Welcome To Zelo Street!

This is a blog of liberal stance and independent mind

Sunday, 7 March 2021

Nigel Farage - Not Really Retiring

It is a sure sign of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy that has infected our free and fearless press over the recent past that someone who has never held elective office in the UK should still be able to summon the media establishment to act as stenographers for the benefit of Himself Personally Now - and still not face the threat of actual interrogation. So it is with former Brexit Party Oberscheissenführer Nigel “Thirsty” Farage.

The stenography, to no surprise at all, has been performed by Christopher “No” Hope, who claims both to be a real journalist, and to work for the increasingly desperate and downmarket Telegraph. Published as an exclusive, his article is headlined “Nigel Farage quits politics - and this time he means it”. To the credit of those at the Independent, their lift of the story puts the phrase “quits politics” in quote marks - and for good reason.

For starters, the sub-heading of the Tel article tells “The Reform Party leader is stepping back after nearly three decades. But he’s still got the woke brigade in his crosshairs”. So he’s not quitting at all, merely refocusing his North And South. He’ll now be going after those who, to quote the dictionary definition, are “alert to injustices in society, especially racism”. And he isn’t actually leaving the Reform Party, either.

As the Indy makes clear: “He said he would continue to support Reform UK after handing over leadership to the party's chairman Richard Tice … However Mr Farage warned that he was ‘not going away’ as he was going to continue with his media career”. So anyone thinking that they can tune in to BBC Question Time without having to risk Nige leering at them will be in for a nasty shock. So what will he be ranting about post-Brexit?

He also said he wanted to campaign against ‘the increasing influence of the Chinese communist party over our whole way of life’ and ‘the indoctrination of children at school’, which he claimed meant many pupils were ‘encouraged to hate this country’”. So blaming someone else for Brexit, demonising anyone to his left, wrapping himself in the flag and denouncing anyone who disagrees with him as being insufficiently patriotic, then.

Also, the idea he is going to leave the Reform Party (which is the Brexit Party, er, fluid in a differently labelled bottle) to his chief Gauleiter Richard Tice (and, by inference, Tice’s equally avoidable partner, mercenary hack Isabel Oakeshott) is for the birds. Farage admits he will take up an “honorary position” with the party.

When he saysI now feel I can do just as much to shift public opinion through media and social media as I can as a campaigning party leader”, he means Tice and the rest in the Reform Party get to do all the hard work, while Nige gets the salesman gig, doing what he enjoys most, rocking up at studios and shooting from the hip. Again. And again.

So when Mr Thirsty tells us it’s over, it isn’t. Once again, Hope and his pals at the Tel have brought forth a huge steaming pile of weapons grade bullpucky. No change there, then.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at


Saturday, 6 March 2021


In the days when the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre edited the Daily Mail, holding the inmates of the Northcliffe House bunker in his customary iron grip, the paper and its Sunday stablemate the Mail on Sunday would occasionally and grudgingly publish so-called “corrections”, latterly on Page 2. But nothing, absolutely nothing, would be published on the front page that was other than under the total control of the editor.

Dacre argued that to lose control of the front page could never be countenanced. He would not be directed by any press regulator to give over any part of it to admitting his paper had got it wrong. He will be spitting tacks this morning at the news that the MoS, where he is still, nominally at least, managing editor, has indeed lost control of its front page, and as a result of a legal action brought by one of its favourite hate figures.

The BBC has put it directly: “Mail on Sunday must publish front page statement of Meghan copyright win”. Press Gazette had even worse news for the MoS: “The statement font size should be no smaller than the front page headline ‘Meghan’s shattering letter to her father’ published on 10 February 2019, the judge ordered”. The front page statement will refer to a longer statement that the MoS must publish inside the paper.

This is not a time for levity ... er, Bwahahahaha!

Warby LJ observed “The defendant devoted a very considerable amount of space to the infringing articles, which it continued to publish for over two years. It has devoted a very considerable number of further column inches, and many hundreds if not thousands of words, to coverage of earlier stages of this litigation and commentary upon them. The wording sought is modest by comparison, and factual in nature”. OUCH!

The statement must read “The court has given judgment for the Duchess of Sussex on her claim for copyright infringement. The court found that Associated Newspapers infringed her copyright by publishing extracts of her handwritten letter to her father in The Mail On Sunday and in Mail Online. There will be a trial of the remedies to which the duchess is entitled, at which the court will decide whether the duchess is the exclusive owner of copyright in all parts of the letter, or whether any other person owns a share”.

