ANGRY MOB

Melanie Phillips has for a few years now been writing in defence of ever more untenable positions, largely as far as I can tell because she seems to have no connection whatsoever to reality. Today's article is no different, in that where see shes outrage and Orwellian dystopia, I imagine the majority of people see decency and modernity.

Her article - titled: 'The Orwellian logic that's turning the faith Britain was built on into a crime' - is attempting to be a defence of Christianity, but in reality it is a defence of intolerance and hatred, the very things that Melanie argues are causing the destruction of Christianity in Britain. It is a favourite theme of Melanie's and today's example is particularly unpleasant:

I find it pretty incredible that anyone would want to openly defend a preacher raving about the evils of homosexuality in public. I really cannot understand how anyone could think that this is a good thing. Yet Melanie wants to defend the right of this preacher to shout out his beliefs based on a constantly evolving book of dubious origins and irrelevant messages. But she does, and it wouldn't surprise me if Melanie was still keen on burning people who suggest that the world is round and revolves around the sun. She really is that backward.

She drivels on about 'intolerance' in an attempt to allow this christian preacher to preach intolerance, yet she doesn't seem to realise what the real intolerance is. However, if my previous post highlighted the dumbest kind of person that posts comments on the Daily Mail website, then let me redress the balance by posting something really quite wonderful that I read underneath Melanie's article:

I really cannot add anything further to that, accept to say that is something that the utterly insane Melanie Phillips will never understand and that this comment received over 100 negative ratings.

The Liberal Democrat commitment to not just renewing Trident without any consideration as to whether it is still relevant in today's world has received quite a lot of attention from the tabloids. This isn't really surprising considering that tabloids exist to spread fear and it seems from my conversations with people that a lot of people do think we still need a nuclear deterrent. However, one of the arguments for not renewing Trident is that it has no tactical function in dealing with terrorism, and can play no part in the extended wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. However, a Daily Mail reader thinks that Trident can be useful when dealing with car-bombers. I spotted this comment under the article: 'New York bomb investigators hunt for balding, middle-aged white man':

So there you have it, a white, balding and middle-aged man leaves a homemade bomb in a car in New York which fails to go off and Robert McKenna believes this is a reason not to scrap Trident. I've seen some pretty dumb arguments wheeled out in defence of Trident, but this really is the most stupid. How would Trident have helped in this situation? Unless he is suggesting a tactical nuclear strike aimed at Times Square would have helped?

Possibly the most humourous part of David Cameron's TV appearance in the Leaders Debate was his 'I met a black man in Plymouth' story, where he claimed that a 40-year-old man had in fact served with the navy for 30 years - making him 10 when he joined. However, it gets worse, even the Daily Mail are running the real story of this man, who is a bit upset and perplexed about David Cameron putting words into his mouth:

Still, not everyone is convinced David Cameron did mess up, take this Mail commenter for example:

And at least 26 people agree with him.