Archive for the Media Category

BNP’s Claims To Legitimacy Will Never Ring True

Posted in Fury Home, Media, People, Politics, The Modern World with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 22, 2008 by bootlegmarkchapman
What's Red, White and Blue and hangs from an arsehole?

What's Red, White and Blue and hangs from an arsehole?

They have a representative on the GLA.  They have numerous councillors.  They purport to have the most popular website of any UK political party, and have just launched a 24-hour Web TV station.  Things right now are looking positive for the BNP.  For a few years now they’ve been slavishly working on overhauling their image – a necessary step considering that Richard Littlejohn (yes, that Richard Littlejohn) has termed them as “knuckle-dragging scum”, and Jon Gaunt considers them too intolerant.  Well, when he’s in front of a TV camera, anyway.  It even seems that this bid for legitimacy is beginning to bear some fruit.  So have the BNP changed?  Are they your friendly, acceptable alternative to the two-and-a-half party cartel?

Well, there are cosmetic changes.  Formerly avowedly racist, the BNP now claim that it’s not race that concerns them, but rather immigration.  Unlike former leader John Tyndall, who proudly proclaimed Mein Kampf as his “Bible” before dying amusingly three years ago, Nick Griffin today distances himself from tags such as “fascist” and “Nazi”.  The party line is that the BNP are not far-right or racist, but “Nationalist”, according to its prominent members.

With Richard Barnbrook‘s election to the GLA came the party’s highest-profile electoral success so far.  It marked a step up from the handful of meaningless local election “victories” that the party’s supporters trumpeted so loudly, which were then followed by the newly-elected BNP councillors not bothering to attend meetings.  It should not be forgotten, however, that the hardly fashionable Green party won twice as many seats as the BNP.  This would seem to point to a fairly qualified success for Britain’s “fastest-growing political party” (a claim which in any case always seems to be something of a desperate reach.  Last I heard Britain’s fastest-growing sport was Ultimate Frisbee, but I’ve yet to see that on TV.  Mind you, I don’t often watch Eurosport).

Anyway, like it or not, the “new and improved” BNP have made some gains, so clearly more and more people are buying the line about them being newly tolerant.  Should they?  I think any regular reader (yes, all three of you) will know what I’m about to say…

In a word, the answer is no.  Take, for example, the party’s Director of Publicity.  A meaty role, especially considering the party’s regular whinges about being denied a public platform.  You’d want someone filling that role to have if not a flawless history, at least an honourable one.  So who is the BNP’s DoP?  Mark Collett. Now, Mark Collett is a fairly intriguing character.  From any angle, he would seem to be a thumping great cock-brain.  A fan of Adolf Hitler and Johnny Adair who openly refers to AIDS as a “friendly disease” because it kills black people and gays.  But if you look at it from a whole other angle, Collett may just be the anti-Nazi movement’s bravest and ballsiest soldier.  He gives the lie to suggestions that the BNP have changed their ways, and no hatchet job from the left or centre could ever more comprehensively quash the myth.

Griffin himself has claimed that the Holocaust was “… a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie and latter witch-hysteria”.  No amount of spinning or back-tracking can cover up just how vile that statement is.  Griffin may deplore the supposed corruption at the higher end of UK politics, but if Brown, Cameron or Clegg had publicly made such a comment in the past, they would not be leading their parties now.  Are we meant to believe that Griffin has made a 180-degree swerve from holding that view?  And that, knowing what he knew about John Tyndall, he didn’t see the inherent problems in making common cause with him?  He’s a bullshitter, and all that the ongoing makeover of the party shows is that, just like the caricature of a corrupt politician, Nick Griffin will say whatever it takes to get him closer to some little bit of power.  Spin?  How about explaining away the BNP’s bar on non-whites joining the party by deflecting attention on to other groups – none of which are all-white for some reason – that practice a policy of single-race membership.  None of said organisations are aiming to one day be in Parliament.

If one scratches the surface of this supposedly “new” BNP, their bold claims are undermined time and again.  Make no mistake, they’re as repellent as ever.

