Peter Oborne knows nowt!

I've long since thought many in the secular press were gearing up the anti-Catholic rhetoric. Peter Oborne in today's Daily Mail shows how very biased and bigoted the secular mind can be. He knows precious little about the Faith of the Church yet feels free to opine. Fair do's, but it only shows him up to be a typically careless opinion maker when it comes to church affairs. I suppose having a conscience that is being sorely tested is largely lost on him! The fact is many loyal Anglicans, who believe firmly in the traditional sacramental ways, are feeling got at by sniping and silly epithets.

I would have thought he was worthy of better things.

Clegg in their sights - Rag, Tag & Bobtail!

I've made my own mind up about the LibDems immigration policy. I don't think it will work. And I think I could have a very constructive debate about it. But that seems to have passed the minds of the Daily Express and Daily Mail journalists by. They are just out to dig the dirt and then dish it out like a drunken seed broadcaster fighting off the gulls and the pigeons.

Nick Clegg's opinions on immigration, Trident and the rest, won't be trounced by the mindless rantings of a pornographer's paper. This very same rag that announced on 1st September 1939 that there would be no war. The very same outfit that told the world they had found Martin Bormann alive and well. Left to the Daily Express to fight the Nazis and we would all be in some frightful empire by now. The Daily Express is a paper I advise people never to read unless they want to turn into some BNP-lite opinion former.

The Daily Mail is more subtle but still rather devoid of reasoned opinion at times. Paul Dacre, the editor, is a man who guards his own privacy in much the same way as a cornered tiger would. But give loose-worded reporting a go and he's your man.

As I mentioned before, crazed reporting aimed at whipping up people to vote against the LibDems is bound to backfire. Reasoned argument should win the day. The Express has dug up an article Clegg wrote in 2002. They must be desperate. In it he said Britons have a greater “cross to bear” than the Germans do over their Nazi past. Then an Express reporter rings up Nicholas Soames, "wadya think of Clegg and his Nazi stuff, Mr.Soames?", and getsSoames to say, “Any person who takes this view about Britain’s role in the Second World War is unfit to lead a national party, let alone the country.”

Of course it's all twisted around to suit the pornographer's paper and his views. What Nick Clegg wrote all those years ago does actually have some validity. This was not about anything DURING the second world war but about us, the British, in the 21st century. Yes, there are lot's who are Little Englanders. I'll give you an example. When BMW took over Rover, the Germans had to endure such comments as, "my grandfather always said that the best Krauts were dead Krauts" and such like. It was just as if the war was only a couple of days old.

The Daily Express may like to think there are no wrongs in this country. They may like to confuse the likes of Nicholas Soames into agreeing with their BNP-lite propaganda, but I find it all rather offensive. We keep hearing of the need for a proper and reasoned debate. I hope I hear that tonight. But I am dead certain I don't want the Daily Express pandering to the lowest common denominator in the process.

Lies, deception and press claptrap!

I'm not in favour of dealing with political opponents in the way that the liberal elite and chattering classes have with regard to the BNP. All they do is conveniently cover up their own political crap and try to rubbish the far right with juvenile epithets and illogical soundbites.

The BBC is now being exposed as having entered into some kind of conspiracy to debunk Nick Griffin. All they have done is succeed in looking mightily dodgy as far as "a duty to impartiality" is concerned. In fact, the Deputy Director General of the BBC, Mark Byford, might as well have said the reason they wanted him on was to have a kind of "man in the stocks" reality show.

The audience was partially selected. Dimbleby is said to have encouraged booing. With what result. The BNP goes up in the polls because the programme was seen as a martyr's slaying. What a stupid lot they are.

Now for some real fibbing and deception. In the Daily Mail, a paper known for its epistolic abuse of asylum seekers and people of an economic migrancy tendency, Edward Heathcote-Amory says this of the BNP -

RHETORIC: 'Our immigration policy is supported by 84 per cent of the British people at present.'

REALITY: The BNP's immigration policy is voluntary repatriation of 'immigrants' (ie non-whites) regardless of whether they were born here. There is no evidence that any but a tiny minority of British people support such a plan. Mr Griffin himself recently suggested that if there was a problem working out where to send immigrants back to, he would 'drop them out of a plane somewhere over Africa'.

The inference is that the BNP is the only party to have a policy of voluntary repatriation. Edward is being partial with the truth. Ever since the Immigration Act of 1971 came into force, the government has a policy of voluntary repatriation.

The BNP’s policy is to:
- Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally;
- Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British;
- Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate;
- Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently;
- Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases;
- Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain.

The New Labour government is trying to deport people, they are trying to reduce immigration and they have a voluntary repatriation scheme in place (not rescinded!).

If we are to have a debate let's cut out the lies and deceit. I do not favour or support the BNP because they do not give me the feeling that they will treat all Britons with equal fairness. Neither do I think their draconian policies will help. But we have to find a way to argue on the facts.

It seems those in positions of authority have abondoned arguing on facts in favour of demonising and deceiving. Question Time has come up to give the BBC a kick up the backside. Those who manipulate the truth will be found out. By all means attack Griffin on his ideas to 'drop people out of planes' but do not add untruths into the bargain!

Who'd be Barnbrook's partner?

Currently there is much hooha over Richard Barnbrook, BNP London Assembly Member, inviting Nick Griffin to a Buckingham Palace garden party. Boris Johnson is getting excited, so is the Daily Mail. It's seen as an affront to all concerned, not least Her Majesty. However, Barnbrook is an elected politician, so they are on thin ice if the critics don't want to be seen as undemocratic. If I were them, I'd shut up. The Daily Mail keeps saying they don't want any BNP MEPs elected, but they are giving them front page publicity. Now everyone thinks Nick Griffin is to have cucumber sandwiches with the Queen. Of course it's a lot of tosh. Even if he went there, it's hardly likely she'd meet him. Now she'll have to make a special point of avoiding him in case a Mail snapper is on the loose!

Darren Johnson is "Chair" of the London Assembly. He thinks "We cannot tolerate any such abuse of the invitation or any potential embarrassment to Her Majesty. I am therefore writing to call on you to inform Mr Barnbrook - at the earliest opportunity - that he must either bring a guest who will not provoke political controversy, or consider his invitation rescinded." I doubt he will want the latter. So it is bringing a guest that "will not provoke political controversy". Hard to see how that could happen now.

Barnbrook and a local street cleaner? Or maybe an escort? Whoever it is, the person will be questioned at length. A monumental amount of publicity will ensue. I always thought Dacre ran a crackpot outfit!

My suggestion is he takes Susan Boyle with him. Everyone will be swarming over her that not only will Barnbrook be eclipsed, but everyone will forget what they went to the garden party for!

This is a different Garden Party - but still a great one!

Self-appointed moraliser as Daily Mail chief

Paul Dacre is the editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail. He's currently up in arms over the Max Mosley case. Mr. Dacre apparently thinks he should be the moraliser to the nation. "Now, some revile a moralising media. Others, such as myself, believe it is the duty of the media to take an ethical stand". Wow - high and mighty Dacre. The Moralising Laureate, no doubt! The trouble with his argument is that he wants impunity. Impunity to write half-truths and dissembled claptrap when it suits him.

Now I've got no time for Max Mosley's ideas of sexual happiness. Not really for me. But Mr. Mosley deserves to be protected from scurrillous attacks. Also, whilst we have the Human Rights legislation, he also needs to be protected from holier-than-thou lawbreakers like Mr. Dacre. Because Paul Dacre's Daily Mail has broken the law according to the judge in this case.

Mr. Dacre asserts that the judge, Mr. Justice Eady, is "unelected". Well so is Mr. Dacre, who effectively is positioning himself as moraliser-in-chief. Not an elected office, I believe! Mr. Dacre told an audience at the Society of Editors' annual conference in Bristol that most people would consider Mr. Mosley's activities to be perverted and depraved. So they may. A lot think homosexuality to be the same. A goodly number are offended by oral sex. As are those who condemn sexual activity outside marriage. Some think bare-breasted women in tabloid papers to be perverted and deparved. Almost all think paedophilia to be so, except the paedophiles themselves. However, none of this justifies reporters from the News of the World or any other paper making stuff up.

It suited the News of the World to spice up the story by adding the Nazi overtones. Recently John Prescott was, rightly in my opinion, berating the press for making up stuff about his meeting in London with model Jodie Marsh. "Does Pauline know?" said some of the tabloids. As Prescott said, "yes she did!" because it was all part of his two-part series on class in Britain. But the impression was made totally from the headlines that Prescott was a philanderer again. Found out once, tarred with the same brush every time forever after, whatever the facts.

A free press is one thing - to be cherished and desired. A lying, cheating and distorting press, only out to sell newspapers is quite another.