And again - The Mail and Privacy

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

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.

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?

Littlejohn.Yet Again.

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

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.

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…

The Joker Did It!

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

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.

Question of the Day

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.

Foxy Knoxy and the Presumption of Guilt

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

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

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.

Pete Doherty, Daily Mail Hero

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!

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?

Jamie Oliver wants shooting.

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.