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.

Oh the irony!

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.

Page - Defending the Dictators

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.

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.

Rating Comments

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...

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.

Robin Page and Prince Harry.

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.

Idiot of the Day

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.

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.

Proof read your fucking paper!

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.