Nigel Farage - A Liar And A Bigot

Once again, former UKIP Oberscheissenführer Nigel “Thirsty” Farage has been granted the oxygen of publicity by the BBC, to the initial dismay of many who wonder exactly what he has to do to cause the Corporation to look elsewhere for informed punditry - well, punditry better informed than Farage is ever going to be. This dismay was then tempered when Sunday Politics host Andrew Neil caught Farage with his trousers alight.

Squeaky burning trousered bigot finger up the bum time

Mr Thirsty, to no surprise at all, declared his unswerving support for Combover Crybaby Donald Trump and his executive order banning those born in a number of majority Muslim countries from entering the USA. “Well I do [agree], because I think if you just look at what is happening in France and Germany - if you look at Mrs Merkel’s policy on this, which was to allow anybody virtually from anywhere - look where it’s led to” he told.

And what, pray, has it led to? If Farage is alluding to the Berlin truck attack before Christmas, the perpetrator had been refused asylum and would have been deported - had the authorities in Tunisia not delayed sending the paperwork. But he wasn’t finished: “Now there are seven countries on that list, he is entitled to do this, he was voted in on this”.

Very good Nige: (a) in the 40 years from 1975 to 2015, no citizen of those seven countries has been responsible for the death of a US citizen on US soil, (b) there was no ban on countries like Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and the UAE - whose subjects were responsible for rather a lot of US deaths on US soil, and (c) the countries not included in the ban are also those where Trump does business, while (d) he does not have any business interests in the seven countries on the banned list.

That was not all: Neil tripped Farage up when he asked exactly how many killings had been perpetuated by refugees on US soil. The answer was Zero. Small wonder Mr Thirsty could not recall any such incident, as there was no incident to recall. This part of the interview was missed out of the Mail’s report, and the Sun merely mentions “The MEP conceded American citizens radicalised at home are responsible for the recent terror attacks in the US rather than refugees”, almost in passing at the end of its piece.

It was left to the Mirror to point out that Farage had seriously misled the BBC’s audience, called out for his deceit, and then tried to explain it away by blustering “But when you’ve got a problem already, why on Earth would you wish to add to it?” Refugees aren’t responsible for killing US citizens on US soil. But in Farage world, they might be.

The Mirror’s report went on “Andrew Neil noted the US already has one of the toughest immigration checks in the world - especially for refugees … Refugees must be recommended to the US via a United Nations agency, and must undergo biometric checks and screening from four federal agencies”. The news that many who have earned the right to reside in the USA now cannot get back into the country has evaded Farage.

This is a politician who has manoeuvred himself into a position where he never has to take responsibility for his rabble rousing. A rank hypocrite, he rails against an elite that he is part of, many of his followers blind to the obvious. And to him it is all a great game. Perhaps the time has finally come for Nigel Farage and his appetite for self-publicity to be shown the door for the very last time. And don’t forget to lock it behind him.

Kate Hoey - You’re A Clown

Allegedly Labour MP Kate Hoey, who represents the unfortunate residents in the London constituency of Vauxhall, has previously passed before my inspection when she allowed her name to be placed on the by-line of a Sun article making a number of highly creative claims about Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, part of that paper’s attempts to have the press regulation status quo preserved.

Kate Hoey

But now Ms Hoey is back in the news, if only in social media circles, for all the wrong reasons, after an ill-advised excursion on to Twitter, the true purpose of which will remain known only to Herself. The subject, as so often with those who have campaigned so ardently for Britain to leave the EU, is that of refugees, and in particular those millions who have fled the conflict in Syria, leaving homes and livelihoods behind.

As observers of the run-up to the EU referendum will know only too well, the Vote Leave campaign put out a leaflet - delivered to all households in the country - telling how Turkey, with its overwhelmingly Muslim population, was going to join the EU, and helpfully putting both Syria and Iraq on their map, just so that wavering voters had it in their mind that all those warring Syrians and Iraqis were on their way here too.

Now Ms Hoey takes to Twitter to innocently ask “Must find out exactly how many Syrian refugees have been taken in by other Muslim countries particularly in the Arab world”. Why she should have to even ask the question when the answer can be found by use of the mystical art known as “Five Minutes’ Googling”, and an article with appropriate citations is available on Wikipedia, is something that can only be guessed at.

Had Ms Hoey checked the Wiki article, she would have seen that Turkey (for all its faults in the field of human rights) has taken more than 2.7 million Syrian refugees, Lebanon an estimated 1.5 million, Jordan 1.3 million, Saudi Arabia an estimated 500,000, the UAE 242,000, Kuwait 155,000, and Egypt anywhere between 120,000 and 500,000. That makes around SEVEN MILLION refugees. And how many has Britain taken?

The United Kingdom has resettled just over 5,000. That compares with around 600,000 in Germany, 110,000 in Sweden, 39,000 in Austria, 32,000 in the Netherlands, 19,000 in Denmark, 17,000 in Belgium, 14,000 in Norway, 13,000 in Switzerland, and 12,000 in France. All of which adds up to a pretty shameful record for a country that claims to be welcoming, liberal, and tolerant. Hello Kate Hoey.

Ms Hoey has experienced considerable and severe adverse comment as a result of her Twitter intervention. Some have accused her merely of laziness; others have suggested the implication of her question was to infer - wrongly - that the Arab world was not playing its part in resettling refugees. There have been accusations of dog-whistling on her part.

The reality is most likely a combination of all three, and the conclusion is inescapable - Kate Hoey should be ashamed of herself. But not half as ashamed as many thousands of Labour Party member are of her being one of their MPs.

Natalie Rowe’s Police Raid

The Sunday Mirror has today run a story shining a light on misbehaviour by the officers of the Metropolitan Police. “Probe into police raid which saw images of ex-madam pictured with George Osborne snatched from her home” tells the headline on Alan Selby’s article, going on to explain “Officers from the Metropolitan Police searched the flat of ex-escort agency owner Natalie Rowe, 53, last January - and now she's made an official complaint”.

Natalie Rowe

The detail merely hints at what the raid was most likely about: “In an official complaint she alleges they took mobile phones, sunglasses and two pictures of the former Chancellor [my emphasis] … It was the second time her flat in South West London had been turned upside down in two-and-a-half years … In the first, in October, 2013, the Drug Squad arrived at 6.30am”. Yes folks, it was one of THOSE raids.

There is more: “It was shortly before Miss Rowe planned to publish a tell-all book titled Chief Whip... Memoirs Of A Dominatrix. It revealed her relationship with Tory Mr Osborne, currently facing flak over a part-time role with asset management group BlackRock … A 1994 photograph had revealed the pair side by side at a party – while Miss Rowe said he was a regular guest at wild soirees in the early 1990s”.

So would all you Zelo Street regulars like the rest of the story? Dead right you would.

Ms Rowe’s story was originally going to be published on this blog, and on Byline Media - until the Sunday Mirror suddenly decided they found it useful.

Why? They admitted that former chancellor George Osborne is “currently facing flak over a part-time role with asset management group BlackRock”. Osborne’s new job got him a front page carpeting from the Daily Mail last week. Only after that, it seems, did the Sunday Mirror decide they would run the story of the Police raid.

One of the investigating officers is alleged to have lied about the raid, particularly over the number of officers involved. As Ms Rowe has pointed out to the Sunday Mirror, it was a “van full of Police”. The Met have tried to push the line that no more than three or four of its officers was involved.

The Met claimed to Ms Rowe that no female officer was involved in the raid. However, and here we encounter a horribly embarrassing however, it was a female officer that searched Ms Rowe’s bedroom. How do we know this? Ah well.

George Osborne DOES NOT WANT YOU TO SEE THIS PHOTO ((c) Natalie Rowe)

Part of the conversation between the investigating officer and Ms Rowe was recorded. And you wondered why the IPCC ordered the Met to reopen their inquiry?

Not only that, the raid was captured on video. Exactly what is captured by that video is one of those places we won’t be going for now, except to say that this, too, is proving less than convenient for the Met’s finest. And there is one more item.

When the Sunday Mirror says “she received an out-of-court ­settlement over another incident in which she says her son was unlawfully arrested”, they did not give their readers the full story. So here it is.

Two officers were charged with misconduct over the earlier raid - for allegedly improperly targeting Ms Rowe’s son. The whole thing was settled with her out of court.

And on top of that, the cops, it seemed, knew what they were looking for - not drugs, but the two photos of the former chancellor. There is no good reason for their not to be returned to Ms Rowe - other than that they could cause Osborne potentially serious embarrassment.

One of the photos has not been published before. Ms Rowe had been intending to post it imminently when her flat was raided.

The Police normally carry out raids early doors. This raid happened at around 2000 hours - in the evening.

Perhaps the Sunday Mirror had to cut back on the details, or they were somehow edited out. But as you can see, there is plenty of interest that they did not publish - and that gives a fuller picture, a better idea of why the IPCC should demand that the Met reopen their inquiry. Hopefully they will explain themselves to Ms Rowe more honestly this time.

And perhaps the photos will be returned. But don’t expect any explanation of why they were taken in the first place.

Top Six - January 29

So what’s hot, and what’s not, in the past week’s blogging? Here are the six most popular posts on Zelo Street for the past seven days, counting down in reverse order, because, well, I have domestic clear-up to do later. So there.

6 Rod Liddle - Racist Hypocrite The Sun’s resident Miserable Git complained about lack of diversity - but in the next breath attacked minorities, and then called for equality laws to be scrapped.

