, if the mother wants the baby aborted and the law allows you to do so, you have an obligation to do so. So, actually, it ain’t fucking awkward at all. It is actually really simple, but comes down to a different mindset – of patients being able to make, and being responsible, for their own choices, not their fucking doctors.

"For doctors, trained to preserve life, that is a terrible inconsistency in the law."

Doctors are also trained to stop suffering. So sometimes an abortion might reduce suffering, even though it does not preserve life. Just as sometimes turning off a life support machine might reduce suffering at the same time as not preserving life.

"Pro-choice campaigners say that such situations rarely arise in practice, and point out that only a tiny number of babies survive if they are born before 24 weeks."

Yeah, God forbid we should let fucking reality interfere with a damn good bit of hysteria.

"Well, I'm sorry, but that should not be an excuse to take young lives."

Opinion, pure and simple. Tell you what, you don’t have to abort any baby you might have in the 23rd week of any pregnancy. But you shouldn’t force your opinions on others.

Then she hits us with another type of deeply unconvincing argument. Oh yes, it is time for the anecdote.

"I remember being on duty as a young doctor, shortly after the implementation of the 1967 Abortion Act, and spending the night treating a premature baby, born at 22 weeks. During the shift, I chatted to a consultant who had just carried out an abortion on two 24-week-old twins. What she told me was utterly chilling, but I make no apology for repeating it here. Discussing the termination she had just performed, she said: "The babies were so strong and were crying so loudly that I didn't know what to do. Eventually, I had to bash their heads to shut them up."

Right. So we should change the law based on something someone told Chapman nearly 4 decades ago? Seriously, what the ruddy, Christing fuck is this total cunt banging on about? Firstly, she might not be remembering the story correctly. Secondly, who’s to say that the consultant was telling the truth and not just winding up or trying to impress a young doctor? And this is one fucking incident: it does not represent everything that has happened in relation to abortions since 1967.

"Tell me, what was the logic in my trying to preserve the life of a 22-week-old baby in one part of the hospital when, in another part, two even larger babies were having their lives taken?"

Logic? Where is the logic in reducing the number of weeks in which a woman can have an abortion based on anecdotes and crappy comparisons? Chapman invoking logic is like the Pope invoking the memory of Buddha – completely alien to everything they have said and done before now.

"No, an Act that was intended to deal humanely with the occasional patient and to end the horrors of backstreet operations has instead become a licence to end healthy infant lives."

Yep. That’s what it does. Both removing the backstreet abortionist and increasing the number of abortions. If you allow abortion, healthy babies will be aborted. Some women will make the choice to abort a baby that could grow up healthy. And it is there choice, as it is their body. For what it is worth, I struggle to support their choice – it doesn’t seem right to me. But I defend their right to choose.

"Sadly, I know that it can damage many women, too. People understandably fear the return of the backstreet abortionist. But towards the end of my career I was seeing far more women with complications from legal abortions than I was seeing from backstreet abortionists in the bad old days."

Oh, sweet Jesus, it is difficult to read this crap. Seriously, did no-one proof read this article and note the complete deficits of logic? Of course there were more complications from legal abortions than back street abortions by the end of your career, Chapman, you total and absolute cuntbrain. When you were a junior doctor the Abortion Act had only just come into force! There would be far more back street abortionists and far less legal abortions, wouldn't there?

"Yet we hear so little about these complications that it is almost as if there is a conspiracy of silence to mask the truth."

Perhaps the most ludicrous conspiracy theory I have ever heard. Of course there isn’t a conspiracy of silence. I’m aware of the damage abortions can do to a woman, and I don’t really need to know as a male who will never have an abortion and, to date, has not been involved in the situation where a choice has to be made on abortion. I don’t need to know. Those who do need to know about the complications surrounding an abortion are those who face the choice about having an abortion or not – and those who should be aware of all the facts are those women who are seriously contemplating an abortion.

"I realise that many abortions are sought by women who are in great distress, but I have also seen for myself how - with adequate counselling and support - a huge number of those women who thought they had no option other than abortion can not only come to terms with their pregnancy, but end up treasuring their child. Why, then, is this counselling not more rigorously encouraged? Why is a termination always seen as the default position?"

Right, and whose job is it to provide that counselling and advice? Politicians or doctors? And who says termination is always the default option? If you actually provide some evidence for what you state then people might be able to take you seriously.

And then we hear a lot from Chapman about the damage an abortion can do. Yep, don’t dispute the facts. However, it is the job of medical professionals to advise on the risk and offer suitable counselling. We should not have to resort to the government further restricting freedom and choice in this country.

"I stress the fact that abortion is justified if the mother's life is at risk, or if the foetus has a severe genetic disability but, as Lord Steel - the original architect of the Abortion Act - has himself conceded, many of those seeking abortions today are not desperate women falling back on abortion as a last resort, they are simply using it as a method of contraception."

Great, so your evidence to back up your claim is one man – Lord Steel – who is a politician rather than, you know, say, a reputable study or some sort of meaningful research. Chapman’s approach to research and evidence is shameful given she should have some sort of background in science.

"And that is not only wrong, it carries a risk to the mother's health - especially in the case of late-term abortions."

Right, so explain that to women contemplating a late-term abortion, rather than banging on about changing the law.

"Back in 1967 it was said that easier legal abortion would prevent physical and psychological trauma for the reluctantly pregnant woman. In fact, for many women it has led to the exact opposite. How can that be right?"

Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Please can we have some evidence to support your claims? Please? And what is the alternative to legal abortion? Making it illegal again? Return to the back street abortionists? ‘Cos that really fucking ain’t going to reduce "physical and psychological trauma" now, is it?

"It is 40 years on, we know so much more and we should surely think again - for the sake of the women and the babies."

Yep, let’s think again. From a personal standpoint, I am concerned with the research into the level of humanity a foetus has at the various stages of development and what that shows us about both the rights of a foetus to life and a woman to chose what happens to her own body. I am pro-choice, because I believe people should have the right to choose for themselves. But I am also concerned about the rights of a foetus. I see this as a hideously complex area, both morally and empirically. I want to see arguments from both sides, clearly argued, and backed up by reasoned evidence.

Which is why I cannot stomach the absolute shite spouted by Chapman and her odious, ignorant, ill-educated ilk. This debate should happen, but the likes of Chapman have nothing to offer to that debate, and nothing to add.

Diana's Death: Pointless Padding For Pointless Papers

2007-10-09T01:03:00.001-07:00

The Daily Mail reports on the Diana Inquest’s Tour of France with a curious mix of tedious, pointless reporting and sickening melodrama.

Their description of the spot where the late Princess died sums up the tone for the whole article:

"This was the exact spot where the darkness had closed in on Princess Diana's life and now, ten years later, a sea of sombre faces stared towards it in the flickering neon light of the underpass."

Let’s rewrite that without the melodrama: This was the place where Diana died ten years ago. The jurors concentrated on what they were seeing. See, that’s called reporting. Not stoking up hysterical emotion.

"There were no prayers or acts of remembrance, because yesterday wasn't the time or place."

Quite right – of course there were no acts of remembrance. This was a fucking inquest. And frankly, there have been more than enough prayers and acts of remembrance over the past decade. We’ve moved passed the point of overkill – now any further acts of remembrance are insulting both to the dead and to those living people who have to endure the endless platitudes and prayers at each bastard remembrance service.

"Legal restrictions forbid any identification of the jury, but it is safe enough to report that this was as ordinary a bunch of people as you might find on any station platform."

What precisely was The Daily Mail expecting? A group of clowns? A bunch of dribbling morons? The family from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre?

"They stopped off at sites not normally on the tourist map, but crucial to the framework of the hearing."

Oddly enough, yeah, they visited sites that were relevant to the enquiry. Not tourist locations. This sentence is The Daily Mail assuming that their readers are so fucking thick that they can’t work out that this wasn’t a holiday, but rather a process of law.

"And then, the socalled tunnel of death."

Or just "tunnel", if you want to report on fact rather than milking this fucking story for every Christing bit of melodrama that you could possibly find.

"Later, after a break of several hours, the jurors did the whole journey again in darkness. To be fair, it wasn't quite an exact mirror of that day in 1997."

Of course it wasn’t the exact mirror of that day in 1997. It was over ten fucking years later!

"Final stage of the trip was to the Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital, where surgeons battled to save Princess Diana's life. She had made the same journey in an ambulance."

How else would a critically ill woman make the trip to hospital? By horse? By space shuttle? Endless padding out of a story that serves no other purpose than to pad out a newspaper in the first place.

"In an interview four months ago, Diana's sons William and Harry admitted they would never stop wondering what happened that night. Prince Harry said he didn't think anyone would ever really know."

Well, let me tell everyone what happened. Prince Harry, Prince William, Mohamed Al-Fayed, The Daily fucking Mail, everyone. Diana got into a car being driven by a drunk driver. Said driver drove the car really fast into a concrete fucking pillar. The impact destroyed the car and 75% of the occupants. It was a car accident. Nothing more, nothing less.

So, for the love of Christ, let the woman rest in peace. If only so the rest of us don’t have to endure this endless twaddle about the dead Princess for the rest of fucking time.

2007-05-23T08:35:00.000-07:00

The Daily Mail proves itself to be at the forefront of scientific reporting with this story. Apparently:

“Parents can predict their children's exam performance simply by looking at their hands, according to research.”

Excellent. I look forward to their next science exclusive. Perhaps they will reveal that you can tell who is a criminal by look at their physical features. Or that you can ascertain whether someone is a witch by looking for witches’ marks. Whatever happens, I am sure we can rely on The Daily Mail to keep us up to date with ground breaking scientific breakthroughs.

Tag Lines

2007-05-21T06:17:00.000-07:00

I have been trying to think up tag lines for The Daily Mail Tendency's banner and have managed to come up with:

The Daily Mail Tendency: Because We Love To Hate The Paper That Loves To Hate.

Unfortunately that was so terrible and so cheesy it made me feel slightly sick. Anyone else got any suggestions?

I Am Spartacus!

2007-05-21T06:11:00.000-07:00

Tim Worstall goes through a detailed deconstruction of The Daily Hate's attack on blogger Owen Barder.

Go take a look.

Pete Doherty, Daily Mail Hero

2007-05-15T01:39:00.000-07:00

In perhaps one of the worst and most pointless stories I have ever seen in print, The Daily Mail seems to embrace one of their hate figures - Pete Doherty. And what has the Babyshambles junkie - a man who The Daily Hate usually speaks of in the same tones as Adolf Hitler - done to warrant the comment "he's a big softie at heart"? He's been photographed with a kitten.

Here's the calibre of the publication we are dealing with, people. Here's the logic:

Junkie = evil.

Junkie with kitten = big softie.

It is difficult to describe the utter contempt I feel for this worthless rag of a tabloid.

Rape! Rape!

2007-05-14T02:33:00.000-07:00

Oil seed rape, that is. Although judging by the tone of this article, you would be forgiven for thinking it was about a serious sexual assault.

"Peter Hallam had never suffered hay fever before but as soon as fields of oil seed rape planted near his home burst into bloom he had problems breathing and his eyes grew painfully swollen."

