relentlessness takes time

Hey! It's an entire year since Policy Exchange promised to sue the BBC for challenging the quality of their research into supposed extremist literature on sale in British mosques.

The threatened litigation was to be pursued "relentlessly, to trial or capitulation by the corporation" if BBC Newsnight went ahead with the broadcast of "libellous and perverse" statements. That was in December 2007 and we're still waiting.

In fact, the only glimmer of legal action has been from two of the mosques named in Policy Exchange's report - who were reported in August of this year as having hired Carter Ruck to sue Policy Exchange for defamation. If that case goes ahead, the BBC's evidence could end up in court after all.

What fun.

f*cking, stupid

In an article full of the most grotesque distortions and untruths, here's Melanie Phillips arguing that sex education is the equivalent of child abuse:

It isn’t just that a blind eye is being turned to under-age sex. Under-age children are being specifically targeted for ‘education’ in sexual activity - which might more properly be called ‘grooming’, courtesy of the British taxpayer.

It's not even an original piece of inane squawking - Peter Hitchens made it to the same baseless slur months ago.

What ministers will not do is encourage the one form of education that does work, which is to teach children the value and importance of sexual continence within marriage and to help them to ‘just say no’.

This approach, which attracts the most vicious scorn and derision from so-called progressives, has had stunning success in America - wherever it is taught properly - in bring down rates not just of teen pregnancy but also of premature sexual activity.

Phillips is - deep breath to prepare for surprise - completely wrong, and either superlatively ignorant or lying through her teeth.

Abstinence-only or abstinence-first education has been a stunning failure in America. Any potential delay to the onset of sexual activity is offset by increases in unprotected sex (with a majority of those making chastity pledges breaking that pledge before their wedding night) leading to both exposure to unwanted pregnancy and avoidable STIs. Repeat after me: as many, many years of research have shown us, abstinence education does not work.

Inconveniently for Phillips, the one system of education show to reduce the total number of sexual partners, delay the onset of sexual activity and increase the use of contraceptives is.. comprehensive, age-sensitive sex education. Furthermore, evaluations of such programmes show that - in complete contradiction of Phillips - they do not increase rates of sexual initiation, do not lower the age at which youth initiate sex, and do not increase the frequency of sex or the number of sex partners among sexually active youth.

The notion that the UK refuses to "encourage the one form of education that does work" is also entirely untrue - as I've discussed here before, there's a substantial element of health and social education dedicated towards encouraging young men and women to put off having sex until they are older.

As has been routinely argued by just about everyone not currently writing for the Daily Mail or as a member of the Catholic Church, the problem with sex education in the UK is that it is piecemeal, haphazard and frequently hopelessly inadequate, failing to impart even the most basic information about health and contraception. An additional factor exacerbating that situation is that money set aside for sexual health services has routinely been spent elsewhere.

Furthermore, one of the primary forces in prolonging this situation and crippling any chance of intelligent debate has been the voice of the socially conservative right, who persist in repeating the most transparently untrue falsehoods (again and again and again, and again with a side-order of queer-bashing) in the deliberate attempt to block reform and assert their own extreme, minority agenda.

first fright

Working my way through the recent coverage of the Human Rights Act - which has apparently only ever been used for eeeevvvilll - I find this gem from the BBC's coverage of the law's introduction back in 2000:

The Daily Telegraph reported the act could clear the way for gay relationships among schoolchildren over 16 while schools which forced pupils to attend church services may be open to legal action for "religious discrimination".

Under article 10 of the act - freedom of expression - it said pupils could challenge the rules on school uniform and even insist on cross-dressing.

Oh no! Transvestism! Religous freedom! TEH HOMOS! Alarm!

Ahem.

It's possible that I've missed the overwhelming waves of dangerously disruptive teen transvestism but probably not, eh?

pride of fleet street

Jan Moir loses it completely. Remember, this is a quote from a column in a national newspaper:

David Cameron has the most annoying legs in British politics. In fact, the Tory leader has the most annoying legs in Britain, full stop.

