Daily Mail - Arse and Elbow

Ok, minor story this, but it does highlight the reactionary nature of the Daily Mail. Yesterday's paper carried a full page piece on Carol Vorderman's exit from Countdown including accusations from Richard Whiteley's widow. These accusations include the claim that ageism was behind her exit:

Kathryn Apanowicz, who lived with Whiteley from 1994 until his death after a heart operation in 2005, said he would have been utterly appalled.

Miss Apanowicz, 48, claimed ageism and the downmarket tastes of Channel 4 programmers were a major reason in Miss Vorderman's decision to quit after 26 years.

Miss Apanowicz said Countdown should now be axed. 'Carol is an integral part of the show and it should not go on without her. They will probably get Myleene Klass, she does everything else,' she said.

Miss Apanowicz said TV chiefs were more interested in airing 'disgraceful behaviour' than looking after traditional viewers.

She believes this is the latest example of ageism and sexism being shown towards mature women presenters on TV.

Which makes you wonder, who is in line for the new look Countdown? Luckily, 20 pages further in, columnist Richard Kay has the answer:

It is said to be the Queen's favourite TV programme, so Her Majesty could soon be tuning in to see Channel 4's Countdown being presented by a very familiar figure indeed.

For I discover former BBC royal correspondent Jennie Bond is in the running to replace the departing Des O'Connor as host of the quiz show.

Jennie Bond is 57. Carol Vorderman is 47. So is Channel 4 indulging in ageism, or does the editor of the Mail not know his arse from his elbow? Answers on a postcard........

No Increase in Cost of Motoring Despite Petrol Rises

Interesting sense of timing by the Daily Mail with this report:

Gordon Brown wants to see petrol-driven cars off the roads within 12 years as evidence that Britain can break its addiction to oil.

The driving force to achieve that goal, he suggested, would be fuel costs and road taxes.

But the argument that soaring oil prices could benefit drivers in the long term appeared a high-risk strategy at a time when motorists are suffering like never before.

Mr Brown also risked further alienating drivers with a robust defence of higher road tax charges for vehicles with higher emissions - and zero rates for cleaner cars.

Mr Brown added that he would like to see petrol prices drop to 'a reasonable level', but the AA warned his comments could bring a backlash from drivers.

'Motorists are already suffering from very high prices. This just piles on the pain,' said spokesman Paul Watters.

Compare and contrast this with a report released by the RAC, a rival motoring association to the AA:

The cost of motoring has fallen by 18% in real terms over the past 20 years, despite the price of fuel rising by 210% in that time, an RAC report says.

The motoring group takes inflation into account and says cars are now cheaper overall and need less money spent on them than they did two decades ago.

But 60% of 1,116 people surveyed actually thought higher costs were the biggest change in motoring since 1988.

Little surprise that 60% of people thought costs were higher when you take into account the messages coming from the media. Surely the Mail's report is just sheer coincidence, coming on the day that it was revealed that the cost of motoring has come down, isn't it?

Boris Johnson Determined To Screw Londoners and the Daily Mail Provide 'Proof' of Nuclear Intentions of Terrorists

A couple of stories that I have picked up on from the latest issue of Private Eye (no.1212) that I think are worthy of sharing. First off, more revelations about the Boris Johnson debacle in London. Hot on the heels of Johnson's attempts to recruit former members of Shirley Porter's administration, Johnson has now added Steve Norris to the board of Transport for London. So far, so what. However, Norris has a rather chequered history in relation to transport.

Steve Norris was a director of Jarvis from 2000, and had a seat on the board at the time of the Potters Bar rail crash. Jarvis had a contract to ensure the maintenance of the line and, as a result of the crash, admitted liability for the crash after initially refusing responsibility and suggested that if the accident was a result of wear and tear, it would have been detected and fixed. After the revelation that the incident was not down to sabotage, Jarvis formally accepted "legally justified claims" and provided a provision of £3m. The company eventually wrote letters to relatives and passengers apologising for the "hurt and anger" it caused by blaming sabotage for the crash.

