Thursday, January 05, 2012 

Another depressing passing frenzy.

Sigh. Honestly, are we going to carry on in this way until the end of time? People in other countries use social networking sites to help launch and organise revolutions; we apparently use them to flay alive those who say or do things we don't like. No one's safe, whether it's 13-year-olds with dreams of stardom, clearly drunk women mouthing off on trams, an ageing, jeans-wearing man who likes cars cracking a joke about impartiality, BBC news editors who light-heartedly included a panda in their list of women of the year, not expecting that over Christmas there would still be thousands of humourless people on Twitter, or as today's shown, an MP being careless in their choice of words.

I didn't really even want to write about this, but thought I had to after yesterday's post. And let's make this clear, as plenty of people have wrongly drawn equivalence between Diane Abbott's comments and Luiz Suarez's argument with Patrice Evra. There is simply no comparison between a footballer, who when asked by his opponent why he kicked him said it was because he was a negro, repeats the word a further six times, and then denies he's done anything wrong until he issues a feeble general apology months later rather than address it personally to the man he said it to, and a politician who was quite clearly not seriously implying that *all* white people love playing divide and rule when replying to a critique of the idea of there being both a "black community" and "black community leaders".

This said, Abbott's subsequent attempts at explaining her tweet have not been fully convincing. Yes, as the hash-tag in her original makes clear, she was defending the idea of there being a black community when in the past both the establishment (overwhelmingly white) and colonial powers have tried to prevent any such leadership from taking shape in order to keep black people in "their place". Politics is though inherently all about dividing and ruling, as this government is more than ably demonstrating, and Abbott should have known that generalising it to "white people" was a simplification way too far, even for 140 characters. She then compounded this by not fully explaining just what she meant, rather going for the age-old excuse of it being taken out of context. If she had done that to begin with and apologised immediately for any offence she may have caused, she probably wouldn't have received the public dressing-down from Ed Miliband, or prompted an onslaught from those who jump at any chance to launch an assault against the "politically correct" lobby on the comment sections of websites.

Sad to say, there is also more than an element of truth to their accusation that if a politician had made a similar blanket statement about black people (although you can't exactly turn it directly around in this instance) then it's more than likely they would be out of a job now, even if an apology was made or there were similar nuances involved. It's worth remembering that Patrick Mercer was ridiculously made to resign from his shadow cabinet position by David Cameron, supposedly over how he repeated the stereotyping used by drill sergeants (although it always seemed more likely it was to do with how he dismissed out of hand any suggestion that there might be racial discrimination in the army), a decision also likely made as an attempt to ensure that his "detoxifying of the Tory brand" was in no way undermined. It would be lovely to imagine that all instances of racism could be treated the same regardless of the colour of the skin of the person involved, but this itself is difficult when some on the left continue to believe that it is only those with white skin, or those in a position of power who can be racist. This needs to be seriously challenged and to change.

It would also help wonderfully if the media, rather than looking for constant controversy and jumping straight on the back of a Twatterstorm could instead continue to reflect on how the last couple of days have demonstrated that British society has been changed for the better by the courage, tenacity and dignity of two people who simply wanted justice for their son. They were helped along by both natural and unnatural allies, including those who made their own individual breakthroughs, like Diane Abbott. Moving on to the next passing frenzy was especially crass in these circumstances.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

Thursday, September 02, 2010 

It began with a photograph.

It all began with a photo. They could be father and son, although whether a grown up son and father could look so comfortable and at ease with each other as William Hague and Christopher Myers do in the moment they were snapped walking together in August of last year is far more difficult to quantify. Equally, if it's possible to both look like a complete tit and also almost vaguely cool at the same time, then Hague, complete with baseball cap, an echo of his notorious previous attempts to get down with the kids whilst Conservative leader, manages it. To hazard a complete guess, it's possible they were in fact joking about how Hague is casually dressed up, and the full series of shots shows us Hague removing the cap and then the sunglasses.

How the photographs came to be taken in the first place is a currently unexplained conundrum. It's credited to Xposurephotos, a paparazzi agency which doesn't list the following of then shadow cabinet ministers as among its priorities, although it also accepts submissions from the public. Whether it was just a citizen photographer who sighted Hague and Myers, or an actual paparazzo, that still doesn't answer whether the Mail on Sunday came across the photo of the insouciant pair first and the story of Myers' hiring as Hague's special advisor second. Perhaps they knew about the photographs at the time and were waiting, almost exactly a year as it happened, for a suitable occasion to use them. It certainly wouldn't have been anywhere near as good a story without it; the old cliché that a picture paints a thousands words couldn't be much more applicable.

