17th Nov 2013
Short and sweet, folks. This is the tangled web one weaves…
“My business partners, who have nothing to do with me personally-he is just a business partner, with his wife-were very clear that, in going into business, they did not want to be brought into the public domain via my political position.”
“Andy and Ann Rayment are two of my closest friends.”
Ouch. Dorries has form for showing contempt to Parliament, but this example’s so clear, it’s going to sting like a paper-cut between the fingers.
See also: This earlier (and long but important) post by Unity, who has noticed this same contradiction.
23rd Oct 2013
1st Jul 2013
Last week Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid flagship The Sun finally brought an end to the shameful practice of using Page 3 models to sell the opinions of senior editors to readers as if they were their own.
This practice began under the since-disgraced editor Rebekah Wade – now Rebekah Brooks, soon to be inmate #5318008 if I’m any judge – but rather than let it die with her career, Dominic Mohan saw fit to let it drag on for nearly 4 more years under the pretence that it had all been a clever bit of post-modernism (i.e. before he was suddenly removed as editor for reasons that I am sure will become clearer to us as time goes by).
I am here to refuse Brooks, Mohan and other intellectual cowards the luxury of a neatly rewritten history.
‘News in Briefs’ was no joke, and my leading example from February 2004 needs no explanation. It is stark, it is real, and it is a perfect example of how sincere Rebekah Wade/Brooks was in her efforts to use topless models to push political propaganda, and how deeply she and others invested in it:
These further examples paint a more complex but no less compelling picture. They date from August 2004, when David Blunkett’s reign as Home Secretary was about to end in ignominy over issues surrounding his affair with Kimberly Quinn.
Blunkett was balls-deep in the kind of ‘love rat’ and corruption scandal that tabloids normally go nuts for, but in this case, the subject of the scandal was not only politically-aligned with then-editor Rebekah Wade/Brooks, but a personal friend to boot.
What usually happens in cases like this is that the damning details are played down or not explored at all. Meanwhile, the feral enthusiasms one normally expects from tabloids are diverted into undermining critics/accusers while sympathetic editorials paint the besieged ally in as positive a light as possible.
In this case, the editorials extended onto Page 3, and praised three distinct Home Office initiatives over three editions (the Friday before the scandal broke cover, and the Monday and Tuesday following):
She has yet to admit to any of this (or anything else, for that matter), but I remain confident that these editorials were strategically placed by then-editor Rebekah Wade/Brooks in order to better service her friend and political ally David Blunkett, and not the result of any topless model(s) spontaneously deciding that they would use the empowering platform of Page 3 to express their admiration for the work of the beleaguered Home Secretary.
That said, there is an outside chance that this was a genuine and spontaneous outpouring of emotion following the first of two resignations:
Those not wanting to see what happened after Blunkett’s second resignation should look away now.
‘News in Briefs’ editorials were not designed for shits and giggles, folks. They served a very real political purpose, they exploited Page 3 models way beyond any concerns about pornography*, and I’m damn proud to have campaigned against the practice for as long as I did.
*Related link: No More Page 3
17th Jun 2013
It’s funny what life throws at you sometimes. For years I’ve been putting little notes to one side that describe ideas and projects I doubt I’ll have the time for. I showed one of these to Ms Humphrey Cushion a few weeks back. Then, shortly after, this (finally) happened:
[some detail -> Cute Font: how we put swears on your chest]
I say ‘finally’ because that particular scrap of paper was nearly 12 years old at the time. My sincere thanks go to Humph for some great collaboration and a proper kick up the asterisk.
4th Mar 2013
For those who enjoyed my Star Wars double entendres video, here’s a fresh treat for you: a single double entendre from every official Bond film from Dr. No (1962) to Die Another Day (2002), sped up in most places to make it all slightly less tedious.
That’s 40 years of smut and innuendo condensed into two minutes, ending with a car crash named Madonna:
Keep in mind that Double Entendre Day is now only 8 weeks away, and the way the weather is turning, now would be an especially good time to buy a fresh t-shirt or two, (a) to replace the grubby ones you’ve been using as undershirts every day for the last 6 months, and (b) to attract a potential mate in time for the breeding season. If that’s your bag.
18th Feb 2013
I made this uplifting thing for you. It is yours.
Fans of Bloggerheads are invited to enjoy the next 10 weeks with me as we prepare for Double Entendre Day. Regulars are especially encouraged to inspect the nature of the messaging on our t-shirt collection.
More details are on the official Double Entendre Day website today, but there’ll be plenty of action here and on my Twitter feed. If you’re totally new to all of this, and feel entirely out of your depth, then you may want to start here.
Have a great Monday, and remember: there are only 72 sleeps until Double Entendre Day!
11th Feb 2013
For reasons that regulars will find easy to guess at, I’ve put off waving these toys around for quite some time now. The good news is that this has resulted is a stockpile of illumination weaponry; this is just a teaser, and I have much to show you in coming weeks.
For while I’ll merely be showing you existing builds and comparing them with a yet-to-be-finalised method for comparing measurement of both lux and lumens, but it won’t take too long for the videos to catch up with works in progress, and by then we should be well into the torches that require two hands… or a bloody great tripod.
Another new video should be out
by tomorrow soon enough, folks. You should expect something a little bit different, and I would hope just a shade more brilliant.
28th Jan 2013
The late Barry Smith was a tireless preacher of evangelist/conspiracy rhetoric, and I can tell you now that he sure knew how to spin a yarn and hold an audience.
I have here a special treat for Barry Smith enthusiasts; a 2 hour lecture by Barry that was unavailable online until today:
You may think that you don’t have the patience to listen to over 120 minutes of fire, brimstone and assorted argle-bargle, but I can assure you there will be plenty of envelope-pushing to pique your interest, pretty much from the outset.
The audio is a bit shaky (the volume was very high and muddy on the VHS source) but from about 90 seconds in you’re going to start to forget about all of that, and be transported by Barry’s many insights and certainties about signs of the Occult, and indications that the End Times are upon us. Enjoy.
22nd Jan 2013
Towards the end of his life, a woman with a striking resemblance to Jimmy Savile appeared at his doorstep claiming she was his child. He refused all contact with her, and even after he died she was initially refused access to materials that would allow her to conduct a DNA test.
She began a legal challenge that eventually led to DNA tests commissioned “by executors of Sir Jimmy’s estate” that were “inconclusive” (based on smoked cigars left in his home, apparently, but this detail may be tabloid garnish). She has since dropped the whole matter in line with her mother’s long-standing advice that she “leave it alone”, which shouldn’t surprise anyone given all of the recent revelations and allegations about the man who has become known as one of the most prolific sexual predators of our time.
You are invited to gaze in wonder at this item, where The Sun publish the response from Savile’s “former personal assistant” during the dispute. Full text appears below the scanned article for those of you in the cheap seats.
Sir Jimmy Savile’s pal says love child tale is ‘lie’
By RHODRI PHILLIPS
SIR Jimmy Savile’s former personal assistant yesterday rubbished a blonde’s claims that she is his secret daughter.
Janet Cope, 70, said the telly star would never have risked an affair.
And she dismissed Georgina Ray’s claims that the Top Of The Pops legend had a fling with her waitress mum in 1970 as “grotesque.”
She added: “I made all Jim’s arrangements, knew his every movement and who he was friends with.
“I’ve never heard of Georgina Ray or her mum. Jim cared too much about his image. He wouldn’t have risked it for a cheap fling.”
The Sun told last week how Georgina, 40, is calling for DNA tests to prove she is the daughter of Sir Jimmy, who died six weeks ago. The mum of three, from Cannock, Staffs, denies being a gold-digger.
What a difference a year makes, eh?
21st Jan 2013
Hi everyone. I am sorry about the extended absences before and after Christmas.
I’d like to begin today with a belated review of this very important book by Bob & Sue Firth:
I Made My Excuses and Stayed (buy here) – In rural Dorset Bob and Sue Firth were running a successful Bed and Breakfast establishment with a twist. It was a naturist establishment. The couple were also professional masseurs offering therapeutic massage to non-residents as well as guests. All was going smoothly until they accepted a booking from a man calling himself ‘Neville’. Naively, the couple were taken in by this character who, using subterfuge, bribed them into making love in his presence. Unfortunately, ‘Neville’ turned out to be an undercover reporter, Neville Thurlbeck, for the News of the World! Believing he was about to uncover a juicy story, but finding that no such story existed, he set about fabricating a two page spread from his own imagination for the Sunday tabloid. But what ‘Neville’ didn’t realise was that the couple, suspicious of his intentions, had captured his escapades on a hidden video camera. The extraordinary story documents Bob and Sue’s rollercoaster of emotions and their adventures against overwhelming odds to set the record straight.
If I have a criticism of the book, it is that frequently we are asked to depart from the core narrative so we might get to know more about Bob & Sue. This is to be expected; they have just been through a brutally dehumanising process that few of us would be able to cope with at all, and I get the sense that this is one of their coping mechanisms (i.e. in that they would like the reader to recognise that they are not the monsters they have made out to be, even though this should be immediately obvious to any reasonable person).
That said, the book contains so much of value to anyone with any interest in the current debate about media standards that I say without hesitation it is required reading (for Leveson junkies especially so).
First, the book lays bare the lie that one can simply take civil action to correct matters if they are monstered by a certain tabloid newspaper or any other publisher of a similar size/standard. When they seek to resist the introduction of anything approaching accountability, unscrupulous publishers will claim that celebrities, politicians and even the great unwashed can simply sue if the newspaper ‘gets things wrong’, but this is so far from the truth it is laughable. Bob & Sue Firth had Neville Thurlbeck bang to rights, and yet still his newspaper sided with him and managed to successfully avoid any repercussions themselves.
Further, the book repeatedly documents/reveals the mechanics of a core technique used by tabloid ‘journalists’ that has since been adopted and evolved by an increasing number of imitators.
Here’s the passage that I found most enlightening, especially given my own experiences. It relates the moment when the Firths get in contact with another victim of tabloid fabrication, so I got to enjoy my revelation while reading about Sue and Bob experiencing a similar revelation for themselves:
“Well, what did she say?
