still not dead

Still alive but posting unlikely before the end of the week: big changes afoot.

whoops

Did anyone else notice the BBC news at 10 this evening reporting on the Conservative's 18 point poll lead, seemingly illustrated with a graphic showing an 18 point lead for Labour?

nadine dorries attempts new anti-abortion amendment?

Here we go again:

Mrs Nadine Dorries

To move the following Clause:—

‘In section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 (c.87) (medical termination of pregnancy), for “twenty-fourth week” substitute “twentieth week”’.

Hat-tip to the f-word - still monstrously busy so unable to read up Parliamentary procedure this evening, but my first response is to think that both Dorries' and Evan Harris' amendments will rejected if the substance has already been voted on in earlier stages.

melanie phillips: here are a few of my favourite fears

Witness the magic of Melanie Phillips' scaremongering logic:

The Brotherhood’s strategy for Britain is to promote separate Islamic development, declare sharia-only enclaves and infiltrate mainstream institutions as a springboard for Islamising the entire society. Since Salmond’s aim is to make Scotland independent from the rest of the United Kingdom, with one leap the Brothers could achieve an Islamised country on England’s border.

Scottish voters might be getting more than they bargained for: a Caledonian caliphate.

Shorter Phillips: If one unlikely thing is followed by another extremely unlikely thing, Scotland will naturally become a pseudo-Islamic nation that poses a threat to England. I think there may be some kind of inverse square rule in operation: the less likely something is to happen, the more Melanie Phillips urges you to worry about it. This is superlative concern-trolling - Phillips' argument being if you vote for the SNP, you might accidentally end up living under Sharia law.

The alarmist update (Scottish-Islamists in charge of our nuclear weapons policy! ZOMG!) is brilliantly nonsensical, as if a single Islamic member of a 13-strong working group is the first step in a "strategic" (i.e. entirely speculative and improbable) long-term plan to render the UK helpless in the face of nuclear threat.

It's helpful to remember that the SNP opposed Trident long before the presence of any supposed Islamic influence.. and have so far been entirely unsuccessful in influencing the UK's nuclear defence policy.

change

Regular blogging is even more irregular this week as various deadlines and opportunities have dropped out of the sky over the last few days. I'm rapidly amending my plans to visit London this week and my ability to meet various people is in the hands of GNER (i.e. the lap of the gods).

I will definitely be in central London during the day on Saturday - any friend who wants to grab a drink should drop me an email or a text.

closet of england

Entirely by accident, Peter Hitchens summarises the Church of England's previous position on gay clergy and the problem with it:

It is strange that it is always the conservatives who seem to get the blame in these matters, for their supposed intolerance and narrow-mindedness. Actually, the Church of England has for many decades quietly tolerated large numbers of homosexuals in the clergy in a civilised, kind and discreet arrangement that avoided pain and confrontation.

What has changed is that these clergy, and their allies, have ceased to be interested in receiving tolerance (which of course implies disapproval) and want equality instead.

Quiet.. civilised.. discreet.. let's say institutionally closeted - it's fine for you to be gay providing you don't talk about or (gasp) demand to be treated equally. In fact, if you agree to remain closeted, we will spare you the "pain and confrontation" of the conservative wing's total abhorrence of teh gayzor and demands for defrocking. This, incidentally, is "kind."

Get the feeling that tolerance where you don't actually have to tolerate anything isn't really.. well.. tolerance?

EDIT: OH NOES! Totally rumbled:

The real aim of all this stuff about homosexuality is to destroy the institution of marriage and the moral system which is founded upon that institution.

Yes, all that stuff about self-determination and equality was a ruse - it was all about you, Peter.

those pole dances aren't paying for themselves

It's curious that the Mail's search for blame in its description of the growth of lap-dancing clubs ("sex-encounter establishments") omits the one thing that makes it all possible: men with disposable income who don't have a problem with paying for sex.

In other words, the claim that a "local community" does not want such clubs is a generalisation - if these clubs are so very profitable, there's clearly a proportion of that community which is delighted to see such businesses, and wants them located conveniently for the shops and parking.

let me count the ways

At the risk of sounding petty, she can't count, either.

That said, Nadine Dorries is making encouraging noises about the need for improved sex education: given her religious bedfellows, though, the devil will be in the details, particularly when she's on record as opposing access to the morning-after pill in schools, and says things like this:

Our children have never had so much sex education; but what they are taught, and how they are taught it, gives out the message 'now go and try this for yourself'.

I'd like to see at least one concrete example of current sex education which encourages young people to have sex - if we have to repeatedly suffer through that argument, let's demand some evidence. Given the existence of government programmes which attempt to do the exact opposite, it may be one of the most transparent canards in the sex education debate.

She continues:

The mantra in schools, with regard to sex education, is 'non-directional teaching'. It should be directional, heavily directional. It should direct children towards values, morals, and the factual information that they need to know.

Given the kind of campaign linked above, aimed at reducing peer pressure and delaying the onset of sexual activity, I'd challenge the suggestion (echoed by various socially conservative figures) that current programmes are free of values or morals.

