Labour MP Alienates Working Class

If ever there was an opportunity for the Labour Party to turn a dispute to its advantage, it came as London’s occasional Mayor Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson was exposed by London’s black cab drivers as spineless and ineffectual over his failure - and that of Transport for London (TfL) - to take action - any action - over the behaviour of driver and rider matching service Uber. Last week’s Mayor’s Question Time (MQT) did not go well.

As Adam Bienkov has told, “Johnson previously had a lot of support among London taxi drivers, even enlisting some to distribute 'Back Boris' receipts during his first mayoral campaign. However he was left visibly shaken today as received shouts of ‘clown’ and ‘joke’ from the assembled cabbies with one shouting ‘I voted for you once, I must have been on drugs,’ while another shouted ‘You want to be PM? You're a joke’”.

So, presented with this open goal, who would like to guide the ball in for Labour? Sadly, when the inevitable black cab protest came yesterday, any chance the party had of making common cause with all those cabbies who have had to do The Knowledge in order to secure a licence, and buy a cab that meets London’s exacting specification, who are battling against all the Ron Hopefuls with their Prius and satnav, was squandered.

And the clown who was all too ready to squander any residual goodwill Labour may have had was the usually sensible MP for Dudley North, Ian Austin. One finely crafted Tweet was all it took: “Taken 2.5 hours to get from Victoria to Westminster thanks to black cabs demo. How do I sign up for @Uber so I never have to use one again?” It’s two stops on the District or Circle Line, or a 15 minute walk. What was he doing?

Well, Austin was doing something yet more indulgent: he was driving into the Commons from his constituency. Yes, with a direct fast train service from a nearby station (Sandwell and Dudley), or yet more frequent ones from Birmingham’s New Street and Moor Street stations, a Labour MP came over all selfish and drove. His lack of appreciation of the unequal struggle cabbies face was bad. That just made it worse.

London’s cabbies should be a natural Labour constituency. They are what would be historically called artisan working class - self-employed, highly skilled, of relatively modest means and aspirations - and to wrest them back from the Tories should have been easy, especially after Bozza and TfL so lamely let them down, letting the number of minicabs just spiral out of control and prevaricating over Uber.

Now, the capital’s Labour MPs, and the next party leader, are going to have Austin’s gaffe thrown at them whenever the subject comes up. Worse, they’ll probably get his Twitter endorsement of the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines - someone dedicated to making sure Labour does not get back into power any time soon - thrown as well. Someone needs to take Ian Austin aside and remind him what party is is suppose to be representing.

And to remind him that those cabbies are not facing free and fair competition.

Sun Pundit Boasts About Bullying

Despite being called out for her constant bullying of “A” Level student Abby Tomlinson, (thankfully) former Tory MP Louise Mensch suggested that she was going to carry her self-pitying rant into her Sunday Sun column. Alas, though, no pundit is of perfect courage, and she has either thought better of it, or, more likely, been prevailed upon to desist. But, as befits any good bully, Ms Mensch has been after more than one target.

(c) Doc Hackenbush 2014

The Member for the distant constituency of Manhattan Upmarket, who gives the impression that she believes “feminism” equates to “bullying, swearing, throwing one’s weight about and having stampy tantrums on Twitter”, has proclaimed that “Liberal Left Lack Backbone”, based purely on anecdotal evidence that she has carefully filtered to support the contention and opinions of Herself Personally Now.

“PRINCE HARRY followed his dad Prince Charles into controversy last week by suggesting bringing back National Service” she told, which would be a surprise to Charles, who has not said a dickybird about National Service. But do go on. “I can see why the lad is fond of the Army - it turned him from a waster into a warrior”. I suspect Harry, and his fellow soldiers, know all about getting wasted, Louise. It’s what they do.

Is there a point in this? “But we can’t force other youngsters to grow up to be constructive like Harry … The post-election riots and defacing of a war memorial showed left-wing youth at their worst”. So we’re talking someone who was involved in rioting and defacing, yes? Er, no, that’s just a bit of smear-by-association. “When called out on a sign saying ‘Cull the Tories’, one male student asked me to stop ‘bullying him’”.

So? “Er irony much there, lads? He described himself as a vegan film-making feminist”. Cheap and nasty stereotyping much there, Louise? There’s more: “Another ridiculous, pampered student [no citation] held up a sign saying ‘Health Cuts = Suicide’. When it was pointed out to her that the Tories hadn’t cut anything from the NHS and were giving it an extra £8 billion, more than Labour, she put ‘Louise Mensch victim’ in her Twitter bio”.

And the conclusion from this selection and creativity spree? “So remember people - the youth of the left are anti-badger cull, pro-Tory cull, but if you try to debate them, they will run away crying … Looks like the Tories can sit easy for a few years, because the next generation of liberals are as limp as a wet lettuce”. And, as Jon Stewart might have said, two things here. One, let’s see the full text of both those Twitter exchanges.

Because, without it, we don’t know whether Ms Mensch is telling us the right tale. And two, she’s got no room to talk about others “running away”, being an established expert in blocking anyone of inconvenient thought on Twitter, and resorting to making threats of impending legal action (which never seems to materialise). Oh, and she seems to have forgotten that she refers to herself as a “Liberal Conservative”.

