WhatsApp - Bozo Lies Again

After spending decades following the antics of disgraced former very occasional Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, it might be expected that our free and fearless press would have figured out that Bozo is a shameless and indeed congenital liar. But that thought would have been sadly misplaced when basic knowledge of technology was required.

Mobile phones. We’ve all got them; some of us have more than one of the things. Some choose Android phones; others go for the supposedly stylish iPhone. And it is the latter that Bozo claims is taxing him beyond the limits of his memory. Sadly, instead of the press doing a little of that proper journalism that they claim to be into, most of them have merely repeated his claims.

What has allegedly taxed Bozo can be put directly: the WhatsApp messages on his old iPhone have yet to be ponied up to the Covid Inquiry. This was the device that had to be switched off in 2021 due to an alleged security breach. The deadline given is now several days into the past. But we are supposed to believe that Bozo missed the deadline because he forgot the passcode.

Hence Sky News reporting “Boris Johnson has been unable to handover WhatsApp messages from his old mobile phone to the COVID inquiry because he has forgotten the password to it … The Times said it had been told the former prime minister could not ‘with 100% confidence’ remember the code for the device he used up until May 2021”. Do go on.

“There were fears the Apple iPhone could erase the messages if the wrong digits were entered too many times … Mr Johnson's spokesperson did not deny the claims to Sky News, instead saying government-appointed ‘technical experts’ were continuing to work ‘to recover material safely from the device’”. And to that I call bullshit. Bozo is lying once again.

But give us the rest. “[Bozo] had switched phones and claimed to have been instructed not to switch the device back on again … His spokesperson said the phone was currently with his lawyers, adding: ‘As previously stated, Mr Johnson will cooperate fully with the inquiry. He wants to disclose any relevant material which is why he is fully cooperating with this process’”.

Having just switched SIMs between iPhones, or more precisely got a helpful person from my network provider to do it for me, the bullshit detector clanged into action as soon as that lame excuse was offered. This one is somewhere between “A big boy did it and ran away” and “I could be arguing in my spare time”. You just put the SIM in another iPhone and away you go.

You think I jest? Here’s Andrew Whaley, senior technical director at Promon (they’re an app security company) giving his assessment of Bozo’s latest stalling tactic: “This is a pretty lame excuse. Providing Boris’s WhatsApp is backed up, accessing the data would take minutes”. And how, pray?

“You can simply take out the SIM card, put it in another device and install WhatsApp using SMS verification to get access to all your old messages. As this is a diplomatic phone, the security measures may well be different, but even still, it’s not an impossible task by any means. This is likely not a case of Johnson being unable to access his phone, but rather a tactic to try and further evade the release of messages relevant to the inquiry”. POINT.

Another clue as to Bozo’s honesty (or lack thereof) is provided by the Tweeter known as My Sweet Landlord, who notes “When Lord Geidt was doing #wallpapergate he wanted access. He was told phone could not be accessed. After he reported he was told phone had been accessed for something else. This is the second bit of subterfuge involving Boris Johnson's iPhone”.

Some have noted that Bozo claimed to have had IT lessons from Jennifer Arcuri (ho ho ho) and so should know his way round an iPhone. Alternatively, as Brian Moore has suggested, “If they can't access Johnson's messages, they should give the phone to Piers Morgan. He'll have them in a trice”. But Bozo long ago ceased being funny. He’s lying. And stalling. Again.

Never take what that SOB says without a second source. That is all.

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 becoming a Patron on Patreon at

https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton

Time For The Sun To Set

In the end, it was his wife who identified the “BBC Presenter” pursued for the past week by the Murdoch Sun: Vicky Flind told the world “In light of the recent reporting regarding the 'BBC Presenter' I am making this statement on behalf of my husband Huw Edwards, after what have been five extremely difficult days for our family. I am doing this primarily out of concern for his mental well-being and to protect our children”. There was more.

“Huw is suffering from serious mental health issues. As is well documented, he has been treated for severe depression in recent years. The events of the last few days have greatly worsened matters, he has suffered another serious episode and is now receiving in-patient hospital care where he'll stay for the foreseeable future”. Thus the motivation for the Murdoch mafiosi came clear.

And what was laid bare, not that many in and around our free and fearless press want to admit it, was a sick and cruel mindset, a media empire prepared to drive someone they knew had issues with depression over the edge if need be, so that the hated BBC could be irretrievably damaged.

The inmates of the Baby Shard bunker got wind of Edwards’ complicated private life. This in itself did not justify publication. But the temptation was too great: Huw Edwards was for so many the face of the BBC. By damaging him, the Murdoch goons would damage the Corporation, and possibly gain great favour from Don Rupioni himself. The end would justify the means.

But how could the paper justify its pursuit? There was no public interest defence - until the Sun claimed that the law could have been broken, and this they duly did. Last Sunday, in an article that is still live on the paper’s website as I type, came the claim “Top BBC star who ‘paid child for sex pictures’ could be charged by cops and face years in prison, expert says”.

Otherwise, the story depended on “concerned parents”, despite the young person at the centre of the claims, who had allegedly been paid by Edwards for sexually explicit images, putting out a statement via their lawyers saying the Sun’s story was “rubbish”. The paper stood by its single source story.

Why would they do this? Ah well. This is where it becomes seriously sick: those directing the story, such as Sun editor Victoria Newton, and her boss Rebekah Brooks, knew they were pursuing a depressive. Just imagine the mindset at work: ratchet up the pressure bit by bit, day by day, front page splash by front page splash, until he breaks. That was the Sun’s game. They ratcheted up the pressure bit by bit, and their target duly broke.

This is, after all, the same paper that went after Caroline Flack and duly drove her over the edge, blaming everyone else in the aftermath of her death. Now they have their target effectively on suicide watch. Worse, this is not an isolated occurrence of recent tabloid pursuit of the vulnerable.

Chris Godfrey of the Guardian had been watching Gary Neville interviewing Dele Alli. “A small detail from this which chimes with what we’ve seen this week: early on in this interview Dele Alli tells Neville that he’s been in rehab and got out three weeks ago. While he was there he said the tabloids kept contacting his team to let them know they knew where he was”.

I’m sure the Sun will claim it was absent from that pack and therefore totally innocent. Past form, as the Tweeter known as Sun Apologies reminded us, suggests otherwise: “Just remembered that time when The Sun spent a large part of 2016 waging a hate campaign against Chris Evans for getting the Top Gear job. Hounding him and following him around until he broke. Then they pretended they cared once they'd finished him”. All heart, the Sun.

Worse, the BBC itself does not emerge from this episode looking as pure as the driven snow, with some of its own staff running news items claiming they have found more bad behaviour from Edwards. Nothing quite like trying to “both sides” the whole business and join the Sun in the sewer, is there? Meanwhile, the real news, as Andrew Marr observed, is crowded out.

