...a blog by Richard Flowers

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Day 2525: Miranda Grell and Rik Willis: an apology… would be nice


We can all be a bit PARTISAN sometimes when it comes to defending one of our own. But sometimes, it seems, that the Conservatories (blue OR red) go quite a bit BEYOND reasonable doubt and into the land of wilful ignorance when it comes to sticking up for their, shall we say, "less than pure" associates.

Let's take a couple of recent cases, where Councillors have been caught bang to rights saying the sort of things they really shouldn't oughta: for the Labour, twice-convicted liar Ms Miranda Grell; and for the (other) Conservatories, white-supremacist supporter Mr Rik Willis.

Mr Rik has previously demonstrated that cannot resist mouthing off, usually about funerals. His past form includes praise for Mr August Pinochet, the dead dictator of Chile; and expressing gladness at the departure of Mr Tedward Heath, one time Conservatory Prime Monster. Tasteful.

This time, he crawled out of the woodwork in order to post on (now a Wholly Owned subsidiary of ConservatoryHome) singing the praises of the late and otherwise unlamented Mr Ian Smith, white minority ruler of the country then known as Rhodesia.

In Mr Balloon's SHINY and NEW Conservatory Party, this is supposed to be a THING OF THE PAST. Most Conservatories should and would be HORRIFIED and REVOLTED by these sort of statements. Or so you would HOPE.

So it is almost MORE depressing to see instead the postings of massed Conservatories rushing to his defence.

Rather than accepting that Mr Willis ought to take responsibility for shooting his own mouth off, the Conservatories want to try to shift the blame onto Liberal Democrat posters – calling for them to be BANNED from the site! – just for spotting this and saying that it was WRONG!

Apparently LAUDING dead racists is merely a private opinion but, goodness, COMPLAINING that supporting racists is a BIT OFF well, that's just BEYOND THE PALE!

Nor do SEMANTIC arguments that Apartheid was only the name of that policy when it was carried out in South Africa really help the case for the defence. If you have to play with WORDS to get him off, you really in you heart have to realise that he was GUILTY.

Their last response is to claim that it doesn't count because anyway Mr Willis specifically condemned Apartheid as "indefensible".

This of course is NOT true – Mr Willis did not SPECIFICALLY condemn Apartheid; in fact that condemnation had to be practically wrung out of him!

Councillor Rik's first posts was at 9.53 pm (post #126) and although he pops back with such BON MOTs as "Smith was a benign and successful leader" (post #148) and "…another 10-20 years of "colonial rule" could have enabled those territories to have properly prepared for independence…" (post #196), it is not until 12.57am (post #270), a mere THREE HOURS LATER, that he finally admits that Apartheid WAS "indefensible". Though he then tries to defend it with the remarks:

"However it needs to be seen in the context of a successful first world economy faced with a growing third world majority on its doorstep"

"…even under apartheid over 3 million black people moved TO South Africa from neighbouring black ruled states because they wanted to benefit from the opportunity and jobs it provided to them"
It HARDLY seems that a RINGING condemnation of the Rhodesian whites-only government policy was at the FOREFRONT of Mr Willis's mind, does it?

The point is that the Smith regime in not-yet-Zimbabwe was BAD, REGARDLESS of just how appallingly awful the Mugabe regime has turned out to be.

The GOOD NEWS though is that, even in the Conservatory Party, Mr Willis is a DINOSAUR. (Huge MOUTH; tiny BRAIN!) Most Conservatories these days would at least STOP and THINK before saying this sort of thing. There might be too many who still BELIEVE it but at least these days it gives them pause, and fewer of them have the ARROGANCE of a Mr Willis, believing that they have the god-given right to their opinions and no one else is allowed to be appalled.

He has his supporters, who want free speech for him but specifically try to shut his critics up. But with their no platform for anti-racists platform they're just… KOOKY.

SADLY, it almost seems that the OPPOSITE is true in the Labour, where it is the THRUSTING young ZEALOTS who believe that they can say and do anything so long as it is "for the cause".

This is where we come to Ms Grell, who spread horrid lies about her opponent so much that he had to flee from his home. She has resigned from the Labour and quit her job working for the Mayor's deputy (who only suspended her when she was found guilty the first time).

But she still seems UNAPOLOGETIC about being found guilty. Twice. And never mind the HARM that she done.

Ms Grell was TIPPED as a RISING STAR and received strong backing from the Labour, not just her local party but MPs like Mr Harry Cohen and TV's Diane Abbott. Not to mention the ONLINE supporters, some of who seem more REGRETFUL that people are linking to the least presentable of their posts on the issue than that a person's life has been ruined.

Apparently, it is a SMEAR to call someone an APOLOGIST – perhaps because the Labour never APOLOGISE! I have LOOKED UP the word apologist and it means "one who makes a defence in speech or writing…"

I am PUZZLED as to what you would call THIS
"Ms Grell seems to have EITHER been convicted on the basis of demonstrably partisan hearsay of various very serious smears rehearsed in the piece. OR she has been convicted of saying her opponent was gay and getting his lover's age wrong."
…if it's not some kind of DEFENCE.

But I have probably linked to the wrong post. How REGRETTABLE.

Of course the Labour Party first promised to fund Ms Grell's appeal before abruptly reneging on the deal on the eve of her return appearance in court. In many ways this is even WORSE than just backing her to the hilt, as they left the demented woman in the LURCH having effectively EGGED her ON. Who's to say that she might not have come to her senses if the Party hadn't made her a rash and ultimately unfulfilled cash offer.

In Birmingham – if the allegations are true – the Labour has been behaving EVEN WORSE and the Director of Public Prosecutions is to investigate claims that another case (also hinging on whether or not the Labour won by SMEARING their opponents) was DERAILED by WITNESS INTIMIDATION.

Could it be true? It is all too reminiscent of the tactics the Labour used in the Sedgefield By-election.

Recently, we were listening to the Westminster Hour (Mr Clogg was on) and afterwards they turned to their "panel" of MPs for a review of the week. It was Mr (Un) Ed (ifying) Vaizey for the Conservatories and Ms Wibbly Thornberry for the Labour. The Liberal Democrats (and the Scottish Nasties and the Welsh Nasties and anyone else) were represented by… oh.

"Do you agree with Liberal Democrat acting leader Vince Cable when…"

"No!" jumped in Mr Vaizey.

"Neither do I!" agreed Ms Wibbly.

And then they GIGGLED like a pair of SLITHEEN.

Did they have any excuse for behaving like babies? No. The PROBLEM is that in our RIGGED political system, there is no one in a position to send them to the NAUGHTY STEP.

There are BAD EGGS in all parties – we all know that, we all hope that they get found out and get got rid of.

But the Labour and the Conservatories still believe that they have a RIGHT to RULE: how else to you explain the way they immediately MAKE EXCUSES when one of their own gets caught red handed; how else to you explain Mr Vaizey and Ms Thornberry's giggling – they think that they can do EXACTLY as they please.

OBVIOUSLY the Liberal Democrats exist to prove them WRONG.

No comments: