Zelo Street

Tuesday, 11 May 2021

The Failed Martyrdom Of John Kay

How our free and fearless press sees its own, as opposed to how they see those they regard as mere collateral damage in their pursuit of More And Bigger Paycheques For The Benefit Of Themselves Personally Now, was demonstrated superbly at the weekend after Press Gazette announced that one of the Murdoch mafiosi’s servants had passed on.

“Former Sun chief reporter John Kay has died. Kay was acquitted in 2015 after a three-year ordeal under Met Police Operation Elveden which took a heavy toll … Kay died in a nursing home aged 77 having never returned to work after his Elveden acquittal. Huge reputation as a scoop getter and as a mentor of young journalists” they told. The Sun duly splashed a double page hagiography, authored by Mike Ridley.

Deeply unpleasant former Sun editor Kelvin McFilth was soon on hand with his king size onion. “For 4 decades he broke big story after big story until Murdoch, to save his own skin, gave police details of payments to public officials. He was one of 22 Sun journos cleared by juries”. McFilth was then followed by Neil Wallis, aka The Rasping Fuckwit.

“So so sad - he was a truly wonderful man and a truly truly terrific journalist and story-getter. His life and career were wrecked by Scotland Yard & CPS vindictiveness, and though jurors at the Old Bailey declared him utterly innocent he never recovered from his ordeal”. And Tom Harper proceeded to marvel at The Great Man’a achievements.

“Beautiful anecdote about the late, great Sun reporter John Kay from his former editor [Kelvin McFilth], describing fallout from one of John’s many scoops” he simpered. Kay had, it seems, dropped McFilth in it on one occasion, but the official investigation into the story concerned would not go anywhere. Why so? “The man running the investigation is the chap who gave me the story in the first place”. And then it all began to fall apart.

James Doleman pointed out “The ‘chap’ was a woman called Bettina Jordan-Barker, who ended up serving 12 months in prison for taking over £100,000 in cash payments from The Sun”. Moreover, the singularly unsavoury Trevor Kavanagh, who had contributed to the Sun splash, had lied when he said “John Kay stood trial at the Old Bailey, giving evidence which drew near-audible admiration from the judge”. He wasn’t in a position to know how the Judge responded. Because the same Judge had earlier thrown him out of the court.

As for Kay’s claim that he had no idea paying public servants for information was illegal, Carl Eve had difficulty buying that one: “I learned it was illegal during my NCTJ training in 1996 and I've never paid for a story since”. And as to the tear-jerking image of Kay dying in a care home, Louis Barfe reminded McFilth “His wife died in a bath. He killed her”.

The Sun’s grovelfest had missed the psychotic episode that culminated in Kay killing his first wife by drowning her in the bath, before botching his own suicide. Women’s Aid has since been on that case, telling yesterday “Following media industry tributes to a deceased journalist, today we will remember Harue Kay, the woman he killed in 1977. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility. Women killed by men's fatal violence must never be forgotten”. And the Sun took Kay back after that.

If that had been one of the Sun’s targets, they’d never have let their readers forget it. But for one of their own, it is conveniently airbrushed away. Along with the other crimes.

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

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

Monday, 10 May 2021

Brillo Sturgeon Snark FAIL

Cut adrift from his team of researchers and other assistants at the BBC, former Murdoch editor Andrew Neil is increasingly finding that his views, and inconvenient reality, do not always coincide with one another. And there is no subject where this dislocation comes into sharper focus than that of Scottish politics - and the drive for independence.

Earlier this year, given a platform by the Daily Mail, Brillo pontificated “[Nicola] Sturgeon is on the ropes and her natural instinct is to strike out at all who assail her. It is not a pretty sight … She is determined to lead the SNP into the crucial Holyrood elections in May … some of those pro-Union politicians publicly calling for her to resign hope privately that she stays in situ”. Whyever would they do that? Ah, but The Great Man knows.

“They think the fallout from the Salmond-Sturgeon civil war has turned her into a liability who could scupper the SNP’s hopes of an overall majority … a politician who has always been head and shoulders above all her rivals - inside and outside the SNP - and widely regarded as the party’s biggest asset could now be the politician that stops the SNP from fulfilling its dreams … [the] Salmond affair … has taken its toll on Sturgeon and the SNP”.