The solution for BBC News is, as I’ve told previously, straightforward: remove the likes of Robbie Gibb from the Corporation permanently, whether he was involved this time or no. And remove former fizzy pop salesman and occasional Tory Tim Davie. Get a DG with some cojones instead.

For the Murdoch media empire, Leveson changed nothing. The Huw Edwards saga has proved that beyond all doubt, the Baldwin paradox exemplified in all its seedy, sick, sadistic, creepy, cruel nastiness: power without responsibility indeed. Worse, this is power without accountability: with press regulation in the hands of sham regulator IPSO, the press can do as it pleases.

The Sun has enjoyed a malign influence over our country, its politicians, its institutions, and most importantly its place in the world, for far too long. We don’t need Rupert Murdoch and his mafiosi sticking their bugle in, gaslighting us, all too often into making calamitously bad choices. What we do need is elected representatives and other public figures to stand up to the SOB.

The time has come for the Sun to set for good. Close it down, Rupe. NOW.

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 becoming a Patron on Patreon at

https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton

Sun Admits No Public Interest

When John Whittingdale was found to have been dating a known sex worker, that in itself was not a story: what was a story was the potential for him to be compromised, blackmailed. Likewise disgraced former alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson attending Bunga Bunga parties at the Lebedev’s place in Italy wasn’t a story. The potential for Kompromat was.

Victoria Newton - the invisible editor

That was the public interest justification for running those stories. Another would be if the law was being broken, and here we come to the Sun’s pursuit of an as yet unnamed BBC presenter, which is still being flogged half to death at the same time as the Murdoch press’ hero, Bozo, has failed to pony up his WhatsApp messages to the Covid Inquiry. Which is breaking the law.

The problem for the inmates of the Baby Shard bunker, and especially those on the thirteenth floor, is that, as the law stands, the presenter’s privacy, and lack of public interest, leaves them in one of those very difficult positions. So, all along, the inference has been that illegality took place, with the latest throw of the Murdoch dice being a possible breach of lockdown laws.

That’s because the Sun has now backed away from alleging the presenter previously broke the law: “Sources at the Sun are now distancing themselves from this line and claiming the story was not really about potential criminal activity. Instead, they suggest it was more about concerned parents trying to stop payments to a vulnerable child with a drug habit” tells the Guardian.

Hence the paper now scratching around trying to stand up a claim that the presenter may have broken lockdown law. It looks increasingly as if the Sun is trying to secure a public interest defence before the lawsuits hit. The Murdoch goons have effectively admitted that they did not bother to contact the young person (or “vulnerable child”) directly before publishing.

The Guardian again: “The 20-year-old’s lawyer has said the Sun’s story is ‘rubbish’, alleged they were not approached for comment prior to publication, and insisted they told the Sun last week that the story was wrong … A Sun spokesperson did not return a request for comment on whether the newspaper had made any direct contact with the young person - or whether they had attempted to do so”. Single source, selective source use.

Could it get worse? But you know what’s coming: “It is unclear whether the Sun has seen the underlying evidence relating to the payments or the explicit material … it is not clear whether the reporters have seen the bank statements”. A half-competent editor would have spiked this on the spot.

So why have Victoria Newton, and her team, and indeed the paper’s lawyers, not just run the initial story, but splashed it all over the front pages of the Sun and Sun on Sunday for several days now? They have not yet ponied up a credible public interest defence. They failed to contact all those involved. They may not even have seen the evidence on which the story depends.

All the Murdoch mafiosi can manage is blame-shifting: “We have reported a story about two very concerned parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and the welfare of their child. Their complaint was not acted upon by the BBC. We have seen evidence that supports their concerns. It’s now for the BBC to properly investigate”.

True or bluff? And where is Ms Newton? As Professor Brian Cathcart has asked today, “Where is Victoria Newton, the editor of The Sun? She has lots of questions to answer right now. If she were an executive in any other walk of life and involved in something like this, the Sun and the other papers would now be demanding she account for the Sun's actions”. So they would.

But what the Murdoch goons do have is a constant crowd of hacks and snappers outside New Broadcasting House. They have their tanks on the Beeb’s lawn. The Corporation is on the back foot. It is the subject of constant negative publicity. And that was always the intention: the Sun doesn’t give a rat’s arse about two “concerned parents”. It just wants to break the BBC.

Rupert Murdoch doesn’t just want to ruin every country in the English speaking world that will let him set up shop there - the malign influence of his empire in Australia, the UK and USA while New Zealand didn’t let him in and has benefited as a result - he wants to ruin the BBC. Destroy it. Wipe it off the face of the earth. That is why the Sun is running this story.

There never was any public interest. But you knew that anyway.

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

The Sun - Not Waving But Drowning

The crowds are starting to disperse: they are moving on to the next supposed story, the next confected outrage, the next deflection from the increasingly grim life many in the UK now face. While the Murdoch Sun continues to kick the hated BBC over claims a well-known presenter paid a young person for sexually explicit images, their fellow press travellers are losing interest.

So much so that this morning’s front pages are about what the lawyers acting for the young person concerned have said, refuting the Sun claims. Worse for the Murdoch mafiosi, the story is becoming not about the BBC, but about them. And about the potential it has to damage the Sun irretrievably.

This despite the potential for MPs plural to use Parliamentary privilege to name the now suspended yet still well-known presenter, thus not only shifting the story focus back onto the BBC, but also demonstrating the willingness of the Useful Idiot brigade to pay fealty to Rupert Murdoch in the vain hope that he will throw them a biscuit when they deservedly lose their seats.

Such a move may provoke a little momentary interest, but the tide has turned, and the list of questions that the inmates of the Baby Shard bunker, and those on the thirteenth floor, will have to answer grows ever longer. Mic Wright has nine of those questions HERE. Including the revelation that the young person in question is, or was, a sex worker. Estranged from their Mum.

Mic’s last question is where those wanting to know what’s really going on should focus their enquiries: “How large is the apology to the young person and the presenter going to be? And how much time and money will it take to get?” And for those ready to blame social media for the shitshow, he added “The Sun made this happen. The Sun created the environment of speculation. It’s not the public that did it. It’s the media that did it”. Quite.

And, in the spirit of honest debate, I have a few questions to add to those Mic raises. Like, oh I dunno, why would a concerned parent go running to the one newspaper with the worst reputation for publishing falsehood and misinformation? Following on from that one, is the concerned parent someone with no connection to the press? Let’s consider the Sun’s latest.

“The mum said: ‘It is sad but we stand by our account and we hope they get the help they need … We did this to help - and the presenter has got into their head. How did they afford a lawyer? We are so sad”. A concerned parent’s first thought is to ask how their child could afford a lawyer? Really?

Just by coincidence, you understand, the talking point that the Murdoch empire has been pushing ever since lawyers acting on behalf of the young person involved described the Sun’s story as “rubbish” and “totally wrong”, is what comes to mind for the concerned parent who is acting in good faith and has no connection with the press, other than to get their story out there.

What the Sun misses, but won’t for very long, is that the lawyers concerned may have offered to fire off a letter pro bono with the increasingly sure and certain knowledge that they will be at the front of the queue to take News UK for a significant sum of money, plus costs, when this story, with the certainty of night following day, unravels and the Murdoch press has its arse sued off.

Another question enters as the Sun claims to have sworn affidavits from both the young person’s Mum, and Step-Dad, and has added “We have seen evidence that supports their concerns”, why aren’t they redacting any identifying details from said evidence and publishing a sample or two? Just to show they aren’t bluffing. Why are the Murdoch goons so coy?

We’ve been told that there are bank statements which back up allegations that there were £35,000 worth of payments. Shouldn’t be too difficult to redact one of those. But no: all we get is “DAD: BBC ARE LIARS”. And “how come they can afford a lawyer?” And Tory MPs wanting to identify the BBC presenter. So the Murdoch mafiosi can get everyone to Look Over There.

This is not about the BBC. It’s about News UK. Who are in big trouble.

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 becoming a Patron on Patreon at

https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton

BBC Presenter And A Single Source

For a second day, our free and fearless press has returned to giving the hapless BBC another ritual kicking over allegations that a male presenter, who the Corporation has now suspended, paid a 17-year-old as much as £35,000 over three years for what is described as a series of sexually explicit images. The Beeb has now referred the claims to the Metropolitan Police.

But amid all the baying headlines, no-one is asking the obvious question: if the Murdoch Sun has the supposed “star”, a “household name” and “top presenter”, over the proverbial barrel, why aren’t they naming him? Why are all the articles about this story so heavily caveatted? An excellent example has been provided only this morning by the Murdoch mafiosi.

“THE BBC star accused of paying a teenager for sex images made two panicked calls to them after we revealed the bombshell claims … The presenter, who was suspended today, allegedly rang last week asking: ‘What have you done?’” tells the Sun. Also, “It is claimed he also asked the youngster to ring their mum to get her to ‘stop the investigation’”. Claimed.

There is one person from whom we are not hearing, and that is the now 20-year-old alleged to have been paid all that dosh for explicit photos. I’ll go further: we are only hearing from one person, their Mum. Everything else is coming from the BBC, the Government, other MPs, pundits, and those idiots on social media who have wrongly named someone not involved.

Yes, we have a single source. And what should journalists worth the name do with a single source? Hell, even when the late and not at all lamented Screws was hacking phones, many of the voicemails illicitly accessed were down to the paper already having a source for a story - but they wouldn’t just go with a single source. Hacking was a way of standing up stories.

The Beeb’s own account of what has been happening is rather obviously trying to tell us that we do not yet have the full story, and that what we do not have may be highly significant. “The BBC said it first became aware of a complaint in May and then of ‘new allegations’ on Thursday”, they tell.

Then comes “But the family alleged ‘no-one from the BBC rang them for a proper interview after the initial complaint’”. “Proper interview”? Eh? Here’s the Beeb’s statement: “The BBC first became aware of a complaint in May … New allegations were put to us on Thursday of a different nature and in addition to our own enquiries we have also been in touch with external authorities, in line with our protocols”. Meaning what, exactly?

There is more. “BBC media editor Katie Razzall said the corporation's first statement appeared to suggest its initial investigation may have been hampered by a lack of response from the family. In the statement, released on Friday, the BBC said it did ‘actively’ attempt to speak to ‘those who have contacted’ them ‘to seek further detail and understanding of the situation’”.

Do go on. “‘If we get no reply to our attempts or receive no further contact that can limit our ability to progress things but it does not mean our enquiries stop,’ added the BBC”. Also, consider this wording: “The [Sun] said [the 20-year-old’s Mum] also claimed that an image of the presenter in his underwear had been taken as part of a video call with her child”. Single source again.

Moreover, the Sun is still not naming the presenter, although the paper assures us that “On Saturday night the family handed a dossier of evidence to the broadcaster’s lead investigator, ex-cop Jeff Brown”. And there is a why-oh-why editorial, which still does not answer “New allegations were put to us on Thursday of a different nature”. Trust the Sun? Er, no thanks.

On top of all that, the last newspaper to come over all righteous over sexually explicit images and 17-year-olds is the Sun. It was, after all, the Sun that told its readers “SAM, 16, QUITS A-LEVELS FOR OOH-LEVELS … Head sees red over his topless pupil … SIZZLING schoolgirl Samantha Fox has quit her A-Level studies”. Look, readers … PHWOOOAR!! Pass the sick bag.

We are not being given the full story by the Murdoch mafiosi. All we are being served up by the least trustworthy newspaper in the UK (in a field where there is serious competition for that particular dishonour) is a series of claims backed up with nudge and wink. That’s not good enough. The Sun is so short of standing the story up that it dare not name its target.

The Sun’s goons may be right. But they may not. I’ll just leave that one there.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by becoming a Patron on Patreon at

https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton

BBC Star - Press Goes Smearing

Raising suspicions that it had been sitting on the story for some days, if not weeks, the Murdoch Sun let the world know yesterday that an unnamed “BBC Star” had been paying a young person for sexually explicit images. Whoever it was had been taken off air while the Corporation investigated the allegations. All we knew is that he was a “top star” and “well known”.

But the inmates of the Baby Shard bunker can tell us that he “is accused of giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images … The alleged recipient’s mother said they had used the cash to fund a crack habit … She added of the star: ‘When I see him on telly, I feel sick … I blame this BBC man for destroying my child’s life’”. There was more.

“Last night the presenter, a familiar face who is known to millions, was off air while the BBC investigate the mother’s bombshell claims … The family complained to the BBC about his behaviour on May 19 and begged them to make the man ‘stop sending the cash’ … [the family] approached The Sun, making it clear they wanted no payment”. But no positive ID as yet.

Why that might be is an interesting one. Are the Murdoch mafiosi trying to get whoever it is to give them an exclusive on what drove him to do it? Are we expected to believe that they published as soon as they had the story, and that it wasn’t left in the safe until they needed cover for something else?

To no surprise at all, the rest of the press pack does not even go near such details. For them, this is manna from heaven, an opportunity to kick an already weakened BBC good and hard. And an opportunity to kick a few familiar faces who have nothing to do with the story. It’s almost as if the Sun published the way it did in order to allow its pals in our free and fearless press to do a little reputational damage - that it was a deliberate act.

So, following the Sun’s “first instalment” yesterday, along has come the Mail on Sunday today to thunder “BBC Rocked By Sex Bombshell … As ‘household name’ presenter is accused of paying a teenage crack addict £35,000 for explicit pictures … BBC CRISIS OVER TOP STAR IN SEX PHOTOS PROBE”. As Sir Sean nearly said, I think we got the point.

