Thomas the Tank Engine Bans Christmas!

Kind of, according to the Mail on Sunday Reporter: ‘Thomas the Tank Engine forced to carry ‘decorated tree’ for ‘winter holidays’ as Christmas is banned on Sodor‘. The article claims:

Thomas the Tank Engine has been accused of joining the politically correct bandwagon after Christmas was written out of one of his adventures.

The team behind the much-loved children’s TV series has angered campaigners by setting a story during the ‘winter holidays’.

The article suggests that the story is clearly set during Christmas but with ‘no mention of the word Christmas’, yet the article does not give us the date when the DVD was actually released or into what markets. The article does include a response from the makers:

Hit Entertainment, the company behind the DVD, said: ‘It was put out some time ago. It was not a seasonal release specifically aimed at a Christmas audience, but we do put out seasonal releases that have Christmas in the title.

‘Last year we had Christmas Express and next year we are planning another Christmas title.’

So, perhaps it wasn’t a cynical attempt at ‘political script changes’ but merely a cynical way of selling Christmas-related stories throughout the year. The Mail on Sunday picture-caption-writer has drawn some conclusions that seem a bit out of place as well:

Lights out: Thomas (left) motors past a ‘decorated tree’ as it will now be regarded in future seasonal episodes

Sorry, is this a fact? Is the writer certain that all future episodes – including the Christmas specific titles – will never again refer to a Christmas tree as a Christmas tree?

For what it’s worth here is last year’s Thomas the Tank engine Christmas DVD:

Thomas the tank engine

I look forward to seeing the Mail on Sunday Reporter sitting down with the next Thomas the Tank Engine Christmas special to see if they really will never mention Christmas or Christmas trees again.

PS. This story has already been copied and pasted onto the Stormfront forums. The Mail on Sunday must be so proud.

Terrible Journalism

The Daily Mail’s coverage of the election has been a disgraceful, dishonest, scaremongering mess. But then what else could you expect from a newspaper that constantly makes stuff up. Take this story for example: ‘Hospital worker who saved 60 fish from drained ornamental pond ‘faces prosecution and £1,000 fine‘*:

A hospital worker who rescued 60 fish from their ornamental pond when it was being drained has claimed he is facing prosecution and a £1,000 fine.

Clive Roberts saved the fish in an act of mercy by scooping them into a bucket to move them to his own garden pond.

The 58-year-old said officials at the Environment Agency told him he needed to go through red tape to get a formal licence to move the goldfish…

“I’ve been told I could be prosecuted – it seems a bit unfair when all I was trying to do was help”…

The Environment Agency say it is illegal to remove fish from their habitat without permission. Officials say the law is designed to prevent the spread of lethal fish diseases.

A quick read of the comments confirms that this is indeed another crazy case of ‘elf ‘n’ safety gone mad’ and the evil intervention of the ‘PC brigade’. The comments section also confirms that terrible habit of Daily Mail readers not being able to make it to the end of any article they have ever ‘read’, because if they did they’d read this:

An Environment Agency spokesman said: ‘Mr Roberts has not been arrested or charged with any offence and will not be interviewed under caution.

‘Moving fish short distances between garden ponds is not an offence, as it does not present a significant risk to the environment. The Environment Agency does not investigate such incidents.

‘In situations where fish need to be moved at short notice we can offer help and advice, and would be happy to advise the hospital on the best way to maintain a healthy stock of fish.’

Still, it brings their attempt to be a serious political commentator into sharp focus, given that even basic news journalism is so far beyond their grubby grasp.

Once again it is interesting to look at the url for the story which is ‘Wales hospital worker’, surely it should be ‘Welsh hospital worker’…

Richard Littlejohn’s ‘Permanent opposition’

We all know that Richard Littlejohn is a hypocritical lying, hateful, bigoted, cowardly little shit of a man. But sometimes he still manages to surprise us with just how little he cares about openly being an absolute hypocrite. Visit his website and the brave, poison-penned hero takes pains to inform us that:

Littlejohn has no party political affiliations and believes journalists should be in a state of permanent opposition and scepticism, opposed to vested interests of all political persuasions and fiercely protective of civil liberties.

