“As far as I can see, it is absolutely clear, that Raoul Moat is a callous murderer. Full stop, end of story. And I cannot understand any wave, however small, of public sympathy for this man. There should be sympathy for his victims, and for the havoc he wreaked in that community. There should be no sympathy for him.”

Just to be clear, obviously Moat’s crimes were terrible. And his victims of course deserve abundant sympathy. The “wave of public sympathy” to which Cameron refers is the much publicised, and obviously ludicrous, Facebook groups in which people are supporting Moat as a hero. No matter what the circumstances of someone’s life, perhaps it’s reasonable to suggest that at the point they start murdering people one should cross them off the hero list. Unless they’re Batman.

However, the idea that in not supporting/endorsing a murderer’s actions one must backflip to the opposite extreme, and exhibit no sympathy at all, is quite extraordinary. It is, in fact, inhuman.

Whether Moat became so awful after an idyllic or abusive childhood and life isn’t really relevant. Although the chances are that someone who was so frequently in trouble with the police, someone capable of assaulting children, someone whose response to a girlfriend’s leaving him is to attempt to murder her and her new partner, did not have a great life. People don’t wake up one morning and think, “I’ll be evil from now on. Muah ha ha.” But of course many people have shitty lives, and they certainly don’t go on to be the sort of person Moat was. Nothing, at any point, excuses such actions by an adult. Other than, of course, mental illness.

But why does any of this exclude Moat from sympathy? He certainly has my sympathy. To be so broken, so damaged, so pathetic – that earns my sympathy.

I don’t doubt for a moment that Moat could have been quite a different person if given a different life. It appears even he was conscious of this, the latest stories revealing his own denied requests for a psychiatrist. He told social workers,

“The more you block things out, the more numb you become in the heart you know. You get to a point where happiness to you is just like, you know, neither here nor there.”

I feel sympathy for him for having felt this way.

The most remarkable thing to come out of the Moat story has been the response from the policeman who was shot. David Rathband, likely to be permanently blind after being shot in the face, said something extraordinary.

“I bear no malice towards the man who shot me, but now wish to move on with my life.”

To have this response highlights the grotesque nature of Cameron’s remark.

It’s much easier to demonise a murderer than to consider them a human. To cast them as a one-dimensional monster lets us feel much safer about ourselves. To consider otherwise is to consider that it could have been us. Because, of course, it could have.

To reject sympathy is so horribly dangerous. Perhaps it’s partly because so many people conflate sympathy with endorsing something. Anyone suggesting that Moat’s actions were in any way valid is clearly ridiculous. But to sympathise has nothing to do with such suggestions. It is, instead, to recognise Moat as another human being. When we stop recognising people as human beings we enter into a dark and dangerous territory. One our Prime Minister is suggesting we should all be in.

Which means, of course, staying in a B&B. The Great British bed and breakfast can be a mixed fare, but my previous experience was superb. Staying near Malvern, at the Severnside B&B. An amazingly friendly place, great room, and remarkable breakfasts, it was so pleasant as to have me forget the normal nature of staying away in the UK. As the name implies, it’s right on the bank of the Severn, an extremely pretty place, and not very expensive at all. So hopes and expectations were high for our visit to Woolacombe’s… well, let’s call it Ploppytops to avoid Google results.

Ploppytops looks more like a motel from the outside than a B&B. It’s very wheelchair friendly, but unfortunately is also very dog friendly. Meaning that stupid yappy creatures can appear at any moment.

The lady running the place is peculiarly direct. Orders are barked at you, rather than suggested. “You will pay now,” I was instructed, after I’d collected my key. “This is YOUR room,” she informed Laura as we reached it, apparently our preferences not of interest to her.

The bed on which this post is being typed appears to have deliberately placed the mattress springs on the outside – an odd design choice, and one currently assaulting my elbows. The other bed in my room (B&Bs cannot tolerate the notion that one person may want a room for himself) is more comfortable, but makes noises akin to explosions with every movement, including blinking.

The shower in my room made me laugh out loud. Both days. Turned up to full, and the shower head adjusted to the exciting sounding “JET”, I watched as it dribbled out a few droplets of water. After standing under it for about five minutes I began to detect the first signs of feeling wet. My own surgery on the thing achieved what was barely enough lukewarm water to wash under, and yet mine was the fortunate shower.

Laura’s room had a really rather exciting en suite. Seemingly designed for disabled guests, it was a “wet room”, decorated in tempting red emergency pull cords, where the shower is not segregated from the rest of the ablutive porcelain. When she learned that turning the shower to ‘hot’ caused all the lights in the room to dim, it became a slightly less appealing prospect to stand beneath.

Perhaps the most peculiar feature is the omnipresence of air fresheners. Each is approximately ten inches tall, featuring a single green glowing eye on the front, appearing in every room, on every shelf, and even nailed to the walls in the corridors. There were three in the dining room. And each, every minute or so, lets out an exhausted asthmatic cough, along with a faint puff of the dusty aroma that hangs permanently in the air. They stand like shrunken, white monoliths, their staring green eyes watching you in every inch of the building, monitoring your every movement, and huffing out their paltry breaths to conceal any odours you might emit.

After the Severnside’s wonderful home-cooked feast, my hopes for breakfast were perhaps unfairly buoyant, but enough of this building’s sagging 70s weirdness had led me to expect otherwise. What arrived was a patriotic tribute to all that is British about accommodation. A thick and utterly enormous rasher of unchewable bacon, a single sad tomato warmed to the middle, a small puddle of baked beans, one thin, peculiarly grey sausage, and a few almost-cooked slices of new potato, which the menu had boldly chosen to call “hash browns”. And when I turned the egg upside down, I regretted what I’d consumed so far. This was accompanied by slices of ice cold toast that had been prepared in such a way as to turn them to explosive powder when bitten.

But the most important feature of breakfast was the orange juice. As all British people know, freshly squeezed orange juice is a potion of such rarity that it must be treasured and served only in the tiniest of tumblers, lest a giddy guest imbibe too much and become quite out of control with tingling excitement. However, when your thimbles of liquid have been decanted from a long-life box of reconstituted watery rationing, it screams miserliness and disgust with your guests’ existence. “You don’t deserve my precious ASDA Smart Price orange juice from concentrate! But I will allow you a single sip.”

Of course, decaf was not an option. In fact, so perplexing was my query as to whether they had non-instant decaf available that even after explaining it twice, politely and with a smile saying that it was no matter, our host returned and interrogated me a third time to find out what mystical beverage I had tried to describe. “What do you normally drink?” she surprised me with, appearing from behind. “Decaf that isn’t instant,” I said for the third time. Apparently this time it penetrated. “No, we don’t have that,” was the scolding reply, spoken as she turned to walk away.

(However, to give the place its dues, there was a full, squeezy bottle of Heinz tomato ketchup available to the dining room.)

Such places, with its wonky paintings of beaches on the walls, piles of pamphlets for what local attractions offered two years ago, and 70s décor, don’t seem to be the sorts of accommodation that might have flat screen televisions in every room. A strange anomaly, this modern feature stands out peculiarly against paisley curtains and orange walls. In fact, there’s a very odd theme of misplaced opulence throughout, in striking contrast with the beds, carpets and attitude. The guest lounge looks like a room from a futuristic hotel, an astonishingly vast wide screen hi-def television dominating one wall, the room lined with rich, comfortable black leather couches, looking brand new. Only the bookshelf of Clive Cussler novels and pile of decomposing board games in one corner give the game away.

And outside the building, in the front car park, are parked two red vehicles, one a vaguely trendy useful looking car, the other a sporty, sleek and expensive looking two-seater, each new, each emblazoned with the “PLOPPYTOPS” name across windscreens, and bonnets and side panels. Their existence makes so little sense that one can only stare at them and blink in confusion. Are they sponsored… by themselves? Did they win the lottery, and decide to live out their dream of running a B&B?

Perhaps it is good for one to encounter the traditional British hoteliers (putting the hostile into hostelry). It keeps one humble, hungry, and reminded of the importance of orange juice.

It’s hard to find words to express the horrific duplicity of Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrat party. So to comment on today’s budget, and the announcement from the Coalition Government that VAT would be raised to 20%, I’m instead going to use some words Nick Clegg said on the 8th April:

Nick Clegg reveals Tories’ £13bn VAT bombshell

“Liberal Democrats have costed, in full, our proposals for tax cuts. We can tell you, penny for penny, pound for pound, who pays for them.

So if you’re on an ordinary income, you have a choice. If you want your taxes to rise: vote Labour or Conservative. If you want your taxes to fall: choose the Liberal Democrats.”

“Do you agree that not dealing with immigration sensibly plays into the bnps hands? Will Cameron sort it out in your opinion?”

While I gave an answer explaining why I believe there is no immigration issue, and that Cameron’s plans will further isolate the country, increase nationalism, and therefore hatred, there’s a more serious implication. It’s the assumption implicit in the question that the BNP are the party dealing with immigration sensibly. Sure, the person asking is extremely unlikely to subscribe to the BNP’s opinions on most subjects, but it unquestionably suggests that dealing with immigration “sensibly” (whatever that might be) will placate the BNP. i.e. If we would only employ the BNP’s immigration policies, we would take away power from that dangerous party.

This view is terrifyingly common. Perhaps with no analysis whatsoever it makes sense to people. If we deal with the apparent immigration problems, then the BNP would no longer have that platform on which to speak, and thus people would be less attracted to the party. Never mind that this once again suggests that every member of the BNP is an innocent victim confused by feeling let down by Labour, etc (I talk about that here), but far more seriously is says:

“Let’s implement the BNP’s policies on immigration to make the BNP go away.”

Yeah, there’s a small problem here.

I’m frightened by often I’m hearing this, either directly or heavily implied. There must be an “immigration problem” because we keep being told there is, by every politician, newspaper, and media outlet. Even if they’re not directly stating there’s a problem, they’re reporting on how others are saying there is, or stating how others are going to deal with this problem. No one states what the problem is with evidence to support it. Instead we’re told the number of immigrants or asylum seekers “flooding in” each year because it looks quite big without explanation or context. Or, even more spuriously, we’re given completely unsubstantiated “facts” like, “There’s just not enough room”, “They’re taking all our jobs”, or my current favourite, “Britain’s population is about to reach 70,000,000!” As if that’s the number at which we will burst like a balloon stuffed with too much custard, splattering messily all over the Channel.

Britain has had a high volume of immigration for decades. Britain’s doing just fine, you know. The claims of evidence for otherwise are hilariously specific incidents, one-off situations where someone from another country claimed an awful lot in benefits, or someone struggled to get a job that a Pole was more qualified for. Or they’re wildly general, making claims about the NHS not being able to cope (this would be the NHS that would have collapsed multiple times were it not for its reliance on immigration to be staffed, from cleaners to doctors).

But despite our not being able to identify exactly what the problem is, it’s still a problem we have to deal with. And since we have to deal with it, why not kill two birds with one stone and take power away from the BNP by implementing their policies on the matter? It’s very concerning.

So, here’s hopefully a quick reminder of what a BNP member looks like. They’re not disenfranchised voters, depressed that none of the major parties are dealing with the imaginary issues that concern them the most. They’re not disgruntled rebels, refusing to let Europe tell them what to do. They’re wretched bigots, whose opinions are terrifying. They’re Nazis, anti-Semites, racists, xenophobes and conspiracists. They’re also deeply, frighteningly stupid. These are the people whose policies politicians keep saying we should “listen to” so as to re-enfranchise them once again. Here’s the comment from “james” on my earlier post:

“I am a BNP, member, it dosnt make any differance what people say or dont say on this site, 1, with in 2020 2090 war will take place between the degenerate west and Islam,2 it will begin with virus attacks against the soft under belly of europe , and the so called liberal USA.3 the people of the book jews and christains will find out soon enought, as to the true nature of islam, this 1600 year old form of the 3d reich, if hitler had ruled for 1600 years ,then people would bow down to Germania, and wear berkas, to insure racial purity as, as dos the 6th reich, Islam dos. THIS IS YOUR FUTURE ?”

That’s what the BNP looks like. Could we stop idealising the members, and idolising their opinions on immigration?

Although I doubt they’ll be offering me work any time soon : )

BBC News is reviewing tomorrow’s newspaper front pages, with three Tories sat around a table, crowing. They’re using phrases like, “these lefties… have got [their] comeuppance.” The presenter chuckles along. The BBC has already sunk comfortably into absolute unquestioned bias, having spent the last few days telling outright lies on the news about how our government works, attacking any Lib-Lab coalition suggestions, and endorsing a Tory government without question.

These three people sneer, laughing out loud at how left wing writers are upset with the result. The presenter doesn’t even look awkward, while his guests describe Cameron as having shown “remarkable vision”.

“I suspect we won’t be hearing the phrase ‘Broken Britain’ any more, as I rather suspect it’s just been fixed.”

Approving murmurs all round.

This is BBC News.

Literally three Conservatives mocking Labour, the left wing, sneering at the non-right newspapers, and all completely unchallenged. This is how things shall be for a long, long time.

The Liberal Democrats are currently emerging from their meeting in which they unanimously voted through the deal, stating that this is the best thing that could happen to our country. Their glee includes agreeing to a cap on immigration, and agreeing to a referendum on “giving more power to Europe,” whatever the bloody hell that means. They’ve abandoned their absolute core principles, and they’re telling us what a wonderful day this is for Britain.

Can I wake up now?

He’s not just deciding which party gets to be in power in the UK. He’s deciding the fate of the Liberal Democrat party.

He’s got three choices, which I couldn’t outline better than Stu Campbell has here: side with Cameron, side with Brown, or side with no one and allow a Conservative minority government.

It’s the first of these three decisions that’s currently being scrutinised by Clegg and his advisors, weighing up whatever Cameron may have offered him in their private talks. Should he align his party with the Conservatives, guaranteeing a clear majority, and most likely securing some powerful positions in government for Lib Dem members? It must be tempting for anyone in politics, to be that close to power. But Clegg’s got a Liberal Democrat membership to convince – 75% of them – before he could make that commitment. Oh, and the small matter of giving up proportional representation (PR). Oh again, and giving up the future of the Lib Dem party forever.

Liberal Democrat voters do not have an enormous amount in common with Tory voters. Tory voters, if we may generalise appropriately, are anti-immigration, pro-low taxes for the rich, anti-Europe. Lib Dem voters are pro-immigration, pro-taxing the rich, pro-Europe. Those are some fairly hefty opposites, amongst many others. The Lib Dems, despite being a centre-left (ish) party, are the closest the UK has to voting for a major party that tiptoes close to socialism.

You can split the Lib Dem vote roughly into two groups. You’ve got loyal LD voters who always vote for the party. And you’ve got those new voters (despite their losing five seats on Thursday, the Lib Dems did indeed increase their vote – once again bringing us back to the importance of PR for the party) who switched previous allegiances in response to either disillusionment with the current two parties, or intrigue after the party’s increased profile via the televised debates. With the latter group are all the first-time voters who saw them as a party that represents younger people.

If Clegg opts for a Tory pact, then the first group – the loyals – are absolutely betrayed. Lifetime LD voters (me included) will have had their vote for the Liberal Democrats scrubbed out, their X re-drawn in the box for the Tories, entirely against their will. Voting for the Conservatives goes against every fibre of my being – they are the most despicable of the parties, their extreme right-wing policies worn with pride. (Sure, they’ve tried to hide some behind Cameron’s shiny face for the last few months, but they’re always there.) When I went to the voting booth on Thursday, I went with the aim to keep the Lib Dems in in Bath, and to keep the Conservatives out. So did 26,651 other people. If Clegg did this, then why would any loyal Liberal Democrat ever vote for them again?

The second group, the first-timers, will have had a message given to them very clearly: voting for Lib Dems is meaningless. Their policies, their campaign, wasn’t only up for compromise, but complete abandonment. Why do that again? Why not vote for one of the two parties that actually gets into power yourself?

So Clegg betrays a vast amount of his electorate. That’s the first step in ending the Liberal Democrats forever. The second is abandoning any hope of PR.

In the late 1990s/early 2000s the Conservatives were all but done. Major’s epic defeat in 1997, followed by Hague’s equally astonishing failure in 2001, saw them in tatters, many predicting they could never recover. Under Ian Duncan Smith they were a laughing stock, frequently falling into third place in polls, leaving a vast open space for the Liberal Democrats to step into. Charles Kennedy, then the leader, responded to this opportunity by hiding behind a table until it went away. Presumably with some whisky. It was horrific to watch. Here was this extraordinary opportunity to make themselves known as the alternative vote to a Labour party whose popularity was about to crumble, and they did nothing whatsoever. Instead they kept quiet until the Tories put the familiar vampiric face of Michael Howard in charge, and pulled the party back together. Phew, eh? Now they could hide in third place just how they liked it.

They’re in a whole new crazy version of that place right now. Here, for the first time in an unimaginably long time, they have a chance to get the British electoral system completely revolutionised. The two-party con-trick that’s been running for the last century would be over, the carefully plotted fixing of the system to ensure either Lab or Con are in power could be demolished. With proportional representation in place, the Liberal Democrats could, in one or two elections time, be in a position to actually win. (To get an idea of how corrupt it currently is, LD received 79% of the number of votes Labour did, but won 22% of the number of seats – it’s absolutely impossible for them to get into power.) Without it, they never, ever will. Opportunities to put PR in place come up, well, almost never. It’s happening right now. Siding with the Conservatives will ensure it definitely doesn’t happen.

There are rumours floating that the Conservatives would offer a referendum on electoral reform as a carrot to lure the Lib Dems into the coalition. But then out comes the stick, as they pummelled them to death. Such a referendum would be a trick. It would have, say, five options. One of these would be the current first-past-the-post system that the Tories need to keep, and they’d invest vast sums into campaigning for this. The other four would be variants on the system the Lib Dems would like, various forms of proportional representation, each with benefits and weaknesses. The idea being, any of those four would be good for the Lib Dems, and thus the vote would be split between the four, diluted down four ways so it couldn’t possibly beat the first. It would be a deliberate obfuscation of the vote to ensure that the status quo gets kept, in what they could claim was a decision made by the British people. Any offer of electoral reform from the Conservatives would be the classic evil genie wish granting, turning it back on the wisher in the cruellest way possible.

Clegg can take Cameron’s deal and presumably get himself a position in the cabinet. He can get political power. And then, by the next election, the Tories can ditch them and carry on as it has always been. Clegg can choose Cameron. He can choose to betray his voting core, disillusion any new voters, and completely abandon any hope of his party ever getting into power. He can choose to return the Liberal Democrats to the position the Liberals took in the 50s and 60s, gaining perhaps two or three seats in the Commons. Or he could maybe choose something else.

PS. Stu points out this comment on his site which gives some precedence for my soothsaying:

“I honestly can’t believe Nick Clegg is still even thinking about a Lib-Con pact. Your analysis is absolutely correct, RevStu.
This situation reminds me of what happened in Australia 12 years ago. An unpopular right-wing government wanted to bring in an unpopular VAT. The Australian Democrats party had the balance of power. The Democrats were almost indistinguishable from the Lib Dems, both in policy and support – they were mainly voted for by centre left voters who thought Labour was corrupt or not in favour of civil liberties.

Anyway, the slightly right-of-the-party leader of the Democrats did a deal with the Liberals (extracting almost zero concessions) because she felt that the Liberals had a right to govern. Sound familiar?

With the benefit of 12 years we can see how it turned out for the Democrats. From having 10.8% of the vote in 1996, and the balance of power, at the last election in 2007 they got 1.3% and basically don’t exist any more.

I predict a similar scenario for the Lib Dems (complete with multiple changes of leader) if there’s a Con-Lib government.”

First and briefly, there’s the most obvious point. As anyone who gives any thought to the matter will ask and has asked repeatedly, to just when exactly in Britain’s past do these people wish to retreat? Should we go pre-Angles? Before the Saxons? Perhaps it’s the Roman invasion that muddied our British gene pool? Or is the problem Britain’s own dirty foray with mainland Europe until 9000 years ago, when it was so disgustingly physically joined onto the continent? Something that allowed those Africans to just walk into OUR country and settle its first human population 500,000 years ago. Why can’t we just go back to those pre-Homo heidelbergensis days, when this country understood proper Christian values?

The idiocy of taking any position that argues there’s anything inherently “British” is inescapable. You cannot reason or rationalise with people who are unequipped to recognise that fighting to preserve some sense of British purity is patent nonsense. But of course what they really mean is “white”. They want a return to the earlier 20th century, before we so desperately needed immigration in order to maintain the country’s infrastructure after two world wars. There’s a brief window of perceived perfection, post industrial-revolution, pre-1950s, that contains this magical Britishness, this value, this predominantly white nation where those of other skin-tones knew their place in subjugation. European invasions are perfectly acceptable because their melanin levels were acceptably low. It’s only ever about race, no matter how it’s worded.

Second is this idea of a traditional Christianity. This is another phrase so nonsensical as to be almost impossible to argue with. (Similarly the BNP are of course amongst those who rally against “global warming”, pointing out that it’s just madness to claim this when it’s snowing in April! Somewhat ignoring the part where no scientist is talking about “global warming”, but rather “global climate change”, what with it snowing in April and all. When people argue with pure nonsense, they are unwittingly cleverly defended against arguments.) It’s based on an idea that’s disturbingly prevalent amongst many Christian clans – that there was a period of Christianity, generally chosen to be between the 11th and 16th century, when Christianity was being done right, and thus that becomes “traditional Christianity”. This is of course at a time when Christianity was being used as a banner of war to fight against armies of other colours, against Muslim nations, against any who would not agree to its subjugation. This culminates in the King James Bible, a translation of the Bible used to endorse oppression and used as a weapon of control. This is, of course, the translation used and endorsed by those who campaign for “traditional Christianity”. The “thee”s and the “thou”s today make it sound powerful, frightening, unknowable. It’s “proper”.

(Any who deliberately use ancient dialects to communicate the Gospel have only one intention: to make it inaccessible. In its inaccessibility, they take power. They are in control. Those who wrote the contents of the Bible, whether in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, did so to communicate. It has been updated, corrupted, fixed, re-imagined, mutated, mutilated, and restored countless times, each new generation in each country re-translating it into a form in which people can understand. Like a church that preaches in Latin, those that use the KJV publicly (privately it’s generally to pretentiously boast the value of its poetry) have no desire for communication with those outside. But I digress.)

In Griffin’s statement about the new central role Christianity will play in his party, explaining that all BNP leaflets and information will carry a Christian cross after the election, he dives headfirst into the custard of nonsense that is this mystical version of traditional Christianity. In case there’s any confusion Griffin defines his terms:

“I do not mean the gut-wrenching politically correct quasi-Marxist nonsense spewing forth from the treacherous leaders of the modern Anglican Church. I mean the traditional, upright, decent and honest Christianity that defended Europe from Islamic conquest, the Christianity of the Crusades and the Christianity of our forefathers.”

This isn’t plucked unfairly out of context. Throughout the short piece Griffin exclusively refers to Christianity as something that reaches back as far as the 10th century. He literally talks about its existence as only coming into being at the point it reached Britain.

“No, the Christianity of our forefathers was about honesty, family, patriotism, sacrifice, loyalty, king and country. For over 1,000 years Christianity held our people together and guided us through the centuries. If Christianity had not existed Europe would have been conquered by Islam centuries ago.”

This statement is so broken, so devoid of meaning, so completely unfathomable, that it becomes immediately obvious that Griffin is in no way referring to Christianity. Because if he were, well, he’d be in something of a pickle, wouldn’t he?

For Griffin to espouse these beliefs, he needs to abandon any meaning behind them, because otherwise Christianity is somewhat problematic. It’s (let’s all whisper now) foreign. It’s from one of those… brown countries. Jesus – a name Griffin does not use in his article – he wasn’t white! Not only that – he was a Jew! And the BNP are not big fans of Jews. For Griffin to use the name of Christianity, he has to abandon any notion of Christ. And when it comes to “traditional Christianity”, that’s, well, the version Jesus lived. It’s not a version that very helpfully ties into a belief system that’s about race exclusion, anti-Semitism, and other Nazi values. Hence Griffin’s need to have Christianity begin 1000 years ago, not 2000.

For the BNP, Christianity belongs to these mystical “forefathers”, these heroic figures who saw off the hordes of non-white people from Britain, and, er, their own nations. The Crusades become a time to aspire to, rather than a period of dark shame for those using the name of Christianity.

“The British National Party is the only political organisation in Britain that wants to keep this country fundamentally Christian, with Christian values, traditions and culture.”

What Griffin and the BNP are doing is re-writing the meaning of “Christian”, such that it renders it entirely detached from Christ. A man whom they would not wish to be a member of their own party. A dark-skinned anti-establishment Jew. A politically correct liberal-left quasi-Marxist olive-coloured Semite scoundrel who promoted radical and unquestioning love. The son of God who sacrificed his life for all of humanity in an act of absolute humility. In other words: trouble.

In making such an argument I can now be considered amongst those whom the BNP would label as the “politically correct liberal-left scoundrels”. I find myself in excellent company.

PS. Griffin’s muddled understanding of the faith he wishes to put at the centre of his party might have something to do with this.

Stuart X: It’s like that thing they had to cancel with local-news websites or video or something last year, because it was so good that commercial operations couldn’t compete.
Stuart X: WHY THE FUCK ARE WE SUPPOSED TO CARE ABOUT THAT?
Stuart X: We’re forced by law to pay for something that’s made deliberately worse.
John X: Don’t worry, not for much longer!
Stuart X: They’re going to stop charging?!??!!???!!?
John X: Entirely!
Stuart X: And it won’t turn out to be just another shitty ITV??!?!?!!?!?!
John X: No no, you misunderstand.
John X: Imagine it like this:
John X: Imagine I’m a bread shop.
John X: And I sell bread for 80p a loaf.
John X: Okay?
Stuart X: Following you so far.
John X: So if you want some bread, currently you have to pay me 80p.
John X: Well, what’s going to happen under the nice Mr Cameron is my bread shop is going to be destroyed by a nuclear bomb.
John X: So you won’t have to pay 80p for bread ever again!
Stuart X: But where will I get bread?
John X: There’s no bread.
Stuart X: I don’t understand! I LIKE BREAD!
John X: Be quiet.
Stuart X: The only other stuff I can put marmalade on is made by Ian’s Tasty Vittles down the road, and it’s made of dogshit.
John X: I said be quiet.
Stuart X: And I have to stop eating every three bites so I can throw up.
John X: Can somebody call the police?

There have been other programmes that have taken this “no taboos” rule to more effective and more shocking places, such as the astonishing Wonder Showzen, and Drawn Together. But these were on cable. Family Guy is on at primetime on Sunday nights on Fox. Having been cancelled twice by the network, it’s proven itself fairly invincible, and with McFarlane’s new contract breaking all records they know they’re not going anywhere. And to embrace this the most recent episodes having been pushing things further and further, including as many digs at Fox as they can cram in. Last Sunday’s was particularly shocking. At least, I thought so at first.

The story focuses around Chris, the dimwitted teenage son, asking a girl with Down’s syndrome out on a date. Immediately you can make some pretty strong arguments pointing out how non-offensive this is, as Chris has absolutely no problem or concern about her disability. He’s attracted to her, and wants to go on a date with her. It’s only Stewie (the baby) who thinks there’s anything strange about it. But there’s no point in persisting with that, because it absolutely is offensive. It’s all out, hell-for-leather offensive. In fact, see if you can spot any joke they didn’t manage to get into the following truly gob-smackingly offensive song:

However, what happens next is of interest.

Chris goes on the date, and the girl is a jerk. She’s rude, selfish, unfair and manipulative. He has a horrible time, because she’s a douchebag. And I’d argue that this might just be the most inoffensive portrayal of a disabled person in television history.

Writers fall over themselves to ensure that anyone with a disability is heroic. Just being alive makes them brave! Those poor dears. Even the mighty Steven Moffat fell apart completely when putting a paraplegic character into Press Gang. It’s the precise opposite of equal opportunities. It’s patronising, and it’s embarrassing. Family Guy did an awful lot better.

There’s a larger question about the “equal opportunity offender” position to be asked. For instance, Family Guy does jokes based on gross racial stereotypes. It doesn’t do this because it believes that Asians can’t drive, or black people can’t swim, or whatever racist meme they’re picking up on. It does this because making jokes based on such notions are so ludicrously offensive. The presumed intention is not racism. It’s shock. The question is, how is an outside observer supposed to distinguish between a joke about all black people being criminals, and a joke about saying that all black people are criminals because you shouldn’t? And if that distinction isn’t apparent, is there a distinction at all? In a few decades will we look back on the days of Family Guy, Drawn Together, The Sarah Silverman Program, and so on, and see it as any different from the unironic racism on display in 1970s sitcoms?

The argument is that they’re offensive to everyone, not picking on any one group or minority. And that’s true. No one goes un-mocked, whether deaf, old, Latino, white, gay, disabled or murdered in gas chambers. To treat one group (by whichever choice of grouping you might pick) as special is offensive. To say, “It would be fine if McFarlane only picked on white middle class Americans” would be the highest hypocrisy.

But at the same time I’m tempted to believe McFarlane is a sociopath. The jokes will upset people. And not always people who deserve to be upset. (Plus I gave up watching another of his shows, American Dad, because the volume of homophobic jokes led me to wonder if he really did have a problem with gay people. And because it’s not very funny.) No rape victim deserves to be mocked. But Family Guy mocks rape victims. It mocks rapists too. And it mocks people who are offended by jokes about rape.

This particular episode has come to more attention because Sarah Palin has spoken out about it. And not out of the blue. She has a son with Down’s syndrome, and the episode makes a direct reference to her. The teenage girl with Down’s explains that her mother is the former governor of Alaska. It’s a reference that really doesn’t make much sense – Palin has a baby son, this was a teenage girl. But it was a deliberate provocation of the lunatic far-right politician. I’m not sure what the purpose of the reference was, but it was presumably simply just to be another shocking thing to say. One that, I’d argue, didn’t work particularly well. There’s a million reasons to mock Palin, but her having a disabled son doesn’t seem like it’s one of them. But when you have no rules, no boundaries, no taboos, such reasoning doesn’t apply.

Which leaves me confused about what I think. I find Family Guy very funny. I’d be a hypocrite to say otherwise. And a big part of that is being astonished by the things it says and shows. But then I also would never wish to apply its principles to my life. I believe in satirising and mocking those who are deserving. But then to make such a statement I’ve apparently appointed myself arbiter of who deserves to be mocked – a ridiculous position to put myself in. Family Guy doesn’t act in such a moralising and hypocritical way as I. So no, I’ve no fixed position on this at all.

But for one. I believe it’s okay to be offended. As a white, middle class, 30-something male perhaps I’m in too luxurious a position to make such a statement. But am I now once more applying the same patronising attitude? It’s okay for me to be offended because I’m white and middle class enough to be able to handle it! I’m turning into Chris Morris’s character on Brass Eye: “But what about people less middle class, less educated than me? Builders or blacks for instance?” So let’s go back to the beginning: I believe it’s okay to be offended. I get my fair share of mocking, often cruel, for being a Christian. I see jokes about Jesus or my faith that offend me. My response isn’t to call for the perpetrator to be silenced. It’s to be offended for a moment. It’s not a nice feeling. I live through it.

There’s a difference between being offended and being persecuted. And when we, as a society, treated offence as persecution, we belittle persecution.