Mail Melania Mistake NOTHING NEW

When the Daily Mail ‘fessed up and admitted that it had defamed First Lady Melania Trump, apologising and publishing a rather more fulsome correction than most of the paper’s victims manage, what many of those reading might not have known is that not only was this case not the first time the paper has come unstuck publishing claims that fitted the paper’s righteous agenda, it was the second such case to pay out this week.

What the f***'s wrong with slagging off some East European bint, c***?!? Er, with the greatest of respect, Mr Jay

The Melania Trump settlement had been expected since the Mail first told readers “Racy photos, and troubling questions about his wife's past that could derail Trump … Naked photoshoots, and troubling questions about visas that won't go away: The VERY racy past of Donald Trump's Slovenian wife” - suggesting she had worked as a high-end escort after first arriving in the USA - and then realised they were in deep shit, and retracted.

“To the extent that anything in the Daily Mail's article was interpreted as stating or suggesting that Mrs. Trump worked as an 'escort' or in the 'sex business,' that she had a 'composite or presentation card for the sex business,' or that either of the modeling agencies referenced in the article were engaged in these businesses, it is hereby retracted, and the Daily Mail newspaper regrets any such misinterpretation” grovelled the Dacre doggies obsequiously. And there was more.

“The Daily Mail newspaper and MailOnline/DailyMail.com have entirely separate editors and journalistic teams … In so far as MailOnline/DailyMail.com published the same article it wholeheartedly also retracts the above and also regrets any such misinterpretation”. Well, it didn’t work, because, as the BBC has reported, the Mail has had to pay up.

Melania Trump

“The UK's Daily Mail newspaper has agreed to pay damages and costs to the first lady of the United States over an article about her modelling career … The newspaper had reported allegations that Melania Trump once worked as an escort, but later retracted its article … Mrs Trump accepted damages and an apology from the newspaper at London's High Court”. The cost? Well north of £2 million at current exchange rates.

But what many will have missed is that the Mail had, earlier in the week at the Supreme Court before Lord Neuberger, attempted to bodyswerve part of the costs awarded against them as part of the action brought by businessman Andy Miller, after the Mail claimed - in a front page headline - that because Miller was a friend of then Met Commissioner Ian Blair, a contract his firm had won with the London cops was evidence of corruption.

Miller took the case up with the Mail’s legendarily foul mouthed editor Paul Dacre, whose response was so unsatisfactory that Miller sued. He won. The Mail appealed, and kept appealing, as with a player in the highest stakes poker game, daring Miller to stay at the table if he thought he was hard enough. Then, when the Mail lost once more, they cavilled about the costs awarded against them. They lost that one this week. That case was estimated to have cost the Mail £3 million back in 2014. The judgment confirms that.

To lose one defamation case in one week, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose two looks like rather more than carelessness.

The Mail does seem to be spending a lot of time in and around the courts right now. You might ask why that should be. I couldn’t possibly comment.

Hitler, Hitler And Thrice Hitler

After the cruise missile attack on that Syrian airbase last week, where a US warship loosed off 59 of the things, only to do so little damage that the Syrian Air Force was operating out of the base later the same day, very few pundits noticed that the Shock and Awe was for media consumption only. The administration of Combover Crybaby Donald Trump basked in the glory of conning the press and broadcasters. Then reality returned.

Sean Spicer - weapons grade idiocy

Russian interference and surveillance stories have returned to bedevil the Trump White House. And then came the car crash of ad-libbed idiocy that is Sean Spicer.

Spicer is, for reasons best known to those who appointed him, the White House Press Secretary. He is the one who turns up to take press briefings on behalf of the Trump Gang, which he handles, or perhaps that should be mishandles, in his own inimitable manner. Some call it combative. Others see it for what it is - bluster and bombast masquerading as authority. And yesterday came the moment of truth for this buffoon.

Those who thought that Ken Livingstone behaved like an idiot when he kept banging on about Hitler now know that was a mere warm-up act: Sean Spicer did it properly, turning up with his shovel and keeping on digging. The timeline is barely believable.

Trying to demonise Bashar al-Assad, Spicer began “We didn’t use chemical weapons in world war two. You had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons”. Er, hello? What did the Nazis use to gas all those prisoners, then?

He tried again. “I think when you come to sarin gas, he was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing”. Jews were not “his own people”, then.

