Who is your current favourite Black Lives Matter UK activist? I like the white ones best. Perhaps especially Richard Collett-White, who is whiter than a very white man who has got a white sheet over his head. And a white pointy hat. Richard took part in last week’s little explosion of privileged narcissism at London City airport. He is a former member of the Oxford University croquet club.

However, I also have a soft spot for the Ben Tippet and Natalie Fiennes partnership — they live in a £2m gaff in Wandsworth and, yes, of course she’s related to the acting Fienneses.

It’s the croquet club that’s really the tops there.

36 thoughts on “Snigger”

  1. Interestingly (well for me, at least) the chap that Liddle mentions playing Kung Fu fighting was a school friend of mine. His name is Simon Ledger and he was a trouble magnet when we were at school. I later played in Committments-style soul reviews with him as a teenager.

    Take it from me- Ledger probably was taking the piss out of the family who complained.

  2. I wouldn’t think that BLM could take off in the UK *except* through whiter-than-white leftists.

    BLM *here* is rightly focused on the disproportionate level of conflict between African Americans and police but they focus on *racism* instead of what it really is – power differential coupled with lack of accountability. But its a black driven movement focused on (at least until the extremists gain full control) issues of specific import to the black community.

    From what I’ve been reading about the UK, its the minorities that get special protection from police interference while the whites are the ones being tossed in jail for teaching dogs how to do the Nazi salute or saying mean things about gays.

    Only leftists could spin something like Rotherham (not Rotterdam!) into a ‘minorities being oppressed’ story.

  3. @Aga

    Almost certainly higher quality eyeballs, don’t know if they get to charge a premium for that.

    Ultimately the pay wall removes the temptation of proliferating Telegraph-style clickbait that in the long run will trash the brand. Bit like putting the biscuit jar on a higher shelf to discourage yourself from gorging on it.

  4. Well-off, middle/upper class, cultural marxist, London Bubble shite.

    They deserve the noose. Can’t do that in a free society mores the pity.

    Which is why the Purge is needed to massively reduce the influence of leftist scum. Stop the contagion before it gets established. And becomes the Establishment–which it has to a massive degree already.

  5. The Times has had an uptick in visitors recently although the number visiting the login page is fairly static, this is the only site I see links to Times articles anymore.

    The quality of the content of the broadsheets, which was the only reason to read them, has fallen dramatically.
    At least the Times had the decency to hide its shame behind a paywall, the Telegraph and Graun (now written almost exclusively by tweenies) parade their bias and ineptitude for all to see.

    These papers used to be very well written and keep deep factual reporting, editorial opinion and opinion pieces separate from each other, once they started to self censor and only publish news/articles that fit with their agenda they became mouthpieces and not newspapers

    Their readership is old and getting older, dead men walking.

  6. The London City Airport demo was apparently in protest at air travel being racist which is so puzzling that I would feel an urge to check my privilege if I could be bothered.

  7. Bob Rocket:

    An enormous majority believes that (whatever they think of newspapers and reportage now) newspapers were once much more reliable and free of propaganda. Me, too. That’s why, when (at 12) I resolved to cut out fiction, I continued to read (at least 2) newspapers daily, along with a generous ration of
    other periodicals. But, over the years, evidence convinced me that periodicals, including newspapers, were just as propagandistic as I’d ever suspected of ordinary fiction. So, somewhat reluctantly, I gave ’em up–cold turkey. It’s over 36 years now–and I don’t miss ’em anymore. Avoid TV news, too–might catch 15 or 20 minutes of FOX in a week’s time.
    And, as I’m fond of telling people (and only very slightly an exaggeration), if I want to know the weather, “I look out the window.”

  8. The quality of the content of the broadsheets, which was the only reason to read them, has fallen dramatically.

    God, yes.

    Comment is Free is still pretty compelling, but for all the wrong reasons. It’s basically the Tumblr Digest.

    The Torygraph is just absolute shite these days. Indistinguishable from the free papers you get at train stations.

    Remember when teachers would give you a bollocking for handing in essays with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors? I never thought we’d see the day when “quality” newspapers read like a dim 13 year old’s English homework.

  9. “They deserve the noose. Can’t do that in a free society mores the pity.”

    Yes we can.

    All we need is another referendum.

  10. We see the Times occasionally because it can be free at Waitrose. Unless to read Miss McQuitty, why would anyone bother to pay for it?

    The Telegraph is hurrying down the same path to perdition: feminised, infantilised, and generally dumbed downwards and leftwards. We used to take the FT on a Saturday, but gave up when the arts pages went off.

    The only readable lefty paper used to be the Observer; I dare say those days are long gone – I don’t know because I haven’t seen it for decades.

    Still, cheer up! The NYT always was grey and dull, but now it’s just a grey, dull propaganda sheet; a bloody disgrace, in fact.

    Remarkably the best source for international news seems to be the Daily Mail website, challenged only by RT. When al Jazeera first appeared it had merits; does it still?

  11. The Other Bloke in Italy

    For a while now, I have had it in mind to ask the assembled Blokes and Blokettes if there is now a paper worth reading. I guess I have my answer.

  12. I recently cancelled an online sub to the Times, which I’d taken out because the Telegraph is so dire. Liddle and Atherton were the only writers I read, the rest absolutely dire (oddly I didn’t really read the wine section).

    The Times’ collection of faux-right wing writers pissed me off more than the numpties on Comment is Free.

    The FT is largely rubbish apart from straightforward business reporting (I’ve read the odd decent investigative article in their Asian edition) and when it comes to politics & economics, pretty much wrong about everything.

    The Economist is good for learning enough about something you don’t know to make you feel like you know something. As an arts grad I find their science specials fascinating. Don’t know what proper science people think. However, when I read an article about a subject I know well, I find the Economist is very often shoddily inaccurate.

  13. However, when I read an article about a subject I know well, I find the Economist is very often shoddily inaccurate.

    This. I quit 10 years of subscription to The Economist for 2 reasons: firstly, it’s writings on Russia seemed to be at odds with what I was seeing when I lived there, which made me think the rest of its reporting was equally bad. Secondly – like Private Eye – much as though they make noise about being apolitical and not part of the Establishment, they are very much a part of it. The folk at the Economist are all Oxbridge graduates and hearty supporters of statist monstrosities such as Obamacare and the EU, only they think everything would be so much better if clever folk like them were consulted more often. Liberal free marketeers they ain’t.

  14. “The Spectator.”

    +1

    Despite quite a bit of lefty “nonsense” (from the Nick Cohens etc of this world), generally pretty good?

  15. I quite like the Times. Its tax coverage is pathetic though. Statist and ignorant; roundly criticised by Times readers but never corrected.

    As with MC’s point about the Economist, all mainstream publications lead to Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia (poorly named though it is).

  16. Does anyone have a sub to private eye? The times I bought it is been pretty good and the sub seems good value at the moment.

    And it may be puerile, but I always chuckle at the reference to arkell vs pressdamn

  17. “Liddle and Atherton were the only writers I read, the rest absolutely dire (oddly I didn’t really read the wine section).”

    I rate Dominic Lawson also.

  18. Private Eye gave my wife a lifetime free subscription decades ago, for services rendered. And then a few years ago terminated it. So much for “lifetime”. We’d have protested except that it had become so feeble we thought we’d not miss it. We were right.

  19. Bloke in North Dorset

    I still like the Economist although I feel its going downhill and agree with TimN that it certainly isn’t the free market liberal newspaper I started reading 25 years ago. Their anti Brexit tone is starring move from wearisome to irritating, as is their support for some of the wilder AGW claims.

    However their foreign reporting seems to stand up when the stories eventually make the MSM, although I nod to TimN’s opinion on Russia reporting. When they touch a technology I know something about they seem sound and I love Technoogy Quarterly. Some of their briefings are very insightful, the latest on Uber was a case in point and I’ve read other stuff that corroborates their article. I also like being able to download the audio version and listen to it when out running, sailing or in the car.

    Overall just about worth the online subscription, but if it continues its trajectory that might not be the case when my sub is due renewal in 3 years.

  20. Charlie,

    Agreed. Whatever one thinks of the Boy George – in my case very little – that imbecilic tax analysis could have been presented by the Dodge herself.

    Little wonder its editor seems to be in continual fear of being sued!

  21. Spectator is oddly variable; not just that some articles are good and some not, but that some weeks it is mostly good and some weeks it is all rubbish.

    It’s almost as if they have two editors job-sharing. Or is it a case of “Fraser Nelson is unwell”?

  22. I only look at the Speccie Coffe House online. The idea of paying good money to read Massie, Cohen or Parris would cause me much pain. So I don’t.

    In terms of the dailies, you can’t beat The Sun.

  23. “Unless to read Miss McQuitty, why would anyone bother to pay for it?”

    It’s been an observation of mine for a while that the only areas where newspapers have people who know their stuff are sport and wine. As in, there aren’t bloggers out there picking up on what Jancis Robinson says.

    I quite like the Christian Science Monitor. It reads like journalists who like to get the facts and then report them.

  24. The Daily Mail has better foreign affairs coverage than the Telegraph. I am not kidding. Whoever allowed the Telegraph to descend into a poor ripoff of Buzzfeed should be electrocuted.

  25. I lost patience with The Economist years ago: too broad brush and too predictable for my taste. The Times has some good (and some dire) writers, but I subscribe for Matt Ridley (Mondays), Dominic Lawson and Rod Liddle (Sundays). The Spectator varies hugely from issue to issue – and with the editor. Before Fraser Nelson, it was becoming merely a lifestyle mag. I read the Eye only for the cartoons and satire: the ‘journalism’ is pathetic and feeble.

    Btw, how long before Matthew Parris ends up at The Guardian?

  26. BiND

    The Economist reports on various countries and topics that I am very familiar with reflect TimN’s view – they’re well written, but wrong. Partially the problem is that the story is far too complicated to be covered in 500 words, but sometimes its because they just dont understand. But this has been true since the 1990s, and I only date it from then because that’s when I gained sufficient specialist knowledge to know they were wrong. It’s wrong to assume that the Economist actually knows what it is talking about.

    I recently read a book on South Sudan written by the former special representative of the UNSG, book was decent and pretty fair. I only read it because the review in the Economist was scathing and just didnt ring true.

  27. If we’re honest, the problem with the Economist – and one which led me to reject it in the 90s – is that it purports to be a free market rag but has turned into just another go-along-to-get-along Social Democrat in-house agitprop sheet.

  28. @Theo

    Pretty much word for word what I was going to say. I always read Parris, though I rarely agree with him (and he gathers far higher numbers of comments than any other articles). He responds to readers’ comments (as do several other Times columnists), but when I pointed out his complete ignorance of an engineering topic (unsurprising for a Cambridge Arts grad) he went off on a series of politicians’ answers rather than simply saying ‘fair cop – got that wrong’.

    The boy writes well, though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *