Mail NHS Bashing Hits New Low

If anyone was in any doubt as to the lengths that the Daily Mail will go to to pursue its meme that the NHS is something that goes round killing its patients with all the vigour of Passchendaele, today has banished any thought to the contrary as the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre has ordered the singularly unappealing Amanda Platell over the top following the Morecambe Bay maternity unit saga.

Nasty shock for unwary Sunday morning viewers

Here, there had been fourteen deaths of new-born children which may have been avoidable (note that, unlike Ms Platell, this blog considers its wording with some care and thought for the subject). The health regulator, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), did not investigate, and there has been a suggestion of a cover-up (which, in Daily Mail speak, is something that becomes a fact in the retelling).

While enquiries progress, as they should, the Mail is in no doubt that the former CEO of the CQC should be “left unemployable and with her credibility and career in tatters”, unlike for instance Jan Moir, or the unfunny and talentless Richard Littlejohn, or indeed the Mail hacks who penned articles such as “BBC Turns Its Back On Year Of Our Lord”, which was both malicious and totally untrue.

But it is when Ms Platell comes to make her comparison with what happened in the London borough of Haringey that the barrel is well and truly scraped. First, she talks of “the family of 'Baby T', Joshua Titcombe, a newborn who died needlessly after nine days from an infection that could have been treated by antibiotics” (note also that the death is, in the retelling, a matter of certainty).

Then comes the comparison. This case “unwittingly stirred memories of another baby, 'Baby P', who also died after shocking negligence from those in authority. No one can forget baby Peter Connolly's death. It was one of the most horrific child abuse cases ever recorded”. No, Amanda, it does not stir memories of Baby Peter, who had the living daylights beaten out of him by his guardians.

The comparison is as gratuitous as it is utterly wicked, on top of which the Mail is the most blatant at playing both sides of the field on social services: when they intervene, they get crapped on by the Dacre attack doggies, and when they don’t, they also get crapped on. And then those same hacks shamelessly wonder, with their faux innocent faces, why such jobs are so hard to fill.

And this latest Amanda Platell outburst really will not do. What appears to have been an oversight by a hospital is not, repeat not, repeat not equivalent to a small child being repeatedly beaten until its bones are broken and its internal organs ruptured. That people like her are given airtime by broadcasters just shows how the fear of the Vagina Monologue trumps decency any time.

If the BBC had any spine, it would bar her from its studios forthwith. Job done.

Top Six – June 23

So what’s hot, and what’s not, in the past week’s blogging? Here are the six most popular posts on Zelo Street for the past seven days, counting down in reverse order, because, well, I’m supposed to be sightseeing, like right now. So there.

6 Gove Polecats Get Twigged The @toryeducation Twitter feed was fired up once more, to rebut a speech made by Labour’s education man. But it was just the same old abuse, plus whoever was running it couldn’t tell the difference between a play and a novel. Must try harder.

5 Saatchi Pleads Guilty Charles Saatchi was given the opportunity by the Standard to talk about the incriminating looking photos of him holding wife Nigella Lawson by the neck. He duly put foot in mouth and admitted assaulting her.

4 Murdoch Is Served (95) The first Stateside hacking case kicked off. And here are some more potential litigants – ready and waiting.

3 TPA – Rail Hypocrisy The so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance was suddenly in favour of new rail links – because a private company wanted to build them. So all the nit-picking and objection that they had marshalled against HS2 vanished.

2 Obama Defeats Chauncey Terminally stupid pundit Nile “Chauncey” Gardiner failed to do his homework and asserted that JFK gave his “Ich Bin Ein Berliner” speech at the Brandenburg Gate. He could not possibly have done – because that location was on the other side of the wall in 1963, in East Berlin.

1 Saatchi – Pundit Foot In Mouth Routine idiocy from Richard Littlejohn and Cristina Odone as they told their readers how Charles Saatchi holding his wife by the neck was not really important, and for the couple to sort out, which was then overtaken by Saatchi owning up and accepting a Police caution. Deadlines, eh?

And that’s the end of another blogtastic week, blog pickers. Not ‘arf!

Del Boy Defends Fellow Spiv

The revelation, which I noted yesterday, the Nigel “Thirsty” Farage had set up an offshore trust in the Isle Of Man (but not used it, honest) was always going to have the potential to tip his reputation from that plain speaking man of the people dispensing good honest wisdom at the local pub into the impression of forthright spivvery. Put simply, UKIP could look like a seriously dodgy motah as a result.

So someone had to make that futile gesture, as Peter Cook once put it, and in the belief that he was raising the tone of the war in so doing, James “saviour of Western civilisation” Delingpole has gone over the top (as usual) to defend his hero and now party leader from all those rotten lefties, and also from folks of no fixed political persuasion who can identify a spiv at forty paces.

Del Boy is aghast at the thought that Farage should have to answer to mere journalists for his actions: “what business is it of ours? First, he was doing nothing illegal. Second, such a move is entirely consistent with Ukip's stance on taxation (ie that we need less, not more). Third, what end could possibly be more admirable than striving to give your children and grandchildren the best education money can buy?”

Well, if we’re paying for the SOB to use the European Parliament (EP) as a makeshift dormitory and expense generator, I have to tell Delingpole that it is very much our business. Moreover, I personally couldn’t give a flying foxtrot about UKIP’s “stance” on what kind of taxation they would like at some point in the future, especially when they are unlikely to lower it with their list of spending commitments.

And whether or not money buys a better education, well, all Del Boy’s own reassuringly pricy sojourn through that system has bought him is an inability to figure anything out without someone else doing the heavy lifting first (hence “interpreter of interpretations”), coupled with an almost permanent auto-sneer mode to his utterances, and an addiction to defamatory abuse.

But the protestations continue: “Farage, for example, had he continued with his career as a City trader would be minted by now”. He could also have gone bust, and that doesn’t excuse his behaviour. And here’s a belter: “If he were paid on hours worked and on performance bonus, Farage would be earning way more than his relatively modest MEP's salary”.

