Special relationship

Cowardice, venality and obsequiousness will direct the post-May Tory government’s relationship with Trumpism.  Whether led by Etonian Johnson or by Charterhouse’s Hunt, the reconfigured government intends to spring to attention and accept orders whenever Trump, Pompeo or Bolton issues a diktat.

The Special Relationship between USA and UK has always been an owner-dog relationship.  Tony Blair epitomised eagerness of dependence in his partnership with Bush jr.  Via Brexit, Hunt and Johnson’s intent is to make the dog a snivelling tail-wagging beg-for-treats little mutt.

Boris Johnson (left) and Donald Trump

No deal Brexit will be a windfall for disaster capitalists.  Induced (or invented) fiscal financial desperation will allow the Tories to create further false excuses to destroy society.  Public services and public property will be handed to made-up tax avoiding “businesses” at knock-down prices.  Workers’ rights, Health & Safety regulations and food standards regulations will disappear.  The pace of the carve-up and destruction of the NHS will increase rapidly.  UK’s stature as a tax haven for the wealthy will be enhanced.

The beneficiaries of the annihilation of anything that signifies social cohesion and humanity are exactly the same businesses and people for whom Trump and his cronies work, and Trump, his awful family and its nested concoction of corporate filth.  Trump’s consistent support for the most disastrous of Brexits is assisted by multi-million dollar tax avoider Woody Johnson, the US ambassador to UK.

Their top private schooling taught Hunt and Johnson to be utterly subservient to the power of corporate money.  Any possible tendencies toward empathy, social responsibility and morality were schooled out of them.  Now, both are focused resolutely on feeding themselves and like-minded sociopaths at the expense of everyone else.  No deal Brexit provides them and their colleagues with a once in a lifetime opportunity for rampant destruction and vacuuming up the spoils but only if they follow instructions relayed via the White House.

Jeremy Hunt (left) and Mike Pompeo

As Foreign Secretary, Hunt demonstrated keenly his willingness to be obedient.  He parroted Pompeo’s words on the ludicrous false flag attack on oil tankers in Gulf of Oman and he ordered the Royal Navy to use military force to detain an Iranian oil tanker and its crew near Gibraltar under the false pretext of a breach of EU sanctions against Syria, the tanker’s destination.  The latter event’s stated reason was a fabrication; Hunt merely acted on orders from Pompeo who desired action as part of the US government’s attempt to start a war against Iran.

The Foreign Office denied two Russian TV stations, RT and Sputnik, access to an international media conference on “media freedom” in London.  Both stations supported Julian Assange and Edward Snowden who are wanted by the US government for exposing war crimes by the US military.  No journalists or broadcasters from Venezuela were invited to the conference; the US government does not recognise the democratically elected Venezuelan government and it allowed an associate of terrorist Juan Guaido to forcibly occupy the country’s embassy in Washington.

Without a ministerial position in the final months of Theresa May’s government Johnson’s displays of servitude were less noticeable recently.  When Foreign Secretary he gushed praise for Trump and the admiration was returned.  Both observed mutual usefulness in attaining financial goals through the consequences of Brexit.  However, both were and are aware that one of them is useful as management and the other is useful as dogsbody.  During his visit to UK in 2018 Trump said “he’s [Johnson] been saying very good things about me as president.  I think he thinks I’m doing a good job.  I am doing a great job.”  Johnson received tactical advice from former Trump advisor Steve Bannon.

Pointedly, Johnson declined to support (former) British ambassador to USA Kim Darroch who received a torrent of abuse from Trump following the leak of e-mails Darroch had sent that were critical of Trump.  Darroch resigned due to lack of support for him from the UK government.

There is a Trump fan club in the Tory party waiting to accept cabinet positions.

As soon as Trump was elected Iain Duncan-Smith, former chief of DWP Social Murder, spoke excitedly about the Special Relationship: “Brexit means we are now freer to make arrangements.”

Etonian Jacob Rees-Mogg expressed his full support for Trump often, including compliance with Trump’s verbal attack on the Mayor of London: I think what the Mayor of London said was deeply disgraceful.  Mr Trump is the democratically elected president of our closest ally.  I think that Mr Khan demeans his office and demeans the nation.  What he has said is quite wrong and deeply improper.  So I think for the president to hit back and say he’s a failed mayor of London, which is true, is fair enough.  So I’m backing Mr Trump in this row.”