We also don't know whether at the time the papers knew for a fact that Hague had, during the election campaign, shared a twin-bedded hotel room with Myers and were routing around for enough suitable justification to go with it. In any event, as Sunder Katwala and Stephen Tall note, the papers and Guido either worked off or with each other, until the cryptic Telegraph article on Saturday about the cabinet minister threatening legal action over accusations concerning his personal life, which seemed to see them back off. Then Guido went with the sharing hotel room story on Tuesday, complete with utterly crass cartoon, which first the FCO and then Hague himself yesterday felt had to be responded to.

This isn't then, as some have been claiming, an especially bleak day for blogging. It rather shows how incestuous the "mainstream" and supposedly ardently against-MSM likes of Guido have instead become. The story went from the innocuous and the implied in the Mail on Sunday to the none too subtle reference to Peter Mandelson in Guido's first post. It's also an example of how the legitimate covers the supposedly off limits: the questions about how qualified Myers was for the role of special advisor to Hague were perfectly fair and in the public interest, yet even then Guido was clearly grasping at the gay angle, asking first and foremost whether Hague had been on any international trips with Myers involving overnight stays. The claims that it was never about sexuality, or rather now that the issue is Hague's judgement, not that Westminster's guttersnipes were whispering about him shagging a 25-year-old man while his wife wasn't around are absurd and specious in the extreme.

Guido in any event isn't showing even the slightest remorse for Hague making yesterday's humiliating and embarrassing statement, and why should he? He can instead shift all of the blame onto Hague himself for being silly enough to share a room with an attractive young man supposedly unqualified for the job he was doing, especially when fellow Tory stuffed shirts are saying much the same thing. You can understand why Hague felt he had to respond to the rumours, yet to do so in a way in which Laurie Penny rightly suggests was demeaning to his wife and indeed to their failure to have children was completely unnecessary. Everything about it sits painfully, written as it almost is in a Lord Gnome-type pronouncement style; it also has more than a whiff of the Piers Merchant protesting too much bouquet wafting from it. This is doubly unfortunate when absolutely everyone, except Guido it seems accepts that Hague just liked the kid and got on well with him. Hague should have just let Guido get on with what he does and let the story die down, as it would have; that would have been the best course of action. He was however fully within his rights to respond. The real judgement call should perhaps of been how far the response itself went.

We shouldn't, as Mr Eugenides wisely advises, get too sanctimonious about the whole thing, and I was also one of those who back in the day noted John Prescott's alleged affair with Rosie Winterton, never proved and also still never disproved, as it I can now say it rightly should have stayed. Worth concluding on however is Guido's tweeted tribute to a tabloid editor:

We solve all the blog's ethical dilemmas by asking ourselves "what would Kelvin MacKenzie have done?"

When it came to accusations made that Elton John had used rent boys, MacKenzie believed them. When John sued, MacKenzie went one step further and published a story claiming that John had had his guard dogs' vocal cords cut, something so eminently disprovable that John must have immediately started estimating how big the payout would be. The stories in their totality turned out to be worth £1,000,000. The difference is that Guido prides himself on being above such recourse to legal action, even if Hague wanted to consider all his options. MacKenzie at least believed in the concept of "publish and be damned".

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share |

Monday, November 10, 2008 

In the shitter with Gary Glitter.

Paedophiles, as we know, are the incarnation of evil. Where once murderers and rapists could be satisfied that their crimes were the ones that would guarantee them the most exposure in the following morning's press, the condemnation and public fury descending firmly down onto their shoulders, these days they have to share the mantle with closeted onanists being prosecuted for downloading images of child abuse, not to mention the cuddly neighbourhood jihadists, who can be relied upon for providing something for the average person to get angry about on a slow news day.

The dream then for the tabloid press is when fame meets underage sex. In the 90s we had OJ Simpson, who despite being acquitted of murdering his wife and her friend has not worked since and is now in the slammer on a separate offence. Michael Jackson then upped the ante, but was also acquitted, with his career also stalling as a result. Gary Glitter, or Paul Gadd, as he was born, has instead broken the mould: not just was he convicted of possessing child pornography, he then took the classic, almost cliched child abuser pilgrimage to Thailand, via Cambodia, where he was swiftly convicted of sharing his bed with two children. Forced to return to the United Kingdom, he will now almost certainly be held in reserve, much like Omar Bakri Muhammad is, for when the Sun doesn't have much news and needs something to fire up its base.

It turns out then that those jokers over at the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance had set as part of GCSE music coursework the task of "composing a song that relies on tempo and/or style for its effect." The paper recommended some songs that the student could listen to for inspiration: alongside Freddie and the Dreamers, Queen, Gloria Gaynor, Dexy's Midnight Runners and Meatloaf, there's Mr Gadd himself, with "I'm the leader of the gang (I am)". Perhaps not the most astute choice in the circumstances, but not one surely that warrants such frothing outrage. It's not as if the paper had offered Glitter's song as the only example of what was required, after all; and as far as tempo and/or style goes, it's hard not to admit that Glitter knew how to use both, even if the music was far from original or that anyone would now listen to it outside of a wave of nostalgia.

You could also accept that recommending one of Glitter's songs as an example increases the possibility of him receiving extra royalties, and no one likes the idea of a unrepentant paedophile receiving funds from the general public. That though really ought to be as far as it goes. We don't ostracize the likes of Roman Polanski, despite his conviction for the sexual assault of a 13-year-old, although the fact that he was both a survivor of the Holocaust and had his first wife murdered by the Manson family does mean he's a far more sympathetic character, or boycott his films. We don't regard Nabakov as unacceptable or his novel Lolita as obscene because of its content, and we don't campaign against the use of Wagner's music, despite his anti-semitism and subsequent appropriation by the Nazis. Phil Spector, if eventually convicted of murder, seems unlikely to have his work blacklisted either. Why then does the "recommending" of Glitter's music to anyone inspire such revulsion and irrationality?


He said: “He’s a convicted paedophile jailed for sexually abusing kids. It’s completely inappropriate to recommend him as listening material.

“Boys and girls of 15 or 16 who select this song will go straight to the internet to find Glitter’s music. I dread to think what they may find searching online for him.”


Err, his music, plenty of jokes about him and information involving his convictions, perhaps? Searching for Glitter isn't suddenly going to lead to a treasure trove of category five child pornography, and besides, we're talking about 15 or 16-year-olds here. If they don't already know about Gadd and his record then they must have lived on another planet.

The Deputy Head, who asked not to be named in case his daughter is penalised in the exam, added: “A national exam board should have the basic common sense not to recommend past works of a paedophile to teenagers.”

There goes Polanski then. Like with homosexuality, we don't know for obvious reasons how many past authors or artists we now treasure may have been sexually attracted to children: allegations have been made for example against J.M. Barrie, although nothing has ever been proved in that case, as well as Lewis Carroll. Why though should what someone did ever affect what they also produced, or rule it out as suitable material to be studied? Why for instance should Chris Langham be ostracised or ridiculed from ever acting again because of his conviction for possession of child pornography? It's as if we've decided abitrarily what offences are unforgivable, or rather, some in the media have, and those that have made mistakes have no possibility of making amends.

But Dr Michele Elliot – director of children’s charity Kidscape – insisted the papers be reissued.

She said: “AQA need to get Glitter off there. It sends totally the wrong message to paedophiles’ victims. Thousands of children take this exam. If they buy his song it could be a nice earner for him.

“One way to show we dislike his abuse of children is to cut off the money he lives on. It’s in the hands of AQA to do that.”


The idea that kids are going to go out there and instantly buy his stuff because a GCSE paper recommends they do is nonsense. Our history teacher recommended we read Mein Kampf, which we respectively declined to do. What they might do is go and search and see if they can get the song for free from somewhere, or even more likely, go and search YouTube for it. Failing that, they might ask their parents if they have compilation CDs with some of his stuff on it. How also is presenting one of Glitter's songs as an example for how to construct their own sending "totally the wrong message to paedophiles' victims"?

Anti-child abuse campaigners Shy Keenan and Sara Payne called use of Glitter’s song “disgusting”.

They said in a statement: “This stonking great child molester should crawl back under the rock he came from, not be celebrated for his music. We’ll campaign to have any reference to him taken out.”


No one's celebrating his music; it's being used as an example for one piece of coursework. Do you people have problems with comprehension?

You'd be forgiven then for thinking that listening to one of Glitter's songs would be enough for the average child to be overcome by the paedo-waves, turning them more susceptible in just 3 minutes. The reaction and the Sun's part in it any event swiftly resulted, predictably, in AQA removing the song from the paper, something that will doubtless cost them a ridiculous amount of money to erase a non-mistake because a few jumped-up self-righteous morons imagine that we'd be better off if we could throw some people and some of their work straight down the memory hole. Remember, this isn't the British Isles, it's the paedoph-isles. Or something.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

About

  • This is septicisle
profile

Archives

Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates