PCC discovers ominous milk tooth
It's a bit of a cliche to describe the PCC as toothless, or a "toothless bulldog", or ineffectual, or feeble, or a cargo cult construction, or pointless, or a verisimilitude of regulation that doesn't actually do the regulating it claims to, or meek, or a mild-mannered knee-knocking milquetoast knocking on the dragon's door and asking it to please not set fire to the village again, or a waste of time, or hopeless, or like trying to fight off a knife-wielding maniac with a cream bun, or depressingly predictable, or like asking footballers to decide whether they were offside or not rather than a referee, or useless, or not fit for purpose, or a man with a bucket and spade trying to clear away the Sahara, or dismal, or shit. All of this is a cliche. And wrong. Well some of it's wrong.
Anyway, today it appears to have found a milk tooth, with what might turn out to be a rather radical decision, upholding a complaint against Rod Liddle. Then again, it might also be a decision that augurs very ominously for some of the rest of us. But more of that later.
In what will hopefully never be called 'Goat currygate', Liddle typed in a late-night Friday evening rant on his Spectator blog saying that "the overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community". He was wrong. Lots of people got annoyed by him saying this; others got annoyed that people got annoyed by it.
The Spectator did attempt a defence against the complaint under Clause 1 (accuracy), using as its sources the Daily Mail and the Sunday Times. Scoff at that choice if you like, but the key thing is that these articles mentioned 'accusations' and 'proceedings' rather than convictions. An important distinction when you're trying to claim proof for an assertion like the one Liddle made. Have a look at Five Chinese Crackers's stellar post 'Rod Liddle - more racist than the BNP?' from 2009 for a good analysis.
Yes, it was a poisonous, vile little rant from an awful little man; but the important point to make is that he was wrong, wrong, wrong. Yes, he may be a polemicist, and yes, he may be trying to provoke rather than inform, and yes yes yes, all of that. But he said something was true when it wasn't, something which could bring about a misleading perception of one racial group in society. Toxic, destructive and dirty. But also wrong.
Interestingly, the PCC have previously ruled against complainants who have accused newspapers of inaccuracies vis-a-vis comment pieces, saying that because these are columns, they won't be taken seriously as sources of factual information by readers. The PCC said last June:
While the column had been phrased in stark terms - the journalist had made one claim which was prefaced by "the fact is", for example - the author's claims would nonetheless be recognised by readers as comment rather than unarguable fact.
So is this a sea change from the PCC, then? Or is it simply a case of there being two different adjudications in two slightly different articles? A blogger in that instance had complained about articles regarding gay adoption, so it's a similar complaint about potentially discriminatory inaccuracy. It's a similar argument: present something as a fact in a column, reader complains about accuracy.
There is another possibility: that if the Spectator had defended its article by dint of it being an opinion piece, rather than on factual grounds, it may well have succeeded. But it didn't: as well as the factual evidence they used to defend it, they said that Liddle's article was a blog, and that meant that the factual dissection could take place in the comments rather than in the article itself.
Now, blogs as such - like this one, or yours, or any - aren't covered by the PCC at present. But I wonder if this decision might be leading us up that path. Look back to November of last year when the PCC's Baroness Luscombe said:
Rather, a system of self-regulation (such as exists by the PCC for newspapers) would be more appropriate, if any bloggers wished to go down that route.
And now, here's the PCC dealing with a complaint about a 'blog', or at least what the Spectator called a blog rather than a paid column by a salaried journalist which happens to support comments and be regularly updated by the authors themselves.
I wonder if there might be some mission-creep going on, or whether we're in the foggy world of "What is blogging and what is journalism?" which, frankly, I'd rather not go down again if it's all the same to you, for the sake of my sanity. Perhaps I am a little paranoid and there's nothing in this. But perhaps the line between 'blogs' on sites like the Spectator's and elsewhere is a little more blurry. Who decides who should be covered by the PCC and who shouldn't? It's voluntary as far as I am aware, but voluntary so that regulation isn't enforced.
