We don’t just report off-beat news, breaking news and digest the best and worst of the news media analysis and commentary. We give an original take on what happened and why. We add lols, satire, news photos and original content.
This abusing of whites by whites is pathetic. The knowing used to be content with labelling a whole group of people ‘white trash’, sub-human rubbish identifiable by Londsale logos and slack-jaws. This hideous social racist term dehumanises a whole group of people as human dross – which is what Nazis and jihadis do.
Tired of outing the likes of Coleen Rooney as “a superchav” (Sunday Times) for having ideas above her station and appearing on the Vogue cover, branding Jade Goody “a vile, pig-ignorant, racist, bully consumed by envy of a woman of superior intelligence, beauty and class” (The Sun), belittling “Essex Man“ and giving Stephen Lawrence’s killers an excuse by calling their home town a “White Man’s Gulch”, an “E-reg Escort-land” (Daily Mirror) of uniformly hateful creatures, the new way for the right sort of whites to boost their self-esteem is to call out rich whites.
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn lambasts Donald Trump and Nigel Farage as “rich, white, fake anti-elitists”.
There is no safe space to be white in public unless you are accusing other whites of some collective crime for which they should be ashamed. If you want to assure yourself that you’re the right kind of white, you can wear a safety pin on your clothes. Speaking to the BBC, Allison (she don’t want to give her full name), who seems to come up with the idea, opined: “If people wear the pin and support the campaign they are saying they are prepared to be part of the solution. It could be by confronting racist behaviour, or if that is not possible at least documenting it. More generally it is about reaching out to people and letting them know they are safe and welcome.”
It’s virtue signalling for people who have a pretty low view of humanity, who assume that only mentally negligible dupes and racists voted for Brexit or Trump. It’s long been assumed that you can spot by a bigot by their Klan hood, Nazi walk, raised jihadi finger or far-Left and far-Right politics. But stick on a safety pin and the pin heads position themselves in a moral station above all the non-pin wearers now cast as suspected bigots. Nazis made the Untermensch wear symbols to advertise their wrong-thinking and bad morals so their betters would know them; the new morally elite wear symbols to show their cultural superiority.
It’s weak to attack abuse an entire racial group. Debate and ridicule your enemies by all means. Name call if you like – but do try to be imaginative and gloriously bitchy. Just leave race and colour out of it. It makes you look like a snobby and envious twat.
Sophie Theallet has something to say. Having once provided clothes for Michelle Obama’s wardrobe, Theallet will not allow Melania Trump to fill her massive closets with the same.
Does Melania want to wear Theallet’s clothes? We’ve found no word that she does. But it is a shame one immigrant cannot support another.
Of course, banning people is what any tradesperson can do. It’s their right to be rude. Well, sort of.
One of my favourite rude shopkeepers was Kim Tickell, aka Kim Joseph Hollick de la Taste Tickell, who ran the Tickell Arms outside Cambridge until his death in 1990.
After parking carefully you approached the front door, on which was posted a long handwritten list of house rules – No Long-Haired Lefties, No Tee Shirts, No Trainers, No CND-ers and so on. The Squire himself usually presided over his empire in 18th century style attire including knee breeches and an eye glass. He was spectacularly rude, usually for no good reason, and was prone to outrageous behaviour. He once poured the ice bucket down a customer’s trousers because his shirt had come untucked and he was therefore “undressed”. A large pair of scissors was kept behind the bar so he could snip off any ties which offended him. Should a customer not have parked sufficiently neatly, he would call out their number plates through a megaphone, demanding they adjust the vehicle now. The walls were adorned with large weapons which he sometimes used for chasing people out of the building.
Londoners will recall Soho’s Wong Kei, a restaurant famed for its surly staff. When the new owner promised to offer a more genteel dining experience, patrons complained. Andrew Lebentz wrote: “Please don’t make Wong Kei a polite place to eat – the best thing about it is the rude staff.” James Bollen added: “RIP London’s most masochistic dining experience in Chinatown.“ Even Daniel Luc, who too over the place in 2014, said: “Maybe there was an issue with rude staff 20 to 30 years ago, but I don’t think so any more. I don’t know whether that’s a good thing or not.”
So more power to Sophie Theallet, whose snootiness should have them flocking. She is now The Rudest Designer in the USA. She should put that on a T-shirt.
At the Spiked talk on free speech, freedom of worship and repression, the conversation turned to the Ashers cake story. In 2015, a judge ruled that a Christian-run bakery in Northern Ireland discriminated against a gay customer by refusing to make a cake carrying a pro-gay marriage slogan.
That was then, of course, We’ve moved on. A hijab-wearing Muslim woman’s victory in BBC TV’s Great British Bake Off showed us that 2016 is a post-identity haven for bakers, where non-whites can make biscuits, scones and even quiche. As one Guardian writer noted, “Nadiya managed to defuse the negative, politicised and stereotypical discourse surrounding Muslims in one beat of a whisk.”
Making cakes is no longer a burning issue. Buying and selling them, however, remains a hot topic.
And there must be a myriad industries where prejudice festers. If you look very closely, sometimes in the dust on the factory floor, you can find something to feel upset about.
The sensible thing is to evoke the Rooney Rule for not just football but for all businesses.
The FA are considering introducing the Rooney Rule to the UK. The Rule states that league teams must interview minority candidates for head coaching and senior football operation jobs. For every vacancy, the club must interview a BAME candidate. There are no guarantees the ethnic minority candidate will get the job because the rule will not be extended to club owners and heads of HR, who must be viewed as suspected racists. (Encouragingly, however, 14 of the 20 Premier League clubs have foreign ownership.) Their roles must also be opened to scrutiny. We propose that one in six persons applying for any job at or in the vicinity of a football club must be from an ethnic minority – this includes referees and other officials, TV crew, newspaper reporters, their editors, cleaning staff, security and the people who appear at half time to make holes in the turf with pitchforks. Companies often recruit from within, so the revolution must be throughout an organisation.
