Apparently this woman, this Hilary Mantel, gave a speech where she called Kate Middleton - the Princess of England herself - a horrible bitch, and drew insulting pictures of her, and said that we should all go round her house and puke on her pregnant face. Or something. Apparently she hates lovely Kate, and wants to make her cry, and she doesn't care how she does it.
That's the impression I gleaned from about five seconds of hearing vague reports like this, from the Daily Mail (or as I like to call it, The Daily Fucking Mail). But don't click on the thing. It'll just give the Daily Mail more web hits and boost its ad revenue, and I'd much rather they all died of hunger.
Just trust me when I say that it's a load of self satisfied horseshit from the worst newspaper in the world. In fact, Mail journalists would probably not want you to read it anyway. They prefer people to form opinions based on bits of stuff they heard, without really checking to see if any of it is true in the slightest. So believe me when I say that their claim - Mantel hates Kate Middleton and called her all manner of unflattering names - is complete lies and is written by someone who is either a) incredibly stupid, b) deliberately lying or c) a stupid, lying horses cock.
But here, read this instead. It's from a paper which I agree with, so I find it much more impartial.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2013/feb/19/hilary-mantel-duchess-of-cambridge-controversy
This sums up the issues rather well, pointing out that Mantel said no such thing, and that only an idiot would claim so. Mantel's original speech itself is here if you are interested. It's quite clever, and is clearly actually attacking the way the press treats Kate. It's so obvious that it makes you wonder just how blinded by your own prejudices you need to be to give credence to any other interpretation.
I spent a bit of time this afternoon researching this, all the time unsure as to why it vexes me so much. I've never read anything by Mantel (she doesn't write books about Doctor Who), I don't care much about the monarchy and if I got upset every time the Mail made some shit up, I'd have a heart attack.
And then I came upon the clip that reminded me of how I heard about this story in the first place.
Yes, it's the least competent, worst informed prick in Britain, taking time out of his busy day to pontificate upon a situation he clearly knows nothing about. And seeing this, I realised why I am so vexed.
Every day I have a new reason to loathe this millionaire prick and the terrible, selfish things he is doing to my country. And now the tosser is weighing in on this non-issue, showing all the understanding of a duck watching an episode of Thundercats. Oh, you have an opinion on this do you David? And we should care about that opinion should we? Why? Because you certainly haven't looked into this in the slightest. You're just saying the first fucking thing that came into your befuddled, desperate little mind. And the first thing is: "This is about Princesses, and middle Englanders like Princesses, so I must be nice about the Princesses."
Princesses are brilliant, aren't they Dave? Everyone likes them. You especially like this one. She had the good grace to get married right in the middle of you screwing our economy into the ground, distracting us all with her lovely hair and fairy tale facebones. How dare this other woman - who never distracted us from any of your shit and probably has crap hair - criticise that perfect face? How dare she say something subtle that requires thought to understand? People should just speak in pointless little soundbites designed to provoke the basest emotions, shouldn't they Dave?
Seriously.. If you can't be trusted to research something as simple and basic as this before offering your opinion, why the hell are you in charge of anything? It took me ten minutes to search out what had actually been said, and what it meant. Do you not have ten minutes? Maybe not, maybe your duties get in the way. In which case, don't say anything. Keep your weird shaped gob shut, unless you know what you are talking about.
Give an example to the people you are leading that it is not OK to spout off on things you haven't thought about. Say that you've heard about this, but don't know all the various angles, and wouldn't want to criticise someone based on fragments of excitable hearsay. That would be good leadership, wouldn't it? To show that it is better to think about things rather than leaping to ill informed conclusions. But no. You'd rather be the leader of a giant playground where we must all prove how cool we are by siding with the bullies, and where the winner of a debate is the one who shouts loudest.
It's time for you to fuck off, Dave. You've had nearly three years at this, and you're rubbish at it. The economy is worse. The country is horrible with you in charge. The things you say are embarrassing to hear - like bad satire, spoken without any degree of self awareness. Your policies are patently designed to benefit the well off, whom you court with pathetic transparency, and punish the needy - people for whom you have an obvious contempt.
I did not vote for you. The vast majority of people didn't vote for you. Things like that clip above show you for what you are. A useless, clueless prick. Fuck off, David Cameron. Just fuck the fuck off. You stupid, stupid man.
As much as I dislike the Mail, I can't join with you in condemning all Mail journalists as ignorant and churlish. Suzanne Moore, for instance, who writes for both The Mail and The Guardian, is generally worth reading, and I've been known to read her articles in online versions of both papers.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I'd agree that the Daily Mail can be bigoted, repugnant and actively villainous, I'd venture that condemning its whole content as being one terrible thing is no less an act of caricature as that for which you criticise the paper.
Fair enough. I will let some of them live when the revolution comes. However, I disagree that my work of caricature is as bad as theirs.
ReplyDeleteI condemn the general ethos of the publication and, in a clearly playful manner, attack their journalists with evidently ludicrous hyperbole. They would never say they hoped a group of people starved. Some of them would, however, convey much worse messages through language that strove to seem more balanced. That, at the very least, is the difference.
Agree to the power of the universe. And then a bit more.
ReplyDeleteI love you. Not because of what you say as I don't agree with all your points, but because you can make a point and play guitar and like Dr Who and care!
ReplyDelete