Zelo Street

Wednesday, 5 April 2023

Lee Anderson Counted Down

Such is the lack of faith in their own party, and indeed their own brand, that an increasing number of Tory MPs have removed not only references to the dreaded C-Word, as in Conservative, from their social media bios, but have also ditched Tory blue from them, too - in favour of an increasing amount of not-at-all Tory green, or yellow. This move has not gone unnoticed.

The hashtag #ToriesDeletingTory has been doing good business, with the MPs identified including Chloe Smith from Norwich North, and even Jeremy Hunt (the former culture secretary). The level of attention given to this abandonment of the Conservative brand has increased overnight following the involvement of former Countdown co-host Carol Vorderman.

Ms Vorderman is nowadays rather less inclined to the promotion of Herself Personally Now, than to give establishment figures - like Tory MPs and ministers - a hard time over their ineptitude and inability to care about their own brief, notably equalities minister Kemi Badenoch, who dismissed calls to outlaw workplace discrimination on the grounds of menopause, comparing the idea to seeking legal protection for having ginger hair.

She had picked up on Nadhim Zahawi, whose Twitter bio read “Husband. Dad. Member of Parliament for Stratford-on-Avon”, musing “Seems to have gone green and non-Tory on his Twitter profile” and asking her followers “Send me more please … Tories now deleting any reference to Tory”.

And so it came to pass that one of those followers ponied up the example of Ashfield MP for the time being, Lee Anderson, whose bio read “Member of Parliament for Ashfield. All views are my own and the vast majority of the country”. He’s the Tories’ deputy chairman. But no Tory in his bio. Yet.

“So it goes on. Lee Anderson, Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party who doesn't tell us which party he is the 'deputy chairman' of? I suspect a rebranding and change from Tory blue this year” she noted, at which point 30p Lee retorted “Think you need to check my bio again … Oh and whilst your [sic] at it act your age”. So what did his bio say now?

“Ex-coal miner and now the proud Conservative Member of Parliament for Ashfield and Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party”.Ms Vorderman was unimpressed. “[Lee Anderson MP] quickly changed his bio from NOT including Conservative to now, since my tweet earlier, adding a Tory reference”. It should be noted that the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog did not leap to 30p Lee’s defence this time.

Also, while prodding Anderson about his being rumbled and not covering up at all convincingly, as MSN has noted, “she included screenshots of the Twitter bios of former Prime Ministers Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Theresa May, none of which appear to mention the Conservative party at this time”. One might expect the deputy chairman to be able to explain that omission.

One might also expect him to explain the abandonment of blue in favour of yellow by Beckenham MP Bob Stewart (of Tory Spreadsheet infamy). Or Bob Seeley from the Isle of Wight going green. Or David Rutley from Macclesfield missing the C-Word from his bio. Maybe the Green Party and the Lib Dems would like to say something about the hijacking of their colours.

Especially given the Tory record on green issues, like the sheep-like voting in favour of allowing the discharge of more and more untreated sewage into the sea (often near bathing beaches), rivers and other water courses. Apparently this is not against the rules, but maybe it should be. One might have expected supposed straight talkers like Lee Anderson to come clean about it.

When he’s not being Pwned by Ms Vorderman, that is. 30p Lee indeed.

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

Tuesday, 4 April 2023

Telegraph Canonises Nigel Lawson

There was plenty of creative reinvention performed at the time Margaret Thatcher passed away: the great Brexit pioneer whose Bruges speech told “We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels”. But this was highly selective.

Because, earlier in the same speech, Mrs T also said “Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community”. So it has been with the passing, announced yesterday, of Nigel Lawson, for so long Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Thatcher Governments of the 1980s.

And no organ of our free and fearless press has been more selective, not to say fawning, than the increasingly desperate and downmarket Telegraph, which has splashed on Lawson’s death. “Nigel Lawson, Thatcher’s tax slasher, dies at 91 … Tributes paid to ‘fearless, transformational chancellor’ from Tory party grandees”. “Tax slasher”? Someone’s having a laugh.

Those in the 90% plus of workers who may have seen some reduction in personal taxation also had to contend with the last really bad bout of inflation, in the late 1980s, which resulted in eye-wateringly high interest rates followed by the inevitable recession. New council housing did not match the numbers of properties sold off under Right to Buy. House prices rose accordingly.

But this inconvenient detail is not allowed to enter at the Tel, where readers are told “He helped lead the privatisation drive that put swathes of the public sector under the control of private companies, a reform that has been largely kept in place ever since”. The result of which has been bumper pay days for management and shareholders, and crap service for everyone else.

But do go on. “His work led to the privatisation of British Airways, British Telecom, British Gas and the national electricity generators”. Gas prices are, once again, going up this month. In Portugal, energy provider EDP cut gas prices to its customers by 20% from the start of this month. What else?

“During [his tenure] he also saw the government’s financial status improve from a deficit to a surplus”. Which means selling off national assets to pay down debt, rather than investing the proceeds. There was also all that money from North Sea Oil which went, in significant part, to pay benefits to an army of unemployed workers which topped, and remained at, more than three million - rather than doing something about the unemployment.

That is not allowed to enter the blue-tinted dreamworld of the Tel, either. Nor is there much coverage of those contradictions in Lawson’s behaviour: contributed to Mrs T’s downfall by insisting on a date to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, but then the great Brexiteer. The Eurosceptic who made his home in France. The espouser of climate change denialism.

Instead, an editorial tells “The 1988 budget was most emblematic of his time in charge of the Treasury. Lawson scrapped all tax rates above 40p, while reducing the basic rate of income tax from 27 per cent to 25 per cent. Moreover, the broader tax system was simplified. This signalled that Britain, after decades of economic decline, was once again becoming a dynamic market economy”. No mention of the inflation. Or of the bust that followed.

Instead, we get a fawning apologia from Allister Heath, who asserts “He was the greatest of modern chancellors, a giant who bestrode British politics and, in close partnership with Margaret Thatcher, played a central role in transforming the British economy from basket case to envy of the world. He helped give Britain its mojo back, rebuilt our work ethic”.

What Heath manages not to notice is that Lawson became Chancellor of the Exchequer ten years after the UK had joined the then EEC. And that this membership benefited the country rather more than another of what Robin Day memorably and rightly called “here today and gone tomorrow politician”.

You know that Heath is being not merely selective, but fawning with it, when he sneers at Gordon Brown as “a hugely lesser Chancellor”. We no longer have the rather better times that ended in 2010, and with departure from the European Union, that “basket case”, to use Heath’s happy phrase, has returned and is not going away any time soon. It was Europe Wot Won It.

