modern culture since 1991

Wings over Sealand


David Cameron’s new best friend

Posted on August 10, 2011 by RevStu

You may have seen David Cameron on the news today, anointing himself head of the "New Moral Army", promising a "fightback" against rioters, and praising (at 0.53) "the million people on Facebook who've signed up to support the police". The group in question was created, and is run, by this lovely chap:

That doesn't seem quite the sort of "morality" the Prime Minister should be getting behind, does it? But there are more rib-ticklers where that came from.

The funniest is probably this one:

…in which Boscott attempts to deny responsibility for the "Junglebook" post, claiming a hacked Twitter account. Fair enough, you might think. These things happen, but luckily his account appears to be under his control again, spewing out hundreds of anti-rioter tweets in recent days and gathering tens of thousands of followers.

Though oddly, rather than being about social justice or supporting the police, the profile claims to be mostly about "bad taste/offensive jokes" and "Adult Humour not 4 wimps". You might think that some would consider that description to fit the "Junglebook" line quite well, and that Boscott's denial of having posted it therefore smelt a bit fishy.

What you might think of doing then was going back through Boscott's tweets of the last few days, which are still there on the feed for anyone to see and which he doesn't appear to be denying responsibility for.

Hmm.

Right.

Uh-huh.

I see.

Short of material already?

Topical satire!

Well, at least it's not just the blacks, I guess.

It's nice to see that, a bit like Michael McIntyre, he's keen to promote other young up-and-coming comics too.

And it gets more mysterious – this sidesplitter is from the same date as the "Junglebook" tweet. Boscott is presumably in sole control of his Twitter account now. So why is this sort of thing, which we're told was someone else's handiwork, still here? What possible explanation could there be? Perhaps he just doesn't know how the "Delete this tweet" button works. That must be it.

Call me over-sensitive, but I'm not sure that having this guy leading a vast army of angry cheerleaders for the Metropolitan Police is going to be all that constructive over the days ahead in healing the nation's wounds and restoring the force's battered reputation among ethnic minorities. And I'm pretty certain it's not someone the Prime Minister of the country really ought to be singling out for praise. Can anyone imagine him doing it if the exact same group with the exact same message had been run by, say, Nick Griffin?

But hey, I'm just some pinko liberal, what do I know?

 

EDIT (8.15pm): Boscott's Twitter profile has been hastily edited since this feature appeared, replacing his picture and the profile description. The before and after shots are below. Maybe he's finally started to work out how to try to cover his tracks after all. Just slightly too late there, fella.

(Oddly, despite now ostensibly being a page about "current affairs and things that I believe in" rather than bad-taste humour, the site still contains all the racist jokes that were there before.)

 

EDIT 2 (8.42pm): Boscott's clearly panicking now. Within a couple of hours of this feature appearing and starting to go viral on Twitter (over 100 RTs, and trending top 5 in London and the UK), he's locked his tweets.

Unfortunately for him he's still a step behind the pace, thanks to ever-trusty WoSland associate John X, who has helpfully saved and mirrored all the site's tweets back to July 18 for posterity. Nice try, Sean.

 

EDIT 3 (9.00pm): Boscott's desperate efforts at damage limitation continue – now the Facebook page itself has been locked to comments.

 

EDIT 4 (11.50pm): Boscott has now removed his name and Twitter address from the Facebook group's Info page, along with a line saying "Follow me on twitter for my general rants and foul jokes!"

Before and after:

It's slightly odd, as only a few hours earlier in an interview with a Canadian TV station he'd said "I will not hide behind a screen… I will put my face and my name to it and say ‘No, this is who I am and this is what I stand for and this is not acceptable'", but has spent the last several hours doing his darnedest to hide both his connection to the site and his previous comments. The mystery deepens.

285 to “David Cameron’s new best friend”

  1. klo says:

    Not much it would seem.

  2. PLH says:

    Excellent.
    I see he's now changed his profile tagline and photo to appear more respectable.  What a shame we can still the previous version here…

  3. RevStu says:

    I wonder how long until the "jokes" suddenly vanish?

  4. Kev says:

    Nicely spotted. This guy's motives and feelings are obvious. Makes it all the funnier that Cameron was stupid and short sighted enough to start praising what's basically now Facebook's government approved page for English racism.
     

  5. Ross says:

    Has the Facebook group been taken down?

  6. RevStu says:

    Not that I can see.

  7. Oz says:

    Oh look, he's now protected his tweets!

  8. RevStu says:

    Yep, just spotted that. Luckily we were one step ahead again…

  9. Gary says:

    To me, to call Cameron a supporter of racism for supporting a page is to do the same to the other 900,000 followers of the page. The real scandal here is that such a figure has such a large audience to whom he can spout his xenophobic drivel. It's not just the PM who should know, it's the users of Facebook.

    You can't blame the PM for agreeing with a sentiment that hundreds of thousands have done so likewise, just because it started from more sinister motives. Blame him for pandering to popularism, blame him for the hypocrisy of supporting the Met with empty words and budget cuts. Here, though, is something that is more an issue for the public than for political points scoring against Cameron.

    I followed that page, too, because I agreed with the sentiment. Now I know better, I do no longer. I'm sure those in power would do the same, whether we like them or not.

    In the meantime, get out there and tell people the truth!

  10. RevStu says:

    I didn't call Cameron a supporter of racism. I blame him (and his advisers) for not doing a little bit of checking before attaching his name to the site, though.

    And that said, from a quick browse, I’m not sure that calling a large proportion of the site’s followers racist would be too far off the mark.

  11. dave says:

    "Owing to" not "Due to"

  12. Gary says:

    If it wasn't exactly secret, then I would suggest that most of the million people he talked of would not have gotten involved. The nature of Facebook Pages is pretty much see and click. They're also largely anonymous, too, until someone puts their name to it (as Boscott has).
    I didn't know about this until I saw a link to your blog; I must thank you for showing me the truth about the person behind this. But I just think that there is a bigger issue at hand here; the potential deception of an unwitting public by an individual looking to spread hate.

  13. RevStu says:

    Well, that IS the issue – the link to Cameron is just a useful way of bringing it to people's attention. The feature is mainly about Boscott, not Cameron, but it does raise some doubts about Cameron's judgement.

  14. Tim says:

    I'm sure Cameron has better things to do than to make sure the admin of a group is squeaky clean of a no-body.. it is you with currently making Boscott a somebody! I don't know about you but I don't know anyone that doesn't have skeletons in the closet and we shouldn't let it discredit the point of the group! And there are more than one 'support the Met' groups that Cameron could be talking about, it could have been anyones! I'm not condoning the jokes but I mean, it's only a virtual website page ffs!

  15. M.H says:

    Look, he obviously is an idiot, but we are supporting the purpose of the FB group, which is to support the MET police. That has nothing to do with the fact that he's racist, so I don't see anyone taking the Facebook group down anytime soon.

  16. RevStu says:

    I’m sure Cameron does have better things to do, just like Rupert Murdoch has better things to do than personally vet every story that appears in every one of his papers. That’s why, like Murdoch with his editors, Cameron has an army of civil servants and advisers to check this sort of thing out for him before he does anything stupid.

  17. RevStu says:

    Who said the Facebook group should be taken down? The fact that it’s led by a massive racist IS a little alarming and possibly likely to be unhelpful to the Met’s public relations with ethnic communities in London, though, wouldn’t you say?

  18. louise hamilton says:

    Bring back ethnic cleansing and get rid of all the monkeys on Englands streets, Enoch Powell was right back in the 60's

  19. Lk says:

    He even references his 'joke' telling in a post here on the 2nd Aug. Not quite the professional upstanding person he purports to be judging by this page: 
    https://www.facebook.com/pages/TeamBoscott-for-Twitter/215752305135873

  20. Alex says:

    I dont know this Boscott guy so have no idea if he is a racist or not, however I am part of the group on fb because the sentiment is correct, just because he started doesnt change the fact that we should support the police. That said as well I dont think this is in any way substantial evidence that he is a racist because of what I know about the how easy it is to hack accounts. Also he has not said anything remotely racist on fb that I have seen so I am very dubious about these claims.

  21. RevStu says:

    "That said as well I dont think this is in any way substantial evidence that he is a racist because of what I know about the how easy it is to hack accounts"

    Did you know the word "gullible" isn't actually in the dictionary?

  22. PLH says:

    M.H –  "Look, he obviously is an idiot, but we are supporting the purpose of the FB group, which is to support the MET police. That has nothing to do with the fact that he's racist…"

    So are you saying it would be acceptable to support the purpose of the FB group regardless of the background or motivations of its founder.  What about if it had been founded by a BNP member?  Or a convicted paedophile?  Does a group founder's background never matter?  Or is it just that casual racism in the guise of 'humour' (hey let's compare black people to apes, what larks) is somehow less offensive?  Where would you draw the line?  What would made you have withheld your support for this group?

  23. helen sinclair says:

    An mp has spoken before engaging his brain??? Hardly the shock of the century. I want to know why the met police have not a) distanced themselves from this individual AND b) why he has not been arrested for these comments? Once again a minority or scum bags are undermining the freedoms and privileges of our society

  24. Sp()rt says:

    Why would DC's advisers not picked up the dirt and investigated this shameless self promoter prior to supporting his campaign for C grade celebrity under the guise of a racist turned do-gooder?
    Shame on you Scott. There are bigger issues at stake here.

  25. helen sinclair says:

    “Bring back ethnic cleansing”????????? I can’t believe there are still people that think like this ! Its appauling!!! Would you refuse life saving treatment for yourself or a loved one because the doctor wasn’t white British? Disgusting!

  26. RevStu says:

    http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1102911209001#.TkLqX2vaPxY.twitter

    "That could have come from any country but ours"

    "I will not hide behind a screen… I will put my face and my name to it and say ‘No, this is who I am and this is what I stand for and this is not acceptable’"

    "My Twitter account has not been in my care for the last seven months"

    "It's only become apparent today that things could come back to me"

  27. FallenMadonna says:

    I'm gobsmacked that asking a simple question about his opinion on racism got my comments deleted whilst anti-black comments get to stay.
    I've been feeding the guy infor on Twitter for days.
    There are a lot of other Facebook pages supporting the met, luck more than anything else made this one grow. This one gathered momentum, not through the hard work of him but of the people who fed him the info.
    I left just now as the guy and a good number of his followers are openly racist. I can support the police in other ways and I have been doing so.
    There are many unsung heroes out there, one if lying in hospital in critical condition but nobody can identify him. Three are dead. This guy isn't fit to be counted among them.

  28. Steff says:

    What particularly worried me, moreso than the racist jokes, were a couple of tweets he made towards the start of the riots. There's this one (screenshot from his now private Twitter): http://i.imgur.com/2Ymj5.png
    Which is a response to this Tweet: http://bit.ly/q2bImm
    And then later on, this ReTweet: http://i.imgur.com/1BNkE.png
    This heavily implies that he believes that 'multiculturals' (read: black people) are entirely responsible for the rioting, something which couldn't be futher from the truth.
    It's these comments that go beyond mere jokes.

  29. RevStu says:

    I've just emailed him this, following up on an unanswered Twitter message. I don't expect a reply.

    "Hello Sean. It would be rude of me not to offer you the opportunity to clarify your curious statements with regard to the posts on your Twitter account over recent weeks, and your allegations of a 'hate campaign'. If you'd like to answer a couple of questions I'd be delighted to post your responses unedited."

  30. Sudds says:

     
    The face book group is there to support the met police and emergency services. Nothing more.  DC didn't say its founder was a great guy. He said it was amazing that a million people showed their support of the police. 
    The point is most people in this country are sick as fuck of seeing disrespectful , uneducated , uncaring and lets face it socially retarded scum (regardless or race) in every city just basically draining resources and giving nothing back what so ever.
    Liberal idiots should stop looking for excuses to discredit groups like this.
    But me'h i suspect this site will be lucky to get 10,000 hits let alone a million……

  31. RevStu says:

    "But me'h i suspect this site will be lucky to get 10,000 hits let alone a million……"

    Some way past that already in the last three hours, I'm afraid, m'dear.

  32. Sudds says:

    Hit counter or it didn't happen :P

  33. Steff says:

    Sudds, your argument might be valid if it were simply a group for people to show support for the police. Instead, Sean is the central figure, whipping up an angry mob in order to boost his own ego. Hence the hundreds of people literally calling for his knighthood.

  34. Sass says:

    I support the sentiment, not the man.  And the police of course :)

  35. Tim says:

    He's just a naive and desperate fool trying to get attention by using jokes that are not even his own, but really? Cameron was just merly pointing out that there is support for the met and communities on facebook so why you feel the need to get lost in weak story and make a mountain out of a molehill? I take it your not a consevative supporter are you..

  36. I put together my own version of @SeanBoscott's hilarious 'jokes' before seeing your far more stylish entry. Good play. http://northbriton45.blogspot.com/2011/08/sean-boscotts-jokes.html
    I'm not getting the feeling @SeanBoscott & his mates are pleased with us, I'm having lots of conversations about the nature of comedy.

  37. Maybeline says:

    So, does no-one else in this country make rude/crude/offensive or racist jokes in the name of comedy? Do you never resend text messages you receive about foreigners or pop stars deaths for instance? Does it mean if you do, that you can not stand up for a great cause and still be a model citizen, especially in times of need? Most of the population of the UK would be condemned if that were the case. Leave this man alone. Regardless of his sense of humour, whether you share it or not, he has done amazing things in keeping this country alerted to dangers and has pulled so many people together to support and help the Police/Emergency services and to help communities clean up after the acts of these hooligans. It should be those that are rioting under scrutiny, named and shamed, for the things they have done to this countries cities over the past days. Not a few words from one man because you don't agree with his humour. 

  38. Sudds says:

    @ Steff I support the group, haven't posted anything on it don't follow Sean and until reading this blog (which i found by basically surfing through links from facebook) had absolutely no idea who he was or how he was politically aligned. I don't believe he needs a knighthood i don't believe he is even really worth a mention and i feel i am representative of the majority of the 950k people who support the group.
    My point is i guess, why undermine something that is clearly a much needed show of support for police during what is clearly a very difficult time, if your not a someone participating in riots then we must rally in support of the people who are there to protect us (regardless of how inadequate they are) otherwise the next community on fire might be yours….
    If Sean is the egotist you claim he is, blogs like this will just increase his fame and instead of fostering the support the original FB page intended or was received and accepted by the majority its just more likely to make him famous….

  39. Alex says:

    To be honest, some of you seem to be far too aggressive, which makes me believe he could have been hacked. Either way I dont support racism at all or in any way so if its true then shame on him, but doesnt mean the group on fb isnt completely right, we should support our police against the looters who are obviously idiots who we (tax payers) end up having to pay for.

  40. gnome says:

    Congratulations, oh WOS! Now, *that* is journalism. 

  41. Sp()rt says:

    "Sudds, your argument might be valid if it were simply a group for people to show support for the police. Instead, Sean is the central figure, whipping up an angry mob in order to boost his own ego. Hence the hundreds of people literally calling for his knighthood."
    Nicely said, Steff. Let's be honest… our dear friend Sean IS looking for a platform to elevate his own celebrity (see rather strange underwear / body pics on his FB and overly earnest, good boy, sweet as pie recent tweets… It's called an opportunistic re-invention and good luck to him as it an extremely powerful message to get out there for solidarity. Not denying that or trying to discredit the message sent out to the people. I also support what the police are doing 150% and feel safe tonight after riots and looting in my area on Monday, thanks to the Met's relentless and tireless dedication.
    However, this is about Scott, why would he have made those inflammatory and racist efforts at low grade humour to begin with?… attention and self promotion via cheap shots at numerous other non-white races? I think, yes… Well, he got it.
    Thanks for taking the time to put this piece together RevStu. Enlightening and grateful that I have been given the truth message for a change without having it censored prior.

  42. Nick says:

    Am I being dim. I can't see where on that Facebook page it says it's started or run by Sean Boscott?

  43. Tom K. says:

    I wonder if Sean would like the riot police to start throwing bananas at the looters to distract them.

    Ha – that’s TROPICAL satire mate.

  44. RevStu says:

    "Am I being dim. I can't see where on that Facebook page it says it's started or run by Sean Boscott?"

    It used to be on this page:

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Supporting-the-Met-Police-against-the-London-rioters/152937041453243?sk=info

    but it's the latest victim of Sean's flailing attempts to hide from scrutiny. This is what it used to look like:

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=30c6n2r&s=7

  45. RevStu says:

    "I wonder if Sean would like the riot police to start throwing bananas at the looters to distract them. Ha – that’s TROPICAL satire mate."

    82 points.

  46. RevStu says:

    "Not a few words from one man because you don't agree with his humour."

    Someone saying "What's black and has eight legs? Gang rape" is some way beyond a difference of opinion over their sense of humour.

  47. Matt says:

    Did you know: people who make dead baby jokes don't actually want to kill babies? Tasteless jokes have been around for ages, and not just made by racists (league of gentlemen, frankie boyle, monty python, etc etc). I concede it's not great politically for Cameron to be associated with it, nor in good faith for him to lie he was hacked, but condemning someone just for making unfunny dark humour? Please.

  48. Mac says:

    Thanks for this RevStu. Exposing people like this a valuable service.  Has anyone seen the @TeamBoscott account, which seems to have been set-up when his other one was suspended earlier?  Some really charming comments about the Japanese tsunami in particular. Guess someone hacked that too…

  49. RevStu says:

    Dead babies don’t have a history of being brutally discriminated against by the same organisation the comedian is rallying support for, though.

  50. RevStu says:

    "Has anyone seen the @TeamBoscott account, which seems to have been set-up when his other one was suspended earlier?  Some really charming comments about the Japanese tsunami in particular. Guess someone hacked that too…"

    Ooh, quality sleuthing. This guy is REALLY committed to racist humour.

    http://twitter.com/#!/TeamBoscott/status/47070691811540992

    "My jewish mate claims he's no longer a paedophile because it's immoral.. I reckon its cause the price of sweets went up"

    Those damn hackers!

  51. alex says:

    this is nuts. so the guy's a tool. Why exactly shouldn't we support the fb page? the cause and reason for it existing are still good, and none of this offensive shit appears on it. It's a shame that he's had to lock the page due to people not being able to contain themselves. dicks can do worthwhile things too, why would you want to discourage that?

  52. Julie says:

    I joined the FB group completely on the basis of the title and because a lot of my friends (of all races) had done so. None of us had any idea who the founder was or about his views. I am going to take myself off now, but most people there still don't know, and just genuinely want to express their support for the police. But is it at least arguable that the views of the page's creator are irrelevant with so many people posting messages of support on there?

  53. RevStu says:

    It's arguable, yes. But when you're a group's admin you can control which messages do and don't get printed, and Boscott doesn't seem to have done anything about the countless racist ones, while taking the time to censor people who've complained about them. That's a dangerous amount of power to give to a racist with a million people behind him.

    It already looks, for example, as if he's been instrumental in bringing the first "e-petition" debate to Westminster, in the form of one demanding that convicted rioters are barred from ever receiving state benefits (no matter how minor a crime they actually committed). That should certainly reduce the problem of angry poor people…

  54. Big Wingy says:

    Thank you for exposing him. 

  55. RevStu says:

    The "TeamBoscott" Twitter account is now gone too.

  56. But obviously he had nothing to do with those jokes…..

  57. Robin says:

    “Do you never resend text messages you receive about foreigners or pop stars deaths for instance?”

    Well, no. This is pretty much the textbook definition of boorishness.

    Some of this comment thread is like watching people wander out of the idiot’s playground of BBC News’ Have Your Say and onto the six-lane expressway of the grown-ups’ internet.

    I hope Boscott has the sense to remove and apologise for the racist jokes and learn some humility from this episode, but I don’t hold out much hope. He’s probably made the mental connection that spreading bigotry and right wing rhetoric results in attention, so doesn’t care that it’s harmful and divisive.

  58. Mark says:

    Everyone unlike and use the 'Report Page' link/button bottom left column to Facebook as Race Hate category, see if we can prevent it getting to a million unaware followers asap

  59. Gombeen says:

    You don't have to be a racist to support the Met, but it helps!

  60. the womp says:

    Those jokes aren't even his, they're stolen from Sickipedia:
    http://www.sickipedia.org/subcategory/view/3320
    but, as he would say, only blacks steal things, right?

  61. Debs says:

    Great work! :) Some nice people have set up a Facebook group to help expose Boscott (that's how I found this blog, RevStu). They're trying to bring this situation to the attention of the press – have all been busy sharing links to this blog and others in a similar vein. Please join and encourage others to join, to help get the truth out there.
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/149643598451838/
    Thanks :)

  62. PLH says:

    RevStu – your comment at 12.39 is spot on. 
    The fact that too many people unthinkingly sign up to online groups without questioning who set it up and why, and how the group might be controlled and used, is precisely what allows Poundshop Messiahs like Boscott to flourish.  The calls for 'knighthoods' etc highlight how easy it is to manipulate an online group.
    You have to laugh at the several Twitter-based calls for Boscott to be allowed to carry the Olympic flame though.  Presumably they mean Berlin 1936 rather than London 2012…

  63. Tom says:

    I can understand where people are coming from when they say they're supporting the Facebook page's message not its creator, but I'm afraid this 'support' is pretty meaningless. How much has it actually helped the police that you clicked that 'Like' button? It's not exactly news that the majority of people are broadly in favour of the police and against the rioters. If you want to show the police some practical support write to your MP opposing cuts to police numbers, or join your neighbourhood watch or something. 'Support' by joining a Facebook group is worth about as much as it cost you.

  64. Captain Caveman says:

    Heh. Just a quick note to say 'great work, sir', a fantastic bit of sleuthing, there, and a *genuine* scoop, I would have to say. We may not agree on many things, but by heck I am standing shoulder to shoulder with you on this one. I *abhor* racism in all its guises, including when passed off as 'humour'. There can be no doubt in my mind that this expose puts the likes of iffy chair reviews – however entertaining and amusing – into a cocked hat. More please! :)
     
    The fact that Cameron has apparently leaped unthinkingly onto this bandwagon, with apparently distinctly dubious underpinnings, is frankly incredible – at least to me.

  65. Captain Caveman says:

    LOL @ PLH, class. :D

  66. marian says:

    Hi — just found this. Obv can't access the original tweet.
     
    Twitter / Boscott: What do you call a ginger

    twitter.com/SeanBoscott/status/41618560337985536Cached
    What do you call a ginger rape victim? A liar. 2:00 PM Feb 26th via HootSuite Retweeted by 15 people. SeanBoscott. Boscott

    You visited this page on 11/08/2011.

  67. "The fact that Cameron has apparently leaped unthinkingly onto this bandwagon, with apparently distinctly dubious underpinnings, is frankly incredible – at least to me."
    I don't find it incredible, Cameron acts first without depth of thought or wisdom.  Headless chicken and running…..

  68. Baz says:

    Several times on that group I asked the creator was his account hacked on 23rd July when he posted that racist tweet. I posted it on his wall when people were able to and on several threads he started. I got abuse from several people into the bargain and no reply. I also put up the racist tweet on my facebook page as several people did. FB removed it understandably as it is offensive even if it was in a different context. More worryingly, before the groups wall was blocked from posting the EDL put up a recruitment drive asking for 'volunteers' to help protect homes and businesses. This was not removed by the creator of the group and was there for several hours right up to till the group was blocked. This is a racist group under the guise of doing good. But as @Tom says what good is it actually doing? Is it running a campaign to help those police injured? Is it organising a clean up campaign like a far more worthy group is doing?
    @Tom I would like to put up what you said on my wall if possible because it makes more sense that the racist and hatemongering filth being spouted on that group.

  69. Secure-IT says:

    You guys are clearly clueless at how easy it is to hack a Twitter account, or easier still to simply mock up some fake tweets.
    I for one dont care about his personal thoughts and morals, but I do care about supporting the Met against this bunch of scumbags who are not only causing physical harm to people and destroying personal possessions are ultimately going to cost the country millions more in clean ups, insurance payouts and other services.

  70. RevStu says:

    “You guys are clearly clueless at how easy it is to hack a Twitter account, or easier still to simply mock up some fake tweets.”

    Viewers! Behold the last man on the planet who believes Boscott’s Twitter account was hacked!

  71. Mark says:

    POST TEMPORARILY REMOVED BY REVSTU:

    If there are any sources in support of the allegations made in this post, link them and I’ll publish it.

  72. Secure-IT says:

    Do you not find it funny that the only people who have published any information about this are private blogs? Where are all the stories from our well respected world press?
    You guys are as bad as the Daily Mail, publishing headlines without any actual evidence.

  73. PLH says:

    Secure-IT do keep up!  Boscott is now saying his account was controlled by an ex-partner for 7 months, not randomly hacked.  Strangely, the fact that the Twitter account wasn't under his control didn't stop him linking to it from Facebook.  And even more curiously, he seems to have been able to seize back control from the ex-partner just after the racist tweets published following the Tottenham riot.  What a lucky chap!

  74. Will May Be Wise says:

    For something very English yet not racist in any way but completely for Law and Order… http://www.facebook.com/pages/Anti-Riot-Operation-Cup-Of-Tea/193286777402234?ref=ts

  75. Julia says:

    Since you, RevStu, have come up with an explanation for the riots that perfectly matches your existing political prejudices, I don't see why it is at all surprising that racists would come up with racist explanations for them.
    While you're blaming TORY CUTS and insufficient democracy for the problems (Sunday's post), they're blaming mass immigration and the welfare state. Plus ca change.
    Though if democracy is really your overriding concern, then the interesting statement here is "the million people on Facebook who've signed up to support the police". That's signed up to *support the police*, not "signed up to the 'Enoch was Right' manifesto". 
    Is their voice invalid, just because the man who started the group turns out to be a bit of a twat?

  76. Will May Be Wise says:

    Does anybody know of any other pro Law and Order, ant- rioter no-racism-in-any-way, nice Facebook groups I can join to show my support?

  77. RevStu says:

    “Is their voice invalid, just because the man who started the group turns out to be a bit of a twat?”

    Can you point me to anywhere that I said it was?

    (Though “bit of a twat” isn’t the phrase I’d use for someone repeatedly spreading “black people are monkeys” jokes to tens of thousands of followers.)

  78. Emma says:

    Boo fucking hoo. He's fucking mint and hilarious. There's nothing better than a bit of good old general racism :D

  79. RevStu says:

    "You guys are as bad as the Daily Mail, publishing headlines without any actual evidence."

    Er, what? This story is nothing BUT evidence.

  80. Captain Caveman says:

    @Julia
    I tend to agree with you, but come on. The bar for a British Prime Minister to apparently sign up to something like this should be rather higher than Joe Bloggs in the street? He should really be more careful about stuff like this, surely?
    I vehemently disagree with Rev Stu about pretty much everything he's had to say about the riots, rioters and riotees – and their likely causes, as you'll see elsewhere on this blog. But the British Prime Minister having anything to do whatsoever with stuff like this, if these allegations are anything like accurate, is simply beyond the pale?

  81. RevStu says:

    "Strangely, the fact that the Twitter account wasn't under his control didn't stop him linking to it from Facebook.  And even more curiously, he seems to have been able to seize back control from the ex-partner just after the racist tweets published following the Tottenham riot."

    …and, of course, didn't manage to get around to deleting any of them. And set the Facebook page up with a link proudly advertising his "foul jokes" on that very Twitter account.

  82. PLH says:

    Boo fucking hoo. He's fucking mint and hilarious.
    You mean his ex-partner is fucking mint and hilarious surely?  Seeing as it was apparently the ex-partner that sent all those hysterical tweets for 7 months…

  83. RevStu says:

    "But the British Prime Minister having anything to do whatsoever with stuff like this, if these allegations are anything like accurate, is simply beyond the pale"

    Word must have reached Tory HQ by now (I saw some people retweeting my post at Louise Mensch MP last night, for example), but as of two minutes ago Cameron still "liked" the group. Seems he's fine with it.

  84. Kevin says:

    Who cares about the person creating the group. I am not following him, but the sentiment that this country should not tolerate these criminals, and support the people who are trying to help and protect us! They need our support and this group shows them they have it. If the group starts making rascist comments, I will leave, but until then, I am happy to be part of the group and support the Great British police fully! You are only creating more hatred and anger with such pages as this!!

  85. RevStu says:

    "Who cares about the person creating the group. I am not following him, but the sentiment that this country should not tolerate these criminals, and support the people who are trying to help and protect us!"

    So you'd be fine if it was Nick Griffin in charge of it, yes? You’d see no problem in Nick Griffin leading a group of a million angry people and deciding what that group did and didn’t get to say?

  86. Kevin says:

    If the police felt appreciated by it, then yes! If it stopped people going out rioting, then yes!  Where has this guy's 'propaganda' been stated on the fb group?
    So, if ONE person goes out tonight to riot because they read this page, would you take it down?

  87. RevStu says:

    "If the police felt appreciated by it, then yes!"

    Then God help us all.

  88. Nitpicker says:

    Kevin, you sound like a bit of a chump. How could this article incite anyone to riot? Are you feeling the need yourself?

  89. ThinkingOutsideTheBox says:

    I don't agree with his previous attitude or defend his poor taste jokes however the man has guts to stand up and put his name and face behind this. So he's changed his profile and photo, he probably had only a handful of followers reading his crap jokes and no political motivation before. The purpose of his account has changed. Maybe he would have been sensible to create a new account for it but I doubt he expected the response he got.  He probably needs police protection now from the folk who instigated the riots now, there are certainly plenty of slur campaigns going against him. Whether his opinions on race are acceptable to the masses or not he has still succeeded in bringing together folk across the country to combat mindless destruction and thuggery in a very short time. Can a leopard change his spots? Well, you can have a complete face translant these days! Even in the bible former trouble makers came good so who really knows. Can you truly believe everything you read on the internet? If the Chief of Police and the PM have supported this I'm sure he has been thoroughly checked out first!

  90. Kevin says:

    The police do a hard enough job, without their hands tied. To know the public support them must be of help. Even if the guy behind it is scum, the sentiment is still correct!

  91. Kevin says:

    "Kevin, you sound like a bit of a chump. How could this article incite anyone to riot? Are you feeling the need yourself?"
    Very polite! You could say why does it matter what this guy's background is when he is against the rioters? Why are you all so against a positive message? Almost 1million people can't be wrong against the rioters
    But guess you are happy in your little suburb, shaking your head and tutting

  92. PLH says:

    But guess you are happy in your little suburb, shaking your head and tutting
    Kevin, that's a little bit of a silly thing to say, since, as has been pointed out above, clicking Like on a FB page is the equivalent of shaking your head and tutting.

  93. RevStu says:

    "Almost 1million people can't be wrong"

    Oh dear.

  94. RowanDT says:

    "The police do a hard enough job, without their hands tied. To know the public support them must be of help. Even if the guy behind it is scum, the sentiment is still correct!"
     
    I think the support of people like him will cause much more trouble for the police further down the line.
     
    "Why are you all so against a positive message?"
     
    I don't think anyone's against the concept of supporting the police, just that the support comes from a racist ideology.

  95. Nitpicker says:

    "Even if the guy behind it is scum, the sentiment is still correct!"
     
    Would all those people have signed up to the FB page if they knew what kind of racism the page's creator had been spouting on Twitter? He might have wished to change his profile and go in a different direction, but the fact remains he's pretending that the bigotted jokes weren't by him.
     
    The fact that Sean Boscott is a racist scumbag IS as important as the FB page he created. Never wondered WHY people do things?
     
    And Kevin, you still haven't explained how this article would incite rioting. It doesn't even discuss the riots.

  96. suzie says:

    Quite by chance i nosed through that Support Met Police fb page this morning and within seconds found myself reporting an offensive racist comment…    they shouldn't let anyone comment on those pics.. there are still numskull racist lowlifes amongst the non-looters.

  97. Emma says:

    So this Sean guy put these jokes up… I laughed at them all, and I would even pass them on to my friends, who would also laugh. Doesn't mean any of us are racist. I'm not bloody racist, and you have no proof that this Sean person is either. Who cares if he likes to tell jokes? Get the fuck over it, seriously. I tell these jokes to black friends who also fucking laugh. If they aren't bothered, why the fuck are you guys?

  98. Mr B says:

    thanks for this blog. Its good to know about the kinds of people who set these things up. The fact that theres been a huge amount of deaths in police custody over decades gone by would make me not join any group supporting the police anyway but i realise we need law and order otherwise chaos would ensue. In regards to this twat who set up the page and is tweeting blatent racism. The fact is yes people didnt know about him when signing up but with blogs like this they now do as long as this is passed along. A lot of people have said ‘dont entirely agree with your points but ive left the group now because of this’ . Good! Then this blog has done its job. Well done to the maker of this. i applaud him.

  99. RevStu says:

    “So this Sean guy put these jokes up… I laughed at them all… I’m not bloody racist”

    Uh, I have some bad news for you, Emma. If you laugh at “What’s black and has eight legs? Gang rape” or anything based around the premise that black people are monkeys, that’s pretty much the textbook definition of a racist. And I’m afraid “Some of my best friends are black!” isn’t quite the watertight defence you think it is either. In fact, if you asked anyone in the street anywhere in the country to name the most comically stereotypical thing a racist could possibly ever say, it’d be “But some of my best friends are black!”

  100. Nitpicker says:

    Emma, thank goodness you're here. It was all getting out of hand…

  101. PLH says:

    Emma,
    So you compare your black friends to apes and hilarity ensues?  Are you sure about that? 

  102. BasCB says:

    Cameron would do better to support the ones doing something positive, with #cleanriot instead of these kind of hate mongers only stirring trouble.

  103. Emma says:

    that’s pretty much the textbook definition of a racist.
    I don't treat black people any different to white people, or asian people, or fucking Russian people. Race doesn't make a bloody difference to anything. Black people tell these jokes!! Does that make them racist towards themselves??

  104. The Albionist says:

    Those promoting disunity on either side, both by looting and by reacting in cold, unthinking, callous and racist manners are BOTH the causes of this situation. This man should be a disgrace to anyone who believes in the notion of Britain… he appears to be doing his damnest to increase tension in our streets and should be treated with the same contempt as those encouraging riots.
    Love Britain, but most importantly love thy neighbour. We can recover from this.

  105. Emma says:

    You know what the real problem is here? You're all so uptight and up your own arses that you can't see what's going on around you! It's pathetic.

  106. RevStu says:

    Yeah, THAT'S the real problem.

  107. Neil says:

    Nothing about Cameron surprises me. He is an unpleasant reactionary who openly employs a man suspected of criminal offences and, let us not forget, despite being a millionaire, he didn't hesitate to embezzle public money in the form of Parliamentary expenses to which he wasn't entitled. He is unpleasant, and naturally the people around him are going to be just as unpleasant and obnoxious.

  108. PLH says:

    Yep, that's the real problem Emma, Everyone is uptight.  Not an issue with racism at all, no sirree.
    When was the last time you called one of your black friends an ape as a joke, and how did they react?

  109. RevStu says:

    "Black people tell these jokes!!"

    Let's assume – and it's a very big assumption – that that's true for a moment. Black people sometimes call themselves "niggers" too. Does that mean it's okay for you to do it?
     

  110. miss applez says:

    i just happened to have a look at the site y`day, not knowing who he was or what the site was about!!
    Thank you for opening our eyes to this numbnutt!! love and light

  111. Emma says:

    Dear oh dear oh dear. There is a big difference between a joke and a laugh between mates and hard full on racism. If I call a pal a cockheaded nigger, they would simply return the favour by calling me something like a pastel bellend.
    I'm going now. This is pointless, and utterly stupid. Oh no! She said "nigger" on the website! Have her arrested! She's a dirty racist! Tut, silly people.
     
     
     

  112. Julia says:

    "“Is their voice invalid, just because the man who started the group turns out to be a bit of a twat?”

    Can you point me to anywhere that I said it was?"
    The title, "David Cameron's new best friend"? Since you are saying that David Cameron has endorsed Sean Boscott by Liking this group, you are also saying that a million other people have also done so.
    Furthermore, "I’m not sure that calling a large proportion of the site’s followers racist would be too far off the mark".
    Is the voice of a racist as valid as your own? I thought we weren't supposed to tolerate intolerance. What do you think?
    By the way, I can't stand Cameron and I think he's got no business endorsing anything on Facebook. But if you're going to attack him it should be for a good reason, like his pathetic response to these events. Not just mudslinging.

  113. Captain Caveman says:

    Bloody hell, honestly. The idiot brigade strikes again: 'I tell all these jokes to all my black friends ROFL111!!!!1'
     
    The worst thing about it, for me at least, is that I *know* people here, as elsewhere, will associate the likes of *me* with people like this, for holding the views that we do.

  114. André says:

    Hi Stu,
    Just found this by chance, via whatreallyhappened.com. Very interesting exposé. The people saying that membership of the fb group does not imply endorsement of the creator's own views is disingenuous in the extreme, in my view. This is akin to saying that membership of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei did not endorse the persecution of the Jews. It is truly frightening to realise what can be achieved by garnering support for a cause under the ostensible guise of doing 'public good'.

    Have we learned nothing? Here are two telling quotes, germane to the discussion on the potential power of someone like Boscott to influence the people:

    "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."; "The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan."  Their author? Adolf Hitler. QED
     

  115. PLH says:

    What a shame Emma had to go.  Probably off to prepare for her gig at The Comedy Store or something.  Those racist jokes won't tell themselves you know!

  116. Nitpicker says:

    "Since you are saying that David Cameron has endorsed Sean Boscott by Liking this group, you are also saying that a million other people have also done so."
     
    *Bangs head on desk*

  117. RevStu says:

    "If I call a pal a cockheaded nigger, they would simply return the favour by calling me something like a pastel bellend."

    You don't actually know any black people, do you, Emma? Not even one.

  118. RevStu says:

    "Furthermore, "I’m not sure that calling a large proportion of the site’s followers racist would be too far off the mark".

    Yes, that's correct. I don't think it would be far off the mark, judging by what they've posted, to call many of the group’s fans racist. What's your point?

    "Is the voice of a racist as valid as your own? I thought we weren't supposed to tolerate intolerance. What do you think?"

    I think you're very confused. Would you like to rephrase that question in a manner that makes some sort of sense? "Valid" in what way? Do I think it's "valid" to call black people monkeys, just a difference of opinion or terminology? No, I don't. Clear?

  119. Julia says:

    My point is responding to your request to point out where you said that those million people shouldn't be listened to. My response is that it's quite clear that you think they shouldn't be listened to, because "many" of them are racists. And those that aren't have nevertheless endorsed racism, which is almost as bad, right?
    If this isn't the point of your article, then what is?

  120. RevStu says:

    “My response is that it’s quite clear that you think they shouldn’t be listened to”

    Then your response is total cobblers. I haven’t said or implied anything even remotely akin to that. Quote it to me. I’ve said that Boscott is a racist and a liar, and that Cameron shouldn’t be backing his group, any more than he would have done if Nick Griffin had set it up. The article makes no mention whatsoever of the people in the group.

  121. André says:

    Julia, in light of my earlier post, by your rationale at 12:50pm, there are/were some Nazis we should/should not have listened to. Would you care to expand on that rationale? Of which ones should we have taken heed – and how would we differentiate between a 'good' Nazi and a 'bad' one? Any sensible person, joining that group for altruistic purposes, would immediately leave it once they read the hatred spewing forth from many of its members. Given that it enjoys the thick end of 1 million members, we can safely assume that the overwhelming majority are fine with it. Am I missing something here?

  122. PLH says:

    Andre,
     
    You're quite right.  Before all this about Boscott blew up, I myself toyed with the idea of  supporting this group.  While I didn't think 'Liking' an online group was of much practical use, it did seem a good way to at least express some support for the difficult job the police were doing, and several of my friends had already supported it.  Then I started to explore it a bit – there were numerous comments in support of the BNP, propaganda and recruiting info for the EDL and various racist remarks by individuals.  I will give some credit in that many of these were taken down.  However, not all were, and they kept being repeated.  To me that was clear evidence this was not a group with which I should associate my name.  Apparently hundreds of thousands of other people think otherwise and are happy for their name to appear alongside regularly occuring BNP bile.
     
    The revelations about Boscott have only confirmed that my initial decision not to support the group was the correct one.  I have shown my support in other ways.

  123. Dec says:

     
    From what I’ve read of these comments and from the people who have been retweeting this, the same anti-Tory folk who have been quick to deride those labelling the rioters solely as "degenerate criminal scum" are also the same folk who are labelling most of a group of one million people racist or supportive of racism.
    I “liked” that page on Facebook because it was an opportunity for me, far away from the UK, to openly express to my peers my support for the Metropolitan police force against what I view as reckless thuggery. There was no secret prejudice behind it. I think it is quite clear that a great number of people click these pages because they agree with the one-line message that appears on their home page, not because they go trawling through picture comments or clicking through comments on a status update until they find something inflammatory or support the sentiments of a Facebook "group leader". While the group leader is obviously an idiot (I wasn’t aware of his questionable “jokes” until I landed here) and indeed, as are a deal of his supporters, to mark them all as “angry cheerleaders” is just silly. In fact, I shouldn’t even call them “his” supporters. People saw a statement they agreed with, one that stood up for law enforcement, and clicked.

  124. André says:

    I have just spoken on the telephone with Mrs Tina Potter. She is the General Manager of the GBC Group, a nationwide garden equipment company who employ Sean Boscott. He has linked the company, along with its logo, to his site. I asked her whether she was aware of the filth he was peddling and what she thought of her company being associated with him in this way. Although she did not wish to make a comment, she did say that she is just beginning to receive information about Mr Boscott's online activity. Perhaps others may wish to air their own concerns with her directly? After all, isn't this positive action, rather than merely pressing a 'like' button? She can be reached on 07971 519857 (company mobile).

  125. Julia says:

    So, just to get this clear, everyone within the group should leave it unless they wish to be associated with racists, and we can take it from the fact that they have not yet done so that they are fine with the racism.
    They should be logged in to Facebook at all times, standing by to leave any group that doesn't do enough to delete racist posts.
    But presumably, even once they have done so, they will still be marked as racists. An ex-Nazi is still a Nazi, right? Albert Speer doesn't get to rejoin the human race just because he said sorry.
    How convenient for you that you should be able to tar a million political opponents with this particular brush. Maybe if you keep calling them racists, the mud will stick, and they'll be forced to shut up about tougher policing. And then the problem will have to be solved properly in the way you outlined on Sunday, i.e. by reversing the TORY CUTS, increasing benefits, abolishing poverty and capitalism, and reopening the yoof centres, yes?

  126. David says:

    "Just because the man is a loser doesn't mean we shouldn't support the facebook group". People are actually saying this?
    Seriously, there are several very good reasons for NOT joining the facebook group. For example, It doesn't support the police, in any way.  Do the police get any money from a facebook group? No.  Do the police get more officers from a facebook group? No.  Do the police get ANYTHING of ANY use from some stupid group on a social networking site?  Nope. They get your sentiments and that's about it.  The only person that gains ANYTHING from the group, is the founder of the group, and he gets a massive boost to his ego and his public image. Supporting the group means you're supporting that vile human being, and NOT the actual police.  If you want to support the police, give them money.  Give them resources, give them people on the ground, instead of wasting time on stupid websites, so you can show your 'friends' what side you're on.  Please.  As if clicking a button on a site could possibly equate to a "good deed".

  127. Julia says:

    Andre, in your very first post, you asked a rhetorical question: "Have we learned nothing?"

    You were referring to the Nazis.

    And yet, here you are, ringing up this guy's boss to denounce him. Publishing the details on the Internet. Suggesting that others take "positive action" against him too.

    Have *you* learned nothing? About the repression of free speech, about thought policing, about fascism? 

  128. Matt says:

    If this is the answer, then the looters really have won.

  129. DG says:

    To be fair, if he linked the company to the group himself, that's very different to him just being employed by them.
    There is no part of the last week that isn't depressing me and bear in mind I'm in Ealing right now, about 3 mins walk from a looted charity shop and burnt out local supermarket.

  130. André says:

    I didn’t outline anything on Sunday. I only found this site this morning. However, you’re surely not suggesting that nearly a million people don’t keep up with facebook? OK then, maybe only three quarters of them do? Or half a million? Or a quarter of a million? Or 100,000? Or 50,000? Or 10,000? Or 5,000? (I think we’re stretching credulity here!).That’s still a shitload of racists!

    As for Albert Speer, my own opinion is that he did not have the right to rejoin the human race, whether he said sorry or not. It didn’t bring back all the people who died from his forced labour – but that is another debate. Julia, sometimes ‘Sorry’ is just not enough!

  131. FJ says:

    The right are always launching witch-hunts and smear/hate campaigns against anybody who dares speak left-wing views. And I mean vile insults and serious death threats. I find a lot of them pathetic and disgusting cowards. I don’t advocate the left becoming the same, retaining the moral high ground and all that, but its good to see that their at least starting to get a whiff of their own medicine.

  132. Dr Octagon says:

    @Caveman there's a big difference between being a Tory apologist who's crap at argueing and a racist man. I really don't think any of the readers of this blog with half a brain are gonna lump you in with the nasty racists.

  133. PLH says:

    So, just to get this clear, everyone within the group should leave it unless they wish to be associated with racists, and we can take it from the fact that they have not yet done so that they are fine with the racism.
     
    Yes to the first point, no to the second.  Clearly if people are unaware that a group is associated with racism and have not themselves seen any racist material on it, it cannot be assumed they are fine with racism.  But once they are made aware of it, and shown evidence that racist comments are being posted by other group members, I would assume that anyone not wishing to be associated with racism would leave the group.  As indeed have most of my friends that initially joined it. 
     
    It's not rocket science Juilia, stop being so obtuse.

  134. André says:

    Julia, as DG says, Sean Boscott himself linked his company and its logo to his filth site. As a consumer, I have every right to ask his employer whether they support his stance and whether they are happy having their company, its logo and its ethos as a 'family firm' associated with his extremist views. If they are, then what's your concern? If they're not, then presumably they reserve the right to take disciplinary action against him. In most companies, taking part in activities likely to bring the company into disrepute or causing it to lose faith in one's integrity constitutes Gross Misconduct. It's called 'ethical business' and anyone filing a complaint in an Employment Tribunal for Unfair dismissal on these grounds would fail. Free speech has limits; inciting and/or promoting racial hatred and/or intolerance is a criminal offence in the UK. It is not covered by free speech rights. Are you getting it?

  135. jonnysolar says:

    As usual, the over-analysis by someone else ager to scupper a positive message.
    The group is a good idea, and the sheer volume of support shows there is no antipathy here – my thoughts however concern you and your reporting here….
    Interesting article, but I would be intrigued to know if you put every single joke quote in there, or whether you simply handpicked a selection of the more racist ones to prove a point… I like most jokes, afer all, it's only a sense of humour; tell me a joke about an englishman and I'll laugh just as much, provided it's funny….
    Too many people looking too hard into this – the guy provided a service, people appreciated it – and while his prior jokes may be a bit n near the knuckle for many peoples taste, does it necessarily reflect the guys actual political views or stance toward society? Or could it just be that txt message mentality of cycling jokes through society? I get all kinds of jokes through on the phone: some funny, some not; some racist some not. It's in the eye of the beholder, but just because someone makes a simple remark, don't assume you know anything about his motivations and so on.

  136. Captain Caveman says:

    'A Tory apologist who is crap at arguing' …? Harumph!!
    Blasted cheek, I don't know. :D
     

  137. Luke says:

    Perhaps Mr Boscott has turned over a new leaf and is trying to make up for the anti-social behaviour he exhibited with his twitter feed in the past.

  138. PLH says:

    Julia, Below are some of the comments that are still on the group.  For me, reason enough not to be associated with it.  Not for you apparently.
     
     
    Let's all come to our senses! I would say that the people who 'cover their faces' don't want to be recognised because they are probably known radicals and may very well be vengeful Muslims who are planning to upset governments in retaliation of the death of Bin Ladin. English People are peace-loving folk, and not unruly as you see in the videos. It's these dissatisfied IMMIGRANTS who always make trouble! We should grab these troublemakers who give UK a bad name!
     
    find country of origin for these scum bags and ship the fuckers out
     
    Education had failed. To overcome this, remove any benefice to the parents, and if not enough, as a last resort, cheap plane back home or 10 years jail…then they'll think of public disorder and letting their children doing that.
     
    If you don't like this country why don't you Fuck off
     
    England has always welcomed al nationalities and cultures, give them homes, education, health services and benefits.. This is the thanks it gets… Not even really poor people in africa does this too this extend.. No exuse for this!!!
     
    ‎95% of the kids and looters r black and we have to pay for there discussing behaviour….
     
    Clearly this is another reason as to why the government need to sort out this mess of a country! There fault for letting them in in the first place! This is the time we should start taking OUR country back!

  139. Captain Caveman says:

    Well, if nothing else, this informative little snippet is quite the example of 'Education had failed'.
     
    Heck, I wouldn't want to be associated with it, even if racism wasn't involved. One has to have some standards.

  140. jonnysolar says:

    PLH – I agree with you about the statements above, they are sickening and abuseful, and have no place whatsoever in our society.
    BUT, we are all aware that there is an underground racist element in this country, after all, why else would we even know the name Nick Griffin :( So when an event such as this occurs, it is commonplace knowledge that it is only a matter of time until this ugly reality rears its head. he many thousands who are not aware, or who read through these comments and feel sick, or continually clicking 'report abuse' is not enough – Facebook itself is seemingly not concerned enough with spam, abuse and racism – look at the narrow list of options when you come to report someone. Anyone who set up a group of this nature would unfortunately attract the racist posse – even if YOU had done it Rev, the result would be the same… Just you would spend more time deleting and reporting that this Boscott does.
    This group is being taken primarily as an informative service by many people, simply seeing what has/hasn't happened recently. So to tar these unfortunate concerned citizens with the same brush as the hideous BNP-ites is simply not on. Anyone can see from the illiterate and ignorant bile above that the views DO NOT reflect the majority of the groups members; I am sure if you copy and pasted comments sections in full, there would be numerous folk decrying and denouncing the racist propagandist bull.
    Their mentalit is ignorant, shallow and unacceptable in ths country and modern society; a primitive mentality that needs to die a swift death. BUT – I will not be associated with this (just as) ignorant grouping of people together. Death by association – isn't that in the racial profiling of the past too? For all the sweet rhetoric you show, there is an element of repression within your posting too

  141. Julia says:

     
    Andre. It was RevStu who outlined a solution on Sunday. The blog post was entitled "When there’s no future, how can there be sin?". All fairly textbook Guardian reader stuff: all about how the real sick man in this so-called society isn't the rioter or the looter, but the businessman in his suit and tie.
    Andre (again). On Facebook it is not easy to keep your personal life and your working life separate. Smart persons would not sign up for Facebook at all, especially if they had political views that you wouldn't hear on BBC One. But the man we are dealing with here is clearly not very smart. He has naively assumed that his personal opinions are, if not exactly acceptable, then at least not enough to get him sacked. He believes that he lives in a free country! He is, of course, dead wrong.
    You, on the other hand, *are* smart and know exactly what you are doing. You hope to punish him and warn others that, if they express certain opinions, they will be sacked. And if they are not sacked, then the businesses that refuse to sack them will be denounced and attacked by self-righteous busybodies such as yourself. This is exactly the sort of thing the Nazis did, for instance to Jewish businesses, and later businesses that employed Jews. Again, have you learned nothing?
    PLH. I do not care what people have written on the Facebook group. There is no doubt that people are very angry about these riots and are looking for someone to blame. That doesn't mean that all of those people, or even most of them, or even more than a vocal minority, are in any way racist. If you want to blame your scapegoat instead (bankers? Tories?) then why not join the group and post a bit of hate on that subject to even it out.

  142. jonnysolar says:

    How long does this moderation take?Posted nigh on an hour ago, and still not appeared, yet there are numerous ones date stamped more recently than my entries… Don't bother publishing this note, just musing a rhetorical question and seeing how long the tme frame is :/

  143. PLH says:

    Julia – I don't want to 'post hate', thanks all the same for the offer.  The fact that you apparently think hate speech is A-OK and 'don't care' that some people might be using these riots to spread racial hatred and thereby fuel further violence reveals that you are more part of the problem than part of the solution.
     
    And to attempt to equate the denunciation of racists with Nazi persecution of Jews is absolutely disgraceful.
     
    You really need to have a word with yourself.  You're confused about politics, about history, about socio-economics.  Hell, you're confused about everything.

  144. RevStu says:

    “How long does this moderation take?”

    Until I come back from lunch. Ones more recent will be people who’ve already been approved – the site moderates first-time posters, but once you’ve had one allowed through subsequent ones by the same person are published straight away.

  145. Julia says:

    It was Andre who brought up the Nazis. I merely pointed out that his self-appointed status as a thought policeman and advocacy of "positive action" against those with wrong opinions, was strikingly similar to fascist suppression of free speech. Don't you think?
    But yes, I certainly wish I knew as much about politics as you guys. Must be really great to know all the answers.

  146. Stevo says:

    I love this! Well done – its reassuring to know not everyone who frequents social media is a simple minded racist bigot – sadly it often seems that way! 
    Give the morons enough rope and they'll hang themselves!

  147. Captain Caveman says:

    To be fair Julia, I don't approve of contacting people's employers, publishing telephone numbers on blogs and all the rest. I suspect, also, that you and I are actually in agreement about the riots also, if you read this blog.
     
    However, if these allegations are correct, I am aghast at our Prime Minister apparently subscribing to this particular campaign, don't you think that is fair comment? As I said from the outset, the bar must surely be much higher in his particular case, in order to subscribe to, or 'like' a given campaign or other, as distinct from ordinary members of the public? That is not the same as saying that this one million people or whatever must be racists, and/or do not care about racism.

  148. PLH says:

    jonnysolar.  No repression.  I don't believe everyone who belongs to the group is racist or condoning racism.  Personally I wouldn't want to be part of a group containing such bile and find it hard to understand people who would, regardless of whether they felt it offered other benefits.  Most of my friends joined and left swiftly.  But everyone is free to make that choice.
     
    I really take issue with the 'eye of the beholder' lame excusing of offensive humour.  It's nothing more than a better articulated version of 'it was only a joke' used far too often in an attempt to excuse bullying and offensive behaviour.  Apparently if I tweet something to the effect that 'black people are like apes', or something equally offensive about, say, people with learning disabilities, all can be excused as long as I finish of with an 'lol' and an 'only joking' hashtag.
     

  149. RevStu says:

    "I don't approve of contacting people's employers, publishing telephone numbers on blogs and all the rest."

    I don't either. I've had his (work) phone number since last night and his work address since early this morning, but didn't post them here. However, if it's true that he himself has linked his workplace to his campaign then he's totally fair game. His employers deserve to know what they're being associated with.

  150. Captain Caveman says:

    Hmm, even then, I'm not sure I agree with the 'fair game' comment mate, but that's a side issue and I'll not derail this discussion over it. Suffice to say, I think, that we each of us, on occasion, have surely said stuff online that we wouldn't necessarily like our employers to be informed about. I've had some right humdingers over the years; been truly appalled at some of the things said, but have never considered taking any action that would affect *real* lives. This bloke could have kids and a family to feed.

  151. RevStu says:

    "we each of us, on occasion, have surely said stuff online that we wouldn't necessarily like our employers to be informed about"

    Absolutely. But if you specifically link your employer to what you're doing, it's only fair they know what they're getting tangled up in.

  152. PLH says:

    But if you specifically link your employer to what you're doing
     
    I'm amazed that he did this.  His naive attempts at dealing with events really show up how staggeringly unprepared he was for the inevitable media interest that would result from his actions, despite all his posturing and supposed 'Team Boscott' online savvy. The frantic attempts at deletion and covering up, the changing excuses – Jeez, I'm almost feeling sorry for the idiot.  (I said almost).

  153. jonnysolar says:

    PLH, don't be so ignorant, and open your eyes to what is being said instead. I never said the jokes were acceptable, the point I made was simply that your humour is not my humour,  is not your neighbours humour. We are all different and that is that is required in a multicultural society. The instant you start categorising on such broad swathes s when you run into difficulties. Fully read my post, don't skim it, and you will understand a little more, rather than taking a soundbie from it – I never once condoned the jokes, I feel these are beyond the pink too – but that is YET AGAIN shifting the focus away from the point at hand. The group was set up with the right intentions, and has kept hundreds of thouasands informed on what is going on, in a way the radio, TV and news outlets simply were unable to. If you really feel that inferior you need to try and scupper something which is in effect to give comfort to folk and inform them of ay possible problems which may be transferred, then I feel srry for you.
    I do NOT agree with a single racist sentiment, but then I have the ability to overlook and ignore bigoted, illiterate morons. If you *really* don' like it, there is the "Report abuse" button for you.
    It's for information alone, NOT to show support for the disgusting inbreds that always scream to 'take the country back'.

  154. RevStu says:

    "but that is YET AGAIN shifting the focus away from the point at hand."

    Depends what you consider the point at hand to be. As far as I'm concerned it's that a narcissistic racist bigot is guiding the actions of a million people and potentially having an incredibly malign effect on society (so far chiefly in the form of the e-petition), under the aura of respectability granted by the Prime Minister endorsing his site.

    That's an incredibly serious and alarming issue in my book, and I reserve the right to write about what I think is important on my own blog and frame it however the hell I like. If there’s an aspect of the affair that’s more important to you, write about it on your own blog.

  155. jonnysolar says:

    Here's a broad concept for you to contemplate then Rev.
     
    Of those 1million+ members of the group, what proportion of them would be willing to act on anything that a (relatiely) anonymous individual who created the page would ever utter?
    I would say that the VAST MAJORITY of the people who expressed concern for the safety of the police or people bearing the brunt of the trouble would never be enticed to promote public disorder or unrest – the ones who were inciting efforts are the ones who exhibit that sickening mentality all the time. But then for a conceited, supercilious and condescending know-all like yourself to poke your head above the parapet and accuse every single member of that group of being racist shows sheer pigheaded ignorance.

  156. jonnysolar says:

    btw, thanks for the response about the delays in moderation etc, wasn't being rude, didn't see it til now :) But understood nonethelesss

  157. RevStu says:

    "Of those 1million+ members of the group, what proportion of them would be willing to act on anything that a (relatiely) anonymous individual who created the page would ever utter?"

    How many have signed the e-petition? However many it is, there's your answer.

  158. PLH says:

    jonnysolar.  I did fully read your post.  I stand by what I said in response.
     
    But apparently, my exercising my right NOT to join the group and to criticise it and the motivations of its founder is an example of my feelings of inferiority.  How silly of me – clearly I should have joined the group and sat hitting the report abuse button as you suggest.
     
    You say the group was set up with the right intentions.  How do you know the intentions of its founder?  Terribly sorry to disappoint you but I'd rather not swell the ego of a Poundshop Messiah and undoubted bigot by increasing the numbers in his group.
     
    Indeed 'my neighbour's humour is not my humour'.  But if my neighbour's humour' involves denigration and bullying based on my race, disability, sexuality or whatever and the consequent entrenchment of oppressive discourse within society at large, then 'my neighbour' shouldn't be surprised if they get a metaphorical slap in the face.

  159. Teamdank says:

    Aww. Looks like his dunderhead mates have rallied around and made themselves an ickle support group for ol' Sean: https://www.facebook.com/groups/223042494408691/

  160. jonnysolar says:

    You conceited, self-aggrandising bastard. How dare you state categorically that simply because someone does not agree with yor particular viewpoint then they must be racist. I detest racism, and have woked with charities to try and combat it in the local area, but I also understand the basis of humour.
    The "jokes" on the page aren't necessail funny to me, but I undersand some would find amusment there. Is this what you would also class as a racist remark, or would this qualify as a joke in your definition?
    "My mate Paddy was among the rioters who ransacked Argos in Manchester last night… He's got 500 catalogues if you want one…"

  161. Nitpicker says:

    jonnysolar, how do you view @SeanBoscott's Twitter posts at the top of the article here — do you find them racist or merely humourous? If someone finds a "joke" (or remark) humourous, does that mean it can't be racist?

  162. Jools says:

    Some education for Emma:

  163. jonnysolar says:

    I just stated that I don't find them funny… Some are outright racist, no denying that – BUT how many text messages fly round this country everyday with similarly despicble things contained?
    I'm not excusing it, and f he is racist then fine, ostracise him entirely – my entire point on this has been that this is unsubstantiated fact. Joke referencs are by no means a portrait of someone's psyche and political inclination. Those who assume to know such a thing are just as much in the wrong. Innocent til proven guilty?

  164. RevStu says:

    "BUT how many text messages fly round this country everyday with similarly despicble things contained?"

    On my phone? None. On the phones of racist wankers? I imagine quite a lot.

    "Joke referencs are by no means a portrait of someone's psyche and political inclination."

    Of course they are. In fact, I'm not sure there's a better way to judge someone's character than by what they find amusing. Anyone I’m around who finds “black people are monkeys ha ha!” amusing isn’t someone I’m around for long.

  165. jonnysolar says:

    I unfortunately also recieve a large number of racist essages – I just tak the approach of deleting it and not sending it on to others. But because I know the people sending them, and I know them for NOT being racist (I just wait for you to ciriticise this as being impossible though), I on't react. If it was unsolicited or from someone I didn't know, I would be disgusted – not saying tha because of a source I appreciate it, but I am mature enough to overlook it as "humourous" even if I don't find it so.

  166. jonnysolar says:

    Sanctimonious prick – I'm going to leave it at that too, as obviously the pig headed ignorance will not even allow you to compromise in your view. I can see boh sides, but have simply stated I find your remarks biased and slanted toward only one perspective, whereas I am acting more objectively and looking at the whole picture – something you are clearly incapable of doing.

  167. RevStu says:

    Crikey, that got nasty rather suddenly.

  168. Nitpicker says:

    Maybe he received something upsetting on his phone. #justsayin
     
    I'm also of a rather balanced view. A member of my family sends round such jokes (but not quite as offensive as Mr Boscott's). I love him and he's often great fun to be around, but unfortunately the racist jokes he cracks make him racist.
     
    It seems people are fine to admit being fans of racist material, or at least recognising it as being acceptable, but suddenly become very defensive when the term "a racist" is used.

  169. Kev says:

    Stu, I get the feeling you've attracted this racist idiot's fanboys. Lots of handwringing and excuses being made for someone who was blatantly racist and adds to it by making childish lies and trying a cover up to add a veneer of civility to his bigoted and distasteful manner.
     
    It's like watching a small child say to his mother that he never touched any of the sweets while his face is smeared in chocolate.
     
    I'm expecting lots of "I'm not racist but….". Should be entertaining to watch them squirm under the light.

  170. Ms Sumner says:

    So many things I want to say after reading this article and it's 170+ comments, but to be honest, the whole thing is so emotive and is making me so angry that I think I need to cut to the chase before the abject racism gives me a peptic ulcer.

    Firstly, RevStu, you have done so well with this. I feel almost moved to tears by the way you and others (PLH, Nitpicker, Andre – and even Captain Caveman) have responded to the absolute diatribe of narrow-minded, ignorant, racist shite you have received by way of comments here.
    It is a credit to you, RevStu, that you have not deleted them but left them there for people to see what is really going on. Not one of the comments you received lessened the weight of your article. They only added to it.

    Ok, secondly, to Louise Hamilton (10 Aug 10:03): You are an utter disgrace, and reading your comment made me feel physically sick. I don't know how old you are, but you are either old enough to know better and therefore totally stupid in your archaic politics, or to young to have understood the ingrained racism of your elders but spout it off regardless. Whoever taught you to use a keyboard and access the internet has a lot to answer for.

    Thirdly, RevStu, when you said yesterday at 12:06, that, "dead babies don't have a history of being brutally discriminated against…" in response to some idiot whining on about the acceptability of bad taste jokes, for a moment I felt the onset of the peptic ulcer subside. You are the jam, RevStu.

    And finally, fourthly, Emma. Emma who thinks there's, "nothing better than a bit of good old general racism". Really, Emma? Really?

    What a sad state of affairs this truly is if there's really nothing better than that. And what friendships you nurture and are nurtured by when doing your "pal a favour" entails calling them a, what was it now? Ah yes, calling them a "cockheaded nigger". And for them, no less, to return "the favour" by calling you a "pastel bellend". 

    Christ. Those favours are nothing like the favours that my friends and I are familiar with. Oh you guys and your racist japes!

    Oh and just one more thing that Louise and Emma have clearly forgotten: racism is illegal, in all it's scummy guises.

    So, being a proud non-racist libertarian, I'll just settle for calling you a fucking bellend, Emma.

    And no, don't thank me.

    I was only doing you a favour.

  171. LMaj says:

    He's addressed this in an interview, his account was hacked.

  172. RevStu says:

    "He's addressed this in an interview, his account was hacked."

    If you're not going to take part in the grown-up conversation, you can go and sit at the little table with the children. There's jelly!

  173. Dr Octagon says:

    Im not racist BUT I do hate black guys!
    Im not racist BUT I do find this clan robe rather fetching
    Im not racist BUT I do hate all foriegns
    Im not racist BUT I am an BNP member
    Im not racist BUT they are sleeping with our jobs!!!
    Im not racist BUT I am a racist…

  174. Ms Sumner says:

    "If you're not going to take part in the grown-up conversation, you can go and sit at the little table with the children. There's jelly!"

    Too brilliant.
     

  175. DG says:

    I feel very strongly that the conversation and the jelly are NOT an either/or question.

  176. RevStu says:

    “Got a mention:”

    Hey, we got retweeted by George Monbiot earlier. Which probably explains the several thousand extra hits out of nowhere around the same point.

  177. formal says:

    Linked here from somewhere or other.

    Fantastic post. Thanks for grabbing all those screencaps of that racist shitbag before he could cover it up.

    Probably most of the people who like or follow that group are ‘innocent’ and don’t know it’s controlled by a racist prick – all the more reason for this post to be commended.

    Cheers

  178. "Im not racist BUT I do hate black guys!
    Im not racist BUT I do find this clan robe rather fetching
    Im not racist BUT I do hate all foriegns
    Im not racist BUT I am an BNP member
    Im not racist BUT they are sleeping with our jobs!!!
    Im not racist BUT I am a racist…"

    I come from Glasgow. Over the past year there's been a lot of problems with increased religious tension in regards to football, and such. In reference to the quote I placed at the start of this comment; It was posted by 'Dr Octagon'. I don't know if it's meant to be tongue in cheek or something or another but I highly doubt it.

    I see and hear people spout out so much hate almost every other day for no sensible reason. I can't understand why the color of someones skin, their religion or national heritage should demean any of their personal characteristics or integrity of self. 

    If there was to be a counter argument to any of this from someone on the side in question then I'm sure it would go along the lines of 'Well it's only a joke. Stop taking things so seriously'. My answer is naw. Get yourself to fuck with your vile ignorance. The sad thing is that even in something so foolishly pointless as racism there's no independence of intelligence. It's always about, "They're taking our jobs." Or something like that. They're opinions are formed by their peers and guardians. 

    And it's complete and utter bams like this Sean Boscott who refuse to break the cycle and remain in the 20th century. I'm not going to be a condescending wanker and say that I feel sorry for them because I don't and I never will. 

    And just like the rioters and looters, who caused criminal damage, will have to pay some sort of penalty (although I believe the initiatives being brewed up by the Conservatives are feudal in nature) so will people like Boscott. And the reason for that is because,
    racism is a crime; It's not a joke.

  179. Sinny says:

    Hmm! The facebook group has suddenly vanished, along with Mr Boscott's twitter account. Double hmm!

  180. debog says:

    Jesus, I liked this page without really looking at what this guy was saying. Read this and went to delete my 'like' and told my friends to do the same to find the page has disappeared. Note to self – Before you click the like button make sure you actually know what you are liking!!!

    Myself and those that I know that 'liked' the page did so to show support against riots and violence not for this pig.The guy is obviously a racist shit.
    Thanks for this article. lots of time and effort well spent.

  181. Stuart says:

    I've just seen this page, I clicked 'like' on the Facebook group the other day and it does seem to have gone, has it been deleted?

  182. André says:

    Dunno what's happened there. The text disappeared.

  183. Sp()rt says:

    He has now removed the FB page… when did that happen!?

  184. RevStu says:

    “It’s not a joke.”

    No. I can assure you, however, that Dr Octagon IS joking. Or rather, using sarcasm to make a point.

  185. André says:

    Julia, you state,  “Smart persons would not sign up for Facebook at all.” Aren’t you making a rather sweeping generalisation of 600 million+ Facebook users? How do you reconcile that assertion with your vilification of some of the posters here, whom you say are tarring the 1 million people on Boscott’s group with the same racist brush?

    You call me a self-righteous busybody – why, for exposing a racist? OK, I’ll take that epithet. I do not expect him to be sacked for expressing ‘certain opinions’; I expect him to be sacked for inciting racial intolerance/hatred and presuming to publicly associate his employers and, by extension, his colleagues, with his filthy, warped views. If some of his colleagues are made redundant due to a fall in his employers’ business because of his behaviour, is that OK just because he was only making a joke or expressing his views? Is it my fault for being a self-righteous busybody who would deny him his right to free speech? You see, when you think this through, his behaviour could have catastrophic consequences for people’s livelihoods.

    Thought Policeman – how? How can I police his thoughts? I did not castigate his thoughts; I castigated his public articulation of them. Somebody far wiser than I am once said words to the effect of, “All that is required for evil to prevail is for a good man to stand by and do nothing.” This has nothing to do with ‘fascist suppression of free speech’; in the UK, incitement to racial hatred/intolerance is illegal.

    To equate my views with those of the Nazis betrays your ignorance of that filthy régime. If I valued your opinion in that regard, I would be offended.

  186. I thought as such; it's just the way I read it, you see. 

  187. RevStu says:

    "Dunno what's happened there. The text disappeared."

    Somehow you made it all black, probably while trying to quote. Fixed now. BE MORE CAREFUL.

  188. André says:

    Oh well, my 'esprit de l'escalier' will have to wait for another day! :-(

  189. André says:

    Oo! As if by magic…!

  190. RevStu says:

    "Hmm! The facebook group has suddenly vanished, along with Mr Boscott's twitter account. Double hmm!"

    Yup, they seem pretty gone. Did we win? Do we have to start our own non-racist Support The Met page now?

  191. Sp()rt says:

    It's already up… with followers :)

  192. André says:

    Sorry for the repeated posts of the same thing – my fault.

  193. André says:

    @Shaun Dempsey, well said Sir.
    Remember this?
     
    You've got to be taught to hate and fear
    You've got to be taught from year to year
    It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear
    You've got to be carefully taught.
    You've got to be taught to be afraid
    Of people whose eyes are oddly made
    And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade
    You've got to be carefully taught.
    You've got to be taught before it's too late
    Before you are six or seven or eight
    To hate all the people your relatives hate
    You've got to be carefully taught!

     
    Oscar Hammerstein II (South Pacific)

  194. PLH says:

    Blimey, you come back after a few hours out to find that jonnysolar's apparently respectable veneer has cracked and he's dishing out the 'conceited bastard' and 'sanctimonious prick' insults before disappearing in a puff of absolutely not racist smoke.  Which is a shame as I wanted to answer this question:
     
    Is this what you would also class as a racist remark, or would this qualify as a joke in your definition?
    "My mate Paddy was among the rioters who ransacked Argos in Manchester last night… He's got 500 catalogues if you want one…"

     
    Actually jonny, if you do flounce back in at some point, I would class that as a not particularly funny racist joke.  Not funny because it contains no wit and relies on a tired old English stereotype about the allegedly thick and feckless Irish, and racist because it is built on centuries of English imperialist oppression that fostered the stereotype.  Context is all though – if you're an Irishman telling me the joke, I'd just be a little puzzled at your eagerness to internalise such attitudes but wouldn't call you a racist.  If you're an Englishman I'd say, why don't you go tell it on the Bogside and ask them 'is this a joke or a racist remark?'
     
    As for this:
     
    BUT how many text messages fly round this country everyday with similarly despicble things contained?
     

    In approx 15 years of owning a mobile phone I have never received one such 'joke'.  Guess that makes me lucky, or a freak or something.  Hey, maybe I just don't have any funny friends!

  195. André says:

    @PLH You Sir, are a class act!! :-)

  196. Mark Wood says:

    Familiar theme developing here folks..
    The vigilantes they showed on the news, all had White T shirts on. Sort of reminded me of the 30's when they wore Black.

  197. Matt says:

    If people really think the EDL, a mass mob of yobs are any better than the sad fucks who rioted, they're very very wrong.
    Norway faced an outrage by one of its own with dignity and integrity. Where's ours?

  198. Nitpicker says:

    I think Norway was a bit different when it was a single drug-addled nutter going postal, whereas here we're disgusted by our own kids* wrecking the streets for a laugh.
     
    * Not my kids.

  199. Rodafowa says:

    I've had a long, depressing couple of days falling out with generally likeable, intelligent people over their Nail 'Em Up I Say Nail Some Sense Into Them reaction to the riots. This post and this comments thread has really cheered me up, to the point that I don't even feel that dirty agreeing with Cavey. Thank you, you wonderful, reasonable, hilarious people. And you dunderheaded, inarticulate, hilarious racists.

  200. Julia says:

    Well Andre, you can make any point you want if you're going to take quotations out of context. That quote in full was:
    "Smart persons would not sign up for Facebook at all, especially if they had political views that you wouldn't hear on BBC One."
    Facebook may be a great place for political activists of the mainstream sort, but not for anyone on the fringe, precisely *because* busybodies like you (and yes, you are) can find out who they know and where they work. 
    And yes, you are a thought policeman. The German Democratic Republic's thought-policing apparatus relied on people like you to inform on neighbours and colleagues suspected of disagreeing with the government on any point. You'd have fitted right in. But of course I'm *completely* ignorant about fascist regimes and the ways they enforce conformity, so no doubt I'm just making all this up.

  201. charlee says:

     

    I, like Rodafowa appreciate this blog for presenting intelligent debate, with concrete evidence. It is too easy to claim a site was hacked. It just makes for a lack of accountability in this cyber world. We know there are millions of Sean Boscott's.

    There are many comments from the "opposition" that have validity, such as trying to expose him only makes his a more popular figure; all publicity is good publicity. His ignorant supporters will rally to his defence and conjure more support for him. They will use it as an US verses THEM vehicle. It will become a cause, and everyone likes a martyr.

    Through all the comments and the reading i noticed had a recurring theme of supporting the police. I'm not sure I agree completely. I don't condone the riots. In fact the riots around London lost the plot of the true socio-political agenda of conquering injustices amongst minorities in the inner cities of the UK.  It started because a man was killed in tottenham after altercations with the police. The community had reached its boiling point over a lack of answers and trust in the force that is meant to protect them. If you are of multicultural origins, you may be able to relate to feelings of injustice or inequality. Perhaps not to such a large degree but enough to make you doubt your value and place in society.

    Sean Boscott's comments prove these prejudices exist. It can be said that the claims of racism and injustice among these poorer ethnic communities are not unfounded, because people like him on twitter are continuing to vomit their venom without fear of repercussion or reproach. The police are people, and we all folly. But the gov't rather than looking at the root of these problems i.e.: neglect from themselves, the poor education systems and a nation that refuses to look inward to address major issues of discontent. People are becoming to quick to judge and choose sides.

    If  you really want to support the police, go volunteer in rough communities. Help the children to see there is more to life than footballers, glamour models, raving, drugs and binge drinking. Educate the parents, try and understand them. You won't change them all but at least someone tried. It means a lot. Just listen, to these people because they are human. Attack the media and glossy mags for sensationalism, and yellow journalism. Forces like the Met Police are susceptible to becoming drunk on the power they are entrusted with, just as the poor and uneducated are prone to staying ignorant because they aren't governed better. you can do a lot more than ignorantly clicking like.

  202. RevStu says:

    "But of course I'm *completely* ignorant about fascist regimes and the ways they enforce conformity, so no doubt I'm just making all this up."

    You say "conformity" as if refusing to conform to the idea that we shouldn't be racist dicks is a heroic and principled stand. We all by and large conform to the idea of not murdering each other – does that mean people who think it’s okay to murder other people are just "fringe views", and we should be tolerant of a bit of murdering here and there?

  203. Julia says:

    That's a really interesting question about the bounds of tolerance within a free society. In my view racism isn't acceptable, but neither is attempting to destroy the life of a suspected racist. Thanks to Andre this man may lose his job – I assume this is why his Facebook group has now gone dark. Perhaps he'll also lose his house – hard to pay the mortgage without a job. Is he married? Does he have children? Was Daddy really so bad that he deserved to lose everything?
    Ok, so that's a bit emotive, but you get the idea I hope. It's the "positive action" that I don't like. How would Andre like to be sacked for being a suspected liberal? McCarthyism, anyone?
    So, what should be tolerated? I think we should tolerate words – including racist jokes – far more readily than we tolerate riots and looting. We shouldn't seek to make excuses for looters, or pretend that their actions are explained in political terms. I personally would far rather see racists posting nonsense on Facebook than forming lynch mobs for a bit of ethnic cleansing.

  204. RevStu says:

    Nobody's tried to "destroy his life". As I said above, I didn't publish his work details when I had them (and I blocked another post that made serious but unsourced allegations about him, after doing a little investigating of my own into whether they might be true and finding nothing), because they were of no relevance to what he was doing.

    But if it's true that HE HIMSELF actively linked his place of work to his actions, as we're told he did, then he's the only person responsible for any consequences that may or may not arise from his employer finding out about them.

    What if the employer had been boycotted by people unhappy about Boscott's antics? What if HE'D lost his livelihood and home through no fault of his own? As soon as Boscott linked his business into the fiasco he was entitled to know about it and make his own decisions.

    “I personally would far rather see racists posting nonsense on Facebook than forming lynch mobs for a bit of ethnic cleansing.”

    The first step to forming a lynch mob is forming a mob, and that particular one was teetering on the edge of fetching ropes as it was.

  205. RevStu says:

    Incidentally, I think it's a fairly safe bet that Boscott isn't married and doesn't have children.