Then in the second paragraph of the supporting article we learn that “The scandal engulfing the broadcaster deepened as several famous faces were falsely accused on social media of being the presenter”. The supposedly upmarket Times then named a number of those BBC famous faces being falsely accused, under the headline “Stars line up to say: it’s not me”.

Rylan Clark, who is very much still a BBC presenter, has had to interrupt his schedule filming for the Corporation in Italy to tell the rest of the media that no, it’s not him. He has had to remind publications using photos of him that they should not so much as suggest it is. He’ll probably have to instruct a lawyer when he arrives back in the UK. A fellow BBC presenter already has.

That man was Jeremy Vine, who has understandably taken a dim view of one member of the social media brains trust telling the world that It Woz Him “on good authority”. As Vine is presenting his radio show tomorrow as he usually does, it certainly isn’t him, so someone’s authority is not quite as good as they thought it was. One idiot is going to get sued. Serves him right.

This is just what the Murdoch mafiosi wants: unfounded speculation spreading, more and more BBC “names” being smeared, more BBC “names” being forced to defend themselves by instructing lawyers, and all the while the Corporation gets its name dragged through the mud, no matter how thorough the investigation it undertook following the first complaint.

We know this as former minister Priti Patel, who has almost certainly not been privy to any details of what has actually been going on, has decided anyhow that the Beeb’s investigation has been “derisory”, calling for a “full and transparent investigation” and asserting that the BBC has become a “faceless and unaccountable organisation”.

How does she know what’s gone on? But that’s not where she, and other critics, are at. They’re just getting the story out there, with the Beeb having to play catch up later on. The Corporation will have to battle against Ronald Reagan’s dictum: “when you’re explaining, you’re losing”. Meanwhile, one small matter has thus far evaded the press pack.

In the wake of Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris and the rest, the BBC might just have sharpened up its act when faced with complaints about one or other of its well-known presenters misbehaving. In which case, the Murdoch press’ timing should be what is under the spotlight. But it won’t be.

A chance to kick the Beeb cannot be wasted. Facts and reality can wait.

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 becoming a Patron on Patreon at

https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton

George Osborne Streisands Himself

He was all but forgotten after a failed career in politics, followed by a failed career as a newspaper editor, but such is the lack of thinking things through by the Rt Hon Gideon George Oliver Osborne, heir to the Seventeenth Baronet, that he has returned to centre stage through his decision to go running to the Police over an apparently anonymous and abusive email.

What has happened can be put directly: Osborne is getting married (again) today somewhere in the Somerset town of Bruton. Someone has sent some of those invited to attend an email which apparently makes a number of potentially highly defamatory accusations about the former MP and Chancellor of the Exchequer. But that was not yet a story.

Osborne made it a story by calling the cops, who might not bother themselves turning out if you or I had their houses burgled, got robbed in the street, or were the victims of any kind of scam, but for him, they have begun an investigation. Or, as Jonn Elledge put it, “George Osborne has done a thing that has given broadcast media an excuse to report on this story without risking breach of defamation laws. Well done there”. Now it’s a story.

Now the email is finding its way on to social media (sorry, no link provided for obvious reasons). As a result, and that Osborne and his bride to be have commented on said email, the email is now A Real Story. So media outlets are reporting on it. He’s Streisanded himself, as Sky News has reported.

“George Osborne and fiancee Thea Rogers are said to be ‘really upset and distressed’ after a ‘poison pen’ email was sent to guests due to attend his wedding on Saturday”. Not half as “really upset and distressed” as all those 50-something women who had their state pensions taken away into the distance after yet more of that needless austerity was imposed on them.

But do go on. “Former chancellor George Osborne has called in police to investigate alleged online harassment after a so-called ‘poison pen’ email was sent to guests due to attend his wedding this weekend. Friends say the email - which has since been posted online - is part of a ‘long-term campaign’ of abuse in which an individual has ‘made up rumours’ and engaged in ‘cyber bullying’”. “Friends” meaning Osborne himself, or with his approval.

There was more. “It is understood the couple believe they know the identity of the person behind the email - which was sent to several politicians and journalists on Thursday afternoon.The individual is not thought to be directly connected to Mr Osborne, and their specific motivation is also unclear.”

And more. “Police are said to be investigating the case, with legal action also ongoing”. Over at the Guardian, Aditya Chakrabortty observed that Osborne was teaming up with “Auguste” Balls to front a new podcast, mentioning as an aside “scientists’ research that shows 300,000 extra deaths were caused by his austerity programme”. Which is translating into one thing.

No-one should be surprised that one thing is an almost total lack of sympathy for Osborne and Ms Rogers on their big day. One Tweeter mused “Bruton is where I grew up. Where I went to school. I sang in the choir of the church where George Osborne will be married today. My grandparents are buried in that churchyard. But I was priced out of living there by the incoming money”.

Another observed with relish that “Never has a best man been given so much material”. Then came “Congratulations to George Osborne who may or may not be getting married today”. OUCH! And on top of that, “George Osborne is having a very bad (wedding) day. [The] email was sent to *all* his guests”.

Byline Times’ Adam Bienkov moved the focus: “Forget the email. The most telling story about George Osborne is that time he forced construction workers to dig a hole so he could hide from the disabled protesters whose benefits he'd just cut”. One observer reckoned “Editors should get together and release a charity version of Streisand’s Send In The Clowns and dedicate it to George Osborne”. Might be a bit spicy down Bruton this afternoon.

Meanwhile, Osborne will be quite certain that all the allegations made in that email are totally false. Cos he’d be well in the shit if they weren’t.

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 becoming a Patron on Patreon at

https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton

Who’s Afraid Of Carol Vorderman?

You can tell how desperate the Tories are getting when their response to critics who have a larger than average megaphone is to lash out and play the victim. And that, with added pointless moaning, is exactly what Johnny Mercer, former Commando with three tours of Afghanistan on his record, has been doing. He has even roped in his wife to enhance the moaning.

Why should this be? Ah well. Mercer and Wife are moaning because they have been criticised by former Countdown numbers person Carol Vorderman, and they don’t like it one bit. Ms Vorderman chose to pass severely adverse comment on Mercer following his appearance on Sky News.

Here, he was lightly grilled by Kay Burley: “Is there any need for military personnel to be using food banks?” Captain Mercer (for it was he) responded “Look, these are personal decisions around how people are budgeting every month”. Come on Kay! “People don’t choose to use food banks, do they? They’re using them because they don’t have any other alternative”.

Here, Mercer reached his fork in the road moment. He could admit it, but no modern Tory owns up to anything not to their advantage. So he denied it: “Well, in my experience Kay, that is not correct”. Ms Vorderman was sufficiently angered by that to comment. Mercer did not take kindly to the criticism. So began the moaning and smearing. “You are grim” he Tweeted.

Thus a campaign destined to develop not necessarily to his advantage. Back came Ms V. “The Neil and Christine Hamilton of today? [Johnny Mercer] and his wife … He said y’day military personnel don't need to go to food banks. He earns over £110k as a Minister & pays her in his office £35-40k. She's paid more than Army officer & TWICE more than young soldier”.

Operations director at Newham Community Project Rozina Iqbal responded to Mercer's comment. "It is quite easy to make assumptions and accusations when you're sitting on a six-figure salary”. Ms Vorderman added “A blasting indictment of [Johnny Mercer] views on food banks. As a kid in single parent family who grew up on free school meals & in poverty, any arrogance on this subject, particularly from those who've never known it, abhors me”.

Then came the moaning, initiated by Felicity Cornelius Mercer (for it was she) who went on LBC’s Difficult Woman podcast and declared “I don't know what it is, she just drives me up the f***ing wall … I don't usually get stressed out by people, but for me it is this idea of celebrity attack dogs that know nothing about politics. There's definitely an argument to be had about that”.

There is? “I understand everyone has an opinion on politics. But for me, it's this blanket hatred, it's like inciting people to hate all Tories, or hate all Labour, hate everyone that falls under a certain umbrella … You can't blanket hate and this is what Vorderman seems to be doing. 'All Tories are disgusting', she keeps using words like ‘disgusting’”. There was more.

“Cornelius-Mercer, whose husband served in the army's 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, which supports the Royal Marines, said: ‘She's an honorary group captain. She should be stripped of that, because she shouldn't be political, this is rabidly political.’” Yeah, do any more of that criticism stuff and I’ll start a campaign to have your title stripped!

Julia Grace Patterson, who you can tell as she’s a doctor, was not impressed. “This article contains a quote saying Carol Vorderman knows nothing about politics. I and many other campaigners talk to Carol a lot. I can tell you with absolute certainty that she knows a *lot* about politics, and she is obviously incredibly intelligent”. Time to stop digging, Mercers?

Not a bit of it. Captain Mercer whined “You’re just a deeply unpleasant person” at Ms Vorderman. Few others backed him: of those that did, the Twitter bios tell a similar story. “I am a Conservative. Family Values” … “Proud to be English. Proud to be British #NigelFarage” … “NO FBPE! NO WOKE!” … “BREXIT [Union Flag] AntiWoke … Buy British” and so on.

And this prize specimen: “Help Animals, elderly/sick/military Save Sea/countryside from box hses & water cos spewing sewage. Harsh prison 4 criminals, ban halal/kosher, Deport illegals”. With that level of support, Mercer and Ms Cornelius Mercer ought to take the hint. But they can’t. It’s almost as if the Tories can’t take criticism of their lousy record without lashing out.

Ms Vorderman is entitled to criticise the Tories. So are we all. Get over 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 becoming a Patron on Patreon at

https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton

Ticket Offices And Reality

And so we move on to the latest battleground where the Government will attempt to win over a sceptical electorate by deploying selectively presented propaganda, amplified by our free and fearless press without their remaining so-called journalists bothering to check, and with only a few voices from the Trades Union movement, plus industry experts, in opposition.

Will there still be a ticket office here?

As the BBC has reported, “Train firms plan mass closures of ticket offices”. Do go on. “Train companies are pressing ahead with plans to close hundreds of station ticket offices across England over the next three years … Under the proposals, some ticket kiosks would remain in large stations, but elsewhere staff will be on concourses to sell tickets”. But don’t worry. Because.

“A 21-day public consultation has been launched to collect passengers' views”. There was more. “Posters have gone up in stations, inviting the public to take part, after which the government will make the final decision on which offices will close. Currently around three out of every five stations has a ticket office, although some are only staffed part time”. Meaning what?

Meaning those stations typically offer ticket office service from around 0600 hours to somewhere between 1230 and 1430 hours. Those ticket offices may open on Saturdays, but will almost certainly remain closed on Sundays. Moreover, stations that offer that level of service do not have any other station staff. So there won’t be anyone else “on concourses to sell tickets”.

And what of those mythical “24 hour ticket counters”? The ones described by Tom Harwood of Gammon Broadcasting™ News (“Bacon’s News Channel”) thus: “there are some ticket booths around the country that sell about one ticket a week … These need to be manned all the time”. There are no “24 hour ticket counters”. Not one. Not even in London. Not anywhere in the UK.

We know this as the Nationalrail website has the details under “Stations”. So, by way of an example, let’s start at Crewe, as it’s a very good place to start. The ticket office is NOT open 24 hours. It opens before 0600 hours (just after 0800 hours on Sundays) and closes at 2000 hours (1900 hours at weekends). But there are staff on the barriers and platforms.

Typically, platform staff are there to dispatch trains. But take a trip on four of the six lines taking you away from Crewe, and the story is very different. Let’s go towards Liverpool. Winsford and Hartford have ticket offices but they close early afternoon. There are no other station staff: trains self dispatch. Go further, to Acton Bridge, and there are no station staff at all.

Will there be one here?

How about towards Manchester? Sandbach and Holmes Chapel have ticket offices that close early afternoon. They are closed on Sundays, which is often a very busy time for travel. Go further: Goostrey and Chelford are unstaffed. Trains self dispatch. The first station that has ticket office service into the afternoon, and platform staff, is Wilmslow. And towards Stoke on Trent?

Kidsgrove has a ticket office open during the mornings, but again, not on Sunday. Alsager and Longport are unstaffed. Go towards Shrewsbury and there are no station staff, no ticket offices, nothing. But there are six intermediate stations. Only going towards Chester or Stafford is the first stop a station with both ticket office and platform staff.

So the idea that there are all these stations with superfluous ticket offices, along with station staff with nothing else to do, is just more right-wing claptrap. The railway has already modernised, indeed, this is a process that has been in train for decades, with reductions in station staff coming hard on the heels of the Beeching Report and the subsequent closures.

The Guardian’s take is “Almost 1,000 offices are believed to be targeted for closure under government proposals to cut costs and ‘modernise’ the railway, although ministers have for months shied away from spelling out the extent of the plans, in the face of concern from their own MPs as well as unions and passenger groups”. And remember the view from Crewe.

All those ticket offices would be part of the closure: maybe even Crewe, Chester, Stafford, Wilmslow, Shrewsbury and other major stations. Then remember how intimidating the labyrinthine ticketing system of Britain’s railways can seem to first time users. The station ticket office welcomes the uninitiated. It eases their journey. Its presence encourages repeat travel.

Remember also that the RMT has warned “A process to shut nearly all of Britain’s railway station ticket offices could begin as early as next week”. A process that will be cheered on by the right-wing press, who either don’t travel by train, or when they do, ticket purchase is one of those occasions when they have chaps to do that sort of thing for them.

The Tories will misinform. Their press pals will lie. The public will suffer. Again.

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 becoming a Patron on Patreon at

https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton

Mail Bank Story = PACK OF LIES

As if to advertise as loudly, clumsily and dishonestly that the right-leaning part of our free and fearless press is in lockstep with the Government, is not interested in holding them to account, is not interested in addressing the real world concerns of its readership, and instead is interested only in deflection via crude propaganda, the Mail has run a real front page whopper today.

After former Brexit Party Oberscheissenführer Nigel “Thirsty” Farage had taken out a king-sized onion and blubbered that the Rotten Woke Leftie banking system was agin him, with Coutts shutting down his account allegedly for no reason at all, and that no-one else would offer him an account, the Tories seized the opportunity to start another bogus culture war.

Farage claimed he was being persecuted because of his views; the Tories declared that they would investigate this cancellation of clients by the aforesaid Rotten Woke Leftie banking system. And so it came to pass that, rather than give the Tories a hard time over their inept handling of the economy, the NHS, and indeed anything else, the Mail went totally OTT.

“After Nigel Farage row, growing storm over accounts shut for political reasons … BANKS FACE PROBE INTO ‘CHILLING’ ACCOUNT CLOSURES” thundered the headline. There was more. “Banks are facing a Treasury investigation into claims they are closing customers' accounts because they do not like their views on controversial topics”. Really? Do go on.

“City minister Andrew Griffith has been asked to look into allegations that over-zealous lenders are blocking clients without good reason. A Tory MP who previously ran the banking industry's trade body warned that the practice would have a 'chilling effect' on free speech. It comes after leading Brexiteer Nigel Farage and an Anglican priest claimed their accounts were closed due to disagreements with their banks”. Allegations. Claims.

Who is this Tory MP? “Conservative MP Anthony Browne, a former chief executive of the British Bankers' Association, said people were increasingly having their accounts shut down for saying something the lender disagrees with”. No citation. And I suspect none will be forthcoming.

But there were a number of right-wing talking heads who didn’t see the media coming. Like, for instance, “Tory grandee Sir Charles Walker told GB News: 'We should be concerned - banks have been closing the bank accounts of politicians now for about six or seven years with very little reason to do so. This is just a continuing trend’”. No citation there, either.

Farage, like his fellow Brexiteer, disgraced former alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, is a congenital liar. There was clearly something about his claims to have been cancelled by the Rotten Woke Leftie banking system that we were not being told. There had to be a straightforward explanation. And so it came to pass.

BBC Business Editor Simon Jack had asked Coutts, and they responded. “Nigel Farage fell below the financial threshold required to hold an account at Coutts … It also understood that he was offered a normal account at Natwest which owns Coutts”. So he ISN’T being refused a bank account by everyone.

What the f***'s my photo here for, c***?!?!?

He went on “People familiar with the matter rejected the notion that the decision to close his Coutts account was in any way political … ‘it was for commercial reasons - the criteria for holding a Coutts account are clear from the bank's website’”. So what say Nige when confronted by the facts?

“Mr Farage disputed the fact that he was offered a Natwest account at the time his Coutts accounts were withdrawn. He says offer of a Natwest account came late last week … The offer of a Natwest account still stands”. As to the other account, well: “Mr Farage also said that his business account for ‘Thorn in the Side Limited’ was closed”. Yes? Yes yes? Yes yes yes?

“Despite the fact that last year he had what he described as ‘large significant positive cash balances’ going through his business account … Coutts do not offer business banking services to customers who are not also private customers”. So the personal account goes, the business account goes, too. That means, Mail readers, you’ve been had. And not for the first time.

It also means that Farage has been rumbled. The Tories ordering an investigation that isn’t going to happen into something that’s not happening have been rumbled. And those labouring in the service of the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre have been rumbled. As Gordon Brown told Damian McBride all those years ago, “Don’t. It’s the lie that gets you”.

The Tories could, of course, try doing some governing. And the Mail could try reporting what’s actually happening in the world. Just a thought.

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 becoming a Patron on Patreon at

https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton

Clarkson Still Got Away With It

It was back in December that the Murdoch Sun published a column by has-been petrolhead Jeremy Clarkson in which he engaged in a creepy, sexist and indeed misogynistic attack on the Duchess of Sussex. So severe was the level of creepiness employed that adverse comment, in the form of tens of thousands of complaints to press non-regulator IPSO, soon followed.

Why that should be is not hard to deduce when you consider what Jezza wrote: “Meghan, though, is a different story. I hate her. Not like I hate Nicola Sturgeon or Rose West. I hate her on a cellular level … At night, I’m unable to sleep as I lie there, grinding my teeth and dreaming of the day when she is made to parade naked through the streets of every town in Britain while the crowds chant ‘Shame!’ and throw lumps of excrement at her”. All heart, eh?

He went on to claim “Everyone who’s my age thinks the same way”. Bullshit. And, in case you missed it, he said Megs was worse than a mass murderer. Worse still, his column appeared just three days after he and a number of other C-listers had been guests at a lunch hosted by the Queen Consort.

Who is, apparently, not Haz and Megs’ biggest fan. But, as Zelo Street regulars will know, the offending column was merely “An opinion piece”, so IPSO would do nothing. Their problem was the court of public opinion had in the meantime sided firmly with the Sussexes, despite the tsunami of bad faith knocking copy and broadcast appearances by those opposed to them.

This was despite Clarkson telling anyone who would listen that he was “horrified” (straight-A fuck right off) and the Sun taking down the online version of his handiwork. It was despite Sun editor Victoria Newton being gifted an appearance on the Kuenssberg show, where the offending column was not mentioned and she got to tell how nice they were to the Sussexes.

Almost as if the BBC were complicit in letting Jezza get away with it. But the backlash against his creepy column, together with how bad it looked that the Sun’s editors and lawyers were prepared to pass it for publication at the same time as the Sussexes were engaged in legal action against the Murdoch press, eventually caused something to be done. But not very much.

The BBC has reported, “A column by Jeremy Clarkson in the Sun - in which he wrote about the Duchess of Sussex being paraded naked in the street - was sexist, the press regulator has ruled … The imagery was ‘humiliating and degrading towards the duchess’, Ipso chairman Lord Faulks said … the Sun said it ‘accepts that with free expression comes responsibility’”. Yeah, right.

Do go on. “The Sun and its columnist apologised for the column last December and removed the article from its website. However while it has said the column fell ‘short of its high editorial standards and should not have been published’ it has not accepted that it breached the editor's code, saying concerns raised were a ‘matter of taste and judgement’”.

The Sun? “High editorial standards”? You’re having a laugh. As Sunder Katwala observed (see full thread HERE), “The decision has taken six months, largely because this article would not have breached the code, if Ipso applied it prior understanding of the code [IPSO excused Katie Hopkins’ ‘cockroaches’ rant]. Ipso appears to have decided (for reputational reasons) to have found the withdrawn article in breach of the code in hindsight”.

He also notes that “Clarkson is the first ever partial breach on sexism. There has never been a racism finding … [the Editor’s Code] has v few prohibitions on sexist or racist speech. Is there any point at all in an anti-discrimination clause that would still give a green light to Streicher or Goebbels?” POINT.

And as Professor Brian Cathcart put it in an article for Byline Times, “this outcome represents a triumphant vindication for all those who complained, because IPSO’s past record leaves no doubt that it would never have upheld such a complaint had there not been a tidal wave of public anger behind it”.

He concludes “With complaints about the notorious column on the grounds of harassment, inaccuracy and racial discrimination dismissed by IPSO, this ruling will have no effect on the conduct of the press”. None at all. Remember, the BBC had the chance to grill Victoria Newton on this episode last December, and instead ended up with Laura Kuenssberg wiping her arse.

Today’s Sun has a one-line teaser “JEREMY CLARKSON: IPSO UPHOLDS COMPLAINT - SEE PAGE 17” at the foot of its front page. Not “THIS PAPER PUBLISHED A SLICE OF HATE SPEECH SO VILE THAT IT HAD TO BE TAKEN DOWN TWO DAYS LATER”. Once again, it is as if Leveson never happened. Our free and fearless press will just carry on as before.

IPSO actually took action. But Clarkson and the Sun still got away with it.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by becoming a Patron on Patreon at

https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton

Farage Bank Doesn’t Give Two Coutts

Former Brexit Party Oberscheissenführer Nigel “Thirsty” Farage has tried so hard to play the ordinary bloke over the years, even resorting in 2017 to telling anyone who would listen that he was “53, separated and skint” … adding “there’s no money in politics”. That would be For Some Value Of Skint, where “Skint” equals “having well north of a million notes in the bank”.

Because it was later reported, and effectively confirmed by The Great Man yesterday, as he took out a king-sized onion and played the victim for one time too many, Nige banks at Coutts, where you are expected to maintain an account balance of at least one million Pounds. He was never skint. And there was always enough money in politics to maintain that account.

Like his equally unprincipled contemporary, disgraced former alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, he talks well, but lies badly. So what was his schtick? “I’ve been living with something for the last couple of months that may fundamentally affect my future career … and whether I can even stay living in this country”. Don’t get our hopes up, now.

But there was more. “I have been with the same banking group since 1980 … I’m with one of the subsidiaries of this big banking group, one with a very prestigious name [oh what a giveaway] … I got a phone call a couple of months ago to say ‘we are closing your accounts’. I asked why. No reason was given … I went to seven other banks and asked, can I have a personal and a business account, and the answer has been no”. Do go on.

“There was nothing irregular or unusual about what I do … why is this happening to me?” He then rambles on about EU definition of a Politically Exposed Person, one who may be open to bribery or other leverage by an external state actor. But we’re no longer in the EU. Not convincing.

Then he dumps on the banks themselves. “The banks … are part of the big corporate structures in this country. These are the organisations that did not want Brexit”. Everyone’s agin him, he’s a victim, woe is he. Then he comes up with someone else he can blame for his own misfortune.

“A few months ago, in the House of Commons, Sir Chris Bryant … said, using Parliamentary privilege, that I had received large sums of money directly from the Russian Government, and he named the calendar year in which it had happened. The truth is, I didn’t receive a penny from any source with even any link to Russia … I wrote to the Speaker. I demanded an apology … I wonder whether that is what’s given me part of the problem”.

So he doesn’t know, he’s just guessing, but why not start a pile-on out of spite? Bryant later noted “I have been called all sorts today. Some of it is highly actionable. A lot is nasty, vicious, spiteful and homophobic. So what? Well yes it’s water off a duck’s back and I never stop standing up for what I believe. But why do we allow politics to be such a sewer?”

No bank worth its credibility is going to shut down accounts on the say-so of Chris Bryant, or any other MP. This thought was not allowed to enter as Nige’s pals weighed in. “We call ourselves a democracy, but our banks are increasingly refusing to serve politicians with views they don’t like. What’s happened to [Nigel Farage] is NOT a one off” whined Isabel Oakeshott.

Sadly, she missed telling us who else had been treated so despicably. And, although LBC host Iain Dale and former Murdoch editor Andrew Neil joined those passing severely adverse comment on those who were agin poor Nige, Jim Pickard, deputy political editor of the FT, cautioned “I would want to know more about the state of his finances, the sources of his income, and the names of all the banks, before making any conclusion either way”.

Law lecturer Rob Palmer reminded Mr Thirsty “Nige, this (your bank accounts being closed) only usually happens if money laundering or illegal activity is suspected. They won't comment because it can impede a criminal investigation. Please, stop gaslighting”. Nige did not stop gaslighting.

As the presence known as Otto English observed, Farage went on Gammon Broadcasting™ News (“Bacon’s News Channel”) yesterday evening and, backed up by the caption “FARAGE CANCELLED BY BANK”, blubbered “For once, I’m pretty thoughtful … about whether it’s worth living in this country … so what I am going to do is to take some time off”. Tell us more.

“Take a week or two off, maybe more, to consider what my next steps are going to be. This is going on in our country [no shit, Sherlock]. It’s happening to plenty of people. I just happen to be one of them”. Has he parted company with GB News? What would cause such a rupture to occur? His show is the channel’s top rated programme. And one other thought has entered.

The perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog, so often Farage cheerleaders, have not as yet even mentioned Mr Thirsty’s little local difficulty. Why might that be? Whatever the answer, we should wait for the facts to emerge, not merely a partial version from The Great Man.

Meanwhile, let’s see which country is prepared to have him. Bye bye Nige.

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 becoming a Patron on Patreon at

https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton

Bozo’s Gofers Face Contempt Rap

This week is turning out to be a bad one for the Government, the Tory party more generally, and the legacy of disgraced former alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. And as of this morning, it is turning out to be an especially difficult week for those who have been fetching and carrying for Bozo, as the Privileges Committee has rounded upon them.

While the punditerati has been digesting the bad news from the Court of Appeal - that the Tories’ so-called Rwanda Policy has been deemed illegal, with the BBC reporting that “Rwanda had not provided sufficient safeguards to prove it is a ‘safe third country’, senior Court of Appeal judges ruled in a split decision”, there has been more bad news for Bozo’s faithful acolytes.

As the Beeb has also reported, “Former ministers Nadine Dorries and Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg have been accused of waging a co-ordinated campaign to interfere with a Commons investigation into Boris Johnson …the committee accused the allies of Mr Johnson of mounting ‘vociferous attacks’ on its work … The report suggested attempts to ‘impugn the integrity of the committee’ or ‘lobby or intimidate’ committee members could be a contempt of Parliament”.

Any names being pitched? There certainly are: “Former Home Secretary Dame Priti Patel and serving Foreign Office Minister Lord Zac Goldsmith were also among the seven MPs and three peers identified as attacking the committee. The others [included] Tory MPs Mark Jenkinson, Sir Michael Fabricant, Brendan Clarke-Smith and Dame Andrea Jenkyns”.

One does not need to wonder for too long as to who nominated all those Sirs, Dames and one Lord for their gongs. Or, following the sneering and dismissive reaction of Bozo boosters the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog, how the pro-Johnson press will react.

There was more. “The report, by the cross-party Privileges Committee, said ‘unprecedented and co-ordinated pressure’ was placed on committee members, which … raised significant security concerns … It pointed to ‘disturbing’ comments on social media and TV, which it said amounted to a ‘co-ordinated campaign to interfere with the work of the committee’”.

Do go on. “Referencing Ms Dorries's show on TalkTV and Sir Jacob's GB News role, the committee added that two of the individuals mounting ‘the most vociferous attacks’ used their own TV programmes as a platform to do so. Ms Dorries … described the committee as a ‘kangaroo court’, Sir Jacob [called] it ‘a political committee against Boris Johnson’”.

And while Rees Mogg and Clarke Smith, among others, have tried to claim that this is about their FREEZE PEACH, “The committee's report said free speech was ‘at the heart of parliamentary democracy’, but some politicians had interfered with disciplinary proceedings set up by the Commons in an ‘unacceptable’ way”. Also, the attacks did not enjoy Parliamentary immunity.

Worse news for Bozo’s pals was that “Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt said the fact a debate had been scheduled on the report showed ‘how seriously the government takes these matters’ … She added that it was ‘vital’ that MPs were prepared to serve on the Privileges Committee”. And not be intimidated by unprincipled charlatans like Bozo. And his useful idiots.

Or intimidated by the Bozo fan club in our free and fearless press. As LBC host James O’Brien has observed, “The direction of travel to a place where politicians accuse their colleagues of running 'kangaroo courts' & 'withc-hunts' was determined when Paul Dacre started attacking High Court judges & serving MPs with mug-shot style photographs & 'Enemies of the People' headlines”. The Mail will resume its campaign of hatred tomorrow.

After all, the Daily Brexit, still called the Express, attempted to intimidate the Appeal Court judges this morning with its howling “DON’T YOU DARE BLOCK BOATS BILL”, and a “source” telling “We will not be doing this the polite way. There will be a showdown”. More hate speech.

But there is a silver lining: if those MPs who went after the Privileges Committee in order to defend the indefensible are confirmed to be in contempt of Parliament, a decent length suspension and we could be looking at a string of by-elections which the Tories are ideally equipped to lose. All featuring defending Tory candidates the Commons could well do without.

And all the while, a General Election gets nearer. Just rejoice at that news.

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 becoming a Patron on Patreon at

https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton

Sadiq Bashing Not Racist, Honestly

The competition, such as it is, for the Tory nomination to challenge Labour incumbent Sadiq Khan for the London Mayoralty has produced a shortlist so underwhelming that even the Evening Standard - formerly unswerving supporters of Tory hopefuls - has run a front page today asking the all-too-obvious question “HAVE THE TORIES GIVEN UP ON LONDON”?

An editorial makes the further claim that Sadiq Khan is “beatable”, on the basis of a single YouGov poll from April, where 50% of those responding said the Mayor was doing “badly”. As a similar percentage said the same thing about Rishi Sunak, the argument goes that, with the right candidate, The Blue Team could win the capital. That’s a serious voting day extrapolation.

There is an awful lot of straw-clutching and false optimism going on here. The Standard does at least give a brutally honest assessment of the three Tory hopefuls, not least Daniel Korski, now standing accused of groping a woman at a Downing Street meeting some years back. The party isn’t going to bar him from the shortlist. So now his accuser has made her complaint formal.

Another of the three, Moz Hussein, was “most famous for employing in his campaign members of staff who appeared in the lockdown-busting ‘jingle and mingle’ party”. And the third hopeful? Susan Hall, of whom the Standard notes “her values will not necessarily chime with a majority of Londoners, given her support for Donald Trump and her comparison of anti-Brexit protests with those who stormed the US Capitol.”

Could it get worse? Don’t ask: “She has also suggested the black community has ‘problems with crime’ and found time to call reality TV star Gemma Collins a ‘stupid fat blonde woman’”.There was also her slavish devotion to disgraced former alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.

“Brilliant speech as is so often the case from [Boris Johnson] - we must never forget, he gave us Brexit - the incredible vaccine roll out and absolute support to Ukraine. Thank you Boris … Boris has my full support, he got Brexit done, secured us life changing vaccines and is a hero in the Ukraine for his help. Now is certainly not time to change”. And she watches GB News.

That much the Standard has spot-on. One tainted by sex pest allegations, another by closeness to lockdown busting, and a third who gives the impression of being away with the fairies. Where the paper goes wrong is the idea that just putting up a half decent candidate - Justine Greening gets a mention here - will see off Sadiq Khan. They are plan flat wrong.

Because, whatever hope one YouGov poll may have brought the Tories, the reality is that much of the opposition to Sadiq Khan does not emanate from the capital’s electorate. Like all the abuse that followed his decision to expand London’s Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). And the latest example of this phenomenon came yesterday following his Refugee Week speech.

The Mayor posted a Tweet telling “This city was built by migrants. By refugees … In the face of hostile, draconian and immoral immigration policies across Europe, we must all show more compassion towards those fleeing their country for a safer life” and almost immediately was shouted down as a “liar” by lots of blue tick accounts with Very Few Actual Followers.

Or blue tick accounts that give every appearance of being based outside the UK. Or blue tick accounts out there on the extreme right. Or a combination of these attributes. So much dissent, much of it abusive but not at all racist, honestly, was generated that at some point yesterday evening a Community Note, also not racist, honestly, was appended to the original Tweet.

It read “The city of London was founded around the year 50 AD. It was built up over nearly two thousand years by people we today call the English. It was not built by migrants/refugees, but by those native to the British Isles”. Bigotry, much? The Community Note has now, thankfully, been removed, but the point has been made. The anti-Sadiq hatred isn’t coming from London.

And let’s not kid ourselves: 99% of the pile-on would not have happened, had the Mayor not been one of those Scary Muslims™. Sadiq Khan is trying to make a positive change for Londoners, and when they get to the ballot box, they will remember that. They won’t care about the racist social media pile-ons, or, indeed, the hyper-partisan whining of the Tories.

If he wants a third term, it’s his for the taking. Just rejoice at that news.

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 becoming a Patron on Patreon at

https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton