Outrage and Reality

The Daily Mail print edition led with a front-page on the terrible case of the mother and daughter who were tormented by ‘feral youths’ to such an extent that the mother killed herself and her daughter. There is nothing wrong with highlighting this horrific story and it rightly deserves to be discussed, if nothing else it should serve to remind each of us of the terrible consequences of sustained bullying. However, I do not believe that those at the Daily Mail will ever take a moment to reflect on their own role in bullying and tormenting others. I wonder if Natalie Cassidy was to take her own life because she finally got too distressed by constantly being called fat, ugly and badly dressed by the Daily Mail and it’s cruel and cowardly commenters, would the Daily Mail face the same condemnation as these ‘feral youths’.

The Daily Mail were quick to highlight and document those that they felt were responsible for the torment of the mother and daughter, will they now also highlight and document those within their own offices who are so keen to torment and bully others behind the secrecy of the ‘Daily Mail Reporter’. I mean, if the Daily Mail really believes that this issue is serious and they want to be part of the solution, should they not hand other the tormentors in their ranks to help stop terrible things like this happening in future?

Of course they will not, the Daily Mail isn’t interested in solving problems, only whinging about them or raising public fear by constantly implying that there are no solutions – Britain is ‘broken’ so we all may as well just have a bloody great whinge before buggering off to sunnier climes as soon as we’re able. The trouble with the Daily Mail is that it is bigger and more evil than the sum of its’ parts, the ‘Daily Mail’ – as an entity, a newspaper, a commentator – never ages, it isn’t too fat or too thin and it is neither rich or poor, male or female and it isn’t human. It can therefore attack anyone with impunity because you can’t attack an inanimate object (or concept if you prefer) so it is free to be hypocritical, to lie, to slander and to stir up hatred against any person or group that it does not like. The only way it can be stopped is if people stop buying it, stop feeding it with the only thing that it really cares about: money.

Take today for example, whilst they dedicated the front page to a moral crusade against the society that is (in its view – today at least – indifferent to the suffering of others) it can print the following article on its website and not see that the message they send out to readers completely undercuts the anti-bullying sentiment the front page carries:


The Daily Mail’s instinct to mock those who differ from its own perception of reality even slightly seems every bit as vicious, uncaring and tormenting as the ‘feral youths’ they are so quick to condemn on their front page. Perhaps the difference is that the Daily Mail scatter-gun of torment moves so quickly between targets that the victim never has time to respond, or at least any consequences are never reported because you simply can’t keep up with which individual or group is being tormented.

This is not to say that there are not consequences to the Daily Mail’s targeting of groups – the rise of the EDL has real roots in the tabloid newspapers deceitful reporting on those practicing Islam and immigrants in general (I do not mean to blur two distinct groups here, but I have to put them alongside each because to the EDL and the Daily Mail the groups seem virtually interchangeable) – or individuals. Furthermore, I vividly recall Richard Littlejohn saying the following in January 2008:

My Geordie mate, Black Mike, would take one look at her in her absurd “Goth” outfit and remark: “Gi’ us a stick and I’ll kill it.”…When her owner – er, fiancé – Addams Family lookalike Dani Graves tried to take her on to a bus, the driver stopped them, saying: “We don’t let freaks and dogs like you on.”

The couple complained that it was a “hate crime”… They should be neutered.

Barely two months later a woman was beaten to death in a park purely because she was dressed as a goth. Perhaps the Daily Mail would argue that Richard Littlejohn as responsible for this girl’s death? Given their fondness for post hoc scare stories – such as today’s reporting of the danger of Cervical cancer immunisation because a young girl died after having the injection; even though no medical link has yet to be established – you think they would immediately blame Richard Littlejohn for this murder.

I think they would even have a fair point for once, for whilst Richard Littlejohn cannot be solely blamed for the muder, he certainly made a significant contribution to the darker aspects of society that create such murders. Richard Littlejohn completely dehumanises goths above: ‘Gi’ us a stick and i’ll kill it.’ is something you’d say when confronted with a bug, or something that disgusts us too much to touch it; the stick isn’t needed as a weapon, it is merely a device to avoid contaminating the hands. We neuter animals, not human beings. The bus driver labelling them ‘freaks and dogs’ nicely concludes that those different to us are animals, and Richard Littlejohn is quick to mock even the idea that this could be considered a ‘hate crime’ (Will Self has pointed out that Richard Littlejohn has a tendency to dehumanise his subjects of abuse).