And his conclusion? “I would not be surprised if Sturgeon decided sometime in the next parliament to pack it in and go off to a more pleasant life managing some global quango. If May’s elections produce a result which secures the Union for the foreseeable future … what would be the point in hanging around?” And then came the elections.

While the SNP did not (quite) achieve an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament, it won 64 of the 129 seats. Moreover, the Greens, who are also pro-independence, won eight seats. There is a clear pro-Independence majority. So back came Brillo and the Mail.

“Following the failure of Nicola Sturgeon’s pro-independence SNP to win an overall majority in last week’s elections to the Scottish parliament, the 314-year-old Union between England and Scotland lives to fight another day … Of course, it is by no means certain that the British Government would have bowed to Sturgeon’s demands for a second independence referendum even if she had won an overall majority”. Do go on.

“Only last month the First Minister told ITV that a vote for the SNP was ‘not voting for independence’ … Yet even before the final votes had been counted over the weekend, she was out in front of the TV cameras insisting she now had a mandate for a second referendum”. The Great Man complains that Ms Sturgeon is performing a bait and switch.

This, he asserts, makes her an Arthur Daley figure, which will make no impact with anyone under 55 (Daily Mail target audience giveaway there). This is total crap: one look at the SNP’s Wikipedia entry is all you need. “The SNP supports and campaigns for Scottish independence from the United Kingdom and for membership of the European Union”.

You vote SNP (or, indeed, Scottish Green) and you know what you’re voting for, Brillo sophistry or no. And as David Allen Green has put it, “Every time an opponent of Scottish independence resorts to 'no SNP majority' or 'the last referendum was supposed to be once in a generation/lifetime' that is a lost opportunity to make a case on its merits”.

Unless that case has no merits, O Sage Of Grasse. Wind your neck in, Brillo.

Sunday, 9 May 2021

Keir Starmer IS UNRAVELLING

As the election results came in, the Parliamentary by-election in Hartlepool most prominent among them, some in the Labour Party, and not just on the left, began to look towards their party leader. Keir Starmer had thus far failed to set out what Labour was for. He had gone after the Tories on rather fewer occasions, it seemed, than he had agreed with them. But one thing all could agree on was that there would not yet be a leadership challenge.

Until yesterday evening.

Starmer had told that he took full responsibility for the election results. But after the BBC reported “Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer is to carry out a reshuffle of his frontbench team later following the party's poor performance in English local elections … He is facing criticism following defeat in the Hartlepool by-election and losing control of several councils” it added “[he] has already sacked his deputy Angela Rayner as Labour's chair and campaigns co-ordinator”. Took full responsibility by dumping on Ms Rayner.

Reconnecting with the North and working class people by sacking, er, a working class woman from the North. A woman who, it seems, played no part in the apparently arbitrary candidate selection for Hartlepool, which, it has been claimed, was down mainly to Jenny Chapman, who lost Darlington in 2019, but is a close aide to Starmer.

It soon became clear that this was a move which would unite all wings of the party, but not necessarily in the way Starmer may have wanted - because they would unify against him. Interestingly, Tom Harwood, formerly replacement teaboy to the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines at the Guido Fawkes blog, made the killer comment, but maybe without realising what it meant: “an overly hasty night of the long knives”.

In UK politics, that describes the cabinet reshuffle by Harold Macmillan in July 1962 in which seven cabinet ministers, including then Chancellor Selwyn Lloyd, were sacked. The extent of the reshuffle was probably unnecessary, and just over a year later, Macmillan, who had won a majority of 100 in 1959, was out. A year after that, so were the Tories.

A Night Of The Long Knives refers to a reshuffle that is ultimately proved counterproductive and, indeed, pointless. So reaction to Starmer’s action was predictable.

Lewis Goodall of BBC Newsnight claimed “Labour MPs are completely gobsmacked tonight”. And not just MPs: Andy Burnham, re-elected in a landslide as Mayor of Greater Manchester, said simply “I can’t support this”. Labour List editor Sienna Rogers quoted an NEC source telling “Well looks like LOTO may be dicing with their NEC majority then”.

Jessica Elgot of the Guardian added “One Labour source says grid meeting at the start of the campaign didn’t include anything for Angela Rayner to do. No media, no announcements” and Adam Bienkov of Business Insider noted “asked yesterday what his response would be to these election results, Keir Starmer said that his top priority was ‘stopping as a party quarrelling among ourselves’”. Or maybe not.

