Nearly missed this one from Guido Fawkes on the early release of one of Baby P's killers:

Two years after being convicted Jason Owen is back on the streets free. You can sign the e-petition to restore the death penalty here.

By all means sign the petition, but bear in mind it wouldn't have made a blind bit of fucking difference here as Owen was not convicted of murder and therefore wouldn't have been eligible for the noose. But let's not get too hung up on the facts - especially if they get in the way of a bit of rabble rousing...

Guido is once again spouting self-serving bullshit and revealing his socially conservative side in the process:

What happened to the Ed Miliband who got hitched to Justine after pressure from those of us who pointed out that it was unusual and a little bit weird for a party leader not to be married to the mother of his children?

Now, I have no idea why Ed Miliband chose to get married this year; it could be because of Guido’s pressure (although I rather think Guido is once again over-estimating his own influence); it could be because Miliband Minor wanted to silence the snidey bullshit emerging about his private relationship with the mother of his children and life partner coming from prurient muck-rakers like Gudio. It could also be because he loves Justine and wanted to make that relationship formal. I don’t know why he chose to do what he did; nor does Guido, I rather suspect.

And while it true that party leaders are traditionally married to the mother (or father, in the case of Thatcher) of their children, it is not a “little bit weird” if they are not. There are countless couples across the country who are not married despite having children. I know two couples myself who are about to have children but who are not married. We live in a time when marriage is no longer considered an essential stepping stone before a couple can have children. Thankfully, we live in a more modern age. People might not get married before having kids because they just don’t get round to it (and trust me, organising a wedding takes a lot of time), it might be because they don’t see any value in marriage or believe that their love for each other needs to be rubber stamped by the church or the state. Such views are not “weird”; they are perfectly valid alternative views for those who are not obsessed by the social norms of the past and are happy to live in a way that is slightly different from the socially conservative expectations of the likes of Guido Fawkes.

Guido's Death Penalty Campaign*

I seriously think that Kelvin McKenzie should take some sort of legal action against Guido Fawkes (or whoever is running that site these days) for identity theft. Because with this sort of rabble rousing, he is truly gunning to the online version of perhaps The Sun's most notorious famous editor. Yes, he is/they are launching a petition to bring back the death penalty for child and cop murderers.

The logic, such as it is, seems to be that this should be done because a majority of the population back such a move. The evidence offered is scant, and "all polls" actually refers to just one poll, of 2,011 people, dating back to December 2008, in which 50% of the people (so just over 1,000, then) were for the death penalty. It is difficult to take such a result and project it with any degree of credibility across a population of over 60,000,000. And even if you could, would that then make it right for the majority to force their opinions on the minority? What the majority decided that pseudonyms should be banned from the internet? Or, more controversially and seriously, if Catholics should be declared second-rate citizens?

And while we're on the subject or spurious logic and borderline misrepresentation of the facts, what about the guff about "getting real justice" for the next Baby P? Those involved in the foul abuse of Baby P were not convicted of murder, and therefore would not have been eligible for the death penalty. This is nothing other dog-whistle politics - an attempt to gain support by mentioning the most infamous recent case of a malicious child death. Presumably Ian Huntley and Roy Whiting - two people who even to your humble author, a passionate opponent of the death penalty, can see the case for executing - are just too old hat these days.

Guido has done some good work in the past (McBride, Hain) and may yet continue to do so (Morgan), but this sort of thing does him no favours. It also does damage to the blogging world, since one of the few possible USPs that exists for political bloggers is that they are not like the MSM. Guido turning his site into not just a tabloid but one of the worst of the tabloids as well as one currently having its reputation justly dragged through the mud is a a depressing sign that, when (pseudo-)fame and (presumably) money come calling, the temptation to sell out is too much to resist.

I've no idea whether this idea/campaign has legs or will simply die a death. But I do sincerely hope for the latter, since the whole thing reeks of a cynical and desperate attempt to court public approval and precious little else.

*Yup, this post is largely a rehash of an earlier one. But since Guido has not really moved on in his opinons and logic this sort of post, by its very nature, can't move on that much either.

Guido Fawkes and the Death Penalty

The news of the conviction of Levi Bellfield for yet another appalling crime inevitably leads some to call for the reinstatement of the death penalty. And the Guido Fawkes website continues its shameless drift towards being the blogging version of The Sun with this sort of rabble rousing tripe:

The political class complains that the public is disengaged, could that be in part because there are a number of issues where the political class refuses to carry out the wishes of the people. All polls since 1965 when hanging was abolished show that there is majority support for capital punishment, yet there is no majority for it in parliament. It is not even an issue for parliamentarians even though the incidence of homicide is higher now than it was before the abolition of hanging. The coalition has promised that there will be e-petitions legislation before the end of this year. If it passes Guido will put all the resources at his command into a campaign for a vote on the restoration of capital punishment for child and cop killers. Even if we don’t win the vote on the floor of the House, we shall at least see which MPs believe salus populi suprema est lex, and those that put the welfare of child killers above the wider community. Bring it on…

Yes, because polls have never been wrong at all, have they? But let's take a look at what the writer at Fawkes' place actually claims. There is no evidence offered that "all polls since 1965" have shown a majority support for capital punishment - instead it links to a poll at this site, which shows the results of one poll from 2008 where 50% favour capital punishment, 40% don't, and 11% don't know. Yes, that's right - the poll adds up to 101%. Perfect.

But even if the polling data wasn't deeply suspect and in no real way supportive of what the site is trying to say, then there is still the really rather major problem of whether just because the majority supports something, does that then make it right? What if the majority called for the banning of homosexuality? The death penalty for drug users? Second class citizenship for, say, Catholics? Would that then make it right? Not, of course it fucking wouldn't. But that's what happens when you use the logic of The Sun; your case is simplistic and designed not to appeal to individual intellect, but to the unthinking mob.

And on the death penalty itself, I can't support it. I understand the thirst for revenge, particularly when dealing with such a spectacularly vile creature as Levi Bellfield, and particularly when that thirst comes from the bereaved. But revenge is seldom the best motivator for a supposedly dispassionate and neutral justice system, and revenge is not always applied to the guilty. In short, I can't really disagree with anything Longrider says on the death penalty here. There may be an intelligent case to be made for the death penalty; it certainly won't be made at the Guido Fawkes website.

MPs? Or Tabloids?

Via Guido, a quote from Tom Watson on modern MPs:

"They have no predators, they are untouchable, they laugh at the law, they sneer at parliament, they have the power to hurt us, and they do with gusto and precision…"

What's that you say? That he was actually talking about tabloid newspapers? Really? I can kind of see how his words might be applied to newspapers, but they are a far more apt description of our ruling class...

Guido and the Right to Publish

Yup, I'm jumping on the bandwagon and asking the question "was Guido right to publish his story about Hague and his aide?"

Now, my thoughts on the right of politicians to have a private life can be found here and here and I've got little to add; the fact that I don't approve of our salacious desire to see behind the net curtains of our political class doesn't mean I want it to be banned. After all, there's lots of things in Britain today that I don't approve of but that continue regardless; Jamie Oliver, EastEnders, chugging. I, and many others, may not like muck-raking, but it will carry on regardless.

And Guido is a muck-raker. His site isn't, has never been and never will be, about high-brow political debate conducted with sensitivity. It is a tabloid blog - which is precisely why it is so successful. People can visit the site to vent their frustration and anger against politicians, and because Guido is prepared to publish stories that the mainstream media is often wary of (the Hague story being a great example) those visiting the site will sometimes be treated to genuinely breaking news. It is a simple, unsophisticated format, but it works.

The Hague story was the sort of thing that was right up Guido's street, particularly since the mainstream media were dancing around the story without actually taking the plunge and publishing it. So Guido can claim that he was doing a public service by publishing info that no-one else would. This I get; this I can agree with. The problem lies not so much in the fact that the story was published, but rather the content of the story.

I'd have quite a bit of sympathy with a story that questioned whether Hague's SpAD was actually capable of doing his job - given said SpAD was being paid from the public purse, I'd say this is a legitimate story. The problem is that Guido's story, and much of the speculation around it, didn't centre on the question of the SpAd's ability. The at times overpowering undertone had nothing to do with the question of competence; it was all about the homophobic innuendo. For example, the claim that Hague and the SpAD shared a twin room in the election campaign was met with almost audible schoolboy sniggers, despite the fact that people of the same gender can share twin hotel rooms without having crazy monkey sex all night long. The legitimate question about the adviser's competence ended up being lost beneath an avalanche of innuendo.

Which means that the SpAD didn't go because he wasn't competent, but rather because of a homophobic whispering campaign. And we're left with no real evidence of any sort of an affair between Hague and his adviser, and legitimate questions about Hague's judgment in hiring some who, on face value, was not the best choice for the role have been lost behind statements about miscarriages.

So yeah, Guido was right to publish - however the tone of his story and the subsequent speculation about Hague's sexual orientation have robbed his story of its initial legitimacy. The real questions go answered because the story ended up going down the dead-end route around sexuality, rather than questions about competence. Guido may now be trying to redirect the story, but the resignation of the SpAD and the embarrassment for Hague had little to do with questions of competence, and everything to do with innuendo.

Anyway, enough already. The SpAd's gone, we know about the Hagues' miscarriages, that's (more than) enough. There are other stories out there that warrant, if not demand, discussion.

The Tories, Britain and The Wire

So, a Tory has created a whole bag of controversy by trying to be a bit hip and referencing highly acclaimed US TV programme The Wire. LabourList asks whether anyone's street really resembles The Wire. I'm guessing that Mr Grayling's street probably doesn't, what with him being an MP and all. As for my street, well, I can't comment on whether it resembles The Wire or not. I would say that sometimes it resembles The Shield. Albeit without the *aggressive* policing.

You can make what you will of this storm in a crackpipe teacup. Old Holborn points out that parts of Britain are worse than Baltimore, which is where The Wire is set. And Guido does something that politicians of both parties seem reluctant to do - actually offer a solution. And his idea - decriminalising drugs - would actually do a great deal to make our streets less like The Wire and more like... oh, I don't know, I don't watch enough US TV to make a valid comparison. But the sort of place where people don't get shot in the face owing to drug-related crime.

Fraud v. not being open

LabourList has an article up accusing Guido Fawkes of not being entirely open in his dealings with the Centre for Open Politics:

"He is also, in fact, rather hands on, answering the phone himself today to several journalists. While admitting he is behind the group if asked Guido doesn't make it clear even on his own blog (see right). Come on now Paul, I thought you were in favour of transparency..."

So, Guido doesn't make it clear on one blogpost but does confirm if asked that he is linked to the Centre for Opek Politics and answers the phone on the behalf of the Centre for Open Politics. Maybe he isn't being entirely open, but - let's be honest - he's not exactly hiding the fact either.

Besides, Draper's real gripe is not about Guido, it is about Guido/Centre for Open Politics going after Jacqui Smith. Draper writes:

"...the so-called independent "Centre for Open Politics" which is trying to stir up trouble for Jacqui Smith is none other than a front organisation for.... Paul Staines, aka Guido Fawkes."

Except, just to remind everyone, Smith is being accused of a pretty serious fraud against the taxpayer - the very same taxpayer that Draper was *defending* just last week. Besides, which is worse - Smith defrauding the taxpayer, or Guido not stating in a post his links to the Centre for Open Politics? Only a devout Nu Labour drone could ever argue it is the latter rather than the former...

If there isn't already, then there should be a LabourList Watch style website up*. Just to highlight some of the worst excesses of the increasingly shrill and demented world of Derek Draper et al.

*I'm sure there would be no shortage of volunteers to write for it.

Brown-Bashing: He's On The Phone

You can tell how desperate a politician is getting by the schemes they dream up. Blair was never that desperate, so his policies may have been gently shafting the Great British public, but at least he seldom had to resort to crass gimmicks. The same cannot be said of his successor in Downing Street. Gordon Brown is now so crap – after less than a year in the role – that he now has to embrace lunatic schemes endorsed by PR wankers that put Major’s Cone Hotline in the category of “a very sensible idea that in no way deserves ridicule.”

Look at it this way: most people know that Brown is not the most pleasant person to be around. The talk of tantrums, of sulking, of rages, is all around, but it has seldom been seen into the public arena. And with good reason – knowing for certain that our Prime Minister is a petulant child would further undermine a man who is already grossly compromised. It would seem to be obvious that any PR exercise should involve giving Brown less access to the public, not more.

But no. Via Guido, I see the plan to make Brown appear as a friendly man of the people is to get him to call members of the public who have sent him a letter. In one case, at 6am.

There is only one reason why Gordon should ring any member of the British public, and that is to apologise. In fact, he should ring every member of the British public who did not vote for him* to say sorry for stealing the keys to Number 10. He should sit and listen whilst those members of the public throw whatever abuse they wish to throw at him. Aside from that, Brown shouldn’t be allowed near a phone.

This exercise is a fatuous bag of shite that indicates nothing more than how detached from reality Brown, and those crass, butt-kissing gremlins he surrounds himself with, have become. Leave the PR alone, Gordon, you are shit at it. Focus instead on trying to find a way to solve some of the problems of this country. Failing that, just fuck off.

*Which is, pretty much, the whole of the British population bar the majority of toadying Labour MPs who rubberstamped his effective coup.