Reinventing reality is not news. So what does that make the Telegraph?

Monday, 3 April 2023

Press Amplifies Braverman Incitement

The day has come that Stephen Yaxley Lennon, who styles himself Tommy Robinson, must have thought he would never see: the Prime Minister and Home Secretary of a mainstream UK Government blaming grooming (and worse) of white girls on men of British Pakistani heritage.

Suella Braverman, clearly with the approval of Rishi Sunak, toured the TV studios yesterday morning to tell viewers of Sky News, and the BBC, that “white girls” (note: not just any girls) were being exploited and abused by groups of British Pakistani men. The Tories wanted us to know that they would no longer “evade justice because of cultural sensitivities”.

What we can now see, though, with this morning’s front pages, is that this is the next front opened up by the Tories in their attempt to turn politics into a never-ending culture war. We had “Stop The Boats”, which signally failed to sway the opinion polls in their direction, and so, in yet another attempt to shore up the so-called “Red Wall” seats they captured in 2019, has come more Muslim bashing intended to get voters in line behind The Blue Team.

As the right-leaning part of our free and fearless press knows no bounds in its desperation to get the Tories re-elected in the General Election that will most likely come next year, no-one should be surprised that the Murdoch Times, the increasingly desperate and downmarket Telegraph, and the Daily Brexit, still called the Express, have splashed on the story this morning.

The Times, which for so long promoted Muslim scare stories from the likes of Andrew Norfolk, offers readers “Ethnicity of grooming gangs cannot be ignored, Police told” while the Tel goes with “Child abuse gangs ‘fed by political correctness’ … Sunak announces task force to target grooming” and the Express howls “WOKE POLITICS PUTTING WOMEN AT RISK”.

Go and stand at the back of the class, Express idiots: “Woke” does not mean “Politically Correct”. Which is what the paper is claiming, because above that headline it tells “PM pledges ‘political correctness’ will not stop pursuit of grooming gangs”. But, as Captain Blackadder might have observed, there was only one thing wrong with this approach - it was bollocks.

Worse, the Government knew that three years ago. As the Guardian reported at the time. “The majority of child sexual abuse gangs are made up of white men under the age of 30, an official paper has said. The report, which covers England, Scotland and Wales and summarises a range of studies on the issue of group-based child sexual exploitation (CSE), also known as grooming gangs, said there was not enough evidence to conclude that child sexual abuse gangs were disproportionately made up of Asian offenders”.

There was more. “High-profile cases including in Rotherham, Rochdale and Telford have involved groups of men of mainly Pakistani ethnicity, fuelling a perception that it is an ‘Asian problem’ … As a result ‘Asian grooming gangs’ have become a cause celèbre for the far right, with a number of high-profile figures mounting campaigns across the country”. And more.

“The review was published after criticism that victims of child abuse had been failed because of fear of accusations of racism”. Exactly the line pushed by Sunak and Ms Braverman. So how did those involved in prosecutions react?

“Nazir Afzal, the former chief crown prosecutor in the north-west, who brought prosecutions over the Rochdale grooming gangs, welcomed the report. ‘It confirms that white men remain the most common offenders, which is something rarely mentioned by rightwing commentators,’ he said. ‘However, it is not shy in reflecting that south Asian and British Pakistani men are disproportionately found in high-profile cases’”. Do go on.

“The danger is that by focusing entirely on the ethnicity of the offender, we miss the bigger picture, which is how the unheard, the left-behind women and girls, are invariably the victims. That’s where the government’s attention and action should be primarily focused”. And what are the Tories doing?

Focusing entirely on the ethnicity of the offenders. And thereby missing the bigger picture. So most likely failing the victims. Because this is not about those victims. It is about a party looking electoral oblivion in the face and doing anything it can to line up voters behind its record of ineptitude as a means of holding on to power. They failed - and it’s someone else’s fault.

The Tories are a principle-free shower. But you knew that already.

Sunday, 2 April 2023

Suella Braverman And A Hint Of Fascism

Doing the rounds of today’s politics shows has been Suella Braverman, who for some reason has been made Home Secretary. For part of her interviews with Sophie Ridge on Sky News, and Laura Kuenssberg on the BBC, she was merely evasive, misleading and occasionally dishonest. And for another part of the time, she was dog whistling the whole of the far right.

This weekend, there has been the customary post-Brexit start-of-holiday shitshow at ports like Dover, as the need to inspect and stamp passports for those departing the country increases the time required to cross the border between the UK and the Schengen Area, in this case France. Simon Calder explained yesterday why this was down to Brexit, and would get worse.

Most severely affected at Dover were coach passengers, perhaps because it takes rather longer to inspect and stamp the passports of 50-odd passengers than a couple, or family, in a car, or the driver of an artic. So would Ms Braverman like to own up to this Brexit non-benefit? As if. It wasn’t to do with Brexit (dishonesty) and travellers just had to be patient.

Then came those two linked subjects of migration and deportations to Rwanda. When would she and her pal Rishi “Stop The Boats”? Evasion this time, plus it was the courts and lawyers to blame. Also, the UN saying Rwanda was not safe were wrong because Our Judges effectively said so. But there was video of Rwandan security forces shooting migrants dead.

This time we got Misleading: it was five years ago and things are different nowadays (no citation). Deliberately opening fire on protesters with live rounds doesn’t sound very Safe Country. Then it was back to Evasion as it was put to her that the agreement signed with Rwanda provides for that country to relocate its most vulnerable refugees to the UK.

But all of this was a mere hors d’oeuvres for a rather more pungent entrée - child sexual exploitation. And it was here that Ms Braverman’s language cranked up the blame game, dog-whistling the racist far right with not a trace of subtlety. Stephen Yaxley Lennon, who styles himself Tommy Robinson, will be rubbing his hands with glee at the sight of a minister in his corner.

The sexual exploitation, she told Ms Kuenssberg, was affecting “White Girls” and was being perpetrated by overwhelmingly “British Pakistani Men”. Honk that dog whistle! Mic Wright had seen enough: “her own department says 80% of abusers are white men. The far right is a nest of child abusers. Are the British Pakistani abusers disgusting? Yes. Do they represent the majority of abusers? No. And do girls who *aren’t* white get abused? Yes”.

Adil Ray confirmed that most perpetrators were white. “Today, Suella Braverman has singled out the British Pakistani community as perpetrators of sexual grooming. My 2011 doc outlined a disproportionate number but as the Home Office’s own report in 2020 confirmed, the majority are white. Braverman was Attorney General at the time”. There was more.

“How can Suella Braverman not know about the refugees who were shot in Rwanda? Surely she would have done her own research? It’s one of the most written about stories regards refugees and Rwanda. This has been discussed before”. Which suggests she is either shockingly badly briefed, or just inept.

Ella Cockbain, who you can tell as she’s a doctor, has done some work in this area, and was equally unimpressed. “Braverman is promoting outrageous misinformation about both child sexual abuse & human trafficking. Propped up by pathetically poor client journalism. Yet more deflection, scaremongering and shameless politicking on the backs of abused and exploited people”.

Former prosecutor Nazir Afzal also had the correct information. “Home Office research 2020: ‘There is no credible evidence that any one ethnic group is over-represented in cases of child sexual exploitation’ … Suella Braverman knows that 84% of child sex offenders are white British, but chooses to focus on those who are not”. Falsehood and misinformation from the Tories.

So who was Ms Braverman speaking up for? “Patriotic” people, the “silent majority”, and targeting “A practice whereby vulnerable white English girls…were pursued and raped and drugged and harmed by gangs of British Pakistani men”. “Othering” a minority. Muslim bashing. Playing to the far right - and the worst side of our free and fearless press.

She may not believe this to be the language of fascism, but that is what it is.

Saturday, 1 April 2023

The New Liberal Elite ISN’T

For those in power, and their supporters in and around our free and fearless press, whatever goes wrong, falls short, gets fouled up, this is always someone else’s fault. So the clusterfuck that was Brexit is the fault, variously, of migrants, transsexuals, Remainers (sometimes Bitter Remoaners) and anything that can be labelled WOKE. And one other group.

That group is The New Liberal Elite, which is sometimes Progressivist, and mostly Shadowy. It has not held power, most of those named as part of it do not seek to hold power, yet it has simultaneously “captured the conversation”, displayed “groupthink” and a “moral superiority”, and poses a “serious challenge”. Moreover, its protagonists may seek to “destroy” the press.

Much of this weakly argued tosh - some might pass yet more severely adverse comment upon it - has come from the fevered mind of Matthew Goodwin, who has somehow been made a Professor of something. He has a book out, called Values, Voice, And Virtue: The New British Politics, and in promoting this tome has spoken out in the pages of the Murdoch Sun.

The article, titled “How Britain is being run by a ‘New Elite’ of radical woke middle-class liberals completely out of step with the public”, begins by demonising a quartet of press hate figures: sports presenter Gary Lineker, BBC refugee Emily Maitlis, pundit Alastair Campbell, and former Countdown co-presenter Carol Vorderman. Why so? Steel yourselves.

“The charity Oxfam advised its staff to avoid using the word ‘mother’ in favour of ‘gender neutral’ language in some circumstances … leaders of the Girl Guides and the Brownies were instructed to learn a new list of words including ‘aromantic’, ‘demisexual’ and ‘agender’ … what do … these things have in common? They reflect the rise of a New Elite”. WHAT?!?

And what, pray, is this New Elite? “A new governing class which not only holds a completely different worldview from everybody else but is now imposing that worldview on the rest of the country”. Remember, as Theresa May once said, I am not making this up. But do go on. “[It] is completely different from the old elite which used to run Britain decades ago”.

No shit, Sherlock. “They are often defined by their elite education at the most prestigious Oxbridge or Russell Group universities”. Gary Lineker did not attend University. Anyhow, tell us how this alleged New Elite exercises power, Professor Goodwin. “the New Elite project their status and sense of moral righteousness by demonstrating their allegiance to wokeness”. Bullshit.

Goodwin may or may not be able to correctly define the word WOKE, but the omens are not good. He describes is as a “belief system” with a “complex vocabulary”, which “is a crucial new marker of status”. There is more: “the New Elite demand things which signal their status to other elites, such as open borders, a relaxed approach to dealing with the small boats, or the sexualisation of children”. It’s total crap. Absolutely wacko.

This is an author who is not just Barking, but has overshot the buffer stops at Upminster. He does good creative invention, though: “This huge gulf between the elite and the masses is why, I think, so many people have been rebelling against the elite over the past ten years”. Except they haven’t.

But what those he singles out for demonisation have done is not only to stand in opposition to our succession of Tory Governments (the ones who are really out of touch), but also to very effectively articulate that opposition, and also their opposition to the behaviour of our free and fearless press. Which is how we arrive at Goodwin’s latest screed, for a Times Weekend Essay.

Here, he adds actor and campaigner Hugh Grant to his allegedly New Elite, throwing in Labour leader Keir Starmer, who also does not wield power as he is in opposition, and Emma Watson, because, well, God Only Knows. Grant has for some time given various organs of the press a hard time, as one might after they chose to routinely defame him for sales and clicks.

He is also an unswerving supporter of the Hacked Off campaign. Which tells you the real reason for this outpouring of highly creative drivel: challenge the press and you allow the likes of Goodwin to make a living frightening readers of less than impartial newspapers and flogging soon to be remaindered books. His paymasters want to divert from their own failings.

So when the “revolt”, to use his happy characterisation, comes, it will not be against those he demonises, but against the sell-out of the country to a party controlled to a significant extent by the media establishment. A group that is beginning to get very jittery indeed about its waning power and diminishing ability to persuade the masses to do as it says, but not as it does.

Matthew Goodwin is an idiot. But a useful one. For the time being, at least.

Friday, 31 March 2023

Morgan, Trump, And Silence

For those paying close attention to the antics of former US President, Combover Crybaby Donald Trump, what has been reported overnight will come as no surprise: The Donald has been indicted via a Grand Jury following investigations into a payment made via his then lawyer Michael Cohen to porn star Stormy Daniels - claimed to be hush money.

And what's more, Ron ...

As the BBC report notes, “The payment was not illegal. However, what prosecutors say does amount to a misdemeanour is the fact that when Trump reimbursed Cohen, the record for the payment says it was for legal fees. Prosecutors say this amounts to Trump falsifying business records … covering up a crime by falsifying records is a felony”. Meaning what?

Meaning that, should Trump get guilty, he goes to jail. This has been widely reported and commented upon - except in one Twitter feed, the one run by former Screws and Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan, now attempting valiantly to pull Murdoch property and noise floor occupant TalkTV up to a rather more substantial level of viewer engagement. Thus far he has said nothing.

And that silence cannot be excused by any claim that it is down to Morgan taking a fortnight off from his show and heading off on holiday: he’s managed to Tweet in defence of former cricketer Michael Vaughan, who has been cleared “on the balance of probabilities” of using racist language towards colleagues. Morgan has, as usual, not been backward in coming forward.

