Yawn, yawn, yawn

I am getting so fed up with those who speak out at the BBC's decision to invite on the BNP - particularly the BBC insiders, because let's face it, there are plenty of people who don't have a problem with this (unless Mark Thomson is completely alone in this), and they are keeping quiet for fear of being called a racist, while those who I can only regard as being anti-free speech are getting a free ride

Michael Rosen, former Children's laureate and Radio 4 presenter, has said it will erode trust in the BBC which

'is like a public place – we all own it and need to be a part of it. It has a responsibility to everyone. "They make this very clear when you work for them. If I were to say anything remotely similar to the things Nick Griffin has said and will say tonight, I would not be allowed on.'

"The BBC is obsessed with putting things 'through compliance', to ensure no one will find programmes politically, sexually or socially offensive. I have been stopped from reading a poem that contained one swear word before. Yet while they go into palpitations over things Jonathan Ross says, they are allowing Nick Griffin airtime to say things that will offend millions." 

Yes, you wouldn't be allowed on to your show about the English language with such views, Michael, but neither would a Tory espousing Thatcher or a Labourite praising Marx, you numptie - you are an employee, political guests are allowed political opinions - your point is only valid if Griffin was David Dimbleby - Harriet Harman always offends me when she's on - by his logic I can object to her being on - I seriously can't believe he actually said that

He reckons it will offend millions and erode trust in the BBC in viewers - well, here's something for you, Michael Rosen - were the BBC to deny a legal party, who have the same level of representation as the Greens and UKIP, space on this show simply because they were disagreeable, I would lose trust in the BBC

Steve Richards, meanwhile, gets himself in a muddle by admitting the BBC are right to give the BNP, supported by nigh on a million people at the last election, a platform but then tries to demolish it by saying that they were 'mistaken' as

Research carried out by YouGov found that roughly half of BNP's voters were truly racist, the other half were people who feel insecure and alienated from the main parties. In other words just one per cent of the electorate last summer were racist BNP voters.

Dear god, Steve - they still voted for them! Do you go around checking if every Lib Dem voter isn't actually a narked off Labour voter? Or that some of the Labour votes in '97 weren't actually from Tories...should you discount all the protest and swing votes from an election?

They got themselves a million votes - does it actually matter if 'only half were racist'? They have other issues that they talk about - they may well be lying, but what political party hasn't lied and reneged on a promise or pledge...or manifesto commitment

Nearly a million votes is nearly a million votes - you don't have the right to second guess what those voters want

Chris Huhne, who will be facing the boogeyman Griffin himself, explains why he will be debating with him in the Guardian

Now I appreciate that he is appealing to the Guardian's audience, and so has to say that 'I really don't want to, but I must', and he doesn't criticise the BBC - as I said, Guardian - the cynic in me sees right through it as a watered-down version of a free speech argument to appeal to the typical Gruniad reader who opposes the BNP's right to exist, I think he's just paying lip-service

But, what a true Liberal should say, Chris is this:

---

Why I will debate with Nick Griffin
The decision was not difficult in the least

Because I believe in democracy and free speech, and racism is a part of that free speech, even if I don't like it, because there are always people out there who disagree with us, and the only way to defeat an opinion is to debate it, not censor it

I do not, of course, tolerate racism-based violence, that is a crime - but to hold racist views is not, and even though most of us regard the BNP as merely a legitimate front for something far worse, they are nevertheless a legitimate party with elected representatives

---

Of course, these are my own views and while I disagree with others on this, I respect their right to think and say what they want, unlike them, who seem to miss the irony of their views

This is the best they've got at the Guardian?

As I've said before, I rarely bother with the Guardian anymore, and here's a prime example of why:

'Compare the Meerkat ad is racist'

Right, so to parody an accent is racist...

Even if Peter Jones' 'Ukranian girlfriend' is offended it doesn't matter - should we always listen when somebody is offended? Bollocks should we, we'd never be able to speak, let alone have media - and there's a pathetically flimsy argument being used here

Meanwhile he says TV would never use Indian or Caribbean accents in such a way - wouldn't they? There are lines to be drawn (such as drawing an Indian as smelly perhaps) but using an accent is not generally regarded as offensive is it? In what way is this accent being used - is it saying Russians are meerkats? Wear smoking jackets? It's a meerkat with a Russian accent, if it had a French accent would it be a problem...and would the French be offended? (He also says Meerkat is how 'Eastern Europeans' commonly mispronounce market - do they? The Russian Meerkat himself does a pretty good job of separating the two)

I don't particularly like the way British accents are portrayed abroad - either as toffs or cockney geezers and I would argue seeing an anthropomorphic animal with one of my nation's many accents would probably offend me less than the usual portrayal of stereotypical British behaviour, simply using an accent does not imply anything and therefore his whole case is based on mocking a dialect for not being able to pronounce a word, something I have yet to be shown is even remotely true - I hope he had a go at Team America's 'So Ronery' song, which actually did what he seems to take offence at

It's just a silly parody - and as for we don't allow accents to be mocked - I give you the Lilt advert and of course, Apu from the Simpsons - voiced by white guy Hank Azaria, which must surely be far worse than a bloody meerkat with an accent

And then there's this gem:

[The ASA] said it had not had any other complaints.

I asked my girlfriend why that might be. She told me that people from eastern Europe were brought up in a society where it was not normal to complain, especially to such sectors as the government and the media....they would not know of the existence of the ASA and the power to demand that an advert was taken off television. It is also the case that...they would not want to be seen to be causing trouble. It then dawned on me that this ad was targeting a sector of the population who would be unlikely to fight back.

Right, that's not at all specious reasoning - because no-one has complained those offended must be too scared to complain...this, based on two incidences of unverified anecdotal evidence - that in itself is enough to can this article for poor analysis

Just read the comments for what people thought of this bilge, I just hope his girlfriend was worth it...

Hat-tip: Guido

A very messy affair

Another big smear-gate story!!

But this time it's about the Tories! And the Guardian have it!!1!1!

I don't know about you but I have this image of the Guardian as the poor kid who has picked up another's discarded toy and thinks it's the bee's knees

It's all incredibly exciting, the left think they have got the Tories stitched up like they did them with McBride...Unfortunately they haven't

As the Guardian are quick to point out, they have nothing on Coulson himself, just a lot of suspicion surrounding him and his former paper

No doubt this is a legitimate story, but there is no 'smoking gun' as it were - no e-mail telling McPoison what a good smear campaign he was running

In actual fact the McBride saga was completely about public opinion, there was no criminal act - which is ironic because it was far more damaging politically than the criminality of the NoW saga

McBride was seen to be completely underhand and dirty and was offloaded for the sake of image, Coulson has only been implicated in a potentially criminal act involving his underlings a few years ago - there won't be an email saying he was involved

Now that doesn't mean he won't be up against it - this still has the potential to damage the Tories by association and he may be forced out, 'spin doctors shouldn't be the news etc' but this seems unlikely to be as damaging as the McBride affair - that was a story about how the government was conducting itself, this is a skeleton in the closet for someone employed by the Tory party - in that sense this doesn't look anywhere near as damaging

He may well lose his job, but the Guardian should tread carefully because they already look like they've gone overboard here - this may begin to look like a hatchet job on the Tories by the left-wing media

*And no I'm not being put up to this - I don't even vote Tory

Some Data

Found these rather handy tools for analysing MPs expenses: you can see a map of travel expenses here

Note: These are just travel expenses and quite boring if you're a sensationalist - no antique fireplaces or bathplugs

Here is a very good list of MPs total expenses, albeit without the useful receipts that I want, in online spreadsheet form

Specific mention must go to Philip Hollobone who appears to be very careful, and somewhat stingy - he only used a few hundred on stationery and postage, which appears somewhat lazy rather than cost-effective, and still claims the virtually full amount of £23000 second home allowance (which is the big part of the dodgy area anyway) - he just has no staff, I wonder what his service is like - I shall be looking him up

This blog, by the author of the map, Tony Hirst, is awesome

In the Interests of Fairness

Don't say I only focus on the mad ravings of the Right - oh no, the Gruniad can in fact piss me off before I even get to the bottom of an article

Take this from Zoe Williams about Chris Moyles and that 'gay' bit he did a few months ago

Now the irony is I actually agree with her sentiments - I don't like banning words, or giving protection to 'communities' who we draw a big line around

What I do have a problem with is her assumptions

"I think he probably is homophobic, in the broadest, most traditional sense of the word: that he esteems his own status more highly than that of gay men, presses them without conscience into his own hamfisted comic structures, makes the world a little bit meaner a place to be gay in."

Why does it always have to be some sort of unconscious prejudice with you peoople? People make jokes, we all get mocked at some time or another - usually it is for being different, say what you will about society from that - but don't accuse someone of sending up Will Young as subconsciously attempting to put gay people down, Moyles even has a gay producer with whom they talk about his relationships (and I'm sure that is somehow further proof of his prejudice..)

Meanwhile she is perfectly happy for Matt Lucas' gay/Welsh character Dafyd - because there isn't a victim involved, Lucas is of course gay himself - so it's ironic, not hurtful, apparently the Welsh are not yet a protected species

This is the same logic that allows only the Jews to mock Jews, and the Blacks to mock Blacks (and yet also Whites, Chris Rock)

Like I say - her analysis of the legal situation is fine, it is completely foolish to legislate hate speech - but her reasoning is all messed up and is typical of the many people who disapprove of 'louts' like Moyles

It is curious that he is often referred to as a 'lout' by the listeners of Radios 2 and 4, who I'm fairly certain have never heard much of him apart from the odd news story where he laughs a bit coarsely or might have said something rude and yet he remains popular with 7 million+ people

While he does drink quite heavily, I don't really see why he's a lout - he was quite impassioned over his latest Comic Relief adventure, and many of his songs are quite witty and appreciated by millions - of course the term 'lout' is subjective and one that is designed to pass judgement from the over-40s, but I've never seen any reason to call him a lout, far as I can tell he is a lout because he's a bit tubby, and gobby (all DJs are gobby, that's their job)

Isn't that fattist?

If you need any further proof of how out of step with reality people like Zoe are, here it is:

"It's certainly true that "gay" as a playground insult has taken off in the past five years, and I blame Moyles again, rather than the more ambiguous Little Britain taunting"

Is it? I left school over five years ago and believe me, 'gay' was a perjorative back in primary school in the early 90s - she clearly blames the one incident where Moyles called a ringtone 'a bit gay' in 2006 as some sort of flashpoint - truth is Moyles probably picked that up from school himself, it's a pretty common term for the under 35s

But no doubt having just heard her own precious snowflakes come back from school and call a certain TV show, or popular product, 'gay' she has placed the blame solely at the feet of current DJ Chris Moyles - I would love to know how she blames Moyles for making me and my classmates, who finished before he was even put on the show (we had Sara Cox, yawn), for making us go around calling everything 'gay'