Posts Tagged ‘Guardian’

Both the Guardian and the Telegraph report that Cherie Blair was heckled at a fringe meeting of the Tory Party conference. The discussion was about the Human Rights Act of 1998, which signed the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.

Here is how the Guardian reported the events:

As she tried to say that the HRA was there to protect fundamental rights such as the right to life, some activists heckled her but she went on to defend the act. “We should be proud that in our country we do not have an elected dictatorship, and that the courts are there to protect individual rights. And, yes, that does apply to the most unpopular people, whether they are criminals, whether they are Gypsies, whether they are illegal asylum seekers, because in the end we are a decent society and we believe that everybody is entitled to respect and that has to be policed on our behalf.”

Now, what is the impression you get from this bit of reporting? It sounds like Blair is defending the rights of Gypsies and asylum seekers, doesn’t it? It sounds like Tory activists were objecting to this, as they always do in leftist mythology.

Here is the Telegraph:

Paul Bowman, whose teenage daughter Sally Anne was raped before being stabbed and her body defiled, challenged Mrs Blair to explain why “inhuman” murderers should be protected by the law.

She angered delegates at a fringe meeting at Conservative Party conference by suggesting that those who wished to change the Human Rights Act were advocating the return of slavery or disagreed with the sanctity of life.

There were hisses and angry shouts from the crowd, which included a number of victims’ relatives, as Mrs Blair, a leading human rights lawyer, was drowned out and forced to abandon her argument.

Well, that’s rather different isn’t it? She was heckled by victims’ relatives who were complaining about the protection afforded to their tormentors.


Read Full Post »

Brown has become known as a ditherer, amongst other things. He sems to have justified that nickname again, with a belated apology to the British people, months and months after it had become a common theme amongst the commentariat that an honest apology for past mistakes might be the best way forward. It is astounding that he doesn’t realise the time for this has passed. I have often wondered whether Brown was being advised by incompetents or just ignoring good advice. Why did he come out with such an outrageous lie as his denial he had planned an election last autumn? Didn’t someone advise him to soften the lie, to include some element of truth? Isn’t that what communications advisers do? Has he now finally decided to do what he was urged to do months ago?

He has this to say:

“We need to be honest with ourselves: while poverty has been reduced and the rise in inequality halted, social mobility has not improved in Britain as we would have wanted,” he said.

“A child’s social class background at birth is still the best predictor of how well he or she will do at school and later on in life.

“Our ambitions for a fairer Britain cannot be satisfied in the face of these injustices.”

Look, aspirations to a fairer society are understandable, and even admirable. But he is even farther removed from reality than we thought if he thinks that the country hates him because its been looking at the latest equality figures from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

People are angry because he’s cocked up the economy. They’re worried about the value of their house, and whether they’re going to lose their job, and if they do, whether they’ll be able to find another one. They’re pissed off with the prices of fuels and foods. They want to know if banks are going to go bust, and whether their pensions are safe.

The time for all this equality frippery was LAST YEAR, Gordon. Before the financial crisis and the fears of full-blown recession.

It’s hard not to come to the concusion that we have allowed ourselves a Labour government as a luxury when times were good. We allowed ourselves to be fooled into thinking that hard-headed policies on employment, benefits and taxes were a product of a selfish mindset. We tried to salve our consciences by electing a gang who were about more than that. The outcome has been a disaster, and yet Brown is still rabbiting on as if people are worried about the promises of ’97.

Gordon, no-one remembers ’97. Get over the fact that it wasn’t you who sat on top of that massive majority, it wasn’t you who got to mouth the touchy-feely language of inclusion when everyone was rich enough to care. Don’t apologize for something no-one except the multi-millionare Guardian commentariat are thinking about, apologize for wrecking the economy.

Read Full Post »

The government was clearly far from embarassed by revelations that it had paid for a propaganda series on its useless PCSOs, which you would have thought would have led to heads rolling. Surely its a big story that the government is paying TV stations to make and broadcast propaganda for its policies? Anyone?

Obviously no-one’s bothered, which is presumably why, according to the Observer, ZaNuLab have decided to try to recruit Jeremy Kyle to publicly humiliate benefit scroungers into getting a job. The Observer call this ‘spin’. This isn’t ‘spin’, guys, ‘spin’ is subtly rewording a message to avoid embarrassing aspects or to push the interpretation you want. This is PROPAGANDA. You may remember this from such socialist experiments as … oh, sod it. All of them.

We really are up shit creek if we accept the government has the right to produce tv programmes as propaganda. On Tim Worstall’s blog is information about the extent to which charities have also become propaganda outlets. I suggest, at the very least, if governments are going to fund such propaganda, NGOs or TV companies must be forced to give over 25% of each printed page or each TV screen to a big warning sign, a la cigarette packs, saying something like ‘THIS IS NOT INDEPENDENT OPINION. BELIEVE AT YOUR PERIL.’

Read Full Post »

Sarah Palin: 1

The British Media, not having to deal with actual Republicans phoning in and complaining about their bias, have a free hand to slag off the US right, which they grasp at every opportunity.

Today’s Guardian repeats the false allegations that Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party on the front page.  It uses tactics straight out of the Leon Trotsky handbook of subversion.

First, we have the implication that she was chosen only for being a woman – “McCain’s selection of a woman was hailed as a smart move.” How interesting that the feminist’s ‘paper of choice should write in such a fashion?

Then we have the statement that Palin was a member of the AIP presented as an established fact, despite her denials. Of course, the NYT has now admitted the story was a pack of lies, which the Guardian chose to reprint without checking up on themselves. The AIP have now publicly announced she was not a member. See here. Then the Guardian presents a screenshot from the Governor of Alaska’s address to the AIP conference, as if it was evidence for their claims, despite the fact that those of us who use the internet have known since yesterday that she was delivering the address as a courtesy from the Governor.  The implication in the Guardian article is that she was secretly working towards the AIP’s ends as some sort of mole within the government!

The mud-slinging at Sarah Palin has been truly disgraceful, and trusting in the decency of Americans (unlike the Guardian’s team of champagne socialists) , I personally think it is going to come back and bite the Democrats in November. The treatment of her has been so out of keeping with the behaviour towards other candidates that anyone who is not a confirmed Obama supporter will notice it. Americans, like Brits, believe in fairness.

Consider the source of this story, a story the NYT deemed worthy of a front page splash:

“The information in the Times article was based on a statement issued Monday night by Lynette Clark, the party’s chairwoman, who said that Ms. Palin joined the party in 1994 and in 1996 changed her registration to Republican.

On Tuesday night, Ms. Clark said that her initial statement was incorrect and had been based on erroneous information provided by another member of the party whom she declined to identify.”

So, on the basis of a piece of hearsay, which the professional journalists of the NYT didn’t bother to investigate, Palin was smeared by a national newspaper. Remind me, what is the point of the dead tree press these days? If they can’t be bothered to find information which is available on the internet, if they persist in acting as if something isn’t news until it’s in their pages, if they play out the staged scenario of charge and then rebuttal days after the rebuttal has already been available, why do we continue to prop up their businesses?

Read Full Post »