Suffering from both asthma and hay fever I get similar symptoms. As do probably thousands - if not millions - of people around the country. Difference is that we don't run to The Daily Hate to bellyache about it.

"The 60-year-old teacher packed his bags on doctor's orders and spent £700 to stay in a city hotel to escape the pungent yellow fields."

Job and age irrelevant to the story. I doubt the doctor ordered him to spend £700 on hotels. Any reason why he couldn't stay with relatives or friends? And it may be time to change doctors, because my doctor simply prescribes steroids and anti-histamines to combat hay fever and asthma symptoms. Rather than ordering me to flee.

On his symptoms Hallam states:

"I became very allergic to it, my eyes swelled up. I had difficulty breathing, I was unable to see because my eyes were bunged up and they became terribly irritated. I wanted to scratch them all the time."

Again, very much like hay fever and asthma. That many, many, many people suffer from but endure and get on with things without bellyaching in a tabloid rag. But he goes on:

"It was the last resort. I had to stop work and go away. It was fairly drastic. It took at least 24 hours for it to settle down to a reasonable level. Jennifer had to go home to look after the dog so I was on my own. It was miserable. I didn't feel right. I felt like one eye was looking one way and the other was looking the other. I was holed up for five days. It wasn't a particularly nice experience and was quite expensive too."

Self-pitying crap. And again, you chose where to stay, Mr Hallam. And it will be expensive if you stay at £140 a day hotel.

But it is not just the self-pitying crap that riles me. There is an unpleasant undertone to all this - that there is someone to blame, and the farmers are committing some sort of crime or sin by planting oil seed rape. Ms King, Hallam's partner, says:

"It raises the question, is this happening across the land? A lot of people we have spoken to have said the oil seed rape is affecting them. I do think there are potentially hundreds of people suffering because of oil seed rape."

Again, hay fever is common. But a few hundred people is next to nothing in a population of 60 billion.

"I know it has terrific properties and is a great money spinner perhaps that why we are seeing so much more of it."

Quite. And in view of the "terrific properties" I am prepared to endure your husband's and - when I go into the countryside - my own symptoms. Plus, by Hallam's own admission, the doctor cannot prove that there is a link between the oil seed rape and his allergies.

"There needs to be a study on how it affects people's health. We are surrounded by it here, it is all around us and there is nothing we can do to escape it."

Except your husband did escape it...

"Had we have known he would be affected like this we probably wouldn't have chosen to live here but we cannot move now, it's not easy to move now."

Why is not easy to move? Put the house on the market and see what happens. But FYI - if you bellyache too much about the surrounding area, you might put people off. I realise this should be immediately fucking obvious to all but the terminally dense, but these people do seem stunned to find out that hay fever exists.

In summary - Hallam - get over yourself and shut up. Take some anti-histamines, get on with your life, and shut up. Or move house and shut up. But the emphasis is very much on you shutting up.

And to The Daily Mail - you actually call a man suffering from bad hay fever news?

Proof read your fucking paper!

2007-05-08T03:55:00.000-07:00

Daily Mail headline:

"The amazing little and large identical twins."

First line of the article:

"Here is one pair of twin brothers that few will have any difficulty telling apart."

Right. So the kids are identical, but can easily be identified from each other. Are the standards of this crap rag so low that they are happy to contradict the headline in the first line of the article? Did no-one notice that the headline doesn't make sense? Does no-one double check this crap before it goes to press?

UPDATE:

Check the comments section for an interesting observation from DK about what makes an identical twin. Turns out The Daily Hate may have be technically right in their use of terminology. Ah well, you can't be right all the time, just as they cannot be wrong all the time.

"Hateful, Hateful rag"

2007-05-03T10:38:00.000-07:00

Jackart tears into The Daily Mail for hounding a man out of the closet and then pretty much destroying him. Go read it all - it nicely sums up why so many people cannot stand The Daily Hate.

The Daily Mail Supported the Nazis

2007-04-13T05:34:00.001-07:00

Just thought I would point that out.

Articles Welcome!

2007-04-12T09:56:00.000-07:00

The Moai and I are always on the lookout for contributors to The Daily Mail Tendency so feel free to e-mail me any with ideas. Keeping this blog going whilst maintaining another blog, working and struggling to have a social life is tough, so we always are interested in other intelligent deconstructions of the tabloid tat that passes for news in this country. The rules are simple:

1. Slate a shit article (preferably in The Daily Mail but other shit publications are also fair game)

2. Send us the result!

Personally, I love the concept of interested amateur bloggers kicking the arses of supposed professional journalists. Just remember, journalists are paid to write. If they are going to write bollocks, they deserve to be slated.

Selling Out

2007-04-10T06:30:00.000-07:00

Joy of joy! Littlejohn carps on about the imprisoned sailors selling their stories:

“Any doubt from which the sailors and marines may have benefited went out of the window the moment some of them sold their stories - although honourable mention must go to those who didn't.”

Why? Precisely, why? Are the stories of the sailors not interesting? Are they not, as long as they do not reveal operational issues or plans for the Navy, of national interest? And has The Daily Hate never bought someone’s story?

“The Ministry of Defence's complicity in this tawdry horror show is treasonable. But it's pretty much what we have come to expect from Blair's Brave New Britain.”

The MOD hasn’t cover itself in glory, but then again it hasn’t done since the Invasion of Iraq and arguably long before then. But treasonable? Littlejohn needs to go find a dictionary and learn what treason actually is. And in fairness, this is actually a bit of a departure for Nu Labour. They are allowing freedom of speech. Normally they are opposed to that totally.

“She was the People's Prisoner.”

Yep, prisoner of the people of Iran.

“How long before the ludicrous Faye Turney pops up on Celebrity Fat Club? I bet they didn't let her get in the dinghy first. This is a woman who is capable of capsizing the Ark Royal if she shifts her weight to the wrong cheek.”

Now I thought that Turney’s sin, in the jaundiced eyes of Littlejohn, was selling her story. The fact that she may be carrying a couple of extra pounds is magnificently irrelevant to Littlejohn’s argument. But I am guess that a couple of cheap shots about her girth is much easier for Littlejohn than forming a cogent, coherent and interesting argument.

“Starring Bernard Bresslaw as Ayatollah I'madinnerjacket and featuring lots of doubles entendres about leading seamen.”

Ok, I have made the I’madinnerjacket jibe as well. In private rather than in the pages of a national newspaper, though. But whatever you may think of Ahmadinejad (who is President rather than Ayatollah) he cannot take any of the blame for Turney selling her story. Which I thought was Littlejohn’s problem…

“The part of the pathetic young sailor who said he sobbed for three days because the Iranians called him Mr Bean would be perfect for Charles Hawtrey.”

The young sailor in question was captured whilst patrolling the seas in an occupied but hostile country. His captors were far better armed and as a result he and his comrades did not dare to fight back. He was then imprisoned in an even more hostile regime than the one he had been patrolling, and told he was potentially facing the death penalty for espionage. Put yourself in his shoes, and ask yourself whether you would be sobbing, Littlejohn. I am guessing in these circumstances you would conduct yourself with even less decorum, and most probably shit your pants.

“Faye Turney will be back in Civvy Street before the end of the year and the Navy will be staring down the barrel of a seven-figure suit for com-pensayshun because of all the 'stress' she has suffered.”

Right, so having taken a pop at her for selling her story and then for consuming too many pastry based products, he now has a go at her for stuff that she may do in the future. Christ, this poor woman doesn’t stand a chance! And whilst I wouldn’t support her claim for compensation I would argue that she probably did have a bit of a stressful time during her stay in Iran. It wasn’t really a holiday, Littlejohn, Ahmandinejad was being provocative when he said that. They were kidnapped. They were hostages. And they were subjected to psychological torture. I am going to let them get away with being a bit stressed.

“I've never set out to diminish the horrible ordeal of the former captives.”

Erm, read your article Littlejohn (like your editor should have done). You have done nothing but diminish their ordeal – see the Mr Bean comment etc etc ad fucking nauseam.

“The day Faye Turney sold her story to The Sun and Tonight With Trevor McDonald was the day the Navy died of shame.”

As far as I am aware the Navy is still alive and well. It will take much more than Turney selling her story to destroy the Royal Navy.

“We have become the kind of nation where the highest form of duty is to emote on prime-time TV.”

No we haven’t. There is not a shred of evidence to back this up. Those who whore themselves out on TV are treated with the contempt they deserve by most right thinking people.

“We may like to think of the First Sea Lord as a Jack Hawkins figure standing ramrod straight on the bridge, but my guess is that he's just another New Labour apparatchik straight from the Guardian school of government, with a degree from the Alastair Campbell college of news management.”

I think of the First Sea Lord as a tough professional doing a tough job in tough times. And with the kidnap of 15 of his sailors by an unpredictable and sometimes violent regime, I would imagine his job got exponentially tougher over the past few weeks.

“In my study, there's a photo of my dad, aged about 19, in his Royal Navy uniform. I never found out what he did in World War II until shortly before he died.”

The fact that Littlejohn has family photos is only a revelation to people like me, who believe he is the spawn of Satan and a wolf. But Littlejohn still has further points to make:

“Unlike Del Boy's Uncle Albert, most of my father's generation didn't talk about their wartime escapades.”

A gross generalisation no doubt cited in this article to give Littlejohn the chance to mentioned Only Fools and Horses (no doubt the "people’s programme").

“I never thought I'd say this, but as I sit and watch this demeaning spectacle unfold, as British sailors cash in on a couple of weeks of discomfort like kiss'n'tell call girls, I'm glad he's not around to see it.”

What an ignorant cock. Littlejohn has no idea what those sailors went through, and from the cushy surroundings of his study bought with the ill gotten gains of spouting shite for The Daily Hate, it is highly unlikely he ever will. These sailors were not right to sell their stories, but they had permission from their seniors. To belittle their ordeal and to make cheap shots at them is knuckle dragging idiocy.

So I am going to make a suggestion here. I am going to start a petition to have Littlejohn dumped in the water around Iran, where (if the best case scenario doesn't happen and he avoids drowning) his “I’madinnerjacket” comments are going to be less than 100% popular. And when (or if) he emerges from an Iranian prison, I am going to time how long it takes him to sell his story. I would be surprised if he didn’t, under these circumstances, dictate his story to the News of the Screws on the flight back to the UK.

My daughter will never have sex! It's UNNATURAL!

2007-03-22T05:46:00.000-07:00

The article is here, and it's a gem of eye-poppingly idiotic righteous indignance.

'...In the pink paper bag were two condoms. She is 14.'
Old enough to conceive then. Right. Would you like her to?

'I don’t mind the information on chlamydia and other sexually transmitted diseases that was in Belinda’s goody bag. Or the description of the symptoms of an ectopic pregnancy. I don’t mind the leaflet of family planning clinics and morning-after pill chemists.'
Ooh, you are broad-minded. So you have grasped that sex can occasionally equal the clap, then.

'There are definitely some girls - though very few - in my daughter’s year of 14 and 15-year-olds who are already having sex. But I do object to the condoms, which simply amount to a bagful of encouragement. If we’re talking traffic lights, they are a green light for under-age sex.'
Do you REALLY think that a teenage hormone bomb is NOT going to have sex UNTIL somoneone gives her a few johnnies?

'Sex is being portrayed to our children as somehow irresistible, so seductive that you might as well get on with it and just do your best to escape any consequences.'
It IS, you f*cktard. That is the POINT.

'No one tells them the heretical truth - it in all probability it will be no fun at all.'
So, because your sex life is crap, you believe your daughter's will be too? (WHich begs the question of where this writer's daughter came from, but I digress.)

'In fact, teenage pregnancy and most STDs have risen throughout the time our children have been exposed to inappropriate material in schools.'
So has atmospheric CO2 concentration. Maybe it's all the gasping and panting.

Here's a revelation: teenagers shag. All the time. Not half as much as they would like to, or say they do, but they do. And if they are going to, it's a bloody good idea that they have some condoms to hand.

WHAT PLANET ARE THESE PEOPLE ON? HAVE THEY EVER BEEN TEENAGERS?

AAAGH!

The woman from the Mail

2007-02-08T02:53:00.000-08:00

David Aaronovitch of the Times piles into the Mail here.

Pipe-to-pipe bushman paranoia

2007-02-07T09:10:00.001-08:00

Brass Eye, 1997:

GARY LINEKER (presenter) : Children today often have mobile phones but so too do paedophiles using text message slang. And because they're on edge they dial wrong numbers so watch out for these.... (holds mobile phone showing P2PBSH) Pipe to pipe bushman - code for two paedophiles having sex with each other while watching children from a shrub.

ANDY McNAB (ex SAS, author) : (holds phone showing DBL) DBL means dusty blonde lulu and that's a male paedophile disguised as a lion.

GARY LINEKER (presenter) : (holds phone showing BALTIMORA) Baltimora - this means literally : "I'm running at them now with my trousers down"...

(the whole transcript here)

Daily Mail, 2007.

Pipe-to-pipe bushman paranoia

2007-02-07T09:10:00.000-08:00

Richard Littlejohn Deserves Shooting

2006-12-27T01:10:00.000-08:00

Via Mr E, I discover this piece from Richard "In No Way Was I Bullied At School Over My Surname" Littljohn. Having read it, I would suggest that everything Mr Eugenides says is 100% correct. But what Littlejohn says is so reprehensibly sickening and pig ignorant that I just have to a wee pop at him myself. Not least because he wrote the piece for The Daily Hate.

"Let's get the caveat out of the way from the off. The five women murdered in Ipswich were tragic, lost souls who met a grisly end. I sincerely hope whoever killed them is caught, charged and convicted."

Well done, Littlecock. What do you want in return for this painfully obvious statement? A shitting medal? Mind you, it says something about Littleknob that he is so hate-filled that he has to clarify to his readers that he does favour murderers being caught. Just in case they need wonder where he stands on the subject of serial murder.

"No one with a shred of humanity would wish upon them their ghastly lives and horrible deaths. But Mother Teresa, they weren't."

No, Littletodger, they weren't Mother Teresa. I'm not Mother Teresa either. But, given you are such a complete and total cunt, Littlecock, I would say you are not Mother Teresa either. Mother Teresa was an exceptional human being. Few would compare to Mother Teresa. The implication of this is bold to say the least: if you are not Mother Teresa you deserve to be murdered...

"And I know this might sound frightfully callous in the current hysterical, emotional climate, but we're not all guilty. We do not share in the responsibility for either their grubby little existences or their murders. Society isn't to blame."

No, Littledick, we are not all guilty. In fact, if you really think hard about this (with your brain, Dicky boy, not with your no doubt miniscule meat and two veg) the only person to blame is the murderer. What with him doing the killing and all.

"It might not be fashionable, or even acceptable in some quarters, to say so, but in their chosen field of "work'=" (sic), death by strangulation is an occupational hazard."

An occupational hazard?? This defies belief. I cannot think of the words to express my disgust. So I will turn back to Mr E, who states Littlejohn is "an utterly worthless cunt. (He is) less valuable, 'in the scheme of things', than the little solidified fragment of shit that I had to pick off one of my arsehairs yesterday morning."

Sadly, Littlejohn goes on:

"That doesn't make it justifiable homicide, but in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss."

And in the grand scheme of things my death is no great loss. And your death, Littlejohn, is not only not a great loss, but actually something to celebrate. Who will join me in quaffing liberal amounts of champagne in a dance on Littlejohn's grave on the wonderful day when he finally finds his natural home - six feet under?

"They weren't going to discover a cure for cancer or embark on missionary work in Darfur. The only kind of missionary position they undertook was in the back seat of a car."

As an aside, how many people are going to discover a cure of cancer? I mean, I'm guessing not a lot. But I would say that these people will probably achieved more in their tragically short lives that Littletodger ever will. Because through whoring they may just have given five minutes of pleasure to some divorced, sad old man somewhere. Which is more that your hate-mongering will ever offer anyone, Littlejohn, you sanctimonious fucktard.

"Of course their friends and families are grieving. That's what friends and families do. But they should also be asking themselves if there was anything they could have done to prevent what happened."

You know what? I'll bet they are asking those questions. But I am fairly sure that the last thing they need at the moment is to be patronised by the likes of Littleknob.

"If you discovered your daughter had gone on the game to feed her heroin habit, wouldn't you move heaven and earth to get her off it?"

Well, yes. But present us with the evidence that these parents didn't move heaven and earth to get their children off heroin (and other drugs). Littlecock speaks with the all the authority of someone who doesn't have a fucking clue what they are talking about. I sense Littlejohn has never had to face the demon of addiction in his family. I sense he doesn't know that the only person who can do something about the addict is the addict themselves - when they have hit rock bottom and want to do something about the addiction. And I sense that Littledick doesn't realise that hitting rock bottom comes for some people before they start walking the streets, and for others after they sell their bodies.

Which makes it tempting to wish that someone from Littlejohn's family develops a crippling addiction and ends up walking the streets - just so someone can take this article and make him eat his fucking words. But I will stop short of actively wishing this myself. Because it is Christmas. And only because it is Christmas.

"Frankly, I'm tired of the lame excuses about how they all fell victim to ruthless pimps who plied them with drugs. These women were on the streets because they wanted to be."

Oh yes, I am sure they woke up each morning and went "yes! I get to sell my body to sweaty perverts today! Hooray for life! Hooray for me! Double Hooray for whoring!"

Littlejohn, you are a worthless cunt.

"We are all capable of free will. At any time, one or all of them could have sought help from the police, or the church, or a charity, or a government agency specifically established to deal with heroin addicts. They chose not to."

Ok, the police may have been a difficult option as both their jobs (whoring) and their hobbies (drug addiction) were against the law. The Church tends to favour helping those who believe what they believe, and again, frown upon whoring and drug taking. As for the charities/government agencies - they can only really help when someone has hit rock bottom and wants to beat the drugs. As sad as it seems, these girls had not hit rock bottom and were not ready to be helped. I agree they had a choice. I do not agree that they deserved to be murdered for their choices.

And whilst he (just) stops short of saying it, the basic message from Littlecock is "these girls deserved to be murdered because they were drug addicts and prostitutes". It is the ultimate cowardice of the likes of Littlejohn. They hint at what they mean, but just stop short of saying it.

"The tortuous twistings of the sisterhood over the past week have been a joy to behold. The 30-yearold (sic) Spare Rib T-shirts have been brought out of mothballs and we've been treated to the All Men Are Bastards/Rapists/Murderers mantra from assorted Glendas who ought to be old enough to know better."

Oh, I agree that the argument that all men are rapists is utter nonsense. My problem lies in the fact that I haven't heard it made in relation to these muders. Maybe I just read different publications to Littlejohn, but I would love him to cite his sources with something other that a cliched insult.

"We've heard the well-rehearsed arguments for legalised and regulated prostitution, as if we were living under the Taliban. The fact is, we've already got de facto legal brothels on every High Street. They're call saunas or massage parlours."

What, really? On every High Street? Fucking hell, I have never seen one on a High Street. And I have lived all over the UK. Not sure whether this means I am very unobservant or whether Littlejohn is looking for different things from a High Street to me...

"As I remarked when the Labour MP Joe Ashton was once caught in a Siamese "sauna" in Northampton, he must have been the only man in Britain ever to go to a massage parlour for a massage. It doesn't get much more glamorous than that."

Not really sure how this advances your argument, Littlejohn, so let's file this comment under "self congratulatory wank". You total twat.

"These five women were on the streets because even the filthiest, most disreputable back-alley "sauna" above a kebab shop wouldn't give them house room."

Ok, prove that. Prove that the kebab shop owners (some of whom will no doubt be horrified to learn that they have brothels upstairs, but no doubt in Littlejohn land, all kebab shop owners are pimps) wouldn't have these girls. Or shut up, and stop making unsubstantiated claims against the dead.

"The men who used them were either too mean to fork out whatever a massage parlour charges, or simply weren't fussy. Some men are actually turned on by disgusting, drug-addled street whores. Where there's demand, there'll always be supply."

And your point is? Of course there are people who will pay for prostitutes...

"This wasn't a case of women going on the game to put bread on the table, or to look after their "babies". That's what the welfare state is for. They did it for drugs."

Again, this is a bit of an unfounded accusation. I am sure that these women were on the streets because of their addictions, although whether this was the sole reason is open to debate. And the only people who could answer these questions, one way or another, are dead. Which is kind of handy for Littlejohn...

"The gormless Guardianistas simply refuse to confront this blindingly obvious reality. They would rather deify celebrity druggies such as Kate Moss and Will Self than face the truth that hard drugs wreck lives."

Drugs do wreck lives, and are currently wrecking the life of Moss's on/off boyfriend. No argument from me there. What I do object to is the implication of taking drugs and being murdered by a serial killer...

"What I find most objectionable about all this is the attempt to make us all feel responsible for the murders. There is a nasty whiff of Lady Di about the enforced mood of mourning, with even the Old Bill coming across like hand-wringing archbishops."

Well, Littleknob, nothing I have read has made me feel responsible for the murders. Mainly because I am not responsible for the murders, and am not so paranoid that I think that anyone questioning how society deals with prostitution and/or drugs is actually a personal attack on me. And for what it is worth, I think the police response to these murders has been professional and extremely capable. Compare it to the Yorkshire Ripper Investigation if you want the proof.

"At Ipswich Town's home game on Saturday, there was a minute's silence. We were supposed to believe that this was a true reflection of the community's sympathy. I don't buy it. Most people went along with it in the spirit of emotional correctness and through fear of getting their heads kicked in if they didn't."

I am not for all these minute silences that we are having these days. It seems that someone gets a head cold and we hold a minute's silence for them. But I think a town that has had five of their citizen's murdered probably can make a case for it. And not everyone is so staggeringly insensitive and arrogant, Littletodger, that they refuse to honour a minute's silence that they do not agree with. I would not agree with a national minute's silence for these dead girls, just as I did not agree with the minute's silence for Holly and Jessica. That would not stop me joining in with a minute's silence for the five dead girls, just as it did not stop me from joining in with the one for Huntley's victims. I did it out of respect for other people and their feelings. Something utterly alien to Littlecock, it seems.

"There was only one thing missing, but don't bet against it. When Blair gets back from saving the Middle East, don't be surprised if he turns up at the funeral of one of these unfortunate women to deliver a lip-trembling, tear-stained eulogy: "She was the People's Prostitute"."

Yeah, yeah, very droll. Yes Blair is a publicity whore, and yes, he does want to jump on every populist bandwagon. But if Blair had an ounce of decency in him, he would get back to the UK and make a heartfelt apology for just one thing - that this nation has bred such an out and out, selfish, ignorant and dick-headed cunt as Richard Littlejohn.

Daily Mail Journos Are Criminals

2006-12-14T08:27:00.000-08:00

Lock 'em up and throw away the key.

link

To quote Iain Dale:

Following up my story yesterday (HERE) on the scandalous conduct of many of our national newspapers and journalists I can now exclusively reveal the contents of a report to be submitted to Parliament tomorrow by the Information Commissioner, which outlines the extent to which our national newspapers - and their journalists - are breaking the law to obtain confidential information illegally.

1. Daily Mail - 952 incidents by 58 different journalists
2. Sunday People - 802 incidents by 50 different journalists
3. Daily Mirror - 681 incidents by 45 different journalists
4. Mail on Sunday - 266 incidents by 33 different journalists
5. News of the World - 182 different incidents by 19 different journalists

I and the Nameless One tip the hats to you sir, for publicising the Mail's iniquitous lawbreaking tendencies.

I blame the parents. After all, don't they?

Imagining The Daily Mail in the Soviet Union...

2006-12-06T07:14:00.000-08:00

...and the potential front page headlines:

Marx Death: New Cover Up Revealed!
Will Capitalism Give You Cancer?
Chechen Pig-Dogs Steal Our Jobs And Women
Gulag Prisoners Allowed Bread - 'they don't deserve to eat', our readers say
Send 'Em All Back Home - Do You Want A Western Defector in Your Collective Farm?
Kulaks Demand Food
Josef's Law: Our Campaign to Name and Shame the Capitalist Pig Dogs Near You.
Cabbage Diet 'cures AIDS', says scientists
House Prices Plummet - No-One Cares
Guilty Verdict in Show Trial - Full Details Inside
Ungrateful Czechs 'want tanks withdrawn please, if that's alright with you'
Daily Mail Offer: Holidays In Siberia for only ten roubles!
Uncle Joe Takes On An Exclusive Tour of his Dacha In Odessa - Pictures!
Comrade Blunkett Honoured for Services to Truth
Channel One 'peddling filth' - new programme shows decadent West where citizens 'use hot water'

Jesus, get over it, will you?

2006-11-30T23:50:00.000-08:00

Another day, another Daily Express front page about the death of Diana.

As Sky News points out, this is surprising as normally the paper "runs its Diana stories on Monday."

Special news bulletin to those editing the Express - it has been nearly ten years. Frankly, guys it is time to move on. And maybe time to acknowledge some of the other news stories going on around the world...

Won't SOMEBODY think of the children?

2006-11-30T05:29:00.000-08:00

B&Q apologises over 'filthy' music oversight

Instead of festive tracks customers heard a foul-mouthed song from the infamous adult cartoon series South Park.

The track, entitled Christmas Time in Hell, including references to sex and serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, blared out at the DIY giant's store in Stockport, Greater Manchester.

And quite bloody rightly too, I f*cking HATE 'Mistletoe & Wine' and all that seasonal shite. Where was Spinal Tap's epic 'Christmas With The Devil', eh?

Shopper Grant Sullivan, 42, from Stockport, was in the store's Christmas grotto with his daughter, Deonne, aged four..... Mr Sullivan left the store last week and rang B&Q's head office to complain when he got home.

Deonne? That's child abuse, that is. If this guy took the trouble to ring them when he got home, he may want to consider a hobby of some form.

Of course, the presence of an otherwise innocent and unknowing child is a surefire way of getting a story of outraged morality into the pages of the Daily Wail.

The playing of South Park's Christmas in Hell was an oversight on our part and we did not wish to cause offence or embarrassment to any of our customers.

"The song was removed as soon as the oversight was pointed out to us and please be assured that we will not be playing this song in this or any of our other stores going forward."

Damn. I was going to pop in and request it.

Toxins! Toxins! Everywhere

2006-11-08T04:27:00.000-08:00

Ah, the Daily Mail Leading Question.

Have toxins damaged millions of children?

link

'Millions of children around the world may have suffered brain damage as a result of industrial pollution, scientists warn today.' Ah yes, this monolithic block of scientists again.

'The disorders include conditions such as autism, attention deficit disorder, mental retardation and cerebral palsy.' Autism has, debatably, always been around - Isaac Newton was almost certainly on the autistic spectrum - but we have only recently started diagnosing it. Same with ADD. Children with cerebral palsy and retardation (resulting from birth trauma), again, until recently, rarely survived birth. Industrialisation has coincided with modern medicine, which has dramatically cut infant mortality. Correlation is not causation, you fucktards.

'Chemicals have created a pandemic, which is 'silent' because the damage caused by individual chemicals is not obvious in health statistics, says the report.' Hmm, maybe it doesn't EXIST, then. Maybe?

Bush = Evil! Yes, I've been reading The Guardian

2006-11-03T02:24:00.000-08:00

The Guardian runs a magnificently anti-American lead article today. Apparently George W. Bush is evil – and much worse that any other person in the whole wide world except for Osama bin Laden. As much as I dislike Bush, this is bollocks of the highest order.

“Both countries (Iran and North Korea) were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US.”

Well, if people think that then they are colossal wankers. Bush may be aggressive, he may be a major threat to world peace, but next to Iran and North Korea he is a peacemaker to rival Mother Teresa. Both of those nations are looking to develop nuclear weapons, both of those nations would have no issue with selling said nuclear weapons to terrorist groups. They are brutally oppressive regimes - extremist regimes that broach no criticism of their leaders. And if there is one striking thing about Bush’s second term, it is the level of virulent criticism levelled at him.

Plus, there is one burning question that springs to my mind – who precisely was asked in this survey?

“The survey has been carried out by the Guardian in Britain and leading newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico (Reforma), using professional local opinion polling in each country. Opinion against the war has hardened strongly since a similar survey before the US presidential election in 2004.”

Oh, right. Well, thanks for this meaningless clarification. Let’s ask the question again - who have you asked? Not who has done polling, who did you ask?

“ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults by telephone from October 27-30. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Polling was by phone in Canada (sample 1,007), Israel (1,078) and Mexico (1,010)”

1,010 adults? Hmmm, that will representative of world opinion. Also, I would love to know what question was asked. Polling can be easily manipulated. Not least if you are ringing the likes of Guardian readers and asking how much they hate Bush Junior, the chances are they will hate him more than Kim Jong-Il. Because The Guardian does not shut the fuck up about how bad Bush is, and often ignores the hideous reality of life in North Korea and Iran.

“Israeli voters remain much more trusting of him, with 23% thinking he represents a serious danger and 61% thinking he does not.”

I would imagine Israel is grateful for the support America offers. Must concentrate the mind wonderfully when your neighbours want to wipe you off the face of the earth, mustn’t it? I wonder how the good people of Britian, Canada and Mexico would answer this question if their neighbours were highly aggressive regimes, looking to acquire nuclear weapons. I wonder how they would feel if those nations were sending people with bombs strapped to their chest to blow up buses and discos on a monthly, and sometimes more frequent, basis? I think the people in survey would be grateful for any support from the most powerful nation in the world.

My take on this is simple – Bush is aggressive, he is a tosser and he has done a great deal to undermine world peace in his years in office. He has been a terrible President and I will breathe a sigh of relief when he leaves office. But to say he is a greater threat to world peace than Kim Jong-Il is staggeringly naïve.

This poll is indicative of the current, fashionable trend for anti-Americanism. Anti-Americanism cultivated by the likes of The Guardian. This story says nothing other than The Guardian has managed to whip up animosity towards the US. Newspapers should be looking to inform their readers of reality, but The Guardian has completely failed to do that. This poll shows that – because had The Guardian been furnishing their readers with the unbiased truth, then Bush would be seen still be seen as a threat to World Peace – but as a deeply unpopular President skulking his way towards the end of a second term and the end of his presidency, he would be seen as substantially less of a threat than the unstable, unpredictable and omnipotent (in North Korea) Kim Jong-Il.

Blame!

2006-10-26T02:10:00.000-07:00

The Daily Mail is great at one thing – finding a hate figure, finding someone to blame. Here they have a look at the tragic case of the Ainscows – the couple who tried to kill themselves owing to their daughter’s spending habits. And, since they cannot blame immigrants, gypsies, inheritance tax or Tony Blair, they thrash around to find someone else to blame. And lo and behold, we have a new figure to hate – those evil TV executives.

The group of television executives who met this week to review their major new drama were convinced they had good reason to be pleased with themselves.

Yes, they are television executives. No doubt they are earning vast fortunes for doing the square root of fuck all. I’d be pleased with myself under those circumstances.

Indeed, their programme has all the ingredients to be a huge success. Real-life drama, intense family relationships and one of Britain’s best-loved actresses, Brenda Blethyn no less, will surely make Mysterious Creatures a ratings winner.

Which is the point of TV, surely? To be successful? To be a ratings winner?

The 90-minute programme, to be screened on Sunday at 9pm, is being heavily promoted by ITV as a hard-hitting drama premiere.

And arguably that paragraph counts as promotion – as it says exactly where and when the programme will be on.

There is no doubt its subject matter is a compelling story, retelling the harrowing tale of how an elderly couple, Wendy and William Ainscow, walked into the sea off Tenerife in 2004 to commit suicide because, they said, they could no longer cope with the burden of caring for their spendthrift autistic daughter.

The fact that the story is compelling may be the main reason why it has been made into a TV programme. It is a bold TV station who makes non-compelling TV programmes.

While William was tragically successful in his attempt to take his own life, Wendy was plucked from the sea, still alive. Her survival threw her into a pit of despair from which she has never escaped.

I would argue she was in a pit of despair before her husband’s death as well. Hence, you know, the suicide attempt.

Alone and impoverished she returned to Britain, to eke out an existence in sheltered accommodation on the Wirral.

Living off the state, was she? Normally this would make her a Daily Mail hate figure. But the Mail doesn’t like something not being hypocritical stand in the way of a nice hysterical story.

So perhaps it is not surprising that, desperate for money, she agreed to sign away the rights to her life story when TV executives came calling last year.

So, she made a choice, did she? Her problem. She sold her story for money. Live with it. Or not as the case maybe.

But dramatic events since suggest this may have been a disastrous decision - both on her part and on the part of the television company in question.

