Archive for the The Modern World 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.

Sorry to disappoint…

Posted in Fury Home, People, The Modern World, The Written Word, Today's Society with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 6, 2008 by bootlegmarkchapman

One thing I love about WordPress as a blogging platform is the cornucopia of stats that it dishes out.  For instance, I can see who has linked to the blog, which posts are the most popular, and get a graph of the days when the most traffic has come through the site.  As a stats nerd and a self-obsessed feedback whore, this is the stuff my dreams are made of.

A particularly interesting stat is which search terms have brought people here through Google and other search engines.  A stat like this can be very important when looking to increase hits, letting me know what people who visit the blog most want to see.  My pet subjects, as regular readers will know (and hi to both of you, by the way), include the BNP and tabloid dishonesty, so one would expect to see them feature heavily in any breakdown of search terms.  So let’s now have a look at the list since this blog was created:

So, thanks in large part to this post I have had 144 visits from what I have to assume are mostly 18-30 -year old men with erect penises in their hands.  Especially when one takes into account that I have had a further ten searches for either “Lynsey Dawn McKenzie fucking” or “Lynsey Dawn McKenzie fucked”, with seven looking for Jodie Marsh in a similar role.  The truly amusing aspect of this is that I have mentioned Lynsey Dawn McKenzie a grand total of twice, the context for said mentions being as follows:

“you hire forty security guards to patrol your Big TV Wedding when the only celebs there are Syd Little and Lynsey Dawn McKenzie. For fuck’s sake, my postman is more famous than Lynsey Dawn McKenzie.”

Which incidentally is still true, although I grant you that my postman has not shown up in my Google referrals.  Not as yet anyway.

I can only speculate as to how many cocks have de-tumesced as a result of being greeted not by some photos of a vaguely well-known porn actress being plunged by some chav, but by a stream of angry rhetoric.  Perhaps in some bizarre Pavlovian accident there are now a number of guys in Burberry caps who can only maintain wood if someone stands over them calling Richard Barnbrook a cunt.  It is to they that I wish to apologise.  But seriously, Lynsey Dawn McKenzie?  I wouldn’t touch her with someone else’s ten foot barge pole.  For a bet.

So, never let it be said that I am happy to accept undeserved credit.  I will have to be more careful what I post about in my blogs from now on, and can promise that there will be absolutely no mention of XXX hot teen action cumshot Jenna Jameson anal masturbation naughty nurse schoolgirl three cocks all at once blow job and twice up the arse 2girls1cup rimming hot asian spunktrumpet on a thursday.  And I’m a man who keeps a promise.

Labia.

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.

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.

Jon Gaunt on capital punishment: “Waaaaaaaay-hey!”

Posted in fuckwits, Fury Home, Media, Politics, The Modern World with tags , , , , , , , on February 29, 2008 by bootlegmarkchapman

Jon Gaunt is mean and tough. He’s not a namby-pamby, and don’t you dare say otherwise. Jon Gaunt’s not into the idea of his taxes being used to keep mass murderers in Playstations and swan korma, and he’ll not thank you for implying that he is. It may be controversial, but Jon Gaunt is anti-murder, and he doesn’t care who knows it.  Jon Gaunt’s not one of those liberal sandal-hugging yoghurt-weavers  who won’t be happy until there’s a one-legged lesbian black heroin addict in Number 10.  When John Gaunt does a push up, he’s not pushing himself up, he’s pushing the earth down.

Actually, that last one’s Chuck Norris, but the rest is spot-on.  Today, Gaunt has regaled us with his views on capital punishment – again.  Having been one of two Sun writers to work himself up into a nigh-on orgasmic euphoria over the idea of its return just a few days ago, Gaunt’s own column today was devoted to his fantasies over what would be a suitable punishment for multiple murderer Levi Bellfield.  Despite the evidence, Gaunt still feels that the death penalty is a suitable deterrent to murderers, and throws up his arms in despair at the luxury in which Bellfield will spend the rest of his life.  A luxury that, I grant, would be entirely unmerited, which makes it a relief that it is also complete fiction.

In support of his argument, Gaunt puts forth the result of the in-no-way biased Sun poll that saw a startling 99% in favour of the death penalty.  A cynical person might suggest that the kind of person who votes in these polls is exactly the type of person who gets all their opinions from … well, Jon Gaunt.  Furthermore, at the time of writing, there has not been a law passed to give legislative powers to Sun pollsters, unless I’ve been in a very clean and very subtle coma.  Nonetheless, Gaunt tells it like it is:  “The politicians must listen”.  Gaunt calls for a free vote on the issue.  Gaunt forgets that as a representative democracy, the UK public votes for a government to enact legislation, and that deciding everything by referendum would slow things down to the point where Commons motions would eventually be passed thirty years after the issue was first raised.

The politicians DO listen, Jon, and a number of Westminster MPs agree with you on the death penalty.  However, a government was elected that opposes its return, so tough titty.  The families of the murder victims are justifiably angry and want revenge for their lost ones – as I imagine I might in such a situation.  The government, however, cannot allow emotion to dictate penalty where lives are at stake.  An awful lot depends on the government’s handling of issues, and any decent government cannot afford to be cheaply populist.  That is a privilege afforded to columnists like Gaunt – and bloggers, too – so for him to refer to MPs as “self-serving jokes” is like James Blunt criticising Frank Sinatra for his lack of  talent, and would be stupefyingly hypocritical if we expected any better from idiotic right-wing shock-jocks like him.

Jodie Marsh again.

Posted in fuckwits, Fury Home, People, The Modern World, Today's Society with tags , , , , , , , on February 27, 2008 by bootlegmarkchapman

About a fortnight ago I posted an angry damnation of celebrity fuckwit Jodie Marsh and, therein, I posited the oft-expressed point of view that she existed only to make “Katie” Jordan “Price” look good.  Jode, as I like to never call her, has often trumpeted the fact that she’s better than Jordan because her sweater-cows are all real, even calling her autobiography (fucked if I’m linking to an Amazon page for it, the dire cunt that she is, I’m not risking someone actually buying it as a result) “Keeping It Real”.

Anyway, it now emerges that she’s going to have her boobs done – with some lucky magazine stumping up the cash for her in return for the first photos of the new knockers.  There is no font currently in existence that would adequately carry enough weight to do justice to the enormous “FOR FUCK’S SAKE” that this development merits.  After years of gurning about how “real” she is, la Marsh has decided to throw her only remaining card directly into a fucking big shredder.  And some futile arse is going to pay her to do it.

Not only this, but in another stunning development, Marsh has told a leading magazine that the recent break-up of her pretend marriage to some bloke led her to consider suicide.  This is roughly the 964th time that she has considered suicide, having previously given the idea some thought when she got booed on Celebrity Big Brother, and on one occasion when she couldn’t find the teabags.  As a long-term sufferer of clinical depression I can honestly testify to having had very real suicidal feelings and … how to put this … these feelings did not manifest themselves in a desire to go out and get bladdered in a nightclub before making crude denunciations of anyone who had ever looked at me funny.  Call me sceptical, I just don’t quite buy it.

In the earlier post, incidentally, I made a suggestion that Marsh’s existence may cause our planet to be consumed by the purifying fires of judgement.  Can it be any coincidence, I am forced to wonder, that within 24 hours of the latest Marshian revelations, England was struck by a right big earthquake?  It damn near knocked me off my sofa, and caused me to spill red ink all over my Big List of Reasons I’m Jealous of Jodie Marsh and Want to be Like Her but I’m Just a Desperate Wannabe.

Please, Jodie, I’m begging you.  For the sake of the human race, please don’t get your norks inflated.  You have angered the Gods of Squalid Repetitive N-list Celebrities, and this earthquake may only be the beginning.  We’re counting on you.

Tabloid legislation – why do we bother having a government?

Posted in Fury Home, Politics, The Modern World, The Written Word with tags , , , , , , , on February 25, 2008 by bootlegmarkchapman

So, it appears that 99% of some nebulous “YOU” favour a return to the death penalty. This according to the front page of the Sun anyway, which fails to make it clear what exactly this 99% pertains to. 99% of everyone? 99% of Sun readers? 99% of people called Gary? Actually, as it turns out, it’s 99% of the 95,000 respondents to a special “You The Jury” poll – therefore roughly 85,500 people. If by law the paper were forced to edit the headline to “85,500 people want the death penalty back” the impact might be lessened somewhat, particularly once it turned out that these were 85,500 people who view voting in a newspaper’s poll as a reasonable way of registering their point of view. Granted, all of that may be tricky to fit in a headline, but they can do wonderful things with computers nowadays.

From judicious further reading it turns out that the Sun’s leader column and all but two of the writers questioned (those two being, perhaps unsurprisingly, the shock-jocks Jon Gaunt and Fergus Shanahan) come out against a return to the death penalty, but nothing makes the same impact as a booming headline and a picture of a gallows. As though, even if the death penalty were brought back in the UK, the chosen method would be hanging…

But then, my point here isn’t actually the validity of the hypothetical (and so it will remain) return of the death penalty. The arguments for and against are all so well-known by now. Suffice it to say that I am anti, and have yet to hear an argument that convinces me to change my mind – the same goes, I dare say, for those in favour, whose points are often quite reasonable. No, my point is to do with the scourge of tabloid legislation. Already we have the shadow Home Secretary backing calls for a return to executions, and Ann Widdecombe agrees. The Sun wants to usher in a “debate” on the issue, despite the fact that all the arguments for and against have been made, and anyone would think that they just wanted to horn in on the recent high-profile convictions handed down to Steve Wright and Mark Dixie to sell some extra copies.

The families of Wright’s and Dixie’s victims have in some cases made it known that they would support legislation to see the killers put to death, and one can only sympathise – it’s impossible for me to put myself in their place, as I am fortunate enough to have never lost a loved one in such a way. But without seeking to sound callous, it is not for the victim’s family to say how the perpetrator should be punished. Nor is it a matter for tabloid-based polls. We live in a representative democracy, and we elect a government every five or so years to legislate for us. Given their accountability to the electors it is their place to decide on such issues, and given that the present government – avowedly anti-death penalty for their many other faults – is currently on its third term, we should consider the decision made. On the Internet, in pubs, in everyday life the debate already exists, and to elevate it above this runs the risk of turning a serious, potent issue into a political football.

Another case of tabloid legislation arises with the continuing argument over “Sarah’s Law”. From the inception of this movement, driven by the News of the World under the tenure of Rebekah Wade, envious eyes have been cast across the Atlantic at the supposedly revolutionary “Megan’s Law”. Why, demanded the press commentators, don’t we have an equivalent law here? The swift response – “because it hasn’t worked there” – was broadly ignored amid all the placard-waving. Also ignored was the huge pile of arguments against it happening – that the vast majority of child sex abuse victims know their attackers already, that it had led to vigilantism in the US (as the NotW’s naming-and-shaming campaign did here), and that it led to a steep drop in compliance with the sex-offenders’ register, causing paedophiles to go untracked.

A very watered-down version of the law is now to be piloted in the UK, though the concerns about vigilantism and compliance are not adequately addressed, but already it’s not enough for some people.  Expressing opposition to a so-called “Sarah’s Law” can lead to great hostility, not least because the press have succeeded in making the name stick.  If you are against “Sarah’s Law”, it logically follows that you don’t share the widespread revulsion at what happened to Sarah Payne.  In terms of loaded terminology, it’s right up there with the neocons in the US naming some extremely draconian legislation “the Patriot Act” – thus making a “traitor” out of everyone who opposed it.

See, in the end, for all of the faults of our lawmakers, they at least carry out studies before acting.  If the Sun had to think before wading in on a major issue, they’d only put a paper out twice a month.