A Government spokesman, listening.
(Picture enticed with the promise of expenses from here).
(Picture enticed with the promise of expenses from here).
Interesting how quickly Winston Smith works these days, and how inefficiently. At the moment, the Telegraph report on the riots in Leicester is still titled thus:
Violence flares at English Defence League protest in Leicester
And subheaded thus:
A number of police and members of the public have been injured as protesters from the English Defence League and a rival organisation gathered in Leicester.
That's how it read last night (too, um, 'tired' to type last night). It read as if the EDL were the only ones there, apart from some other folk from a mysterious rival group. If you didn't know any better you could be forgiven for assuming that the 'rivals' were some group who wanted the same things as the EDL but in a slightly different way. Rather like those rivals of Labour, the Coagulation.
Last night, the identity of the mystery rivals was not revealed until the last line of the story. Today it appears earlier. It is, of course, the UAF. There are no photos of what the UAF were doing. There are many mentions of missiles being thrown but no actual mention of who was doing the throwing. Once more we see that 'far right' label which has come to mean nothing more than 'they just won't do as they are told'.
The UAF, we can only assume, are doing exactly as they are told.
The Daily Howl has many more pictures. All of the EDL with not a single UAF member in sight. Don't those people show up on film or something? There were seven hundred of them, we are told, and no press photographer could find a single photogenic one? Perhaps they couldn't find one being non-violent.
It's almost as if our thoughts were being subtly manipulated, but that's insane, surely? I mean, Sky News were there too, and they wouldn't lie.
All the newshounds were there, naturally, since there was certain to be trouble. If the authorities seriously didn't want trouble then the two demonstrations would not have been separated by a metal fence. They would have been separated by half the city. But then, how would the UAF get at their targets? How would the newspapers and television fill the minds of the gullible with one side of the story? If the UAF were the innocent victims in all this then why are they not pictured at all?
And why is the only one bleeding in that Mail story an EDL member? This is the same Daily Wail that has spent the last week telling us that all the meat in the UK is Halal and we're all going to grow beards, wear bedsheets and develop an obsession with domes and spiky towers as a result of eating it. This is the paper that has done more to whip up anti-Muslim feeling than the EDL could ever manage, and the EDL aren't trying to do that. They are specifically anti-Sharia. Not anti-Muslim, just anti-Sharia. Something many Muslims don't want either. Yet even the Mail fall into line with the 'only show the EDL' edict that's come from somewhere.
I'm not an EDL supporter although I'll be accused of it. Go ahead, I've been called worse. I can't support them. It's the shaven heads. They stir memories of some people I really, really didn't get along with in the seventies and eighties despite being whiter than most of them ( I don't tan. I become Captain Lobster then Mr. Flaky if I'm left in the sun too long). So I'd never join.
Tiny Blur might. He's recently been warning us about radical Islam.
However, I don't want Sharia law either. It's even worse than Labour law, which we still have despite voting for 'change'. I don't want to see public hangings and stonings for 'crimes' that I consider not to be actual crimes at all. I don't want to have to pray five times a day on pain of being beaten. I really cannot fast for a month. I'd end up eating the neighbours. I can't even grow a beard. I tried once and looked like a cat with advanced mange. No, Sharia is not for me.
It is odd, though. Why were the two protests allowed to be right alongside each other? Even a politician could see what was bound to happen. Why not separate them by streets instead of one flimsy fence? Why are the Coagulation, with their caps on immigrants (you don't get in unless you have a cap on) so determined to continue Labour's portrayal of anyone concerned about mass immigration as deranged far-right racists?
It's nothing to do with tolerance and diversity and multiculturalism even though the drones believe it is. No, it's control and money. Control of the population by making even the mention of certain words punishable, even when nobody hears them. The word of an informer is enough. Control by the threat of terrorists under the bed. Control by fear - fear of 'the enemy' and fear of the authorities who claim to be protecting us from this enemy.