5 Popbitch PWNS Piers Morgan The revelation that Sleb guests were avoiding Good Morning Britain on the days Morgan occupied the sofa destroyed the excuses being peddled by his media pals.

4 Private Eye And Daniel Morgan Why did the magazine refuse to publish a letter which disproved their take on the murder and its many subsequent investigations?

3 Sarah Vine Gina Miller Hypocrisy Ms Vine called “Pushy posh Mum”, “Self-publicist”, and “Out of touch” on the Article 50 campaigner - terms which more accurately describe her.

2 Piers Morgan - Bang Out Of Order Calling Ewan McGregor a “paedo lover” merely because the actor declined to share the Good Morning Britain sofa with him was totally unnecessary - and in any case, Morgan has no room to talk.

1 UKIP Boosting Stoke Poll BUSTED The poll giving “Bad Bootle Meff” Paul Nuttall a ten point lead in the by-election campaign was in fact a Facebook poll with a sample size of only 179. So the “story” was just more Fake News.

And that’s the end of another blogtastic week, blog pickers. Not ‘arf!

Brexit - Canary Abandons Corbyn

Time was when left-leaning website The Canary was four square behind Jeremy Corbyn. Whatever the rest of the media said about the Labour leader - and the adverse comment has of late spread to the Guardian and Independent, as well as the usual right-wing suspects - The Canary would reassure Team Corbyn that whatever they did was The Right Thing. That came to a sudden and unexpected halt yesterday.

Under the by-line of Kerry-Anne Mendoza - yes, it’s “The Mendoza Woman” again - readers were given the bad news: “Jeremy Corbyn’s decision to support the government on Article 50 is a colossal mistake”, going on to tell “Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will order his MPs to back the government when parliament votes on triggering Article 50, which begins the process of Britain leaving the EU. In doing so without firm guarantees against a hard Tory Brexit, Corbyn has made a colossal mistake. And it may well sink him”.

Some statements of the all too obvious follow, such as “the left-wing Brexit of greater democracy and protection from radical neoliberal austerity is never going to happen under this current government. The Brexit of Theresa May is about quite the opposite”. Jezza was on a hiding to nothing however he responded on Article 50. But.

Ms Mendoza puts it directly: “Corbyn’s team argues that it’s acting to support the pro-Brexit democratic mandate expressed by the people of Britain, but that it stands opposed to a hard Tory Brexit … But the decision to force Labour MPs to back the government on the vote, before assurances have been made on those amendments, removes the bargaining power of Labour and the other opposition parties”. And there is more.

“Opposition to a Tory Brexit is shared by virtually the entire fleet of opposition parties - from the SNP to the Greens, and a majority of the Labour party … Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are poised to hold a second independence referendum to keep Scotland in the EU … the Greens and the Lib Dems are agitating against the decision vociferously. With this one decision, Corbyn has separated himself from all potential left-of-centre allies”.

How far detached Jezza and his inner circle have become has come clear as developments show: many grassroots Labour members want Corbyn to oppose the triggering of Article 50. Heidi Alexander has put down a Commons motion to throw the Tories’ Article 50 Bill out. Tulip Siddiq (just resigned from the opposition front bench), Owen Smith, Stella Creasy and Ben Bradshaw are among those backing her.

A substantial majority of Labour voters backed the Remain side in the referendum. Who speaks for them if the leadership of their chosen party backs the Government? Tim Farron? There is, as Ms Alexander says, considerable disquiet at the way Theresa May is marching the country towards the cliff edge. People are crying out for leadership.

Leadership is unqualified commitment to the major anxiety of the people. Jeremy Corbyn knows that. He also knows the source of that anxiety. So he knows what he needs to do. And if he fails to lead, others will lead instead. That is why The Canary had little alternative but to call him out on his Article 50 stance - it should be the Tories on the defensive.

Jeremy Corbyn is not yet finished. But unless he shows leadership, he may soon be.

Katie Hopkins IS An Apology

Yesterday’s meeting of our not at all unelected Prime Minister with Combover Crybaby Donald Trump was just as toe-curlingly embarrassing as could have been imagined: Trump insisted on taking Theresa May by the hand, the PM clearly ill at ease in the company of an ocean-going creep, an appallingly vain, ignorant and intolerant being, a master of sexual molestation. But for the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre and his obedient hackery at the Daily Mail, it had all gone wonderfully.

Viewers may want to look away now

All, that is, except for BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg, who, no longer distracted by domestic politics, took her opportunity to question The Donald in both hands and did her job - holding him to account. No-one should have had a problem with that. Trump did: Ms Kuenssberg was insufficiently idolatrous, she had questioned the wisdom of The Donald, and to make it worse, she was a mere woman. Trump was not best pleased.

