Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

Regulars will be familiar with my views on the tabloids, and in particular their stance on immigration. Yet in recent days they have sunk to brand new lows, first there was the Mails nasty little front page on Tuesday

Followed by todays absolute shocker from the Express which turned out to be an exact copy of a BNP slogan.

I wont dissect the stories themselves, that has been done in depth elsewhere by more blogs than I care to count now. Instead what I want to write about is why it's important for people like me and the thousands of other small bloggers out there to keep banging on about the lies and the distortions, even those of us that get 20 readers on a good day.

It's important because this is where it begins.

It begins with them and us. It begins with someone that is poor, some who is told "you're poor, and it's their fault".

And where does it end?

Does it end with lies from the Express or Goebells?

Does it end with broken windows in Jewish shops in Berlin or Birmingham Mosques?

Does it end with skin heads like the EDL or the SA on the street? Picking on a minority? Like Muslims or Jews?

Does it end with extremists like the BNP or the Nazis getting to power?

Does it? Does it end here? In this time? And this place? With no more hatred or ignorance? Does it end here while we can easily put it right?

Or does end somewhere else?

Does it end at Auschwitz or Belsen?

It's time to make up our minds.

Agendas, idleness and collateral damage

It all started on Sunday when as I munched on my muesli I surfed through the Sunday scream sheets and I stumbled across this. It would seem, from the headline that scouts were being banned from using pen knives. And my first thought was, “yeah right,” on the basis that firstly it was in the Mail and second, as a scout leader, I get any important rule changes like this cascaded to me pretty quickly. So I read on to discover that apparently

“The Scout Association is advising boys* and their parents that they should not bring knives to camp – despite it being legal for anyone to carry a foldable non locking blade in public as long as long as it is shorter than 3 inches.”

Eh? What the hell was going on? There was nothing on the website, there was nothing on any recent emails, where was this all coming from?

“in a recent edition of their official in-house magazine, Scouting, they are advised that neither they nor their parents should bring penknives to camp”.

Now this rang a bell, I’d read something about knife law in scouting some months ago, so had a rummage under the bed and found the relevant article. Now I wont just cut and paste (more on cut and pasting later) wholesale, I shall simply leave you to compare what the Mail selectively quoted from that article, with what the whole article actually says (you’ll need to scroll to page 50).

As you can see all it is is clarification of what Britain ’s complex knife laws allow and recommendations as to how to put that into practice. And that boils down to stay within the law and only use them when appropriate. Now I ask you, is that really so controversial?
So far just a piss poor bit of research.

It got worse though, as on Monday the Scouts Chief Commissioner made a statement on the scouts website in reaction to the story, in particular he said

A Mail on Sunday journalist approached us on Friday having read the latest guidance we issued in Scouting Magazine/online in December 08 and April 09 on advising Scouts on the situations in which they can use a knife as part of normal Scout Activities. He was looking to make the story into "Scouts Ban knives shocker". The media team took them through the facts and sent them links to our various documents and magazine articles giving him the following info,

- The Rules changed about wearing knives with uniform in 1968
- We have issued regular guidance to the Movement on this matter ever since 1968 e.g. early 1980's , 1996, 2008 and 2009 (the latest being the magazine article in April/May)
- We need to support leaders with information to help them support young people

Despite making these facts available the Mail on Sunday published the piece, They used a few selective statements and quotes some out of context..

Yes, it would seem that despite being told directly what the situation was the Mail decided to go ahead and publish this story anyway to make the scouts look bloody stupid, wet and generally part of the ‘elf and safety/political correctness gone mad crap that they churn out ad infinitum.

And they have form for this as well. I was ready to put my fist through the monitor at the distortions they published in 2007 over the “sun rise” camp on Brownsea Island. On that occasion the situation was that a camp was held on a remote island with limited cooking facilities for 300 kids from 150 countries including every religion and culture you can imagine including Jews and Muslims (no pork) Hindus (no beef), Buddhists (vegetarian) and many that you probably can’t all with their own variations. Given this the organisers went for a vegetarian menu for simplicity. The Mail naturally span this in to “scouts ban bangers, political correctness gone mad”. Rather than report on kids from all round the world living peacefully together.

Spinning out right lies about scouts fits perfectly with the whole “why oh why can’t it be the 1950’s again” agenda of the Mail which is itself made up of its various prejudices, prejudice against anything not white middle class and Christian with nice little women who know their limits and Dixon of Dock fucking Green on every street corner cuffing cheeky young scamps round the ear. Which is of course what the 1950’s were like. Apparently. You see in this world we should wear pointy hats, shorts and sharpen sticks with not a girl in sight. My lot will be going canoeing, go karting and to the ballet this term. Times change and the Mail does not like it one bit.

They could have written something positive this weekend. An explorer scout called Lucie Jones looks like she’ll be a big star on X Factor (not my thing personally but still positive). They could have written about the centenary celebrations of our sister organisation the Girl Guides, but they ignored it. Instead the scouts just became canon fodder for their constant crappy agenda.

Yet what are we to make of the rest of the press? Indeed in particular the broad sheets and how they responded to this? Did they see a story and decide to check the facts? Do a spot of research? Pick up the fucking phone and speak to someone? Did they?

Did they bollocks.

No instead every single one of them simply lifted it straight from the Mail (although in fairness the Indie The Mirror and The Sun pulled theirs after being contacted by Scouts press office). At least the Guardian made some vague attempt to put it in their own words. Not so others who seem to have discovered the copy and paste function. Worst of the lot in this insipid bout of utter bone idleness was, I’m afraid to say the Times. Yup The Times, I may not agree with all their politics by had at least credited them with some decent journalism. Clearly I was mistaken.

Let’s play spot the difference shall we?

Exhibit A The Mail

Exhibit B The Times

Oh I’m sorry, did I get those the wrong way round? Sorry, it’s just I can’t tell the sodding difference. If one of my scouts had been as bone fucking idle as that I would happily kick their arse, where as journalists right across the country get paid for this crock of shit.

Arseholes.

*And another thing, if I have to tell one more person, be it journalist, parent or random punters that girls can be scouts (and beavers, cubs and explorers as well) then I’ll happily strangle them with by bear hands. And yes that does go against the scout promise and law, and I don’t care either!

14 Sept update - A quick hi to all those guardian readers arriving on here, just a couple of things.... first please appreciate that this post is a particularly sweary one, the Mail caught me on a particularly bad day. There is other stuff on here varying from scouts to football to film to religion to just about everything else that isn't as sweary, although there are others that are. Sorry! So read on dear people read on! Second, it wasn't me that put a link to this on the comments section, I don't do self promotion!

15 Sept- For the benefit of Anonymous/Les - I suggest you clear your cache and hit refresh, I have pub;ished your comments and have replied as well. I don't do censorship of comments except for Trolls and that has only happened once.

Daily Mail Talks Shit About Scouts Yet Again

For fuck's sake, they just never stop do they? They simply can't go a day without making shit up to support their whole "broken Britain" theme. This time they have touched a raw nerve with me, making crap up about the scouts, and judging by the readers comments the great British Public have fallen for it.

So what is today's lie? Apparently scouts have been banned from using pen knives.

100%, complete and utter bollocks. Lies. Incorrect. Bull shit. Not one shred of truth to it what so ever.

What is the truth? The truth is that scouts are taught to use knives as a tool, simple as that. To look after them, the same as a hammer or a saw, to use the correct knife for the job, and to obey the law as it stands.

Stuff like this makes me so angry, because I am lucky enough to know the truth, on other stories they publish I am not privy to the truth, so what other lies and innuendo am I missing? How fucking dare they just sit and make stuff up. I've tried to get a comment on the story pointing out that they are talking rubbish but I doubt they'll publish it.

Bastards.

Update----Update----Update - 7 September

It's nice to see that the Times have discovered where the cut and paste functions are in word. I had thought better of them than that.

When is a hurricane not a hurricane?

When it's in the Daily Express of course! Let's see, there was a hurricane once, some where else, and it's going to rain here so we are having er..... a hurricane. Kind of.

*Head butts keyboard*

18 - 25 Year Olds in having a drink and a party shock horror

The world was in up roar last night as your ever campaigning Daily Mail brought you the shocking news that some people aged 18 - 25 went away for the weekend with their friends and had a drink. This shocking news that people of a similar age to the vast majority of students were out meeting their friends will come as bolt from the blue to those who thought they would all be at home darning their socks. Even more of a shock though is that they were engaging in the dangerous and subversive activity if playing twister, something that can surely lead down the road of destitution and crime. If only they stayed at home they could get a job as a journalist where they could spend all day surfing facebook to find non stories to fill up column space.

*Seriously, I don't think it is possible to buy this kind of PR!*

Well there's a surprise

So this morning the scout association announces Bear Grylls as new chief scout, something which I think is a fantastic coup. So what does the Mail have to say about it?

"the woggle of Lord Baden-Powell, the founder of the youth movement, must be spinning in his grave "

Lets see, what else we get from the article over all. Bad pun about woggle? Check. Implication that things aren't what they used to be? Check. Attack on Channel 4? Check. Complete ignoring of the presence of girls in scouting? Check.

In short, text book Mail.

Finally - posting is intermittent at the mo, sorry, I have a lot on!

Arseholes.

Akela Predicts

Here we have an apparently innocent story about 13 year old singer Faryl Smith singing the national anthem at Twickenham at the weekend. Yet here's the rub, since I read it a few days ago there has been something slightly unsettling about the wording of this story. I can't put my finger on the exact words or sentence but it's there all right. Just a feeling that suggestions are being made that are inappropriate in the context of a 13 year old child.

Over the next 3-5 years this is one to watch. Much like Charlotte Church and Emma Watson we will see the stories become increasingly about how she looks and how she's "growing up" until she's 18 when suddenly the gloves will come off and she will be treated as nothing but a sex object. At least though that wont be quite as creepy, at least then it's all in the open and not just suggested but not openly spoken.

There is something creepy about the tabloid attitude to teenage girls in the public eye, and I will be watching this story develop with interest.

Watch this space.

Follow up

Ok, firmly ensconced in the office, a productive morning so far, I thought I would return to the bat shit insane bollocks spouted this morning from team Philips.

Where do you even begin with such off the wall ramblings? What saving grace or redeeming feature does her argument have? Let's remember that her basic premise is this. And folks, if you are asthmatic I strongly advise that you have your inhaler at the ready, because the level of bull shit is of such magnificence that the phrase "breath taking" doesn't even come close to doing it justice. Ok, here goes.....

Human rights legislation has lead to the collapse of control of our borders and thus means that draconian laws have to be brought into keep law and order.

Wow! That's quite something isn't it? A law that gives us the right to privacy is somehow the reason for us having so many CCTV cameras? Can you get your head around that, because I can't!

Even more magnificent is the way that human rights and the freedom of labour within Europe are magically intertwined. Either Philips knowledge of European law is ignorant to the point of utter stupidity or else she is deliberately misleading her readers. Either way this is a crock of shit that makes Littlejohn look well argued and intelligent.

And then get this for a sentence, read it in all it's glorious shiteness. Philips rambles on about the erosion of this country's values, what about the erosion of the language? How is this for a complete butchering of English?

"But that is the inevitable outcome of human rights law - which has ridden roughshod over those principles - because many of those now campaigning against the erosion of liberty also claim that 'universal' human rights principles trump Britain's own."

What? Eh? Before we even begin on the grammar (although I know I'm one to talk!) look at the last few words. Britain's own. Britain's own what??? Does she mean Britain's own human rights? Which is absurd. Or the human rights of British people? I assume that is what she means. Yet she calmly misses the point that our human rights are guaranteed by the human rights act!
The whole thing is such a mangled load of rubbish that I simply can't believe this ever got passed the sub editor.

And the she continues claiming that human rights legislation gets rid of the common law principle that we are free to act unless the law says other wise. What? Where? How? All the HRA does is set out principles that other legislation has to align with. It is a support to common law, not working against it. And judges have always had the power to decide things where legislation seems to contradict other legislation, that's their fucking job, the be impartial interpreters of the law. Parliament still has the ultimate power, it could just repeal the HRA if it so chose. I don't think it should but it should have the right to do so if it chose.

Again this should never have got past any editor worth their salt, but then this is the Mail we are talking about.

And then we come to piece de résistance of shite, this sentence,

"But over the past few years, Westminster has had the stuffing knocked out of it by a series of measures, including human rights law, whose purpose was to destroy this country's constitutional settlement and powers of democratic self-government."

Look at what she just said, fucking look at it!!!! Just a bold sweeping statement with no back up or support at all. Fucking breath taking.

And I'll leave it there, before I actually suffocate. Some one get me a fucking inhaler.

I suppose we are going to have to tolerate this ad infinitum

The Mail's anti BBC agenda rambles on in to yet another cringe worthy desperation fest as apparently people were shocked, yes people, shocked by the word wanker! In fact they were shocked twice when it was said twice.

How is this news? In what possible way? What other media outlet has made this a story? None, that's the answer. I'd ramble on longer but lets face it it's all such a non story there's nothing to say.

Akela Predicts

At some point in the coming days the tabloids will publish some kind of spurious story about the private life of Chelsey Sullenberger, the pilot of the plane that ditched in the Hudson River. I'm pretty confident of this and will donate £10 to charity if it doesn't happen.

Respect

I have many female friends, in fact more of my friends are women than men. I'm not sure why that is, perhaps it's the working with the kids, but nevertheless it is a fact. And, with the exception of one none of them are Daily Mail readers.

And yet the Daily Mail is, apparently, the most widely read paper amongst women.

So why don't I know any of these women?

The women that are my friends are, as a general rule, intelligent, thoughtful, compassionate, funny with plenty of drive and get up and go. And that doesn't necessarily mean career women, although some are. One of my closest friends is a full time Mum and very happy to be so. Another commits much of her time to doing aid work in war zones when she could be earning money at medical research, and is very happy to do so. So they are a varied bunch but all united in that they have a brain, and they use it.

So maybe that gives us a clue as to why only one of this varied bunch buys the Mail (and even she doesn't take it seriously) because I think we need to take a look at the "Femail" (d'ya see what they did there) section of the Mail website and take a look at those stories that they have particularly picked out for women. Those flashign pieces of journalistic brilliance that may appeal particularly to the fairer sex. One warning though, do try not to let your brain crawl out your ear as we go through them.

"Why i hate being photographed in my bikini by Leona Lewis"

"Policeman Paddick takes on I'm a celebrity bikini babes"

"WAG Nicola wolfs down eyeballs and silk worms to win trial"

"RIP VPL, the curse of women throughout the ages"

"Riddle of the missing belly button for Victoria's secret model"

"Exhausted Angelina Jole breaksdown as she pays tribute to her late mother"

"More embarassment for Jonathan Ross as he gets looked out in his pyjamas"

"Terrie dumped me by text says Simon Cowell"

I could go on and on and on but you get the picture. Yes, that is the reading matter that the Mail sees fit to serve to the women of Britain. Not for them is the crisis in the Congo, or what went wrong in the baby P case, or the threat of deflation, or anything else that might remotely require the use of a brain.

No, the women of Britain are there to be patronised and force fed brain numbing rubbish. And it leaves me confused because women are buying this brain numbing rubbish as well. Why? Maybe it's the obverse of why an astonishing number of men by Nuts and Zoo, magazines aimed at men but so lacking in anything that may require a thought process that I do wonder if their titles are a reference to whatever creature actually wrote them.

Crap like the Mail or Heat for women, crap like Nuts and Zoo for men.

Stuff like this, in my opinion, shows a total lack of respect.

Can Anne Widdicombe Read?

It may sound like a rather odd title for a post but it is a question that I think need asking given that Ms Widdicombe is not only an elected MP but also a newspaper columnist (although given that it's in the Express I guess newspaper should be used in its loosest possible terms). In particular it needs to be asked following her latest missive in Dirty Des's rapidly sinking ship.

So what is so wrong about this latest rambling? Which concerns the scout association's new guidance issued to leaders concerning sex education

Lets pick out the factually incorrect stuff shall we?

First the caption on the (out of date) picture

"Gone are the innocent day of conkers and bonfires"

Sorry Anne, we still have an annual conker tournament at our place, we still love a good camp fire. Sorry if that disappoints you.

"Now, Heaven help us, they (scout leaders) are going to teach sex."

No they are not Anne. Have you read the guidance? Have you? You see it doesn't tell us to teach sex at all. What it does is give guidance on how to deal with specific situations. It does not at any point tell us to teach young people the facts of life.

"Let us be clear what they mean by that. According to a spokesman, it will not be reactive; that is to say, advice or information given by a Scout leader to an enquiring older child. No. It will be proactive, supplied without request and even to Beavers, those innocent little youngsters of six."

No Anne, that's not what it says. In some situations it will be quite correct to be pro active. A role play activity with 15 or 16 year explorer scouts that teaches how to say "No" may be appropriate. Sorry Anne would agree with that? And will it be to beavers? Shall we see what it actually says about beavers,and indeed cubs (so this covers 6-10 year olds)?

"it is unlikely that leaders will need to take positive action to deal with sexual health issues".

It is quite clear that no form of sex education is envisaged being given to beavers or cubs.

Lets move on to her questions and opinions shall we?

"Why therefore do we need the Scouts adding to this vast corpus of knowledge instead of singing harmlessly around campfires?"

Because Anne I, with more experience of dealing with teenagers than you, know that many teenagers are sexually active or under pressure to be so. I know that sometimes they want to talk to someone older who is not a parent and not is a teacher. That means that sometimes they will ask us questions and we need to deal with those questions. What do you expect us to do? Turn our back and walk away?

"It places parents in an impossible dilemma, particularly with Beavers and Cubs. Some will delay their child’s entry as a result and that will be a loss to Scouts, children and parents."

Only if they read moronic rubbish like this Anne.

"Presumably Guides, Brownies and Rainbows will follow suit and the last strands of childhood innocence will evaporate."

The Guides had a similar policy some years ago, so you're just showing your ignorance now Anne.

Overall this column is so badly though out, poorly researched and factually wrong that I am shocked that even the Express would publish it. In fact it makes me wonder if Anne can even read, so wrong this column actually is. I would like to see the scout association seek to publicly challenge ignorant rubbish like this, the trouble is I doubt anyone will bother to listen.

A lot to write about

I have a lot to say, unfortunately it's late and I need to be out of bed early tomorrow as I have a shed load on at work, so the meat of what I need to say will have to wait. However the bear bones of what I will write about tomorrow are.

1. The book thief is beautiful and brilliant book, just don't expect a happy ending.
2. The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas is one of the most brilliant films I have ever seen and should be seen by anyone who does not understand the horror of the holocaust (and indeed those that do)
3. The Daily Mail are it again spreading more anti Islamic bull shit with headlines that distort the truth. Have a read here to read it's latest bunch of lies and distortions if you can do so without putting your fist through the screen.

Expect plenty from me over the next few days.

Good night.

Poor Science Journalism

Although this is about a Daily mail article this is not about the Mail as such, it's simply a small example of the piss poor state of science journalism in this country.

Take a look at this story here

Relatively sensible in how it portrays the research but what is frustrating is its insistence on referring to these people being "immune" to cancer. You can't be immune to cancer, it's impossible. An immune reaction is something that your body produces in response to a foreign body, eg an infecting bacteria or virus. It involves the production of anti bodies, T cells and B cells (both types of white blood cell) in order to destroy that foreign body. Occasionally you can get an auto immune response, a disease where the body's immune system starts attacking parts of the body. eg some types of arthritis.

Cancer is when a cell in your body starts dividing and growing out of control, simple as that (although the causes are very complex). How can you be immune to that?

Now you could argue that in lay mans language "immune" is just taken as meaning that you can't get a certain disease. Fair enough, but surely the press have a duty to try and educate people in science? I don't mean lecturing them but simply ensuring that issues are explained using proper, if slightly simplified at times, scientific terms. Could this story for example have not been told in terms of a certain population having an extremely low rate of cancer and that this appears to be related to the lack of a certain gene that produces this growth hormone? that's quite simple isn't it?

It's a relatively minor example but it is indicative of the poor reporting of science in this country to the point where Jo Public who maybe hasn't been taught any science since they were 16 can be quite justified in not knowing what to think anymore.

This is just a short post as I have things to do but it is a subject that I feel the need to return to in the future. Watch this space.