British Media discovers Prank calls, Hypocrisy

Just a quick note on this daft business of evil Australian DJs (it's late, excuse the poor flow)

We expat Poms have a rather unique insight into this strange case of a bog-standard prank call gone very wrong

You see, we get to know all about Australia's commercial radio stations, and the rank hypocrisy of the British press

The Mail has 'discovered' Kyle Sandilands (who is a controversial DJ who works for the same station) because of course, the two are linked  - dirty Aussies and their crass ways

Not that the left wing Fairfax press here haven't tried to get in digs at Alan Jones, but I digress

The prank was pretty tame, there were no abused children involved, nothing offensive was said, it was a standard Sydney morning radio show wind-up call, but shame on the Ozzies for shaming a nurse into so much anguish that she'd kill herself

But hang on, some Australians may have committed the crime originally but somehow I doubt the nurse would have been too upset by the very concept of being tricked, and was unlikely to be listening to 2day FM or picking up a Sydney daily

No, it was the rampant and vile British press, who are so obsessed with a pair of 30 year olds who managed to have sex that they camped outside her place of work, filled acres of newsprint and got the rather pedestrian prank-call global coverage

This is where my British instincts come in, because you just know the tabloids were having a field day - criticising the hospital, the staff, Australia...wondering if Diana is still alive...

and then of course she was found dead, and it's party time, with lashings of hypocrisy as the same press who flooded the world with such a moronic story turn it into a global epic as they point the finger at a pair of hapless DJs

I'm not sure the two DJs are the ones who have 'blood on their hands', if there is some sort of charge out of the inquest then surely the fault should lay on the ones who applied the pressure so relentlessly and drove a possibly fragile person to such extremes - and they wonder why we got Leveson (I disagree with limits on the press, but it's clear why Leveson happened)

If this had been some politician found with a rent-boy, who was then hounded for a week and found dead, would it be the politician's fault...?

Quote of the Day

Harriet Harman [regarding Phil Woolas]:

"It is not part of Labour politics to try to win elections by saying things that are not true."

'Nuff said, really

Jesus wept (that's offensive too)

Oh for ****'s sake

Ofcom call Top Gear offensive for describing the Ferrari F430 Speciale as 'Speciale needs'

It's a pun! Go and jump off a pissing cliff, you humourless twats

That's offensive too, you know - should I apologise?

When will they learn - everything is offensive! Even my shoes are offensive to some people - want to ban them too?

Good, I find Ofcom offensive - ban that

(and it was post-watershed...)

If I want to call you Hitler, I will

Guido has the news that Sir Andrew Green is taking legal action against Sally Bercow:

after Sally dismissed a MigrationWatch report that proves a link between a rise in youth unemployment and immigration was “dangerous propaganda” and compared it to arguments used by Hitler and Mosley. Live on Sky News

He has since clarified the issue with a link to the Index on Censorship and doesn't expect anything to come of it, probably never did

The reason I am posting is to question why this issue ever came up in the first place - she called a MigrationWatch report 'dangerous propaganda' - surely nothing defamatory in that, certainly no more than in your typical tabloid rag

She then likened it to arguments used by Hitler and Mosley - again, I'm not aware there's a law that states you can't bring up Hitler - with the obvious exception of Godwin's, which isn't usually a legal matter

Even calling someone Hitler, or shouting 'fascist' at them, which she didn't do, is not defamation - it's all fair game in the discourse of politics

The English libel laws are a joke, their main use seems to be exploiting them to stifle political debate

...and I'll stop there for fear of legal action

See!

(no pun intended)

While the likes of Guido have, rather bizarrely (for him, I feel), been lambasting the press for being atheist bigots because they are supposedly intolerant of a religious leader, it is clear that the Pope is trampling all over our beliefs the same way the metropolitan press supposedly do to his

Making comments about 'aggressive secularism' and 'Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society' are just as big a slight on the non-believers than a person of faith

As always with these debates, secularists have to show respect towards religious types, but conversely, they are allowed to criticise anything non-religious - this is why I shall oppose the Pope

He comes here belittling our secular beliefs, as the religious always do because they seem to think they have a (God-given?) right to be able to preach and convert the non-believers, which is a practice that would be condemned if it was addressed to members of another religion - but if you're secular you are fair game

I disagree with Guido on this, who I think is clouded by his own faith, this is not simply 'antipathy' towards the Church, it is a response to someone saying we're wrong, do we not have a right to stand up when someone criticises our ways? Can you imagine if he went to Israel and started belittling Judaism?