And where football leads, the rest follow. The State has a rich history of using football as a testing ground for new types of control – see Hillsborough, censorship of fans like Celtic’s Green Brigade and Tottenham’s Yid Army, and the Football (Disorder) Act 2000. If the Rooney Rule is to be fair and progressive, let’s introduce it to the bakery, the building trade, the Commons, the Royal Family, the BBC and elsewhere?
Every time you want, say, a cake made you must first interview 6 bakers, one of whom should be BAME*, one a religionist, one a homosexual and so on. The same for when you hire a carpenter, plumber, hairdresser, lawyer, gardener, head of MI6, astronaut or estate agent. Data will be added to your Race Card and stored at headquarters. Anyone at the bottom will be re-educated. Those at the top will get to wear a badge proving their rank as a State-approved non-racist and national treasure.
PS: BAME stands for Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic. Good news for Muslims, Jews and Mormons – you’re now all lumped in one all-embracing, special acronym. It makes things easier to control. How’s that for progress?
Hey, holidaymakers. Next time you think of taking the sun in Dubai, try to remember that the place is run by lunatics. A British woman who told Dubai police she’d been raped by two men has been arrested for having extra-marital sex.
The Foreign Office says: “We are supporting a British woman in relation to this case and will remain in contact with her family.”
You can support her, too, by not going on holiday to Dubai.
Human Rights Watch tells us of the family winter sun spot:
The government arbitrarily detains, and in some cases forcibly disappears, individuals who criticized the authorities, and its security forces face allegations of torturing detainees.
That’s just the first line.
Big notes attract big criminals. The Indian government plans to thwart villains by doing away with larger bills. Politicians are upset:
The prime minister last week outlawed 500- and 1,000-rupee notes in a drive to rein in corruption and a shadow economy that accounts for a fifth of India’s $2.1tn gross domestic product.
In southern Spain I met a woman whose estranged husband funded her and their young son’s lifestyle with wads of 500 euro notes. I know this because when the lad flushed a clutch of them down the toilet, she wailed, “Those were for my new t***. ” Could she get more cash? Not easily. The husband, an ex-pat, earned his wedge doing a bit of this and bit of that. She’d have to wait and see.
In India another sort of t** gets the big notes:
With no state election funding, illicit cash is the lifeblood for political parties that collect money from candidates and businessmen, and then spend it on staging rallies, hiring helicopters and on “gifts” to win votes.
Spending on the Uttar Pradesh election is forecast to hit a record 40bn rupees ($590m), despite the cancellation of big denominations.
“We will have to plan the entire election strategy all over again,” said Pradeep Mathur, a senior Uttar Pradesh leader of the Congress opposition party that was trounced by the BJP in national elections in 2014.
Big notes are gong out of fashiin,
In 2000, Canada got rid of its $1,000 bills and Singapore called time in its $10,000 bills.
In April 2016, the BBC reported: “The European Central Bank (ECB) says it will no longer produce the €500 (£400; $575) note because of concerns it could facilitate illegal activities.”
Why? In 2010, we read:
After eight months of rigorous analysis of currency trading in the UK, the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) has established that the 500 euro note is at the heart of money laundering. The reason is simple: it’s easier to shift.
Our proposal is to eliminate high denomination, high value currency notes, such as the €500 note, the $100 bill, the CHF1,000 note and the £50 note. Such notes are the preferred payment mechanism of those pursuing illicit activities, given the anonymity and lack of transaction record they offer, and the relative ease with which they can be transported and moved. By eliminating high denomination, high value notes we would make life harder for those pursuing tax evasion, financial crime, terrorist finance and corruption. Without being able to use high denomination notes, those engaged in illicit activities – the “bad guys” of our title – would face higher costs and greater risks of detection. Eliminating high denomination notes would disrupt their “business models”.
Are you old enough at 15 to to go into the world and forge a life on our own? Two months ago, on September 6, Arthur Heeler-Frood, 15, declared himself “bored with life” and left his family home in Axminster, Devon. Clutching a raft of top GCSE grades and £350 the young scholar struck out.
He’s a thoughtful young chap, writing a note to his parents, assuring them that he’d back within a year.
To Mum and Dad,
I have run away because I am bored of my life. Please don’t try to find me or make me come home.
I don’t know how long I will be away for but it won’t be longer than a year. You will find my school uniform in a bin bag in a small barn in the field on the green, down the road near Membury Church.
My bike is chained to the fence and there is a spare key to the lock on the window. Please apologise to the restaurant and tell them that I will no longer be able to work there.
I know you will be upset but understand that I have to do this,
After two months on the lam, Arthur is now back home. Someone spotted him ten miles (Times) / nine miles (Guardian) from the family residence, told police and they picked him up at Honiton railway station in Devon at about 4.30pm.
Mrs Heeler-Frood tells the Guardian of her son: “We’ve just got home with him and want a little bit of time to talk to him. He was coming home. He is fine and well.”
Oddly the Guardian begins its story by stating, “A grammar school boy missing for two months…” Does his passing entrance exams to a selective school make him seem more or less capable of surviving and thriving on his own? Are we to read that grammar school pupils can be just as selfish and thick as their comprehensive school educated peers?
The paper then adds:
Arthur’s frantic parents, Caroline and Jeremy Heeler-Frood, had wondered if he had sneaked abroad, possibly inspired by George Orwell’s Down and Out in Paris and London, which he had just been reading.
You see where reading gets you? Yeah, Honiton. (And isn’t it good data-led academics to escape university safe spaces and get out more. Brexit and Trump taught us they should, right.)