And with Anneliese Dodds, Cat Smith, Andy McDonald and Lisa Nandy quoted as being next for the chop - the news possibly leaked before they were told - it will only get worse. The time of Keir Starmer’s leadership was for a time, but not for all time.

Saturday, 8 May 2021

Mail Says Don’t Befriend Haz And Megs

Dean Stott was a career soldier, and for 16 years he served his country, the last five as part of the Special Boat Service. But an injury ended that career. Needing something to get him focused and aid his recuperation, he took up cycling, and not just any old cycling: he would cycle the Pan American Highway, 14,000 miles from Argentina to Alaska.

Look what the cat dragged in

In completing the journey, Stott broke two world records and became the first to cycle the highway in less than 100 days. But along the way, he had parted company from some of his support team after disagreements over how the task was approached. This is most likely why he and his wife became the target of anonymous social media attacks.

So far, so uncomfortable, but someone went to the press, and the increasingly wayward Mail on Sunday became involved, at which point one crucial detail needs to be added so you can understand developments: Dean Stott is a personal friend of the Duke of Sussex. He met Haz when they were both in the Army. He and his wife attended That Wedding.

And so we arrive at the first MoS attack piece: the headline is a real Oh What A Giveaway moment, and tells you who the target really is. “Prince Harry's special forces soldier friend 'cheated' on world record bike trek to get home for the royal wedding”, it howled. But Guinness World Records had checked out the 14,000 journey. There was no cheating.

But Stott was “Prince Harry’s friend”. The MoS, aided and abetted by other parts of the Rothermere empire, has been humiliated in the courts by the Duchess of Sussex, and so, unable to hurt her and Haz to the extent they would like, appears to have gone after his friends instead, or perhaps that should read In Addition. And they weren’t finished yet.

Haz and Dean ((c) Wheels Down Ball/REX/Shutterstock 2018)

The claim of “cheating” (in quote marks, because without them it would be open and shut defamation and the MoS losing yet another lawsuit) is still there. And then came “Special forces friend of Prince Harry is probed over claims of financial irregularities after world record breaking bike ride that raised £500,000 for charity”. Another hit piece.

Same author - “Mark Nicol, Defence Editor” - although it doesn’t look very “defence” related. Same idea - suggest there is something dodgy about Stott. And, surprise, surprise, same result - there were, and are, no financial irregularities. Also, same actual target - the Sussexes. But attacked via one of their friends. Pour Encourager Les Autres.

Stott’s wife Alana saw her daughter bullied at school. She suffered a miscarriage. She and her husband lost sponsors who didn’t want the press coming after them as well. Their health and their relationship suffered. Somehow, I doubt that Mark Nicol or his editor Ted Verity lost any sleep over their actions. Because they don’t care.

Alana Stott concluded “I now understand that I was intimidated while the public was misled … I have seen what others have been through - for example, Meghan Markle, and Caroline Flack - and it is vile and cruel … It has nothing whatever to do with that ‘freedom of the press’ we keep hearing about … They lie, they distort, they bully and they exploit social media to do their dirtiest work”. And they won’t be stopping any time soon.

Anyone who wonders why Zelo Street is an unswerving supporter of the Hacked Off campaign should wonder no longer. Now Dean and Alana Stott are supporters, too.

Keir Starmer - No Vision, No Votes

As more results come in from Thursday’s round of elections across the UK, one thing is clear: Labour did badly, and in the case of the Hartlepool by-election, very badly. The saving grace was that, where leaders like Mark Drakeford in Wales took on the Tories, they did much better. Labour in Preston also held their ground with ease - a group who have put localism and the community at the top of their agenda.

Party leader Keir Starmer is, apparently, frustrated, which is not quite the emotion felt by many Labour members and supporters, who are still unable to answer the question more and more voters want answered - what is Labour for? What is the vision? What sets the party apart from alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson’s Tories?

Once more, reference must be made to J K Galbraith’s definition of leadership: "All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common: it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership” and its corollary “A leader can compromise, get the best deal he can. Politics is the art of the possible. But he cannot be thought to evade”.

Keir Starmer has thus far failed to anticipate the major anxiety of the people as the Covid-19 pandemic - hopefully - recedes from the scene. It’s going to be the economy, stupid: employment, along with health, the environment, mobility, security and the expectation that folks will be able to get on. Those folks might also want the choice of getting out, to retire somewhere warmer and sunnier. A better Britain. Basic stuff.