At present, we don't subscribe to the PCC or an equivalent regulatory body. Should we? Who should and who shouldn't? Does it make you a better blog if you are? But who can afford the time to answer dozens of PCC complaints that might arrive in your inbox, possibly vexatiously from people who simply don't like you, without the time and resources of a professional publishing outfit to do it?
Some might say the bloggers who rejoice in Liddle's discomfort the most might want to look over their shoulders, because they could suffer the same kind of thing themselves soon. I don't think it's quite time to panic. Not just yet. But as the delineation between the big shots and the little shots gets ever more confused, might the pressure not grow for there to be a regulatory body for blogs? And might, then, those of us who cheerily demand teeth for the PCC be walking into a ruddy great bear trap?
So has the PCC found a tooth? And is it ominous for bloggers? I'm not so sure, on either case. Liddle has been correctly told off, but it's not so much a stinging slap on the wrist but a wagging finger. Hmm. For now, I can't help being delighted that Liddle's been made to look like the odious little man he is.
Will it make a difference to his output? I should cocoa. It might make him think twice. Will there be an apology, a correction, anything like that? We'll see. The PCC has no powers to enforce one. Remember, it's the 'shame' of being ruled against that is meant to be such a big deterrent from getting things wrong (not just wrong by mistake, but let's make it clear this Liddle's post was wrong, misleading and highly offensive). Let's see how much shame the Spectator suffers, if any. And then let's see how worried we should be.
Sometimes the veil is so thin you can’t see it
Let's not pretend, please, that the Express would have put this on its front page, had it not involved immigrants.
So what's happened here? How did they steal his home?
Outlining the incident last December, Judge Richard Bray said: “The owner comes back at 5pm and there’s an unknown car parked in his drive and the lights to the house are on.
“He goes in and finds these two defendants and, wait for it, a young child.
“We are going back to Dickensian times it appears.
“When challenged, the defendants say they own the property and are just moving in and that the male defendant was going to alter the locks as part of that process.
“Then an unidentified person attends to take the child away. What’s going on here?”
The judge added: “This is a bizarre case. I must be the most experienced person in this building for burglary and in 26 years I cannot remember a case where burglars have taken a young child with them to carry out a burglary. I really can’t.”
That is a bizarre case. So how is it presented by the Express? As a bizarre crime? No. As evidence of problems caused by immigration.
THE impact of Britain’s open-border policy on immigration was laid bare yesterday when it emerged how Romanian squatters moved into a man’s home while he was at work and attempted to claim it as their own.
Ah I see. This extremely rare crime was obviously evidence of Britain's open-border policy on immigration. Of course it was! Because this kind of thing happens all the fucking time because of our open borders, doesn't it? Barely an hour goes by without some immigrant family or other breaking into someone else's home and trying to change the locks, does it? The courts are crammed full of cases like these - all because of our open border policy.
Look out for the 'astonishingly' in this next bit:
Judge Bray sentenced them to 12-month community orders with 100 hours community service. Astonishingly, they have been allowed to stay in Britain and continue claiming state benefits, such as child benefit.
That'll be because:
Last night Dediu, who speaks only broken English, told how he had lived in the UK for three years. He and his wife have two daughters aged eight and two.
He's been living here for three years and presumably working as well (as he wouldn't have been able to be claiming benefits in the first place otherwise). But to the Express that's 'astonishing'. And it's 'astonishing' that an entire family isn't simply booted out of the country they've lived in, where their children are going to school, for people in that family committing the minor crime of criminal damage - you'll see in the story that other charges were dropped.
Oh, and I'll bet you a fortune that this 'neighbour' doesn't exist:
But a neighbour said: “Whatever happened to the notion that an Englishman’s home is his castle?
“What sort of country has it become when someone goes to work and has to worry about whether he will find a family of immigrants living in his home when he returns?
“This is the sorry conclusion of allowing uncontrolled immigration.”
Isn't it convenient, when the Express doesn't want to come out with something like that, that there's a handy 'neighbour' there to tell us all about how uncontrolled immigration is to blame - completely anonymously of course.