Of course, there are other books to inspire travel. Jim Hawkins was 12 or 13 when he was inspired to board a boat:
I remember him as if it were yesterday, as he came plodding to the inn door, his sea-chest following behind him in a hand-barrow—a tall, strong, heavy, nut-brown man, his tarry pigtail falling over the shoulder of his soiled blue coat, his hands ragged and scarred, with black, broken nails, and the sabre cut across one cheek, a dirty, livid white. I remember him looking round the cover and whistling to himself as he did so, and then breaking out in that old sea-song that he sang so often afterwards:
“Fifteen men on the dead man’s chest—
Yo-ho-ho, and a bottle of rum!”
You make your own stories.
So, is 15 too young to leave school and kick out for adventure and work? On 1 September 1972, the school leaving age was raised from 15 to 16. It was all right for many then, but now they want you in full-time study til your 18 at least.
The Education and Skills Act 2008 increased the minimum age at which young people in England can leave learning. This requires them to continue in education or training to the age of 17 from 2013 and to 18 from 2015. Young people will be able to choose whether to stay in full-time education, undertake work-based learning such as an Apprenticeship, or part-time education or training if they are employed, self-employed or volunteering for more than 20 hours per week.
Is that an improvement or a constraint? Is all this education creating a bubble?
Over to you, Jim Lad:
What a supper I had of it that night, with all my friends around me; and what a meal it was, with Ben Gunn’s salted goat and some delicacies and a bottle of old wine from the Hispaniola. Never, I am sure, were people gayer or happier. And there was Silver, sitting back almost out of the firelight, but eating heartily, prompt to spring forward when anything was wanted, even joining quietly in our laughter—the same bland, polite, obsequious seaman of the voyage out.
Meghan Markle is to play Jamie Vardy’s wife in a film. Well, so says the Daily Star. And who better than Prince Harry’s latest flame to pump the air as her man scores for Leicester City.
In scene 1, the actress is speaking to the News of the World. It’s 2001. “He had great muscles and I thought he’d be a great lover,” she says. “He was the worst lover I have ever had. He didn’t even attempt to satisfy me.” Whoah. Stop nodding Chelsy Davy. Meghan is reading the script from Rebekah Vardy’s insight into her time with sentimental pop acorn Peter Andre.
Of course it’s utter tosh. Markle has not been given the role. The Star only “reckons” Meghan would make a good Rebekah. After all both are dark hairs divorcees with a random ‘h’ in their names.
But being light on facts fails to stop the story gaining momentum. “Prince Harry’s girl Meghan Markle will play Jamie Vardy’s wife in new movie,” thunders the Mirror. “Meghan Markle being lined up to play Jamie Vardy’s wife in Hollywood flick,” cries the Sun.
The Mirror nails how Hollywood casting work when it says, “with Meghan being 35-years-old, she’s just one year older thank Rebekah so would be well suited to playing the Leicester City hero’s missus.” The Sun’s story is based on the Mirror’s story, which is based on the Star’s story – which is based on not a single attributable quote or fact.
Rebekah Vardy is 34.
The Sun spots Karen Danczuk kissing her new flame, David, 26. Karen, once billed as the ‘selfie Queen’ in all media and estranged from Labour MP Simon Danczuk, is spotted by Rochdale’s busy paparazzi stood by a doorway with her new “Spanish waiter lover”.
The Sun says David has “started moving his things in” to Karen’s place. What things the Sun enlarged on. Readers are told, Karen “helped her new man carry in chairs, boxes, suitcases and a leg of pork“.
Who says romance is dead?
When Andrzej Galbarczyk, a researcher at Jagiellonian University’s Institute of Public Health, and Anna Ziomkiewicz, a Fulbright Scholar and Assistant Professor at Polish Academy of Sciences
Wrocław, studied the effects of tattoos on human thinking, the Times saw the results and declared:
Tattoos do make men more attractive to women, scientists have discovered.
The Daily Star added one day later
Calling all men: Tattoos will land you the girl of your dreams
This is the missive about that research:
We photographed nine shirtless men without tattoos from the waist up. We digitally modified these pictures by adding a black arm tattoo with an abstract, neutral design. We asked heterosexual women and men to rate a randomly selected version of each photo in several categories. Data were collected from 2463 women and 234 men from Poland by an online survey.
Women rated modified versions of the pictures as healthier but not more or less attractive than the original. Inversely, men rated modified version of pictures as more attractive but not more or less healthy than the original. Both men and women rated pictures of men with a tattoo as more masculine, dominant and aggressive.
Women are not more attracted to men with tattoos. But can we agree that men are?
And now the part the newspapers republished:
Our results identify two important sexual selection mechanisms that may support tattooing in humans. First, women perceive tattoos as a signal of good health, masculinity, and dominance. They may thus favour tattooed men as more valuable partners with potentially better health and higher social rank.
Second, men perceive tattoos as a signal of attractiveness, masculinity and dominance. Therefore, they may assess those traits as qualities of stronger and more successful same-sex rival.
In short: tattooed men fancy themselves
Donald Trump continues to set the tabloid news agenda. (Well, that and the I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here!).
The Mirror leads with Donal Trump’s “TV PLEDGE”. Ha, indeed. Everything we’ve seen of Trump has been a TV pledge. Even the people watching the live show should admit Trump’s words carry the legend “as seen on TV”.
“I Will Kick Out 3 Million Migrants,” runs the Trump telly pledge. The US President-elect will “deport or jail up to three million illegal immigrants”. Well, as soon as he gets a handle on the numbers, he can start building the prisons and fuelling the planes. Trump says it’s “probably two million, it could even be three million”. Why stop at three million? The answer could be because Trump understands media and that sound-bites are all. Save four million for a slow news day.
The Express hears the headline figure and muses on its front page: “Trump to kick out 3million migrants…Now Britons asks: can we do the same?” By Page 4 readers have an answer: “UK backing for Trump to deport migrants.”
