Malaysia Airlines – Grim Reality

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak broke the news many had been dreading: “MH370 flew along the southern corridor, and ... its last position was in the middle of the Indian Ocean, west of Perth ... This is a remote location, far from any possible landing sites. It is therefore with deep sadness and regret that I must inform you that, according to this new data, flight MH370 ended in the southern Indian Ocean”.

The lost aircraft: Boeing 777 9M-MRO

Malaysia Airlines told the families “Malaysia Airlines deeply regrets that we have to assume beyond any reasonable doubt that MH370 has been lost and that none of those on board survived ... we must now accept all evidence suggests the plane went down in the Southern Indian Ocean”. More reports of debris sightings come in every day. But that is not enough for the 24-hour news media.

So the Speculatron of news has been fired up once more, and typical of the questions which we will hear rather too much of in the coming weeks and months is that from Piers Morgan: “So we now know the plane crashed into the sea. But we still don’t know HOW or WHY. The mystery continues”. Well, up to a point. The first part of his question can be answered directly.

Flight MH370 had sufficient fuel to get to Beijing, plus the usual reserves in case of using alternate airports, holding patterns, bad weather, and diversions en route. That fuel would, given the route the plane appears to have taken, run out over the southern Indian Ocean south-west of Perth. So it’s highly likely that it just fell out of the sky, having run out of gas. The other part is not so easily explained.

The route taken is known – more or less – and there is some information about changes of height while the aircraft was still being tracked by military radar in Malaysia. But nothing is yet known about who changed the plane’s course, whether it was an inside job, who else might have been at the controls, whether any of the crew were somehow incapacitated, and much more.

We will only get the full picture when the aircraft’s Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) have been recovered, and the data from them analysed. Given the location where the plane came down, that will not be happening any time in the next few days, unless someone gets extremely lucky. It took two years for those from Air France Flight 447 to be found.

And that is all that we can do: wait, and leave it to the search teams to get the necessary equipment together and try to find the FDR and CVR. Those, together, will unlock the mystery of Flight MH370. Without them, the 24-hour Speculatron of news will carry on, but all that it produces on the subject will be more or less meaningless. We have to exercise patience.

But remember, flying is generally safe, and events like this extremely rare.

Dominic Lawson Dynasty Fail

Since replacing the increasingly wayward Melanie “not just Barking but halfway to Upminster” Phillips as the Daily Mail’s Monday pundit of choice, Dominic Lawson has not stirred quite the same level of controversy. But he is more than capable of cobbling together his columns from the lamest of material, and supported by the flimsiest of arguments, as he has done today.

“Never mind Dave's Etonians. Labour's ruling dynasties are just as privileged” he begins, pitching a false equivalence, as the Etonians are not part of any dynasty – they just went to the same school as one another (apart of course from Jo Johnson, whose brother makes an occasional stab at being Mayor of London). And at least he admits that Young Dave does have his critics.

“One of the most acerbic of those critics is the former director of the Conservative Research Department (and later speech writer for Margaret Thatcher) Robin Harris, who revealed in a television documentary called Toff At The Top that the young Cameron got his job there following a phone call from a Buckingham Palace equerry” he tells, not mentioning that the caller did not seek to influence matters.

But Lawson’s real target is the Labour Party: “During the Crewe and Nantwich by-election in the last parliament” he starts, in order to have a go at those who choose the same occupation as one of their forebears. Like, oh I dunno, Nicholas Soames, Winston Churchill (that’s the grandson of Winshton, who followed his dad into Parliament), Maurice Macmillan and Gwilym Lloyd George.

Of course all of those were Tories, so they don’t get a mention. Instead, Lawson cadges much of his column from the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog, and goes after the children of “Shagger” Prescott, Tone, Jack Straw, Tony Benn, and Neil Kinnock. Plus the Milibands get it in the neck, in accordance with the dictates of the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre.

He even uses the same term as The Great Guido, calling this new generation “Red Princes”. But, by his own admission, he is the last one to call out anyone for dynastic leanings, although he tries to pretend that dad Nigel, being a politician, was in a different line of business. This is the most flagrant bullshit: as any fule kno, Nigel Lawson was first and foremost a journalist.

Moreover, both father and son spent some years as editor of the Spectator, Nigel from 1966 to 1970 and Dominic from 1990 to 1995. That would qualify as another of those dynastic feats that the younger Lawson is railing against in his column – so it’s little wonder that he manages not to tell his readers about it. So I will.

Don’t Menshn Sharia Law

“Islamic law is adopted by British legal chiefs” declared the Telegraph yesterday, in a routine act of flagrant dishonesty. The Law Society has issued guidelines for drawing up wills that follow Sharia practice, but only inasmuch as this is in accordance with English law. They have done this in response to their members’ concerns. You would not know from John Bingham’s article, and certainly not its follow-up.

(c) Doc Hackenbush 2014

This asserts “Calls for a Parliamentary inquiry into the scale of Islamic law in the UK are mounting”, backed by a small number of pundits who may not have looked before commenting. Those making wills in the UK are free to decide who should benefit, providing this complies with the 1837 Wills Act. So one might have expected those freedom loving right-wingers to have no problem with this.

The Law Society responded to the Tel: “Reports that the Law Society is promoting ‘Sharia Law’ are inaccurate and ill informed ... We responded to requests from members for guidance ... Our practice note focuses on how to do that, where it is allowed under English law” [my emphasis]. So who would like to go in with both feet in an orgy of self-promotion in response? As if you need to guess.

Former Tory MP Louise Mensch was incandescent: “The Law Society’s Sharia guide is utterly unacceptable and the courts must women and girls from them and this discrimination”. Then came a “look over there” feint: “Can someone show me Law Society guidance on punishing homosexuality, beating your wife. And fatherly control over children?” without realising this is a problem for all Abrahamic religions.