But for the Mail, this was manna from heaven: an ideal opportunity to put the boot in on the hated BBC. “Challenged about his controversial views on torture, Russia, stopping Muslims entering the US and punishment for torture by Laura Kuenssberg, Mr Trump joked to Mrs May: 'This was your choice of a question? There goes that relationship!’ … Ms Kuenssberg's loaded question was met with a mixed response by viewers, with some calling it ‘offensive’" told the Mail Online report. And there was more.

The baton was then picked up by pro-am motormouth Katie Hopkins, who proclaimed “Even Laura, the little killjoy from the BBC, couldn't ruin Donald and Theresa's DC love-in. Now I can't wait for the return visit - let the hating commence!” In the looking-glass world of the far right, anyone who does not share their opinions is a “hater”.

So far, so intellectually deficient, but it soon got worse: “the BBC's political correspondent, Laura Kuenssberg WAS there to ask a question having apparently been nominated by the PM's press team to ask the first question. What were they thinking … Squealing like a true liberal she did her best to rip apart all Theresa May's good work thus far”. Do go on.

“Throwing in pretty much every insult anyone had ever levelled at the Donald, she said Trump had 'alarming beliefs' and many people in Britain were worried about his role as leader of America and the Free World; she asked how he could reassure the people of Britain”. There were, unlike a Katie Hopkins column, no insults.

Laura Kuenssberg

You think I jest? Here it comes: “my toes curled in shame that she was the voice of Britain on the world stage … The only consolation was that she did not have an English accent. Actually, Laura, you little Scottish twerp, many of us are delighted about this presidency and need no reassurance at all. In fact, I would suggest we will need more than reassurance to pay our licence fee next year. At least North Korea gets its propaganda for free”. Anyone she doesn’t like is “little”. She’s borrowed Piers Morgan’s nervous tic.

But she wasn’t finished: “Luckily Donald made a gentlemanly joke of out of it”. First name terms already! “I can only hope Trump refuses the BBC any press passes or Security Clearance for his visit here. And bans Kuenssberg from his presence”. Won’t be down to him. It’s us he’s visiting. And it won’t be down to motormouth Katie, either.

Not that she’s about to listen to that: Ms Hopkins is clearly away with the fairies - hence telling her readers that Trump is “To accept a state visit to meet the Queen and to keep speaking up for the forgotten, hardworking people who want the very best for the country”.

The only people The Donald will speak up for are the rich and greedy, plus of course Himself Personally Now. The kinds of people that Katie Hopkins aspires to be, but never will. That, though, does not stop her from grovelling in any way she can find - like pretending to speak for Britain as she Tweets “On behalf of a place called the 'rest of the UK'...I apologise for @bbclaurak”. As if anyone who matters cares what she thinks.

Katie Hopkins IS an apology. An apology for a pundit, an apology for a journalist, an apology for a political analyst, an apology for someone able to engage brain before mouth, and above all, an apology for a human being. But she has performed one useful function: to confirm that on this occasion, Laura Kuenssberg was right.

Paul Nuttall - Waterboarding Volunteer

A subject that is back in the news, if only because Combover Crybaby Donald Trump claims to favour its reintroduction, is that of what are euphemistically called “Enhanced interrogation techniques”, or as most other people call them, torture. The form of torture that the new incumbent of the White House particularly favours is waterboarding. And so his admirers in the UK would like to see it reintroduced, too.

Ullo Don, gorra new waterboard?

Prominent among those admirers is UKIP’s leader, comedy politician Pauil Nuttall, who has taken time off from gracing the portals of the Athenaeum Club in London’s fashionable Pall Mall to pretend he is a man of the people in order to try and con his way to victory in the Stoke on Trent Central by-election. The “Bad Bootle Meff” wants to follow the example of his predecessor Nigel “Thirsty” Farage, and suck up to The Donald.

So when he was quizzed about waterboarding while pretending to be on the campaign trail yesterday, he decided that torture was fine. As Politics Home has told, “Mr Nuttall, who is standing as his party’s candidate in the Stoke Central by-election, told Sky News that he would ‘probably be OK’ with using the method in a bid to foil terror plots in Britain … He said: ‘I think sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, and I think these people are incarcerated because they are bad people … And they want to do us harm’”.

Nuttall went on “If someone admits that a terrorist attack is going to happen and saves the lives of innocent individuals then I think maybe it's a price worth paying … if a British government was elected and said it was required to ensure it saved innocent people's lives then sometimes you have to go that extra mile”.

There is only one problem with this approach - it has been banned in the UK, our armed forces and intelligence agencies are prohibited from indulging in the practice, and accepting intelligence that has been gained that way is illegal. Theresa May, Boris Johnson and David Davis have all been quizzed on the subject this week, and all have passed severely adverse comment on the idea that it might be revived.