The Express then produces a phone poll: “Should Britain now send home all illegal migrants?” Ah, not all migrants, as the front-page said. All illegal migrants. Having delivered a poll more loaded than Trump’s can of hair lacquer, heard from three UKIP voices and one Tory, we leave the Express and look at the Sun’s front page. We see Nigel Farage, retired and re-instated UKIP leader ad nauseam. Farage “humiliated” the Government by saying it was in the “national interest” for him to broker any post-Brexit trade deal with the US, says the Sun.
Which nation is unspecified, but given the calibre of Farage’s dream team – the “Brex Pistols” – we can’t rule out France.
On Page 4, the Sun reminds reader that Farage is not the country’s popularly elected leader. It says Theresa May – who isn’t either – is Primer Minister. May will deliver a speech in which she “promises to clamp down on rampant immigration”. She will do this by:
a) Building a wall.
b) Surrounding the country with water (see Ice Age-induced Brexit)
c) Saying it clearly.
d) See what Trump does.
It’s Trump and Farage on the Mail’s cover. It’s a terrific photo of the two men stood before Trump’s gold and diamond-encrusted front door. Over two pages, Andrew Pierce has the “riotous inside story” behind it. Farage and his four cohorts were “mesmerised” by Trump’s flat. One of them called a Renoir on a wall “magnificent”. Another called an Eros statue “striking”.
And, er, that’s it.
They were outside.
Meghan Markle might no longer be in the UK, but Prince Harry Baseball-Cap’s “girl” is all over the Mail’s front page.
It is an “exclusive encounter” with Meghan Markle.
Scoop or what?
It’s only been a few days since Harry was complaining about the Press treating the celebrity Prince like a celebrity and abusing his lover. He is upset by “reporters and photographers trying to gain illegal entry to Meghan’s home”. Should we feel sympathy for Meghan? It’s “preposterous to claim that the publicity-hungry Ms Markle is a hapless victim,” said Sarah Vine in the Mail
Now Meghan’s talking to the Mail!
No. She isn’t. She spoke with Piers Morgan in June “months before the world learned about her Royal relationship”.
Words about Harry in this front-page exclusive? None.
So if not Prince Harry, what did she talk about?
Meghan revealed some more obscure secrets about herself – such as the fact that she is a trained calligrapher who wrote the invitation cards and envelopes for pop singer Robin Thicke’s 2005 wedding.
Is that like the secret she revealed in 2014, when she told Fashion:
“I could either wait tables or use a skill I had that I could do on my own time,” she says. Markle’s calligraphy led to her addressing envelopes for Robin Thicke and Paula Patton’s wedding and writing Dolce & Gabbana’s holiday correspondence.
And the death threats? The Mail reports:
…she was bombarded with hate messages when her character in the US drama series Suits, Rachel Zane, cheated on her boyfriend in the show. She said: ‘People wanted to kill me! Not Rachel… ME. I never knew there were so many emojis with guns and knives. It was very unpleasant. Fortunately, Rachel got back on her pedestal and it stopped.’
“Prince Harry’s girlfriend Meghan Markle’s terrifying death threats,” screams the Daily Mirror. But those threats were nothing to do with her dating Prince Harry.
Elsewhere in today’s Mail, you can read:
The Mail exclusively revealed images of Meghan this week out in Kensington, near Harry’s home at Kensington Palace.
Time to once again revisit the pledge made by the Mail on 8 September 1997, eight days after the death of Princess Diana:
“The proprietor of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Evening Standard announced last night that his papers will not in future purchase pictures taken by paparazzi
“Viscount Rothermere, chairman of the Daily Mail and General Trust plc said: ‘I am, and always have been, an admirer of Diana, Princess of Wales, and nagged my editors to protect her so far as they could against her powerful enemies. In view of Earl Spencer’s strong words and my own sense of outrage, I have instructed my editors no ‘paparazzi’ pictures are to be purchased without my knowledge and consent.'”
Meghan is now back in her native Canada.
Best of luck to her.
The absurd laws that make marijuana illegal continue to impinge of lives. In Victoria, Canada, police spotted a 22-year-old man operating what appeared to be a marijuana delivery service.
The suspect’s cart cried the legends “420 delivery, no minors”.
Lest you think this a stunt, know that police officers found the man to be in possession of 50 grams of weed. As he awaits a December court date, we wonder why weed is illegal in Canada?
In April 2016, Canada’s health minister, Jane Philpott, opined: “We will introduce legislation in spring 2017 that ensures we keep marijuana out of the hands of children and profits out of the hands of criminals. We will work with law enforcement partners to encourage appropriate and proportionate criminal justice measures. We know it is impossible to arrest our way out of this problem.”
So why bother?
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party declared:
Canada’s current system of marijuana prohibition does not work. It does not prevent young people from using marijuana and too many Canadians end up with criminal records for possessing small amounts of the drug.
…We will remove marijuana consumption and incidental possession from the Criminal Code…
So will everyone arrested for possession of the stinking weed get a pardon when the new laws are passed?
The United Kingdom is “At The Back of The Queue,” says the Daily Mirror. The front-page headline echoes the words of Barack Obama, who thoughtfully flew to the country to remind British citizens that a vote for Brexit would mean the country relegated to the foot of the international business league table. Vote for Brexit and British companies seeking to do business with the US would be behind Germany, France, Egypt and Chad. At first glance, then, the headline looks sarcastic.
So much for being at the back of that queue, Barack, with Donald Trump in charge, a man with solid links to the UK, we’ll be closer to the front.
But the Mirror is serious. It says that after becoming President-elect, Trump only called Theresa May after first speaking with nine world leaders.
We’re Number 10!
