Very Top Five... Newspaper Comments (Day 5 of 5) Telegraph

The Telegraph, sometimes called the Torygraph by stock wags, published an opinion piece yesterday on the ongoing story about British Airway’s blocked attempt to have a big strike over Christmas.

Telegraph editor Jeff Randall wrote the article, and lost no time in jumping up and down on the “feather-bedded workers” and giving them a jolly good verbal booting. He then moved on to blame the Labour government. The readership concurred with this assessment. As one reader commented; Jeff Randall “tells it how his Tory fish in a barrel readers like it to be told.”


Now, that metaphor is rather poorly conceived and the semantics of the sentence are somewhat clunky and don’t read well at all, but give the man a banana for trying.

Anyway, here’s the article and here's what the Tory fish in a barrel readers had to say:

1. John Barkham
on December 17, 2009 at 10:47 PM

“Good article but the title is wrong. The country is being driven apart by a fifth column of Scottish socialists. Only by dividing the English against themselves can they stay in power. Their allegiance is only to their own socialist ideolog. The heroism of the armed forces is seen by them as a threat. Stalin used frequent purges to remove the more able officers. Brown is sending them into battle without adequate support. Unlike his legions of State dependendents of course, they generally don't vote Labour.”

Damn those Scottish socialists! I recall that yesterday a commenter brought up the same point, so it must be true! The evil Scots (with an allegiance “to their own socialist ideolog”) are out to get us by dividing the English, sending the best army officers to their deaths, and bolstering his legions of State (with a capital S) dependendents. Just like Stalin. Tsk tsk.

Also, “dependents” is a word that is easy to start spelling and hard to stop, obviously. Like bananana. Unfortunately, not only that but the word he meant was “dependants” (British English). What a fish.

4. ALAN BUTLER
on December 18, 2009 at 08:36 AM

“Well said Jeff. Except the community charge(poll tax) riots were orchestrated by leftwing activists who are now in charge. As we all know these same marxists have destroyed the country while the opposition has become bluelabour no wonder the country feels abandoned and fractured.Meanwhile, we are upto our armpits in snow while marxist Brown bleats on about global warming and wishes to print another few billions to give to his pal marxist Mugabe and others in Africa, what an absolute charlatan.”

Blah blah leftwing activists and Marxists blah abandoned country blah Brown blah Mugabe yawn snore. I’m bored with your boring boretalk, you boring moron.

3. rankin
on December 18, 2009 at 06:55 AM

“???”

Finally, someone with enough self-realisation to say “Hey, actually, I don’t understand this situation fully. The emotion I feel weighing most heavily on my soul is not anger, or sadness, or frustration at the unions; it is simple confusion, and a desire to know more. I shall express this using three question marks; the first to represent my need to know more, the second because I pressed on the question mark key for too long and the third because I truly wish people to understand the candour behind my supplicated plea for knowledge."

2. Spencer
on December 17, 2009 at 11:52 PM

“Jeff You should concentrate on the machinations of the Unions. Since Labour are doomed, are their cohorts planning one last act of destruction. Like Samson they wish to bring the temple down. Comment.”

This comment makes me want to snap Spencer’s crayon; The matter of fact tone, the short sentences, the use of the word “should” as an instruction, the use of big words like “machinations” and “cohorts” to show how thesaurical Spencer thinks he is, combined with the failure to use a question mark in the correct place and the vague attempt at religious allusion.

Then he says “comment,” in a one word sentence as if he has just rained mana of wisdom and we can but scrabble in the dirt around trying to catch it; knowing we will never be intelligent enough to attain full understanding of the mighty knowledge of Spencer the Great, all we can do is interpret his great work.

Nobody did comment.

You tool.

1. Steve Jacks
on December 18, 2009 at 06:11 AM

“Britain - the only democracy in the world where the ruling elites HATE the population.

Call me an old romantic, but I'd round up every Labour politician, every Blue Labour politician and all the Lib Dems, everyone on a Quango, every liberal-left senior civil servant, everyone at the BBC, all employees from the Guardian and anyone who has ever got a job from the Guardian job pages, all the tits in local government, then add in every unelected appointee in the House of Lords and the Mad Mullah of Canterbury - round them all up, and then shoot the lot of them.

If they're told it's a necessity to cut down on the nations carbon footprint a few of those annoying chumps might even load the gun.”

Call you an "old romantic"? Romantic in what sense? The Tsarist sense?