And the MoS has no control over the wording. It must give over part of its front page, and part of an inside page, as ordered by Warby LJ. This is almost unprecedented: the only comparable recent occasion is when the Express and Daily Star titles published prominent front page apologies to Kate and Gerry McCann after wilfully and repeatedly libelling them over the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, as a condition of claim settlement.

Famous last words, take 94

The odious flannelled fool Master Harry Cole, still pretending to be a real journalist, paid tribute to MoS editor Ted Verity recently over the latter’s unwavering determination to publish what he wanted and when, by saying Verity had “balls of steel”. The Duchess of Sussex just had those balls melted down and sent to the scrapper.

Press regulation campaigners will be raising maybe more than one glass to Megs after the Mail on Sunday’s abject and total humiliation. So will all the victims of press misbehaviour over the years. So should all of us. Because this victory benefits everyone.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at


Liverpool Mayor, Labour, And Bankruptcy

Labour has discarded a shortlist of three perfectly able candidates, all hoping to make their pitch to the party membership for the chance to succeed Joe Anderson, who will not be standing for re-election as Mayor of Liverpool. In their place we now have a shorter shortlist, of just two candidates. And for Labour, one very serious due diligence problem.

Joanne Anderson

The two new Mayoral hopefuls are Anthony Lavelle and Joanne Anderson (no relation to Joe), who are both currently Councillors. As the BBC has reported, “Joanne Anderson was only elected to the council in 2019, Anthony Lavelle hasn't been there much longer and is one of the youngest councillors in the city. Neither of them has held cabinet positions in the current administration. They are essentially back-benchers, which makes them fresh blood but will also raise questions about their level of experience”.

That won’t be the only question asked: Ms Anderson admits on her LinkedIn profile to being a business consultant for Innervision Consultancy. Companies House notes her directorship of the company. But the London Gazette also notes that a Joanne Anderson, with the same address, was declared bankrupt just over two years ago.

It gets worse: Ms Anderson’s LinkedIn profile also tells, in the Volunteer Experience category, that she was a “Trustee and Chair” at South Liverpool Personnel up to 2003. Once again, we see from the London Gazette that a Joanne Anderson, at the same address as a director of South Liverpool Personnel, was declared bankrupt in January 2003. Two bankruptcies. Both easy to find, and easy to link to Ms Anderson.

All of which leads us to a series of conclusions which will not make easy reading for those running the Labour Party. One, there has been a monumental due diligence failure. Two, every opposition party on Merseyside will think their birthdays have all come at once. Three, this sends the worst possible message to those three rejected candidates, none of whom has yet been told why they have been barred from standing.

And Four, our free and fearless press, especially that part controlled by the Murdoch mafiosi, which has seen its presence in Liverpool so diminished since the Hillsborough stadium disaster, will be down on Labour like the proverbial tonne of bricks. All the worst characterisations of Scousers will be exhumed in order to attack Labour.

Also, this raises questions about new look Labour under Keir Starmer and his chosen General Secretary David Evans. This blog will not be the first to pitch the question as to what they knew, and when they knew it. Someone who has been declared bankrupt twice may be a very able politician; that is not the point. The point is that Ms Anderson’s past gives opposition politicians, and the media, the opportunity for a proper field day.

Labour loused up when it discarded those three candidates. Sadly, the lousing up appears not to be over yet. There will be plenty of heads on Labour desks this morning.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at


Friday, 5 March 2021

TalkRADIO Citizenship Stripping ISN’T

As our free and fearless press builds to a crescendo in its wailing at the effrontery of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex - I mean, how DARE they be independent and give an interview without asking for UK Media Establishment approval beforehand - they are guaranteeing that ITV gets one record breaking audience next Monday evening.

The authentic voice of ... failure

The allegedly upmarket Times and Telegraph propaganda is exposed by their having to add “It is understood” to the latest claims of how rotten Megs was to one or more palace flunkies. Interventions from Nicholas “Poison Carrot” Witchell at the BBC are diminished by the knowledge that Prince Charles said “I can’t bear that man, he’s so awful”. And we know Piers Morgan’s constant crying is down to Megs seeing him coming.

But amid all the faux righteousness, one especially egregious example of own goal idiocy towers above all others: the entirely avoidable, premeditated overreach by dribbling bigot Mike Graham, the Mr Blobby of TalkRADIO. His Independent Republic Of Cowardice™ intervention was not accidental: he was clearly reading from a pre-prepared script.

Mike WHO?

Those upstart Californians, Haz and Megs, have dropped themselves right in the brown stuff by kicking off with Oprah Winfrey in the big tell-all interview, while leaving behind them a trail of destruction at Kensington Palace amid claims of bullying, freeloading and wearing jewellery gifted to them from despots around the world”. Not true, but there was more.

Are we in high school? Are we in an episode of Beverley Hills 90210? I’ve got a poll for you this morning, cos I’m sick to death of this pair of freeloading wallies [speak for yourself, pal]”. And so, drawing himself up to his full circumference (surely “height”? - Ed), Graham blustered “I say not only do we strip them from the Royal Family, not only do we take away all Royal connections, not only do we tell them ‘no thanks, don’t bother coming back to the UK’, we strip them, right now, today, of British Citizenship”.

A Twitter poll was then opened, no doubt with an expectation of success, but already the rank hypocrisy was being exposed. James Felton pointed out that Graham had recently played the other side of the field, asserting “Here at TalkRADIO, we’re going to fight for the right to have an opinion which some people might not like”. He was not alone.

Chris Pinkney mused “So we started with stripping citizenship from terrorists [well, an alleged one], and within a week, we've already expanded that to ‘people the Sun have decided we don't like, but haven't actually done anything wrong’. That was quick”. Alex Tiffin added “Funny [TalkRADIO] didn’t ask: Should Prince Andrew finally attend his interview with the FBI over allegations he's a serial paedophile”.

There were many more Andy comments. But worst of all was the result of that Twitter poll: after all Graham’s froth and bluster, from his pre-scripted and rehearsed script, his faithful following somehow disagreed with The Great Man. To the question “Should the UK strip Harry and Meghan of their citizenship?the answer was a resounding 83.8% NO.

So not only did Mike Graham score a monumental own goal for the Murdoch mafiosi, he added a few more tens of thousands to ITV’s Monday evening audience. Some kinds of stupidity you just can’t buy. Except Rupert Murdoch did. Way to go, bigots.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at


Thursday, 4 March 2021

Andrew Pierce - Royally Racist

The Daily Mail’s not-really-racist attitude to the Duchess of Sussex began even before she and Haz had married, typified by the infamous headlineYes, they’re joyfully in love. So why do I get a niggling worry about this engagement picture?” Sarah “Vain” Vine, she of the bookshelf with a book by David Irving, wasn’t at all racist. She just had a NIGGling worry. She didn’t say anything racist, you understand, it was just something NIGGling.

Elsewhere, the swipes at Meg knew no bounds: “How Meghan's favourite avocado snack - beloved of all millennials - is fuelling human rights abuses, drought and murder … The campaigning duchess may be passionate when it comes to racial equality and female empowerment, but for someone who wants to save the planet, she’s committed something of a faux pas with avocados”. Enter the non-racist Northcliffe House food police.

Put that together with the Mail’s deeply unsavoury pundit Andrew Pierce, add a little falsehood and misinformation, and voilà! “[Meghan] wore diamonds from Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia 3 weeks says [The Times] after he ordered murder of #JamalKhashoggi … it's not just appalling timing, why is she taking diamonds from Saudi which treats women as 3rd class citizens. So much for her worldwide equality campaign”.

And as Fred Flintstone might have put it, hold it … HOLD IT! She isn’t taking diamonds from anyone - those remain property of The Crown. Pierce should know that. He should also know how not to pretend he isn’t a nailed-on racist while being, er, a nailed-on racist. But he flunked that one badly on his LBC show yesterday evening.

A caller to The Great Man’s prog opined “You may not agree with this but I believe that Meghan Markle has never been fully accepted because of her skin colour”. Pierce summoned all his intellectual reserves to groan “Oh God, not that one again”.

He then opened mouth and inserted both feet in no style at all: “Do you look at her and see a black woman? Cos I don’t. I see a very attractive woman. It’s never occurred to me that … I never look at her and think, ‘Gosh she’s black’, in the way you look at Oprah Winfrey, you would be in no doubt. When they sit down and do that interview, you will see where [a] black woman called Oprah Winfrey, and you will see a woman who describes a woman … her mother is black, she’s from a mixed race family”. There was more.

Of course, but I just don’t think people look at Meghan and think ‘Oh I hate her because of her skin colour’. I don’t see … I don’t buy it”. So Megs isn’t really black, so all the abuse isn’t at all racist, even Sarah Vine and her NIGGling worry. And anyway, properly black women aren’t very attractive, at least by inference. Which sums up the Daily Mail in one.

Clumsy racism that isn’t really racism. Tone deaf and out of touch. Nadine Batchelor Hunt was only slightly gobsmacked. “What the fuck have I just watched?” Owen Jones added “This is absolutely horrific on every level”. Louise Raw, who you can tell as she’s a doctor, responded “He said he doesn’t look at Meghan Markle and see a Black woman; he sees an ATTRACTIVE one. Therefore she can’t be a victim of racism. WHERE TO START”.

Russ in Cheshire summed up. “In a single week we've had: - 5 gentiles debating if Jews are a proper minority - 5 middle-aged white men debating whether a young black woman can really be a victim - And Andrew Pierce asserting on radio that Meghan Markle isn't legitimately black … Broadcasters: WTF?” WTF indeed.

Andrew Pierce may not be totally and irretrievably racist. But you can see it from there.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at


Wednesday, 3 March 2021

Dan Wootton’s Meghan Mistake

The Oprah interview is ready to go. ITV has reportedly stumped up a cool million for the UK rights. Next Monday will bring the moment of truth. But our free and fearless press, already on the back foot after the Mail on Sunday was bested in court, and with more lawsuits to come, does not want to see a situation where the Duke and Duchess of Sussex get to do anything without their say-so. So the pre-emptive strikes have begun.

But here a problem enters: apart from the usual tactic of doling out abuse, and pleading for the Haz ’n’ Meg Oprah special to be postponed because Phil The Greek is in hospital (if he pegs out soon after the broadcast, the press will blame the Sussexes, not the fact that he’s in his hundredth year), there was no actual word from the rest of the Royals. Until today.

It was the Murdoch Times that splashed the apparent Royal retaliation across the front page, proclaiming “Royal aides reveal Meghan bullying claim before interview”, and going on to tell “Royal sources have hit back at the Duchess of Sussex before her television interview with Oprah Winfrey by revealing that she faced a bullying complaint made by one of her closest advisors during her time at Kensington Palace”. And there is more.

The sources approached The Times because they felt that only a partial version had emerged of Meghan’s two years as a working member of the Royal Family and they wished to tell their side, concerned about how such matters are handled by the Palace. The complaint … was made in October 2018 by Jason Knauf, the couple’s communications secretary at the time”. So who might the sources be?

We did not have to wait long for someone who should know better to shoot his mouth off: step forward the singularly unpleasant Dan Wootton, former “Executive Editor” at the Sun, although soon to jump ship to GB News. “Genuine bombshell from The Times tomorrow revealing the full details of bullying claims against Meghan during her time at Kensington Palace. This email was sent by Jason Knauf, the couple’s then communications secretary”.

Emboldened by the moment, Wootton added “I first reported in December 2018 the serious concerns Kate had about the way Meghan was treating staff. This story was furiously denied at the time by Meghan’s team, but we decided to publish based on the multiple sources I had on the matters”. One of whom might be Jason Knauf.

He is, after all, someone who goes back a long way with Dan Wootton. All the way back to Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. Quite apart from the similarity to knocking copy spread around about Diana, Princess of Wales in the mid 1990s, there is the interesting conjunction between Knauf’s name being pitched by the Times, and Wootton diving in, while also pitching the name of his old University pal.

Jason Knauf ((c) Getty Images)

That’s most unfortunate. Because Knauf is still, according to his LinkedIn entry, employed by the Royal Household. And the Murdoch Sun says heis said to be at the heart of the allegations claiming Meghan Markle bullied staff … In his email which has only just emerged”. Dan Wootton no longer holds any sway at the Sun. And it shows.

Looks like Wootton may have dropped his pal in the mire. What a prize plonker he is.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at


Tuesday, 2 March 2021

Roy Greenslade And Press Hypocrisy

Rather a lot of those who scrabble around the dunghill that is Grubstreet have been taking an exceptionally righteous stance in response to the admission by former Mirror editor Roy Greenslade (who also served the Murdoch Sun and Sunday Times) that he had been a supporter of what was known as the Armed Struggle in Northern Ireland.

Roy Greenslade - views known for decades ...
... maybe he should have openly supported Brexit

The shocked tone belies the sure and certain knowledge that many of those mounting their high horses knew of Greenslade’s Republican sympathies all along. His views were well enough known for Nick Davies to include this passage in Flat Earth News, his go-to book on the machinations of the Fourth Estate: “Greenslade believed in the Irish Republican cause and occasionally wrote for the Sinn Féin paper An Phoblacht, but discreetly hid his work behind the pseudonym George King (i.e. the opposite of King George)”.

I never knew about his views. Or phone hacking

Moreover, back in 1990, when Greenslade became editor of the Mirror, Private Eye magazine was on his case, styling him “Roy Of The Provos”. That’s more than 30 years ago. Surprisingly, nobody else noticed, or at least that is the impression given.

Piers Morgan’s own righteous swipe at Greenslade caused The Great Man to trip up over his shoelaces, as he sneered “The Guardian’s been very vocal about media pundits recently, yet when its own media pundit for 30yrs, Roy Greenslade, reveals he was a secret IRA supporter the whole time & backed its murderous terrorism, they don’t say a word in today’s paper. As cowardly as Mr Greenslade”. But Greenslade was the paper’s media commentator only from 1992 to 2005. Research was never Morgan’s strong suit.

Cancel culture is something only lefties do, honestly

Nor was his ability to explain his paper’s own involvement with criminals: Alastair Campbell never did get a reply to “I've never ducked questions on Iraq. So why [are] you ducking qs re Jonathan Rees?”. Meanwhile, the repellant Andrew Pierce also tripped himself up. "Shouldn't Roy Greenslade lose his professorship over disclosure he was an unapologetic supporter of the IRA's bombing campaign”. Cancel culture, much? Also, he resigned it.

I am now standing in an extremely draughty glasshouse

And the deeply unpleasant former Sun editor Kelvin McFilth rather let himself go: “I always knew Roy Greenslade was a shit. I didn't know he was a pro violence IRA supporting shit. In the Sunday Times he reveals that while working for me at The Sun, editing the Mirror and being a media critic he backed IRA scum killing our people. A complete c***”.

Bozo kept a straight face, did he?

Hardly a surprise, as McFilth never listened to anyone else’s advice. But then someone really sold the pass, as Daily Mail political editor Jason Groves told “Boris Johnson joins criticism of Greenslade over his secret support for the IRA. No 10 says the PM 'outright condemns his comments, specifically those about the killing of civilians’”.

To which one Tweeter told Bozo “If you're upset about Roy Greenslade's support for the IRA, imagine how Colin Parry must have felt when you made Claire Fox a peer of the realm. Seriously. Just try and imagine THAT!” Former BBC man Gavin Esler mused “didn’t Boris Johnson give Claire Fox a position in the House of Lords, despite her past support for the IRA campaign? Is Greenslade’s mistake that he didn’t support Brexit?”.

Also, the likes of McFilth had no problem supporting killing, providing the IRA was on the receiving end (Gibraltar killings, anyone?). Anyone who wanted to know about Greenslade’s views knew years ago. This is so much righteous humbug.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at


Monday, 1 March 2021

Emilie Oldknow - That’s Going To Hurt

Once touted as a future Labour Party General Secretary, Emilie Oldknow, formerly the party’s director for governance, membership and party services, had her reputation severely dented by the leak last April of an internal report into handling of complaints of anti-Semitism. To that denting can now be added a non-trivial legal bill.

Emilie Oldknow

It was in the wake of the report leak that the Jewish Chronicle told “The libel lawyer Mark Lewis is applying for a court order against the Labour Party on behalf of a client to force it to divulge who leaked the antisemitism report last April, so they can be sued. The move, known as a Norwich Pharmacal Order, has previously been used against social media companies such as Twitter to get them supply the names of anonymous users”.

The Guardian reported thatA former senior Labour staffer has taken the party to court in an attempt to force it to disclose the identity of the leaker of a report on antisemitism in the party that contained hundreds of private WhatsApp messages … One of those named in the report, Emilie Oldknow … demanded in a court hearing on Monday that the names of the leakers be revealed in order to give her the option of taking legal action against them”.

As Private Eye might have put it, I wonder if the two are in any way related? I think we should be told. Lawman Lewis has, in the past, threatened the use of Norwich Pharmacal orders. But then came the judgment, and for Ms Oldknow, and whoever she had instructed, the moment of reality. She lost. And that meant she would have to pay costs.

The Guardian was, once again, on hand to bring the news. “The alleged leakers of a controversial Labour party report into its handling of antisemitism should not be named because it would risk harm to potentially innocent individuals, the high court has ruled. The case was brought by the former senior Labour staffer Emilie Oldknow”.

It got worse. “Oldknow has been ordered to pay the Labour party’s costs and has been refused permission to appeal … Five anonymous individuals, represented by the trade union Unite, who deny any responsibility for the leak, were also represented at the hearing”. So she’ll most likely have to stump up for their costs, too. And there was more.

Ms Justice Tipples said that Oldknow’s claim ‘smacks of a fishing expedition, so that the claimant can cast around to identify potential defendants’ to sue … ‘In my view, if the Labour party is required to identify individuals … It will be doing no more than identifying a list of who it reasonably believes are to be the culprits … There is therefore no certainty that the information sought will lead to the identification of the wrongdoer or wrongdoers’”.

One of yours, Mark? Not like you to lose, is it?

And more. "She said there would be ‘a very real potential to cause harm to any innocent persons as they will then find themselves threatened with legal proceedings, which they will then have to defend’”. At considerable expense. And talking of considerable expense, Unite The Union had instructed Messrs Carter Ruck. That means it’s expensive.

Also, another thought occurs: next month marks a year since the revelations of the leaked report. So anyone wanting to sue for defamation may be out of time. Especially as the request to appeal the Judge’s decision was refused - which means that is that.

Even the greatest lawyers come unstuck eventually. I’ll just leave that one there.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at


Priti Patel Won’t Jail Anyone

Her unscripted ramblings may make no more sense than the average Costa Blanca resort rep, but Priti Patel, inexplicably elevated to the role of Home Secretary, can always be assured that there is one part of our free and fearless press ready to publish her press releases, and that is the part ruled over by the Murdoch mafiosi.

So it is that the Cosa Rupra has splashed Ms Patel’s latest blast of empty hot air across the front page of the no longer upmarket Times, which has proclaimed “People smugglers will be jailed for life, vows Patel … Alarm grows over surge in Channel crossings”. Readers are then told, as if they missed it the first time, “People smugglers will face life sentences under Priti Patel’s plans to crack down on Channel crossings, the Times has learnt”.

Has learnt because the Murdoch goons were briefed by someone not unadjacent to Ms Patel, they mean. And although the Times article is behind a paywall, the Sun’s lifting of it is not (see how that works, Rupe?). The Currant Bun’s version tellsMs Patel is expected to announce the move in a bid to increase the average length of sentences for gangsters convicted of assisting illegal immigration”. And who would the source of that be?

A Home Office spokesman said: ‘Whilst criminal gangs continue to put lives at risk it is right we consider every option to stop their exploitation of people’”. “It is right”, so almost certainly, Ms Patel dictated it. As for life terms, “A Home Office source said: ‘Hopefully we’ll see [life sentences] used in the worst cases, and then in other cases we will start seeing the 12, 15, 20-year sentences that these people aren’t getting at the moment’”.

Might be. Hopefully. But, as Jon Stewart might have put it, two things here. One, this outburst from Priti Patel has not come out of the blue: once again, rather than bothering to do her job, she is scared that the low moaning sound emanating from Nigel “Thirsty” Farage, who is now resembling a stuck record as he whines about asylum seekers coming ashore on the Channel coast, may gain traction and out-hatred her.

After all, Nige is spewing disinformation at some rate right now: “Dunkirk has one of the highest Covid rates in France, yet 33 more people illegally came to the UK by dinghy today [from where?] Some were even escorted by the French Navy [no citation] Even more will come tomorrow, yet we are still locked down and told not to leave our homes [wrong] … Covid crisis in Dover this morning. One migrant boat with 12 on board and they all tested positive for the virus [lying again]. Get a grip [Priti Patel]”. Hatred Ms Patel can’t ignore.

And Two, she isn’t going to jail anyone if those doing the people smuggling aren’t here in the UK. Which, if they are arranging boats and taking bookings in northern France, they won’t be. Worse for Ms Patel, her chance of having anyone identified as a people trafficker extradited at any speed other than Very Slowly Indeed just vanished after the UK was pulled out of the European Arrest Warrant scheme on leaving the EU.

Indeed, the Sun article concedes the point: “However, a government source said smugglers are often difficult to track down and prosecute as many operate overseas”.

When trying to out-hatred Nigel Farage over anything factual, Priti Patel needs to heed the old adage that You Should Never Get Into A Pissing Competition With A Skunk.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at