But he does not give them that reassurance, that hope, that vision. Nor does he take the fight to the Tories as part of a campaign to stick up for ordinary people, as the likes of Andy Burnham has done in Greater Manchester. So he has been thought to evade. Bozo also evades, usually by lying, but his media outriders cover for him.

Moreover, the Starmer team’s excuses are now wearing very thin indeed: blaming his predecessor is petty and pointless, especially when Labour’s losing candidate in Hartlepool admitted that Jeremy Corbyn’s name did not come up in doorstep canvassing. Also, Starmer has had well over a year in post. The setbacks are for him to own.

That period in office has seen Labour’s membership dwindle as many, especially on the left of the party, have simply walked away. Others have been suspended or even expelled. But the problem for Labour is not the left: the left helped Tony Blair win. He included people like John Prescott to give him a link to the left and the working class. Blair at least listened to Trades Union leaders. He took the fight to the Tories, not his own party.

Worse still, as Channel 4 News has revealed, is their own polling telling “the top reason given for not voting Labour in elections in England yesterday was Sir Keir Starmer's leadership”. He takes Bozo apart at PMQs. But all too often, Labour either goes along with the Tories, or fails to define and communicate what they would do differently.

More war on the left would benefit only one party, and it would not be Labour. Starmer needs to consider not just what works, but what does not, as he mulls a reshuffle.

And if the greatest benefit would be to reshuffle himself out - then so be it.

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

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

Friday, 7 May 2021

French Jersey Blockade WASN’T

There was a time when British Governments took foreign policy, and the niceties of trade policy, seriously. Our free and fearless press might tip over the edge into rabid jingoism on occasion, but politicians and hacks were kept apart from one another. That age of serious and responsible diplomacy has now ended, and in no style at all.

The latest exhibition of how foreign policy has been replaced by breast-beating and hot air came yesterday morning as the Daily Mail thundered “Dramatic escalation in stand-off with French fishermen … BORIS SENDS GUNBOATS INTO JERSEY”, with the Daily Brexit, still called the Express, following suit with “Tensions rise after French fishermen threaten blockade today … BORIS SENDS GUNBOATS TO DEFEND JERSEY”.

Given that none of the French boats carried any weapons, the idea that the island of Jersey needed to be defended from them is an interesting one. But, as the Guardian pointed out, this was an easily resolvable matter concerning licences for those French boats to fish in waters off the Channel Islands - some of which hadn’t been issued. Yet.

Moreover, as former Commons Speaker John Bercow pointed out on BBC Question Time yesterday evening, summoning up the ghost of Lord Palmerston by alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson on the day many in the UK went to the polls - including a Parliamentary by-election which Labour lost - was not a coincidence.

On top of that, there was no intent to blockade, but merely protest: this was a story, such as it was, confected entirely by the Tories and their press pals, the latter operating increasingly as a propaganda arm of CCHQ. So, as there was nothing more than a protest, there had to be a declaration of victory after the blockade failed to materialise.

And so it came to pass that the Mail followed up its bellicose display yesterday with more of the same, jeering “After our gunboats go in to Jersey, French fishermen execute a familiar manoeuvre … LE GRAND SURRENDER … (BUT WILL THEY NOW BLOCKADE CALAIS?” Dacre has been kicked upstairs, but they still know how to go full Dacre.

Joining in the oh-what-a-giveaway dictation-taking on behalf of Tory high command was the Murdoch Sun, in full Chicken Paté News style: “Jersey Standoff Is Gaul Over … TAKE SPRAT! … Navy sees off French fishermen … PM’s gunships scupper blockade”. There was no blockade, but, so what? The Royal Navy is now Bozo’s personal property!

The reality, for those mocking the French, is that France has a larger and better-equipped navy than the UK, and indeed a larger military overall. And the last time French military technology and its British counterpart met in combat, it was the Brits who came off second best. Or does no-one remember the Falklands campaign and those Exocet missiles?

That time, our Government was able to persuade its French counterpart, as a fellow EU member state (I’ll just say that again, nice and slowly, AS A FELLOW EU MEMBER STATE) to ensure the Argentine military did not get any more air launch Exocets. Also, as the Guardian has concluded, “the dispute seems eminently fixable. The Jersey authorities are looking for a compromise”. Which will mean ending the puerile name-calling.