I might therefore argue that the perpetuation of the attitude that those that are different from us are not human plays a vital role in creating young people who feel the need to attack those who are different to them. Furthermore, when we step back and ask ourselves (as a society) how such horrific crimes can be committed against another human being, we have to realise the major role that the media plays in dehumanising its targets, in the eyes of the perpetrators perhaps they no longer see a certain group as human beings – you could argue that they couldn’t carry out the acts without dehumanising the victim first.

Sadly, the Daily Mail doesn’t do reflection, not just because it is a faceless entity and literally cannot participate in the act, but also because there is money to be made from justifiable attacks on the darker side of humanity on one page whilst feeding it on another. The Daily Mail doesn’t really exist to moralise, but make money. Anyone looking for any kind of moral consistency in the Daily Mail would do well to remember this and give up their task accordingly.

Littlejon Makes it up, Again!

Richard Littlejohn’s catch phrase ‘You couldn’t make it up’ is in fact a device that makes it very clear to any reasonably intelligent reader that he is making it up, all the damn time. Often his mistakes or misdirections are a result of the fact that he is so lazy he can’t even be bothered to Google simple facts, remember this when Littlejohn (salary circa £800,000 per year) criticises ‘worthless’ council jobs paying between £20,000-30,000.

Today’s stupidity is a repeat, again, of the old ‘Brown wasn’t elected’ line – which, like all of Littlejohn’s punchlines is false and has been flogged beyond death a long long time ago – and he has now added another jibe at an unelected person: Baroness Scotland. The whole sketch is one anyone with enough patience to regularly subject themselves to the truly pitiful attempts at humour that Littlejohn scrawls in Florida will instantly recognise as the hilarious ‘horrendously stereotyped American interviews a Brit and can’t understand the insanity of the British system’ that he has used before to enthrall readers with his literary attempts.

Again, like anything Littlejohn writes, it wasn’t funny, clever or true the first time and isn’t any better the second time around. The funny thing is that the sketch manages to offend British and American people because it relies on people accepting the fact that they are stupid. For example, the ‘unelected’ jibe is aimed at Baroness of Scotland and ‘Chad’ (the American) is amazed that the Attorney General isn’t elected in the UK, but instead appointed by ‘President Norman Brown’. Whereas, if Littlejohn had the first clue about America – the country he is an immigrant in – he would know that the Attorney General isn’t elected in the US either, but appointed by the president.

I’m not really sure what is worse, the utter moronic gibberish that Littlejohn writes or the fact that their are people stupid enough out there to treat him as a genius writer who should ‘stand for PM’ (demonstrating, again, just how little idea Littlejohn fans have about how politics works).

Not content with making phony jibes about the Baroness of Scotland being unelected, Littlejohn cannot pass up the chance to demonstrate his racism:

The Attorney General, the Baroness of Scotland, has just been caught employing an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper, but she won’t resign, either.She’s from Scotlandland?

No, she’s from Dominica, in the Caribbean.

Who’s from Dominica, the housekeeper?

The Baroness. The housekeeper’s from Tonga. She should have gone home five years ago.

The implication and racism here is pretty clear: neither of them belong here, both of them should go home. Which is deeply ironic considering that Richard Littlejohn lives in Florida, yet here he is wishes other immigrants would ‘go home’; even though he has no intention of doing so. I can only assume this is because Littlejohn believes it is one rule for the white person, and an entirely different rule applies if you have dark skin.

Next up, Littlejohn states that Brown is also responsible for the release of the Lockerbie bomber, even though there is no evidence at all to suggest this. The whole column is a tour de farce of fictional complaints and stupidity that frankly, I really cannot be bothered to dig through anymore. Go check out the comments to see that Littlejohn is getting a good kicking from readers on both sides of the pond – Americans it appears, also dislike the lazy, ignorant stereotyping that Littlejohn has honed to perfection through years of writing the damn same columns twice a week.