Yeah, right. If Farage really was paid on performance, he’d get sweet bugger all, because that’s what he spends all his time at the EP doing. Plus the BBC and the Climate Change Bill have nothing to do with the discussion. And spare us the description of Farage as “honest, outspoken and fearless”. He’s shifty. He flannels and evades. And all of that makes him a Grade A spiv.

And if it’s all the same to Del Boy, whatever spivs are selling, I’m not buying.

Mail And Telegraph Sale Inflation?

The Daily Mail sells around 1.85 million copies a day. Its upmarket broadsheet companion the Maily Telegraph manages around 550,000, making it the most popular of the Qualities. These are the numbers touted to prospective advertisers to justify the price of getting their products promoted in their pages. So it was a little surprising to receive this photo from a Zelo Street regular.

Here are not one, not two, but four stacks of Daily Mail and Maily Telegraph, clearly identifiable as last Saturday’s editions, still unsold well into the morning. There are literally scores of copies on view. Perhaps this was taken in the kind of area that proves less receptive to these titles? Maybe the supermarket concerned does not cater to the aspirational middle classes?

Well, on both counts, have I got news for you: the supermarket where the photo was taken was not Asda or Aldi. It was not Tesco, Sainsbury’s or Morrison’s. It was taken in a branch of Waitrose. And you can’t get more aspirational than Waitrose. Why do you think that the Mail and Telegraph are so keen to talk about the likes of Pippa Middleton? It’s partly because she promotes Waitrose.

And the location of this Waitrose branch? It isn’t in Manchester or Merseyside, and certainly not in any part of the North East. Nor is it in the far flung provinces of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. It is right in the heart of what Paul Dacre and Tony Gallagher consider their part of Middle England: the photo was taken at the Petersfield, Hampshire branch.

So are the Mail and Tel selling quite as many copies as their PRs would like us to believe? You might wish to ask that. I couldn’t possibly comment.

TPA – Rail Hypocrisy

You have to hand it to the dubiously talented collection of non-job holders at the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance (TPA): their ability to read from the “public bad, private good” script knows no bounds, even when it comes to building new rail lines, which those following the HS2 debate might have thought they would invariably oppose. Because the TPA has discovered a private sector rail proposal.

More guff from Tufton Street

This is the Windsor Link Railway (WLR), which describes itself as “An integrated transport plan for the region around Heathrow, solving a range of national and local transport and social issues”. The Windsor Link in question, the key proposal which underpins the whole raison d’être of the scheme, is the idea of linking both rail lines that currently run into Windsor and Eton.

The scheme has been enthusiastically supported by a number of local Tory MPs, including Adam Afriye, Zac Goldsmith and Michael “Oiky” Gove. So the TPA has joined the chorus of approval, telling “Private rail proposal could save taxpayers £1 billion”. And here, the way in which the TPA treats public schemes like HS2 diverges dramatically from its approval of WLR.

WLR has, as far as can be ascertained, not presented any kind of independently audited Benefit/Cost Analysis (BCA). This does not trouble the TPA, although the BCA presented in support of HS2 is routinely picked over and rubbished by them. HS2’s need for some of its route to be in tunnel is also picked out by the TPA, with the clear inference that this means there will be cost overruns.

But WLR’s central proposal – the link between the lines which at present run into Central Station (from Slough) and Riverside Station (from Staines) – depends on tunnelling. A cut and cover tunnel is WLR’s preferred solution, and this is a construction method that has not been used – apart from for stations, as on the Jubilee Line extension – since the 1800s.

Then, cut and cover was used for much of what is now London Underground’s “sub surface lines” – the Metropolitan, District and Circle – in central London. There was disruption on an enormous scale. Even with modern construction equipment and techniques, there would be significant disruption in Windsor and Eton were this link to go ahead. There would also be the potential for cost overruns.

And that is before one considers the proximity of Windsor Castle, the River Thames and the twin centres of Windsor and Eton. Whether the locals would be so supportive once the diggers move in is apparently not considered. None of this concerns the TPA: it is private, therefore it is good. The question of where WLR is going to raise the money is also, predictably, not allowed to enter.

Nor is the question of what happens if it runs out. So no change there, then.

Farage Tax Fiddle Shows True Colours

[Update at end of post]

For years, the press has, almost as one, given Nigel “Thirsty” Farage a free pass, allowing him to put forward his everyman, ordinary bloke persona, and letting him get away with one glib answer after another. Mildly inconvenient events, like his not turning up at the European Parliament (EP) but still trousering every last Euro in expenses are shrugged off. Perhaps this is about to change.

Because the Mirror – note that the only mainstream left-leaning daily title mounted the investigation – has taken the lid off the Farage farrago, revealing “UKIP leader Nigel Farage admits mistake after setting up offshore fund to avoid tax”. Offshore? Ho yus: “The UKIP leader paid a tax adviser to create a trust in the Isle of Man – which he intended to channel funds through”.

Farage apparently did not get round to actually doing any channelling, but that’s rather like buying a container load of deadly weaponry, but not getting round to kicking off an armed conflict. It’s still a seriously dodgy motah, even if Nige never found time to take it for a spin. And the Mirror has found some interesting details about Farage Limited, which operated within the UK.

Nige apparently “gave” his shares in the latter organisation to the Isle of Man trust. Some significant sums of money passed through Farage Limited before it shut up shop recently. And, although he claimed not to have benefited from Farage Limited, Nige registered his directorship with the EP, which suggests there was a financial interest, not merely an unpaid role as he has suggested.

So far, so interesting, but now we come to the rest of those who scrabble around the dunghill that is Grubstreet: the deeply subversive Guardian has predictably picked up on the story, pointing out that Farage has previously spoken out against tax avoidance while appearing to take part in something that looks like the very same thing. Farage’s claim that he “wasn’t rich enough” to benefit looks thin, too.

