The BBC Scandal.

“In the light of the fact that the director general is also the editor in chief and ultimately responsible for all content; and in the light of the unacceptable journalistic standards of the Newsnight film broadcast on Friday 2 November, I have decided that the honourable thing to do is to step down from the post of director general.”

-George Entwistle

Entwistle really never had a chance. He became Director General of the BBC, and within days, the BBC was embroiled in a scandal that he could not possibly have foreseen. By a strange mix of job titles and responsibilities, the DG is also editor-in-chief as set out by the BBCs constitution. This is a flawed mix. It requires an extraordinary amount of oversight from one job, given the size and scope of the Beeb. So for that reason, Patten is right that the management at the BBC needs radical overhaul. It is absolutely the case that the Newsnight program was flawed, massively, (though they showed restraint in not naming the Tory Peer) and a fundamental degree of irresponsible journalism is at the heart of that. Entwistle did the decent thing, and resigned. He absolutely had to. There is no excuse for lack of oversight of one of the most controversial shows Newsnight has aired.

The issue I see with the direction the BBC crises is taking, is that it is slowly becoming surrounded by the vultures on the Right who take ideological issue with the BBC as a tax payer funded institution, rather than the moral and structural problems that the BBC is currently facing. It is opportunistic nonsense that chooses to ignore the mass of despicable scandals the commercial media is currently embroiled in.

The Savile scandal, is not to the BBC what hacking was to News International. The abuse scandal involves people, not businesses. Savile used his position at the BBC to abuse, by the abusers go far beyond the BBC. Phone hacking is entirely the realm of commercial media, for the purposes of profiting as commercial media. Newsnight made a catastrophic mistake, but it remains a trusted and excellent provider of quality news. The agenda of those who seem to be hysterically painting Newsnight and the BBC as some sort of evil empire, rotting away, should not be mistaken. They are not morally outraged. They are ideological enemies of the BBC and nothing more.

The scandal must focus on the structural problems that lead firstly to the abuse scandal involving Saville (though the BBC’s Child Protection Policy, now ignored apparently, is pretty strict and the sort of abuse by people like Saville absolutely couldn’t happen again at the BBC) and the failings of the Director General to adequately perform his job as editor-in-chief. It must not focus on the public vs private media battle. And here is why.

The feigned right winged moral outrage is pretty intriguing, as well as damned hypocritical. Take today’s Sun. As we know, the Sun is a Murdoch owned newspaper. Here is the front page:

- Here the Sun takes the moral high ground. Entwistle had to go. The words ‘slur’ and ‘chump’ suggest an air of journalistic superiority from The Sun. They are poking Entwistle, for doing the decent thing and resigning, noting that responsibility ultimately lies with him. And yet for all their moral rage, I don’t seem to remember any Sun editors, journalists, or owners resigning when they spent weeks wrongly accusing Christopher Jefferies of the Joanna Yates murder, simply because he looked ‘weird’…

- Not only did no Murdoch executive do the honourable thing and quite after Jefferies. They still haven’t quit over the disgusting handling of the Hillsborough disaster:

And it strikes me as wholly hypocritical of an organisation that quite happily hacked the voicemail of a dead schoolgirl, deleting messages, thus giving the family hope that she might still be alive – to take to the offensive and attempt to undermine the BBC at every possible turn. Here is perhaps the highlight of the day yesterday for me. A tweet from Rupert Murdoch:

- This is unbelievable hypocrisy. For those of us who sat and watched Murdoch at the Leveson inquiry, we recall the amount of questions asked to Murdoch on his knowledge of the widespread phone hacking scandal at the News of the World, to which almost entirely, he answered: “I don’t recall“. Asked about his bidding for the Times and Sunday Times, and his lunch with Thatcher to discuss, “I don’t recall”. In fact, he didn’t even remember having the meeting, apparently. A meeting that would have been incredibly important, given the size of The Times. Asked whether he’d supported Blair because Blair agreed that there would be no tighter control on his media operations (tighter controls, may have prevented hacking the voicemail of a dead school girl), Murdoch said: “I don’t recall”. On the subject of wide spread phone hacking, James Murdoch, then Chief Exec. of News Corp Europe and Asia said:

“None of these things were mentioned to me”

- When asked about whether he had seen a report of overwhelming evidence of illegal practices at News of the World, said:

It didn’t seem necessary for me to ask for a copy

- A Parliamentary Select Committee report stated that James Murdoch had shown:

“Wilful ignorance”

“This culture, we consider, permeated from the top throughout the organisation and speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International,”

- Pretty damning. The Parliamentary Select Committee are not the only ones to condemn James’ handling of the Phone Hacking scandal.

A recent report by Ofcom stated that James Murdoch….

“…..repeatedly fell short of the conduct to be expected of as a chief executive and chairman”

One could say he did the decent thing and quit. Except, he stepped down as Chief Exec, but remained as Deputy Chief Operating Officer at News Corp and looks like he’s heading for the top job at Fox in the US. Remember all of this, when you look at that tweet from Rupert.

It is unsurprising that the Murdoch family is using the BBC crises to promote its own particular brand of right winged, anti-BBC bullshit. At the Leveson Inquiry, when asked about the decline in local newspaper circulation, he blamed the BBC entirely. At the Edinburgh International Television Festival, James Murdoch said this:

“There is a land grab going on – and it should be sternly resisted. The land grab is spearheaded by the BBC. The scope of its activities and ambitions is chilling.”

- Spearheaded by the BBC? He clearly believes the BBC has too much market influence in the media business. And yet, the BBC can most definitely not be considered an election decider as a media outlet. Whilst News Corp, well, even by its own remarks, insists it won the election for the Tories back in 1992:

- It would seem that Murdoch thinks it is perfectly acceptable for his empire to choose exactly what the public should be exposed to when it comes to political information, to have meetings with top politicians in order to strike deals in return for News Corp support, yet it is not acceptable for the BBC to exist at all. Is the BBC really spearheading a land grab? Is the media World drowning under the sheer power of the BBC? Is News Corp struggling in this landscape?
Well, here is a list of Media outlets owned by the Murdochs:

Publishers:
HarperCollins book publishing company
HarperCollins India (40%) joint venture with India Today Group
Zondervan Christian book publisher
Inspirio – religious gift production.
Newspapers
Australia….
The Australian (Nationwide)
Community Media Group (16 QLD & NSW suburban/regional titles)
Cumberland-Courier Newspapers (23 suburban/commuter titles)
The Courier-Mail (Queensland)
The Sunday Mail (Queensland)
The Cairns Post (Cairns, Queensland)
The Gold Coast Bulletin (Gold Coast, Queensland)
The Townsville Bulletin (Townsville, Queensland)
The Daily Telegraph (New South Wales)
The Sunday Telegraph (New South Wales)
Herald Sun (Victoria)
Sunday Herald Sun (Victoria)
The Weekly Times (Victoria)
Leader Newspapers (33 suburban Melbourne, VIC titles)
MX (Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane CBD)
The Geelong Advertiser (Geelong, Victoria)
The Advertiser (South Australia)
The Sunday Mail (South Australia)
Messenger Newspapers (11 suburban Adelaide, SA titles)
The Sunday Times (Western Australia)
The Mercury (Tasmania)
Quest Newspapers (19 suburban Brisbane, QLD titles)
The Sunday Tasmanian (Tasmania)
Northern Territory News (Northern Territory)
The Sunday Territorian (Northern Territory)
The Tablelands Advertiser (Atherton Tablelands and the Far North, Queensland)
Fiji
Fiji Times (National) (10%)
Nai Lalakai (10%)
Shanti Dut (10%)
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea Post-Courier (National) (62.5%)
UK and Ireland newspapers, published by subsidiaries of News International Ltd.
News Group Newspapers Ltd.
The Sun (published in Scotland as The Scottish Sun and in Ireland as The Irish Sun)
The Sun on Sunday
Times Newspapers Ltd.
The Sunday Times
The Times
The Times Literary Supplement
US newspapers and magazines
The New York Post
Community Newspaper Group
The Brooklyn Paper
Bronx Times-Reporter
Brooklyn Courier-Life
TimesLedger Newspapers
Dow Jones & Company
Consumer Media Group
The Wall Street Journal
Wall Street Journal Europe
Wall Street Journal Asia
Barron’s – weekly financial markets magazine.
Marketwatch – Financial news and information website.
Far Eastern Economic Review
Enterprise Media Group
Dow Jones Newswires – global, real-time news and information provider.
Factiva – provides business news and information together with content delivery tools and services.
Dow Jones Indexes – stock market indexes and indicators, including the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Dow Jones Financial Information Services – produces databases, electronic media, newsletters, conferences, directories, and other information services on specialised markets and industry sectors.
Betten Financial News – leading Dutch language financial and economic news service.
Local Media Group
Ottaway Community Newspapers – 8 daily and 15 weekly regional newspapers.
STOXX (33%)- joint venture with Deutsche Boerse and SWG Group for the development and distribution of Dow Jones STOXX indices.
Vedomosti (33%) – Russia’s leading financial newspaper (joint venture with Financial Times and Independent Media).
SmartMoney
The Timesledger Newspapers of Queens, New York:
Bayside Times, Whitestone Times, Flushing Times, Little Neck Ledger, Jamaica Times, Astoria Times, Forest Hills Ledger
The Courier-Life Newspapers in Brooklyn
The Brooklyn Paper
Caribbean Life
Flatbush Jewish Journal
Times-Herald Record (Middletown, New York)
The Leader – Corning, NY
Magazines
U.S.A
SmartSource Magazine (weekly Sunday newspaper coupon insert)
Australian
Alpha Magazine
Australian Country Style
Australian Golf Digest
Australian Good Taste
Big League
BCME
Delicious
Donna Hay
Fast Fours
GQ (Australia)
Gardening Australia
InsideOut (Aust)
Lifestyle Pools
Live to Ride
Notebook
Overlander 4WD
Modern Boating
Modern Fishing
Parents
Pure Health
Super Food Ideas
Truck Australia
Truckin’ Life
twowheels
twowheels scooter
Vogue (Australia)
Vogue Entertaining & Travel
Vogue Living
Inside Out (UK Based Magazine)
Music and radio
Fox Film Music Group
Russia
Nashe (50%)
Best FM (50%)
Fox News Radio
Sport
50% of the National Rugby League (Australia and New Zealand)
Majority ownership of the Brisbane Broncos (68.9%) and full ownership of the Melbourne Storm rugby league team.
Colorado Rockies (15%)
Studios
Fox Filmed Entertainment: 20th Century Fox’s parent company
20th Century Fox: a film production/distribution company
Fox Searchlight Pictures – specialised films.
Fox 2000 Pictures – general audience feature films.
20th Century Fox Television – primetime television programming.
20th Television – television distribution (syndication).
Fox 21 – low scripted/budgeted television production company.
Fox Television Studios (productions)- market specific programming e.g. COPS and network television company.
Fox Television Studios International
Fox World Productions
Fox World Australia
Fox TV Studios France
Fox TV Studios India
Natural History New Zealand – natural world documentaries, non-fiction programming.
Fox Faith – Promotion and distribution of Christian and related “family friendly” movies on DVD and some theatrical release.
Fox Studios Australia, Sydney, New South Wales
Blue Sky Studios – production of CGI films e.g. Ice Age.
Fox Entertainment Group
New Regency Productions (20%) – general audience feature films.
Regency Enterprises (20%) – parent company of New Regency Productions (50%).
FOX Star Studios New Delhi, India
Broadcast
Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox), a US broadcast television network
MyNetworkTV, a US broadcast television network
Fox Television Stations, a group of owned and operated Fox television stations
Saeta TV Channel 10, channel of Uruguay
ITV plc (7.5%), a British broadcast television network and the UK’s largest advertising revenue based broadcaster
News Corp Europe
bTV, a broadcast television network in Bulgaria. They sold this to CME in February 2010.
B1 TV (12,5%), a broadcast television network in Romania, in partnership with Ismar International NVkkkk
Fox Televizija, a broadcast television network in Serbia (49%). They sold this to Antenna Group in January 2010
Fox Turkey, a Turkish terrestrial channel (56,5%) (formerly TGRT)
Imedi Media Holding (100%), a Georgian radio and TV broadcaster.
Imedi Television
Radio Imedi
Israel 10 (9%), a terrestrial channel in Israel.
LNT (100%), a terrestrial channel in Latvia
TV5 Riga (100%), a terrestrial channel in Latvia
Cielo (100%), a free channel in Italy
ANTV (20%), a private television station in Indonesia, under the administration and label of STAR TV
Prime Television New Zealand – commercial TV station, interest held through stake in SKY Network Television
Satellite television
British Sky Broadcasting, United Kingdom & Ireland (39.1% holding). In practice, a controlling interest.
Sky Network Television, New Zealand (44%)
Sky Italia (100%), Italy’s largest pay TV service (previously owning part of Stream TV)
Sky Deutschland (49.90%), Germany’s largest pay TV provider
Tata Sky (30%), an Indian DirectToHome TeleVision Service Provider. (in partnership with Tata Group (70%))
Foxtel (25%), Australia, a joint venture with Telstra (50%) and Consolidated Media Holdings (25%)
FOX Italy, Italian Broadcast and Production Company (with 2 HDTV)
Star TV Channels (Satellite TeleVision Asian Region), an Asian satellite TV service having 300 million viewers in 53 countries, mainly in India, China & other Asian countries
Phoenix Television (17.6%), satellite TV network with landing rights in Hong Kong, and select provinces on Mainland China.
Cable
Cable TV channels owned (in whole or part) and operated by News Corporation include:
Fox Business Network, a business news channel.
Fox Classics, a channel airing classic TV shows & movies
Fox Movie Channel, an all-movie channel that airs commercial-free movies from 20th Century Fox’s film library
Fox News Channel, a 24-hour news & opinion channel
Fox Sports Networks, a chain of US regional cable news television networks broadcasting local sporting events linked together by national sports news programming. Local channels include “Fox Sports Southwest”, “Fox Sports Detroit”, etc. (some affiliates are owned by Cablevision).
SportSouth, a regional sports network in the United States, with its headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, and affiliate of Fox Sports Net.
Sun Sports a regional sports network in the United States, with its headquarters in Miami, Florida, and affiliate of Fox Sports Net.
Fox College Sports, a college sports network consisting of three regionally aligned channels, mostly with archived Fox Sports Net programs but also some live and original content.
Fox Sports International
Fox Soccer Channel, a United States digital cable and satellite network specialising mainly in soccer.
Fox Soccer Plus, a sister network to FSC, but including coverage of other sports, most notably rugby. Launched in 2010 after News Corporation picked up many of the broadcast rights abandoned by Setanta Sports when it stopped broadcasting in the U.S.
Fox Sports Middle East – English language sports network airing in Middle East countries including Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, UAE & Yemen.
Fox Pan American Sports (37.9%) – joint venture with Hicks, Muse, and Tate & Furst.
Fox Sports en Español (50%), a Spanish-language North American cable sports network; its sports line-up is tailored to appeal to a Latin American audience.
Fox Sports en Latinoamérica, a Latin American satellite and cable sports network.
FX Networks, a cable network broadcasting reruns of programming previously shown on other channels, but recently creating its own programming, including the Emmy Award-winning programs The Shield and Damages.
SPEED
FUEL TV
Big Ten Network, cable and satellite channel dedicated to The Big Ten Conference, launched Aug 2007 (49%)
National Geographic Channel (joint venture with National Geographic Society) 67%
National Geographic Channel International 75%
Nat Geo Mundo (joint venture with National Geographic Society)
Nat Geo Wild (joint venture with National Geographic Society)
Fox International Channels, domestic cable channels offering different formats of Fox programming in over thirty countries worldwide.
Fox
Fox Life
Fox Life HD
Fox Crime
FX
Fox Horror
Fox Movies
Fox Sports
Speed Channel
National Geographic Channel
National Geographic Channel HD
National Geographic Wild
National Geographic Adventure
National Geographic Music
National Geographic Junior
Cult
Next:HD
Voyage
Real Estate TV
BabyTV
Fox Toma 1 – Spanish-language television production.
Fox Telecolombia – Spanish-language television production. (51%)
Utarget.Fox – European and Latin American online ad company, plus now handles TV ad sales.
Central & South America
Fox Latin American Channels – channels available in over 17 countries in Latin America
National Geographic Channel
National Geographic Channel HD
National Geographic Wild
Nat Geo Music
Universal Channel
Universal HD
Fox Channel
Fox HD
FX
Fox Life
Syfy
Fox Sports
Speed Channel
Baby TV
Utilisima
Fox One-Stop Media – advertising sales for company owned and third party channels in Latin America
LAPTV (60%) (Latin American Pay Television) operates 8 cable movie channels throughout South America excluding Brazil.
Telecine(12.5%) operates 5 cable movie channels in Brazil.
Australia
Premier Media Group (50%)
Fox Sports 1
Fox Sports 2
Fox Sports 3
SPEED
FoxSportsNews
Fuel TV Australia
Premium Movie Partnership (20%) – movie channels, a joint venture between 20th Century Fox, Sony, NBC Universal, Viacom and Liberty Media
India
Hathway Cable & Datacom (22.2%), India’s 2nd largest cable network through 7 cities including Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Mumbai & Pune
Taiwan
Total TV (20%), Pay TV platform with JV partner KOO’s Group majority owner (80%). News Corp also has a 20% interest in the KOO’s Group directly
Internet
News Corp. Digital Media
Foxsports.com – website with sports news, scores, statistics, video and fantasy sports
Hulu (27%) – online video streaming site in partnership with NBC Universal and The Walt Disney Company.
Flektor – provides Web-based tools for photo and video editing and mashups.
IGN Entertainment – Internet entertainment portal (Includes the sites IGN, GameSpy, TeamXbox, 1up.com, and Askmen.com)
Giga.de
Slingshot Labs – web development incubator (Includes the sites DailyFill).
Strategic Data Corp – interactive advertising company which develops technology to deliver targeted internet advertising.
Scout.com
WhatIfSports.com – sports simulation and prediction website. Also provides fantasy-style sports games to play.
Indya.com – ‘India’s no. 1 Entertainment Portal’
ROO Group Inc (5% increasing to 10% with performance targets)
News Digital Media
News.com.au – Australian-oriented news website
News Lab
CareerOne.com.au (50%) – recruitment advertisement website in partnership with Monster Worldwide.
Carsguide.com.au
in2mobi.com.au
TrueLocal.com.au
Moshtix.com.au– a ticket retailer
Learning Seat
Wego News owns minority stake in Wego.com
Netus (75%) – investment co. in online properties.
REA Group (60.7%)
Realestate.com.au
Casa.it (69.4%), Sky Italia also holds a 30.6% share
atHome group, operator of leading realestate websites in Luxembourg, France, Belgium and Germany.
Altowin (51%),provider of office management tools for realestate agents in Belgium.
Propertyfinder.com (50%), News International holds the remaining 50%
Sherlock Publications, owner of hotproperty.co.uk portal and magazine titles ‘Hot Property’, ‘Renting’ and ‘Overseas’
ukpropertyshop.co.uk, most comprehensive UK estate agent directory.
PropertyLook, property websites in Australia and New Zealand.
HomeSite.com.au home renovation and improvement website.
Square Foot Limited, Hong Kong’s largest English Language property magazine and website
Primedia – Holding co. of Inside DB, a Hong Kong lifestyle magazine.
TadpoleNet Media (10%) Hosts of ArmySailor.com
New Zealand
Fatso – leading online DVD subscription service (ownership through stake in Sky Network Television).
Fox Networks – one of the largest international ad networks.
Expedient InfoMedia blog network.
Other assets
NDS Group – Conditional access technology and personal digital video recorders (PVRs) (49%)
SiVenture
Jungo
CastUP
Broadsystem Ltd (UK) – Telephony provider for media companies, bought in 1991
Broadsystem Australia (Australia)
Broadsystem Ventures (UK) – provider of cheap-rate telephone calls, particularly for customers of Sky Television. Bought outright in 1999.
Jamba! – Mobile Entertainment/Mobile Handsets Personalisation/Games.
News Outdoor Group – Largest outdoor advertising company in Eastern Europe with over 70,000 ads including billboards and bus shelters, operating in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, India, Israel, Poland, Romania, Russia (96 cities), Turkey & Ukraine.
Maximedia Israel (67%)
Mosgorreklama (50%) – Russia sign and marketing material manufacturer
Kamera Acikhava Reklamclik (?) – leading outdoor advertising company in Turkey
Australian Associated Press (45%) – real time news service.
STATS, Inc. (50%) – worlds leading provider of sporting information and statistical analysis (a JV with Associated Press)
Fox Sports Grill (50%) – Upscale sports bar and restaurant with 7 locations – Scottsdale, Arizona; Irvine, California; Seattle, Washington (U.S. state)|Washington; Plano, Texas; Houston, Texas; San Diego, California; and Atlanta, Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia.
Fox Sports Skybox (70%) – Sports fan’s Bar & Grill at Staples Center and 6 airport restaurants.
News America Marketing (US) – (100%) – nation’s leading marketing services company, products include a portfolio of in-store, home-delivered and online media under the SmartSource brand.
Rotana (9%) – Largest Arab entertainment company owned by Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal
The Daily – iPad only newspaper delivered daily.
Making Fun – social game developer for making games for social networking sites, smartphones, tablets and other devices.
Stockpoint