Well, yes and no. It will probably be a great decision for the TV company as they will have a highly acclaimed drama on their hands. And as for Wendy, well, she will have got money for trying to commit suicide. Whether that makes her happy in the long term or not is not really the point, and certainly isn’t the problem of the TV company. If accepting the money in the long adversely affects Wendy, then it is her issue. It is a business transaction between her and the TV company.

For the Mail can reveal that while those executives were anticipating their forthcoming triumph, Wendy Ainscow had once again flown to Tenerife and attempted to drown herself in the sea.

People who attempt suicide and fail often try again. I fail to see a link between her actions and the TV executives.

On Saturday, October 14, on a quiet beach on the neighbouring island of La Gomera, she swallowed 30 sleeping pills before wading fully-clothed into the freezing cold sea.
Plucked unconscious from the water by a passer-by, she was flown to the hospital, where doctors saved her.

Milk the melodrama! Come on!

She was taken to the University Hospital in Tenerife, where her condition was said to be 'stable'. She was heavily sedated while doctors worked to establish if she had suffered any brain damage.

So the doctors did what doctors do? Great, this is an exclusive groundbreaking story then.

If that were not shocking enough, the Mail can also reveal this was Wendy Ainscow's fourth attempt to kill herself in this way since her husband died.

It may be sad and tragic, but it is not shocking. Lots of people make repeated attempts on their life. And often the only thing that stops them is when they succeed.

Why does she keep flying thousands of miles to attempt suicide?

Maybe she wants to die? Maybe she is a little unstable? That’s what I would take from the five attempts on her own life.

Only she can answer that question,

Quite. But I sense there will be pointless lurid speculation to come…

but it seems clear there is a morbid link in her mind with the Canary Islands, a kind of grim resolve that only this place - where her husband died - is a suitable setting for her own demise.

Oh, and I was right. Pointless, lurid, idiotic and blindingly obvious speculation. I mean, for fuck’s sake give me strength. Do we reckon that a failed suicide pact with her husband is one of the most traumatic event of her life? Could be! And maybe, if she remains unstable, deeply depressed and unhappy, maybe she would relive that experience over and over again in her mind and potentially want to revisit it in reality?

Was Wendy Ainscow really in a fit mental state to sign a contract turning her life story into must-watch prime-time television?

Honestly, I don’t know. I wasn’t there. But, I’m guessing, nor was The Daily Mail. This is yet more lurid speculation from The Mail.

Surely the production company, Leopard Films, were not aware that as they were signing up the stars and preparing the script, Wendy Ainscow was repeatedly attempting suicide.

Probably not, no. Do they have a duty to spy on the woman, to check up on her? I’d say no…

Now questions are being asked as to whether the publicity circus preceding the programme contributed to this latest attempt to end her life.

Oh, for fuck’s sake. Who is asking those questions? Aside from The Mail, who is asking those questions? Specify, give me just one name of someone who is asking those questions. And as for whether it contributed to the latest attempt on her life, quite possibly. But as the article suggests, this woman has a history of suicide attempts.

No one doubts that Mrs Ainscow agreed to the painful prospect of watching her own husband's death re-enacted on screen.

Exactly my point. Her choice.

But could a woman in such mental turmoil really have guessed how she would react to seeing her own story being pumped out on TV for public consumption?

No idea, but again, her problem if she reacts badly.

During filming, tourists in Tenerife watched as Timothy Spall and Brenda Blethyn clasped hands and staggered repeatedly into the sea, re-enacting Wendy and Bill's fateful steps.
As one onlooker said: "It felt uncomfortably like rubber-necking at a road accident."

The obvious inference being that the onlooker is used to rubber necking. And if they found the experience so uncomfortable, maybe they should have walked on and looked at something else?

The irony is Wendy may still be lying in a hospital bed when the programme is screened, wishing more than ever that she, too, had died the day her husband lost his life.

The constant suicide attempts indicate that the woman wants to die, whether or not she wants to die more than ever is pretty much irrelevant. And if she is in hospital, maybe she won’t have to watch the TV programme?

On that November day in 2004, she clasped Bill's hand as they waded into the sea in Tenerife.
After 40 years of making joint decisions as devoted husband and wife, they had drawn up a suicide pact - their very last act of togetherness.

Pump up that melodrama! Milk it for all it is worth! God, this makes me feel ill.

The couple were driven to despair and financial ruin by their daughter Lisa, now 35, who, they said, suffered from Asperger's syndrome. She was an obsessive spender who ran up debts amounting to thousands of pounds and had to eat out every night at expensive restaurants.

Asperger’s Syndrome is a highly complicated condition. Many people have it, and don’t go out and spend a fortune a day. I strongly object to the implication that the daughter’s syndrome is linked to the suicide of the father and the repeated attempts of the mother – and I think a lot of people with the syndrome would object as well. This is The Daily Mail being fucking ignorant. They should check their facts before they spout this shite.

Indeed, it was Lisa's uncontrollable spending habit - at one stage, it was claimed, she was spending £1,000 a week, with 2,000 pairs of shoes stacked up in her bedroom - that had literally pushed her parents over the brink.

Here’s a wonderful, ground breaking idea. How about stopping her from spending like responsible parents would do?

Mr and Mrs Ainscow said they were getting through £1,000 a week to support their daughter - and when they refused to give her money, it was said she would tell them she'd never speak to them again, threaten to kill herself, or bang on neighbours' doors and beg for cash.

There are lots of difficult children in this world. And lots of parents cope with them. It is a very harsh thing to say, but perhaps the problem lies less with the daughter and more with the parents? Could they be *shock horror* bad parents?

To pay her mounting debts, 75-year-old Mr Ainscow resorted to theft - stealing from the post office he ran in Eastham, Merseyside.
In 2002, he was jailed for 15 months for stealing benefit books and cashing dockets to the value of £50,098. Liverpool Crown Court heard how he had stashed away new books meant for customers before cashing them in.

So Mr Ainscow was a criminal who served time? Lots of people steal under tremendous pressure, but normally The Daily Mail would not allow the pressure to be an excuse. But again, let’s not let a coherent editorial stance on theft to stand in the way of a hysterical story.

He was ordered to repay the £50,000, and he and his wife owed banks another £50,000. They remortgaged their home and Mrs Ainscow went back to work as a supply teacher, in an effort to keep the family afloat.

Oh, so they had financial problems, just like a lot of other families do?

In interviews at the time, the couple told of their despair over their daughter and said they felt let down by a lack of support from the authorities.

Again, at the risk of sounding harsh, it sounds like the Ainscows were very good at blaming other people for their own problems.

Mr Ainscow was released on appeal after three months, but under the shadow of shame and with Lisa's mounting psychological problems, life became increasingly intolerable for the couple.
The tipping point came, they said, when the authorities failed to help ease their plight when Lisa was released, without their knowledge, from a psychiatric hospital where she had spent ten months.

Blame the authorities! Blame the TV execs! Blame everyone bar the couple in question!

So this quiet, devoted middle-class couple - he had been an oceanographer with the Ministry of Defence before retiring to run the post office - decided that life simply wasn't worth living.

Would it make a difference if they weren’t middle-class? This does leave an unpleasant taste in my mouth – the implication is that the couple’s lives were worth more because they were middle class and had decent jobs in the past.

They flew to Tenerife, and with money they got from pawning Mrs Ainscow's diamond and sapphire engagement ring, paid for a last meal and a night in a hotel. After taking a cocktail of sleeping pills, they went to the beach at Los Cristianos and waded into the sea.

Very tragic. Like most suicides.

They were rescued by a fishing boat, but Bill was already dead. Wendy regained consciousness two days later in hospital, and afterwards recalled: "I just thought, oh no, I want to go, I don't want to live."

Well, it seems obvious that the woman didn’t want to live. She had just tried to commit suicide!

The suicide pact of a respectable couple who should have been looking forward to a quiet retirement together made headlines around the world.

Yes, probably where the TV executives got the idea for the show from. So, Daily Mail, it is your fault as well!

Wendy, 66, was flown home to a future of haunting loneliness and poverty. She and her husband had sold their four-bedroom home to pay off debts, and after her return she was unable to keep up payments on the flat they had rented.
Despite the tensions, Lisa had greeted her mother's return with childish and undisguised glee. But the happy reunion between mother and daughter was not to last. Unable even to pay her meagre rent, Wendy suffered a breakdown.

I would argue she had already had a breakdown. Hence the suicide pact…

She flew back to Tenerife in April 2005 and took a ferry to La Gomera, where she swallowed 60 sleeping pills and waded into the water. Plucked once again from the sea, she recalled: "I wanted nothing more than to die."
A few weeks later she returned to Tenerife, swallowed more pills and plunged into the sea. Once more she was rescued. A few weeks later she made a fourth attempt to kill herself, on Lanzarote.

I really hope other people aren’t putting themselves at risk to rescue this woman.

This time she was determined not to fail. She weighed herself down with stones tied around her neck and took 60 sleeping pills before she entered the water.
But the pills were not the same as she had taken before and, finding herself unable to lose consciousness, she returned to shore. She was spotted by a hotel rep and rushed to hospital to have her stomach pumped.

If a Daily Mail hate figure had made repeated attempts to kill themselves (say, Pete Doherty), then no doubt we would be treated to a hysterical rant about how he was wasting the resources of the rescue services.

Once she had recovered, Wendy was sent back to the UK, where she was first placed in a hostel before an organisation for the homeless offered her a bedsit in a sheltered accommodation block on the Wirral, and a £5-an-hour job washing dishes.

From my time working as a supermarket manager I can tell you that £5 an hour is not a bad wage. Not great, but some people are on less.

After she had paid her £65-a-week rent, she had little money left. "I hardly ever eat," she said at the time. "But to be honest, I'm not in the mood to."

This woman doesn’t eat and repeatedly tries to kill herself. Perhaps she is the one who should be sectioned rather than her daughter.

Meanwhile Lisa, who was naturally distraught at her mother's repeated suicide attempts and was coming to terms with the loss of her father, stayed in a local authority bed and breakfast in Southport.
Though there was no joy in their existence, perhaps in time Wendy and her daughter might have found solace in one another's company.

I hope Wendy doesn’t read this article. It is so fucking depressing that it might push her over the edge. Once again.

But that was not to reckon with the making of the film Mysterious Creatures.
Its imminent release caused Lisa recently to speak out, disputing her parents’ claims of her excessive spending and aggressive personality, and the assertion she suffers from Asperger's syndrome.
She insisted she had never threatened her parents or bought 2,000 pairs of shoes. And she said she was worried Mysterious Creatures would show her incorrectly as mentally ill and violent.
"I am really scared that it will portray me as being autistic and violent, which I am not," she says.

Ignoring the fact that there is no direct link between autism and violence (autistic people can be violent, but so can non-autistic people) all we have heard so far is the story of the parents. The story of two people who were so unstable that they entered into a suicide pact. And one of whom served time for theft. For stealing from his customers. Lisa has a right to tell her story as well.

While both mother and daughter are clearly troubled, Lisa's recent comments have thrown new light on the story of the Ainscows.
Lisa was sectioned under the Mental Health Act in 2003. She was detained for ten months. Yet in medical reports released earlier this year, a Wirral mental health tribunal claimed the erratic 'behaviour of the applicant when at liberty was largely as a result of a catastrophically poor parenting regime'.

