What happened to the ‘Terrorist Brit’?
I wrote the other day about how terror suspects are often described in terms of their ethnicity - the six Algerian men arrested for a plot to 'blow up the Pope', which turned out to be, well, not a plot to blow up the Pope. As Tabloid Watch pointed out, papers often go big on the accusation and sprinkle in a bit of thinly veiled racism - in the Express's case, saying it was a 'Muslim plot to kill Pope' in enormous letters on the front page - but not quite so big on the reality (the Express blobbed a story revealing that all of the arrested men were released without charge on page nine).
So, that British terror suspect arrested at Schiphol airport in the Netherlands the other day, revealed to be 'of Somali descent' by the media... what happened to him? Well, papers were pretty quick to put the boot in, even though he'd been arrested, and not charged with anything. The Sun said:
They went further, saying that the man was 'suspected of having links to a terror organisation'. And then there came a rather strange article in the Telegraph on the back of the arrest, joining a lot of dots:
Last night Dutch security officials were continuing to question a British man of Somali origin who was arrested on a plane at Schiphol airport on his way from Liverpool to Entebbe.
Dutch prosecutors said they were investigating the man for links to a terrorist organisation but had not found any explosives.
A European diplomat in Kampala, Uganda's capital, said the man arrested in Amsterdam could have been acting as a copycat after the publicity following the Ugandan attack, which was blamed on the presence of Ugandan troops in Somalia under an African Union peace keeping mandate.
"Could have been", yes. But the whole Telegraph piece seems to be total speculation - with a helpful nudge from someone somewhere - about Al-Qaeda expanding into Africa, all on the back of one arrest:
But he added: "Then you see someone who's raised an alert being arrested on their way to Entebbe, and it sets off a lot of alarm bells. There may be no evidence yet that al-Shabaab is bedding down cells in Uganda for more attacks – but that doesn't mean they are not doing it."
There's no evidence for a lot of things. And yes, a complete and utter lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean that something isn't happening. Call me naive if you like, though, but I am not entirely sure if one arrest should lead anyone to draw any conclusions - particularly if no charges have come as a result of it. And did any charges result from it...?
The Netherlands has freed a Somali-born Briton who was arrested at Schiphol airport on suspicion of terrorism en route to Uganda from the UK.
He was freed on Wednesday morning and allowed to leave the country, Dutch prosecutors said.
The man was arrested after a tip-off that he was planning to engage in terrorism in Somalia, they added.
However investigators "failed to confirm the information", they said.
The BBC have reported the man being released, which happened yesterday afternoon. Which is quite correct, given that they reported the initial arrest in the first place. I've looked through the Sun and Telegraph today, both of which were keen to fly out of the traps with the original story, but I haven't been able to locate any news of the man's release without charge. Which isn't to say that they won't be reporting on it, of course; just that they don't seem to be in much of a hurry to do so.
I imagine Duncan Gardham, who wrote the original piece off the back of the arrest claiming links between Al-Qaeda and Uganda, was too busy writing this piece, which appears in today's Telegraph:
...French national police chief warned of a "peak threat" particularly from the North African group al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).
Frederic Pechenard said that tip-offs from "friendly" intelligence services have put the country on high alert.
"I'm not here to frighten people," Mr Pechenard told Europe 1 radio, "but we have serious evidence coming from reliable intelligence sources telling us that there is a risk of a major attack."
Mr Pechenard said he feared two scenarios: the attempted assassination of a public figure or an attempted strike on a crowded public area like a metro train or department store.
In evidence submitted to the senate hearing, Robert Mueller, the director of the FBI, warned that al-Qaeda's intent was "unwavering."
You could argue that would be a perfect place for a bit of context - to say that, while there are more dire warnings about Al-Qaeda in Africa, the man who was arrested as a suspect, mentioned in an article by the same journalist the other day, was released without charge.
I don't doubt that there are terrorists planning atrocities in Africa and elsewhere, and I don't doubt that it's right to be vigilant. But the facts are that someone who was suspected of being a terrorist has been released without charge and allowed to continue on his way. You wouldn't necessarily know that if you'd only read the stories about the 'Terrorist Brit' being arrested and suspected, and hadn't heard anything following it up.
Tarts and hookers
I've written before about the way in which the tabloids have acted with all the subtlety of a tonne of ants at a particularly sugary picnic with regard to the latest Wayne Rooney stories. And I've tried to argue that these stories don't come about because of any hypocrisy on his part, or because of his endorsements or picture spreads in glossy mags talking about family values, or any particular moral outrage - they are published purely and simply because a lot of people get a buzz out of reading about other people's sex lives.