I particularly liked the inclusion of people who’ve got a job through the Guardian’s job pages. He could have just said “Everyone who reads the Guardian” and seemed nearly as ridiculously insane but he chose to be more specific. That takes chutzpah.

And everyone at the BBC? Do you work on a children’s programme, knitting adorable puppets? You god damn Marxist, get in the death van.

Also, when you say “all the tits in local government” do you mean “everyone in local government, as they are all tits” or “all those in local government who are tits”? If the latter, who chooses who’s a tit? Oh, you, I suppose.

(The third interpretative option is a literal one, but that’s probably not what he meant.)

Very Top Five... Newspaper Comments (Day 4 of 5) Independent

The Independent was started in 1986, and so is one of the youngest British newspapers (most British papers started as cave paintings thousands of years ago to back up the cave-people’s vague prejudices with a take on the news that panders to the opinions they already held. “Ug kills Og with rock; whatever happened to morals among the young cave-people?” type of thing.)

The Independent is supposedly independent (they picked the name so they wouldn’t forget). That was the plan, anyway, but I think it’s drooped a bit to the left these days, like an ageing set of male genitals.

Today they published an article about the insidious majiks weaved by the home secretary to further his fiendish scheme of giving park keepers and security guards the power to hand out you fines for stomping on the flowerbeds, or something. This is equivalent to a private army, clearly: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/johnson-building-an-army-of-private-police-1841974.html

And this set off a stream of well-thought out and considered comments in the same way that eating a dodgy curry sets off a stream of well-churned up etc.

Here we are:

5. Keep coersion nationalised.
Wednesday, 16 December 2009 at 10:05 am by had it
“Police are meant to be a coercive arm of the state - using the threat of force and other menaces to extort taxes & licence fees, and actual force to make citizens to behave in certain ways. Private police forces can be used to do the same thing: the mafia is a good example.”

So… is he agreeing that private police forces may as well be used because they do the same job anyway? Maybe the home secretary should consider getting the mafia in to help. Or give the park keepers tasers so they can ask you not to walk on the grass - with extreme prejudice.

4. Private Police should be banned.
Wednesday, 16 December 2009 at 10:59 am by mh656
“This is absolute nonsense. They are wasting all this money messing about with training non-police people to do the job of the police. Instead of wasting the finances to do this, why not add those finances to what they are supposed to give to the police, so that the police can do their jobs properly.

As to a police state, this only happens when a people's freedoms and rights are reduced, while police powers are increased, thats when you get a police state. This Scottish led New labour has done more to instigate a police state than any other. Whatever we do, New Labour must not come to power again, otherwise Britain in general, and England in particular will be lost.”

The first paragraph was a good one. If only mh656 had stopped there, and switched off his computer, and hidden his keyboard, and… oh crap he continued typing…

Conspiracy! Scotland is trying to destroy Britain and in particular England with its malign plans to instigate a police state. Once they have control, the Scottish prime minister will come round to your house and piss in your English tea and punch a hole in your bowler hat. Then he’ll make you wear it while yelling “Whit are ye daein, ya tool, wearin a hat wi’ a hale in it? Now drink yer tea.” and getting his tartan army of park keepers to taser you in the face.

3. Wrong wrong wrong
Wednesday, 16 December 2009 at 12:14 pm by geo32
“There are far to many little hitlers and jobsworths in the community as it is. Who are next in line for Johnsons militia? Dustbin men? Roadsweepers? School crossing wardens? Or the tea lady in council offices? Will they be armed with batons and tazers or even guns!!

If he were to cut out all the extra paperwork and red tape of policemen he would be able to place millions of "on the street" man hours with real bobbies on the beat.Cut the crap Alan and take a genuine look at the problem of policing in this country”

Ah, the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument; because park keepers who can take down your name and address if you damage a flowerbed means soon we will have tea ladies with fucking Uzis forcing you to make the tea for her for a change. You bastard. With a chocolate biscuit. HURRY UP OR I’LL SHOOT YOU IN THE FACE! A harrowing vision. And there are two exclamation marks, which demonstrates geo32’s sincerity.

Also, is it just me, or does putting inverted commas around “on the street” make it sound unintentionally euphemistic? What are those "bobbies" doing “on the street,” eh? Wink.

And an extra prize for being the first to mention Hitler.