His ankles are as prettily turned as a showgirl's. His knees are too shapely. Above them, like great crags of sinew, lurks the beefy heft of the Cameron thighs. Ug, ug, ug.

Yet worst of all are his calves. Oh God, how I hate those smug calves! There is something about the Tory leader's hideous orbs of compressed, calfy muscle - testament to a cycling habit that keeps him in favour with the eco-nuts - that makes me want to beat them black and blue with a bicycle pump.

Truly, the British press is the bestest in the world.

from the intended consequences file

I think the supposed outrage from pro-life campaigners reads something like this: documentary "glorifies" informed, compassionate and humane understanding of euthanasia.

borked

Just me, or has the The Times website temporarily paralysed itself? Every link triggers a javascript pop-up announcing the link-text.

why let the facts get in the way of a delicious scandal?

Could it be that Melanie Phillips has forgotten to mention that Illinois Democratic governor Rod Blagojevich - arrested for allegedly trying to "sell" Obama's senate seat - was recorded complaining that Obama's team wanted nothing to do with his scheme?

In a conversation with Harris on November 11, the charges state, Blagojevich said he knew that the President-elect wanted Senate Candidate 1 for the open seat but "they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation. [Expletive] them."

Yes. Yes, it could.

being ignored is not the same as being silenced

Oh noes, liberalz:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor claims that the rise of secularism has led to a liberal society, hostile to Christian morals and values, in which religious belief is viewed as "a private eccentricity" and the voice of faith groups is marginalised.

The cardinal warns that Britain shows signs of degenerating into a country free of morals, because of its rejection of traditional values and its new emphasis on the rights of the individual.

The Cardinal's attempt to paint the faithful as victims in a brave new (liberal) world relies on several rhetorical sidesteps. First you have to assume that the Church being left behind by changes in majority opinion is the same thing as the Church being unfairly marginalised. In order for this to work, you also need to pretend that not being taken seriously is the same thing as being silenced.

A minimal acquiantance with press coverage readily demonstrates that religious leaders have had no problem attracting coverage of their views - whether it be on the hot topics of abortion, adoption, gay rights or sex education. The Telegraph and The Times - two major papers of record by any judge - employ religious affairs correspondents who, along with other journalists, produce substantial coverage.

Broadsheet and tabloid newspapers obligingly quote religious leaders even when doing so has involved repeating absurdist conspiracy theories. For example, here's the Bishop of Motherwell back in 2006, quoted in The Herald, furious that people disagreed with him that gay people might be able to raise children:

"What started as a tolerance and compassion for gays had developed into the suppression of the majority heterosexual lifestyle. Traditional family values are in the dock and the judge and jury are composed of politically correct extremists."

The bishop was, of course, arguing from the logic that there's a finite amount of liberty available - giving legal recognition to homo families necessitates going door to door in order to separate biological parents from their children, sealing up vaginas and deflating penises.

As being heard doesn't really constitute any real problem, consider the true possible root of the Catholic Church's annoyance: that the Church is no longer being allowed to make exclusive claims on what constitutes morality, or to dominate debate on moral issues. This, in turn, makes sense of the idea that "traditional values" are primarily Christian, and that secular people tend towards degeneracy without the influence (i.e. moral dominance) of their good Christian neightbours. This, in one more decorative flourish, involves the pretence that the claim on equality for gay people, or the protection of access to abortion is not itself some kind of moral position.

There is a grain of truth, then, in the Cardinal's claim - Britain has become an "unfriendly" place for religious beliefs when, for example, those specific religious beliefs seek to deny freedoms which are recognised by the majority.

something I prepared earlier

If we really must have the evangelical Christians versus deadly, deadly homos (fight! fight! fight!) conversation again, then I claim the right to repost this:

For anyone flying the flag of classical liberalism and claiming that queer people and their advocates are as intolerant of socially conservative Christians as that group is prejudiced towards "teh queer," it's worth remembering that gay advocate groups have not argued:

- that socially conservative Christians do not have the right to marry or adopt or assume next of kin rights because of their "lifestyle choices"

- that Christianity is a legitimate reason for a person to be denied housing or other goods and services

- that Christians should not be put in charge of teaching children because of the damaging effect it might have on impressionable minds

- that a refusal to have sex outside of a ritualistic union is unnatural or even perverse

- that Christians are going to hell if they do not immediately take up anal sex and go-go dancing.

- that a tendency towards paedophilia is an intrinsic quality of being a religious minister

- that discrimination based on religion (or religious sectarianism) shouldn't be taken seriously, because if the people affected wanted to they could just "stop believing"

- argued that the specific and even generic sex acts of socially conservative Christians are perverted and must not be described in school, even if to prevent the transmission of STI's.

Apologies for the lazy-blogging; fresh posts to emerge when my brain spins back up to speed.

two homos bad, four evangelicals good

Crushingly busy at work - but note that The Mail and Melanie Phillips have mounted up for another charge against the Human Rights Act.

Aside from an incredibly selective memory of human rights cases (which I'll write about when I have a minute to spare) consider Phillips' core argument: minority groups should not enjoy the same rights as the majority. Now re-read her argument - where instead of pesky homosexuals, you mentally insert Jews. Awk-ward.

For homework and extra credit, attempt to justify the following rhetorical position: protecting the rights of a minority of homosexuals is BAD. Protecting the rights of a minority of evangelical Christians, however, is GOOD.

the voice of the semi-faithful

Ahem:

Kioni, who will turn 13 later this month, added: 'The ideas behind the purity ring are something I believe in. I believe in Jesus and a lot of his teachings.'

Well, you wouldn't want to overdo it now, would you?

Please also note the ability of the Mail (for yes, it is the Mail, again) to write a story about the chastity pledge movement - of which the "silver ring thing" is a part - without remembering to mention that it has been a disastrous failure, with the vast majority breaking their pledge before marriage.

zombie lies (wherein the post ends in a sentence I never thought I'd type)

Another day, another lie, or just the same lie:

But on Sunday evening John Barrowman, the 41-year-old actor who plays Captain Jack Harkness in Doctor Who and its spin-off Torchwood, was appearing on The Switch, presented by Nick Grimshaw and Annie Mac on Radio 1. The interview was broadcast at 8.15pm when many of his child fans would be listening. [...]

Barrowman responded: "Is the webcam on?" and when told it was added: "All right, I'll get it out for you then, no problem" and proceeded to expose his genitalia amidst much excited encouragement.

Once more: no, he didn't.

No-one saw anything at all.

There was no exposure.

Nothing was exposed and, frankly, the repeated attempt to claim otherwise is starting to suggest something about the unusually vivid imaginations of the Daily Mail editorial staff. We get it: the Mail doesn't like the BBC, but it will have to continue its vendetta without the assistance of a TV celebrity's penis.

abortion not linked to depression, despite anti-choice claims

A major study concludes that there's no evidence of a link between abortion and the risk of depression - and suggests that the attempt to make that link has been politically motivated:

A team at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore reviewed 21 studies involving more than 150,000 women and found the high-quality studies showed no significant differences in long-term mental health between women who choose to abort a pregnancy and others.

"The best research does not support the existence of a 'post-abortion syndrome' similar to post-traumatic stress disorder," Dr. Robert Blum, who led the study published in the journal Contraception, said in a statement.

"Based on the best available evidence, emotional harm should not be a factor in abortion policy. If the goal is to help women, program and policy decisions should not distort science to advance political agendas," added Vignetta Charles, a researcher and doctoral student at Johns Hopkins who worked on the study.

One to hold on file for the next round of bullshit justifications presented by anti-abortion campaigners.

melanie phillips: the blueness of the sky proves that it is green

Shorter Melanie Phillips: this third-party analysis of Obama's enjoyment of basketball is proof of his devious Machiavellian, Leninist super-plot.

I particularly enjoy Phillips' reasoning that two people who have (at best) indirect and distant connections to Obama's thought processes should be counted as having opinions that come "straight from the horse's mouth." Perhaps there's a rule of inverse proportions at work - the less you have to do with Obama, the more you are able to reliably describe his thinking.

Presumably this is also part of the cunning process of "stealth politics," where even the evidence proving its existence is clad in several layers of stealthy stealthness with added stealthiosity. On rye-bread.

Favourite comment from the thread following that post:

He's a cunning old fox, alright. First he appoints centrists to his cabinet. Then when he gets into power he'll start implementing centrist policies. Before you know it - he's got a reputation as a competent moderate bipartisan figure. And then he runs for re-election on that basis - and wins! Then, for the final stage of his devious ploy, he continues to play the centrist through his second term thus ensuring that another centrist Democratic has a chance in 2012.

He's not fooling us. We Spectator readers know he's really the most liberal person in the world.

Remember: Obama's moderate actions are proof he is a radical!!!???!!!

pants conflagration visible from many miles around

For more on the Daily Mail's "road to Warsaw" conversion to ethnic sensitivity see Five Chinese Crackers:

The Mail is getting outraged about Chris Moyles making jokes based on assumptions that it, more than anyone else, set up in the first place. Not only that, but see that cartoon at the top of the page? The one with the hilarious joke about eastern European prostitutes? That was from the Daily Mail.

and The Enemies of Reason:

Ah yes, the Federation of British Poles complained at length about the Mail's disgraceful and slanted coverage which appeared consistently and constantly, and was finally, via Paul Dacre's PCC, offered a tiny tucked-away 'right of reply' in Paul Dacre's newspaper.

A bit rich for the Hate to take the moral high ground over slagging off Poles?

So not just me noticing, then. I'd suggest we collectively invest in a hypocrisy-signal to shine on low-level cloud, but for the inevitable light pollution and weekly cost of replacement bulbs.

daily mail discovers sensitivity to ethnic minorities

I hope you like your irony in the shape of an Escher staircase. For your pleasure, a play in four acts.

1. The Daily Mail prints many, many stories about the Polish community in Britain e.g. Polish pilots' poor English almost led to mid-air collision over Heathrow, Bus company bosses jailed after exhausted Polish driver who couldn't speak English killed workman on a crane, Polish migrants living in Britain claiming £21m in child benefits for children left behind, School governors face the sack for failing to stop bullying of Polish pupils, Polish immigrants take £1bn out of the UK economy, The Polish baby boom: Fears for NHS and schools as 1,000 Polish children are born EVERY month...

... Eastern Europeans 'cause 15 per cent of fatal accidents on rural roads,' How Polish killers, drug smugglers and rapists on the run in Britain are being sent home on 'Con Air' flights, The superloo where Polish migrants are fighting to spend the night for 20p, The British workers denied jobs 'because they can't speak Polish', Widow fills out husband's death certificate - because Polish doctor couldn't speak English, etc. etc.

2. The self-same Daily Mail attacks Chris Moyles for making fun of the Polish:

Foul-mouthed Radio 1 DJ Chris Moyles is the latest highly paid BBC star to cause a public outcry after appearing to tell listeners Polish people make good prostitutes.

Just days after it was forced to apologise when actor John Barrowman exposed himself live on air on the same station, the broadcaster has become engulfed in another row.

Note the wiggle room provided by the word "appearing" and the repetition of the entirely untrue story about John Barrowman, who didn't expose himself to anyone.

3. The self-nominated representatives of the Polish community say that they ignore Moyles anyway (thus proving status as upstanding members of human race).

4. The BBC responds by arguing that Moyles comments were, in turn, an ironic treatment of racist attitudes [edit: but not, apparently, sexist attitudes]:

Last night the BBC said: 'Chris was poking fun at ridiculous and unfair stereotypes, and making a nonsense of generalisations based on nationality.

'At no point did he say that Polish people were involved in prostitution – he separately joked that prostitutes were good at fixing cars and ironing.'

Fin.

the chancellor of oxford university vs. melanie phillips

The first paragraphs from a letter from the Chancellor of Oxford University to The Spectator:

Your article, “Carpe diem -- or can we all relax now?” by Melanie Phillips (26 November 2008), repeats a number of patently false assertions about Robert Malley that are currently blighting the more dubious corners of the internet and do not belong in a respected publication.

Mr Malley did not work for the Obama campaign, nor is he working for the transition team. He did not travel anywhere for Obama, neither before nor after the election. His work on the Middle East in recent years has been in his role as the Middle East and North Africa Programme Director of the International Crisis Group, where I am currently co-chairman.

Ms Phillips uses a quote from a US publication, but neither she nor the original author bothered to check the veracity of that statement with Mr Malley or the International Crisis Group. In fact, no “aide” of Mr Malley could have told anyone anything, as Mr Malley has no aides.

A simple phone call to the International Crisis Group when writing the article would have cleared up all of these points, but your author apparently found it easier simply to copy-and-paste a libellous statement from an American web page.

Phillips has reproduced the entire letter on her blog - but without any comment or response whatsoever.

Given her recent gloating about her journalistic abilities and the unfairness of her critics (in a post that should have been titled "everything that has happened over the last twenty years proves me completely right") it's odd that Phillips should choose to go entirely silent rather than rebut these claims. Could it be that she doesn't have a leg to stand on?

Phillips' habit of cutting-and-pasting from whichever source happens to support her current conspiracy theory will be familiar to anyone who has spent time reading her work. Aside from assuming that Little Green Footballs and Atlas Shrugs are reliable newsgatherers, my favourite example involves a string of accusatory speculations based on a source whom Phillips herself describes as "not reliable."

This is, though, a relatively rare example of a public drubbing from a high-profile public figure, in a letter that asks for an immediate apology and correction.

I wouldn't wait up.

a moment of clarity in an uncertain world

If there's one thing the last 48 hours have taught me, it's that everyone instantly knows how they feel about John Barrowman's genitals - sight unseen.

the independent review kabuki play

Last night, I wrote:

It could be that [the police are] still processing evidence (looking back over two years of communication), that they've decided (for once) to avoid prejudicing a highly politicised case or that - and this may start to look more likely with each passing news cycle - that initial conversations with the Crown Prosecution Service about whether to proceed to prosecution have led exactly nowhere.

Today, the Times reports the first act of the ritual kabuki play which could allow the case to be abandoned:

Scotland Yard's announcement of an urgent review of the Damian Green affair is the first step towards dropping an investigation that has embroiled it in an almighty scandal and threatens to wreck the careers of two of its most senior officers.

The rationale presented by the Times seems to be that while there just might be a case to be made under different circumstances, the entire investigation has become hopelessly politicised.

Keeping a finger on the pulse of spin and counter-spin, you might notice that the police have now started briefing against each other in the hope of limiting exactly which heads might roll:

Many senior police officers were surprised by the decision - taken by Sir Paul Stephenson, the Acting Commissioner, and Bob Quick, the head of special operations - to arrest a frontbench MP as part of an inquiry into leaks to the press.

One said: "It's a massive cock-up, almost incomprehensible." Another added: "This is not about state secrets, it's about politically embarrassing information, why are we involved at all?"

Publicly the police have closed ranks. Behind the scenes, however, there is anger and disappointment that Sir Paul and Mr Quick did not consult more widely with senior colleagues in the police service before embarking on such a high-stakes operation.

It's a public, unified face.. where we can read about all the infighting The Times.

So, we now have a review into an ongoing case where the man who has ordered the review says he has "proper concerns" (not that there's anything wrong with signalling to the press what you expect an independent enquiry to discover before it starts, of course not). Still, anyone want to lay money on review putting those concerns to rest and the police and CPS then proceeding to trial?

have you considered all the possible merits of some more outrage? (updated)

The Mail takes a second desperate attempt to get some mileage out of the John Barrowman non-story in an article which appears to amount to "did you know he is a KNOWN HOMOSEXUAL NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT."

