"The finest and most perceptive blog in the entire Universe" - Jayson (not Tony) Blair


Email me *
How easy is it to recognise irony.
A. Pedant
Big boys (& girls)


British Journalism Review*
The Guardian*
Melbourne Age*




Worth a look


Charlie's Diary*
The Feral Eye*
Green fairy*
I live on your visits*
Jak - Vancouver*
Junius*
Quantum Tea*
Reflections in D minor*

---

Drabness is a state of mind
A. Pedant

 
Smacking with pleasure

In my blog 'More on the smacking debate' a few days ago, I mentioned that I was asking Mrs Trellis to draw my views (see below) to appropriate members of the establishment (I believe I suggested that Myfanwy hobnobs with all sorts of riffraff – MPs and the like). Well there’s a Conservative: Gilbert Murray, MP for Gypping in the Marsh, who is just the sort of fellow who would be likely to know what I mean (know what I mean, eh, nudge, nudge, wink, wink?)

Gilbert Murray recently had a couple of entertaining trips to Amsterdam. Read about them here. Then click on ‘The Member of Parliament’.

Gilbert is a fascinating character; his uncanny resemblance to Lord Lucan is, of course, entirely coincidental. You can read of some of his other exploits, in different guises, elsewhere on the nominated site. Remember that I wrote, a day or two ago,

We would not want 'le vice Anglais' to die out, would we? Flagellation is such an integral part of sexuality, that we must, on no account, do anything to suggest that it is wrong. Half the aristocracy wouldn't know what to do in the brothel, otherwise.

This is a very serious point. I don’t know if, like his picture, Gilbert Murray is a member of the aristocracy. I would guess that he must be, given his proclivities. Anyway, check him out for yourself.




posted by josh at 3:19 pm

 
Bloke has nookie with woman

Or, to put it more accurately, ‘bloke has nookie with woman not his wife/girlfriend’. So what. Even the Guardian reports

The England coach Sven-Goran Eriksson has come under increased scrutiny over his role in events leading up to the Football Association's incorrect denial of his affair with an FA secretary but the chief executive Mark Palios was cleared of misleading the organisation over his own liaison with her.

So, two blokes have sex with the same woman... Serious news. But not at the same time, please note. You can read the whole article here. The tabloids have been screaming about it all week.

Let’s be clear about this: when personal relationships of this sort are involved, lying about them is perfectly in order. Bill Clinton had a perfect right to lie about Monica in his own and his family’s interests. Sven Goran has a similar right: his personal life is a matter for those involved and no-one else. It isn’t as though his job description/contract (or Bill’s for that matter) make a bit on the side, or whatever, ‘unprofessional’; only medicine, and similar occupations, where the professional has power over the patient, can doctors who have relationships with patients rightly be disciplined.

Telling stories about people’s sex lives is reprehensible. It isn’t news; it’s prying. It reveals a nasty streak in the press. It will, of course be curbed when my new Official Secrets Act becomes law. The act provides that the doings of the Royal family (in all cases), soap stars, footballers, and all hangers on shall be regarded as official secrets; The one exception is footballers and their performance/behaviour on the field. I would also include team managers in this. It may be that the manager is running his team incompetently. This is a legitimate field for debate but to include information about his private life, even if he tells porkies about it, is irresponsible, sloppy, and lazy journalism. It should be heavily punished. It is not ‘in the public interest’.

The purpose of my legislation is twofold: firstly, it is to keep unjust pressure off people in the public eye; secondly, it is designed to encourage newspapers to print real news, not tittle-tattle.

I wonder if I could encourage Camra to form an offshoot... My Act would obviously have to be preceded by a vigorous campaign, ‘Campaign for real news’, anyone? .

posted by josh at 5:45 am

 
More on the smacking debate

The subject of smacking has arisen again. Since the government has ignored my oft-expressed views on the matter, I am repeating part of a posting I have made several times before in the expectation that Mrs Trellis will be able to pass on my views. I believe that she hobnobs with all sorts of riffraff, so it’s likely that she’ll be able to get the message over.

There have been so many occasions on which British legislation has flown in the face of public opinion: race relations, the wearing of crash helmets, the wearing of seat belts, speed limits and, of course, the abolition of the death penalty. These all represent infringements of individual freedom. It's about time we stopped allowing such namby-pamby restrictions on our civil liberties.

Finally, there is another, perhaps stronger, reason to keep our laws on punishment unchanged, in particular in upper classes educational establishments, including nurseries. How otherwise can we be sure that there is a continuing supply of children that accept, or even like, physical punishment? We would not want 'le vice Anglais' to die out, would we? Flagellation is such an integral part of sexuality, that we must, on no account, do anything to suggest that it is wrong. Half the aristocracy wouldn't know what to do in the brothel, otherwise.

Go to it, Mrs T.


posted by josh at 8:07 am

 
Butling and other musings

Well, here I am, having awoken after the longest hangover/party in history. (More of that anon.) The imbroglio of the Iraq situation, aided by piss-poor planning and administration, have been marginally illuminated by the publication of the Butler Report. You can read it in full here, but note that it is very long and in pdf format.

Having read parts of the report, I have come to a very firm conclusion: Blair must go. If I were the voting sort (which, or course, I am not: don’t vote - it only encourages them), I would find myself in agreement with a lifelong Labour voter with whom I spoke recently. He said that he would never vote Labour while Bliar led the party. Strong but just. I wonder how many more core Labour voters will feel and act the same way. Many, I suspect. The kicking Labour received in the recent by elections should also serve to concentrate the mind. I wonder, then, if New Labour still sees Blair as an electoral asset. I hope not.

Butler - more on the ball than Hutton - is still too elliptical and insufficiently direct. Private Eye has one of the most apposite comments on its front cover: ‘An insult to the intelligence’, they suggest in their inscrutable way. Note the small ‘i’ in ‘intelligence’. That doesn’t come near eclipsing their very succinct comment on Hutton. On the front cover, dated 6-19 February 2004, Hutton was to be seen, saying "...and in conclusion, I find Dr Shipman innocent of all charges". Perfection.

It also appears that the BBC will not let the matter go. Having been so unjustly slated by Hutton and seeing the government get away with so much, I applaud Auntie’s continuing enthusiasm for the fray, despite the possibility of further restriction by this vindictive and authoritarian government. Watch out at BBC Charter renewal time. One must hope that opponents of this misguided government will continue to get their retaliation in first, second and, most effectively, last

I have blogged repeatedly in the past that Tony Blair, among others, lied to us in stating frequently that the UNSCOM weapons inspectors were expelled from Iraq in 1998 when they were, in fact, withdrawn.

Even the Grauniad recently repeated the ‘expelled’ line but the next day, Friday 16th July, they were obliged to print a correction (but they did not print my letter). Here’s the correction:

History was oversimplified when...we said that Saddam Hussein had evicted the UN weapons inspectors from Iraq in 1998. Iraq had employed obstruction and finally ceased all cooperation with Unscom in October that year. The US and Britain responded with a bombing threat and advised the UN inspectors to withdraw for their own safety, which they did on December 15, the day before Operation Desert Fox began. Tony Blair, in a statement in September 2002 said: "Eventually in 1997, the UN inspectors declared they were unable to fulfil their task [and] finally in late 1998, the UN team were forced to withdraw".

Now, an obvious lie should immediately make us suspicious of any other, related pronouncements: if one twists the truth (OK, let’s be generous), when the twist becomes apparent, one's biased agenda is exposed. Blair was so messianic about the threat of Iraq that he was able to carry Parliament with him, oft repeating the lie that the inspectors were expelled. Tut tut.

Then there’s the matter of judgement: Blair backing Bush and his extraordinary nasty (should that have been ‘hasty’ as my fingers first typed?) and simplistic (that’s kind) administration. However, I have been somewhat heartened by an announcement on steam radio. It appears that at least one of our Conservatives (Alan Duncan) will, instead of supporting the US Republican party, as our Conservatives have done since the dawn of time, be hopng/praying and, perhaps more actively, working for John Kerry.

When this sort of thing happens, you have to think that either our Cons may be about to position themselves to the left of Labour (lots of room there) or be convinced that the dear Lieder has got it dramatically wrong. It’s about time the penny dropped en masse.

What do you think, Mrs T.?



posted by josh at 3:29 am