“So happy for my friend, a good man appallingly maligned by this grotesquely unfair witch-hunt. BBC must reinstate him asap” he pontificated, with one eye on tomorrow’s sporting headlines, not least across the Murdoch empire. So his Twitter feed is as active as ever. But no comment about the indictment of his pal. And yes, Trump is a pal of Morgan’s. They have previous together.

Morgan got access - and did soft soap interviews - when Trump was, thankfully briefly, in the White House. He got to go aboard Air Force One, although actually hitching a lift on the aircraft was not on offer. The softball side was exemplified by an interview for ITV Good Morning Britain in 2018; there was another last year which helped to promote TalkTV.

The way they were

But somehow the cat has got his tongue this time. Why might that be? Ah well. Being pals with the President is fine. Being pals with the then former President is fine. Allowing the President and then former President to sound off on your show is fine. But being pals with someone who will have to travel from Florida to New York next week for his “Perp Walk”? Maybe not.

He’s got time to lay into anything to do with transsexual people and gender identity, have the customary rant at Madonna, moan about WOKE, the meaning of which he probably doesn’t know, and of course continue his obsession with the Sussexes. But a former US President about to be arraigned on potential felony charges - nah, that’s not important.

But of course it is important, and far moreso than trans bashing, Sussex bashing, Madonna bashing and WOKE bashing. Is the host famously promoted as being UNCENSORED being censored? Is he self-censoring? Or has he decided the time has come to throw The Donald under the bus? Will he be the next to tell his old pal “I know thee not, old man”?

Because that is a very telling omission for someone who claims to be UNCENSORED. Saying nothing about news that is leading websites across the West right now. News that involves an old pal of his. Maybe it slipped his mind while he was obsessing about the Sussexes for the several hundredth time, claiming that Haz was at the High Court just chasing money.

Maybe there is trouble brewing for The Great Man. Watch this space.

Wednesday, 29 March 2023

Keir Starmer - Petty, Oh So Petty

Back in February 2020, one Labour leadership hopeful told his followers “The selections for Labour candidates needs to be more democratic and we should end NEC impositions of candidates. Local Party members should select their candidates for every election”. That hopeful candidate was Keir Starmer.

Another reminder of those early aspirations came from Owen Jones, telling “When Keir Starmer stood in the Labour leadership election, he … said ‘Don't trash the last four years’ … described [Jeremy] Corbyn as a ‘friend’ … embraced most of his domestic policy agenda … denounced the media for smearing Corbyn”. But that was then. Now it’s “I know thee not, old man”.

Yesterday, Starmer put a motion to Labour’s NEC which, if successful, would mean Corbyn was barred from being a Labour Party candidate in any future election. He would not, however, be expelled from the Party. The excuse underlying this move was that Corbyn’s presence in the Parliamentary Labour Party would be detrimental to the Party’s electoral chances, its appeal.

What Starmer’s motion did not do was to mention allegations of anti-Semitism levelled against Labour during Corbyn’s leadership. You would not have thought so to hear what sounded like an orchestrated chorus of smearing after the Labour leader got his motion passed. Saul Staniforth was one of those picking up on this creative reinvention of reality.

“Shabana Mahmood telling a reporter that Corbyn brought this on himself by his own actions, in particular the way that he spoke about the party’s antisemitism problem … Except the motion to ban Corbyn didn't mention antisemitism, & Mahmood knows this, since she seconded the motion!” And to his shame, Mil The Younger was also pushing this angle.

Corbyn, he told, had not apologised for anti-Semitism in Labour’s ranks. I have defended Ed Miliband on numerous occasions. I supported his leadership of the Party. He was himself misrepresented and maligned by many in and around our free and fearless press. But Lord above, this is sheer and unadulterated horseshit. Let’s see what Jezza actually said, in 2018.

“Jewish people have been at the heart of our Party and our movement throughout our history. No-one should dismiss the concerns they’ve expressed about what’s been happening in the Party … Driving anti-Semitism out of the Party for good, and working with the Jewish Community to rebuild trust, are vital priorities. I’m sorry for the hurt that has been caused to many Jewish people”. HE SAID SORRY. HE APOLOGISED. There was more.

“We have been too slow in processing disciplinary cases of mostly online anti-Semitic abuse by Party members. We’re acting to speed this process up. People who hold anti-Semitic views have no place in the Labour Party. They may be few - the number of cases over the past three years represents less than 0.1% of Labour’s membership … But one is too many”.

Yet here we are once more with anti-Semitism being laid at Corbyn’s door. But not in the NEC motion, as Simon Maginn observed. “[it] is more sinister than it might at first appear. He must have known ahead of time it would receive no proper scrutiny, and that the 'antisemitism crisis' would be the story, but he's drafted a document that doesn't tie him to it legally”.

And some Labour MPs were not happy at the outcome, such as Zarah Sultana: “Islington North Labour Party members should have the right to choose their parliamentary candidate. Denying that right is divisive and undemocratic. I support Aslef, CWU, FBU, TSSA, Unite and all the NEC Reps who upheld this democratic principle at the NEC today”.

Nor were all the media class on board, with Kevin Maguire musing “Blocking Corbyn is wrong and authoritarian, intended to intimidate other Left MPs. Should be up to Islington North whether they wanted him again”. But, and here’s the rub, many in the London media establishment will applaud the move. Which will give Starmer a false sense of security.

Those applauding do not go out on the doorstep and try to sell Labour to an often sceptical electorate. The Party’s leadership should take on board the dearth of front page coverage given to yesterday’s events at the NEC and ask why that might be. They may not. And that would be a big mistake.

Our free and fearless press will not give up on the Tories easily. If that means taking Starmer down, that is what they will do. They already have the presence of Peter Mandelson to use as an attack weapon. Now they have betrayal, untrustworthiness, double standards, authoritarianism and pettiness to go with it. The centrist part of the media class won’t stop the attacks.

The right-leaning part of that class calls the shots. This will not end well.

Tuesday, 28 March 2023

Mail Human Rights Hypocrisy

Few subjects have been more misunderstood, more misrepresented, and been the basis of more misinformation than Human Rights. For our free and fearless press, this concept has formed the basis of a rolling campaign of faux outrage ever since the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. For the Mail titles, Human Rights has scored sales and clicks in significant numbers.

Thanks to @DocRussJackson

Whether it is the sneering and jeering of talentless and unfunny churnalist Richard Littlejohn, with his “Yuman Rights”, or the titles’ supposedly more serious pundits bemoaning the inability of their paper to get people it does not like deported to any place the inmates of the Northcliffe House bunker choose, Mail readers can be in no doubt: Human Rights are A Bad Thing.

To underscore this, the Tweeter known as Doc Russ Jackson has presented a montage of Mail anti-Human Rights headline rants, which includes “HUMAN RIGHTS FARCE”, “HUMAN RIGHTS MADNESS”, and the bringing to the table of another Mail hate target with “HUMAN RIGHTS LUVVIES”.

But the Mail titles would not have got where they are today without a little flexibility of principle, a dab of double standards, a soupçon of rank hypocrisy. And so it came to pass that Associated Newspapers, owners of those Mail titles, arrived at the High Court yesterday to find themselves facing the naming of 73 of its journalists and executives, as part of the action brought by, among others, the Duke of Sussex, Elton John, and Doreen Lawrence.

As Guardian media editor Jim Waterson observed, “Prince Harry and a group of other prominent individuals are bringing cases alleging widespread illegal behaviour by reporters at Associated Newspapers. In their claims they name 73 journalists and editorial executives who have worked at the Daily Mail and its sister titles over several decades”. What was the Mail to do?

Waterson continued “Lawyers working for the Daily Mail said publishing the names would breach the journalists’ right to a fair trial under the Human Rights Act. This is despite the Mail long using its editorial pages to campaign against the European-derived legislation … David Sherborne, representing Harry and other claimants … noted it was surprising to see a newspaper that has campaigned for press freedom object to the publication of the names”.

That’s putting it mildly, 007. Sherborne mused “They say different rules apply to their journalists suspected of wrongdoing, as opposed to others suspected of wrongdoing”. But the Mail’s KC “successfully argued there was no justification for publication of the journalists’ names at this stage”.

Why? You’ll love this one. “She told the court that publication of the names could cause ‘immense reputational damage’ to the 73 individuals who worked for the Mail and invade their privacy”. Being revealed to be a Mail hack or executive could cause damage to your reputation! Who knew? But we were, at least, given two of those 73 names. And we may get the rest later.

“The company did confirm that the former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre and former … Mail on Sunday editor Peter Wright are named in the allegations”. Also, “Mr Justice Nicklin … temporarily blocked identification of the Mail journalists pending his interim judgment, partly because the individuals have not had the opportunity to offer up a defence”. However.

“He told the court: ‘Although I do recognise I am preventing the reporting of the journalists’ names at this stage, this is in the interests of fairness and the administration of justice’”. To which the Byline Investigates report noted “For publishers of the Mail to be seeking to prevent the further airing of the document at trial, and for it to have obtained an order preventing the naming of its own journalists, must accentuate its embarrassment”. Why so?

“The paper has long associated itself with resistance to judicial secrecy, often asserting that the public’s right to know is paramount”. Ah, so another soupçon of rank hypocrisy. The report goes on “In a libel case it is currently fighting, brought by Prince Harry, Associated is defending an article headlined: ‘Exclusive: How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret…’”. Do go on.

“The article went on to accuse the prince of ‘seeking far-reaching confidentiality’ and of ‘trying to keep details of his legal battle about police protection private’”. Next time Dicky Windbag bangs on about Yuman Rights, remember that well. One rule for the Dacre doggies, another for Forrins.

“The Daily Mail is deeply embarrassed by - and clearly furious about - these proceedings” tells the Byline Investigates report. Well, Boo Sodding Hoo.

Monday, 27 March 2023

Harry Arrives - And He’s Serious

The people at Sky News were taken by surprise this morning. “This man is serious … no-one expected this to happen … Prince Harry arriving at the Royal Courts of Justice today in his court case against the Daily Mail … [we] thought he was on the west coast of the United States with his family [but] that is not the case … you can tell he’s serious about this”. Serious, right?

Evening all ((c) BBC)

Reuters had a little more. “Britain's Prince Harry arrives at London's High Court for a hearing against the publisher of the Daily Mail newspaper over alleged phone-tapping and other breaches of privacy”. Phone hacking. That’s the phone hacking that the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre assured the Leveson Inquiry did not happen at the Mail titles. Under oath.

And the Mail on Sunday is now in the frame for the same allegation, as ITV News told last week. “Glenn Mulcaire was jailed for phone hacking on behalf of News of The World. He's claimed The Mail on Sunday also paid for his information - something it denies”. Mulcaire was unequivocal.

“The public perception that my services were only used only by News International - is not the case. As my services and skills were used by other papers, such as the Mail on Sunday”. The ITV report notes “Associated Newspapers have always insisted they never employed the so-called ‘dark arts’ of their rivals … At the Leveson Inquiry the then editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre, said so under oath”. ITV News has seen the evidence trail.

You haven’t heard this news before? But it’s been out there since July 2020, when Byline Investigates told readers “Private investigator Glenn Mulcaire reveals how he hacked ex-Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes for the Mail on Sunday”. The power of our free and fearless press, once more, stems not only from what they publish, but what they do not. Hence you haven’t heard.

But now Harry has rocked up at the High Court, that genie can no longer be kept in its bottle. So now the BBC is reporting on his arrival. “The Duke of Sussex has unexpectedly appeared at the High Court as legal proceedings begin in a privacy case. Prince Harry and other individuals are suing Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL), publishers of the Daily Mail”. Do go on.

“The duke, singer Sir Elton John and actresses Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley are among the individuals who allege unlawful information gathering … A four-day preliminary High Court hearing in London, starting on Monday, will consider legal arguments and a judge will decide whether the case will go any further. ANL is bidding to end the claims”. I’ll bet it is. And there is more.

Who called me a f***ing liar, c***?!?!?

“Others taking part in the legal action include Sir Elton's husband David Furnish, and Doreen Lawrence, the mother of Stephen Lawrence … The group launched the legal action last year after becoming aware of ‘compelling and highly distressing evidence that they have been the victims of abhorrent criminal activity and gross breaches of privacy’”. Such as?

“The payment of police officials, with corrupt links to private investigators, for inside, sensitive information … The impersonation of individuals to obtain medical information from private hospitals, clinics, and treatment centres by deception … The accessing of bank accounts, credit histories and financial transactions through illicit means and manipulation”. And phone hacking.

This should surprise no-one familiar with Nick Davies’ Flat Earth News, where he recounts a reporter telling him “If the Mail go for you, they get every phone number you have dialled, every school-mate, everything on your credit card, every call from your phone and from your mobile. Everything”. Getting that information means crossing the illegality line. And the Mail has previous.

As Davies also told, there were allegations that the Mail titles bribed both serving Police officers, and also Civil Servants. That was known back in 2012. But, once more, the Mail and its cheerleaders in the media and political establishment kept the lid on the story. Now, with Haz’ appearance this morning, that lid is more likely to be prised off sooner or later.

For that we should be grateful, and all those who have suffered at the hands of the Mail titles over the years will certainly be. If you wondered why the inhabitants of the Northcliffe House bunker published so much knocking copy aimed at Haz and Megs recently, now you know. That assault has not deterred either of them: the Mail titles are looking Nemesis in the face.

Another little Wild West Show may be coming to an end. Good thing too.

Saturday, 25 March 2023

Liz Truss Disgraces Honours System

The suspicion of misuse and abuse has never been far away from the system of awarding honours for political and other services, at least not since the days of Maundy Gregory and David Lloyd George. More recently there was Harold Wilson’s “Lavender List”. Now we have disgraced former alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson’s set of nominations.

And while Bozo’s resignation honours list is being pored over, we have the only slightly disgraceful sight of 49-day Prime Ministerial wonder Liz Truss sticking her bugle into the whole process with some less than uncontroversial nominations of her own, news of which was brought forth by the odious flannelled fool Master Harry Cole, now pretending to be Sun political editor.

Master Cole’s proclamation was thankfully brief. “RESIGNATION HONOURS REVEALED: Liz Truss to make four new members of the House of Lords - despite serving for just 49 days … New peers … IEA boss Mark Littlewood … Brexit boss Matthew Elliott”. That’s an embarrassing name. The same name as the supremo of Vote Leave, which broke electoral law, in fact.

Which is because it’s the same person. Elliott, co-founder of the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance, an Astroturf lobby group that has peddled falsehood and misinformation to those who scrabble around the dunghill that is Grubstreet for many years now, headed Vote Leave, the “official” Leave campaign, in the run-up to the 2016 EU referendum. And don’t forget, they broke the law.

The lawbreaking was confirmed in July 2018. As the Guardian told readers, “Vote Leave … broke election spending law, the Electoral Commission said this morning. The commission has imposed fines on Vote Leave and on Darren Grimes, the founder of BeLeave, another leave campaign, which the commission says was spending money on behalf of Vote Leave”.

Matthew Elliott

And, although the article went on to note “Grimes and a Vote Leave official have also been reported to the police ‘in relation to false declarations of campaign spending’”, Grimes appealed successfully on the grounds that he was too stupid to fill in a form correctly. Even the BBC admitted that there had been an overspend of £500,000. But Elliott and his pals got their result.

The propaganda thus facilitated included the claim that Turkey was joining the EU, and therefore “76 million Muslim Turks” were potentially on their way to the UK. It wasn’t, and they weren’t. It was also claimed that Turkey joining the EU would mean the UK would then share a border with Iraq and Syria. The level of lying was off the scale. And Elliott was the head man.

Where Elliott was in charge of an organisation that broke the law, Mark Littlewood was merely indulging in spivvery. He asserted that plain packaging of cigarettes was “the latest ludicrous move in the unending, ceaseless, bullying war against those who choose to produce and consume tobacco”, but failed to mention donations to the IEA from Big Tobacco.

George Monbiot, writing in the Guardian, did mention it. “British American Tobacco, Philip Morris and Japan Tobacco International have been funding the institute [the IEA] – in BAT's case since 1963. British American Tobacco has admitted that it gave the institute £20,000 last year and that it's ‘planning to increase our contribution in 2013 and 2014’”. And it got worse.

Mark Littlewood

To add to the lying and hypocrisy, the IEA was the subject of a Greenpeace sting, when, as the Guardian reported, “The director of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) was secretly recorded telling an undercover reporter that funders could get to know ministers on first-name terms and that his organisation was in ‘the Brexit influencing game’ … Mark Littlewood claimed the IEA could make introductions to ministers and said the thinktank’s trade expert knew Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, David Davis and Liam Fox well”.

What benefit could this confer on the funder? “The IEA chief was also recorded suggesting potential US donors could fund and shape ‘substantial content’ of research commissioned by the thinktank and that its findings would always support the argument for free-trade deals”. Do go on.

“This could hugely benefit US farmers by lifting the ban on the sale in the UK of beef from cattle treated with growth hormones and chlorine-washed chicken”. Oh goody. The IEA has also urged abolition of the NHS. After all, what’s a few tens of thousands of medical fee bankruptcies a year, eh?

Neither Elliott, nor Littlewood, should be allowed in the Lords. That is all.

Friday, 24 March 2023

Nadine, Jacob, Boris - And Contempt

As the not-really-news-channels out there on the right vie with one another to cobble together the most seriously wacko defence of disgraced former alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson over the distinct possibility that he misled the House over all those Downing Street parties, two of their pundits have made what could prove a seriously bad mistake.

First, on Murdoch noise floor occupant TalkTV, trying its best to emulate the wacko level of Fox News Channel (fair and balanced my arse) has come a sneak preview of no discernible subtlety for new show Friday Night with Nadine, fronted by Mid Bedfordshire MP (yes, it’s her again) Nadine Dorries, who gives every appearance of forgetting that she sits in that House.

“Nadine Dorries says Boris Johnson will be found guilty by the ‘kangaroo court’ privileges committee, but thinks he and his legal team would not ‘take this egregious abuse of parliamentary procedure lying down’” proclaimed the TalkTV Twitter feed. Catherine Mayer noted “If Boris Johnson is Westminster's version of Trump, here's its Marjorie Taylor Greene”. OUCH!

Open contempt of an active investigation, is it? Alastair Campbell, who knows a little about these things, reckoned so. “A Tory MP on a tv station funded by right wing hedge fund Sovereign Individual types using the channel for open contempt of a Parliamentary committee and therefore of Parliament. All to defend another Tory MP who has promised her a peerage”.

It’s all a bit Gladys Pugh, isn’t it? “Ooh that Boris, ‘e’s my ‘ero”. But, as Ian Dunt observed after Bozo’s appearance before the Privileges Committee, “Important fact there from Harman. Johnson is going to try to discredit the committee as a kangaroo court, In fact, it is responding to a request of the Commons and follows the rules of the Commons”.

And she’s a member of the Commons. It’s not such a big deal for other pundits on TalkTV or Gammon Broadcasting™ News (“Bacon’s News Channel”) to slag off the Committee, but for an MP to do it while an investigation is still in progress - Oh Dear. And, talking of GB News and MPs slagging off the Privileges Committee, someone else has been at it.

That someone is the member for times long past Jacob Rees Mogg, who has slagged off the Privileges Committee during the latest iteration of “Jacob’s Moggologue” (I say, isn’t this a bit Flowerpot Men? - Ed. Yob. Wobba lobba floggin’ cloblobs). GB News told “Jacob Rees-Mogg says the Privileges Committee was 'determined to get Boris' during his hearing today”. How so?

Get this from the Moggster. “It’s this position of Boris, his success in leading Brexit, that has ultimately led to him being in front of the Privileges Committee [bullshit, but do go on] today. So never really about cake or curtains, or indeed about Chris Pincher [no-one said it was. Get on with it]. It was fundamentally about Brexit and the reaction of the establishment to Boris as the figure … Boris is the Fortnum and Mason of Brexiteers”.

24 carat shite. Bozo and Mogg are as establishment as they come. The latter digs himself in deeper by calling the Privileges Committee “partial and unfair”, while managing not to notice that the Committee member whose persistence tipped Bozo over the edge was Bernard Jenkin - an arch-Brexiteer.

Big Al called it straight away, adding “[Ofcom] people will begin questioning why you exist unless you deal with this. [Commons Speakr] is this not contempt of Parliament ? And [Rishi Sunak] if you allow Johnson his resignation honours it will taint you almost as much as it taints him and his crony peers. Be warned”. It looks like contempt, and waddles like contempt.

Meanwhile, Adam Bienkov of Byline Times pointed out the flaw in the Dorries argument. “I note that Dorries thinks triggering a by-election would ‘end the career’ of Boris Johnson. Surely she believes this massive election-winning asset would storm home in his own constituency?” But Bozo would lose, and badly. He is a spent force, rumbled, no longer credible, and disgraced.

Still, two separate contempt of Parliament hearings would liven things up a little. A by-election in Mid Bedfordshire would be even better. Bring it on.

Thursday, 23 March 2023

He Came, He Saw, He Lost It

The game is over. The game is up. The crowds have all gone home. For disgraced former alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, the end of the road has been reached: his attempt to lead a rebellion against the Windsor Framework failed, his appearance at the Privileges Committee will most likely see him sanctioned, and his supporters are deserting him.

One look at today’s Daily Mail should prove instructive. “Harman’s face was thunder. Boris was as agile as a cat. Pure box office but, after four nit-picking hours, had a single mind been changed?” Sarah “Vain” Vine showed the Mail’s new line: no more the bombastic dismissal of any anti-Bozo elements, and though she is still lying (agile as a cat my arse), the hero worship is gone.

Worse, at Bozo’s spiritual home, the increasingly desperate and downmarket Telegraph, readers are told “The cults of Boris and Brexit are simultaneously imploding". And the name on the by-line? Camilla Tominey, that most Bozo and Brexit boosting of Tel staff. Why the change? Ah well.

That Privileges Committee grilling was a campaign that developed not necessarily to Bozo’s advantage. This was obvious to anyone with brain plugged in and a hole in their arse after he declared that lockdown-busting gatherings to celebrate someone leaving were “necessary”. As Alex Andreou has pointed out (thread HERE), 10 Downing Street, the nerve centre of Government, is the last place where encouraging the spread of Covid-19, and potentially taking out key decision makers, should have been allowed.

He couldn’t resist a threat, as Paul Waugh noted. “After much pressing, Johnson refuses to say whether he will accept the findings of the Committee if it finds against him. Says he ‘deprecates’ the term ‘kangaroo court’ BUT, and this is a big caveat: ‘I wait to see how you proceed with the evidence.’”

Nice people at this Privileges Committee, be a pity if they was to end up on the wrong end of a Daily Mail hit piece, eh Guv? But did he correct the record after all that? Adam Bienkov of Byline Times had bad news: “After apologising for misleading Parliament about whether Covid guidance was followed in Downing Street, Boris Johnson says that he doesn't want to correct the record on this as it ‘remains my belief’ that the guidance was followed”.

He can’t say he wasn’t warned. Ian Dunt observed “[Harriet] Harman says ministers get things wrong, that's fine, they simply routinely correct it. But ‘misleading intentionally or recklessly or refusing to answer or failing to correct impedes or frustrates the functioning of the House and is contempt’”.

Any lawyers willing to offer a view? Adam Wagner certainly was. “My summary view of Johnson's evidence is the same as it was before he started: his case that the guidance allowed boozy non-socially distanced drinks events with no work being done is absurd and he's either lying that he thought it did or was reckless for asserting it”. Not looking so good.

As to that R-word, as in Reckless, Tory MP Bernard Jenkin prompted Bozo to lose it completely on the subject. Ian Fraser noted “Boris Johnson loses his rag when asked by [Bernard Jenkin] why he didn’t take legal advice before misrepresenting #partygate to Keir Starmer in the House of Commons. Is he now toast?” Johnson had instead relied on the word of two SpAds.

Will he be sanctioned? Ian Dunt mused “I think it's pretty much guaranteed the committee finds against Johnson. At best they'll find he recklessly misled the Commons. At worst that he did so wilfully. There's a strong basis for the latter, but intent is always hard to demonstrate so former more likely”.

He’s too kind. The mood of public revulsion at all those party revelations, which ultimately led to Bozo’s defenestration, may yet see him sanctioned for both recklessly and wilfully misleading the House. Palliative care doctor Rachel Clarke was in no mood to listen to the excuses.

“We didn't have parties to ‘boost morale’ … We didn't have quiz nights … We didn't have champagne … We watched our colleagues die, though … We were STEEPED in death … We kept going … We had to … We kept on … So don't you DARE say your parties were ‘necessary’ [Boris Johnson] … You make me sick”. As Sir Sean nearly said, I think we got the point.

The Privileges Committee will soon pass judgment. Won’t be good for Bozo.

Wednesday, 22 March 2023

Bozo - Bluster Versus Reality

And so the day has finally arrived when disgraced former alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is lightly grilled before the Privileges Committee of the Commons, before seven of his peers, a majority of whom are his fellow Tories. The subject will be misleading the house, and doing so knowingly, or what ordinary people call lying.

Bozo, or someone on his behalf, has clearly been briefing parts of the right-leaning press, the Mail telling readers what to think (no change there) as it thunders “Ex-PM issues 52-page defence dossier ahead of today’s 4-hour grilling by MPs on live TV … BULLISH BORIS UP FOR THE FIGHT”. But the Murdoch Sun does not deem him worthy of a front page lead.

And the supposedly more upmarket Times tells readers “Aide warned Johnson about Covid claim”. Looks like Rupe has decided Bozo is past his use-by date. Still, the increasingly desperate and downmarket Telegraph remains loyal, telling “Aides assured me no rules were broken, says Johnson” while putting the boot into Labour leader Keir Starmer.