Blog Review: Richard Barnbrook

Posted in fuckwits, Fury Home, Media, Music, Politics, The Written Word with tags , , , , , , , , , , on July 5, 2008 by bootlegmarkchapman
Richard Barnbrook spots a black person in the middle distance

Richard Barnbrook spots a black person in the middle distance

Regular readers will know of my unrestrained adoration of Richard Barnbrook, London Assembly member and aspiring film director. It was to my delight, then, that I stumbled across the swivel-eyed racist’s blog on the My Telegraph site. As you will know, because they never tire of telling us, the BNP gets censored at every turn and its members are hauled over the coals for the merest little slip (like suggesting that rape isn’t all that bad). So it’s refreshing to be able to read ole Rich’s words as he intended them to be seen, and for doubt to be removed once and for all – he really is a colossal arsewit.

Recently, Richard has found himself forced to throw light on the tragic situation of John from London – for those of you who don’t wish to be overcome with all-too-understandable emotion at the poor guy’s plight, he is so sickened by the present state of the nation (with all the nasty immigrants) that he is planning to leave the country – or “emigrate” as I believe the vernacular goes. Confusing solution to such a problem, no doubt, but that’s how life is when you’re a “working white class” person in Britain.

Of course, being a dynamic kind of guy, the kind of guy who gets engaged to a woman mere weeks after the start of a relationship because he’s impulsive like that AND DEFINITELY HETEROSEXUAL, Rich doesn’t rely on correspondence from working white class guys to raise awareness of problems. In this post he fearlessly swedges in against the university course on which some British Muslims are learning to fly planes. But just be warned, Muslims – Richard B is on to you! He’s not about to be gagged on this issue, or any other because he is RICHARD BARNBROOK.

It’s not just Muslims and multi-cultural Britain that he’s got in his sights, though. He also makes clear that he’s not about to accept any flannel off renowned Marxist thought-criminal Lily Allen. Having earlier likened her hairstyle to that of Boris Johnson – and isn’t it good to see that the BNP are weighing in on such weighty issues? – Rich approvingly notes that she’s now dyed it “girlie pink” and has been posing on a Union Jack duvet cover. All is in order, yes? Apparently not:

Imagine my surprise though when I found out today that she has written a nasty song about me, called Guess Who Batman? and put it up on youtube. It just shows that one needs to be careful when making comments about silly spoilt pop star girls. She must be mad, and having a little pop star diva strop. Still I reckon she is just frustrasted at being surrounded by non blokes or boys who are girls…whatever they call themselves these days.

I think you might mean “homosexuals”, RB. Don’t tell me you’ve forgotten? Probably you’re just frustrated at being surrounded in the GLA by people who don’t agree with you, or sentient beings … whatever they call themselves these days.

But don’t assume from what I’ve said that Richard just churns out the words. He reads what other people have to say for themselves, and even responds with constructive criticism, as seen here on another blogger’s post – a review of To Kill a Mockingbird. See? Richard can speak on the big political issues, he can direct gay porn AND he can berate 18-year-old girls.  You may not agree with him on the issues, but Richard Barnbrook undeniably has style.

Criminals: “We hate a different kind of criminal!”

Posted in fuckwits, Fury Home, Media, The Modern World, The Written Word with tags , , , , , on June 5, 2008 by bootlegmarkchapman

After a long spell away, I’ve decided to cover a topic which may not be furiously relevant or all over the tabloids, but one which has exercised my spleen for many a year, and which I never cease to find fascinating. It’s an issue that the press rarely seem to pick up on, even though it is they that give it the most coverage. I’m referring to the issue of prisoners appointing themselves as moral arbiters, particularly with reference to cases where children are involved.

The abduction, murder or abuse of children is vile, and it’s not exactly rocking the boat to point that out. We are all aware of it, and there are few people clamouring for the release of offenders such as Ian Huntley or Roy Whiting. But not a single case involving a child seems to pass without the press informing us that the prisoners incarcerated alongside the suspect are taking a personal interest. In a recent example Karen Matthews, the mother of the abducted child Shannon Matthews and herself accused of child neglect and perverting the course of justice, was placed on suicide watch following threats from fellow prisoners. This is very far from an isolated example, and it begs a vital question: Are these people the least self-aware morons on the planet, or what?

