More shitheads!

In some vain attempt to either prove that two heads are better than one – although in the case of Iain Martin’s recent blog article about this matter a head that is fitted with a brain is worth trying before doubling the heads – or to admit that someone at the Torygraph should start writing some decent shit for a change, we now have two ‘journalists’* writing about Baroness Thatcher’s recent treatment at the hands of QI and the BBC.

*I learned that – the old sarcastic inverted commas trick – from that top journo Iain Martin.

They even get a quote out of our Norm, or Lord Tebbit as he is sometimes known:

“It is another depressing episode. Lady Thatcher has been treated like this by the BBC for the past 30 years. It’s no good asking them for an apology. It’s like trying to stop a dog from barking.

“If we have a Conservative government then we can do something about it. The BBC is another part of the destruction of Great Britain.

“The truth is that the BBC doesn’t know that it is biased. It thinks that Guardian reading champagne socialists are the norm.”

Chilling stuff, and at least one really fucking good reason why the Conservative Party should never govern again, no matter what.

The BBC part of the destruction of Great Britain?

After the buttfucking that the Tories gave it whilst in office it’s a wonder that there was anything left for Tony and Co to start raping in 1997.

And talk about out of touch…

The geriatric old fart doesn’t seem to be aware that ‘Strictly Come Dancing’ and ‘Eastenders’ are the BBC’s top TV shows – hardly the staple viewing fodder of champagne quaffing Guardian readers one would have thought.

Now, fuck off Norm – your bag needs emptying.

The article then goes on to quote Disgusted of Kensington:

“Ms Brand’s comments about Lady Thatcher were astounding. Does she really think that it is perfectly fine to talk about Thatcher, an elderly, largely defenceless and somewhat unwell lady, in that particularly disgusting manner? Doubtless she would speak of her own mother that way.”

Well, you blinkered cockwit, yes, I’d speak about my mother that way if she’d been responsible for the damage the Sainted Margaret did to this nation’s manufacturing base and its workers.

Thatcher made no allowances for the vulnerability of people, so why should Jo Brand, or anyone else come to that, give a flying fuck about Thatcher’s?

You’d think that the air would get clearer with altitude but all this moral high ground stinks to high heaven.

Must be all the shitheads around…

Shithead alert!

Much as it grieves me to say this, but it isn’t only the Daily Mail that has shitheads on its payroll.

I’ve recently discovered Iain Martin who blogs on the Daily Telegraph site.

After some cursory research I’ve discovered that he is in fact the Deputy Editor of the Tory broadsheet, with almost zero journalistic experience.

He’s also a favourite of the Barclay Brothers – a fact that I’d fucking keep to myself if it was me.

After all, you wouldn’t go round boasting that you had genital warts, would you?

I see little difference…

Anyway, what’s Iain blogged about recently that’s attracted my attention?


Martin’s blog entry is reproduced here in full and interspersed with my comments…

It is right that Jeremy Clarkson should be forced to apologise for his crass and offensive insult aimed at the Prime Minister.

It is?

And who’s going to force him?

He has apologised, in fact, and later qualified this apology.

Basically, Clarkson thinks Brown is an idiot.

If he has to apologise for that opinion that he has a perfect right to hold and express then we’re all totally fucked…

But watching that supremely annoying show, QI, on BBC 1 last night,

How is it annoying?

Don’t you get the jokes?

Too intellectual for you, are they?

Or is it just that it’s one of the few TV shows left that actually has some sort of  teeth to its humour and appeals to those people left that can still think for themselves without people like you telling them what to laugh at?

Not to your taste?

Rather watch ‘Deal or No Deal’ because it has a banker in it – you know, one of your City friends?

Those same friends who got us into the biggest financial mess of the past 50 years…

Turn over then!

and unable to summon up the energy to change channels,

Ah…well…serves you right for being such a lazy cunt, then.

You have no-one but yourself to blame for being offended by what you saw.

And, assuming you have a remote control, how much effort would changing channels really require?

Not only a lazy cunt, but a pathetically lazy one, too…

I was one of millions treated to Jo Brand’s remarks on Baroness Thatcher.


And your point is?

I am often one of millions who get treated to opinions and remarks I don’t want to see or hear from the media.

However, I realise that it’s all in the interests of freedom of speech and I can exercise my right to turn it off or turn over to something else.

But if I can’t be bothered to stir a finger and apply some gentle pressure to a small button on the remote then that’s my problem.

Not the program makers’.

But we’ve already covered your total inability to lift even a finger when you want to.

I won’t repeat them here: they had something to do with pubic hair.

Ooh…you obviously listened carefully, didn’t you?

Amazingly, the Mail hasn’t said anything about Brand’s remarks – only you.

However, being in a minority of one doesn’t make you any less entitled to express your opinion, does it?

It’s that old ‘freedom of speech’ thing again – you know, that right you seem to resent other people exercising.

The audience roared and Stephen Fry chortled, even repeating the remarks I think.

You think?

Oh, you’re really at the cunting cutting edge of journalism, aren’t you?

I’m sure you appreciate your reporters adding ‘I think’ to their articles from time to time…

Also on the panel was a gentleman called Phil Jupitus. Hitherto, I have only been dimly aware of his work as a “comedian”.

Ah…the sarcastic inverted commas…a useful tool for the ‘journalist’ that you are…

If I were joining in with this fashion for being offensive, which I’m not, then I would call him fat and unfunny.

Ooh…see what you did there?

Said you weren’t going to do something and then you did it anyway?

Can I have a go please?

Let’s see…


I’ll talk about a certain deputy editor of a Tory broadsheet:

If I were joining in with this fashion for being offensive, which I’m not, then I would call him smug, overprivileged, underqualified, overpaid and a really crappy journalist.

See what I did there?

Oh, and he looks a bit ginger, too.

And a bit chubby…

And he’s a pathetically lazy cunt…

When a picture of Thatcher was flashed up on screen I’m certain I heard Jupitus shout: “witch!”

Yes, you did – congratulations for actually paying attention this time.

Why, as a licence fee holder, do I have to pay for this?

For the same reason I have to pay for shit like ‘Strictly Come Dancing’.

And if you can’t see why then you’re a fucking retard.

If he wants to book a hall and sell tickets to people daft enough to pay him that’s his business, but why should a penny of my money go into his bank account?

So…if you go and see Phil Jupitus you’re daft?

I’ll say one thing, you really know how to win people over to your point of view, don’t you?

In large parts of the BBC many of those involved have never met anyone who thinks Thatcher an admirable person and a great British leader.

Well, maybe that’s because she isn’t and she wasn’t.

She totally fucked the manufacturing base of this country leaving us with the pathetic remnants that we’re now looking to to save us now that the financial sector has gone tits up.

She was a cold, unfeeling  bitch who won’t deserve the waste of good urine that will be metaphorically pissed all over her grave by the millions she harmed after she carks it.

Good fucking riddance.

So when Jupitus or Brand say such things they are not so much being “edgy”, they are simply reflecting the views of “everyone”. But they are not;

I don’t believe anyone has ever claimed that such people reflect the views of everyone.

Any more than the Daily Telegraph does.

Or this blog.

Or your blog.

there are many millions forced to pay for the BBC who do not go in for ultra-liberal leftist group-think.

And many millions who don’t go in for ultra-right wing repression of individual freedoms.

And we are rapidly approaching the point at which they will refuse to pay any longer for being insulted.

In which case, they’ll get heavily fined.

So…inciting people to commit an offence are we?

That makes having a poke at Thatcher seem very small beer indeed.

(Timely pause)

You know, this bloke really can’t fucking write, can he?

I’m not saying I write well, but Martin is really crap at it.

It all sounds a bit Young Conservative to me – all shrill (possibly because his balls haven’t dropped yet) and strident and lacking all credibility and cohesion.

And what clueless moron put Martin in charge of the online section of the Telegraph group, including blogs?

He can’t write well enough to blog.

Enough of all this, though.

What do we have here, essentially?

It’s one bloke able to express his opinion from a position of privilege, power and influence – that opinion being that other people with whom he disagrees should have no right to express theirs.

Such people are very dangerous.

Watch out for this one – he’s ambitious, has powerful friends and wants to tell you what you should think.

Tony Blair – limbo champion?

Sitting, as most of us are, amongst a set of circumstances that one might rightly describe as ‘pretty fucked up’ it’s tempting to wonder how things have got to this stage.

Here we are suffering one of the most serious economic declines ever, witnessing child abuse of an unimaginable nature, watching all manner of people bomb, shoot, kill and maim each other from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe and, for many of us, seeing a steady erosion of personal liberty in the name of immigration control and terrorist alerts.

I’m not going to begin to attempt any sort of all-encompassing explanation as to how we’ve got where we are today, but I do have a largely unanswered question that’s been troubling me for a while now that could shed some light on one of the chief problems facing us.

Did Tony Blair see economic decline coming before he left office and to what extent has he avoided any blame for it?

As far as I can ascertain, very few members of the UK’s or the world’s press or media have addressed this question.

So, now it’s my turn…

Putting aside the bitching, the agreements, the disagreements, the broken promises and the in camera meetings that Blair and his successor Brown indulged in, it became pretty clear that the plum job of PM that Brown coveted so fervently was, in fact, a poisoned apple and only a brief  ‘honeymoon’ period ensued before Brown found this out.

For most of Blair’s premiership the economic situation seemed to be very rosy.

Inflation was low, employment was relatively high and many ordinary people felt secure and reasonably prosperous.

That perception was at odds with the reality of the divide between rich and poor ever widening and what we now know to be a festering bubble of over-reliance on credit waiting to burst, but that’s sort of my point.

Many of us thought things were fine and no-one in government bothered to tell us that maybe it wasn’t after all.

Now, Brown was in charge of the economy as Chancellor from the landslide victory of Labour in 1997 to when he took over from Blair as PM so it’s tempting to blame him. I think we should. Whether he knew how serious things were becoming in the domestic and global economies over that 10 year period or whether he didn’t doesn’t really matter.

If he knew, then why didn’t he do something about it?

If he didn’t know, then why didn’t he know?

There’s a clear choice here between negligence and ignorance – neither of which are qualities you’d want in a junior accounts clerk, let alone the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

But, and here’s the crucial question, where was Blair whilst this was going on?

Did he simply let Gordon ‘get on with it’ or did he know from meetings with his Chancellor that there was trouble brewing?

Again, the choice is clear – ignorance or negligence – neither of which are qualities you’d want in a boy scout leader, let alone the Prime Minister.

So, to sum up the answer to the first part of my initial question – it doesn’t really matter whether or not he saw economic decline coming.

Either way he fucked up big time.

On to part two – to what extent has he avoided blame for catastrophic ignorance or negligence?

Well, it has to be said that Teflon Tony’s done a pretty thorough job of leaving No. 10 and finding suitable employment – he’s the UN’s Middle East envoy, he’s received a Yale University fellowship, consultancy jobs in two banks and is a potential candidate for the EC Presidency.

He’s believed to be earning about £7 million a year.

In an astonishing twist of irony, last week US President Bush awarded Blair with a Presidential medal for, amongst other things, his role in the War on Terror and, in the very same week, UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband had an article published in the Guardian saying that the War on Terror was a mistake.

If that isn’t a fucked-up state of affairs, I don’t know what is.

It’s also an indirect criticism by Miliband of his old boss who supported Bush through all the WMD, 45 minute warning, and ‘Help, I’m living next door to a Muslim, get him out of here’ bollocks.

(I’m not even going to start tearing into the duplicity of Miliband who supported Blair’s decisions regarding the whole terrorist/Iraqi invasion issue and then suddenly had his recent ‘Damascus’ moment…)

Apart from this, however, where are the searching questions about Blair’s part in the downfall of the UK’s economy?

I don’t hear them coming from the very people who should be asking them – our journalists in the press and the media.

No, Tony’s got off scot-free with his future well sorted and his reputation, whilst not regarded with fondness by many, at least more or less intact.

There are many people in the UK today who won’t shed a single tear when Margaret Thatcher pops her clogs – she was responsible for the decline of our manufacturing sector which we’d die to have right now and she did her utmost to destroy our perception of society that gave it a certain cohesion that is lacking today.

Indeed there are many who’d queue to piss on her grave.

For what it’s worth I don’t think that Tony’s quite achieved that status yet.

However, I can only fervently hope that history will not be kind to him after he surfed into government like a golden boy on the waves of our hopes and dreams – after years of Tory malpractice – reneged on almost every Socialist principle people voted him in on and then buggered off after making a complete fuck-up of our economy whether through ignorance or negligence.

And as for Blair and the limbo, our Tony can get down so low that he can duck under anything.

Only time will tell whether he eventually goes down too low and ends up disappearing up his own arse.

I defy the guy to come up smelling of roses then…

Late addition…

I won’t say I’ve researched this very deeply but it seems clear after some cursory Googling that it was pretty clear from the way the US Federal Reserve started to slash its interest rates from early 2007 that all the signs of a US and hence an ensuing UK recession were all there well before Blair announced his forthcoming resignation.

Lest this be seen as letting Brown off the hook, George Soros – who’s been known to be right on many occasions – recommended that the Bank of England cut interest rates as early as January 2008.

I think it’s now pretty certain that we had over 18 months to get ready for the financial shitstorm that erupted in September 2008 but we appear to have done nothing about it. OK, maybe we couldn’t have avoided it altogether but maybe we could have been better situated to ride it out better than we are doing at present.

Tony…Gordon…you really fucked things up.