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.

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.

A nudge in the right direction

Over at the enemies of reason Anton has commented several time in recent days about how some of the Mail's nastier articles are not of the Littlejohn variety, they don't need to do that to get the reaction they seek out of their readers. No, some times they just give them a nudge in the right direction.

This morning we have another example, a story about Muslim friendly uniforms for fire fighters. The story itself could be worse, but look at the headline

"Now fire service introduces hijab headscarves for Muslim workers"

All it needs is that one word, "Now", it implies some kind of endless and pointless load of PC nonsense, when it's nothing of the sort of course. It's that one nudge in the right direction. No comments yet but it's the crack of dawn. I'll be checking back later and will be braced for something nasty.

Watch this space!

Update

I hope my fellow Christians will excuse the expression but, sweet Jesus. It really is worse than you could possibly imagine.

The comments, of course, have the usual PC gone mad, pandering to minorities blah blah blah shite. Yet I totally underestimated the stupidity of Mail readers, of I underestimated a long way indeed.

You see most of them have not read the article because they are all rambling on about how could you fight fires or climb ladders in the head scarf and skirt. It clearly says in the article though that it's for wearing in the station, school visits etc. IT'S NOT FOR FIGHTING FUCKING FIRES.

And then the best bit, oh the best of all, one comment says this

"Oh for goodness sake, read the article properly. This uniform isn't for fighting fires in, it clearly says:

The hope is that the uniforms, designed for wearing round the station and outings such as school trip."

Tina, Netherlands"

Note, the comment offers no opinion, just points out the mistakes of others yet at the time of writing this has a rating -237!!!! now given that I gave it a green arrow that's at least 238 people who either can't read or have decided to ignore basic facts for the sake of their own prejudice.

Either way, it's blodoy worrying.

Quick! Lets all kick Beardy!

Lying awake last night suffering from yet another bout of insomnia I listed to Radio 4 quietly murmur away in the back ground and that was when I first heard of this story. The Archbishop of Canterbury making a speech about the actions of humans on the environment and the fact that God will not intervene to prevent our trashing of it. Now regardless of whether you are a believer or not I don't think you can really deny that the central premise that it's about time we collectively took some responsibility for the state of the environment is a very sensible one.

And I have to confess that, and call me a boring old obsessive if you so desire, my first thought was "I wonder what the Mail and its readers will make of all that".

Well to be fair, the coverage by the Mail itself is quite reasonable, it just seems to be a straight forward reproting of the key parts of the speech. No slant, no agenda, in fact well done Daily Mail! (Fuck, did I actually just write that?)

When it comes to the comments though its a different story. And it highlights something that I love about Mail readers, they seem to think that the Church is about promoting conservative values and not Christian values. Now some of you may think they are one and the same thing, I happen to disagree, why should Christian values go either way, should they not be an interpretation of the teaching of Jesus? But I digress, lets take a look at exactly what the punters have to say.

Of course, remember the ten commandments: "Remember that thou need to find ways of promoting environmental responsibility through Government policies." I warn Roman Catholic priests to be prepared: they will be receiving more and more converts from the Cof E if we have more speeches like this one.
Click to rate Rating 8
- George, Bolton UK, 26/3/2009 9:50

Do you see what clever old George did there? Do you? Caring about the environment and taking responsibility is all about politics. It would seem. Of course it is George, of course it is.

Of course he wont, neither will he protect us from the Archbishop.
Click to rate Rating 38
- Chris, Yorkshire, 26/3/2009 10:03

What you mean the Archbishop that actually gives a toss about the world his kids and grand kids will inherit. Is that the one you mean Chris?

Just as God hasn't protected us from weak liberal Archbishops of Canterbury, he means?
Click to rate Rating 27
- Simon, London, 26/3/2009 10:06

Why would he Simon? Explain? Or do you just want the right to do what the fuck you want to the world and ignore the consequences?

Once the God-botherers get involved, you know there's nothing in it.
Click to rate Rating 7
- Steve, Cambridge, UK, 26/3/2009 10:29

Go on Steve, you tell them. none of its true, none of it. It's all a lie! Twat.

The C of E is infested with liberals. Give the C of E back to the English!
Click to rate Rating 89
- john, bristol england, 26/3/2009 11:17

Because liberals are all er... foreign?

Of course there are those backing Beardy up but they all get lots of red arrows, people like this

Congratulations to the Arch Bishop for exposing how our selfish greed allows us to do what we want because it suits us. Those who believe that God does not allow us to face the consequences of our own actions have not read their Bibles. Those who think God had better pray they are right!
Click to rate Rating 31
- Simon Lissak, London, 26/3/2009 10:29

Not sure the last sentence makes any sense but Simon does generally and has lots of red arrows for his trouble.