Could it get worse? It certainly could. “Thank you, I appreciate that. There was not in the – he brought them into the Holocaust centres - I understand that. But I’m saying in the way that Assad used them, where he went into towns, dropped them down into the middle of towns … So, the use of it, I appreciate the clarification. That was not the intent”.

He even reimagined concentration camps - death camps, as they all too often were - as “Holocaust Centres”. The Guardian observed “More than 6 million Jews were murdered, along with large numbers of Gypsies, gay people, political dissidents and others, during the Holocaust. Many were killed in gas chambers with chemical gas agents such as Zyklon B. It is unclear if Spicer’s reference to ‘Holocaust centres’ was to the gas chambers or to concentration camps or something else”. And there was one more twist.

“The statement came on the first day of Passover, the Jewish holiday which commemorates the liberation of the Jewish people from slavery in Egypt. The holiday is one of the holiest days in Judaism and has been used a metaphor for the oppression that Jews faced throughout history, including under Nazi Germany”.

Sean Spicer certainly chose his moment. Whether he chose wisely is another matter.

Daily Mail Libels United Passenger

The incident at Chicago O’Hare Airport where a United Airlines flight to Louisville, KY was overbooked and one unfortunate punter was dragged, bleeding and barely conscious, from the aircraft, is now well-known. United could - and should - have dealt with the overbooking problem either at check-in, or at the latest at the boarding gate. The carrier’s ineptitude has wiped millions off the company’s share price and alienated customers.

But for the press, and particularly the Daily Mail, just reporting the story is never enough. There must inevitably be the poking around in the private lives of those concerned, and in the Mail’s case, that has meant going after the bloke who got dragged off the flight, to the horror of his fellow customers. Dr David Dao has now found himself plastered all over Mail Online. But the problem appears not to be his, but the Mail’s.

The online article is headlined “REVEALED: Doctor dragged off United Airlines flight won more than $230,000 at poker while his medical license was suspended for trading prescription drugs for secret gay sex … Dr David Dao's troubled medical past is revealed in court documents … His wife Teresa - also a doctor - reported him to medical authorities and his secret inappropriate gay relationship with a patient was revealed”.

Those are pretty strong allegations to make, so it’s critically important that there is no chance the Mail got the wrong man, especially when the supporting article goes on to tell “The father of five, who has won sympathy globally over the United Airlines incident, was given a suspended jail sentence for illegally obtaining and trafficking controlled substances by fraud and deceit”. Could there be more? There certainly could.

“He was also found to have engaged in sex with a male patient - Brian Case, who he knew from the church they both attended - and then supplied him with drugs, including Oxycontin, in exchange for sexual favours … The sexual liaisons, which happened in motel rooms, were recorded by undercover agents. He paid $200 in cash each time he met Case”. Or, maybe, he didn’t pay anything, because … you know what’s coming.

Mark Tran was apparently the first to blow the whistle, Tweeting “Two different folks. David Anh Duy Dao is the person in Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure letters. The UA victim is David Thanh Duc Dao”. The Mail must have assumed that because the flight was headed for an airport in Kentucky that they had the right Dr Dao. It seems they did not.

And freelance journalist Claire Connelly has now weighed in with “I hate to say I told you so, but as it turns out fact checking matters because a number of publications (including the ones listed above) confused United’s Dr David Dao with another David Dao and now they definitely all stand to be sued for defamation”.

Once again, the Mail is embarrassingly involved in another of those “they’ve got similar names and look alike” howlers. The article’s headline has been screen-shotted in anticipation of the inevitable moment when it mysteriously vanishes from view.

Another of those stories that look too good to be true - because they are too good to be true. Say sorry, Dacre doggies. And pay the [perhaps large multiple of] two Dollars.

Byline - Dacre Told To Shove It

As I posted recently, Paul Dacre, the legendarily foul mouthed editor of the Daily Mail,  who is also editor-in-chief of parent company Associated Newspapers, along with the group’s editor emeritus Peter Wright and head of legal Liz Hartley, had threatened to launch a libel action against crowdfunded media source Byline, over articles concerning the Mail’s use of information mostly obtained through illegal blagging.

The Daily Mail, and its Sunday sister title, had used the services of Steve Whittamore, of Operation Motorman infamy, for some time after he was busted by the Information Commissioner in 2003, and even after he was later convicted. Whittamore contends that the Mail must have known most of what he provided to them had been obtained illegally.

As I later pointed out, this was not just about the Mail: further Byline revelations have concerned illegal blagging on behalf of the Murdoch Sun. Further, it’s not just about blagging: the Sun now has arrayed against it 62 claimants alleging they were phone hacked, that activity that was supposed to have only happened at the late and not at all lamented Screws. There was also, in the background, the spectre of Leveson Part 2.

After Byline’s lawyers had provided a robust response to the Mail’s legal bullying, there was a pause of almost three weeks before their next response, and as I pointed out, this amounted to a climbdown, a chickening out. Now, Byline’s lawyers have responded in turn, and have more or less told Dacre and his bully boys to shove their attitude.

If that f***er from Crewe calls me "legendarily foul mouthed" once more, I'll sue the fat arse off the c***

Here are the relevant paragraphs of that reply.

“Your letter contains no substantive response to the detailed points made in our letter of 17 March 2017. The contention in your second paragraph that a public interest defence is not available if the words complained of bear a different meaning to the one contended for by the claimant is novel and contrary to very well-established authority”.

This means Byline and its lawyers have double checked to make sure they are on solid ground - and the Mail may well not be.

“The Claim Letter was published by our clients along with our response to ensure that it came to the attention of the public that your clients were seeking to silence its critics in a way which has, in the past, been so vigorously attacked by Mr Dacre in particular, and that there was no merit whatsoever in the threatened defamation action because the claims made in the Articles are true in substance and fact”.

The Claim Letter from the Mail’s lawyers was published by Byline to show what a bunch of stinking hypocrites they have running their papers - especially Paul Dacre.

“So far as our clients are concerned; they stand by every word of the Articles. They will not be silenced by groundless threats of legal action by your clients such as that set out in your correspondence, and nor will they be prevented from continuing their investigations into the conduct of both your clients and ANL”.

Freely translated, this means the Mail is getting no change out of this one.

“Your letter of 7 April  2017 sets out in its numbered paragraphs a further set of demands made by your clients. For the reasons already given our client will comply with none of those demands, any more than it was prepared to comply with those set out in the Claim Letter”.

And that means the Vagina Monologue and his fellow bullies can take their demands and shove them somewhere suitably dark.

Hur de Durly Murl an' de turtal chucky!

As I said two days ago, Paul Dacre, Peter Wright and Liz Hartley ought to think themselves lucky they have not been referred to the precedent legal case of Arkell v Pressdram.

Thus another crude and deliberate attempt to constrain freedom of speech has failed. Byline is free to continue publishing the result of its investigations into blagging - and other forms of The Dark Arts, whomsoever they concern.

THE END.

Nick Cohen Anti-Semitism FAIL

The desire by so many in the Pundit Establishment to go with the herd instinct and put the boot into the Labour Party over alleged anti-Semitism is not just restricted to desperate floor-crossers like Dan Hodges, but has also spread to the more fashionable end of the punditerati, where Nick Cohen of the supposedly upmarket Observer has opened mouth and inadvertently inserted boot in no style at all.

Nick Cohen

Cohen started from a perfectly coherent critique of the current Labour leadership last month, which caused some forthright criticism from the party’s remaining pro-Corbyn loyalists, those who will back Jezza’s every move even after he is ousted, or leads Labour to a catastrophic General Election thrashing at the hands of a Prime Minister who has no right to be in Downing Street in the first place, but then he lost it badly.

He could not resist poking at the aftermath of the Ken Livingstone disciplinary affair, citing the occasion back in 2015 when the French Front National expelled its founder Jean-Marie le Pen, following a row with his daughter Marine, the party’s current leader. What had the old fascist done to prompt his August expulsion? “He was initially suspended back in May, after he repeated his view that the Holocaust was ‘a detail of history’”.

The FN would no longer tolerate Holocaust denial. Cohen concluded “The French National Front is tougher on anti-Semitism than the British Labour Party”. It did not take long for the current FN leadership to expose Cohen’s useful idiocy: as le Monde reported on Sunday, “Pour Marine Le Pen, la France « n’est pas responsable du Vél’d’Hiv »”. The current FN leader and Presidential candidate denies French complicity in the Vél d’Hiv roundup.

What that? Well, after France was either occupied by the Nazis, or run by the collaborationist Vichy Government, the occupied part, like all countries overrun by the Nazis, saw round-ups of Jews. The most infamous of these took place in July 1942, when more than 13,000 (including over 4,000 children) were systematically rounded up and held briefly at the Winter Velodrome in Paris, the Vélodrome d’Hiver, or Vél d’Hiv.

Those interred were mostly taken by train to Auschwitz and systematically murdered.

In the 1990s, then-President Jacques Chirac apologised on behalf of the French people for the Vél d’Hiv roundup. French rail operator SNCF has also apologised for its part in the collaboration that saw so many who should have been protected by the French people and the relevant authorities taken away to their deaths.

Now, Marine le Pen is effectively indulging in Holocaust denial - and historical revisionism - by claiming that an act for which the then-President of France has apologised was somehow not France’s responsibility, despite its Police service being involved in the roundup, and its national rail service transporting those rounded up to Auschwitz.

Why Nick Cohen thinks that this is being at all tough on anti-Semitism is something only he can answer. Because it’s a pound to a penny that no-one else can.

Sun Aldi Advertorial BUSTED

“Hey @AldiUK, how much is this setting you back?” asked the ever-watchful Sun Apology Twitter account, after the Super Soaraway Currant Bun had published what was not marked as a sponsored feature or advertorial, but sure as heck looked like one. “Vin-tastic! Aldi’s new French wine range starts at just £5… and the names will give you a giggle … There are 11 bottles in the new line, and some of them have VERY tongue-in-cheek names” was the headline. And this was being presented as News.

No, I'm not looking at you, but the ASA will be

The thought will enter for many hardened observers of those who inhabit the Baby Shard bunker that the article is no worse than any number of Sun articles on supposedly serious and mainstream subjects, but the point stands: this looks like blatant advertorial. And one look at the supporting “article” merely confirms the suspicion.

“ALDI has launched a brand new range of French wines - and prices start at just a fiver … The budget retailer’s £5.99 Berton Vineyards Botrytis Semillon from Australia won a top award last year, so it certainly knows its stuff when it comes to wine” gushes Hannah Ferrett’s spiel. And, sad to say, there is more. Rather a lot more.

“Earlier this year it launched a cut-price range for Spring, and the latest being added to the batch are 11 bottles from France … They are in the French Discoveries range, which are priced between £4.99 and £6.99 … Adding a bit of fun to the launch, which hit stores and online today, are the names … The wines fall into one of three categories: Pardon My French, The Forgotten One or Jean Claude Mas”. Stop right there.

Is this balanced by some critical analysis of the product? Is there a comparison with the kinds of French vino one might encounter at, say, Lidl, Asda or Tesco? Do we get anything about changes that the “discounters” - Aldi, Lidl and the rest - have brought to the supermarket sector in recent years? Do we stuff. It should be marked as branded content.

The ASA guidelines make that plain. But there is no sign in the article that it’s paid copy, although the Murdoch goons would be certifiable if they’d run it for nothing. So why engage in such blatant and desperate tactics? Simples. News UK’s twinkle-toed yet domestically combative CEO Rebekah Brooks has already told Business Insider.

“Rebekah Brooks, the chief executive of Rupert Murdoch's News UK, says the company must learn from Google and Facebook if it is to compete for the attentions of advertisers … [she said] the company needs to be more sophisticated to unlock revenue … ‘Advertisers want a much deeper engagement with their media partners now than ever before … We’re competing with some impressive competitors – Facebook and Google – in terms of how they sell their advertising to clients, so we’ve taken a leaf out of their book. We need a more holistic approach’”. For “Holistic”, read “blatant advertorial”.

This also reflects Press Gazette’s “Duopoly” campaign, “which aims to stop Facebook and Google destroying any more of the UK journalism industry”. Yes, someone else is better at scoring advertising revenue, while the press is losing it, so let’s claim they’re “destroying journalism”. Put those two together and you get the Sun’s Aldi wine “article”.

All of which goes to show that if someone is going to “destroy journalism”, nobody does that like the press themselves. After all, they’ve been doing it for long enough now.

Don’t Menshn You’ve No Credibility

While the administration of Combover Crybaby Donald Trump enjoys a brief respite from serious media investigation following the launch of 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase last week - for all the good it did the US, so little was the damage - those claiming to have unearthed all manner of conspiracies over the Trump Gang’s Russia connections have not done themselves any favours. Which brings us to one particular Zelo Street favourite.

(c) Doc Hackenbush 2014

Yes, the latest target for the Russia apologists - if only to heap ridicule on her for undermining her own cause - has been (fortunately) former Tory MP Louise Mensch, now representing the distant constituency of Manhattan Upmarket. After all her recent ranting had distracted from genuine investigation into the Trump-Russia connection (the Sunday Politics interview being one of several low points), ridicule followed.

This was led by the Twitter account for the Russian Embassy in the UK, which posted “To really special people like @LouiseMensch and @funder who keep telling the world that @POTUS is a Russian puppet”. Trump may indeed be a Russian puppet. But the wild accusations made by Ms Mensch make it easier for her to be dismissed as a crank.

The reaction was typified by writer Graham Linehan, who was not surprised by the Russian sniping: “Knew this was coming. Louise Mensch's stupidity is being used to discredit the whole Trump/Russia investigation”. Glenn Greenwald, who knows a little about Russia and the espionage game, replied “The problem isn't her, but rather how she has been elevated into a credible Russia expert by prominent media & political platforms”.

Greenwald featured a still from that Sunday Politics interview, although to be fair to the BBC and host Andrew Neil, it was one of those many occasions where Ms Mensch’s campaign progressed not necessarily to her advantage. But just to make sure, he followed up with “Yes, but she's mostly just performance art, an internet crank. Would not be worth noting if she hadn't been elevated by mainstream platforms”.

Exactly what both Linehan and Greenwald might be getting at can be seen from another of those inexplicable off-the-wall Twitter meltdowns that could only come from Ms Mensch. For some reason known only to her, she totally lost it with another Twitter account that she had decided was in the pay of the Russians. The rant was truly memorable.

“I swear to God that you will see the witch of night forever 0 hour, you and your whole crew, if you do not leave her alone now … Law enforcement will deal w her 0 hour. Stop what you are doing. It is not ok. I'm already angry with you. Nothing can save putin. Nothing … Hey 0 hour you offered me those photos. Another word and I will throw you the fuck under the bus. Leave her alone. I better wake up to that … Stop 0 hour. It won't save you. Burn your own assets. It won't save you. I don't need misogyny to hunt you down. Let her alone. I mean it”. NO-ONE ELSE IS TAGGED. She is talking to herself.

Fortunately, the investigation of Trump-Russia ties by the US security agencies proceeds whether Louise Mensch makes sense, or (as happens more often) not. And remember, they allowed her to become an MP.

Paul Watson Pwns Himself

The closed world and limited real world experience of Battersea bedroom dweller Paul Watson, who rather grandly styles himself Prison Planet and spends his time propagandising for the screamingly batshit Alex Jones at InfoWars, has come back to bite him once more. One attempt to snark at someone of differing political opinion has been enough to send the poor dear into a self-inflicted tailspin.

Paul Watson - fantasy versus reality

Watson made his faux pas after seeing that writer and campaigner Owen Jones had appeared in GQ magazine. Horrified at the thought that the rotten lefties were getting more attention than him - and deservedly so - the InfoWars keyboard warrior went into battle, Tweeting “Working class hero @OwenJones84 spends over a grand on a jacket … Another out of touch metropolitan elitist posing as a man of the people”.

Owen Jones - not wearing a £1,000 jacket

There was only one problem with this attack: the jacket Jones was wearing does indeed retail at over £1,000 a throw, but it was not his. Watson had not stopped and thought that the photos might not be the only things specially posed in a photo shoot - possibly because, like the advice in the old Ford Fiesta advert, he needs to “get out more”.

Moreover, Jones is not a flashy individual, as his response shows. “Just to clarify: I did an interview with GQ, this is their jacket. Think the most I've ever spent on a jacket is £50”. That means he spends rather less on his jackets than even I do. Watson could at this point have decided that discretion was the better part of valour, but for the batshit Alt-Right, the thought of engaging brain before mouth is anathema. And so it proved.

“Very insightful how much middle class, privately educated pretentious UK trust fund twats who pretend to represent the working class hate me” he whined. Jones went to a state Comprehensive, he ain’t pretentious, and it would be news to all concerned if he had a trust fund. BINGO! Could he dig himself in deeper? He certainly could.

“Must be rooted in their deep-seated hypocrisy at being posh, pampered mummy's boys who are faking it while I actually grew up working class”. Bloody hell, Paul Watson actually grew up? Who knew? But do go on. “Wearing £1,000 jackets for GQ photo shoots while pretending to represent the working class is NOT the new counter-culture”. Nobody is pretending that it is. It’s just a photo shoot to accompany an interview.

And after Watson was reminded that, actually, some working class people like to save for the occasional luxury item, he sniped “No, they normally don't buy luxury items because they're working class and have little money. Is this hard to grasp?” Not going very well, was it? Have another go. “I don't understand how poncy magazine shoots work because I'm an actual person and not a pretentious twat pretending to be working class”.

No, unlike Owen Jones, who isn’t pretentious, Watson doesn’t understand because he’s the kind of actual person whose interaction with the outside world is so limited that he, er, doesn’t understand. And doesn’t understand he picked a scrap and then lost it.

Paul Watson should stick to whipping up conspiracy theory rubbish for Alex Jones. He’s crap at that, but at least he’s less crap than pretending to understand the real world.

Kavanagh Loyalty Hypocrisy

Sometimes the more over-enthusiastic among the punditerati overreach themselves in their efforts to please their masters. They become so stuck in the rut of churning out copy to satisfy the demands and desires of editors’ and proprietors’ agendas that the real world becomes a distant memory, a place only populated by all those ghastly oiks who failed to suck up to the right people and secure themselves six-figure paycheques.

Why did Kavanagh cross the road? To secure More And Bigger Paycheques For Himself Personally Now

Such is the fate that has befallen faithful Murdoch retainer Trevor Kavanagh, who has today decided to call out someone else for having questionable loyalties. His target, to very little surprise, is Baron Mandelson of Indeterminate Guacamole, who has had the effrontery to give an interview to a newspaper where they speak foreign.

The former Labour minister and spinner spoke to Die Zeit, which it itself is an insult to those in the Baby Shard bunker, as it is both upmarket and independent of the Murdoch mafiosi. He said, according to Kav’s pal David Wooding, the Sunday Sun hack who claims to be from Liverpool but spends very little time there, “One can only advise the Europeans one thing - forget Britain and take care of your own interests”.

EU member states should, in the Article 50 negotiations, look after their own interests first. The same will apply to Britain. But for Britain to do this is fine for the Murdoch goons, while for all those dastardly foreigners to do the same is tantamount to treason, especially if a former Labour minister who the Murdoch doggies don’t like suggests it. So Wooding translated Mandelson’s comment by saying “Mandelson branded a traitor”.

And it was enough for Kavanagh to roll out the approved catalogue of insults: “the Dark Prince … EX-COMMUNIST and proven liar … seasoned plotter … backstabbing Machiavelli … breathtaking act of treachery … two-timing Prince of Darkness … his 1980s debut with a sinister black moustache … absorbing the ruthless tricks of Soviet Russia”. As Sir Sean nearly said, I think we got the point.

Peter Mandelson

At that moment, the thought occurred that Kavanagh is the last person to talk about questionable loyalty, lying, and potentially traitorous deeds. He is, after all, a fully paid-up servant of Don Rupioni, and his advocacy of the Leave campaign in last year’s referendum  resulted in Sterling falling precipitously - thus leaving the economy vulnerable to rising prices for all those imported goods, and whatever is priced in US Dollars.

So fuel costs are rising, as is the cost of the weekly shop. But for Kav’s boss Rupert Murdoch there is only good news, as he has needed to bid rather less for that 61% of Sky that he does not yet own. After a few more months of rising prices, businesses deciding to up sticks and move to other EU member states, and all those East European workers leaving with no-one left to pick the crops and do the crap jobs, perhaps the Sun’s veteran pundit would like to lecture us once more about exactly who the traitors are.

Trevor Kavanagh has no room to call anyone else for disloyalty to Britain. End of story.

Dan Hodges - Anti-Semitism Hypocrisy

Once again, a member of the Pundit Establishment fails to heed the warning made with no lack of good humour all those years ago in the British film comedy Only Two Can Play: filing your copy a little too early can miss that part of events that renders it a worthless embarrassment. This time, the hapless pundit is the Mail on Sunday’s not even slightly celebrated blues artiste Whinging Dan Hodges, once again ranting about Labour.

He's desperate, Dan

Desperate Dan’s latest effort for the MoS has been rather imaginatively titled “If you're still a member of Labour tomorrow YOU ARE RACIST”. Hang on a minute, didn’t he rejoin the party recently? So either he’s one of those racists, or he flounced out again and nobody noticed. But back to the column, which centres around the disciplinary hearing of former London Mayor Ken Livingstone - not yet a closed matter.

But do go on. “Soon after Ken Livingstone emerged - smug and gloating - from the hearing that had just ruled taunting Jews with the spectre of Adolf Hitler is perfectly compatible with Labour Party membership, I was contacted by a Labour MP … What do you want us to do?’ he asked. ‘They don’t give a damn about what we say or do. Front-bench resignation and no confidence motions didn’t work. What’s left? Leave the party and they win. My constituents lose’”. But Ken’s case ain’t finished yet.

Livingstone - has not been let off

Dan, seemingly, has not noticed, and so on he rambles: “Some have said Labour is now a racist party. And they’re right. But it’s not just a racist party; it’s an apartheid one. Jews are tolerated, but only as second-class citizens … Institutional racism is now so embedded within Labour that if it weren’t so disgusting it would be comical”.

So what is his solution to this problem (which is mostly in his own imagination)? “When you say ‘not in my name’, mean it. If you’re in the Shadow Cabinet, stop acting like a 1980s pop star headlining Sun City, and leave. If you’re a Labour MP, resign the whip. If you’re a Labour member, cancel your membership. Then pledge clearly and unequivocally you will not return until Ken Livingstone has been expelled”.

But there is a problem here, quite apart from his smearing Labour with “shrugging off” racism: Livingstone is highly likely to be expelled, and because, whisper it quietly, of those who have no intention of taking Hodges’ hot-headed rantings on board, instead choosing to exert pressure from within the Labour Party. That is part of the demonstration that Hodges’ claim - that Labour is institutionally racist - is a crock of crap.

If only Hodges had defended him so vociferously, eh?

Jeremy Corbyn - whom Hodges so often pillories for not taking the action he decrees should be taken - announced four days ago that the Livingstone case would be revisited. The party’s general secretary Ian McNicol confirmed this two days ago. So either Hodges has filed his column too early - or he knows all about this, but is more interested in throwing a mardy strop in order to score a little more personal attention.

Pity he wasn’t so hot on anti-Semitism when it was Ed Miliband on the receiving end (which he most certainly was - see HERE, HERE and HERE). Well, Dan?

Either way, it’s lamentably bad journalism, and it’s not good enough. Which is more or less what we’ve come to expect from Desperate Dan over the years.

Simon Danczuk - Still No Confidence

The desperation of Rochdale’s still nominally Labour MP Simon Danczuk has been on open display recently, as he has desperately tried to find someone - anyone - who will allow themselves to be identified with him. But the revolt in local party branches which was revealed recently on Zelo Street is refusing to go away. And all the time, his day of reckoning at the hands of Labour’s NCC is fast approaching.

The NCC - the party’s National Consultative Committee - is the body which last week decided only to suspend former London Mayor Ken Livingstone after his frequent propensity to blunder into interviews and tell anyone who would listen “Yes, but Hitler”.The problem for Danczuk is that the revulsion across the Labour Party at the lenience handed down to Livingstone has caused the matter to be revisited.

And when Ken comes back before them, he is more than likely to be expelled. So Spanker Si cannot expect an easy ride for his “sexting” a 17-year-old girl, the falling-out at his “Spanish Gaff” in Algorfa which led to ex-wife Karen being hospitalised and Danczuk spending two nights in the Orihuela nick, the use of his constituency office for yet another casual sexual encounter, and a variety of other equally unfortunate incidents.

So what of Danczuk’s attempts to find pals? The scale of his desperation can be seen in a recent Twitter excursion: “I've teamed up with ex-mayor Robin Parker and together we're callling on @HistoricEngland to put #SevenSisters on heritage list”. That’s a name seasoned Danczuk watchers might remember: Robin Parker was the target of a dirty tricks campaign that was linked to his former sidekick Matt Baker.

In September 2015, Rochdale Online told readers “Former Danczuk spin doctor, Matt Baker, accused of 'vile attack' and 'smear campaign’”. Baker “was revealed as the author of an email that makes very serious and highly damaging allegations about former Rochdale Council leader, Colin Lambert and a former Mayor of Rochdale, Robin Parker - allegations which they say are completely without foundation and ‘libellous’”.

Robin Parker was accused in that email of having “sex with two girls with special needs that were in his care”. Colin Lambert consulted lawyers after the Zelo Street and Rochdale Online revelations. But now, Spanker Si has been forced to re-establish his relationship with the former Mayor. This may give him a little breathing space. But then comes the matter of all those branch no confidence motions.

After three branches passed those motions unanimously, I understand that a no confidence motion is to go forward to the full CLP, which does not meet again until next month. As soon as the agenda for that meeting is made known, the story will be out there and Danczuk will become the focus that less than favourable media attention - the kind that does not generate More And Bigger Paycheques For Himself Personally Now.

And that’s before all the questions over his contacts with Arron Banks. More later.

Byline - Mail Chickens Out

As Zelo Street regulars will know, the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail, along with his colleagues editor emeritus Peter Wright and head of legal Liz Hartley, had threatened a libel action against Byline Media for saying - correctly - that the Mail and its Sunday sister title had used the services of Steve Whittamore of Operation Motorman infamy for some years after he was busted by the Information Commissioner.

If that f***er from Crewe uses my photo again, I'll sue the c***

The three, through their reassuringly expensive lawyers, had issued a Letter Before Action, and made it clear that unless their bullying demands were complied with in full, Byline would find itself dragged before the courts. But after Byline’s lawyers responded robustly to the threats, nothing happened. A week passed. Then another. Had the inmates of the Northcliffe House bunker lost their nerve? And then came the follow-up letter.

And a more lame and humiliating climbdown it would be hard to imagine: as with all bullies, when subjected to forthright challenge, Dacre and his pals have effectively turned tail and run away. A perusal of their latest letter tells you all you need to know.

They begin “We do not accept the arguments you make. The meaning of Byline’s articles is quite clear - it is that Byline is accusing our clients of deliberate suppression of evidence to the Leveson Inquiry”.

No it isn’t: no such accusation was made. But good to have the Achilles heel pointed out. Do go on.

“Furthermore there is no public interest defence in circumstances in which Byline says it never intended to convey the meaning the articles obviously bear: Byline cannot therefore argue that it had any reasonable belief in the truth of what it published. Nor did Byline put that allegation to our clients (and did not put any allegations at all to Liz Hartley)”.

The articles don’t obviously bear any such meaning; there is none there.

(c) Martin Rowson and Byline Media 2017

Then, after that initial flourish of bravura and bluster, comes the climbdown.

“However we note that Byline has published our clients' Letter of Claim of 13 March 2017, which sets out the evidence which demonstrates that Byline’s allegations are untrue”. If there were a scrap of evidence, they would willingly test it in court. They won’t. Because there isn’t.

And the latest demands? This is where it becomes truly laughable: “Our clients are therefore prepared to settle their claim if your client will give the following undertakings”. Yes? Yes yes? Yes yes yes?

“1. To continue to publish, with equal prominence to your client's original articles, and without amendment, our clients' Letter of Claim of 13 March”.

NO ACTION REQUIRED.

“2. To continue to publish, in the same position, same font and same red box, the statement currently published at the top of the articles originally published on 3rd, 4th and 7th March. With the first paragraph of that statement to remain unaltered and the second, third and fourth paragraphs to be deleted and replaced with a link to our clients’ letter of 13 March”.

VERY LITTLE ACTION REQUIRED.

“3. Not to repeat in further articles the allegations made in the articles that our clients deliberately suppressed evidence to the Leveson Inquiry”.

THEY DIDN’T MAKE THAT ALLEGATION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Hur de Durly Murl an de turtal chucky

Is that it? Here’s your answer: “If Byline agrees to this course of action our clients are prepared to waive any claim to damages or costs. Meanwhile they reserve all their rights”.

Ho yus. Shove your rights, O Vagina Monologue.

Let’s be clear what this means: Paul Dacre and his pals tried to silence Byline Media and implied that they were serious about taking them to court for libel. Then, after a robust rebuttal of their claim, they have come whimpering back with what is effectively a non-demand for a non-correction with a non-apology.

The might of Northcliffe House has fallen at the first hurdle. Their attempt to silence Byline and by doing so to chill free speech has proved futile. Martin Rowson’s cartoon has proved prophetic: David has once again slain Goliath.

Paul Dacre, Peter Wright and Liz Hartley should count themselves lucky that they are not now being referred to the precedent legal case of Arkell v Pressdram.