But what of the remainder of our raucous free press? Well, the Mail has at least taken the Mirror story and relayed the contents, but is the exception to the rule this morning: the Murdoch and Barclay Brothers titles are silent on the revelation, but what’s this? The Express, the Daily UKIP, has published it, but with the appropriate spin: Farage “has admitted he made ‘a mistake’”.

Well, no amount of spin can cover up the impression of spivvery, that Farage is not so much an ordinary bloke telling it as he sees it so much as another troughing in the same way as all the other MPs and MEPs. Some may shrug off this episode, but from this point on, expect UKIP and its leader to attract a little more serious scrutiny and get rather fewer free passes.

Welcome to the same rules that govern all your opponents, Nige.

[UPDATE 1345 hours: the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog have decided to face both ways on the latest Farage farrago, first noting the Mirror's story, then remembering that this is a paper aimed at rotten lefties, and so spinning that what Nige did was actually OK.

This volte face is achieved by telling that Farage "did have a go at the EU's tax free salaries recently", thus showing once more that the Fawkes folks do not understand UK Income Tax too well. Farage, as a UK citizen, can trouser as much tax free dosh as he likes, but as soon as he takes any of it in income, it is subject to tax, as with any other income for any other taxpayer.

So using this to excuse Nige is just doubling down: spin and woeful ignorance combined. Another fine mess, once again]

Nigella Gets Standard Hypocrisy

While the saga of Charles Saatchi and his assault of wife Nigella Lawson continues to generate column inches – she has apparently been seen out and about without her wedding ring, but for some reason there wasn’t a snapper to hand – the debate continues on the topic of domestic violence, and whether we ought to pay more attention to this kind of episode in the future.

And no editor has been happier to publish the most opinionated of views on the subject than Sarah Sands, appointed partly at the behest of London’s occasional Mayor Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, a man who knows all about the mistreatment of women, of the Evening Standard. And now she is happy to make capital out of others’ views, too.

This, today, has meant Corporal Clegg, who was questioned about the Sunday People’s photos showing Saatchi with his hands on his wife’s neck, and whose reply to a questioner asking if he would have intervened, “You are asking me to comment on photographs everybody has seen in the papers - we don't know if that was a fleeting moment”, has been seized upon by opponents.

The Standard was not impressed. “Nick Clegg under fire as he calls Charles Saatchi assault ‘just a fleeting thing’” thundered the headline. A number of voices condemning Clegg were mentioned: the group End Violence Against Women, Tory MP Sarah Woolaston (who you can tell as she’s a doctor), plus Labour MPs Yvette Cooper and Diana Johnson all passed adverse comment.

So the Standard is on Nigella’s side, then, is it? Well, up to a point. As Saatchi is one of the paper’s columnists, he too is given support from Ms Sands, the prime example being when he was given the opportunity to dismiss the People’s photos as depicting a “playful tiff”. And the couple had “made up” by the time they got home, which manages not to explain Nigella leaving that home and not yet having returned.

Even when Saatchi accepted a Police caution – effectively admitting that an assault took place, and that he did it – the Standard allowed his view, that he only did it “because I thought it was better than the alternative of this hanging over all of us for months” – due prominence. Moreover, the paper will still be running Saatchi’s arts columns. The excuse note is priceless.

“Should a person who has accepted a caution be barred from writing about art? Should the Saatchi Gallery be closed? Should he face total ruin?” asks the paper. Saatchi is worth £110 million, for goodness’ sake. And Ms Sands and her staff have yet to address the question as to whether Saatchi was dining with Standard owner Evgeny Lebedev at Restaurant 34 the other night.

The Standard: hypocrites playing both sides of the field with utter shamelessness.

Obama Defeats Chauncey

When Barack Obama made a speech before the Brandenburg Gate yesterday, the comparisons with JFK were as immediate as they were wrong: the two Presidents delivered their orations fifty years apart, and in the same city, but Kennedy did not, and could not have, spoken at the same location as Obama. The news reports do not make this claim. But one witless pundit has failed to notice.

Brandenburg Gate, looking west: the wall passed south to north at the far side

Indeed, the BBC has told that “His address to students and government officials at the Brandenburg Gate, which once divided East and West Germany, comes almost 50 years after President John F Kennedy's celebrated ‘Ich bin ein Berliner’ speech”, so the Corporation has not given the location of JFK’s speech. Thus the elephant trap. And cometh the hour, cometh the fool.

“Barack Obama bombs in Berlin: a weak, underwhelming address from a floundering president” sneers Nile “Chauncey” Gardiner predictably, before telling “When John F. Kennedy delivered his ‘Ich Bin Ein Berliner’ speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate on June 26, 1963, 450,000 people flocked to hear him. Fifty years later a far more subdued invitation-only crowd of 4,500 showed up to hear Barack Obama speak at the same location in Berlin”.

Oh what a howler!

Well, as Jon Stewart might have said, two things here. Firstly, in 1963, security considerations were not of the same level as nowadays – which ultimately led to JFK being an all-too-easy target for an assassin’s rifle in Dallas, TX, later that year – and so yesterday’s speech was an invitation-only affair.

Rathaus Schöneberg, which was the Town Hall of West Berlin

And, most importantly, in 1963, the Brandenburg Gate not only had the Berlin Wall running past it, but it was also on the wrong side – the East Berlin side. What was then West Berlin was therefore not run from the Berlin Town Hall (the “Rotes Rathaus”), but by the one in the district of Schöneberg, and it was in front of that building that Kennedy made his “Ich Bin Ein Berliner” speech.

Rathaus Schöneberg: plaque telling that "Kennedy Was Here"

Indeed, the Rathaus Schöneberg has a plaque on display commemorating the event, although it may be difficult to visualise the crowds on the day, given the busy dual carriageway road that passes out front of the building. And, had “Chauncey” looked more closely at the National Journal piece that he has used as the basis for his latest sermon, he will find they don’t make the Brandenburg Gate claim either.

Any student of recent USA and European history would have known that JFK could not have made his speech at the Brandenburg Gate. The most junior hack would have bothered to do the research in order to reach the same conclusion. That Nile Gardiner has blundered straight into the elephant trap tells you all you need to know about this blithering idiot’s credibility.