The UK got the call after Trump dialled Ireland, Egypt, India, Mexico, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Turkey and Israel. He then called the UK. Yes, that means that after Ireland, the UK is the second most important European Union nation in Trump’s pecking order – ahead for France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The Mirror calls this a “snub”. But isn’t it progress? In 2009, the Guardian reported: “Barack Obama snubs Gordon Brown over private talks – White House spurned five requests from PM’s aides for bilateral meeting.” The Telegraph noted: “Barack Obama rebuffs Gordon Brown as ‘special relationship’ sinks to new low.”
In other Special Relationship news, the Mail says May is Trump’s Tatcher.
And the Express says Trump will help the UK thrive after leaving the EU.
Having read in the tabloids that Trump is both dire and great for UK-US relations, the Mirror lists on Page 3 – after more headlines of doom (“A new danger for the world order”; “Poor start to Special Relationship”) “10 reasons Donald might not be all that bad”. That comes after Thursday’s front page which predicted a Trump-triggered armageddon.
At number 3, the Mirror notes:
“OK, so he didn’t get round to ringing Theresa May for a while. But his mother is Scottish. He has many business interests in the UK. And he;s a big fan of Brexit. He will probably want to hug us close”
And at Number 10: “”Starting WW3 is not in his interests.”
To recap: the Mirror hasn’t got a clue what a Trump Presidency means. But if it can scare the readers, why not?
Of course, that doesn’t men she is plotting to kill Trump. But, if true, it appears to monumentally stupid.
And she’s a freelance, not a Guardian staffer.
Anyhow, Anorak Law is a go: as soon as an American gain power the media discuss their murder.
The Donald Trump Death Cult is up and running.
It’s been a while since Sir Cliff Richard featured on the BBC. Last night Sir Cliff was on The One Show, BBC One’s early evening magazine program. Cliff wasn’t there to asks the BBC why it chose to broadcast live a police raid on his home in 2014, something he’s suing them for. He was there to promote his new album, Just…Fabulous Rock ‘n’ Roll.
The police used Cliff Richard to repair the damage Of Jimmy Savile and Hillsborough.
Anyone wonder why Sir Cliff is now back on the Beeb?
You might recall how in 2008, Sir Cliff opined in the Express: “When I hear myself on the radio I pretty much phone a friend and send a bottle of champagne round. I’m so excited to get one play.”
Why was Sir Cliff so amazed to be played? Well, it could be linked to Chris Evans (now a DJ on BBC Radio 2). The Mail noted:
In the same year, Radio 1 DJ Chris Evans announced he would not be playing the singer’s records on his breakfast show and even went as far as to smash up his discs on air.
In 2004, Tony Blackburn was suspended from his show on Classic Gold for defying an order not to play Sir Cliff’s tracks.
In 2011, Absolute Radio ’60s banned Cliff’s tunes. DJ Pete Mitchell claimed: “Timeless acts of the decade that remain relevant today are the Beatles, the Stones, the Doors and the Who, not Sir Cliff.”
Once naff, now prime-time, Sir Cliff endures.
The BBC sweats.
When Barack Obama was elected US President in 2008, the news cycle was full of stories of his imminent assassination. We called it the Barack Obama Death Cult. Today we get a look at the assassination of President-elect Donald Trump. The Daily Star leads with news that “TRIUMP’S A DEAD MAN WALKING”.
Grassy Knoll writes in the Star of a “series of threats to gun him down”. Knoll, aka Ross Kaniuk, says would-be killers have made their threats on twitter. One tweeter notes;” My mum is talking about assassinating Donald Trump. Watch out guy my white suburban mother is coming for you.”
She’d best be slim, blonde and young if she wants to get close to The Don.
In other news: no-one shot Barack Obama.
From the University of Michigan-Flint’s Trump-proof safe safe, we hear news from Virginia Tech. Students have received an email entitled “Support & Community Today”.
“Many in our community, and among us, are waking up with fear, anxiety, concern, questions, and confusion among many other emotions,” begins the missive. It notes that “not every member of our community has felt they belong. And today, this may feel almost insurmountable.”
And then it gets really creepy: “I want you to hear clearly that you are loved. You deserve wellness. You deserve to thrive. You deserve community.”
You’d think any college with such a low opinion of their low-esteem student body would be laughed at. “All of your emotions are real,” the email continues. “And your decision is yours.”
And on it goes.
At Stanford University – motto: “The wind of freedom blows (Die Luft der Freiheit weht) – more students are being offered refuges.
It’s Day 1 in the World According to Donald Trump and already his fellow reality TV stars are feeling the aftershock. President Trump’s catchphrase – “Grab her by the pussy” – is all over the Daily Star.
“Cami Lee sexually assaulted: Big Brother star molested as boyfriend slept beside her,” says the paper.
Like most of you, we too have no idea who Cami Lee is. Helpfully, she recognises this and introduces herself.
For those of you who don’t know me, I’m Cami Li, reporting live from Las Vegas. Think tatts, boobs, and more opinions than Katie Hopkins and Piers Morgan put together.
Are her boobs larger than Morgan’s? Dunno. Is she tattier than Hopkins? Not sure? Is she cheaper to have write for your organ than both of them? Says Cami:
So, what could I possibly have to talk about? Well, a f*** load of s***.
If Cami is cheaper that Hopkins and Morgan, and paid by the word, swearing just cost her a couple of quid. She then goes into flashback mode. It’s a deeply unpleasant story.
I, for one, became more passionate about politics after these five (now infamous words) were splashed across the world, “grab her by the p****”.
Cami is in bed. A man is in her room. He is making unwelcome advances.
The freak of nature slips his hands under my jeans, caresses my butt, then tries to make his way to the motherland. He attempts to slide one finger, and for once, I am thankful I ate too much and am bloated with wine, as my jeans are too tight, with little room to move around.
Once he realises he wouldn’t get away with his perversion without waking me up, he retreats. While the ordeal may’ve lasted a few minutes, it has scarred me for an eternity.
