Online bullying

In the wake of recent events, an interesting extract from bullyonline.org

"The objectives of bullies are Power, Control, Domination, Subjugation. They get a kick out of seeing you react. It doesn't matter how you react, the fact they've successful provoked a reaction is, to the bully, a sign that their attempt at control have been successful. After that, it's a question of wearing you down. The more your try to explain, negotiate, conciliate, etc the more gratification they obtain from your increasingly desperate attempts to communicate with them. Understand that it is not possible to communicate in a mature adult manner with a disordered individual who's emotionally retarded.

The Number One rule for dealing with this type of behaviour is: don't respond, don't interact and don't engage. This is not as easy to do as it sounds. It's a natural response to want to defend yourself, and to put the person right. However, never argue with a serial bully; it's not a mature adult discussion, but like dealing with a child or immature teenager; whilst the serial bully may be an adult on the outside, on the inside they are like a child who's never grown up - and probably never will. Serial bullies and harassers often have disordered thinking patterns and do not share the same thoughts or values as you.

Recognise that you are not dealing with a person who has the same mindset as yourself. Bullying, and especially cyberbullying, has links with stalking - see related/stalking.htm for links to stalking sites.

[...]Become alert to provocation. It could be called "The Baiting Game". A provocative comment is made and those who respond spontaneously in irritation (eg non-assertively) are then encouraged to engage in conflict with those who respond without irritation (eg assertively). The provoker watches, waits and stirs the pot with the occasional additional provocation. What interests me is the sense of gratification that a provoker gains from watching others indulge in destructive interaction initiated by him- or herself. In this context, gratification is a perverse form of satisfaction akin to, but distinct from, pleasure.

Finally a reminder - never try to mediate, negotiate, conciliate or otherwise deal with a bully or stalker yourself. Always remember Rule #1: don't respond, don't interact and don't engage".

Lies on Sunday

According to the Mail on Sunday today, "more than a thousand Israelis have been killed" by rockets fired from Gaza. Bad typo or massive, shameless lie?

Would an editor placidly accept an article saying that four people only died in the 7/7 attacks? Would someone be allowed to write that over 900 people died in the Hillsborough disaster? Is throwing random numbers around alright? What's the official policy for gross 'inaccuracies' on print?

Today's Mail on Sunday carries such a massive mistake that it's impossible not to think of it as either outright stupidity or a textbook example of shameless lying.

Referring to Hamas' infamous Qassam rockets fired into the south of Israel, Suzanne Moore writes that "since 2004 more than a thousand Israelis have been killed by such rockets". And then this, "the death toll must be reaching that number now in Gaza in less than two weeks. Does one dead Israeli child equal one dead Palestinian child? Is it a numbers game?"

A numbers game? Imagine how the Mail's churnalist would feel if she found out that one dead Israeli child actually equals 10 Palestinian ones. Exact figures may be difficult to get hold of, but according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the number of Israelis killed by rockets or mortars since 2001 amounts to 23, whereas Wikipedia talks of 18 to 21 people for the period 2000-2008.

Terrible figures, surely, and the result of some appalling terrorist activity. But nowhere near the "more than a thousand killed by such rockets" reported by Suzanne Moore.

But the occasional reader of "the best press in the world", or someone without much prior knowledge of the Israel/Palestine conflict will automatically absorb the notion that Israel are simply retaliating against a massive one thousand deaths in four years. More from Britain's quality tabloids to come.

His Royal Ineptitude

Prince Harry seems incapable of stringing two months together without some royally inept performance.

He did it again! After the scuffles with photographers, the nights out on the lash and his fancy dress Nazi uniform, the third in the line of succession to the throne was filmed in a video calling a British Asian soldier "paki" and another cadet a "raghead".

Let's rewind back to 2005 and the swastika incident. "I am very sorry and I didn't mean to cause offence", the Prince said back then. His full apology was followed by the famous "Harry will not apologise again" statement and the customary calls for the "need to move on", "leave him alone, he's a young man", "he needs to be supported now", etc.

But the job of leaving Harry alone becomes really difficult when the grandson of Queen Elizabeth II gets involved in more scandals than Gazza Gascoigne and Amy Winehouse put together. And each time, events unfold in the usual way:
a) Prince Harry says/does something idiotic. b) A Royal statement follows saying that Prince Harry fully understands and is extremely sorry for any offence. c) The hangers-on tell the press that the incident is being seen "out of context", that there was "no malice", and that it was "light-hearted". d) The paper report increasing public pleas to "leave him alone" for "he has since grown up".

Except that this pampered spoiled brat is in his twenties now. After all the training and the expensive education he's received, how long can St. James' Palace go on treating him as some sort of impulsive, naive child who's being unfairly judged? The notion that "someone in his position should know better" is so obvious that saying it feels ridiculous.

No doubt whatsoever that an ordinary soldier would have been kicked out of the army already.

Help the graduates

With the value of degrees deteriorating, the government is launching a new scheme

Since higher education became a mass phenomenon, the plight of graduates was never going to grab the front pages. Middle class kids maxing out their credit card on pub crawls are neither tabloid material nor Polly Toynbee stuff. And yet the army of young people whose Law, History or English degree granted them an agency job at a call centre has simply been swelling up relentlessly. Which turned Tony Blair's u-turn on tuition fees even more irritating as he sold it to the public with the delusional notion that a degree grants you a headstart in life.

Except that degrees have become the equivalent of what GSCEs were to the previous generation. Not to mention the increasing number of graduates who have their application rejected on the grounds of being 'over qualified', or with 'expectations too high' and 'little hands-on experience'.

It looks like the Government has finally cottoned on. According to the Telegraph, a "National intern scheme to help graduates through the recession" has been announced, "in a bid to find posts for the 400,000 students due to graduate from universities this summer. The Guardian calls it "Generation crunch", referring to a recent labour market survey showing "unemployment growing fastest among 18-24-year-olds". "Unemployment for young adults was 597,000 in the three months to October 2008", they add, "up 55,000 from the three months to July 2008".

Israel's "unacceptable conduct"

The Red Cross accuses Israel of breaching humanitarian law. Meanwhile, with the crisis spiralling out of control, the Sun gets its priorities right.

Two articles in the Times today are drawing our attention.

First, according to the Red Cross, "For four days Red Cross officials pressed the Israeli military for access to bomb-shattered homes in the Zaytun neighbourhood of Gaza City. Finally Israel promised safe passage with the help of a Red Cross rescue team and four ambulances from the Palestine Red Crescent Society. What they found exceeded their worst fears.".

"In an unusually blunt public statement yesterday", the Times writes, "[the Red Cross] accused the Israeli military of 'unacceptable' conduct and of breaching international humanitarian law".

Second, and most shocking, the UN is quoting several witnesses "accusing Israeli troops of evacuating scores of Palestinians – including children – into a house in Gaza on Sunday and then shelling the property 24 hours later, killing approximately 30 people". According to UN officials, it's one of the "gravest incidents" since military operation began at the end of December.

A few words about the keepers of British morality aka the Sun. A look at today's paper suggests that Cristiano Ronaldo totalling his Ferrari, Amy Wine Douse, Celeb Big Brother, and a piece on UFOs are today's top stories. Check their home page. The Gaza disaster is notable by its absence. Unlike Busty Bundchen.

Obsessed with the immigrants

According to the Express, an immigrant who's lost her job should just go home.

Are you, by any chance, starting to think of real problems? Were the X-Factor and the rivers of booze over the festivities not enough to distract you? Not even the brand new Celeb Big Brother? Have you started to realise that losing your job may lead to defaulting on council tax bill payments? Maxed out the plastic? Have you got bailiffs knocking at your door?

Here's where the tabloids come in handy. Today it's the Express' turn to throw sand into people's eyes with fear and paranoia that has F.A. to do with reality. Let's start with the misleading headline. "SOFT TOUCH BRITAIN: MIGRANTS CLAIMING £200M A YEAR IN UK BENEFITS". That is made to sound like typical tabloid fodder about freeloading Afghan families allocated Balmoral Palace or similar. No. The point is about something totally different.

The piece by Nick Fagge is a rant against those hundreds of thousands of migrants who actually work in Britain (mostly doing jobs the pure breed wouldn't even touch), but are falling victim of the economic crisis.

"[U]p to 200,000 migrant workers are set to lose their jobs this year as firms lay off staff in the construction, manufacturing and retail industries", the article goes. But here we are, look: "But while some young single workers are expected to return home, many others are likely to stay in the UK and ask their relatives to join them. They are keen to take advantage of Government handouts which are four times higher than in other EU states". Cue token immigrant saying "I would never move back home, benefits here are so much better".

Four times higher? Seriously? Which EU states? Has the Express got any comparative figures to show? No, because they obviously know that they wouldn't stand to scrutiny, with benefits in Britain paling against those of France, Spain and Germany, for instance. Which is why Spain alone has attracted over 5 million immigrants in the years since 2000, a number that would have given the editors of The Sun, Express and Daily Mail severe apoplexy. It simply wouldn't serve the tabloids' agenda to stop saying that "they all want to come here".

But aside from figures, Nick Fagge and the Express obviously think that no matter how many years of work and how many thousands of pounds you've contributed in tax, if you lose your job in Britain without being British, then you simply turn into a disposable piece of shit. No matter if you have a family or any other ties. You should just fuck off and not enjoy any benefits that can help you weather the storm in between jobs.

Lovely paper, the Express. Lovely chaps.

Today's papers on Israel and Gaza

A clever proposal from Nick Clegg in the Guardian: "Brown has to stop sitting on his hands, halt British weapons exports and insist the EU do the same".

Excellent article by the veteran Middle East correspondent in today's Independent. "Why do they hate the West so much, we will ask", is Fisk's rhetorical question.

"We'll almost certainly have the Hamas-was-in-the-UN-school lie and we will very definitely have the anti-Semitism lie. And our leaders will huff and puff and remind the world that Hamas originally broke the ceasefire. It didn't. Israel broke it, first on 4 November when its bombardment killed six Palestinians in Gaza and again on 17 November when another bombardment killed four more Palestinians."

On the other side of the fence, Daniel Finkenstein in The Times writes that "Israel acts because the world won't defend it". Throwing in a reference or two to Bielsen and the persecution of the Jews during WWII, just in case you feel too strongly against Israel's current deeds, Finkenstein argues that "the whole conflict could be avoided" if only the Palestinians said "that they will allow Israel to exist in peace". Without the magic words, off we go with carpet bombing.

The Telegraph, quite measured in its reference to the Gaza crisis so far, highlights the worrying rise in the number of anti-Semitic attacks in Britain, citing "24 incidents since December 29". In a separate piece, Tim Butcher writes of 60 members of the same Palestinian family killed by Israeli strikes in Gaza.

Finally, a great article by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg in The Guardian, "We must stop arming Israel" is the least pilatesque stance by any of our political leaders since the Gaza crisis began. "Israel's approach is self-defeating", Clegg writes, "the overwhelming use of force, the unacceptable loss of civilian lives, is radicalising moderate opinion among Palestinians and throughout the Arab world".

Israel and the victory that never comes

Self-defense and exasperation are quickly turning into a massacre

The latest figures are speaking of 435 Palestinian dead in just over a week and, according to the BBC, today "at least 30 people were killed and 55 injured when Israeli artillery shells landed outside a United Nations-run school in Gaza".

So what exactly is this military victory Israel is looking for? The whole world concedes Jerusalem has a legitimate right to self-defense, but how far does the concept of self-defense stretch? Didn't they try the same many times before? How many dead will make Israel stop? Were the two thousands who lost their lives in Lebanon two and half years ago enough? How come a similar invasion/attack/self-defense didn't bring any peace?

And if killing civilians regardless in the name of ideology is what exposed Islamist fundamentalism to universal condemnation, how is the Olmert government acting any different now?

Because this is the most amazing story. The Israeli government is justifying every action by claiming that the new Hamas government brought it upon themselves, but it's not as if it was all peace'n'love before Hamas either. The human memory may be short, but Israel were constantly questioning Al Fatah and the PLO's legitimacy too.

For years now, Israel stayed true to Newton's third law of reciprocal actions. Every single bus that blew up in Tel Aviv was automatically met by equal or double retaliation. Unless I'm extremely naive, that didn't deliver much peace either. Could it be, just by chance, that bombs will always produce more enemies than they get rid of?