You weren’t paying attention? She’ll speak a little louder, then: “Taking the L out of Fluck; the Law Society advises how to discriminate against women. NOT ON MY WATCH SON. Social media will turn this over ... I’ve read the guidance, got all the facts I need, will be hanging the Law Society by its collective knackers”.

And it was all Labour’s fault: “Not only will feminism rise up to get this guidance withdrawn, it is time the Government reversed Labour recognition of any religious ‘courts’” [which also have to work within English law]. But she wasn’t finished: “Freedom of religion is fine. Sharia and Bet Din have NO, zero, place in the British legal system. NONE. Time to call a complete halt”.

“British legal system”? There isn’t a “British” legal system. Whatever. There was just time for a parting shot at the Law Society, whose setting out of the facts was met with the mildly intemperate “SOD OFF. How dare you advise solicitors on how best to discriminate against women”.

What would Ms Mensch prefer – that the law should be changed to discriminate on religious grounds? The Law Society is giving advice on how to respond to demand, but stay within the law. And the Telegraph is telling whoppers. Get over it, Louise.

Liz Jones Libel Hypocrisy

Some journalists have trouble understanding social media: while their colleagues are using the likes of Twitter and Facebook as free sources for their articles, others are worried about the ability of others to take part in the conversation, rather than the old days when hacks got published and never got any feedback except through the letters pages of their paper. One such is Liz Jones.

What do you think of it so far?

“If trolls are such a joy, why do I wake up scared every day?” she muses, baffled by the ability of Julie Burchill to shrug off the torrent of abuse and effectively feed off it to make herself stronger (Zelo Street regulars will have noticed two examples of the genre at right). Ms Burchill is right: her platform at the Spectator, or in the print media, is far more powerful than your average Twitter or Facebook troll.

That thought, though, is not allowed to enter: “At a New Year’s Eve party, I couldn’t understand why a group of friends were asking if I was OK, how awful it must have been ... It turned out that one of their group had posted on Mumsnet, using a pseudonym, that  she had seen me taking cocaine at a Bonfire Night party ... Why was someone allowed to lie anonymously about me, with no recourse?”

There is not the slightest hint of irony here: Liz Jones has made her name dispensing catty remarks and making enough unpleasant assertions against others over the years that, as she readily admits, three of them successfully sued her. Many more have decided that they can get along without her name in their contacts book, and she has been barred from some fashion venues.

She says of her current partner “an online thread started attacking him for being dirty, and therefore not fit to sell cakes and bread, which is his business”, then tells “I’d written about how he should be groomed at Trumper’s of  St James’s, the Royal barbers”, yet fails to see how she is the one that started that hare running. You don’t want that crap, don’t spray personal details and opinions around.

Those who practice “confessional journalism” – and Ms Jones is one of the best-known exponents of the genre – should not be surprised when they suffer blowback, especially when she has been so unpleasant and insensitive to others. And she needs to remember all those on the receiving end of her abuse who have not had the means to take her to the cleaners.

“I have no choice about being libelled by posts on hers and other sites; nor, it seems, does any poor sod associated with me” wails Liz Jones, using the false equivalence: “[you] can avoid being upset by things I write about the world by not buying this newspaper”. She hadn’t read the allegation of cocaine sniffing, but found out soon enough. And the Mail On Sunday counts its readers in millions.

Liz Jones is the most appalling hypocrite. So she’s at the right newspaper.

Booker Ukraine Fantasy

Serial fraud Christopher Booker is almost magnanimous today: “I must thank the reader who queried my own gaffe in claiming on March 9 that this had been only ‘the 16th wettest winter’ since 1766. Having looked more carefully at the data, what I should have said was that January was only the fifteenth wettest month in that time (and last winter only the fifth wettest three-month period). My apologies.”

As any fule kno, last winter was the wettest, whichever data series you use. Booker shows that he cannot be honest enough to re-read data accurately, even when given another chance to face reality. And thus it is for his lead item on the Ukraine crisis: “The EU, dedicated to eliminating national identity, has finally run up against the rock of a national interest that will not give way”.

While readers are looking at the Russian annexation of Crimea, which was part of Russia until 1954 and is overwhelmingly Russian speaking and supporting, Booker tries to slip in another of his blatantly false assumptions: that the EU is “dedicated to eliminating national identity”. That’ll be why everyone in the EU speaks the same language, then. But all member states’ languages are respected.

Individual member states, and regions within them, preserve their identities, often with the assistance of EU policies, for instance to protect regional produce, a practice that does not just protect Roquefort cheese and the sparkling wines of the Champagne country, but also Cornish Pasties and cheeses like Stilton. If there were a move to eliminate national identity, that would not happen.

Booker contradicts himself by asserting that one principle driving the EU is that “it can assume ever more power over the nations that belong to it”, but then suggests that its leaders are “Squawking around like chickens panicked by a fox”. Then he makes up a story about all those leaders deciding to adopt fracking for natural gas, which they have not. The lie is off and running.

This is supported by abuse: our “leaders” (see, they’re not really proper leaders) are in a “pitiful state ... they blether ... they prattle ... pathetic little ‘targeted’ sanctions ... impotent nonentities who pose as our leaders ... examples of ... their collective act of make-believe”. So how can the EU have an “Imperial Dream”, as Booker asserts, if it is so risible? How could it have even survived since the 1950s?

The reality is that the “soft power” and economic muscle available to a body representing 28 member states has all manner of options, and levers on Russia, available to it. But it is also a club representing democracies: one assumes Booker has no problem with this concept. He also forgets the recent falls on the Moscow stock market, and that, without its gas exports, Russia is screwed.

Still, it keeps him occupied and out of mischief, so that’s all right, then.

Shapps Blames Osborne

The latest twist in what is becoming known as Bingogate is the revelation that the infographic describing “hardworking people” as “they” was not really the work of Tory Party chairman Grant “Spiv” Shapps, but was somehow forced on to the poor dear. There are even stories circulating that Shapps is for the chop over the affair. But all that this does is show what a shambles the Party has become.