After repeating that no-one actually saw anything offensive ("..while Barrowman's genitalia were not actually shown..") we're treated to this biographical sketch:

John Barrowman is also a singer and has acted as a judge on the BBC talent shows I'd Do Anything, Any Dream Will Do and How Do You Solve A Problem Like Maria?

He is openly gay and in 2006 'married' long-term partner Scott Gill in a civil ceremony. Since then he has appeared determined to seek notoriety.

In June 2007 he gave an interview saying his boyfriend became 'turned on' by the thought of Barrowman being with a woman.

By early this year, he was boasting that he regularly flashes his bottom, often at his own family 'as they drive off in the car'.

Is it me, or has the bar for notoriety sunk rather low? Two quotes from different interviews over a period of two years?

For added fun, re-write this story so it's actually a tirade against political correctness gone mad, e.g.:

Prime-time family favourite John Barrowman was rapped today by politically correct BBC chiefs for making "innuendo laced-statements" live on air.

"It's as though the BBC has absolutely no sense of humour," said John Midgely of the Campaign against Political Correctness. "The tradition of the cheeky seaside postcard shows that the British have always enjoyed a giggle."

Barrowman's treatment is the latest in a series of episodes where the BBC has caved in when faced with the complaints of a small minority protesting "offence."

PAGE 9: Melanie Phillips - "the phantom of 'offence' is destroying this once great country and its liberal traditions."

Uncanny, no?

Finally, the Mail's new comment-rating system (on which more when I'm out from under this stack of work) has allowed the voice of sanity to be heard:

Well, it seems all humour has officially been banned. Nothing was seen on the webcams, only one person complained, yet I keep reading the same non-sense regarding this story.

John Barrowman is an entertainer. A fantastic one at that. Everything done or said was all in good humour, not set out to hurt anyone. Which it didn't. It just got witch-hunters' jaws flapping and mindless people leaping on the bandwagon.

Barrowman has nothing to apologise for.

My personal favourite, though, is this comment from "Norman" of Bristol:

The BBC should lose their licence fees without fail. I recently read that all the previous Dr Whos were actually stark naked under their clothes while they were on television. It's an outrage.

I think I spy the seeds of a new situationist comedy movement.

Update:

Wow. I hadn't realised that this complete and utter non-story had made it to the front page:


The Mail have leapt from "a little bit desperate and pathetic" to "going door-to-door, begging for spare outrage."

awkward bedfellows

Drawing together a range of stories from the weekend, and we can see what looks like a concerted Tory attempt to spin against Christopher Galley.

- first, there was the outraged claim (largely Tory led outrage, that is) that Galley was involved in a police entrapment scheme, strenuously denied today by Galley's lawyer.

- second, and I've only seen the quote once in the Telegraph, is the description of Galley by "senior Conservatives" as a "slightly fragile character" who was consequently turned down for a job.

It's a peculiar situation: the Tories could have chosen to present Galley as an outstanding public servant, willing to risk his own career to share information which the public had a right to know about.

However, there's a problem. Galley is - or has been - a Tory party activist; he stood for a seat in the 2004 local elections, and approached Green for a job in his office. Given that Galley stood for election, it's highly likely that he is - or was up until a few years ago - a member of the Conservative party. As far as I can make out, no-one in the press has picked this up yet (or if they have, they haven't reported the question).

There is, then, a problem of perception. Valorising Galley's actions - as would perhaps be logical - could leave the Tories open to the government's counter-spin that it was an approved Tory conspiracy, an inside job led by one of their own. This perception isn't helped by Galley's own letter of application to Green, which - according to police sources - allegedly set out how he had helped the party by providing sensitive information.

So we have the current situation where Green is defended (and celebrated by some) as a voice of truth to power, whereas Galley - whose career is not protected by the leader column of the Mail, the Telegraph and a number of other papers - is being pushed away to a safe distance.

the wrong kind of denial?

Christopher Galley - or rather his lawyer, Neil O'May - "sets the record straight" without addressing any of the interesting outstanding questions:

Speaking on behalf of Mr Galley, Neil O'May, of Bindmans law firm, said: "We are here to give a statement to you in light of the various rumours that have been circulating." [...]

His client met Mr Green in 2006 in the House of Commons and met him over the course of the next two years, he said.

"Mr Galley gave Mr Green information that was important for the public to know in an open and democratic system."

He said Mr Green "received the information in the same spirit and used it in the course of his parliamentary duties".

Though this statement frames Green as a passive recipient of information (merely "receiving") it reads more like the avoidance of the claim of conspiracy than an out-and-out denial.

The failure to address or deny this aspect of charge (that Green asked Galley for papers) is all the more conspicuous when you consider the second, highly motivated and specific statement denying Galley's involvement in an alleged police sting:

In a separate statement, Mr O'May refuted suggestions made in the press that Mr Galley was "knowingly used by police to entrap Mr Green". He said: "This is a malicious rumour and wholly untrue."

The question of the day, though, remains whether Green asked Galley for information, and whether - to quote the police brief - he set Galley "specific tasks."

In turn - and while we're still reading inferences from absence - we're still waiting for the police to brief (i.e. leak) on more specific information amounting to a firm case against Green.

It could be that they're still processing evidence (looking back over two years of communication), that they've decided (for once) to avoid prejudicing a highly politicised case or that - and this may start to look more likely with each passing news cycle - that initial conversations with the Crown Prosecution Service about whether to proceed to prosecution have led exactly nowhere.

man doesn't expose himself in exposure scandal shock

A moment of gutter-scraping stupidity from the Mail as it attempts to whip up another round of anti-BBC outrage:

BBC in new decency row after Torchwood star John Barrowman exposes himself during live broadcast

The BBC was engulfed in another decency row today after one of its highest profile stars exposed himself live on air.

Can you guess where this is going?

Doctor Who actor John Barrowman revealed himself in a pre-watershed Radio 1 show. Parts of the show - but not the controversial moment - were broadcast online via a webcam.

You can only marvel at the incoherence of those two lines - where a man exposes himself, except that he doesn't.

A producer hastily covered the webcam when Barrowman, 41, unzipped his flies after being prompted by The Switch presenters Annie Mac and Nick Grimshaw.

The quick response managed to preserve Barrowman's modesty and prevent web viewers from seeing the lewd act.

So that would make the headline a massive lie given that he.. uh.. didn't actually expose himself and no-one saw anything.

Still, this almost-exposure that didn't happen is extremely offensive to the people who didn't see it because they couldn't because it doesn't exist.

spinning damian green

With everyone briefing everyone else, here's a summary of the spin.

Senior Tories - i.e. Green's and Cameron's offices - are briefing that the police accused Green of "grooming" Christopher Galley in the hope that it would provoke an incriminating response. The attempt to entrap proves that the arrest was a politically-inspired witch-hunt based on “flimsy and trivial” grounds.

Sources "close to the investigation" - i.e. the detectives working the case - claim that Green was not merely "inducing" or persuading Galley to leak documents but may have set him specific tasks, suggesting more detailed allegations yet to emerge.

The Tories claim the case concerns 4 stories; the police say it's something more like 20 leaked documents. The Times helpfully fills in some of those blanks:

Other Home Office leaks being investigated are: the complete version of Sir Ronnie Flanagan’s report on the future of policing in February; the information that a disc containing details of 4,000 Dutch offenders that had been sent to Britain had been lost for a year; and news of the loss of data on thousands of prolific offenders.

The Telegraph helpfully describes the law criminalising misconduct in public office as "archaic" and - most revealingly - reports that the Tories have decided to spin against Galley in order to minimise his Tory credentials:

Detectives are believed to suspect that Mr Green may have decided to effectively keep Mr Galley in the Home Office as a Conservative “agent”. However, this is firmly denied by senior Conservatives who claim that he was not offered a job and is a “slightly fragile character”.

An indirect slur against someone's mental health? If the law is archaic, that strategy is so traditional as to be prehistoric.