Recent Articles

Media hysteria

by Steven Baxter     July 29, 2011 at 11:59 am

When two teenagers died suddenly on March 17, 2010, there was no doubt in the minds of certain sections of the press as to what had killed them. ‘MEOW MEOW KILLS 2 TEENS – BAN DRUG NOW’ said The Sun, with typical restraint, while the free Metro also said ‘MEOW MEOW KILLS TWO FRIENDS’.

The calls for a ban were listened to by politicians – there was an election approaching, and all governments or potential governments are keen to look tough on crime, as it pleases the tabloids. But in this instance, they were wrong.

On May 28, the toxicology tests finally came back; the two dead men had not taken meow meow.
continue reading… »

Race and racism: A white Briton writes

by Steven Baxter     November 19, 2010 at 1:36 pm

When I fill in those diversity forms for job applications, I always put ‘White British’ or ‘White English’, or whatever variant I’m meant to use.

That’s what I am, although it seems so clumsy: what is ‘white British’ anyway and who gets to be that rather than, say, mixed race British? How mixed does your race have to be before you’re mixed race?

Does my gypsy grandmother count as ‘white’, or should that lineage be viewed as ‘mixed race’? I don’t know.
continue reading… »

Blaming for the BNP ‘protest’ vote

by Steven Baxter     May 19, 2009 at 7:47 pm

Firstly, you absolutely must go here and read this from last year. It’s a wonderful piece that removes all the fluff and nonsense that surrounds the issues of why people vote for fascist scum, leaving you with one inescapable conclusion: that scum are scum and vote for scum because they’re scum.

But no. People – ironically, it’s often the exact kind of people who would be deliberately simplistic about issues like crime, claiming that kids who nick a penny chew from the pick’n’mix are ‘feral’ and so on – like to get all complicated about the reasons why people vote BNP.
continue reading… »

What happens if I complain…

by Steven Baxter     October 30, 2008 at 3:00 pm

…about something on the BBC?

Your complaint must be logged and investigated under the terms of the BBC’s charter. You can complain about a programme even if it doesn’t directly affect you, and even if you didn’t see it at the time. If it is decided that any guidelines may have been breached there will be a further investigation. Action may be taken against those responsible for the programme/story in question. You can also complain to Ofcom, who have the power of unlimited fines. All this will be backed up by a torrent of media hysteria involving other newspapers and broadcasters, all of whom have a vested financial interest in seeing the BBC’s credibility damaged and their own profits boosted, given that their primary responsibility is to shareholders, not to their readers.

…about something published by the Daily Mail?

Your complaint will be recorded and you might get a letter or email back. If it’s about a story that doesn’t directly involve you, you cannot take the matter further. If it does directly involve you, you can write to the PCC. The Mail can write a letter explaining editorial policy to you. If you aren’t satisfied with that very generous offer, the Mail can write an apology if they deem it necessary. If they don’t, or even if they do and you still want to take it further, and if the PCC – which is chaired by the editor of the Mail – decides the Mail has got it wrong, it could write a ruling that says the newspaper has got it wrong. There is no further sanction or redress, unless the Mail has libelled you, and even then, it’s up to you to prove it has damaged you personally. You can get the case taken on as a conditional fee arrangement, but that’s harder than it sounds, as the big players are only interested in upset celebrities, where there are opportunities for big payouts without the necessity of having to go to court, rather than ordinary people, where it can be argued that the financial damage suffered to their reputation was much less.

So, it’s easy to see why the Mail has taken the moral high ground.

A-Z of right-wing online commenting

by Steven Baxter     August 10, 2008 at 4:16 pm

A short alphabetical guide for anyone thinking of posting a comment on the Mail/BBC Have Your Say messageboards.

ALCOHOL – benign, harmless substance when consumed by anyone over 45 which is also toxic and dangerous drug when administered to YOUNG PEOPLE or FERAL YOUTH. Should be taxed when drunk by YOUNG PEOPLE but not by others, who are of course responsible and never do anything wrong.

AND GUESS WHO’S PAYING?!??!! – usefull catch-all phrase to describe anything in which the government/state is involved. Should be used at the end of any post as punctuation or a final flourish to a well-argued and wittily brilliant excoriation of NULAB’s injustices and crimes.

ARRESTED – means someone did it.

BBC, THE – Pinko commie bastard scumbags who love liberals and want our children to be gay. Bonus points for saying “I BET YOU WON’T PUBLISH THIS, COMMUNIST BBC!” whenever you submit anything to the HYS messageboard.

BINGE BRITAIN – the sudden liking for alcohol which has happened since 1997. No-one underage ever drank anything before then, but now all of a sudden everyone is drinking, from the age of four upwards, then having a fight afterwards. Anticipated by Hogarth in his famous “Gin Lane under NuLab”.
continue reading… »

¦ ¦