2. People will rise.
Wednesday, 16 December 2009 at 09:22 am by fewknow
“It can only end in tears.Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

Is this a quotation? I checked; it is; JFK. Revolution is clearly the answer here. I can see no problems with this quotation’s relevance.

Remember, “do not ask what your country can do for you. Don’t ask anything at all, or you’ll get tasered in the face by a binman.” - JFK

1. Re: More stasi UK to get ready for the EUSSR
Wednesday, 16 December 2009 at 05:02 am by prevessinman
"This is far more sophisticated than the STASI: labour haveé given us the best of both worlds - a snooping society policed by bodies that pay dividends to their shareholders.”

You will have noticed that this is labelled “Re:” as someone else had already brought up the inevitable comparisons with the Ministry for State Security. Prevessinamn agrees, but does on to suggest that shareholders will benefit in some manner. I’m not sure what this manner is, but it sure sounds ominous.

Very Top Five... Newspaper Comments (Day 3 of 5): Guardian

The Guardian newspaper is read by the sort of person who knows what a chiffon is, and who has ever eaten something at a restaurant that has the word ‘tartlet’ in its description, and so they consider themselves quite cultured and important

Yesterday this paper ran an article reporting that a vote is being taken by banks on whether to phase out cheques, and the middle classes responded in a tidal wave of indignance (it’s something the middle classes do so well.) http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/dec/15/cheques-bounced-out-history

Most of these were along the lines of “It just won’t do at all, you know, how am I supposed to pay for my chiffons and tartlets?” but others went one step further:

5. 16 Dec 2009, 9:35AM by Napeg
“Speaking on behalf of the 6+ million senior citizens who may not be able to access electronic means of communication, the least one can hope for is that the final date for stopping written cheques will wait until these people have all "passed on " . It is very easy to become self centred in these matters.”

We are privileged; Napeg represents over six million senior citizens, by his own admission, and he has deigned to grace the Guardian comments’ board with his presence despite the fact that speaking on behalf of all those people must surely be a very busy job.

Then he adds his hope that all those he represents will have died by the time cheques go out of use. He does use a euphemism here, in some cheeky little quotation marks to show us that he is indeed using "a euphemistic expression." Thanks for flagging that up, otherwise I would have been confused.

Then the mysterious phrase: “It is very easy to become self centred in these matters.”

Is Napeg referring to the banks for not considering anything other than financial issues, or is he referring to himself for self-centredly assuming command of the Voice of The Elderly? We may never know.

4. 15 Dec 2009, 5:55PM by Bauhaus
“Pay cash everytime, dont let the buggers profile you by your spending.”

Nice ambiguity in the use of “buggers” here, Bauhaus. And a smidge of the paranoid is always to be expected in internet comment boards.

3. 15 Dec 2009, 6:10PM by decisivemoment
“I'm curious as to how people are going to pay rent. Or get gifts from their relatives, especially those that aren't online.”

How can people get gifts from their relatives? Well, maybe they can put a bit of thought into the gift and give actual things instead of money, those lazy grannies. You might say that perhaps granny doesn’t know what you’d like, so that’s why she gives you money. Then why don’t you visit granny more often, Mr decisivemoment, so she knows more about you?

Getting rid of cheques is a great step forward for learning how to empathise with people, clearly.

2. 16 Dec 2009, 8:45AM by grumpynurse
“c'mon you lot cheques are rubbish. anyone who has a bank account - i.e. anyone who can pay a cheque into an account from which they may then obtain the funds - can also accept payment electronically. it's also a pain in the arse trying to find my chequebook on the two occasions a year i need it because someone can't be bothered to look up their account details. good riddance.”

So, the crux of grumpynurse’s argument is that “cheques are rubbish because I can’t remember where my chequebook is” and, also, that no-one would use them if it they weren’t so lazy.

Clearly we should get rid of them and stop being so lazy.

1. 15 Dec 2009, 5:56PM by Erdington
“If the banks want it then I am against it.

If you do not have a computer connected to the internet, how will you make payments for say your electricity bill? Oh yes it will automatically be deducted from your bank account, but if the bill is incorrect, just imagine the gargantuan task of refuting it. When you phone to complain you will have to endure a ring a roses with a computer generated voice. Press one to go back to the beginning. If you are lucky you will be able to talk to a "live" representative in India after you have been kept on hold for thirty minutes.”

Ah, starting off with the good old “if THEY want it then it must be a terrible idea regardless of the details” argument.

Erdington then lays out a reasonable argument, suggesting that cheques save a great deal of potential hassle with your bank. But then rather ruins it by using inverted commas in the phrase; “talk to a “live” representative in India,” suggesting that he believes that these people are only alive in the most basic, cursory way. Is this racist? I can’t tell, as the concept of attributing different levels of vitality to different groups of people is a new one by me. (I think it probably is racist though.)

Very Top Five… Newspaper Comments (Day 1 of 5): Daily Mail

Daily Mail:

So, apparently London’s Kensington and Chelsea council put a council house tenant and her family into a £2.6 million mansion in Notting Hill. Oops. It seems they couldn't find any other houses in the area, and the alternative was to put them in a hotel. Clearly the council have a lot of 'splainin to do, but this is the Daily Mail’s take on the story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235604/Single-mother-living-2-6m-mansion--Labours-housing-benefit-crackdown.html

This is a story which is very hard for rent-paying working taxpayers to shrug off without feeling a bit annoyed. The Daily Mail editors must have cackled and gibbered with triumphal jubilance when they heard about this; a negative story involving immigrants, the government, housing benefits and Islam. All of their favourite things! Christmas has come 11 days early!

Anyway, let’s take a look at the reasonable and considered comments from the Daily Mail website readers:

(I should also point out that all of these comments had overwhelmingly positive ratings from other readers. In some cases hundreds of 'thumbs up'. This is probably because some Daily Mail readers can't actually write, so they just hack the "I like this" button to violently agree with someone else.)

5. “living in council housing is supposed to be unpleasant - to urge you to get a gd job you lazy woman! So Brits - what are you going to do about this garbage? This is an outrage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- mishel24, Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia, 14/12/2009 1:08”

Nothing says outrage like 23 exclamation marks. Apparently council houses are supposed to be unpleasant. The council are letting themselves down with this mansion, which is clearly not horrible enough. They should bring in some yoofs to loiter outside to make the area more like a sink estate and spray the mansion with excrement using one of their industrial leaf blowers.

Notice also mishel24's use of the second person singular "you" to make it clear that she is directly petitioning the woman in the article. Then she masterfully switches to the 2nd person plural "Brits" and inquires what is to be done? Such crafting of speech; It's almost as if this was written by Churchill himself, if Churchill was a Daily Mail reader.

4. “fed up with this???
The answer starts with B and ends with P.
steve, norwich england,, 14/12/2009 1:01”

Three question marks, good choice: This highlights Steve from Norwich’s genuine wish for deep rumination on the issue.

And what’s this “starts with B and ends with P” mystery??? Could it be the oil giant, British Petroleum??? Or is it more likely to be a not-so-cryptic reference to the British National Party???

3. “Another state sponsored NuLab baby machine, encouraged to breed out the non-Labour voting population, not unlike the plans of Edward Longshanks in Braveheart.

S.E., Haywards Heath, 14/12/2009 0:03”

Yup, the government is making babies in their baby machine. That's clearly the case.

Very similar to the plot of a film based on true events, so it must be true.

2. " "Where would people rather my family was - out on the street?"
YES
- rob, derbyshire,uk, 14/12/2009 0:27"

Right, cool, so that's fine, then. Off they go, onto the streets. That's a tidy solution to the problems of finding local council housing for families. Off onto the streets, where they will disappear forever and cause no more trouble for anyone.

Just to make sure we all know where you stand, put the whole word in caps. YES, just like that.

1. "Stay at home, make up a spurious condition, something unprovable like depression, and milk the system dry. If everyone does it the lunatics (that's not a euphemism) who run Britain will be forced to do something about this rampant, obscene, runaway Welfare State.
Bring back the workhouse and make people earn and value their handouts.
- John Ward, MCR, UK, 13/12/2009 23:51

I see. Depression is a made-up, spurious condition designed to allow people to drain the bulging udders of society. It's all so clear now, Mr Ward. Well done for pointing that out.

Further congratulations, Mr Ward, for pointing out that "lunatics run Britain" is not a euphemism. It's a dysphemism, as I'm sure you are well aware.

It was hard-going, John, hearing your criticisms of a "Rampant, obscene, runaway Welfare State," but I just can't think of any viable alternatives. Can you, John?

"Bring back the workhouse and make people earn and value their handouts."

Inspired. The workhouse. I simply can't think of any criticisms. Abolishing workhouses was surely the most foolish move of the current government. After all, you don't need expensive education for children you've worked to death. Win win...