Rally Round the Flag and Defend BP?!

Regular readers will know that we Stroppybloggers are no great fans of the Daily Mail. And today, the right-wing rag has wound me up again.

The Mail's front page today urges David Cameron to 'stand up for your country' by defending BP against Barack Obama's criticism. In case they hadn't noticed, BP ceased to be owned by 'the country' when Cameron's predecessor, Thatcher, flogged it off.

The explosion at BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig killed eleven workers and has caused untold environmental and ecological damage, including the possible extinction of species.

BP was happy to pull in the profits and not share them with the rest of us when things were going well, but now we're supposed to take collective responsibility for defending it from thoroughly-deserved criticism when it cocks up on a massive scale?

No thanks. There is no 'national interest' in defending a private multinational corporation that puts profits before workers' safety and the environmental. Not even if the 'B' used to stand for 'British'.

[PS. Good article here.]

Women in Sport: two notable events today

We don't do sport very often here on Stroppyblog, but since I mentioned blokes' footy last weekend, I could not let today go past without mentioning a couple of notable events involving women in sport. We are a socialist feminist blog after all.

First up, Michaela Tabb is today (and yesterday) the first woman to referee snooker's World Championship final. And yes, the Daily Mail is on hand to tell us how much she spends on tops and accessories.

And Arsenal have just beaten Sunderland 2-1 to win the FA Women's Cup. One of BBC Radio Five Live's pundits was speculating as to why the Wearside team had changed its name to Sunderland Women from Sunderland Ladies, and was reliably informed that it was the result of a merger with another club. I wonder when any radio rent-a-quote will speculate as to why the other Sunderland team are not called Sunderland Gentlemen?!

Anyway, both these events seemed to merit a mention more than the thirtieth anniversary of the election of Britain's first woman Prime Minister, which is also today. Sod that.

Ross and Brand: Don't Join the Hysteria

I had intended not to blog about the Jonathan Ross / Russell Brand / Andrew Sachs / Georgina Baillie saga, but since it has taken up residence on the front pages of most newspapers and featured widely in blogland, I suppose I had better join in.

First off, I think that if Ross and Brand should be sacked, then they should have been sacked long before this particular stunt. For being crap. And for demanding huge sums of money for being crap. Looked at in employment terms, this was surely a performance issue long before it was a disciplinary one. It is an absolute scandal that anyone should be paid £6m a year for doing anything at all - let alone that a public employee should be paid £6m per year for being crap when the vast majority of public employees are very good at their jobs but are being told to accept below-inflation pay rises.

Ok, so my personal view that they are crap is just that: a personal view. Sure, there should be a place in public broadcasting for people who Janine does not personally like. But I'm sure we could all think of a hundred better uses to which the BBC could have put both the millions of quid and the hours of airtime.

The Sachs incident itself? It was pathetic and out of order. Public humiliation is not a form of entertainment in my book. Picking on someone who has done nothing to deserve your broadcast bullying is barrel-scraping of an unacceptable kind.

And just because a woman dances in a group called the Satanic Sluts does not mean that her sex life is fair game for public broadcast. Those who argue that it does remind me of the detestable practice of defence lawyers introducing a woman's sexual history as some kind of mitigation to excuse her rapist.

So, would I shed a tear if Ross and Brand were sacked? Never to darken our airwaves again? No, I wouldn't. But will I join in the wave of demands for their heads on a platter? No, I won't do that either. Why?

The media coverage of this really is way, way over the top. No doubt that's partly a result of the cult of the celebrity; it's partly a result of genuine and correct objection to their behaviour. But there is a third factor too: a conservative, censorious outburst by those who think sex, swearing and irreverence are very, very naughty and think that the BBC is a haven of lefty, liberal, disrespectful progressives who must be pulled into line.

One sign of this is that there were only a handful of complaints after the broadcast itself, but tens of thousands after the front page denunciations appeared. I would always be alarmed at the prospect of being on the same side of an argument as the Daily Mail, and I will not join their side on this one. The Mail has no genuine objection to Ross' and Brand's fat-cat salaries, nor to bullying or sexism. It objects to its perception of the BBC's non-adherence to traditional values, and probably to the very existence of the BBC as a state-run broadcaster.