But Nuttall is happy with the use of waterboarding, and equally happy to have others subjected to it. So I’m sure he’ll be happy to follow the example of the late Christopher Hitchens and experience the technique himself. After all, if he’s going to speak with any authority about how he’d be happy to inflict it on others, it’s the least he could do.

Back in 2008, Hitchens volunteered to be waterboarded. The title of his Vanity Fair article describing the experience tells you all you need to know about it: “Believe Me, It’s Torture”. Waterboarding is not merely a term for glib politicians to throw around like so much confetti: it is the simulation of drowning. To be subjected to such a technique could, and often does, prove fatal. It is utterly inhumane. It almost guarantees answers to questions: the only problem is that they are unlikely to be of any use.

But Paul Nuttall is OK with inflicting simulated drowning on others. So let’s see him follow in Christopher Hitchens’ footsteps. OK by you, Paul? No, thought not.

Tinker Tailor Traitor Trump

The concept of moles within a country’s intelligence services is well-known: it was the subject of John le Carré’s seminal Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Indeed, the technique of source-betrayal-by-stalling-for-time used by the mole within MI6 was the same ploy used on at least one occasion by Kim Philby. But the idea of it being the USA having its intelligence capability thus compromised is a new one.

But that is the inescapable conclusion from the latest insight out of Talking Points Memo, which tells “a top Russian spy who is the number two person in the FSB department which allegedly oversaw the US election hacking operation had been arrested and charged with treason … Well, now we have reports that Sergei Mikhailov is suspected of being a US asset at the heart of Russian intelligence”. We have a mole, Jim.

TPM added this from the Moscow Times: “According to the independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta, the FSB believes Sergei Mikhailov tipped off U.S. officials to information about Vladimir Fomenko and his server rental company ‘King Servers,’ which the American cybersecurity company ThreatConnect identified last September as ‘an information nexus’ that was used by hackers suspected of working for Russian state security in cyberattacks”.

And then comes the thought that it may be rather more serious than “We have a mole, Jim”: “if Mikhailov was a US asset, how was he compromised? Did the information put out by US intelligence somehow lead to his exposure? Without putting too fine a point on it, a number of close advisors to President Trump are being scrutinized for ties to Russia. Some of them participated in the intelligence briefings the President receives”.

We have a mole. Bad sadly we do not have George Smiley

Before anyone claims that TPM has added two and two and got an answer rather larger than four, let’s stop and think for a moment. If Mikhailov had been a US mole working within the FSB (the successor organisation to the KGB), he would not just have appeared there overnight. Moles, by their very nature, burrow themselves deep into enemy security networks. The process takes years, rather than months and days.

If Mikhailov was indeed a US mole, he would have been there for years. And for almost all of that time, he remained free of compromise, not betrayed by anyone. Then along comes the Combover Crybaby Donald Trump and his entourage, already rumoured to be potentially compromised by its Russian connections. And within a matter of weeks, Mikhailov is unmasked, undone, and facing prison - or even the death penalty.

TPM also tells of the Moscow Times piece “The article goes on to say that four others have been arrested in connection to the treason case against Mikhailov”. So he may have established a network of contacts, which the Russians now appear to be rolling up. And just remember, this has all happened since Trump, thought by many to be the real-life Manchurian Candidate, fetched up with his pals at intelligence briefings.

When TPM asks “Do we have a very big problem?” the answer, on the basis of what my Occam’s Razor is telling me, is Yes We Do. And if the US’ intelligence agencies want to prevent it happening again, they have one very obvious course of action.

Private Eye And Daniel Morgan

The still unsolved murder of private investigator Daniel Morgan, which took place almost 30 years ago, has recently received an increasing amount of publicity, not least via the top-rated Untold Murder podcast. But now Private Eye magazine has also taken up the case, which at first seemed like A Very Good Thing - until Master Emmanuel Strobes and his team declined to publish a letter correcting their copy.

Daniel Morgan - case still unsolved

The Eye ran an item titled “Judge Dread” in Issue 1433, which pins the blame for the 2011 collapse of the trial of those suspected of involvement in the murder on former Detective Chief Superintendent Dave Cook, telling readers “Eye readers may recall how the resulting prosecution collapsed in 2011, in large part because of Cook’s repeated mishandling of key supergrass witnesses. He had apparently ignored warnings from his boss, Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates, to stop all undocumented contact with them”.

Note use of the tell-tale “apparently”. This was too much for the Untold Murder team, who put the Eye straight by correcting what they called “three widespread myths about the collapse of the trial of the five murder suspects in March 2011”. These were:

“1 The Supergrass Gary Eaton was dropped as a witness in February 2010 because a ‘sterile corridor’ had not been maintained between the debrief team and the murder squad. This obviously did not collapse the trial as hearing continued for another 13 months.