So quite obviously the real reason that the Murdoch’s are hostile to the BBC at every possible opportunity, is that the BBC is embedded into the market, and cannot be bought out, or beaten out of the market, by the Murdoch’s, despite the Murdoch’s having such power and influence over what we see, hear, and think.

Let us also not forget just who commercial media – such as News International – are accountable to. Advertisers deciding what makes the news, can be devastating for press freedom. We must get out of the mindset that government control over press freedom is terrible (which it is) yet corporate control is ‘free’ (which it isn’t). For example, the Times reported in 2005 that General Motors had pulled it’s advertising for the L.A Times, after the L.A Times called for Rick Wagoner, the CEO of General Motors, to be sacked.
Morgan Stanley went one step further in May 2005 and added threats into it’s advertising contracts with newspapers across America, the following:

“In the event that objectionable editorial coverage is planned, news agency must inform Morgan Stanley, as a last minute change may be necessary. If an issue arises after hours or a call cannot be made, immediately cancel all Morgan Stanley ads for a minimum of 48 hours”.

Advertising, big business, has the potential to control what makes the news, and that is far more worrying that a large publicly funded BBC. As is the fact that media outlets that do not follow mainstream pro-free market fundamentalism, cannot attract advertisers. Advertising distorts the media market more than any other form.

Let us not forget that the BBC is at the very forefront of quality programming.
Blue Planet, Planet Earth, Francesco’s Venice, Walking With Dinosaurs – all great BBC documentaries. Blackadder, Fawlty Towers, The Young Ones, The Office, The Mighty Boosh – all great BBC comedies. Question Time, Newsnight, The Politics Show, Panorama, the coverage of Parliament – all great informative BBC shows. Panorama is by far the best investigative broadcast on British TV. There is no other show that comes close. It exposed bribery at Fifa before the voting for the 2018 World Cup, in 2010, whilst The Sun was busy telling us that a shop had banned a toy pig in case it upset muslims. In 2011, Panorama exposed care home abuse on a huge scale (where were the commercial investigative journalists?) An investigation that even the Daily Mail said:

“Without the investigation by the BBC’s Panorama, given huge coverage in the Mail, the abuse of patients at Winterbourne View might be continuing to this day.”

In 2009 it aired an investigation into the child sex abuse scandal surrounding the Catholic Church and suggested that the Pope may have known more than the ‘nothing’ he claims to have known about the scandal.
- Let’s not lose sight of what makes the BBC so essential.

The BBC is without a doubt the best news and information platform in the UK. It is revered the World over. It inspires creativity, and ingenuity in its programming. It 99% of the time performs quality journalism, essential to a country like the UK in which gutter journalism is the norm. It is not beholden to advertisers, it doesn’t provide support for political parties in exchange for an easy ride through to owning, for example, BSKYB. It makes mistakes, it has massive internal issues, and it is going to have to deal with its shady and frankly disgusting past when it comes to child abuse. It must remain independent, impartial, and public. We must protect it. It cannot be allowed to fall because of the noise created by those on the right who have longed for the day that it is privatised. It’s independence and its impartiality are crucial. Addressing misleading remarks by dutifully resigning is the right step (A step that Jeremy Hunt unfortunately chose to ignore) But restoring integrity and quality is the most important hurdle it must over come. A hurdle that media outlets like Sky, The Sun, Fox, and the Daily Mail (surprisingly all right winged) kicked over and pissed on long ago.

Phone Hacking, The BBC, Left Wing Conspiracies and Boris!

There are a lot of blogs and articles surrounding the staggering resignations, deaths, arrests and revelations surrounding the Met and its Press Office run almost entirely by ex-News Corp journalists and their incompetent handling of two investigations; the utterly absurd judgement and ignorance of the Prime Minister; the shameful opportunism of Ed Milliband; with regard to the News Corp hacking issue. There are hundreds of articles and new revelations popping up every day. So I wanted to a somewhat different angle to this, and run down a tangent.

Though first, it seems that the Prime Minister is on the very brink of being dragged underwater and his Premiership drowned (I say that, with a lasting smirk on my face) as it emerged that not only was Coulson brought into Tory Party HQ, but also Ex-News of the World deputy editor Neil Wallis, who is one of the people who have been arrested so far, was an adviser to Coulson after Coulson began work for the Tories. This is particularly toxic for Number 10, because Wallis has already brought down Met Chief Sir Paul Steve Stephenson and Deputy Met Chief John Yates after it was revealed that the Met had employed Wallis as a PR consultant. This will be worth following, because even Tory blogger Iain Dale makes the extraordinary suggestion that Cameron could be brought down by this scandal. This is echoed with Tory blogger Mark Thompson offering up Theresa May as a replacement for Cameron, after betting agencies were taking 6-1 bets on Cameron being brought down, down from 100-1 two weeks ago.

Anyway. Onto the main point.

At Prime Minister’s questions last week, Tory MP for Beverley and Holderness, Graham Stuart asked the Prime Minister if the police would also be investigating what he refers to as a “criminal conspiracy” at the heart of the previous Labour Government and the Murdoch Empire, into the desire to undermine Tory Peer Lord Ashcroft in the run up to the General Election.

I think it necessary to evaluate the character of Graham Stuart MP directly, as to discern whether his little outburst is worthy of our attention.

When Graham Stuart was at Cambridge, he was the Chairman of the Cambridge University Conservative Association. His term also coincided with a scandal, in which voting for his election was seen as suspicious and irregularities in the outcome meant that eight of his colleagues in the CUCA resigned in protest. Eight!

As well as having a face you just want to slap, and being a little bit untrustworthy at election time, he also managed to acquire the services of the repair men to resurface his private road leading up to his luxury mansion, at a usual cost of £2,500….. for free. There are potholes on the public roads around the town that he lives, but instead the resurfacing was used for his private estate.

But even if he had to pay for the road (which he didn’t), he would be able to, with the money he saves on his fortune, through his expense claims, which he thinks are perfectly legitimate. According to his forms, that I have spent the past couple hours of my apparently boring life reading through, he claimed half the electricity bill, half the rent on the flat which comes to £1400 a month, half the council tax, food, internet, phone, mobile phone, digital camera, tripod, an Egyptian cotton satin sheet worth £40, £240 on bed linen from John Lewis which he says represented “good value for money“, four £86 pillow cases, £8,500 on food between 2005-2009, he claimed £85 from a company called “Freestye Design” whom design company logos. I wondered why he’d be using a company like that. When his expenses were released, he said:

“if anyone has any questions or queries about individual claims they are more than welcome to email me or contact my office and I will do my best to answer them.”

So that’s exactly what I did.
He didn’t reply.

So, given that this man has a bit of a dodgy typical Tory character, one has to examine his question. The point he was trying to raise, was that Tom Baldwin, Head of communications for Ed Miliband, had obtained information about the Tory Lord’s tax affairs illegally. It’s an odd charge to make, given that no one is likely to feel all that sympathetic toward a Lord, worth over £1bn at the heart of a Government (who, indeed, is the largest donor to the Tory government) whose mantra is “save save save!!” Money must be saved everywhere, disabled people must lose out, children must lose out, everyone who isn’t rich must lose out…….. except for Lord Ashcroft, who isn’t contributing to the save save save mantra, because the “illegally obtained information” showed that he is classified as a non-dom, which means he doesn’t pay any UK tax on his fortune made abroad. Yet, he is part of a legislature, that insists the UK is on the “brink of bankruptcy“. He is hardly likely to foster the sympathy of a public, in the same way that the hacking of Millie Dowler’s phone gained. The Tories are actively trying to divert attention away from themselves, because not only did David Cameron appoint Andy Coulson (they clearly want, and desperately need an Alistair Campbell), but Boris Johnson, the Tory Mayor of London referred to the hacking scandal last year, as a Left Wing conspiracy. Whenever a Right Winger uses the term “left wing conspiracy” to refer to something they do not like (it happens alot in America, who, any time a gay guy says he wishes to get married to the love of his life, some lunatic Republican insists it’s all part of the “gay agenda“), I often want to bang my face against a wall and weep for the sanity of that particular section of humanity. Take Janet Daley writing in the Telegraph yesterday:

…..that great edifice of self-regarding, mutually affirming soft-Left orthodoxy which determines the limits of acceptable public discourse – of which the BBC is the indispensable spiritual centre.

Firstly, she does what most right wingers do, and suggests the BBC has a horrid left wing bias. She will no doubt point to some illogical evidence to back up her point, whilst ignoring all evidence to the contrary. The BBC, to me, has no real bias. It is almost impossible for a media organisation to be objective when objectivity itself is impossible with regard to politics. For example, whilst Daley will claim that Euroscepticism doesn’t get treated as a legitimate political view on the BBC, it is equally as important to point out (which she doesn’t) that the BBC personality who presents all their Westminster shows, is Andrew Neil, a man who was in the Conservative Club at the University of Glasgow, was a Conservative Party Research Assistant, and stood side by side with his former boss; Rupert Murdoch at the launch of Sky in the 1980s, before becoming a writer for the Daily Mail. It is almost impossible to become more right winged, before morphing into Margaret Thatcher. And he presents all of the BBCs Westminster coverage. The Daily Politics, sees Andrew Neil flanked by Labour MP for Hackney, Diane Abbott (never been a minister, or taken particularly seriously in politics) and Michael Portillo, a former Tory Defence Secretary, Shadow Chancellor, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Secretary of State for Employment, and potential leadership candidate. The balance is tipped very much in the direction of the Right on this one.
The political editor at the BBC is Nick Robinson. One quick google search shows that Robinson, during his time at Oxford, was not just a member, but President of the Oxford University Conservative Association. He was National Chairman of the Young Conservatives. Before the 2010 election he compared Cameron to Disraeli. After the election when the coalition agreements were being debated and drawn up, he referred to a Lib/Lab coalition as a “Coalition of losers“. And contrary to the views of the those of us on the Left, on his blog Robinson says of Cameron:

David Cameron prides himself on being bold when big moments occur – challenging for the Tory leadership in 2005, calling on Gordon Brown to have a snap election in 2007 and that “big, bold and generous” offer to form the Coalition in 2010.

What Robinson has done there, has metaphorically kissed and caressed a photo of David Cameron.

Daley is so blissfully ignorant to the fact that the past two years has seen the political discourse dominated by the desire to see deep public sector cuts rather than tax hikes for the wealthy; it has seen the emergence of the desire to revert back to the Capitalism that indeed failed and brought the World crashing down with it from both Labour and the Tories, and it has seen the discourse in the media and from the mouths of politicians everywhere throw spear after vicious spear at the hearts of anyone on benefits or in a Union. The NHS has been attacked, the Welfare state has been attacked, Universities have been attacked, the public purse has been attacked, and yet the very people who caused the mess in the first place have been given vast pensions and allowed to go free. A Guardian poll yesterday showed the Tories ahead of Labour, which all suggests that the public discourse and its limits are very firmly in the court of the Right Wing. A left wing discourse would, above all, launch a sustained attack on the very need for public sector cuts in the first place, it would be calling for a complete reinvention of the economic system as opposed to ignoring the inherent flaws which WILL lead to another crash, it would be unequivocally supportive of the Unions and public sector workers rather than painting them as out of touch, greedy, and overpaid, it would be constantly presenting the information surrounding Corporate tax avoidance and the obscenely high cost to the taxpayer rather than attacking the single mum who claims a few quid more than she perhaps should. As a left winger, it is an insult to hear the discourse of the political landscape in this country referred to as left wing. But that is the superb nature of right winged discourse, unless we’re throwing anyone with an Asian complexion out of the country, privatising the NHS, and shooting the families of Union leaders in the face, they will insist the Country is too left wing. Boris Johnson did that when he claimed the coverage of Phone hacking was all part of a left wing conspiracy. The same Boris Johnson who will now, in his short term as Mayor of London, see the arrival of the third Met Commissioner on his watch. Not a great record. So that’s Boris, Cameron, The Met, Lord Ashcroft (who we are now supposed to feel sympathetic toward) and Graham Stuart MP, who have not had the greatest of records pertaining to the phone hacking scandal.

Back to Ashcroft. In 2005, he commissioned two polls by YouGov and Populus. The polls were huge, and were set up to help the Tories target marginal seats, therefore it is most certainly in the public interest. He commissioned them and paid for them through his company which is based in Belize, which means he didn’t pay any VAT on them. The Guardian estimated that he owed £40,000 in unpaid VAT. Ironically, Vince Cable, now part of the Tory government funded by Ashcroft, said at the time:

“This is quite serious. We are now not talking just about Ashcroft’s non-dom status, but about systematic tax avoidance in funding Conservative party activities such as polling.”

- So why on Earth should I care that a man who sort to keep his tax details private whilst funding a Party who would almost certainly allow his abuses to continue as they gutted the public purse, had his details extracted illegally? There are levels of poor conduct within the journalist arena, and those conducted by Brooks and Coulson and the Met (the Chief of the Met had a meeting with the Guardian to urge them to drop the phone hacking investigation last year) and in-directly, David Cameron, is far far worse than those by Tom Baldwin.

Graham Stuart MP should quit his ramblings and just go back to his mansion, and lay on his Egyptian Satin tax payer funded sheets.

The saga continues…

Rise of the filth

When we were kids, the police were known by their more mellifluous title of “the filth“. They managed to gain this nickname, by insisting on turning up and supervising any group of teenagers standing around doing nothing. The result was not only a bunch of teenagers standing around doing nothing, but a bunch of police standing around doing nothing, and both groups inherently disliking and mistrusting each other. The difference between the two groups standing around doing nothing, was that the taxpayer didn’t fund teenagers to stand around doing nothing. If public funds were directed more at the kids, maybe we wouldn’t have been so bored we ended up standing around doing nothing, and maybe the police could concentrate on, you know, their job.

As we grow up, we learn to respect the police a little more. You note that they protect your property rights and at times, it must be difficult for them. And, we all love Gene Hunt. We suddenly respect what they do a little more, because we know we’d need their support if our house was broken into. Granted, that support would turn up 45 minutes after the actual brake in, take notes, and then spend the rest of the evening not actually finding your stolen stuff and instead supervising the next generation of bored teenagers in case they light up a spliff; but it’s nice to know they exist. But the respect we have for the police, does not give them the freedom to be vicious thugs.

The Metropolitan Police in London seem to have gained even more reason for the public to refer to them as “filth” recently. They are a formidable force of filth. Whenever they are on TV explaining themselves, I find I am more and more inclined to dismiss everything they say, as a crock of shit.

This tendency toward my absolute dismissal of everything the Met say (so that’s The Met, The CBI, and The IMF), stems entirely from the fact that they are, in fact, a crock of shit. First, the shooting in the head seven times, of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube Station, by the Met, because he looked a bit like a terrorist. Despite an IPCC investigation, which found that not only did the Met kill an unarmed innocent man, in the most violent of ways, but they tried to cover it up. It stated the Met:

made or concurred with inaccurate public statements concerning the circumstances of the death. The alleged inaccurate information included statements that Mr de Menezes had been wearing clothing and behaving in a manner which aroused suspicions.

The Chief of the Met at the time, Sir Ian Blair even tried to suppress an investigation, wishing instead to conduct an internal inquiry. Internal inquiries always clear the party involved. It is the equivalent of being your own judge at your murder trial. You’re not likely to send yourself down. Later, it became known that Metropolitan police surveillance officer codenamed “Owen” had deleted files off his computer, that involved a recording of deputy assistant commissioner Cressida Dick saying that de Menezes was not a threat at all.

The Crown Prosecution Service decided it would not press charges against anyone in the shooting of de Menezes. Shooting an innocent man seven times in the head apparently doesn’t even come under manslaughter.

And then we move onto the infamous G20 protest in London in 2009. The Met used the kettling technique to contain the crowd. A bystander on his way home named Ian Tomlinson had a heart attack and died during the kettle. First, the Met denied they had anything to do with his death. Suddenly, a youtube video appeared, showing PC Simon Harwood hit Ian Tomlinson with a baton, and then push him to the ground with ridiculous force, about a minute before Tomlinson had a heart attack and died. The police do not help him off the ground, instead they stand there, smug, doing nothing. A fellow bystander helps Tomlinson back to his feet.
Again, the Crown Prosecution Service said that they were unable to bring any charges against PC Simon Harwood. Harwood was known to have taken his police number off, and covered his face, to avoid detection. In 2009, a second and third postmortem on Ian Tomlinson revealed that he had died as a result of massive internal bleeding caused by a shock to the abdomen. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to point out that Harwood first hit Tomlinson with a baton, to the abdomen, and then shoved him to the floor…… a pretty closed case.

This is where the Met tend to act like great saviours in a land of crazed Anarchists, just trying to protect us all. They released a statement four hours after Tomlinson had died, stating that the police had noticed a man collapse, and had tried to rush in and help him but were bombarded by missiles from protesters. Those damn protesters. The only problem was, another youtube video surfaced, minutes later, after Tomlinson had collapsed. It shows police surrounded him, but not actually helping. It shows a female protester trying to help and saying “these are the bastards that did it“, and curiously, absolutely no “missiles” at all. This video surfaced just after The Sun, in its vast attempt to insult all protesters whilst masturbating furiously over the wonders of The Met, lead with:

“Man dies as bottles lobbed at rescuers.

POLICE were battered with beer bottles and cans as they desperately tried to save a dying man at the height of the G20 riots in London last night. But when cops struggled through the crowd to reach him, they were pelted with missiles. They finally got to him and set up a cordon as two ambulances rushed to the scene. ”

It’s amazing “journalism“. The Sun appear to have received a press statement from the IPCC, and manufactured a story around it. What is even more amazing, is that Harwood was hired by the Met, even though he had previous disciplinary action taken against him over the past decade. The Met are hiring lunatics.

Skip forward to the Student Protest in London last week.
Alfie Meadows, a Philosophy Student from Middlesex University is found wandering in a dazed state covered in blood, by his Philosophy Professor also at the protest. Meadows had been struck on the head by a police baton, with such force that he required brain surgery. The Met were kettling again at this point, and when the Professor begged them to let him and Alfie out of the kettle, they only allow Meadows to leave….. on his own……. in the middle of London……. needing brain surgery. Despite students and reputable professors from across the Country all claiming the violence started after kettling began, and after several unprovoked horse back charges by police took place, the media and the government still seem intent on keeping quiet on the subject of police brutality, instead choosing to focus their crocodile tears on a bit of paint on Charles’ armoured car.

This monday night, the BBC conducted a shameful interview of a man named Jody McIntyre. They asked him if he’d been throwing rocks at the police and if he were a “revolutionary” attempting to paint him as violent. The reason for this, is a video surfaced showing a Met officer pull Jody McIntyre ……. from his wheelchair…… which he can’t operate without the help of his brother, because of his celebral palsy, and dragged across the street. The BBC interviewer asked him if he’d provoked the attack….. by wheeling toward the police…. the muscular, trained, armed police. The BBC surely shouldn’t be acting as a mouthpiece for the angry right wing who are stuck in a tornado of shouting “omg it’s political correctness gone mad” arguing for “sanity” whenever it suits them, but claiming rather outlandishly that they’re second class citizens whenever someone with slightly darken skin complexion gets a job ahead of them? They aren’t the Daily Mail. Although The Daily Mail took it one step further, by comparing McIntyre to Andy from Little Britain, with the quite insufferable turd Richard Littlejohn stating:

“…he should have kept a safe distance.

Jody Mcintyre is like Andy from Little Britain.
‘Where do you want to go today, Jody?’
‘Riot.’
‘Are you sure? Wouldn’t you rather go to hear Bob Crow speak at the Methodist Central Hall. You like Bob Crow.’
‘Yeah, I know.’
‘So, we’ll go there, eh?’
‘Riot!’
‘Ken Livingstone will be there, too. He’s your favourite.’
‘Riot!’
‘All right, then.’
Five minutes later at the riot . . .
‘Don’t like it.’ ”

Littlejohn apparently thinks disabled people should not stand up for what they believe in, and if they dare to, they apparently shouldn’t complain when police drag them out of their wheelchair.

The Tory Party aren’t exactly the friends of disabled people, what with cutting adult social care funding for those suffering a disability. But Tory Councillor Phil Taylor took it one step further, when, on his blog, he said:

” Although he presents himself as a cerebral palsy victim in a wheelchair he does not mention that by his own account he walked up the 9 stories of stairs of the 30 Millbank building during the student riots of 10th November.”

- How utterly irrelevant. Even if he did an elegant handstand, all the way up the stairs, with a cartwheel finish, into a double somersault….. it still doesn’t justify police dragging a kid from a wheelchair and throwing him into the street.
Taylor posts a quote from McIntyre’s website, in which Taylor highlights certain areas of the text, that in Taylor’s odd opinion, paint a picture of a disabled kid who deserves to be pulled from his wheelchair by The Met. Let’s take the sections of McIntyre’s blog that Taylor highlighted one by one:

The sun was shining on the morning of November 10th, and our blood was boiling.

- Yup. That was the feeling among all 50,000 of us. I was there too. We didn’t go down to show how happy we are with the Coalition. Absolutely no reason to highlight this. Also, John Major, the former Tory Prime Minister, and a man who lost his personality in the 1970s, told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, that Labour’s attacks on Coalition policy……. “makes my blood boil“. The violent bastard. The Met need to be kicking the shit out of the ex Tory PM for that. They can count on Phil Taylor’s support too!

We passed Trafalger Square, and half way down Whitehall found ourselves approaching the main bulk of the demonstration, which had assembled there. It was an endless sea of people, but unfortunately, they had been corralled by police and NUS stewards into one lane of the dual carriageway. Me and Finlay immediately set to work, tearing down the metal barriers which separated the two lanes.

- Good! I’m glad someone did. We were squeezed in. For a guy in a wheelchair, it couldn’t have been easy. Even if he were stood up and walking, it couldn’t have been easy. I moved a barrier twice, to make a bit more space. There was no reason for the divide whatsoever. Taylor wasn’t in the mesh of people being held together like sheep.

A group of 200 followed, including me in my wheelchair, and Finlay pushing at full speed.

- Erm, okay. So he quite likes to go fast. I’d hate to see how angry Taylor gets at the Paralympics. “THEY AREN’T DISABLED!!! THEY’RE GOING TOO FAST TO BE DISABLED!!!” presumably.

We continued down the sixty stone steps at the other end of the Treasury road without so much as a pause for breath. We were on the rampage.

- It’s a figure of speech. He wasn’t literally on a rampage, shooting innocent bystanders (or pushing them over inducing a heart attack). It is a figure of speech, and its a soundbite. Like when Taylor himself refers to a man in his constituency who said “I see broken windows as being totally justified compared with the damage being done to the public sector. This is just the beginning“, as a “Leftie, nutter headbanger“…….. he isn’t literally saying that the man quite likes to bang his head, nor is he even suggesting that the man in question listens to music one might “headbang” to. Figure of speech, Phil. The same sort of figure of speech that he used, when in his latest blog about a rather useless cowboy builder, with the phrase “It took a lot of kicking and screaming from local councillors to get this site sorted out“……. if we are to go by Phil’s new found literal approach to sentences that quite clearly, aren’t meant that way, we must presume that local councillors Taylor is speaking of, literally did kick and scream……. the violent thugs.

It was an epic mission to the top. Nine floors; eighteen flights of stairs. Two friends carried my wheelchair, and I walked.

- Having just spoken to my lovely girlfriend Ashlee about the effects of cerebral palsy (she is a physio at a disabled kids school, and deals with this everyday), she has informed me, after watching the BBC interview herself, that of course McIntyre can walk, but judging from his posture, and the way he spoke and his twitching, he would find it difficult to get too far without help. It would take him a long time to get to where he was heading, he wouldn’t be able to balance himself properly for very long at any one time, and he’d get overly tired very very quickly. So, he should be commended for fighting for what he believes in, at the same time as going through the trouble it must have been to achieve it. But, the fact remains, the police considered it perfectly okay to pull a man from a wheelchair and drag him across the street. Phil Taylor, is a tremendous scrotum. His entire blog is drivel. Right winged, miserable, vicious drivel in which anyone slightly left of Reagan is considered a thug. It is people like Taylor that make me proud to wear the badge of the Left Wing, with pride.

Tory Blogger Guido Fawkes waded in on the subject, stating on his blog:

“Jody Macinytre, radical pro-Palestine supporter and sufferer from cerebral palsy”

- They are his only two attributes apparently. He also isn’t “radical” pro-Palestine supporter, although even if he was, i’m not sure why that’s a bad thing. Fawkes continues:

“However he has revelled in, and incited, violence on his website……”

“Macintyre can’t hide behind his disability when the police treat him like any other violent trespassing thug. It’s called equality…”

- Yes he can. Because he’s disabled. And the police are fully armed, trained guards. And also, because 1) he wasn’t trespassing, and 2) he wasn’t being violent. What a horrible sense of equality Tory bloggers have. Disabled people causing no problems are apparently just as equal as the rest of us causing no problems, in being beaten by the Met. We should all be thankful for that little gem of equality.

The point is, despite the talk of violence from protesters…. the only serious injury, was caused by the police, and the only shameful attack on a disabled man, was caused by police. The media tend to tread carefully with the issue, because criticising an institution like The Met, who they clearly still consider to be a reputable source, could provoke anger amongst right winged commentators like Phil Taylor and Guido Fawkes, who would inevitably refer to the BBC as “left wing” if they dared to criticise the police. The Government keep telling us that the “full force of the law” will come down on violent student protesters, but never mention any such repercussion for Police. The Met are not on a higher moral plateau. They are dangerous, provocative, murdering, violent, lying…………. filth.

The Presentation

Yesterday at University I had my first presentation of the year. I had under a week to prepare it. It went pretty well though. I quite like being the first to present, and I have no problem talking in front of people. I get quite passionate when I talk too. Which must be a good thing. I get my grade back next week. I thought i’d publish my guidelines on here, for what I wanted to present. The presentation follows the question.

Presentation 1 – Debate and discuss: ‘Increasing concentration of media ownership into fewer hands means news will become less reliable as a source of information and public scrutiny’. Explain why you agree or disagree.

The corporate media is a business; enshrined by law to protect shareholders.
A media corporation is not unusual, it is a corporation. It has to play by the very same rules as every other corporation. This presents institutionalised problems right at the very fundamental making of a media corporation.
Joel Bakan, author of The Corporation, writes:

The law forbids any motivation for their actions, if it is to assist workers, improve the environment, or help consumers save money. As corporate officials; stewards of other peoples money, they have no legal authority to pursue such goals as ends in themselves – only as means to serve the corporation’s own interests, which generally means to maximise the wealth of its shareholders. Corporate social responsibility is thus illegal – at least when it is genuine.

Corporate media is no different. Its only concern and its only legal requirement, is to make money. It is not concerned with preserving and progressing democracy through what it likes to call an open and free press. It merely wants to make money, become dominant, and have influence. Wealth and power centralized within the State are considered great evils; wealth and power concentrated in very very few hands within a wealthy private elite, who remember are unelected and who are not in any way concerned with the public good, is strangely considered free.
When Jefferson stated that “The only security of all is in a free press” he was writing at a time when Corporations, including the press, had social responsibility enshrined in law. Corporations in those days were not allowed to attempt to influence elections, nor could they fund campaigns and if they were seen to be committing a public harm, they would be dismantled. The free press in Jefferson’s time, were not media conglomarates ruled by very wealthy elites.

Justice Hugo Black asserted that “The first amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public”. When corporate media attempts to consolidate its power, we don’t particularly receive diverse and antagonistic sources.

I wont try to suggest that all media outlets in the UK have the same agenda. It’s obvious to anyone that the Daily Mail has a far more right winged approach to the society and Nationhood and economics, than the Guardian. But, this doesn’t mean that they aren’t similar in other ways. The media is generally conservative, because it exists as a result of the economic and social structure that is in place and that it benefits from, and so anything that might threaten the power of business (for example; a working class or left wing version of events) is only ever going to be published in a negative light. For example, the top story on Sky News this morning was that 35 business leaders have backed George Osbourne’s plans for spending cuts. It was reported as if this is some sort of proof that the Conservatives are doing the exact right thing. The Sky News report said the document of support was signed by Stuart Rose, the M&S Chairman. What it doesn’t say, is that Stuart Rose is set to be made a Lord, by the Conservative Party and is a life long supporter of them. It also says that a group called Diageo signed the letter. It doesn’t go into any detail. Diageo is the parent company of Guiness and Johnny Walker and other big alcohol names. However, what the report doesn’t say is that over the past couple of years Diageo has restructured itself so as to avoid as much tax as possible, despite making most of its money in the UK. Another businessman to sign the statement in support of the Conservative Party, is Justin King, chief executive of J Sainsbury. What the report doesn’t say is that The President of J Sainsbury, is John Sainsbury, Baron of Preston Candover, with a net worth of £1.3bn, he is a Conservative Party donor, and member of the Conservative Party. Another businessman to sign the statement in support of the Conservative Party is Simon Wolfson, chief executive of Next. What Sky or any other broadcaster or newspaper doesn’t say, is that Wolfson is a member of the Conservative Party and donated to David Cameron’s 2005 campaign, and named by the Telegraph as the “37th-most important British conservative.” None of the British press or media in general today, have published this side of the story. And so information, it could be argued, has been withheld.

To own and run a successful newspaper in the UK, you have to have money. To have money, it is fairly unlikely that you are a pro-union left winger with socialist ideals. To enhance your wealth, you need to be somewhat dedicated to neoliberal ideals. This is one of the main reasons we do not have working class publications any more. And so one side of the argument is very much presented. Reliable sources of information, as well as two sides of the argument are almost never presented.

For example, during the election campaign, every party ran on the notion that spending needed cutting drastically, and that Gordon Brown referring to Gillian Duffy as a bigot was awful. None of them challenged the consensus. None of them bothered to point out that Gillian Duffy had actually asked Brown before hand “What are you going to do about all the Eastern Europeans”. To me, that stinks of bigotry and ignorance. On the economy, the Sun printed last Monday, a double page spread about benefit cheating, entitled “Benefit Ghettos: Worst welfare blackspots finally revealed”. It began the story with “Britain’s benefit black spots where up to eight out of ten people live on State handouts are exposed in shocking new figures released today”. This struck me as particularly over dramatic. Words like ‘exposed’ and ‘shocking’ add to the idea that we should all be intensely angry at a few people on benefits. This isn’t new, or exposing, or shocking, most Papers have ran stories on benefits over their life time. The suggestion is, during time of economic hardship, those living on benefits; if they aren’t the biggest problem, then it’s immigrants. Always the same story, time and time again. Now, what wont get published much, is the fact that according to statistics, in 2007 to 2008. Benefit cheating cost us around £800mn, whilst Corporate tax avoidance cost us £18.5bn. It would seem that when men in expensive suits do it, the papers aren’t too bothered by it. When a single mum in a council house in Liverpool does it and about 300% less, it’s a National scandal. The papers stay clear of it. I’d suggest this is simply because half of the companies who owe a fortune in lost revenue due to elaborate tax avoidance schemes, are key advertisers. Andy Coulson, the Tory party communications Director, and ex editor of the News of the World, must have had a say in the fact that both the Sun and the News Of The World tend to stay entirely clear of the Lord Ashcroft tax avoidance affair.
During the Summer of 2008, Rupert Murdoch’s son-in-law paid (around £34,000 in total) for the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, to fly Santorini (a Greek Island) for private talks on a yacht, with Rupert Murdoch. Also in Santorini for the talks was a lady named Rebekah Wade……………. Editor of The Sun.
It is no coincidence, that a couple of days after Murdoch spoke in the Sun, stating of David Cameron:
“What does he really feel in his stomach? Is he going to be a new Thatcher, which is what the country needs? The UK desperately needs less government and freer markets“
Cameron then made a speech, in which he said of Ofcom:
“So with a Conservative Government, OFCOM as we know it will cease to exist.“
Surely that’s no coincidence. I pick on Murdoch because he’s the current king of the media. He really pushed for a Conservative government and not just with the Sun. After every leaders debate, Sky News awarded victory to Cameron. Even the first, in which Clegg mania took off and the entire Country was pretty certain Clegg won; Sky News said 45% of people polled said Cameron won and only 23% said Clegg won. I don’t think 45% of Conservative HQ would have said that Cameron won.

To conclude, the concentration of media into fewer private hands, is no different to concentration of media in government hands; it provides only a certain side of a story, which is to say to side of the story which least affects its advertisers negatively, or the business community in general. Profit comes before responsibility much of the time.

Campbell vs Boulton

We all know Fox News is so ridiculously bias, it makes us laugh to watch it. Sky News, is a Murdoch run news network in the U.K. We have laws that prevent our news coverage becoming too much like Fox – manipulative. Sky, along with other Murdoch Publications; The Sun newspaper, have spent the past few months attacking Gordon Brown and Labour constantly.

An entire day’s lead story, last week was a Labour candidate in an unwinable seat, crazily rambling about “we’ll get all socialism and stuff in, like, England, and stuff” and how Gordon Brown is the worst prime minister ever. That was Sky’s lead story, all day.
A day or two later, a Tory MP, is was revealed (not by Sky), is a member of a Church that claims it “cures homosexuality”, Sky did not even mention it.
A day or two later, a Tory peer said “Muslims don’t have morals or principles”. Sky did not even mention it.
So yes, Sky is ridiculously bias.

Today, has proved it more than ever.

Today Gordon Brown announced his resignation as Prime Minister. Effectively, he will remain in power until the Conservatives and the Liberals agree on a way forward together, and until the Labour Party can elect a new leader. Which is obvious. Otherwise, there is no Prime Minister, no Executive branch, and no leader of the Labour Party. He is right to stay on until this Constitutional nightmare is over.

Sky HATE it. They have spent years suggesting everyone in the Labour Party should burn to death, and that Brown should resign, now that he has, they are accusing him of trying to cling to power.

What this means is, the talks between the Tories and the Liberals has been thrown into a little bit of chaos. The Liberals always said they did not want a coalition that propped up Gordon Brown. Well, now Brown has gone. It was paved the way for a Labour/Lib Dem coalition, on the same day as the Liberals announced they have opened discussions with the Labour Party.

Sky have had a mental breakdown at that.

In this video, you see Adam Boulton. He is Sky’s answer to Bill O’Reilly. He is in essence, an idiot. A very very bias news “person” (I wont say Journalist). He has spent the past few months defaming Labour and Brown as much as possible, and given David Cameron a free ride. He even (along with the Sun) went as far as to claim Cameron has a lot in common with Obama.

The other man is Alastair Campbell. Campbell was Tony Blair’s Director of Communications, during the Blair years. Campbell was essentially, Blair’s spin doctor. He is known for being the King of Spin over here in the UK. A lot of people took a dislike to him. Myself included, especially over the September dossier.
Now he’s out of Government, I quite like him. He knows what he’s talking about. He has been around Government and Journalism along time. He know’s media bias when he sees it. This is a good example of that.

This outburst comes days after Sky’s equally as useless presenter, Kay Burley told a pro-electoral reform spokesperson to “just go home“.

Sky, you can tell today, are panicking hugely. They did not expect this at all. It has been hour after hour of wheeling people out to tell England how evil Brown is for clinging onto power. How awful it is. How Britain sacked Gordon Brown, and yet he’s still here. Britain may have sacked Gordon Brown, but they did not employ David Cameron.

Alastair Campbell 1 – 0 Murdoch’s fucking idiotic English version of Fox’s Bill O’Reilly.

The Radical Press – Presentation

I wrote a script for a University Presentation, on “The relevance of the Radical Press today“. I think I may have turned a little bit too Chomsky-esque with the points I was making.
The script itself, is just a guideline for me to rant further when I felt the need. I thought i’d post it on here for two reasons. Firstly, because I haven’t posted anything for quite some time (too much work on my hands) and secondly, because, well, I quite enjoyed writing it.
So here you go……

————————————————

The Relevance of the Radical Press in the 21st Century.
The effectiveness of the radical press, is linked in theory, to where the power lies. In the 19th Century, power lay quite firmly with the State. Throughout the 20th century, power transferred from the State, to private hands. And when power lies in private hands, control over that power comes from the top, the rich. There is a little give and take but by definition, private ownership over the mass media, means that any radical ideals are quickly suppressed. And whilst journalists may indeed say that they are not harassed into saying anything they do not wish to say, that they’re free from pressure – they’re right. But, the only reason they’re in a position not to be pressured, or harassed is because they have demonstrated the ability to say the right thing, for the big business that employs them. If a writer for The Mail, suddenly became a radical left wing writer, he’d be out, championing the overthrow of the Capitalist system isn’t in the interests of the big business media. He certainly wouldn’t have been employed in the first place had he shown what the business media would see as threatening to their established power. Where’s the radical press when you need it?