Oh look, someone selling dodgy motahs

How it looked - (c) Doc Hackenbush 2014

The two narratives now going the rounds are, first, that Shapps was not, in fact, the one wot done it, and second, that he’s going to get the sack anyway, to be replaced with someone who may be even more utterly useless. Both have serious credibility hurdles to overcome, not least because those narratives cannot both be true. But let’s start with the “blameless Grant” angle.

This has been put forward by Iain Martin, formerly of the Wall Street Journal, writing in the Telegraph, who tells readers “Eyes down ... how Osborne dodged blame for bingo gaffe ... George Osborne, the Chancellor, signed off and was 'enthusiastic' about the Tories' controversial post-Budget bingo poster”. Here, it was the Rt Hon Gideon George Oliver Osborne, heir to the Seventeenth Baronet, who done it.

“A small team of staffers from Tory headquarters was allowed into the Treasury to work with the Chancellor’s aides on devising political messages aimed at promoting the Budget ... With the concept and wording agreed the advert was signed off by the Chancellor as well as by Lynton Crosby, the Tory’s [sic] election strategist, and by Stephen Gilbert, the Prime Minister’s political secretary” he told.

But, as Martin concedes, “That evening, Mr Shapps tweeted the advert to his followers on the social networking site Twitter and encouraged them to ‘spread the word’”. Hardly the action of someone acting under duress. So what of the second narrative? This has come from Breitbart London, and so should be treated as highly suspect unless confirmed. It says Shapps is for the high jump.

The Breitbart line is that “no one person was responsible” for Bingogate, though “Shapps bore final responsibility”. The one to blame was now Robert Halfon, the populist MP for Harlow, but here a problem enters: Halfon is a mere back-bencher, and the idea that he can impose his ideas on the Party leadership is fanciful. Worse, the names touted as Shapps’ replacement are hardly credible.

The two names in the Breitbart frame are Chris Grayling – er, no, basically – and Esther McVey, which would transfer the Party chairman’s job from a spiv to an I-Speak-Your-Weight machine. And, of course, both explanations cannot be wholly true. Meanwhile, there is a poll bounce for the Tories, but the impression that the Party is out of touch may soon do away with that.

And the lack of candour over Bingogate just makes them look shifty. Once more.

Top Six – March 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 have to go out later. So there.

6 Hardcastle Castled Once More Appalling dinosaur Peter McKay slipped another slice of bigotry into last Wednesday’s Daily Mail Ephraim Hardcastle column. The response showed universal disgust. But that’s what the column is about.

5 Delingpole’s A Wanker Discuss press regulation rationally? Not James “saviour of Western civilisation” Delingpole, who called those signing the Hacked Off declaration “the Wankerati”. But only a total tosser would fail to know the difference between a press release and an advert. And he is it.

4 Tory Donor Shafted By Tories Jeremy Hosking has made his pile from venture capitalism, and gives to the Tory Party. But his local Tory Council and MP are backing a scheme which would demolish a site he just invested in.

3 HS2 – Simon Jenkins Gets Fisked An utterly lame attack on the HS2 project deserved a good going over. So it got one. Must try harder, Simon.

2 Grant Shapps Presents Spiv Bingo The Tory Party chairman urged his colleagues to promote an infographic which referred to “hardworking people” as “they”. The chorus of derision was all too predictable.

1 When Hardcastle Got Castled This post from February 2011was in response to another nasty piece of sexist bigotry from PeterMcKay, who writes the Ephraim Hardcastle column in the Daily Mail. This, though, is part of the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre’s “conversation” with his readers.

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

Grant Shapps Gaffe – The Pushback

The now infamous “Bingo!” infographic eagerly published by Tory Party chairman Grant “Spiv” Shapps this week to a chorus of derision was condemned across the political spectrum. Even Daily Mail journalists passed severely adverse comment. Referring to “hardworking people” enjoying beer and bingo as “They” made the Tories look patronising, which many of them in fact are.

Behold a purveyor of truly dodgy motahs

(c) Doc Hackenbush 2014

So the otherwise vocal response from Young Dave’s MPs was, in this area at least, muted. This caused the murmurs to start: Shapps was in trouble (possible)! He was rubbish (which everyone outside the party already knows)! He was just a spiv in disguise (ditto)! This state of affairs could not be allowed to continue: a rescue mission was in order. So the spin began.

Sadly, first over the top was the serially clueless Tim Montgomerie, former stalwart of ConHome and recent taker of the Murdoch shilling, offering “The Tories messed up with that Bingo Tweet. Labour messed up by pinning all hopes on Osbournomics failing. I know who has a bigger problem”. No thanks Monty, I don’t want to look over there. Shapps has alienated a whole block of voters.

More substantial, if flagrantly dishonest and unprincipled, support followed from Harry Phibbs (he does? There’s a surprise – not). “In 2009 Labour increased Bingo Tax from 15% to 22% - causing many clubs to close. They should be apologising rather than sneering”. As the industry says the 5% reduction will make no difference to those who play the game, I’ll take that one with a large pinch of salt, thanks.

And, of course, Phibbs is yet more patronising to characterise all those calling out Shapps as “Labour”, but there are limits to Harry’s intellect: he can’t help it. Douglas “Kamikaze” Carswell had a straightforward response: cut the detail and just say Shapps was a good chairman. “Forget this Twitter storm. Grant Shapps is an effective Tory chairman” he posted at Telegraph blogs.

That’s not a bad idea, especially for Carswell. Would anyone else care to pile in in support? Stewart Jackson, MP for Peterborough, certainly would. Linking to Carswell’s post, he told “Labour know Shapps is a fighter and a doer and that’s why they want to damage him. It ain’t going to happen”. Sadly, it came out like a cast-off from Baron Mandelson of Indeterminate Guacamole.

But then, to undermine any work that had been done to shore up the spiv, came a truly batshit intervention from (yes, it’s her again) Nadine Dorries: “I think [Grant Shapps] was set up and I don’t think that poster had anything to do with him. I know him. It’s just not his style”. Yes, if in doubt, deploy the “A big boy did it and ran away” excuse. That’ll have them rolling in the aisles. But there is a small problem.

Grant Shapps still looks like a patronising spiv. Because he is a patronising spiv.

Delingpole’s A Wanker

Jerking circles are not thus named for nothing, and to prove it, we have another sneering missive from James “saviour of Western civilisation” Delingpole at Breitbart London, who has seen the Leveson Declaration from all those signing on to the proposition advanced by campaigning group Hacked Off and decided to use it for the advancement of Himself Personally Now.

"Gay Marriage ... Global Warming ... Bien-Pensant ... Bingo! I'm a wanker"

“The Wankerati Speak: ‘Why Can’t Britain’s Press Be More Like Iran’s?’” is the suitably dishonest headline, followed by a quote which Del Boy admits is made up, in which someone with a London accent (awrite, shat eet, leeeave it aht) describes the signatories as “Wankers. Faarsends of them”. Gosh, how incredibly original of Del Boy to make up yet another of those imaginary friends.

Then he tells that “The campaign for greater press regulation in Britain has suffered a devastating, possibly fatal blow with the release to the Guardian of a list of celebrities who are lending their support to the Leveson Royal Charter proposal”. And, as Jon Stewart might have said, two things here. Nobody is advocating greater press regulation, and this is not a press release.

What Del Boy has seen is an advert – that it is paid for by Hacked Off supporters is there in the body text – and the reason it is in the Guardian is because most other papers refuse to carry it. Free speech champion Delingpole is not so keen on free speech when it dissents from his favoured point of view. But light relief is soon at hand as he brings unintentional hilarity to proceedings.

“The list of names [is] a veritable Who's Who of Britain's bien-pensant, chattering-class Wankerati” he sneers, and at once one can visualise Del Boy working his patented “air quotes” and adding “bien-pensant” to “gay marriage”, “global warming” and “eco crucifixes” in that irritating faux-posh tone that says “I’ve suffered for my art, and now it’s your turn”, before delivering his triumphant conclusion.

“It goes, almost without saying, that we here at Breitbart London are of the same view [as the Spectator] a) because this regulation is intrusive, constricting and entirely against the principles of free speech which generations of Englishmen from Milton and Wilkes onwards have fought so hard to establish and b) because unlike the names on the list, we are not a bunch of abject, weapons-grade wankers”.

Two more things: Del Boy clearly hasn’t the faintest idea what is in the Royal Charter he is so ready to slag off, and the message has come through loud and clear. Yes, there is nothing abject about Delingpole: when the first word that comes into his head is “Wanker”, one need enquire no further as to what is clearly on his mind. Only a total tosser would fail to bother doing his homework so spectacularly.

So it’s not the referee, it’s Delingpole. And, yes, he’s a wanker. He says so.

Guido Fawked – Sky News Appointment Called Wrong

Channel 4 News is searching for a new economics editor, following the appointment of current incumbent Faisal Islam as Adam Boulton’s replacement as political editor of Sky News (“first for breaking wind”). To show their readers that they have the inside track on such matters, the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog have attempted to predict the result.

Yeah, I heard the names when I was on my third pint, sod it, no, story of the day, about brewing beer, bollocks no, coffee. To clear last night's hangover. Oh crap

However, and in this case there is a significantly-sized however, anyone wanting to place their bets on the contest should pause for reflection before heading to the bookies, if only to see how accurate the Fawkes prediction was when the Sky News job was advertised. Because the sad fact was that Staines and his pals did not pitch the name of the successful candidate until the interviews started.

“The race is on for one of the best jobs in SW1, so as ever Guido gives you the runners and riders to replace Adam Boulton” declared the Fawkes rabble on January 28. The names? Seven of them: Nick Watt, Nick Robinson, Laura Kuenssberg, Cathy Newman, George Parker, Joey Jones and Tom Newton Dunn, and seven names that did not include the winner.

I know lots of names, cos I'm on telly!

Never mind though, they had another go two days later, telling “Speculation over the Sky News political editor job has reached fever pitch. Screw the immigration bill, it’s all anyone in the Westminster village wants to talk about”. So did those talking to The Great Guido have any more interesting names to pitch? Yes they did: there were five new ones to add to the list.

Jon Craig, Gary Gibbon, Andy Bell, Chris Ship and James Landale were added to the field, with Bell “heavily tipped”. Laura Kuenssberg was “said to be out”, which, translated into plain English, means she wasn’t in in the first place, having only just arrived back at the BBC. Cathy Newman had been “approached”. Yeah, right: that’s just cover for an evidence-free suggestion.

Then when the interviews started, three more names that the Fawkes folks had missed first – and second – time round appeared, Allegra Stratton, Anne McElvoy, and Benedict Brogan. Fifteen guesses, and all wrong. But they did, at long last, mention Faisal Islam, though by this time they could have just watched the interview location – which they knew – to see who fetched up.

And with their first guess for the Channel 4 News job being Allister Heath of City AM, well-known as being a stooge for the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance, Staines and his pals do not appear to have improved their forecasting ability. Moreover, given their abysmal form, anyone in the Westminster village wanting to take the piss will be eager to pitch more names for them to get wrong.

The Great Guido couldn’t forecast a fart in a lift. Another fine mess, once again.

Toby Young’s Press Regulation Idiocy

Following the adverts taken out by the Hacked Off campaigning group this week on the first anniversary of the cross-party Royal Charter on press regulation, there has inevitably been pushback from those who do not want properly independent press regulation, do not know the first thing about press regulation, would like to crawl up the nearest orifice of those opposing independent press regulation, or all three.

Behold a bellend

And ticking all three of those boxes is the loathsome Toby Young, writing in the Spectator, edited by Fraser Nelson, a likeable and highly intelligent bloke who for some reason has convinced himself that commissioning Tobes to tell whoppers about Hacked Off is A Very Good Thing. I can assure Nelson that the only result will be a serious diminution of his magazine’s credibility.

“It looks as though Hacked Off has finally won its three-year battle for tighter regulation of the press” begins Tobes. Wrong. Nobody wants tighter press regulation. But do go on: “on Tuesday it published a list of 200 people who agree with them ... these were, in Hacked Off’s words, ‘the leading figures in literature, arts, science, academia, human rights and the law’ ... the leading figures”.

And what does the advert say? “More than a year on from the Leveson Report, leading figures in literature, arts, science and the law are joining forces with victims of past press abuse”. It doesn’t say “the” leading figures on the declaration, does it, Tobes? That is what you would call a lie if someone did it to you, isn’t it, Tobes? It’s shoddy, misleading and dishonest journalism, isn’t it, Tobes?

Small wonder Graham Linehan calls Tobes “London's village idiot”. And it gets worse: Young sneers at Albert Scardino because he can’t find a reference to him using a Google search. “Former Bill Clinton adviser and Pulitzer Prize winner”. Not much of a Google search, was it, Tobes? Then there’s a snark at Zoe Margolis. Perhaps that’s because she’s one of those independent women that frighten Tobes.

Rufus Hound is next for the snark treatment, because Tobes had a Twitter disagreement with him which he lost – and, predictably, because Hound is successful, and Tobes is not. Likewise his kick at Gary Lineker for also being successful, before having a go at Peter Jukes for taking on the live-tweeting of the hacking trial, which for Tobes would be too much like hard work.

All that is then left is to talk about “curtailing press freedom” and “state regulation of the press”, neither of which Hacked Off want. Then he tries unsuccessfully to go into self-deprecation mode with “It’s game over for Murdoch lackeys like me”. But whether or not it’s game over, Tobes, you’re not a Murdoch lackey. Or don’t you remember getting sacked from your pisspoor Sun column?

“Village idiot” is an understatement. Toby Young really is a complete bellend.

Hardcastle Castled Once More

The furore that greeted this week’s Ephraim Hardcastle column in the Daily Mail was significant, but not surprising: dishonesty, sexism and casual racism, which is what was deployed against two people from University College London (UCL) for the crime of appearing on BBC Newsnight and adding to our understanding of the beginnings of the Universe, are the column’s stock in trade.

Wake up Peter, you've been fired

Zelo Street has observed goings-on in Hardcastle land once before, after it inferred that CBS reporter Lara Logan, who was the victim of a serious sexual assault in Cairo in 2011, was somehow partly to blame for her predicament, because she was a “former swimwear model” who “had ‘form’”. And then there is the equally casual homophobia and other sundry bigotry.

Why does the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre allow this into his paper? Simples. This is part of his “conversation” with those Daily Mail readers, one of the ways in which he communicates the kind of values that he deems to be worth promoting, and those which, through the sneering abuse of the Hardcastle column, he clearly deems to be A Very Bad Thing Indeed.

The two UCL people – Hiranya Peiris and Maggie Aderin-Pocock – were also targeted because the programme on which they appeared was not only on the hated BBC, but is also edited by former Guardian journalist Ian Katz. David Price, vice-Provost for research at UCL, has complained about the article, and pointed out that such assertions as “White, male” scientists doing the research are wrong.

But Price misses the point: the Hardcastle column isn’t concerned with such inconveniences as mere facts. The “White, male” comment was thrown in because it fitted the narrative, which had already been decided upon. So who is behind this antediluvian excuse for journalism? Step forward Peter McKay, aka Peter McHackey, aka Peter McLie, aka The World’s Worst Columnist.

One of Ian Hislop’s first actions as editor of Private Eye was to sack McKay, because he was utterly useless. McKay is one of those dinosaurs who will be swept out when Dacre is finally prevailed upon to spend more time with his house in the Home Counties and Scottish Estate: his column rails against philanderers, but his past record of serial womanising is part of Fleet Street legend.

The Hardcastle column turns its nose up at drunkenness, yet McKay is a lush. It sneers at politicians who have family incomes of £300k, while McKay’s editor is trousering several times that amount. The Hardcastle column is so stuffed full of whoppers that it’s a miracle McKay’s trousers don’t spontaneously combust every time he files his copy. And that suits Paul Dacre just fine.

That is what passes for quality journalism. And that’s not good enough.

HS2 – Simon Jenkins Gets Fisked

There has been some pretty dire copy filed by those attacking the HS2 project. But “This HS2 make-do is all about getting a bad job done” by Simon Jenkins in the Standard – he’s the one who wanted Crossrail junked, remember – is such a dishonest and abysmal mess that it begs to be given what The Italian Job’s Mr Bridger might have called “a good going over”.

Oh look out, somebody let facts into the room

“Higgins’s HS2-Plus review emerges as a masterly tactic. He has learned to stop talking about time-saving and stick to ‘enhancing capacity’”. Nobody has stopped talking about time savings. “He has learned to avoid the Treasury’s treacherous cost-benefit analyses”. The analysis is not being avoided, and that for the “Y network” is still significantly above 2.0. Do try again.

“To think of the case he could have made for a new cross-Pennine link”. We already have four, with one being electrified and upgraded. “A new Manchester underground”. Simon, meet Metrolink, which already exists. “Or even for an upgrade of the lines into Paddington or Waterloo”. Paddington? Remember Crossrail? Waterloo? Seen the latest Crossrail 2 proposals? If not, why not?

“Think what Higgins would have proposed for the far more sensible HS2 pathway, down the east coast from Scotland and Yorkshire to the Eurostar and France”. And where, pray, are Birmingham, the East Midlands, Manchester, Merseyside, North Wales and Lancashire? Clue: they’re not on the east coast. HS2 serves those, and Yorkshire, with provision to extend to Scotland.

