02 July, 2011
Compare and contrast
... If you think what Hari has been doing is the lowest of the low, hoo-boy, are there surprises in store for you if you spend some time looking behind what you read in newspapers.
So, yes, Johann Hari should be in trouble for what he did and I guess that's up to his editor. He's apologised and said he won't do it again. In a world where the Press Complaints Commission allows columnists to tell bald-faced untruths preceeded by the words 'the fact is', that'll probably be enough. If he ends up getting into more trouble, can't say I'll be complaining. I won't be complaining if he doesn't either.
Translation: Hari is a plagiarist lying prick but he's one of our lying pricks, and he lies for a good cause. So I'm going to hum and har a bit, pretend this is a storm in a teacup, and slip in a bit of implicit whataboutery to muddy the waters.
Little Nicky Lowles, blogging about a Nick Griffin tweet,
The BNP leader Nick Griffin has tweeted how he hopes a visitor to the House of Commons tonight blows himself up in what would presumably be, some sort of suicide bombing.
A controversial Muslim cleric is due to address a meeting at the House of Commons this evening. Griffin wrote: "..they've invited a banned Islamist to speak in House of Commons this evening. Hope he blows himself up there!"
Translation: a far-righter has spoken. Everything uttered by a far-righter must be parsed, analysed and deconstructed for any potential evil meaning, much in the manner of a Stormfronter poring over some public utterance looking for the tell-tale mark of ZOG. Everything a far-righter said must be construed absolutely literally if it is advantageous to do so. Remember, the far right are stupid, ignorant and illiterate, except of course where they are being devious and evilly clever.
Never indulged in antagonistic throwaway rhetoric then, Nicky? If I were to write that, come the revolution, you and Matthew Collins would be the first ones up against the wall, would you construe that literally as a serious death threat and call in the Old Bill?
Further down, Nicky warms to his theme,
After the dreadful 7th July suicide bombings in central London back in 2005, the BNP took images of the carnage and distress and turned them into a vile leaflet which the BNP delivered three days later in Barking and Dagenham during a council by election there. The candidate standing against the BNP was a Muslim, something that the BNP tried to make a great deal of. The BNP were hammered by the electorate, who were rightly disgusted.
Everybody, Right, Left and Centre, has made use of images of the 7/7 event to illustrate political publications, in particular the "iconic" images of Davinia Douglass holding a burns mask to her face as she is helped away from the Edgware Road station, and the twisted wreckage of the No 30 bus at Tavistock Square.
But apparently when these images are used by those not of your political tribe, Nicky, such use is "vile", is it? Tedious, intolerant no-platformist hypocrite.