But good of the Tories and the press to confirm that they are marching in lockstep.

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

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

Wednesday, 5 May 2021

Meghan BENCHES Mail On Sunday

Whenever the Mail titles open up their barrage of spite, there is always a good reason for the nastiness, and today’s Mail Online assault on the Duchess of Sussex was no exception. As the BBC reported yesterday, “The Duchess of Sussex is set to publish a children's book about father-son relationships, as seen through the eyes of mothers”.

There was more. “The Bench will be published on 8 June and is said to be inspired by the bond between her husband Prince Harry and their son Archie. ‘The Bench started as a poem I wrote for my husband on Father's Day, the month after Archie was born,’ the duchess said in a statement. ‘That poem became this story’”. Enter Mail Online.

“Was Meghan Markle inspired by a British children's author with The Bench? Royal watchers accuse Duchess of ripping off Corrinne Averiss' story about a father and son's bond - but author insists she sees ‘no similarities’” screamed the headline, the supporting article having done a thorough trawl of hostile Twitter comments.

The problem for Mail Online is that none of those screaming “rip-off” had read a word of the Duchess’ book (and neither had former Screws and Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan, who used the book news as his latest excuse to keep blubbering about losing his access to Haz and Megs). Ms Averiss said it wasn’t a rip-off, and that was that.

Well, maybe not all of that: what Mail Online had not told its readers, although its management would most likely have known, is that they had to bust the proverbial gut getting their knocking copy out there before the bad legal news arrived. Yes, the Duchess just won another court case against the inmates of the Northcliffe House bunker.

Back to the BBC: “The Duchess of Sussex has won the remainder of her copyright claim against the Mail on Sunday over the publication of a letter to her estranged father. Meghan won most of her claim for misuse of private information and copyright infringement in February. But the newspaper had suggested she may not have been the sole copyright owner”. A different kind of bench - the High Court kind - had spoken.

Why this conclusion? “The duchess won her case after her former communications secretary denied co-writing the letter”. Do go on. “The High Court heard that [Jason] Knauf has ‘emphatically’ denied co-writing the letter to Thomas Markle. Through his lawyers, he said ‘it was the duchess's letter alone’ … The court also heard that lawyers representing ‘the Keeper of the Privy Purse, acting on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen’ told Meghan's solicitors they ‘did not consider the Crown to be the copyright owner’”.

Which is probably why Mail Online moved so quickly to sow the seeds of doubt in as many readers’ minds as possible, and why the appalling Piers Morgan snivelled even more loudly than usual about Megs’ new writing venture. We’ll get the usual whinnying from Mail contributors about “they’re totally separate entities”, but hardly anyone believes that nowadays. You sue one Mail outlet, they all come after you.

Only this time, they smeared someone prepared to not only stand up to them, but take them to the cleaners for good measure. You lost, Mail people. Get over it.

UK-India Trade Deal ISN’T

The BBC responded positively yesterday to news that alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson had made one of his extra-Parliamentary announcements. “The prime minister has announced new trade and investment deals with India worth £1bn. It includes more than £533m of new investment from India into the UK, which is expected to create about 6,000 jobs”. Sounds interesting. And there was more.

“Downing Street said the new partnership would ‘pave the way’ for a future UK-India Free Trade Agreement … The deal, announced ahead of a virtual meeting with India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi, includes a £240m investment by the Serum Institute of India, which will support clinical trials, research and possibly the manufacturing of vaccines”.

“The deal”? Do go on. “Indian investment deals will create 1,000 new UK jobs each at health and tech firms Infosys, HCL Technologies and Mphasis. Some 667 UK jobs will be created at Q-Rich Creations, 500 jobs at Wipro and 465 at 12 Agro … Trade Secretary Liz Truss told the BBC that the jobs would be created ‘within the next year or so’”.

Only further down the article are we told “[Ms Truss] said those commitments were ‘very different’ from a free-trade deal, which the two governments will start negotiating on this autumn. Discussions will include lowering tariff barriers and new agreements on ‘digital and data’”. Also, “to do that, the UK is likely to have to relax immigration rules between India and the UK, Ms Truss added”. More immigrants! Gammon meltdown!!

Moreover, as the Guardian cautioned, “At the moment, the UK conducts £23bn of trade - exports plus imports - with India every year … India was the UK’s 19th biggest export market, just below Singapore, Sweden and Saudi Arabia, and exports actually fell slightly in 2019. By contrast, exports were up strongly to China, which came sixth in the league table at £30bn. In comparison, UK exports to the EU totalled £293bn”. There was more.

“As a result, an extra £1bn (a 4% increase), barely moves the dial and underlies the importance of a more comprehensive trade deal … While such a deal would have benefits to both countries, striking one will be far from simple. India is a relatively closed economy with a long history of protectionism”. The Independent has now brought worse news.

The Indy put it directly: “The EU is poised to steal a march on the UK in the hunt for a post-Brexit trade deal with India, as Boris Johnson announced only an 'enhanced partnership' with Delhi … Brussels hailed 'clear momentum', with talks on a free trade agreement to be confirmed as early as Saturday, threatening to put the UK in the slow lane in the race for negotiations”. Plus the EU has a team of seasoned negotiators ready to go. Do go on.

“Those negotiations were suspended in 2013 after disagreements over tariff rules for car parts and free-movement rights for professionals, but resuming them has been a priority for both sides. The move was discussed in a call on Monday between Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, and Mr Modi”. And it got worse.

“Trade deals with India and the United States are the priorities for the government, Brexit supporters having once promised they would be delivered easily and quickly. But with US president Joe Biden also stalling on talks, the UK has been forced to focus on deals with far-flung Australia and New Zealand, despite those agreements offering virtually no economic gain”. Also, Ms Truss has managed to insult the Aussies, which won’t exactly speed any new trade deal. The Beeb has misled its audience on this one.

The UK is in the slow lane. And the EU isn’t. What you won’t hear from Brexit boosters.

Tuesday, 4 May 2021

Brillo Begging Bowl Brandished

It seems that alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is not the only one apparently attempting to solicit donations for the benefit of Himself Personally Now: the people at Press Gazette, apparently more keen than anyone else to talk up new TV News entrant GB News, have brought us a most interesting admission.

It’s been known for some time that Gammon Broadcasting™ (“Bacon’s News Channel”) had a potentially flawed funding model: advertising alone would most likely not pay to keep the show on the road, and unlike Fox News Channel (fair and balanced my arse) there was no chance of the subscription revenue that keeps FNC afloat. Or was there?

Adam Sherwin at iNews has been on the case, revealing “intriguing new details of the financing plan for GB News that will help claw back the channel’s £60m start-up costs. Under the proposals, ‘superfans' will pay a monthly subscription fee giving them bonus content including access to star presenters on the soon-to-launch challenger to the BBC”.

There was more. “The GB News business model envisages turning its audience into a ‘community’, which will pay a monthly fee to access additional content behind a digital paywall … Insiders believe around 135,000 ‘superfans’, sharing [Andrew] Neil’s belief that the BBC and Sky News are ‘out of touch’ could pay a fee of £5 a month for the privilege”.

Sherwin cautions “GB News, which will air on Freeview, Sky and all other main platforms, cannot rely on advertising revenue alone. The live UK audience for rolling news is limited”. So how is the circle to be squared? “GB News will focus on talk radio-style chat led by a provocative line-up of presenters [and this way] The channel believes it can improve on the daily audience of about 110,000 viewers a day which watches Sky News”.

And as Fred Flintstone might have put it, hold it … HOLD IT! Let’s do some of those back of the envelope quick and dirty calculations: all those presenters and pundits, along with the probably hundreds of support staff, the studios and equipment, the publicity budget, all the costs of getting on air - the estimate of £30 million a year begins to sound accurate.

All those “Superfans”, should there be 135,000 of them, and should they all be prepared to stump up £5 a month, that would bring in around £8 million a year. Where’s the other £22 million coming from, let alone the £60 million quoted for start-up costs? Advertising? With campaigners ready to jump on the first mis-step? And an untested product?

Press Gazette point out that this “mimics Fox News which has started offering its most enthusiastic viewers access to extra programming via streaming for $5.99 per month”. But FNC is a long-established brand with the clout of the Murdoch empire behind it. GB News is not. Also, what will the paywalled “extra content” consist of?

Will there be an outtakes reel? Perhaps the overrated hosts and pundits will be seen talking over the day’s “news” and telling one another how wonderful they are? But if there is anything worthwhile in that - and it’s a big if - it will only need a few subscribers to record it and stick it on YouTube - so everyone can see it without paying anything.