Earlier on today, I looked at the way in which a 'pal' of one of the women involved in this story said that she was 'not a nice person' and enjoyed drink and drugs. The 'pal' may not of course really exist, or may be someone who only vaguely knows the woman concerned; whatever the truth, they don't sound like much of a 'pal'. They may not be telling the truth but it's a pretty good gamble that once someone is outed as a sex worker their reputation could be said to be pretty low anyway, and that you can get away with saying what you like about them, accurate or not. That's how it is, unpleasant as it is; I'm not saying it's right, but it's the way this kind of thing is viewed.
You might remember from the Tiger Woods saga that the women involved with him were reduced to mere numbers, like holes on a golf course:
And I think there's a similar dehumanising process going on with the women involved in the Rooney story. They aren't people in their own right, but hookers and tarts:
The Sun refers to the 'tarty twosome who gave soccer rat Wayne Rooney a threesome'. And then there's some intrusion (or it may be speculation) into the life of Coleen Rooney:
Rooney's shattered wife Coleen will go against her family's wishes today by seeing the Man United striker for crisis talks.
It's not as if the Sun has ever been caught telling porkies about something like that, is it? Oh, hang on:
As part of our coverage of the break-up of Cheryl and Ashley Cole's marriage we reported on March 4 the singer would fly to France to meet her estranged husband who was texting her lines from her songs. We accept Cheryl did not fly to France, no such texts were sent and she denies saying she was scared of life as a single girl as we reported on March 1. We are happy to set the record straight and apologise to Cheryl.
Well, who knows whether it's true or not? It is intrusive, whatever it is. This is part two of these stories - the pictures you'll see on the Sun website and elsewhere are a bit poor quality, like they've been blown up too much; they've almost certainly been harvested from Facebook-type sites or other websites. In the battle to scrabble around for a fresh angle, it doesn't matter who gets hurt, has their privacy ruined or gets dehumanised - we need a new story, we need to dig some new dirt, while it's still fresh. And that's what we get. We learn nothing, really, from all of this; we just get treated to more and more of the same.
A pal said…
This is a wonderful - I say wonderful, but you'll see what I mean - quote from today's Sun story about Wayne Rooney, about which I'll write more later:
A pal said: "She's a girl with champagne taste whose dream would be to end up with a footballer. She loves getting drunk and does plenty of drugs. She's not a very nice person but knows how to work a bar, especially if it's full of celebrities."
That's a pal? Jesus. I'd hate to know what an enemy would say.
Rooneygate and more news about dicks
I want to start this by looking at the justification for the latest Wayne Rooney stories. It's pretty much the same justification that we all remember from the Tiger Woods tales about what he'd been up to and what he'd been doing with his dick.
News about dicks - the same old story. Except we're meant to believe that there's a reason for all this, beyond the giggling prurience and the intrusion into someone's private life. You can see the figleaf over at the News of the World's original story:
Rooney's earlier brush with scandal came in 2004 when he confessed to visiting a seedy massage parlour in a rundown area of Liverpool for £45-a-time sex, including a romp with a 48-year-old grandmother nicknamed Auld Slapper - the first time he was caught cheating on devastated childhood sweetheart Coleen.
Since then Rooney, who played for England on Friday night at Wembley, has crafted a brand of happy family life that's helped win big-money sponsorships and endorsements.
But the tawdry truth is just a year ago he was at it again.
But interestingly enough, that defence is torpedoed by Max Clifford in today's Sun:
Publicist Max Clifford believes football fans won't be bothered by the allegations surrounding Rooney's private life — as long as he keeps on scoring goals.
Mr Clifford said: "The only thing Wayne Rooney has to worry about is his wife, whether she, like all the others, is prepared to accept her husband's alleged infidelities.
"Nobody in football gives a monkey's as long as he's winning on the pitch. Will it stop people drinking Tiger Beer? No. Will it stop people buying Coca Cola? No. Will it stop parents buying Nike for their children? No."
Well, of course it won't. But the gleeful press attempted to scramble up to the moral high ground during the Tiger Woods revelation by claiming that it was Tiger Woods's family-friendly image - and not the fact he's one of the most spectacular golfers in history - that was responsible for his ever-growing list of endorsements. Some of them are doing the same, this time - but others are being a little more honest.
Because this isn't about exposing the hypocrisy between a person's public image and private life - this is pure and simple about digging dirt. Rooney's past transgressions didn't stop him from getting endorsements, and nor will this, so long as the goals keep going in. I don't remember Avram Grant having a load of picture spreads in Hello! magazine with his wife, but that didn't stop the papers ferreting around in his private business last year.
Perhaps the most telling paragraph in all of this business is to be found in the Sun's coverage today:
Wannabe glamour model Natalie, whose dad is Wayne's uncle John, also said: "Other footballers have girls begging to have sex with them. He pays for it. Lost all my respect for him now! He's obviously got more money than sense."
I'm no prude, but there are times when even I start yearning for a gentler time before all of this stuff was considered fair game. I don't think there should be rules preventing it from being published; I just wish people, no matter how famous, could be allowed to have private lives, and there wasn't a market for this grubby kind of story. I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for Rooney at all, of course, given what he's done. But that doesn't mean I think it's a worthwhile story for the papers to be covering. But cover it they have, and not just the red-tops:
I don't care what Wayne Rooney does with his dick, just as I don't care what William Hague does or doesn't do or did or didn't do with his. Maybe that puts me in the minority, but so be it. It's always a different justification... it's about the taxpayers' money, it's about the endorsements, it's about the hypocrisy... no. No it isn't. It's about digging up sleaze, that benefits no-one, but titillates a few. That is all it has ever been about.
Is zany the new bonkers?
The passing of time changes a few things. Whereas once we had the tasteful, sensitive and appropriate
BONKERS BRUNO LOCKED UP to describe boxer Frank Bruno's battle with being bipolar, now we've moved on, and people with mental health issues are no longer BONKERS but ZANY:
on today's front page of the same newspaper. (Shirlena's already been described as bonkers and nutty, though, so I guess 'zany' was the only place to go.)
Now, I don't know what the full story is - hey, maybe it's a truly sensitive look at a person with mental health issues and a touching exploration of why on earth someone might be considering hiding that; who knows. As is increasingly going to be the case, as the Sun disappears behind its paywall, I'm not able to access the story that relates to the front page just now. I will update later when I've got a better picture of what they're actually saying.
*update* The story is up now and isn't quite the tremendously sensitive handling you may have been hoping for:
Last night she was facing the axe from the series after a Sun investigation revealed she had been diagnosed with serious mental issues - but had not informed show bosses.
Psychiatrists have declared she has a series of problems which may affect her ability to care for Mariah. And experts fear she may worsen if propelled to fame by The X Factor.
So the best thing to do, then, with a mother in a situation like that, is put her on the front page of a national newspaper. If she's propelled to fame it might make her worse - so let's avoid making her famous by splashing her picture, her name and the name of her kid right over the front page. See...? It all makes sense.
But - and here's where things get pretty sinister - this is either the Sun speaking to someone with knowledge of the contestant's medical history (which would of course be entirely unethical and would land them in hot water) or someone who just thinks they know what's going on. It's either unethical, or it's just a guess.
A medical source said: "Shirlena is as fragile as Susan Boyle was - but the difference is that Susan didn't have a child to worry about.
"We believe this woman is not a suitable candidate for a reality show that can cause immense stress and instant fame.
"Hopefully the makers will agree that the best thing for Shirlena and her child is to gently drop them from filming and let us help her be the best mother she can."
The source added: "Sadly Shirlena is not in the best of health. She has been described by expert professionals as a 'ticking timebomb'.
Well, how do we know? Does this person know the contestant, have they assessed the contestant, or are they just an armchair expert deciding that she is manifesting mental health problems through her behaviour? What kind of 'source' are they - one we should believe or not? We don't know because their identity is hidden - either to protect them or to create an impression that they know more than they actually do.
But surely if you really had genuine concerns about this contestant, and you thought that fame could make their situation worse, and you knew the background, you would quietly approach the programme-makers and get them to drop that person at the next stage with a minimum of fuss - as often happens in elimination shows - to avoid the publicity you fear could harm them and their child. You wouldn't decide to go through the Sun first, would you?
And if the Sun really did care about this woman's wellbeing, maybe this sort of comment wouldn't get waved through:
However, over the past few days the X Factor publicity machine has been grinding away with the same old ruthless efficiency - and Shirlena has been part of that, given that her performance was one of those apparently autotuned. I don't have a problem with that, by the way - it's a television programme, heavily edited and with some sections quite obviously set up for the maximum dramatic impact, if not completely staged; the judges have, let's face it, all had a bit of work done (which is fine); the audition contestants are divided between those who are quite good at singing, and those who are so dreadfully bad (and either know it, and are playing along, or who are deluded and think they're great); and the dead dads and trampled kittens get wheeled out to create the same old sob stories. All of that is perfectly OK, and it's how television goes about its business; I don't think it breaks anyone's heart to think that Simon Cowell's superslick production is not quite the gritty realism they were expecting - not really.
But there's always been a bit of an element about the X Factor of the freak show. Look at these deluded morons! They think they're great singers, but they're rubbish! Let's all point and laugh at Saturday teatime with the whole family! Look at them, with their stupid dreams about being celebrities, even though they're fat and poor and wear unfashionable clothes and can't hold a tune in a bucket, yet have been allowed through six auditions and stuck in front of the cameras! Isn't it hilarious?
The irony comes if someone is indeed going to be booted out for being genuinely mentally ill, and quite understandably has decided to hide this fact from 11 million viewers; whereas you get the sense that some wannabes are perfectly happy to ape a truly deluded individual in order to get a few seconds on telly. If a contestant has got mental health issues and hidden them, so what? A lot of us do, and a lot of us are more than happy to hide it from work colleagues and friends alike. That's how these things are, really. We don't have to decide whether to share them with the nation, and for that, we're pretty lucky.
But then again, you wonder if this isn't some other cogs in the big Cowell machine going around; is this a bit of spin to deflect attention from the accusations of fakery, to try and engender sympathy for one of the contestants who was accused of having their performance polished in post production? There's no way of knowing. All I would say that is if someone is grappling or dealing with mental health stuff, it may not be helpful for them to do so in front of the entire nation - unless they're more than happy to do so and it's entirely with their consent. As one 'zany' person to another, there are far more important things than being on telly.
Croc of shit
Eeek! Panic! Aaargh! A killer crocodile is coming to kill your kids!
BEACHES along the English Channel were closed yesterday after a killer crocodile was spotted lurking in the sea.
The alarm was raised after two men said they had seen a 12ft monster near the northern French port of Boulogne, less than 30 miles from Britain's south coast.
And look, there's a grainy photo of a crocodile in the sea, to make you think that some hapless holidaymaker has spotted it devouring a couple of kids in a dinghy or something - except the photo isn't of this crocodile at all, just an example of a crocodile. You'll also note that the line about 'beaches along the English channel' might make you think that this was happening in England - instead of France (unless our croc is a bloody good swimmer).
Really? A salt water crocodile? Well, it was on the front page of the Sun, and it's still there on their website, so you can be pretty sure that this isn't going to turn out to be some kind of floating bit of wood or something.
But on Saturday morning it was reported that the French Coastguard had confirmed the crocodile sightings had in fact been sparked by a floating piece of wood.
Oh. I guess the Sun are just making completely sure there isn't a killer crocodile on the loose out there before they update their website.
I mean it's not as if they've gone overboard before about these things, for example a killer great white shark off the coast of Cornwall, which turned out to be actually a photo of a great white in South Africa, is it?
Did it kill them?
News today about the tragic deaths of two teenagers:
Toxicology tests have shown that two teenagers whose deaths were linked to mephedrone had not taken the drug.
The deaths of Louis Wainwright, 18, and Nicholas Smith, 19, in March 2010 sparked concern about the synthetic stimulant, which was then legal.
The Labour government banned the so-called "legal high" in April, making it a Class B drug alongside amphetamines and cannabis.
At the time, you could have been forgiven for thinking there was no doubt about what killed the pair:
Not a sniff of doubt about it back then: MEOW MEOW KILLS. The Sun couldn't resist a bit of kneejerkery and roared BAN DRUG NOW. Luckily for all drug-fearing parents everywhere, the then-Labour administration knew its masters at the Sun were right, and hastily ensured a ban did take place.
Which isn't to say that mephedrone is entirely safe, or should be put in a bag with a lolly like a Sherbet Dip-Dab, or anything; it's just that, as I thought at the time, sometimes it's best to wait and see before blundering in to making conclusions and driving up a moral panic - particularly if you're a massive newspaper with millions of readers, some of whom will actually believe what you say, and you're not entirely sure, and not all the facts are known.
The deaths are still as tragic as they were, whatever the cause. And before the inquest is concluded, we still don't know the exact circumstances. But I wonder if the Sun or Monday's Metro will give equal prominence to the real cause of death, if it's established not to be something that chimes in with a moral panic agenda.
I don't wonder actually.
2 days left: Too subtle up till now
As David Cameron dashes around our septic isle in one last push for votes, he'll be delighted if one of his skivvies brings in a few newspapers for him to read. Up until now, the papers have all been pushing him and his agenda, but they've been just that little bit too subtle. Headlines such as "DAVID CAMERWON" or "CAM THE MAN" or "YES WE CAM" or "DAVID CAMERON IS ACTUALLY THE BLOODY MESSIAH"* might have led readers to think that their paper of choice might have backed the Conservative Party, but apparently that wasn't enough. So today's leave us in no doubt at all.
The Telegraph are, with others, going for the 'bandwagon effect' - the idea that if you present someone as a winner, or the winner-in-waiting, people will want to pile on to associate themselves with success and victory, to pick fleas out of the silverback's fur. Their endorsement is inside, but we've seen this kind of thing throughout the election - presenting the Tory win as a likelihood if not an inevitability, but constantly pushing the idea of a victory. You can see that pretty clearly in this kind of thing:
where the 'Tory win' is taken for granted, and Cameron is presented as the fit, athletic, dynamic personality that he's desperately trying to portray himself as as I write this with his 36-hour publicity stunt so he can avoid tough questions from Radio 5 listeners and Channel 4 News brilliant campaigning marathon that shows what a good egg he really is. Is it coincidence that the Tory presentation dovetails so nicely with the Telegraph's? I don't really think so.
But then that's the most subtle example today. The others have thrown it right out of the window.
I'm pretty sure the Express has used almost exactly this front page before. Let me have a look... ah yes.
So now it's just a question of reinforcement. The Express has told you again, and again, and again, and now it wants you to know that it's telling you the same thing again. While the Telegraph just gives you a wink and a nudge, and points you in what it thinks is the right direction, the Express doesn't trust you. It needs to shout at you and order you to do the right thing; it needs to tell you that Britain needs to be SAVED and that only THIS MAN WITH THE BIG FACE can do it. And it needs to tell you again and again.
The Mail are even less subtle, mind.
Vote DECISIVELY. As if we go into the polling booth and put half a cross because we're not sure. Again, it's that didactic attitude. Readers are juveniles and need to be told what to do IN CAPITAL LETTERS because otherwise they'll just do something stupid like think for themselves, and that would never do. If you don't do what we tell you, Britannia herself will WALK OFF A CLIFF and we're all DOOMED. It's classic Mail territory, but it takes something to be even less subtle than the Express. At least they assumed that their readers might understand 'save Britain' - the Mail has to draw you a picture because it thinks you're too fucking stupid to get even a blunt instrument in the face like that.
I'll do more on the Sun later, because it's dredged up one of its hoariest old chestnuts today, but for now, here's their celebrity endorsement. Sun supremo Rebekah Brookes's ex-husband Ross Kemp was on telly the other night promoting Labour - another one of the awful celeb attachments we've seen during this campaign, which have added nothing and persuaded me of nothing - so today they've wheeled out their own national treasure: Simon Cowell.
I don't know about you, but Simon Cowell wouldn't convince me to do anything. Here's a man who's been on a one-man mission to destroy popular music and turn it into McDonald's; here's a preening fake-toothed smarmer in an overly tight t-shirt manipulating people on TV every Saturday night for the forseeable future. Do I want the creator of Robson & Jerome telling me how to vote? Maybe I'm wrong though, and maybe he's hugely admired and loved by everyone in Britain - maybe Ross Kemp is equally seen as not "that spamheaded bloke off the telly who goes around pretending he's a soldier" but a dignified and respected figure. Maybe I've got this whole thing wrong.
Anyway, it's not just the right-wing papers who've abandoned all subtlety in these final hours, as you can see from the Indy
and the Mirror
It's getting less and less subtle.
There's a myth going around at the moment that goes like this: "We were all told this campaign would be won on the internet, but actually it's the mainstream media who are shining." Which is drivel. No-one seriously said this campaign would be won on the web, and if they did, they were insane; this is the first campaign where social media and the web have played a significant minor role, but no-one ever thought it would be the web wot won it. And besides, while the leaders' debates have been a touchstone for the campaign, they've only served to make the dead-tree papers even more obsolete, reduced to a level of telling you that what you saw wasn't what you saw and looking more ridiculous than ever.
No, this isn't the election where the MSM bravely fought off the internet and proved they'd be around forever. It's considerably more complicated than that, and probably for another time to analyse. But what you can say is that for the next day or two, our dead-tree inky friends are more shrill, more obvious and more blunt than they ever have been. They're telling us what to think and how to vote. It's come to that point - and we should bear it in mind in a few weeks' time, when all this is over, and they go back to pretending they don't have agendas, and they're just there to report the facts, and they're asking for our trust. Let's not forget days like this.
* Not all of these are exactly true.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Workbrain
- So Solid Wiki fun
- Quentin Letts killed by a woodchipper
- I just sent Robin round
- Kim Jong Ill
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Maxine on Workbrain
- Sirenofbrixton on Workbrain
- Katie on Workbrain
- bernard on Workbrain
- Darren on Workbrain
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.