After this alleged assault, Cami relates a bout of violence with the middle-aged “beast”. “My boyfriend punched him, knocked him to ground, then the door was slammed repeatedly,” she writes. “Open, close, open, close, open, close.” Next days the man seeks medical help for a broken eye-socket
Cami says she old the authorities but a lack of funds meant she was unable to pursue the matter further. “At that time in my life, I wasn’t financially able to retain a lawyer and fight this rich couple, so I had to hang my head in defeat and walk away,” she writes.
Cami concludes her tale:
Take a step back, look in the mirror, male or female, we’re the change the world needs to see. Women’s rights are human rights. There are too many Donald Trumps in this world.
In other unrelated news, we read that back in April, Daily Star owner Richard Desmond “cut his last remaining ties to the pornography industry, selling adult entertainment channels including Television X, Viewers’ Wives and Red Hot.”
Good for him. Those channels have not alway shown the good stuff.
The Guardian reported:
A viewer of adult subscription channel Television X had complained after a baby’s legs were caught on camera for a few seconds in the background of a scene in which three women were simulating lesbian sex. The baby could also be heard out of shot, gurgling and crying, later in the scene, which was filmed in a bedroom for Television X’s Viewers’ Tapes programme.
The channel apologised.
This week you can watch on Channel X:
Sexual Predator: “Jay Romer came for the thrill of the hunt… to f*** his female prey. In his sexual underworld there are no rules, just his desire to ravage beautiful women… Through the urban London jungle Jason poses as a photographer to bang Michelle B. he acts as a barman to plough into Elizabeth Michelle Lawrence… He buries his thick **** into Evie’s tight hole while still looking for his next victim!“
Looks like women were victims before Trump came along.
Miley Cyrus has been crying. She’s upset with democracy and the choice made by tens of millions of people for allowing Donald Trump to become President of the USA. Other Americans are letting off fireworks and hoarding bottles for Mazel Tov cocktails should the street fighting demand it. As Miley Cyrus (singer; unelected) cries for a return to feudalism and monarchy – she should lament a Democrat Party too narrow and uninspiring to challenge Hillary Clinton; just as the weak GOP was too inept to stop Trump – Owen Jones is talking to Guardian readers about the horror of all that hope and change.
Donald Trump’s victory reflects a rightwing thriving in a vacuum. There must be a plan to counter that threat.
Well, yes. The Left is bereft of ideas and direction. It’s not all that into trusting people to forge their own paths and freedom of speech. The authoritative and censorious Left demands rules and laws to control people into doing ‘the right thing’.
Trump’s victory is one of the biggest calamities to befall the west and the effect is that every racist, woman-hater, homophobe and rightwing authoritarian feels vindicated.
After insulting everyone who voted for illiberal Trump and rejected enlightened Hillary Clinton – the woman seeking to “destroy” “bimbos” who accused her husband of sexual impropriety; who cheered for war; who played identity politics and lost to a man who played that game better; and who, yes, must certainly have been the victim of some degree misogyny in a country that likes its leading woman to be an unelected ‘Lady’ – packaging people in neat boxes and building a pyramid of desirables to deplorables – and lost – Jones suggests its time the Left wooed the people it’s portrayed as thick, racist and problems to be controlled and re-educated through therapeutic means.
Where to begin in bridging the chasm between the Left’s culturally superior elites and the people they deride? Get this for snooty:
Multiple factors explain this calamity. First: racism. The legacy of slavery means racism is written into the DNA of US society. The determined efforts by African Americans to claim their civil rights has been met with a vicious backlash. The exit polls suggest that Trump won a landslide among both male and female white non-graduates: only white women with degrees produced a majority for Hillary Clinton.
A vote for Trump is a vote for racism. Trump’s wife is an immigrant – and a female (she voted for him, right?) – over 30% of Latinos backed Trump – are they thick racists, too?
Centrists have an easy retort. OK, smug radical, if we’re not the answer, let’s hear you list the flourishing leftwing governments, describe how the left bridges its divide?
Stop portraying Trump voters as Untermensch.
And, of course, they have a point. The style and culture of the radical left is often shaped by university-educated young people (a group that includes me). They are a growing and diverse group; often they hail from modest backgrounds. But their priorities, their rhetoric and their outlook is often radically different to older working-class voters in small town England, France or the US. Both groups are critical to building a victorious electoral coalition, and yet they are, indeed, divided.
That must change. Unless the left is rooted in working-class communities – from the diverse boroughs of London to the ex-mill towns of the north, unless it speaks a language that resonates with those it once saw as its natural constituency, shorn of contempt for working-class values or priorities, then it has no political future.
And here’s the news: the things the knowing Left believe the working class care about are not what the working class care about. They want opportunity not patronage. They want freedom.
The Democratic electorate also believed that, with the election of an African-American President and the rise of marriage equality and other such markers, the culture wars were coming to a close. Trump began his campaign declaring Mexican immigrants to be “rapists”; he closed it with an anti-Semitic ad evoking “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”; his own behavior made a mockery of the dignity of women and women’s bodies. And, when criticized for any of it, he batted it all away as “political correctness.” Surely such a cruel and retrograde figure could succeed among some voters, but how could he win?
They got lazy.
But what about women? In 2000, we were told that women feel uneasy about Hillary:
Mandy Grunwald—a consultant who worked closely with the Clintons in 1992, as media director of the campaign—notes that women in politics often make other women uncomfortable: “They feel threatened—they’re looking at a woman who is close to their age and has made totally different choices.” Hillary, she says, “forces them to ask questions about themselves and the choices they’ve made that they don’t necessarily want to ask.”
She forced them to wonder: is there only one woman the Democrat Party thinks good enough to be leader?
Maybe it’s just all about Hillary Clinton and what she epitomises? Let’s go back to 2000, when Peggy Noonan was making The Case Against Hillary Clinton. Daniel Finkelstein retells a moment from that book:
In January 2000 Hillary Clinton, First Lady of the United States of America, appeared on The Late Show and she did well. Laughing it up with the late-night TV host David Letterman she was relaxed and funny.
Then Letterman changed the subject. He was, he said, going to ask her some questions about New York. Since it was already clear she would be a candidate for the Senate for that state, she looked earnest. A mistake might cost her dear.
But she didn’t make a mistake. Sometimes she had to grope a little for an answer. Sometimes she pondered and appeared uncertain. But she didn’t make any errors. It was pretty impressive stuff. The next day, however, the reason for this straight-A performance became clear. She’d been given the questions in advance. The uncertainty had been an act.
Trust, eh. Hillary was neither worthy of trust not trusted the voters.
At the end, Trump, the Reality TV star, beat Hollywood Hillary.
America, we have your surrounded:
To the University of Michigan-Flint, where fans of Hillary Clinton (who she?) can hide from the terrifying orange lunk (that’s President-elect Donald Trump) in a safe space. Counsellors are here to help.
The Washington Examiner has published an email it says was sent to students by Chancellor Susan Borrego, who noted:
“…there would be additional support for those traumatized by Donald Trump’s win. UM-Flint’s Ellen Bommarito LGBTQ Center, Women’s Educational Center and Intercultural Center will provide ‘safe spaces’ for anyone suffering from election loss… counseling is available.”
Counsellors for Trump! From the Rust Belt to the Trust (Conveyor) Belt, the therapy industries continue to boom under Donald. Your jobs are safe!
In addition, next Tuesday the “Diversity Council” will hold a “Post-Election Conversation.”
If that doesn’t make your spine shudder, you can pop along and have a diverse conversation with like minds. Who knows, Hillary Clinton might be in there, too.
According to the Safe Space Network: “A Safe Space is a place where anyone can relax and be able to fully express, without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe on account of biological sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, cultural background, religious affiliation, age or physical or mental ability.”
It’s an expansion of the golf club mentality, but one where every group gets their own room.
Big media cheered for Hillary Clinton. Then Donald Trump won. The blinkered, biased and monocular media missed the story. Unable to examine, understand and sympathise with Trump voters, they echoed Hillary’s description of them as “deplorables”. White working class Americans were just another problematic special group in a top-down, divisive, barrier-building, illiberal, condescending narrative guffed out by a coterie of know-alls under whose wings these lesser people – Latinos, blacks, gays, Muslims and women – could be protected, cosseted and above all kept in their place. Hillary wanted to smashed a glass ceiling. She represented an elite that doesn’t allow the great unwashed to see that high.
Every American makes the same pledge of allegiance. There are no caveats for every focus group and – dread word – community? You get one vote each.
Today the Guardian faced the facts. Democracy won the day. Trump – that terrifying and marvellous orange lunk- will be President Trump:
The polls were wrong. And because we are obsessed with predicting opinions rather than listening to them, we didn’t see it coming.president will be Donald Trump.
President Trump: A colossal failure for democracy, and our terrifying new reality
No. Still not getting it. Democracy won.
Simon Maloy laments the millions and millions and millions of idiots that failed to, well, agree with him:
…all the democratic institutions that are supposed to prevent something like this from happening, or at least warn us about it. Donald Trump, a candidate who ran an openly racist campaign, who is as proud a misogynist as you’ll find anywhere, who is manifestly ignorant of public policy, who is brusquely authoritarian, who has little respect or understanding of democratic norms, and who embodies every moral failing that’s supposed to disqualify a candidate from higher office, has apparently been elected the next president of the United States.
The markets are collapsing, the globe is reeling, and nobody can quite explain what the hell happened. But here’s what this failure will mean. The climate, which is warming precipitously, is now guaranteed to continue along that trajectory toward global catastrophe.
“Why America failed,” says Think Progress.
The only comfort anyone can feel tonight is that the human brain lacks the capacity to process true enormity. We will not understand what this election means.
And back in the Guardian:
The above gem is via Brendan O’Neill, who notes:
From the Guardian. The poor lambs of the liberal elite feel hated. Well, now they know how millions of Americans felt for decades when they were written off as dumb, backward, lizard-brained rednecks and cretins and made into the butt of every East Coast comics’ joke and the target of every decent politicians’ sneer. Sow hatred, get hatred.
You laughing yet? How about now?
America is a nation of many economies, but those that produce real, tangible things — food, fiber, energy and manufactured goods — went overwhelmingly for Trump. He won virtually every state from Appalachia to the Rockies, with the exceptions of heavily Hispanic Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, and President Obama’s home base of Illinois.
Some of his biggest margins were in energy states — Texas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Wyoming, North Dakota — where the fracking revolution created a burst of prosperity. . . .
Class has been a bigger factor in this election than in any election since the New Deal era. Trump’s insurgency rode largely on middle- and working-class fears about globalization, immigration and the cultural arrogance of the “progressive” cultural elite. This is something Bill Clinton understands better than his wife.
Trump owes his election to what one writer has called “the leftover people.” These may be “deplorables” to the pundits but their grievances are real – their incomes and their lifespans have been decreasing. They have noticed, as Thomas Frank has written, that the Democrats have gone “from being the party of Decatur to the party of Martha’s Vineyard.”
Many of these voters were once Democrats, and feel they have been betrayed.
The voters were looked down on. You do that for long enough, and the people look elsewhere for some of that change and hope.
Oh, and get this: the new President’s wife, well, she’s an immigrant! Spin your head on that.
Things we learned from President Trump:
Pollsters are hucksters.
The Democrats picked the wrong candidate.
Latinos, women and blacks don’t all adhere to identity politics and are foremost Americans.
Democracy is great.
Big media never tried to understand Trump’s supporters.
Big media will now do its job and scrutinise policy in a way it has rarely if ever done with Clinton and Obama.