In the course of the papers’ coverage of the death threats and bullying of prisoners such as Karen Matthews, it is difficult to find among the often quasi-approving text any detail of what those doing the bullying were convicted of themselves, but I’m willing to bet that at best a minority are in for shoplifting or public nudity. In general, we’re talking GBH convicts, armed robbers and, without question, murderers. So what has brought about the conversion that miraculously changes them into saints where a high-profile case involving children is concerned? Everyone has the right to an opinion, of course, and it’s one of a few rights that is (and should remain) unaffected by a criminal conviction. But would these people’s rushes to moral judgement not, perhaps, have been better employed before they smashed a glass in someone’s face or stabbed a complete stranger?

There’s an old joke, the telling of which I will make a complete mess of now, for your delectation.

A man driving down the road is arrested by police who suspect that the vehicle he is driving has been stolen. He is charged with the offence and is told he can face trial by jury or by magistrates. He asks for clarification of the difference between the two. “Well,” he is told, “the magistrates are court-appointed legal experts who will listen to the evidence and judge your case on its merits. A jury would consist of twelve of your peers who will do the same”. “Peers?” says the man, “what does that mean?” “Well, twelve ordinary people, just like you.” replies his counsel.

“In that case,” says the man, “I think I’ll take my chances with the magistrates. I’m fucked if I want to be judged by twelve car thieves!”

Not, I will grant you, very funny. But it raises a point which I can’t help thinking is often ignored – that the very worst people to judge a moral quandary are those who have been proven morally suspect. Most people in jail, whatever you may think about the vagaries of the legal system, are there for a reason. They’re not nice people, and their morals are not what you might call … how to put this … remotely intact. So instead of yelling death threats after lights out or planning to smuggle a Stanley knife into the shower block, could they not just try and sort out the motes in their own eyes first? Put some thought into why they are behind bars, maybe consider some remorse for their victims, look at changing their ways?

The “justification” that is often given (and swallowed by many who should know better) is that people who harm children – or allow them to come to harm – are in a special class all by themselves. The scum of the earth. As though there is some kind of league table. Now, I’m not saying that my own moral judgement is without its flaws, but if your one claim to the moral high ground is that the person whose life you took, whose body or safety you violated was born before Bros released their debut single “I Owe You Nothing”, then you’re desperately ill-equipped to judge anyone. More fool anyone for trumpeting your entitlement to do so – you may be a different sort of bastard, but you’re still a bastard.

The legal system will have its say on Karen Matthews, as it has and will do in the future with other suspects. And it is far, far better equipped so to do than a bunch of criminals.

Boris and the BNP – a marriage made in Hell

Posted in fuckwits, Media, People, Politics, The Written Word, Today's Society with tags , , , , , , , on April 2, 2008 by bootlegmarkchapman

uselessidiot.jpg

I don’t suppose it’s a massive surprise that the BNP have recommended that their voters in the London mayoral election give their second preference vote to Boris Johnson. The humour – and the irony – in the situation comes from the efforts by both parties to distance themselves from one another. They are both clearly concerned with the sensibilities of their potential core vote – Tories and those impressed by celebrity on Boris’ side, unreconstructed Nazis on Barnbrook’s. While the BNP are concerned that being too glowing about Boris will upset the voters who don’t think the Tory party are quite racist enough, Boris is playing the “don’t take that ‘piccaninny’ stuff too seriously, I’m a lovable rogue” card. But in this case, Boris and the BNP are well-matched.

The article from which the “piccaninny” quotes came often gives rise to howls of foul play – innocent words taken out of context and all that – but there aren’t many ways that a description of African people as “piccaninnies” can be taken. In fact, there is only one way, and it’s hideously patronising towards an entire race. Yes, it is racism. And it’s far from the only instance in that article, let alone Johnson’s entire public career. It may well be that the leaden-footed intervention from the Brainless Nazi Party is a timely boost to those fighting against Johnson’s campaign, and we may at least have them to thank for that.