Ahead of Darroch’s resignation Bill Cash criticised him in the House of Commons: “These toxic and unjustified attacks on the president of the United States and his administration are regarded by many people as completely unjustified.  As chairman of the European scrutiny committee I was more than well aware of Darroch’s own prejudices in relation to the EU.  Surely it is not his so-called frankness which should be the issue but his lack of judgment, which disqualifies him from his post.”

Well-trained servant Johnny Mercer did not approve of political protests against Trump when he visited the UK: “He is president of our greatest ally and I’m afraid that special relationship, particularly away from the public eye in the security services and the military that ultimately guarantee our freedom, is as close as it’s ever been.  And I think we need to get real on that.”

Disgraced former Defence Secretary Liam Fox, on his way to a meeting with Ivanka Trump, said he would apologise to her for Darroch’s comments: “I will be apologizing for the fact that either our civil service or elements of our political class have not lived up to the expectations that either we have or the United States has about their behavior, which in this particular case has lapsed in a most extraordinary and unacceptable way.”

John Redwood equated being a “great advocate of the UK” with not being critical of Trump: “The outgoing Ambassador was right to resign.  The next Ambassador must be capable of good analysis in private communications, expressed in moderate & professional language & be a great advocate of the UK.”

Johnson’s leadership campaign chair for Scotland Ross Thomson displayed his unambiguous willingness for the British government to be an obedient lapdog for the US: “We have to be realistic about this, the president of the United States himself has said I cannot work with this person.  We have to make sure we have the best possible relationship with the US, and that means having someone that the US administration can trust.  I think Boris Johnson has shown leadership by not just playing to the crowd and saying what everyone else has been saying.  I think it’s really important that in the national interest we have the best possible relationship with the United States.  I think it’s really important post-Brexit in terms of new trade deals, in terms of security and defence.  We actually had the president saying that he could no longer with that ambassador, given the unvarnished comments that were released, and essentially when that happened it was right to move on.”

A post-Brexit Johnson or Hunt-led government will be unashamedly and relentlessly directed by the US government.  Britain will be less than a vassal state.  The Special Relationship will be declared as a necessity and that declaration will be used to excuse anything.  Britain will be a source of income for parasites and an enabler of tax avoidance.  Everything that was fought hard for over decades and centuries will disappear.  




Special relationship

BBC’s John Ware is at it again

On Wednesday 10th July the BBC will broadcast another concocted attack on Labour in an edition of Panorama called Is Labour Anti-Semitic?  Despite the programme’s title being a question the promotion blurb made clear that the creator of the show, John Ware, has chosen his answer.

Reporter John Ware reveals the evasions and contradictions at the heart of the political party which leader Jeremy Corbyn says has anti-racism at its very core.”

There is no other expectation of the programme’s content than a deluge of lies, ridiculous exaggerations, misdirection, innuendo, bizarre juxtaposition and absurd faux deductions.  Its intent is displayed brightly in advance.

John Ware

John Ware has form.  He has a lot of form.  Four years ago he was the reporter and writer of another Panorama documentary Jeremy Corbyn: Labour’s Earthquake.  It was recorded during the Labour leadership election campaign and broadcast three days before voting ended.  To acquire interviews with Corbyn and his colleagues Ware lied to them by claiming he was making a documentary about all the candidates.  There were more lies in the programme’s content.  The intent of Ware’s documentary was to try to dissuade Labour members from voting for Corbyn.

Last year, after Labour adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, Ware complained about Labour’s previous “antisemitism code of conduct” that was superseded by the IHRA definition, and he complained that Labour had not accepted all the IHRA’s examples.  Ware’s complaints and analysis were scattergun nonsense and bereft of logic or of linear train of thought.  The purpose of Ware’s article was to attack Corbyn and to add to the narrative of antisemitism charges; any details were irrelevant.  Interestingly, Ware repeatedly interchanged the words “Israel” and “Jews” which is itself in breach of the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

Ware has often been accused of being anti-Islam.  In a Guardian interview in 2006 he responded to the accusations with a smirk.  He wallowed in the fact that he had been placed in the same company as racists Melanie Phillips and Michael Gove and said

we [Ware, Phillips, Gove, etc.] have all come to this view independently that – potentially – politics and Islam is an incendiary mix.”

In the interview Ware did the “Islam is OK but..” routine popular with right-wing voices.  He spoke patronisingly about Islam’s attitude to society but he added that “a [fearful] chill ran down my spine” when he heard a preacher defending Islam. 

He said “political Islam needs to be explored robustly on BBC1, it should not be tucked away late at night on BBC2.”  He was unbothered by the screaming contradiction between his use of the phrase “political Islam” and his remarks elsewhere about people conflating Judaism and Israel.

Not everything by Ware were attacks on Islam or false accusations against Corbyn and his colleagues.  A month after Martin McGuinness died Ware wrote a strange description of the former’s alleged tactics in the execution of a British army spy.  He waited until McGuinness died for fear of being sued for libel.  

Ware is happy with his assigned accolade as investigative reporter and documentary maker, tasks for which he accepted “awards.”  But, everything he created was designed from a political perspective and almost always fitted nicely into prevailing (right-wing) narrative.  He made what suited a populist trend.  At present, fear of a socialist government is rampant and he knows his role is to fight against the cause of the fear.  Ware is the opposite of what an investigative reporter or undercover documentary maker should be: He doesn’t challenge the establishment, he pleases it.

Recommended reading
Beware of John Ware
Anti-Muslim witchhunts

BBC’s John Ware is at it again

1828 (Lobby group)

Secretly funded right-wing political lobby group Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) invented another subset of itself called 1828

1828 is another platform for anti-society anti-human pro-exploitation reckless philosophy of extreme free-marketeers.  Another platform means another opportunity to grab airtime from complicit broadcasters who willingly pretend they are giving a voice to a different perspective when it’s the same gang of charlatans from the likes of IEA, Tax-Payers’ Alliance (TPA), Adam Smith Institute (ASI), etc.

The articles published by 1828 are typical and predictable.  Misdirection, distraction, confidence tricks, illusion and delusion are their building blocks and snide and sneers are the glue.

In Liberating Policy Agenda “policy analyst” at TPA Ben Ramanauskas claimed the “housing crisis” was not the consequence of no social housing being built or property developers dodging the law on affordable housing or exploitative landlords taking advantage of insufficient laws to protect tenants.

Our housing crisis is largely due to stamp duty, coupled with a very restrictive planning systemThe next prime minister needs to abolish stamp duty and liberalise the planning system.  This is the only way that we will end the housing crisis and make renting and home ownership affordable again.”

In the same article he said corporation tax needs to be slashed and stamp duty on shares, capital gains tax, and dividends tax should be abolished entirely”  followed by a restatement of the disreputable trickle-down theory.

In Extinction Rebellion: A Climate of Violence Director of ASI Eamonn Butler declared

These activities are acts of violence.  They should be resisted and punished like any other act of violence, no matter how virtuous those doing the violence claim their motives to be.  As the police finally moved in to make arrests, individuals and news agencies published pictures of protesters being forcibly handcuffed and carried into police vans, and there were the usual complaints about police brutality and the state using violence against peaceful individuals.  But that puts things completely backwards.”

He elucidated the con trick of capitalist democracies that people can object to something providing their objections have no effect.  Referring to someone he claimed was a relative, a suffragette who took part in direct action to promote the right to vote for women, Butler defecated in the faces of all the great campaigners for universal suffrage.

It wasn’t such actions that led to women getting the vote.  Rather, it was the realisation, with so many men away in the first world war, that women had a legitimate voice in politics.”

Butler’s bizarre confidence trick of faux pomposity continued with a sermon from the pulpit.

The whole history of democratic representative government has been the effort to reduce and remove coercive force from the debate on public policy.  We rightly see violence, force, and coercion as evils.  Instead, our ambition is to decide things by discussion, not by the obstructive force of unlawful protest.”

But, he concluded by supporting violence by the state.

The only recourse is to meet violence with violence.  In modern democracies, that means the power of the state, because, in the attempt to extinguish coercion in general, we give the state a monopoly of force.”

In Why zero-hours contracts are a force for good Oliver Stanley said “banning them is a restriction on economic liberty with no benefit.”  His argument ignored the exploitative intent of their use by employers and he spouted the usual libertarian nonsense about spurious benefits of zero-hours contracts for employees.

Harry Eastley-Jones’ article on Venezuela included a deluge of abuse at the Venezuelan government and at Jeremy Corbyn and some of his Labour colleagues.

Jeremy Corbyn and his cronies come from a Marxist tradition that despises the west and are only too happy to embrace any of our adversaries.”

Eastley-Jones noted problems in Venezuela but he failed to mention extreme economic sanctions imposed on Venezuela by USA and others and he failed to mention the theft of Venezuelan oil revenue by various governments around the world.  He bemoaned the fact that Corbyn and others have not “apologised” for supporting Venezuela given the state of the economy in the country.  He called analysis of the clear and deliberate external causes of Venezuela’s economic problems “bizarre conspiracy theories.”