A bully and a hypocrite? No wonder she fitted right in at the Sunday Sun, then.

Simon Danczuk Expenses Hypocrisy

As the right-wing press tries its best to stick its bugle into the Labour leadership contest, the Sun’s most useful idiot Simon Danczuk, the self-promoting and nominally Labour MP who represents part of the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale and participates in London-centric activities like supping with the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog, has been playing the expenses card.

Behold the representatives of Themselves Personally Now

This is in order for him to pass adverse comment on his fellow Labour MP Andy Burnham, whose presence scares the Murdoch faithful shitless, not least because he stood with the memory of the 96 and justice, which has made many on Merseyside yet more determined not to have anything to do with Creepy Uncle Rupe’s trashy rag. Danczuk may not be aware that he is being used. He may also not be aware he is batting on a sticky track.

When Danczuk Tweeted “Please let me know what you think of this part of The Sun's editorial today”, he included a screen shot of an editorial that began “Nothing says ‘more of the same’ clearer than Andy Burnham’s £17,000 a year claim for rent from the taxpayer”. So it has to be assumed that he subscribes to the paper’s line of attack - suggesting that there is something less than ideal about Burnham’s expense claims.

However, and here we encounter a significantly sized however, on the subject of expenses Simon Danczuk has no room to call out anyone. For someone who is a back-bench MP, his claims have outdone Burnham’s comprehensively, which is quite an achievement, considering that the MP for Leigh has been on the opposition front bench since Labour was defeated in 2010. Take the 2011-12 year, for example.

Here, Danczuk’s claims came in at over £1,000 more than Burnham’s. The Manchester Evening News also noted that “Mr Danczuk's wife Karen is a case worker for him on a wage of between £25,000 and £29,999”. One wonders how she managed to fit it all in, what with being a councillor and businesswoman as well. And Danczuk’s accommodation claims were almost £9,000 greater than Burnham’s.

It gets worse: for 2013-14, the total claimed by Danczuk was more than £25,500 greater than that claimed by Burnham. He is still employing wife Karen as a caseworker. And his accommodation claims were over £8,000 greater than Burnham’s. Is there an explanation? “Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk has cited a high casework load and having a young family as reasons for claiming almost £200,000 in Parliamentary expenses last year”.

But front bench spokesmen will inevitably have higher casework loads - yet Andy Burnham’s claims are consistently lower than Danczuk’s. Yet, despite his inhabiting an increasingly draughty glasshouse, the Rochdale MP is prepared to sit in judgment on someone who appears to give the taxpayer rather better value for money. Small wonder he does the bidding of the Sun - they’ve got the clown over a barrel.

Simon Danczuk, you’re not only a figure of fun, but a stinking hypocrite to boot.

Sun Human Rights Confusion

As Michael “Oiky” Gove ponders the problem of how to repeal the Human Rights Act (HRA) without running into major problems with the legal profession, the judiciary, and the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, those in the press who are ready to cheer for the Tories are deploying their propaganda in his support. Some of that propaganda is also facing problems.

Nowhere has that been better illustrated than today’s headline from Rupe’s downmarket troops at the Super Soaraway Currant Bun, where deputy political editor Steve Hawkes has shown the world just why even the non-bullying Tom Newton Dunn is more clued up than he is. Hawkes claims that the repeal of the HRA has the backing of a judge. However, and here we encounter a significantly sized however, it’s not that kind of judge.

“HUMAN RIGHTS ACT AXE BOOST FROM JUDGE” proclaims the headline, as Hawkes tells “BOOST for PM’s bid to tear up act as ex-Chief Justice Lord Judge says European Convention on Human Rights is out of date … DAVID Cameron’s bid to tear up hated human rights laws was given a huge boost by one of the country’s former top judges”. And, as Jon Stewart might have said, two things here.

One, Lord Judge is indeed a judge, but in surname only. He has, shall we say, significant previous when it comes to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Typical of his interventions since resigning as Lord Chief Justice in September 2013 were comments creatively reinterpreted by the Daily Mail which told that the ECHR “should not impose rulings on the UK”. But the ECHR does not impose rulings on the UK.

And two, more importantly, as any fule kno, the ECHR and HRA are not one and the same thing. The UK was a signatory to the ECHR when it was ratified in 1953, that date preceding our accession to what was then the European Economic Community by 20 years. The HRA received Royal Assent in 1998 and mostly became law two years later. One might have expected the Sun’s deputy political editor to know the difference.

Moreover, the HRA performs two functions which one might also expect intelligent and diligent journalists to easily understand: firstly, it provides a remedy for breach of the ECHR in UK courts - so without the need to involve Strasbourg - and secondly, it seeks at all times to uphold Parliamentary Sovereignty (We are forever being told that the ECHR and/or HRA undermines Parliamentary Sovereignty).

Indeed, were the Tories - cheered on by the Sun, no doubt - to repeal the HRA and thereby break the link between UK courts and Strasbourg, there would be more cases being decided outside the UK. Steve Hawkes does not want his readers to understand such trivialities, but then, he himself doesn’t bother to figure out that the ECHR and HRA are different. The impression is given that the Sun would rather its readers remain ignorant.

That would not be the first time the paper had acted thus. And it’s not good enough.

David Miliband Back? No Chance

Some of those in the right-leaning part of the Fourth Estate are so fed up with the Labour leadership contest that, despite the creative talents employed spinning, bullying and smearing the hopefuls, they wish that there was at least one other candidate - and that would be Mil The Elder. Sadly, he’s working in New York, and is most unlikely to be even considering a return to UK politics in the foreseeable future.

Of course, the press would take him far more seriously than his brother. Oh, hang on a minute ...

This minor inconvenience has not deterred Andrew Pierce, who is allegedly a consultant editor for the Daily Mail, although it would be more accurate to call him a shameless Tory cheerleader (hence his Twitter handle @toryboypierce). “How Miliband the elder could still lead Labour” he suggests, in true Ron Hopeful mode. Why, as a Tory, should he give a fig who leads the Labour Party? Ah well. Here the really hopeful stuff begins.

The party’s MPs, Pierce pretends, are “Haunted by their failure to win under quasi-Marxist Ed Miliband”. So says quasi-journalist Pierce. But do go on: “in a fascinating development, I learn that the elder and less fanatically socialist Miliband brother - chosen political son and heir of Tony Blair - could be available in three years’ time”. Available for what? Cabaret? Stand-up? More importantly, will Pierce get to the point?

“I’m told he has a break clause in his contract at the International Rescue charity in New York. Surely it’s news which will have many in the Labour Party dreaming of a triumphant return for the wandering leader they never had … The obvious question is how he would get back into the Commons. But the answer could come in the form of Barry Sheerman, the 74-year-old MP for Huddersfield, who was re-elected with a majority of 8,000”.

And here’s the punchline: “He may be persuaded to stand down for Miliband Major”. And he may not. But let me enlighten Pierce, and anyone considering taking his poorly informed speculation on trust. David Miliband ducked his first chance, which was to challenge Pa Broon for the Labour leadership when Tone stood down in 2007. His supporters were optimistic. And he failed them.

Pierce’s preferred leader was then expected to make his move against Brown in the dog days of the latter’s premiership, in time to have a new, younger - and more Blairite - leader in place for the 2010 General Election. His supporters were hopeful. And, for a second time, he sat on his hands and let the opportunity slip. When it came to the leadership contest after Brown and the election had gone, those supporters were not sure.

They had good reason so to be: the Miliband who wanted the job, and who had done his homework, was the younger one. David Miliband showed himself to be devoid of the ability to make his move at the right time. The idea that the Labour Party wants someone like that in their top job is laughable. Which suggests that Andrew Pierce, as a Tory, is doing no more than having a laugh - he is not serious.

And he’s not much of a serious journalist, either. Back to the crappy columns, then.

Simon Danczuk Damns Liz Kendall

Regular Zelo Street readers will be familiar with the machinations of the self-promoting, and nominally Labour, Simon Danczuk, who represents part of the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale, while calling out anyone who disagrees with him on the basis that they are in some way “metropolitan”. They will also know that I passed severely adverse comment on Danczuk’s recent claim to be running for the Labour deputy leadership.

Behold the representatives of Themselves Personally Now

It took all of one week for the Danczuk deputy bandwagon to drive itself into the dust, as he told his pals at the Super Soaraway Currant Bun that “it’s come a bit too early for me”. What will wife Karen make of his “come too soon” claims? Oo-er! Fnarr!! Yik!!! Spab!!!! But seriously, this exercise demonstrates how seriously anyone in the Labour Party should take the Danczuks - in other words, not seriously at all.

That thought, however, is not allowed to enter at the Sun, where Rupe’s downmarket troops are happy to get anyone from Labour to talk to them. This the Danczuks understand well. And the Sun wants to portray itself as the kind of authentic voice of the kinds of people whom Labour will need on side if the party is to return to power next time round. So it is that Danczuk’s opinion becomes regarded as credible.

Thus this slice of hokum: “LIZ KENDALL IS THE ONLY LABOUR LEADER WHO COULD WIN BACK SUN READERS … Simon Danczuk said she ‘won’t be pushed around by trade unions’”. Hello Sun hacks! Tony Blair (remember him?) was endorsed three times by you - and his leadership was endorsed by, er, the trade unions. They did not push him around, and nor did they push Pa Broon or Mil The Younger.

But do go on. “Campaigning Labour MP Simon Danczuk revealed he was backing Ms Kendall to ‘reconnect’ with the aspirational Brits Ed Miliband lost touch with. In a dig at leadership favourite Andy Burnham, he insisted she ‘won’t be pushed around by trade unions’. Mr Danczuk said: ‘The biggest challenge for the Labour Party is the need to drag us kicking and screaming out of the comfort zone. I know Liz can do that’”.

And what “comfort zone” would that be? Ah, but Sun readers are not taken that far into Danczuk’s confidence. All that they are expected to believe is that the MP who claims to be loyal to his party, while supping with Nigel “Thirsty” Farage, and the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog, and who was shown to be full of crap over his deputy leadership pretensions, is a useful supporter for Ms Kendall.

What those readers also know is that their paper is shit scared of Andy Burnham, as witness “Meanwhile, Mr Burnham was engulfed in an expenses controversy after it emerged he is charging taxpayers £17,000-a-year rent for a ‘second home’ in South London”. That would be yet another cheap smear: Burnham has scrupulously kept within the new and stricter rules on expenses, and has not profited from the public purse.

Meanwhile, will Liz Kendall recover from being damned by Danczuk? It won’t be easy.

Tories Want Taxation Without Representation

The Mail spelt out the suitably patriotic message: “1.5million migrants barred from voting on EU: David Cameron blocks newcomers from having say on Britain's future … David Cameron barred most EU citizens in UK from voting in referendum … He’s also ruled out giving 16 and 17-year-olds opportunity for say in ballot … Details will be published in a European Referendum Bill on Wednesday”.

You over thyah! Johnny Foreigner! Sit quietly at the beck and do as you're told! Jolly good sheow!

And why did that matter? “Overwhelming majority of EU migrants were expected to vote to stay in EU”. But what about “Thousands of Commonwealth citizens and 800,000 Irish will be permitted”? Does anyone need to guess which way most of the Irish citizens will vote (clue: Ireland is a long-term net beneficiary of EU funds, it’s part of the Eurozone and Schengen area, and has embraced metrication)?

So what are the Tories up to, apart from spinning a line to their press pals that all those chaps and chapesses who talk foreign can keep their noses out of Young Dave’s jolly good Referendum? Those less kindly disposed towards Cameron and his fellow yah-boo boys might conclude that someone was trying to indulge in an act of gerrymandering under cover of it all being totally legal and above board.

After all, all those Commonwealth and Irish citizens who get to vote - as they do in General Elections, and have been able to do for decades now - are given that vote because they have been given leave to remain in the UK, or because they have living and working here for some years. That means they pay their taxes in the UK, a test that students of the US Constitution will immediately recognise.

Those who have read books like “Free To Choose” by Milton Friedman will also recognise the test: that of Taxation Without Representation. The chant of “No Taxation Without Representation” drove the movement that led to conflict between the then American Colonies and Britain, and Independence. It speaks to common sense and fairness: those who live and pay taxes here are allowed to participate in our democracy.

That thought does not seem to enter for the right-leaning press, whose headlines - “1.5M MIGRANTS BARRED FROM VOTING ON EU”, “EU VOTE BAN ON MIGRANTS”, and “Migrants barred from vote on Europe” - are the stuff of crude jingoism, and viewing those citizens of other EU member states as “other”. The parallels with the attitude towards those from outside the country shown here, and in, say, Australia, are interesting.

Likewise the move not to extend the practice established in the Scottish Independence referendum where the franchise was extended, for the first time, to 16 and 17 year olds. On the one hand, we are told that the the EU referendum is about the UK’s future, yet those who will play a major part in shaping that future are being denied a say. It is all that a slick, polished and cynical PR performer might have wished for.

Some might say that is exactly what Cameron is. I couldn’t possibly comment.

Phone Hacking - Is The Mail Next?

While giving evidence before the Leveson Inquiry, the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre was adamant: his paper had not participated in the branch of The Dark Arts otherwise known as phone hacking. Indeed, in his evidence to the Inquiry he had accused actor and campaigner Hugh Grant of “mendacious smears” when the latter had suggested that a Mail On Sunday story could not have been obtained other than by hacking.

Who f***ing says my hacks have been hacking phones, c***?!? Er, with the greatest of respect, Mr Jay

As a result of Dacre and Associated Newspapers going after Grant - and giving the impression of using his Inquiry as cover - Leveson stated “I am not willing to allow what is an obvious conflict between one of the core participants and another to divert attention from my concern about the customs, practices and ethics of the press”, and ordered Dacre to appear once more before him. The vindictive Dacre has trashed the Inquiry ever since.

The conclusion had to be that the Mail was so affronted at the suggestion that they had been down in the trough with the red-tops that they were prepared to make sure anyone and everyone knew they did not hack. However, and here we encounter a significantly sized however, the Mail was top of Steve Whittamore’s charts at the time of the Operation Motorman raid which revealed a massive trade in illegally obtained information.

But no more thought had been given to the idea that the Dacre doggies might have had a dabble at the hacking game - until the reaction to awards against the Mirror titles last week. The Mail’s report, titled “Paul Gascoigne, Sadie Frost and Shane Ritchie win big payouts from Mirror Group Newspapers as judge awards eight phone-hacking victims more than £1.2million damages” pleaded “But rape payout is just £11,000”.

Wait, what? Yes, readers were told that “Payouts awarded under the Government’s criminal injuries compensation scheme pale in comparison to yesterday’s payouts”. This is, of course, a complete non sequitur, as a statutory scheme is being compared to awards which have to take into account factors such as distress, intrusion, repetitional damage, consequential losses, and, in the case of the Mirror titles, the frequency of the hacking.

But the continuation of the complaint over size of awards was also the lead item in Glenda Emeritus Amanda Platell’s column yesterday. Under the title “Where's the justice in Sadie Frost's £260k payout for phone hacking?”, readers are asked “There can be no doubt phone hacking was a disgraceful intrusion into people’s private lives. But do its victims - many of them already hugely wealthy - really deserve such vast sums of money?”

Do go on: “I ask, because on that very same day, another press conference was taking place in a rather more modest setting. This time it was Sharon Wood, 44, speaking at the end of her nine-year battle for justice with Thomas Cook after the death of her children Christi, seven, and Bobby, six”. But the Mail would usually not report on the problems at other papers - unless there was something worrying the industry, and especially them.

Why is the Mail concerned about the Mirror awards? Is Dacre worried he may be next?

Burnham - More Mid Staffs Lies

As this blog pointed out at the time, one thing that the right-wing press were going to do as soon as Leigh MP Andy Burnham declared his candidature for the Labour leadership was to wheel out the smears about his connection with the episodes of unacceptably poor care at Stafford Hospital. Showing that I was right is the latest highly imaginative slice of knocking copy from the Mail On Sunday on that very subject.

Andy Burnham - more smears

“'Grossly unsuitable': Mid-Staffs hospital whistleblower's verdict on ex-Health Secretary who is hot favourite to be Labour leader” thunders the headline, with the supporting article containing several totally untrue statements. But these are attributed to one of the Stafford Hospital campaigners, which makes calling them out difficult: one does not want to trample on those who lost loved ones at the hospital.

But the first whopper is pulled by the MoS, telling readers that Burnham “was Health Secretary when the true scale of neglect at the NHS Trust emerged”. The Healthcare Commission revealed the severity of the situation at Stafford Hospital in March 2009 - which was, in any case, after the event, as measures to eradicate poor care and improve matters had already been put in place.

Burnham became Health Secretary in June 2009. Then the MoS hands over to campaigner Julie Bailey, who asserts “From ignoring repeated warnings about high hospital death rates, to dodging calls for a public inquiry, Andy Burnham put politics before patients every time”. And, as Jon Stewart might have said, two things here. One, Burnham established the Francis Inquiry the month after he became Health Secretary.

That does not sound like the picture Ms Bailey paints. And two, this is what Robert Francis, who chaired the Inquiry, said of the argument over whether it should have been a public one: “I am confident that many of the witnesses who have assisted the Inquiry by written or oral evidence would not have done so had the Inquiry been conducted in public”. There are times when a public Inquiry is not necessarily the best way to proceed.

Ms Bailey then claims of Burnham “Still today, he shows no remorse, has offered no apology and accepts no wrongdoing”. Let me refresh her memory. Here is what Burnham said to the Commons in February 2010: “Last year, the Prime Minister apologised to the people of Staffordshire. On behalf of the Government and the NHS, I repeat that apology again today. They were badly let down”.

He also paid tribute to Ms Bailey, and others prepared to speak out: “I pay tribute to the people who had the courage to come forward and tell their stories and to expose the failures of the past, in order that they could protect others in the future”. But one cannot ascribe fault to Julie Bailey on this occasion: the MoS have gone looking for adverse comment, with their storyline already formed. And it won’t be the last.

Andy Burnham actually did the right thing back in 2009. Not that the press will tell you.

Ireland Votes - Telegraph Spins

For the first time anywhere in the world, marriage equality has been approved by a referendum - in Ireland, until recently the most religiously conservative of countries. The result was emphatic: 62% of those who voted approved the constitutional change, which will approve same-sex unions. Almost all parts of the country, and not just the towns and cities, voted in favour. Why this is significant requires a look back at recent history.

Influence in Ireland: St Peter's, Rome

For so long, the Church of Rome cast a long shadow over Irish politics. And that church was deeply conservative not only in religious matters, but also in its control of so much in the country. So when it was proposed to modernise the Irish healthcare system and make it free and without means-testing for mothers and their children up to the age of 16, in the late 1940s, the Church resisted. The reason was straightforward.

The Church owned hospitals and schools. They propagated the idea that the proposals were “socialised medicine”. The Irish medical profession feared that some practitioners might lose income. The Archbishop of Dublin summoned health minister Noel Browne and gave him a letter which voiced the fear that the bishops “feel bound by their office to consider whether the proposals are in accordance with Catholic moral teaching”.

As a result of pressure from the Church, the Government caved in. No matter that child mortality in Ireland - especially from tuberculosis - was appalling. No matter that other countries, especially the UK, were making great strides to improve matters by a rather more comprehensive health scheme than that proposed in Ireland. The power of the Church, especially in protecting its interests, was overwhelming.

So some believed it might be with marriage equality, but the banishing of ignorance, and the enthusiasm and hope across the country, has brought a situation where current Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin “said the Church in Ireland needed to reconnect with young people”, and talked of it needing to take a “reality check”. But over at the Telegraph, Tim Stanley was not happy and went into spin mode.

For him, “the Yes vote was undoubtedly a reflection of growing tolerance towards gays and lesbians. But it was also a politically trendy, media backed, well financed howl of rage against Catholicism”. Strange, I got the idea it was a free vote for a measure which had widespread popular support. Moreover, Stanley and his fellow right-leaning pundits won’t be citing the media for delivering Young Dave’s election victory any time soon.

