Aware that public sympathy is not on their side, the coalition and their media need all the red herrings they can get hold of.It's that time of the year again when Britain needs its fix of collective hysteria.
Like two years ago when BLOOD OF A SOCIAL WORKER became the backdrop to our lives, and last summer when the phantom PC BAN ON THE ENGLISH FLAG provoked widespread rage, the baying mob is back - whipped up by the country's tabloids - pitchfork and torches, gnashers grinding and white foam building up at the corner of the mouth.
Like foreigners and single mums, social workers and PC councils, 21-year-old Charlie Gilmour is already learning what it means to be the target of tabloid-inspired scapegoating and witch-hunt in this country.
Within hours of the Sun and the Daily Mail revealing his name and personal information, the bloke who was photographed swinging like a fool from the Union Jack at the Cenotaph became the focus of cyber lynchmobs baying for his blood.
Look at the succession of Facebook groups that sprung up like mushrooms.
Jail Charlie Gilmour, Never employ Charlie Gilmour, Charlie Gilmour is a Cnut! (sic), CHARLIE GILMOUR WANTS SHOOTING, Prosecute and imprison Charlie Gilmour!, I hope Charlie Gilmour dies slowly very soon, Charlie Gilmour - Vilest brat in Britain!, Charlie Gilmour is a disgrace to his country JAIL HIM!, Charlie Gilmour needs to be fucking hung.
And that's without counting the hate-filled comments and calls for "revenge" on the tabloids' websites: displays of pure loathing scary enough to make the Wicker Man look like In The Night Garden.
Overnight this Charlie Gilmour turned into the most hated man in Britain, an "evil man" who should die a slow death, be hung, shot and devoured alive by a pack of rottweilers with advanced rabies.
And why? Because he swung from the Cenotaph. An incredibly idiotic thing to do, if you ask me. An ignorant and disrespectful act. One that, if anything, gave ammunitions to those who already hate demonstrators by default.
But, seriously, have we really lost our minds that we can get so worked up to the point of readily dispensing death wishes so publicly and light-heartedly?
What is it with this country that some people get more exercised by symbols than they do when political and corporate abuse vandalises their lives on a regular basis?
Why is it that people can go nuts - literally - over a rich kid swinging from a flag and not even blink when stories pile up of unwarranted police violence against protesters? Where's the outrage when a disabled demonstrator is pulled from his wheelchair and dragged around by the police not once, but twice?
"How dare you insult your country", writes the Sun. Fair enough. But where are the cries of disservice to the reputation of British democracy and where's the bile when the police are caught lying through their teeth in order to cover up some of their most thuggish behaviour?
And why does the baying mob get so incensed by the fact that Charlie's dad (Pink Floyd's David Gilmour) is so rich, but then they don't mind that they themselves will lose jobs, struggle with cuts and much higher living costs courtesy of a government where 18 out of 23 members of the cabinet are millionaires and aristocrats? No outrage there? Where's the scorn poured at "privileged boys who will not be hit by the crisis" when you really need it?
Charlie Gilmour would've done an infinitely better job if he'd stayed at home. But there's no law that makes joining protesters who are less well-off than you a crime. And, come to think of it, no legal cap on protesters' income either.
The Coalition and their mates in the media know public sympathy is not on their side. In their desperate quest for red herrings to shift the focus of the discussion from what really matters, they need all the Charlie Gilmours they can get hold of.
Nothing, at the end of the day, is more threatening to a government than peaceful mass demonstrations.
Like two years ago when BLOOD OF A SOCIAL WORKER became the backdrop to our lives, and last summer when the phantom PC BAN ON THE ENGLISH FLAG provoked widespread rage, the baying mob is back - whipped up by the country's tabloids - pitchfork and torches, gnashers grinding and white foam building up at the corner of the mouth.
Like foreigners and single mums, social workers and PC councils, 21-year-old Charlie Gilmour is already learning what it means to be the target of tabloid-inspired scapegoating and witch-hunt in this country.
Within hours of the Sun and the Daily Mail revealing his name and personal information, the bloke who was photographed swinging like a fool from the Union Jack at the Cenotaph became the focus of cyber lynchmobs baying for his blood.
Look at the succession of Facebook groups that sprung up like mushrooms.
Jail Charlie Gilmour, Never employ Charlie Gilmour, Charlie Gilmour is a Cnut! (sic), CHARLIE GILMOUR WANTS SHOOTING, Prosecute and imprison Charlie Gilmour!, I hope Charlie Gilmour dies slowly very soon, Charlie Gilmour - Vilest brat in Britain!, Charlie Gilmour is a disgrace to his country JAIL HIM!, Charlie Gilmour needs to be fucking hung.
And that's without counting the hate-filled comments and calls for "revenge" on the tabloids' websites: displays of pure loathing scary enough to make the Wicker Man look like In The Night Garden.
Overnight this Charlie Gilmour turned into the most hated man in Britain, an "evil man" who should die a slow death, be hung, shot and devoured alive by a pack of rottweilers with advanced rabies.
And why? Because he swung from the Cenotaph. An incredibly idiotic thing to do, if you ask me. An ignorant and disrespectful act. One that, if anything, gave ammunitions to those who already hate demonstrators by default.
But, seriously, have we really lost our minds that we can get so worked up to the point of readily dispensing death wishes so publicly and light-heartedly?
What is it with this country that some people get more exercised by symbols than they do when political and corporate abuse vandalises their lives on a regular basis?
Why is it that people can go nuts - literally - over a rich kid swinging from a flag and not even blink when stories pile up of unwarranted police violence against protesters? Where's the outrage when a disabled demonstrator is pulled from his wheelchair and dragged around by the police not once, but twice?
"How dare you insult your country", writes the Sun. Fair enough. But where are the cries of disservice to the reputation of British democracy and where's the bile when the police are caught lying through their teeth in order to cover up some of their most thuggish behaviour?
And why does the baying mob get so incensed by the fact that Charlie's dad (Pink Floyd's David Gilmour) is so rich, but then they don't mind that they themselves will lose jobs, struggle with cuts and much higher living costs courtesy of a government where 18 out of 23 members of the cabinet are millionaires and aristocrats? No outrage there? Where's the scorn poured at "privileged boys who will not be hit by the crisis" when you really need it?
Charlie Gilmour would've done an infinitely better job if he'd stayed at home. But there's no law that makes joining protesters who are less well-off than you a crime. And, come to think of it, no legal cap on protesters' income either.
The Coalition and their mates in the media know public sympathy is not on their side. In their desperate quest for red herrings to shift the focus of the discussion from what really matters, they need all the Charlie Gilmours they can get hold of.
Nothing, at the end of the day, is more threatening to a government than peaceful mass demonstrations.
13 comments:
Very very well said!! Finally an intelligent human emerges from the ashes of this country...
Well said. We're rapidly turning into a nation of highly excitable kids. Only when it's a matter of vilifying those who are down already. Never though, never, when it comes to what truly bothers the rich and the powerful.
Are bankers "insulting their country" when they threaten to leave it to avoid paying their fair share in tax?
No one has ever told me how "patriotic" it is to just sod off because you don't like your own nation's laws. Very odd.
Because he perfectly exemplifies a stereotype, that's why. He brings the Student Grant trustafarian cliche to life.
Stereotypes exist because somewhere there's a grain of truth in there - which is why, say, the Guardian get het up when that Mercer MP said the N word - even though he himself wasn't a racist, the Guardian etc want to keep the Tory racist stereotype in people's minds.
The Sharon Shoesmith case mentioned in the article springs to mind. I was following it closely at the time. The woman was literally hounded by the media even after she was sacked and I did suspect only death or something major would have made them stop.
Fundamentally, I suppose too many of us cherish being part of a baying mob and that's precisely what the tabloid press too often cashes in on. It's easy. It's simple. You don't have to do much thinking. You are given a face and maybe a name of someone who's done some wrong. Kick'em when their down and that'll help you let off steam. It's just so simple. As well as degrading.
"Nothing, at the end of the day, is more threatening to a government than peaceful mass demonstrations."
Sorry, I think you've made a typo in this last paragraph.
Surely what you meant was: "nothing is lessthreatening to a government than peaceful mass demonstrations".
Further, do you not see the incoherence at the heart of your piece? You opine that the media are looking for red herrings to distract the public...but in the same breath concede that the public is primarily interested in Charlie Gilmore and his dad, not the many hypocrisies and social injusticies you yourself highlight but which go on regardless.
It's no good shouting about red herrings. The problem goes much deeper than a public being duped by a press - the public, in large measures, is not on our side. And that is, frankly, very troubling indeed.
Paul Sagar,
"Surely what you meant was: "nothing is less threatening to a government than peaceful mass demonstrations".
No, not at all. Any scuffle, any riot, anything, is used by the government and its friendly media to play the victim: "See what we're up against? These are the sort of thugs who are criticising our policies".
"You opine that the media are looking for red herrings to distract the public...but in the same breath concede that the public is primarily interested in Charlie Gilmore and his dad, not the many hypocrisies and social injusticies you yourself highlight but which go on regardless."
Erm...perhaps you may want to read the OP again. The public is primarily interested in what the shitty media feeds them. Look at the Sharon Shoesmith thing and the Sun campaigning for her to be sacked. You only become the object of public hatred if you have something with wide circulation acting like a tannoy.
People don't get more interested in the X-Factor than they do about Sir Philip Green appointed by the government out of pure coincidence, do they?
"the public, in large measures, is not on our side. And that is, frankly, very troubling indeed."
So you're saying that how the demonstrations are presented/reported to the public by the news and by the press is largely irrelevant? Is that what you're seriously arguing?
Broadly in agreement. I hate the baying mob - 2 minute hate against someone who was unlucky/stupid enough to have a recocnisable photo of him doing something stupid. Young, dumb and full o' cum. We've all been there.
I'm going to take issue with your whataboutery though.
1) Does it matter that the cabinet are rich - the same would have been true under Labour? An irrelevent ad-hominem. And it is arguable that the cuts will secure recovery and therefore jobs. The TOries aren't cutting because they want to, but because they think it's best for the country and economy.
2) You ask "Where's the outrage when a disabled demonstrator is pulled from his wheelchair and dragged around by the police not once, but twice?" Most sensible people think that at a demo which was inevitably going to turn violent that "shit happens". If you can't take a joke, you should have been elsewhere. Most people, including the mob, agree with me on that one. You may not like it, but that's the answer to your (rhetorical) question.
However I agree totally with you that the police should be accountable for their actions. THey should not cover up their numbers, nor should they cover up thier actions.
And I have no doubt that you too deplore the imminent deployment of water cannon.
It's just that the level of police violence I'd find acceptable (and most people agree with me) when a demo kicks off is greater than that which you find acceptable. And I speak as one who HAS been on the revieving end of a kicking off plod.
"1) Does it matter that the cabinet are rich - the same would have been true under Labour? An irrelevent ad-hominem. And it is arguable that the cuts will secure recovery and therefore jobs. The TOries aren't cutting because they want to, but because they think it's best for the country and economy."
Yes it bleedin does.
Because while I'm under no illusion that we will ever have a government, be it left or right, truly reflecting society as a whole (with some loaded people but mostly ordinary low and middle class workers), I find it so obviously wrong that the Cabinet is so unrepresentative of the REAL world.
I don't need to elaborate why a cabinet stuffed with millionaires, heirs to aristofortunes, sosn of Barons, rich bankers and public school brats who've never known what it feels like to apply for a job without a kickback or to struggle to pay the rent, is bound to lack empathy to say the least.
Sure, you could argue that the previous cabinet was stuffed with professional researchers-cum-Labour MPs-cum Ministers and that was crap too. Totally. But your old habit of saying "Labour too!" doesn't wash.
Perhaps a self-professed Libertarian supporting the perpetration of governments being the preserves of upper-class/aristo elites could do with reconsidering his own choice of labelling.
"public school brats who've never known what it feels like to apply for a job without a kickback or to struggle to pay the rent" The class hate is showing there...
In what way are the 7% of people who attend fee-paying schools not part of the "real world".
My parents went without the cars and holidays and instead bought me and my brother a rolls royce education. I'm not going to pretend to have been deprived, and I thank my parents, but I object to your assertion that I've not known hardship.
I know hardship every time the tax bill is due, January and July. I've set my own business up out of savings. And I applied for, and got every job I've had on merit, without the use of contacts, because my father, a midlands electical engineer had none in finance.
In what way is your stereotyping of people like me any different from any other blind prejudice?
LOOK OVER THERE AT SOMEONE FAMOUS' SON BEING A NOB WHILE WE PULL DISABLED PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR WHEELCHAIRS AND HIT CHILDREN WITH STICKS WHILE ILLEGALLY DETAINING THEM!
WE HOPE TO GET TO USE WATER CANNON THE NEXT TIME ROUND.
You answered your own question, Jackart.
7% of people "attend fee paying school", and 85% of those make up the Cabinet. Anybody can see the disproportion.
Also, unless you've kept this secret, you're not part of the millionaires in the Cabinet. I wasn't talking about you. I know FA about your background, nor am I interested in passing judgement.
I've read a lot, however, about the background of the current Coalition cabinet and if they've known "hardship" then Wolves are going to win the Premier League.
good on you, I think the politicians who wring their hands outside the cenotaph then fail the soldiers and their families are the ones really insulting those who give their lives in war.
Post a Comment