“Well, it’s amazing… the similarities to the way we were set up… the ‘inaudible’ tapes supplied to the police. Thurlbeck pushing for a police investigation. The grain of truth to the story and the fabrication of the bulk of the story…”
I am here to tell you that, typically, police will play along with this game even to the extent that they will refuse to investigate evidence that has been falsified specifically for their benefit (i.e. where you or I might expect to see some concern about a potential conspiracy to pervert the course of justice). They either remain happily in bed with specific titles/publishers/individuals or are so concerned about a perceived ability to interfere with operational capacity that they will allow false/falsified statements made on behalf of police to stand uncorrected/unaddressed, as they see it as the lesser of two evils.
(I was even informed by one senior police officer – I won’t say which force – who said that they would not be pursuing certain parties for wasting police time, because those parties had not wasted enough police time for it to be worth their time to pursue it. Nice.)
It is this technique of lying on behalf of police that causes me the most concern, not least because I have been attacked with this exact same technique on multiple occasions since 2006, and in an uninterrupted/overlapping sequence since 2009, pretty much from the moment when they convinced a man to smear me as a convicted child rapist (over 100 times), then watched him get away with it.
I am repeatedly assured by police that it is not a criminal/prosecutable act, but no police force that I have asked (so far) will go on the record about that.
Perhaps they are concerned about what might happen if too many people knew that they could tell an outright lie of behalf of a police officer, a police department or a police force without fear of legal consequence… but we are already at a point where this is causing considerable and growing harm to the public and corruption of their authority.
Allow me to show you how/why…
Witness in this example how NOTW used the arrest of a disturbed woman to pretend that it verified a crucial claim they made about an event that never took place (background: this was during their disgraceful handling of the Milly Dowler kidnap and murder). Deceits like this become commonplace once a publisher/editor learns that they can lie on behalf of police without fear of consequence (i.e. in much the same way as when learn they can lie to the PCC without fear of consequence).
Worse, tabloids have for years sought to manipulate police into investigating, arresting or prosecuting ideological opponents, and most have discovered over time that they can say pretty much anything they like about their target once they are prosecuted; this trigger nearly always brings the PCC onside, and the target is more often than not occupied with the matter of prosecution and in no position to take on the weight of an added civil action against a newspaper, even if they have the means.
Others in the world of tabloid standards have discovered that you don’t even need to have anyone prosecuted; you can simply lie outright about police investigations and actions that never took place, and (depending on who you are, I suspect) police won’t say or do a damn thing about it.
Here’s a classic technique: the ‘journalist’ calls the police and alleges their target is guilty of a crime. An investigation will usually begin – even though the target is not yet a suspect and probably never will be – but from this point on, all the ‘journalist’ has to do to elongate the period of time which they can safely claim their target is under investigation by police is dodge a few phone calls and/or pretend to be away.
The latter half of this technique appears to have become less common over time as participating parties have discovered that you can also lie about the outcome of an investigation with little fear of consequence.
In my experience it is this technique that has been observed and adopted most frequently by outsiders who seek the favour/influence of these tabloids and other fringe elements (including has-beens and wannabes). Most often it is fronted by an anonymous account, but some people have invested so deeply in it as to do it in their own name (not that this stops them from engaging in further/worse acts anonymously).
There’s a kind of logic to this that’s apparent once you consider the type of person who is doing it; an accusation on behalf of police carries its own authority and credibility, and the people who rely on them to attack their political enemies invariably lack both.
Of course, one of the reasons these lies carry so much authority and credibility is that most people assume that you can’t make claims like this on behalf of police without consequence… but you can.
I have determined that an attempt to investigate and correct this state of affairs is the best use of my time in terms of political campaigning; it has been used to undermine anything of consequence I may have attempted before (I have as a result been accused of everything from hacking computers to stalking women to raping children).
All other content on Bloggerheads will be the fun/educational material that has been held over while I wasted time placing faith in the criminal justice system as it stands.
The way I see it, the worst that can happen is that even if police/others resist change, the public will be informed of the problem to the extent that accusations like this will carry less weight, leading to an improved situation for all present/future victims of this behaviour.
Something has to change; some of the most corrupt people in our society are appropriating and undermining the authority of police in an attempt to damage political/ideological targets, and many of them go to such an extent that they seek to use such lies to stir up mobs and trigger vigilante behaviour. Lies of this type have even been used to influence the Prime Minister.
On the basis of claims made specially on behalf of three police forces, I have been subjected to multiple threats of violence, and many, many recent threats to visit my home or workplace (and if police ever said anything to any of these people about that, antagonists quickly adapted by offering to share my itinerary with “victims” who asked for it).
Speaking for myself, I am concerned enough about recent claims that I run a child sex ring from my home to do something about this, even in the face of extraordinary harassment.
Not all of us have the resources/connections of Lord McAlpine, but I see the most constructive path to be a campaign for awareness, then (potentially) a change in the law. If I fail at the latter, I will at least have achieved the former to some extent.