08.25.07 - 01:38pm
As one commentator at Mail Watch put it: “they may as well just write ‘vote for the BNP this October or else’”. I am sure I do not have to point out the numerous despicable tactics the Mail employs here. Sullen dark people, standing around avoiding honest work on the left, the happy, smiling, gloriously white, Middle England nuclear family on the right preparing to jump on the next plane to Australia.
08.24.07 - 10:32am
The Guardian grandly titles its editorial blog section “Comment is Free”. I suggest the editor consider whether part of its remit to propagate outright and easily refuted fabrications. As for Angie Bray, the only question which remains is whether she is stupid, dishonest or simply unduly gullible. A discomfiting thought considering the position of responsibility she unfortunately occupies.
08.21.07 - 09:23am
Newspaper reports, and to a lesser extent the television news, breathlessly parroted the police line that the camp had been “infiltrated by troublemakers” and was being taken over by monstrous “anarchists”, who cared little for the stated cause but were simply out for a fight with the police. All of it was nonsense.
08.12.07 - 05:23pm
Philadelphia Daily News columnist, Stu Bykofsky, wants another 9/11 style terrorist attack on the United States. Yes, you read that right. Bykofsky wants thousands of Americans to die in a new terrorist atrocity; you see he thinks another major terrorist strike on the US is just about the only thing that can “save America” and it seems the Daily News is more than happy to give publicity to his lunatic ravings.
08.08.07 - 01:46pm
Nevertheless, it is highly unusual, if not unique, for the police to refer a broadcaster to the industry regulator and one wonders what they found when they viewed the entire 56 hours of film footage. Channel 4 owes us an explanation. And a transcript would be a good place to start.
08.02.07 - 08:01am
You want to know what effect the sale of the Wall Street Journal to that nasty Rupert Murdoch will have? You probably don’t but I’ll tell you anyway. The answer is: not much. Sure there were stories all over the television news and in the newspapers yesterday about the deal which saw the reviled tycoon get his slimy hands on the Journal at a cost of $5.6billion, with fears that it will damage the paper’s “editorial independence”. It’s a big deal, at that price, but not really much of a big deal, if you see what I mean.
07.24.07 - 09:29am
It wasn’t hard to understand what was going on. The reporter was expressing incredulity at Dhiren Barot’s wife’s statement. The implication was that there were grounds for believing that somebody may deserve to be attacked by a prison inmate, have boiling oil splashed over him such that he was left horrifically burned, lost his hair in the attack and no doubt left scarred for life.