At this point I could wheel out an anonymous 'reader' to say that sometimes the veil over the Express's racism is so thin that you can't see it at all, but I might as well just say it myself: they know what they're up to. They know this kind of crime is rare, and that squatters come from all kinds of backgrounds, but by only mentioning two incidents involving Romanians, then saying it's all the fault of immigration and 'open border' policies, backed up by the anonymous and incredibly convenient quote, creates the kind of impression they want: evil immigrants, always committing crimes, and we can't stop them coming.
This week there'll be plenty of times when people who aren't immigrants will be up in the dock for criminal damage - and worse - but will they get reported on the front page of the Express? I really doubt it.
Express honesty
It's nice to see that the Express have finally admitted what we've all known for a long time now.
Well, I applaud the honesty.
Adam Bienkov spotted the (even more ridiculous) original.
You’re in our country…
Ah yes. This tweet from @badjournalism links to one of those rather nasty Facebook groups that have sprouted up like smelly mushrooms all over the place. It's called - and I think the capital letters are important - YOU'RE IN OUR COUNTRY SO SPEAK OUR F*CKING LANGUAGE. You know the kind of thing. Sometimes you see people you vaguely know - wives of second cousins, or people who know someone you used to work with, whom you met once at a party and thought were vaguely humorous - joining these groups, and you think, Jesus, really?
It's the age-old 'them and us' terminology. "You're" in "our" country... I wonder if these are the kind of folk who would follow through this logic to its natural conclusion - speaking Welsh if they ever popped over to Cardiff, for example, or learning any Spanish other than DOSS KERVEZZOS MATE when on holiday in Eye-beef-ah - or whether they'd just carry on blaring away in English as loudly as possible, getting more and more irate with someone who didn't understand every thundering word of Essex-twanged* English?
You can link it with the idea people have that the English are somehow some kind of pure-bred race, the so-called 'indigenous' population. English is a mongrel language, ever-changing and adapting, which is what makes it so successful. I'd argue that's what makes Britain, or England, so successful also: the ability to absorb and incorporate other languages, and other cultures.
Like immigrants entering the country, loan-words enter the language, and become a great success. Do the members of this Facebook group never talk about bungalows, chutney, ginger or kebabs? Or do they use those words and have no idea where they might come from? Or don't they care? Maybe it's a "some of my favourite words come from abroad" kind of an attitude; I don't know.
The country belongs to everyone, as far as I'm concerned. It's no more 'mine' than it is anyone else's. And as far as words go, the more new ones that arrive, the greater our beautiful language will be enriched. You're in our country, do what you bloody well like. Just make sure you don't spend too much time reading the rubbish written by the twats on that Facebook group, or you'll get the wrong idea about English people.
* I've got nothing against the fine people of Essex. It's just an example. Although I did once have an unpleasant evening in Hornchurch. Not that anyone's ever had a good one, I'll wager.
Taxi for the Mail
Let's assume I am in the PC Brigade. I wouldn't mind being a member, after all. I'd like to hope you get a nice uniform with shiny buttons which is tailored to meet all cultural sensitivities, and you get to drive a big A-Team style van, and burst out the back of it with M-16s whenever someone does something naughty, and chomp cigars, and fire at the ground so no-one dies but they all get a bit scared, or something. Imagine that! You'd all want to be in the PC Brigade then, wouldn't you?
Anyway, replace the phrase "PC Brigade" with "vast majority of people, who think that unnecessarily upsetting others is a bad thing", and yes, I'm in the PC Brigade. One thing that really intrigues me about those lodged against us in 'the Brigade' is their constant feigning of surprise whenever they do something provocative, as if there couldn't possibly be anything offensive or derogatory about what they're doing. Sometimes, though, the mask slips just a little bit, so you can see the horrors that lie beneath. And sometimes the journalists who take aim at we proud footsoldiers of political correctness (which is, no doubt, shortly to go mad) reveal a little bit about their agendas too.
The charade that these drivers, as well as the Mail, are playing is to imagine that there might not be anything offensive or derogatory about what they're doing, and to ask why on earth anyone might be upset by such an innocent and entirely reasonable thing. "Us?" they'll say, doing that 'looking over the shoulder for someone else and then pointing at themselves' bit, "but what have we done?" - and they buff their halos and get on with things.
