Quote of the millennium.
| Permalink
Saturday, January 09, 2016
Friday, January 08, 2016
Thursday, January 07, 2016
A grossly offensive pastor and a menacing, huggable convert.
It feels appropriate on the first anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo attack to consider the state of free speech in the UK. Not, obviously, the state of free speech on university campuses, where the inestimable Flying Rodent makes a suggestion as to how those so outraged by "prissy students" and their trigger warnings can make clear their angst, but instead elsewhere.
We'll start with the case of Pastor James McConnell, cleared this week of "causing a grossly offensive message to be sent by means of a public electronic communications network". The born again evangelical, in a sermon heard by 2,000 people in his "Tabernacle" in Belfast and by 700 others online, variously declared that "Today we see powerful evidence that more and more Muslims are putting the Koran's hatred of Christians and Jews alike into practice"; that "people say there are good Muslims in Britain. That may be so, but I don't trust them"; called Enoch Powell a "prophet" and proclaimed him to be "right"; and in a final flourish said "Today a new evil has arisen. There are cells of Muslims right throughout Britain ... Islam is heathen, Islam is satanic, Islam is a doctrine spawned in hell."
Not for a moment was Pastor McConnell suggesting Muslims themselves were heathens or worse, oh heavens no. On the contrary, he loves every hair on their little heads. He might not so much as trust a "good" Muslim, but it's their religion he detests, not them personally. You might imagine that just as Pastor McConnell's identity as an individual is presumably all but inseparable from his faith, he would understand that many Muslims feel the same way. You might think he'd see the irony of describing a belief system that shares a fair amount with his own as "satanic" and "spawned in hell", not least when he's the one accusing them of hatred. Then again, the evangelical brand of Protestantism in Northern Ireland has not generally been noted for its nuance or for taking much notice of that old verse about motes and beams.
The McConnell case is also notable for how it dragged in then first minister Peter Robinson, who ended up apologising outside Belfast's Islamic Centre for defending a little too profusely a preacher whose congregation he occasionally attended. Various other figures from the DUP, as well as the even more conservative Traditional Ulster Voice also spoke up for McConnell, and have been critical of the director of public prosecutions for bringing the case.
Certainly, it's difficult to see how the PPS came to the conclusion there was a realistic chance of conviction, in spite of McConnell declining to accept an "informed warning" instead. Not only was there political backing at the highest level for McConnell, a judge or jury are always liable to err on the side of caution and give the benefit of the doubt to an established preacher, in contrast say to a ranter sermonising from a street corner. When you then further consider the history of Northern Ireland, where Dr No himself eventually rose to be first minister, expecting a relatively mild by those standards denunciation of Islam to be declared "grossly offensive", as necessary under the Communications Act, was at best wishful thinking.
Moreover, McConnell's acquittal was the right decision. His rhetoric would be offensive to many Muslims, but it was not the sort of speech that should ever be proscribed, falling well short of inciting hatred, if still wholly intolerant, ignorant and hypocritical. Far more interesting were the judge's remarks on clearing McConnell, especially in the context of other cases brought under the Communications Act. "I find myself in agreement with Lord Justice Laws in the “Chambers” case when he said that the courts need to be very careful not to criminalise speech which, however contemptible, is no more than offensive. It is not the task of the criminal law to censor offensive utterances," Judge McNally found. Also worth relating is McNally's pointed concluding paragraph from his ruling:
Which brings us to the case of Muhammad Mujahid Islam, or as he's otherwise known, Craig Wallace. For reasons which don't seem to have been expanded on, he took an especial disliking to Conservative MP Charlotte Leslie, taking to err, the UK Truth Movement's Facebook page in the aftermath of the Syria vote to make his feelings known. Choice selections from his postings are, all sic, "im going to smash her windows then drop a bomb on her hoyse ... YOU DIRTY FUCKING PIG SHAGGING SLUT by the way love your also fucking hideous", and "im going to find her and show herwat it is like to murder innocents dirty fucking pidg shagging whore".
Quite what Leslie did or didn't do to upset him isn't clear, not least as far from being his MP, Leslie's constituency is Bristol North West, while Wallace lives in err, Willesden. Wallace it appears is a whole mess of contradictions: apart from taking on the most literal of alter egos a Muslim convert possibly could, when not directing abuse at an MP on the profile page of a group of conspiracy theorists, he was "protesting" outside Willesden Green tube station with a placard that read "I am Muslim ... I am labelled a terrorist ... Do you trust me enough for a hug?"
Oddly, unlike McConnell, Wallace didn't find any friends in high places to speak up for him, and was sentenced to eight weeks in prison after pleading guilty to sending a malicious communication. While it's unarguable that Wallace's posts were clearly offensive, there are two points that can be made. First, were they were grossly offensive, or were they menacing, as the Communications Act also proscribes? Unlike say, in the Chambers case, where it was apparent that his tweet was meant sarcastically, Wallace's posts are not. At the same time, would anyone feel genuinely threatened by them? I'll admit to being rather blasé about what people say online due to the sites I frequented back in the day, but wouldn't most dismiss such talk as the kind of "online tough guy" routine often ridiculed? That he didn't direct the comments at Leslie through her online profiles, writing them elsewhere, ought to have been taken into account. Additionally, one person's definition of grossly offensive is always going to be different to another's, to the point where it almost seems to have left deliberately nebulous in the legislation. Wallace's comments were so over-the-top they veer into "chinny reckon" territory, more absurd and self-defeating than offensive or menacing.
The law in this instance doesn't consider such nuances, and it probably wouldn't have been worth Wallace's legal representatives trying to argue that essentially the law is an ass, as Chambers did, while also making mitigating arguments. One ought to have been that parliamentary votes on going to war are always going to stir passions, and not everyone is going to put their point across as an MP would in the chamber. At a hearing prior to sentencing the judge said "What’s absolutely clear is that your language and expressions about this MP ... went beyond any sort of legitimate comment or protest on an extremely serious issue", and yet, while it's rather fell out of fashion now, swear blogging did most certainly used to be a thing. Is there no place whatsoever for over-the-top diatribes, when while the point itself might be sincere, no harm whatsoever is truly meant to the target? Are we not judging the online world, and individuals such as Wallace differently to the way we do certain comedians, or say pastors?
Then there's the sentence itself. What does a further 8 weeks in prison for Wallace, who had only been released a couple of months earlier from a five-year stretch for attempted robbery, during which he converted, possibly serve him, wider society or the taxpayer? One might have thought prison would be the worst possible place for him. Would not instances like this where the "trolling" is not concerted and the target themselves not personally aware be better dealt with by a caution or alternatively a visit by the police, making clear they're aware and that any further abuse will result in prosecution?
Admittedly, all these are judgements made knowing that Wallace didn't have any real intention of carrying out what were still threats, however unlikely. Others have made similarly dubious warnings, and then gone on to act them out. If legislation such as the Communications Act is to remain statute though, and if anything might be added to considering the on-going outcry over trolling, should there not be guidance for judges making clear their room for discretion, and for taking into consideration the specifics of such cases? While it would be lovely to assume they do already, cases like those such as Wallace's, previous ones and likely others not reported nationally more than suggest the free speech ramifications of section 127 of the communications act should be considered again. Not everyone can rely on celebrities or politicians to defend their stupidity.
We'll start with the case of Pastor James McConnell, cleared this week of "causing a grossly offensive message to be sent by means of a public electronic communications network". The born again evangelical, in a sermon heard by 2,000 people in his "Tabernacle" in Belfast and by 700 others online, variously declared that "Today we see powerful evidence that more and more Muslims are putting the Koran's hatred of Christians and Jews alike into practice"; that "people say there are good Muslims in Britain. That may be so, but I don't trust them"; called Enoch Powell a "prophet" and proclaimed him to be "right"; and in a final flourish said "Today a new evil has arisen. There are cells of Muslims right throughout Britain ... Islam is heathen, Islam is satanic, Islam is a doctrine spawned in hell."
Not for a moment was Pastor McConnell suggesting Muslims themselves were heathens or worse, oh heavens no. On the contrary, he loves every hair on their little heads. He might not so much as trust a "good" Muslim, but it's their religion he detests, not them personally. You might imagine that just as Pastor McConnell's identity as an individual is presumably all but inseparable from his faith, he would understand that many Muslims feel the same way. You might think he'd see the irony of describing a belief system that shares a fair amount with his own as "satanic" and "spawned in hell", not least when he's the one accusing them of hatred. Then again, the evangelical brand of Protestantism in Northern Ireland has not generally been noted for its nuance or for taking much notice of that old verse about motes and beams.
The McConnell case is also notable for how it dragged in then first minister Peter Robinson, who ended up apologising outside Belfast's Islamic Centre for defending a little too profusely a preacher whose congregation he occasionally attended. Various other figures from the DUP, as well as the even more conservative Traditional Ulster Voice also spoke up for McConnell, and have been critical of the director of public prosecutions for bringing the case.
Certainly, it's difficult to see how the PPS came to the conclusion there was a realistic chance of conviction, in spite of McConnell declining to accept an "informed warning" instead. Not only was there political backing at the highest level for McConnell, a judge or jury are always liable to err on the side of caution and give the benefit of the doubt to an established preacher, in contrast say to a ranter sermonising from a street corner. When you then further consider the history of Northern Ireland, where Dr No himself eventually rose to be first minister, expecting a relatively mild by those standards denunciation of Islam to be declared "grossly offensive", as necessary under the Communications Act, was at best wishful thinking.
Moreover, McConnell's acquittal was the right decision. His rhetoric would be offensive to many Muslims, but it was not the sort of speech that should ever be proscribed, falling well short of inciting hatred, if still wholly intolerant, ignorant and hypocritical. Far more interesting were the judge's remarks on clearing McConnell, especially in the context of other cases brought under the Communications Act. "I find myself in agreement with Lord Justice Laws in the “Chambers” case when he said that the courts need to be very careful not to criminalise speech which, however contemptible, is no more than offensive. It is not the task of the criminal law to censor offensive utterances," Judge McNally found. Also worth relating is McNally's pointed concluding paragraph from his ruling:
Finally, having heard a great deal about Pastor McConnell’s beliefs over the course of this trial I think it appropriate to leave the last word with the Islamic scholar and poet Rumi who said:
“Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation.”
Which brings us to the case of Muhammad Mujahid Islam, or as he's otherwise known, Craig Wallace. For reasons which don't seem to have been expanded on, he took an especial disliking to Conservative MP Charlotte Leslie, taking to err, the UK Truth Movement's Facebook page in the aftermath of the Syria vote to make his feelings known. Choice selections from his postings are, all sic, "im going to smash her windows then drop a bomb on her hoyse ... YOU DIRTY FUCKING PIG SHAGGING SLUT by the way love your also fucking hideous", and "im going to find her and show herwat it is like to murder innocents dirty fucking pidg shagging whore".
Quite what Leslie did or didn't do to upset him isn't clear, not least as far from being his MP, Leslie's constituency is Bristol North West, while Wallace lives in err, Willesden. Wallace it appears is a whole mess of contradictions: apart from taking on the most literal of alter egos a Muslim convert possibly could, when not directing abuse at an MP on the profile page of a group of conspiracy theorists, he was "protesting" outside Willesden Green tube station with a placard that read "I am Muslim ... I am labelled a terrorist ... Do you trust me enough for a hug?"
Oddly, unlike McConnell, Wallace didn't find any friends in high places to speak up for him, and was sentenced to eight weeks in prison after pleading guilty to sending a malicious communication. While it's unarguable that Wallace's posts were clearly offensive, there are two points that can be made. First, were they were grossly offensive, or were they menacing, as the Communications Act also proscribes? Unlike say, in the Chambers case, where it was apparent that his tweet was meant sarcastically, Wallace's posts are not. At the same time, would anyone feel genuinely threatened by them? I'll admit to being rather blasé about what people say online due to the sites I frequented back in the day, but wouldn't most dismiss such talk as the kind of "online tough guy" routine often ridiculed? That he didn't direct the comments at Leslie through her online profiles, writing them elsewhere, ought to have been taken into account. Additionally, one person's definition of grossly offensive is always going to be different to another's, to the point where it almost seems to have left deliberately nebulous in the legislation. Wallace's comments were so over-the-top they veer into "chinny reckon" territory, more absurd and self-defeating than offensive or menacing.
The law in this instance doesn't consider such nuances, and it probably wouldn't have been worth Wallace's legal representatives trying to argue that essentially the law is an ass, as Chambers did, while also making mitigating arguments. One ought to have been that parliamentary votes on going to war are always going to stir passions, and not everyone is going to put their point across as an MP would in the chamber. At a hearing prior to sentencing the judge said "What’s absolutely clear is that your language and expressions about this MP ... went beyond any sort of legitimate comment or protest on an extremely serious issue", and yet, while it's rather fell out of fashion now, swear blogging did most certainly used to be a thing. Is there no place whatsoever for over-the-top diatribes, when while the point itself might be sincere, no harm whatsoever is truly meant to the target? Are we not judging the online world, and individuals such as Wallace differently to the way we do certain comedians, or say pastors?
