…but I will defend to the death your right to be a smug, humourless little cockstain
Time to put one’s money where one’s mouth is.
Inigo Wilson is a rancid, braying little tick. But I defend his right to be so. If only he was as funny as he and his swollen crew of bandwagon jumpers thought he was.
That said, if we’re going to rail against the Government’s attempts to police what we think and say then we also have to decry others attempting to do so. For the MPAC to play the man (by trying to get him sacked) rather than the worthless dross he’s peddling is like trying to catch the fish in the barrel with your teeth rather than taking a shotgun to them.
It’s intellectual cowardice - they don’t have the cojones or the brains to take Wilson down the smart way so they took the weasel’s shortcut instead. They could have showed themselves to be witty, intelligent debaters (maybe) but decided to go for his livelihood. It’s not as if Wilson revealed himself to be Bill Hicks reborn is it? I don’t think Armando Ianucci’s shaking in his shoes tonight, fearing the emergence of another crack satirist.
(This is little different from what an anonymous and cowardly little eunuch did to John Band - who, it must be said, is an inifinitely more sophisticated and insightful writer than Wilson - a while back. There were a lot of us who went berserk over that, and rightly so.)
In addition, by publicising this, everybody can see that for all David Cameron’s protestations to the contrary, the Tory leopard is having a bit of bother with its spot exchange. It’s cockle-warming to see that the foremost Tory website in the land gave Wilson houseroom. Let’s strike a blow for free speech while exposing what odious specimens lurk not far from the surface of the Tory respray. Double the fun. Cake not just had but eaten into the bargain.
So, save Inigo Wilson. Let him screech his message from the tallest spire!
Update: Whereas this is a disgrace:
I was proud to publish his sharply and well-written piece that used humour to expose the workings of the left.
Sharply and well-written? False advertising at the very least. Sack Tim Montgomerie.
Update update: Amendment to avoid the possible interpretation that the parties involved in this were mixed up in the John band business as well.
Update update update: More from Nosemonkey and Dave (twice). Tim W is rather good as well.
Posted on August 16th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
| See also • That butterfly/wheel interface again - update • Nicke Barlow: Mission Accomplished • Hercules crash latest: Harold Wilson to blame |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
• Filed under Affronts to democracy |
• |
I wonder what news orgs are reading all these blogs and which angle, if any, they chose to cover it from…?
God, I hope it’s mine: ‘Blogosphere rallies to defence of horrible little spunker’.
One of my Muslim friends was beaten to within an inch of his life by a gang in Glasgow who were shouting “terrorist” and “Bin Laden” at him. The way they knifed him seemed like they were trying to scalpal his face off.
I don’t see that they were trying to “avoid being bombed on public transport”. It’s up to Orange what they do with Wilson, but I fail to see how he can continue being their “community relations manager”.
Defend Inigo Wilson?…
Inigo Wilson, who works as a “community affairs spokesman” for the mobile phone company, Orange, wrote an article at the beginning of the month on……
Hmmm… the fact that he’s “Community Relations Manager” is the only thing that gives me some pause for thought when it comes to leaping to the odious fuckwit’s defence.
There’s certainly an argument to be made that publishing what he did, under his real name, makes his position as Community Relations Manager untenable in a way that it wouldn’t do if he was some techie or engineer or whatever.
That said, I completely stand by his right to say what he said… though I found it objectionable, as much for its unfunniness as anything else.
But I would suggest that, in purely practical terms, someone in his position should know that he doesn’t have the same leeway to make those remarks (under his own name) as the rest of us, assuming he doesn’t want to affect his professional status.
[...] But I agree with Justin. Trackback link | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Filed under:Media [...]
[...] How ridiculous. Provided the guy does not allow his political viewpoint to prejudice a customer or employee, it’s nothing to do with Orange! There is no suggestion that when Wilson writes on a conservative blog, that he is doing so in a professional capacity. He should be allowed to write what he wants, even if he is “a rancid, braying little tick”. By lobbying Orange, MPAC are either misunderstanding the nature of free, political speech… or they are engaging in a cynical publicity stunt. Foolish or opportunistic? Personally, I suspect the latter. If they succeed, Inigo Wilson could become a martyr to political correctness. And no-one wants that. [...]
This really is NOT an MPAC publicity stunt. There are, as far as I know it, no political sites for muslims to express themselves except MPAC.
I am not a member of MPAC but I visited their site for the first time a few days ago and noticed that someone had posted about Mr Wilsons comments.
I read Mr Wilson’s Lexicon myself and was upset with some of the comments on it. Especially given that I too am a conservative, but not of the breed that Mr Wilson belongs too.