I’ll leave you with a reason to be cheerful, the existence of Sid Noggett and others who have got their comments past the Friday moderators:

Daily Mail and Bullying

If you search the Daily Mail website for the term ‘bullying’ you’ll get 2172 results. However, if you searched the Daily Mail website for examples of the newspaper bullying someone, you’d get substantially more articles than that. The Daily Mail website is updated so often because it fills its pages with articles criticising celebrities for either being too fat, or too thin. The Daily Mail will criticise a celebrity for being too thin, yet they never stop to think about whether celebrity weight loss is linked to the volume of ‘Ohhh look at X, hasn’t she / he got fat, doesn’t our unflattering photographs make them look awful (click to enlarge)’ articles constantly run by tabloid newspapers.

Take the Daily Mail website today, for just one example. On the one hand they seem to be celebrating the fact that Kimberley Walsh seems to be ‘the last Girls Aloud member with a shapely figure’, calling the other members of the group ‘pencil-thin’ whilst Miss Walsh is ‘all-woman’. So here, the message is clear, if you are ‘pencil-thin’ you are not a complete woman. However, scroll further down the page and you come across another article criticising Natalie Cassidy: ‘Not again! Strictly Come Dancing’s Natalie Cassidy wears another sheer top to rehearsals‘.

I’m not quite sure just what Natalie Cassidy has done to the Daily Mail or its readers to be on the end of what is a constant stream of bullying articles. From a newspaper that is supposedly trying to prevent the moral fabric of society from tearing apart, it seems strange that they bully certain celebrities with as much vigour as the worst feral school child that they despise so completely. Melanie Phillips often rants about the demise of society being caused by ‘multi-culturalism’, single mothers or the welfare system, but she hasn’t said a word as far as I can see about what influence the tabloid media has when it mocks a person’s appearance just so that its readers can log onto a website and join in.

Paul Dacre has argued in the past that newspapers should be allowed to invade a person’s privacy and even personal grief in order to attract readers; his argument being that once people are attracted by lurid headlines and sex scandals to pick up a paper they’re going to be getting the benefit of well-reported news on politics and social issues. That Dacre assumes a person attracted to a newspaper to sneer at Natalie Cassidy in a top they don’t like will then be moving straight into the in-depth politic articles is as laughable as Dacre believing that the Daily Mail actually has any decent, honest and neutral reporting left on any significant topic.

Paul Dacre is a warped individual who values his personal privacy whilst invading others to make a living, he sees his personal privacy as a choice, yet he does not give others the same choice when he edits his newspaper. Likewise, he sees himself as a cultural conservative, upholding traditional family values, whilst at the same time chasing the same puerile scat as other tabloid newspapers in a desperate attempt to halt the steady decline in newspaper sales. Dacre’s obsession with the BBC [pdf] being a hotbed for left-wing journalism (he even refers to the Times as ‘pinkish’) shows just how skewed his outlook on life is. He must really believe that the Daily Mail reports in a neutral manner, which makes the BBC far-left, whereas in reality the BBC is remarkably objective and neutral whilst the Daily Mail creeps ever further to the far right of the spectrum.

The constant bullying that the Daily Mail commits should be viewed alongside its constant attacks on ‘feral youths’ or the ‘degredation of society’ that the paper is so sure is happening – and so keen to promote through ‘investigations’ – surely the paper cannot, without being hypocritical, pursue both. Hypocrisy, though, is something that the Daily Mail does best.

Bullying is just another example of how the Daily Mail has no moral high-ground. Rather it makes sense to consider the Daily Mail as a person with an infinite amount of arms crawling along the gutter of society desperately trying to snatch pedestrians from the kerbside and drag them ever closer to the sewer that it lives in. Every time a person logs onto the Mail website and feels the need to post a criticism of Natalie Cassidy the Mail is one person closer to succeeding in its mission..

Depressingly predictable

What a thoroughly predictable and depressing front page from the Daily Mail this morning. Some people I know don’t seem to understand my hatred of this newspaper, but that is because they base their worldview on what they read in tabloid newspapers and therefore can’t see anything wrong with attacking the ‘immigrant invasion’. The response to such a headline is anger at how we’re about to be swamped, again, when we’re already full up with immigrants as it is. Of course, this isn’t the case and a few thousand fellow human beings living a pitiful life in Calais would hardly destroy the UK even if they were welcomed with open arms. If I could send a message to those immigrants it would be an apology for the total lack of humanity that infects the influential media in the UK, and the animal rage spewed forth by a substantial amount of people who are ignorant and think that the only option they have left is to vote UKIP or BNP because the people organising those parties are just as warped and stupid as they are.

The Daily Mail is a sickening shit rag that just wants to make your life miserable. Daily Mail readers are outraged by so many things that they have no direct experience of, yet they’re somehow convinced that because they have read about such things in the Daily Mail that they must be real. As 5cc pointed out recently, there is a very real consequence to the output of tabloid journalism: the rise of the far right. On the day that the Daily Mail leads with an utterly false story – that all of the immigrants in France being kicked out of the ‘jungle’ would shortly be arriving in the UK – their highest paid columnist is writing yet another column of completely made-up outrage. Littlejohn, a man about as qualified as a sperm is to hand out lectures on life experience – attacks a highly-qualified economist in Vince Cable and admits that even though: ‘We weren’t party to the conversation, so we can’t be sure what was said.’ he’s certain that hoteliers Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, from Liverpool, are not guilty of hate crime.

Quality journalism, all in a day’s work for the Daily Mail.

Daily Mail and Rape

I have been neglecting this site somewhat recently because I am helping build a website for rape victims. The purpose of the website is to try and shatter some of the popular myths or misconceptions about rape, and to empower more women or men to come forward and pursue the prosecution of the perpetrator. Throughout my discussions with rape victims the one point that can never be repeated enough is that no-one, no matter what they were doing, what they were wearing, whether they had been drinking or whatever any other circumstance agrees to be raped. The rape or sexual assault is purely the decision of the attacker, not the victim. No one is ever ‘asking for it’ or ‘encouraging it’.

However, in the time I have been reading the Daily Mail print edition and website I have seen numerous examples of how the Daily Mail tries to link the behaviour and promiscuity of the victim to the assault, as if really, the victim was to blame for causing the rape. It doesn’t help either that when a person is falsely accused that it gets far more publicity than a case that is successfully prosecuted, but it serves a purpose for the Daily Mail, it makes out that most rape victims are probably lying, and that somehow they are either mistaken or they are outright liars.

The trouble is that sometimes famous people – like Katie Price for example – claim to have been raped and it allows all of these misconceptions to be aired with spite because people feel that they know the sort of person Katie Price is, and they can then make a judgement about whether they believe she is the ‘type’ of woman to be a rape victim, or whether in fact her celebrity persona actually deserves rape in some way. The Daily Mail has certainly been responsible for some articles which imply that rape is caused by the behaviour of the victim: ‘I WAS raped,’ claims Katie Price, as she offers to take on allcomers at lover’s tacky cage-fight event.

The message here is clear, the subordinating conjunction ‘as’ nicely links the idea that a rape victim at a tacky event offering to ‘take on allcomers’, implies that she’s some kind of slut and probably asked for it? Forgive me if I’m reading too much into this headline, but I’ve been on the Mail website for long enough to know that very rarely do they accidentally create implications. The first lines of the article are bullet pointed to question the validity of the rape claim: ‘Price strips to underwear in front of 2,000 crowd; Former friend backs rape claims’. Clearly, the kind of person that strips to her underwear in front of thousands isn’t the kind of person who should be making rape claims – even if they are backed up by ‘friend’.

The point is that no matter what your opinion of Jordan that should have no bearing on how you feel about her as an alleged rape victim. You may think that she is a slut, a promiscuous airhead with no morals and many other things, this still has no bearing on any rape that may have taken place. Should we only support rape victims if they are sober, demure and innocent and forsake all those that don’t live like saints because we don’t like the way they behave so they probably deserved or encouraged it?

No matter what a person does in life they still maintain the right to control their own bodies, and what access other people have to that body. No matter what behaviours a person has exhibited in the past they always maintain the fundamental right to say no to anything that they do not want to do. If a sexual assault takes place after the word ‘no’ is uttered, then rape has occured, end of, no discussion – and no, you’re not allowed to question what the victim was wearing, that is all irrelevant.