At last ! He has said something sensible and relevant! Whether you believe in God or not The human race must take responsibility for all of its actions in relation to the use of the world resources. At the moment the human race and its predatory approach to everything is the worst thing to happen ever to this planet. Surely we must change our ways reap the rewards of non concern greed avarice etc?
Click to rate Rating 16
- jasbo montrose, montrose angus, 26/3/2009 10:17

More red arrows. I fucking despair, I really do. I would have thought Jasbo's comment would be the one everyone could subscribe to but clearly not.

Once again I find it terrifying just how many people read the Mail and what their attitudes are. The Great British Public. And to think I'm one of them.

THANK YOU TO THE DAILY MAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look I know I slag them off without mery day after day day but really I now owe them an debt of eternal gratitude for running with this story. The story of how the BNP used a picture of a POLISH spitfire from world war 2 to front an anti imigration campaign.

I don't think the word "priceless" can ever EVER come close to describing this!

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.

A nasty bit of reporting

Have you ever seen the nazi propaganda films from the 30s and 40s where they talk about jews carrying disease? How they spread crime and brought chaos with them? If you've not then go look some of them up, I imagine some of them are on you tube etc. I'm sure you'll agree that there is something pretty distasteful about them but more than that it is difficult looking back to understand how people fell for it. They did of course, we know that, but it is still so obvious looking at it now that those films talking shit.

So it's pretty chilling when we see news paper reports like this.

The story is a about a report by Sheffield City Council and Sheffield primary care trust into poverty among the Slovakian population. Now I've not been able to track down a copy of the report on line, although I'm tempted to try and get hold of a paper copy, but it's clear even from the story in the Mail that this is meant to highlight the consequences of poverty among the Slovakian population. It's interesting how this is emphasised even further in another report in the Sheffield Star.

And yet, despite the message that it is trying to give what headline does the Mail come out with? What is the important message that it feels we need to hear?

"Migrant children are wandering 'destitute' and 'spreading disease', says NHS report"

Yup, that's right folks, forget that these people are getting screwed over, now lets make sure everyone knows how they are spreading disease.

Now lets see, Slavic people irrationally accused of spreading disease? Where have we heard that before? Oh yes, I remember.

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.

Have any Daily Mail readers ever read the Bible?

This may sound like a strange title for a blog post but it's an important one. You see as regular readers are aware I am a Christian. I am on the pink and fluffy, pretty liberal, live and let live wing of Christianity, (we do exist, it just seems that often we are few and far between) but still a Christian at that, that's right I believe that Jesus was the son of God.

Anyway, the Jesus I believe in, as described by the gospels, was an individual who didn't have a huge amount of time for the establishment, for traditions and how things were done. He spent time with tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers. He was a refugee himself. He had few if any possessions and sought to provide for the poor and treat the sick.

Even if you are not a Christian, even if you are of no religion at all, even if you think that the whole thing is a lot of hocus pocus, you must admit that the Jesus portrayed in the Bible was a pretty good egg.

So where is this going?

Well take a look at this story in the Mail

Now the story itself, while poorly written and a bit incoherent, is pretty balanced. Yet lets take a look at some comments shall we?

Total nonsense. Time these silly vicars got back to basics instead of trying to be politically correct. No wonder churches are empty!
Click to rate Rating 7
- GB, England, 11/12/2008 17:55

So GB thinks that a priest trying to emulate Jesus and bring attention to those at the bottom is politically correct. Sorry GB but I thought that following the example of Jesus was exactly what they were meant to do.

Not even funny. Leave our traditions alone.
Click to rate Rating 1
- Renee, Melbourne, Australia, 11/12/2008 19:06

Sorry Renee, but much like Jesus himself the job of priests is not to protect tradition but to spread the word of God and the example of Jesus. Do you think churches are there just to look pretty?

Stop 'getting with it' and leave well alone, too many on the bandwagon changing everything.....What for?
Click to rate Rating 14
- Ross, Bucks, 11/12/2008 19:35

What for? To do as Jesus did you twat.

The 'less fortunate' eh? At least six of the new items are self-inflicted. Fortune not only favours the brave, it favours the clean-living. And besides, GT of Belgium is right, it isn't a religious ditty so has no place in church. Oh, how I hate trendiness in the church. I stopped going to church when the choir started wearing jeans and tee-shirts and strumming their 'geetars' and we were all encouraged to hug the person beside us whether we knew them from Adam or not. Church is a place of quiet prayer and solemnity for me. Sorry to be so old fashioned, but there it is. I feel that this modernity has helped to destroy church-going, because there's as much racket there as anywhere else. B&Q is the new C of E for a lot of folk.
Click to rate Rating 7
- Kathy Bianco, Kensington, London., 11/12/2008 20:07

Arsehole, pure and simple.

The Rev. George Fisher, should remember that he is a disciple, who's job is to go out and spread the word of God.....not waste time re-writing the words and context of a Christmas song, that has nothing to do with the church....it is just another song that is sung at Chrismas. With religious ministers such as Rev, Fisher, it is no wonder that people are leaving the church in droves.
Click to rate Rating 6

- Max, Hampshire, 12/12/2008 3:11

Priceless Max, fucking priceless. What do you think the word of God is? have you ever heard of "love thy neighbour"? Have you read the bible?

The people in this song are exactly the people who Jesus would have spent his time with if he was on earth today, exactly the sort. And Christmas, or the Christian Christmas anyway, is about celebrating the birth of Jesus. The traditions are neither here nor there, maybe it's time some Mail readers started remembering that.

Taking the piss

Look we know the Daily Mail doesn't like the BBC. And we know they don't like it because firstly they aren't a bunch of racist/sexist/homphobic twats like Paul Dacre but also because the Daily Mail General Trust happens to own a 20% stake in ITN, a direct commercial rival. We know all that ok? That's a given.

However, when they reach the point where in the desperation to attack the BBC they have to make this story the top story on their website it stops being a hate campaign and becomes work of such utter comedy genius that I am left breathless.

Mr Dacre, normally my posts attack you, tonight consider this blog to have metaphorically pointed and laughed. You really are pathetic.

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.

Shameless, disgusting hypocrisy of the absolute highest order

It's quite something when the Mail goes far as to actually make me choke on my diet coke mid morning, but this morning's article on Jeremy Clarkson making jokes about the Suffolk strangler hits a whole new level of hypocrisy. It takes it to levels I thought it was incapable of.

Now JC remarks may have not been in the best of taste, indeed I'm not a fan of the man full stop.

Yet lets stop for a minute and pause to reflect on what the Mail, that bastion of taste, decency and respect had to say about the victims of the Suffolk Strangler. Let's just remind ourselves of the exact words printed shall we?

"Mother Teresa, they weren't."

"the deaths of these five women is no great loss."

"The only kind of missionary position they undertook was in the back seat of a car."

"disgusting, drug-addled street whores"

You scummy, hypocritical little fucks. Go fuck yourselves.

Roll with the punches part 2


Today I'm actually laughing at the Mail, laughing at just how out of touch they are.


The article that is causing my mirth is this Peice of comedy


It sets out how the scout association is to publish new guidance to its adult leaders on how to deal with matters of sexual health among it's young members. I think that this is the guidance in question. I say think because the story says that it is to be published tomorrow, and as I write it is still today, if you see what I mean. However, have a read and see what you make of it.

I cannot see anything in this guidance that makes me uncomfortable, can you? When you read it you can see that leaders are told to discourage underage sex but to make sure that information is available about STDs, contraception etc. I simply don't get what the problem is.

The attitude of mail to this is nothing short of hilarious. The photo they show of a scout leader and his "pack" (for fuck's sake, can't they even get the terminology right if they want to be taken seriously?) from the 60s complete with shorts and big hat just makes me want to point and laugh. They seem to think that an attitude of don't speak, don't tell is going to stop teenagers having sex. Well I have news for them, it wont. And adults that deal with kids need to be ready to deal with what may be awkward situations. Anyone that says it is a simple thing to deal with is lying. Then again the Mail wouldn't know anything about that, they all think that young people are knife wielding hood rats who get A levels from bog roll dispensers.

Dealing with cubs it is unlikely this will be much of an issue for me, however I have had a series of teenaged young leaders helping me and if any of them had, or if any of them do approach me for advice then this guidance is what I consider a sensible approach.

I'm not entirely sure what the Mail would suggest but what I do note is that they haven't put their head on the block and actually said what they think we should do.

This paper is a fucking joke, it really is.

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.

Pig Bloody Ignorance

It was with great sadness that I read this story while scouring the mail website

Note, this is nothing to dowith him being a scout but simple sadness for the loss of a fellow mountaineer. Anyone that loves the mountains and being in them has something in common and when one dies we lose one of our own.

Also note that for once I can find no fault with article, none at all, it is simple reporting of the facts, something that journalism could do with a little more of, in my humble opinion. No, my issue is with the smug little gits who have commented, who have come out with some of these wonderful little gems.

"//'Tom was an experienced scout so it's a mystery why this happened./// Simple - he clearly wasn't that exerienced. No experienced walker/hiker would go off by themselves like this. That's Walking Rule Number One - the very first thing that you get taught. Simple case of him thinking he was more advanced than he was.

- Rob, Amsterdam, Netherlands., 14/8/2008 11:11"

Ah yes the Netherlands, reknowned for its mountains isn't it? Rob your ignorance is incredible, going off on your own does not make it any less likely that you have a simple trip or slip, as this appears to be. Yes it can hasten your rescue but it doesn't stop accidents.

After being ticked off by another poster Rob resurfaces

//Not a word of sympathy from Ann/Rob. You should be ashamed//. Yeah, fair point. It is indeed a tragic loss. But my main sympathies are reserved for the mountain rescue teams that place themselves in danger due to other people's recklesness and those that over-estimate their own abilities.
- Rob, Amsterdam, Netherlands., 14/8/2008 14:24

Once again Rob fails to grasp the point that being on his own didn't cause this accident or that mountain rescue teams are mostly volunteers who choose to do what they do and is a simple case of mountaineers rescuing their own.

i do not know why he took such a risk .
- pamela, weymouth great britain, 14/8/2008 14:33

Look Pam, the small risk walkers (and this is what he was doing rather than full on climbing) take is simply because they have a sense of adventure, something you clearly lack. Just accept that not everyone wants to just sit and home and piss their life away watching Eastenders.

no sympathy..he knew the risks and was out f his depth
- donny dehaviland, fleet ,hampshire england, 14/8/2008 16:01

FUCK OFF YOU LITTLE WANK STAIN, A YOUNG MAN HAS JUST DIED SO KISS MY ARSE YOU LITTLE SHIT. YOU MAY HAVE NO SYMPATHY BUT YOU DON'T FUCKING WELL SAY IT. THIS MAN HAD FAMILY AND FRIENDS WHO HAVE JUST BEEN BEREAVED, WHO MAY WELL BE LOOKING AT THE MEDIA COVERAGE AND YOU TROT OUT ILL THOUGHT OUT GARBAGE LIKE THIS FOR THEM TO READ?

The utter ignorance shown by these commentators infuriates me. So I think I'll leave you with why I love the mountains, a picture of the central Scottish Highlands taken by me when I was 18. This is my screen saver, enjoy!

Robert Murrat

It's been a few days now since the news that Robert Murrat has accepted £550K in damages from a combination of every British tabloid for the disgraceful stories published about him over the last year or so. And I have spent a few days pondering it. Many bloggers including Obsolete and The Enemies of Reason have welcomed the verdict and indeed the verdict itself must be welcomed. For an ordinary person to win in the libel courts buck a worrying trend whereby the press seem to be able to get away with printing what they want.

However, what are the consequences?

£550K. Between 11 papers. including the Sun, Mirror, Mail and Express. £50k for each of them. That is a piss in the ocean for all of them. It will be of absolutely no consequence. It will be of no deterrent to do it again. The tabloids shifted millions of extra copies over the Madeline McCann affair and continue to do so. The press could do this again and will because they have more to gain then they will ever lose. No one was sacked, no individual was made to stand to account for the damage done to Murat's reputation.

Even now search for him on the daily Mail website and what do you come up with? Not one story about him winning in the libel courts, instead all the smears and lies are dragged up again.

There has been no printed apology in any of these papers, not one, nowhere.

So no consequences for the tabloids, no attempt to put things right in terms of publicly apologising in a form that their readers will see and no deterrent to not do it again.

And yet Murat has allegedly won.

What a total disgrace.

The Kids Are Alright

You know for all my ranting in recent weeks the world is not all that bad after all. You know that even though the Mail and the Express will tell you that every teenager is either a knife wielding gang land hood rat or a totally suicidal and led into dangerous cults because of the music they listen to, the fact is that the vast majority of our teenagers are fantastic, intelligent, compassionate and well adjusted individuals.

I have 2 Explorer Scouts aged 14 and 16 who help me run cubs and everytime someone tells me how shit kids are these days I hold them up as shining examples of why those people are wrong. The 16 year old is a gobby, girl obsessed lad who could talk the hind legs off a donkey. Yet he plays cricket and rugby and volunteers his time to help with cubs, not for any reward but because he loves it. He brings out the best in the kids, particularly the shy ones by being fearless. Nothing slows him down, even a broken foot. Last night he got one kid who can barely sit on a bike, let alone ride it properly to charge down the field at lightning speed and cycle over a seesaw!

The 14 year old is quietly spoken and less experienced but on camp at the weekend was fabulous organising silly games off the cuff and is at her best when the kids are a bit worn out and are flagging towards the end of camp. A smile and a silly song from Shere Khan and they are back with us! She is a dancer and a musician and fantastically intelligent.

I have had previous young leaders, and the are as diverse as they come, quiet, loud, sporty, accademic, all action, artistic, scary looking, yes some wear hoodies, are pearced all over and drink under age and smoke when I would prefer that they didn't. But you know what? They are as kind hearted, well meaning and compassionate as they come.

No matter what the bastards in the press may tell you, the kids are alright, and I challenge anyone to convince me otherwise.