Can somebody please explain to me…
…what the BLOODY HELL is wrong with this country?
This week we discover that Tony Blair, one of the instigators of a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children is poncing around the world without a care and earned £12 million in the last year.
Meanwhile, Lesley Douglas, controller of Radio 2 and 6 Music (home to the jewel in the crown of British radio, The Adam and Joe Show), has lost her livelihood because a couple of dickheads left sweary messages on a man’s answerphone insulting his granddaughter (a granddaughter who, I notice, is currently selling intimate details of her sex life to The Sun, invasion of privacy be buggered).
Do you know what I mean? Ever get the feeling that our system of doing things is massively and comprehensively demented?
Quite frankly, a country that allows the Daily Mail and attendant morally retarded bandwagon jumpers to dictate its social mores and sense of justice is a country in the shitter.
Posted on October 31st, 2008 at 8:33 am
Ever get the feeling that our system of doing things is massively and comprehensively demented?
Every second of every day!
And as I get older the world appears even nuttier.
Agreed.
This malaise seems to be creeping to all corners of society seemingly untouched, with an a new obsession for manufactured tedium and outrage.
I’ve been engaged in far too many debates with people having to make the case for why the BBC bashing is a massive crock of shit, this should not be the case, people should be able to figure it out for themselves.
I feel like screaming: CONGO ANYONE?
What’s wrong with the country? Has no body told you? It’s all Gordon Browns fault. Everything would be fine if we would just listen to the Mail.
Ironically that’s a very ‘Daily Mail’-esque post - it conflates lots of unrelated issues, makes huge generalistions and drop any attention to the subtleties of the stories it mentions.
Opposition to the Iraq war can be noble and perfectly legitimate but describing Blair as “one of the instigators of a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children” is just lazy Justin. He did so as a democratically elected PM having secured the consent of Parliament. His intention to take foreign policy in this direction were clearly spelt out in his Chicago 1999 speech on ‘liberal interventionism’ and the public then returned him to office after that speech with a decent majority. Of course all the stuff about suspect intelligence and too close a relationship with Bush is relevant and I’d probably agree with you on most of that but none of that changes those facts.
So to ignore all that context and then make a very ‘Littlejohn’ type barb - ‘he’s ‘poncing around without a care and earning £12m’ - is pathetic.
I agree that Brand & Ross acted like dickheads but if you’re happy to attribute direct responsibility to Blair for bombings thousands of miles away in the Middle East because he’s the ultimate authority then it’s not too much of a stretch to suggest that Lesley Douglass carries ultimate responsibility for waht gets broadcast on her network.
I half agree with Liam and half not. I think he’s spot on about the post, and pretty much wrong about Tony Blair. Blair appointed Alastair Campbell as his spin doctor despite Campbell’s now very-well documented mental problems, Campbell despite also knowing nothing about military intelligence (he has a passing acquaintance with the civilian kind and most of that he destroyed in his dipsomaniac years), suggested 11 separate changes to the draft joint intelligence committee dossier on Iraq, a confidential letter to the parliamentary inquiry into the government’s case for war reveals. In short, like Justin, I believe that Blair intentionally misled Parliament with doctored information.
So, I’m with Justin there. I don’t agree about Andrew Sachs’ granddaughter. There’s a definite ‘consent’ angle to privacy. If she sells her story to the Sun and profits by it, that’s a quid pro quo: her privacy hasn’t been invaded. Ross and Brand making offensive claims about her on the airwaves (for their own monetary gain, in that they get paid for this, and she doesn’t) seems like invasion of privacy to me. So I don’t think there’s any hypocrisy there.
Finally, I don’t think the Daily Mail does dictate our social mores or ’sense of justice’. I’m not even sure that senses can be dictated to. I saw a bit the BBC early morning new programme yesterday - and frankly both guests were talking crap. One (presumably representing the Mail line) was blathering about 24/7 this and that and other stuff that was cliched when Marshall McLuhan tried it on 40 years ago. And a fat comedian said something like ‘If they can get Jonathan Ross, they can get any of us.’ I’ll storm the Bastille or nearest equivalent if Stephen Fry or David Attenborough come under attack for being clever and pro-science, but Ross acted like a berk, because he is one. I’m disappointed that he hasn’t lost his job altogether. What I don’t get about the flap is the stuff about broadcasting the prank phone call. Of course they shouldn’t have broadcast it: they shouldn’t have made it. If they did that to Chris Moyles or Jeremy Clarkson or Alan Carr and it would be mildly amusing. And hilarious if the vic was Alastair Campbell. But not to anyone else.
I wouldn’t defend Blair over the dossier Dave - I just think Justin was almost suggesting ‘Blair murdered thousands and he’s still earning, Ross/Brand just insulted people’ and that’s a gross distortion of what these stories are really all about.
There’s no ‘almost’ about it. I want to see Blair on trial in The Hague.
That’s what I mean Justin - it’s Daily Mail-esque hyperbole and adolsecent nonsense, he was PM for f***s sake - not a serial killer.
Does the term ‘war of aggression’ mean anything to you?
It does but I’m not sure what your point is.
My point (which I notice you haven’t really engaged with) is that conflating a 5 year old international conflict (however contentious & tragic) with a story about a couple of DJs and their offensive broadcast is just silly - it’s the sort of thing our tabloid press do to make a cheap point but it’s nonsense….
I probably would have engaged if you hadn’t turned up on my blog for the first time and called me ‘pathetic’ and ‘adolescent’. I don’t find that very enticing when I’m deciding how to use my time responding to comments.
I didn’t call you ‘pathetic’ or ‘adolescent’ - I was referring to the desire to see Blair charged with war crimes for entirely legal behaviour.
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on that whole sentence.
Bollocks Liam, when our elected representatives start commenting on such nonsense, as Cameron, Brown and Straw all have when there is about a thousand better things they could be spending their time doing, then it is more than valid to bring up what they themselves have done in the past. And when it involves voting for a war that has killed hundreds of thousands, lying about our involvement in the abduction and torture of “terrorist suspects” and cosying up to the tabloid press that thinks nothing of invading the privacy of thousands of people every year for their own personal gain, then no, it isn’t tabloid hyperbole, it’s getting what deserve.
MPs comment on a multitude of things septicisle - usually because they’re under public pressure to do so. Those people added their voice to a public clamour but simply made one or two statements about it - they didn’t take up the issue or suggest for a minute that it’s indicative of some wider cultural malaise. In other words, they kept perspective.
Contrary to the impression his thread might create Justin and I are probably in a very similar place when it comes to the Iraq war - what he and you seem to have trouble understanding is that it’s not the legality or morals of the Iraq war that matter here. It’s whether comparing a complex global conflict with a prank phone call is a useful construct to say anything meaningful about our culture or political life.
My view is that it isn’t and niether Justin, you or anyone else on this thread has yet given me a single reason why it is…..
Rubbish - the comments of the politicians helped keep this ludicrous witch-hunt going, the Mail splashing the fact that Brown had denounced them on its front page on Wednesday. David Cameron demanded complete transparency from the BBC - just after he had failed to mention in the register of MP’s interests that his private jet meetings were to go to see Rupert Murdoch, and after George Osborne had provided anything but that. Jack Straw asked whether “Jonathan Ross had underwhelming skills”, inviting a riposte regarding his own. Theresa May and the Conservatives called for a Commons debate on the matter. There was no need whatsoever for any of them to comment on something of such frivolity, especially at the moment.
If the time therefore dedicating to investigating or discussing the Iraq or the Afghanistan conflicts is therefore less important than what two men left on a guest’s answerphone, then I really do despair. Act stupidly, don’t be surprised if perhaps unfair criticisms are then levelled.
Have you forgotten that the BBC is publicly funded? That one fact explains (even if it doesn’t entirely justify) everything in your first paragraph. I’m not denying that the MPs stoked this issue a bit or that there wasn’t an air of a witch-hunt about it - that’s what MPs do for ch**** sake!
My central point - still unaddressed as we near 20 comments - is that Justin’s comparison was deeply flawed and without foundation.
Oh please - the public funding of the BBC is the excuse for this, not the cause. The only thing that might have justified this week’s furore was if a BBC presenter had shot someone live on their show and the BBC had then covered it up, not that a would-be guest was slightly insulted by two comedians, whose granddaughter has since hugely benefited from it, the same one he was meant to be embarrassed for.
If we really want to get into this, we can go back to the very beginning and the fact that the Commons voted on what has become known as a “false prospectus” in March 2003, geared by dossiers and intelligence that were not very far from outright lies. As for the idea that we somehow justified this ourselves by returning Blair in 2001 because of the Chicago speech, there is not one single word in the 2001 Labour manifesto about the kind of liberal interventionism he discussed then. There is a huge huge difference between directly leading a country into a war and a radio controller not being aware of a radio show. The real irony here is that is that the BBC is far, far more accountable than the government actually is; after all, the director general, chairman and the journalist responsible for a broadcast which was almost wholly accurate resigned, while not a single government minister over than those who did so beforehand has over the Iraq disaster.
Still no explanation or justification for the ludicrous comparison of two wildly different events to make a cheap point - your repeated refusal or inability to offer one suggests, like me, you reject it….
Just visited your place septicisle and noticed that the story has provided you with c.4,800 words of the last few days - there was more room on that bandwagon than I thought…
Oh and there’s another 800 where that came from, seeing you’re counting.
What an extraordinarily dishonest way to desrcibe someone who clearly leapt not on board, but upon the brakes.
I’m not sure how much I should trust you with my time and energy, Liam… so for now I’ll leave you with this single challenge to your wall of bullshit and see how you actually care about debating standards.
(waits)
Tim - we’re stretching metaphors but to ‘leap on the brakes’ one must also be on board.
The most honest way to distance oneself from a public clamour is to ignore it completely.
Pfft! I don’t think anyone wanting to bring a bandwagon to a screaming halt can be said to be truly on board; I don’t care where the brakes are located.
Hoarding examples of either my own conduct or that of other bloggers is a little obsessive from my point of view Tim - that you make it your raison d’etre doesn’t mean others must follow….
Liam, you’ll drop the ‘obsessive’ shit as well if you want to continue commenting on my blog.
[repeated from earlier thread confusion]
1. My invitation to “bring some examples” etc. is down there [points down]. Make a claim like that (”I definitely did X”). and you’d want to be able to back it up. Will you be telling me that you’re not my researcher next?
2. Surely you don’t need to ‘hoard’ examples to simply recall and locate one, Liam. All it requires is a brain and Google. Appreciate the ‘obsessive’ tag, though. Loving the way you walk that walk.
3. Looks to me like you’re having a bitch about standards when you have some pisspoor standards yourself. So do you have a point (or a leg to stand on), or is this just some trolling sport for shits and giggles?
Tim - I was having a bitch about standards and one that’s still not been addressed or defended by anyone in 40 comments here. Indeed Justin acknowledged his habit of using “hyperbole for effect” so in that sense I feel rather vindicated.
Since I don’t have a blog myself I’m not entirely sure where the reference to my ‘piss poor’ standards comes from but I suspect any association with Mr D is enough to damn someone as far as your concerned. Better people than I have pointed out how small-minded and petty you are on that subject and I have the OTT (you might say ‘manic’) emails to prove it - it’s a chorus I needn’t join.
I’ll say it again, Liam - drop this bollocks about Tim. Take it to one of the craphouses where it’s condoned and encouraged. I won’t tell you again.
Obviously you can’t fucking read.
Christ, you’re like a dog with a bone, aren’t you Liam? Have you read any other posts on this site? Have you not noticed that I enjoy juxtaposition and hyperbole-for-effect? That I have fun with them - you know, fun? Has it not dawned on you that this is one of those ‘where’s the justice?’ pieces? I judge Tony Blair’s crimes to be much greater than Lesley Douglas’s and yet the latter lost her job while the other’s gone on to great success. Where’s the justice? Finito.
Happy to leave it there Justin. My original point was simply that using “juxtaposition and hyperbole-for-effect” is a low technique and isn’t made more noble simply by being put in the service of a good cause - I am a new reader to the blog (and will come again) so I can’t be sure of this but I suspect you’ve (quite rightly) taken the Mail etc. to task for that in the past - it’s just a consistency thing.
Final thought - Blair ultimately did pay with his job and his subsequent success is almost entirely rooted in his international earnings, his UK standing is considerably more diminished than Lesley Douglas’s will ever be which is why I doubted the salience of the comparison.
Thanks for the debate…..
Well if you come here looking for a ‘high’ technique (whatever that is) and consistency you’re going to go hungry. I look forward to seeing you criticising ‘low’ techniques on some of the more prominent blogs. Have you taken Iain Dale to task recently, for example?
For the record I have and will continue to take Iain to task if he uses those sorts of techniques, despite my loose association with him.
Well, when you return, perhaps you can bring some examples.
“My original point was simply that using “juxtaposition and hyperbole-for-effect” is a low technique”
Maybe you should give Jonathan Swift a call and let him know…
Liam, people use these techniques all the time. All of the commentariat use them, and not just on blogs or in the Daily Mail.
I think trying to hang Justin on it is petty.
I think Justin’s point is legitimate. Why is Blair, a man you agree misled MPs to take the country to war, allowed to gallivant across the globe earning millions (when he should be disgraced, or better charged with his crimes), while poor Ms. Douglas is shafted by a media witch-hunt over a non-event (in comparison).
Where is the media outrage over Blair? At least that would be justified. Someone has to raise the issue of Blair lies, Liam, the media never will.
We live in a world where the national narrative is controlled by rightwing rags. Maybe no-one is listening to the blogosphere, but at least we’re not beholden to establishment shackles and we’re trying to make a noise.
You’ve never read Chicken Yog? Shame on you, Liam.
Thanks Aaron - I will indeed visit Chicken Yoghurt more regularly.
p.s. and I can think of few things that have had more mainstream media exposure than Blair’s conduct over the war….
Slightly odd argument - Blair has been let off, so everyone else should be.
Thanks, cjcjc, for that obvious troll.
Thanks for taking the time to say that, cjcjc.
Erm, I think we can safely say the threaded comments function needs a looking at…
Tim joined this fray of his own accord Justin and took a pop at me - I’m simply responding in kind. If you’re saying it’s OK for him to do so but not me that’s a strange standard to set.
[EDITED BY JMcK]
I’ve edited your comment because I’m not giving you a platform to air this endlessly tedious and unpleasant bollocks about Tim.
I think you’ll find that Tim criticised your debating ’skills’. You responded with character assassination. Now that might pass as normal and acceptable on online toilet walls like Dale’s or Fawkes’ but not here.
See, it’s my house, my rules. And you pissed me off by turning up for the first time expecting me to take you on after you called me ‘pathetic’ and ‘adolescent’. I’m not feeling very charitable towards you.
And as for ’strange standards’ why don’t you take that argument to the big boys and see how far you get. Not very is my prediction. They set the low standard in strange standards. I am but a novice in comparison. You’ve got a strange standard about strange standards. Basically, I’ve witnessed a lot of shit thrown at Tim and I’m not having it here.
Now, I blog to have fun and you’re doing your best to spoil that. You’re now off topic and being unpleasant. Choose your next comment carefully.
Fair enough. Tim’s first comment on this thread referred to my ‘wall of bullsh*t’ so it’s charitable in the extreme to say he was criticising my debating skills - allowing him to throw sh*t at others and then censoring their reply is indeed your call but don’t try and pretend there’s anything honourable about it…..
You know, fuck it. Comments are off.