His job is to sit at the back and throw bottles.

Yet today’s column is titled: ‘I’ve never been one to tell people how to vote, but…‘ I can only conclude the ‘but’ should be followed by ‘I’ll do anything for a pay cheque; as I bend over and let Paul Dacre pummel me’. In this article the master sceptic, Mr ‘permanent opposition’ and the man of no ‘vested interest’ or ‘political persuasions’ ends his article with:

Call Me Dave is the only show in town. On the basis that we can kick him out if he screws up – unlike any Lib/Lab pact under PR – anyone serious about getting us out of this mess should ignore the polls, put their reservations aside and vote Conservative.

What a cowardly, dishonest snivelling turd he is. He is saddened that UKIP cannot win as ‘I guess most people reading this would agree with almost everything in the UKIP manifesto. But UKIP can’t win’. He once again attacks the BNP because he still hasn’t grown a pair – when will come out and admit that he supports the BNP because his views are theirs, and theirs his?

His column is also centred around a complete lie. He claims that:

Shortly after 10pm [June 11 1987], when the last votes had been cast, Newsnight’s Vincent Hanna – the Michael Crick of his day – strode up to the front door waving an historic piece of paper.

It was the result of the BBC’s exit poll, predicting that Labour had won.

…Within the hour, it became apparent this was what might be called kindly a ‘rogue’ poll…

I laughed all the way back to London. Lovely, tidy, smashing.

Except, as someone over on Mailwatch points out: ‘The BBC’s exit poll in 1987 was wrong. But it still predicted a Thatcher majority of around 30 seats, not a Labour victory’ [link to pdf].

Richard Littlejohn cannot make it through a paragraph without making something up, yet people take this bullshit in. Today I think I have found someone worse than Littlejohn: Roger Lewis. Roger Lewis wrote a ‘review‘ of Littlejohn’s House of Fun in which he believes everything that Littlejohn writes:

As Littlejohn says (it’s his catchphrase): “You couldn’t make it up.”

Nor does he…

…we can all agree that these past 13 years have indeed seen more damage done to the warp and woof of our nation than was inflicted during two world wars. Individuality and privacy have been painstakingly eradicated in favour of totalitarian priorities like the community and the consensus. Orwellian CCTV cameras follow us everywhere. History and tradition have been abolished and replaced with a belief in the future, which is nebulous and literally does not exist. Universities, the repositories of higher culture, are being decimated and turned into training colleges for idiots. And so on and so forth.

If you prize free expression, this book is essential reading. I was unable to find fault with a single sentiment.

What a total moron – New Labour have done more damage than two World Wars in which millions died? Shut up. I thought the Telegraph was at least supposed to act like a newspaper for adults. I really cannot be bothered to go through Roger Lewis’ ‘review’ in any great depth, I’ll simply point out that in the first paragraph – tongue very much wedged up Littlejohn’s colossal anus – Roger Lewis writes:

Looking back at the health and safety regulations of the past few years, he practically has steam coming out of his ears as he relates how playground games such as conkers and hopscotch have been outlawed.

Except of course that the ‘conkers banned’ was a complete myth and even the original headmaster blamed for the myth has written an article explaining that it never happened. I really hate lazy journalists and writers who just believe anything that happens to suit their worldview. Roger Lewis, you’re a disgrace.

Gary: Littlejohn with Crayons

Tabloidwatch has already pointed out that Richard Littlejohn’s drivel on town hall ‘Nazis’ is about as reliable and factually accurate as normal, but I felt that some comment must be made on ‘Gary’s’ accompanying picture. Not for the first time it seems in pretty bad taste. If you haven’t seen it, here it is, (I personally don’t give a shit about nicking it and putting it here):

Gary: Littlejohn with a pen

Firstly, like all of Gary’s cartoons, it is a simplistic pile of shit created for the sort of utter moron that actually thinks Richard Littlejohn is a working class hero fighting the good fight. But more importantly, it is full of Richard Littlejohn stereotypes and ignorant assumptions. For example, the ‘Diversity Manager’ is black, because according to Littlejohn only black people could be concerned with issues of equality and race relations. Littlejohn absolutely slates diversity ‘nazis’ and the cartoon plays on the fact that groups like the BNP think that ‘white culture’ (whatever that is supposed to be) is under attack by other cultural groups. Here we have a black person employed to be a diversity manager, but, because they are black we can assume that it’s just another attack on the poor white person who no longer has any rights.