But it doesn't end there. According to PE, Norris sits on the board of a company called AMT-Sybex, alongside one William Hague. AMT-Sybex was a leading subcontractor to Metronet, the consortium running half of the tube PPP. In 2005, it sold Metronet a £15m computer system to list all the firm's assets. As a result of the privatisation, no-one really knew what had actualy been handed over, so a register would help to produce a schedule that would identify which parts of the rail and cabling would need fixing.

In 2006, the Tube regulator found that Metronet's costs were rising, in part due to the extra costs of the AMT-Sybex system. Despite this system, Metronet failed to get a grip on its assets and, due to problems with prices and schedules, eventually collapsed. The system was an unmitigated disaster.

As a result of Steve Norris' record regarding transport, it seems a little odd that Boris Johnson would want to put him in such an influential role in London, particularly as we are supposed to be witnessing the birth of the 'New' Conservatives. Guess they ain't so different after all. Corporations and shareholders first, general public a very distant last. [Much of the above is copied verbatim from Private Eye, who do not actually publish stories to the net yet - as far as I am aware. If you want to find out more, I suggest you seek out the latest issue.]

One other interesting story involved this headline and picture from the Daily Mail:

A terrifying vision of a devastated America in the wake of a nuclear attack

A story to strike fear into the minds of any discerning Mail reader (does such a thing exist). However, it appears this story is not what it seems:

A piece of concept art of a decimated Washington, D.C. from Bethesda Softworks post-apocalyptic RPG Fallout 3 (PC, PS3, 360) has been circulated through a handful of news publications, reported as terrorist propaganda after an intelligence contractor said the image was used in al Qaeda-related videos.

The artwork was released as part of Bethesda's early promotional campaigns for Fallout 3, which takes place in and around the Washington, D.C. area decades after a nuclear catastrophe. The image appeared on the Daily Mail's website under the headline "Al-Qaeda's terrifying vision of a devastated America in the wake of a nuclear attack."

"This is the apocalyptic scene terrorists hope to create if they ever get their hands on a nuclear bomb... posted on an Islamic extremists' website yesterday," wrote the Mail's Barry Wigmore.

The image also appeared on the Australian news outlet News.com.au, citing terror watchdog organization SITE Intel as having released the image "which reportedly appeared on an Islamist forum."

Though several members of the press have since pointed out the gaffe, neither the Daily Mail nor News.com.au have updated their stories with corrections or retractions of the claim.

Interestingly, according to Private Eye, if you try pointing this out in the comments thread on the Mail website, they will refuse to publish it. Still, I guess they made their point and scared enough people (conveniently just a few days before the 42 days vote, hmmm).

Immigration and The Daily Mail - Hypocrisy in Action

Lots of 'scary' headlines about the latest immigration figures in the national press. The Times took a suitably alarmist stance:

A record number of foreigners were granted British citizenship last year, according to Home Office figures published today.

Just over 164,600 people were given citizenship —- the highest number of applications granted in any year.

The seven per cent increase in persons given citizenship followed a fall in the previous year.

Since 1997 when Labour came to power almost 2 million people have been awarded citizenship, the figures show.

An estimated 591,000 people entered the country, ten per cent up on the previous year, meaning net migration into the country was about 190,000. The overwhelming majority —- 86 per cent —- of immigrants were non British citizens.

“This continued the trend of high immigration to the UK experienced since 1998,” said the Office for National Statistics which published the International Migration figures.


Mmm, scared yet? How about this (watch out for the meaningless statistic):

The number of migrants granted UK citizenship reached an all-time record last year as separate figures revealed more than 200,000 Britons moving abroad.

A raft of statistics released by Whitehall revealed 164,635 foreign nationals were granted UK passports in 2007 - the equivalent of one every three minutes.

The figure is up seven per cent on the previous year and takes the total since Labour came to power to almost 1.2m.

Did you spot it? Incidentally, that last extract is repeated in the Daily Mail. And the good old Express? Why, they are suggesting the figures aren't reliable and are actually much higher:

MINISTERS have no idea how many immigrants are coming to Britain, according to a damning report by MPs.

The official statistics are “totally inadequate” for grasping the scale of population changes, the Parlia-mentary investigation has concluded.