An outright victory for right-wing critics of Ross and Brand would mean that all sorts of broadcasters and comics would come under increasing scrutiny, not just to ensure that they stay within acceptable bounds of non-persecution of elderly actors and their granddaughters, but to ensure that they stay within bounds of behaviour acceptable to the Daily Mail. The Mail has already begun to cast its net wider using the momentum of the Ross/Brand scandal to demand censorship of broadcast material that offends its sense of 'tastefulness' and 'decency'.

We can and should condemn Ross' and Brand's broadcast, but we also have to defend comedy and broadcasting from would-be censors. The charge-sheet against Ross and Brand includes that they were 'offensive'. Indeed they were, but that is the same charge levelled by Bible-bashers against 'Jerry Springer: the Opera', and it was a cause of celebration that their attempts to suppress it failed.

Fifty year old floosies and the Daily Mail

Daily Mail women know their place. Yep, they have jobs but not too high powered. They marry and have nice children who don't binge drink or wear hoodies .They enjoy sex just enough to keep hubbie happy and breed but not too much, none of that 'whore in the bedroom' malarkey .The soundtrack to their lives is Dido and Phil Collins .They go from wife to mother to granny then death , with less and less sex as they progress.

If they are unhappy and want a divorce they are very very selfish. If hubbie leaves then its probably their fault and they should now blend into the wallpaper, do voluntary work and find a nice hobby such as a book group.

There is of course another world and the Mail regularly scares them with stories of this place full of drunken floosies (otherwise known as a leftie bloggers piss up), gay soldiers and single parents with 30 children living on £2 million a year handouts. Hmmm, slight exaggeration on the last example, but you get the point.

Every now and again there is a warning , in case any Mail reading woman feels tempted to dip a toe into the degenerate other world.
One such warning came today with the headline "Are the frisky fifties putting their sexual health at risk?"

It starts by telling the story of 44-year-old Diane(thats not fifty !) who not only had sex with someone other than her husband , and at such an advanced age, but with a younger man to boot:

"When I was growing up, the only thing we worried about was getting pregnant," says Diane, an attractive blonde divorcee with two daughters in their 20s and her own PR company in South London.

"The issue of sexually transmitted infections simply never entered my head, because by the time the Aids epidemic came round I was married and obviously in a monogamous relationship. I was vaguely aware that there was a big increase in such infections, but that had nothing to do with my life."
But then Diane's 19-year marriage came to an end and she found herself back on the singles scene - a very different scene to that when she was first dating in her teens.

"Firstly, I found that all the men my age had let themselves go or were really controlling," she says. "Or if they had kept themselves in shape, were chasing women half my age."

Now this is her mistake. She should have resigned herself to a life of book clubs and gardening, or else made do with what was on offer . But no, off she went to the internet and found herself a younger man. Fun comes before punishment as any Daily Mail reader must know and she caught Chlamydia. The Mail goes on to call her shamefaced and just in case readers thought this a one off :

Diane's tale might sound like a sorry story of one woman's naivety and stupidity, but the fact is she is just one of the soaring numbers of middle-aged women who are at risk of sexually transmitted infections.

Diane herself says:

"It's had a huge effect on my life. I feel as if I daren't date a man as I might give him chlamydia, or catch it again. I haven't slept with anyone for four years. If I did, I would always insist on a condom now, but even then I would feel really nervous.

"What a way to look forward to my retirement in nine years time - I feel I will almost certainly be alone, thanks to my own crass stupidity."

So there you have it, you risk a lonely old age for stepping out of line.

Now of course there are a number of issues here. For a start why not address this to men and women? What about men taking responsibility for safe sex?I note there is no mention of men with younger women being 'naive' and 'stupid' and getting infections.
There is a real issue that the safe sex campaign is missing out people (not just women) who may have been in long term relationships and not really taken notice of them at the time. What is needed is better information, awareness and campaigns that are relevant to all ages not . Thats the issue, not calling women stupid and not giving them sole responsibility for safe sex and ignoring the men .

It should be applauded that women in their 40s, 50s and as the Mail puts it 'even' their 60s have sex. For an article headed 'frisky fifties' they also seem to have a problem with 40 year olds. WTF !! I think its great that women are refusing to conform as they get older and still see themselves as sexual beings.

Yep, when I get to fifty I'll trade in the grumpy old man for a toyboy ...


Pic : Whilst googling for a pic of a floosie came across a site of papier mache figures and this one was called Flora Floosie ;-)

Anti-social perfume!

Just love the first sentence in this Daily mail article I found while trawling the papers:

Women who drench themselves in strong perfume may actually be ill - rather than anti-social.

Slap an asbo on them now !

Daily Mail headline generator

Those of you who share my hatred of the Daily Mail could well find this highly amusing.

Hat tip to Ben (again).

My Son Is Not A Monster

I may have mentioned before that I hate the Daily Mail, and this article has done little to endear me.

Jan Greenman has written a book about life with her son Luke, who has Asperger's syndrome and ADHD. My son Joe has Asperger's syndrome. He's a beautiful, affectionate, intelligent, sociable, funny, charming and sometimes infuriating boy.

Asperger's makes a parent's life difficult. On one level I have a lot of sympathy with Greenman. Yes, experiencing violence from your own son is horrible. Yes, the Asperger's desire for sameness and routine can be very frustrating and demanding. And maybe, since Luke has ADHD as well, he is much harder to cope with than Joe. Poor Jan had to give up her job as the treasurer of a private merchant bank. Perhaps the further you fall, the harder it is, eh?

But Greenman's article is cold and negative. Luke, according to the headline, is a 'monster'. A tip: his behaviour may at times be monstrous, but he is not a monster. If you must label, label the behaviour not the person.

Some of what Greenman complains about is behaviour common amongst children, although probably exaggerated in an Asperger's child. Lots of kids - autistic or not - wake up at 5am, write on the walls, and want to send their new baby sibling back to the hospital.

Greenman's upset at Luke's damage to expensive belongings contrasts with a notable lack of sympathy for Luke himself. There is not a word in this article acknowledging that Luke's life might be difficult, that he as well as his mother might find situations distressing. There is nothing about any positive aspects of his character. Greenman doesn't say she loves him, doesn't even really say she cares (in an emotional rather than strictly practical sense).

Luke has been excluded from mainstream secondary school because someone bullied him and he responded in a highly inappropriate manner. Hang on - Luke was bullied and he was excluded?! Sure, his response may have been inappropriate (that'll be the Asperger's), but what about the bully?! And what about the school, which can find no way to support a boy with Asperger's and ADHD and help him learn more appropriate social behaviour, and so chucks him out? Luke's mother has no such criticism or questions to raise. She only demands (reasonably enough) more special schools.

Maybe the Daily Mail has highlighted the negative and the book is more balanced. Maybe the newspaper, rather than the author, put the word 'monster' in the headline. There are several books around about bringing up - and about being - a child with Asperger's syndrome. I've not read any of them yet. But judging by this article, I won't be reading Jan Greenman's.

"Gifted young TV star forced to quit top school to join mum and lesbian lover on Greek island"

Not exactly the most snappy of titles, but it is a headline in the Daily Mail. And no I don't buy the rag, I skim most papers on the Internet and sometimes have a look at The Mail in that way 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' watches Channel 4.

So whats it all about then ?

Apparently :

Last summer, eight-year-old Alex Stockley's future couldn't have seemed brighter.

The talented son of a barmaid and a farmhand had won a £5,000-a-year scholarship to one of England's finest prep schools.

And, in an extraordinary show of generosity, members of the public who saw Alex in a TV documentary raised the other £30,000 needed to pay the remainder of the fees for the boy with a genius-level IQ.

This week, however, it emerged that the fairy-tale ending to the story of the child given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity is lying in tatters.

And then the outrage really begins , as this woman is a very very bad mother...she is a lesbian !

The article goes on (bold added by SB) :

After just two terms at Glebe House in Hunstanton, Norfolk, his 32-year-old mother, Eileen Stockley, has removed him and taken him to the other end of Europe, far away from the school which she begged to educate her son, away from his father, Ian Pearce, and away from everything he knows.

Caught between his estranged, squabbling parents, suddenly it seems that Alex's needs are no longer a priority. He is being taught at a Forces school in Cyprus. Why? Because his mother was determined to set up home there with her 23-year-old lesbian lover, an RAF communications specialist.

On the website Friends Reunited, Eileen claims that last week she underwent a civil partnership ceremony with her lover, Amy Wormesley - and can barely contain her happiness at her new life. "Living in Cyprus with my beautiful wife Amy!" she gushes. "She's my world and I'm hers."

No mention, of course, of Alex's world. Or the possibly disastrous effect her behaviour will have on him and his education.

Instead, after briefly mentioning she has two children, Eileen gushes that there is 'another on the way', before blatantly contradicting herself by adding: "Hopefully will have another by next year, we trying (sic) at the mo."

Who knows by what method this couple are trying to add to their brood, and what her other two children would be expected to make of a half-sibling with two mummies.

Meanwhile, at his home in Norfolk, a bereft Ian Pearce now has no idea when he will see his son again.

"Alex was doing so well at Glebe House. It was everything he could have hoped for. He was happy and he'd settled in and he was getting glowing reports.

He's such a bright boy and he was in the best possible hands. Now he's off into the unknown and who knows how long for?"

The seeds of this unhappy development were sown when Eileen Stockley met her current lover. She is thought to have encountered her while she was working behind the bar at RAF Marham, while Amy was stationed there.

Mr Pearce had no inkling that his former partner had any lesbian tendencies before he heard about Amy: "She'd always been interested only in men, as far as I knew," he said.

"Eileen has betrayed Alex and betrayed all those who donated money for his education. I can't believe she's done it."

Certainly, viewers of last year's documentary, Admission: Impossible, who donated tens of thousands towards Alex's education at Glebe House would be forgiven for feeling they wasted their time and money.

Admission Impossible followed the stories of six families from across the UK as they navigated their way through the complex schools admissions system, trying to secure the perfect place for their child.

Millions of views tuned in, with hundreds offering to donate money.

At least the £30,000 raised after the programme is held in a trust fund, whose trustees are the governors of Glebe House School. Neither Eileen nor Ian have control over it.

Donors may feel cheated when they learn Eileen herself seems very different to the down-at-heel single mother portrayed in last August's documentary, whose only concern was to do the best for her son.

According to Mr Pearce, the truth about this dysfunctional family is far less heartwarming than viewers were led to believe.

The 37-year-old farm worker, who lives in Weasenham, near Swaffham, Norfolk, with his partner Tracey and their nine-month-old son, Rhys, says that Eileen lied during the making of the two-part documentary.

The premise of the programme was that Alex, clearly an exceptionally able child, had no choice but to remain in the mediocrity of the state sector, because the Government made no provision for gifted children.

Alex's IQ was measured at 148, and he sailed through Glebe House's entrance exam in record time, taking just 15 minutes to complete a test which took other children 40 minutes, and scoring more than 90 per cent.

The TV crew carted his mother down to London, where she petitioned the PM in Downing Street to no avail and then arranged a meeting with a financial adviser, whose role in the drama was clearly to prove that Eileen had no chance whatsoever of paying for a private education on her meagre income.

During the course of that interview, Eileen was asked if she was divorced, to which she replied 'yes' twice, even though she has never been married.

She was asked if there were any grandparents who might be able to offer some kind of financial assistance towards Alex's education.

Her reply was simply: "Both my parents are dead." In fact, her mother, Pat is still alive, though her relationship with Eileen has apparently endured a mutual silence for more than a decade.

Speaking from Cyprus this week, she tried to explain why she had denied the existence of her own mother on the programme and failed to mention Alex's two paternal grandparents.

"I have had no contact with my mother for 12 years, and as far as I was concerned, she's dead.

"If Alex's other grandparents were upset by the programme, then perhaps they would like to contribute towards his education."

She added that she lied by saying she was 'divorced', because the programme makers told her to. True? Or another convenient falsehood?

.....

Whether this disruption to his precious education has any lasting impact remains to be seen.

Those that saw Alex on television and witnessed this affable, trusting and astonishingly clever little boy can only hope that having already overcome so much, somehow his remarkable spirit will sustain him.


Seems the Daily Mail has made up its mind as to who the baddie is in all of this, though life is rarely that simple.There are also real issues about whether the state system provides for very bright children, the role of reality television and how parents ensure they both continue to work together in the best interests of their child when they split up.It doesn't ask what happens to other bright kids who don't get on TV and tug at the heartstrings . That might involve the Daily Mail questioning the education system . The Daily Mail does not really trouble itself with the complexities too much, the real issues for them being the fact she was a lying single parent who ran off with another woman and horror of horrors is now planning a child with the new partner. It is not even that consistent, criticising the mother for lying to get money for a private school and then complaining that the child was no longer going to the school (paid for by money gained according to them dishonesty).It also implied that there may have been state provision but then ignores that in the rant against the mother .

Pic of Eileen Stockley and son Alex. Funny, she doesn't look like a lesbian , I mean where are the dungarees, why is she wearing make up. That must confuse the Daily Mail readers ...