The money comes in trade. Trade comes after bargains between countries. Well, it used to be that way. Now the EU does the bargaining and we're just told to go along with it. It's tucked away in little clauses where nobody will notice - but the Man who Fell to Earth has noticed. This guy shrugs off plane crashes. He's not to be messed with.
So we have to accept conditions for trade but we aren't allowed to know what those conditions are because we might not agree with them. Tough. We won't be the ones getting the money so they're not going to let us mess up their gravy train. If your quiet suburban street becomes a Karachi market, too bad. Object and you're a xenophobe. It's against the law to interfere with the money flow.
Those immigrants aren't getting the money either. This isn't their fault. They don't get to decide the conditions of the deal any more than we do. They think they're coming to a land where the streets are paved with gold and end up on the cold wet island at the edge of Europe where the streets are all too often rivers. Where the winter kills people who have had all their lives to adapt to it. Where there is no death sentence but the police can lawfully kill you. Where the Righteous will make pets of immigrants and prevent them integrating.
They think they're here for a better life. They are here to take the blame.
The coagulation's much trumpeted 'cap on immigration' cannot apply to EU citizens and now the EU is to tell them it can't apply to India either. Well, hooray for national government, or should that be notional? Cameroid is going to lose the EU rebate too. Hooray for the Cameroid and his cast iron guarantee. Or was it a fast lying guarantee? Maybe he was misheard.
What exactly do we pay our politicians for? They have no control over anything important. if they did, they wouldn't spend all their time piddling around with how traumatised kids will be at the sight of a cigarette packet and how many holes should be in the top of a salt shaker. These are not the concerns of a government busy with the running of a nation. They are the concerns of a band of wasters with nothing to do. If our politicians were really concerned with the running of the country they would tell the likes of ASH and the BMA to go away and stop bothering them. Instead, they welcome the pressure groups because it gives them something to talk about in front of the newspapers.
The newspapers have to get the stories in order to sell copy. They can't publish what the EU are doing because that would change the mood of this and many other nations from 'simmering fury' to 'pitchforks and fiery brands', so they need those minutiae. They need the silly little pronouncements on 'carbon footprints' and 'Halal meat' and 'deadly smoke from a little bit of leaf' and 'drinking too much makes you drunk' and 'eating too much makes you fat' and all those other pearls of wisdom we have to wonder how we ever managed without before.
The newspapers can no longer investigate politics because politics won't let them. It hasn't been really possible for a long time and now the journalists have become accustomed to simply repeating press releases, so they are dependent on being told what to write instead of going out and finding the serious stories for themselves.
That makes the newspapers dependent on the politicians and that means, with no bloody coup or paramilitary force at all, the politicians can dictate what the newspapers can print. They don't need burly enforcers. The news machine depends on its sources. Print something that annoys the source and out they go.
So we don't see the UAF throwing missiles or charging Sky TV vans. Instead we see the EDL standing around, or sitting around and bleeding. The EDL were not throwing anything or there would definitely have been at least one picture of that. If they raise their arms for whatever reason, it's a Hitler salute. If missiles were thrown, the wording is such that the EDL is implicated but it's never stated that 'the EDL threw things'. Weasel words - but what else can you expect from weasels?
Andrew Marr, one such weasel, complains that bloggers are less than journalists and proves this with a list of insults in true modern-politics style. The same childish abuse meted out by blog trolls everywhere. 'Nyah, you live with your mum, nyah, you have no friends, nyah, you're spotty, nyah'. That is what passes for journalistic writing now. Marr is one of the top ones, he says. If that's true, the rest of them won't have managed to read this far.
I don't have any sources in Parliament, no seedy little men tip me a story for a slyly passed tenner, for the most part all I have is the information available to anyone. What I write is what I think of that information and the conclusions I draw from analysing it. I might be wrong but what I write here is what I think. Not what I'm told to think by some grey suit who threatens to stop the flow of trivia if the content is not to his liking.
I write what I think of the information available. Marr might like to try that for himself. He might find that there are real stories behind the veil of nonsense that's held over the eyes of modern news.
He might find it more rewarding than smugly declaring 'Your mum' at those he disapproves of.
Then again, maybe that's really all he has.