That would be that it is not unadjacent to zero. Chauncey by name, and all that.

Free School Failure Smokescreen

Many observers of the education debate have noted the behaviour of Ofsted’s head man Michael Wilshaw, and wondered whether he is just a little too close to Education Secretary Michael “Oiky” Gove. Wilshaw’s latest diversionary exercise will only serve to reinforce the thought, as he has talked of “unseen” children being failed by indifferent teaching in otherwise well-off areas.

The idea he has floated, that it is possible for schools that have been inspected and rated “outstanding” to be failing some pupils, and that this means they should be re-inspected and have one or more centrally recruited “national service” teachers dispatched to deal with their newly discovered shortcomings, may raise more than a few eyebrows. The thought also occurs that this may be a mere smokescreen.

That is because all is clearly not well with the Free Schools programme, so energetically promoted by Gove and his cheerleaders. As Ofsted continues its round of inspections, the 81Free Schools already opened are being included, and so far the results are less than stellar: none of the eleven inspected has warranted an “outstanding” rating. Three have received “requires improvement” notices.

And now the Discovery Free School, in Crawley, whose opening had Gove telling “These schools are opening because of demand from parents for a new or different type of education. Free schools offer a genuine alternative. They offer smaller class sizes, longer hours and higher standards”, has scored an “Inadequate” rating, and the comment “This is a school that requires special measures”.

The report makes grim reading: “Arrangements for assessing pupils’ progress in reading, writing and mathematics are inadequate ... The headteacher lacks the skills and knowledge to improve teaching ... too many pupils are in danger of leaving the school without being able to read and write properly ... senior leaders believe the school is far better than it is ... governance is inadequate”.

There are indications that all was known not to be well before Ofsted arrived: “Inspectors also considered ... issues raised through several complaints submitted to Ofsted prior to the inspection ... No school improvement plan was available for inspectors to scrutinise ... the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are not demonstrating the capacity to secure ... improvement”.

Had the Discovery Free School been a local authority maintained school in, say, Merseyside, Gove and his retinue of polecats would have been down on it like the proverbial ton of bricks. But it is only because of the deeply subversive Guardian that we know about it. And, even then, there is Michael Wilshaw wibbling on about “outstanding” schools having to be re-inspected on a whim.

Children’s education, inexpertly fouled up by those who shout loudest. Not clever.

Mail Sachsgate About Turn

It was the original Mail twitchfork exercise: publicising Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand leaving explicit messages on Andrew Sachs’ voicemail about what Brand had done with Sachs’ granddaughter Georgina Baillie well after the event was revealed and after very few complaints had been made. It was apparently Brand’s on-air reference to the Mail’s Nazi sympathies in the 1930s that was his undoing.

Mika Brzezinski

This was relayed to the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre, who was said to have “gone ballistic” and demanded that an example be made of Brand. But that was then, and this is now: the Mail dislikes foreigners even more than errant comedy actors, especially if they are US citizens who have had the effrontery to support the Democratic Party. Then Brand is transformed into the good guy.

Anyone thinking that not even the Mail would be so blatant in its selectivity need look no further than the Mail Online article covering Brand’s appearance the other morning on cable news channel MSNBC, where he appeared on their breakfast offering Morning Joe, whose main host, former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough, was not on set when Brand was being interviewed.

Instead, this was left to his co-host – and registered Democrat – Mika Brzezinski, and it is here that the Mail version appears to depart from reality. We know this because the exchange between her, Brand, and panellists Katy Kay and Brian Shactman, was also the subject of a report in the HuffPost. But let’s hear from the obedient Dacre attack doggies first.

They tell that “the razor-sharp Essex boy, 38, was treated to a barrage of naff gags at his expense ... It was a huge mistake for host Mika Brzezinski and panelists Katty [sic] Kay and Brian Shactman to make ... he seemed shocked by the sheer clumsiness of it all ... Brand ... looked smart in a waistcoat and shirt ... grabbed a clipboard and decided to anchor the show himself”.

Now the HuffPost version: “he jokingly hit on co-host Mika Brzezinski ... It was not long before he noted Brzezinski's ‘low-cut dress’ and compared her hair to Princess Diana's. ‘I'm only flesh and blood,’ Brand told Brzezinski, noting that she appeared ‘nervous.’ ‘I've got instincts,’ Brand said. He jokingly instructed her to take off her wedding ring, and called her a ‘shaft-grasper’”.

And, as the man said, there’s more: “Joe Scarborough appeared for the show's last segment, where he said that Twitter followers now want ‘Morning Russell and Mika.’ When Shactman chimed in to say that Brand had talked about Brzezinski ovulating, she responded, ‘That was awkward actually’”. Most of that didn’t make it into the Mail report, and might have been expected to prompt condemnation if it had.

Going the extra mile for hypocrisy: what you won’t see in the Mail. No change there, then.

Gove Polecat Runs Out Of Courage

As if to emphasise that the assault on Labour education proposals has been, apart from the hot air generated, little short of a failure, the loathsome Toby Young has returned to the fray in his latest role as co-opted member of Michael “Oiky” Gove’s retinue of polecats, determined to raise the level of the debate to somewhere higher than the nearest gutter, but with little realistic prospect of success.

Possible explanation for lack of homework

Tobes’ first thrust, lame though it be, is aimed at Labour’s dislike of letting teachers without qualifications loose in schools, although in Polecat world, qualifications to teach are dismissed as mere “union-approved ‘certificates’”, as opposed to “preferred by every parent with a hole in their backside who has taken the trouble to research the subject and come to their own conclusions”.

How, though, to embarrass Mil The Younger and his party? Tobes has the ideal riposte: he ropes in Mil The Elder! “Does Labour's opposition to non-qualified teachers apply to David Miliband?” he asks, apparently unaware that the subject of his question is no longer an MP, and, having piled off to the USA, no longer an active member of the Labour Party.

And, in any case, what is his relevance to the debate? Ah well. David Miliband had returned to Haverstock Comprehensive School and taught a class once a fortnight. And he was not a qualified teacher! Wow! Tobes and his fellow polecats must have been positively post-orgasmic after that discovery! But there is something missing here: we don’t know who else may have been present.

Leading the lesson on one’s own, and with a qualified teacher present, are not the same thing, and to most people that will be blindingly obvious. So which was Mil The Elder doing? Well, Tobes doesn’t tell his readers that, because he couldn’t be arsed doing his homework on the subject. Moreover, that headline demonstrates that, if anyone is leading, it is him, and in a particularly cowardly manner.

This is not an isolated example: on the same day, Tobes came out with another leading question as headline, with “Is Labour's new education policy designed to woo Lib Dem voters?” which means readers are intended to think that this is the case, rather than the post’s author hiding behind a form of words because he can’t bother himself with those pesky basics of journalism.

What he may have discovered is that there are people out there who, despite the welter of abuse hurled at Stephen Twigg the other day, think that what he is proposing is preferable to what “Oiky” wants to do. But to admit that Gove might not be right about absolutely everything cannot be allowed, and so Tobes cowers behind his leading headlines, hoping that readers will take him on trust.

Not for nothing has he been christened “Captain Bellend” by one irritated parent.

Saatchi Keeps On Digging

[Update at end of post]

Some folks have a strange way of demonstrating their reclusiveness. The obscenely rich – and newly single – Charles Saatchi’s way is to eat out at another of those snapper- infested Mayfair eateries (Restaurant 34) where a burger will set you back £16.50, and a glass of Rioja just over £20. Then he gets himself on camera, along with all the other alleged slebs. But he’s a recluse, remember.

Steady on Nigella, I haven't finished the last lot yet

But one thing that supports the “recluse” tag is Saatchi’s habit of opening his mouth and depositing foot in it. Anyone who thought that he had scraped the barrel when he told the Standard that holding wife Nigella Lawson by the throat was a sign of a “playful tiff” was disabused of this notion yesterday when he went back to the London Daily Bozza and dropped yet another clanger.

Yes, Saatchi did effectively own up to assaulting his wife in that first Standard interview, and yes, he did of his own volition go to Charing Cross Police station, where, after four hours’ questioning, and on the advice of his lawyers, accepted a caution for assault, which meant he admitted it, and that he will get himself a criminal record for his trouble.

So what is the most blatant and crass move he could make when venturing into the Standard one more time? “Although Nigella made no complaint I volunteered to go to Charing Cross station and take a police caution after a discussion with my lawyer because I thought it was better than the alternative of this hanging over all of us for months”. Yes, he didn’t really do it, but took a hit for the team.

At this point, the thought occurs that the adage attributed to Denis Thatcher – “better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt” – might have been a better course of action, especially as Saatchi was not even remotely in control of the news cycle, with the Mail having obtained more photos from that outside table at Scott’s.

There, some days after the assault, he is once again smoking away, and perhaps talking, but Nigella is not listening, instead looking away and alone. Picture desks must be working overtime right now, seeking out any snapper who may have more photos of them. And in the wake of the pics and quickly assembled copy will come yet more pundits dispensing yet more stories of domestic abuse.

Typical of these is Melissa Kite in the Mail, who has called Saatchi’s explanation “chilling”, that universal term that covers everything from the hated BBC to the even more hated Leveson Inquiry. Ms Kite, looking smart and reassuringly authoritative, has advice for Nigella born out of bitter experience. There will be others. They, like the photos, will keep on coming whatever Saatchi’s explanations.

Charlie boy, you’re in one heck of a hole. It’s time to stop digging.

[UPDATE 1825 hours: the Standard has once again come to Saatchi's rescue, as befits a paper that fawns over London's occasional Mayor, someone who knows all about mistreating women.

The article is headlined "Charles Saatchi had his faults but he wasn't violent with me, says ex-wife". But Kay Saatchi then sells the pass by telling that she "got sick of his bad moods", before the Standard puts the lid on it by reminding readers that she cited his "unreasonable behaviour" in the divorce battle.

Then the piece is padded out by letting readers know that Nigella must be OK because she posted a recipe for a coffee liqueur pudding on her Facebook page earlier. And some folks wonder how they manage to give the Standard away for free]

Murdoch Is Served (95)

ANOTHER ANGELINA HACK

[Update at end of post]

It’s been a long time coming, but at last the first action against the Murdoch empire for alleged phone hacking on US soil has begun. Lodged by Normal Seigal, the attorney who represented families of the 9/11 victims, a civil complaint has been brought by Eunice Huthart, who alleges messages were intercepted and on occasion deleted. But, you might think, why is she important?

Ah well. Ms Huthart’s action covers the 2004-5 period, at which time she worked as a stunt double for Angelina Jolie, a name and timeframe that should interest Zelo Street regulars. Because this was the time when the now defunct Screws published an exclusive about Ms Jolie, Brad Pitt, and Jennifer Aniston, much of which talked about who was talking with whom ... on the phone.

The Screws piece, revealed by the serially tenacious Tim Ireland at Bloggerheads, talked about the Pitt and Aniston marriage coming apart after Ms Jolie and Pitt had played opposite one another on Mr And Mrs Smith – one of three films on which Ms Huthart played the stunt double role. Ms Jolie was one of those whose messages, it is alleged, were intercepted.

Ms Huthart tells in the court filing that she and Ms Jolie “often travelled and socialised together”. This would have made her an obvious target for anyone wanting to hack into voicemail to get information about the star. Two stories are alleged to have been generated on the back of the hacking, one each in the Screws and Sun. Her mobile PIN had been changed, stopping her access.

So on what basis is Ms Huthart seeking damages? According to The Wrap, “Huthart is seeking unspecified damages for alleged violation of the Stored Communications Act, violation of the Wiretap Act and intrusion into private affairs, among other offenses”. Wiretapping is taken very seriously in California, where the case has been filed, as witness the fate of Anthony Pellicano, now serving time for it.