Wherever I see this debate, where usually Christians get offended and advocate their beliefs above non-belief - they never appreciate that being of no belief should command the same respect they demand for their faith, or others, we may not be a single organisation with rules and books, but we do have our own rational, secular beliefs and we are going to get just as pissy as a Hindu, Muslim or Jew who is being called godless by the Pope

I've said it before, even though I have my own history with the Catholic church and I know I'm completely biased against them and I'm also very sensitive to Catholic preaching, but the Pope is welcome to talk to his flock here - I have no interest in protesting him as an individual any more than I do Mugabe. However, he doesn't get to trample all over our secular values simply because he does not respect the idea of no faith, this is the ultimate irony of all the Christians who claim offence but never appreciate that they do the exact same thing

He keeps making comments like these then we are completely justified in protesting him

Mr Jones, Mr Jones

I seriously can't believe we're having this debate

I just watched on Newsnight as two people (Peter Tatchell and some Catholic woman) actually toyed with the idea of limiting free speech for fear of violence

Tatchell was the more freedom loving, the Catholic couldn't see past respecting faith, as you would expect, but he still felt it was best to try and stop this bloke

For all those who claim lefty BBC bias, it was the open-mouthed Paxman leading the free speech brigade, pointing out that we're essentially bowing to threats here and if it's the Koran today, what's to stop anything else tomorrow (my words)

As far as I can see there's not even an argument here - you can burn a book if you wish, obviously it's not ok if it's Nazi Germany doing it, but in a free society I can burn whatever I want (except the Queen's image...)

This happened when Harry Potter came out in the US and far more copies were burned than what this small church in Florida is about to, no violence from wizards, and no claims to ban the activity

Yet, 'oo it's a special book' combined with 'they'll kill people' provokes a different response, a coward's one

People may die, it may even be soldiers in the Middle East, which is a little unfair on them I'll grant you - but is that Jones' fault that this is a people that choose to kill in response to the burning of what is essentially, a flammable material? This is not a lawful, respectful response - while it is far more provocative than the satirical cartoons, which could be seen as a more appropriate expression, it is essentially no different

How provocative is it to kill British soldiers, or carry placards through London? We don't go out and riot, nobody dies, nobody is threatened (well, much)

I believe in freedom, end of - and Terry Jones has a right to do whatever nutty thing he wants, we are free and tolerant, they are intolerant and we need to start recognising that we cannot be afraid of threats

Live free, or die

*Pointing out there's absolutely nothing wrong with peaceful protests over a blasphemous act, and I'm not insinuating every Muslim, or Muslim country will have a violent reaction

Go back?

I'm not going to go on about Glenn Beck's rally, because let's face it, it's crazy

But this stood out

"America today begins to turn back to God"

and the BBC reports

'Some individuals at Mr Beck's rally said honour and morality had diminished in the US because of the separation of government and religion'

Now, people can certainly want the US to be more religious, that's freedom - but surely comments or implications that it should somehow go back to God are just plain misleading, designed to stir the blood of the ignorant

Separation of government and religion was laid out in the constitution, the United States has always been that way - and while we may be more secular now in practice, the US was originally a mirror image of the British model (unelected head of state, established church etc), they were the ones stopping government bodies invoking religion long before we did such things, so now to call for it to go back to God is not only bizarre, but downright offensive to their own constitution, the same one held up by their historical conservative heroes and the basis of their 'patriotism'

It's her again

Last week, Allison Pearson got on my tits a bit with her claims of how great marriage is for society

On that entry I received a comment (anon) that pointed out she herself is divorced, and has children with a man she isn't married to

Wikipedia confirms this, as much as it can confirm anything (it also states she is my near-neighbour - so many annoying media types seem to take up refuge in my dear city)