The Mail reports the story with the usual outrage over the outrage of others - outrage being a commodity that only they're allowed to have, after all:
But the flags have been branded 'racist' by trade representatives, councillors and racism campaigners who have demanded they are removed.
Taxi drivers have hit back, claiming the stickers are simply a protest to force the council to make sure new drivers can speak good English.
At which point you, me, just about everyone in the world, says: "Oh come off it, for fuck's sake". But the Mail doesn't. And look what else it does:
The stickers were placed in the cars after drivers received complaints about the standard of spoken English among them.
There have also been complaints from passengers about drivers using sat navs and over-charging.
All reported as fact, and designed to lead you into a certain direction: that drivers who don't speak good English - i.e. the evil foreign ones - are also inherently dishonest. But there is no evidence to back it up. We've just got someone's word for it. Like the story about someone who says she wasn't allowed to buy a quiche without getting her ID out, it's just one person's word. Perhaps Mail journalists live in a world in which people always tell the truth, or don't make stuff up - stop giggling at the back - and they're just so naive they don't realise that these things go on. Or maybe they don't give a shit about what's fact and what's opinion.
Where else do we find evidence of the 'use of sat navs' or overcharging? Nowhere. Still, it's been said now, hasn't it? But that doesn't matter. The story has gone up like a big bat-signal to the anti-PC Brigade types who electronically green-crayon in their responses, including:
I hate these sort of stories Im annoyed I even read it,whos country is this anyway the PC brigade move somewhere else.
We have to do as we are told in other countries.
- beansontoast, woolacombe, 02/2/2010
Beansontoast has captured the classic outraged anti-PC frenzy of anger. He or she is angry, but not quite sure why. They're annoyed they even read it, but they aren't sure why they're annoyed. Who's country is it anyway? Yours and mine, Beansontoast, yours and mine, and seeing as I'm a fully paid-up member of the PC Brigade, we have to try and get along with each other, or things will get awfully tricky. I'm not sure whether they want the PC Brigade to move somewhere else - that's not clear - or whether they think these taxi drivers who aren't the sort of people to put flags in their windows saying "English speaker" should move somewhere else. And yes, we do have to do as we're told in other countries - and in this one. If you're told your poxy dog-whistle flag campaign is racist, then it might well be because it's racist.
The Liddle Defence
He's doomed. He's finished. And it's his own fault.
Ever since Rod Liddle started getting so near the knuckle he'd gone down to the marrow, people have been defending him. You see racism everywhere where it isn't there, they say. He isn't racist, they say. It's not racist to be ignorant about crime, they say. It's against freedom of speech to want someone more skilful than this boorish twit from being a national newspaper editor, they say.
And now? Now he's left with his own feeble wafer-thin defence. Vile and racist things were posted to internet forums from his password-protected account, yet his story is they weren't put there by him, and he still carried on being a member of the forums and not asking for posts to be removed under his username, nor deleted them himself seeing as he had the fucking password and it was his account, nor switched username... well you can believe all that if you like, but god bless you if you do. There is a flimsy, teensy-weensy possibility, after all.
Go and have a laugh about the jokes about Jews being burnt at Auschwitz, you'll love it! Still not racist enough for you? Still a big leftie witch-hunt? How about calling Turks 'semi-house trained Muslim savages'? That one tickle you? No? Still thinking it's all a bit conspiracy against the big cuddly uncle? How about 'niggermeat'? Do you think that's a hilarious and clever word? Do you? Still not racist somehow? Do me a fucking favour. Whoever wrote that should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves as a human being. Even if he didn't write them - and there's a teensy-weensy possibility he didn't - he let them stay up on the site, under his username. He's gone. He's doomed.
Props to Sunny at Liberal Conspiracy for digging into the sewer and finding the really unpleasant examples, which the Mail on Sunday couldn't bring to its readers at the breakfast table.