Sadly, there are a lot of comments on the above article that accuse Jordan of making it up, seeking attention or generally trying to raise her profile:

Thought she said a couple of days ago that she was not going to mention the ‘rape’ again and wanted to get out of the limelight. That’ll be the day! I had to smile when I read that the alleged rapist made her ‘burst into tears’. I don’t think the man has been born yet that can do that.- Hilary, Staffs, 21/9/2009 15:44

Click to rate Rating 81

A woman who has been raped does NOT dress or act like this vile woman.- James, Plymouth, 21/9/2009 16:49

Click to rate Rating 82

Sadly, when rape gets reported by the tabloid media it becomes sensationalised gossip with people trying to guess who did it, or whether a rape really took place. The end result is that the real victims of rape (and I’m not even entering the debate over whether Jordan is a victim or not) are less likely to be believed if they do come forward, and, should they come forward, they have to deal with all the myths and misconceptions that surround tabloid reports of rape. This makes them not only the victim of rape, but also the victim of a society that doesn’t like to deal with the root causes of violent sexual assault and instead prefers to believe that somehow the rape victim has brought it upon them through their actions. The victim is blamed, whilst the perpetrator’s only crime is to have failed to interpret mixed messages correctly.

More Daily Mail Bollocks on Immigration

Caught in the act (again): tabloids recycle false statistics to make immigration sound more dramatic.

There are people out there who still refuse to accept the poisonous role played by Britain’s tabloids when it comes to race and immigration.

Many blogs have repeatedly pointed at the most blatant examples of inflammatory red top churnalism. When a concoction of outright falsehoods and half-baked myths is regurgitated and interiorised by millions of readers everyday, it’s not surprising that social cohesion is going out of the window and right-wing extremism is on the rise.

Today comes another spectacular example. The Daily Mail features a long piece by Harriet Sargeant titled ‘Feral youths: How a generation of violent, illiterate young men are living outside the boundaries of civilised society‘.

Now, this is a peculiar one because, although the whole piece is peppered with pathetic photos of models posing as ‘hoodies’, Sargeant’s article starts with laudable intent, seeking to explain a massively serious issue – notably the world of youth crime, teenage gangs, school drop-outs and so forth.

And yet, two paragraphs in, Harriet Sargeant gets mired in the usual, tiresome, scattergun Daily Mail-speak, a ‘Best Of’ of “welfare dependency”, “benefits”, “single mothers” and “Labour’s schools”.

You’d have thought, however, that at least on the subject of “teenage crime”, the Daily Mail would give immigration a rest. Not quite. Even that is the foreigners’ fault.

According to Sargeant, “the arrival of large numbers of skilled immigrants” is what “sidelined disadvantaged working class boys”. Quoting a 22-year-old man called Dave, she even writes that “[T]he local job agencies warned him he had no chance because he was English”.

Then the ‘churno’ cuts to the quick: “According to the [now defunct] Statistics Commission, of the 1.7 million new jobs created since 1997, a whopping 81 per cent have gone to foreign workers“.

Now, no doubt most readers would find such figures shocking. Many would start paying heed to rumours that “Britain is being swamped” or that “we need our country back”. How many, however, are going to check whether Sargeant’s “whopping 81 per cent” is real?

If they did, they’d discover that the claim is false and would probably conclude that this type of journalism is a disgrace. Because Sargeant may be free to believe whatever she wants. What is vile, however, is how she feeds wrong statistics to the public in order to back up her views. But either Sargeant can’t read and interpret figures, or she deliberately misrepresented them.

At the end of 2007 the Statistics Commission did indeed publish a paper called “Foreign workers in the UK- briefing notes“.

It showed that 2.1m jobs were created between 1997 and 2007. Of those, “about 1.0 million has been accounted for by UK nationals and about 1.1 million has been accounted for by foreign nationals”. And while my maths skills may have gone to crap, that is nowhere near the 81 per cent Sargeant was writing about. The percentage of jobs that went to foreign nationals is between 52 and 53 per cent.

Not only that. The same document (page 17) states that (in 2007), the employment rate of UK nationals was “higher than it was in 1997, an increase from 73.2% to 74.8%”, which means that more UK nationals were able to find jobs in the period mentioned by Sargeant.

So where does her “81 per cent come from”? Why did she pick that particular number?

Scouring through the same document, it turns out that the only “81 per cent” that can be spotted is the “net increase” of “foreign workers in employment”. From 7.5% in 1997, up to 12.0% in 2007, it amounts to an increase of “81 per cent” (see page 6 and page 9).

A few questions are in order:
1) is Sargeant thick?
2) did she pick the biggest number that was placed next to the word “foreign nationals” to add extra drama and effect?
3) do you call that type of conduct ignorant, dishonest or both?

This post originally appeared on the brilliant Hagley Road to Ladywood.

Sid Noggett: Saviour of the Littlejohn Column

Tomorrow is Friday and that means – assuming the lazy piece of shit actually writes a second column in a week – it is time for Richard Littlejohn to laugh at people different to him and feign outrage over people not doing ‘proper jobs’ whilst he earns nearly a million pounds a year for writing a piss-poor column twice a week. Anyway, there is one thing to look forward to with the arrival of another Littlejohn turd and that is the ramblings of Sid Noggett, who always manages to be more amusing that Richard Littlejohn and doesn’t take up nowhere near as much time. Enjoy some of his previous comments below and let’s hope for a fresh installment tomorrow:

Richard, your article made me laugh so hard, my wife thought I’d become involved with the occult.

Thanks for pointing out that judges in wigs don’t like ex-pats, or burkas. It’s a good job he doesn’t live in Spain, it’s full of ex-pats.

When will this madness stop. I blame Gordon McFarmhouse kitchen Broon and his hippy-dippy Labour party.

TTFN Richard.
– Sid Noggett, Old Trafford, Manchester, 7/8/2009 11:22
Click to rate Rating 1

Richard. Your article made me laugh so hard, a passing talent scout heard it and asked if I would like to audition for the lead role in “The Laughing Policeman – the musical.” – he didn’t mention anything about being a member of the NTPA though? Perhaps Mrs Noggett will lend me one of her frocks for the audition.

Thanks for pointing out that gypsies are to be afforded the same rights as everyone else. Who would have thought it? I blame Gordon McMary Mungo and Midge Broon and his biodegradable clothes wearing lefty government.

Anyway, must dash Richard. Stardom beckons! TTFN.

– Sid Noggett, Old Trafford, Manchester, 14/8/2009 8:32

Richard. Your article on Kent Constabulary had me laughing so hard, our new neighbours re-checked their HIPS pack to look for mention of their property being adjacent to a lunatic assylum. Mrs Noggett tried to divert attention by saying it was the noise of our faulty washing machine!

Thanks for pointing out that MP’s private lives should be judged by journalists. How could all of what you say happen? I blame Gordon McPebble Mill at One Broon and his fairtrade government of sandal wearing lefties.

Anyway, must dash Richard. TTFN.

– Sid Noggett, Old Trafford, Manchester, 21/8/2009 8:30

Richard. Your article had Mrs Noggett laughing so hard over breakfast, particularly at the new phrase you have coined, “Tartanistas,” I thought Marlene Dietrich was screeching a duet with Yoko Ono in our kitchen again.

Thanks for pointing out that you have been probed during a recent visit to the Doctors. How could this have happened? I blame Gordon McHumphrey Cushion Broon and his mung bean and granola smoothie drinking lefty government.

When are you running for town councillor Richard?

Must dash. TTFN.
– Sid Noggett, Old Trafford, Manchester, 25/8/2009 8:20
Click to rate Rating 7

Richard. You’ve really done it this time.

Your article made Mrs Noggett laugh so hard; she managed to reach a sound frequency that resonated with the glass of our neighbour’s greenhouse, causing all the panes to break. Looks like my weekend will be spent repairing it.

Who would believe that John Two Jaggers Prescot would use an aeroplane and that Dobwalls is in Cornwall. How could this happen? I blame Gordon McSwapShop Broon and his sandal wearing, bearded, flared trouser wearing government. At least it is not in Wigan, which isn’t very nice at all.

Anyway. Must dash Richard, that greenhouse won’t repair itself. TTFN.

– Sid Noggett, Old Trafford, Manchester, 4/9/2009 8:15

Richard. Your article made Mrs Noggett laugh so hard and struggle to catch her breath that the tears of laughter made her credit crunch busting, cheap’n’cheerful eyeliner and mascara run down her face. When I rushed downstairs to find out what the hullabaloo was about, I was confronted by what looked like an inebriated Alice Cooper in drag, asking if I’d like some nice sausages for tea!

Who would have thought that Blair, Brown, Prescott and Mandelson would be planning to form a Fab Four tribute band in their spare time? I wholeheartedly believe that the blame for this rests firmly at the door of Gordon Brown and his government of self-composting, responsibly sourced, biodegradable politicians. I’m convinced that the BBC will have involved themselves too in order to fulfil their plan to dominate middle England and indoctrinate our Wheelie bins into the ways of Stalin and Lennon.