So while I cannot claim certainty on the matter, I do have to question this article

My husband would kill to defend our family... so why has Munir Hussain been jailed for protecting his? [italics mine, of course]

Far be it for me to suggest she is lying, I have no proof of that, but I do have to question the headline, and would ask her to confirm her status, perhaps on her wikipedia entry - considering how she slammed unmarried mothers last week I would hate to think she is a hypocrite, or indeed, misleading the public on this issue

Get a sense of humour

A card has been removed from a Tesco store's shelves because a redhead found it offensive

'The card shows a child with ginger hair sitting on the lap of Santa Claus, and the words: "Santa loves all kids. Even ginger ones."

Davinia Philips, of York was 'disgusted'

Right, first things first - this is not specifically a Tesco issue - this wasn't marketing or an advert, it was just one of the thousand Christmas cards they happen to stock, the company 'Quitting Hollywood' made the card

So essentially she has picked out one of those funny cards, and had a right strop about it - had it actually been marketing I'd agree with her, but it was just a silly card, have you never seen a humourous card that was 'offensive' before? They take the mick out of all sorts - women, men, fat people, old age and a lot are laden with innuendo

What this effectively means that if a card makes a blonde joke, or a fat joke, or a birthday card implies something negative about ageing, then it's offensive to someone and should be banned - great

2/1 it was written by a carrot-top

Too bloody right

On a day in which we're being subjected to the PBR I felt we should have some good news

Firstly, that stupid religious hatred case has been dismissed - how could it not be? It was someone's word against another's, and was in blatant contradiction of free speech laws

It's good news for justice and common law, but what's scary is the legislation and its use by the police and the CPS - they spent eight months following up this nonsense, the legislation itself is just a ticking timebomb waiting to go off until someone brings in a real free speech clause (fat chance)

Other good news is that a large group of people are lobbying for the government to change the archaic English libel laws - if he actually did it I might be able to forgive Brown one day, but there's not a chance Labour will get it through, if they even want to - the only party I'd trust on this would be the Lib Dems (fat chance)

Democracy/mob rule

Sorry I've been a little quiet lately - nets been playing up for one, and I've been busy, kind of lost my impetus to write, hopefully I'll get it back soon

One thing that interested me though, was the Swiss vote to ban minarets (or muslim towers)

There's been a fair bit of praise in the blogosphere for 'democracy' - the right to stop islamification and what-not, and of course the issue of sovereignty

Now if a country does want to stop islamification by such measures, and even if that includes extreme measures such as repatriation, then that's their choice, I'm all for sovereignty

But I personally do not see how Switzerland can call itself a liberal democracy (or direct democracy) if it's going to attack one religion over all others, this is against the idea of freedom of religion, simple as that

That is my issue, it's nothing to do with Islam per se, could've been Jewish or Hindu temples for all I care, but I just can't see how you can say you believe in freedom of conscience and tolerance and then pick on one religion because you dislike it

Many people dislike Islam, fair enough - but to ban certain aspects of it? Some have said that non-muslim practices aren't welcome in the Middle East so why should we be accommodating, but that really doesn't matter to me - the fact is we are the liberals with a long history of freedom, we shouldn't be engaging in a tit-for-tat battle with religious dictatorships any more than we should deny Chinese immigrants economic rights for coming from a communist country

I honestly couldn't marry this with Britain - we have allowed all religions to exist here for several centuries and the principle remains, simple fear of a certain religion is hardly a rational reason to deny a certain group the right to practice their religion

What I see this as coming down to is the age old question of when democracy becomes rule of the mob

I ask - would it be right to ban gays simply because a 60% majority disagreed with their practices? Or how about if 60% wanted to ban free speech (e.g. through the BNP, blasphemous literature etc)? Any minority viewpoint could be crushed in this system, that's why we have fundamental, inalienable rights

Swearing = 'Assault'?

Apparently, if you feel threatened by me swearing in my own home, you can complain to the police, who will then arrest me, have to release me because they have no evidence, and then issue me a fixed-penalty notice for abusive behaviour

In effect, swearing at someone is an on-the-spot fine

Now, f*** off

(It shames me to say that I live in that council district)

Remember, Remember

Yes folks, it is that historic day and it is probably the most poignant November 5th we've had in some time

Our politicians have not only been exposed as thieves, but many have revealed their contempt for us and showed us their arrogance and own sense of privilege, while we suffer under an unelected prime minister with no mandate, who has lied repeatedly and is supported by a bunch of spineless apparatchiks 

And we're still waiting on an election we should've had at least 6 months ago...

And so I must draw your attention to Old Holborn's stroll in Westminster - where as many Guy Fawkes as possible will descend upon our parliamentarians and expose the fascist nature of the metropolitan police and their new 'terrorism' laws at the same time

Full details at Old Holborn's, remember -

The police have no right to say 'papers please', nor do you have to show your face (you are a muslim in a burqa), or give your name or address if you don't want (do not take ID)

You are only walking with a mask on, not protesting, you ARE allowed in the public gallery of Parliament without a ticket, or ID

PCSO's cannot arrest you, or search you

The only thing that can happen is a search under section 44 of the Terrorism Act - itself a travesty, but that is all they can do, and they won't find anything - just take cash and a camera, they are helpless to stop you, ensure that it is a *police officer* not a jumped up mini-Hitler

Everybody should film it or take pictures, you will be in a public place and they cannot stop you recording, they can physically try but they have no right to say 'stop filming' (even though they will), and they cannot confiscate cameras unless they arrest you on suspicion of sigh..'terrorism'

I wish good luck to all that are going, the police will undoubtedly be monitoring, as they did last year - but they can't do a thing, so I look forward to seeing the films of them trying to bully people in the next few days - the police shouldn't even be there by rights, although I guess an army of Guido Fawkes wandering around could warrant some public safety concerns, but either way, they should be polite and have no right to stop you once they have checked you are unarmed

I am afraid I can only attend in spirit - but I will hopefully be back to be able to cast my vote when the time eventually comes

OH says all are welcome, so the more, the better

Who are the fascists here?

Intriguing scenes as several hundred protesters stormed the BBC in protest at Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time - several got through the police cordon and inside the building

The Indie reports that

By the time filming began at around 7.30pm, six people had been arrested and three police officers had been injured. One was taken to hospital by ambulance where he was treated for a head injury.

Now normally I am as anti-authority as they come, when the police stifle protest and impede free speech at the request of our quite-often unelected leaders - but in this case it was, rather bizarrely the police who were defending free speech, and keeping protesters out, rather than in

It was groups, such as the UAF, who forced their way past police officers, injuring several as they attempted to prevent Nick Griffin from speaking

I'm all for legitimate, peaceful protest, if they wanted to protest the BNP then fine - but they weren't, they were trying to deny him a voice because essentially they disagreed with him

So, I ask: who are the real fascists here?

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

Back from hiatus...and already exposing awful bias

The people over at Biased-BBC do such a good job pointing out our state broadcaster's left-wing agenda, George R carefully points out that:

Far-left BBC says that 'far-right' Geert Wilders has arrived in London.

"Far-right Dutch MP arrives in UK"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8308982.stm

Far-left 'Guardian' chums of BBC also describe Geert Wilders as 'far right' -presumably, 'far right' now means someone who believes in free speech, and not the incitement of Islamic jihad violence.

Ah, exactly the same language as the leftie paper

Except:

Far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders faces Muslim protest after arriving in the UK

That'd be from the Mail, but those good old proper journalists at the Times left such an allegation out of their headline, they just snuck it into the first line

 A very easy target for me, I admit, and I don't want to become like OMTE, because that's his turf and he's very good at it but I really do get fed up with the idiocy and misinformation on B-BBC (it's in my blurb after all - I hate hypocrisy) - it's doing no-one any favours, boys (and occasional girls) - it's just a smear campaign dressed up as some sort of review site

A Tory who speaks sense on drugs

Pity he's retired (aren't they always)

Over at Mark Reckons there's an interview with Phillip Oppenheim on drugs policy - some absolutely bang-on analysis

Sadly it's true that the mainly-conservative media dominate the agenda despite the reasonable views held by many...Mark Easton at the BBC really needs a bigger profile

another reason to say good riddance to the dead tree press

hat-tip: Guido

There are no 'great' generations

Nicely put by Terence Blacker today

He points out the bizarreness with which society (or certain parts of it) venerate those who fought the First World War as the 'greatest generation' and look down on the rest of us born since the war (essentially all of us now)

It is of course, much to do with guilt, I remember great-grandparents going on about the period between the wars - it didn't help that the suffering wasn't just limited to the ten years of conflict, but to the Great Depression as well, it's not surprising the people of today, who have never been without electricity, water and food, feel a pang of guilt when looking at those who lived through decades of horror

But of course, that's all it is - were they 'greater' than us? Not really, no more than Victorians or Georgians were greater than them, or indeed, us - it's just militarism and nostalgia

They were just ordinary people, like pretty much all of us, in a situation they had no control over - the vast majority of those killed were under 25, a fact usually ignored by the media when they attack the youth (just as they forget it is always the youngest who die in battle, yet always the youth who are destroying society) - and primary documents show that they were no more angelic than any other generation, they were just regular young men, who had to be sacrificed before they were worth anything to the people who idolise them so

Which is what Harry Patch himself said - the reason why Harry Patch was so important, in my view, was that he couldn't be used by the right-wing zealots - he was the only one left with any authority on the issue, and the only one who could get away with taking a 'Blackadder goes forth' attitude to it without being labelled a coward (or Marxist)

He could not be ignored, and unlike the members of the younger generations who view the first world war as futile, he could not be shouted down by the vile right-wing press

It's a bit like you can only shut a feminist up by getting a woman to argue the point - were Harry Patch supporting all the usual bollocks that comes out of the Mail or Express it would be old hat - but here was a man helping to support the view held by many people who would be shouted down in the public arena with highly emotive sentiments

To some this is the pacifist 'narrative' - the narrative of course that is completely opposed by the biggest newspapers in the country...

It riles them to hear someone who is supposed to bemoan social decay and hark back to a greater time of Empire to spout this 'leftist' nonsense, he has much more respect and weight than them, and of course, he lived through it - his was a voice of common sense that had no romanticism attached to war

It's a shame that we have lost this great voice, but hopefully his views will help prevent too many people from falling for the militaristic 'narrative' too soon - or else we'll end up right back in 1914

Atheist Brainwashing Bootcamp!!@1!!1!!!

The Mail asks should we be worried about Britain's first atheist summer camp?

Well, ummm, no, not really - why should we be worried about it when most camps are already run by Church groups or the Christian Scouts/Guides?

Are we particularly worried about camps run by those with a specific religious agenda attempting to place their ideas about God and what-not on our kids?

Not really...so why should I be any more worried about one that doesn't preach any religious dogma?

Even if a case is made that they do promote an agenda, how is it any different from what Christian (or other faith) camps do?

As far as I'm concerned this is just a feeble defence from the Christian-minded who think their religion should be the only viewpoint allowed

In fact it's such a weak jibe that I don't even need to rant about it, which is a shame really because I need a good rant...

Free Speech...but not for fascists

I understand where this woman and her lot are coming from, it was entirely predictable

But saying 'we believe in free speech, but not for fascists' is a really stupid thing to say and won't please any free speech advocates (no surprise it was a left-wing union)

The whole point of free speech is exactly so you do have to hear the fascists, it wouldn't be very free if we prevented those we disagree with speaking, now would it? Allowing 'Unite Against Fascism', who have previously scuppered debates with Griffin, to dictate who may or may not speak is not really much better

And pelting people with eggs is not really the best way to protest - whatever happened to peaceful protest? Forcibly breaking up a news conference with physical assault is not exactly the cleverest thing to do - for one, it's no better than rule by the mob

Secondly of course, it creates martyrs - he wasn't saying anything naughty (admittedly that is the tactic these days) and he got attacked, after just being democratically elected by nearly a million people - so you just created sympathy, and headlines - hell, Griffin was probably there with the intention that it would happen

There is a time and a place for egg throwing, this wasn't it