The question is, then, whose morals?

tell your MP to support the demand for improved sex-ed

Following yesterday's post on sex education, new abortion figures may be adding pressure to the demand for reform:

Half of pregnancies among girls under 18 are now ending in abortions although the number of pregnancies is falling, an analysis by The Times has shown.

Ministers are expected to respond to this milestone by forcing schools to improve sex education, with children as young as 5 taught about relationships and older pupils receiving specific advice about sex and contraception.

Unwanted pregnancy is, of course, merely the most visible (and politically embarassing) consequence of unsafe sex: we're also facing a resurgence of various sexually transmitted infections. So while these figures might provide the impetus for action, any change needs to reflect a range of sexual health needs.

Once more, let's note the scarcity of what schools are actually required to currently teach:

At present the only legal requirement is that they teach children the basic facts about human reproduction and anatomy, as part of the science curriculum. More than 30 MPs have signed a motion in the past fortnight suggesting that schools must do more.

Reading this story should make you very, very angry - as this is the same situation that has persisted in the UK for decades, despite the knowledge that - in the words of the chairwoman of the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group -

“We know what works to reduce abortion among teenagers. We need high-quality sex-and-relationships education at school and at home, and effective contraception.”

If the latest set of abortion figures provide the impetus for change, so much the better. However, you might note that despite the Times' lede, the formal line taken by the government has not moved one iota:

Ministers have repeatedly hinted that their proposals will be adopted, although the department said yesterday that it had “no current plans” to make sex and relationship education statutory.

"Repeated hints" while denying any plans for change - the very recipe for studied inaction with the veneer of progress.

As The Times reports, 36 MPs have signed Annette Brooke's early day motion calling for sex and relationship courses to be made a statutory part of the curriculum, taught by trained staff. If your MP isn't on that list - and he or she probably isn't - now would be a good time to ask them to add their support, or explain why not.

reforming sex education

One of the few arguments to unite pro-choice and anti-abortion MPs in last month's abortion debate was the need for better sex education and improved access to sexual health services. Here's Conservative Mark Pritchard, who supported a reduction to 20 weeks:

The Government have an important part to play. For example, they could improve sex education and provide better access to contraceptive services. Nearly 70 per cent. of GPs do not offer a full choice of contraceptive methods. For too long, contraceptive services have been seen as the Cinderella service of public health, and I hope that all primary care trusts that are represented in this House today will do more to improve those services.

And - from a very different political stance - here's Labour's Chris McCafferty:

I have said many times in this Chamber—I will keep on saying it until Members start to listen—that the best way of reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions is to improve women's access to contraception, as well as educating women and men about sexual health, and to make sexual health and relationship education compulsory in all our schools.

Here's the Shadow Health Minister, Michael Penning:

Education covers a wide variety of aspects, and it particularly needs to address the lack of knowledge about contraception, particularly in the most vulnerable and economically deprived areas of the country.

For far too long the debate has been crippled by arguments based in religious ideology or social discomfort than in the interests of health or happiness - for far too long we've suffered the juvenile argument that to merely discuss the existence of contraception is to encourage young people to have sex.

Consequently, the education that is in place is haphazard and hopelessly inadequate - and to turn now to programmes which emphasise abstinence (in the full knowledge of their failure to achieve stated aims) would be absurd in the extreme. Leaving it to magazines and TV just isn't a working strategy.

Yes, there are barriers to reform, but barriers which only require political courage to surmount.

It is possible, for example, to introduce a basic level of comprehensive, age-sensitive and, where necessary, detailed sex education to all students - as the fpa and others have been arguing for many years. Such material should be a compulsory part of a health and social skills curriculum, not a subsidiary option left to the whims of individual schools and education authorities. We should be able to respect the private moralities of religious minorities, but not allow them to dictate how far our reform should reach for the overwhelming majority.

Our politicians should also be able to summon the courage to ignore the tabloid front pages - whose reporting of sex education will always be alarmist and misleading, regardless of what decision is taken. Given that even the most limited trial for reform triggers hysterical distortions and outright lies (with a few notable exceptions) our MPS should summon the courage to do the right thing regardless: holding out for the approval of the Daily Mail is a losing game, and a game that's damaging the health of young people across the UK.

And they should always, always remember to ignore Peter Hitchens and Norman Wells.

There are detailed and pragmatic programmes in the UK which could easily be more widely supported and incorporated into a mandatory scheme of education. Given the apparent cross-party support for reform in sex education - and with many of those public statements still ringing in the air - now would be good time to actually do something about it.

dead links

Housekeeping note: the first version of this blog was hosted at journalspace, who deleted that archive last year and now seems to have passed the blog address over to someone else. So nothing you find there has anything to do with me.

If you find a defunct link, please let me know.

schism declared: "traditionalists" reject tolerance of gay priests

The off-again, on-again romance between the liberal and conservative branches of the Church of England is finally at an end as The Telegraph reports:

Hardline Church leaders have formally declared the end of the worldwide Anglican Communion, saying they can no longer be associated with liberals who tolerate homosexual clergy.

Hey, why tolerate when you can condemn?

It seems that none of the proposed structural devices and ecclesiastical surgical face-lifts were enough to relieve the overwhelming anxiety amongst religious conservatives that homosexuals were touchin' their stuff and shit.

In fairness, when one side thinks that gay people are human and the other compares the acceptance of homosexuality to acts of terrorism or bestiality, the possibility of compromise isn't ever really on the table.

It is, of course, unfair to make this break entirely about the dislike of the unholy, unholy homo: there was always also space for some liturgically justified sexism. For painfully full coverage of the last three years of schism news, dip into the archives.

In related news, can the reader with the sweepstake ticket with today's date please make themselves known so that they can claim their prize?

side effects

Via Justin at CY, a story on the communities organising to protect asylum seekers leaving amongst them:

'We had our own little code to warn them it was a dawn raid and to get out. There's more than one way of getting out of the flats - there's two staircases and two lifts, so you could play games if you knew how. If we were a thorn in their flesh, then good."

Sixty-seven-year-old Jean Donnachie flashes a mischievous smile as she describes the tactics she and her neighbours used every day to thwart immigration officers trying to arrest asylum seekers on her estate in Glasgow. A grandmother and former cashier who has lived on the Kingsway for 20 years, she makes an unlikely resistance fighter. But when she talks about how the estate took on the Home Office, there is a gleam of defiance in her eyes.

Who'd have thought that the Home Office would actually end up having a positive effect on community cohesion?

melanie phillips: I am not convinced by my latest conspiracy theory

Melanie Phillips has reached the point where she doesn't even believe her own conspiracy theories. That doesn't stop her from writing hundreds of words speculating that they might be true, though.

So, on the subject of the recent accidental exposure of intelligence files, Phillips writes:

Is it not even stranger that this just happened to occur on the day before the crucial Commons vote on the 42-day terrorist detention limit - with a major argument against that limit being that the security world was too incompetent to be trusted with any more powers?

Is it not an even more remarkable coincidence that, on the very day that the counter-terrorism world was transfixed with horror at the revelation of this breakdown in basic security procedures, yet another batch of sensitive material was being mislaid on yet another Waterloo train?

So, on the basis of absolutely no evidence beyond paranoia, Phillips suggests a conspiracy to undermine the security forces (by making them seem incompetent) that... she doesn't believe herself:

So could all these documents have been left on these trains deliberately? Frankly, that idea stretches credulity. Leaving files lying around on trains leaves far too much to chance.

Yes, in theory the officials concerned might have been hand-in-glove with the passengers who handed in this material; but such suggestions surely belong to the realm of spy fiction.

Not quite - apparently they belong to the realm of the Daily Mail.

happy to help! also, could I get some reconstructive surgery? thanxkbye!

Political pragmatism for the morally vacant.

conservatism vs. authoritarianism

And then there's Glenn Greenwald, pointing to the gulf between what we call the British and American right-wing - though the faintness of his praise is damning:

The contrast between the British Right and the American Right could not be more glaring. The former is at least mildly faithful to the principles they espouse, while the latter has morphed completely into an authoritarian, government-power-worshiping faction that fantasizes it's waging glorious war against -- to use Antonin Scalia's politicized term -- "radical Islamists," but which is only at war with its own claimed principles and the principles on which the country was founded.

And so to the House of Lords.

abortion in nothern ireland

The reported deal over 42 days to retain the ban on abortion in Northern Ireland should be given a little context. First of all, I'd note that this reassurance has been made repeatedly by a variety of different Northern Ireland ministers over the last decade - and that this latest confirmation does not seemingly represent any significant change of policy for Labour.

That said, such consistency does not make it any more tolerable. The primary consequence of a ban in Northern Ireland has been - as in the Republic of Ireland - to drive women to England to seek abortion. In their assessment of a variety of case studies, the Family Planning Association concluded:

It is evident that abortion practice in Northern Ireland is confused, inconsistent and determined by moral views or an unwillingness to risk testing the law. The absence of clear, unambiguous legislation means that many Northern Ireland women have to travel to England to obtain a private abortion. [Women from NI are not eligible for an NHS abortion in England.]

Securing an abortion in England costs around £500 (if the woman is under 14 weeks pregnant) rising to around £1,200 if the pregnancy is further advanced. This includes medical fees and travel expenses. Women unable to afford abortions in England either continue the pregnancy or may risk unsafe amateur abortions.

As such, the farcically regional restriction on abortion in Northern Ireland is not so much a ban as the selective punishment of those who cannot afford to travel. Consequently - as others have suggested - the ability of middle-class women and their partners to circumvent the law may have blunted the impetus for reform by keeping the issue "out of sight."

However - and while it's no surprise that the issue of abortion in NI has been dominated by religious interests - it's interesting to note that in the strongly Catholic Republic of Ireland attitudes are marked by a generational divide.

