Best Of

Evening all,

Found it interesting that the 'Chinese fail to apologise for offensive tweet' headline was front and centre on the BBC News this afternoon. I don't remember the original Australian incident the tweet referred to being given such high profile coverage.

At any rate, expecting to shame the Chinese Communist Party into apologising for an offensive tweet seems naïve in the extreme!

The revelations about the Australian special forces got front page coverage - and will get more in due course.
The tweet caused such offence because if the faked up image attached to it. Would be tame stuff in (say) Trumpworld, but not expected of anyone else’s foreign minister.

I think there’s an element of displacement activity on both sides, perhaps.

Yeah, I do agree actually. The fact that a totalitarian regime is up to this type of thing doesn't surprise me me, but the Western world shouldn't be letting it go uncommented on.

The BBC headline which seemed to be framing it in the same way as if it was a celeb tweeting something vaguely sexist/racist seemed slightly absurd though. They went to the trouble of faking an image, of course they're not going to apologise!

Worked out ok for Piers Moron....

But the rush to turn Ms Patel into the sole – or most important – victim (or earlier to defend Cummings) – much like some on the Left are doing with Mr Corbyn – follows a similar pattern: it starts with the assumption that “they” want to tear this person down, sets out all the various factors “they” don’t like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition – whatever comes to hand. Consistency is unnecessary. So is coherence with previously expressed views or even the party’s stated policies). It then proceeds via cock-eyed rationalisations to a “My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong” position. The misconduct in question is largely ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail. (Were this a Xmas panto, Dame Whataboutery would by now be playing a starring role throwing sweets at the audience as distraction.)

Of course the inverse is also true. And truth is a always relevant.

The simple fact (not assumption) is that "they" do want to tear this person down, people will seize any sniff of a pretext to try to tear down their political opponents.

"They" don't like (race / sex / class / policies / ambition) - that is why they're political opponents.

The inverse of "My Man or Woman, Right or Wrong" is to always think that your opponent is inevitably wrong and not give them the benefit of any doubt.

The misconduct in question is ignored or waved away as an unimportant detail by those seeking a scalp too. The alleged wrongdoing by Patel was trivial nonsense that in the real world would get no more than a first step verbal or written warning, or attending an "awareness" course, it would never be classed a gross misconduct dismissal.

You haven't spent much time in the real world, have you Phil? In the real world, Ms Patel would have made herself unemployable as a result of the actions that caused her to be sacked by Theresa May. In the real world, good, competent managers don't need to verbally abuse and threaten their staff in order to get results. In the real world, those that do as a matter of routine are very quickly replaced.

An excellent article by Ms Cyclefree, but I'd like to pick up one point. When critics lay into politicians, it is often very much the case that '“they” want to tear this person down', rather than there being fair-minded criticism. We've seen innumerable examples over the years, such as the Daily Telegraph laying into Alan Beith on his expenses on completely spurious grounds, or very recently the attacks on Rishi Sunak's register of interests, a textbook example of a politically-motivated smear attempt, and clearly a pre-emptive strike aimed purely at damaging his reputation since he's considered a possible future party leader.

So we shouldn't fall into the trap (which I fear the generally excellent Cyclefree occasionally does) of assuming that the lies and dishonest spin is invariably on the side of the attacked, just because they are politicians and therefore by definition rascals. Instead, we need to keep as objective and fair-minded assessment of the motives and consistency of the attackers. Not easy to do, admittedly - but it's much easier if you consciously set out to try to do it, and remind yourself of the need to do it every time.

Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?

Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.

There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).

It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.

If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.