While some may dislike Murdoch Père, and others merely cordially detest the SOB, he did not get where he is today without being able to correctly identify winners and losers. And although he may not yet have decided Bozo is in the latter category, he looks to be wavering. Hence the less than full-throated support from Sun and Times. Why might he waver thus? Ah well.

We need look no further than the BBC’s summary of the evidence now before the Committee. And while the press baited Bozo with “Why should the British people believe anything you tell them?” as he left his London home, what he will face when it gets serious and the cameras are rolling is of a magnitude more serious. His former Downing Street staff have shat all over him.

Like Lee “Cain advising his colleague that a drinks event in the garden of No 10 on 20 May 2020 was a ‘comms risk’ … [the document] quotes Cain as saying he went on to have a conversation with Johnson's then chief adviser Dominic Cummings, who went on to speak to the then-PM about the risk”.

However, “Johnson didn’t see meeting in the No 10 garden with a bottle of wine as a breach of the rules … ‘I would encourage people into the garden for the pandemic … I felt it would be wrong to stop people going into the garden … It is democratic and conducive to staff wellbeing - where to go to draw the line?’” You tell us, Chief, you’re the one making the rules and telling the hoi polloi to follow them in all those TV appearances, remember?

It gets worse. “Cabinet secretary says he never told Johnson all rules were followed … cabinet secretary and top civil servant Simon Case denies that he gave any assurances to the then prime minister that Covid rules or Covid guidance was obeyed at all times in No 10”. And worse still.

“Boris Johnson had the opportunity to stop the lockdown partying in Downing Street, but allowed the culture to continue - according to one No 10 official … In their evidence, the unnamed employee says that the route Johnson would take through Downing Street looked straight into the press room, so it would have been ‘impossible’ not to know they were happening”. Tell us more.

That employee told “He had the opportunity to shut them down but joined in, made speeches, had a drink with staff. He could have taken the issue up with Martin Reynolds, his principal private secretary, to shut them down. He could see what was happening and allowed the culture to continue”. Martin Reynolds, meanwhile, now “regrets [the] BYOB invite”.

Which just makes Bozo’s grilling later that much more difficult to negotiate. He isn’t making it any easier by slagging off former Chief Downing Street polecat Dominic Cummings with comments like “He cannot be treated as a credible witness”. What colour is the pot, O Great Bozo Kettle?

All that is before he rocks up for that grilling, which, it is estimated, will take a whole four hours and be broadcast live. And even before that begins, it is becoming all too clear that there is a widening gulf between what Bozo-backing papers are telling their readers and reality - not for the first time. Moreover, two of the four Tories on the Privileges Committee may lose their seats come the next General Election. Not looking good for the former PM.

Johnson looks highly likely to be sanctioned. That means he’s toast.

Tuesday, 21 March 2023

Bent Cops And Worse Hacks

When it comes to the ultimate in lack of self-awareness, out free and fearless press is without peer. The state of the economy and its effect on ordinary citizens stems directly from the press’ fawning endorsement of successive, and successively inept, Tory Governments, helped, or hindered, depending on your point of view, by Brexit. But it’s not their fault, honestly.

The state of the NHS, exacerbated by Tory underfunding, Brexit, and a welter of press attacks, is also nothing to do with them. So it is no surprise to see a report castigating the Metropolitan Police for sexism, misogyny, racism and homophobia sending those who scrabble around the dunghill that is Grubstreet into faux pearl-clutching mode. How COULD they?!?

But as the late John Smith might have observed, this is a bit rich coming from the same Fourth Estate that has had no problem working hand in glove with bent coppers, and for decades past. Corruption in the Met and other Police forces was fine as long as the press benefited from a host of informants, and all that not always legally obtained information they provided.

Louise Casey’s report, as the Guardian has told, says the Met “is broken and rotten, suffering collapsing public trust and is guilty of institutional racism, misogyny and homophobia … The report … one of the most damning of a major British institution … details disturbing stories of sexual assaults, usually covered up or downplayed, with 12% of women in the Met saying they had been harassed or attacked at work, and one-third experiencing sexism”.

The report “warned that ‘public consent is broken’ with just 50% of the public expressing confidence, even before revelations about the force’s worst recent scandals. She pinned the primary blame on its past leadership and said: ‘Public respect has fallen to a low point. Londoners who do not have confidence in the Met outnumber those who do, and these measures have been lower amongst black Londoners for years’”. Shocked? Not shocked.

But the press claims to be. The Mail is especially righteous, howling “BROKEN AND ROTTEN … Devastating review says Met is ‘institutionally racist, corrupt, misogynistic and homophobic’ … May be many more Police like killer Couzens … Force must reform or be ‘overhauled’”.

That’s the same Daily Mail, together with the Mail on Sunday, which featured so prominently in the information gathering work, much of it illegal, undertaken by the likes of Steve Whittamore - often depending on bent coppers to improperly access the Police National Computer.

And while the Murdoch Sun leaves the report off its front page, the supposedly upmarket Times splashes with “Rotten Met ‘has lost public faith’ … Predators could still be hiding in Police force rife with bigotry, says damning review”. The same Murdoch press that, once upon a time, contained within its list of titles the now late and not at all lamented Screws.

That’s the same Screws that was intimately involved with the Daniel Morgan murder case, still unsolved and at every turn hampered by Police corruption. The same Screws that was a by-word for phone hacking, about which we would have known more, and known it sooner, had it not been for cops like Yates of the Yard getting in the way. The Screws and the cops moved as one.

As they did in service of Mazher Mahmood’s various sales-generating setups and stings: all those the Fake Sheikh set up for drugs busts, and also the fake stories, like the Beckham kidnap that was never going to happen, and the Dirty Bomb Plot that wasn’t. The press wasn’t so righteous about the Met then. Now that same press is chucking the Met under the bus.

Worse, there is no mention of one recent event where the Met’s inertia has been to the benefit of the right-leaning part of the press - its unwillingness to investigate apparently illegal activity by the two Leave campaigns. As with phone hacking, the Met sat on the evidence, to the benefit of both campaigns, and with the press not saying boo. Corruption wasn’t so bad then, was it?

Our free and fearless press has known full well that the Met was “Broken and Rotten” years ago. And what did they do about it? Nothing. Nix. Nil. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Not a sausage. Bugger all. Because bent coppers were good for business. Illegal information gathering, joining in with manufacturing fake stories, obstructing investigations, covering up - that was OK.

Anyone might think the press were massive hypocrites. And they’d be right.

Welcome To Zelo Street!