Let’s not forget that Andrew Gilligan has some questions to answer

Michael White earns a golf clap for his jest and this mention of it in Gilligan’s own paper:

Evening Standard – Footnote for banking: Private Eye editor Ian Hislop presented the 4th annual Paul Foot award last night for investigative journalism… Oddly Guardian assistant editor Michael White appeared to be wearing the name tag of my colleague Andrew Gilligan, who was shortlisted for the award.

The Tory Troll has a round up of further print-based teasing here, but unless Gilligan is properly nailed for this, he will keep doing it and his old-media mates will be further tempted to try it for themselves.

Think of it in terms of garden maintenance; it’s unrealistic to expect the eradication of nettles and bindweed, but we all know what happens if we don’t hack it back from time to time.

Posted in Old Media | Comments Off on Let’s not forget that Andrew Gilligan has some questions to answer

Iain Dale’s daily fail

Tch. And to think that only last week he was returning from Teh Holy Land with a message of peace, mung-beans and understanding:

Iain Dale – Parliament Should Decide on Prisoners’ Voting Rights – Not Judges: When you go to jail you forfeit the normal rights you enjoy in society – your freedom, and indeed your right to choose the government. Yet now some unelected European judges are apparently about to force the British government to give prisoners the right to vote. This is something the LibDems have favoured for some time and it seems they are about to get their way. I wonder who Ian Huntley and Fred Rose West will vote for. This is nothing to do with human rights. It’s about whether judges, rather than Parliament, should be able to decide who votes in UK elections. What on earth is the point of Parliament if its sovereignty can be usurped like this? This has all arisen after the despicable John Hirst (who served 25 years for axing a woman to death) took the issue to the Court of Human Rights. Pity he never thought about the human right to live of the woman he killed, eh?

Judging by Iain’s judgmental tone, it’s less about the principle of sovereignty and more about the moral injustice of evil-doers having their wicked way with our democracy; he’s obviously so outraged about it that he can barely restrain himself.

In fact, Iain was so adorably strident at one stage that he appeared to forget that Fred West is a lifeless corpse and has been unable to vote or do any thing except decompose for well over a decade.

(The criminal dead are rising from their graves and voting Liberal Democrat! We must flee!)

And his views on a custodial sentence equalling a total suspension of liberties raise some interesting questions; like, for instance, where might one draw the line? When Iain’s drink-driving pseudo-blogging chum Paul Staines was tagged for 3 months and effectively under house arrest from 9pm to 6am, was he also not allowed to vote at nights?

But what should really get your attention in the wider scheme of things is the totally unnecessary attack on John Hirst that Iain launches while knowing that he plans to deny his target any right of reply.

(Iain Dale has banned John Hirst from commenting on his site, and has just now deleted Hirst’s attempt to respond to his post and switched on comment moderation. Is in unclear at this stage what justification Iain gave/gives for Hirst’s ban, because he keeps retro-moderating his ‘rules’ post without leaving the slightest hint about what has been changed or when. Also, his latest rules declare that you can be banned for making/repeating “spurious allegations” against the host. This seems fine on the surface of things until you realise that Iain thinks and acts like a petulant child when you confront him with evidence that he’s wrong/lying, and will forever remain in complete denial about what he will regard to be a “spurious allegation”. Any further attempt to address the matter will result in bullying and/or stonewalling tactics and mealy-mouthed accusations of you being dishonest or ‘unreasonable’ about the matter.)

I will remind you at this stage that Iain Dale presents himself as an ambassador for blogging at every opportunity he gets, despite his not actually standing by any of the principles he lays claim to when he does this.

For starters, there’s this habit of denying, manipulating, frustrating and complicating responses under comments (up to and including arbitrary bans) and going after people knowing that he is going to deny them a right of reply in this way, but this post is also typical in that Iain fails to link to a single item, group or individual mentioned in it.

[Psst! Did you know: Iain Dale didn’t even read a transcript of the relevant Ross/Brand show until the week after he passed judgement on it; 28 Oct, 2nd Nov.]

A Lanson Boy – But Dale is also an arse…

Posted in The Political Weblog Movement | 3 Comments

Palin: our cup runneth over

And now it’s all ‘over’, we have this:

The Daily Show – Sarah Palin is so dumb, that…

However, I have to take Sarah’s side here (just for a moment) and admit that she has a point; who are these Republican-camp cowards attacking what’s left of her reputation without banking their own reputation(s) on what they have to say?

USA Today – What didn’t Palin know?: Tongues inside the John McCain campaign started wagging even before Election Day, when news outlets began reporting anonymous descriptions of the Alaska governor as a self-interested “diva” gone “rogue” (CNN) or “whack job” (Politico.com). After McCain lost, Fox News quoted aides who declined to be named as saying that Palin revealed during her debate preparation that she didn’t know Africa was a continent and couldn’t name the countries that signed the North American Free Trade Agreement. Newsweek quoted “an angry aide” as saying Palin and her family spent even more than the initially reported $150,000 on high-end clothing. Palin dismissed the criticism as the product of “jerks” who were “cowardly” to denigrate her anonymously.

As much as I loathe Sarah Palin’s use of distortion, fear, smears and simple-minded bigotry, someone has to draw a line somewhere; there are enough cowardly kidney-puncher in politics as it is.

That said, let’s get back to Sarah Palin and her use of distortion, fear, smears and simple-minded bigotry…

Newsweek – Hackers and Spending Sprees: The Obama campaign was provided with reports from the Secret Service showing a sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October, at the same time that many crowds at Palin rallies became more frenzied.

(“But they’re only words, right? How can words hurt anybody?”)

Posted in US Presidential Election 2008 | Comments Off on Palin: our cup runneth over

Broadcasting from inside a bonfire

(Psst! New here? Read more about ‘Bob’ here.)

Bob… is dead. Consigned to the flames in the name of art.

But he was OK with it in the end (honest), and he wanted you to have this:

Camera in a guy’s head: Guy Fawkes Night 2008

I hope you have enjoyed your trip through this door.

Cheers all.

Posted in Guy Fawkes Night | 4 Comments

Where rain go?


Rain come back! Rain come back! Save Bob!

Posted in Guy Fawkes Night | Comments Off on Where rain go?

Rain save Bob!


Rain come! Rain come!

Posted in Guy Fawkes Night | Comments Off on Rain save Bob!

Do not want!


No! No! No! Save Bob! Help Bob!

Posted in Guy Fawkes Night | Comments Off on Do not want!

Guy Fawkes Night 2008

So who’s going on the bonfire this year?

You are.

That’s right; you, ya bastard.

You are going in the fire, and you are going to burn, and you are going to like it.

More below the fold.

< --------- fold --------->

Continue reading

Posted in Guy Fawkes Night | Comments Off on Guy Fawkes Night 2008

A short list of rejects

For those who came in late:
2005: Tony Blair
2007: Rebekah Wade

OK, the time has finally come for me to (almost) reveal what the plan is for Guy Fawkes Night this year, starting with a list of who is not going to be burned in effigy this year:

No, it’s not serial liar and fantasist Nadine Dorries or Sarah Palin or (as rumoured in seedier corners of the internets) both of them in a three-way forked-tongue-a-thon with Julie Moult. I have a reputation for hitting girls with sticks as it is.

Speaking of serial liars who deserve to be hit with sticks, no, it’s not Iain Dale, either. I did consider burning Ashcroft and popping Iain in the pocket until I realised that Iain would have to be in more intimate and out-of-sight location for the voodoo to work. Then I realised I’d have to stuff a certain nuisance-calling twat up the arse on an effigy that was already up the arse of another effigy, and the whole thing just got too damn Russian for me, so I scrapped the idea.

Speaking of Russian intrigue; no, it’s not Uzbek-born Russian billionaire Alisher Usmanov, much as I’d like to highlight the antics of that local landowner to a mob of torch-wielding villagers, I’d just as soon not see J Paul Getty’s old place going up in flames.

Speaking of morbidly obese outright bastards with a love for vodka, no it’s not Paul Staines (aka ‘Guido Fawkes’) either, because I’d have to pickle the bloody thing in alcohol to get the voodoo right on that one. Not a good idea anywhere near flaming torches and other naked flames, and not something I can afford, even with some of the ‘cheap booze’ specials advertised on Paul’s* low-rent banner advertising network.

(*Note – “Paul Staines is neither a shareholder, director or employee of MessageSpace and never has been.”)

And finally, no, it’s not a banker or a hedge-funder, because if I were to take a guy, make it suitably fat, stick in it a ‘city boy’ shirt, and put a screwed-up ball of grubby fivers where its heart should be, I’d be stuck with Paul Staines all over again.

So who (or what) is going on the bonfire this Saturday night?

Can you guess?

(No hints from the small group of people who already know, please.)

Posted in Guy Fawkes Night | 1 Comment

Hazel Blears: passing interest and passing judgement

How does that speech made by Hazel Blears warrant careful analysis? It only barely qualifies for a link.

The name-dropping is an obvious plea for attention, which ironically rewards two attention-seekers with the star billing they crave from others (when they’re not awarding it to each other), and this sentence reveals that whoever wrote Blears’ speech did little more than a surface scan of our community before passing judgement on it:

“The most popular blogs are rightwing, ranging from the considered Tory views of Iain Dale, to the vicious nihilism of Guido Fawkes.”

That the word ‘nihilism’ would be included in the same sentence that uses Iain Dale as a positive contrast to Paul Staines shows that the author can’t even use Google properly.

(Psst! Add to your list of absurdities that Paul Staines was invited to speak on the subject of “why transparency in lobbying matters” this week.)

UPDATE – Alix Mortimer – Some cynical nihilism, or, a revolution in the People’s Republic

Posted in The Political Weblog Movement | 3 Comments