I don’t think i’m making unfounded allegations that having the diversity manager a black person is racist and pretty crassly offensive. I’m white, but I care about diversity because I really don’t think people should be judged by anything other than their character. You don’t have to be from a different cultural background or have non-white skin to be interested in diversity, you just have to be a half-decent human being. Not that you run into too many of them on the Daily Mail website (either as writers or readers).

The depiction of the ‘transgender co-ordinator’ is just the same: a hairy man in a dress, smoking a pipe with a tattoo of an anchor on his arm. Clearly, anybody with gender issues is the perfect target to be mocked – the comedy moustache, smoking a pipe whilst wearing a dress, as well as the unsubtle tattoo – oh, he’s a sailor, how original. Still, originality is the last thing the average Littlejohn reader is looking for. Again, the implication is that councils are making up jobs for freaks and paying them to be freaks. It is deeply stereotyped, ignorant and designed to be divisive. Like most topics Littlejohn engages with, rather than try to actually understand an issue he just mocks it and dismisses it as crazy and enforced by evil (Nazis).

One comment – currently 752 in the red – tries to engage with just how utterly silly and offensive the ‘diversity nazi’ label is, and I think it is worth quoting here:

‘Diversity Nazis’? How politically illiterate do you have to be not to realise what a stupid term that is? The Nazis tried to impose a monoculture, first on a country, then on an entire continent. The whole point of diversity is to ensure a monoculture cannot exist. Still, I doubt Littlejohn and his followers have the wit to appreciate that. As for Gary’s cartoon, for once that’s even more offensive than Littlejohn’s words.

– Charlie, Soho, London, 29/3/2010 8:53 Click to rate Rating 752

Quite how anyone should engage with Richard Littlejohn as a serious social commentator when he uses such a stupidly offensive phrase is beyond me. However, the trouble is that there are a lot of stupid people out there who genuinely think Littlejohn is great. Take for example a comment on this site a while back on a post about Littlejohn:

I like him,,,, but then i’m probably from the same generation and views. This country is sliding downward at an ever faster pace. You need ppl like Littlejohn to speask their mind and say what the vast majority are thinking

Now, I realise the commenter (Barry Faulkner) might find this a bit offensive, but it seems pretty clear that Barry is a bit of an idiot. You’re probably thinking this is a bit presumptuous, but then I have some evidence to back up my claim: Barry linked to his blog. Wonderfully titled: ‘Lies Damn lies enough is enough’ this blog is the kind of semi-literate childlike ramblings that you would expect from the sort of person who thinks Littlejohn is a serious and worthwhile social commentator. He’s the sort of person that could probably sit there with a straight face and argue that people interested in equality and fairness for all human beings are actually ‘diversity nazis’.

Visit his blog, try to read some of his posts (it is written by someone who cannot use a full-stop, you could argue it is a modernist stream of consciousness, but I’m not feeling that generous today). Yet, he claims to have ‘Started work at 15 in Advertising, onto some TV writing and script editing in the comedy field in the 80/90s’, I shudder to think what his scripts turned out like.

I guess you could consider this a smug attack at another blogger, but I’m trying to make the point that Littlejohn is written for a certain audience and that although it is so easy to deconstruct his lies and point out how ludicrous some of his catchphrases are, some people actually share his worldview. This is the danger of myths and half-truths, debunking them doesn’t stop everybody believing them, the only way to stop them gaining credibility is to not let tabloid hacks publish them in the first place, because pretty quickly the myth spreads around the world and Google only records the myth, not the reality.