As a result, public services are in danger of collapsing because the lack of reliable data means the Government is incapable of planning ahead.

None of these papers really touch on why there is a rise in immigration (the Daily Mail doesn't even mention where they are from). After all, that would mean treating readers like intelligent individuals instead of mindless zombies. According to the National Statistics website the majority of asylum seekers come from: Afghanistan, Iraq, Zimbabwe, Iran and Eritrea. Notice any connection there? Two countries have been devastated as a result of our military adventures. These two countries have become increasingly dangerous as a result of our interference. Consequently, it seems quite right and proper that as we fucked their countries, they should come here to enjoy the freedom and democracy we have failed to deliver over there. If we bomb the shit out of their utilities and make their daily lives almost impossible, who can blame them for coming here?

As for the others, presumably the mainstream media are suggesting we send back asylum seekers from Zimbabwe? Despite the fact that the very same media outlets have been exposing how dangerous life is in Zimbabwe. So what is it to be, eh? Help the people of Zimbabwe, or turn our backs on them? It wasn't so long ago that the Daily Mail ran a headline screaming:

Don't Zimbabweans have human rights?

Make up your minds chaps. Either you want the people of Zimbabwe to have asylum here, or you do not. Which is it going to be? Just how deep is your concern for the people of Zimbabwe? Is it simply political opportunism? Fear-mongering? Or a genuine desire to protect their human rights? I think we know the answer.

Immigrants, Capitalists and Tax

Remember this:

Labour's 'open door' policy on immigration costs every household £350 a year, it was claimed yesterday.

David Coleman, an Oxford University academic, puts the total annual bill to the taxpayer at almost £8.8billion.

In a submission to a House of Lords committee, he said there had been an 'absent-minded commitment' to increase the population by one million every five years.

Perhaps not that individual story, but something like it repeated ad nauseum in papers such as the Daily Mail and the Express. A quick search on either paper's website should find a plethora of stories such as this one (a staggering 41,630 articles on the Daily Mail alone using the search terms 'immigrants', 'cost' and 'tax'). Of course, this created the usual fuss about immigration. After all, £8.8billion does appear to be an awful lot of money lost in taxpayers money. There is, however, a section of society that costs us far more and you are unlikely to ever see them on the front page of the Daily Mail day after day. Yes, you guessed it, those pesky capitalists.

For around three years now, Private Eye has been trying to extract information about tax lost due to avoidance and evasion from HM Revenue and Customs. In typical fashion, the department tried everything they could to get out of revealing such information, perhaps aware of how damaging this might be. Then, as is the norm in these days of 'burying bad news', the figures were released on budget day amongst a raft of other paperwork sure to distract the public. The figures were shocking and underlines that the section of society most deserving of our scorn and hatred are not the immigrant communities, but the capitalists. The following is taken from Accountancy Age:

HM Revenue and Customs dramatically abandoned its attempts to keep details of the 'tax gap' secret just before the Budget.

HMRC estimates the sum lost to tax avoidance and evasion to be somewhere between £11bn and £41bn each year. Total government tax receipts for 2008 are expected to reach £575bn. The take from corporation tax alone is only £52bn.

That means up to £41bn is lost every year due to capitalists avoiding their obligations, that's five times as much as the cost to the taxpayer of the 'influx of immigration' (as the Mail puts it). So, presumably we will see a prolonged attack by the mainstream media on this section of society. Don't count on it. The interests of the capitalists will always take priority over those seeking to improve their lives or fleeing from persecution. The real criminals in our society are not the immigrants, they are the capitalists and whilst sections of society continue to attack 'foreigners', the rich and sitting in their expensive yachts laughing at our stupidity. It's time for the laughter to stop.

Hain's Apology For Migration Figures: Storm in a Teacup?

The BBC are certainly making a great deal out of this one (so much for multiculturalism). From their website:

Work and Pensions Secretary Peter Hain has apologised after the government admitted 300,000 more immigrants were working in the UK than it first said.

New figures show that the number of foreign nationals employed in the UK since 1997 is 1.1m, not the 800,000 officially recorded.

Mr Hain has written to his Tory shadow Chris Grayling to admit that incorrect figures were given in Commons answers.

Mr Grayling said the admission was "an extraordinary development".

It comes as the government is expected to extend controls on the number of Romanian and Bulgarian workers coming to the UK.

It has been all over their television out put as well. Just one question: so what? These are workers doing jobs that we cannot be arsed to do. Quite frankly, it is about time we abolished border controls altogether and allowed the free movement of people between artificial boundaries. Do you think the Daily Mail might run with that?

The BBC - A Left-Wing Organisation?

Right, I am confused. For some time now, I have been led to believe that the BBC was run by a bunch of lefties, determined to eradicate the right-wing and turn the UK into some kind of socialist agenda. For months I have been led to believe that the BBC is pumping out a steady stream of leftie propaganda. For months I have been convinced that the BBC is part of some vast left-wing conspiracy conducted by the mainstream media. And then I switch on BBC Breakfast this morning and, later in the day, I catch this on their website:

Migration 'causes pressure in UK'

Impartial?? Mmmmmm. Thinking I might have got this all wrong, I read on:

Almost every UK region has difficulties in housing, health, education and crime because of increased migration, according to an official report.

The findings are contained in a report drawn up to advise ministers on the social impact of immigration.

The Home Office's Migration Impacts Forum is meeting to discuss the effect of eastern European workers.

On Tuesday, ministers published a review of research showing "clear benefits" to the British economy.

The forum, which sits alongside a separate economist-led body, gathers reports on challenges raised by immigration across the country.

In the opening 16 paragraphs, the underlined passage is the only positive comment on the report. Compare that to the reporting in The Guardian:

Migrants - the verdict: hardworking and skilled but with social problems in tow

The first official government study of the economic impact of the biggest wave of migration to Britain in recent years reaches an overwhelmingly beneficial verdict.

"In recent years migrants have made a more positive contribution to the public finances than native workers; have often been highly skilled and accordingly captured higher labour market rewards," concludes the joint Treasury, Home Office and Work and Pensions study.

"They have very little discernible negative impact on labour market outcomes for native workers."

But the Home Office also published the initial findings last night of regional "soundings" of the impact of east European migrants in Britain. It revealed that in seven out of eight regions they have increased pressure on housing and more than half have seen a rise in crime, health and housing problems.

See what they did there?? The Guardian, although acknowledging the supposed negative impact (although this is mainly down to anecdotal evidence), preferred to focus on the positive aspect of the story. The BBC on the other hand, the so-called defender of a multi-cultural society, preferred to focus on the negative impact of immigration, like the TV version of the Daily Mail. Hardly indicative of a organisation dominated by a left-wing agenda.

The Case of Madeline McCann And The Xenophobic British Press

It is too early to say what the latest developments in this case may mean, however, some of the statements that have been made are utterly ridiculous. A great deal of the coverage comprises of members of the McCann family claiming that it is 'ludicrous' that they are being treated as suspects. I see it hard to sympathise with their position. Like it or not, we are all capable of committing such a crime. The insistence of the family that this is 'impossible' is naive in the extreme. While nothing is proven, everyone should be considered as suspects, no matter how uncomfortable that may make them feel. Sadly, as many cases in the past have proven, nothing is impossible.

The problem is, all of the British media have invested so much in this story. Right from the start, large sections of the media have demonstrated a xenophobic approach to the activities of the Portuguese police. So convinced are they of the police's incompetence, they won't even entertain the idea that their investigations might be making progress. No, the media have decided that they are entirely innocent. I hope they are right because if they are wrong, a lot of people are going to feel very foolish.

A glance at some reporting underlines the incompetence of our own media. Gazeta Digital (a website that has been analysing reporting of the disappearance of Madeleine) has picked out some very interesting quotes that are worth reproducing:


Daily Mail
A haunting question for all of Kate's supporters
Amanda Platell
00:42am 8th September 2007

As so often in this terrible case, it's the pictures that stick most keenly in the memory. Madeleine, bright-eyed and smiling, clutching two tennis balls to her chest in one of the last photos taken of her... Her parents, weighed-down by exhaustion and grief as they walked by the sea shore... Madeleine's pink "cuddle cat" held tight in her mother's hands as she attended mass each Sunday.

Now we have an even more haunting image: Kate McCann walking into the Portuguese police station for a second day of questioning, to be branded a formal suspect in her daughter's disappearance.

One can only speculate what mental torment she must be going through. But there are now surely two horrible possibilities. Kate could be being set up by a Portuguese police force, humiliated by its inability to find a single solid lead in Madeleine's disappearance. If that is indeed the case - as her friends fervently believe - or if she is simply the victim of yet more police incompetence, then it is surely appalling.

Despite their mishandling of the case so far, are the Portuguese police really so stupid and callous as to put Kate through this latest ordeal unless there remained questions only she could answer?

For Kate McCann's sake - and for those of us who have identified with her - we can only hope so.

The Telegraph
Kate McCann: The claims and case for defence
By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter
Last Updated: 10:51pm BST 07/09/2007

Salacious reports of blood spots, intercepted phone calls and child sedation so far have been dismissed as nothing more than libellous slurs by the McCann family.

Now there is the very real prospect that Kate McCann be charged and tried over Madeleine's disappearance.

races of dried blood, said to be Madeleine's, have allegedly been found in a car hired by the McCanns 25 days after Madeleine's disappearance.

The blood is said to have been found in the boot of the Renault Scenic hire car after sniffer dogs were brought in by British police as part of a review of the investigation.

Tests by the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham are thought to have indicated the blood may be Madeleine's.

Then last month there were speculative claims that the McCanns, both doctors, may have 'doped' Madeleine to get her off to sleep before they set off for dinner at a tapas bar near the apartment.

There were reports today that the police were questioning Mrs McCann about giving Madeleine a dose of a sedative.

Mrs McCann's lawyers will already have identified several huge holes in the theory that she could have killed Madeleine.

How, for example, could she have killed her daughter, removed her body from the apartment and hidden it while her friends sat just yards away in a tapas bar?

And how, four weeks later, was one of the most watched women in the world able to bundle a body into a hire car and dispose of it under the noses of her family, police liaison officers and the world's press?

The McCanns were among a party of nine people on the day Madeleine disappeared, in a resort full of tourists, and were never away from their friends for more than a few minutes at a time.

It would surely have been impossible for Mrs McCann to kill her daughter and hide the body in such a short space of time without being seen, not to mention returning to the restaurant as if nothing had happened.

The only other window of opportunity would have been in the two and half hours between the time when Madeleine was last seen alive and when the couple met their friends for dinner.

Most implausible of all, perhaps, is the suggestion that Mrs McCann returned to the place where she had hidden the body a month later, put it in the boot of her hire car and driven somewhere to dispose of the body.

Ever since Madeleine's disappearance the McCanns have been surrounded by friends and family, police officers and the media - are we to believe that she somehow gave them all the slip and buried her daughter or threw her out to sea?

Furthermore, could she really have gone through 127 days of constant interviews and media exposure without once showing any signs of guilt?

On a procedural level, a catalogue of blunders by the police, who failed to seal off the crime scene, would be likely to render any forensic evidence unreliable.


Again, I would not wish to prejudge the outcome of this case, but you have to question the reporting of the British media. What happened to impartiality? The truth of what happened is yet to come out. One hopes that they are entirely innocent. However, we must entertain the idea that the Portuguese police know what they are doing. To dismiss their investigation out of hand smacks of gross xenophobia and incompetent journalism.

Daily Mail - Fascist Paper Indulging in Political Correctness?

You can always rely on the Daily Mail for a good old fashioned slice of hypocrisy. Clearly revelling in the plight of the BBC (although I have yet to meet anyone who has changed their views of the institution), they really go to town on the alleged pressure from the Queen to prevent the programme from being broadcast. Clearly taking the same view of the palace, their banner headline screams:

The Queen wants BBC's faked film banned
Palace fury at refusal to scrap 'misleading' documentary

And the views of the Mail reading public? Fairly typical of the type of person you would expect to read the Mail. Here are a few examples:

Of course it should not be broadcast, the question does not even need asking. And the enquiry is being led by a ex-beeboid.. Why bother?