2 There is no evidence of DAC John Yates warning DCS Cook about contact with the Supergrass. Cook warned Yates that Eaton was constantly calling him.

3 The trial collapsed not because boxes of evidence were withheld by the investigation team from the defence. The trial collapsed because cleaners in an old Met building found boxes of evidence from a completely different department, the DPS, that they had abandoned and forgotten years before. On discovery, the defence was immediately notified. In total, there were over a million documents involved in the trial, covering five investigations over 25 years.”

The Eye might have taken issue with one or more of those points, but the magazine is well-known for allowing those of dissenting view to have their say in the letters column. On this occasion, though, it declined to publish the letter containing those three points.

Why that should be has not yet been adequately explained. But the effect of maintaining the line established by the article in Eye 1433 can be put plainly: it has been to suggest wrongdoing on the part of former DCS Cook, at a time when it is in the interests of one party to the Daniel Morgan case to be able to shout “look over there”.

And that party is none other than Daniel Morgan’s former business partner Jonathan Rees. As the Guardian has reported (as so often, very little of the press establishment will touch this story), “Rees and three other men charged at the time are suing the Metropolitan police, alleging officers were so determined to get them that its pursuit was malicious”. The problem in their doing so is that their status as prime suspects gets aired.

So the Guardian report also tells, “The alleged conspirators in the unsolved murder of Daniel Morgan have been named in court … The high court heard allegations from lawyers acting for the Metropolitan police that Glenn Vian struck two fatal blows with the axe having been paid to carry out the killing by Jonathan Rees”.

Why would Rees have his business partner murdered? Well, Daniel Morgan was believed to be on the verge of exposing Police corruption, and “Rees carried out extensive work as an private eye for the News of the World, and earned up to £150,000 a year for the tabloid by providing it with information and stories, despite claims of him having links to police officers suspected of corruption”. That nice little earner would have been finished.

Instead of that corruption being exposed, in the wake of the killing, it ensured that inquiries into the case were perpetually stymied by the intervention of a succession of bent and inept coppers. Former DCS Cook was leading an effort to get the case cracked, and to court. Former DAC Yates, on the other hand, became known mainly for having to leave the Met as a result of his behaviour over the phone hacking scandal.

The Eye’s source for its article, whomsoever he be, knows full well that Rees has previously confessed to targeting Cook. It looks for all the world that not only is he doing it again, but that someone who should know better is aiding and abetting him.

There will be more Untold Murder podcasts later in the year. There will also be more posts on Zelo Street covering the Daniel Morgan murder and its aftermath. Stay tuned.

Popbitch PWNS Piers Morgan

The fall-out from Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan’s meltdown at finding that Ewan McGregor - that would be A Real Star, as opposed to just another of those clever people who talk loudly in restaurants - did not want to share the sofa with him has continued, to the point where Morgan’s pals in The Old Media have decided - purely by coincidence, you understand - to rally round and defend his allegedly principled stance.

A clever person who talks loudly in restaurants

Strangely, most of the defending being done on Morgan’s behalf consists not of telling the world what a great bloke he is, but attacking McGregor. Typical of the genre has been the deeply unpleasant and disgraced former Sun editor Kelvin McFilth, who has today told his readers “If Ewan McGregor is so moral why did he work for paedo director Roman Polanski?” Yes, Kel is taking a highly moral tone over the issue.

A real star

Quite how the person who dropped the Sun in the mire over Hillsborough, and who left a litany of defamation, racism, misogyny, and other minor forms of intolerance and bigotry as his legacy to journalism, gets to occupy the moral high ground is an interesting one. But Kel is not alone: Eamonn Holmes, the allegedly slimline radio and TV host, has also weighed in - as noted by the Sun’s Bizarre column.

A bellend

Adding his contribution to the established part of the Old Media has come one of its sadder wannabes, the loathsome Toby Young, who has told “Why my sympathies are with @piersmorgan in his spat with @mcgregor_ewan … What is it about left-wing virtue signallers like @mcGreggor_ewan that's so irritating? My latest @Spectator column”. It’s certainly irritating when you can’t get someone’s Twitter handle straight.

Tobes has no room to talk about virtue signalling, having done little else since he went on his crusade to tell the world how crap state schools were, and only the intervention in the sector by Himself Personally Now, bankrolled by well north of £20 million of taxpayer funds, could save the day. In any case, all this support has been no use at all.

That is because, in the latest Popbitch email, under the heading “Piers review … Shepharding star guests”, it has been revealed that Ewan McGregor was not alone in concluding that he did not wish to be interviewed by Breakfast TV’s most shameless self-promotion artist. Morgan and his fans may want to Look Away Now.

“If you enjoyed Piers Morgan filling his nappy to the brim when Ewan McGregor declined to appear on Good Morning Britain earlier this week, just wait until he finds out that talent bookers for GMB have been having exactly this same sort of discussion with celebrity star guests for months now … Bookers have literally been asking agents directly if they mind their clients appearing on air with Piers and will try, wherever possible, to move guests over to a morning when Ben Shephard is hosting instead”.

I WONDER WHY SHE MIGHT NOT BE KEEN

Truth be told, it’s not just about Piers Morgan’s views on Women’s Marches, celebrities who won’t give him the time of day, or the kinds of questions he might ask during interviews. It’s about someone who wants to make the whole shebang about Himself, constantly push the idea that he’s a star, turn the exercise into a great big festival of self-promotion. Ewan McGregor’s mistake was not to be available on Thursday or Friday.

I look forward to seeing Morgan and his pals’ response to Popbitch. If there is one.

Canary Out Of Tune AGAIN

[Update at end of post]

Corbyn-backing website The Canary has been the butt of jokes from right-wingers and the more mainstream media of late for its more than occasional over-egging of the pudding, but here on Zelo Street such sources are treated strictly on their merits, as is their hero Jezza. When others slag them off on the flimsiest of pretexts, they get called out. But when they get it wrong themselves, they get called out too.

It is not giving away any trade secrets to tell that The Canary is prepared to stand behind the current Labour leader whether his performance is good, bad or indifferent. Thus when Jezza had a bad PMQs yesterday - something that does not happen often nowadays - they were first out of the traps telling readers how he had bossed Theresa May. He hadn’t. Likewise there has been a staunch defence of Jezza on the Article 50 debate.

“Did you get duped by The Guardian’s ‘three-line’ Brexit farce?” asked The Canary last Friday, claiming “On 19 January, The Guardian reported that Jeremy Corbyn had ‘signalled’ he would impose a three-line whip on his MP … But the problem is that neither Corbyn nor his team have spoken of imposing a three-line whip … The fact that Corbyn’s team has not yet issued a statement does not give The Guardian the right to make up their minds for them”. So the Guardian had been wrong, had it?

Well, maybe not: today, in its coverage of Labour’s Article 50 controversy, and under the heading “What Corbyn said about a 3-line whip”, the Guardian tells “Jeremy Corbyn recorded a short clip for Sky News about the article 50 bill. Asked if the party would impose a three-line whip telling its MPs to vote for the bill, he at first replied ‘It will be a clear decision that we want all of our MPs to support the article 50 vote when it comes up next week’ … Then, when pressed on the question of whether it would be a three-line whip, he went on ‘It’s clearly a three-line whip’”. So the Guardian had not been wrong, after all.

This makes The Canary’s conclusion in its Guardian bashing article that much more telling: “The Guardian can be a superb and informative news source. But that cannot excuse journalism which plays fast and loose with the truth. We need news sources like The Guardian which do great investigative work. But every time they do something like this, their readers lose a little bit more faith in them”. You don’t say.

What is far more pressing right now for the Labour leadership than how the Guardian might have worded a headline is the potential revolt among the party’s front bench over whipping the Article 50 vote. Clive Lewis and Tulip Siddiq are said to be considering voting against, and may therefore have to resign their front bench positions.

There may be others following that lead. On top of that, some Corbyn supporters are dismayed at his stance on the issue. George Monbiot has concluded “I was thrilled when Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party, but it has been one fiasco after another. I have now lost all faith”, while Andrew Bowie has concurred: “This makes no sense, and I am a Corbyn supporter. Equivalent to voting to be tax haven”.

And Ian Dunt of Politics.co.uk has put it bluntly: “Corbyn's Brexit policy, from demanding A50 was triggered on June 24 to whipping it today, has been a triumph of monumental stupidity”. The Canary, though, is arguing the toss over a headline that turned out not to be wrong. One has to wonder if and when they will get their priorities in order.

[UPDATE 1800 hours: as the BBC is now reporting, Tulip Siddiq has indeed resigned from the Labour front bench. Bit more significant than arguing over Guardian headlines, eh?]

Theresa May’s Trump Delusion

Our not at all unelected Prime Minister is off on her travels once more, this time to the USA where tomorrow she will meet the Combover Crybaby Donald Trump, a meeting at which many observers who dislike both of them would still like to be the proverbial flies on the wall. As befits the occasion, the right-leaning part of the Fourth Estate has talked up the meeting, oblivious to the very real prospect that it will serve no useful purpose.

Theresa May has staked the house on showing that she alone can leverage meetings like this to improve Britain’s standing in the world, that pressing on with leaving the EU is nothing to be afraid of, and that no tainting of her reputation will take place merely because The Donald is suggesting the USA might bring back torture, exclude visitors who might be followers of The Prophet, and is still regarded as an ocean-going sex pest.

Many in the press are not troubled by this, with the Murdoch Times being particularly keen to tell “Bullish May tells Trump they can lead the world”. There would, it has to be conceded, be the advantage of stroking Trump’s vanity with such an approach. Even the Guardian is happily proclaiming “May on US mission to seek special deal with President”. At least the i has cautioned “May’s tricky trip to the US”.

The BBC has confined itself to the more prosaic detail: “Theresa May is to vow to renew the UK's special relationship with the US ‘for this new age’ as she prepares to meet Donald Trump for the first time … Mrs May has said her goal is to build on the historic relationship between the two nations, underpinned by their shared values and common interests”. There will be straight talking, we are promised.

But then, what does Trump need to give the UK? We hear that he is an Anglophile, as his mother was Scottish, but he has already prioritised renegotiating NAFTA. Under this Presidency, the USA is set to become both protectionist and isolationist. He tells anyone who will listen that we will be at the front of the line for a trade deal, but he won’t be negotiating it, and nor will he care what it contains.

Let’s put this plainly: Donald Trump is not only a deeply unpleasant man, but a deeply ignorant one. His fans say his ability to do deals will be the key to a successful Presidency - yet many of the deals he has made in the past have resulted in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. He spends much of his time alone, watching the TV, and all too often believing what he is served up by Fox News Channel (fair and balanced my arse).

In this he resembles not a great and successful businessman, but a latter-day Chauncey Gardiner, an empty being spewing out simplistic platitudes which the easily led - and the less principled shysters with whom he has surrounded himself - interpret as the product of great wisdom, patriotism, business acumen, and a new and original take on today’s realpolitik. Those shysters will decide what he gives Theresa May.

And then it will all have to pass Congress, which might look rather different after the next mid-term elections. Once again, our Prime Minister’s magical ability is being talked up, but with no rational expectation of success. Trump will not be our post-Brexit magic bullet.

Rod Liddle - Racist Hypocrite

As if we haven’t had enough coded racism aimed at campaigner Gina Miller from those who scrabble around the dunghill that is Grubstreet, the Murdoch goons at the Super Soaraway Currant Bun have summoned Rod Liddle, the saddest of has-beens, to indulge in not just the more straightforward kind, but mix it up with a little blatant hypocrisy, just to give all those hard-working Sun readers a little variety.

I've only had one glash, honeshtly

His predictably tedious column starts, well, predictably, telling “It’s time for Remainers to accept it doesn’t matter who tries to block Brexit next… they’ll never win … The Supreme Court may have sided with Gina Miller and against the will of the people, but Article 50 will still be triggered and the UK will leave the EU”. On the question of an unelected Prime Minister by-passing Parliament, the “will of the people” is thus far unknown. But hey ho.

Liddle, never one to duck the chance to patronise his audience, isn’t interested in mere reality, and simply doubles down. “WHAT a surprise, huh? Their eminent lordships of the Supreme Court have voted against the democratic will of the people”. Wrong. The Justices of the Supreme Court were asked, as were those at the High Court before them, to interpret the law. This they have done. I suspect Sun readers can grasp that one.

Still, details, eh? Do go on. “Eleven of their gilded, ageing eminences heard the case at enormous public cost - and the result was eight to three”. So says a gilded and ageing pundit well past his shelf life. Then, after telling his readers that they probably all voted Remain (no citation), Liddle overreaches himself: “So, eight very well-orf white judges can thwart the will of more than half the country”. “White judges”.

That’s staggering hypocrisy from a pundit whose contribution to diversity is not unadjacent to zero, and who tinged his column with just a little Islamophobia today, as witness “Iraqi soldiers have been filmed torturing IS fighters … What lovely, lovely, people they all are. With such a respect for human life and a sense of moral decency”. Does the name Abu Ghraib ring a bell, Rod? But he’s not done with brown and black people yet.

Liddle turns his attention to gun violence in Chicago: “It’s also reported that four of every five victims are black people. But the horrible campaigners Black Lives Matter only care when it’s white cops killing black people”. Got a statement from BLM, did you? No, thought not. Perhaps it’s because they’re “horrible”, instead of being concerned about the way that white people don’t consider the deaths of black people to be so important.

And the not-really-racism continues: “WELL done to the Birmingham school which has banned a four-year-old Muslim girl from wearing a headscarf … some local Muslims are getting arsey. They say it contravenes equality laws … Good. I hope it does. Then we can get rid of those laws, too”. Then the column shows not a woman, or a child, wearing a headscarf, but a full veil - not that he wants to give readers a false impression.

But he does want them to know that he’s all in favour of turning the clocks back to the days when it was legal - and, sadly, acceptable - for landlords to openly advertise “No blacks, no Irish”. Yes folks, this is the pundit who sneers that the Supreme Court is too white - then puts the boot into, er, people who are not white.

Rod Liddle is not just a racist bigot, but a hypocrite with it. No surprise there, then.