Guardian/Daily Mash merger runaway success on its very first day

David Cameron, Barack Obama and the Danish prime minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, may have been caught out being less than graceful at Nelson Mandela's memorial service by taking selfies, but at least they got one bit of etiquette right. They didn't arrive at the service after the deceased. At the funeral of a friend of mine, I turned round to watch the coffin being brought into the church only to spot my therapist scuttling in behind it. My psychological wellbeing has been greatly improved ever since.

Top xeno-psychologist Roy Hobbs explained today that “To argue that when certain people do in fact act  like total wankers they are at the same time being totally cool by not parking a 40-vehicle motorcade, a fold-up eco-bike and the Danish Embassy’s State Skoda in a football stadium when the crowd is already singing the first verse of ‘Let’s kill some Zulus’ - though that might admittedly actually upset some people - and then to also assert that such crassness could also refreshingly take the sting out of global grief was an act of intellectual flexibility, meme-plaiting, non sequiturs and treble-standards with which only a Guardian writer would start his analysis.”

You could argue that world leaders have a duty to be statesmanlike at memorials and that hatchet-faced solemnity is the order of the day. You might even wonder how much any of them really cared that Mandela had died. Most of them would probably only have met him a couple of times at most and in the ordinary run of events you don't go to memorials of people you've only met twice.

Political gossip columnist Emma Bradford praised the G-13 celebs as “Extraordinarily sensitive, given the circumstances. President Obama in particular has risen to the occasion splendidly. Having never found time to meet the world’s most popular black man in the scant five years of his globe-trotting Presidency, Big O’s appearance today at a globally televised funeral says it all, really”.

But world leaders have to do what world leaders have to do. And if it means jetting halfway across the world, both to represent your country and to show you are important enough to be invited, then needs must.

Henry Brubaker at the Institute of Studies seconded that emotion by explaining that “It was an act of diplomatic time-management genius for Queen Gertrude, The Big Number Two and the Big Number One to visit the funeral in person.

They could simply have paid tribute by dispatching proxies such as a drone Lego X-Wing Fighter, by sending an over-flight by the Royal Air Craft, or simply by allowing American Consular staff to be murdered by Soweto businessmen and going back to bed; blaming their televised murders, rape and dismemberment on critical reaction to a You Tube trailer for the racist film ‘Pearl Necklace.’

Getting censorious about Obama, Cameron and Thorning-Schmidt having a laugh is to miss the point. If they had laughed the whole way through the service, then it would have been a misjudgment. But they didn't. They were serious when required, which is the way it should be. A memorial is a sad time, but it's also a time to remember the fun bits of the dead person's life. Irreverence is not the same as disrespect. I'm not sure that Mandela would have taken a selfie at Obama's memorial if the positions had been reversed, but I'm fairly sure he would have seen the funny side of Obama posing at his.

“Actually,” chuckled Tom Logan “in life Nelson Mandela was well known for his terrific sense of humour. You only have to remember his promises upon his historic release from Batman Prison during Antiques Roadshow of a better life for every South African when the ANC came to power to realize what a natural genius he had for comic timing and the delayed punch-line. I’m sure he’d get a giggle out of three leaders of the Free World acting like students in Wetherspoons at a Freshers’ Weekend Hos ‘n Bros pub crawl sending their shiny, happy smiles to Facebook. 

Like"

A memorial should celebrate and reflect the life of the deceased. Remember Margaret Thatcher's funeral earlier this year? Everyone at St Paul's Cathedral behaved with the utmost solemnity. But was there ever a more joyless, soulless service? Thatcher left this world into a public emotional void. Compared with that, Obama's selfie could almost be construed as an act of love.

Nikki Hollis observed today: “If only the mourners at the Thatcher planting had loosened up a bit and sung a couple of verses of ‘Don’t Cry For Me, Argentina,’ let off a few party poppers like the SAS at the Iranian Embassy and passed out trays of post-Soviet Russian vodka shots it wouldn’t have been such a snooze. 

And how right that Guardian writer is. After all, what does the very word Obama mean to most everyone if not the world’s latest and widest-used synonym for an act of love?”

Picture from here.

Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash. Daily Mash.

And finally...

   No decent person can fail to condemn without equivocation the arson attacks alleged to have been made on mosques in Grimsby and Braintree.