A bald man can be President.
More to follow.
David Cohen notices that the media got it all wrong on Donald Trump:
As someone who has given decades to the media life, may I just say what a disgraceful job my fellow Scribes and Pharisees in the biz did this year. Rather than trying to explain, understand or sensitively report on the Trump uprising, they ran and ran and ran with a narrative based on their own set view. Now they stand revealed as total chumps. So really, if any soul-searching is to be done, it ought to start with this crowd of mountebanks.
Prince Harry is dating American actress Meghan Markle. And he’s unhappy with the media. The celebrity Royal doesn’t much like journalists behaving like, well, journalists. Kensington Palace say the Press have subjected Markle to a “wave of abuse and harassment”. It says “the past week has seen a line crossed”.
The BBC notes: “In recent days a number of newspapers have carried front page stories about the 35-year-old actress, best known for playing Rachel Zane in the TV drama Suits.”
Tsk! Those pesky tabloids, eh. Nothing like the BBC, which punctuates that news with a link to “Who is Meghan Markle?” The Times has more with “Everything you (secretly) wanted to know about Prince Harry’s ‘friend’”.
The Beeb’s bio tells us Megan has really good handwriting, was married and is now divorced, and is mixed race.
The Daily Telegraph wonders, “Could Harry marry a divorcee (when Margaret couldn’t)?”.
In the Times Hilary Rose reviews Markle’s acting role in Suits (something the Sun likens to porn – see picture below): “The show seems mainly to consist of pretty people saying inane things with the utmost gravity which, when you think about it, is pretty much what the royal family do.”
Yes, but with more guns.
The prince’s communications secretary warns (and is that very much like a celebrity to talk through ‘my people’):
“His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public – the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments.
“Some of it has been hidden from the public – the nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of papers; her mother having to struggle past photographers in order to get to her front door; the attempts of reporters and photographers to gain illegal entry to her home and the calls to police that followed; the substantial bribes offered by papers to her ex-boyfriend; the bombardment of nearly every friend, co-worker, and loved one in her life.”
The Guardian fingers the Sun:
Sun’s ‘smear’ about actor’s links to adult website prompts statement in which royal attacks reports’ ‘racial undertones’
Nothing like the Guardian, then, which reported:
Who she? She’s an actor, very beautiful, 35 years old. You might know her as Rachel Zane from the legal drama Suits.
I don’t. Never mind. She’s also … how can I put this?
As long as she’s not a divorced American. The royal family has had enough of them after that Wallis Simpson business. Actually, that’s exactly what she is. But I was thinking of something else.
Harry’s not going to be king, so maybe it will be OK as long as she behaves herself and offers up her body as a vessel for the royal bloodline. That’s the thing. Markle is dual-heritage. Her father is white and her mother is African American.
So? Look, most of the 20th century was a mistake and we want racial superiority back. We had a referendum about it, remember?
After the Guardian has looked down on the tabloids and smeared pro-Brexit voters as bigots (plus ca change), we hear more from Harry’s “cry from the heart” (BBC):
“He knows commentators will say this is ‘the price she has to pay’ and that ‘this is all part of the game’. He strongly disagrees. This is not a game – it is her life and his. He has asked for this statement to be issued in the hopes that those in the press who have been driving this story can pause and reflect before any further damage is done. He knows that it is unusual to issue a statement like this, but hopes that fair-minded people will understand why he has felt it necessary to speak publicly.”
The Guardian then fingers the Mail:
One comment piece in last weekend’s Mail on Sunday, by Rachel Johnson, said: “Genetically, she is blessed. If there is issue from her alleged union with Prince Harry, the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA.”
That’s racist? No. Of course it isn’t. Unless you think it nasty to mention Harry’s watery blood and accuse Johnson of gingerism?
The Guardian is in an absurd position. It wants to protect royal Harry from those awful tabloids, but has told its readers “Forelock-tugging is all the rage thanks to Harry and Kate” and that Princess Kate is trapped in a “cliched gilded cage”.
that;s the problem, isn’t it: Harry doesn’t behave like a Royal. He, Kate and Wills behave like celebrities. They don’t patronise; they endorse.
Harry and his PR team continue:
“Since he was young, Prince Harry has been very aware of the warmth that has been extended to him by members of the public. He feels lucky to have so many people supporting him and knows what a fortunate and privileged life he leads. He is also aware that there is significant curiosity about his private life.
“He has never been comfortable with this, but he has tried to develop a thick skin about the level of media interest that comes with it. He has rarely taken formal action on the very regular publication of fictional stories that are written about him and he has worked hard to develop a professional relationship with the media, focused on his work and the issues he cares about.
“But the past week has seen a line crossed.”
A red line? Or is it a ginger line that’s being crossed?
Books. Ever hear of them? The Sun says “SHOCK LEAK Game of Thrones fans sent into a frenzy as ‘entire plot for season seven leaks online’”. Games of Thrones is based on a series of books by George R.R. Martin. If you want to know what happens in the TV version, why not just, you know, read the books?
Yes, yes, the TV version does differ from the books. Producer David Benioff says the show is “about adapting the series as a whole and following the map George laid out for us and hitting the major milestones, but not necessarily each of the stops along the way”. But you get the gist of the plot.
The Mail says “a Reddit user going by the name awayforthelads posted an enormous list of very detailed spoilers”.
How do we know to trust awayforthelads? Maybe they made it up? After all, the Sun looks at the leaks and says it is”reveals a pregnancy and a saucy romp between two main characters”. Sex in Game of Thrones is like the weather at the end of the evening news. It’s expected. As for a pregnancy, the show is about dynasties. Kids are part of the process.
And then comes the truly conniving part: the Mail wants to turn the taps open on that leak.
If you want to read the leaks, you can, of course. If you enjoy escapism, you might want to pass over the leaks and just wait for the entertainment.