Million missing in action?

Mr. McNulty: The annual cost to the Home Office of maintaining the national 101 telephony infrastructure will be £950,000. This funding will ensure that the 101 number continues to be available for all local areas. This funding will ensure that the 101 number continues to be available for all local areas to use to maintain or develop their own locally funded 101 service" - April 1st 2008 Hansard

"A non-emergency phone line planned as an alternative to 999 has been rescued by a group of councils after funding was halted by the Home Office." - March 31st 2008 BBC News

Call me cynical if you must, but if funding was "halted" and Councils have had to club together and intervene; where is the near million quid going? Maybe Tony was just joking given the date?

BBC 'scared' of Islam says Ben Elton

How refreshing it is to see that Ben Elton has accused the BBC of being scared of Islam. In an interview with 'Third Way', a Christian magazine, he has said the BBC hides behind the idea of moral sensibilities but really it's 'because they're scared'. He also questioned why Christianity was a valid target with for example jokes about vicars but not ones about Immans.

Absobloodylutely! That's what I say. I'm not a Christian myself, but I can understand why God Botherers get so irritated by the way their faith is easily ridiculed by the secular world but other faiths, in particular Islam, is not. No one has the right not be offended after all, and Islam should be ridiculed, just as much as Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists and whatever other faith you can think.

If we are, as many have argued, engaged in an ideological struggle against Islamism (however great), then for us to show deference to the special interests of Islam as a whole then it puts the values of Western ideology on very shaky ground. If the BBC had balls it would buy Little Mosque on the Prairie from the Canadians for a BBC2 night time slot.

Team Livingstone fabricates polling data

It is becoming clear that Livingstone desire to "shoot the messenger" when something irks him is inherent and entirely built into his psyche. If we look at the Lee Jasper story we see the instant charges that it's all about racism, and now he has gone on the attack against YouGov because they published polls showing he was being beaten by double-digit margin. A statement put out says,

"YouGov has a record of significantly underestimating Ken Livingstone’s vote in London. On the day before the last Mayoral election YouGov put Ken Livingstone just two per cent ahead of the Conservative Steve Norris, leading to an Evening Standard headline of ‘It’s Neck and Neck’ even although Livingstone actually won by nearly 11 per cent."

However, as Mike Smithson at Political Betting has noted, the statement about YouGov and previous polls is actually a complete fabrication.

The facts are that on the day before the 2004 vote the Evening Standard carried a report of a YouGov survey which found that amongst all potential electors Livingstone was beating Norris by 37% to 26%. When the second preference votes were taken into account, YouGov found a split of 55% to 45%. The actual result after the second preferences were counted was Livingstone 55.4% to Norris’s 44.6% - which meant that YouGov was right to within 0.8%.

SO let's get this straight. YouGov published a poll saying Livingstone had an 11% lead, Livingstone won with an 11% lead, YouGov's numbers were almost exactly on the money, so the Livingstone campaign decides to make stuff up about the pollster which isn't actually true?

More on MayorWatch

Not even safe in her own constituency?

Look, I know Peckham can be a bit rough right, but honestly, wearing a stab-vest whilst you're flanked by three coppers doesn't really say very much about ones faith in their own claims about crime in London under Labour does it?
Image from the Daily Mail

The Sun's April Fool's Day gag and other papers

I suppose it is only to be expected that the Sun would have a good old fashioned "loony EU" story for its April Fool's Day gag. Apparently the EU is going to metricate time "Britain will move to a system with 10 hours in a day and 100 units in an hour – doing away with the time old minute completely."

Good one guys. what I'm trying to figure out is whether the made-up EU planner 'Souo Mestre' is meant to be an anagram of 'Somerset' or if it was a random fluke? Should anyone spot the other made-up stories in the papers do post in the comments.

Update: The Telegraph reports "The BBC will today screen remarkable footage of penguins flying as part of its new natural history series, Miracles of Evolution." Complete with pretty photoshop! Quality!



Update II: BBC Breakfast is now showing some flashy CGI. The Miracles of Computer Evolution!

Ten Nazi Children

This is worth reading by The Fink. Inspired preumsably by Max Mosley's (Oswald's son) recent problem being caught in some Nazi-style S&M, it chronicles what the lives of ten children related to prominent Nazis. Here's a snippet,

Paddy Hitler: Adolf Hitler did not have a son, but he did have a nephew, Paddy. Paddy, the son of Hitler's brother Alois, lived in Liverpool as a young boy. In 1933 he moved to Germany, trying to be a car salesman and cash in on his family name. Things didn't work out and he moved to the US, denouncing his Uncle and serving in the US Navy in the war. Finally he settled in Long Island where he had three sons, including Brian Hitler. I am not making this up.

Click here to read more.

How heroic!

Braunstone in Leicester has received quite a bit of money to reduce crime, and the ward councillor Anne Glover even made it into Gordon Brown's 'Everyday Heroes' book. This little video shows you an ordinary evening in the hero's ward.

Lovely place! And all on the day when Brown and Smith claim the streets are safe.

How the media will deliver BNP success

There is this morning a very interesting, and arguably accurate analysis by Tim Hames in the Times of why the BNP are going to do well this year in May, and that everyone should prepared for the shock. The only criticism I have of the piece is that Hames has missed one crucial point. The media will be complicit in bringing about the monetary revival of the BNP and this is why.

Hames argues, quite rightly, that the reason UKIP did well last time around was because the elections occured on the same day as European elections. This time round there are no European election so UKIP will see their vote squeeze. Hames is quite explicit it should b said in noting that whilst many who vote UKIP will vote BNP, the voters are not really identical, and neither are the parties.

The problem though is that UKIP, whilst it may contain some members who are as nutty as fruitcakes, and as mad as a box of frogs, not all of them are like that (every party has its loonies of course, not just the Right but the Left too). However, as a result of this kind of "they might be a bit mental" assumption about UKIP they have a tendency to be ignored by the media quite significantly.

Take the issue of immigration for example. UKIP tend to be the ones that push the issue the greatest, mainly because they get, quite rightly, annoyed with the fact that the Tories in the European parliament vote in favour of open border policies and then domestically stand up and shout and complain about them.

Does that get covered by the press though? Of course not. In fact, you will regularly see the three main parties quoted in the press in stories that have been sourced from the office of UKIP. From a purely party political point of view of course I don't mind that they get squeezed, but, at the same time, is it right that the media should actively cut them out?

Take for example the Home Affairs editor at the Daily Mail, James Slack. He writes often about the issue of immigration but will always go after the Tory quote. All fine and good of course from a party political standpoint, but is it responsible journalism given that he's allegedly acknowledged privately that he knows the Tories have acted hypocritically in European votes and the party cannot actually do half the things it says it will on immigration?

The side result of this sort of thing is that a party as odious as the BNP will, as Tim Hames points out, do well in local elections, whilst the far more moderate party UKIP find themselves wanting. This is why the media will play a part in seeing the white-power socialist BNP's brief and I expect momentary revival in May.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not about to become a member of UKIP (although I did sign up to Better Off Out), but as long as that party is ignored in domestic reporting the ones who gain are the BNP. Perhaps the decision to ignore them is driven by a belief amongst the right wing media that to pay them attention will split the Tory vote. The problem is that actually when they get ignored the vote does not stick with the Tories anyway, it shifts over to the BNP, and that is why Nick Griffin will be a happy bunny comes May.

How things change

Still on Charles Clarke's interview with the readership of the Independent, in responding to a question of why student politics is not what it was, he cites the end of fascism in western Europe, the end of apartheid, and the end of 'Soviet totalitarianism'.

The last citation did make me chuckle given that it's been alleged by former KGB operatives that Clarke once offered himself up to spy for the Soviets. Actually the allegation is that he virtually begged to become one of their assets. Assuming such allegations are true isn't it funny how things and people change?

Clarke calls Brown a 'ditherer'

Now that I've had a rant (see below) there is a priceless 'You Ask the Questions' with Charles Clarke in today's Indy. He is asked whether he regrets attacking Gordon Brown and says he does regret being candid and then seeing his words portrayed by the media as a personal attack. In the preceding question he was asked what he thinks Brown's biggest mistake has been and says it is indecision. I wonder if he regrets calling Brown a ditherer then, or am I being unfair and twisting his 'candid' words?