His solution is equally clueless: “How the Church survives this turn, is not clear. It'll require a lot of hard work and prayers”. No, it’ll require the reality check that Archbishop Martin already identified. But then, Stanley is the one who went to Merseyside to write a feature on Esther McVey’s failed attempt to hold on to her Wirral West seat, and failed to mention that her campaign was mired by her disrespecting the 96.

Meanwhile, the Irish people say it’s OK for some people to be gay. Get over it.

Top Six - May 24

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 gardening stuff to do later, weather permitting. So there.

6 Jo Rowling Humiliates Daily Mail After the paper’s lawyers dragged out the case needlessly for a year longer than necessary, the author got her statement read out in open court, and the paper apologised.

5 Sun Women’s Refuge Hypocrisy The Super Soaraway Currant Bun championed the cause of women’s refuges - after years cheering on the spending cuts that have seen so many of them close.

4 Don’t Menshn Bullying Despite widespread condemnation of her actions, (thankfully) former Tory MP Louise Mensch kept up her creepy and intrusive pursuit of 17 year old “A” Leve student Abby Tomlinson. They let her become an MP. And a Sun columnist.

3 Sun Pundit Continues Teen Obsession Louise Mensch finally published her much-trailed post attacking 17 year old #Milifandom promoter Abby Tomlinson. More than 4,000 words of rambling, self-pitying, projection - and totally unnecessary.

2 Katie Hopkins - Bad Loser The semi-professional motormouth faces the prospect of being forced to say sorry after suggesting that campaigner and food writer Jack Monroe had been defacing war memorials. She deleted the offending Tweet, but just kept on being snarky and abusive. That might not be such a good idea.

1 Sun Pundit Threatens Teenage Girl After the Sun sent a reporter to doorstep both 17 year old Abby Tomlinson, and her grandmother, despite no personal details having been made public, there was much adverse comment. Which persuaded (thankfully) former Tory MP Louise Mensch to go after the teenager. Because she could.

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

Sun Man Guilty - Sun Silent

When the Sun’s crime editor Mike Sullivan was released from bail just over two years ago, and told that he faced no further action as a result of the Operation Elveden investigation, his colleagues rallied round very publicly. Among those rallying round were Fiona Hamilton of the Times, and David Wooding of the Sun’s Sunday sister paper. Wooding proudly Tweeted last month “Charges against Sun journalists: 48; Convictions: 0; Cost to public: £20m”.

Anthony France ((c) Getty)

However, and here we encounter a significantly sized however, one of those who Wooding’s pinned Tweet displays was Sullivan’s reporter Anthony France, who yesterday got guilty. As the BBC reported, “A Sun newspaper reporter has been found guilty of receiving story tips from a Heathrow Airport anti-terror officer …Anthony France, 41, from Watford, had denied aiding and abetting PC Timothy Edwards to commit misconduct in a public office between 2008 and 2011”.

There was more: “Edwards sold 43 stories to France, 38 of which made the paper, in exchange for more than £22,000 … The Old Bailey heard that Edwards, 49, sold the information while working at Heathrow Airport in SO15 Counter Terrorism Command … But the jury was not told that Edwards had pleaded guilty to misconduct in a public office and was jailed for two years in 2014”.

In his defence, “France told the jury he had never been advised by anyone at the Sun that speaking to a police officer - or any public official - could be breaking the law … He also said he would never have become involved in receiving story tips from Edwards if he had known it was illegal”. He claimed that, had he known it was illegal, “I would never have got involved with it. I would have told him to get lost”. France also claimed to have been told by a colleague “I’ve spoken to a lawyer and it’s fine”. That means paying the cop. Which he did. And the Sun paid for it.

Because every other journalist has used a similar defence, which suggests that, once again, it is most unwise to second guess the outcome of a jury trial. What must make it all the more galling for France is that his own news desk fed him the Police contact, which suggests that he was being encouraged to get stories from him. This he did. Are we to believe that nobody at the Sun took France aside and told him to ensure he didn’t reward that contact in any way?

What we do know is that all those Murdoch hacks have declined to put head above parapet today. Although the story has made the BBC, Guardian and a raft of other papers - including the Mail - there has been only a cursory, self-justifying mention at the Sun. Nor have Wooding, Ms Hamilton, Stig Abell, Tom Newton Dunn or any of the others said a word about it. They want the world to know when they are declared innocent, but not when they are guilty.

Anyone reading the Sun would think that its hacks never fall foul of the law, and that any charge against them is part of some kind of rotten lefty conspiracy. What they don’t tell their readers is that they encouraged their staff to get stories from the cops, appear not to mention to them that paying them is illegal while letting them have the money to do just that, and then drop the poor souls in the crap, run away, and pretend that it never happened in the first place.

That’s a pretty shoddy and dishonourable was of treating staff. Anthony France will be right to feel seriously hard done by right now. But, perhaps, he will not be surprised. 

Letts Enjoy Sexist Lechery

Sexism and misogyny may be on the wane in the real world, but for the odious Quentin Letts (let’s not), readers of his expertly crafted drivel are subjected to the values of another age, where women knew their place and lecherous hacks went straight for the P-word (as in Phwoar!). Thus Quent has arrived at his review of Cressida Bonas’ solo play, which of course is not an excuse to letch at Prince Harry’s possible partner, oh no.

Harry Potter and the Gobshite of Arslihkan

That the article is about Quent having a good perv is glaringly obvious from the get-go: “How Harry's hottie came of age” begins the headline. “The big draw for An Evening With Lucian Freud was its solo performer. She may be an actress making only her second professional appearance on the fringes of London theatre, but she is known better on what you could call the wider national stage: Cressida Bonas”, he explains.

Then it gets worse - a lot worse: “Boho-chic Cressie was (and maybe soon will be again - it is not entirely easy to keep up) Prince Harry's poppet … She is known as the Royal Squeeze. With the Duchess of Cambridge having retreated to bottle-sterilising duties in darkest East Anglia, Cressida is the nation's current Royal Crumpet By Appointment”. Did I just read that crap? In May 2015? Then comes an admission - sort of.

“That may sound crudely sexist, but”. No Quent, there aren’t any buts, it really was crudely sexist. No reputable journalist should even be thinking of churning out such puerile blether nowadays. But he’s off and running: “It helps that she is pretty, I suppose, but many actresses are good-looking. If anything, I'd say she could do with putting on some weight. If I were her father, I would certainly tell her to have seconds of rhubarb crumble”.

Rhubarb intercoursing crumble? What is this, school dinners 50 years ago? But I almost forgot the obligatory lefty-bashing: “Miss Bonas's voice is not a strong point, being a little monotonous, yet she has a more varied delivery than, for instance, the robotic, over-garlanded Keira Knightley. On the evidence of this show, and of Miss Knightley's recent stage outings in London, I would say Cressida is at least as good as the Left-wing luvvie”.

And Quent can’t resist the temptation to assume the character of Cosmo Smallpiece for long: “I certainly found myself repeatedly looking at her and thinking: 'I wonder if she could be next up the nave at Westminster Abbey at a royal wedding’”. “Up the nave at Westminster Abbey”? What is this, Carry On Up The Daily Mail?

But he finally gives the Mail’s seal of approval: “Having seen Cressida Bonas on stage, I think rather more of both her and Prince Harry. I think more of her for being not just 'a pretty face', but having a measure of proper artistic ability … And I think more of him for falling in love with a young woman who is plainly so much more than just a dingbat Sloane”. As if either of them needs him to damn them with his faint praise.

This is a skin-creepingly excruciating pile of dross. But it tells us a lot about the world the Daily Mail would like to see its readers enjoy. Thankfully, reality is rather different.

Jo Rowling Humiliates Daily Mail

Those who look in regularly on Zelo Street may remember that the Daily Mail published an article about author Jo Rowling back in September 2013 which was judged to have been libellous. The paper admitted that they had defamed her, but by April last year, rather than let it drop, their lawyers were arguing the toss over whether she should be allowed to have a statement read out in open court on the affair.

And we have a winner

The following month - that is, over a year ago - the Mail published a “clarification” on Page 2, no doubt positioned to avoid too much attention. But they kept trying to drag it out. As Nick Davies observed in Flat Earth News, “the subject of the story … complains and is confronted by the wealth and cleverness of the Mail which will fight them right up to the point of final defeat, when, if need be, it will surrender and offer some kind of deal”.

So the Mail just kept up its defence, until this week Ms Rowling got her statement read out in open court - which could have happened over a year ago - and the paper apologised. The article in Gingerbread, which the Mail so flagrantly misrepresented, was twisted to suggest that she “falsely and inexcusably accused her fellow churchgoers of behaving in a bigoted, unchristian manner towards her, of stigmatising her and cruelly taunting her for being a single mother”. And how had the paper stood up its story?

“The Mail journalist had spoken to one member of the congregation, quoted in the newspaper, who had not seen Rowling’s article”. Yes, present someone with less than the full facts in order to extract the desired quote from them. The Guardian’s report, citing solicitor-advocate Keith Schilling, illustrates the Mail’s behaviour well.

“Schilling said: ‘Publication of the allegations left the claimant understandably distressed. This distress was exacerbated by the dismissive manner in which the defendant dealt with the claimant’s complaint in respect of an obviously defamatory and indefensible article’. For several months, Associated Newspapers denied that their article was capable of defaming Rowling”. That suggests the Mail’s first reaction was to tell her to shove off.

You can see this story at the Independent, and also at the BBC website. But one place you will not see it is, to no surprise, at the Mail, whose own website is, instead, reporting on Ms Rowling’s reaction to actor Matthew Lewis’ appearance in Attitude magazine. This story was sourced by scouring Twitter - a rather safer bet for the Dacre doggies. But they will not let up in the constant probing of their target’s defences.

Why should that be? Ah well. Jo Rowling has appeared before the Leveson Inquiry. She has passed highly adverse comment on the activities of papers like the Mail. She is a signatory to the Hacked Off “Leveson Declaration”. She has preferred the Guardian to the Mail when it comes to giving interviews. She is, being a single parent, not the Daily Mail’s kind of person. So she has, if possible, to be brought down a peg or two.

Fortunately, she also has the resources to fight back. Well done Jo Rowling.

