Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Dear "The News",

I don't want you to take offence at this  - I've genuinely been a fan for a long time. You've been a constant companion over the years, from the kindly face and garish jumpers of John Craven on Newsround (who I once saw eating a McFlurry whilst sitting on his bonnet at Motorway Services, actual factual) to the familiar bongs of News at Ten (thats not a cheeky Trevor McDonald drug reference, honest) and even the Starship Enterprise bridge that you now have your BBC newsreaders sitting in. (Honestly, whats with that? When you cut to the weather I'm half expecting Shefali to be beamed onto the set and Huw Edwards to mutter something under his breath about how 'the news cannae take it, Captain').

Yes, we've been friends for some time now so I hope you don't get insulted by what I'm about to say.

Regarding the London riots (upgraded to the England riots on the BBC website yesterday, I note) could you please stop referring to the Rioters as "Protestors"?  As far as I can tell (but I'll admit I'm often wrong - not as wrong as I'd be without you in my life though) they stopped being protestors at some stage Saturday evening.  I'll be the first to admit you're using the word less and less as the days go on, but could you just cut it out altogether please?

The people who attended the original peaceful protest before it was hijacked and became something infinitely more ugly were genuine protestors. The feral little shits currently wreaking havoc up and down the country are most definitely not.

Unless, of course, they're protesting about not having quite enough pairs of trainers from Footlocker or an X Box 360 - or they're protesting that they really didn't like the fact that a 100 year old family-run furniture store dominated the landscape in Croydon. Or perhaps they're protesting that a Coventry branch of the PDSA that was looted didn't have the jumper they wanted. Or perhaps, and this may be a stretch, they're not protesting at all.

Perhaps you should start referring to the poor innocents involved in this as Protestors. Protesting that they were left to burn in their flats, or protesting that a rabid group of kids were allowed to break into their properties and remove every single part of their livelihood. Before setting fire to it, just for shits and giggles. Because that's really going to strike it to "The Man". (On the subject of which, I've met "The Man". His names Dave Anstible from Droitwich and he's thoroughly nice when you get to know him. I don't know why people have it in for him so much).

Indeed, in the perfectly summed-up words of my good friend Trina Gautrey;
A peaceful protest, about the death of a local, that turns ugly: that I can sort of understand, even though I think it's unjustifiable and counter productive. However, if any of the scrotes burning people's homes or breaking into charity shops or destroying people's livelihoods could tell me the name of Mark Duggan or his significance, then I'd buy them a pair of effing Reeboks myself.
The whole situation is ugly and depresses me to the core. When everything calms down and these little shits find that all of our civil liberties have suffered as a result of their actions, and that their neighbourhoods resemble nothing more than war-zones, then maybe they'll start protesting properly. But because of what you've done, you little fucktards, nobody will listen to you any more. And we'll all suffer as a result.

Or maybe they're protesting about the fact that the youth are being treated like second class citizens? Rest assured, you were treated like royalty compared to how you'll be treated in the future thanks to this.

Thanks for listening,

P.S. Whilst I've got your attention, I have a quick favour to ask. You know Children in Need? If you could stop your presenters appearing on it for some manner of hilarious song and dance routine, I'd be most grateful. It was only any good when Morecambe and Wise did it. Now it's just embarrassing. Cheers.


  1. The idea that the rioters are responsible for the forthcoming crackdown on civil liberties strikes me as a little unfair. The British electorate, who I'm going to guess were not hugely represented among the looters, chose to vote for a government led by people who have spent years describing basic human rights as trendy leftist nonsense.
    If Tories act like Tories then the fault lies with people who voted for Tories and the Diet Tory Party.

  2. I couldn't agree more re: your voting point. I think my concern is that the Tories will find it a damn sight easier to shoe-horn in new policies on the basis of whats happened this week and the majority of the Sun Reader electorate will happily let them do it.

  3. The size of the Sun Reader electorate is over estimated. The problem here is that the Lib Dems will let them do it. But then, that's a party with a long history of rightist security lurches whenever it suits their MPs.

  4. Again, I agree with you absolutely about the Lib Dems. This disagreement appears to have turned into a happy agreement session.

  5. You aren't agreeing with me properly, or something.

  6. It was a brilliant blog - until I got to fucktard. I couldn't finish reading because I'm wonder how many times I can work that into a sentence tomorrow. Until now I used fuckwad - but the tard, absolutely brilliant! Keep writing became there's talk of shutting down social media in order to keep the aforementioned fucktards from coordinating their next crime spree.

  7. I agree with your post. It wasn't protesting, it was rioting. End of.

    But then I have to do my own little bit of disagreeing with the comments above. Erosion of civil liberties isn't a Tory thing (though I'm sure they'll do their best to prove me wrong in the coming weeks), however much Labour would like to paint it as such. It was under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown that the greatest abuses happened.

  8. With all due respect, Anonymous, if that really is your name, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown weren't exactly sound on the civil liberties question, but neither of them deployed the SAS inside the UK to murder civilians who they reckoned may have looked a little dodgy. That happened under the Tories, repeatedly, in the eighties.

  9. My parents were very cruel namers. Something about 'at least you're not a boy named Sue.'

    And that was the eighties. How are we supposed to move forward in terms of political dialogue, if events from thirty years ago are still allowed to dominate the emotional kneejerk reaction of today. Thatcher is dying in an old age home somewhere. She's no longer relevant. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have had massive implications for this country and its approach to security and civil liberties, so it might be nice if a political discussion could open up to the idea that the Tories aren't to blame for EVERYTHING.

  10. Perhaps not EVERYTHING - but I do believe they had something to do with the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby.


I love comments. Love 'em. However, abusive or spam or Anonymous ones may well be sent straight to the bin. Thems the rules.