Currently, according to a recent Evening Standard poll, support for Johnson outstrips Ken Livingstone’s by 10%. For the most part, Johnson’s support hinges on two things:

  1. This would be Livingstone’s third term as Mayor. Though he is widely seen as having done a good job, there is a concern over the freshness of his leadership, and this is aggravated by the current unpopularity of the Labour government.
  2. People have seen Boris on the telly, and they find all that “Gosh, cripes” stuff funny and endearing. While this is precisely the last thing that should be used to justify voting him in as Mayor, it’s working for him because people forget that the future of their city would be negatively affected by having a pompous moron at the head of its legislative assembly.

There is not much that can be done about the first, outside of continuing to push the message that Ken has already been pushing. Therefore to keep Boris from getting in and making an absolute cunt of everything, it is on the second of these two fronts that he must be challenged, and it is key that people continue to draw attention to Boris’ sniffy expression of distaste for black people. It could, therefore, be very helpful to make a nod to the fact that the BNP seem very comfortable with the idea of Boris as Mayor. For all that they lampoon him as a joke candidate, he’s scarcely any more ludicrous a personality than Richard Barnbrook or Nick Eriksen, who today had to stand down from the assembly election because he was exposed as someone who thinks it’s OK for husbands to rape their wives. Briefly continuing this tangent, it’s amusing that the freaks accuse the media of taking Eriksen’s comments out of context when the blog is still up and if anything, makes him look even more of a knuckle-dragger than the excerpts that have been widely quoted.

What is absolutely certain is this:  we can laugh at the idea of Boris Johnson as a serious politician until the cows come home and make comedy racist jibes about the yaks.  But at the moment there is a very real danger that, come May, he could be mayor of one of the most important cities on the planet.  It will be harder to laugh when he welcomes delegates from all over the world and causes widespread offence by laughing at their clothes.  Prince Philip may be a colonial throwback with a regrettably loose tongue, but at least he’s subservient to his more circumspect, more civilised wife.  When Boris next says something horrendous, it could be that there’s no-one to slap him down, because if a bunch of star-struck, politically illiterate people have their way, he’ll be the highest authority in his firm.  The fact that the BNP are pushing for this to happen should be a wake-up call for people who might let this happen.

Right-wing bigot hits out at bigger right-wing bigot

Posted in fuckwits, Media, People, Politics, The Written Word, TV with tags , , , , , , , , , , on March 7, 2008 by bootlegmarkchapman

The BBC should really know better. Perhaps it was pre-emptively avoiding claims of suppression from the Bigoted Nazi Party by allowing Nick Griffin to speak on air, but when you invite a moron to speak you can’t be too shocked when he says something idiotic. So it was last night when Nick crowbarred some Islamophobia into a topic on white working-class fears over a drink-and-drug culture. An intemperate, ludicrous statement that even had Jon Gaunt (yes, that Jon Gaunt) distancing himself from Griffin’s remarks.

It’s tempting to feel that Griffin and his merry band of fascist fuckwits should be ushered from the airwaves and never given a platform to speak. After all, for their claims to be a mainstream political party, they do not have, and never have had, a Westminster seat. Even Respect have one of those. They have some seats on local councils – which makes them equal in impact to the Cornish separatist movement. They even got excited at coming second in a parish council election. Given their negligible, virtually non-existent political imprint, they could justifiably be under a press blackout for reasons of irrelevance. But then we’d hear them cry out about being “gagged” because they “tell the truth”. We know, of course, that “the truth” is their eternal enemy, but they do love their persecution complex.

Since they dumped the boots, put on suits and decided to play at being real, grown-up politicians, the BNP have been exposed a thousand times as the racist scum that they are. Griffin’s comic stylings on Newsnight were instantly derided not only by Gaunt, but also by Kirsty Wark, but the people who chose to interview Griffin for the show also need to take a look at themselves. Was it really sensible to ask a question – any question – of a man whose political relevance is minuscule and derived entirely from intolerant rabble-rousing? Griffin claims to speak for the white working-class, but so do a huge number of other people, including a great many who, if they see a red light on a TV camera, don’t immediately think “Durrrr, I’m on TV again, time to say something naughty!”

Disappointingly, this move gave Gaunt a chance to lambast the BBC for painting the white working class as bigots, and align himself for perhaps the first and only time with the Observer’s Andrew Anthony – but even more disappointingly there was a lot to agree with in the rest of what Gaunt said.  Nick Griffin is not a fair representation of what working-class white people (a subset of society in which I am included) think and feel.  His politics of fear and hate have been rejected time and time and time again when it matters, and yet he still plays the “censorship” card in order to cling to some spurious relevance.  The media, more fool them, fall for it and give him time to air his nonsensical ramblings in the name of free speech.

The press and the television media need to have more confidence in saying “no” to Griffin and other extremists.  When the tiresome and inevitable cries of unfair suppression go up, they can point to the fact that for all the acres of coverage the BNP have already had, the party still has no MPs in Westminster, is running far behind the main parties in the race for London mayor, and can only garner a small protest vote at council elections which confer as much power as the average Parent-Teacher Association.

There is a counter-argument, of course, that allowing the BNP to speak forestalls any accusations of lack of balance.  This argument, however, is defective because these accusations continue even today.  It doesn’t require a change in policy to keep these idiots off the air, just a realisation that the BNP really aren’t that important.  Balance is one thing, going out of your way to appease tossers is quite another.

Tabloids handling Madeleine investigation with usual reasoned detachment.

Posted in Children, Fury Home, Media, The Written Word with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 4, 2008 by bootlegmarkchapman

Another day, another stunningly tangential “lead” in the Madeleine McCann case. Now we hear that a British couple saw a 2×3″ “bundle” being carried out to sea by a man on a jetski, who then apparently deposited it on an “official-looking” boat – just nine hours after Madeleine apparently went missing. After reporting said sighting to the staff at the Ocean Club – with all the investigative powers that a hotel has at its disposal – the couple’s family then did what anyone would do and kept quiet for ten months before going to the tabloids about it. Armed with such a cast-iron lead, the PJ shamefully did absolutely nothing about it – yet more proof that the Portuguese police are a bunch of slackers.

Between them, the Sun and the Mail don’t seem sure when this sighting actually took place, and have differing information on the couple who witnessed this highly suspicious activity, but both are certain, without speaking to the PJ, that the lead was not followed up. The Sun in particular state in their headline that it was a “Maddie Bundle” on the jetski, which shows a remarkable level of certainty on the matter. Indeed, with all the evidence-gathering Team Wade has carried out, one is now forced to wonder whether it woudn’t be an idea to hand the entire investigation over to them. This latest development comes, after all, hot on the heels of a Portuguese taxi driver coming forward with the information that he ferried Madeleine, Robert Murat and three other adults, one who looked a bit like Kate McCann, to a nearby hotel.

Amid all the mud that has been fired at the PJ by these same papers, there is a nigh-on comical lack of objectivity, particularly from the Sun. In the “taxi driver” story, they wait for four paragraphs to state that at the time of the journey, Madeleine was not yet missing. Well worth splashing a headline that states (quotation marks mine) “Maddie and Murat were in my taxi”, then. A completely uncritical report of a parish councillor’s supposed sighting, which unaccountably fails to pose the questions of why the “Portuguese couple” were out in broad daylight with Europe’s most recognisable toddler, why the man didn’t go straight to the police, and why a Portuguese couple would bring to England a toddler that the entire British tabloid media have barely moved from their front pages since last spring. Not to mention the Dutch student who reports that “Maddie” looked startled when addressed by her name in a French service station (top tip: address any stranger you see as “Maddie”, or indeed any name, and see them be startled).

The old defence of “public interest” – as in “if the public are interested, it’s in the public interest”, is generally spouted by tabloid editors when asked why they jump all over sensitive stories. If some of them actually stopped to think that sometimes investigations will be negatively affected by their idiotic speculation, would it actually make a difference to the tone and detail of their reports? Of course it wouldn’t, but they will continue to launch brickbats at the PJ without bothering to look any deeper than the surface of the increasingly fatuous “sightings” that they stick on their front pages. Madeleine McCann deserves better than to be the new Elvis, with each new sighting more ridiculous than the last. When these “Exclusives” are taken in hand with the hectoring taking place over a potential “Sarah’s Law”, – taken to new lows here:
Photobucket

– it’s hard not to conclude that the Sun’s main motivation in these stories has less to do with finding missing children and ensuring the same thing happens again, and more to do with flogging more copies of their vile rag. As Shannon Matthews’ own mother has said, the suspicion in this case is within her circle of friends and family, and thus “Sarah’s Law” would be of no help here. But that’s the Sun for you – if they can crowbar in their pet project, they will do – and relevance be damned.

How to piss on your own chips, by Marion Cotillard

Posted in fuckwits, Fury Home, Media, People, The Modern World with tags , , , , , , , , on March 2, 2008 by bootlegmarkchapman

It was all going so well.  A Bafta followed by an Oscar to go along with a Golden Globe and the new Audrey Tautou was a most palpable hit in Hollywood.  With a role alongside Johnny Depp in the soon-to-begin filming  “Public Enemies” 2008 was all set to be her year.  And then this happens.  It remains to be seen whether her career will be fatally stymied – there’s no shortage of actors out there with questionable views but solid CVs – but it’s safe to say that the recent thawing of US-French relations is unlikely to extend to a broad forgiveness of Cotillard’s frankly bizarre comments regarding the World Trade Centre attacks.

OK, so she hasn’t blamed the Jews for it – apologies for the distasteful link, but I feel that idiocy should be exposed – but unless she has a thunderously good explanation for the comments, it seems likely that instead of being the actress that casting directors immediately call when a part calls for an elfin French lady, Cotillard is going to be as fashionable as shit-flavoured milkshakes in the near future.  “3000 people were killed to save on re-wiring” ought to be a line of reasoning that causes conspiracy theorists the world over take one look at the bottles in their hands, rub their eyes and join the sentient world in thinking “OK, now that is fucking scary shit.”

Now, Tom Cruise’s interesting assertions that Scientologists are the only people capable of helping the victims of a motorway pile-up are one thing – a batshit-loony thing that adds to the already teetering pile of evidence that he leans towards being a touch eccentric (pleasedon’tsuepleasedon’tsuepleasedon’tsue) – but these remarks, and his adherence to the Cult of Scientology, only became common knowledge when he was already big box-office, and largely bullet-proof where the success of his films was concerned.  He could jump the couch 365 days of the year – 366 this year – and his next work would still attract large crowds on the strength of his name and little else.  Cotillard, although already established in France having appeared in the Taxi trilogy, had seemed set to become a global star and a bankable name, with three of the most prestigious cinematic awards in her handbag before March had even begun.

There’s little point looking into the merits of her argument – it’s possibly even weaker than the “Jewish Conspiracy” clownery.  She also seems to buy into the argument that the moon landings were faked, despite numerous point-by-point dismissals of that particular canard.  People who disbelieve conspiracy theories are frequently upbraided with remarks commenting on their gullibility, but when you scratch the surface of these theories they are very often hollow and easily disproved.  Indeed, if you challenge a conspiracy theory with one of the many reams of evidence that disprove it, the reply often comes back:  “That just goes to prove that they were worried people would work it out – they fabricated all that evidence to make us look like cranks.”

Marion Cotillard, however, has handed the anti-conspiracy community (of which I am pleased to be a part) a loaded revolver.  There’s really no work involved in making her look like a crank.  She’s done that herself, and in so doing has probably guaranteed Audrey Tautou another few take-it-to-the-bank default French babe roles.  Felicitations, Marion ma petite.