One of the most pathetic things that newspapers do is the kind of smug, self-congratulatory bollocks the Mail indulges in today. Paul Dacre has won a 'lifetime achievement' award, which gets this objective, investigative report:
The Editor of the Daily Mail has been honoured with the first-ever lifetime achievement trophy at the British Press Awards, regarded as the Oscars of the newspaper industry.
The citation for Mr Dacre's award read: "This award recognises almost two decades of successful editorships of the Evening Standard and the Daily Mail and his creation of Metro, but it also recognises his immense contribution to the freedom of the Press through his continuing work on the Press Complaints Commission and the principle of self-regulation."
Dacre 'created' Metro. No matter that there were similar papers in other countries already; Dacre created it. And he's been rewarded for the self-regulatory principle of the PCC that means ordinary citizens don't have a chance in hell of any decent redress against newspapers when they have lies told about them or have their privacy invaded. Maybe a tiny apology buried on the letters page, yes that's justice. Well done for that, Dacre! Have a million quid a year and an enormous pension!
Accepting the award, Mr Dacre paid tribute to "the hugely talented staff" who have worked so hard on Associated Newspapers titles, and to the Mail's proprietors, Lord Rothermere and his late father, for giving their editors "that priceless gift - the freedom to edit their papers".
Yes, let's not forget Nazi sympathiser, admirer of Hitler and 'Hooray for the Blackshirts!' fascist idiot Rothermere senior; thanks for bringing him up, Dacre, as someone to admire. Lets us know where the Mail still stands on things - worth remembering when they criticise Max Mosley.
The Hate also praises Andrew Gilligan, a journalist who was castigated at the time when he worked for the BBC but is now working for the Daily Mail group:
The Mail doesn't normally comment on its own trade.
Except for that dick-sucking article about Dacre, obviously. And this one.
But today we pay tribute to Andrew Gilligan - sacked by the BBC for telling the truth about Alastair Campbell's "sexed-up" dossier on Iraq. Quite rightly, he has been named Journalist of the Year for exposing, in our sister paper the Evening Standard, the corruption surrounding the odious London Mayor Ken Livingstone.
A hatchet job inspired by Livingstone's labelling of a reporter as a concentration camp guard, so basically a vengeful, nasty campaign. The best summary of attitudes towards Livingstone on that matter I think is here, on Pigdogfucker:
And anyone who thinks that, in a run-off between a Jew who works for a Nazi rag and someone who criticises said Jew for working for a Nazi rag, the critic is the one in the wrong is, well, just a cunt really.
That about sums it up for me. So what do we have elsewhere in the Mail today, to show what a wonderful paper it is and how deserving Paul Dacre is of his award? Well, elsewhere in the pisspoor leader column praising Andrew Gilligan is a rather unpleasant message about 'Black Africa' and how, apparently, its leaders are turning a 'blind eye' to Robert Mugabe's corruption. Never stand in the way of the Mail when it wants to slag off Bongobongoland and those uppity blacks!
Perhaps we should expect no better from the monster who has brought Zimbabwe to its knees, driving white farmers off their land and destroying his country's once thriving economy.
Yes, we must pity the white farmers (who, it could be argued, had the land through violence towards and suppression of the majority black population - not that that justifies any violence towards them, of course). The white minority are the only people in Zimbabwe worth caring about, according to the Mail - "protect them Lord in all their fights, but even more, protect the whites!" as John Betjeman rather nicely put it.
Also in the leader, there's this choice nugget:
Want to advertise pornography on Google? No problem. How about an abortion clinic or a website attacking religion? Again, the world's biggest search engine will raise no objection.
It's another matter, however, if you want to promote a religious website opposing abortion - as the Christian Institute discovered when it was refused permission to advertise its concerns about the Embryology Bill.
What a chilling outlook for our planet, when the all-pervading Google welcomes pornographers and abortionists, but turns away those who uphold the Judeo-Christian keystones of our civilisation.
Remember, the internet is EVIL and BAD - unless it's a Daily Mail website we're talking about, obviously. Then the internet is NICE and GOOD. I hope that clears up any confusion. But are anti-abortionist extremists really 'those who uphold the Judeo-Christian keystones of our civilisation'? What about moderate Christians? What about ordinary folk? No, Christianity is only about anti-abortionists, apparently; if you're not extreme enough, you don't represent the right stuff. I don't remember much in the Bible, from my time at Sunday school, that mentioned abortion, yet the extremist Xtians seem to have very clear guidance on this from somewhere.
Funny that the Mail pretends to give so much of a shit about Christianity, but only the right kind of Christianity. If it's something a bit unorthodox and different, then:
Inside the weird world and the palatial churches of the Mormon polygamist sect
Hang on, weren't these people upholding our Judeo-Christian values a minute ago?
Many of the teenage girls were pregnant and some already had babies. Few of the 416 youngsters brought out of the sect in the Texas desert knew their full names, their birth dates or could even identify their own mothers
But they're reproducing; isn't that a nice, positive thing as opposed to the evil of abortion? No...?
Also in the leader:
Now we've heard it all. Britain can't deport Osama Bin Laden's chief agent in Europe, says the Appeal Court, because sending Abu Qatada home to Jordan would breach human rights law.
Instead, this deadly enemy of our society - along with 12 Libyan fanatics implicated in terrorism - is to live here, probably on benefits, for the rest of his worthless life.
When Britain demands an end to this lethal farce, which has meant not a single terrorist has been forcibly deported, politicians shrug and say it would be "too difficult" to repeal our human rights laws.
They're wrong. Nothing is too difficult to achieve when justice and our national security demand it must be done.
Now I'm not saying that Qatada is a nice chap, because I really don't think he is - he seems to be a deeply unpleasant man - but, other than harbouring repellent views, what crime has he committed in this country, other than being brown and living off benefits - a terribly heinous crime if you're a Mail reader, mind? But why do people constantly spray around this 'Bin Laden's right-hand man' tag - is there any evidence for it? I've never seen any. But because someone called him it, we can label him that - is that it? If he were rich, would we be doing the same thing? No, because he could sue. Luckily enough, he doesn't have the wealth to try out the libel fruit machine.
It's a classic poser. In one pan you have 'human rights'; in the other 'national security'. Should you deport someone to be tortured, because they might be - not are, but might be - a threat to people in this country? There's no debate if you're the Mail - send him back to be tortured, then ask questions later. If he doesn't float, he's not a witch, so no harm done.
This is the kind of simplistic numbskull nonsense, with a whiff of anti-Muslim hatred about it, that makes Paul Dacre such a well-respected editor, is it?