Friday, 5 April 2013

Pity the poor Grauniad

Pity the poor Grauniad. In the away-with-the-fairies world that many of its writers inhabit the issues couldn't be clearer; austerity measures should cause riots on the streets, the parks should be filled with homeless workers displaced by the housing benefit cuts, NHS workers should be on strike and in order to escape recession all the government has to do is employ more people at even higher wages in the public sector. It's a strange, twilight fantasy world and it's so out of touch with the country that one feels the hacks are continuing to write solely to an audience of each-other.

'Where are the sistas?' Wails the paper; 'where are the street activists?' and most puzzling of all to the hacks, why has the Guardian lost the fight for public support for welfare largesse? In fact, just getting the word 'welfare' back into common speech was half the victory; when this blog first started, using the word welfare was a bit like saying handicapped instead of disabled, or bastardy instead of illigitimacy. And there's another word for something that is more widely recognised than Guardian hacks would ever imagine - the concept of an underclass. Mick Philpott exemplifies membership; idle, welfare-scrounging, violent, sexually exploitative, poorly educated, a nightmare neighbour, costing the rest of us a disproportionate fortune in police and criminal justice, social work, special education, health and housing and management services. Everyone who lives in contact with them at some level recognises them - except Guardian hacks, from whose Strawberry Hill gothic villas such life is invisible. 

You see, if the Guardian's Leveson-loving writers (with a few honourable exceptions) were proper hacks instead of luvvies playing Lady Bountiful, they'd be running columns headed 'Where are the journalists?' For there seem few resident at York Way, N1.


Mike Spilligan said...

Thank you for this - an enjoyable melding of the sardonic with a polemic. I think you've hit upon a good point - the hacks at the Guardian are really only trying to outdo each other with hand-wringing and crocodile tears, rather than trying to inform their readership.

Blue Eyes said...

The Guardian is a newspaper like any other. It tells its readers the headlines in the way that will chime with the readers' existing world-view.

Elby the Beserk said...

The "loss-making" Guardian is how they are now formally known, I think, Raedwald :-)

Anonymous said...

I'm fairly lefty but the nonsense spouted over the partial criminalisation of squatting did the left no favours at all.

I dont think anyone has come up with one advrse effect of the law!

Gordon the Fence Post Tortoise said...

don't forget that when the brood's income was tabulated to include all funds controlled by England's murderous answer to Rab C Nesbitt he would have had to have been earning over £100K per annum.

Now we'll end up paying £££ thousands every week to keep the swine in prison - sure wwe can re-purpose St. Kilda or something and just have the RAf do something useful and bomb the place with tins of baked beans and packets of cup-a-soup once a moth?

Anonymous said...

Gordon the Fence Post Tortoise - Exactly! Would you believe that Philpott was effectively in the 1%!

And on a slightly different note, nobody seems to be addressing the long term issue - what's the effect on society of bringing up 17 kids in a moral free household teaching them that their future was having 17 kids to earn a living off the state?

DeeDee99 said...

Gordon the fence post...... there's always the possibility that his fellow inmates may decide that a man who kills 6 of his own children doesn't deserve to live himself. Child killers don't 'do well' in prison.

Anonymous said...

He'll be on rule 43.
Total segregation, only allowed to exercise alone. Single person cell.
No razors, no knives and nothing to hang himself on.
Child killers, except those that sexually abuse the children first, are usually not bothered a lot.
Now, if he became a "grass" that would be serious.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
I'm fairly lefty but the nonsense spouted over the partial criminalisation of squatting did the left no favours at all.

I dont think anyone has come up with one advrse effect of the law!"

You've just proved your lefty credentials too...

Why must the law be nationalised?

If a landlord had a problem with squatters, he was always capable of taking them to court, he paid (or his insurance company).

I have an acquaintance who among him and his friends have been squatting an enormous house for seven years... The landlord knows them, he has plans for the building, which of course are taking years because he has to plead with the local government, before he can do anything...

Once he has his "permission", he will ask them to leave, which they probably will, they are not looking for trouble. This has been the way for centuries... If though they didn't, he would take them to court... job done.

Then the government decides (not in manifesto) to criminalise anyone that takes this action... and we all pay!

As they say in that great organ... the Daily Mail... You couldn't make it up.

Anonymous said...

"The "loss-making" Guardian is how they are now formally known, I think"

I prefer: "subsidised by others in the group"
Whether the loss it makes is relevant would be up to its operators, and what they want of it surely ?
After all, it is slightly left-leaning with a preference for the left-of-centre middle class.
Since all the newspapers print the lies their owners want them to.....