Quite. I refer you to the earlier comment I made about bad parenting.

The panel, which ordered Lisa's release from Clatterbridge Hospital in the Wirral, where she was being detained, stated they were 'not satisfied that the patient is suffering from mental illness, psychopathic disorder, severe mental impairment, or mental impairment or any other forms of disorder'.

You know what, I am going to go with the experts in the Hospital to assess Lisa’s mental health. Not the mother, not me and certainly not The Daily fucking Mail.

According to Lisa, it was shortly after her mother returned to Britain following her father's death that TV executives persuaded her to sell the screen rights for her story.
Although doubtful at first, faced with a contract offering money for the rights to her 'exclusive story', her mother signed on the dotted line and so did she.

Not really the fault of the TV execs, then, is it?

Before her most recent suicide attempt, Mrs Ainscow released a statement saying that she was 'devastated that her daughter Lisa should choose to speak so bitterly' about her.

Devastated, maybe. But she shouldn’t be surprised. After all, Wendy has had no problems with talking bitterly about her daughter.

Perhaps her daughter's comments, allied to the imminent screening of the film, were enough to drive her over the edge once more.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Lurid speculation.

This week, Wendy's lawyer agreed that she was traumatised by the publicity in the build-up to the screening.

Strikes me that Wendy has been traumatised by a great deal. The TV programme is likely to be a very minor part of that. After all, her first few suicide attempts were before the TV programme started to be publicised.

David Kirwan, who is also a long-time friend, said: "She is under immense strain with the tragic events of the past couple of years, due to be covered in the ITV drama at the end of this month."

David Kirwan managed to say nothing that is not blindingly obvious for anyone with half a brain cell then.

While hospital spokesmen in Tenerife have been declaring Wendy's condition to be 'stable', a television spokeswoman for ITV expressed "shock at the latest development".
She added: "Our hearts go out to Wendy and hopefully she will make a full recovery."
It seems unlikely this brittle woman will make a full recovery, and perhaps one day she will achieve her macabre wish to go to a watery grave like her beloved husband.

Well, if she keeps on trying she probably will succeed one day.

But surely she has suffered enough melodrama without millions witnessing her tragic story on TV.

Maybe Wendy shouldn’t watch the TV programme then?

The Daily Mail. Their message is "it’s your fault, unless you are middle-aged and middle class. In which case it is anyone’s fault bar yours."

Poles destroy children

2006-10-25T09:00:00.000-07:00

No, not immigrants. Metal poles.

Tesco condemned for selling pole dancing toy

'The kit, condemned as 'extremely dangerous' by family campaigners yesterday...

Dr Adrian Rogers, of family campaigning group Family Focus said yesterday that the kit would "destroy children's lives".

He said: "...It is an open invitation to turn the youngest children on to sexual behaviour.... This will be sold to four, five and six-year olds. This is a most dangerous toy that will contribute towards destroying children's innocence."

He added: "Children are being encouraged to dance round a pole which is interpreted in the adult world as a phallic symbol.

"It ought to be stopped, it really requires the intervention of members of Parliament. This should only be available to the most depraved people who want to corrupt their children." '

I'm not sure anything I say can add to the eye-popping lunacy of this article.

Friday round-up

2006-10-20T01:59:00.000-07:00

Another solid week for the foamy-mouthed rag of choice, and here's some of the best from today's edition:

One in five at nursery don't know their age
Is this really a surprise? Most three year olds don't know what day it is, let alone how old they are! Still, the article includes some oddly non-xenophobic praise for the Japanese.

White bread increases cancer risk
Oh, I *do* love a bit of Daily Mail science.

'Scientists put the cause down to...' yes, of course, because scientists are a totally monolithic block of robots who all believe *exactly* the same thing all the time.

'The new study published in the International Journal of Cancer set out to investigate potential triggers of Renal Cell Carcinoma....' Ah, so, in fact they were looking at one particular form of cancer. Not all cancers.

'The study did not specify what type of bread people ate.... The study did not establish exactly what in bread may be to blame...' Well, the headline is just plain WRONG, then, isn't it?

Idiots. Someone is paid to write this!

If anyone from the Mail would like an elementary lesson in how to read a scientific paper, I am available at very reasonable rates....

Four out of five rape victims 'have been drinking', says Minister
Ah, the sinister, hateful, subliminal misogyny that the Mail revels in so much.... it's your fault if you get raped, you drunken trollop... sickening, just sickening.

'But Baroness Scotland said that, despite of this fact, rape is "never the fault" of the woman who suffers it.' 'Despite of this fact?' Great use of English, guys. And anyway, this nasty, weasel-worded caveat aside, you didn't put *that* in the attention-grabbing headline, did you?

Less than half manage basic GCSE English and Math passes
Hang on, I thought exams were too easy? Make your sodding minds up.

Anarcho's Cap has kindly sent in another contribution, which will go up as soon as I get round to it (sorry mate, my bad.) The Nameless Tory is on holiday growing a beard.

The Moai

A message to the media

2006-10-13T01:50:00.000-07:00

What follows is highly personal, very ranty and a bit unfocussed.

We are fast approaching the 40th anniversary of the Aberfan Disaster. I was born and raised in Aberfan and my mother lost a brother and sister in the Disaster. For the uninitiated, 144 people, 116 of which were children under the age of ten, were buried alive by the incompetence of the NCB in 1966. Many of us are still very, very angry about the Disaster, and its aftermath.

Predictably enough, the vultures are descending. Grief tourists are looking to make political capital out of it, and the likes of the Mail have started phoning my grandparents trying to get a story out of it.

I am tempted to head home for a week so I can roam the streets with a baseball bat looking for journalists who want to make stories - and therefore money - out of my people's grief. Why now? Why the 40th? Where were you f*ckers last year, eh?

If you are *so* f*cking concerned about us in Aberfan, make a donation to the Memorial Fund, and leave us to mourn in peace.

EDIT: Pay up, you bastards.

Braindead

2006-10-12T05:06:00.000-07:00

'Yesterday, I wrestled with my conscience over breakfast; it lost and I won. A card had arrived in the post from neighbours thanking me for a housewarming present. I averted my eyes because I hadn't bought them anything....'

Well, seeing as you've now admitted it in a paper which regrettably sells thousands of copies, I'd imagine the game is up, love.

Jamie Oliver wants shooting.

2006-10-09T03:18:00.000-07:00

He unveils his "manifesto" in yesterday's News of the Screws. Quite why this slack jawed, ignorant mockney has been given two pages to talk about his political thoughts is totally beyond me, and his thoughts and opinions reveal just how little he knows about politics and also offers a very good argument for those who think free speech should be a privilige rather than a right.

Let's take a look:

"HE'S famous for his no-nonsense approach to cooking...and now Jamie Oliver has come up with a red-hot recipe for a better Britain."

He's famous for being famous if you ask me. Other TV chefs seem to have at least an iota of skill in the kitchen. He just seems to make basic food in an irritating way.

"The TV chef—who became an icon of change through his school dinners campaign—has added a dollop of realism, saying the country needs a shake-up."

Clement Attlee is an icon of change. Ditto Margeret Thatcher. How about Nelson Mandela?Jamie Oliver is an icon of the talentless - an icon of the Big Brother generation. Living proof that anyone can be a celebrity if they are willing to be a media whore.

"The 31-year-old employs disadvantaged youngsters at his Fifteen restaurants and has seen first hand the problems they face."

Great. Fuck-a-doodle-do. That's fifteen disadvantaged kids taken care of. Not being funny, but I get the impression that there are slightly more than fifteen disadvantaged kids in the UK.

"Here's his 20-point plan in full..."

Oh goody. *Can't wait*.

"TACKLE CRIME
Problems often start at home with youngsters simply not having enough to do outside school hours. There should be better funding and a total review of how kids spend their time.There are areas in many cities where the police wouldn't dare go unless they were in large numbers. Just imagine what it's like living there as kids."

Well, I would imagine it is tough living there as a kid. But I'm not sure about the logic here. Oliver, in his finite (or limited) wisdom seems to be suggesting that there is a direct link between youngsters and crime. Sure, kids do commit crimes. But so do adults. If you are going to tackle crime, then you need to address both juvenile and adult crime. And Oliver totally fails to say to say how he is going to stop some areas being no-go zones for the police. I defy you, Oliver, to find me one politician who doesn't want to reduce crime. The difference between you and them is they often come up with ideas of how to cut crime. An aspiration is not a policy.

"WELCOME IMMIGRANTS
They are a profitable part of this country, and I'm proud to live in a multi-cultural England. If it wasn't for the Polish in the last few years, many factories would have gone bankrupt and half the buildings in our cities wouldn't be built."

Yes, very true. Immigrants are a source of cheap labour for shitty jobs that people in the UK don't want. I am perfectly happy to welcome immigrants who can contribute something to the UK economy. Like most people, it is the illegal immigrants who I have an issue with. And don't want to welcome to this country.

"BENEFITS
I think people should show they care about the country and want to be part of the community before getting all their benefits."

So as long as you are patriotic you can be a lazy bastard then? Jamie, you utter wanker, benefits should only exist for people who cannot survive any other way. Benefits represent a safety net for people in this country. If you want people to earn benefits, then the basic requirement should be a willingness to find work. Forget being part of a community, if you need to claim benefits you should be aspiring to find a way to get off benefits. And the best way to that would be to make working more profitable than claiming benefits. Either through reducing taxes of reducing benefit levels.

Now, see what I did there, Jamie? I offered a suggestion on how benefits could be changed for the better. One of the things about a manifesto is that it should offer ways of doing things. Not just trot out trite truisms.

"CUT POWERS
Having the guts to look at things in a non-political way is vital. I don't reckon healthcare, schooling and transport should be ruled by government."

Who should run them, then, Jamie? Are you seriously talking about privatising healthcare, schooling and transport? Because if you are, you are on the far right of my party. And you are not going to be popular with the electorate as a whole.

"TROOPS
Stop wasting our time fighting other people's wars. Now we're part of the EU there's no need for a massive Army. If we halved our troops the spare resources could help fight crime."

If memory serves, the EU doesn't have an army. And international forces tend to be made up of national armies. So in order to contribute to international peace-keeping forces, we would need to have an army. Also, if you halve the army, what are you going to do with all the people you are making unemployed? As Thatcher proved so well with the Miner's Strike, making large numbers of people unemployed without any idea of how they are going to find work is never popular.

This is a bit of populism based around the Iraq war - jumping on the fashionable ant-war movement. Which is fair enough, I suppose, but I would point out that the Iraq War is our war. We started it. With the Americans, we went to a sovereign nation, invaded them, and started the war. Regardless of whether it was right or wrong to start that war, it is one hundred percent our war.

"KEEP IT REAL
If I had my own department I'd let my senior team run it and have six months in the field listening to the public so you can make intelligent, informed decisions."

People who say "keep it real" wanted slapping in the face. And I would rather have politicians in this country trying to run their departments than wandering around chatting with local people. Not least because often talking to the public is not the best way to make "intelligent, informed decisions".

"RECYCLING
We've got one of the worst recycling records in the EU although things are changing (albeit I'm still waiting for my recycling bin!) If you buy loads of packaging then it's your responsibility to sort out disposing it sensibly."

Again, what is your policy? This is nothing other than an observation. I know it is my responsibility to look after recycling my trash. The fact that you have noticed that as well means nothing, Jamie. Nothing at all.

"EXPERTS
When I started looking into school dinners there wasn't anybody high up with a history of catering. Most of the people who have the answers aren't politicians, they're experts, and I think they're vital in government."

Frankly I am glad that there is no-one high up in government with a catering background because, based on what you're saying, Jamie, people with a catering background talk total arse.

"SEE IT THROUGH
I'm bloody proud of what we did with school dinners and I'm going to babysit it for ever."

Well, get on with baby-sitting it then and stop pontificating on Politics. And I'm not surprised you are so proud of what you did with school dinners. I doubt you will achieve fuck all else with your life.

"SCHOOLS
I believe in comprehensive education. A mixture of ethnic minorities and social classes is really important. I think our primary schools are fantastic too."

Well, this is a bleeding revelation, isn't it? Apparently, schools are good. This bit of ideology will see Oliver ranked with the great political thinkers. "Schools are good" - groundbreaking stuff, on a par with the great works of Aristotle, Locke, Burke, Marx and Hayek. "Schools are good" - Jamie, you have guaranteed your place in history with this statement. Note for the future, Jamie - the bleeding obvious does not have to be stated. Because it is bleeding obvious.

"SPORT
This should be such an important part of our kids' schooling, just like in Australia. I think it's about time we took it more seriously. Stop building on playing fields and make sport compulsory."

I thought sport was compulsory?!?

"LESSON CHOICES
I think education should incorporate sport and life skills. I'll probably get my a*se whooped by the science dudes for it. But I believe there should be enough choice for people to excel."

Science dudes? Oh, Christ, who are you trying to impress by using the word "dudes"? And there is choice at schools. I dropped science after GCSE, because I excelled at other subjects. It is not a policy to state something that happens anyway.

"TEACH KIDS TO COOK
I've just been to Melbourne to open my new Fifteen restaurant and Stephanie Alexander—a bit like Delia—is concentrating on a charity to put kitchens and gardens in primary schools. Through growing food and cooking, nippers also learn numeracy, spelling, chemistry...it's a wicked idea."

"Wicked" in that context went out of fashion in 1989, Jamie. And teaching kids Maths, English and Chemistry is a great wat to teach numeracy, spelling and, well, chemistry. I'm all for cooking being taught in schools, but as a minor supplement to more useful subjects.

"HOSPITAL GRUB
Food in hospitals is more urgent than schools. Good quality tucker is crucial for the sick. I thought when we'd got it sorted in schools it would translate across the board. I'm hoping it still will."

"Grub"? "Good Quality Tucker"? Your terrible attempts at being a cockney sicken me, Oliver. And you may notice there is a difference between hospitals and schools. Just because you got some schools to provide more healthy food doesn't mean the NHS - a massive, failing bureacracy - is going to go "oh, maybe we should improve our food as well".

"QUALITY NOSH
It's harder to get the good stuff to the kids who need it most. It's largely class bound. You can buy a Shepherd's pie from a cheapo place and you can bet there will be more rubbish in it than one from Waitrose or Sainsbury's."

Again, "Nosh?" Fuck off, you mockney wanker. What is going to be your policy here? You're going to force Sainsbury's to build a store in every rundown area? Genius. That will work *so well*. I used to work for a Supermarket chain, and, as surprising as this might seem, they actually do market research on the best places to set up their stores. And if Sainsbury's has decided not to set up a store in a poor area, it is probably for a good reason. Like the fact that the local people cannot afford those products. So you either need to force the supermarkets to reduce their prices, or raise the incomes of the poor/less prosperous. Which is a tough sell, as both reek of communism.

"AND FINALLY...
I'm still banging the drum on school dinners because more needs doing. The government is planning dinner ladies' training schools. Brilliant! But many schools have kitchens that are falling down. Tony Blair's the only one who's done anything. So come on Tiger, let's carry on the good work."

I am despairing of the thought of the government pissing away more of my taxes on dinner lady training schools, all in a publicity stunt to keep a gobby TV chef happy. Tony Blair is the only one who has done anything, because he is the only person who has been in power since you started your little crusade. And "come on Tiger" - how homo-erotic is that? Is there something you are not telling us about your special relationship with Tony? Or are you just so naive that you think someone as self important and ego driven as Blair would respond well to being called Tiger by someone who became famous for a series of rubbish adverts for Sainsbury's.

Jamie, go back to whatever it is you are good at. Because judging by your manifesto, it certainly isn't Politics.

A guest posting: Anarcho's Cap

2006-10-02T06:38:00.000-07:00

Anarcho's Cap was one of our first commenters, and he's kindly submitted a post. Here it is!
....................

Labour has one serious candidate - but it also seems to have a death wish

The bullying Reid was yesterday unleashed on a hogtied Brown to warn of the dangers of straying from the Blairite path

'Rottweiler Warning," the headline flashed up on Sky News, just as John Reid stopped speaking. It turned out to be a dog-eat-child story, not the home secretary at all. One delegate was heard to hiss loudly: "I'd vote for Cameron if Reid won the leadership. I'd rather have the nice Tory than the nasty one."

Fair enough, however I suspect there are probably a few older Tories who would vote for Reid rather than Cameron. Also, one delegate? Anecdotes do not an argument make…

This must have been one of the most unpleasantly jingoistic, rightwing rabble-rousers a Labour conference has heard in quite a few years. This was Britishness as from the Millwall terraces. "No no-go areas," he boomed: "We will go where we please, we will discuss what we like."

So we should encourage the segregation of Muslims by not going there? Politicians should stay out of areas where people don’t like them? Much as I dislike John Reid – at least he’s got the guts to say what he thinks, and go into these areas to say it. All that cock Brown can do is waffle on about “Britishness, shared values, security” – which is fuck all use when someone is trying to blow you up.

No fool, he's hard to fault on particulars: the poison is all in the sentiment and tone. How proudly he gloated that Cameron had found his policies too extreme. Indeed, if he was one of Cameron's team, that speech would have got him fired.
Reformed old communists have this in common: when they swing the other way, they always go that bit too far. They never take off their combat kit: the progressive social democratic gene is alien to their psyche. So there was nothing progressive about his performance yesterday.

I’m sorry Polly, this makes no sense, I know it’s hard to force out 1500 words of drivel a week, but at least try an make it lucid. Also, Social Democratic Gene, does that mean we could screen you lot and remove you from the gene pool?
Roy Hattersley will not be alone: his threat to shoot himself if Reid becomes leader could turn into a mass die-in of Labour supporters.
Oh, shame.

But there was Tessa Jowell, first up within seconds to tell the BBC what a wonderful speech it was. Indeed, rhetorically it was a barn-stormer. So is this it, the last throw of the shrinking group of Blairites? Is this war, after all? No, take a deep breath. It probably isn't quite.
But it is a sign of something almost as depressing. I lost count of the number of times Reid used the word "leadership" in his tough, tough, tough speech, as he put his marker down to be first among possible challengers. So far it's just a threatening gesture from the bruiser lurking in the alleyway. It smacks of both bullying and cowardice: without the bottle for a fight, he will hang about flashing that stiletto under his coat, hoping Gordon trips up all by himself during the next excruciating months of uncertainty. Only then might Reid, more hyena than rottweiler, scavenge up his 44 nominations from MPs, only making a move if he senses a smell of death around the Brown camp.

No, the cowardice and lack of bottle for a fight is Brown’s, his smug statements that he’d “welcome a contest”. No he fucking won’t. He expected this conference to be his coronation (as did you) and now you’re throwing your toys out of the pram because it isn’t. He’s terrified of a straight fight, because he’s realising his support isn’t as solid as it might have been. Tony clearly wants someone else. Also, if Reid loses to Brown that will be the end of his political career, Brown will see to that, and that takes courage to take that kind of political risk. So you’re wrong, in so many ways you think bitch.

What will be the effect of this lurking? It is designed to make sure Gordon Brown strays not one step from the Blairite straight and narrow: at home on the NHS and public-service reform, abroad on the war and Bush. He will make this interregnum yet more needlessly fraught, flashing that glint of a knife whenever Brown tries to shape his own style and agenda.

Well, if Reid’s trying to stop Brown doing something mental he has my support. God knows what he’s planning.

If they hobble him sufficiently, he may flounder, and Reid can step up. Or some anyone-but-Reid challenger might charge through the middle, anything better than the old attack dog himself. Who knows? It will spawn enough conspiracy theories to keep the media happy and the voters bored and angry - deeply damaging to Labour.

I think the real reason voters are bored and angry is the lack of a contest not the potential for one. The anger stems mostly from rising taxes, worsening services and the sheer incompetence of the government?

Waffle about focus groups on Newsnight, reid came out better… "Reid is seen as very aggressive. Scots, old, bald, and he's hardly known. Brown has undoubtedly suffered a bit in recent weeks - but these ordinary women voters hadn't noticed the coup. He has to be more cheerful, but he has enduring strengths with them."
Ordinary women voters, well that’s it all sewn up for Brown then, 50% of the population – oh hang on, that’s not a majority. Also, Brown is not popular (well we know you like him, Pol), most people see him as dour and unfriendly, and no amount of contrived interviews about his children will change that.

She is as critical too of the recent Guardian poll that assessed Brown and Cameron's personality qualities. "It's pretty meaningless to ask about a list of attributes. Most of these have nothing to do with how people actually vote for a prime minister. It's not an application to be a charming receptionist. Cameron may come out as nicer, but this isn't about niceness. If it was, Neil Kinnock would have beaten Mrs Thatcher easily. Mrs Thatcher was never seen as 'nice', but she was admired and respected. Gordon Brown need not be rattled by this stuff. Concentrate on his strengths. Some of this polling seems designed to trip him up."

Of course, the Brown = Thatcher thing has a flaw, a lot of people genuinely liked what Mrs Thatcher did, up until the poll tax. Brown is a high taxing tinkerer who just won’t fuck off.

But what if he can't win? What if, in this celeb-struck era, the smiles do matter more than a strong economy? Even Brown admirers are nervy, alarmed by the polls since the failed coup. "Stable but fragile," a close Brown minister described the situation, no better than that.

Strong economy? Slowing growth, pitiful productivity growth, increasing tax burden, debt laden consumers, increasing inflation and a housing bubble looking like it could burst? That’s a strong economy, to you on your £140k it might be, but not to the rest of us.

As for the failed coup, given Brown organised it, he deserves to get hurt by it, Assuming Tom Watson 1500 mile round trip the day before was not just to say hi to Gordon and the bairn?