  206. Lotte E-H says:

    You guys are all missing the point. The 900 000 people who joined the facebook page, joined the page to let the MET know that they were standing behind them, not because of who the person behind the page was. I agree that D.Camerons boys should have perhaps checked the page a bit. But the jist was that we are behind the police and feel they should have more respect and less red tape. If Sean Boscott is racist then thats his problem, I'm certainly not and I joined his FB page. I wanted the police to know that with all the flack they get, they do have some support.

  207. RevStu says:

    Yeah, we definitely all missed that point the first 10 times people made it. Thanks for joining in!

  208. André says:

    Julia, I don't believe I took your words out of context; 'especially' only means 'particularly'. The sentence can stand on its own, without the second clause. The second clause does not qualify the first – it is an additional thought. Had you used the word 'if' for example, instead of 'especially' then you could rightly accuse me of taking it out of context; you didn't – you chose 'especially'. Forgive me but I responded to what you wrote, not to the sentence you wished to impart. I naturally assumed that you knew what you had written was indeed what you thought. Fair criticism of my comments is absolutely fine but don't blame me if I respond to what you write rather than try to guess your thoughts.
    You say, "I think we should tolerate words – including racist jokes – far more readily than we tolerate riots and looting." Why? All discrimination and racism begins with words. I would refer you to the two quotes I offered from Hitler earlier.
    To equate my comments with the activities of the GDR is puerile. The GDR was a totalitarian state which crushed all dissent. You are suggesting that the toleration of racism is OK because the alternative would be to act like a 'thought policeman'.  What a load of cobblers!

  209. André says:

    Julia, you appear very concerned that my actions may have cost Boscott his livelihood. I don't suppose you have considered whether this may have contributed to his difficulties and subsequent removal of his Facebook and Twitter feeds, have you?: http://seanboscottisabigot.tumblr.com/page/4
    If you'd care to look at the second post after the Flag of England image, I'm sure you would agree that he has brought any ire that may be coming from his employers upon himself. Nobody needs to be a 'thought policeman' with stupid dicks like Boscott; 'thought' doesn't enter into it – he publicly proclaimed himself as a racist and presumed to include his employers in his views. I'm guessing his employers gave him an ultimatum; if so, it seems as usual, that someone was hit where it hurts – in his pocket! Fuck him – I don't care if he loses his living and I would do it again.

  210. Lotte E-H says:

    To RevStu gosh you come across like an awesome wanker don't you…Sorry, I didn't manage to scroll through every comment anyone had made earlier. I simply read through about 30 and didn't pick up on any that had mentioned what I mentioned. Thank you though for taking the time out of what must be a really busy Friday for writing a shitty, crappy comment to mine. Tit

  211. Johannes says:

    Societies all over the world are reverting back to ethnocentrism. It's not just the UK where racism is slowly starting to become acceptable again. The historical narrative where anti-racism was a force for good is being eroded. It is being lumped in with all 'societally corrosive' anti national ideologies – from neoliberalism to marxism.
    I predict within 5-10 years being called a 'racist' will carry very little negative moral weight; perhaps even the contrary will be the new Zeitgeist.

  212. IRONOMAN says:

    "Incidentally, I think it's a fairly safe bet that Boscott isn't married and doesn't have children."
     
    /KEELS OVER

  213. jonnysolar says:

    I did come back to have a glance at the ignorance on display again, and Andre, you truly are the pinnacle of thought police.
    The fact that he has some jokes on his page is enough to cement his guilt in your eyes – whereas the page he linked in with the business details was already up and date stamped from PRIOR to the group being formed. YOU are the ones who have automtically associated him with racism; there is no BNP or EDL affiliation – all he has done is put up a group showing support to the MET, and you snidily take potshots at it from the safety of your armchair. If you are so perfectly in tune with the situation, why were you not there in London pleading with the rioters and trying to calm things own, or offer support to those who were rehoused and on the move perpetually?
    No, instead you sit there like a self-appointed judge and jury, without the faintest of knowledge of what the guy is actually like, and quite happily try and shop him, and lose his job, and livelihood. You make me sick. The fact you say you would happily do it again shows just what sort of disgusting self-interested creature you are – for all the wide vocabulary and smarmy posturing, you are no better than those you are so opposed to.
    And as a liberal minded individual, it sickens me to think you are representative of many others sharing my political inclination. You are an embarrassment to libertarianism, no matter how disparate the field. Direct action and policing what others say and do – you are truly a hypocrite of the finest style.

  214. Nitpicker says:

    "YOU are the ones who have automtically associated him with racism; there is no BNP or EDL affiliation – all he has done is put up a group showing support to the MET, and you snidily take potshots at it from the safety of your armchair."
     
    He also posted dozens of racist jokes on Twitter; what we've done is call him a racist (which he undeniably is) and highlighted this with regards to the FB page, and shown that he has made ridiculous claims that the racist joke tweets weren't his. We've not made Boscott do anything.
     
    You need to figure out that racism isn't acceptable in society and a guy who posts stuff like Boscott does and then claims he didn't, well you don't think that behaviour would wind people up and make them start asking questions?

  215. jonnysolar says:

    Racism ISN'T acceptable, and I have never made any bones about that. Intoleranc is the essence of the trouble that as kicked everything off.
    BUT, by the same token, merely putting jokes on a twitter feed is not out and out racism, no mater what you believe in such a blinkered way.
    There are lots of people out there, good people, who tolerate racism no more than you or I – yet the jokes get sent round. Again, before you note the degree of the ones you handpicked as exemplifiers, a good number of those you chose were indeed horrific and disgusting – but I will NOT make the assumption that he must be a racist pushing a neo nazi agenda – there is a world of difference, and quite frankly, the holier-than-thou attitude is disgusting; Let he who is without sin……..
     
     
    Here's an interesting tidbit as well – could it be that this has hit the nail on the head? Look for a pattern and it shall emerge.

    <quote>While the amount of 'abusive material' (on a feed that posited itself as one that contained mostly bad taste/offensive jokes) may have been enormous, it doesn't change the fact that every single blog about the feed has focused solely on the racist jokes. Are we to believe, then, that the so-called 'liberals' posting on these blogs think that women's rights, children's rights, and other things, are far less important than racism? So much less important that they are to be ignored completely? Or should we take the more logical step of realising that the blog authors were interested in finding a racial issue and therefore did so, and screw balance and honesty?</Quote>

  216. PLH says:

    Got any more good Irish jokes, jonnysolar?  They do make me laugh so.

  217. PLH says:

    Oh, and before you get all pissy again and start accusing me of refusing to engage with your 'points' (included those lifted from elsewhere without credit, I note), you lost any right to expect me to engage seriously with you when you started flinging round the sweary insults.  Big hugs, you lovable old troll.

  218. jonnysolar says:

    Oh yeah, I forgot to address that little remark didn't I :)
    I don't find it particularly funny, and yes it is based on tereotypes – but the ludicrous and surreal is what makes it humour, not direct racism. If I were to say to an irishman "you're so thick I bet you nicked catalogues instead", then yes, I would undoubtedly be showing racist tendencies. But I wouldn't, because that is directed and a calculated insult at a person. Wheres everyone knows the irish stereotype, but no-one (besides the utterly moronic) would ever subscribe to that theory being true. Similarly, some of the jokes I have seen posted since have been raher near the knuckle, yet it is people of all races, ethinicities and backgrounds who are posting them – one I saw earlier was as follows – had I uttered it, or anyone else who was white, it would be downright disgraceful to publicly show it on a feed – but the guy who posts his, and several even more racially stereotyped ones, is black. He knows it is humour, and quite happily joins in, be it taking the piss out of white, black or whatever – but everyone, and I mean everyone, who knows him knows he doesn't have a malicious bone in him, and it is accepted. Being as NONE of you armchair commentators know this Sean Boscott, you cannot categorically state he is racist – no matter what you want to say. Yet numerous times this point has been raised, and discarded because it does not fit your stance. As I said, it is the self-righteous and holier-than-thou atitude exhibited I detest, and find as morally reprehensible as outright racism itself.
    When you are so pure, innocent and without fault you can feel free to sling mud without recrimination, but somehow methinks you are not exactly the perfect model citizen which you profess to be, crusading on behalf of others who have not asked for it. For once, why not let a good deed be praised without seeking some insulting hidden motive within. If this guy were indeed an utter despicable racist, why would he have posted numerous times on the actual facebook group thanking and praising the minorities who were helping the police, or aiding store owners in defending their properties. But no, you don't see that do you – you take a snapshot of the situation, and assume to have all the facts at your disposal. The conceitedness I levelled at you previously.
    Just think about it – you may feel one way, but just because you think something, it doesn't make it a fact, no matter how skillful you feel you are verbally. Yes, you may be able to run argumentative rings round me, but in the real world away from the safety of your domain, the world is grey, not black and white. Peer into it for once instead of shying away to the comfort of your precisely defined ideals – it may make it possible for more people to get on with you too, rather than acting like a supercilious and condescending bellend. :)

  219. jonnysolar says:

    Oh, and anything I have lifted from elsewhere as you put it has been credited – anything not stated as a copy and paste is what I have written.
    Or would you care to elaborate on which points you feel I was unable to make myself, and plagiarised?

  220. Captain Caveman says:

    @Jonnysolar – sorry mate, let's cut right to the chase, eh?
     
    Looks as though this guy made a point of posting shedloads of pretty nasty, racist jokes on his webspace or wherever – if so, there are plenty here – myself included – who think that this, by definition and default, marks him out to be a pretty unpleasant individual – end of. No shades of grey at all, and it isn't necessary to be an unimpeachable saint to think like this either. 
     
    I wouldn't have reported this geezer to his boss, as stated. But there again, I wouldn't have posted/tweeted a whole stack of racist jokes either, or linked in my employer's details. So pardon me, but under the circumstances my sympathy is distinctly limited.

  221. PLH says:

    jonnysolar – blah, blah..it may make it possible for more people to get on with you too
     
    Phew, and then was I wondering why I don't have any friends.  Thanks jonny!  You tip top not at all racist (but bit of an apologist for racists).

  222. PLH says:

    Oh, and Irish jokes are offensive and racist.  Go and tell one on the Bogside, if you're so confident they aren't.
     
    Utter, utter fool!

  223. jonnysolar says:

    Yeah, th two most stupid things he did were trying to deny he had posted them, and linking in the employers details – but as I posted before, the company stuff was up before the group was. Admittedly, I personally woulnd't have incorporated the two, as that is begging for trouble, but to carte blanche assume you know anything about his is reckless and irresponsible – to then rng his boss and actively attempt to get him sacked is disgraceful – if it were on of his work colleagues, or the company themselves foud out and took action, that is one matter. But for one pseudo vigilante on a defamatory mission to seek out and try and punish him for what is an assumption on many indiivduals part is a step beyond.
    Don't misread or misquote me – if he is racist, and proven to be, by associations to political parties or to gangs of troublemakers etc, then fine, shop him and be done with it. But the sheer volume of jokes on that page makes taking one proportion of them, and discarding the entire rest of them because they don't suit your purposes, an act of stupidity and unwarranted bias. If people are truly to make their assumptions, let them go on the page themselves and find out the sort of remarks made – if they are unimpressed, they will report him, not follow him or whatever – but don't take it upon yourselves as the morally unambiguous to crusade against something of which you genuinely KNOW nothing, but suppose everything.

  224. jonnysolar says:

    Yeah, and wth that same sanctimonious and ignorant belief that the world revolves around you and that your shit smells of roses. Do me a favour and crawl back into the little grotto you crawled out of until you can actually look objectively at things, and debate a point without simply trying to condescend to anyone who doesn't share you own personal bubble of the world. We don't need troublemakers like you, any more than we need racists out there. And you wonder why segregation continues – if it weren't harped on about so much, the kids woulnd't pick up on it, and there wouldn't be an issue – but the moe morons like you pick up on it and act offended on any other parties behalf is exacty the sort of reason racism is perpetuated.

  225. PLH says:

    RevStu,
     
    Thanks for the excellent work you've done on this blog.  I, for one, am over the bloody moon that Boscott has been forced to scurry back under the rock from which he emerged, and that this has caused impotent howls of rage from some of his more ignorant fellow-travellers.
     
    Job done really.  And the prospect of more futile engagement with teeds like jonnysolar really doesn't entice, so I'll be off now too.  Not with a flounce but with a bloody great grin.

  226. jonnysolar says:

    I'd love to see you respond to this article – again, this is a paste, not my work, in case anyone retardedly imagines I am claiming credit for it.
    http://minority-of-one.com/2011/08/12/liberal-laughable/
     
    I think this entirely sums up my position, neither condoning nor condemning SeanBoscott, but questioning the validity of the sensationalist blogs of which you ae a prime example.
    I'm out now – peace.

  227. jonnysolar says:

    A "teed" being?…….

  228. Julia says:

     
    RevStu, I appreciate that you did not publish Boscott's details, and I was glad to see that various other contributors also didn't approve of Andre's "positive action". You are not the one who tried to "destroy his life" nor the one who revelled in doing so.
    Andre, I don't think Boscott ever expected his 15 minutes of fame, let alone the sort of attention it attracted from people such as yourself.  He has now learned a lesson the hard way. Not "don't be racist", but "stay out of politics, keep your opinions secret". In a different context we might call this "disenfranchisement" and demand that the political process make more effort to listen to him, but that's a one-way street, isn't it? Democracy isn't about listening to everyone's opinion, it's about making sure that everyone has the right opinion.

  229. RevStu says:

    Um, who stopped him having an opinion? We just made sure people knew what it was so they could decide if he was the sort of guy they wanted to follow. If he didn't have the balls to stick by what he believed and leave his Twitter account where it was, how is that anyone else's fault?

    I've had more death threats for expressing my views on various subjects than I can even remember, and was very recently the subject of an internet hate campaign far nastier than anything he had to deal with, but I've stuck by everything I’ve written. If there's any aspect of Boscott's character I find more despicable than his racism, it's that he's such a fucking coward.

    I emailed him on Wednesday night offering to let him put his side, and promised I’d publish it unedited. But even with a million people behind him he's too chickenshit to stand up for what he thinks.

  230. jonnysolar says:

    Or could it be that he ISNT racist, and the fact you are tarring him as such in a cowardly fashion without even knowing the guy made him run scared. Not surprising – if the nations media was suddenly on your doorstep of a morning asking questions for which you had never prepared or expected, you would rn a mile too, or at least duck under the battlements… as he did.

  231. RevStu says:

    No, I wouldn't. (Not that he’s actually had anyone on his doorstep as far as I know.)

    "Or could it be that he ISNT racist,"

    No, it couldn't.

  232. jonnysolar says:

    For example, were he to have immediately said "yes, they were ones I posted, but they are only jokes" would you have accepted it? Or would you have dived in full throttle baying for blood, denouncing him as a racist bigot and no questions asked? Somehow I think I know which one your poisonous little mind would go for.

  233. Captain Caveman says:

    Yeah, 'poisonous little mind' for not liking disgusting, racist jokes. Fuck me, whatever is the world coming to, right jonny? :roll:
     
    Anyway, you're surely mistaken here. The guy had been hacked, right? Those were not his jokes!!!111!!

  234. jonnysolar says:

    It's a metaphorical doorstep…….. Never mind.
     
    And the ultimatum you declare "No he couldn't" – you are really a nasty piece of work – even when you have read comments that were in the group reflecting positively on minorities and those defending against looting, you still feel that a number of jokes are a more accurate refletion of his personal manner and beliefs. You sir, are obnoxious, arrogant, and should be dmped in the middle of a riot to see how you like it. See if you might then be a little more praiseful to him and the group for providing corridors of safety…

    I enjoy debates, but this is not so much a debate as simply banging my head agaist the wall trying to get a faint amount of compromise and objectivity. If you hate the world and government s much you will seek out such tenuous links to try and prove a point, your vicious litle existence is better off outside my awareness. As I said before, even as a liberal, you make me sick.

  235. RevStu says:

    He IS a racist bigot. Nobody but a racist bigot finds "What's black and has eight legs? Gang rape" funny. Because it's not a joke – it has none of the technical qualities of a joke – it's just a rephrasing of the sentence "All gang-rapists are black" with "Ha ha!" stuck on the end.

    (The Irish joke cited elsewhere in this thread, for example, is obviously pretty racist, but it does have technical merit as a joke, in this case the classic misdirection followed by a "surprise" comic twist.)

    "It's only a joke" can be a valid defence, if something is a joke. Just saying "black people are monkeys" isn't a joke, no matter how much you paraphrase it.

  236. Captain Caveman says:

    If you're a liberal mate, I'd hate to meet your dyed in the wool Conservative drinking buddy… :D

  237. RevStu says:

    "even when you have read comments that were in the group reflecting positively on minorities and those defending against looting, you still feel that a number of jokes are a more accurate refletion of his personal manner and beliefs."

    Eh? How do other people's comments reflect Sean Boscott's personal manner and beliefs?

    If you have even an iota of doubt in your mind that he's a racist, there are exactly two possible explanations. (1) You're thicker than extra-thick pigshit that's been left in the sun to thicken. (2) His views seem normal and acceptable to you, because you're a racist too.

    I really hope it's (1), and to be fair the evidence so far is quite strong.

  238. jonnysolar says:

    Well done – you can misquote me to prove a point. Not unlike this entire thread.
    My actual feelings on this were <quote>Yeah, th two most stupid things he did were trying to deny he had posted them, and linking in the employers details – but as I posted before, the company stuff was up before the group was.</quote>
    And the poisonous little mind is becaue of the incessant baying of the term racist without a singl shred of proof – befoe you say it, the rubbish he posted is NOT proof of anything; as was so accurately surmised in the article condemning you, the other jokes did nohing to further your agenda, so were dicarded and ignored. A snapshot of jokes is nothing to give you a handle on the actual person, no matter what you claim.
     
    But I forget, you are a professional psychologist aren't you, and understand the human psyche and how it works entirely.
     
    "Fuck you, and the newspaper you sailed in on" – M Brigstocke…

  239. Captain Caveman says:

    /glances upwards
     
    Yep, that'll be a (1) then.

  240. RevStu says:

    "the rubbish he posted is NOT proof of anything"

    Yeah, (1) does seem to be running away with it. Intriguing use of “misquote”, though.

  241. jonnysolar says:

    Mis quote comment directed at Caveman…

  242. Captain Caveman says:

    Oh.
     
    Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out. :)

  243. jonnysolar says:

    If you are really so brave and feel you are in the right – why don't you go reply to the article calling an inveterate liar, emphasising points for your purposes ad not for reporting sake.
    Have the debate on there, objectively, rather than being backed up by lackeys and sycophants. Or could it be that you are brave when backed up by your 'mates' and don't want to leave th comfort zone to try and mae your point elsewhere. If you feel it is that valid, you shouldn't need to hide it, but answer the accusations directly… Or could it be that you ae unwilling to see the interrogation as it may force you to ask some decidely unpleasant personal questions?

  244. RevStu says:

    I already did, you halfwit.

  245. Captain Caveman says:

    Yeah, I'm a real lackey and sycophant, me. The evidence is plastered all over the rest of this blog, and forum come to that.
     
    … Can't you just bog off and quit while you're laughably behind? You really are tedium and stupidity personified, no offence.

  246. André says:

    Jonny, you call me a pseudo-vigilante out to defame. How exactly have you arrived at that conclusion? I clearly outlined on this forum what I asked the general manager of his company. I did not 'mg' (if by that you mean 'message') his boss – nor did I actively attempt to get him sacked (although I would be happy if he was). I spoke personally to the lady.
    I, unlike you, had the courage of my convictions and did something about what I considered to be an outrage, viz. the posting by Boscott of vile racist 'jokes' on his Twitter feeds for the world to see. Twitter is not private; it is Boscott's problem if people take umbrage at his postings and act upon them. It is your prerogative to disagree with what I did – but because I did it, I can hardly be accused of sitting in the safety of my armchair taking potshots at him, now can I?
    You decry anybody who vocally disagrees with his actions and call them 'holier-than-thou' and 'self-righteous'; what a load of tosh! In that case, where is the line to be drawn? We just allow anyone to say what they want, however vile, insensitive and/or illegal it is and stand by and do nothing, do we?
    You call my posts 'smarmy' posturing; to whom am I being excessively or unctuously flattering, ingratiating or servile?
    You clearly have issues with your own perception of your limited vocabulary – I don't and I have seen scant evidence here that any other posters do. Whilst many here disagree with you, I'm fairly sure that your comments are eminently legible and comprehensible to them; stop beating yourself up about it.

  247. one says:

     
    ***
    "Nobody but a racist bigot finds "What's black and has eight legs? Gang rape" funny. Because it's not a joke – it has none of the technical qualities of a joke"

    (The Irish joke cited elsewhere in this thread, for example, is obviously pretty racist, but it does have technical merit as a joke, in this case the classic misdirection followed by a "surprise" comic twist.)
    ***
    Er – you DO realise that your technical explanation of why the Irish joke has merit is an *exact* description of the 'gang-rape' joke, right? The classic misdirection – "What's black and has eight legs?" – followed by a "surprise" comic twist – "Gang rape."
     
    That you don't find it funny (neither do I, incidentally) makes it no less technically a joke than any other which follows the same formula.

  248. Captain Caveman says:

    Yeah, but it's still vile and hateful though, which is kind of *the point* here.

  249. RevStu says:

    How in the world is that a "misdirection"? Unless you're expecting the answer "a spider", it's not a misdirection, it's just a question preceding an unfunny racist slur. Still, I suppose people often do connect/confuse spiders with gang rape (specifically gang rape committed by exactly three black men against a presumably black victim), so I guess the punchline being one rather than the other explains the hilarity.

    For the benefit of anyone who hates the Irish, I’ve reworked the earlier joke using the same comic formula:

    “My mate Paddy was among the rioters who ransacked Argos in Manchester last night… He got arrested and charged, because the cop was a FUCKING PAKI!”

    You can use that one if you like.

    Still, if one good thing's come out of this whole retarded business, it's the sight of someone calling Cavey, in relation to me, a "sycophant". Fair made my day, that has.

    :D

  250. Captain Caveman says:

    Meh! Yes, that did raise a smile this end, I have to say. I've been called of many things, but 'sycophant' isn't one of 'em…
     
    Still, you know I love you really, old man. :)

  251. André says:

    Julia, please elucidate. Exactly which details have I published about Boscott that were not already in the public domain from his own hand? How have I tried to 'destroy his life' – by complaining about his actions? For you to claim that I have tried to destroy his life infers that either a) I have incredible clout and/or influence (I don't – I'm merely a customer of his firm) or b) you recognise that his actions are sufficiently abhorrent that he could jeopardise his livelihood. I'm opting for the latter, which makes you a hypocrite because you would allow him his free speech and deny me mine, including my right to make my views known to a company which has been associated with his views (we don't know if it was with their blessing) and accepts my custom and thus my money. I have the right to be ethically choosy about where I spend my hard-earned pay. It is you who are being self-righteous and disingenuous.
    Let me offer you an analogy: if a person is found to have indecent images of children on his computer, he is deemed a sex offender – because it's illegal. He may have only looked at them and never in his life directly molested a child. He still goes to gaol because without the likes of him, there would be no market for such images and thus somewhere in the world, some poor child would not have been abused in order to supply said images. If someone 'enjoys' racist jokes, then it logically follows that someone, somewhere has suffered racism in order for the 'jokes' to be created. Where's the difference?

  252. Julia says:

    Andre, I cannot imagine any meaning of your post of  August 11th, 2011 at 2:03 pm other than the obvious one, namely inviting everyone to "air their concerns" about this racist "filth" to his boss, Mrs Tina Potter.
    The clear purpose of this is to cause a shitstorm in his workplace. An angry boss, inundated with complaints, either orders him to take down the webpage, or dismisses him, or perhaps both. You obviously enjoyed having the power to do this. That is the feeling of the strong, dominating the weak. "Fuck him," you said. "I don't care if he loses his living and I would do it again."
    The next step, by the way, is to find out if he actually has been sacked, and if not, find a sympathetic journalist working in the national media to write an article about the racist gardening supply company that employs a known racist. Otherwise, somebody's innocent purchase of compost or flowerpots might be helping to fund racism! How horrible. Shouldn't be allowed. Something must be done! etc. etc. continued Daily Mail page 94.

  253. RevStu says:

    "The clear purpose of this is to cause a shitstorm in his workplace."

    The fact that you assume that betrays something about you, Julia, not Andre or even Boscott. It would only cause a "shitstorm" if Boscott's actions were something that a normal and reasonable person – in this case his employer – would consider disgusting. By assuming that to be the outcome, you reveal to us that you know it to be the truth.

    Contacting Ms Potter directly involves no bullying or intimidation. (Andre presumably spoke to her as a private individual, not a representative of a campaign group.) It merely makes her aware of the facts. If she considers Boscott's linking of her company to his racist Twitter account unacceptable she can take action, because at the point he links the two things it becomes very much her legitimate concern. If she doesn't have a problem with it she faces no retribution, apart from perhaps an individual customer withdrawing his custom, as he is perfectly entitled to do for the reasons below.

    "Otherwise, somebody's innocent purchase of compost or flowerpots might be helping to fund racism!"

    Well, it could be, couldn't it? If Boscott spent some of his wages on BNP subs, say, then Ms Potter's money could well be being channelled towards violent racist attacks. (You're the only person who's suggested this, it should be noted – we have no reason to believe that Andre said such a thing.)

    Isn't that one of the main reasons we're told that videogame and movie piracy is so evil – not just in and of itself, but because the proceeds fund organised crime? Would it be okay to fund criminals if you earned the money legitimately, though?

    The idea that this poor innocent lying racist coward is being somehow "bullied" by having his opinions – which he freely shared with an audience of 55,000 Twitter followers and anyone else who happened to glance at the site – broadcast to a few other people too is laughable.

  254. André says:

    Julia, I have absolutely no inclination whatsoever to ascertain whether or not he was disciplined in any way; neither do I plan to approach the media if i don't get my way (as you seem to be implying). I asked his employer whether they were aware that he had included them on his site. As far as I am concerned, whatever ensued – or didn't – as the case may be, is now none of my business. I am not a vigilante out to defame or ruin someone's life.
    You flatter me by suggesting I am the strong dominating the weak. No I'm not; if others do what I did, that is democracy in action, something that would not have been tolerated in the GDR. I would respectfully suggest that Boscott is the strong dominating the weak. I'm not the one with 1 million followers on a social networking site. I'm the one on here defending my stance and taking flak from you.
    Your final suggestion is your own view of my motives but speaks more of your own insecurities and paranoia. To suggest that the Daily Mail (that paragon of liberalism, social inclusion and British sense of fair play) would carry the story (even if I was so cynical as to do as you have suggested), tells me you don't read it.

  255. André says:

    Stu, I did indeed speak to her as a private individual. Your analysis of my comments and rationale is more eloquent than I could manage, so thanks for that.

  256. Julia says:

    It's a myth that the GDR wasn't democratic. It was just as democratic as Britain today, or any other place. There were elections, everybody could vote. Sure, there were plenty of things you just couldn't say lest someone denounce you to the authorities, but as I hope we've all learned today, we have that too. Andre has very helpfully pointed out that "inciting and/or promoting racial hatred and/or intolerance is a criminal offence in the UK".
    And what is intolerance? Why, it is exactly what the establishment says it is. They know it when they see it. No doubt the Witchfinder General can sniff it out. And when he does, we'd all better agree with him, otherwise he might just smell it on us, too. No evidence is necessary for this sort of crime, and no defence is possible.
    You don't have to be a member of a campaign group to campaign against something, Andre. And the Daily Mail reference was just there to point out the sort of person you've become. "Something must be done, this must be stopped, ban this sick filth, I'll call your boss and tell on you." Quite honestly I was shocked by your behaviour, particularly after you asked rhetorically if we'd learned nothing from the Nazis. As it happens, you did learn something from them.

  257. RevStu says:

    Julia, it's getting a little tedious having you ignore every point anyone's made to you and just ramble on with another imaginary anecdote about what MIGHT have happened to Sean Boscott in Crazy Ridiculous Alternate Universe 57 Where Everyone Is The Gestapo.

    He was a racist dick, people called him on it, he brought his company into it and a customer asked them if they knew about it. We don't know whether they did or not, or whether they have an opinion on an employee linking their business to a racist blog. Nobody went to jail, nobody got beaten up, nobody died. Either engage with the discussion or put a sock in it, I'm bored now.

    "Sure, there were plenty of things you just couldn't say lest someone denounce you to the authorities, but as I hope we've all learned today, we have that too."

    Keep up, eh? Some of us learned that the day a guy was arrested, tried as a terrorist, convicted and punished (and lost his job) for making a joke about an airport on Twitter.

  258. The Hip Priest says:

    "It's a myth that the GDR wasn't democratic. It was just as democratic as Britain today"
     
    Yeah, apart from the state sanctioned torture and execution of political dissidents, I'd say the GDR was exactly like Britain.
     
    Christ almighty.

  259. Julia says:

    Priest. Democracies do torture and execute people. Waterboarding and electric chair, within a certain North American democracy? I never said the GDR was exactly like Britain, I said it was just as democratic as Britain. Did you know the GDR even had conservative and liberal politicians?
    RevStu. Well, there you go, we're agreed. A joke on Twitter can get you not only sacked, but convicted of terrorism. But of course *you* would never react like that to a joke. Right?
    You accuse me of ignoring what people say, and yet everything I have written has been a direct response to what others have said. Meanwhile you say that everything I write is an "imaginary anecdote". Nothing I have written could be accurately described as an anecdote. I have related historical facts and observations, none of them in anecdotal form.
    Never mind. I know, arguing on the Internet is pointless, plus every sentence I add here is another one that will be TL;DR, so I think I'll leave you all to it. You've graciously allowed me to speak my mind. Not all bloggers would. Thankyou for that, and goodbye.

  260. Tom K. says:

    Julia’s impassioned defence of Sean makes him out to be some kind of hero. Why is he worthy of this level of commitment? He’s a tawdry little racist who’s massive contribution to the country, for which no doubt he will get an OBE, is starting a Facebook group.

    30 million people joined my “make strong and weak nuclear forces stick around!!!” page. The basic structure of the universe is assured due to my tireless efforts. Could you perhaps come and minister to me? Or, at the very least, could you loan me that female sock Sean?

    This is a real gem that I have to repeat:
    “Joke referencs are by no means a portrait of someone’s psyche and political inclination.”
    Yeah, what people repeatedly say is rarely a barometer of what they think. Is this really the world I’m living in?

  261. Captain Caveman says:

    …Phew. That's one less contemptuous apologist for disgusting racist jokes, then.

  262. André says:

    Julia, how priceless are you? I'm glad I didn't get your political education! The GDR was as democratic as Britain? Don't make me laugh! 
    Voting in East Germany was relatively simple. To vote yes, a voter simply took the ballot paper, which contained only one name – that of the approved candidate – and dropped it into the voting box. A voter could vote against the candidate, by crossing out his or her name – but had to do so in a separate voting booth without any secrecy. The consequences for such an act of defiance were severe – loss of one's job or expulsion from school – and close surveillance by the Stasi. Yeah, gimme that version of democracy every time!

  263. RevStu says:

    Here we can vote for whoever we like, but it’s a Pepsi-or-Coke “choice” and what they do when they get into office bears not the slightest relation to what they said they'd do in order to get our votes. Democracy? I'm kinda on Julia's side with this one.

  264. Rodafowa says:

    "the incessant baying of the term racist without a singl shred of proof"

    Holy fuck. This bloke honestly seems to think there's a difference between "telling disgustingly racist jokes" and "being racist". Because, you know, it only really counts as racism if you've paid your BNP sub, right?

  265. Nixon says:

    That whole line of reasoning – You only quoted the racist stuff, which is a small proportion of the whole! You disingenuous bastard! – has been amusing me for a couple of days now.  It matters not that Stu posted a link to John's complete archive of the actual feed, nor that he never claimed this article contained every tweet (because that would be (a) dull and (b) redundant); no, Stu is a Stalinist retconner of the truth and he's set out to destroy a man using the power of selective bias.

    But anyone who posts knuckle-dragging shit like these "jokes" deserves whatever opprobrium it brings them.  I don't care what the rest of the tweets in question said – if someone not only thinks So the story of Barack Obama rising to become President is being chronicled in a new film.  It's called Rise of the Planet of the Apes is funny, but funny enough to share with a worldwide audience, they're obviously a racist moron and I'm not interested whether they managed another sixty posts without saying anything racist. 

    If a man walks down the street and randomly punches someone in the face, is it wrong to call him violent or dangerous because he walked past sixty other people without punching any of them?  If he spends ten years writing a blog solely concerned with high-minded discourse upon early 15th Century religious manuscripts and then one day suddenly posts some incredibly nasty porn, do you think he should be given a free pass because to label him a pervert on the basis of that one post would be too selective?

  266. The Hip Priest says:

    Stuart,I'm not buying the comparison between a bourgeois democracy like ours and a stalinist police state. There was a pletora of far-left wing groups fighting seats at the last few elections, from the AWL, CPGB, CPGB(ML), SPGB, SP, WRP, SLP and a load of other abbreviations which only lefty nerds like myself would understand. The point is that all of those groups lost their deposits. (In England at least, the SSP caused some surprises in Scotland before that stupid wanker Sheridan ruined it through his arrogance)
     
    Now there are very good reasons why that's the case (the influence of mass media, the stupid infighting and disorganisation on the left etc.) but at some point you have to accept that the vast majority of people want pepsi or coke and don't want dr.pepper.
     
    When M16 start rounding up trots and executing them in the basement at their HQ in Vauxhall then you might have a point.
     
    Why the fuck are we talking about East Germany anyhow?

  267. RevStu says:

    "Now there are very good reasons why that's the case (the influence of mass media, the stupid infighting and disorganisation on the left etc.) but at some point you have to accept that the vast majority of people want pepsi or coke and don't want dr.pepper."

    The only reason that isn't a valid argument is our electoral system. The people used to regularly vote Dr Pepper (and the electorate in Scotland still votes for Irn Bru), but the Dr Pepper Company suddenly changed the recipe so that it tasted almost exactly like Coke and a lot of customers just stuck with it out of habit, or because there was nothing else available and it still tasted *marginally* nicer than Pepsi.

    Sure, there are other tuppenny-ha'penny drinks companies, but you probably haven't heard of them because they have no advertising budget, even if you have there's no point trying to get hold of their products because they don't have the distribution, and even if you can find a shop where they're stocked, 99% of the time the minute you get out of the shop a huge mob of Coke and Pepsi drinkers will snatch it out of your hands and make you have a Coke or a Pepsi anyway. You’re probably so fed up of it now that you don’t even see much point in going to the shop at all, like a large percentage of the population.

    MI6 don't have to round up Trots and shoot them, most of the time, because our electoral system renders them powerless. And where it doesn't, they can just shove them in Belmarsh for a few weeks then stick a control order on them forever with no evidence, on trumped-up "terrorism" charges that they get no chance to defend themselves against.

    And I imagine the conversation wandered off in this direction because it's marginally more interesting than ludicrous attempts to defend a brainless racist.

  268. RevStu says:

    (If any readers got lost halfway through that metaphor, I'll be putting together a handy look-up table and annotated index. Email in for a copy.)

  269. RevStu says:

    This is so old now, even though some of us could recite it by heart it's hugely possible that there are lots of people out there who weren't born when it was written and have never heard of it.

    [An extraterrestrial robot and spaceship have just landed on earth. The robot steps out of the spaceship.]

    "I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your lizard."

    Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this, as he sat with Arthur and watched the nonstop frenetic news reports on television, none of which had anything to say other than to record that the thing had done this amount of damage which was valued at that amount of billions of pounds and had killed this totally other number of people, and then say it again, because the robot was doing nothing more than standing there, swaying very slightly, and emitting short incomprehensible error messages.

    "It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see…"

    "You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

    "No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

    "Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

    "I did," said Ford. "It is."

    "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

    "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

    "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

    "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

    "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

    "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

    "What?"

    "I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"

    "I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."

    Ford shrugged again.

    "Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."

  270. The Hip Priest says:

    Everything you said is true, but Labour lost 4 general elections and were out of power for 18 years – this despite mass unemployment, recessions and economic bungling. So yeah, the Labour Party is basically selling the same product as the Tories in a different coloured tin, but that was what (it seems) the people were asking for.

    This isn’t an apology for the twatiness of New Labour – they‘re a bunch of ineffectual upper-middle class wankers and can fuck right off.

    And I dunno about blaming FPTP. I’m pretty sure election turnouts are falling all across Europe despite their PR systems seem to create coalition governments which have to compromise most of their core beliefs in order to come to some bland consensus which appeals to no one.

    In summary, we’re fucked.

  271. RevStu says:

    "So yeah, the Labour Party is basically selling the same product as the Tories in a different coloured tin, but that was what (it seems) the people were asking for."

    Except that by all accounts, they were going to win comfortably under John Smith until his tragic death. The Tories were utterly toxic by 1997, Major had got in with a tiny majority on a sympathy vote and then there'd just been a non-stop shitslide of sleaze. Labour sold out at the exact point when they were going to win anyway.

    And frankly, copping out by saying it's what the public want isn't the point. Labour they can burn in fucking hell forever for the destruction of Clause 4, because if Labour aren't for socialism then they're not Labour, and if the public don't want socialism they can make that choice at the ballot box. If Blair wanted power as a Tory wet espousing mostly Tory policies he should have joined the Tories and tried to win as a New Tory.

    New Labour instead robbed Britain of any democratic choice, and without a viable choice you don't have a democracy, which is where I have empathy with Julia's view. The GDR had an illusory democracy where you couldn't actually change anything, and that's exactly what we've got. There's certainly a difference of degree (in the sense that you won't get arrested by the secret police for voting Green), but not of fundamental character.

  272. RevStu says:

    "And I dunno about blaming FPTP. I’m pretty sure election turnouts are falling all across Europe despite their PR systems"

    I don't blame FPTP solely for low turnouts. I blame scumbag politicians for that, but FPTP is the main reason they're able to be scumbags.

  273. The Hip Priest says:

    "Except that by all accounts, they were going to win comfortably under John Smith until his tragic death."

    Probably true, but speculative. Kinnock was certain he was going to win in ‘92 but the opinion polls were famously wrong. But the shift to the right started under Kinnock and if you want a moment when Labour “sold out” you might want to look at his position on the miners strike.

    The last time Labour offered a genuine democratic socialist program it lead to a landslide Tory victory and almost the complete break up of the party. If the Labour Party is guilty of abandoning socialism, it’s because the electorate did. The Labour Party is in the business of winning elections which is what sets it apart from the Socialist Party of Great Britain which hasn’t altered it’s policies since 1904.*

    Labour is not unique in this – if David Cameron had taken traditional Tory positions on immigration, Europe, abortion, equal pay for women, crime, minimum wage etc., he would have been absolutely slaughtered. They’re still cunts, but they’re slightly more liberal cunts.

    *I actually voted SPGB in the European elections in 2009 after I read a blog piece where a SPGB member said that they didn’t actually want any votes and the whole thing was just a propaganda exercise. They pulled in a whopping 4000 votes nationwide. Capitalism survived.

  274. Tom K. says:

    I don’t understand how easy it is to convince people that the definition of democracy is “you get to vote for someone from a limited choice”. I’ve only read the Very Short Introduction to Democracy, but it’s quite clear to me that this is wrong.

  275. RevStu says:

    "Kinnock was certain he was going to win in ‘92 but the opinion polls were famously wrong. But the shift to the right started under Kinnock and if you want a moment when Labour 'sold out' you might want to look at his position on the miners strike."

    There was no chance of Labour losing in '97. The Tories had barely clung on by the most wafer-thin of margins, and had then embarked on a four-year credibility suicide. Blair won it by a margin so vast the Tories were utterly destroyed as a political force for over a decade.

    Labour DID have to move a bit to the centre. Kinnock did good work, as did Smith, in divesting the party of the loonier elements and wildly unpopular policies like unilateral nuclear disarmament. I could never see the British public electing him, however – he had to do the spadework and move on. He just wasn’t a plausible PM.

    I can't agree that Kinnock sold out over the miners' strike, though. I always have blamed, and always will blame, Scargill for that. He played right into Thatcher's hands in the stupidest way imaginable, and made it effectively impossible for any legitimate political party leader to support his undemocratic, unballoted strike.

    The miners’ strike was a massive, catastrophic social trauma, and a pivotal point in the changing of the nature of British society from broadly socialist to individualist. With a ballot, I'm not sure Thatcher could have won, and even if she had it wouldn’t have torn communities apart in the same disastrous way. Without one it was a slaughter, and as the old saying goes, the miners were lions led by a complete fucking twat.

  276. Captain Caveman says:

    Hmm, let's just clear this up once and for all. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, indeed New Labour as a project – are not 'Conservative Party lite'. They are, in fact, most akin to the dreadful 'Social Democracy' parties of the EU – Germany in particular – that have wrought so much damage, economically speaking (Germany had to undergo a shift-change, rather Thatcher-esque austerity programme to cast off these economic shackles, including in regulatory and red tape, as well as in taxation terms, to get to the 'real economy led' Powerhouse that they now, more or less uniquely in Europe, represent, and where the UK would love to be right now).
     
    It has never, ever, in a million years, been the economics of the Conservative Party to massively increase the size and funding of the Public Sector, precisely of the type that has brought about such ruination to us all (along with Labour's total and absolute inept handling/regulation of the Financial Sector, again as distinct from the Tories). This distinction alone is, of course, more than sufficient to utterly dispel any comparison whatsoever, and indeed any claim that somehow, 'New Labour and the Tories are the same'. They are, quite evidently and painfully obviously, not. Or at least, most certainly not in economic terms.
     
    Labour are, even now, laughably talking about avoiding cuts and even the 'growth' of our economy since 2008, which should tell us that either they are wholly incompetent economically – as if we didn't know – and/or they are shamelessly misleading the gullible electorate that there is even an option for this, against the backdrop of one 'credit ratings downgrade' of countries – even the USA for heaven's sake – after another.

  277. Captain Caveman says:

    As for the whole miners' strike business, let's not even go there. Remember I said that unlike probably anyone else here, I knew a thing or two about getting my hands very dirty indeed, in the so-called 'great' manufacturing jobs that were lost under Thatcher? Well, believe you me, those conditions were as of nothing, compared to those suffered by miners, with their blackened lungs from about age 50… the amount of industrial injury compensation that has been (quite rightly IMO) paid out to these people should be fairly indicative that we, as a society, did not want to retain these 'great' jobs, whatever the luvvies from The Guardian – who have probably never set foot in a workshop of Kwik Fit, let alone a 1970s factory or mine – profess to say in this matter.
     
    The fact of the matter is, this country was being utterly held to ransom by the unions – miners in particular. Their power was truly astonishing; they could destroy entire governments at will, plunge all of us into darkness (thanks to our near *total reliance* on coal-generated electricity), bring the entire economy to a standstill – at HUGE cost, and misery, to all concerned. This situation could not be sustained, but of course Labour – in the pay of said unions, then just as now, would never have the nerve or spine to do this, despite the complete and utter overriding, demonstrable need to do so, for the sake of the people who elected them to, you know, govern the country and all that. :roll:
     
    Then there was the fact that, with the advent of cheap, clean, green, then plentiful natural gas, coal was rapidly becoming an unwanted commodity anyway. Still, I suppose we should have just carried on pumping CO2 and most especially SOx into the atmosphere – acidifying Scandanavian forests and lakes in the process, just to keep these poor sods in employment that was pretty fucking awful anyway, by any remotely modern standard…? Thank God we didn't, is all I can say.
     
    I'm sure that with the luxury of hindsight, it could truly be said that the way the Miners' Strikes were handled by the then Conservative government could have been improved, possibly even significantly so. And I am the first to agree, as stated elsewhere, that more should have been done to promote real, alternative employment, with the use of seed enterprise capital and so on, rather than to just throw people onto the dole with no real alternative other than to relocate to a more economically active area (although, I argue, if that was the only alternative, people themselves share some of the blame for not doing this, if they did not, particularly the young).
     
    However, there can be no serious suggestion that to face down the unions once and for all, broadly in the manner undertaken and with broadly the outcome that was achieved, was somehow even avoidable. Or at least, not by anyone who is being even remotely fair minded about it.
     

  278. Captain Caveman says:

    I would add further that, in the case of the Tories – and very much in converse to New Labour – they have always recognised the clear and absolute importance of a diverse, real economy, very much to include *good* manufacturing. This assertion is absolutely borne out by the FACT that under Thatcher, very significant attempts were made – partially successfully – to attract massive, inward, foreign MANUFACTURING investment into the UK, most especially economically disadvantaged areas (with unemployment blackspots). Thatcher spoke often of 'the great car economy' of the UK – now a distant memory after 13 years of Labour of course, who could not be arsed saving MG Rover, but thought absolutely *nothing* of spending however many billions, or trillions, of taxpayers' money saving the entirely useless banks.
     
    The Thatcher years are derided around these parts as being a time of terrible manufacturing losses. Whilst much manufacturing was lost during this 18 year tenure, this was SURELY inevitable, given the absolutely ludicrous state of the Nationalised, union-infested, entirely dysfunctional rump of heavy industry in the UK. That so much was saved *at all*, and other new manufacturing/jobs were also created, is actually a great credit to that administration. Thatcher, unlike Brown, never thought that the answer to our economy, or funding an ever increasing Public Sector bill, was the Financial Sector, or that manufacturing did not matter. Any anyway, as I keep on having to say – far more manufacturing – GOOD, REFORMED, MODERN, WELL INVESTED manufacturing at that – was lost by proportion to GDP by New Labour than ever was, in almost twice the time – by the Tories, despite two recessions, the ERM fiasco, Black Monday and all the rest. That surely tells us all that we need to know.

  279. Kev says:

    Oh Caveman, he never learns and never will. I've seen this type before. Couldn't have picked a more perfect name for himself unless he managed to work the term "blind spot a mile wide" in there too.

  280. Captain Caveman says:

    Wow, "Kev", you've sure put me to rights there!
     
    … So then, you've seen my type? Rest assured matey, I've seen *your* type many times in internet discussions as well; bringing absolutely nothing of value to the table whatsoever as you do, just insulting your opposition whom you don't know the first thing about. And anyway, I think you'll find that I have, and continue to learn, as a result of *life experiences* which I very doubt you'd understand or know the first thing about. I've worked on the shop floor from 16 years of age as an apprentice having already left home, worked in industry for nearly 30 years, have started and run a very successful engineering consultancy business for the last 10 years, brought up two step children over the last 17 years. You?
     
    As for "blind spot a mile off", I suppose it's too much to ask to expect an actual clarification of this insult, i.e. which of the above claims that I make are false, and thereby result in my being blind? There must be a great many of them, to attract such an unqualified, blanket condemnation… or perhaps not, eh. 



Leave a reply


  • About

    Hello. I am the Rev. Stuart Campbell,
    a semi-obsolete neo-culture journalist.
    Click here
    to contact me, if you want.

    Stats: 126 Posts, 6,259 Comments

  • Recent Posts

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Recent Comments

  • Tall, Thin Game Of The Month

    Lightforce (FTL, 1986)


↑ Top