Welcome To Zelo Street!

This is a blog of liberal stance and independent mind

Saturday, 27 March 2021

Dan Wootton Cancel Culture Hypocrisy

Now on his way from the Murdoch Sun and TalkRADIO to become a presenter for GB News, and to write for Mail Online, the deeply unpleasant Dan Wootton has let the world know that he has lost none of his ability to talk well, but lie badly. Nor has he lost his touch when it comes to highly selective recollection of past events.

Behold the acme of upstanding and erudite journalism

So it was that he saw the departure of Sharon Osbourne - another singularly unpleasant individual of little discernible ability - from CBS show The Talk, selectively managed to miss the very good reasons for her leaving and not coming back, and declared that Ms Osbourne was not merely a victim, but had been the target of Cancel Culture.


Off the end of the pier went Wootton. “Sharon Osbourne forced off The Talk for defending Piers Morgan's right to have an opinion about Meghan's provable fibs during Oprah interview... but cancel culture doesn't exist. YEAH RIGHT! Shameful decision by CBS putting freedom of speech in the media under further threat”. See, FREEZE PEACH!


There was more. “And btw, I'm no fan of Sharon Osbourne. She's foul-mouthed, rude and difficult. BUT I respect her right to speak her mind”. Sadly, as Dan probably knows, this was about rather more than being “foul mouthed, rude and difficult”. Shaz’ departure from The Talk, as Yashar Ali has pointed out, comes after many years of bad behaviour.

She had racially abused more than one of her co-workers. She had made seriously derogatory comments about one LGBT co-worker. She is known to have lied about some of her racist comments. She has a long history of bullying behaviour. And talking of Megs, which Wootton was, Yashar Ali pointed out, “In a 2018 episode of “The Talk,” Osbourne said of Meghan: ‘She ain’t Black!’ When her co-hosts told Osbourne that she was indeed Black, Osbourne said, ‘She doesn’t look Black’”. His conclusion was damning.

Sharon Osbourne ((c) CBS)

For years, Osbourne has spoken unfiltered publicly with little to no consequence. Her comments have often been celebrated, or in some cases waved off, as the musings of a bold and brash woman who ‘talks just like the boys do,’ according to one source. But for the first time in her career as a TV personality, Osbourne may be facing accountability for her language and behavior”. It’s not cancel culture. It’s consequences.

And none of those concerned have lost their freedom of speech - neither Wootton in departing the Sun, nor Piers Morgan in throwing a mardy strop and walking out on ITV Good Morning Britain, nor Sharon Osbourne. They are all able to speak freely, and most likely find some media outlet gullible enough to broadcast their thoughts.

Cancel culture, you say, Dan? Remember her, Dan?

But one person Dan Wootton knew well, or claimed to have known well in the retelling, no longer has the ability to speak freely. Because she was called Caroline Flack, and she’s dead. Dead after our free and fearless press, with Dan Wootton and his fellow Sun reptiles in the vanguard, cheerfully trashed her reputation on a daily basis. And in the aftermath of her death, blamed anyone and everyone else for what he and his pals had done.

That really was cancel culture. What happened to Shaz was not. Hello Dan Wootton.


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/zelostreet8

Friday, 26 March 2021

BBC Commemorates IRA Bombing

The BBC’s supposedly flagship political debate show Question Time gives the appearance each week of having fallen a very long way from the days when it was hosted by Robin Day and David Dimbleby, but few could have predicted the unforgivably tin-eared decision to use last night’s edition to give a platform to an unrepentant apologist for terrorism.


Because yesterday marked 28 years to the day since the IRA bombing in Warrington which claimed the lives of two young boys, Tim Parry and Jonathan Ball. So who should the programme not have allowed anywhere near its panel on such an occasion? What would a sensible booker have done? What would Nietzsche have done?

Claire Fox

Anyone with brain plugged in and a hole in their backside should never, but never, have invited someone on who had backed the so-called Armed Struggle, even to the extent of refusing every offer to renounce their previously espoused views. But whoever was booking panellists for Question Time wasn’t listening. They booked Claire Fox.


Claire Fox. She of the genocide deniers, those excusing the idea of imprisoned paedophiles having access to child porn, and yes, IRA backers. The BBC invited her on to the Question Time panel on the anniversary of the Warrington bombing. This turned out to be a campaign that developed not necessarily to their advantage.


Some responses to the news of Ms Fox’ presence merely hinted at the blowback to come, with “I take it the virtual audience isn't from Warrington this week then”, “Nice timing, just after the anniversary of the IRA murders in Warrington”, and one Tweeter who posted photos of the two murdered boys and asked “Remember this?” Then it got worse.


Miffy Buckley put the question more directly: “A horrible symmetry that on a day like today, one of the biggest cheerleaders of the Warrington Bombing & IRA, Claire Fox, is tonight being given the VIP treatment by the BBC, when she’ll appear on [BBC Question Time]. What on earth is the BBC thinking?” Mark Cunliffe was markedly less subtle.


I see that [BBC Question Time] has decided to roll out the ever hate-filled evil [Claire Fox]. Strange how she never apologised for defending the IRA bombing that sadly caused the tragic loss of life for Colin's children. Traitor, now put into the House of Lords by Johnson”. Former Labour MP Jeff Rooker added “Have I got this right? On the anniversary of killing of Tim Parry the BBC puts Claire Fox on Question Time. It beggars belief and I assume if correct it is deliberate”. Why did the QT production company not realise its error?


Others were dismissive of the appearance. “#questiontime having #clairefox on, in the anniversary week of the Warrington bombing is an absolute disgrace, she’s an ignorant IRA apologist!” was one response. “In a week that marks 28 years since the Warrington bombing that killed two children, why are you hosting Claire Fox on Question Time? That is sickening and an obscenity. Where are your values? I will not watch. What an insult to the families of those 2 boys! Sick” was another. Someone fouled up. Big time.


Of course, Ms Fox could have pointed out the unfortunate coincidence herself, and declined the invitation. That she did not suggests the anniversary means little to her.

Question Time was for a time, but not for all time. At least, not with its current custodians.


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/zelostreet8

Thursday, 25 March 2021

Flag Shagging - A Warning From History

It is no longer part of living memory, and now exists merely as another episode of past history, all too often reinterpreted to suit propagandists and other bad faith actors. The relatively short, yet genocidal and destructive time of the Nazi régime in Germany has lessons for all of us, although many will not want to learn the less convenient ones.

And I have to say, Mr Speaker, How Tickled I Ham ...

One of those lessons is that, apart from what was effectively state control of media, to provide the means by which the propaganda could be disseminated, the Third Reich depended heavily on symbolism. Symbolism of uniform, symbolism of gesture (the Nazi salute, for instance), symbolism of physical prowess, and symbolism of, well, symbols.

And there was no Nazi symbol more enduring than the swastika, presented as a military standard, or simply as part of a flag. Waved by enthusiastic Germans, leading columns of troops, and yes, flown from public buildings, the Nazi flag was ever present. It was, to use the current vernacular, a time of intense and committed flag shagging.


Respect for the flag. The flag flying from public buildings. All of this transmitted to the people by a compliant media. And once the symbolism is in place, all else follows: the increasing demonisation of anyone exposing the less than perfect governance of the country (“stop doing the country down”), for instance, is already well established.

Yes, well established in the UK. Here and now. As is that compliant media: today, the increasingly desperate and downmarket Telegraph tells “Union flag to fly from Government buildings”, with the ominous quote “Our nation’s flag is a symbol of liberty, unity and freedom that creates a shared sense of civic pride”. It does that all by itself? Wow.

Where flag shagging can lead

There was more. “[Oliver] Dowden [the Culture Secretary] … said that the Union Flag ‘unites us as a nation and people rightly expect it to be flown above UK Government buildings’ … Although the guidance only applies to Government buildings, local authorities and organisations will be encouraged ‘to follow suit where they wish to fly flags’”.

How might that “encouragement” manifest itself? But we already know that, after the BBC, under its new and conspicuously cowardly DG Tim Davie, caved in to attacks by the Tories and their press allies and carpeted two presenters who had the audacity to make a light-hearted aside at Dowden’s colleague Robert Jenrick. Encouragement, indeed.


But, you may say, we have human rights. We have safeguards. We have freedom of speech, and of expression. And all of this is, at present, true. Sadly, we also have insidious propaganda - “people rightly expect”, on the basis, of, er, nothing, actually - and a compliant media capable of demonising those of inconvenient thought.

That compliant media is also well versed in demonising the other. It has already cheered to the rafters a series of moves to stifle the right to protest. It has already honed its skills in attacking a series of minorities. And meanwhile, the far right becomes emboldened, while the population are instructed by that same compliant media to Look Over There at the left.

Flag shagging keeps enough of the people in line, and sufficiently distracted, to cover for further suppression of rights and freedoms. By the time the penny has dropped, it will be too late. The country will have been sold down the river. Here endeth the history lesson.


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/zelostreet8

Wednesday, 24 March 2021

Sarah Vine Condemns Herself

Another day, another sad and pointless whining exercise by the unappealing roster of what passes for punditry at the Northcliffe House bunker. Today, it is Sarah “Vain” Vine’s turn to dutifully churn out knocking copy aimed at the Sussexes, merely because Haz and Megs have humiliated the Mail titles in the courts, and no court victory against Associated Newspapers can be allowed to rest without a little vindictive payback.


So what would Madam care to pony up in her quest to slag off the Sussexes? Ah, but of course: they cast doubt on the Mail on Sunday’s veracity by besting the paper in court. So the order of the day is to tell readers that they’re the ones you really can’t trust. And so it came to pass: “If Meghan Markle was wrong about the wedding, how can we believe anything else in her Oprah interview?” One thing is wrong, so everything else is wrong.

Do go on. “Despite what they told Oprah, they were not, after all, married three days before the royal wedding, on May 19, 2018, by the Archbishop of Canterbury … How romantic, how touching. No doubt that was the point of telling the story. Except the Archbishop didn't marry them. By all accounts he administered a blessing; but it was not their wedding”. Who gives a flying foxtrot? They exchanged vows early. So what?

Sarah who?

On drones Ms Vine. “If she is wrong about the wedding, then what else is she wrong about? How do we know that when she speaks her truth, it is the actual fact of the matter rather than her, or Harry's, Hollywood-tinted interpretation?” Sneer. Snipe. Scratch. Condescending sniff. And then Sarah Vine suffers the ultimate self-awareness fail.

Because if you are going to accuse people of doing terrible things … you have to make sure you are on solid ground. The moment you allow yourself to embellish things, or attempt to cast the facts in a different light, you undermine your case. You become your own unreliable witness, and no one knows what to believe any more”. Er, HELLO?


Accusing others of doing terrible things, while embellishing things, or attempting to cast facts in a different light, er, is EXACTLY WHAT SARAH VINE DOES EVERY TIME SHE WRITES ONE OF HER GOD-AWFUL COLUMNS. Like the one where she makes that claim. And when it comes to the actions of her husband, it only gets worse.

Michael “Oiky” Gove (for it is he) spent the whole of the EU referendum campaign accusing others of doing terrible things, while embellishing for all he was worth. The result is that an increasing number of businesses are discovering that the Brexit utopia “Oiky” and his pals promised them is, in reality, a short-cut to rundown and ruin.


Worse still, Gove the journalist was probably the source of the Murdoch Sun’s fraudulent “QUEEN BACKS BREXIT” front page claim. So Ms Vine knows all about misrepresenting matters Royal. And she’s not finished: “The fact is that these are two of the most judgmental people on the planet”. YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND CERTAINLY ARE.

She could have written this about herself and “Oiky”: “These two are so wrapped up in their cloak of righteousness … Who cares what the peasants back home think? … future political ambitions …Perhaps they just couldn't give a fig”. Digging herself yet deeper.

Sarah Vine is not yet the world’s worst columnist. But you can see it from 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 adding to its Just Giving page at

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet8

Bozo, A Year Of Covid, And Whitewash

Yesterday marked one year from the day when alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson finally ordered restrictions on movement as the Covid-19 pandemic began to spread among the UK’s population. Depending on which measure you choose, anywhere from 126,000 to 147,000 lives have been lost to the virus, with Bozo’s inept dithering a serious contributor. But you might not get that from the media coverage.

You're not fooling anyone, matey

Instead of an obscenely selfish, uncaring, inept, dishonest, unprincipled, untrustworthy and clueless narcissist, Bozo is today presented as a changed man, haunted by guilt over a death toll that almost included Himself. The puke-making portrayal of a modern-day Churchill is nowhere more evident than in the pages of the Daily Mail.

Here, below yet more vicious sneering at the Sussexes from the sad and jealous Sarah “Vain” Vine, readers are told “Visibly shattered, PM’s painful confession on night nation mourned Covid catastrophe … THIS WILL HAUNT ME FOR AS LONG AS I LIVE” with the supporting propaganda telling “At a sombre press conference on the anniversary of the first lockdown, he admitted ‘many’ mistakes over the past 12 months”. There was more.

A front page of total tosh ...

But the Prime Minister said he had faced ‘very, very hard decisions’ while grappling with a ‘callous and invisible enemy’”. And to that I call bullshit. Imposing restrictions - hardly a “lockdown”, given we were all able to exercise, shop and to some extent travel - was not a “very, very hard decision”. It was a very straightforward decision indeed.

The problem with Bozo was his inability to take that decision. Faced with a cohort of moaning back benchers banging on about their freedom, cherishing his reputation as some kind of great libertarian - a pack of lies, as anyone who had covered his time as Mayor of London will know - and his known inability to make the call, he dithered fatally.

... to deflect calls for a public inquiry

Not only did he dither fatally in March last year, he again dithered fatally in September as calls mounted for “circuit breaker” restrictions to be imposed. Then he dithered fatally under fire from our free and fearless press over allowing folks to meet up over Christmas - and imposing the latest clampdown. The result? Tens of thousands more deaths.

This would be exposed very quickly by a public inquiry into the pandemic, and his handling of it. So, to no surprise at all, Bozo doesn’t want one. In this, his pals in the media establishment will back him to the hilt. Instead, the blame shifting is lining up the rotten EU for any further increase in infections and deaths, while declaring “a fitting and permanent memorial to the loved ones we have lost and to commemorate this whole period”.


Yes, Look Over There at a wonderful new memorial. Well, excuse me for not giving a rat’s arse about yet another waste of public funds in order to cover for Bozo. After billions sprayed up the wall on Test And Trace, NHS staff screwed over after their heroic efforts, front line workers needlessly sacrificed, the lies about herd immunity, shaking hands with Covid patients and blaming others for his shortcomings, he has to be held to account.

Boris Johnson is not some heroic latter-day Churchill. He’s an inadequate egomaniac who is maintained in power by his media pals and a party frightened of being exposed as a corrupt, venal and uncaring shower laughing in the face of the electorate. That the Tories and their pals don’t want a public inquiry means one thing. We need a public inquiry.


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/zelostreet8

Tuesday, 23 March 2021

Teaboy Tom In Scots Legal Doo-Doo

The value of information from Wikipedia rests on two factors: the prompt policing of rogue edits, and the quality of citations. Neither of these appeared yesterday to trouble Tom Harwood, replacement teaboy to the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines at the Guido Fawkes blog, and as a result could land him in serious legal trouble.

What time is it Eccles?

Teaboy Tom was once again pretending to be a real journalist after news broke that Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon had been cleared of breaching the ministerial code over the Alex Salmond ruckus. The independent inquiry, led by James Hamilton SC, the former Irish DPP, concluded she had not knowingly misled a committee of MSPs.


This conclusion was bad news for the Tory Party, who had put down a motion of no confidence in Ms Sturgeon - and, indeed, a rebuke to Tories south of the border for whom breaking the ministerial code is an all too regular occurrence. It was soon bad news for Harwood, as he leapt before looking and took a rogue Wikipedia edit on trust.


Interesting edits taking place on James Hamilton's wikipedia page today. Some users seem intent on removing lines stating that the report author is a former SNP adviser and member of the party. Interesting given his report clears Sturgeon”. The users seeking to remove that reference were right. It had no citation, because it was not true.

This Tweet was later deleted

Then Harwood overreached himself. “Politician cleared by member of politician’s own party” he asserted. And although he later deleted the Tweet, demonstrating that no teaboy is of perfect courage, his intervention had been quoted several times. It did not help his cause to have also referred to part of Hamilton’s conclusions as “fishy”.


Ross McCafferty was one of those responding. “This is the first I've ever seen a claim that James Hamilton is a member if the SNP. Law of averages would suggest Tom is talking utter bollocks”. Another Tweeter asked the obvious question: “why would the former Irish DPP and former head of the AG office in Ireland be an SNP member?


After perusing Harwood’s handiwork, James Doleman, who knows a little about matters legal north of the border, mused “Gutsy move spreading untruths about … one of the most senior and distinguished lawyers in the country, some might even say brave to the point of indifference to the possible consequences”. Like a defamation action.

A big Scots boy did it and ran away

Harwood then decided it was Wikipedia’s fault. “The lines stating Hamilton was associated with the SNP were on the page last week and removed this afternoon. Before last week there was a lot less activity on the page. Wikipedia: a front in the information war”. The smears have continued this morning with his pal Christian Calgie, the Fawkes apprentice sandwich monitor, once again attacking Ms Sturgeon. And once again without citations.


This latest desperate act is headlined “HOLYROOD INQUIRY CONFIRMS FINDINGS THAT STURGEON ‘MISLED’ THE COMMITTEE OVER ALEX SALMOND MEETING” - note use of quote marks - and pitches the lame conclusion “If she misled the committee, she’s misled Parliament. If she misled Parliament, she’s breached the ministerial code”.

Hardly going to distract James Hamilton from carpeting the Teaboy, though, is it? The Fawkes “star” caught lying again, and GB News’ judgment as suspect as ever. Bless.


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/zelostreet8

Monday, 22 March 2021

Bristol - Farage Does A Racism

A demonstration against the Tories’ Police and Crime Bill, which will make many forms of peaceful protest illegal, was held in the city of Bristol yesterday. This was initially peaceful, but later became violent, with Police officers injured and one of their vans torched. Alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson claimed that the scenes were “unacceptable”, and that “They should protest peacefully and legally”.

Nige's latest tactic is to be more like ...

That would be the peaceful protest that is about to be made illegal, of course. In the aftermath, our free and fearless press, and rather a lot of politicians, decided without asking too many questions to condemn the protesters. Their only problem was deciding whose fault it would be, because it couldn’t possibly be the Tories’ proposed Bill.

... an enabler for domestic terrorism

Meanwhile, domestic terrorism facilitator Andy Ngo picked up on events in Bristol, about which he was soon talking well, but lying badly. “Bristol is the Portland of the UK, I’m told” he claimed, then had a think about it, and decided it really was. “Scenes of intense violence played out in #Bristol (‘England's Portland’) when far-left rioters attacked officers outside the police station”. Then he decided who he would blame.


The #Bristol protesters held hammer & sickle banners, & raised symbols of antifa. The main groups to call for people to show up were BLM & Extinction Rebellion (among others), who put out digital flyers”. Lying all the way. And he soon had an ally: step forward former Brexit Party OberscheissenfĂ¼hrer Nigel “Thirsty” Farage, who also blamed BLM.


In Bristol tonight we see what the soft-headed approach to the anti-police BLM leads to. Wake up everyone, this is not about racial justice. These people want all-out anarchy and street violence … The BLM protests were anti-police, it is a key goal of the organisation. The worrying events in Bristol tonight are an extension of that. We have given into and encouraged the extreme left, and this is the result”. Just like Andy Ngo.


In other words, just another enabler for the bigots, just another one making it up for personal gain, just another purveyor of crude racism. The response pointed out the obvious. “Where are the BLM protestors? I can only see a crowd of white faces” and “Of course, it's Black lives matters fault a mostly white crowd caused a riot. You keep spewing out your Racist crap why don't you” were typical replies. And there was more.


Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, who you can tell as she’s a doctor, was not happy. “What’s [the] #BristolProtest got to do with #BlackLivesMatter? It's only because UK is institutionally racist that you ALWAYS get away with using RACIST rhetoric to deflect & distract, WHILE YOU FAN THE VIOLENT FLAMES OF #WhiteSupremacy … You are a disgusting waste of space Nigel Farage”. The Pileus was equally unimpressed with Nige.


If you want to know why Nigel Farage is blaming the events in Bristol on BLM, even though it has nothing to do with BLM, it is because he is a racist”. James Woodley agreed: “Nigel Farage knows it has nothing to do with BLM but he wants to stoke up more racism in the UK. These are protests against freedoms - and as he is part of the establishment he will divert you to blame ethnic groups”. And then came the mainstream blowback.

Alex Beresford of ITV Good Morning Britain, having dispatched Piers Morgan, called out Mr Thirsty. He was right. And Nigel Farage was not. But you knew that already.


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/zelostreet8