   Violence of any sort can have no place in a democratic society and this blog is in no way defending the alleged attacks by individuals who may be members or supporters of a network of working class community associations prominent in run-down areas of cities across the country.

   We should make plain that the alleged perpetrators of these unconscionable crimes are in no way representative of patriotic English sentiment in this country. They don’t speak for us. They weren’t encouraged by us to take any illegal (let alone life-threatening) action. There is nothing inherently violent or aggressive in the belief that communities live happiest and safest together if they follow common legal systems based upon shared values and venerable customs, and by identifying with each other through symbols and rituals that have been passed down over the generations. Nor is there necessarily anything bigoted at indicating that some ideologies have a dark side, and that, for example, a minority of Muslims worldwide may be involved in occasional wrongdoing.

   The lives of innocent individuals, including women and children at prayer have been put at risk. We can only hope that all involved are safe and well and that the police make rapid progress followed by arrests and exemplary convictions of the guilty parties. The perpetrators are not genuine English patriots but rather a tiny number of unrepresentative extremists who give the rest of us a bad name.  

   And yet, one can’t help but wonder what led to this violence; to this sudden unthinking and meaningless savagery.

  The media and political elites have been quick to point the finger of blame at the English Defence League; a suspected Right-wing or nationalist group with links to groups in other countries who have also been suspected of being Right-wing and nationalist. But what makes young, poorly educated, excessively diverse and disenfranchised men break out of the accepted norms of society and throw, if reports are true, improvised explosive devices at places of worship?

  Can it be the atmosphere of contempt and loathing that the most powerful in society have created around an increasingly beleaguered community, with public figures from the highest in the land right down to David Cameron not only refusing to engage with their concerns but also tacitly supporting those who attack their demonstrations? Are a small number of exaggerated or over-heated urban myths about attacks on this poorly-educated minority’s women and girls a contributory factor in their unthinking rage? Can the senseless but unique attack by deranged individuals against an off-duty soldier have sparked these disenfranchised and impoverished young men to become militant?

   We may never know. All we need to know is that these unconscionable crimes have met with solid and sincere condemnation by the entire patriotic community, continue to call for calm and be aware that the safety of innocent civilians is in the best of hands.

Meanwhile, gangs of youths may have been involved in scuffles with the police.

How does all that sound?

Climate of fear

Dumb Jon alludes tonight to an egregious example of a Left-wing ‘voluntary sector’ collective punishment in the Home of Truth itself.

'However, we will be appealing, because we feel it would be better to further punish individuals rather than punishing the club as a whole. It is some immature, unruly individuals who are putting the club in a bad light.’

There’s that notable ‘tiny and unrepresentative minority whose aberrant actions do not reflect the true nature of the majority, and whose misdemeanours have been used by bigots to dehumanize and demonise the law-abiding majority and create a climate of fear for the victims’ defence again.

Good luck with that one: I don’t think it was ever intended to protect unqualified bachelors.

On a lighter note:

The separate medics' team, the women's team and the touch rugby groups will all be allowed to continue playing.

So that’s the future NHS employees, the Fair Sex and the, um, frightfully well-dressed, sensitive men all allowed to carry on regardless with their fun. Odd how that seems to work in the grown-up world, too.

Apotapocakettle

 It’s an apocalypse, I tell you!

Thanks to Big Journalism and The Other McCain we distant Brits are introduced to a perfect summation of the American branch of the international Leftie elite’s ‘thinking’ about Weinergate, as they point their quivering, happy index fingers to Alternet’s foremost chained-in-the-cellar feminazi, Amanda Marcotte.

Like most political junkies who tuned in to Anthony Weiner’s press conference confession of online flirtations, I went through a series of emotions: irritation at Weiner’s stupidity, anger at Andrew Breitbart’s sleaziness, frustration that this story gets coverage during an economic crisis, and embarrassment for the reporters who thought it appropriate to ask if he’s getting professional help or demand that Weiner’s wife stand around so that everyone can gawk at her. But one concern rose above all others. This scandal may represent the end of the presumption of sexual privacy for politicians, and possibly even for journalists, activists, and bureaucrats---anyone whose public humiliation could benefit the ideologues wed to the politics of personal destruction.

This is Left-wing feminism in the low-carbon age of western bankruptcy and a useful reminder of how our owners think.

…irritation at Weiner’s stupidity… – would that be the stupidity that means sending genital portraits to anyone, some of whom are underage girls, or the stupidity of pressing the tell the world button instead of pressing the online stalking button?

…anger at Andrew Breitbart’s sleaziness… – ‘sleaziness’ being the perfect word for a reporter who publishes details of political leader’s sexual, um, peccadilloes when that political leader is Left-wing.

…frustration that this story gets coverage during an economic crisis,.. - the brokest country in history, as Mark Steyn puts it, nearly missed out on an extension to the Bush tax cuts thanks to Wiener, her poor baby, but remember, it’s their money: not ours (or rather America’s Joe Soap’s), and what’s the US debt anyway compared with the importance of Weiner’s 100% Lefty voting history on sexual matters?

What the hey, she’s a Lefty, she’s apparently as happy as Larry that the printing presses are running 24/7 and the US Central Government is borrowing ¼ billion dollars an hour above its tax take, so there’s nothing new here.

…and embarrassment for the reporters who thought it appropriate to ask if he’s getting professional help

Because he’s sane. Sane, d’you hear me? sAnE! Sane with nothing at all criminal to apologise for .

….or demand that Weiner’s wife stand around so that everyone can gawk at her – rather than condemning the unconvicted (and ultimately not guilty) upper class, white male lacrosse players of a little racist rape. 

But here’s the money quote.

As in, ‘It’s your money so give it all to me along with your conscience, individual freedom, prosperity, self-respect and constitutional rights. Also your blood if you were expecting a policeman to protect you from…whoever.'

But one concern rose above all others. This scandal may represent the end of the presumption of sexual privacy for politicians, and possibly even for journalists, activists, and bureaucrats---anyone whose public humiliation could benefit the ideologues wed to the politics of personal destruction.

the end of the presumption of sexual privacy for politicians, and possibly even for journalists, activists, and bureaucrats---anyone whose public humiliation could benefit the ideologues wed to the politics of personal destruction.

the end of the presumption of sexual privacy for politicians, and possibly even for journalists, activists, and bureaucrats---

sexual privacy for politicians, and possibly even for journalists, activists, and bureaucrats.

Politicians, journalists, activists, and bureaucrats.

How we are bought and sold.

Any stupidity or vileness or defamation or criminal irresponsibility is A-OK for our owners (on both side of the Atlantic: whose husband’s pornography bill to UK taxpayers was rewarded by the BBC with a TV documentary starring her?), but the people who can drag us in front of our employers or real courts for ‘hate speech’  and ruin our jobs and private lives; who can organise lifelong campaigns of defamation against individuals and groups with whom they disagree and thus suppress freedom to express contrary opinions and perhaps better public policy; who can make permanent war on all the institutions that restrain them and their power over government and culture; who have wounded marriage and twisted the institution of family into battlefields of political correctness and potential litigation by inoculating society with the mentality of late1970’s student unions; who can libel or slander anyone who doesn’t follow the narrative; who defame all men as rapists and everyone who would punish criminals instead of releasing them on easy terms as sexual sadists and who universalize the sexual perversions of a minority of evil clerics in various churches (but never mosques) and who can suck on the tax teat their whole lives long to promote their politics…perish the thought that they should ever be exposed as the primping, self-promoting, scurrilous and sordid poseurs that they are.

Raw courage: the very stuff of liberalism

Stars attack BBC over Gaza appeal

THE BBC's best-loved stars from across north London have criticised the corporation's decision not to show an aid appeal from Gaza, but have urged against a planned boycott of the public service network.

Monty Python star Michael Palin, former newsreader Martin Bell, veteran comedian Warren Mitchell and BBC presenters Joan Bakewell and Esther Rantzen have all questioned the actions of the network.

I bet the question wasn’t; “Why, on this one occasion, are you not falling over yourselves to treat the ‘Palestinian’ people of Gaza as hapless victims of unthinking Israeli violence?”

This week the BBC and Sky refused to show the appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC), an umbrella group of 13 aid agencies who have been organising televised pleas for 46 years without interruption.

The local stars, also including writer Deborah Moggach, whose Anne Frank series…which proves that she and presumably publicity around the appeal and its recipients can’t be anti-Semitic...has just been shown on the BBC, and Only Fools And Horses actor Roger Lloyd-Pack, have slammed the decision but have fallen short of those, such as Oscar-nominee Samantha Morton, who said she would boycott future projects unless the BBC had a rethink.

Well done, that’s precisely one of you prepared to leave acting your career at the mercy of liberal Hollywood, ITV, Channel Four, and numerous other program commissioning organisations, and I expect there’s a whole department at the BBC devoted to excluding artists who make overtly Left-wing and pro-Palestinian comments from ever working at the Beeb again as long as they live, right? …

Ms Rantzen said: "I don't think death is discriminatory…especially when brought by missiles lofted randomly at Israeli towns and villages by Hamas. I’m certainly not going to mention at any point the great care that the Israeli forces take to avoid hurting non-combatants, nor the deliberate siting of Hamas terrorists and their resources where any counter-measures are certain to cause civilian casualties…and I would be delighted to give donations to the appeal provided the charities can ensure that the money goes to save lives.

Good for you. Obviously those of us who pay taxes to Her Majesty’s Government to pass on to the European Union and the United Nations to hand over to Hamas in a variety of ways might think something different.

"But I think it would be completely inappropriate to boycott the BBC.What with it being a major employer of ageing TV celebrities and all…I think that would be very self-important and none of us can know the full arguments put both to the BBC and Sky when they came to these decisions."And none of us are is getting any younger and who knows when That’s Life might be revived?

Hampstead Garden Suburb's Martin Bell agreed: "The BBC has made the totally wrong decision but I don't believe in a boycott - we need the BBC."

Pronounced in Standard Received English as ‘- I may still need the BBC’

Primrose Hill resident Joan Bakewell said she wasn't sure about sit-ins, boycotts or tearing up licence fees…or contracts, pay cheques, future royalties.. but did think the decision was wrong. So I hope I’ll be able to dine around Hampstead and Islington without the cut direct from my fellow bien-pensants."

The two-minute appeal was aired on all terrestrial channels on Monday night just before 6.30pm. A backlash then came from stars, who threatened to rule out appearing in BBC productions or paying licence fees.

‘Stars,’ plural…?

Despite the BBC and Sky's failure to show the film, the appeal has raised a record £1million. As Michael Palin pointed out: "The BBC's decision seems confused to say the least but,…I really like being a successful BBC travel writer. Lovely holidays I get to go on…as a result, this has been one of the most widely publicised appeals in recent years and anyone who chooses to contribute can do so without any difficulty.I would be more worried if I felt the BBC's coverage of the war was inadequate, but I think the BBC did a commendable job of trying to get stories out of Gaza…without asking any awkward questions or for corroboration from non-Hamas sources… despite the Israeli ban on the international press...which may have been related to the court-suppressed report of the BBC’s overwhelming bias against Israel over everything but especially about the Lebanon war."

Other stars said the corporation should go back on its decision and air the piece. Long-time Gaza supporter Mr Lloyd-Pack said: "The decision is a bad mistake. I have written to them and asked that they rescind on that decision.By not showing this appeal they are exercising support the other way. This is not about politics……though any BBC series showing the medical and psychological results of eight years of rocket attacks on Israel’s civilian areas would have been political..- the wrong kind of… people are dying."

South End Green resident Ms Moggach said: "I can't imagine why the BBC isn't showing it. They have shown these appeals for other war situations and what has happened in Gaza is terrible beyond belief."

Highgate's Warren Mitchell told the Ham&High the boycotters can at least be thanked for raising awareness: "I think the BBC should show it. This is a humanitarian thing and being Jewish I have a worrisome interest in the whole matter.

But not to the point of risking putting one particular Jew at odds with one of his most generous of employers.

"I'm sure the BBC won't care if some out-of-work actors…(poor souls, whoever they might be, but they won’t be me)…

… fail to pay their licence fee, but it does get a bit of publicity - even the Ham&High is writing about it."

So far, more than 20,000 people have complained to the BBC about its decision.

Out of 60,000,000.

From Ham and High here.

Many thanks to eagle-eyed DB in the Why Our Politics Is Rubbish post at House of Dumb.

Home