- Irxin, South West, England

If the Queen does not want it to be shown after the mis-representation, then it should not be shown. It shows the BBC is still high handed and has not learned anything.

- John, Norfolk UK

It should be banned. Considering the BBC's recent record of duplicity, how can anyone have confidence in this, or any of their documentaries?

- Mr S Perkin, Penzance, Cornwall

Good for Her Majesty. She's not going to put up with the poor standards of the BBC. I'm sure the majority of decent people in this country are behind her and mourn the death of decency of this once-great broadcaster.

- Anon, Haywards Heath, W.Sussex/

She should ban it. She is after all still the Queen of England and deserves respect.

- Steve Jones, Stockport, UK

And it goes on. Yes, calls for censorship are alive and well in the pages of the Daily Mail. I guess this should come as no surprise given that the Mail was one of the key Nazi sympathisers during the 1930s. They just loved that whole censorship ideal. Still, it doesn't stop the fascist hypocrites from claiming to defend free speech. Take this example:

This trampling of free speech

An interesting article, here are a few quotes:

And where blustering officialdom thinks it can "challenge" and "educate" honest citizens whose opinions don't meet with its approval?

Time was when the answer would have been obvious. Such things might happen in banana republics or Communist dictatorships, but never here. Not in tolerant, democratic, free speech Britain.

In a county where violent crime shot up by 17 per cent last year, you might think the force would have better things to do than follow up this outrageous attempt to censor free speech. But no.

But this isn't the first time police have tried to suppress opinions that don't suit the political elite.

Maya Evans too knows all about the new censorship.

Today, politically correct senior commanders seem ready to push their powers to the limit and beyond, if they think it will please the establishment.

But just as worrying is the intolerance of views that don't follow the prevailing fashion. Isn't this supposed to be a country where there is an inalienable right to honest opinions, honestly expressed?

Hmmm. Censorship, it's all in the eye of the beholder. And this beholder is a great believer in censoring material to 'please the establishment'. Hypocrisy? You Decide.

<

Enjoy Prince, Fuck The Mail

I should have posted this a long time ago. Below is RickB's guide to enjoying Prince's latest album, without being intoxicated with filth (shame it wasn't a Mad Mel day):

The Daily Mail - Defenders of Youth Culture

I don't know, I go away for a few days and, all of a sudden, the Daily Mail becomes the defender of youth culture. My jaw nearly dropped to the floor when I read this paragraph in yesterday's Mail:

To the fundamentalist, the clubs with their sale of alcohol, often scantily dressed young women, loud music and decadent behaviour epitomise everything they abhor about the West.

Are they taking the piss?

How to Please the Daily Mail, by 'Dr' John Reid

Here's a story that you might well have missed today. At the end of a rather damning piece on the latest poverty figures in The Guardian, there was a tiny comment on a report released today by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. The report is a damning indictment on the handling of asylum seekers by the government and highlighted the 'inhumane' conditions that they suffer in modern Britain. And yet, this report has barely been commented on by the mainstream media.

The report itself found that many failed asylum seekers suffered social and mental health problems and did without basic food, shelter and care. The report also found that among a group of over 100 failed asylum seekers in Leeds, one in four had slept rough and a third had been destitute for at least a year. The report also refers to a woman who:

'...suffered a miscarriage fearing she would be deported if she sought medical help.'

The chair of the enquiry, Kate Adie, said:

"The current UK asylum system fails by the standards both of human decency and of those who want to 'get tough' on asylum.

"For the benefit of everyone, there has got to be urgent and pragmatic reform which brings these people in from the shadows so that they can be treated humanely, contribute to the community and remain inside the system. We are proposing practical, workable solutions which will benefit local communities as well as government."

Furthermore, Anna Reisenberger, acting chief executive of the Refugee Council said:

"We hope this balanced and reasonable report, from an independent inquiry, will finally convince the government that its policy towards refused asylum seekers has failed and that urgent reform is needed.

"The current policy of using destitution to enforce return might look tough but it isn't delivering results. For all sorts of reasons, which the government well understands, many refused asylum seekers can't return home - at least for the time being. Given that, the policy of denying refused asylum seekers all support and refusing them the right to work manages to be both immoral and pointless.”

As one might expect, the report was greeted with typical tough posturing by the Home Office. This is, after all, exactly what 'Dr' Reid wants people to hear. He wants the Daily Mail and Sun readers to see that he is tough on these scroungers who come over here in their parasitic droves. His Daily Mail pleasing mouthpiece, Joan Ryan, claimed that:

"Our asylum system is a fair one. It ensures that support is available to someone claiming asylum from the time they arrive in the UK until the outcome of their claim is determined.

"But it is not right to ask the UK taxpayer to fund - potentially indefinitely - those who choose to remain when it is open to them to return to a home country that has been found safe for them to live in."

Yep, that is going to play straight to the Mail reading, pitchforks and torches brigade. Good work John. She also added that granting asylum seekers the right to work would:

"send out the wrong message to those who may try to come here without genuine cause".

And what is exactly is the wrong message? If they want to work while they are here, let them and offer them all the protections that other citizens would be entitled to. Don't treat them as vermin to ensure you get a few pleasing headlines from the Daily Mail. And this news also comes on the day that it is revealed that the government is attempting to send asylum seekers back to Sudan, despite the fact that they acknowledge that the country is in crisis.

This whole situation is an utter disgrace and all to garner a few friendly headlines. And that is the real tragedy at the heart of this. Not only are people suffering as a result of 'inhumane' conditions, they are suffering because this government and, in particular, this fuck head of a Home Secretary, want to please sections of the mainstream media to shore up their 'core vote'. The government is willingly playing political games with the lives of the most vulnerable. It is time the vulnerable fought back.

Further Information: Moving on: From Destitution to Contribution - the full report.

More Melanie Ravings.....

Well, I have been missing the loony rantings of the future mass murderer (as are all those that deny climate change, for they will be partly responsible for the consequences of the world's neglect) Melanie Phillips. However, today didn't disappoint me. Her main focus of attention on her most recent blog, is an article by Mike Hulme in today's Guardian. First, I will show you her extract of the article, and then the bits that she missed. On her blog, she quotes Hulme as writing the following:

Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken. It has been labelled ‘post-normal’ science…The danger of a ‘normal’ reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow.

Note the '...' (always a give away that something important has been edited out). Now the actual piece from The Guardian (I have highlighted the bits she missed through the use of '...'):

Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken.

It has been labelled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science.

So this book from Singer and Avery can be understood in a different way: as a challenge to the process of climate change science, or to the values they believe to be implicit in the science, rather than as a direct challenge to scientific knowledge.

In this reading, Singer and Avery are using apparently scientific arguments - about 1,500 year cycles, about the loss of species, about sea-level rise - to further their deeper (yet unexpressed) values and beliefs. Too often with climate change, genuine and necessary debates about these wider social values - do we have confidence in technology; do we believe in collective action over private enterprise; do we believe we carry obligations to people invisible to us in geography and time? - masquerade as disputes about scientific truth and error.

We need this perspective of post-normal science if we are going to make sense of books such as Singer and Avery's. Or indeed, if we are to make sense of polar opposites such as James Lovelock's recent contribution The Revenge of Gaia, in which he extends climate science to reach the conclusion that the collapse of civilisation is no more than a couple of generations away.

The danger of a "normal" reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow.

Quite a big chunk eh? After her edited extract of the article, Phillips ranted:

Indeed! Facts first, conclusions afterwards is the very basis of scientific inquiry. But not any more, it seems, where the religion of global warming is concerned. Here the facts have to fit the theory.

What Hulme is trying to express, as I understand it, is that it is difficult to take a normal reading of science if one does not know the background to the research (ie the source of funding etc). It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine what 'truth' is under these circumstances. It is only through complete transparency that we can begin to determine what is 'truth'. Consequently, it is necessary to weigh up the stakes and the decisions necessary. In the case of climate change the stakes are so high, and the decisions so urgent, that even if there was a climate of uncertainty, action would still need to be taken.

In a further passage, Phillips quotes:

Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity.

She comments:

What an admission! Let’s read that one again. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking. Of course not. The facts don’t support it. It’s not true. So, says Hulme, let’s abolish the need to establish the facts and the truth and impose the theory on the basis of — what’s that again — ‘values and beliefs’. In other words, climate change science has got to be anti-science. It’s got to be anti-truth. It’s got to be nothing more than an ideology.

Hulme actually writes (again I have highlighted the bits she missed):

Two years ago, Tony Blair announced the large, government-backed international climate change conference in Exeter by asking for the conference scientists to "identify what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much".

This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity.

Chink of weakness

Lack of such reflective transparency is the problem with "unstoppable global warming", and with some other scientific commentators on climate change. Such a perspective also opens a chink of weakness in the authority of the latest IPCC science findings.

And surely that is the point, unless there is a degree of reflective transparency, there can be no 'truth'. One only has to look up the subjects of this article by Hulme. Try clicking on exxonsecrets.org (see sidebar) and tapping in the names S Fred Singer and Dennis T Avery, these are not reliable sources. Hulme is not talking about abolishing science, he is talking about the impossibility of finding 'truth' when so much is kept from the public. But then, Phillips and her murdering buddies have never been to keen on analysing facts, only their political viewpoint.

Pots and Kettles

As the media faces increasing competition from alternative news sources, so they will become ever more aggressive towards their competitors. We have seen this in the US, with the growth of the highly aggressive Fox Network. This has been coming for sometime in the UK. The signs are there for all to see. The accusations of a left-wing media bias, has started to become the norm amongst the reactionary right. The latest indicator comes from Paul Dacre, a notorious filth merchant who works for a paper that was very keen on the Nazi party. He has openly declared that:

"The BBC, which glories in being open-minded is, in fact, a closed thought-system, operating a kind of Orwellian newspeak."

Not like the Daily Mail who are, of course, entirely honest in their reporting. No to mention the fact that they are guilty of over 900 transactions involving the purchase and sale of personal and private information. The same newspaper that allows columnists to come out with things like this:

And I know this might sound frightfully callous in the current hysterical, emotional climate, but we're not all guilty.

We do not share in the responsibility for either their grubby little existences or their murders. Society isn't to blame.

It might not be fashionable, or even acceptable in some quarters, to say so, but in their chosen field of "work'=", death by strangulation is an occupational hazard.

That doesn't make it justifiable homicide, but in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss.

A newspaper that also allows columnists to make unfounded accusations like this:

Muslims wrecked a house in a village near Windsor to stop four soldiers moving in after returning from duty in Afghanistan. The house had bricks thrown through its windows and was daubed with abusive messages. The four young Household Cavalry officers who had planned to rent it were also the target of phone threats from Muslims and were forced to look elsewhere to live.

If Mr Dacre wants to criticise the standard of the media, perhaps he should take a good, long look at the utter garbage that he publishes.

Capitalist Bastards of the Week

I know it is only Thursday, but I don't think there will be anyone to top this one. According to the BBC:

Chrysler's chief economist Van Jolissaint has attacked European attitudes to global warming, describing climate change as "way, way in the future, with a high degree of uncertainty".

Uncertainty??? Only if you read the loonies in the Daily Mail. However, in the world of science, a world of research alien to those that claim to be 'journalists', there is no such uncertainty. The report in Science clearly showed that there was no scientific disagreement about climate change. In fact, it was also pointed out that

"authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

Mmmmm, none eh? But what about this uncertainty??? Some people seem pretty sure. Like the renowned scientist and all round expert on global warming, Melanie Phillips:

'claims of a 'consensus' on climate change become ever more strident, new climate science research continues to unravel the computer model predictions of the carbon apocalypse.

Reason is fighting back.'

Looks to me like reason is dying on it's arse. Even if you could reasonably argue that it isn't proven, is it worth the risk?? If there is even an element of doubt, wouldn't you err on the side of caution?? This is a problem that could cause millions of deaths around the globe. But then I guess that ain't so important when there is money to be made by selling flashy motors.

Well done Chrysler, you are officially Capitalist Bastards of the Week.