A poll published by the Irish Examiner in late 2005 found that "Irish voters aged under 35 are overwhelmingly in favour of legalising abortion," suggesting that "pro-choice appears to be the wave of the future, with those under 35 strongly in favour." A slightly older study of doctors in Northern Ireland from 2001 also found that a majority supported the legalisation of abortion, with 50% supporting importing British abortion law. In short, a gradual change of public attitudes may be taking place.

Finally, it's worth noting that the NI Health Minister confirmed last year that abortion law falls in the category of criminal law and is a reserved matter - in other words, the Northern Ireland Assembly can only legislate on abortion law with the consent and approval of the Secretary of State.

So while this week's reassurance that the Secretary of State won't pursue reform doesn't present a change of policy, it's important because any potential change in attitude would represent the first small but significant step to change. As such, this may be the first place where political pressure should be applied in the future.

However, while current attitudes in the Northern Ireland Assembly prevent even the discussion of when abortion can take place to save a mother's life, the road to reform seems to be a long one.

rain delays legal action?

I really do hate to keep bringing it up - ahem - but when exactly are Policy Exchange going to get around to suing the BBC?

seriousness

In a mildly desperate, searching for the silver-lining kind of way, the 42 days debate produced at least two excellent Parliamentary performances. Apart from David Davis' opposition response, there's – via Scribo Ergo Sum – Diane Abbott:

I am a Londoner and I heard the last major IRA bomb, at Canary Wharf, from my kitchen in east London. Like thousands of Londoners, I waited for the early-morning call that assured me that friends and family on their way to work and school had not been caught up in those bombings. I will not take lectures from Ministers about not taking terrorism seriously.

Abbott picks up on one of the key rhetorical poses adopted by supporters of 42 days - that support for the move is a serious measure taken by serious people and that those who opposed it lacked the serious, seriousness to comprehend the threat posed by terrorism. The idea that it might be taken to take terrorism seriously while disagreeing with extended detention is presented as some kind of ideological impossibility.

It's a flourish that'll be much harder to sustain when the legislation arrives in the Lords, though I'm certain we'll still hear it.

melanie phillips: obama is only three steps removed from saddam hussein

Melanie Phillips' response to the inevitable mockery directed at her last post on Obama appears to be “my sources are impeccable if you totally ignore Little Green Footballs and Atlas Shrugs.” Hell, I'd be trying to pretend I'd never mentioned them too.

Phillips’ totally reasonable, upfront query is - at heart - a good, old-fashioned conspiracy theory:

To repeat once again for sufferers from PODS [Princess Obama Derangement Syndrome]: the issue is NOT Obama's religion, now or in the past. It is the many questions which need to be answered about a) why he has sought to conceal his early background; b) why he has so many indirect associations with radical Islamism; and c) whether these two questions are in some way related. [my emphasis]

Phillips' issue is not whether Obama is a Muslim but simply whether he's some kind of secret sleeper agent for religious radicalism - and to not “properly investigate” this presumptive guilt is “foolish.”

To get an even better sense of this oh-so reasonable pursuit (noting that it’s hard to imagine exactly what level of disclosure would satisfy), here’s Phillips' framing of Obama’s loan from Tony Rezko:

In a further twist, as the Times reported earlier this year, a British-Iraqi billionaire, Nadhmi Auchi, who is said to have had connections with Saddam Hussein and who was convicted for corruption in France, lent millions of dollars to Rezko just weeks before that ‘bone-headed’ land deal.

You see? Obama is just three steps removed from Saddam Hussein! It’s the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon game, played with international terrorism.

And of course, Obama's failure to point this out - his attempt to conceal it, if you will - is only further proof of the need for a proper investigation by reasonably minded people gathering in the town square with pitchforks and flaming torches.

daily telegraph decides journalism too tricky, settles on reprints of columns from the femail

The Daily Telegraph - "Britain's No.1 quality newspaper website," less you forget - dedicates not one but two articles to the pressing issue of the day:

Are men boring?

Are men boring? A straw poll among friends and relations would suggest the contention is so irrefutable that evidence is barely necessary.

And you call us boring?

Modern women seem to obsess about relationships, engaging in endless, wine-fuelled dissections of their love lives, often including appallingly vivid assessments of their partner's sexual performance, or lack of it.

Why, a double-helping of trite generalisations based on dinner party conversations and cod science! Hurray for British journalism! Hurray!

*sigh*

shorter, snarkier version (updated)

Perhaps I'm reading this policy document (pdf) wrong, but can anyone find the part in the DUP's strategy on water-charging which refers to assisting in the surrender of civil liberties?

UPDATE: DK says it with swearing.

I can't believe you passed it, you fucking fucking fucking fucking bunch of authoritarian, illiberal, corrupt CUNTS!

Quite.

UPDATE 2: Brown offers a non-denial denial at this morning's press conference - switching between a straight denial ("there was no deal") to stating that he was "not party" to any deals. So why the rushed meeting with the DUP? Hmm. Golly, I'm just filled with trust right now.

From politics.co.uk liveblog of the conference:

The question just keeps on coming back. Again he's asked what he offered to MPs that extends beyond the area of counter-terrorism. Again he insists anyone that voted with the government did so out of principle. He's been so categorical now that if it's ever revealed a deal was done it would devastate him.

Anyone else get the feeling that someone has a political firewall in the shape of Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward, who might just have done the deed for him?

Q: what price liberty? A: about £1.2 billion, actually

A big-ticket spend missing from last night's civil liberties fire-sale: £200 million on water rates, an agreement to continue the ban on abortion in Northern Ireland and this minor item:

Up to £1bn in extra money for Northern Ireland by allowing the assets from the sale of army bases, due to close as a result of the peace process, to remain in Northern Ireland.

This morning, The Guardian confirms that Gordon Brown's political future may involve standing on his hind-legs and doing tricks for the Democratic Unionist Party:

Gregory Campbell, one of the nine DUP MPs, said his party had voted on the merits of the 42-day plan. "We came down in favour of the 42 days on the merits of the case."

But he said the DUP would use the leverage it now had over the government. "It proves that now beyond doubt the DUP MPs are crucial and we will be reminding them of that on each and every occasion that that comes into play, which will probably be more and more often now."

So what can we look forward to from a newly empowered DUP? Cause for concern?

For a flavour of their politics - looking above and beyond the base-level homophobia espoused by various members in the last year - in 2007, the DUP came out in support of teaching intelligent design in schools.

The row was sparked after DUP MP David Simpson, who is a member of the Free Presbyterian Church, questioned Education Minister Caitriona Ruane on the availability of materials and resources for schools wishing to teach alternative scientific theories to evolution as part of the revised curriculum.

Mr Simpson also asked for an assurance that pupils who answer GCSE examination questions outlining creationist or intelligent design explanations for the development of life on Earth, will not be marked lower than pupils who give answers with an evolutionist explanation.

Intelligent design being the most intellectually bankrupt cover-story for religious belief currently available and which government guidance for teaching in England says "lies wholly outside of science."

Hmm.

Nice bedfellows you've got there, Gordon.

gordon brown dumps NI abortion rights for 42 day detention

Extended pre-charge detention for terror suspects passes through Parliament by nine votes, courtesy of the Democratic Unionist Party. Now the details of the political shopping list begin to leak out:

Householders in Northern Ireland were due to begin paying water rates at levels equivalent to those in the rest of the UK from 2010, rising from £160 next year to £250. The DUP have now won an agreement that the £200 million this will raise annually will be spent on taxpayers in Northern Ireland.

In addition, Shaun Woodward, the Northern Ireland Secretary, assured the DUP that the Government had no plans to end the ban on abortion in the province. Abortion has never been legal in Northern Ireland, and women and girls seeking a termination often travel to the England for the procedure.

So a combination of cash in brown envelopes and women's reproductive rights is all it takes to "protect" us from the threat of religious extremists and those who would destroy our culture. Anyone else finding the levels of irony a little bit toxic?

government has "sexed up" evidence in support of 42 days (corrected)

Story of the week, to be read in full:

Human rights group Liberty today received startling information relating to Ministerial claims about the use of the existing pre-charge detention limit for terror suspects. This information undermines repeated claims that the authorities have been “up against the buffers” with the current 28 day detention period. [...]

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“I am shocked, angry and more than a little disappointed to find Ministers have repeatedly sexed up the operational pressures on the existing 28 day detention limit. Just last week in front of millions of television viewers, a senior Cabinet Minister told me that the full 28 days had been required for the gathering of evidence in three cases. Now I learn that wasn’t true. I hope that the similarities with the infamous Iraq vote will not be lost on Labour MPs tomorrow.”

It would be even better if this story hadn't apparently been ignored by The Times, The Telegraph, and The Guardian, with only the BBC and the Independent managing to include it in their coverage. My google-fu completely misfired - re-rolling, here's The Times, The Telegraph and an excerpt from the Independent:

Ministers have argued that during Operation Overt, which exposed an alleged plot at Heathrow airport in 2006, evidence came to light only at the end of the 28-day period. They have claimed it proves the police are "up against the buffers" and that a longer period will be needed in future terrorism cases.

But the human rights group Liberty accused the Government of making "inaccurate and misleading" statements about the operation. A lawyer on the case has told Liberty that the evidence used to charge two suspects at the end of the 28-day period was obtained by police within four and 12 days respectively. The lawyer claimed that, during the last 15 days of detention, the interviewing of both suspects tailed off dramatically, lasting an average of 10 and 16 minutes a day respectively.

I'll hopefully be live-blogging the Parliamentary debate on the issue this evening.

melanie phillips: meet my new friends

And so Melanie Phillips continues with her cringingly poor coverage of Barack Obama:

Today’s Guardian reports that Barack Obama is setting up an entire unit to combat ‘virulent rumours’ about him on the internet. Doubtless one of the blogs in the sights of team Obama is Little Green Footballs, which in the last few days has been excavating examples of wildly anti-Jewish and anti-American prejudice and conspiracy theories posted up by fans on Obama’s own website.

LGF is making hay with the fact that the Obamanables are belatedly taking (some of) this stuff down from the site while simultaneously insisting that its presence is nothing to do with them because the website has no moderators. Yeah, right.

This is almostly completely inaccurate. First of all, LGF's claims have been quickly shown to be wildly overstated. Secondly, Obama's site - or rather the community blog section where you can create a personal account and post - does indeed have moderators.

It does not, however, hold posts for moderation before they appear on the site, an approach adopted in the interests of fostering participation mirrored by John McCain's team. This policy is close to that found in the comment sections of many UK newspapers, which allow the general reading community to report problems to the moderation team.

Crucially, Phillips also either forgets to mention - or is grossly ignorant of - the fact that both Obama and McCain's sites have attracted a small proportion of individuals who post offensive remarks, the vast majority of which have seemingly been removed as soon as they are detected. (There's also some evidence to suggest that this entire episode may be a cut-and-paste smear tactic.)

Yet despite all this, Phillips frames Obama's supporters ("Obamanables") alone as uniquely prone to "wildly anti-Jewish and anti-American prejudice and conspiracy theories," in turn smearing the candidate by association.

Particularly ironic is the fact that Little Green Footballs' discussion areas are known throughout the web for their blend of racism, sexism, virulent abuse, occasional anti-semitism, calls to violent action and wild conspiracy theories of almost every conceivable variety.

If Phillips has a problem with loosely moderated communities which allow individuals to spout extreme views - the accusation levelled at Obama's campaign - then LGF is a problem the size of Mount Everest balanced on top of the Pyramid of Mars. Again, Phillips forgets to mention this, chooses to ignore it or is simply ignorant of information available through the most cursory research.

(The problems with the sources she chooses to support her latest anti-Obama concern trolling don't stop there, either: Pam Atlas of Atlas Shrugs (an offshoot of LGF) has a comically poor reputation as a hate-driven fabulist.

To describe Atlas Shrugs as a routinely unreliable source would leave few words left over to describe LGF, or Phillips herself. It is, perhaps, entirely fitting that these are Melanie Phillips' fellow travellers.)

an unexpected political asset

I'm thinking there's an opening for an international delusional fabulist faceoff - possibly stacking the UK's Melanie Phillips against the USA's Mary Grabar:

An Obama presidency would signal the final salvo by the Left in the culture wars. Obama’s advance troops have already taken over our college campuses, have bound and gagged our conservative professors, have ravished our virgins, have pillaged our stores of wisdom, and have ensconced themselves in the thrones of power in deans’, presidents’ and department heads’ offices.

The victory cry is heard across the land in the cheers of Obama’s constituency on college campuses.

This has been going on under the very noses of the Republicans.

Ravished our virgins? Because a hearty stockpile of unbesmirched virgins is a reliable measure of a political project's success?

Crass and deeply stupid on multiple levels, this entry sets the bar high for the first round of the competition. I'm confident, though, that the UK can come through..

iris robinson: have I made it clear that I really don't like gay people?

Iris Robinson digs herself a little deeper with some helpful moral equivalency:

Mrs Robinson repeated that she condemns the "sin" of homosexuality but not the sinner.

"Just as a murderer can be redeemed by the blood of Christ so can a homosexual."

So being gay is now on an equal footing to being a murdered. Yes, we get it - you really, really hate gay people. Well done, you bigoted fuckwit.

classy

Keen to buck up the endless supply of stories about politicians using public money to hire their partners or other family members, the Mail decides to pursue the "OMG TEH GAY" line of journalism which has made them the shit-stained newspaper they are today.

Incidentally, the "gay lover" in question (also referred to by The Telegraph as his boyfriend) is the politician's civil partner.

UPDATE: And the whole thing looks like the attempt to manufacture a smear.

nadine dorries facing standards investigation

Breaking news: Unity confirms that Nadine Dorries has been asked to respond formally to complaints that she has broken parliamentary rules numerous times by using her blog for the purposes of campaigning:

Specifically, these regulations do not permit MPs to use either the House Emblem or their parliamentary allowances when publishing material for any the following purposes:

• to promote or campaign on behalf of any person seeking election
• to criticise or campaign against anyone seeking election or otherwise seek to undermine the reputation of political opponents
• for the purpose of advancing perspectives or arguments with the intention of promoting the interests of any political party or organisation you support, or damaging the interests of any other such party or organisation

All of which, the complaint (and accompanying evidence) shows Dorries to have carried out repeatedly over the last few months and with little or no regard for the regulations, which have been clearly set out in guidance on the use of the Communications Allowance since April 2007.

You can read Sunny Hundal's original letter of complaint here (pdf).

I'm now counting down the seconds until Dorries claims victim status (while obviously and strenuously ignoring her own past failed attempt to use the Parliamentary standards commissioner to smear her opponents).

scorecard (updated again)

On the basis of the last few months of media coverage, here's a quick and dirty list of those who do not support or actively oppose an extension to the detention limit for terror suspects:

- The Times
- The Telegraph
- The Guardian
- The Independent
- The Daily Mail
- senior members of the Association of Chief Police Officers
- MI5
- the director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald
- the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer
- the current Attorney General, Baroness Scotland of Asthal
- the past Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith
- the Solicitor General, Vera Baird
- the Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald QC
- the overwhelming majority of groups responding in the public consultation exercise
- the current Security Minister, Lord West (though only until someone quietly reminded him otherwise)
- Andrew Dismore, the chairman of the parliamentary joint human rights committee
- David Davis, the shadow home secretary
- Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats

And those supporting an extension:

- The Sun
- Melanie Phillips
- Lord Stevens, former head of Scotland Yard
- Sir Ian Blair, commissioner of the Metropolitan police
- Ken Jones, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (apparently in disagreement with some of his colleagues, see above)

Hmm.

mp suggests "cure" for homosexuality to victim of gaybashing

From stroppyblog via Liberal Conspiracy, a story from Pink News to make you throw things and let loose some kind of screaming noise:

Reacting to news that a man was viciously attacked because he is gay, [Iris Robinson, MP] suggested that he should consider therapy to "cure" him of his homosexuality.

Speaking on BBC Radio Ulster today she condemned the attack on Stephen Scott but added:

"I have a very lovely psychiatrist who works with me in my offices and his Christian background is that he tries to help homosexuals trying to turn away from what they are engaged in.

"And I have met people who have turned around to become heterosexual."

Iris Robinson is a born-again Christian and chairs the Northern Ireland Assembly's health committee.

The argument that gay people can be "reformed" is utterly uncompelling. The medical and mental health consensus in the United States (echoed here in the UK) is that there is no scientifically adequate research showing that that conversion therapies are effective or safe, and there is some evidence that they are potentially harmful.

Conversion therapy is only thought to be marginally ethical when it reflects a client's right to self-determination - in other words, when offered as a possibility to people who are unhappy with their attraction to the same sex. The ex-gay movement is also littered with men and women who suddenly found themselves re-gay - becoming almost comically known as ex-ex-gay.

That said, none of that has anything to do with a man who has been the victim of a violent crime. If you've got a strong stomach, head over to Pink News for their follow-up reporting, and the transcript of Robinson's remarks. Bigotry doesn't being to describe them.

nadine dorries: new depths discovered beneath bottom of barrel

I had thought that the bottom of the barrel was thoroughly scraped, but here's Nadine Dorries advancing another clinching argument for a reduction in abortion week limits:

To have an upper limit of 24 weeks is seen as very un-cool by the teenagers I am talking to today and un-acceptable by the public at large outside of the Westminster bubble. A group of teenagers have today told me that MPs who voted for 24 weeks were ‘old fashioned’ and ‘past it’.

24 weeks is un-cool? Well, we can't have that. Better change to whatever the hip kids support (noting that it's conveniently what Dorries wants) because, above all, abortion rights are a popularity contest.

Sigh.

Though it might now go without saying, Dorries' claim that the general public rejects the 24-week limit is - at best - simplistic and misleading.

misogynist in woman's clothing

Abby O'Reilly over at the f-word blog takes some time to look Dr Pam Spurr's track record of "helpful" advice for women.

Given the kind of attitudes Spurr has been pushing over the last few months, her declaration from earlier this week that single women who say they are happy lying is no surprise - by contrast, it may even look progressive.

Incidentally, I'm stealing/borrowing O'Reilly's horribly accurate description - "misogynist in woman's clothing - for future use when talking about the Daily Mail's femail pundits. It's too good to pass up.

amanda platell: professional concern troll

Amanda Platell's dip into American politics to reveal the "uncomfortable truths" about Barack Obama is little more than a laundry list of Republican talking points, reminding us once more why Platell is best ignored.

The revelation, for example, that "Obama has the second most liberal voting record in the Senate" (presuming that being liberal is instantaneously a bad thing) most likely stems from a ranking compiled by the right-wing publication National Journal, whose cherry-picked voting criteria for being liberal included the apparently unacceptable acts of supporting the bipartisan 9-11 Commission's homeland security recommendations, providing more children with health insurance, expanding federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and maintaining a federal minimum wage. ZOMG, no.

Given that the persistent push by the US right to make "liberal" a dirty word in American politics (regardless of whether those supposedly "liberal" views represent mainstream opinion), Platell's opening "uncomfortable truth" is a cheap smear.

There's also room to make sure we know that Obama has played the race-card too heavily (an opinion stated without anything to support to it) while pre-emptively blaming him for race riots if he loses. He also supports abortion rights (gasp) and is one of those out-of-touch elites ("Obama is an East Coast cosmopolitan bien pensant"), presumably unlike his Republican opponent whose background as the husband of a multi-millionairess puts him firmly in touch with the common man and woman on the street and whose suitability for office should pass without comment.

All of this takes place in the frame of faux-anxiety for the good of the American people and the global community at large:

It is not impossible that far from being the 'new JFK' heralding a fresh age of optimism, Obama may yet prove the most divisive U.S. president in history. I just hope I'm wrong.

And that hope is so heart-felt, I'm sure. Professional concern troll, anyone?

For bonus hackery, try out Platell's up-to-date commentary on the Clintons in her "Washington Watch" paragraph:

He robbed her of her dignity and she forgave him. But will Hillary ever forgive Bill for robbing her of the Presidency? Watch this space.

Watch this space? Only if you promise to write things that I can't discover from the covers of trashy magazines when I'm queuing to pay at the supermarket in the 1990s, Amanda.

don't look

In the interest of saving you all some time:

"The latest batch of barely-clad exhibitionists to enter the Big Brother house are proof of the continuing decline in standards of public decency: the producers should be ashamed of themselves for putting this filth on our screens. (Extended coverage with THE PICTURES THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO SEE, pages 1-7, 9-14 and 33-7.)"

Copyright all newspapers, 2008.

in related news, the emperor has no clothes on

Do we file this under "better late then never" or "surprise, fucking surprise"?

A long-awaited Senate Select Intelligence Committee report made public Thursday concludes that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney made public statements to promote an invasion of Iraq that they knew at the time were not supported by available intelligence. [...]

It's long been known that the administration's claims in the runup to the Iraq war, from Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to al Qaida to whether Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program, were incorrect. But the Senate report is the first official examination of whether the president and vice president knew that their claims were incorrect at the time that they made them.

It's a liberal blogging cliche to point to the inadequacy of the mainstream media in covering such news, but McClatchy - whose coverage is quoted above - have been the near sole voice of accuracy and integrity in US reporting since 9/11.

If there's one blog post you want to read in full this week, it should be their response to Scott McClellan's account of the propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq - pointing out the ludicrousness of his road-to-publishing-royalties moment of clarity, and the rush of the press to defend their complicit behaviour.

It's a stunning year by year account of McClatchey (and Knight-Ridder's) coverage, starting with the knowledge that the Bush administration was gunning for Iraq within days of the 9/11 attacks. In a sense, the Senate Committee report is not news - as McClatchey point out, some of the findings were proven but largely ignored over five years ago:

Bush decided by February 2002, at the latest, that he was going to remove Saddam by hook or by crook. (Yes, we reported that at the time).

White House officials, led by Dick Cheney, began making the case for war in August 2002, in speeches and reports that not only were wrong, but also went well beyond what the available intelligence said at that time, and contained outright fantasies and falsehoods. Indeed, some of that material was never vetted with the intelligence agencies before it was peddled to the public.

The idea that the UK is going to play host during George W. Bush's latest round of PR - playing the global statesman while a number of different Romes burn - is grotesque in the extreme. Perhaps we might want to let him know how we feel?

have you remembered to top up your self-loathing?

Getting straight to the point, the Daily Mail gives Dr Pam Spurr space to declare that single women who say they are happy are lying. Because happy single women are apparently just women who haven't discovered that they've been left on the shelf yet.

they don't like it up 'em (now please turn and cough)

Forget whether or not NHS polyclinics will damage patient care - the real issue is apparently whether GP surgeries will be run by foreign companies. Yes, it's the Daily Express, making sure that every story is also coated in the cold-sweat of xenophobia:

SHOULD GP SURGERIES BE RUN BY BRITISH DOCTORS?

A new report suggests the polyclinics, planned for every region, will trigger the end of local GPs.

Worst of all, many could end up being run by foreign firms answerable to overseas shareholders rather than their patients.

Worse than the fear that centralised services will disadvantage rural areas - worse than the possiblity of more expensive and less efficient services - is the notion that foreigners might be involved. Privatisation at the hands of a British firm would, of course, only lead to the benevolent sacrifice of profit in the name of national loyalty. Ahem.

The title also generates some confusion over just who we're supposed to be afraid of: is it foreign money or foreign doctors, running their non-British eyes over our pasty British bodies?

This is, incidentally, part of the Express' ongoing subtle and delicate handling of the issue of immigration via Have Your Say: do you think immigration is responsible for a rise in crime? Has mass immigration wrecked Britain? Is Jonny Continent hiding your car keys? etc. etc.

the daily mail's "balanced and restrained" coverage of "the sinister cult of emo"

From The enemies of reason, commentary on the Mail's response to criticism of their recent coverage of supposed "suicide cult" emo rock bands:

So

"The Daily Mail's coverage of the 'Emo' movement has been balanced, restrained and above all, in the public interest.

was when they said

WHY NO CHILD IS SAFE FROM THE SINISTER CULT OF EMO

The Mail's defensive statement is a hearty combination of misdirection and outright lies - it's particularly fine and fetid touch that they both distance themselves from the content of their strictly moderated comment sections (in which it's almost impossible to voice dissenting opinions) and blame hysteria on blogs.