When ultimate power lies with the State, (as it did when the radical media began it’s ascent in the 19th Century) the media is of course expected to be the official mouthpiece of that State’s elites, often censored. The radical press obviously grew out of discontent with that particular media system. Eventually, when taxation failed to drive the radicals out of the media, freeing the markets happened to be fantastically affective. The very rich could afford to now start up a national daily newspaper, whereas the working class papers struggled to produce a weekly paper at local levels. And as the new big business media discovered they had inherited from pro-government publications of the past, the best way to ensure obedient and ignorant, to your system, is to limit debate and opinion, to decide exactly what shouldn’t be propagated and in particular, radical ideas.

Advertising plays a huge part, still, in the suppression of any form of radical press. For example, the Times reported in 2005 that General Motors had pulled it’s advertising for the L.A Times, after the L.A Times called for Rick Wagoner, the CEO of General Motors, to be sacked.
Morgan Stanley went one step further in May 2005 and added threats into it’s advertising contracts with newspapers across America, the following:
“In the event that objectionable editorial coverage is planned, news agency must inform Morgan Stanley, as a last minute change may be necessary. If an issue arises after hours or a call cannot be made, immediately cancel all Morgan Stanley ads for a minimum of 48 hours”. Advertising, big business, has the potential to control what makes the news, and that HAS to be just as worrying as government doing the same in the 19th Century. The press doesn’t challenge this established order. Radicalism dies even more.

Newspaper circulation, became big business very quickly, ruled by a new group of elites, possibly more dangerous than before, given that they were unelected, and very very powerful. Dependence on advertising helped them along beautifully. Radical papers could not attract advertisement, and so were effectively beaten out of the market by the wealthy. And so far from the government distorting the market, advertising quite radically distorted the market in favour of those with money. As the radical press of the 18th and 19th Centuries started to die down, thanks in general to the freeing up of the markets, it kind of created a new monster, in the form of big business. Of course, big business and government then intertwine until they are relatively the same thing. For example, A man named Andy Coulson, who was editor of News Of The World at the time of the phone hacking scandal, was responsible for the many many journalists who were undertaking these criminal activities, in order to get publishable stories……… News Corp, then (because they’re free, and just love transparency) paid to cover up the full scope of their illegal dealings and the problems Coulson was very much responsible for. Which, begs the question, which the mainstream media seem to be ignoring (I’d guess because they all have a few appalling skeletons they’d wish to stay quiet) why is Andy Coulson now in a position of quite intense power, as Director of Communications and Planning for the Conservative Party. Is it then, a stretch to suggest that Cameron, who has agreed to ditch ofcom, may just be a figurehead for people like Murdoch? Ultimate power, rule by the people, it could be argued, is now privately owned. Where is the radical press when you need it?

So it could be suggested that if Government is effectively privatised, bowing to the whim of big business, then the apparent “impartiality” of the BBC is threatened even further. If government and big business interests are one in the same, then we have problems.
For example, in June 2004, BBCs Washington Correspondent Matt Frei spoke with joy at the handing over of sovereignty and freedom to the Iraqi people from coalition forces. The BBC News described it as an “historic day for Iraqi democracy”. Yet, for the next few years at least, thousands of troops remained in Iraq (which be definition, isn’t “freedom” or “handing over sovereignty“), and the government was actually appointed by America, not Iraqi democracy. The BBC seemed to be sucking up to the Government and the Western perspective on the handing over of sovereignty. So it’s clear to see that the whilst the State run BBC does indeed at times show a Governmental bias, the Private media shows a bias toward whatever the owner or the advertisers wish. Both, are dangerous.

American Writer Henry Adams in 1900 said:
“The Press is a hired agent of a moneyed system, set up for no other reason than to tell lies where the interests are concerned.”

Over 100 years later, and I think we’ve finally got to the stage where Adams can be proven wrong. With the advent of Web 2.0, more and more people can become journalists, radical or not, with absolutely no formal qualification, and no duty to enrich shareholders or please advertisers. And there are a few about already. They give their opinion, they offer radical views that have been suppressed for quite some time. They aren’t censored in any way, and have no affiliation. I myself keep my own political opinion blog, and I read a great deal more. They can provide the public with stories that the papers are banned from reporting. For example, Côte d’Ivoire toxic waste dump scandal, involving the shipping Company Trafigura. Trafigura managed to ban the Guardian from reporting the fact that the Guardian had documents proving that Trafigura had effectively covered up their part in the scandal. Not even Parliamentary discussion on the subject was allowed to be published in the Guardian about the subject. But, the story broke on blogs across the World before any Paper was allowed to publish it. This shows the power of this new form of radical press. This new radical press doesn’t pretend to be objective. The Daily Kos, refers to itself as having a liberal bias, and Guido Fawkes blog is very much an anti-Labour leaning blog. The World Socialist Website offers it’s perspective on World events, from a Socialist point of view. A new web based free radical press has unlimited power and scope and could potentially prove to be the catalyst that brings down the power that big business and government seemingly have over the media.

———————————————–

Thoughts?

The Man who controls the World

“We’re all in this together” cried Shadow Chancellor George Osbourne during his speech at the Conservative Party Conference yesterday. Which, is slightly insulting given that (according to The New Statesman), Osbourne is worth upwards of £4,000,000. His lovely house in Nottinghill (which explains the Tories obsession with cutting inheritance tax), his beautiful cars, his £5000 fee per article written in the Spectator, and his inherited credentials including the Osbourne Baronetcy of Ballentaylor. So what he meant to say was, the rest of us are in this for the long ride, worrying about jobs and how secure we are in our homes, whilst Osbourne and friends tell us we’re on our own, with no help from the next Government whatsoever…. in fact, they’re even going to cut our help to as less as possible. Nice. Thanks.

The Media, seems to be giving the Conservatives a free pass to Government. One wonders why. It is the deregulation of the financial industry that ultimately lead to this crises (blame Brown if you so wish, but it would not have been any better had the Conservatives been in power). In fact, when statutory regulation was introduced by Labour, the Tories opposed it. Which, in simple terms, means that if the Conservatives had been in power these past twelve years…… we’d be in a far greater mess than we are in now. When William Hague was leader of the Conservative Party, he is quoted as saying:
“As prime minister I will make deregulation one of my top priorities. I will drive deregulation from the centre and I will promote ministers not on the basis of whether they regulate enough but on the basis of how much they deregulate.”
Which, means that he would have left bankers, and mortgage lenders to do as they please, without any oversight whatsoever. Hague could not have been more wrong, if he’d have been George Osbourne making the wrong decision on every aspect of this crises. The crises we’re in today exists, because there was not enough regulation and oversight.

Why haven’t the media picked up on this?

The Sun certainly has a motive for backing the Tories.
The Murdoch’s, owners of News Corporation have recently taken swipes at the BBC, for the fact that it is a non-profit organisation with global reach, meaning it apparently distorts the market, especially given that the BBC’s online content is free….and Murdoch wishes to start changing for Sky’s online content. Apparently the BBC run the risk of becoming a dangerous tool of the State. Nowhere, does Murdoch accept that without the BBC, the Media, and so News in general, will run the risk of becoming a dangerous tool of News Corp, given that News Corp currently runs:
BSkyB, The Sun, 20th Century Fox, Fox News, 17.5% of ITV, Sky Italia, Sky Deutsch land, Myspace, Vogue, The New York Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Australian Daily Telegraph, The Australian Sunday Herald Sun, The Australian Sunday Mail, The Australian, News of the World, The Times, Dow Jones Newswires, BulgarianTV, Israel 10, LNT Latvia, National Geographic Channel; all among many many more holdings.

The Tories, have agreed to revamp the media regulator Ofcom, ditching much of it’s regulatory functions – if they were to come to power, which means Murdoch, The Sun, and Sky can get away with saying just about anything. In simplistic terms, it means Murdoch gets to exert potentially dangerous political power over another Country, much like he does with his American news network, Fox News. We do not want a Fox News in this Country.

During the Summer of 2008, Rupert Murdoch’s son-in-law paid (around £34,000 in total) for the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, to fly Santorini (a Greek Island) for private talks on a yacht, with Rupert Murdoch. Also in Santorini for the talks was a lady named Rebekah Wade……………. Editor of The Sun.

It is no coincidence, that a couple of days after Murdoch spoke in the Sun, stating of David Cameron:
“What does he really feel in his stomach? Is he going to be a new Thatcher, which is what the country needs? The UK desperately needs less government and freer markets“
Cameron then made a speech, in which he said of Ofcom:
“So with a Conservative Government, OFCOM as we know it will cease to exist.“

When Murdoch says he wants “freer markets“, what he means is, he wants to control more of as many markets as he can. It also means he’d quite like to get away this time, with phone hacking, to get a story. A man named Andy Coulson, who was editor of News Of The World at the time of the phone hacking scandal, was responsible for the many many journalists who were untaking these criminal activities, in order to get publishable stories……… News Corp, then (because they’re free, and just love transparency) paid to cover up the full scope of their illegal dealings. Which, begs the question, why is Andy Coulson now in a position of quite intense power, as Director of Communications and Planning for the Conservative Party?

Without Ofcom, we in Britain are very much in danger of becoming a media circus, as is America, built on misinformation, bullying, misplaced anger, and an overriding right winged agenda, built around further empowering the Murdoch clan; where responsible journalism is very much a thing of the past. Through Cameron, England is likely to become Murdoch’s bitch.

Simply one more reason, why out of principle, I can never vote Conservative.

Murdoch VS BBC

In between spitting at tramps, and kicking orphans, James Murdoch (son of the Devil) has took a swipe at the BBC, calling it “state-sponsored news” and that only free market news organisations can produce “independent news coverage that challenges the consensus“. Murdoch, owns Fox News. Need I say more? Yes, Fox does indeed challenges the consensus; in the sense that Fox challenges intelligent thought and replaces it with Glenn “WE NEED TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK (but stay magically quiet when our right winged politicians illegally invade foreign lands, and magnificently destroy the economy in the first place)” Beck, and Bill O’Reilly. They then spend a few hours telling me that Obama (who they’ve referred to as a Fascist a few times recently) is planning a mass communist revolution, in between his efforts to kill your babies and let old age pensioners die in extreme pain. So yes, Murdoch’s idea of independent broadcasting does indeed challenge the consensus, insomuch as it creates a ridiculous parody of the news.

Murdoch’s main worry is that the size and scope of the Beeb, means that competitors are already at a disadvantage and struggle to compete. I’d assume, Murdoch is simply smoothing the path for an attempt to get us all to hate the BBC, whilst he and his devilish father start trying to convince us all that charging for news content, is in the spirit of “freedom” (that nasty little Right Winged word).

Murdoch also owns The Sun, the paper that (referred in to previous blog entry) puts it photographers on the streets to get up skirt shots of female celebrities getting out of a car. Perhaps that’s what the BBC is doing wrong. Perhaps what we need is BBC news to be a frequent Right Winged propaganda showing with the cameramen pointing their cameras up the skirts of the female news readers.
Or perhaps, if Murdoch gets his own way and the Tories after the next general election allow more Press independence by rolling back fairness as defined by the Broadcasting Act, Sky News will become the British version of Fox. I cannot imagine anyone in Britain wants to see that happen. There’s only so much of Glenn Beck crying on screen about how much he loves his Country, I can take. If Sky were to become more like Fox, we’d need new News Anchors. The likes of Adam Boulton are just far too middle of the road, not crazy enough to host a British Fox. Perhaps Richard Littlejohn; columnist for The Daily Mail might strike a chord? Littlejohn is our very own version of Bill O’Reilly. Maniacal, ignorant, unpleasant, despicable with an unhealthy need to be as cruel as humanly possible. Take for example, his article in 2006 about the murders of the five Suffolk prostitutes. Six months after their murders, Littlejohn felt it necessary to say….

“We do not share in the responsibility for either their grubby little existences or their murders. Society isn’t to blame.
It might not be fashionable, or even acceptable in some quarters, to say so, but in their chosen field of “work”, death by strangulation is an occupational hazard.
That doesn’t make it justifiable homicide, but in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss.
At Ipswich Town’s home game on Saturday, there was a minute’s silence. We were supposed to believe that this was a true reflection of the community’s sympathy.
I don’t buy it. Most people went along with it in the spirit of emotional correctness and through fear of getting their heads kicked in if they didn’t.”

Ipswich VS Leeds, observing a minutes silence because they felt forced too by evil liberal political correctness? Reeaaally? Have Leeds fans become super sensitive to political correctness recently?
There was a minute silence, because five women had just been killed. People who happen to exert some form of compassion, notice that people should not be defined by how they make money. And i’d argue that being a prostitute, is far less disgusting a profession, than spewing hate filled right winged propaganda, and a rather disturbing attempt to destroy lives with words.
This deeply unpleasant, hateful little insensitive prick would fit in beautifully at a Murdoch run deregulated “news” channel.

“As Orwell foretold, to let the state enjoy a near-monopoly of information is to guarantee manipulation and distortion. The only reliable, durable and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit.“
- If Fox is anything to go by, that statement just there, by James Murdoch, could not be filled to the brim with any more irony, without a disastrous irony spillage.

Sky News isn’t a victim in all of this, as Murdoch seems to be suggesting. IRN recently dropped ITN as it’s content supplier, in favour of Sky News. Which, gives Sky (and Murdoch) pretty much a monopoly over commercial radio news. Sky is the sole news provider, to over 250 radio stations in the UK now. This, along with Channel 5 news (also provided by Sky) suggests that this worry of Orwellian State media monopoly, is disastrously hypocritical of the Murdoch’s.

We need the BBC to provide the balanced reporting that 100% independent broadcasting fails to provide. It is a key resource for Global news, provided to millions across the Planet. The BBC provides sensible coverage, it doesn’t lean too far to the Left, and it doesn’t lean miserably to the Right (which is what Murdoch has a problem with, he’d clearly like to see it lean to the Right as much as possible). Whether Murdoch likes it or not, the BBC works. It is cherished by millions. That is why it’s a threat to Murdoch, because he can’t control it. The Murdoch family seemingly have a deep need to control everything we see, read, and hear, and when it doesn’t go their way, they get all critical and employ typical right winged fear tactics. Nevertheless, the BBC is a national treasure that should not, under any circumstances, become fully independent. We certainly do not need a British Fox News.

The BBC and Iran

As part of a ridiculous speech by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei is quoted as referring to the British government as the “most evil” in the Western World. Quite a statement. And quite ironic, given that the people calling us “evil” then went on to chant “death to Britain, death to America, death to Israel” Now, usually, these people dislike The USA; which over the past eight years is quite understandable, but they have much less reason to despise America these days, given it’s lack of Maniac and Vice Maniac. The USA has acted brilliantly, and taken no solid line against the quite obviously rigged election; no reason for Iran to blame America. And so they’ve moved on to hating us. Which is fine, we hate our Government too. But I suspect Iran’s Supreme Leader dislikes us, for different reasons.

The Home Office has recently provided the funds to set up the BBC Persia Television Channel, even though the Iranian Government referred to it’s creation as “against National Security“. The Head of Intelligence within Iran, Gholam Hossein Mohseini Ejehi, stated of the new BBC Persia Channel “We don’t consider this channel to be appropriate for our security. We will take the necessary measures in this regard.” Member of the Iranian Parliament, Mohammad Karim Abedi said that the BBC were planning to recruit spies, through it’s new Persian Channel. In January 2009 The minister of culture and Islamic guidance, Mohammad Hossein Saffar Harandi banned all Iranian journalists from working for the BBC. Harandi went on to say “Considering the BBC’s history of creating chaos in Iran, and its efforts to set the various strata of Iranian society against each other, the presence of the BBC Persian TV in the Islamic Republic is deemed to be illegal“.

During the election, the BBC began to broadcast reports that the election may be rigged. BBC Persia started experiencing problems with it’s broadcast, citing “heavy electronic jamming” as the problem, from Friday through to Sunday. In Tehran, as this “heavy electronic jamming” was taking place, for a brief time on Sunday, BBC World Affairs Editor John Simpson was arrested along with a number of other reporters, after filming anti-Ahmadinejad protests. Iran seems to have taken exception to any form of broadcast showing descent in the Capital. BBC Persia is hugely popular in Iran, and widely influential. It isn’t the first time it has experienced problems within Iran. In January 2006, anyone inside Iran who tried to access the BBC Persia Website, were greeted with a “Access Denied” page. There had been no explanation from Iran for why this happened.

BBC trying to influence the minds of a Nation against it’s government? Far fetched right? Well, not necessarily. In 1953, a covert operation designed to dethrone the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammed Mosaddeq, codenamed “Operation Ajax” was conducted by MI6 of the UK, with CIA involvement also. The plot was undertaken to obtain control of Iran’s oil fields, which they feared would fall into the hands of the Soviets. Churchill, the British Prime Minister at the time, used the BBC to push forward our agenda, and eventually using the BBC to provide the codeword “exactly” into a midnight time check, on BBC Persia Radio Service giving the go ahead from the UK Government for operatives inside Iran, to begin the coup. The coup was successful, and Modaddeq was subsequently replaced by Fazlollah Zahedi. So it isn’t necessarily as far fetched as one may first think, that the World’s largest broadcaster, the BBC could be used for the dirty work of the British Government. Recently, George Galloway referred to the BBC, as the “Bush Blair Corporation” for it’s coverage of the Iraq War.

But the Cold War is over. There is no particular reason why the BBC needs to attack the Iranian government. The British Government, especially given the past couple of months, has far deeper problems on it’s hands, than the Iranian election.
It would seem that in a World without Bush and Cheney, it’s much more difficult to blame America for propaganda’s sake. And so, they appear to have moved on, like propaganda whores jumping from one “enemy” to another, and we’re the target. Britain. Purely because they don’t like the BBC, because the BBC is not constantly masturbating the egos of Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah.

The World is an odd place.

Republican Jamie

For one day only, i’ve decided to embrace the art of being a Republican.
And so for all you lefties (closet homosexuals) and those of you who like to engage brain activity (Satan worshippers) it’s probably best you look away now.

Thank god for Texas Gov. Rick Perry (A true Patriot, perhaps even the ACTUAL 2nd coming of Christ), who suggested Texas could secede from the Union. Texans should be proud! They don’t need evil socialist gay loving social security, medicaid, highway repair, medicare and anything else the Union offers them. Texas doesn’t need to be included in the same list of States as Gayowa. Take your Socialist Federal infrastructure back! Take back Department of Defence funding! Texas doesn’t need that commie bullshit. God will replace it all! And as for the new Texan economy, it’d be amazingly strong! Because we’re the party of fiscal responsibility you know! Plus, Bush is a Texan, so considering he’s been a fiscal genius over his eight years (I like to call them, America’s Golden Years), he can be the brand new Nation of Texas Treasury Secretary. YEAH! Texas doesn’t need your commie Union.

For the past three months a black man (I believe they are referred to as “bruvas“) has occupied George Bush’s house. It seems a little unfair. Bush had successfully managed to lower house prices SO much, that anyone (including lazy “bruvas from da hood“) can afford to buy, so much so that a bruva has taken Bush’s house from him. That’s gratitude for you. The lying liberal media (with the exception of the totally fair and unbiased Fox News) have lost control when it comes to Barack HUSSAIN (yes, Hussain!!! It sounds like insane!!! Coincidence?) Obama (YES!! Obama!! It sounds like a bomber!! Coincidence?…. Barak insane Abomber*….. God warned us!!). They’re everywhere. The BBC over here with it’s Trotskyist approach to news reporting …… i’ve never once seen them refer to homosexuals as dirty sinners, who shouldn’t be allowed near children, and are on their way to hell… even though that’s exactly what they are. The liberal media with it’s homosexual agenda must go!

Earlier I pointed out that Bush had managed to destroy push down house prices so much so that even those weird coloured people bought them up. Which in turn, lead to the crises we’re in today. George Bush, Dick Cheney and Phil Gramm just tried to help. The Liberal media and it’s muslim loving homosexual agenda will have you believe that those three helped deregulate so much that the entire market became one big mess. Well it wouldn’t have become a mess if blacks hadn’t started paying for things they couldn’t afford bringing their crime and “shiz” into crime free happy joyful white neighbourhoods!!!! We all know that the only way to deal with a fire is to set it on fire. And so logic dictates that the only way to deal with this crises is more deregulation!! Much like the only way to deal with increase in gun crime is more guns!!!

Liberals will have you believe that a woman has the right to choose whether or not she has an abortion. As an outsider looking into the Freest country on the Planet, I wonder, where is the freedom for a Christian to block a woman deciding what she thinks is best for her body? She’s clearly wrong if the she wants an abortion. She’s going against God. Like the gays and the jews and brown people. The true followers of Jesus Christ (Republicans) have a moral duty to correct this. It wont be long before they actually want to abort children AFTER they’re born, have left college and got a job. The liberals will say it’s the mothers right. Could they be any more in cahoots with the anti-christ (who, coincidentally, is Barak Insane Abomber)? Liberals would allow a child to grow up, and indulge in premarital sex…… homosexual sex nonetheless, with same sex hookers, and then for fun, they’d go out and perform an abortion.

We fight for the right of life! Children are precious and should be treated as such! Even before birth. In fact, even before conception. Every time you masturbate you’re killing potential children, and God hates you for it, you fucking murderers. And don’t tell me that we’re baby killers just because a few Iraqi children died in our bombing. They don’t even believe in Jesus. And, they’re Iraqi, so they’d only grow up to be terrorists anyway.
We protect children! Which is why we vetoed the SCHIP program, an evil leftie commie hippy program designed to give five million poor children health insurance. Do you know how Clinton wanted to pay to cover those poor lazy kids? That’s right! He wanted to raise tax on cigarettes. Which, in turn would lead to less smoking, and less State tax revenue. He actually thought it was Constitutional to help lazy kids whilst at the same time cut smoking. All it’s doing is teaching kids to be commies and that’s un-American. “Help” is un-American.
Luckily Senate Majority Leader at the time, Trent Lott said that it was just a large inflated Government program that would not pass! Hate lazy kids but love cigarettes? Vote Lott! Perhaps if the children weren’t lazy or black or muslims, Jesus Christ would love them enough to give them more money for health insurance. But he didn’t. Because they’re lazy. And the money I spend on cigarettes I DO NOT want going to helping Satan’s children, who will probably grow up to be homosexuals or criminals any way.
Luckily Bush was on hand to veto any attempt to pass such a bill, saying that it would “federalize health care” and we don’t want no fucking evil commie healthcare system like the gayropeans in countries like Gay Britain have.
But then Barack Insane Abomber became President (America’s first Terrorist President, who will undo all the humanitarian work that Bush has achieved), and suddenly four million more children including (and this bit sickens me) the children of legal immigrants are now covered!!!! Commie Mexican kids, taking up YOUR tax dollars to fund their health care? What next? A Socialist police force covering all areas regardless of who can afford it? Some of those kids don’t even believe in Jesus. Should we be paying for them to recover? Boo hoo, they’re ill…… if they weren’t so heretical and lazy, perhaps they wouldn’t need your tax money!!

What if those kids grow up to be scientists (faggot Jesus deniers)? How guilty will you feel if you helped cure a kid who insists on Darwin’s idea that your grandma was an ape? What if he teaches YOUR kids that gays are not evil satan worshippers? What if he teaches that the Earth isn’t 6,000 years old? What if he grows up to tell us all that Polar bears are worth saving instead of letting Dick Cheney grow richer from his oil ventures? What if he grows up to support action on climate change (it’s really cold here today, Global Warming? More like Global liberal homosexual jesus hating bullshit) Could you live with yourself if all that happened? I certainly couldn’t. The liberal media would win, and that can’t happen!! Why haven’t they questioned where Abomber gets his suits from? I tell you why…. because he gets his suits from terrorist homosexuals in Iran which is near Eurogaycommieland. That’s why!

The fact remains that Abomber wants to let muslims with bombs straight from Gitmo (liberals say that some of those inmates are “innocent”….. they come from outside the U.S.of.AWESOME, so they’re not fucking innocent. They deserve it! The Satan worshipping homos) live next door to you. It’s no surprise. He’s never once came out in public and denied that he’s a terrorist, which means he’s a terrorist. Like all muslims are terrorists. He wants to let homos into the military. Yeah that’s just what they need, whilst the REAL men are killing as many dirty terrorist arabs as possible, suddenly a man dancing to George Michael records sits next to them and starts talking about shoes.
He wants your kids to be bummed in school by the gays. He thinks it’s ok to allow teachers to say “Darwin” instead of “Satan” and teach that farfetched ridiculous impossible concept of evolution. Luckily It wont last long, we have Jesus on our side….. he was the son of a virgin and God, who was killed for our sins, rose from the dead, walked around for a bit, and then ascended into heaven. And worst of all Barack Insane Abomber has never once said “I’m not a muslim and i’m not an atheist“. Logic must conclude that because he’s never said those words, he must be a muslim and an atheist aswell as being a homosexual, a jew and black (so much for racial equality, change we can believe in?). We need to stop this. Already “Gayowa” has given into to the fags and given them the right to get married (which means I never want to get married, because if I did, i’d be a bit like the gays, and that’s disgusting) turning their state into as Humanevents calls it “A mecca” for aids lovers. Our children are the real victims here (not the lazy ones mentioned earlier, they’re already going to hell). They’re going to grow up thinking that it’s acceptable for two men to get married (two women is hott!), and so rejecting Jesus Christ in the process. And everyone knows if you reject Jesus our lord, you’re going to hell. As this chart shows.

See that! Satan is a pacifist. A leftie. A liberal. A homosexual. He doesn’t believe in violence. We have God on our side. He isn’t afraid to kick ass! FUCK YEAH!

Do I feel safer with Barack Insane Abomber in the White House? No. Whilst he and his home boyz sit chillin’ to 50 Cent, talking using a teleprompter (Bush didn’t have to do that, and his speeches are just as awe-inspiring and beautifully eloquent – even more so than the terrorist who took over) the World is laughing at America because we’re the wimps now! At least Bush and Jesus kept us in the West safe from terrorism (Madrid, London, 9/11, Turkey, Tunisia, and Morocco don’t count as proof that the World is more unsafe because if the Gayocrats had been in charge since 2001, those places wouldn’t even exist now!!! They’d all be muslim….. London would now be Londonstan… Bush stopped that from happening). Barack Insane Abomber is one of those who want to hurt Americans. When end of days is upon us (Republicans vs atheist homosexual muslim jews), Insane Abomber will have a lot of explaining to do.

Thank goodness for Republican bloggers! Like Sure Sense, who rightfully warns that after the Homeland Security Document covering Right Winged extremism (it is my freedom and the freedom of the other Republican bloggers, to completely ignore the fact that a report was also released on Left Wing Extremism) is bringing about THE END OF THE WORLD! Sure Sense doesn’t like that the DOHS Document, especially line “It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration“
Sure Sense, tries to analyse the line, with his own magical synopsis…..
“So what this is saying is that all Evangelical Christians, who hold homosexuality and abortion to be a sin are now potential terrorist threats. “
- YES! That’s exactly what it says. I didn’t notice it before, because I was too busy focusing on the actual words. When I read it over and over, that’s exactly what it says! They are putting all Christians down as terrorists! Which we’re not! That’s the muslims! Luckily Sure Sense is on track to be much more understanding toward us Christians, much more accepting, much less vile…
” I do not hold that Buddha, Confucius, or Mohammad can get people to God. Sure, they may help you be “religious”, but all of their teachings are about how you have to be good enough, and you can’t be.”
- That’s fucking right! How dare the DOHS attack us. Those damn intolerent, ignorant bastards. It’s everyone else, who aren’t American Christians, who’re going to hell!!! We tried to tell that to the Iraqis, they hate us for it. So fuck them!
He doesn’t stop there! He continues with his well thought out logic!!…
” From there, we’ll see Christians being jailed, and eventually martyred.“
That’s right!! As well as being a gay loving commie, Abomber is also a big fan of the works of Emperor Nero. I fear for the future of Christians.

The only way to clean up the mess that Abomber has created (It’s a new mess, totally unexpected, definitely was not the fault of the previous incredibly competent Administration, despite what Liberals might tell you), is by having tea parties and talk of secession!!! That’s the way forward for the glorious GOP! Chuck Norris/Rush Limbaugh for President/Vice President of Texas!!!!!

Right, i’m off teabagging with the other ten Republicans (which the Liberal media wont cover by the way!!!) We don’t want our children inheriting such a huge tax burden!!!!(that’s not to say we wont accept the tax cut they’re giving us… the biggest in middle class U.S History apparently…..which makes them SECRET communists or fascists. One of the other!) Our children have a right to inherit an overly polluted earth free from tax burden!! We’re revolting for the sake of FREEDOM and that makes us Patriots! Unlike when those Lefties protested the Iraq war, the un-American homosexual Jesus hating muslims.

For true freedom (we freed Iraq baby!!) vote Republican in 2012. If you don’t, then you’re going to hell.

*Watching too much Abomber increases the risk of cancer.

The leak

In 2003, weapons expert, and United Nations Weapons Inspector in Iraq, Dr David Kelly was found dead in woodlands near his home, on the route he took for his daily walks. That very morning he had sent an email to New York Times journalist Judith Miller in regard to her recent book about bioterrorism. The email included the line “.. many dark actors playing games” when discussing biological warfare across nations.
Kelly was asked to proofread a dossier of evidence against Iraq in the run up to the war. He was asked, because he was a weapons expert. He raised concerns about the claim that Iraq could launch bio and chemical weapons in 45 minutes. Later, he supposedly “leaked” this to the Observer, with the quote…
“They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were – facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.“
Dr Kelly then met with BBC Journalist Andrew Gilligan in a hotel in Charing Cross. Kelly agreed to give evidence and quotes against the 45 minute claim, as long as the BBC kept his name private. He stated that the inclusion of the 45 minute claim was the responsibility of Alaistair Campbell, even though he knew it was dubious at best, and an outright lie at worst.
Two months later, he was found dead.
The Hutton Enquiry (An enquiry set up by Blair – and so was never going to be in the slightest bit honest and objective) concluded that Dr Kelly had killed himself because the stress of the job was just too much to handle. Lord Hutton wrote….
“Whatever pressures and strains Kelly was subjected to by the decisions and actions taken in the weeks before his death, I am satisfied that no one realised or should have realised that those pressures and strains might drive him to take his own life or contribute to his decision to do so.”
So basically, that covers the fact that Kelly wasn’t at all suicidal. The pessimists among us, are undoubtedly suspicious. Kelly clearly knew more than he possibly should, and he appeared to be a threat to the whole legality of the War scenario. Police officially stated that Kelly died from blood loss. However, Doctors including the two medics at the scene of the crime, have since came out and said that the way Kelly died is incontestably suspicious and raises some serious questions that the government and the Hutton inquiry both failed to answer significantly.

In January 2003 Civil servant Katharine Gun working as a translator for GCHQ, leaked a memo to the Guardian, from US Officials at the NSA, which stated the U.S wanted help to bug UN offices in Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, and Pakistan. These nations were considered “swing states”; votes needed for a UN Security Council resolution authorising the Iraq invasion. If i’m not mistaken, President Nixon was impeached for something eerily similar.
Katharine Gun was charged under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1989. Her case was thrown out of court.
A few days ago I watched her at the Public Administrations Committee hearing on leaks and whistleblowers and I admire her greatly. She was charged for telling the truth. She was charged, for trying to put an end to the manipulation and the lies thrown at us by the Bush Administration and the Blair government. Her leaking of this explosive yet insightful document into the underhanded tactics used by the Americans to throw the World into war and waste the lives of so many innocent victims is commendable. She was obliged to do what she did. Her conscience is clean in comparison to Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Blair, Campbell and Brown. What the U.S did, was illegal, and has cost a million-plus lives. It amazes me, and befuddles my naive mind, that those at the top; up to and including George W Bush are not rotting in prison somewhere.
The MPs asked Katharine Gun, at the hearing, why she had gone straight to the media, and why she hadn’t gone to MPs or raised her concerns with government officials……. My reaction to that was twofold, firstly – it’s been six years now and we all know that Bush and Blair lied outrageously and yet nothing has been done, it’s largely been ignored. Those MPs who now want to know why whistleblowers hadn’t came to them first should start looking inward at how useless and untrustworthy we all think they are. Who do you trust? And secondly, if you trust the wrong person, and if the fate of Dr David Kelly is anything to go by, Katharine Gun could easily have been another name Lord Hutton dismissed as dead of “pressures and strains”.

A well regulated Militia….

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” - The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

When I read the second Amendment, I am drawn to the phrase “well regulated“. For me “…well regulated” in the second Amendment, suggests more than anything that The Founders are products of their time, and the right to own a gun, comes from the fear of that time. Fear of tyrannical government prominent during the tumultuous years of the American and French Revolutions. Mass slaughters in the Colonies, and news of slaughters at the Tuileries in Paris whilst trying to overthrow a tyrannical government, shaped the sentiment of fear prominent when this amendment was created. The right to own a gun, isn’t an inherent right, it is a right that can be placed entirely in context of the time. Made out of fear. It must be revised, for the context of today. The social and economic context today, of a land with 300,000,000 people, with an indescribably powerful defence sector; is not in anyway the same as the social and economic context of the time of Thomas Jefferson. It isn’t an America of small farming communities threatened by an overbearing British Empire. Jefferson, or Madison, or Hamilton, or any other Founder, could not have predicted where America might be today, with it’s gang culture, and its assault rifles, and how certain Amendments harking back 250 years, might be exploited.

As well as the Amendment being firmly rooted in 18th Century fear, the use of the word “militia” in the 2nd Amendment, must affect the word “people” in the 2nd amendment. For me, the word “militia” means that the word “people” becomes a collective body, and not the right of each individual to own firearms. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment speaks of a collective gun holding responsibility. Perhaps a place where guns are stored, kept safe until a well regulated Militia is needed to protect themselves as a collective. And so then you have to ask, when will America ever need a well regulated Militia on a State level, given the strength of their military?

Having a gun in your home, for “self defence” raises the risk of being murdered by someone you know, by 2.7 times. The suicide rate for those who keep guns raises by 4 times. These statistics

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” – The National Rifle Association

I’ve always shuddered at that NRA phrase. It’s a horrible argument designed to shut people up, because it’s superficially true in sentiment. Of course people kill people. Of course the gun doesn’t decide to kill all by itself. But it’s a tool used for the prime purpose of killing. A knife, is not designed specifically to kill. Neither is a car. A gun, when used correctly and responsibly, is used to kill. A gun, when used incorrectly, and irresponsibly, is used to kill. The design is purely to kill. To create an instrument designed purely to take life, and not have very strict controls, seems both absurd and dangerous. The latter, is proven time and time again.

According to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, you are five times more likely to die as a result of a gun attack, than you are as a result of a knife attack. Not only that, but according to the Department of Justice, one in every eight violent crimes, involved criminals carrying hand guns at the time.

The level of gun ownership – that is, arming everyone, to defend themselves, against…everyone – is directly related to the number of deaths by gun fire.

During the firearms amnesty in 2003, following the 1997 ban on handguns in the uk; 43,000 guns were handed in. That’s 43,000 less on the streets. That follows the amnesty directly after the two 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Acts, which resulted in 162,000 guns being handed in. Do I feel safer with almost 200,000 guns less on the streets? Absolutely. In the US most gun related deaths, are carried out by those who legally own the gun. That, is horrendous.

Now, the 2nd Amendment was written as a way to arm citizens against government tyranny. If we are to use the same argument today, we must be consistent. If the big bad Obama administration violently decides to invade Alabama…..a few citizens with semi automatics aren’t going to be much use in defending the State. They are going to need to be as armed as the Federal Government. I look forward to the NRA calling for the right of citizens to be armed with chemical and biological weapons, F16s and nukes. For the sake of consistency….. which I know, isn’t something the Right are famed for. ‘Arms’ in the 2nd Amendment refers to Nuclear weapons, just as much as it does to semi automatics, just as much as it does to 18th Century Muskets.

In 2008, there were over 12,000 gun related murders in the US. Comparatively, in 2006 in Japan…… total gun related murders…… 2. When guns have such harsh controls, that hardly anyone has one, the death by gun rate doesn’t rise (as the US neo-con’s appear to think it would)… it falls dramatically. Japans law is polar opposite to the 2nd Amendment in the US. In Japan, the law states:

“No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords.”

- As industrialised countries go, when it comes to gun control, Japan is doing it right.
In contrast, here are a list of mass killings as a result of an archaic obsession and misreading of the 2nd Amendment in the US, since Columbine, put together on Think Progress

December 11, 2012. On Tuesday, 22-year-old Jacob Tyler Roberts killed 2 people and himself with a stolen rifle in Clackamas Town Center, Oregon. His motive is unknown.
September 27, 2012. Five were shot to death by 36-year-old Andrew Engeldinger at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, MN. Three others were wounded. Engeldinger went on a rampage after losing his job, ultimately killing himself.
August 5, 2012. Six Sikh temple members were killed when 40-year-old US Army veteran Wade Michael Page opened fire in a gurdara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Four others were injured, and Page killed himself.
July 20, 2012. During the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, CO, 24-year-old James Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 58. Holmes was arrested outside the theater.
May 29, 2012. Ian Stawicki opened fire on Cafe Racer Espresso in Seattle, WA, killing 5 and himself after a citywide manhunt.
April 6, 2012. Jake England, 19, and Alvin Watts, 32, shot 5 black men in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in racially motivated shooting spree. Three died.
April 2, 2012. A former student, 43-year-old One L. Goh killed 7 people at Oikos University, a Korean Christian college in Oakland, CA. The shooting was the sixth-deadliest school massacre in the US and the deadliest attack on a school since the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.
October 14, 2011. Eight people died in a shooting at Salon Meritage hair salon in Seal Beach, CA. The gunman, 41-year-old Scott Evans Dekraai, killed six women and two men dead, while just one woman survived. It was Orange County’s deadliest mass killing.
September 6, 2011. Eduardo Sencion, 32, entered an IHOP restaurant in Carson City, NV and shot 12 people. Five died, including three National Guard members.
January 8, 2011. Former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) was shot in the head when 22-year-old Jared Loughner opened fire on an event she was holding at a Safeway market in Tucson, AZ. Six people died, including Arizona District Court Chief Judge John Roll, one of Giffords’ staffers, and a 9-year-old girl. 19 total were shot. Loughner has been sentenced to seven life terms plus 140 years, without parole.
August 3, 2010. Omar S. Thornton, 34, gunned down Hartford Beer Distributor in Manchester, CT after getting caught stealing beer. Nine were killed, including Thornton, and two were injured.
November 5, 2009. Forty-three people were shot by Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan at the Fort Hood army base in Texas. Hasan reportedly yelled “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire, killing 13 and wounding 29 others.
April 3, 2009. Jiverly Wong, 41, opened fire at an immigration center in Binghamton, New York before committing suicide. He killed 13 people and wounded 4.
March 29, 2009. Eight people died in a shooting at the Pinelake Health and Rehab nursing home in Carthage, NC. The gunman, 45-year-old Robert Stewart, was targeting his estranged wife who worked at the home and survived. Stewart was sentenced to life in prison.
February 14, 2008. Steven Kazmierczak, 27, opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University, killing 6 and wounding 21. The gunman shot and killed himself before police arrived. It was the fifth-deadliest university shooting in US history.
February 7, 2008. Six people died and two were injured in a shooting spree at the City Hall in Kirkwood, Missouri. The gunman, Charles Lee Thornton, opened fire during a public meeting after being denied construction contracts he believed he deserved. Thornton was killed by police.
December 5, 2007. A 19-year-old boy, Robert Hawkins, shot up a department store in the Westroads Mall in Omaha, NE. Hawkins killed 9 people and wounded 4 before killing himself. The semi-automatic rifle he used was stolen from his stepfather’s house.
April 16, 2007. Virginia Tech became the site of the deadliest school shooting in US history when a student, Seung-Hui Choi, gunned down 56 people. Thirty-two people died in the massacre.
February 12, 2007. In Salt Lake City’s Trolley Square Mall, 5 people were shot to death and 4 others were wounded by 18-year-old gunman Sulejman Talović. One of the victims was a 16-year-old boy.
October 2, 2006. An Amish schoolhouse in Lancaster, PA was gunned down by 32-year-old Charles Carl Roberts, Roberts separated the boys from the girls, binding and shooting the girls. 5 young girls died, while 6 were injured. Roberts committed suicide afterward.
March 25, 2006. Seven died and 2 were injured by 28-year-old Kyle Aaron Huff in a shooting spree through Capitol Hill in Seattle, WA. The massacre was the worst killing in Seattle since 1983.
March 21, 2005. Teenager Jeffrey Weise killed his grandfather and his grandfather’s girlfriend before opening fire on Red Lake Senior High School, killing 9 people on campus and injuring 5. Weise killed himself.
March 12, 2005. A Living Church of God meeting was gunned down by 44-year-old church member Terry Michael Ratzmann at a Sheraton hotel in Brookfield, WI. Ratzmann was thought to have had religious motivations, and killed himself after executing the pastor, the pastor’s 16-year-old son, and 7 others. Four were wounded.
July 8, 2003. Doug Williams, a Lockheed Martin employee, shot up his plant in Meridian, MI in a racially-motivated rampage. He shot 14 people, most of them African American, and killed 7.
September 15, 1999. Larry Gene Ashbrook opened fire on a Christian rock concert and teen prayer rally at Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, TX. He killed 7 people and wounded 7 others, almost all teenagers. Ashbrook committed suicide.
July 29, 1999. Mark Orrin Barton, 44, murdered his wife and two children with a hammer before shooting up two Atlanta day trading firms. Barton, a day trader, was believed to be motivated by huge monetary losses. He killed 12 including his family and injured 13 before killing himself.
April 20, 1999. In the deadliest high school shooting in US history, teenagers Eric Harris and Dylan Kiebold shot up Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. They killed 13 people and wounded 21 others. They killed themselves after the massacre.

- How many more need to be added?

According to Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International, The gun deaths per 100,000 of the population of the United States, in a 2001 study, was 3.98. In comparison, Italy, Switzerland, Canada, Finland, Australia, France, England, Wales, Scotland, and Japan combined came up to less than the USA. Why? Why is this the case? Well, a weak interpretation of the Constitution is of course one reason, perhaps add to that an underfunded mental health sector, along with a for-profit healthcare system in general, we also know that economic inequality plays a large part in violence. This graph shows homicides per million, in relation to economic inequality. Just look at the US.

Only a change in attitudes can put this right. The Right Wing of America has to acknowledge the sheer hypocrisy in the voices shouting pro-life sentiments whilst advocating the joys of one of the biggest killers in the Country. Countries with strict gun control laws, and a more equal income distribution have fewer deaths. Liberals must be far more willing to fight the cause, and to educate people on the dangers of weak gun control, because shouting “we need gun control” on its own, doesn’t work. There needs to be informative campaigns against gun ownership, tougher sentences for those convicted of gun crime, make guns less accessible, reduce the supply of guns, and most of all, there needs to be a real careful look at whether the context of the Constitution – with its fear of a Red Coat invasion – might not quite be interpretable the same way today. Use common sense. The NRA’s slogan is nonsense. However, so is the naive liberal notion that immediately outlawing gun ownership, will solve a Nation’s gun crime problems. All it would do, is promote the growth of a new black market, and then you have a whole new problem on your hands.

The Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment was ambiguous because it had no idea what the future might hold. It cannot be claimed that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to carry an assault rifle. The 2nd Amendment does not give the right to all Americans to keep a gun in their homes, but similarly, it does not say that Americans must not keep a gun in their homes. The framers left it up to the Democracy of the future to come to their own conclusions. This, is the genius of the American Constitution, but also it’s failing.

