love or hate the man, he does create some interest ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... unjab.html

He's either exactly the hare brained old buffoon that he portrays (in which case he should be politely ignored), or else he is a calculating media whore with a gift for saying things that are exactly annoying enough to get a rise out of hot headed liberals without being banned from tv (in which case he should be less politely ignored).

In the case of this particular outbreak of dumbassery, he's made two claims. One is that these naughty people had failed to wholeheartedly take to the British way of life and world view (which I believe is indisputably true); the other is that they should be 'inculcated in the British ways of doing things.' I'm not sure what precisely he mans by that. If he is supposing that British men never commit such crimes, well that would be a pretty thick claim.

He could well have a more nuanced agenda. But in that case, either he is just being his usual self by presenting in the form of two innuendos with no linking argument, or the Mail are being their usual selves by leaving out everything in between the two stupid bits. It's hard to say for sure which is worse out of the Mail and the Starkey, and fcuk knows why anyone would bother trying to unearth the grim truth.

The comments are as great as you would expect on such a story in the mail.

I read Laurie Penny's piece in the Indie yesterday.
She really doesn't get on with him, the boot was firmly being put in as she characterised a boorish bigoted dinosoaur of a bully. Can't find a link to the piece but you got the picture.

here it is
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 79710.html

Well it hasn't done Penny any harm - her page keeps timing out, presumably due to increased traffic.