Then we get “In most cases the time required to get to and from the stations will cancel savings in journey times” followed by “In London ... the case for halting [HS2 services] at their new ‘hub’ station at Willesden/Old Oak Common is powerful”. YOU JUST COMPLAINED ABOUT EXTRA JOURNEY TIMES BECAUSE OF HUB STATIONS BEING OUT OF TOWN.

“Euston remains London’s worst-connected terminus, servicing only the Northern and Victoria lines”. Improvements at Euston will open up the east end of Euston Square station. So add the Metropolitan, Circle and Hammersmith and City. That’s five lines. “There is no good reason beyond sheer obstinacy for not bringing HS2 down into Paddington”. What did you just say about Underground connections?

Paddington has two separate Underground stations, with no prospect of them being connected in the future. And you carp about Euston? “The Euston site is small and constrained”. Been to Paddington recently? “They had to abandon the case for HS2 as slashing journey times when businessmen said they liked working on trains”. Nobody has “abandoned” advertising journey time improvements, and businessmen value getting to their destinations earlier. Otherwise nobody would fly anywhere.

“They have had to ignore Whitehall cost-benefit”. Nobody has ignored this analysis, whether it comes from “Whitehall” or elsewhere. “Now the backers have abandoned the one ‘vision’ that HS2 had on its side, that its trains would run from Scotland and the north through to the Continent via St Pancras”. HS2 has never, but never, BUT NEVER, been presented as anything other than a purely domestic project.

“No work seems to have been done on the opportunities forgone for investment in Northern transport”. Northern Hub. Trans-Pennine electrification. Metrolink expansion. West Midlands Metro expansion. Electrification from Leeds to York, Selby and Hull. Track and linespeed improvements. More and longer trains.

“Easing the lives of first-class commuters into Euston is hardly a national priority”. HS2 is neither a commuter route, and nor is it exclusively first class. AND WHAT ABOUT THE EXTRA FREIGHT CAPACITY IT GIVES? “Higher rail speeds are old technology and energy-inefficient”. Christ on a bike, where does one start with this remark? Siemens, Alstom, Hitachi and Bombardier must all be in the wrong business, then. And those poor passengers lapping up the faster journey times. If only they had listened to Simon Jenkins.

I’m sure much lamer rubbish has passed before my inspection before now. But this article is a masterpiece in wrong-headed, badly-researched, contradictory, ignorant, wilful, selfish drivel from someone who is clearly so detached from the real world that he has lost the capacity for rational argument.

Jenkins was wrong on Crossrail. He is wrong on HS2. It’s the kind of consistency that folks will remember when he gets it wrong on the next major transportation project. Yes, there goes Simon Jenkins, on his way ...out.

Gilligan Flogs His Trojan Horse

Andrew “transcription error” Gilligan is keeping up his campaign to highlight what he clearly believes to be creeping Islamism in Birmingham’s schools: “Muslim extremists, and a worrying lesson for us all ... Activists attempting to 'Islamify’ state schools in Birmingham could try to launch a national campaign” he told in his last Telegraph article, flagged up to Zelo Street via an anonymous comment.

“Investigations by The Telegraph, separate to and in parallel with the ‘Trojan Horse’ letter, reveal that there is indeed an organised group of Muslim teachers, education consultants, school governors and activists dedicated to furthering what one of them describes as an ‘Islamising agenda’ in Birmingham’s schools. And [Razwan] Faraz should know: he is at the heart of it” he tells.

The “Trojan Horse” letter, as I noted recently, is suspected of being a fake. But Gilligan persists: “They convene, among other places, on WhatsApp, a messaging service, where they have a closed discussion group called ‘Educational Activists’. In their messages, all of which have been leaked to this newspaper, the activists describe their goals and tactics”.

Stop right there: those who know the Gilligan modus operandi of old will by now hear their bullshit detectors screaming long and loud. Yes, he goes on to quote a number of entries which support his contention, but for some reason, despite the ability of the Telegraph to reproduce them, we do not see the complete comment threads, with the context in which comments are made clearly shown.

And when Gilligan is involved, anything without a reliable citation is worthless: you could not trust this bloke any further than you could chuck him. Moreover, he seems unusually reluctant to pony up his evidence to Birmingham City Council, who are looking into the claims: “The city council are investigating claims that Islamic fundamentalists are employing dirty tricks campaigns against teachers to take over schools” reports the Birmingham Mail.

Why is Gilligan so reticent? Council leader Albert Bore may have the answer in this statement: “If these are the genuine concerns of a whistle-blower, we will afford the protection necessary to the investigation of those concerns. If however we find evidence that takes us to a motivation behind these claims which is not based on professional concern, we will act accordingly”.

There may be a genuine campaign behind the “Trojan Horse” letter. If so, the whistleblower needs to come forward. In the meantime, as Andrew Gilligan claims to have unearthed wrongdoing, then he too should turn over his find to the City Council so that action can be taken. One assumes this is his objective.

After all, it can’t be more dishonest shit-stirring. Or can it, Andy? Don’t be shy, now.

Miliband Underestimated Again

Following Osborne’s Budget statement came the response from Mil The Younger. And following that was a horde of clueless Tory MPs and unthinking pundits ready to put the boot in. The prize specimen among the latter was Dan Hodges, formerly the Colonel Nicholson of the Labour Party, telling “Budget 2014: Ed Miliband's wretched, incoherent response showed that he is not ready to be PM”.

Not being ousted just yet

Yes, this time he knew the score, and was going to put the boot in. Moreover, he was so important that Miliband would have to sit up and take notice: “As regular readers may know, I’m not the Labour leader’s biggest fan. I’ve got absolutely nothing against him personally, and on those occasions we’ve bumped into each other he’s been polite and funny and generous with his time”.

A Tory droid speaks ...

See? This isn’t just any old rant from another of those who inhabits the bear pit that is Telegraph blogs, it’s from someone who moves in really, really important circles. And he says Ed was rubbish yesterday! So, it seems, do a variety of Tory MPs, to no surprise at all. “That was an awful response to Budget from Ed Miliband. A pre-scripted, embarrassing performance. Labour MPs look rightly glum” was typical.

... followed by another obedient servant ...

That was from Tracey Crouch, who took the approved attack lines (“pre-scripted”? She doesn’t know. What the heck. Looks good. Might sound good on telly). So did Harriet Baldwin: “Did anyone catch any economic policy in Ed Miliband’s woeful speech? Sounded like a grumpy rant in a socialist workers’ bar” she trilled. Yes, the I-speak-your-weight brigade was on good form.

... and three in a row means more bingo!

But what about the supposedly ever-present threat to Miliband’s leadership? Fear not, Greg Hands is here, and he knows the threat is real (in his own world): “Labour front bench has emptied after that car crash speech from Ed Miliband. Off plotting? You’d better watch your back, Ed” he sniped. Yes, it wasn’t only Grant “Spiv” Shapps who was playing bingo yesterday.

Eh? Is he being serious?

That was not how some Labour supporters saw it: Sunny Hundal was unequivocal in his positive assessment of Miliband’s response: “Miliband confidently on the offensive. He knows his narrative about cost of living is strong”. Now, Sunny occasionally gets shedloads of stick for his stances, but this one turned out to be on the money. There were two reasons for this.

Yes he is. And he's done his homework

As he then pointed out, “Ed Miliband office confirms Labour leader was not given redacted budget statement an hour before Osborne stood up, as is normal” (no wonder the Tories had their scripts ready). So he did the best he could, given the Tories had deliberately shat on him. And what got into the evening TV news programmes pushed his message home most effectively.

Yet still the Tories underestimate him. More fool them.

Grant Shapps Presents Spiv Bingo

The Rt Hon Gideon George Oliver Osborne, heir to the Seventeenth Baronet, sat down after delivering his Budget speech yesterday. The Government benches cheered him to the rafters, order papers waving in their hundreds. The Tory supporting press was on side. The opinion polls must surely now turn in their favour. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

Makes a change from selling dodgy motahs

Ah well. When you’ve made the mistake of giving the party chairman’s job to Grant “Spiv” Shapps, anything and everything can go wrong. As the favourable press coverage was being written up, Shapps Tweeted an infographic telling “Cutting the bingo tax and beer duty ... to help hardworking people do more of the things they enjoy”. Patronising, much? The response was damning.

The presence that is Doc Hackenbush was on the case in short order: “Hey Grant Shapps, I’ve revised your bingo graphic for honesty” he announced. The wording spelt it out: “That’s what you wretched proles get up to, isn’t it? So strap on your clogs and grab your whippets and have at it. We’ll be over here counting your money ... Conservatives. Patronising the shit out of you”. Ouch!

That the infographic was patronising (hardworking people being “they”), as well as unfortunate (by inference, Tories are not hardworking people), was lost on some MPs. “Great Poster!” exclaimed Rob Wilson, Reading’s answer to Fred Scuttle, seemingly oblivious to the storms of derision.

Also pushing back against the tsunami of ridicule was Mid Bedfordshire’s Tory MP (yes, it’s her again) Nadine Dorries, telling “Stop knocking bingo. Every holiday I had as a kid was paid for with the bingo winnings”. She still won’t be getting tea and bikkies round at Dave’s Den, Number Ten.

 But the prize for combined stupidity and sourness has to go to Karl McCartney, another Merseysider who is now Tory MP for Lincoln. Once again, he just Tweeted out the infographic without first engaging brain: “V pleased about this for both those who enjoy playing bingo, and those who enjoy beer!” he enthused. Mark Ferguson of Labour List tried to break the news to McCartney gently.

“Someone has just arrived in Twitter tonight” he mused. McCartney was incandescent: “Have you ever played bingo properly? Or enjoyed a beer ‘properly’? Thought not, as you’re a boring, pious, unhappy, sneering leftie”. Rattle out of pram or what? See, you rotten metropolitan Guardian readers don’t know how to drink beer “properly”! It’s not fair! My majority’s only 1050!

We the people are paying for clowns like Karl McCartney, Nadine Dorries, Rob Wilson and Grant Shapps. And on this form, they are only worth it for the unintentional hilarity. That’s not good enough.

TPA – Astroturf Budget Clowns

As the Rt Hon Gideon George Oliver Osborne, heir to the Seventeenth Baronet, sat down after delivering his Budget speech today, the punditry sprang into action. Winners and losers were identified. Strategies were considered. Points for ingenuity were awarded. And over at the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance (TPA), a suitably creative version of reality was span to the public.

More guff from Tufton Street

Jonathan Isaby, the TPA’s CEO, told that “The Chancellor has announced some welcome relief for taxpayers struggling with stretched budgets. Measures such as the higher personal allowance, the freeze in fuel duty, and abolition of the alcohol duty escalator will all ease the burden on hard-pressed families. It’s also good to see savers finally being rewarded after being overlooked for too long by successive governments”. And, as the man said, there’s more.

“However, George Osborne has no room for complacency. His failure to reform Stamp Duty is a missed opportunity and it is deeply regrettable that yet more taxpayers are likely to be dragged into the 40p Income Tax band”. Where does one start with this flagrant attempt at turd polishing?

While higher personal tax allowances are always welcome, the freeze in fuel duty will, at the margins, merely encourage more people to drive rather than walk, cycle or use one or other form of public transport (although, of course, the TPA is in the van with the motoring lobby and would dearly love to see entire swathes of the country without bus services).

And then we come to the “abolition of the alcohol duty escalator”. The conceit that suggests this will ease the burden on anyone in the retail or licensed trade, or any consumer, is bunk: whether a pint of beer costs £2.99 or £3 is hardly material (add a quid to those figures for you lucky people in London). Without addressing the behaviour of the PubCos, as I keep reminding readers, problems will remain.

Pubs will keep on being closed as PubCos, some struggling with crippling debt burdens, cash in their property chips: roadhouse pubs are particularly vulnerable in this regard, with their large footprint. Tenants, many of whom are lucky to clear £10,000 a year, will keep on getting screwed over by those same PubCos, who lock them in to overpriced “beer ties”.

As to stamp duty and the number of those in the 40p tax band, how is the TPA proposing to deal with the revenue shortfall from such actions? What further parts of Government expenditure would it select for cutting? Perhaps Isaby and his pals would like to be bold here: tell us what they would do (but we know that already: abolish the NHS and burden the UK with the US healthcare model).

This is a glib and lame response to a serious issue. No change there, then.

Don’t Menshn Boris

The idea that London’s occasional Mayor Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson might abandon the fleeting interest he has in the office he is supposed to hold, and run for the leadership of the Tory Party if Young Dave loses next year’s General Election, has received a significant setback of late. Rupert Murdoch does not like him. And in particular he does not trust him on the EU.

(c) Doc Hackenbush 2014

Rupe hates the EU with a passion: the kind of business regulation, insistence on nasty things like open competition and a level playing field, and consumer protection on top of all that, that comes out of Brussels does not fit well with the Murdoch way of doing things. His aspiring pundits understand this well, and none has been better at taking the hint than former MP Louise Mensch.

“The reason that Boris Johnson can never lead the Conservative Party is that a hardcore pro-EUer, as he is, cannot command Tory MPs” she declares. And, as Jon Stewart might have said, two things here. Leaders don’t lead by command. And the last hardcore anti-EU Tory leaders (as they were at the time) were William ‘Ague and Iain Duncan Cough. Remember what happened to them.

But Ms Mensch has agreement from Nick Watt at the deeply subversive Guardian, which is suddenly a reliable source when it produces what she wants to hear: “An unlikely ally from the Guardian there, but as I told you all, I know what I’m talking about” she declares. The thought that this may be a “stopped clock” moment (or Eccles being asked what time it is, for you oldies) is not allowed to enter.

And she knows she is right, as Sonia Purnell says that Bozza is “far more [pro-EU] than he lets on publicly”. This brings “Exactly. I am right. BoJo = Europhile”. What “Europhile” means, we are not told. But that this is what Murdoch wants to hear is a rock solid certainty. So is the conceit that someone other than Bozza would be ready to take the UK out of the EU. On that, Ms Mensch is not for listening.

Even the intervention of Iain Martin – formerly of the Wall Street Journal, so he might just understand the mindsets in play here – cautions her against jumping to conclusions: “On EU referendum stuff I advise against terms like ‘not true’. Depends on things yet to come and half the participants are lying” he tells. Politicians behave like politicians no shock horror. But he makes no impression.

“But Osborne would withdraw under favourable conditions. Boris would not; he’s Clarkeite, ideological” she chirps, failing to understand that the Tories’ problem is not unlike Harold Wilson’s in 1975: more of a device to hold the party together. Martin cautions: “On [the] EU spectrum I can produce you [a] whole range of Osborne views, from young Europhile to pragmatic powerbroker. Dunno, neither do you”.

He’s right. She doesn’t know. But she knows what Murdoch wants to hear. 

Mail Pound Coin Hysteria

[Update at end of post]

Nothing is forever, and certainly not in the world of money. The banknotes, and coins, that we use in our everyday lives change in size and style over time. This is in the category of the stuff that happens. It is not of great concern to most people. But, for the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre and his obedient hackery at the Daily Mail, change of this kind is the worst horror imaginable.

So it is with the news that the pound coin is to have a new design and shape: “£1 Coin Is To Be Scrapped” thunders today’s front page lead, continuing “New version will be shaped like old threepenny bit”, thus demonstrating that the Mail’s target demographic remembers the time before February 1971 – the date that the UK went over to decimal coinage.

Why is this such a big deal? The pound coin has been around for decades – not for nothing did Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell christen it the “Brass Margaret”, after Mrs T – and a new design was probably overdue. Since its introduction, the 5p and 10p coins have shrunk in size, we’ve seen the introduction of the 20p and £2 coins, and the design on the back of the coinage has changed.

But the Mail is having none of that: just as when that new design – each one forming part of a shield – for the reverse side of coins was brought in, there has to be foaming and frothing, even though the article concedes that “The £1 coin has been in use since 1983 – much longer than the normal life cycle for legal tender of its value”. And the real frightener in the story is the European dimension.

“The coin – in the same gold and silver colours as the euro – will force firms and councils to make expensive changes to parking meters, vending machines and shopping trolleys”. Aaargh! It’s like the Euro! The dastardly unelected Eurocrats have got their way without the British people being given a vote! This is the lamest crap: you could just as easily compare the colours to the £2 coin.

Only later do we find out that one reason for the revamp is to cut down on fraud: an estimated 3% of pound coins now in circulation are fakes. But the protests continue: “The bill to convert parking meters, vending machines and phone boxes to take the new coin may be as high as £100million. Some of the cost will be carried by councils, potentially diverting cash from other work, such as filling pot holes”.

Hell’s teeth, if we took that attitude, we’d still have a system where 240 old pennies made up a pound, and even a dozen of them seriously weighed down your pockets. And how many people still use phone boxes? How many book their travel tickets using coins? Why on why are the inhabitants of Northcliffe House so shit scared of anything new? World moves on, film at 11.

The Daily Mail: sometimes it really gets on your threepenny bits.

[UPDATE 1755 hours: as Captain Europe has pointed out, the 20p coin in fact pre-dates the pound coin by around a year. So it was already in circulation beforehand. But the point about coinage changing over the years still stands. My thanks for the correction]