Latest
» Well, at least Michael Jackson saved the BBC from enduring more faux-outrage over its expenses http://tr.im/pRdc 14 hrs ago

» "some people have gathered where we're pointing our camera. And that's the news" http://tr.im/pR4E (love it) 15 hrs ago

» Thanks @moviegrrl and @tcgriffin for #followfriday 15 hrs ago

» Birmingham based Jewish group slams Obama's speech in Cairo (only a few weeks late) http://tr.im/pQVA 15 hrs ago

» It's probably worth mentioning Iran & #iranelection in all tweets, regardless, so it doesn't get buried in public perception 16 hrs ago

More updates...


  • Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sonia Afroz
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Aqoul
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Blairwatch
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man’s fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sajini W
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Daily Mail’s agenda highlighted


    by Rumbold on 22nd March, 2009 at 11:17 pm    

    How magistrates punished us over council tax payments for being middle-class

    Sinister eh? Above is the headline of a Daily Mail article written by Jonathan Hartman, a (this bit is important) white, middle class debtor who appeared in court because he, and his wife, owed three months’ worth of council tax payments. Before them were other debtors of various hues and creeds:

    “On our day in court, the magistrates, both of whom had public-school accents, worked slowly and carefully through each case preceding ours and were punctiliously fair to all the defaulters, who were of many different nationalities [my emphasis].

    Interpreters were provided, all sorts of holy books [my emphasis] were made available for oath-taking and a lawyer was present to explain the finer points of the law.”

    Then the nightmare began:

    “We were easily distinguishable from the other defendants because we’d made the effort to dress in a manner we felt appropriate for a court appearance. Also, our case involved just a few months of arrears rather than years, we were not on benefits and we spoke English as our native language [my emphasis].

    Our turn. Into thy hands, Blind Justice.”

    We all know what is coming next:

    “‘Are you aware,’ he [the magistrate] asked with a vulpine grin, ‘that your appearance today means a further £20 in costs, in addition to the £75 previously assessed?’

    I was not - and I sensed with some unease that the magistrates seemed almost to relish our discomfort.

    ‘We will,’ the second magistrate pronounced in lordly tones, dripping with munificence, ‘waive that £20.’ A pause. ‘The £75 will stand.’”

    This tyrannical behaviour of waiving only part of the fee, when they didn’t have to waive any of it, produced this lament:

    “Not for the first time I wondered why our society seems dedicated to the punishment of those who are trying to pull their own weight. Is it because liberal democracies know that without the taxes extracted from those of us who concede the necessity to pay them, their mad social engineering schemes would vanish in a puff of brimstone?

    But I’m not bitter: everything is grist to an actor’s mill. If I am ever asked to play a victim of injustice, I can always draw on the memory of this experience.”

    Now, maybe this couple were indeed treated harshly. It doesn’t sound like it to me, but for argument’s sake, let’s say that some magistrates would have waived the £75. Why is this newsworthy? Because the Daily Mail wants to stir up hatred against people they don’t like. It has all the ingredients of a proper Daily Mail article; digs at anyone who isn’t white and Christian, and a suggestion that the state is biased against them. Just think how the Daily Mail would have treated non-white immigrants who hadn’t paid their taxes.

    (Via the wonderful Enemies of Reason)



      |     |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Share on Facebook   |   Filed in: Media, Race politics




    12 Comments below   |  

    1. Dave S — on 22nd March, 2009 at 11:36 pm  

      Racists and Little Englanders with hypocritical double-standards? Well I never!?

      Also, as far as I know (having recently been a witness in a court case), in the UK, you can either swear a Christian oath on the bible, or recite a non-religious affirmation that you will tell the truth.

      I believe it’s possibly even forbidden to swear “on” the Qur’an or Torah (by their respective religions, although I’m sure some followers do take oaths “on” them) so I’m tempted to suspect that this part of the story is complete and utter bollocks.

      As far as I can find out, there is no reason why non-Christians don’t just state the affirmation - and from what I’ve just been reading, even many Christians choose the affirmation over the oath too.

      Finally, I think it says a lot about the “justice” system if the way you dress affects the outcome of your case, because it shouldn’t do. I’m sure it often does - but that doesn’t make it right.

      But then, as I remind people at every opportunity I get, the Daily Mail was the only British newspaper to openly support Hitler and the Nazis, as well as Oswald Mosley - and you can’t get much less British than supporting Hitler, can you!?