Max Young’s argument against Water unprivatisation was extremely deceptive.  He noted some improvements to water supply over the last three decades but he implied that privatisation was the specific cause of the improvements and that unprivatised water supply would not have had such changes.  He described general maintenance of the water supply as “investment” and he ignored huge profits siphoned off by racketeers.

Disgraced former Tory minister Priti Patel contributed a few articles to 1828.

Expect to see some of these faces popping up on BBC political panel shows without any reference to their connection to IEA or to who funds them: 1828 people.

1828 editor Jack Powell

Links to brief descriptions of other lobby groups an think-tanks


1828 (Lobby group)

Ignorance, deference or collusion? Kuenssberg spoke to Hunt


On June 25th, as part of the tedious Tory leadership contest, BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg interviewed one of the final two candidates Jeremy Hunt.  Her questions were structured to enable Hunt to spout his prepared soundbites full of lies and misdirection.  Some of the questions appeared to be challenging but Hunt was allowed to respond with evasion, distraction and irrelevant tangents without any interruptions or queries of veracity.  The questions could have been sent by e-mail or text.  It was a very weak performance from Kuenssberg.

Jeremy Hunt is Foreign Secretary but Kuenssberg’s only mention of his job was a reference to a comment he made about the EU.  There were no questions about Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine or Venezuela, and not a word about Hunt’s acquiescence with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s campaign for war against Iran.

There were a few questions on his previous role as Health Secretary but they offered mild criticism as a set up for Hunt’s mini-speeches wherein he lied about his intent, his actions, their consequences and about the causes of problems in the NHS and social care.  Kuenssberg simply gave him cues. 

Responding to one of Hunt’s deceptive monologues on his tenure as Health Secretary, Kuenssberg said

No one would question your commitment to the health service while you were there.”

That obsequious response was a thorough indictment of both Kuenssberg’s and the BBC’s attitude to both the Tories and the NHS. 

Hunt’s single objective as Health Secretary was to give away property and services – that is, continuous income – to racketeers masquerading as healthcare businesses.  Privatisation of healthcare was and is his aim with the sole purpose of providing channels for money, both public money and the money of the sick and injured, to be fed to parasites.  Healthcare is a huge source of income for the parasitical class.  The consequences of privatised health service are huge bills for those who can afford it and death for everyone else.  Hunt is an enemy of the health of the British people.

Kuenssberg offensive assessment of Hunt’s “commitment to the health service” could not be dismissed as privately-educated detached ignorance.  Her membership of the posh group at the BBC would be an inadequate excuse.  BBC’s deference to the government was also insufficient motivation for making such a stupid fact-averse comment.  The ease with which Kuenssberg uttered such nonsense stemmed from the embedment of economic libertarian ideology at the BBC via its symbiotic existence with hard-right think-tanks such as Institute of Economic Affairs, Centre for Policy Studies and Tax-Payers’ Alliance.

Despite numerous warnings, BBC news and current affairs programmes on TV and radio continue to give airtime to charlatans from the above-named think tanks and others, and they are never introduced or described accurately on air before being allowed to spout their intrinsically dishonest garbage.  As an example, earlier this week notorious professional troll Niall Ferguson appeared on Politics Live and was described by the presenter as an “historian” with no mention of the fact that he is on the board of Centre for Policy Studies. 

Kuenssberg’s absurd and disturbing comment about Hunt as Health Secretary should be analysed within the context of BBC’s dionanstic involvement with these secretly funded anti-society think-tanks.

Ignorance, deference or collusion?  It was a bit of each.  Kuenssberg was doing her job as she was instructed to do it.

Related blogs
Kuenssberg got booed
Jeremy Hunt and Mike Pompeo
Posh kids at the BBC
Tory privatisation
Tax-Payers’ Alliance
Institute of Economic Affairs
Centre for Policy Studies
Screaming Heads and Professional Trolls
Tips for BBC News

Ignorance, deference or collusion? Kuenssberg spoke to Hunt

Diatribes of Phil Neville

In post-match interviews yesterday (June 23rd) following England’s victory in the World Cup Phil Neville chose to attack the opponents, Cameroon, their manager Alain Djeuma and the referee.  His comments went far beyond criticism of a couple of rough challenges.  He passed judgement on the behaviour of the Cameroon team and its manager as if he had been given the task of being the moral arbiter on the events in the game. 

Neville’s diatribes were full of extreme pomposity and pseudo-moralistic claptrap. 

