17 June 2009

Daily Chat 17/06/09

The Battle of Deptford Bridge took place on this day in 1497. In 1631, Mumtaz Mahal died in childbirth. Her husband, Shah Jahan I took 20 years to build a suitable memorial. The Statue of Liberty arrived at the port of New York in 1885. Celebrating birthdays today: Ken Loach, Barry Manilow, Ken Livingstone, Jello Biafra, Venus Williams and my friend Chris. If you're in Bradford today and you run into Chris, tell him "Happy Birthday". It is Icelandic Independence Day.


  1. Happy Birthday Chris!

    Speaking of Ken Loach, anyone seen his new Cantona film yet? Wouldn't mind watching it, despite the subject matter involving the 'orrible man-yoo.

    The postman in it, should of been a cockney though;)


  2. Aww, that's a damn shame. Came for a look at the OBN, sorry OBE, thread and they've shut it down. Seemingly for ever.

    Killjoy humourless fuckers, I say.

  3. It's open again...

  4. The cats & dogs thread is quite good.

  5. Jello Biafra’s birthday...

    I saw the Dead Kennedys once, when I was about 16, at the Music Machine in Camden before it burnt down.

    I was to all intents and purposes deaf the whole of the following day at school. Fucking great.

    It’s also Igor Stravinsky’s birthday today, I believe. He knew a thing or two about geeing up a crowd too.

    So, which to play first, “Holidays in Cambodia” or the “Rite of Spring”?

    Yeah the OBeaE thread has reopened, but I really can’t be arsed. She and it are a complete waste of time, space and scarce environmental resources.

    What annoyed me about that thread wasn’t her, but the people who said they were disappointed in her, that they had had some faith in her previously.


    We’re talking about Bea “sainthood for Diana fucking Spencer” Campbell here!!!

  6. @BW


    I take it back then. Top blokes, salt of the earth, those mods.

  7. I think that as a rule of thumb, any thread that gets Winthorpe commenting is probably going to be a bit of a doozie.....

  8. Hatsofdoom (great name) has posted this on the cat/dog thread:

    #They're physically tiring sometimes, and often downright confusing (Mine is apparently engaged in a long and complex power struggle with the rug on the landing that I don't pretend to understand)#

    Made me larf.

  9. “17 Jun 09, 12:32pm (1 minute ago)

    Jean Seaton: interesting article, though it's difficult to imagine that the "official historian of the BBC" is entirely objective.

    Hang on, that name sounds familiar, where have I heard it before? Seaton, Seaton... Got it!

    You're not related to MATT Seaton are you?

    No, even Matt would never resort to that sort of blatant nepotism, not multi-culti equal-oppo Matt.

    Bringing in members of his family to write ATL? I don't believe it.”

  10. andy
    v droll, clocked that one

  11. Quelle surprise - your comment has been offed!

  12. LOL! andy, you are sailing close to the wind! :D

  13. BeatrixCampbellOBE17 June, 2009 13:41

    I say, what foul play is this, the aether seems to be laying claim to my words. My writings are not for the faeries of the spirit realm but for the people of this corporeal plane.

    One of you peasents must convey my observations to CiF lest the villainy of the moderators triumph.

  14. Well, that didn't last long, did it?

    Hmm, wonder if I can still post comments.

    Let’s try the WDYWTTA? thread...

  15. "17 Jun 09, 1:45pm (1 minute ago)
    In the light of some of the ATL pieces we've seen over the past few days (don't ask me to name names...) can I suggest we have a piece discussing the question

    Which is worse, hypocrisy or nepotism?

    The only question would be, who does CiF have who's qualified to do such a piece justice?

    I wouldn't dream of making any suggestions..."

    Yep, that still seems to be working...

  16. doohnibor is going the full reilly

  17. @thauma:

    My good wishes go with her. The mods are alive and kicking over there, it's only a matter of time...

  18. BBC

    "Chancellor Alistair Darling does not plan fundamental reform of the structure of the system that regulates UK financial institutions.

    Mr Darling has said that the current regulatory system is not to blame for the credit crunch, blaming instead the bosses of financial institutions."

    I must be going mad. Please, somebody, tell me they are not planning to get away with business as usual? Even NewLabour couldnt do this could they? After £20k per person in the UK has been spent bailing them out? This isnt possible.

  19. “It wasn’t me! It was the other boys! They made me do it! It's not my fault! IT WASN’T ME!!”

    A Darling, 8 & ¾ (or three quarts as my daughter used to say)

  20. @jay:

    I think a goodly proportion of us called it some time around the end of last year when the bailouts were big business.

    Give it a couple of years, the City'll be back to its bolly-swigging, coke-snorting best, you watch.

  21. swifty
    Give it a couple of years, the City'll be back to its bolly-swigging, coke-snorting best, you watch.

    I suspect they're still doing, mate, only this time there are no witnesses ...

  22. You weren't supposed to reply Jay - I was just conducting a small experiment!

  23. @d'nibor:

    It's still there, good work that woman.

  24. Doohn, sorry i couldnt resist, i hate seeing Tony unduly slandered.

  25. I'm afraid its cunts everywhere who were slandered.....

  26. You're right Doohn, i hope cunts will accept my apology.

  27. I should have guessed. Presiding over the case of that blogger being outed as a serving copper is one Justice David Eady, friend of libel tourists everywhere.

  28. SwiftyBoy

    I know! Eady is a complete twonk, frankly. How on earth he could find that it was in the "public interest" for people to know who that police officer was is ridiculous, frankly. Trouble is, too late for him to appeal this stupid decision because the cat is already out of the bag. I was really cheesed off about it.

  29. Scary judgement, that is.

  30. Hi everybody, my new mate Emily (!) asked me to pass on a message:

    EmilyButselaar 17 Jun 09, 4:03pm (2 minutes ago) Staff

    @ kizbot, Brusselsexpats

    Becky Hogge has just gone up on why the NightJack case shatters web anonymity

  31. I do hope he does appeal it for the sake of precedent.

  32. Theos article reminded me of the famous line. Now, articles are one thing, there's Read, Gogarty, now Campbell, but can anyone think of a single serious contender to the throne of best ever ATL sentence?

    "You are either for or against the baby Jesus."
    Theo Hobson

    Class of its own.

  33. Ooh, andysays has been submitted for pre-moderation.

    How exciting!!!

  34. Should I appeal for the sake of precedent, thauma?

  35. Here’s the comment that they’re currently examining:

    “Hi Emily, glad you’re about.

    Could you clarify some advice you gave out a few weeks ago about using emoticons to indicate irony etc?

    I’ve just had an ironic comment deleted on another thread, despite the fact I used such an emoticon and even said it was an ironic comment.

    Even if the moderators aren’t trained to spot irony (and I would hope they are) surely they at least know what it is when it’s literally spelt out for them.

    Best wishes, :-)”

    I attempted to post it on WDYWTTA after Emily’s @ 4.19, but before kizbot’s @ 4.25.

    Let’s see what happens...

  36. Andy - yes, you've always seemed very appealing.

    Speaking of irony, the comments are fucking hilarious on the "children banned from restaurants" thread that LordS linked to. The ed who commissioned the article had to come on the thread and defend it by saying "oh, he was using irony".

    That thread is up there with the others, I think.


  37. thauma - I thought it was most admirable that he has raised his 10 year-old to call minimum-wage workers 'fascists'. Unless, of course, the insult was 'ironic'.

  38. thauma: thanks for that (I think).

    So that’s the thing with irony – if you’ve got an Oxbridge degree you can claim irony and get away with any old tosh, but if you’ve only got one from City Poly, you’re fucked.

    “Qu’elle fucking surpris”, as my old French teacher used to say...

  39. scherf - yes, that and 'oh, the rules don't apply to me!'

  40. This is an excellent comment.


  41. Nice understated bit of derision of La Campbellissima by Emily Butselaar on WDYWTTA.

  42. Bah, just visited the Brown 'atheist shits' thread. Getting fucking tired of that man and his total lack of even a pretence at neutrality. Let's have a mass petition and get him replaced by Silverwhistle.

  43. Fencewalker: thanks for seconding my suggestion on WDYWTTA?

    I'd thank you there, but you’d have to wait for the mods to check it wasn’t some coded message urging everyone to storm Guardian Towers.

    Yeah, Emily seems OK, doesn’t she?

    According to her profile, she’s assistant editor of liberty central.

    I might try an e-mail direct to her asking for her thoughts on all this heavy-handed (and inconsistent) moderation shit.

  44. Oooh Gushing Polemic's slapping of BTH is a work of legend in a week of legends. When will they let him out of premod, do you reckon?

  45. Ooh, my comment to Emily has just popped up after about 90 minutes.

    Wonder if she's still about.

  46. They've obviously hit on premod as a less obvious means of getting rid of or silencing the more bolshie (in either sense) posters. It doesn't show up like the deletions. Pretty insidious really. Worth Emily having a thread on, you might say?

  47. Fencewalker: maybe you could suggest it to her, mate.

    I’d do so myself, but my comment would take a couple of hours to appear, would be on the previous page, and Emily would probably have left for the night...

    Maybe (!) that’s the idea.

  48. I might do that, but it'd be three-in-a-row from me on WDYWTTA, so I might leave it a bit. I don't think it's going to go away as an issue.

  49. By the way, I went to Capel Manor gardens once, years ago. Rather nice, even for a plant ignoramus like me.

  50. Fencewalker: You've already done plenty, mate.

    I’d like to hope it’s not going to go away as an issue.

    Nice of Matt to enter into the debate.

    My reply to him in somewhere in cyberspace as we speak.

    Capel’s gardens are OK, but they’re not a patch on Hatfield Forest. The buttercups are over now, but the cows are back. Mind your feet!

    Been there recently?

  51. Last summer. Might have to saddle the clan up once the weather settles down.

  52. Seaton's reply is up, Andy/Jay.

  53. Fencewalker: thanks for your contribution @ 6.57.

    I’ve replied to Matt’s @ 6.08 (see above), but my reply will presumably take a while to emerge...

  54. Now, now, let's not get that nice Emily in trouble. If they find out we like her, she'll probably lose her job.

    Deano, if you're around - just saw yr last couple of comments from last night. Thanks for the most undeserved compliment and I hope your head's not too bad today.

  55. No prob. Be interesting if they made that an excuse to stick me in the Cooler.

  56. Cheers for chipping in there thaumaturge. It's often surprised me that Liberty Central has never chipped in, especially in the Recent Great Unpleasantness.

  57. BB: well, the last couple of times I tried to post on CiF, I got this funny message saying
    “your comment has been submitted for moderation” or something, so I guess I am.

    Exciting isn’t it?

  58. Fencewalker - glad to; yours was an eminently sensible comment!

    To paraphrase ... er, someone ... (Plato?) "the unexamined website is not worth publishing".

    Andy - shame, but I expect you will, like others, derive some amusement from it.

  59. thauma: I’m laughing my socks off at the moment, to be honest.

    Maybe in the cold light of early dawn it will all look different.

    I’ll suddenly realise what I’ve done, that my pearls of wisdom can no longer be scattered over the receptive masses on CiF, and I will howl like a wolf whose lost its pack forever.

    On the other hand, I probably won’t be that bothered...

  60. Also, FW - have just seen your post on Berchmans. I have been given to understand that he's a little intemperate on the I/P threads, but I don't often venture onto those as they get a bit shouty and all start going to back to the politics of 1967 (I think) which I don't fully grasp, so I don't really feel qualified to comment at all; except that I don't think there's much excuse for expanding settlements or bombing Palestinian or Syrian civilians into oblivion. No doubt there are many faults on both sides. (I grew up in Belfast and I know a bit about that!)

    But Berchmans, from the threads on which I have seen him, while having a strong point of view always seems quite civilised about expressing it.

  61. Andy - pearls before swine, mate, pearls before swine.

    Oh, did someone mention pigs?

  62. thauma; funnily enough, that phrase was running through my mind, but I wasn’t quite arrogant enough to include it.

    Thanks for the complement :-)

    Is this Nightjack business worth checking out?

    Is that the blogging policeman thing?

  63. Thauma
    Re: the I/P thing. Yep. My disagreement with him and others is more that I see the fault as being on both sides, whereas he tends to blame Israel for everything (as I see it) and is a little too quick to call Islamophobe (and has deliberately misrepresented people to do so); he's also very quick with the report abuse button, which I don't like.

    I grew up in Limavady and had family in Belfast, and I'm sure that's had an effect on me.

  64. Fencewalker - using the Report Abuse button is shameful, I agree (except for blatant spam).

    Re the Norn Iron situation, I am quite willing to condemn both sides as idiots but funnily enough can find slightly more sympathy for the side that is not the one that my heredity might suggest. But not when they're killing people.

  65. thauma: you go, girl (WDYWTTA? @ 9.40)

    I’m fed up waiting to see if my response to Seaton is ever going to see the light of day. I suppose that's the point of this pre-mod business.

    Good night all...

  66. Another Jean Seaton thread? Another Jean Seaton?

  67. Further to the I/P question, I personally see the Israelis as being more culpable than the Palestinians, mostly because the Israelis have more options. This is not to excuse terrorist attacks, but when one looks at the proportions, it's clear that one side has most of the power.

    However, screaming 'Islamophobe' (or 'anti-Semite' for that matter) just distracts from the main issue. It's anecdotal evidence, of course, but I've never met a Palestinian who was a hard-line Islamist; they've been moderates-to-agnostics. Same is true for Iraqis and Iranians I've known.

    Which makes one want to ask: why are we (the West) going after the moderate Muslim regimes and more or less ignoring the more fanatical elements (eg our good allies the Saudis who were the preponderant 11/9 attackers)?

    It's all too thorny for me to answer so I shall go off to bed and sleep on it.

  68. MsChin: same Jean Seaton.

    Her first piece got so much attention (from some cynical lout called andysays, among others) that they wouldn't let her leave the building until she'd written another one.

  69. Anyone keeping a running count of how many mps quit? I seem to recall you were taking bets ;-)

    Another one gone, but she wanted to leave anyway, family excuse, sorry reasons again.

  70. Quality comment by hermionegingold on WDYWTTA @ 10.06. Succinctly beautiful.

    Am really off to bed now.

  71. That is a goodie.
    Some good points there Thauma, but I'm tired too and maybe bringing in I/P here would ruin the lovely atmosphere.

  72. @Fencewalker - your contributions on the WDYWTTA thread, complaining about the modding policy and banning of posters, might have a bit more validity if you hadn't chosen, in the aftermath of Jay's banning and the furore it provoked, to suggest that my banning was justified.

    Might not have made a scrap of difference in the end, but it was unwelcome and ill-advised. And makes your current stand look like your playing to the gallery.

    No coincidence that I rarely bother with this site since you showed up.

  73. Sorry you feel that way Hank. If you recall, at the time it all began I said that we'd had run ins and I wouldn't miss you (because of that run in, in which you had been extremely vicious and aggressive, as far as I was concerned; I thought we'd put that behind us, but there you go) but that you shouldn't have been banned.
    But if yours is a general opinion, I'll fuck off with apologies. That said, I've not had any rows with you since I've been here that I've been aware of and certainly not sought any. Nor would I want to piss everyone here off by having one now.

    Sorry if you think my posts were playing to the gallery. I'm not really aware of having one in the sense you're implying; I'm not a particularly well-known poster and I don't get vast numbers of recommends.

  74. We've not put it behind us, fencewalker, because we've never discussed it. You showed up as a newbie, I took you to task for your opinions and mistakenly addressed you as "fencesitter" rather than "fencewalker" and you took offence.

    You posted something abusive in response and I took the bait.

    The famous modding/banning thread happened shortly afterwards. You were still very much a newbie. As far as I am concerned, your views counted for jack shit given that you knew nothing of my posting history but were based purely on a single conversation we had had.

    Since then, we've had no conversations until now. I'm pretty sure I would have remembered given how pissed off I was that you dived in with your particularly unhelpful thoughts.

    You might indeed have added the usual touchy-feely liberal caveat that I shouldn't have been banned, but when you prefaced it with a long screed about how abusive you felt I'd been, the caveat, in the context, was pretty much redundant.

    I'm sure my view isn't a general opinion. It very rarely is. I won't be missed on this particular site. As I've said, I haven't posted much on here since you showed up anyway.

    Don't leave this place on my account. But don't kid yourself about censorship and your role in it.

  75. OK then (and apologies to everyone else):

  76. You said,
    "You showed up as a newbie, I took you to task for your opinions and mistakenly addressed you as "fencesitter" rather than "fencewalker" and you took offence."
    What happened was, you were accusing a poster of something, can't recall what, in what I felt were unfair and brutal terms. I pointed out a flaw in your argument and added a coda saying something like 'I'm preparing for a bucket of shit on my head from you now'. Given your language I felt this quite mild. You response included "Don't you ever fucking presume to ever have an opinion on any fucking thing again". And yes, we then had an argument. I also left a post asking the mods to leave it all up, since I felt that most people could make up their own minds. Yes I did get peeved - to the extent of pointing out the right form of the name, not too harsh I think - at you calling me Fencesitter, but I also later accepted your claim that it was an innocent mistake. Sorry if that was wrong. I even made a joke of it when I first appeared here, which I did because you were taking the piss.

    I don't see what me being a newbie has to do with anything. We all are sometime.
    I'm also sorry, if you want me to be, that I posted on that thread that you should be allowed back despite what you'd said (and yes, I think I said something like "I thought he was an unpleasant bastard, but he shouldn't be banned". You were in that conversation, I'm afraid, from my perspective; I don't think that amounds to a long screed, and it was also to make the point that I wasn't just defending people whose views I agreed with). I could only go on what I'd seen of you.

    As for not putting it behind us, well clearly not. But that wasn't my wish. I wanted to forget it, and I thought we were at least being civil, if not friendly. Guess I was wrong. Sorry.

    Kid myself on censorship? No I won't. I think my post has precisely three recommends. Won't achieve a damn thing, but I still thought it worth saying.
    Nor will I leave here on your account, but if the others do I will. I will only say that you seem to have been at the centre of more than one row here, and I don't think I've done anything particularly meriting your anger.

  77. And again, apologies to the others who'll have to scroll through this crap, but I won't leave that unanswered. Not the best way to end the day.

  78. My comment about you being a newbie is wholly in the context of you posting on the modding/banning thread.

    You can post as a novice anywhere else on Cif and have as valid opinion as anywhere else, but when you start giving opinions on who should and shouldn't be banned, you need to have a posting history that dates back more than a couple of weeks and a perspective that is not based on an exchange of views in one single thread.

    You should have butted out of the banning thread. It really was nothing to do with you.

    And I've already said that I'm not suggesting you should ban yourself from this site.

    I'm simply suggesting that you should maybe think about your own role in the bannings that have happened up to now, and maybe, just maybe, dip your toe in the water before making a big splash.

    And you're appealing to the gallery again with the 00.23 post. My views aren't "crap", and I think you have every right to answer them.

    Stop playing the "kids, he's bullying me" card.

    "Not the best way to end the day." Well, shit man, worse things happen in life than a little spat on an out of the way internet site.

    I'm a great believer in first impressions btw, fencewalker. My judgement has been vindicated once again tonight.

  79. 1) I'm not saying your views are crap, who's playing the bully card now? What is crap is the fact that other people here will have to wade through it. That's not playing to the gallery, it's having consideration for other people, who want this to be a bit of a haven from that kind of thing.
    2) Stop with all this "I was here first" nonsense. Simply being on CiF longer doesn't buy you or anyone else anything in itself. People get my respect whether they're a newbie or an old hand unless they show otherwise. I don't put them in a list of veterans.
    3) I had NOTHING to do with you or anyone elsse being banned from anything. I never advocted it, and I specifically urged against it several times. I have NO idea wwhere you're getting that from.
    as for playing cards...stop with the rhetoric yourself. This might not be bullying but it is aggressive for no reason and that does leave a nasty taste in my mouth. Of course worse things happen, but not to me today. Boo and hoo.
    As for first impressions...well my first impression of you was that were aggressive and unpleasant. Since other people on the modding thread seemed to think otherwise, I accepted that I might have been wrong, and I even told myself you might have good reasons for what you said. Shame you can't modify your opinions. Dignifying them with the word "judgement" is laughable.

    Let's leave it at that shall we? I can't see what the point is of it. You clearly don't like me; I don't know of any good reason for it, but you keep coming back with accusations. Let's stop. I'll keep away from you, you keep away from me.

  80. On Cif there is a facilty to recommend but it occurs to me that an option labelled 'death threat' would be handy.

  81. Or one of those bomb plunger things.
    An umbrella or invisibility shield might be nice too.

  82. christ i've missed all sorts here and at the phone, in the words of Walter, i have no frame of reference. I knew it was a bad idea to actually do some work today...