It's a good investigation by the Mail, though with some caveats. Obviously, Liddle is referred to as a 'former Today editor' despite losing the job several years ago, just to get the BBC reference in first. Second, they complain about Liddle having a go at black-only organisations, which is a bit rich when you consider Richard Littlejohn was doing exactly the same in their own daily paper on Friday - and getting it entirely wrong. And finally, the story attracts some delightful comments like:
His language is appalling but his sentiments are spot on. They are not racialist but commonsense.
- Mike, Heraklion,Crete, 17/1/2010 12:02
How about the burning Jews joke, Mike? That one 'spot on' as well?
Nick Griffin’s weaselly voice
No doubting what's going to be the star of Question Time this week - Nick Griffin's weaselly voice.
I have to admit I hadn't really heard it very much until earlier today, when he popped up on the radio to whine about how the BNP are 'non-PC' (that's 'non-PC' in the sense of 'actually being racist', I think) and why it was well within their rights to use images of Winston Churchill and a (Polish!*) Spitfire in their election communications.
I've said before how I don't think there's anything to fear from Griffin being invited onto Question Time - and, as I wrote earlier, the BNP love to be victims. The Griffinfuehrer would love to walk into the QT studios covered in freshly-chucked eggs and claim that 'the Left' was trying to silence debate. He loves playing the victim as much as all racists do and will make the most of anyone trying to physically stop him from attending the broadcast. That in turn will bring even more attention to the debate - which, let's remember, is Question Time; not Griffin Time - whereas it would be better for it to slip by, as every other episode of the programme generally does, rather than it being a big deal.**
And when I heard him on the radio earlier, I thought: hang on a minute. He sounds rubbish. Not just the content of what he says - that's objectionable enough, of course, but I had expected that - but there was something inherently ridiculous about the way he sounded. It's like those days when Gerry Adams was on telly and the pointless broadcasting rules (let's not forget the right can 'silence debate' just as stupidly as the left) make him look like someone out of a 1970s dubbed martial arts film, albeit beardy and Irish. When you finally heard his real voice you thought to yourself: Oh, how dull.
And it's similar with Griffin. The BNP thrives on a bit of mystique, if you can call it that. They love not just being victims but also the idea that they're a bit naughty. Do you know what I mean? It's the 'No-one likes us, we don't care' attitude. But once their leader turns out to be a whiney twerp who sounds like a very tiny moped over-revving at traffic lights to try and overtake a milk float - the only other public figure I can think of with such a laughably terrible voice is Mike Tyson, but his job was never to present political statements - some of that toughness and mystique will fade away.
Griffin's nothing special. Sure, he's private-school educated, went to Cambridge and had a clever idea to try and mask the BNP's inherent racism and cruel streak for minorities with a load of specious waffle about disenfranchised working classes - but I can't help wondering if keeping him out of the limelight has done the BNP a bit of a favour. All the enormous potholes in his logic notwithstanding, his presentation is pretty pisspoor. His weaselly voice makes everything he says sound like a rather irate mosquito bubbling with rage, not an insightful politician trying to speak for anyone other than himself.
Will this all backfire, and Griffin produce a sparkling display of rhetoric that will delight the QT audience, and the wider TV audience? I doubt it. Probably what will happen is that there'll be a bit of disruption before, maybe even during, and possibly after. Griffin wants that. He wants to get the headlines for being the stoical defender of free speech, attacked by all sides - because the truth is that he's a whiney bastard, a racist and a fool, who looks like an idiot and sounds like an idiot. It's great to protest about him, but let's not give him what he wants. The public can see him for who he is - and what he is.
* The Griffinmeister later claimed this was a deliberate move to celebrate the role of Polish pilots in the Second World War. Which is of course absolute toss.
** "Aha!" you might well say. "Then why are you writing this? Won't your impenetrably dull blog contribute to a sense of anticipation about the tubby bigot's appearance on Thursday night?" - to which I say, I can see where you're coming from on this one, but no. So much noise is already being created about this matter, and I think a lot of it is needlessly panicky; that awful turd turning up on the QT panel isn't going to be the end of the world, and we mustn't get ourselves into a tizzy about it. Chill out. Think of some nice images. Kittens. Puppies. Racists dying in horrific accidents. See? You're feeling better already.