There is a fatalism, bordering on a death wish, hanging over some in the party right now. Just when new ideas and new faces are needed - and there are plenty around - everything hangs in suspended animation, delaying a contest that never comes, waiting for a hustings that never happens. Just when the probable next leader needs freedom to step out and show what he can do, he is kept gagged and hogtied until Blair finally sets him free.

Gagged and hogtied, oh, you’d like that wouldn’t you Polly, getting a bit rough with Gordon, a little Kinky, he could take his eye out and.... hmmm

Meanwhile, the Tories gain a stronger foothold: their conference will give them another lift. Labour's navel-gazing must weary voters beyond endurance. Is this a party almost willing itself to fail?

Please yes, please, please, please

Here they are, with only one serious candidate - yet bent on destroying his authority and reputation every day that goes by. If enough people really think that he is not a winner, then dump him now and choose someone else fast. Get it over. But if it is to be him, get behind him now. Build him up, don't pull him down. Much more of this and they will be staring certain and well-deserved defeat in the face.

To be honest I don’t care. If they had any real respect for the electorate they would have an election shortly after the new leader is appointed. Fat chance. The choice is pretty uninteresting. Reid will take 100% of our liberty and 90% of our income, Brown will take 100% of our income, and 90% of our liberty. The choice is like being asked which bit of dog-shit you’d like for your dinner.

Shock! Horror! Mortgages can be expensive!

2006-09-29T02:34:00.000-07:00

This gem of a story from The Daily Mail caught my eye.

"Millions of home-owners are being caught in a 'never-ending mortgage trap', a shocking study reveals today."

Not sure what definitions are being used, but I would argue that any study of mortgages can't really be shocking. I would define shocking as a report that says US foreign policy is causing international terrorism. Shocking isn't a report that says banks plan to make money out of people who want mortgages.

"The looming crisis has been caused by people changing their mortgage every few years - but never cutting the 'life' of their home loan."

Looming crisis? That's a little hysterical, isn't it? In fact, it is horrifically hysterical. Think about definitions again - an outbreak of a highly contagious, potentially fatal pandemic is a looming crisis. People having to pay more on their mortgages is unfortunate. For the people who have taken out those mortgages. Frankly, it is their problem, and not a "looming crisis" for me.

"Experts warn that it is an 'expensive mistake' which they will regret when they cannot afford to retire even though they are approaching their 65th birthday."

And here is the crux of the matter - it is an expensive mistake. An expensive mistake strongly implies a choice was made. And if you chose to do something that turns out to be a mistake, frankly that is your fucking problem. Deal with it. And with an ageing population and the news Age Discrimination Legislation coming into play on Sunday, we need more people to work past 65. Sure, it is a pisser if you are one of those people, but if you have made a stupid expensive mistake, don't expect any sympathy from me. Your mistake, your problem. Fucking well deal with it, and shut the fuck up whilst you are dealing with it.

"The research, published by the price comparison giant Moneysupermarket.com, said it is a foolish idea which is 'fundamentally flawed'."

It is difficult to quantify the number of different ways in which that sentence pisses me off. But the two key ones are siting moneysupermarket.com as your source. Sweet Jesus Christ, it does not rate as a reputable source in my book. And I think the only reason why The Daily Mail is citing money-r-us or whatever the website is called is because it gives them the backbone to hang this irritating story off. And secondly, the phrase "foolish idea which is fundamentally flawed" is just bad writing. I defy The Daily Mail to show me a foolish idea that isn't fundamentally flawed. Wankers.

"With a huge mortgage debt, this could force them to keep on working to keep up with their monthly payments after reaching retirement age."

Again, their choice. Their mistake. Live with it.

"Nick Gardner, director of Chase de Vere Mortgage Management, said: "Sometimes people can tick the 25-year box on the application form as a knee-jerk reaction, without even thinking they've done anything wrong. It is a horribly easy and expensive mistake to make.""

It may well be an easy mistake to make, but again, if you make the mistake, it is your own pissing fault. When taking out a mortgage for hundreds of thousands of pounds, you would have thought most people would have the fucking common sense to read the small print and think about what they are doing. If they don't, then they are fucking stupid and deserve our scorn rather than sympathy.

"For a person with a salary of £23,750, their take-home pay is about £1,500 - but their mortgage repayment would be nearly £1,000. This is before a single other bill, such as council tax, electricity, gas, water, petrol or food, has been paid."

And?

Seriously, this is meant to be a revelation of some kind? It is basic fucking maths! Christ on a trike, it really isn't a revelation that people spend most of their money on accomadation. And again, if they have signed up to a stupid mortgage where they pay more than they should, it remains their own stupid fault.

"David Hollingworth, mortgage specialist at home loan advisers London & Country, said it is a "costly mistake"."

AGAIN - THEIR PROBLEM. Say I make a mistake. Say I pay more than I should for a CD because I don't shop around. Should this go into a national newspaper as a major story? Of course it shouldn't. My own stupid fault for being too lazy to find the cheapest price. The same logic applies to mortgages - sit down, read through the mortgage and understand what it means to you. Then you aren't going to pay more than you should, then you aren't going to make a stupid mistake.

The only reason why this is classed as a news story is because The Daily Mail can whip up some paranoid hysteria amongst home owners in the attempt to keep sales figures up. God forbid they should publish news...

Spinning to the end

2006-09-28T06:09:00.000-07:00

This site is not just about ripping into The Daily Mail - it is about bad journalism everywhere, regardless of political persuasion, content of the article and who wrote it. Bad, sychophantic and lazy journalism is everywhere, from The Sun to The Times through to the Doctor Who Magazine. It is just that it is most likely to occur in The Daily Mail.

So just to reiterate that everyone is a viable target for The Daily Mail Tendency I though I would flag this humdinger of an article in The Guardian. And by humdinger I mean shameless pile of nauseatingly brown nosing wank. Just to clarify terminology.

They're talking about Blair's farewell speech, of course. As I have touched on elsewhere, I am not a big fan of Blair's conference appearance. The Guardian is. In fact, the way they eulogise the self serving bollocks that spewed from Tone's mouth, you would have thought that he was the second coming of Jesus rather than a crappy Prime Minister on his way out.

"Shining the bright beam of his oratory and intellect across Labour's decade in power..."

You mean the failing 40 watt bulb of his oratory and intellect, surely? And it is not a decade. It is nine years. Learn. To. Count.

"Tony Blair yesterday astounded his party with a speech that impressively illuminated New Labour's achievements while leaving its weaknesses and failures in the shadows."

Yes, well, he is a politician. It is an innovative politician who illuminates their failings whilst leaving their achievements in the shadows. Actually, scratch that. It is a fucking stupid politician who illuminates their failings whilst leaving their achievements in the shadows.

"...a speech that placed him in history but left no one doubting that his ambitions for change run deep into the future."

Yes, I am sure that a self-serving speech will place him in history. Much more so than the country grinding to a halt in the petrol crisis, mass animal slaughter in the foot and mouth crisis and hundreds of thousands dying in the Iraq War. Just like Eden is remembered for his speeches, and in no way for causing the Suez Crisis. And if his ambitions for change run deep into the future, why the bastard hell is he standing down?

"...but in its grandeur the prime minister's last conference address also managed to climb above the urgent question of who will succeed him."

That is no achievement when you think about it. No achievement at all. Finding out who will be our next Prime Minister and when is far more arsing important than shit-eating oratory from Bliar.

"He drew a blinding energy from his words but even more from the way he delivered them, a piece of theatre that ranked with his best: skilled, forceful and focused."

Theatre is fine in politics, as long as the politician is not just theatre. But "a piece of theatre" would be a great way to describe the Blair years, but not in the way The Guardian means it. Blair has been playing at being the politician for nine years. He hasn't actually achieved anything positive at all. In fact, we should just have employed Martin Sheen to play our Prime Minister for nine years. At least he would have been more convincing.

"He balanced emotion and performance with argument, distilling the logic of New Labour. "We defied conventional political wisdom and so changed it," he said."

The logic of New Labour is winning elections at any cost. And Blair's strategy - of running to the centre ground - is not defying conventional political wisdom. In fact it is supporting conventional wisdom. The strategy of running to the centre ground to win a majority has been seen before, with Eden, Macmillan, Wilson, Heath and Major. Gaitskell and Kinnock also tried but failed.

"...as he finished speaking in Manchester many delegates will have been thinking of what they are about to lose."

Yes, and they probably headed straight to the bar to celebrate the fact that they are going to lose a long streak of piss as Prime Minister whose only ability was to win elections - a skill that has now disappeared, according to the polls.

Looking at that article on their website, I can honestly say that the best bit of analysis comes from their first comment:

"The Guardian can thank itself for creating a story, reporting it, hyping it, milking it, squeezing it and pinching it, for every penny it wasn't worth in the first place."

Amen to that!

Murderous vegetables & contributing

2006-09-27T07:02:00.000-07:00

The headline declaims, 'Pesticides found in a third of our food!' Link

Hmm, OK, let's look at this. How much food is produced in this country in the total absence of pesticides? I'm amazed it's only a third, to be honest.

In 1.7% of cases the chemical residues exceeded maximum legal limits, according to the Pesticide Residue Committee's 2005 annual report.
That means 1.7% of the third fell over the limit. That's 0.56% recurring of overall food volume exceeds the limit. And we don't know *by how much* it exceeds the limit.

A further 30.2% of the 3,787 items surveyed during last year had pesticide traces within those limits. In 2004 only 1.09% of samples contained pesticide traces above the statutory limits.
Wow. A variation of 0.61% in a year, from a positive sample of a third of the overall sample.

"In fact, in the fruit where direct comparisons can be made - with apples and pears..." I don't think I need to point out too much here.

"They justify this by suggesting that pesticides found in food under what they term Maximum Residue Levels, simply doesn't count and can be ignored.
Ummm..... yes. That's because pesticides in micromolar amounts won't harm you. CO2 is toxic and is present in the atmosphere, but I'm still typing this!

The Soil Association thinks most parents disagree with this extraordinarily complacent and unscientific view.
... as do, evidently, the Daily Mail. How many parents are aware of the existence of the Soil Association, who have a vested interest in shifting supposedly pesticide-free overpriced sh*t-smeared organic midget veg. But, I digress.

DRUMROLL: And, now, ladies and gentlemen, we get the moneyshot....
The increase is due to more imported exotic fruit and vegetables being tested, the Committee said.
FOREIGN FOOD! DARKIE FOOD! FROM OTHER COUNTRIES! IT'S GOING TO KILL US ALL!

...............

We've already had some interest from contributors. If you'd like to submit anything, email me at moai *AT* mysterious dot co dot UK and we'll sort it out.

Are you sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin....

2006-09-26T03:06:00.000-07:00

This blog will be dedicated to mercilessly tearing chunks out of the Daily Mail and any other forms of idiotic media, courtesy of The Moai (formerly of Kalahari Lighthouse nano-fame) and The Nameless Tory (of The Appalling Strangeness). We take the view that, whether you're on the left or right, the Mail's bizarre obsessions with alternative medicine, Diana, house prices and immigrants are easy targets for a damn good fisking.

The Daily Mail Tendency welcomes contributions. The Daily Mail Tendency is not a punk band. But it should be.