The reason I complained and posted a template complaint on the MPAC website is because I am dismayed with the fact that islamophobic anti-muslim sentiment is increasingly acceptable in our media.
Islamophobia is as bad as anti-semitism as the discerning of the jewish community will readily tell you. Hopefully this tale will get this fact out there.
MR. INIGO WILSON:
As a Community Affairs Manager for an international telecoms group with a presence around the globe, Mr. Wilson is extremely naïve to believe that posting such comments on a prominent website would not invoke a hostile response.
Having considered the facts, Mr. Wilson must be dismissed by his employer for the following reasons:
(1) Whilst we should all uphold freedom of speech, that freedom must be exercised responsibly. Following the official definition of racism, Mr. Wilson’s comments can clearly be defined as racist. They may also be an incitement to racial hatred. As such, there may be grounds for a criminal prosecution.
(2) His comments may be regarded as offensive to a variety of communities including followers of Islam, Palestinians, South Africans and Roman Catholics. As such, in addition to being considered racist in the former (presumably a breach of his terms of employment), he will be unable to effectively carry out his duties in fostering good relations with such groups, thus further breaching his terms of employment.
(3) His comments may be regarded as offensive to other groups such as teachers, social workers, employees of NGO’s, those who would describe themselves as socialists and so forth. Indeed his views are not exclusively offensive to these groups, and may be considered offensive to all those who espouse tolerance and respect – from all communities and all walks of life. This further enforces the breach of terms of employment raised above.
(4) The author appears to condone racism by asserting to be a racist is deemed as being “much worse than being violent, thoughtless or unkind†- placing him at odds with his employer and contract of employment.
(5) This is added to by his comments on hate crime.
(6) Wilson’s comments in relation to equality, diversity and gender issues will likewise be at odds with his employer and breach his contract of employment.
(7) Responsible, I read, for consultation with communities, Mr. Wilson describes same as “a formal system for ignoring public views while patronising them at the same time.†This statement places him at odds with his employer and his duties, thus again breaching his contract of employment.
(8) Comments relating to the BBC and media ensure relationships in this area are likewise compromised, thus breaching terms of employment.
The above, combined, ensure Mr. Wilson will be unable to continue to perform the duties of his role. By HIS actions, (many of which will counter his employers’ policies) HE ALONE has made himself unable to fulfil his role and thus contract of employment with Orange.
Remember, it was Mr. Wilson who indirectly referenced his employer by his introduction: “Inigo Wilson manages community affairs for a large telecoms company.†He also made comments in relation to both a colleague and a discussion within his organisation.
Again, whilst we all should seek to uphold freedom of _expression, such _expression must be exercised responsibly and within the legal framework of the UK. What is remarkable is that such a prominent and educated figure did not recognise the above, and how his comments would be interpreted by others (the key legal factor), regardless of the context in which they were intended.
It is also regrettable that because of his action, his employer, Orange, is now at the centre of a debate on which it has no desire to enter. Here Orange cannot win. Its actions will be no different to any other organisation caught in the same position – Vodafone, 02 or others. To think otherwise is foolhardy.
What is certain is that the reputation of his employer, its brand, customer relations and commercial activity will be damaged regardless of the outcome – further strengthening the requirement to dismiss Mr. Wilson.
Sadly the future looks bleak for not only Mr. Wilson, but for his employer, good community relations and all those who recognise greater understanding, mutual respect and humanity is the only future for our world.
INIGO WILSON will have plenty of time to play with his toy tank described in glorious technicolour detail here…
http://www.accurate-armour.com/gallery1.cfm?id=84&navlevel=2
… I wonder if it’s affectionately called Tommy?
nah, the man is vile - sod him. And why would Orange want someone like that as their PR person? He even sneers at Orange’s policies if you read the blog in question - doubt they will have this snivelling reactionary twat back in a hurry. He’s a bit dense for someone who is supposed to be in PR!
Osama, what happened to your friend is truly horrible but it’s a different order of magnitude to what we’re talking about here. As far as I can see Wilson hasn’t broken any law. It doesn’t read like incitement to me rather as a clumsy dogwhistle to the Melanie Philips brigade who like to use words like ‘dhimmitude’ unironically.
Rather, as Jim said, Wilson’s unfunny (displayed by the article itself) and stupid (by being moronic enough to put his real name to it). Neither of which are hanging offences yet. I’d rather see him roundly laughed at and intellectually skewered.
Anonmouse/anonymous: I’m not unsympathetic, I’m really not - I’ve emphasised what I think of Wilson.
However, the similarities with what happened to John Band are marked (John’s job was threatened by somebody construing a black joke he made on his blog as anti-Semitic) and many people were very unhappy about that. Next time it might be someone else I like getting their livelihood threatened. Sure, complain about the article with its publisher, try and get it taken down if you like (though I’d be aginast that as well) but trying to get him fired? No way.
I only heard of this because of the protest. You now have the biggest bloggers in the country (Guido, Iain Dale and Harry’s Place) chasing it down because of the protest. The Guardian are all over it.
Left alone for the woeful sad-sackery it clearly is, Wilson’s piece wouldn’t have caused a tenth of the fuss. It’s desperate stuff - the funnist thing about it is the chinless wonders clapping like seals in the comments.
Now, it’ll reach a readership that I could only dream of. With respect, I think MPAC, with cooler heads, could have had some fun and gained more satisfaction from this.
What you dont realise is that MPAC did not orchestrate this. It happened a lot more organically with regards to MPAC than you think. And the reason I personally pushed it (again im not MPAC) was precisely to get the issue that islamophobia exists and is unacceptable mainstream. Its not ideal that an emotive issue such as someones job is entangled with the issue of promoting the fact that islamophobia is anti-semitism against a different religion but tell me, was there any other way that message sowed into public conscience?
Anonmouse - one of the most common complaints about Islam is that its representatives over-react to perceived insults - the Danish cartoon row the prime example.
There, as here, taking offence is understandable - the reaction, however, looks over-the-top even to those of us who might otherwise be sympathetic.
By over-reacting, the cause of promoting sympathetic understanding of Islam is damaged far, far more than any number of unfunny and unoriginal articles by borderline bigots can possibly achieve. Yes, you may have raised the profile of Wilson’s supposed Islamophobia, but you’ve also gone about it in such a way that a sizable percentage of those who see the article and compare it to your response will think that actually he may have a point. You’ve risked converting more people to his cause than to yours.
Anonymouse: “There are, as far as I know it, no political sites for muslims to express themselves except MPAC.” Er, Pickled Politics. Or you could get your own blog and express away.
“He also made comments in relation to both a colleague and a discussion within his organisation.” He didn’t the name the colleague, did he?
“Again, whilst we all should seek to uphold freedom of _expression, such _expression must be exercised responsibly and within the legal framework of the UK.” In other words, all speech must be monitored by the self-appointed thought police. You really are a snivelling little sneak, aren’t you?
Nosemonkey - you are of course quite right. there were risks in making a complaint - and they were considered.
This story can be spun in many ways, from those adopted by Tim Montgomerie which seek to state all those who complained are “Muslim extremists” bent on destroying freedom of speech to those adopted in today’s Guardian where a fairer and balanced story was presented by Richard Wray.
You can guess which parts of the mainstream media I contacted first.
Backward Dave - the pickled site is run by asians yes but muslims no - I could see that within a few minutes of entering it.
Despite its negative public image MPAC remains, possibly unfortunately, the only real web forum where political muslims can discuss and activise themselves to be a part of our democracy. If there are other sites with less of a negative stigma attached pray tell. As a casual entrant to these blogs and given I had not heard of any of them until yesterday, i may be mistaken.
It may not seem like it today but I simply don’t have the time let alone the writing or internet ability to blog.
This story can be spun in many ways, from those adopted by Tim Montgomerie which seek to state … so the ways in which the story can be spun “seek to state”. Good grief. They’ll be wanting rights next!
Tim Montgomerie also wrote “humourless Muslims” but you can’t deny that now, can you? He said “Some Muslim extremists within Britain have protested to Inigo Wilson’s employer, …” which is, as far as I can tell, factually correct.
“You can guess which parts of the mainstream media I contacted first.” Well I hope you didn’t give your real name. I mean, having opinons and signing your name is so much worse than being an anonymous coward isn’t it?
Am I misreading you Justin? Are you saying that Inigo Wilson was the bloke who got SBBS closed down?
Tim, no I’m not saying that. I probably could be clearer, you’re right. Will update it for clarity.
“a rancid, braying little tick”
“the worthless dross he’s peddling”
“odious specimens”
You don’t think your braying sounds a little hysterical? — Sounds to me like denunciations in the style of Pravda, circa 1937.
Dunno. Maybe. Having never read Pravda and and being born in 1971 it’s hard for me to say. You’re obviously an expert, maybe you could back up your claims, A.F.Stukely-Smythe?
Tractor production’s up though.
[...] I really don’t understand why so many bloggers seem to be leaping to the defence of Inigo Wilson. [...]
Justin is dead-on with this post.
MPAC should have laughed it off as the ranting of a useless piece of shit. That would have gained more credibility in the face of PR terra machine, see Justin’s next post…….. because they could have huge ammunition potential PR there….. they ignored that (maybe).
Unfortunately they went down the anti-semetic ranting route that we see so often these days.
Justin send your PR credentials (aka CV) to MPAC.
Quite spectacular PR incompetence from both the Muslim Council of GB and a man paid to be a competent PR manager.
Tsk.
As a bloggist and an academic who teaches/researches in PR and other aspects of public communication, I’m interested in the way the parameters of acceptable discourse on blogs - personal, corporate and, as in this case, neither fish nor fowl - are being steadily carved out. My sympathy is with MPAC, not least because of the hiding they’ll get in the press over this. But Justin’s absolutely right: fuckers like Wilson should have their precious “freedom of speech”, and the ridicule that rightly follows.
The Lefty Lexicon…
Much excitement is occuring in the UK blogosphere thanks to a gentleman called Inigo Wilson who published something of this name on a Conservative Party blog. Thanks to the MPACUK, a group which never fails to demonstrate its intolerance, Inigo has b…..
Backward Dave: “He also made comments in relation to both a colleague and a discussion within his organisation.†He didn’t the name the colleague, did he?”
He as good as named the colleague. He said they were from Personnel and he quoted what they said. Not very clever of Inigo Wilson, don’t you think? And by the way, what kind of parent calls their child Inigo?
And by the way, what kind of parent calls their child Inigo?
Spanish ones? It’s not an uncommon name in Spain. Perhaps he has Spanish ancestry and was named after a grandfather or something?
Crikey - I gave up reading when it became clear that he really was going to go through the whole damn alphabet with several entries for each letter. But I did get as far as this:
Disproportionate - foreign affairs: Describes any act by USA or Israel.
I think we can improve that:
Disproportionate (1) Descriptive of a large amount of attention unduly paid to a witless tory bigot who would be better ignored;
(2) Descriptive of a witch-hunt waged by a Muslim pressure group against an individual deemed to have caused offence. See also counterproductive.
…a witless tory bigot who would be better ignored
Nay Larry, I likes my witless tory bigots front and centre where everybody can point and laugh at them. Keep them on reservations, sure, but make them open to the public.
I fail to see why his being a cummunity liaison officer makes it reasonable for this to have puty his job in jeopardy. The fact is that there’s more than one community in the UK, and lots of them disagree with lots of the others over all sorts of things. It’s impossible not to offend any of them. For instance, there is a cummunity of people who are offended that some of us do no keep our female relatives fully veiled; there is another that is offended by people who want to ban beating children; the repeal of Clause 28 in Scotland offended tens of thousands, just as its continued existence did. Should opinions on any of those things put his job on the line?
I fail to see why his being a cummunity liaison officer makes it reasonable for this to have puty his job in jeopardy. The fact is that there’s more than one community in the UK, and lots of them disagree with lots of the others over all sorts of things.
Yeah, but it’s the job of a Community Relations Officer for a major corporation to present the company as being as neutral as possible when it comes to differences between major communities (markets). It would be rather difficult for Silly Inigo to fulfill that brief now in my view.
Nonsense. Think he’d've been suspended if he’d said “High taxes are a good idea because they make society fairer” or “I think the UK needs plenty of immigrants” or “Genetic modification poses a huge danger to the environment”? Course not, but none of those are neutral positions. He’s not been suspended for failing to be neutral; he’s been suspended for being on the wrong side.
The “wrong side” my eye. Haven’t you noticed? His kind of bigotry is practically compulsory these days. This disingenuous persecution complex that people like you and Mad Mel like to promote about yourselves doesn’t fool anyone.
he’s been suspended for being on the wrong side.
I think that’s a bit unfair S2. Racial/religious stuff is far more inflammatory and divisive than opinions, however strongly held, on tax-levels. I mean are you suggesting that if he’d said “Low taxes are a good idea because they make society richer” he’d have been suspended because he was on the wrong side of the argument? It hardly seems very likely.
Or suppose he’d written a similarly witless “Righty Lexicon” in which he’d defined “Antisemite: someone who questions Israel’s right to do whatever it wants to whoever it wants whenever it wants”. I think it’s entirely possible that he’d have been hounded out of his job by some mirror image group to the MPACUK. And before you dismiss it out of hand, remember that something similar did indeed happen to a certain John Band.
I do think that given his job-title, Inigo’s behaviour was a little unwise, and I have *some* sympathy for Orange’s position, but I’d still wish them to take a stand on a point of principle, and I’m in no doubt who the villains of the piece are. Which is why I’ve unimaginitively jumped on the bandwagon.
This is NOT Wilson vs MPAC
The people who complained were simply using mpac’s forum. I know this because I am one of these muslims that Tim Montgomerie at ConservtiveHome calls an extremist muslim because I complained. Are we not allowed to complain if we are offended?
I am not a member of mpac. I visited their forum 5 days ago. I wrote a template email of complant about Mr Wilson and posted it and emailed it to other muslims. Hundreds of us complained and hardly any were from mpac. Muslims complained not mpac. Muslims.
And why did we complain? because we are fed up of racism and fed up of islamophobia. Here’s an example for those who may think there is no islamophobia or racism against us. Its happening every single day. Yesterday in the Sun, 17 August 2006, Kelvin Mackenzie said these vile things:
“Could the Muslims stop alienating me and, more importantly, trying to kill me?
“Let’s get one thing clear. The vast majority of this country have done nothing but welcome people to these shores no matter how evil their background and religion.â€Â
“The suicide bombers come from one ethnic group.â€Â
“Certainly I would like to see some young Muslims in this country restricted from flying to Pakistan. And if they did go they would have to wear electronic tags so that intelligence authorities would be able to keep track of them.â€Â
What Inigo said offended us muslims not mpac. We just used their forum just like now im using yours.
So write your artcle over because its based on a fiction.
[...] There’s been a positive storm brewing recently in the land of blog regarding Inigo Wilson’s “Lefty Lexicon” over at Conservative Home and plenty have commented. Much has touched on freedom of speech and others have pointed out – rightly – that such freedom brings consequences. Still, I thought I’d bring my comment to the discussion. [...]
So write your artcle over because its based on a fiction.
I’m not so sure about that, Anonmouse. MPAC seem to be endorsing the campaign, if you ask me:
‘MPACUK Success hits the headlines in The Guardian!’
because we are fed up of racism and fed up of islamophobia
But is your action actually likely to have any impact in reducing these problems? Or is it just vindictive, divisive, and unhelpful?
A lot of moderates here who have no truck with the like of Wilson, and who should therefore be on your side, are being put-off by your strong-arm tactics. Fight Islamophobia by all means, but I suggest you rethink your strategy.
[...] To me, this is the crux of the matter. Any person has the right to publish unfunny, badly-written toss on Tory websites. And I will stand next to Inigo Wilson (not literally next to him of course… the man smells of wee) and defend his right to be a smug, humourless little cockstain. Everyone has that right. And the fact that Inigo’s embarrassing attempts at wit are still available for all to mock at conservativehome.com demonstrates that this right is being upheld. [...]
Just to make things clearer for the people who are reading stuff between the lines that most certainly wasn’t there….
> The “wrong side†my eye. Haven’t you noticed? His kind of bigotry is practically compulsory these days.
I didn’t say “on the wrong side of every debate throughout our entire society no matter what company he’s in.” He was on the wrong side in the eyes of his employers. Obviously.
> This disingenuous persecution complex that people like you and Mad Mel like to promote about yourselves doesn’t fool anyone.
Really? I’ve said I’m being persecuted? I’m sure, what with my being a blogger, you’ll be able to quote me directly as some sort of evidence of that. Or you could just be talking shite.
> Racial/religious stuff is far more inflammatory and divisive than opinions, however strongly held, on tax-levels.
Yes, it is, but I did give an example about immigration, too. But my point wasn’t anything to do with how emotional people may get about these matters; I was simply responding to Jim’s suggestion that it was Inigo’s job “to present the company as being as neutral as possible when it comes to differences between major communities”.
That being said, let’s imagine he’d said “I think the Pope’s stance on contraception is damaging to Africa.” Would Catholics have been offended? Yes. Would there have been complaints? Yes. Would he still have his job? I reckon so.
> I mean are you suggesting that if he’d said “Low taxes are a good idea because they make society richer†he’d have been suspended because he was on the wrong side of the argument?
No, absolutely not. I was merely giving examples of non-neutral comments that wouldn’t have affected his job. You have now provided another. Thank you.
He’s been tangoed:
“And by the way, what kind of parent calls their child Inigo?” One who knows something about history and culture, and that there’s more to both than pathetic pseudonyms from TV ads.
“He as good as named the colleague. He said they were from Personnel and he quoted what they said.” He said someone from Personnel was a cock, and this counts as identification? Get a brain.