Disabled Bastards Wasting Parking Spaces, Says Mail

There are not many minority groups that the Daily Mail haven’t attacked and disabled people are no different. Today – in a wonderful example of what has become of investigative journalism – the Mail have uncovered the shocking truth about disabled parking bays: ‘Revealed: Why all those disabled bays stay empty‘.

The article seems to sum up everything that makes the Daily Mail and its readers such a depressing force:

Hundreds of thousands of prime parking spaces in shopping centres are unused because of a legal obligation to provide four times as many disabled bays than are actually needed.

Supermarkets, shopping centres and leisure centres must allocate up to 6 per cent of their parking bays for disabled badge holders – even though just 1.4 per cent of the population is registered disabled.

This means the priority spaces – which must be near to an entrance to shops – are rarely full, while millions of mothers and fathers with young children must fight for a meagre number of designated ‘ parent and child’ spaces.

The Daily Mail turns legislation designed to ensure disabled people have access to adequate parking facilities in carparks into the chance for parents and others to whinge about how they don’t receive similar treatment. Last time I checked having children wasn’t a disability and was still a choice people made. I understand parents might want bigger spaces because they have young children and prams etc to get in and out of the vehicle. However, supermarkets do allocate spaces for parents and children and the actual need for this would pale into comparison with someone who is disabled.

The comments are pretty depressing, as is the fact that the article has already attracted 476 of them. This to me sums up the world view of the Daily Mail and its readership. Give them a story about say the need for investigation into whether Britain was complicit in the torture of terror suspects and they manage a paltry 6 comments (most of them barely intelligible rants about how human rights should be scrapped). A cheerful story about the first Winter Olympic gold Britain has won for 30 years and you only get 100 odd comments – and just look at some of them:


The comments on the disabled parking story are pretty soul destroying, some of them from self-righteous, selfish arseholes who smugly claim they have always parked in disabled bays and now they’re even more glad they always did. Others come from people disgusted that ‘positive discrimination’ is allowing disabled people to park nearer to supermarkets than law-abiding-middle-class-families.

If I had to try to specify one quality that the majority of Daily Mail readers have – and I do try to avoid crass generalisations – then I would say it is that they love to whinge and they want to whinge. They buy the Daily Mail so they can read this kind of bullshit and have a bloody good whinge about how unfair the world is when the chap down the road with severe disabilities can struggle into his wheelchair, get himself and it into his car and then drive straight into a parking space almost RIGHT OUTSIDE THE STORE. THE JAMMY, LUCKY BASTARD. IT’S SO UNFAIR ON ME, A TAXPAYER WHO ISN’T LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE DISABLED AND HAS TO PARK IN A SPACE NOT QUITE AS BIG OR AS CLOSE TO THE STORE.

I am extremely thankful that I am fairly fit and healthy and I don’t mind walking across a carpark, in fact I’m grateful that I can. If parking slightly further away from a supermarket means I am guaranteeing that someone less fortunate than myself can park a little closer, have room to get out of the car and into a wheelchair etc, then I’m more than happy to do so. If you don’t feel the same way as I do, then you’re a ignorant, selfish, lazy twat and probably a Daily Mail reader.

Feral Youth is ‘a loveable tearaway’ claims Daily Mail

Reading the Daily Mail you often get the feeling that you’ve seen a certain story before, often at least once. Today was no different when I came across a story about Dennis the Menace being made less menacing thanks to the ‘PC brigade’: ‘That new Dennis is a softy‘ (link is to online article, title has been copied from print edition – don’t worry, I didn’t buy it). Not surprisingly, it was a story that had been run before (in 2008 and 2009), albeit with the slightest new angle: the changes are happening to the print edition and an 8-year-old by called Jacob Rush has complained about that. Hold the front pages, 8-year-old boy writes letter of complaint about a comic strip book.

Naturally the Daily Mail jump at the chance to rehash old ‘news’ as space filler and Andy Dolan takes it upon himself to try to take the whole thing seriously. His main point seems to be that PC just isn’t fun. Dennis ‘doesn’t have his catapult or water pistol anymore and he’s not menacing enough’ whines Jacob, before the article states that he still retains his catapult and a peashooter, he just doesn’t fire them at people anymore. Surely, as far as the fearful Mail reader is concerned, the improvement of Dennis’ behaviour is a positive thing, seeing how he must be a role model for and influence on our nation’s feral youth?

Not so. The Daily Mail seem to think that it is absolutely fine for children to ‘live out their naughtiness through him’, yet most TV and other youth cultures will turn your child into a crack-addicted killing machine. Perhaps it is because Dennis first appeared in 1951 and the rose-tinted spectacles worn by Mail readers and writers look at him with a certain fondness, because he was a proper scamp. He isn’t like these modern feral chavs who look at you funny on street corners and smoke, no, Dennis was a loveable rogue who would simply clobber you with a catapult after spending the day at school bullying people – which never did no one any harm in the ’50s either and wasn’t even an issue in schools you know. If you told a teacher in the ’50s you were being bullied they would have given you a swift caning and sent you home without any lunch. Things were hard then, but good you see, so much better than the ‘PC softness’ that has infected our children.

I wonder how many deliquent youths could get away with the Daily Mail describing them as ‘a loveable tearaway’, I’m guessing Dennis is probably unique unless Paul Dacre has spawned some devil-children.

You Leave Your Rights at the Door, but not your Beliefs

David Cameron has suggested that ‘the moment a burglar steps over your threshold… I think they leave their human rights outside’. The Daily Mail published an article on this that has so far attracted over 338 comments, of which the majority (and best rated) are people saying it is about time we’re allowed Carte Blanche in our own homes. The Daily Mail have done their best to hype things up a little bit with a few choice phrases such as: ‘Under existing laws, homeowners are allowed to use only ‘reasonable’ force to tackle a burglar’.

This is put forward as if it is unreasonable that homeowners are only allowed to use reasonable force, as if somehow homeowners are being cheated out of a basic right to defend themselves and their homes. This is, of course, utter rubbish. Reasonable force sounds vague precisely because it is designed to be flexible. For example, if a burglar breaks into your house and is subdued merely by being discovered and cowers in fear whilst you call the police, who then turn up to arrest him; it is safe to assume that reasonable force in this instance would be making sure the burglar did not leave the premises. Unreasonable force in this instance would be knocking the burglar to the ground with a cricket bat and beating him to within an inch of his life.

However, should the burglar try to escape by grabbing a kitchen knife and trying to stab the homeowner; then reasonable force would cover the homeowner grabbing a chair and knocking out the burglar and so on and so forth. Reasonable force can cover pretty much any act carried out by someone protecting their home and perhaps more importantly their family as long as the circumstances justify the force. This – to me at least – sounds reasonable and I can see why the phrase legislation is called ‘reasonable force’.

The idea that burglars are no longer human beings once they enter your house is to suggest that we can just give anyone a damn good beating and worse even if they don’t pose a real threat. It’s a slippery slope which we perhaps don’t want to go down when reasonable force can protect ‘law abiding citizens’ who – according to the comments on the Mail article – seem to be suffering from the advent of universal human rights.

Perhaps now is a good time to examine just what rights homeowners should have in their own home and consider the case of Paddy and Stephanie Lynch, who invited into their home a maths tutor for their 14 year old daughter who is unable to attend school because she has Leukaemia. This couple invited the maths tutor – Olive Jones – into their ‘non-religious’ home to tutor their daughter in maths. However, according to this couple Olive Jones:

“used every opportunity to discuss religion, despite the fact I made it clear we were a non-religious family and didn’t want to talk about these issues in this way. On one occasion she asked my daughter to pray with her. My daughter was distressed by this behaviour.

“On another, after the death of my daughter’s close friend, Mrs Jones told my 14-year-old daughter that when young people die they go to heaven. These conversations upset my daughter deeply. The sessions with Mrs Jones became increasingly traumatic and we decided it was not appropriate for this woman to come to my home.”

However, rather than report this story as more evidence that homeowners need more rights and that visitors ‘should lose the right to convert your loved ones to their religion once they enter your house’ the Daily Mail attacked the parents and suggested that this was another disgraceful attack on Christianity.

So there you have it, you should be allowed to give anyone who breaks into your home a damn good kicking whether it is necessary or not, but you should not be allowed to defend your daughter from a maths teacher with a penchant for distressing your daughter with religious propaganda.

For full details and the latest on the appalling Daily Mail reporting of the Olive Jones case – attacking the family for trying to protect their child – see Tabloidwatch’s post: ‘Who are the zealots? (cont.)‘ and his original post on the subject: ‘You can’t upset a 14yo girl with leukaemia any more – it’s political correctness gone mad!‘.

For more on the ‘burglars should lose human rights at the door’ story you might also want to look at Nadine Dorries’ tweets on the subject which are looked at over on the Nadine Dorries Project: ‘Not All Humans Have Human Rights‘.

PC Brigade Strikes Again

Another day another really old tradition destroyed by the PC Brigade. The actual story is about something different, but the Mail commenters are not put off as they get straight to the real problem: women shoved into jobs by the PC Brigade. The story is about a sorry case of bullying in the workplace: ‘Two Beefeaters sacked from Tower of London for bullying first female Yeoman‘.

It seems that two male members of staff didn’t like the fact that a woman had got the job – breaking a 500 year tradition of male only recruits. Getting the position was hardly easy – you need to have had a distinguished career serving Queen and Country for at least 22 years – and the appointed woman met this criteria. Surely not a problem is it?

Well it was for the two men who have been sacked for defacing her entry on Wikipedia – a pretty cowardly and pathetic act I’m sure most people would agree. However, Mail readers are not most people and they ignore the whole point of the story – bullying in the workplace – and instead focus on a good old bit of woman-bashing – something along the lines of: ‘It’s her own fault, she shouldn’t be there’:


At least those comments are currently the worst-rated on the article.

Contrary to Media Reports…

Hat tip to the Mailwatch forum for the truth about this story in the Daily Mail: ‘Parents banned from watching their children in playgrounds… in case they are paedophiles‘. The article states that:

Parents are being banned from playing with their children in council recreation areas because they have not been vetted by police.

Mothers and fathers are being forced to watch their children from outside perimeter fences because of fears they could be paedophiles.

Watford Council was branded a ‘disgrace’ yesterday after excluding parents from two fenced-off adventure playgrounds unless they first undergo criminal record checks.

Watford council have issued the following statement to correct the media reports that are completely misleading:

Contrary to reports in the media, Watford Borough Council has not banned parents from public parks and playgrounds in the town!

We have simply reiterated that the fully supervised play sessions we run at our adventure playgrounds – Harebreaks and Harwoods – are for children aged 5 -15 years old, and that parents/carers of children and young people who visit these play sessions are not able to stay on site with their children during play sessions. This reduces any potential risks to children and ensures they are able to play freely.

The adventure playground play sessions are fully supervised and we employ CRB checked staff to run the facilities in the best way they see fit.

This is no different to other fully supervised facilities, like schools, playgroups or nurseries – where adults are not allowed to stay.

Parents and carers are, of course, welcome to bring their children safely into the sites and settle them in, but only aged children aged 5 – 15 year olds are permitted to stay for the sessions .

We are aware that there may be circumstances where there is a need for a parent/carer to stay on site, if this is the case please feel free to contact us to discuss so we can consider your needs before making a final decision.

If parents aren’t happy leaving their children – there are lots of other options open to them. In the town, there are 4 community centres, 5 children’s centres, over 40 areas of park and playgrounds, as well as a museum, two libraries… These are also free to attend and open to everyone.

Which kind of makes the Daily Mail look like a bunch of lying twats, and makes the 381 commenters on the story look particularly gullible and stupid. Still, any excuse to shout ‘PC gone mad’ etc.