Gun ownership is no longer about protecting the Nation against a tyrannical government – the very reason it was included in the first place – It is now about protecting each other, against each other, because one of the two parties might shoot first. That is the legacy of lax gun regulation. One big social cold war, against each other.

Edit. 14/12/2012:

Today, in Newtown Connecticut, a man has shot and killed at least 18 small children. It is a tragedy beyond any human comprehension. My heart goes out to the families of the victims this evening. I cannot begin to fathom the unimaginable grief that they must be feeling. It is horrendous.

There has been a lot of talk that today isn’t the day to be politicising gun control. I disagree. Today is absolutely the right day to be politicising gun control, as a matter of urgency. It is also the right day to be discussing the failings of the mental health system. In a week’s time, everyone will be talking about the ‘fiscal cliff’ again, and suddenly the passion for progress withers away. Days like today are preventable. Do not let anyone tell you that a killer will go into a school and kill children whether he has a gun or not. That simply isn’t true. “Politicising” sounds like a terrible word, but it is, in reality, the people looking at a situation, and asking how to stop it happening again.

Yesterday, in Michigan, lawmakers passed a law that allows people who have undergone eight hours more training, to carry concealed guns into a school, day care centre, bar, or sports event. I am horrified by this. The arguments for this disgusting little law, is that maybe if teachers are armed, the killer might be stopped early. What happens if the killer is a teacher? And in a bar? Mixing guns and alcohol? Really? What if the teacher, in the panic of a killer on school property, shoots, and misses, and hits someone else? The moment one person dies as a result of the passing of this law; the Republican legislators of Michigan who voted for it, have blood on their hands.

I just don’t see why anyone would take the chance, in allowing a weapon designed solely to kill, to be concealed and carried in a school. It is truly horrifying.

The World of the Celebrity

The multi talent (and when I say “multi” I mean “devoid of all”) that is Paris Hilton has moved to the UK. Sad times. She has a new show over here called Paris Hilton’s British Best Friend. As you can imagine from the provocative title, the show revolves around a useless Celebrity offering to help make an equally useless and overly annoying person famous on a reality TV show. It’s an easy concept to understand. Imagine shit. Now imagine two lumps of shit. There you go.

Another person who has become famous off the back of Reality TV is Jade Goody. Recently she has been diagnosed with terminal cancer. And whilst I wouldn’t wish death upon anyone, and I think it’s a tragedy when anyone so young is doomed to die so quickly, I also have to question how deeply obsessed we’ve become with useless celebrities, when the Prime Minister, in the middle of the worst economic crises in almost a century, stops what he’s doing to show his support for her. For those of you who are not familiar with Jade Goody, to sum up her Celebrity life, she was on Big Brother 3, she got naked, said “I always fought East Angula was abwoad” along with other incredibly dumb comments, then went on Celebrity Big Brother in 2007 in which she was chucked out for Racism, the whole of India hated her for it, and now she’s famous for having cancer. That’s pretty much it.

She might be a lovely woman personally, I don’t know her. She’s merely a pawn in the relentless game of consumerism. The very same Consumerism that enriches the celebrity culture, by suggesting subtly, that it’s ok to be useless, you can still make a fortune. The same consumerism that says it’s ok to be useless, if you’re suddenly struck with a terminal illness the country will slide to a halt to stick by you, but will chose to ignore the millions of others who suffer a similar fate.

Why are people like Jordan, Jade Goody, Paris Hilton…. people who are famous for being famous, all talked about constantly, their lives reported on a daily basis, for absolutely no reason? They may enrich the very ideals of consumerism but they do not enrich our lives. They do not have a lasting affect on history. They produce nothing of worth. They are not our generation’s answer to Mozart or Dostoevsky. They are largely useless, unintelligent, artificial creations whose existence means nothing. They exist, purely as a by-product of consumerism. The horrible notion that we NEED to buy useless items; advertising rammed down our throats to make certain companies huge profits to the detriment of society as a whole.

We’re all (including me) guilty of buying into the shit. We don’t think for ourselves. And suddenly the real problems laying right out in front of us are ignored because Paris Hilton has a new show that we must watch. Or we have bought a new Xbox game that we must play on. We buy crap celebrity magazines, from whose selling point is an upskirt photograph of Britney spears getting out of a car, we ignore that their photographer has waited in the gutter to get that shot. We accept it as normal. “WORLD EXCLUSIVE: CHARLOTTE CHURCH SEEN IN A BAR WITH MYSTERY MAN!!” … of course it’s a fucking World Exclusive, no other Country gives a shit. I live here, and I don’t give a shit.
Celebrities like Jade Goody are just commodities, to be bought and sold, regardless of quality. It isn’t their faults. They are just trying to live, to provide a better life for their families. It is the fault of a society that has came to accept mediocrity and uselessness can be used as a virtue. Something I cannot remember Aristotle suggesting as a prevalent and distinguished virtue.

We do not have heroes any more. A soldier who dies in combat is remembered for a day. The next day, his truly heroic name is forgotten again. But Paris Hilton’s will remain for a very long time. An intellectually dead society that promotes easy celebrity and ignores true talent and passion. Useless celebrities, famous for being famous, are the pantheon of modern times. Gratuitous fame.

A few days ago a guy called Peer Michael Portner died of Cancer. He invented a device that meant that those suffering heart failure could be kept alive until a heart transplant could be done.
In August 2008, a man named Alexander Solzhenitsyn died. He was a Nobel Literature Prize Winner. He was part of the Soviet Red Army during WWII, but dissented and endured a life in labour camps, he survived torture and persecution, and he survived cancer. He was exiled from Soviet Russia in 1974, and risked death by writing a book about the oppression of the Soviet Police State. Both Portner and Solzhenitsyn, were brilliant men. Surely they’re worth talking about much more than a woman who was largely forgotten until she said “shilpa poppadom“?

It’s a sad reflection on the way we live, that millions can die each year through simple problems like water and food deprivation, and no one stands up and says how terrible that is. No one shouts out with such anger and fierce hatred for the plight of the needlessly dying, It isn’t front page of every paper like it should be. It just “is”. And yet, Jade Goody, who exists less as a person, and more as a merchantable commodity, gets cancer and the Country comes to a standstill. As a 23 year old male growing up in England, i’m slowly closing the books I read to improve my knowledge; realising instead that they are largely fatuous in our times, that signing up to a reality show and doing something slightly outrageous will set me up financially for life.

The World confuses me.

The Labour Leadership

When President Sarkozy of France indicated that the VAT cut over here in Britain, had not worked, Downing Street released the statement…

“It is important to remember the context in which he was making the comments, which as I understand it, was a domestic debate on television about the way forward for the French economy and French proposals for an economic stimulus.”

I think they missed the point. They always appear to miss the point. I’m not quite sure that the context matters at all. If Sarkozy had said “The VAT cut didn’t work” during a domestic debate about the French economy, or if he’d have said “The VAT cut didn’t work” during a sensual bath with Gordon Brown himself, it means the same thing. Not only that, but he’s right. The VAT cut didn’t work. It didn’t go far enough. Especially given that most retailers had cut prices distinctively more than ever before anyway.

The German Chancellor has accused Britain and America of failing to understand and control under-regulated areas of the economy, which in turn has lead to this whole disaster. Like Sarkosy, the German Chancellor is right. It doesn’t matter how many times Brown refuses to acknowledge his role in this crises, nor does it matter how many times he says “It’s a global problem“, the recent poll numbers, putting the Tories at a 20 point lead suggest that the public just doesn’t buy into what he says.

So why then, is it being suggested that Brown may step down as Prime Minister, to head up a Global Financial Regulator body? Although he’s denied his interest in such an appointment, it must be tempting for him. He has endured 10 years as Britain’s Chancellor before taking over from Blair as Prime Minister in 1997. But that begs the question, if Brown has been in charge of the Economy for the ten years leading up to the biggest economic disaster in generations, in which a lot of blame can be placed directly at the door of the new Prime Minister, why does anyone think, of the billions of people that live on our wonderful planet, that he, above all others, is the right man for the job? Surely along with people like Alan Greenspan and George Bush, he’d be kept well away from any kind of financial responsibility? We do not need failed Brownomics. We do not need failed Thatcherite economic policies. We need something new; something that preaches social morality within the confines of the free market model.

Labour After Brown.

I do not ever want to see a Conservative Government in this Country again. The roots of the economic crises today, can be traced in an almost perfect line back to the years in which Thatcher beat it into an entire generation, that the free market could solve everything. It didn’t work, clearly.

However, the Tories will win the next general election. That’s now a given. And they wont win by a small majority either, they will command a significant majority. So the worry is, who is to lead the Labour Party if Gordon Brown were to step down to take on a Global Regulatory role, or when Labour lose the next general election?

The talk of Journalist town appears to suggest that Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman is gearing up for a leadership bid. Does Labour really lack the talent? This is a woman who once said “Yep “ when asked if Labour should apologise for the false intelligence of the Iraq war, and then a few nights later claimed she’d never said that and demanded evidence.
The same Harriet Harman who once said that she would happily go out at night in her town of Peckham and not fear for her safety, but then went out in a stab proof vest.
The same Harriet Harman, who quite disgustingly, tried to nullify the high court ruling that all MPs receipts should be published, by trying to exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information act.
I would rather not vote at all, than be given a choice between Harriet Harman and David Cameron.

She certainly appears to be stepping up her profile recently, agreeing to speak at a ‘Womens Conference’ at the exact same time as the G20 meetings take place. She also started pushing for bank bonus caps recently, having kept relatively quiet for months. Is she trying to win over the support of the Labour left? According to politicalbetting.com, Harman is doing what Labour leaders do prior to an election and sucking up to the Unions. Politicalbetting asks if Harman is becoming our version of Palin…. I can safely say, yes she is, because she’s ridiculous, and useless all at the same time.

Harman certainly seems to be positioning herself one step above the competition, which would include David Miliband (my favourite as successor to Brown) and Alan Johnson, who really aren’t making any effort or publicity. In 2008, Miliband wrote an article in the Guardian about his vision for the future of the Labour Party. He doesn’t mention Gordon Brown’s involvement in that future once. He also suggests here… “The odds are against us, no question. But I still believe we can win the next election.”… That Labour has issues and must over come those odds. That issue, at that time, was Gordon Brown. Miliband looked set to offer an alternative to Brown. He ended up backing down. Perhaps that’s a weakness that should not be brought to the Prime Minister’s chair. He does however, attack the Tories, and David Cameron in particular. That isn’t what a Foreign Secretary does. It is however, what a man with big ambitions does. So perhaps the subtle hint at an ambitious future, was enough to start the ball rolling in 2008. He seems however, to have stayed quiet so far this time around, allowing Harman to get the publicity over a possible leadership contest.

For the sake of the Labour Party, let’s inject new blood into the system. Harman is not leadership material. She’s a typical Politician who cannot answer questions straight, and repeatedly contradicts herself, whether it be on her comments over a much needed apology for flawed intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, or preaching how wonderfully safe the streets of London are, whilst herself strolling around in a stab proof vest; just stands to show she is in fact a disaster of a Leader-in-waiting.

The public do not like Harman. She has made too many PR mistakes to claw back any ounce of respect. And whilst I’d push for The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband as next Labour leader simply because he reflects my own Blairite tendencies whilst looking young and fresh enough to pose an adequate threat to Cameron’s Tories; why should we leave it to the Party itself to decide? Why can’t we have a real democratically elected leader through perhaps a Primary system as in America?

Because if Harman is given the top job, she doesn’t stand a chance against the fresh looking, but lacking fresh ideas; Cameron’s Tories.

The Etonian problem

Conservative Leader David Cameron has told The Telegraph that he would like to send his children to state school. Something the last Tory Government would not do. Instead chosing to send their child to private schools whilst themselves running the state school system.

One might say that Cameron is doing the right thing. If he plans to run the state school system one day, he should show his confidence in it. However, despite that, I do think that the Conservative Leader is using his kids to his advantage politically, which is somewhat uncomfortable to know.

Cameron himself is an Etonian himself. His Shadow Cabinet is comprised largely of ex-Public school Etonians and even his best man at his wedding is an Etonian. He surrounds himself with one class of people. Oliver Letwin, Edward Llewellyn, Danny Kruger, George Brides, Zac Goldsmith; All from Eton. The last time a group of elite Etonians held such power, was the Tory Prime Minister in the 1950s, Harold McMillan.

It is always going to be difficult for someone like David Cameron to prove that his Eton roots will not influence his political agenda. Secretly, his Eton roots are considered a bit of an embarrasment. Cameron is trying to place himself as ‘in touch’ against a Government who appear more and more out of touch every day. Cameron has urged the Tories to lose their old toff image, to embrace Gay marriage, to embrace meritocracy and to lose the concept that they are a party run by the rich in support of the rich. As difficult as that task will be, I give him full credit for trying. He’s already vowed to look after the NHS even though former Tory governments have slashed it’s budget disastrously in the past. He has also plegded to scrap stamp for first time home buyers whilst investing in new, greener homes. He may have made a mistake among certain members of the electorate who were considering voting Tory over Labour this time around when in 2006, he tried to distance himself from the Thatcher era, which divided a nation in the 1980s. But then in 2008, did everything but get on his knees and bow down to her. This was a mistake. It could have cost him had an election been called at the very end of 2008.

Cameron is clearly trying to present himself as anything but the Etonian toff we all think he is. And all credit to him for that.
The Tories however showed their true blue colours when faced with the current economic crises, by offering nothing but blame placing. Pledging nothing to help families and people struggling the most, the Tories simply promised a cut in public spending. It is in the Conservatives genes to refuse to suggest that the deregulation they so highly cherished through the 1980s and 1990s might not have been as successful as they thought it would. Unlike the Republicans in the U.S, the Tories aren’t just complaining about certain parts of the stimulus package… their arguing against the need for a stimulus at all. People still need help with their homes, with their schools, with their hospitals; and Cameron’s somewhat suspicious slide back to the right wing of British politics could well prove to be an indicator of things to come, when he inevitably becomes our next Prime Minister. But, given that he’s the first Tory to actually try to impress into the public’s mind, a sense that the old toff Tories are transforming into a new in-touch party for the rich and for the poor, is worth crediting him for.

However, using your children to further enchance this new image of his? Why did he need to tell us he will send his children to state school? Why not just do it? Also, the state schools he talks about sending his children to, will not be the typical state schools like that ones the majority of the British public went to. They will be the state schools that are the very best funded in the land. They can be found in the rich area of London in which the Cameron family resides. So I do happen to find it slightly misleading and ever so slightly of bad taste to be using your children to try to break from the perception of Etonian public school boy out of touch past.

Not that any of this matters in the long run. The electorate will not vote for Cameron because they have delved into his ideals, they will vote for Cameron, because they despise Brown.