    2. David O'Keefe — on 22nd March, 2009 at 11:36 pm  

      This is Hartman’s youtube CV. As good an explanation as you will find for his financial difficulties.

      http://tinyurl.com/cujf3n

    3. Sunny — on 22nd March, 2009 at 11:38 pm  

      Well, no surprise there then. There’s a whole industry now, created by the Daily Mail, for middle-class white men to cry like they’re the new oppressed class simply because they’re being forced to line up next to the ethnics.

    4. Chris Baldwin — on 23rd March, 2009 at 12:11 am  

      I’m a white middle class male. Maybe if I break the law at some point the Daily Mail will let me whinge about it?

    5. Sunny — on 23rd March, 2009 at 2:03 am  

      You could make some money out of it too Chris.

      And if you’re a bad, out-of-work actor, then even better.

    6. Katy Newton — on 23rd March, 2009 at 6:50 am  

      I believe it’s possibly even forbidden to swear “on” the Qur’an or Torah (by their respective religions, although I’m sure some followers do take oaths “on” them) so I’m tempted to suspect that this part of the story is complete and utter bollocks.

      That part isn’t. Lots of people swear on the Qu’ran or the Torah. Some very orthodox Jews or Muslims refuse to swear on a Holy Book because the oath is to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and they fear that they could break the oath by making an inadvertent mistake in their testimony.

    7. blah — on 23rd March, 2009 at 9:22 am  

      “Just think how the Dilay Mail would have treated non-white immigrants who hadn’t paid their taxes.”

      You only have to look at the disgraceful treatment of the story of Inayat Bungawala who stabbed a (white) intruder into his house. The Daily Heil (who backed Tony Martin to the hilt) sides.. with his intruder. Had an ethnic minority entered a white person house illegally Im sure they would have done just the same.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1163763/Pictured-The-man-stabbed-Labours-anti-terror-guru-reveals-scars.html

      Though to be fair the majority of DM readers judging by the comments arent swallowing it

    8. marvin — on 23rd March, 2009 at 9:51 am  

      This article I found particularly silly

      How cash meant for promoting faith is going to an organisation that campaigns AGAINST Christianity

      The campaign is the ‘There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life’ group. They make it sound like some kind of Muslim extremist group hell bent on destroying Christianity! LOL. Athesists have as much right as anybody else to express their opinion. Idiots.

    9. platinum786 — on 23rd March, 2009 at 10:28 am  

      The treatment of Inayat was a joke. Even DailyMail readers didn’t buy that rubbish. I personally think that the mail readers fall into two catergories, those who are racists and read the material as it fills their needs, and those who are your average middle class person who doesn’t have time and doesn’t make time for detailed articles/news and reads the paper as it covers stories deemed to be more “in touch with Britain”. Then you have people on PP who are observers, we don’t read it, only observe the hate it spews at others.

    10. marvin — on 23rd March, 2009 at 1:29 pm  

      Actually platinum786, I agree with you there. Daily Mail combines a lot of vacuuous celebrity articles too, such it’s a bit like OK! or Hello! in daily tabloid format.

    11. Katy Newton — on 23rd March, 2009 at 5:10 pm  

      The Daily Heil (who backed Tony Martin to the hilt) sides.. with his intruder.

      Yes, it didn’t compare very well with their support of a man who shot a 16 year old in the back (i.e. from some distance away) as he was fleeing the house. I don’t like Bunglawala very much but if what I’ve read is right he had considerably more cause to be scared for his life than Tony Martin.

    12. Amrit — on 23rd March, 2009 at 7:15 pm  

      “Not for the first time I wondered why our society seems dedicated to the punishment of those who are trying to pull their own weight. Is it because liberal democracies know that without the taxes extracted from those of us who concede the necessity to pay them, their mad social engineering schemes would vanish in a puff of brimstone?

      But I’m not bitter: everything is grist to an actor’s mill. If I am ever asked to play a victim of injustice, I can always draw on the memory of this experience.”

      Oh my God - do you think this would be too long for Private Eye’s ‘Pseuds Corner’? That last bit could definitely fit in the ‘Luvvies’ section (that would be perfect, as it’s for actors)…

      Oh yeah, question to the thick shit: how the hell can brimstone ‘puff’? Smoke ‘puffs,’ hell, even steam might be said to puff. Clouds puff. NOT BRIMSTONE. I’d also like to know what the ‘mad social engineering schemes’ involve. They sound great to me - I have visions of a giant gaggle of mad-haired engineers embarking on ‘engineering schemes’ which actually just involve arguing about the mechanics of clock-making and fighting over baked goods.

      ‘without the taxes extracted from those of us who concede the necessity to pay them’ - So, not you then eh, Hartman? Or are you proud of your tax-dodging?

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.