Then there's the sentence itself. What does a further 8 weeks in prison for Wallace, who had only been released a couple of months earlier from a five-year stretch for attempted robbery, during which he converted, possibly serve him, wider society or the taxpayer? One might have thought prison would be the worst possible place for him. Would not instances like this where the "trolling" is not concerted and the target themselves not personally aware be better dealt with by a caution or alternatively a visit by the police, making clear they're aware and that any further abuse will result in prosecution?
Admittedly, all these are judgements made knowing that Wallace didn't have any real intention of carrying out what were still threats, however unlikely. Others have made similarly dubious warnings, and then gone on to act them out. If legislation such as the Communications Act is to remain statute though, and if anything might be added to considering the on-going outcry over trolling, should there not be guidance for judges making clear their room for discretion, and for taking into consideration the specifics of such cases? While it would be lovely to assume they do already, cases like those such as Wallace's, previous ones and likely others not reported nationally more than suggest the free speech ramifications of section 127 of the communications act should be considered again. Not everyone can rely on celebrities or politicians to defend their stupidity.
Labels: Charlie Hebdo, civil liberties, Communications Act, Craig Wallace, freedom of speech, James McConnell, social networking websites
| Permalink
Wednesday, January 06, 2016
Do they have an aim other than MAD?
It apparently takes a Labour reshuffle to fully highlight the deficiencies of the new journalism. Live blogs, tweeting, rather than add to insight they provide the opposite, keeping hacks from doing what they normally would have done, which is actually talk to the people involved. We had nigh on two days of no one having the slightest idea what was happening, whether anything even was happening, and not all of that can be blamed on the slowness of Jeremy Corbyn making his decisions. This piece by Chris Mason rather sums it up: it's not entirely fair to pick solely on him or the BBC for this, but reading it anyone would think we're more interested in his experience of the reshuffle as a reporter rather than what happened and what it means. Instead it was left to Paul Waugh, of the otherwise execrable Huffington Post, to finally throw some light on proceedings this morning.
Whether Waugh's account can be relied on fully is unclear, as reading between the lines it seems to be informed directly by both Hilary Benn and Corbyn, or at least someone on Corbyn's team. Contrary to all the speculation, Benn's position was never so much as threatened by Corbyn, nor has there been any grand deal between the two whereby Benn has been "muzzled". Apparently agreed instead was Benn will not go out of his way to pick any fights, with Corbyn having overall control of foreign policy direction. The discussions and reshuffle itself took so long as both men wanted to sleep on what they had talked about, only to find themselves tied up most of yesterday by urgent questions in the House.
As said, whether you believe all that is up to you. Whether it always was the case the likes of Seumas Milne and others by Corbyn's side were arguing for him to dump Benn and briefing that to hacks, while Corbyn himself had not made up his mind or had no intention of doing so, we don't know. Equally, we don't know whether Corbyn was persuaded against moving Benn by the potential for a mass shadow cabinet walkout, or if it was just another reason as to why he was always going to ignore the advice given him.
Certainly unhelpful to the arguments of the sacked Michael Dugher and others within Labour that this all links back to briefing by Milne or others within the Corbyn team though is Andrew Sparrow's assessment. He denies he received any lobbying from the Corbyn team about "revenge reshuffles", while acknowledging there was always a plan for some sort of move in the new year. Indeed, he points to the first major article talking of a "revenge reshuffle" originating in the Observer at the beginning of December, where the sources for the piece were clearly those "fearing" just such a move.
Enough anyway with the surmising. The end result of the reshuffle is two shadow ministers sacked, and the shadow defence secretary moved sideways to fill the gap left at culture with Dugher gone. In other words, more shadow ministers have resigned over the party leader having the audacity to you know, act like a leader, than were dispensed with by the leader. No one can decide whether this is weakness, strength, Corbyn attempting to take control of party policy or in fact still being too hapless to do so, or whether it matters in the long term. We have nonetheless had the usual apocalyptic warnings of how all this means Labour is doomed to defeat, how Dugher, Pat McFadden and Kevan Jones were the finest of their generation, and so on.
What really offends is the disingenuousness, the outright obtuse behaviour of McFadden and his allies. How could you possibly object to what I said, he wailed, along with Ian Austin, Liz Kendall, et al. Yes, how could Corbyn possibly have thought McFadden's question to Cameron during the debate on the Paris attacks was directed at him? After all, McFadden was merely asking the prime minister to reject the view "that sees terrorist acts as always being a response or a reaction to what we in the West do". He only asked the question despite a certain Ian Austin making almost exactly the same point, despite others on the right of the party also standing up during that session and all but saying Corbyn was a dangerous lunatic, who in the words of Ben Bradshaw wasn't so much as sure if he'd "shoot dead genocidal fascists".
Context is everything, which is precisely what McFadden and the others don't want to consider or discuss. McFadden is perfectly entitled to criticise Corbyn for his views on foreign policy; when however he did so in the Commons, and at the same time as others in the PLP all but declared open mutiny, then to feign surprise when it finally catches up him with him is facetiousness of the lowest order. McFadden was making a straw man argument of the kind that led directly to Cameron deciding he could get away with calling Corbyn a "terrorist sympathiser". It would also matter less if McFadden's rhetorical flourish was as compelling as he thinks it is. The attacks in Paris were obviously not the West's fault, and the responsibility does solely lie with the terrorists responsible. It is not to infantilise those responsible however to make the argument, as Corbyn did, that the past 14, soon to be 15 years of war have far from making us safer and the Middle East a better place had the opposite effect. Agree with it or not, it's an entirely permissible view which is not to blame victims or do any of the other scandalous things those so disgusted by Corbyn's consistent view on foreign policy insist it implies.
Besides, McFadden can hardly say he wasn't warned. Corbyn made clear to the shadow cabinet after Maria Eagle all but agreed with the Tories' tame general on Trident that he wanted an end to the disagreements in public. In turn, Corbyn has removed the two ministers who most egregiously flouted that request, and shifted the minister who made him issue it in the first place. Who here is being unreasonable exactly? Let's remember how brutal Ed Miliband was with Emily Thornberry over her "snobbery" tweet, the kind of over-the-top act of media management which most agree turns ordinary people off from politics. Few at the time stood up and said hang on, this is ridiculous and downright silly. They went along with it. Now, when a shadow minister who implied his own leader had to readjust his entire world-view in a question to the prime minister no less is sacked, we have others who resign in protest, calling it "vindictive".
Which poses the question, what exactly do these Jonathan Reynolds, these Stephen Doughtys, these Kevan Joneses and all the rest think they are achieving by resigning to inflict the maximum damage possible, by carrying on the briefings, by making accusations that can't be substantiated, by doing interviews with more than sympathetic hacks, delighted that the feuding continues? Do they really believe it will help Labour in the long term? Do they genuinely think it will lead to Corbyn being deposed sooner rather than later? Do they honestly imagine the Labour membership will realise their mistake and elect someone more to their liking should they succeed?