Fleet Street Fox - Er, Hello

As the gravity of the situation facing Trinity Mirror sank in yesterday - the group even declined to put forward someone to appear on BBC Newsnight - some more alert media watchers had pored over the damages awarded and seen that one story in particular had been the subject of an award of £6,000. It concerned an article titled “Lucy Falls Into Arms Of Acrobat”, and its main subject was actor Lucy Benjamin.

Susie Boniface

Now, the Free Library entry for that story has been taken down - why that should have been done I will leave to others - but we know the article was published, because the BBC website showed a photo of the headline back in March, which is reproduced below. The names on the by-line included Dan Evans, who has already admitted his share of phone hacking at the now-defunct Screws, and Susie Boniface, aka Fleet Street Fox.

The article told “Two weeks ago the couple ordered £108 worth of booze for Lucy's [hotel] room at 12.30am as they partied through the night”, of Ms Benjamin’s relationship with gymnast Bobby Hanton. Knowing that said booze had been ordered, perhaps by seeing it delivered, is a perfectly plausible explanation. But being able to place a price tag on it is rather more difficult. And now have come the damages.

Moreover, it will be interesting to see if the upcoming list of claimants seeking damages includes newsreader Natasha Kaplinsky, who was the subject of another article, “TV NATASHA AND HER SECRET LOVER; Live-in boyfriend left ‘devastated’”, that appeared to have been assembled from dubious sources. These included not only details of phone conversations, but how the hacks knew where to find her.

For instance, readers were told “BBC Breakfast's Natasha Kaplinsky has been cheating on her long-term partner with her former boss” before being informed that “They were also spotted together in a cafe in South London. The couple looked relaxed in each other's company, Natasha playfully toying with a lip gloss which she applied [to] her lips after the couple shared a kiss”. Must have been a long stake-out. Or not.

And, as the man said, there’s more. Another Boniface by-line was on the story about John Leslie’s break-up with Abi Titmuss, “Jealous John Dumps Abi In Cheating Row”, the story appearing in the Sunday Mirror on October 12, 2003. Yet another appeared on a story about con man Peter Foster, and Carole Caplin, former friend of the Blairs. Titled "He Cheated On Carole", the second line contains another of those "quotes from friends”.

The on-line copies may have been pulled, but all those articles can be referenced without too much difficulty. It’s possible that all the less scrupulous stuff was done at some distance from Ms Boniface - but when information comes in for you to write up, and it looks mildly pungent, do you just claim the Fawlty Towers Manuel defence, and shrug “I know nothing”, or do you ask whether you may be dropping yourself in the mire?

Susie Boniface may not be out of the woods yet. Zelo Street will maintain a watching brief.

Guido Fawked - More Miliband Whoppers

Mil The Younger has returned from his brief post-election break with wife Justine on the island of Ibiza, and has been talking about where Labour lost that election. And, ever ready to misrepresent him in the most creative way possible are the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog, who have posted an item fraudulently titled “Ed In Denial”, which he is not.

Feared. But only by cheap furniture

The Fawkes folks quote George Eaton of the Staggers as proof of veracity: “having returned from his holiday in Ibiza, I’m told that Miliband has been advising MPs on the lessons to learn from the defeat. The former leader has told colleagues not to listen to figures such as Peter Mandelson and not to turn rightwards, according to sources. “'He’s not staying out of it,’ one Labour insider told me (although the former leader will not be endorsing a candidate). Miliband is said to have emphasised that his party lost due to the failure of millions of notional supporters to turn out … Left-wingers have argued that this demonstrates the need for a more radical offer to enthuse this group, rather than a more moderate pitch aimed at winning over Conservative voters”.

He's still frightening the rabid right

However, and here we encounter a significantly sized however, there is a teensy omission in the Fawkes transcript of Eaton’s article. You see those three dots in the previous paragraph? Here’s what was there before the Fawkes rabble cut it out: “The pollster Ipsos MORI has used the term ‘lazy Labour’ to the describe the 2.9 million who supported the party in pre-election polling but did not go on to vote”.

The URL for the post suggests the title may have been amended: it specifically says “Miliband blames Lazy Labour for defeat”, which could be construed from the selective quote from the Staggers, but, as can be seen when the missing sentence is reinserted, is bunk. The suggestion was put there by pollsters Ipsos MORI.

So far, so selective, and the Fawkes Twitter feed duly told that “Miliband Blames 'Lazy Labour' For Defeat”. But then, others, who work for supposedly reputable newspapers, merely took this and blithely repeated it. Jason Groves, deputy political editor of the Mail, was typical: “Love this: Miliband tells friends he had the right policies but Labour supporters were too 'lazy' to vote for him”.

Just what the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre wants him to say, one might think. Also perhaps approving of this line would be those in the service of Creepy Uncle Rupe, and so no-one will be surprised that the serially clueless Tim Montgomerie asserted “Here's that #LazyLabour thing that Ed Miliband reportedly thinks lost him the election”. Except Miliband didn’t think or say that.

So even after Miliband leaves the Labour leadership, the Fawkes rabble and their press pals are still smearing him. The vindictive glee is sad, but predictable. It’s rather an odd way for some to get their jollies, but that’s the rabid right for you. Another fine mess.