The real victims
Aggressors often like to be seen as victims. Pop down to your local magistrates' or crown court and you'll hear a dozen sob stories that supposedly excuse punching someone outside a kebab shop, breaking into a house or terrorising an ex-partner. It's good to be the victim, because that makes all blame dissolve away into the air. It means that what you did wrong can be excused, because you've been on the sharp end yourself - so it wasn't your fault you smashed a pint glass into a complete stranger's face, or whatever.
We'll hear the BNP bleating today, or whenever their latest membership list is released (update - I understand it's up now, though I won't link there, as I believe that's a no-no. But you know where to go). They'll complain about how they're the victims. They'll complain about how they're being targeted by the PCgonemad powers-that-be. They'll sniffle into their swasticka handerchieves about how - blub - they're only trying to be part of a democratic party that's standing up for the - sniff - indigenous population. Chokes you up, doesn't it?
No. Of course not. They are members of a racist party, set up by racists, run by racists, with racism as it's reason for existing. They exist to hate. They're not the victims in this by any stretch of the imagination, so let's be absolutely sure that not a crumb of sympathy is reserved for them. Yes, membership of a political party - even a racist one - shouldn't stop you from doing almost any job you like, but there are some professions where it's clearly stupid, and against your contract of employment, and should get you fired, and it's your own dumb fault. You'll forgive me if I don't pat you on the head and say "There there" while you're escorted out of reception with a bin-bag in your hand.
Last time, you'll recall, the BNP clarion call was that they were going to be targeted for violence. Members with families were worried about their children's safety now their addresses had been revealed. Those who leaked the list would have blood on their hands, it was asserted. But it didn't happen. There was no wave of violence against BNP members. And it's worth remembering that this time.
The real victims of racism are those who suffer racist attacks - and it doesn't matter which way round that is. Before you cry about the BNP and their membership list, remember Mohammed Al-Majed, killed for being a different colour, whose attackers were convicted yesterday. Remember that racist attacks happen all the time, against Jewish people or Asian people and every kind of people - and yes, against white people too.
What you'll notice in the comments under that Blackburn race attack story is a desperate scramble to make white people the victims of the story, the victims of some PC campaign by the local paper concerned. People tell of stories they've heard of white people being racially attacked and it not turning up in the paper - well I'm pretty sure the paper or the police don't have an agenda to hush up shocking crimes just because they were committed by the 'wrong' people. But that's the paranoia, the search for victimhood. As one commenter rightly puts it:
Am i missing something here????
it was a young asian male that was attacked, it was that same asian that suffered a broken arm and broken rib, it was that young lad that had to have surgery due to the afflictions from White men so how did white people become the victim as a result of this article??? As Paul Cockerton has explained similar articles in the past when the victim has been white and attacker has been asian have been published without the facility to comment on them because the perpetrator has been caught and legal proceedng commenced. therefore white criminals are not being caught as easily and justice to asians not being served as efficiently as to the white people. What does that say about the police, the community and moreover the people that are posting racial hatred above??? Are there really more asian criminals walking the streets than white criminals???
There are many reasonable comments on there, but also comments stating that isn't the case at all, that there's a big conspiracy against white people, and the usual thinly veiled racism. People just can't help themselves. I don't doubt there are racists who target white people; I disagree that there's a big conspiracy involving the media and the police to keep quiet about it.
People want to be victims. The BNP want to be victims. Racists want to be victims. Not victims like Mohammed Al-Majed, of course; but victims of a conspiracy, of unfairness. Racists love to feel like strangers in their own land; they luxuriate in victimhood and imagine that the whole world is out to get them, that there are no-go areas everywhere, that 'tolerance' has led to spiralling anti-white crime, that immigrants get first in the housing queue and get handed out benefits and jobs. But they're wrong. And they have to be called out.
The release of the BNP list doesn't make anyone a victim. The real victims are those who suffer at the hands of racism, not the racists.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on Peter Hitchens depresses me. But I won’t kill him.
- Emily on Update
- Angela Webb on This isn’t a flounce
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.