Anyway, must dash Richard. TTFN.
– Sid Noggett, Old Trafford, Manchester, 15/9/2009 08:03
Click to rate Rating 35

Asian clothing part of ‘Muslim invasion’

There are stories on the Mail website that you just know are going to attract vast amounts of outraged comments – it is both utterly predictable and depressing in equal measure. Today’s story for attracting racism, ignorance and above all paranoia is: ‘Asda launches Asian clothing in first ethnic fashion line by a High Street brand‘. The story is deemed so important that it gets a large space on the website as the top story selected as ‘Editor’s six of the best’, which I guess just about sums up the priorities of Paul Dacre when it comes to reporting ‘news’.

Naturally the comments are full of paranoid racism from scared Daily Mail readers who see this as another step in the Islamic takeover of Britain. Many commentators state that they will boycott Asda because they want British goods in British shops, which I really think sums up the ignorance of those readers – boycotting an American superstore selling goods sourced from all over the world (including the majority of electronic products produced in China) hardly seems the quintessential British shopping experience.

But then again, maybe it is. The Daily Mail often look fondly back to the days of empire, but isn’t this clothing range a direct product of empire? Our multicultural society was built by empire, as was our appetite for foreign products and produce which we still very much enjoy today. Whilst we may no longer rule vast parts of the world, we still enjoy the spoils of slave labour as sweatshops around the world make our clothes, accessories and electronic goods. As I have argued before, if we really wanted ‘British jobs for British workers’ we should demand an end to this exploitation of foreign labour and insist that eager Britons be given a chance to work in a ‘British Sweatshop for British workers’.

However, commentators on the Daily Mail website don’t try and consider the bigger picture unless it is part of some paranoid alternate reality where Britain is under siege by Muslims. The kind of world where parents are guilty of naming their child ‘Mohammad’ and the English Defence League are seen as defending Englishness rather than destroying it. In the world of the paranoid Daily Mail reader everything is being eroded by foreigners and a clothing line is just another step along the conveyor belt heading towards the apocalypse:

Sue Daley

All the classic hallmarks of the chronically misinformed Daily Mail reader – the mythical ‘influx’ of foreigners, the ‘not being allowed to say you’re Christian’ rubbish, the conversion of churches to mosques and quaint British villages to Islamic hotbeds of awful foreignness. It doesn’t matter that the world in her head doesn’t exist, she can get it confirmed by just picking up a copy of the Daily Mail or visiting the Mail website. After all, the Daily Mail is home to ‘Mad” Melanie Phillips who has received endorsement from the BNP and even today has spent another column attacking multi-culturalism for ‘destroying Britishness’.

As usual the old argument about ‘integration’ is wheeled out, but as I’ve argued before, do any of us really integrate into society? Immigration is not a crime and many Britons enjoy the freedom to migrate to other countries – just check out the amount of ex-pats commenting on the Mail website – so why does the Daily Mail treat immigrants as criminals? Why does to people on the Mail website feel so threatened by a clothing line? The answers, of course, lie in the reasons I’ve tried to outline before: we must feel threatened by the disenfranchised and powerless so that we don’t start properly assessing the deeply unjust society we live in and begin to threaten those who are in power and ultimately responsible for the world that we live in.

Dick Spotted, Named Littlejohn

Predictably, today Richard Littlejohn couldn’t resist an ‘hilarious’ repetition of the ‘Spotted Dick has been banned and PC gone mad has changed it to Spotted Richard’ – which I guess is quite brave really, tackling a story which talks about ‘Dick’ and ‘Richard’ meaning the same thing. Naturally Littlejohn is fully behind the cries of ‘PC gone mad’ because he is an utterly thick twat and couldn’t possibly grasp even such a simple story as this to discover that really it has nothing to do with Political Correctness.

Thankfully a commentator has managed the following brilliant riposte:

Brilliant response to Littlejohn drivel

Superb. As usual there are numerous corrections for another Littlejohn mistake – this time calling someone an LibDem MP when in fact they belong to Labour; as well as pointing out that his main article is just the usual unfounded assumptions.

Really Richard, at least try and earn your salary by writing the odd decent column.