The next time the BNP appear on television and try to say that they're not racist, or when someone tells you that they're now a "respectable" party, point them to the example of Simon Smith. He was recently elected as a councillor for Great Bridge on the Sandwell council in the West Midlands. Like many members of the British National Party, including their candidates, he has a "secret" identity on the internet, where he shares his real foul views in the comfort of other like minds on the white nationalist (aka racist) Stormfront forums.
The Ministry of Truth has patiently and brilliantly went through the over 2,100 posts of Steve Freedom, Simon Smith's Stormfront alias. They expose the man as a fraud.
Some of his "choice" posts:
I wrestled with this subject for a long time….I didn’t want to accept what you may could call the "WN postion on the subject" just to fit in with everybody else…
The "Holocaust" is the biggest lie of all time….
I know where you are, so to speak..You will need to carry reading on the subect to put your mind at rest…
Here's a letter he sent to the Daily Telegraph, then owned by Conrad Black, about an article over Nike dropping their "Zyklon" shoe:
Umbro drops its Zyklon shoe after Jewish protests
I sent this email to the Telegraph in response
With regard to the “Zyklon” trainers article…
After doing quite a bit of reading on the "Holocaust" , I must say I don’t believe in the "Received Version" that is put out by the mainstream media. I believe we are living in a "Pre Copernican" era on this subject, and whilst it may be painful for vested interests to get to grips with this subject and call me an "Holocaust Denier", "Nazi" etc the truth will eventually stand by itself.
I believe that people who promote the "Orthodox" version of the "Holocaust" i.e. 6 million and mass executions by gas either believe in it as an article of faith or actually know they are propagating a myth whose demise would have consequences for Jewish interests.
I’m not stupid, I know that the Daily Telegraph is controlled by a Zionist lobby and I know that there is no way you would publish this letter in your newspaper. My hope is that this email may be seen by at least one truthfully minded individual before it’s consigned to the trash folder.
The six million figure is not even believed by Jewish “Holocaust” researchers. They do keep quiet on the matter so as not to dispel the myth. In fact the six million is in mathematical terms 6 times 10 to the power 6, a significant mystical Jewish number. The six million was being predicted way before 1945. It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
The 1988 Zundel trial allowed independent execution expert Fred Leuchter to demonstrate that the crematoria at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II could not have been used for execution purposes.
Zyklon “B” is not a fast acting gas. You are wrong. Even the article you link to refers to half an hour. The amount of Zyklon “B” used at the so-called “extermination” camps was no more or less than the other concentration camps. Cremation in 20 minutes is impossible. Germany wouldn’t be able to provide the coke for the crematoria for the number claimed.
The pictures of the emaciated corpses we see are of starvation and typhus victims and were taken in the western camps of the Reich. The tragic events occurred towards the end of the war when supplies were being cut off. British autopsies showed that none of the victims died of cyanide. In fact it was still claimed until the early sixties that gassings took place at Dachau and Belsen etc where the witness testimony (which has been debunked) was in no ways different to the witness testimony put forward at the IMT trials with respect to the eastern concentration camps….
I could go, but what’s the point ? You either believe the “received version” or you might have a slight doubt. If you have a slight doubt then research the topic…"
He also came up with 13 similarities between a certain German leader and another reasonably famous Biblical character:
These are some comparisons that came to mind between Jesus Christ and Adolph Hitler:
1 Both vilified by the major ruling powers of the world
2 Jesus killed by Romans because of Jewish lobby – Adolph affectively killed by Allies because of Jewish Lobby
3 Followers of Jesus persecuted after his death – Followers of Adolph persecuted after his death
4 Both drew attention to the lies of the Jews
5 Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple – Adolph threw out the Jewish bankers from Germany
6 Both were courageous men
7 Both were orators who connected with the “common folk”
8 Both came from fairly humble lower middle class families
9 Both have attracted devotees who would die for their respective causes
10 Jesus vilified by the Talmud, Adolph vilified by the (Jewish) media
11 Arguably both have attracted distorted ritualistic/fetishist behaviour from their fans that may have missed out their essential philosophy driving them (Truth/Salvation ?)
12 Neither had offspring – their legacy was who they were and what they stood for.
13 Both spoke the Truth and were willing to suffer the consequences for it
Much, much more is over at the Ministry of Truth's post. Smith does however has his own blog, where he's on his best behaviour but where even he can't help dropping some of his more bat shit crazy ideas:
Links:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848 - This amazing video shows that 911 was an inside job . The PNAC document -"People for a New American Century" describes how the American Neo Conservatives had said that they needed a new "Pearl Harbor" to foster American expansion in the middleast and beyond. George Bush and lapdogs like Blair are War Criminals. More than that - they are evil people.
http://members.tripod.com/~lyne4lyne/ - Flying saucers have been around for a while. They are secret government projects. The "alien" mythology has been created to disguise this. I am very angry about this.
The moon landings were a hoax
He also has a councillor website, no doubt funded by taxpayers, where he spends some of his time pointing out how other parties' councillors have criminal records, as well as explaining that there's more anti-white racism than there is of the non-white variety. This is of course because the media is owned by persons who benefit from uncontrolled immigration, despite the right-wing media's hostility to exactly that. This is to deflect attention from how many of the British National Party's prospective candidates have had previous incidents with the police. Indeed, according to Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs column, the only reason that the BNP did not field a full field of candidates in the Barking and Dagenham council elections was that not enough local members could be found who didn't have a conviction which had resulted in a custodial sentence of 3 months or longer in the last 5 years. This information was acquired from Robert Buckley, one of the successful candidates who boasted about the fact to anyone who would listen.
Not that everything is going swimmingly down in the appropriately named Barking for the BNP. Three of their number have been taken to court over owing thousands in rent and council tax. And after trying to get an amendment passed which would have condemned "discrimination against the indigenous majority", only one of their councillors had the brains to raise his hand to support it. They later complained that they thought they had to press buzzers. The BNP aren't idiots, they just sometimes act like it.
Following the start of yesterday's Sun campaign to end politically correct persecution of St. George flag flyers, its rivals have inevitably seen a gap in the market.
The Mirror then offers a complete England car kit, normally costing £32 for free. Those jittery horses had better watch out.
The Sun, apart from getting excited over someone with a one syllable name kicking a football, has a free St. George poster, which has "FLY THE FLAG WITH PRIDE" emblazoned across the middle red stripe. Why the Sun is so attached to what one letter writer to the Grauniad today calls "the much hated papal banner of the Norman/French occupation" is probably a question not worth asking. Where a Palestinian mythical dragon slayer born in Asia Minor comes into it is anyone's guess.
Richard "Dirty" Desmond, proprietor of the Daily Star and Diana Express, has decided to put his hand in his pocket (bulging with the £52 million he took home last year) and give away yet another £50,000 camper van, which you can use to go and visit the tunnel where the people's princess sadly came to her tragic end. Alternatively you could just leave it on your drive or outside your house and hang your free "official Daily Star" wall chart inside it. Remember, it's three times the size of that page! Sadly they don't compare it in size to Rebecca Loos' surgically enhanced breasts, whom is today's lady in her underwear on the front page. Surely a missed opportunity?
There's nothing quite like journalism which involves nepotism. Recently we saw the offspring of Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, Isabella, commenting on the relationship of airheads Chantelle and Preston, who met on Celebrity Big Brother, although she was helped with some of the words by Alexia Skinitis (who she?).
Today's Grauniad G2 features an article written by none other than 12 and 14 year-old aspiring hacks Alix and Maya Hattenstone, reporting on meeting some of their favourite authors at the Guardian-sponsored Hay-on-Wye literary festival. Alix and Maya are of course the daughters of Grauniad sports writer and interviewer Simon Hattenstone, who is credited with "additional reporting, aged 43." They talk to among other authors, Jacqueline Wilson, Andy McNab (forever immortalised by Alan Partridge as Randy McNob) and Michael Morpurgo. Accompanying the piece are photos of the girls with all of the authors, which will no doubt look great in the family album. Trebles no doubt to the commisioning editor and congratulations to the Hattenstone family!
You could have seen this one coming. As the country gears up for England's inevitable exit from the World Cup in the quarter finals on penalties, every right thinking person is of course showing their support by sticking up the flag of St. George in as many places as possible.
According to the Sun, those that object are killjoys, and are of course, preaching hated political correctness. That nearly all the original "killjoys" have relented doesn't seem to matter. First of all, those well known politically correct fascists, namely Hampshire police, warned that flags attached to cars could scare wildlife and make horses bolt. They also warned that flags could become detached and turn into "plastic missiles" which could cause serious injury. Perhaps over cautious, but isn't it better to be safe than sorry in some cases? Even so, I'm sure that the Sun's objection to such worries has nothing to do with the fact that they were offering car flags which as well having the flag and England printed across them, also had the Sun's logo clearly visible all over them in their newspapers. It's also reminiscent of their campaign to err, "save Christmas" from politically correct councils which supposedly thought lights and decorations may offend some ethnic minorities. Complete rubbish of course, but it makes for a good campaign and might trick a few punters into buying the paper in the bargain.
The other politically correct killjoys were those other well known socially caring and environmentally friendly guys at err, Tesco, who briefly banned their drivers from flying the England flags in their cabs. They relented after pressure from their drivers and public, especially after it was pointed out that drivers already flew football club flags and had such murals in their cabs. The council in Milton Keynes briefly objected to a man who had painted his house in the style of the St. George's flag, as it was in-between two protected and registered buildings. They also quickly relented. Another case was a school in Stoke-on-Trent, a town which has had problems with the British National Party, which also briefly banned the flying of the flag. Again, they relented.
There is of course a serious element to all of this. There are some who feel threatened by the flag of St.George, whether wrongly or not. Joseph Harker wrote a very ill-judged article for the Guardian a couple of weeks ago which was very close to being racist, made sweeping generalisations and was excessively paranoid. What has been evident about the burst of patriotism and flying of the flag is that it has been almost comprehensively reclaimed from the racist far-right. Understandably, those that remember the bad old days of BNP and National Front fetes are a little concerned about the connotations, but they need not worry. One only has to go into the average Chinese or Indian restaurant to find that they too have put up wallcharts to chart England's progress. If anything, it shows that the nation is coming together, and that the implications of Norman Tebbit's notorious test, that being that nationality could be judged on whether immigrants supported England or Pakistan at the cricket, are becoming a thing of the past.
Even so, why should one have to fly the flag to show their support for England? Anyone with half a brain can do it without having to become one of those idiot goons that Charlie Brooker described as branding themselves and paying for the privilege. You too can support England, while sneering at the likes of the Sun and their demands that anyone who objects to the flag is a politically correct wanker. I object to the Sun on the grounds that it's written by semi-literate morons and owned by a man who does everything he can to avoid paying tax in this country, even though his newspapers and media interests have such a big influence on the political culture and discourse. Will the Sun support me flying an England flag from my window with "FUCK THE SUN AND ALL THAT BUY IT" written on it? That should answer whether or not they truly support the rights of everyone to put whatever things they like on their houses or cars.
Well, you have to at least give Hazel Blears credit for trying. As one of the slightly less annoying Labour party women cabinet MPs - she rankles less than Patricia Hewitt, and more than Tessa Jowell - there's already a mountain to climb, especially as she's a committed Blairite. She today writes in the Guardian that the Labour party has to prove that it has the "governing" gene - and boy, she tries to convince you, but only through boring you to tears by coming up with same old cliches.
My challenge as Labour party chair is to rehabilitate party politics as a reputable, even honourable, activity. I want local activists to be proud of their role in making our democracy work. I want to see more working-class people - especially women - involved in party politics, including at the highest levels. Working-class people have the most to gain from party politics, and the most to contribute. Politics pothe country, in towns, on estates and in cities, I have met people who are working to improve their localities. Some, such as the women of Mothers Against Guns, face huge danger to take on drug gangs or criminals with guns. Every year we honour, with the Taking a Stand awards, local activists who tackle crime and antisocial behaviour. Others are involved with Sure Start or New Deal for Communities schemes. Two things stand out: first, it is often the women in the community who come forward to make a difference; and second, they seldom make a connection between their campaigns and mainstream party politics.
Yes, they seldom make a connection because they're not interested in mainstream party politics, and they're not going to be interested in becoming part of the Labour party when no one will bother listening to them once they are, which is what will happen. This government is almost immune to listening, unless it's what it wants to hear. We've had the Big Conversation and the Let's Talk shambles, and nothing good has come out of them.
I know that this is a tough time to be a Labour supporter. Some people are angry with us on specific issues such as Iraq or tuition fees; others are frustrated by what they feel is a lack of progress on issues that they care about, such as education or crime. But I do not believe that the country is at a tipping point between governing parties. This is not 1945, 1979 or 1997.
Despite the current poll leads for the Conservatives, I do not get a sense that Britain is desperate for a change of government. Michael Howard enjoyed poll leads of 4% over Labour in January, February and March of 2004, but went on to lose the election. Labour was ahead of the Tories in the 80s and 90s but lost in 1987 and 1992. Opposition parties normally lead government parties at this point in the electoral cycle.
We are experiencing the natural rhythm of government. After nine years in power no government can expect an easy ride from the voters. People are sceptical, querulous, hard to please. Good. No government should be free from proper scrutiny. People should be ambitious for change. But most still want Labour to succeed. They know we are basically on their side. And they don't want the Tories back. The BBC's adaptation of The Line of Beauty serves as a terrible reminder of the Tories in government: arrogant, decadent and elitist.
She's right about two thing, it's a tough time, but it's not about specific issues or a lack of progress on other issues - it's about almost everything. The other thing she's right about is that it is not yet a tipping point - but it will be soon unless something is done. Then we have the biggest laugh in the whole article - the Tories in government: arrogant, decadent and elitist. A complete difference to this government then, which bans protests without prior permission within a mile of parliament, which tries to make ID cards compulsory despite its manifesto saying that they would not be, which has John Prescott hanging on to all his perks despite being caught shagging his secretary, only to give up a house after weeks of pressure, the antics of Tessa Jowell's husband, his hedge funds, offshore tax havens and Jowell's apparent lack of enquiry involving his dealings. Then there's loans for peerages, as well as peerages for academy sponsors, all of which is neither decadent or elitist. True, the Tories were guilty of undeclared loans as well, but that was to be expected from them. Blair's promises to be whiter than white look more laughable by the day. As for no government being free from proper scrutiny, the Abolition of Parliament Act, aka the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill in its unaltered state would have left ministers with the powers to change bills almost at will, with only a committee being able to object.
I don't believe I am giving away Labour's election-strategy secrets when I say that at the core of Labour's exposé of David Cameron will be the simple reminder that he is a Conservative. We need to show people what Cameron is really all about: saying whatever it takes to get the Tories back into power. Vote Cameron and you get the rest of them: Gummer, Hague, Duncan Smith and Redwood. Cuts to public spending. Attacks on the unions. Longer NHS waiting lists. Isolation in Europe. Just like last time.
Oh, so Labour's election strategy will be more of the same? Dave the Chameleon worked like a dream - the nasty, personal campaign the Conservatives wanted. Cuts to public spending, hmm, what was that about NHS deficits, caused in some places by huge PFI bills and companies making excess profits? Oh, that's happening under this government. Attacks on the unions? Who could forget about Blair's speech about "wreckers", which targeted nurses and teachers? The lack of solidarity with those sacked or under threat of redundancy, both at Vauxhall plants and at Gate Gourmet show how hollow the government's support of the unions is, as is the way that Labour treats the resolutions made at its conferences - it just ignores them. Isolation in Europe? This couldn't possibly be the same government which has been thinking about amending or pulling out of the European Convention of Human Rights, only for Charlie Falconer to eventually mention that it wouldn't be a very good idea. This government was also the only one to imprison foreign nationals without charge, which required a lapse of the government's implementation of the European right to liberty. Still, if you ignore all that then I guess that Blears is pretty much right.
After 106 years, this is the Labour party's defining moment. The coming months will answer a simple question: is Labour a party of government or a party of protest? Are Labour governments an aberration? Is our job simply to take over from tired Tories and let them take a breather for a few years? Or do we have a "governing gene" in our DNA?
The evidence is promising: we are facing up to tough long-term challenges in energy policy, public-service reform, pensions and immigration. We are governing for the long term. We are trading short-term political popularity for the long-term benefit of the country, and that is the hallmark of a serious government.
So there are multiple tests for the Labour party during the coming months. We must deliver on our manifesto pledges, based on a mandate only a year old. We must be united, because, as recent events prove, the only winners when Labour people scrap are the Tories. We must demonstrate that Labour is different from the Tories, that our values and our instincts are different. We are not simply a competing brand, but represent a distinct political and moral tradition. We need to continue to dominate the centre ground of politics, forcing the Tories on to the extremes - where most of them are quite comfortable.
Facing up to long-term challenges in energy policy - translation: Tony told his business chums that nuclear is back on the agenda with a vengeance. Public service reform - yet more constant change in the NHS, causing deficits, low staff morale and patients to suffer as a result. In schools, the establishment of academies ran by religious nutters where the kids have to carry Bibles on certain days and are expelled for smoking, or ran by business groups which in some cases haven't even yet paid the sponsorship money. Then there's the trust schools, which won't result in a two-tier system because Tony says so. Pensions reform is around the only issue where Labour has admittedly got it right - only because Turner was allowed to do a full report, which Blair beat Brown into agreeing to most of its conclusions. Then there's immigration, where the government allows the hysteria of the tabloids to override the real picture, which is that those seeking asylum is down, removals are being accelerated at the expense of those who aren't seeking asylum but are just illegal, and where those being readied for deportation are being kept in disgusting conditions.
Trading short-term political popularity for long term benefit - from a government that has legislated on the back of a fag packet, that has played to the day's headlines and been more interested in what the Sun and Daily Mail think than its own supporters, seems just a little rich. From 42 separate pieces of criminal justice legislation, from hundreds of newly created offences, to Blears' own wheeze about making those carrying out community punishments wear orange jackets like the detainees at Guantanamo, this is dishonesty of the highest order.
Blears' last gasp is that Labour has to deliver on its manifesto pledges - but how many of those who voted Labour voted for it based on its manifesto - Obsolete voted for Labour, but certainly not for the manifesto or Blair. As for delivering on its pledges, we've already seen how a voluntary ID card system becomes compulsory when the legislation is introduced, only for the House of Lords to manage to come to a compromise with the government. Labour does represent a different political and moral tradition - but it doesn't at the moment, and hasn't for a good few years. The centre ground is the ground of despair, held hostage by the rampaging right and the hate of the Sun and Daily Mail. Labour has had 9 long years to govern not from the centre, but from the centre-left, and it hasn't. Look what 9 years of centre governing has created - a Labour party emasculated of almost all its members, activists alienated and a country increasingly cynical of politics as a whole. Pointing out how nasty and horrible the Tories are will not do any longer, and neither will the constant finger pointing of Blair at PMQ's, still blaming the Tories and saying how they never did anything when they were in power. That's ancient history - we need honesty and proper answers now. Labour needs to articulate where it's going, and this article by Hazel Blears does nothing of the sort.
The freelance photographer who just "happened" to be wandering around near Dorneywood last Thursday with his long lens must be the target of a few choice words currently in Downing Street. In the absence of any big political story, parliament having broken up for the half-term break on Thursday, the hacks on the Mail on Sunday brought back the scandal of Prescott, this time complete with a croquet mallet. The damage could only have been worse if Prescott had used the mallet to smack a nearby furry creature.
Well, at least that's one way of looking at the continuing furore surrounding Prescott. Also leaked, almost certainly by Downing Street, but which has perhaps somewhat backfired, was the news that Blair had wanted to remove Prescott's privileges, such as his salary and Dorneywood country home. Prescott, probably convincing the prime minister that if he was to leave the cabinet there'd have to be a Labour deputy leadership election, something which neither Blair or Brown want or need, managed to keep them. It was meant to make Prescott look even worse, but instead it just makes Blair look ever more the lame duck that Steve Bell has been drawing him as.
The parallels between Prescott and Blair don't just stop there. Both were once those who took the most joy from the scandals which rocked the broken and rotten Tory party of the 90s. Prescott made jokes, Blair made political capital. Now Prescott has his own sexual misdeeds and arrogance exposed, while Blair still must be worrying about the knock on the door from Knacker of the Yard, wanting to ask a few questions about loans for peerages. We are also told by no less a man than Prescott's biographer that he won't until Blair himself goes, which while being sensible, as it makes more sense to have two elections at once than two separately, makes you wonder whether Labour really does sense the danger that it's in.
From the beginning of the year, all it has faced has been scandals, some manufactured, some that should and have been fatal, and others that show no signs of going away. We had the panic over paedophile teachers, mainly cooked up in the hysteria which is the tabloid media's way of reporting on it, and Ruth Kelly survived, only to be replaced at the reshuffle because she was useless at selling Blair's trust school reforms. Tessa Jowell lied and lied and lied again about not knowing anything to do with her husband at all, but she survived. At the reshuffle, according to Jonathan Freedland, Blair wanted to move her away from culture, but she objected, and got her way. Another sign of weakness perhaps, but Jowell is such an ardent, loyalist Blairite that perhaps he just gave in because of her service. We've also had loans for peerages, Jack Dromey putting the knife in quite rightly over not being informed, the Home Office panic and complete incompetence over foreign criminals, and there is no sign that these bad news stories for Labour are going to stop coming.
And what do the public see? They see John Reid jetting off only a couple of weeks after becoming Home Secretary, and after bollocking his department and doing little else, to a holiday but quickly returning. They see John Prescott, the supposed class warrior, an ex-man of integrity but who has been so lacking in his succession of roles that all he will be remembered for is punching an egg thrower and not quite managing to shag his secretary, playing an upper class game just hours after taking control of the country from the Dear Leader, seemingly oblivious to any state of alert or problems that his party is facing.
It's the sign that Labour has not only lost its way, but that it's almost giving up governing. The Tories, with Cameron still getting the media love-in, despite continuing shows of his hypocrisy and carrying his shoes and papers behind him in a car while he rides his bike, just can't believe their luck. Labour is trying to get a grip, it must be said; but that grip just involves the same old failures. We're told that they'll be even more choice in the NHS when we need an operation, even though take up of other places for treatment has been incredibly low since it was introduced at the beginning of the year. The government just can't seem to understand that what everyone wants is good care locally, not miles away where they can choose to go. We're told unmarried couples are to get new rights, which is great and all, but doesn't really sound like much of this new agenda, how Labour has to be renewed from the bottom up.
The party badly needs renewal. The end of Prescott and Blair though should only be the first phase. If they had any sense, they would both be gone not by next year's party conference, but by the time of the Manchester conference this year. Most people are still assuming that Brown will get the job, yet increasingly he feels like more of the same, the tired old New Labour man that has never either took his chance or never had a chance. With Cameron as opposition leader, some are increasingly wondering whether there needs to be a similar generation skip from Labour. It's time then for Brown to put his foot down. He needs to tell Blair and Prescott to go this year, and he needs to expand on some of his already declared policies in the contest which has to follow. A lot of hype and bluster about "Britishness" isn't going to cut it. At the moment he seems like more of the same. If the travails of Prescott and Blair are to be quickly forgotten and forgiven, Brown has to do much more. And like Freedland points out at the end of his article, even with all this government's attacks on civil liberties, the war on Iraq, the choice agenda, the Tory measures which are the education "reforms", the NHS deficits and constant reform there, as well as the reliance on PFI projects, Labour will still be better than the Tories, even under Cameron. It may be the lesser of two evils, but it's still at the moment better the devil you know.
Update: and almost the second after I post, Prescott gives up Dorneywood. I don't think it''ll be enough to save him, especially as he keeps his salary.
Sir Ian Blair just can't help being a complete and utter tool, no matter what he tries his hand at. He suggests that the media might just be as institutionally racist as the force he runs is, because the tabloids especially almost entirely ignored the death of an asian man who had been killed when robbers stole his van, while a white city lawyer who was knifed on the underground took all the attention and coverage. It then turned out it might have something to do with the fact that his PR department had sent out multiples releases on the death of Tom ap Rhys Price, while the broadsheets themselves had done the hard work on the death of Balbir Matharu.
When he said that he was amazed and could hardly understand that the case of the Soham girls, murdered by Ian Huntley had got so much media attention, it showed that he had no idea of how the tabloids work, nor of the mind of the average lay person. It also helped that it happened in the barren silly season, something he apparently hadn't noticed or considered.
He perhaps can't be blamed too much for his latest gaffe, which was saying that the removal of Brian Haw's banners and placards cost the police £7,200. A snip surely, for saving Tony Blair of all his embarrassment. Then it turned out that Ian Blair had got his figures wrong. The actual cost of the operation, conducted in the dead of night, with cameras that look into parliament square conviently turned around for the duration, was actually £27,754. Well, his first figure was almost right if you turn around the two first numbers and add another 0. Easy mistake to make, right? An apology would make everything ok, surely. Nope, instead dear old Ian Blair instead turned on the leaker:
"I am disappointed by what seems to be a leak to the press out of what is an ordinary and internal meeting. Such behaviour appears to be contrary to the values of the organisation and this will be looked into accordingly." Spending huge amounts of money on removing one person's vigil when it could be better used to stop actual criminal behaviour appears to be contrary to the values of the organisation. Still, it'll save Tony Blair from gnashing his teeth as he goes to PMQ's, so that's at least one thing that we can be proud of.
Ever wanted to ring up Labour's former bullshitter in chief and tell him exactly why he's one of the biggest cunts currently residing on the planet? Well, for the princely sum of just 2 pounds 51 pence, you can! While sorting through the Labour party election spending reciepts, Backing Blair has come across both Campbell's phone and fax numbers. It's now auctioning them on eBay. All the money raised goes towards the costs of what Backing Blair is doing, so it's all for a good cause.
Some things you might want to ask Campbell about: why was he so determined to "fuck" Andrew Gilligan, why he and John Scarlett were so desperate for intelligence to go in one of the dodgy dossiers that they sent out a begging email that resulted in the bogus 45 minutes launch time for Saddam's WMD leading the dossier, which in turn was reported in Daily Express and Evening Standard front page splashes which were never corrected when it turned out the intelligence report referred to battlefield munitions, whether he's pleased with the character in the BBC political comedy the Thick of It, which is clearly based on him, why he thinks his an audience with Alastair Campbell tour was such a disaster, or indeed, what it's like to turn from being such an anti-American, as he was back in his Daily Mirror days, to licking the ass of George Bush along with his best friend Blair.
Or, you could just go for the jugular and do the following, as recommended on Guido's comments on this very subject:
charlieboy said... No, but it sure is satisfying.
Are his fax details available too?
Take one sheet of black (yes, black) paper. Insert into fax machine. Tape each end carefully together, such that it forms a perfect cylinder. Press 'send'. Now leave it running, and leave for home.
It's neither big, nor clever...
It shouldn't be shocking. It shouldn't be deeply depressing. It shouldn't even be surprising. Yet it's still difficult to believe that only two days after an earthquake which has now killed at least 5,000, injured 20,000 and made homeless 200,000, only the Guardian and Times find any space at all for it to feature on their front pages.
Sure, it can be argued that there's little the average person back here in Britain can do about it, other than engage in fake anguish for those that they don't know, or donate a few pounds to the numerous charities already gathering funds to send help. Even so, it seems callous and even disturbing just what the tabloids especially think is more important than the stories of those who have just had their lives destroyed.
The Sun, as well as laying in like most of the other papers into John Prescott when he was photographed on Thursday playing croquet, decides that Victoria Beckham talking to Theo Walcott's girlfriend is more important. Similiarly the naming of Angelina Jolie's child is given more prominence than the deaths of thousands.
The Sexpress, continuing the Prescott-bashing theme, also prints a photograph of Mariah Carey wearing a revealing bikini top, somehow connected to a piece about celebrity diets. Also revealed is the spy in the sky that looks into your garden. Could it possibly be the same spy that took the photographs the Daily Mail was "giving" away a few weeks back?
The Mail itself leads on how babies are increasingly be aborted for what they call "not being perfect". The story is almost entirely based on figures released from the Office for National Statistics which revealed that 20 babies between 1996 and 2004 had been aborted after 20 weeks because they had a club foot. It's worth wondering how many people who have club feet regard it, as the Mail does, as a "minor cosmetic defect". Still, 20 children which had not yet been born are obviously more important than the 4,200 confirmed dead when the Mail went to press last night. Like the Scum, except accompanied by an even larger photo, the Mail also seems to think the naming of a child is similarily fascinating.
The Mirror, like the rest of the so-called popular press, also finds the news that a celebrity has given a child a stupid name front page worthy. Alongside we have the bombshell that Big Brother contestant and former porn star Lea at one time weighed 22 stone, which comes as a surprise to those of us who thought that her comedy sized breasts must easily come close to that. That story is covered in full over two pages inside, on the 13th and 14th pages to be precise. The earthquake is relegated to 3 quarters of a page back on the 23rd.
I could go on, but I'm sure you can already guess that the Daily Star didn't hold the front page for the earthquake victims either. Nor did the Independent, which being characteristically different goes with a story about, err, plastic water bottles. Do people genuinely not seem to care, or is it the news agenda of the editors which is out of line? Both the BBC and Guardian currently consider the earthquake either second or first in line of 'priority' on their online services, something that the editors of Britain's dailies certainly don't seem to agree with.