But good of GB News to admit that they have money worries. We’ve already got one TalkRADIO. And that’s free to view. The begging bowl no longer looks all that brill, Brillo.

Murdoch ‘Meddling In Scots Election’

The Murdoch Times, like its more downmarket sister title the Sun, publishes a Scottish edition in addition to that targeting England and Wales. And that edition has serious political matters to consider: if the SNP were to win an overall majority in next Thursday’s elections for the Holyrood Parliament, independence would not merely be back on the agenda; it would be centre stage, a serious problem for the Tories in Westminster.

It is with that in mind that a story splashed across yesterday’s front page should be considered: headlined “Iran ‘meddling in Scots election’”, it cites a report from a so-called “think tank” suggesting that the dastardly Iranians are active on social media platforms, posing as independence supporters. But here a problem enters.

The “think tank” is the Henry Jackson Society, and the Times does not interrogate or otherwise verify that source. The HJS was the single source that the Telegraph’s supposed expert on matters Royal, Camilla Tominey, used to smear the Duchess of Sussex by linking the Grenfell Cook Book to ISIS, or whatever they’re called this week.

Back in 2012, I noted that Marko Attila Hoare, who had left the HJS after serving that organisation in a senior capacity for the previous seven years, had concluded that it had become “a mere caricature of its former self”. It was “No longer ... a centrist, bipartisan think-tank”, having “become an abrasively right-wing forum with an anti-Muslim tinge”.

And so, surprise surprise, along comes the HJS to tell anyone gullible enough to listen that the Scary Muslims™ are interfering the Scottish elections. Anyone with brain plugged in and a hole in their backside should have got a reliable second source for that claim, but the Murdoch press did not. And Katherine O’Donnell, a former Times Scotland night editor, had rather more to say about the article and its single source (Thread HERE).

She notes that “the source for the Times’ story is a report by an academic whose comments about race have been disowned by his university and who, coincidentally … has written for the right-wing magazine Spiked … Henry Jackson Society members past and present have links to the US far-right and to Trump and to anti-Islamic and white supremacy individuals and groups, including Steve Bannon and Breitbart, the Gatestone Institute and the Mercers”. And her conclusion?

“This central claim made by [Paul] Stott MAY BE TRUE and we know that the Iranian government is deeply unpleasant. But even so, we still have no idea from the Times report whether readers should pinch the nose before ingesting the HJS report due to the possibility it may be … a) an exaggeration by right-wingers with the intention of casting shade on the forthcoming Scottish election and thereby the legitimacy of its winners, b) a real and substantial threat to democracy or c) the punchline of a laughably incompetent plot? … By any measure this is not good journalism”.

But the article does serve one important purpose: it tells us that the Murdoch mafiosi do not approve of Scottish independence. That, after all, would mean Scotland moving to rejoin the European Union. And the Murdochs, having had Scotland and the EU torn apart from one another, is not about to let them come back together without a fight.

“What a mess The Times has become” laments Ms O’Donnell. But a mess with a purpose.

Sunday, 2 May 2021

Bozo - Money, Lying - And Kompromat

As Tory poll numbers show the first signs that Wallpapergate may be beginning to register with the electorate, a remarkable coalition of journalists has come together, whether by coincidence or otherwise, to tell those voters to look somewhere else. Alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is variously held to be on his uppers, and not some mere lazy and narcissistic liar who is not fit for office.

The Murdoch Sunday Times has led the way in deflecting attention from the inconvenient suggestion that the recent refurbishment of the 11 Downing Street flat may have cost as much as £200,000. “Is Boris Johnson too poor to be PM?” they ask. QTWTAIN. It is, for starters, not the “being Prime Minister” which is causing the alleged money worries.

What's that, Boris? Two page spread, you say?

Small wonder, then, that when the ST Tweeted out the teaser “Johnson has told friends that he needs to earn about £300,000 a year - twice his salary - to keep his head above water, while a former No 10 insider said it was ‘received wisdom’ that he is permanently broke”, the response was not quite what the paper’s hacks may have expected.

James Ball mused “Full-time job at London living wage: £22,500 … Median UK full-time salary: £31,500 … Top 1% salary point: £192,000 … What Boris Johnson says he needs to live: £300,000 … Man of the people!” LBC host James O’Brien added “Poor people with such chaotic personal lives used to end up on Jeremy Kyle. Says a lot about Brexit Britain that this man has ended up in charge”. Then a second front was opened up.