Let's put it this way. I joined Labour as a registered member and voted for Liz Kendall. I don't in my heart of hearts believe Corbyn can possibly win in 2020. I think his performance in general has been barely adequate so far, and both he and his wider team have been woeful at the times they needed to radiate strength. I thought I'd reached the point with the stupidity of the McDonnell Little Red Book stunt and the fact the party barely responded at all to the autumn statement/spending review where I couldn't really defend Corbyn and co any more. The histrionics over the Syria vote, the obsession with Stop the War, which as we've seen today is still going on, the contempt for those daring to lobby Labour MPs over said vote, and now the reaction to what is the most meagre of reshuffles imaginable, it makes me, far from a "Corbynista", want to go on giving him the benefit of the doubt. Not least when there is still no alternative and those on the opposing side are so petty, so intractable, so fatuous. If that's what I think, what do the "Corbynistas", what does the wider membership, what does the public? It's reached the point where some genuinely want their party to fail, imagining that by bringing it down, through the equivalent of mutually assured destruction if necessary, the party will be better off in the long run. It won't. Stop believing it will.
Whether Waugh's account can be relied on fully is unclear, as reading between the lines it seems to be informed directly by both Hilary Benn and Corbyn, or at least someone on Corbyn's team. Contrary to all the speculation, Benn's position was never so much as threatened by Corbyn, nor has there been any grand deal between the two whereby Benn has been "muzzled". Apparently agreed instead was Benn will not go out of his way to pick any fights, with Corbyn having overall control of foreign policy direction. The discussions and reshuffle itself took so long as both men wanted to sleep on what they had talked about, only to find themselves tied up most of yesterday by urgent questions in the House.
As said, whether you believe all that is up to you. Whether it always was the case the likes of Seumas Milne and others by Corbyn's side were arguing for him to dump Benn and briefing that to hacks, while Corbyn himself had not made up his mind or had no intention of doing so, we don't know. Equally, we don't know whether Corbyn was persuaded against moving Benn by the potential for a mass shadow cabinet walkout, or if it was just another reason as to why he was always going to ignore the advice given him.
Certainly unhelpful to the arguments of the sacked Michael Dugher and others within Labour that this all links back to briefing by Milne or others within the Corbyn team though is Andrew Sparrow's assessment. He denies he received any lobbying from the Corbyn team about "revenge reshuffles", while acknowledging there was always a plan for some sort of move in the new year. Indeed, he points to the first major article talking of a "revenge reshuffle" originating in the Observer at the beginning of December, where the sources for the piece were clearly those "fearing" just such a move.
Enough anyway with the surmising. The end result of the reshuffle is two shadow ministers sacked, and the shadow defence secretary moved sideways to fill the gap left at culture with Dugher gone. In other words, more shadow ministers have resigned over the party leader having the audacity to you know, act like a leader, than were dispensed with by the leader. No one can decide whether this is weakness, strength, Corbyn attempting to take control of party policy or in fact still being too hapless to do so, or whether it matters in the long term. We have nonetheless had the usual apocalyptic warnings of how all this means Labour is doomed to defeat, how Dugher, Pat McFadden and Kevan Jones were the finest of their generation, and so on.
What really offends is the disingenuousness, the outright obtuse behaviour of McFadden and his allies. How could you possibly object to what I said, he wailed, along with Ian Austin, Liz Kendall, et al. Yes, how could Corbyn possibly have thought McFadden's question to Cameron during the debate on the Paris attacks was directed at him? After all, McFadden was merely asking the prime minister to reject the view "that sees terrorist acts as always being a response or a reaction to what we in the West do". He only asked the question despite a certain Ian Austin making almost exactly the same point, despite others on the right of the party also standing up during that session and all but saying Corbyn was a dangerous lunatic, who in the words of Ben Bradshaw wasn't so much as sure if he'd "shoot dead genocidal fascists".
Context is everything, which is precisely what McFadden and the others don't want to consider or discuss. McFadden is perfectly entitled to criticise Corbyn for his views on foreign policy; when however he did so in the Commons, and at the same time as others in the PLP all but declared open mutiny, then to feign surprise when it finally catches up him with him is facetiousness of the lowest order. McFadden was making a straw man argument of the kind that led directly to Cameron deciding he could get away with calling Corbyn a "terrorist sympathiser". It would also matter less if McFadden's rhetorical flourish was as compelling as he thinks it is. The attacks in Paris were obviously not the West's fault, and the responsibility does solely lie with the terrorists responsible. It is not to infantilise those responsible however to make the argument, as Corbyn did, that the past 14, soon to be 15 years of war have far from making us safer and the Middle East a better place had the opposite effect. Agree with it or not, it's an entirely permissible view which is not to blame victims or do any of the other scandalous things those so disgusted by Corbyn's consistent view on foreign policy insist it implies.
Besides, McFadden can hardly say he wasn't warned. Corbyn made clear to the shadow cabinet after Maria Eagle all but agreed with the Tories' tame general on Trident that he wanted an end to the disagreements in public. In turn, Corbyn has removed the two ministers who most egregiously flouted that request, and shifted the minister who made him issue it in the first place. Who here is being unreasonable exactly? Let's remember how brutal Ed Miliband was with Emily Thornberry over her "snobbery" tweet, the kind of over-the-top act of media management which most agree turns ordinary people off from politics. Few at the time stood up and said hang on, this is ridiculous and downright silly. They went along with it. Now, when a shadow minister who implied his own leader had to readjust his entire world-view in a question to the prime minister no less is sacked, we have others who resign in protest, calling it "vindictive".
Which poses the question, what exactly do these Jonathan Reynolds, these Stephen Doughtys, these Kevan Joneses and all the rest think they are achieving by resigning to inflict the maximum damage possible, by carrying on the briefings, by making accusations that can't be substantiated, by doing interviews with more than sympathetic hacks, delighted that the feuding continues? Do they really believe it will help Labour in the long term? Do they genuinely think it will lead to Corbyn being deposed sooner rather than later? Do they honestly imagine the Labour membership will realise their mistake and elect someone more to their liking should they succeed?
Let's put it this way. I joined Labour as a registered member and voted for Liz Kendall. I don't in my heart of hearts believe Corbyn can possibly win in 2020. I think his performance in general has been barely adequate so far, and both he and his wider team have been woeful at the times they needed to radiate strength. I thought I'd reached the point with the stupidity of the McDonnell Little Red Book stunt and the fact the party barely responded at all to the autumn statement/spending review where I couldn't really defend Corbyn and co any more. The histrionics over the Syria vote, the obsession with Stop the War, which as we've seen today is still going on, the contempt for those daring to lobby Labour MPs over said vote, and now the reaction to what is the most meagre of reshuffles imaginable, it makes me, far from a "Corbynista", want to go on giving him the benefit of the doubt. Not least when there is still no alternative and those on the opposing side are so petty, so intractable, so fatuous. If that's what I think, what do the "Corbynistas", what does the wider membership, what does the public? It's reached the point where some genuinely want their party to fail, imagining that by bringing it down, through the equivalent of mutually assured destruction if necessary, the party will be better off in the long run. It won't. Stop believing it will.
Labels: Jeremy Corbyn, Labour, media stupidity, politics, reshuffles
| Permalink
Tuesday, January 05, 2016
That reshuffle, and "low-level non-violent misogyny".
Are there a more benighted people in this country than the poor, suffering souls of the Birmingham Yardley constituency? Up until May they were lumbered with the self-promoting Lib Dem John Hemming, who repeatedly made use of parliamentary privilege for his own ends, much to the delight of the press when it came to naming Sir Fred Goodwin for taking out a super-injunction, and much to the distress of others involved in legal proceedings involving Vicky Haigh. Hemming made a habit of naming individuals who were meant to be protected as court proceedings were ongoing, including doing so on Mumsnet, where he was banned for doing so. Fortunately, his constituents decided he should also be banned from representing them.
Less fortunately, they decided that Labour's Jess Phillips should replace him. Phillips seems intent on following the Danczuk pathway to MP super-stardom, where the sufferer believes that constantly spouting what the media wants to hear will be enough to save them should their new friends eventually tire of the act. As the last few days have proved, going down the Danczuk route only guarantees that eventually the media will turn on you. They always will, they always do. One minute you're earning thousands of pounds writing articles for the Sun and Mail outlining how your party leader is an idiot and it'll be when, rather if, you'll be sacked, the next those same newspapers have found a teenager who you sexted, complete with an (alleged) sideline in selling soiled undergarments, natch, and what do you know, that same party leader has found his excuse to get rid of you. And it's the fault of everything except your being a priapic halfwit, obviously.
For now at least, Phillips gives great copy. She'll stab Corbyn in the front if she believes he's harming the party's electoral chances. Don't lecture her on how to vote on Syria, as even though she voted against, "people will die no matter what decision was made", responsibility when it's British pilots, planes and bombs involved apparently not making any difference to her thinking. And while the rest of us can move on, her "card is marked", as Phillips is never knowingly under-dramatic. Indeed, in keeping with that theme, she's now upped the criticism of her party leader for not giving a woman one of the four shadow "great offices of state" to being "low-level non-violent misogyny". No longer is Corbyn merely sexist for his choices, it's proof he hates women. At a low-level and non-violently, anyway.
It's worth keeping all this in mind when considering the quite believable stupidity of the coverage of the is it or isn't it reshuffle of the past 48 hours or so. From the beginning some hacks and MPs have labelled it a "revenge reshuffle", which may or may not be attributed to briefings from Corbyn's head of communications Seumas Milne, but which nonetheless has turned out to be nothing of the sort. First, what supposedly is Corbyn seeking revenge over? If he really was intent on clearing the decks of everyone critical of him, let alone those who voted the other way on Syria, then it would seemingly require the entire shadow cabinet to go, such has been the leaking and whispers to the press almost since he became leader about how useless and what a liability he is.
Second, his moves so far, regardless of whether it was the intention to begin with or not, have been to move those most serially disloyal and critical. Michael Dugher has been practically asking for it Danczuk-style for months. Back in September (!) he was saying how self-indulgent it was to carry on with the navel-gazing, and boy did he not take his own advice. Maria Eagle meanwhile likely sealed her fate when she practically agreed with General Sir Nicholas Houghton's comments on Trident on the Andrew Marr show. Disagreeing with the leader on nuclear weapons is one thing; all but backing up a general intervening in party politics to implicitly criticise that leader is another.
If this has nonetheless been an example in how not to carry out a reshuffle, it's also been a case study into how not to report one. First it was definite Hilary Benn was being sacked, then it wasn't, then it might be back on, now it isn't again, or maybe it is. Who knows? Who by the time it happens will care? If this was meant to be a revenge reshuffle, as they were so convinced, why it hasn't it turned out that way? Have they been played by Corbyn's team, or have they just believed everything they've been told or picked up as being gospel truth because they can't stop tweeting or updating the live blogs? As increasingly is the case, it's also become about them: we might have hyped this whole thing up to absurd levels, but why can't it now be over? What are we still waiting for? Then, finally, there's the we were right smugness, as displayed last night by Laura Kuenssberg: hyuk hyuk, so much for a new, honest politics, allowing for dissent and openness.
As Owen Jones points out, rightly for once, no other Labour leader has or would have tolerated the level of criticism, of near mutiny as Corbyn has the past 4 months. Michael Dugher's claims of merely responding to briefing against Benn, Eagle and others, of practising straight, honest politics is absurd, as though this has been a one-sided operation. Reading all the tributes paid to him for no longer being shadow culture secretary, you would have thought he'd died. Yes, we all know Jeremy was a inveterate rebel, and so can't expect the level of loyalty past leaders have, but he is perfectly entitled to want his shadow ministers for foreign affairs and defence to back him, if not always agree with him. As it is, he looks to have come to some sort of agreement with Benn, even if it might only delay the inevitable. No one can say that he hasn't tried to make allowances, regardless of the way it has and is being spun.
Equally, you can't pretend this is anything other than the worst possible way for Labour to start the new year. The media are determined for their part to make sure the infighting continues, not least when some are set on causing mischief for their own reasons, but complaining about it is all but pointless. Today ought to have been solely about how Cameron can't whip his cabinet into supporting him on Europe, a measure of weakness that says much about his position, the manoeuvring of those who want to take over from him, and the impact it could have on our staying in the EU, with all a Brexit would entail for our economic and national security, as the Tory messaging would have it. Both critics and supporters of Corbyn have repeatedly said it's long past time when the focus should be on the government's failings rather than Labour's own. Surely now we've reached the point where both must practice what they preach.
Less fortunately, they decided that Labour's Jess Phillips should replace him. Phillips seems intent on following the Danczuk pathway to MP super-stardom, where the sufferer believes that constantly spouting what the media wants to hear will be enough to save them should their new friends eventually tire of the act. As the last few days have proved, going down the Danczuk route only guarantees that eventually the media will turn on you. They always will, they always do. One minute you're earning thousands of pounds writing articles for the Sun and Mail outlining how your party leader is an idiot and it'll be when, rather if, you'll be sacked, the next those same newspapers have found a teenager who you sexted, complete with an (alleged) sideline in selling soiled undergarments, natch, and what do you know, that same party leader has found his excuse to get rid of you. And it's the fault of everything except your being a priapic halfwit, obviously.
For now at least, Phillips gives great copy. She'll stab Corbyn in the front if she believes he's harming the party's electoral chances. Don't lecture her on how to vote on Syria, as even though she voted against, "people will die no matter what decision was made", responsibility when it's British pilots, planes and bombs involved apparently not making any difference to her thinking. And while the rest of us can move on, her "card is marked", as Phillips is never knowingly under-dramatic. Indeed, in keeping with that theme, she's now upped the criticism of her party leader for not giving a woman one of the four shadow "great offices of state" to being "low-level non-violent misogyny". No longer is Corbyn merely sexist for his choices, it's proof he hates women. At a low-level and non-violently, anyway.
It's worth keeping all this in mind when considering the quite believable stupidity of the coverage of the is it or isn't it reshuffle of the past 48 hours or so. From the beginning some hacks and MPs have labelled it a "revenge reshuffle", which may or may not be attributed to briefings from Corbyn's head of communications Seumas Milne, but which nonetheless has turned out to be nothing of the sort. First, what supposedly is Corbyn seeking revenge over? If he really was intent on clearing the decks of everyone critical of him, let alone those who voted the other way on Syria, then it would seemingly require the entire shadow cabinet to go, such has been the leaking and whispers to the press almost since he became leader about how useless and what a liability he is.
Second, his moves so far, regardless of whether it was the intention to begin with or not, have been to move those most serially disloyal and critical. Michael Dugher has been practically asking for it Danczuk-style for months. Back in September (!) he was saying how self-indulgent it was to carry on with the navel-gazing, and boy did he not take his own advice. Maria Eagle meanwhile likely sealed her fate when she practically agreed with General Sir Nicholas Houghton's comments on Trident on the Andrew Marr show. Disagreeing with the leader on nuclear weapons is one thing; all but backing up a general intervening in party politics to implicitly criticise that leader is another.
If this has nonetheless been an example in how not to carry out a reshuffle, it's also been a case study into how not to report one. First it was definite Hilary Benn was being sacked, then it wasn't, then it might be back on, now it isn't again, or maybe it is. Who knows? Who by the time it happens will care? If this was meant to be a revenge reshuffle, as they were so convinced, why it hasn't it turned out that way? Have they been played by Corbyn's team, or have they just believed everything they've been told or picked up as being gospel truth because they can't stop tweeting or updating the live blogs? As increasingly is the case, it's also become about them: we might have hyped this whole thing up to absurd levels, but why can't it now be over? What are we still waiting for? Then, finally, there's the we were right smugness, as displayed last night by Laura Kuenssberg: hyuk hyuk, so much for a new, honest politics, allowing for dissent and openness.
As Owen Jones points out, rightly for once, no other Labour leader has or would have tolerated the level of criticism, of near mutiny as Corbyn has the past 4 months. Michael Dugher's claims of merely responding to briefing against Benn, Eagle and others, of practising straight, honest politics is absurd, as though this has been a one-sided operation. Reading all the tributes paid to him for no longer being shadow culture secretary, you would have thought he'd died. Yes, we all know Jeremy was a inveterate rebel, and so can't expect the level of loyalty past leaders have, but he is perfectly entitled to want his shadow ministers for foreign affairs and defence to back him, if not always agree with him. As it is, he looks to have come to some sort of agreement with Benn, even if it might only delay the inevitable. No one can say that he hasn't tried to make allowances, regardless of the way it has and is being spun.
Equally, you can't pretend this is anything other than the worst possible way for Labour to start the new year. The media are determined for their part to make sure the infighting continues, not least when some are set on causing mischief for their own reasons, but complaining about it is all but pointless. Today ought to have been solely about how Cameron can't whip his cabinet into supporting him on Europe, a measure of weakness that says much about his position, the manoeuvring of those who want to take over from him, and the impact it could have on our staying in the EU, with all a Brexit would entail for our economic and national security, as the Tory messaging would have it. Both critics and supporters of Corbyn have repeatedly said it's long past time when the focus should be on the government's failings rather than Labour's own. Surely now we've reached the point where both must practice what they preach.
Labels: Jeremy Corbyn, Jess Phillips, Labour, media stupidity, politics, reshuffles, Simon Danczuk
| Permalink
Monday, January 04, 2016
Meet Kyle W. Orton, for he is the future.
How many 24-year-olds get to write a comment piece for the New York Times? Answer: not many, not even around the dog days of Christmas time. And how does a 24-year-old who aspires towards writing for the New York Times go about achieving that goal? Answer: by saying the right things to the right people at the right time.
Meet Kyle W. Orton, for it is he. Orton you might recall was one of two analysts getting big ups for telling us exactly whom those 70,000 moderates in Syria David Cameron mentioned were, despite err, the government itself saying it couldn't for reasons of national security. Not many will make the leap from say, Left Foot Forward to the NYT, Orton's former main stomping ground away from his own blog. At least, not unless you have the chutzpah to break out a really big lie, an untruth so humongous it dwarfs everything else you're ever likely to write.
Even better is if your lie overturns an established truth. The vast majority of people think the Iraq war was a disaster. They don't however agree on an over-arching reason as to why it was a disaster. Some think it was a disaster because of the Iraqi loss of life. Some think it was a disaster because there were no weapons of mass destruction found. Some think it was a disaster because it has made subsequent interventions in the Middle East more difficult to sell to the public. Some think it was a disaster because we invaded and *didn't* take the oil. Some think it was a disaster because one of its unintended consequences was the creation of the predecessor groups to Islamic State.
What then if you make the case that, rather than the Iraq war in part being to blame for the desperate situation in the wider region, you instead turn history on its head and say no, we're not responsible, Iraq's leader was at the time and still is now? Isn't that exactly what a whole class of politicos who always have great problems taking responsibility for their actions and those of their immediate predecessors want to hear? Isn't that exactly the message a decent proportion of the public themselves want to hear, that rather than it being somewhat their fault, or their country's fault, it's in fact always been the dastardly workings of a leader long since dead, who was so evil that even in the grave his wicked scheming has come to fruition?
Yes, Orton's big lie is that Saddam Hussein put in place everything Islamic State needed to eventually gain power. Hussein according to Orton created an Islamist state; his Faith Campaign led to a "Baathi-Salafism". Sure, the occupation made mistakes, but the point remains: Islamic State was not created by removing the Ba'ath; Islamic State is the aftermath of the Ba'ath.
It's a lie so huge it temporarily blindsides you. Forget the claims before the war that Saddam was in league with al-Qaida, that he had links to 9/11, and all the rest of it. That was bullshit, but the truth, the real truth is he was using Salafism to maintain power. It all makes sense. It all makes perfect sense. How did no one prior to Orton see this before?
Bit of a shame then that Salafism only bothers Orton when it comes to the Ba'ath's "Salafism", or the IS brand of Salafism. Along with most of the other high profile Syria analysts and aligned commenters, Orton cried into his Christmas dinner over the killing of Zahran Alloush, leader of Jaysh al-Islam, most likely in an Russian airstrike. This is the purest example of Russia's perfidy, went the wail. Russia, allied with Assad, is killing the leaders of the groups needed to reach a deal with the Syrian government! Couldn't it be clearer what they're up to?
That Alloush was a Salafist didn't matter. That Alloush had repeatedly denounced the Shia, Alawites, had called for Damascus to be cleansed, repeatedly allied with the al-Nusra Front (indeed, was apparently killed at a meeting between various rebel groups, including al-Nusra), wanted an Islamic state, just not an Islamic State, was explainable as rhetorical exuberance or understandable in such an atmosphere of war. After having met with American officials, Anne Barnard in the NYT explains, Alloush had "softened his tone". Hassan Hassan (so good they named him twice) writes it would be a mistake "to equate [Alloush's group] with extremist organisations, especially since such statements by no means reflect the group’s intentions or actions." Why, Alloush even reassured a Christian dissident of how the Alawites were victims of Assad. The head of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, went so far as say the killing of Alloush was part of the effort to reduce Syria to a false choice between Assad and IS.
Don't get confused. Orton doesn't think Alloush was a moderate, or at least, "never said" that he was. Get it in your head, there's huge differences between Jihadi-Salafism, Ba'athi-Salafism and just plain old Salafism. Besides, Alloush was supremely anti-Islamic State, and that's the sort of thing that matters most. His differences with IS were with mainly over turf rather than ideology, but that sort of thing is what we have to work with in Syria. Don't allow it to be to a binary choice, as Roth said: it's not Assad, or IS. It's far more complex. It's Assad, IS, or rather Ba'athi-Salafist or just plain old Salafist. Those Salafists may be moderates, they may not be moderates. They're better than the alternatives, though, right? How can you not trust a 24-year-old with the wherewithal to get in the NYT, to make discoveries the rest of us can only dream of? Orton's going to go far, that's for sure.
Meet Kyle W. Orton, for it is he. Orton you might recall was one of two analysts getting big ups for telling us exactly whom those 70,000 moderates in Syria David Cameron mentioned were, despite err, the government itself saying it couldn't for reasons of national security. Not many will make the leap from say, Left Foot Forward to the NYT, Orton's former main stomping ground away from his own blog. At least, not unless you have the chutzpah to break out a really big lie, an untruth so humongous it dwarfs everything else you're ever likely to write.
Even better is if your lie overturns an established truth. The vast majority of people think the Iraq war was a disaster. They don't however agree on an over-arching reason as to why it was a disaster. Some think it was a disaster because of the Iraqi loss of life. Some think it was a disaster because there were no weapons of mass destruction found. Some think it was a disaster because it has made subsequent interventions in the Middle East more difficult to sell to the public. Some think it was a disaster because we invaded and *didn't* take the oil. Some think it was a disaster because one of its unintended consequences was the creation of the predecessor groups to Islamic State.
What then if you make the case that, rather than the Iraq war in part being to blame for the desperate situation in the wider region, you instead turn history on its head and say no, we're not responsible, Iraq's leader was at the time and still is now? Isn't that exactly what a whole class of politicos who always have great problems taking responsibility for their actions and those of their immediate predecessors want to hear? Isn't that exactly the message a decent proportion of the public themselves want to hear, that rather than it being somewhat their fault, or their country's fault, it's in fact always been the dastardly workings of a leader long since dead, who was so evil that even in the grave his wicked scheming has come to fruition?
Yes, Orton's big lie is that Saddam Hussein put in place everything Islamic State needed to eventually gain power. Hussein according to Orton created an Islamist state; his Faith Campaign led to a "Baathi-Salafism". Sure, the occupation made mistakes, but the point remains: Islamic State was not created by removing the Ba'ath; Islamic State is the aftermath of the Ba'ath.
It's a lie so huge it temporarily blindsides you. Forget the claims before the war that Saddam was in league with al-Qaida, that he had links to 9/11, and all the rest of it. That was bullshit, but the truth, the real truth is he was using Salafism to maintain power. It all makes sense. It all makes perfect sense. How did no one prior to Orton see this before?
Bit of a shame then that Salafism only bothers Orton when it comes to the Ba'ath's "Salafism", or the IS brand of Salafism. Along with most of the other high profile Syria analysts and aligned commenters, Orton cried into his Christmas dinner over the killing of Zahran Alloush, leader of Jaysh al-Islam, most likely in an Russian airstrike. This is the purest example of Russia's perfidy, went the wail. Russia, allied with Assad, is killing the leaders of the groups needed to reach a deal with the Syrian government! Couldn't it be clearer what they're up to?
That Alloush was a Salafist didn't matter. That Alloush had repeatedly denounced the Shia, Alawites, had called for Damascus to be cleansed, repeatedly allied with the al-Nusra Front (indeed, was apparently killed at a meeting between various rebel groups, including al-Nusra), wanted an Islamic state, just not an Islamic State, was explainable as rhetorical exuberance or understandable in such an atmosphere of war. After having met with American officials, Anne Barnard in the NYT explains, Alloush had "softened his tone". Hassan Hassan (so good they named him twice) writes it would be a mistake "to equate [Alloush's group] with extremist organisations, especially since such statements by no means reflect the group’s intentions or actions." Why, Alloush even reassured a Christian dissident of how the Alawites were victims of Assad. The head of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, went so far as say the killing of Alloush was part of the effort to reduce Syria to a false choice between Assad and IS.
Don't get confused. Orton doesn't think Alloush was a moderate, or at least, "never said" that he was. Get it in your head, there's huge differences between Jihadi-Salafism, Ba'athi-Salafism and just plain old Salafism. Besides, Alloush was supremely anti-Islamic State, and that's the sort of thing that matters most. His differences with IS were with mainly over turf rather than ideology, but that sort of thing is what we have to work with in Syria. Don't allow it to be to a binary choice, as Roth said: it's not Assad, or IS. It's far more complex. It's Assad, IS, or rather Ba'athi-Salafist or just plain old Salafist. Those Salafists may be moderates, they may not be moderates. They're better than the alternatives, though, right? How can you not trust a 24-year-old with the wherewithal to get in the NYT, to make discoveries the rest of us can only dream of? Orton's going to go far, that's for sure.
Labels: 70000 moderates, foreign policy, Islamic State, Kyle Orton, liberal interventionism, politics, Syria, US foreign policy
| Permalink
Please let it be Rebel Ringo.
Yes, it's the game currently being played in newspaper offices across the country, it's the what do we call the apparent replacement for Jihadi John jamboree! Now you too can join in, so long as you have no qualms whatsoever with coming up with an alliterative title for a masked killer who is merely a propaganda tool and has no wider significance within Islamic State whatsoever!
Will his moniker be:
Rebel Ringo?
Genocidal George?
Plundering Paul?
Fundie Fred?
Militant Maurice?
Terrorist Terrence?
Attacker Arnold?
Salafist Samuel?
Evil Ernie?
Killer Karl?
Islamist Ian?
Balaclava Bill?
Decapitating Donald?
Headlopping Harold?
Neckcutting Nicholas?
The White Widower?
Continuity Corbyn?
Jihadi John (again)?
Hanoi Jane?
Benedict Arnold?
(That's enough silly names. Ed.)
Will his moniker be:
Rebel Ringo?
Genocidal George?
Plundering Paul?
Fundie Fred?
Militant Maurice?
Terrorist Terrence?
Attacker Arnold?
Salafist Samuel?
Evil Ernie?
Killer Karl?
Islamist Ian?
Balaclava Bill?
Decapitating Donald?
Headlopping Harold?
Neckcutting Nicholas?
The White Widower?
Continuity Corbyn?
Jihadi John (again)?
Hanoi Jane?
Benedict Arnold?
(That's enough silly names. Ed.)
Labels: Islamic State, mockery, Mohammed Emwazi, politics, stupidity
| Permalink
Saturday, January 02, 2016
A shorter Towards a Realignment of the Left.
Me and my two other mates think other people on the Left are at best idiots, and at worst, active enablers of genocidal Stalinist Islamofascist scum. We accept the responsibility to protect, believe in war all the time, all of the time, so long as it's not me or my mates having to do the fighting, and we read such seminal essays as Why Jeremy Corbyn is Worse Than Hitler by Dan Hodges.
However.
Some of us *also* think all the other stuff the Left thinks.
Moreover.
Some of us think both of these things at the same time. Inspired by democratic socialist thinkers such as that dead bloke what wrote a blog, Hal David, Larry David and Groucho Marx, we are committed to new ways of thinking about critical theory and solidarity.
We intend to establish a 'little magazine', entitled Pompous Leftists With High Opinions of Themselves for War, an open online journal of ideas, mainly how right we are about everything ever, but where others of like mind can also contribute.
Without wanting to seem grandiose, knowing that we stand in the rubble of past Historic Projects of the Left, seeing our tradition stretching as far back as when The Prized Three plotted insurrection against Ethelred the Unready, only for Peter Turnip to turn on his two comrades and betray them to the Paganists, our aim is to reimagine everything - except our devotion to military action planned and executed by people who despise everything we stand for.
If you find yourself in agreement with this statement, for goodness sake keep it to yourself.
James Bloodworth Martyn Hudson Alan Johnson
However.
Some of us *also* think all the other stuff the Left thinks.
Moreover.
Some of us think both of these things at the same time. Inspired by democratic socialist thinkers such as that dead bloke what wrote a blog, Hal David, Larry David and Groucho Marx, we are committed to new ways of thinking about critical theory and solidarity.
We intend to establish a 'little magazine', entitled Pompous Leftists With High Opinions of Themselves for War, an open online journal of ideas, mainly how right we are about everything ever, but where others of like mind can also contribute.
Without wanting to seem grandiose, knowing that we stand in the rubble of past Historic Projects of the Left, seeing our tradition stretching as far back as when The Prized Three plotted insurrection against Ethelred the Unready, only for Peter Turnip to turn on his two comrades and betray them to the Paganists, our aim is to reimagine everything - except our devotion to military action planned and executed by people who despise everything we stand for.
If you find yourself in agreement with this statement, for goodness sake keep it to yourself.
James Bloodworth Martyn Hudson Alan Johnson
| Permalink
About
- This is septicisle
Links
- Liberal Conspiracy
- Bloggerheads
- The Ministry of Truth
- Stumbling and Mumbling
- Though Cowards Flinch
- Sim-O's Random Thoughts
- Heresy Corner
- Wandering Near Sawtry
- John B
- Blood and Treasure
- Craig Murray
- D-Notice
- Between the Hammer and the Anvil
- Lenin's Tomb
- Comment is Free
- Stop the BNP
- Post Hegemony
- George Monbiot
- Melon Farmers
- Jews Sans Frontieres
- Nosemonkey
- Retired Rambler
- Socialist Unity
- Shiraz Socialist
- Through the Scary Door
- Mad Ranter
- Hopi Sen
- Transform
- Love and Garbage
- Tory Troll
- The Curmudgeon
- Greenman's Occasional Organ
- Freemania
- openDemocracy - OurKingdom
- Yorkshire Ranter
- Third Estate
- Harpymarx
- Bad Science
- Left Outside
- Labour Uncut
- Left Foot Forward
- Anorak
- Wings Over Scotland
- Zelo Street
- Flip Chart Fairy Tales
- The Void
- Shuggy
- All That is Solid
- Quote of the millennium.
- Submission.
- A grossly offensive pastor and a menacing, huggabl...
- Do they have an aim other than MAD?
- That reshuffle, and "low-level non-violent misogyn...
- Meet Kyle W. Orton, for he is the future.
- Please let it be Rebel Ringo.
- A shorter Towards a Realignment of the Left.
- New old proverbs.
- The 15 best albums of 2015.
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- March 2010
- April 2010
- May 2010
- June 2010
- July 2010
- August 2010
- September 2010
- October 2010
- November 2010
- December 2010
- January 2011
- February 2011
- March 2011
- April 2011
- May 2011
- June 2011
- July 2011
- August 2011
- September 2011
- October 2011
- November 2011
- December 2011
- January 2012
- February 2012
- March 2012
- April 2012
- May 2012
- June 2012
- July 2012
- August 2012
- September 2012
- October 2012
- November 2012
- December 2012
- January 2013
- February 2013
- March 2013
- April 2013
- May 2013
- June 2013
- July 2013
- August 2013
- September 2013
- October 2013
- November 2013
- December 2013
- January 2014
- February 2014
- March 2014
- April 2014
- May 2014
- June 2014
- July 2014
- August 2014
- September 2014
- October 2014
- November 2014
- December 2014
- January 2015
- February 2015
- March 2015
- April 2015
- May 2015
- June 2015
- July 2015
- August 2015
- September 2015
- October 2015
- November 2015
- December 2015
- January 2016