I came to this World Cup to be successful but also to play a part in making women’s football globally more visible, to put on a show that highlights how women’s football is improving.  But I sat through 90 minutes today and felt ashamed.  I’m completely and utterly ashamed of the opposition and their behaviour.  I’ve never seen circumstances like that on a football pitch and I think that kind of behaviour is pretty sad.  Think of all those young girls and boys watching.  I’ve got to tell the truth and say that I’ve never seen behaviour as bad as Cameroon’s on a football pitch before.  It was like being a kid when you lost and you went home, crying, with the ball.  I didn’t enjoy the 90 minutes, I just felt sad.  I can’t gloss over it and fudge it, I have to tell the truth.  England players would never behave like that but if they did, they would never, ever play for England again.  I would say to Cameroon get your ship in order first before you start throwing stones.  The referee was trying to protect football by not giving the penalty or the sending-off at the end when Steph’s ankle was stamped on – I admire the referee unbelievably.  We’ve seen Cameroon people fighting in the VIP area. We’ve seen Cameroon people fighting in our hotel. I’d say to the Cameroon people ‘get your ship in order’.  I don’t want to talk about what happened at the hotel.  We’ve handled ourselves with pride; the players with the best humility, class and quality have won. I’m not here to criticise a national team but we want the image of women’s football to be good for little girls.  Cameroon’s actions were so bad for the image of the game I’ve fallen in love with. I hope they will learn from this.”

I am completely and utterly ashamed of the opposition.  When I started in management, I think it was Arsene Wenger that told me: The team mirror the manager.  If that was my team – and it will never be any of my players – they would never play for England again, with that kind of behaviour.  At times, we probably didn’t know whether the game would continue.  It didn’t feel like football.  It was a good win but that wasn’t a World Cup last-16 tie in terms of behaviour that I want to see from footballers.  This is going out worldwide.  I didn’t enjoy it, the players didn’t enjoy it.  My players kept their concentration fantastically, but those images are going out worldwide about how to act, the young girls playing all over the world that are seeing that behaviour.  For me, it’s not right.  My daughter wants to be a footballer and if she watches that she will think: ‘No, I want to play netball.’  We have been spoken to about 350,000 times by referees for the last three weeks.  We know the rules and the referee got every one right and in the end, the referee took pity on them.  They should count their lucky stars that it wasn’t five or six.  The behaviour was wrong, because it’s an image of women’s football that is going worldwide about a team that are refusing to play.”

Neville positioned himself above Djeuma and his team, looking down, passing judgement.  It was not up to him to feel “ashamed for the opposition.”  That comment was insulting and patronising and it displayed an abject lack of respect for a fellow manager and for the Cameroon players.

He exaggerated what happened and the possible consequences.  It was a game with a few arguments, a few disputes and a few rough challenges.  It was typical of how some football games are.  The men’s World Cup has had many more dramatic and controversial incidents. 

Think of all those young girls and boys watching,” he exclaimed plaintively.  “My daughter wants to be a footballer and if she watches that she will think: ‘No, I want to play netball.'”  Most children watching the game probably thought the disputes and arguments were funny.

Neville’s problem is that he thinks women’s football should be different.  He has a rose-tinted view of women’s football.  He failed to realise that as women’s football got better, increased its appeal to fans and acquired more money it became more like the men’s game.  Women’s football has been hampered by being perceived as a bit too middle-class; it is losing that restriction, thankfully, and people like Neville need to keep up with the changes. 

He pleaded that “we want the image of women’s football to be good for little girls.”  Women’s football at the highest level is for women.  Does Neville think the men’s Premier League is the right “image” for little boys?  It is the same sport and, increasingly so, the same business but Neville wants differentiation.  His attitude was reminiscent of Harry Enfield’s Cholmley-Warner character who demanded that “women, know your limits.”

If he wants an imaginary form of football detached from reality then maybe it is time for him to move on.


Neville set the tone for the British media’s reaction and its members were, of course, very eager to follow him.  In newspapers, broadcasters and comments from a variety of football talking heads, condemnation of Cameroon was uniformly aggressive, dishonest and suspect. 

The themes of the media response were

  • Cast doubt on the professionalism of the referee
  • Claim the Cameroon players did not know the rules
  • Compare Cameroon players and manager to children
  • Feign indignation and despair
  • Refer to Cameroon as “the African side
  • Express fear for the future of women’s football via the prism of middle-class nostalgia

The uniformity of the media analysis was an indictment of the low bar for football journalism in Britain.  

Here are a few examples:

BBC’s Jacqui Oatley competed with Phil Neville for pomposity.  “I messaged my husband earlier to check our 8-year-old daughter was watching.  She was.  Really wish she hadn’t been.”  Privately-educated Oatley was obviously worried that women’s football was not going to remain an exclusive suburban pursuit.

The Sun’s Martin Lipton doubted that Cameroon knew the rules.  “Cameroon simply did not know where to stand [for the indirect free-kick].”  Bonkers” was his chosen term of abuse: “The story was about the astonishing, remarkable and totally bonkers behaviour of Cameroon, which broke Chinese referee Qin Liang.  At one point there was a danger the African side might even walk off the pitch.”  He referred to the referee’s nationality more than once and called Cameroon “the African side” several times; he did not call England “the European side.”  

In a tweet Lipton dismissed the referee’s ability and professionalism.  “There should have been at least two, maybe three, red cards.  And a penalty.  But ref wanted to get the game to final whistle.”

Jason Burt in Telegraph made a similar comment about the referee.  “It felt by then that Chinese referee Qin Liang had had enough; that she was fearful that Cameroon may threaten to walk off for a third time; that she had had her fill of controversy and attention and even desired to placate them.”  Again, an unnecessary mention of the referee’s nationality.

In the same paper Paul Hayward repeated the claim that the referee’s decisions were not straight.  “Match officials apparently buckling under pressure.”

Another Telegraph hack Luke Edwards criticised FIFA General Secretary Fatma Samoura because she congratulated Cameroon.  He accused her of inflaming the “situation.”  He meant that he objected to her not falling into line with all the criticism aimed at Cameroon from English voices.  Cameroon’s progress to the knockout stage of the World Cup was an extraordinary achievement given the lack of financial support; Samoura’s applause was entirely correct.

In a separate article Edwards erased all the poor behaviour at (men’s) world cups and he accused Cameroon of not knowing the laws of the game and of being amateur.  “The Cameroon team’s behaviour has damaged the World Cup’s image.  This was some of the worst, most petulant and possibly damaging behaviour seen at a World Cup.  It does nothing to enhance the reputation of women’s football when players do not seem to understand the offside law and how VAR is used.  As for threatening to quit the game because things are going against you, it makes a mockery of the idea this is a serious, professional tournament.  Some of Cameroon’s behaviour was disgraceful.”

In an uncredited article on Football365 the same insult to the referee’s judgement and commitment was made.  “A penalty should have been awarded for a trip on Fran Kirby with a quarter of an hour remaining and a red card given to Alexandra Takounda for a dreadful foul on Houghton, but it was decided that poking the bear was inadvisable.”  The article’s chosen term of abuse at Cameroon was “pathetic tantrum.”  “Their refusal to restart play was a pathetic tantrum allowed to fester by the inept refereeing of Qin Liang.”

Guardian’s Louise Taylor expanded on insults to the referee’s professionalism.  “In the second half the Lionesses should have had a penalty and Cameroon a couple of players sent off but the referee, diplomatically, refrained from making those decisions due to genuine fears the match would descend into total anarchy.  By the end she genuinely seemed to fear for her physical safety.”  The last sentence was not only very stupid but also very suspect.

BBC’s Tom Garry followed the trend of calling Cameroon “the African side” and not calling England “the European side.”

Guardian’s Suzanne Wrack said Cameroon “threw their toys out of the pram in style” and went “into complete meltdown.”  She described the manager as an “impotent dog.”  “Childish” and “playground” were also part of her vocabulary.

In an interview on BBC radio former footballer Hope Solo insulted the Cameroon players’ professionalism and their intelligence.  “Perhaps they weren’t even told about the rules, the laws of the game and the evolution of the game.”

In The Times former footballer Tony Cascarino said “Cameroon embarrassed the sport.”

In the same paper former referee Peter Walton claimed the Cameroon players and manager did not know the rules.  “The Cameroon players displayed a lack of understanding of the offside laws and, even worse, so did their coach.”

Mail’s Ian Herbert made petulant remarks about Cameroon players’ abilities.  “The biggest embarrassment was that a team so palpably incapable of passing a ball from A to B should have been in the last-16 of a World Cup in the first place.”  His personal abuse continued with a comment on Ajara Nchout’s tears which he said “belonged to scenes straight out of the playground,” he called Alain Djeuma “vainglorious” and accused him of “perpetuating victimhood,” he said Cameroon played with “unadultered aggression bordering on assault,” called Leuko “a player way out of her depth” and concluded with the ridiculous assertion that it was “one of the darkest days in the relatively short of history of the Women’s World Cup.”

In another article Herbert claimed, with no evidence, that “it seems only a matter of time until FIFA surely look into the drama-filled encounter.”

In the Mirror Neil Moxley said the game was “an awful advert for the women’s game” and he called Cameroon “the Africans” but didn’t call England “the Europeans.”

Sunday Times’ Rebecca Myers said it was “farcical that Cameroon ended up in last 16 at all.”

Asked to provide marks out of ten and brief analysis of each player’s performance, Telegraph’s Katie Whyatt ignored Cameroon.

BBC commentator Jonathan Pierce spent the entire game describing how “athletic” the Cameroon team members were.

Whatever he may achieve in what remains of his career in football Phil Neville will forever be remembered for tripping Viorel Moldovan in the penalty area in 2000 European championship; the resultant (winning) goal for Romania meant England were knocked out of the tournament.  The trip, unnecessary and a consequence of an average footballer playing in the wrong position (left-back), epitomised Neville as a professional: A persistent worker whose words and repetitive actions fall short of compensating for his lack of skill and lack of intelligence.

Recommended reading
Lindsay Gibbs for Think Progress
Kim McCauley for SBNation

Diatribes of Phil Neville

Tory MP Mark Field violently assaulted a woman

Yesterday (June 20th) evening, at a Mansion House speech by chancellor Philip Hammond, Tory Minister of State for Asia and the Pacific Mark Field violently assaulted a woman, Janet Baker, who was protesting about lack of government action to address the climate crisis.  Field’s crime was recorded by a TV broadcaster and the clip shown on news bulletins.

Field’s statement
After a discussion with an expensive lawyer – whose fee will no doubt to be added to expenses – Field released an awful statement.

A major security breach occurred at a dinner I attended last night when a large group of protestors suddenly and noisily stormed into Mansion House.  In the confusion many guests understandably felt threatened and when one protestor rushed past me towards the top table I instinctively reacted.  There was no security present and I was for a split-second genuinely worried she might have been armed.  As a result I grasped the intruder firmly in order to remove her from the room as swiftly as possible.  I deeply regret this episode and unreservedly apologise to the lady concerned for grabbing her but in the current climate I felt the need to act decisively to close down the threat to the safety of those present.”

His statement tried to paint a picture of a scenario that he claimed existed in his head as animalistic justification for his behaviour – “I instinctively reacted” – including evocative language to grossly exaggerate what he post-pretended to perceive as threatening: “Major security breach,” “suddenly and noisily stormed,” “in the confusion,” “rushed past me towards the top table,” and “genuinely worried.” 

He co-opted what he chose to imagine other people in the room were thinking as a tool to enhance his decision to attack but the video clip showed the other attendees looking on bemused at Field’s behaviour.  No-one seemed “threatened” or “worried.”  Subsequent accounts of the incident by people who were there debunked his assertion that there was room-wide worry.

Field referenced the “the current climate.”  Did he mean the “the current climate” of people getting milkshook? 

In an attempt to justify “grasping firmly” and “removing swiftly” he said “she might have been armed.”  That comment was typical of armed police whenever they have shot an unarmed person.  Indeed, the entire statement could have been copied and pasted from thousands of police statements on “officer-involved shootings.”  

He and his lawyer concocted a cause-and-effect storyboard to conclude that Field had no choice but to do as he did.  He did not regret any specific actions he took.  Field depicted his actions as reactive and instinctive.  Not only was the statement a pre-defence but it was also a disgusting attempt to applaud him as quick thinking and heroic.

In April Field asked police to be more violent against Extinction Rebellion protesters in London: “I would be most grateful if, as a matter of urgency, you would take a much firmer grip on this problem.”  He took his own advice two months later.

Field didn’t practice what he had preached
Field’s behaviour yesterday conflicted with opinions he expressed earlier this year.

In May in a debate in parliament on Women Human Rights Defenders Field said

Human rights defenders often operate in the most difficult environments, and by exposing issues that the powerful would prefer to keep hidden, their work puts them in constant danger.  They or their families could face discrimination, violence or, at the very worst, death.  That is what happened to Berta Cáceres, who bravely stood up for the rights of an indigenous group in Honduras against a proposed hydroelectric dam project.  She paid for that with her life, and it has taken five years for those responsible to be held to account.  Tragically, Berta’s murder is by no means unique, and many others have been killed for standing up to those in power.  Many others face similar threats.”

He remembered to promote his contribution to the debate with a self-aggrandising tweetThe UK [government] remains committed to helping women all over the world to feel safe and protected in the work they do, so they can speak freely and be part of the change we all want.  [Read] my remarks at the Westminster Hall Debate on Women Human Rights Defenders.”

In June Field attended a conference with the tag line Global peace and stability depend on climate security whereat he declared “climate security must be at the heart of foreign policy work at a global level.”

So, Field supported women who stood strong for what they believed in except if they were physically too close to him and he supported tackling climate security but objected to anyone protesting about it.

Field loves The City Of London
Field is opposed to any restriction of the financial business of the City of London.  In love bankers he presented an absurd misrepresentation of the role of banks and financial institutions, of their intent and of their usefulness to society.  He described them as necessities – “our open commercial climate, so carefully nurtured over centuries, is an asset we can ill afford to lose” – rather than as their true role of parasites.

Via some creative figures he claimed that loss of the finance industry in the UK would be disastrous – “banker bashing and public hostility to wealth creation is doing lasting damage to the UK’s economy” – but neglected to mention that the reason so many members of that industry are based in Britain is because they can easily dodge tax.  But, many “city professionals engage in philanthropy, to the enormous and lasting benefit of London’s galleries and museums and charities.”

In no regulation Field warned that any regulation, particularly if imposed by Financial Conduct Authority, would be unwelcome: “Most of our competitors [other countries] are desperate to break into the developing markets of the East, where the increased wealth of the middle classes will ensure the rapid expansion of their financial sectors for decades to come.  This nation already has a competitive advantage in such areas, so should we be hobbling it?”  He wanted complete freedom for the finance industry to gamble and play games with lives and livelihoods.

Field’s attitude toward the business of the City Of London and his dishonest appraisal of its role and intent revealed someone who is willing to provide any excuse for wrongdoing and criminality and who lies with casual impunity.  It showed a personality bereft of social empathy, without any concept of community and purposefully restricted in intellect.  That is who Field is.  His behaviour yesterday would not have surprised anyone who knew him.

Recommended reading
Sam Ambreen
Craig Murray
Jonathan Cook

Tory MP Mark Field violently assaulted a woman

Rory Stewart is an offensive Etonian charlatan

Faux 19th century Etonian explorer Rory Stewart traipsed across Afghanistan avoiding all laws including the need for a foreign visitor’s visa.  For him, the trip was a safari, in the colonial sense of the word.  He was a privileged visitor from a different world pretending to be interested in real people while benefitting from his investments in businesses that exploit them.

His PR campaign during the Tory leadership contest followed the same pattern.  Stewart popped up at Kew Gardens, he walked down streets and he hung around town centres pretending to engage people in conversation.  His encounters were filmed and used erroneously as proof that the Etonian enjoys listening to people; Stewart made little contribution to the conversations.  Funding for his street campaign came from typical Tory sources including £10,000 from investment banker Lev Mikheev and £10,000 from Khaled Said, son of notorious arms dealer Wafic Said.

Stewart’s campaign was focussed on trying to separate him from the rest of the contenders which was a difficult task because he voted in line with all vicious Tory policy throughout his time as an MP.  Behind Etonian bluster the only point he made was to claim he was willing to criticise Boris Johnson but there was no substance to his criticism; he simply said “look at me, I am bold enough to not agree with Johnson.”  However, that was enough for a torrent of centrist buffoons to exclaim gleefully that Stewart was the new saviour of British politics.

The desperation of the centrist gloop was unsurprising; they grasp despairingly at anything and anyone that they think could distract and con enough voters to stop Jeremy Corbyn being prime minister.  Stewart’s pretence at reasonableness and his gift of the gab, qualities that dazzle impressionable liberals, were merely tactics of conmanship he learnt on special courses at Eton.  The arts of persuasion, verbal sleight of hand and depiction of nothingness as something of substance are key components of an Etonian education.  

Channelling Alan Partridge, two absurd ideas Stewart offered as part of his imaginary plan were reintroduction of National Service, an idea he borrowed from Chuka Umunna’s incoherent manifesto for centrism, and an alternative parliament in a church close to Westminster if Boris Johnson prorogued parliament.  

“Youth hosteling with Chris Eubank?”

Stewart and Johnson are the same.  They attended the same machine masquerading as a school, they support the same destructive murderous Tory policies, they share the same imperialistic militaristic outlook on the world and they live in the same detached privileged bubble.  Both are charlatans, liars and con artists.  Both are extremely venal.  

In hypothetical isolation, away from the pitiful choices on offer in the Tory leadership race and away from the anything-but-socialism determination of worthless centrists and liberals, an empty chancer like Rory Stewart would have been given peremptory treatment immediately and then forgotten.  The fact that he has not been laughed off the streets is a symptom of the vacuous stupidity of British politics and British political journalism.

Recommended reading
Ash Sarkar on Rory Stewart
Rory Stewart: Billionaires’ Choice

Rory Stewart is an offensive Etonian charlatan