And this is before considering all the other cases that may follow: names that have previously been pitched include Hollywood music agent Julie Colbert, whose clients at the time included Charlotte Church, and Ms Church’s publicist Kevin Chiaramonte, both of whose names appeared in Glenn Mulcaire’s notebooks. On top of those are a number of names hinted at by lawyer Mark Lewis.

Those included Royal confidante and author Paul Burrell, and someone whose description sounds rather like Sven-Goran Eriksson. In addition to these, Mulcaire apparently had other US numbers in his notes, and he worked more or less exclusively for the Murdoch titles. Now that the dam has, apparently, finally been breached, who knows what else may pour out? Stay tuned.

[UPDATE 19 June 1210 hours: Peter Jukes has covered the events in a piece for the Daily Beast, and his article notes that, at the time the Sun made its assertion that Ms Jolie and Brad Pitt were an "item", only a small inner circle knew this. Now consider the assertions made in the Screws exclusive above - three months earlier - and you can see why the suspicion of hacking and wiretapping has been raised.

Yes, the Murdoch press knows about Pitt and Ms Jolie more than three months before the rest of the world. Either they got it from Jennifer Aniston (doubtful), there is a member of that inner circle who is leaking information (equally doubtful), or something less than totally legal has been going on.

I'm sure that Rupe's downmarket troops will have their excuses ready. In the meantime, as Jukes points out, News Corp appears to be putting aside between $1.2 and $1.4 billion against future fines for breaches of the FCPA. Maybe the company is also bracing itself for other fines?]

Nadine And A Resignation Letter

Having won back the Tory whip, Mid Bedfordshire’s MP (yes, it’s her again) Nadine Dorries is now excelling in wiping the party’s face in the nasty brown sticky stuff. First came her endorsement of London’s occasional Mayor and specialist blower of other people’s money Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, and now has come the suggestion that she is prepared to pile off and leave her constituency once more.

The fragrant Nadine had the whip removed after going off to Oz to take part in I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here. So it’s not as if she doesn’t know what something similar would mean for her. But this has not stopped her from declaring that she would rather like to be considered as a future contestant on Strictly Come Dancing, treading in the footsteps of Ann Widdecombe and Edwina Currie.

Except, of course, that Widders had retired from politics – after 23 years in the Commons – before subjecting herself to the rigours of training with Anton du Beke and the weekly scrutiny of judges and viewers. So that leaves the prospect of one of two scenarios being played out, neither of which would have Ms Dorries as an MP of any stripe after the next General Election.

If she gets her Strictly wish before the election, and goes off to do the show – which would inevitably mean taking time off from her Parliamentary duties – then the Tories are back where they were before George Young gave in to all the special pleading and she got the whip back. A second offence would mean permanent expulsion from the Tory Party, with pressure to resign her seat following in short order.

This, of course, would be a nightmare scenario for former local chairman Andy Rayment, who, along with his wife, holds the deeds for the house that Ms Dorries and her daughters live in. The prospect of a sitting tenant with zero utility to the constituency association, and perhaps an irregular income stream, is not one he will be relishing. So it will be interesting to see how he reacts to such a move.

The other scenario is that Ms Dorries has made her mind up to leave the Commons in a more or less orderly manner in 2015, which for local Tories is preferable, although they would rather have an MP in whom they can have some confidence that her mind is applied rather more to continuity and loyalty, rather than giving her electorate the impression that it’s all about Herself Personally Now.

And all of this is before considering the IPSA investigation into her travel costs and London flat – and the complaint made recently about her fee from I’m A Celebrity somehow not yet having been disclosed. As I’ve said recently, the Tory Party does not need to allow Nadine Dorries to be a problem for them. The longer they leave it – perhaps partly at Rayment’s request – the worse for them the dénouement will be.

So, Tory people, you need to ask yourselves a question. Do you feel lucky?

Saatchi – Pundit Foot In Mouth

With the speed at which news is reported nowadays, the potential for pundits to put their collected plates of meat right in it is magnified: by the time the deadline has been met and the print edition is out there, Supermac’s dreaded “events” may have overtaken it. By Sod’s law, this tends to happen when the pundit makes a bad call. Today we have two prime examples.

Steady on Nigella, we're only talking elevenses here

After the Sunday People got hold of photos showing obscenely rich former ad-man Charles Saatchi with his hand on the throat of his wife (and Domestic Goddess (tm)) Nigella Lawson, this had to be covered by every other paper, because, well, she’s a sleb. Then every pundit had to have an opinion on what looked like an episode of domestic violence, upmarket eatery or no.

Then, when Saatchi made a supremely ill-advised statement to the Evening Standard, describing what happened at an outside table at Scott’s of Mayfair as a “playful tiff”, there had to be yet more reporting and punditry, although it should be a statement of the bleeding obvious that there is no such thing as a “playful” grabbing of someone’s throat.

So the scene was set for our two prize chumps to have their ninepence worth: first, at the bear pit that is Telegraph blogs, was Cristina Odone with “Leave Nigella’s marriage alone: it’s the only way it will survive”. And, as the man said, there’s more: “The tragedy is, if there had been no photos ... the couple would have done what any married couple does after a bad row: sorted things, their way”.

Really? Do go on: “rows between spouses never elicit much interest; unless one or the other sports a black eye the next day, no one makes a fuss”. Er, right. Keep digging: “The only way the Saatchi marriage stands a chance is if everyone – including the Metropolitan Police – back off. Sadly, I doubt this is possible”. Now don’t go away, folks, and remember that last line.

Meanwhile, over at the Mail, the tedious and unfunny Richard Littlejohn was walking into an elephant trap of his own making: “Nigella Lawson has kissed and made up with her husband after their ‘playful tiff’ outside a Mayfair restaurant. No complaint has been made to the police. So why on earth is the Met’s domestic violence unit on the case? What a complete waste of time”.

Both these clueless numpties were then exposed as Saatchi, of his own volition, attended a Police station and accepted a caution for assault. This means he admitted having carried one out. Some “waste of time”, eh Dick? And, as for Ms Odone and her “if there had been no photos”, well, then, who knows how many more “playful tiffs” Ms Lawson would have been subjected to?

And they both get paid for these appallingly bad calls. So no change there, then.

Saatchi Pleads Guilty

One particularly indignant Twitter user was not at all pleased about yesterday’s Zelo Street post on the photos appearing to show Charles Saatchi publicly assaulting his wife – and Domestic Goddess, which means Public Property – Nigella Lawson. Where was my forthright condemnation? Was I condoning domestic violence? Why wasn’t I taking sides?

This blog does not condone any kind of violence, and is especially harsh on men who do what Saatchi appeared to be doing. And, as with so much else, giving the subject enough rope can result in them riding to your rescue while simultaneously stringing themselves up with it: today Saatchi has made a most unwise move in an “exclusive” for the Evening Standard.

Yes, Saatchi has admitted that he did indeed have a row with Nigella, and moreover has gone on record in saying “I held Nigella’s neck repeatedly while attempting to emphasise my point”. Then he digs himself in substantially deeper: “There was no grip, it was a playful tiff”. There’s nothing intercoursing playful about grabbing a woman by the throat, Charlie boy.

Can he dig just a little bit deeper? You betcha, says Sarah: “The paparazzi were congregated outside our house after the story broke yesterday morning, so I told Nigella to take the kids off till the dust settled”. He didn’t talk to her and come to an agreement to do something – he told her what to damn well do. Perhaps Saatchi believes his wife is some kind of chattel.

Well, whatever his belief, Saatchi has admitted that he assaulted Nigella, and that he does not consider it unusual to instruct her as to her movements. In this he has achieved two things: given the Metropolitan Police the green light to call him in for a chat – of a “playful” nature, you understand – and ensured his alienation from anyone who had not previously pronounced judgment on the affair.

Meanwhile, Scott’s Of Mayfair has deployed a straight bat: “The staff and management at Scott's are aware of the reports in the media and would like to make it clear that they did not see the alleged incident nor were they alerted to it at the time”. Quite. I wouldn’t be blowing a hundred quid a head including drinksh without knowing that the gofers could be relied upon to keep schtum.

And snapper “Jean-Paul” has now seen his photos adorning the report in the Mail, along with appropriate attribution, thus demonstrating that, whether shocked pundits approve or otherwise, it is far more rewarding to keep well away from rowing couples and just loose off the SLR instead. As for Charles Saatchi, well, he’ll find that there’s one thing money can’t buy, and that’s the winning over of public opinion.

Especially as he’s just gone on record admitting assault. Bad move, Charlie boy.

Gove Polecats Get Twigged

To no surprise at all, as shadow education man Stephen Twigg delivered a speech on the subject this morning, the spin merchants on the right were waiting with hatchets sharpened, ready to tell anyone who was in hearing range how jolly rotten it was compared to the very wonderful offerings of their hero Michael “Oiky” Gove. The actual content of the speech does not seem to have been considered.

Criticism? Directed at me?

Twigg has asserted that there will, under a future Labour Government, be no more Free Schools, although those so far established – such as the West London Free School, co-founded by the loathsome Toby Young – would be allowed to continue. He has also talked of “parent-led academies”, and this has been seized on by Tobes and his pals as proving a Free School get-out clause.

But a quick read through of the Twigg speech suggests otherwise: parents and other stakeholders having a say is not the same as Free Schools. And the concept of devolution Twigg is pushing does not mean freedom from local Government involvement: rather, it means that local authorities may be doing more than at present, as they will have to take on what Gove’s department did previously.

Big Al's partner has actually read the speech ...

Indeed, the speech talks about local authorities having a monitoring role, being able to call out underperforming Free Schools: “As the numbers of academies and Free Schools rise, underperformance and mismanagement are being spotted and acted on much too late ... We need stronger local oversight for all schools so that struggling schools are spotted much sooner” [my emphasis].

Nor does Twigg rule out local authorities opening new maintained schools, for example to deal with local increases in the demand for places. At present, this cannot happen without there being an academy or Free School partner: Gove has managed to introduce a layer of centrally-imposed bureaucracy (not that his retinue of polecats will be telling anyone any time soon).

... which is more than Gove's polecats have bothered to do

But instead of exercising any measure of caution – the Telegraph’s James Kirkup at least manages an honourable exception here – the Toby Young-led brigade are already putting the boot in. “Labour has raised the white flag on free schools. It's just going to re-brand them 'parent academies'”. Try actually reading the speech, Tobes. But the @toryeducation Twitter feed does no better.

Dominic Cummings and Henry de Zoete’s best shot was “name change for Free Schools, loads more interference in ALL schools from MPs/bureaucrats/LAs”. So they haven’t read it either. And neither Tobes nor his fellow polecats within the DfE seem to have noticed that this is not about Themselves Personally Now, but concerns the futures of rather a lot of young people.

Instead, debate is replaced by more puerile name-calling. That’s not good enough.

Mel Restores Dacre’s Honour

The non-appearance of the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre on the Queen’s Birthday Honours List, which caused Saturday’s front page “Dishonours!” eruption on the Daily Mail’s front page, has now resulted in an obedient pundit being sent over the top in support, and dutifully obliging today is none other than Melanie “not just Barking but halfway to Upminster” Phillips.

Certainly not fair and balanced

“Blackadder and a celebrity-obsessed honours system that insults our genuine heroes” thunders the headline. There are two photos of Tony Robinson, who has had the effrontery to support the Labour Party. Mel, as is usual, starts quietly and almost reasonably with “One of the functions of the honours list is to make the nation feel good about itself”. No disagreement there.

And so she continues: “When looking at the names on that list, people should feel, through the worth embodied by these individuals, proud of belonging to a society that upholds these values” before the mood darkens. “In recent years, however, the honours list has produced by contrast a certain lowering of the spirit. For a number of names on it seem to have arrived there for cynical, venal or opportunistic reasons”.

So what’s the problem? Mel admits “the great majority of those who received such awards were being honoured for genuine achievement or service to the community. Almost three-quarters of them were being singled out for their charitable or community work”. She even gives an example, of a couple who have run a lunch club for more than 27 years. Nothing “cynical, venal or opportunistic” there!

But, having softened up the readers, Mel arrives at the main event, kicking the top man at Thames Water for not lifting the hosepipe ban as soon as it rained in Spring last year. The only conclusion that can be reached from this attack is that Dacre’s country pile falls within the Thames Water area, and he’s sore at being prevented from using a hosepipe when he damn well wants to.

And then Mel comes to Tony Robinson, whose “knighthood was awarded for ‘public and political service’ rather than entertainment. So what exactly was that service? He was a Labour activist, having joined the party’s National Executive Committee in 2000. So his knighthood was for service to the Labour Party”. No mention of all the books he wrote and the TV and charitable work, eh Mel?

When Mel bangs on about “gongs being so cynically and brazenly hijacked for party political gain”, she does not disclose her editor’s interest, and nor does she let her readers know that there is rather more to some of the awards than the selectively assembled facts that she chooses to present. But she does demonstrate that, as another who is not on the honours list, she’s an ideal choice to attack it.

And it makes Dacre less unhappy about being passed over, so that’s all right, then.

Nigella And The People

Celebrity is something people like to read and talk about. Many like to look out for slebs. Some dream of hanging out with them, but for most, they are an other-worldy species, existing behind security gates and kept away from public gaze. They travel at the expensive end of the plane or train. You do not see them on the Tube. They have personal shoppers and trainers. This colours our attitude to them.

Nigella and a between-meals minor snack option

So when Nigella Lawson and husband Charles Saatchi were observed engaging in what many would classify as a “domestic” outside a Mayfair eatery, all of that may have come into play, making other diners and bystanders wary of intervening. One snapper took the easy option of standing well away and taking advantage of the outside and daytime location, so there are photos of the incident.

When something that looks very much like domestic violence enacted in public happens, it is an all too predictable reaction. Folks are wary of (a) getting physically involved in any scrap, (b) getting sued by either or both of the participants, or even nicked for their trouble, and (c) ending up in the same papers as the slebs, which in this case has been the Sunday People.

The People has allowed its readers to see a selection of photos, which do not make for comfortable viewing (the Mail, on the other hand, despite being eager to lift the copy, has confined itself to only describing events), the consequence of which is bound to be that old bully Saatchi has been roughing up his wife in public, and not just verbally. He is also battling previous public perception.

And that is that, although few actually know Nigella, they perceive her as one of those slebs who are likeable and inoffensive. Many have one of her books on or near the coffee table. Her TV shows and other appearances are undemanding. Her Dad may have been a politician, but she isn’t. So even if Saatchi didn’t do what it looks like he did, he’d be on the wrong end of public opinion.

But should Nigella’s clear distress be played out so publicly? The debate can certainly be had, but the reality is that slebs are by definition a sort of public property, and in any case, the speed at which information travels nowadays means that distress is already out there, and the debate has moved on from whether the photos should have been published, to the involvement of the Metropolitan Police.

Indeed, the Mail – not that it wants to be judgmental, you understand – has now got photos of Nigella leaving the marital home with a suitcase, along with a reminder to all readers who do not know which way they should think that Saatchi’s last wife divorced him on the grounds of his unreasonable behaviour.

None of this, though, will stop our lack of willingness to intervene in domestic disputes, however unpleasant. Perhaps it should. But that doesn’t drive reality.

Express BBC Violence Whopper

Headlines do not make much more emphatic claims: “Crackdown On BBC Gore” thundered the increasingly threadbare and downmarket Sunday Express this morning. And no other paper – not even the Mail or Telegraph, famed for their routine trashing of anything Beeb related – had the story. So what was to be cracked down on, and when would it happen?

File under fiction (again)

The article was unequivocal: “Government to act on BBC screen violence in hits such as The Fall andRipper Street ... THE BBC has been told by the Government it must make it harder for children to watch disturbing ‘murder porn’ on their computers”. This was because “youngsters are using the BBC’s internet iPlayer service to watch scenes of appalling violence against women”.

They are? So do a lot of youngsters do this? Ah, but this is the Express,where the budget doesn’t stretch to proper investigative journalism. So all that readers are told is that “Latest figures show iPlayer gets an average of 7.9 million hits a day. January and March saw a record 272 million viewing requests”, which means that BBC iPlayer is very popular, but not with whom.

Still, the Coalition really is going to get tough with the Corporation, isn’t it? “A Government spokesman said: ‘Clearly we look to the BBC to set the bar on greater child protection from online scenes of graphic violence’” is about all the paper can muster on that one. But the Culture Secretary “is to meet internet providers on Tuesday to order bosses to weed out online child porn”.

Which is all fine and dandy, but irrelevant to anything broadcast in the UK. What is concerning Maria Miller on that front (considering the article is supposed to be about it)? “Senior sources say the Culture Secretary is also concerned about British shows aping a trend in US drama for extreme on-screen violence, as in Sky shows such as The Following and Hannibal”.

Right. So now we’re talking about broadcasters other than the BBC. And there is rather a lot of space given over to lobby group Mediawatch-uk, the successor to Mary Whitehouse’s National Viewers And Listeners Association of old. What does not appear – at least, not until the end of the article – is what the BBC is going to do, or be caused to do, about all the alleged “Gore”.

This may be because the answer does not match the headline: “Last night a BBC Trust spokeswoman said no changes were planned for controls on the iPlayer as the Trust felt current safeguards were adequate”. So the Government is not taking any action, there won’t be a “crackdown”, and the Beeb is changing nothing, thus demonstrating that the Express is peddling yet another pack of lies.

But it sells more papers, so that’ll be another Benchmark Of Excellence!