This came from BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg, who has penned a longish read titled “Boris Johnson: What is the PM's relationship with the truth?” Do we even need to ask that question? No matter, she manages to compare Bozo to the late Steve Jobs, while driving it around the houses instead of giving us the obvious and simple answer.

Bozo is a congenital liar. He was sacked from his first job in journalism for it, he was sacked from the Tory front bench for it, and most recently, Peter Stefanovic has compiled the occasions when he has indulged in the practice before the Commons (the video has garnered over 14 million views, but the BBC for some reason has ignored it).

Bozo lies his way out of every tight corner or difficult question, if the truth is inconvenient to him. He lies in order to kick the can down the road. It’s part of the act. What is rather more relevant, and way more serious, is what happens when his being allegedly skint, and in an abusive relationship with the truth, are picked up on by those hostile to the UK.

Money worries? Most interesting

Former BBC man John Sweeney saw the ST claim and mused “Boris ‘is skint’ shock - kind of intelligence the Russian secret state might act on”. This is not so far-fetched as it may seem: Bozo, as Sweeney points out, has been a regular guest at Evgeny Lebedev’s Palazzo not far from Perugia. He’s attended parties there without any security detail being present. He has, in return, gifted Lebedev a seat in the House of Lords.

Evgeny Lebedev’s father Alexander was a colonel in the KGB. As Sweeney points out, “Alexander is the source of Yevgeny’s money. And no-one stays rich in Russia for long without the blessing of Vladimir Putin”. The BBC and ST pieces are mere dead cats.

Putin latched on to Trump. The question now is, has he done the same with Bozo?

Saturday, 1 May 2021

Judy Gatiss - Ignore, Block, Move On

Being committed to anti-racism, sadly, means attracting adverse comment from those who are not thus committed: not just the openly racist and otherwise bigoted, but also those who use racism to further their own ends, like many who work in and around our free and fearless press, who may no longer deal with explicit racism, but all too often, you can see it from there. And then there are a whole range of bad faith actors.

The claims, and the spelling, ain't making it

These, from personal experience, tend to get muted or even blocked on Twitter, given that watching paint dry is far more entertaining, and that there are only so many hours in a day. But recently, despite my having blocked her, someone called Judy Gatiss is appearing with increasing regularity, her modus operandi being, it seems, to go after known anti-fascists by smearing them, even indulging in doxxing. That is bang out of order.

What the owner of this account, and those who are taken in by its presence, seem not to understand is this: anyone who deals with anti-fascists knows who the good people are, and who they are not. When the good people start to attract abuse from someone who pretends to be an anti-fascist, it is not difficult to conclude that the person doing the attacking is probably mistaken, or a bad faith actor indulging in trolling.

And that is when we arrive at Judy Gatiss, who I blocked after seeing the account going after people I knew to be committed anti-fascists, smearing as it went. Some may have been taken in; those people might usefully reconsider. Some of the allegations the account makes are untrue and potentially actionable, but then, it’s possible the calculation has been made that those targeted don’t have the means to go to law.

It’s clear that Judy Gatiss is a disruptive presence, intentionally or otherwise. So the people at Resisting Hate, themselves no strangers to abusive behaviour, put together some of this account’s recent social media history in order to demonstrate the problem.

The result was all too predictable: Judy Gatiss did not take the hint and the attacks got worse. More Tweeters were targeted. Tagging online news providers and the accounts of well-known people has continued. Those telling her she’s wrong may find themselves smeared in return. Engaging with Judy Gatiss is pointless.

Genuine anti-fascists do not smear and doxx other anti-fascists, and nor do they seek to divide and disrupt them. Why Judy Gatiss does that could be the sign of a bad faith actor, it could be self-promotion, or indeed a sign that she needs help. But none of those explanations justify the abuse that is being meted out to good, decent anti-fascists.

So what to do? Simples. One, read the Resisting Hate explainer, which goes into detail on the Judy Gatiss account and its behavioural habits. Two, block the Judy Gatiss account. And then Three, move on and leave that account frothing and ranting. Ultimately, those few who have been taken in will tire of the bad behaviour, and follow suit.

The old Usenet adage was Don’t Feed The Trolls. It endures, even today. That is all.

Welcome To Zelo Street!