Spectator National Trust Lies BUSTED

The tsunami of exaggeration and invention that is the mostly confected “culture war”, and indeed the “war on woke”, has thus far had the unswerving support of one publication above all others, and that is the increasingly alt-right Spectator magazine. Sad to say, though, in being thus supportive, a few of those expedient exaggerations have slipped out.

Moore and bigger whoppers by Himself Personally Now

Which brings us to the sad decline of one Charles Hilary Moore, an alleged peer of the realm, and a former editor of the increasingly desperate and downmarket Telegraph, its Sunday sister paper, and indeed the Speccy, whose National Trust hatchet job in the latter publication has caused his trousers to spontaneously combust in no style at all.

“According to a current National Trust employee, who naturally remains anonymous: ‘At interviews people are asked how they voted in the Brexit referendum, and rejected out of hand if they voted to leave’” he claims. The “source” continues “There is an atmosphere of fear and bullying - not, as the upper echelons in the Trust would like to believe, among downtrodden minorities, but among anyone who holds a view opposed to the neo-Marxist model prevalent in the organisation”. How convenient for the Speccy. And there is more.

“Since the Trust’s ‘Prejudice and Pride’ initiative [an (sic) campaign to ‘showcase’ gay connections with the Trust], they have been in cahoots with Stonewall, whereby ‘LGBTQ allies’ are recruited to spy on and weed out anyone who thinks, speaks or acts in an ‘unacceptable’ way”. And then there is Moore’s moderately wacko summing up.

“In studying how wokery took over the Trust (and many other cultural bodies, notably museums), I think the key to it lies in staff recruitment and HR. It is the 2020s equivalent of the hard-left penetration of trade unions in the 1970s”. The NT, having perused Moore’s drivel, has concluded “This isn't correct. These allegations are without evidence or foundation, and some are plain ludicrous. We’ve asked for a retraction from the Spectator”.

But after Jim Pickard of the FT had observed “of all that things that have never happened this has to be quite high up”, Evan Harris, who you can tell as he’s a doctor, had bad news: “Pointless exercise … Because IPSO is a press lapdog, not watchdog, and is run by a former Tory minister. It takes months to find a loop-hole for the publication or organise a tiny ‘buried’ correction with no apology”. IPSO will do next to nothing. As usual.

The only way to gain redress would be to instruct lawyers, but here a problem enters. The National Trust does not have the wherewithal to splash its cash on lawsuits, and this is factored into Moore’s trotting out yet another Spectator whopper. It’s why charitable organisations are such a favourite target for less principled organs of the press.

Indeed, such is the Speccy’s alt-right mindset that their Twitter feed recently quoted Lionel Shriver (an immigrant) telling “This is purely anecdotal, but in my formerly white, working-class neighbourhood of south London, the proportion of Africans on the streets is high. In the 11 years we’ve lived there, that proportion has palpably risen”.

Sam Freedman observed “The Spectator actually deleted this nasty bit of racism (though the article containing it remains on their site). Maybe developing a tiny bit of shame at the bilge they're now pumping out on a daily basis”. If only. Like so much of our free and fearless press, dog-whistling and lying for clicks is de rigueur. If they can get away with it.

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

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet9

Trump Insurrection - Next Stop UK

The seat of US democracy barricaded, invaded, stormed, ransacked: the Capitol was, yesterday afternoon, trashed by several hundred thugs loyal to Combover Crybaby Donald Trump, who had incited them to riot against the reality of his having lost the Presidential election last November. Four people are now dead: there have been several arrests, there will doubtless be many more, and ultimately Trump gained nothing.

Other, that is, than his own side giving serious consideration to invoking the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, in order to remove him from office before January 20. But, those in the UK might reassure themselves, it could not happen here. Trump is a one-off, a mere aberration. And to those people I have to tell them they are plain flat wrong.

The only difference between UK and USA is that the flashpoint need not be over an election, but in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic - and the Government’s inept mismanagement of its response - and the tightening of the screw over Brexit, as the UK loses influence, trade, and jobs. A perfect storm of decline will most likely follow.

And the similarity between UK and USA is the belief instilled in so many people: in the States, it was belief that the election had been stolen from Trump; here, it is a series of beliefs, from Covid-19 denialism, through lockdown defiance and anti-vax campaigners, to belief that Brexit would be a success, were it not for all those who didn’t want it.

You think I jest? Already, alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson has responded “Disgraceful scenes in U.S. Congress. The United States stands for democracy around the world and it is now vital that there should be a peaceful and orderly transfer of power”. But he has stopped short of condemning Trump. And he is not alone.

Sky News’ Niall Paterson asked Priti Patel, for some reason appointed Home Secretary, to condemn Trump’s actions. She waffled, she prevaricated, she deflected, but she did not, ultimately, condemn him. She may, after all, be acutely aware of the links between the Trump gang, its Bozo-Brexit counterpart, and their media cheerleaders.

It was Michael “Oiky” Gove, accompanied personally by Rupert Murdoch, who got that interview with Trump. Byline Times has charted the links between Gove and the increasingly hard right Henry Jackson Society, and those between the HJS and white nationalist groups in the USA - some of whom have indulged in violent behaviour.

As the Observer’s Carole Cadwalladr warned two and a half years ago, “Trump & Brexit are not 2 different things. They are the same thing. Same companies. Same data. Same Facebook. Same Russians. Same Cambridge Analytica. Same Robert Mercer. Same Steve Bannon. Same Breitbart. Same Alexander Nix. Same Donald Trump. Same Nigel Farage”. And the same result: people prepared to believe, even if it’s not true.

Those who stormed the Capitol believed Trump won. Many Brexiteers believe it’ll be someone else’s fault - Remainers, ethnic minorities, foreign nationals, multinational corporations, those of insufficiently patriotic intent - when it all goes bad. It won’t be Bozo, Ms Patel, Gove, or Nigel “Thirsty” Farage they will be going after.

The USA nearly entered a very dark place. The UK could yet go one better. Or worse.

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

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet8

Toby Young Defends Roger Scruton - BADLY

After James Brokenshire announced that the head of the Government’s new Commission on “Beauty in the built environment” would be Roger Scruton, the pushback began. Here was an unrepentant bigot whose record went back decades, right back to the early 1980s when he founded the Salisbury Review, a small-circulation and allegedly Conservative publication which advocated what was then described as “repatriation”, a concept by which Enoch Powell set such store in his infamous “Rivers of blood” speech.

As Zelo Street has already told, Scruton was defended by pointing out that he was allegedly an “Eminent writer and philosopher”. Also, “He is an author of over 40 books”. And “He engages in contemporary political and cultural debates from the standpoint of a conservative thinker and is well known as a powerful polemicist”. He no doubt ranks as high as any in Rome. But this did not stop the protests, despite the media adulation.

So it was time for someone out there on the right to make one great futile gesture, and there is no-one better in that field than the loathsome Toby Young, who knows all about departing a Government sinecure in disgrace. Tobes lamented “Depressing to see the social media cops trawl through everything Roger Scruton’s ever written in the hope of finding things to be offended by. As Freddie de Boer said, ‘That’s what liberalism is now – the search for baddies doing bad things, like little offense archaeologists.’”

Searching for baddies doing bad things? Offence archaeologists? Has Tobes never studied the modus operandi of his pals at the Guido Fawkes blog? Or a host of other like minded people out there on the right? Whatever. Do go on. Ah yes, “These commissars of political correctness aren’t fit to tie his boots”. A word in your shell-like, Tobes.

If we’re meant to be musing on the wrongs done to an allegedly great thinker, it does the discussion no favours by descending to cheap characterisation and abuse. So what’s with “Commissars” and “Political correctness”? Scruton has a track record of bigotry. Calling him out for it is not “politically correct”. It’s a statement of the bleeding obvious.

Nor does comparative wrongdoing contribute positively to the discussion, so sneering “Is this the same man who has called for Sir Roger Scruton to be sacked because of ‘offensive’ things he’s said in the past? Surely not!” at Aaron Bastani won’t cut it. Nor will citing Spiked in your defence. Nor will use of the over-dramatic “hounding”.

But wait, Tobes has something else to offer in Scruton’s defence. An article titled “Sir Roger Scruton Is a Friend to Muslims and Jews”. You see? Some of his best friends are Jewish! His good name is saved! But in what publication does that article appear? The National Review. Tobes, we need another quiet word about this one.

The National Review was founded by William F Buckley Jr. During the 1968 Democratic Convention, when Gore Vidal appeared in support of Eugene McCarthy’s bid for the party’s nomination, he would inevitably be asked “Mr Vidal, where is your friend Mr Buckley?” The two had been involved in a number of exchanges live on TV.

And the reply would be the same: Vidal would feign surprise and then smile “Oh, Buckley. He’s over at the Wallace headquarters stitching hoods”. 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

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet1

Tory Housing Czar Is Career Racist

Another week, another initiative which the Tories may look back on as something that seemed a good idea at the time - until it made contact with reality. The press release tells us “James Brokenshire: building better and beautiful will deliver more homes … New commission announced to champion beauty in the built environment”.

