More on Davis
About half the folks over at the Liberal Conspiracy blog seem to have their knickers in a twist about whether supporting David Davis would somehow sully their ideological purity. Rachel from North London explains why it's not really that hard, whilst stopping for some good old fashioned belly-laughs at the Sun's efforts to surf the hard-man populist Zeitgeist going from this:
To this:
All in the space of a weekend. Worth reading her piece in full, and I can't think of anything very sensible to add to it, except to say that it also served as a welcome reminder of why I try to stay the hell away from Sun editorials. Check out exhibts a and b here:
and
Ok, fuck-nuts: crash course in how this whole journalism thing is meant to work. I read your nasty little rag, I have a sniff of the excrement you're trying to pass off as coherent thought ("If 42 days is so brilliant, how come Brown couldn’t get enough of his MPs to support it?") and then I decide whether or not I agree with you. In all probability, I actually decide that you should be dropped from a high-altitude aircraft and then kick myself for wasting five minutes of my life. But even in the rare event that I do agree with your basic point, that's for me to say, and you to shut the hell up about. There is something decidedly creepy about a columnist explicitly telling his readers what they think.
HAS David Davis gone stark raving mad? How else can we explain his silly act of self-styled martyrdom? The Shadow Home Secretary rambled on about making some sort of “noble” protest.
But what was he protesting about?
To this:
Davis has hit the nail on the head. We HAVE allowed ourselves to be browbeaten by fears of Islamic terror attacks into abandoning too many of our freedoms — something I have said for months. Many Sun readers agree with me.
They aren’t soft on terror any more than I am.
But like me they worry that this is ceasing to be a country we feel at ease in, or the country we once knew.
A country of ID cards and databases, secret cameras, tax snoopers who can barge into your house and council spies who can fine you £200 just for dropping a crisp.
All in the space of a weekend. Worth reading her piece in full, and I can't think of anything very sensible to add to it, except to say that it also served as a welcome reminder of why I try to stay the hell away from Sun editorials. Check out exhibts a and b here:
Most Sun readers will instinctively support 42 days’ detention without trial for terror suspects if it helps prevent an atrocity on the streets of Britain.
and
We HAVE allowed ourselves to be browbeaten by fears of Islamic terror attacks into abandoning too many of our freedoms — something I have said for months. Many Sun readers agree with me.
Ok, fuck-nuts: crash course in how this whole journalism thing is meant to work. I read your nasty little rag, I have a sniff of the excrement you're trying to pass off as coherent thought ("If 42 days is so brilliant, how come Brown couldn’t get enough of his MPs to support it?") and then I decide whether or not I agree with you. In all probability, I actually decide that you should be dropped from a high-altitude aircraft and then kick myself for wasting five minutes of my life. But even in the rare event that I do agree with your basic point, that's for me to say, and you to shut the hell up about. There is something decidedly creepy about a columnist explicitly telling his readers what they think.
posted by Uncle Petie | 9:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home