Roger Scruton

And what might that mean? More Faux Georgian Façades For Everyone? “A commission to champion beautiful buildings as an integral part of the drive to build the homes communities need has been announced by the Communities Secretary Rt Hon James Brokenshire MP”. The commission “will develop a vision and practical measures to help ensure new developments meet the needs and expectations of communities”.

So who is going to chair this commission? “Sir Roger Scruton has been appointed to Chair the commission”. Who he? Well, he’s allegedly an “Eminent writer and philosopher”. Also, “He is an author of over 40 books”. And “He engages in contemporary political and cultural debates from the standpoint of a conservative thinker and is well known as a powerful polemicist”. But there is something missing from the CV.

The missing item is that Scruton is a career racist. No qualification or equivocation is necessary here. Many will know of Scruton’s bigotry through his recent assertions, such as “Many of the Budapest intelligentsia are Jewish, and form part of the extensive networks around the Soros Empire”, “the Soros instigated conspiracy against Hungary”, and his claim that George Soros opposes Victor Orbán’s nationalism because he is Jewish.

A recent assessment of Scruton’s claims concluded “Sir Scruton somehow thinks that all Jews are united against the government and share the same world view”, and that he “had some influence on the anti-Soros campaign in Hungary”. But there is more to Scruton’s racism than those recent assertions. There is his time at the Salisbury Review.

This small-circulation publication has two claims to fame, neither of them good for Scruton’s appointment to that Government body. One is that the Salisbury Review gave a platform to head teacher Ray Honeyford, head of Drummond Middle School in Bradford. The article, “Race and education - an alternative view”, proved incendiary.

As Bradford’s then Mayor Mohammed Ajeeb put it, “It's not the substance of what he said that was so offensive. It's how he said it and the right-wing journal in which he chose to say it”. Scruton, however, praised Honeyford, as did the Daily Mail. Neither asked the Drummond parents, who were firmly opposed to their head teacher’s views.

And the second demerit for Scruton, as that former Bradford Mayor hinted, is his magazine: that Honeyford’s thoughts had been published in the Salisbury Review only made matters worse, because the publication had promoted what was then called “repatriation”. In other words, paying ethnic minority Britons to go elsewhere.

That was the policy so enthusiastically endorsed by Enoch Powell in his infamous “Rivers of Blood” speech in 1968, which got him sacked from the shadow cabinet. No, it’s not just a lapse into anti-Semitism. It’s an explicitly racist stance, and over many, many years.

Roger Scruton should not have those views rewarded with a taxpayer funded sinecure.

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

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet1

From Ronan Point To Peckham

It is almost 50 years since Ivy Hodge went into the kitchen of her corner flat on the 18th floor of the then new Ronan Point tower in Canning Town, to make a cup of tea. As she lit the gas stove, there was an explosion, which threw her across the room. The blast also blew out the load bearing flank walls which supported the four flats above. This induced the progressive collapse of an entire corner of the tower.

After the collapse: Ronan Point

As Ronan Point had only just been opened, many of the flats were still unoccupied, hence the relatively low death toll of four people. But the dangers of gas installations in high rise buildings were all too clear, as was the inadequate structural strength of the building’s design. So when Grenfell Tower was built in the early 1970s, regulations had been tightened up. But many other blocks had escaped those new standards

The Ledbury Estate in Peckham, in south-east London, was one example: its four 13 storey towers had been built at the end of the 1960s using the same Large Panel System technique - fabricating reinforced concrete panels off-site and then bolting them together to form the completed building - as was used for Ronan Point. Newham Council had Ronan Point demolished at the end of the 1980s. The Ledbury towers are still there.

After Ronan Point, all towers constructed using LPS were supposed to have been reinforced, not just to prevent failure in the event of a gas blast, but also to ensure the structures could adequately withstand expected wind loadings, and not collapse in the event of a fire. Ronan Point and other nearby towers were strengthened. It now seems that the Ledbury towers got missed. And they all have gas supplies.

So it should have been no surprise to read the Guardian’s report telling “Hundreds of people have been told they will have to leave their homes on an estate of tower blocks in London after safety checks carried out following the Grenfell Tower fire found the buildings had been at risk of collapse for decades”. And there was more.

“The council has immediately ordered the gas supplies to be cut off, leaving most residents without cooking facilities, hot water and heating. The letter said officials would distribute electric hotplates and that residents could take showers at a local leisure centre … The discovery that the blocks are structurally unsafe heralds a potential new series of safety worries about high-rise flats”. And not just those on the Ledbury estate.

“Arnold Tarling, a surveyor and fire safety expert who first spotted the problem at the Ledbury estate, said it was likely there would be many other blocks around the country with similar problems”. Local authorities are now desperately checking building and maintenance records to make sure any similar blocks were strengthened.

As the Guardian also points out, “An investigation said buildings built using the same method [LPS] must be reinforced, or else have no gas supply”. That’s why the Ledbury towers have had the gas turned off. It won’t be back on until the work has been done.

Fifty years on, the lessons of poor building design and rushed construction are still being learned. Thankfully this time no-one has been killed. Well, not yet, anyway.

Grenfell Tower - Blame The Left

The right-leaning part of the Fourth Estate is, for once, very much on the back foot as it tries to comprehend not only the aftermath of the General Election, but also the craven response of the Government to the Grenfell Tower fire. Theresa May’s popularity has plummeted as Jeremy Corbyn’s has risen. The press response is all too predictable: it has to be the left’s fault. And so the smear machine has swung into action.

Signalling the demonisation of the left on its front page is the increasingly desperate and downmarket Telegraph, howling “Militants hijack inferno protest” before ensuring readers know “Hard-Left activists accused of exploiting the grief of Grenfell Tower families as demonstrations turn ugly”. And for good measure, there is the bonus smear “Corbyn-backers spread ‘fake news’ about death toll”.

Over at the Mail, yesterday’s plainly batshit suggestion that the dastardly EU was somehow behind the blaze - not an easy one to stand up, as countries likes Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland have banned the use of the kind of cladding used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment - has given way to falling in line with the lefty-bashing, with a thundering Daily Mail Comment stoking up the red scare paranoia.

“Barely had the body count begun - and it seems, tragically, that it will run into scores - than hard-Left supporters of Jeremy Corbyn were spinning a narrative about the fire, blaming divisions of wealth, profiteering and (inevitably) ‘Tory cuts’” sneers the authentic voice of the Vagina Monologue, going on to tell “the Left played an unseemly game of competitive compassion (‘if Theresa May cared as much as Mr Corbyn, she would have talked to victims, not just emergency services’)”.

Then come the downright lies: “budget cuts by the Tory council had nothing to do with it … For just £200,000, life-saving sprinklers could have been installed. Instead, priority seems to have been given to meeting EU targets for energy conservation … Equally groundless are the Left’s attempts to blame cuts in London’s fire service”. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

And not to be left out, the Murdoch goons at the Sun have brought forth another fresh and steaming pile of weapons grade bullpucky from the odious flannelled fool Master Harry Cole, claiming “HARD-LEFT activists were blasted for “hijacking” the genuine outrage over the Grenfell tragedy … Supporters of Jeremy Corbyn fan group Momentum were spotted during the invasion of Kensington and Chelsea Town Hall”. Do go on.

“One eyewitness slammed the Westminster protest as ‘a bunch of white middle class students, who were handed their signs’ … They went on: ‘These kids had nothing to do with Grenfell, it was just the usual suspects and the students turning up’”. Who was that eyewitness? Most likely it was the fat twat Cole himself.

The Sun even roped in alleged libertarian Brendan O’Neill to whine “In the 20 years I’ve been writing about politics, I can’t remember a tragedy being milked for party-political gain as quickly and cynically as this … What has happened to the Left that it can engage in such low political grandstanding even before the bodies have been counted?”

As if he gives a shit beyond scoring his paycheque. It’s just another example of the Tory-backing press desperately trying to blame Grenfell on the left. And it is going nowhere.

Luvvie Obsession IS FINISHED

Whenever anyone moderately well-known spoke up in support of any cause of which the tabloid press disapproved, there was, until this week, only one consequence. The well-known person would be the subject of sneering condemnation, they would be branded out of touch, and to put the lid on it, they would be called a “Luvvie”. It was only the Luvvies, and so readers of papers like the Mail could safely disregard them.

Why the f*** can't I slag off celebrities, c***?!? Er, with the greatest of respect, Mr Jay

So after the EU referendum, the Mail ran “Luvvies' lament! Bitter stars line up to tweet abuse at 'ill-informed' and 'economically illiterate' decision they feared”. J K Rowling and Gary Lineker were the targets of especially righteous condemnation. Later, there was “Spare us from these bleeding heart luvvies like the Clooneys who lecture us on migrants while jetting off from mansion to mansion”. And there was more - much more.

The Mail brought forth “Luvvies brand Theresa May 'truly shameful' over decision to scrap child refugee scheme”. Lily Allen was one of those singled out this time. And then there was “a belief in the power of crystals is increasingly the domain of showbiz luvvies who have embraced crystal healing with the zeal of the converted”. The Luvvies this time included singer Adele. As Sir Sean nearly said, I think we got the point.

But then, as with the Mail’s obsession with “elf’n’safety” and “yuman rights”, the sneering use of the term “Luvvie” foundered, in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire.

The Dacre doggies suddenly realised that the endorsement of well-known people could be A Very Good Thing: “Rita Ora goes back to 'the block she played in as a child' to hand out supplies as appeals for tower victims raise £1.7MILLION in just over 24 hours … Celebrities including Jeremy Clarkson, Jamie Oliver and Rita Ora chipped in and urged fans to help survivors”. Not “Luvvies”, then. And what of Lily Allen and Adele?

“Emotional Adele is lauded by fans as she makes low-key appearance at scene of tragic Grenfell Tower less than 24 hours after fatal fire” told … er, the Mail, going on to report “With a number of stars donating to the fund and promoting the services offered to victims, Adele is in a minority in actually heading to the site to support those present”. Adele was no longer a “Luvvie”. And nor, it seems, was Lily Allen.

Instead, the Mail observed “Pop star Lily Allen has claimed 'off-the-record' figures given to police and fire crews reveal the true death toll of the Grenfell Fire to be closer to '150 people’ … The 32-year-old accused local authorities of being dishonest and said the media was 'downplaying' the tragedy”. She was now a “pop star”. Nor was there the usual sneering disdain for Jon Snow of Channel 4 News.

And when Simon Cowell committed to releasing a fundraising single for the benefit of the Grenfell Tower victims, there was once more no talk of “Luvvies”.

Perhaps the inmates of the Northcliffe House bunker would like to consider permanently consigning their use of that term to the same bin as the one they’re using for the “red tape” and “elf’n’safety” smears. Celebrities are not mere “Luvvies”. They are real people.

Simon Jenkins – High Rise Hopelessness

The Guardian’s Simon Jenkins seems to be always chasing lost causes: for so long, he railed against the coming of Crossrail (and at the time I suggested he should be made to commute regularly on the Central Line until the penny dropped), and now he is aghast at the march of high rise buildings – generally steel and glass towers – that are set to cover yet more of London.

High rise is already here - Shell Centre ...

Unfortunately, Jenkins starts badly by lapsing into Daily Mail speak: “a visual wall of towers on a truly Stalinist scale behind the Royal Festival Hall”. Then he doubles down with “It is as if Paris had relocated La Défense to the Ile de la Cité”. Bloody well isn’t: the Grand Arche alone wouldn’t fit. But his point shows why he is whistling in the wind, and well after the event.

... the Post Office Tower ...

While he says “London is alone among Europe's great cities in its drooling slavery to ‘anything goes’ on its skyline”, he fails to notice that this has been the case for many years. Yes, much high rise development has been shuffled off to Docklands, but it has already been allowed in the City Of London. So we already have the Lloyds building, the NatWest Tower (as was) and the Gherkin.

And, as the Shard, and that tower at Vauxhall that became notorious recently when a helicopter crashed into its crane, are already there, the high rises have by definition arrived on the South Bank. Jenkins is right that other cities have kept this kind of thing out of their old centres: Paris shuffled them out to La Défense, Madrid to Chamartín, Lisbon to Oriente, for instance.

... the NatWest Tower ...

But if he thought that London’s occasional Mayor Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson would put a stop to something that had started under his predecessor, he really is wet behind the ears. And he ought to remember that London’s buildings have been pushing higher for decades – he even gets to mention one of the prime examples, the 27-story Shell Centre tower from 1961.

That building was soon eclipsed by the Millbank Tower – just across the river – which is both close to Parliament, and higher than Centre Point, which he quotes instead. All of this goes to show that no barrier to higher rise buildings has ever been established, either in the City, or by the Thames, and neither bank of the river has been kept free of such structures.

... and of course the Gherkin

And, as Jenkins observes, there will always be architects and builders more than willing to design and build taller buildings. Without planning constraints, they will be built wherever there is both demand for them, and land to build on. There is a more or less permanent demand in London, and land is being freed up. So why does the Guardian’s pundit expect any other result?

As the world turns, Simon Jenkins is still running to catch up.