Justin Bieber says a big FUCK YOU to women's rights

Today, in what can only be described as an ABORTION EXTRAVAGANZA, we bring to you not one, not two, but THREE news stories that should cause sighs of woe from all sensible (i.e. pro-choice) people.

First and most stupidly of all, is the worrying news that pre-teen hearthrob and Leftfield laughing stock Justin Bieber is ignorantly and vocally anti-choice. Not only is he against a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body & mental health because “it’s like, killing a baby yeah?”, he also has some very worrying views on rape too.

Speaking to Rolling Stone Magazine, J.Biebs said he didn’t agree with abortion, and was asked by the interviewer one of the obvious questions – “but what about in cases of rape?”

Instead of sticking to his bollocks “babykilling” line, The Biebs went further, saying “Um, well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don’t know how that would be a reason [to have an abortion].”

Bieber, listen up, or I’ll fucking abort you. Rape does not “happen for a reason”, other than the ‘reason’ that there are some disgusting men who make the choice to horrendously abuse women. Being raped is not a woman’s “fate”. The idea that “everything happens for a reason” is nonsense invented to try to force people in disadvantaged and oppressed positions to accept the abuse and discrimination that they face from privileged sections of society. Usually with some sort of religious undertone of “it’ll all work itself out when you get to heaven, so just accept your shit life and get on with it and don’t question authority”.

Women should be the only people allowed to judge whether they want to have a baby or get an abortion, and to make the vital decisions at this time regarding their physical and mental health. In an ideal world, that would be accepted as a matter of principle. However, it seems that Justin Bieber is so far behind in his social attitudes that he hasn’t yet even accepted the basic right of women who’ve been raped to not be forced to have a child that their rapist forced into their body without their consent, under violent and/or emotionally damaging circumstances. Even most right wing fuckwads generally make a wishy-washy type of exception for abortion in cases of rape, so it’s particularly disheartening to hear The Biebs hold that kind of backwards view. Get yourself a clue, Bieber.

I suppose some might say, Justin Bieber is only 17. It may sound excessive to judge the views of a stupit wee boy so harshly. However, two things are important to remember here – Justin Bieber is old enough to get a girl pregnant (and has many young girls flinging themselves at him daily, so it’s not unlikely), and therefore it’s time he grew up a bit and thought about the real issues at stake here before he opens his mouth to the media.

Secondly, Read the rest of this entry »

Giles Coren: just fuck off

Giles Coren – star of food history programme The Supersizers, posh food critic, winner of an award for writing the shittest sex scene of any novel in 2005, “Fuck the Poles” racist and general snobby bastard (see his twitter at any one given time for evidence) – has authored an article for the Daily Mail today. About the sexist comments made by Sky sports presenters Richard Keys and Andy Gray (and his caught-on-camera sexual harassment), two old misogynists unable to accept that women are real people with the ability to work competently, and their subsequent sacking/resignation. Coren starts from the ever-promising position of ‘I’m not sexist, but…’ and from there on blunders into a horrifying public display of loathing for women that would shock even Tommy Sheridan.

The article is actually so offensive it makes the rest of the Mail’s content look like it’s been written by the Teletubbies loved up out their bins on MDMA. I can practically see the eternally offensive Jan Moir, Bel Mooney and Richard Littlejohn hugging each other and intently discussing how they totally now really get why hate and fear is just a media ploy to keep us from joining together in happiness and song. Coren’s article is THAT bad. Yes, I know it’s in the Daily Mail, so I shouldn’t expect better. That doesn’t make it okay for something this sexist to be published, especially as Giles Coren often presents himself as some kind of average liberal middle class guy whose opinions educated people should listen to. It’s like he’s tried to pack every offensive trope out there into the one piece. How bad the article is really can’t be explained adequately second hand, so we’ll just have to show you exactly what he said. And demolish his pish line by line.

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s hard to know where to start with the Royal Wedding. So much of the commentary  surrounding it almost goes beyond parody – take this mental ‘satirical’ (?) rant from Richard Littlejohn about the bride being forced to wear a “designer burka from the Kate Moss Intifada Collection at Topshop”, or this horrendously fawning circle-jerk by bigoted unionist knobhead David Starkey.

Criticism has been wiped out from the mainstream media. Few are willing to raise their heads above the parapet and question the nature of, let alone criticise, the ‘wedding of the century‘, in a manner which bears huge similarities to the ‘poppy fascism’ that we wrote about last week, where subservience to a supposedly apolitical  ’national institution’ becomes mandatory.

Which makes it all the more surprising, and brilliant, when the first major criticism of the wedding to be splashed across the national media comes from someone who is, in theory, under the direct authority of the Monarchy. Yep, far from a ‘usual suspect’, the man who’s managed to outrage the Daily Mail, the Tories and the Church hierarchy is, believe it or not, a Church of England bishop, Pete Broadbent. Writing on his twitter and facebook page, Bishop Broadment has attacked the wedding as ‘nauseauting tosh’, and said that ‘I don’t care about the royals, I’m a republican. Talent isn’t passed on through peoples’ bloodstock, the hereditary principle is corrupt and sexist.’

In something which has particularly outraged right-wing sensibilities, he also added: ‘As with most shallow celebrities, they will be set up to fail by the gutter press. I give the marriage seven years.’

Legend.

Republican hero Bishop Broadbent also commented, “I managed to avoid the last disaster in slow motion between Big Ears and the Porcelain Doll, and I hope to avoid this one too… I think we need a party in Calais for all good republicans who can’t stand the nauseating tosh that surrounds this event.”

We’ve got a better idea. The wedding is reportedly to be on Thursday 28 April, at Westminster Abbey. David Cameron is even giving us proles a day off to celebrate. Let’s go and join them? After all, International Workers Day slash May Day pagan-fest  is only a couple of days later.

I’ll bring the wickerman.

This week The Office of National Statistics released the figures from a new survey, which claimed that only 1.5% or 1 in 100 British citizens identity as Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual.

After interviewing only a small percentage of the population the ONS have come to the ‘concrete’ conclusion that only “480,000 adults describe themselves as homosexuals — just one in every 100. Another 245,000 — or one in 200 — are bisexual.”

Their statistics also claim to prove that the majority of those who openly admitted to being gay were more likely to have jobs higher up the career ladder than their heterosexual colleagues. 49.1% of gay people are in managerial or professional positions compared to 30.6% of straight people. However, that 49.1% of the boss class have already built up enough cushioning to be able to give up their straight ‘privilege’ and don’t have the worry of losing their position within society because they have the power to control any homophobia they might face. Whereas less powerful working class people, lower down the career ladder, don’t have this protection and have a lot more to lose. The statistic that 38% of gay people are also apparently better educated compared to 21.9% of straight people also backs this up – the ONS just haven’t thought very deeply about why that might be.

Homosexuals, according to this data, are also much younger than the rest of society with “66 percent under the age of 44 and 17 percent aged 16-24″. Which is most probably due to the fact that it’s more ‘acceptable’ to be out in today’s youth cultures than it has been in previous generations.

This survey also explains that: “A third of bisexual households include at least one child but only 8.6 per cent of gay or lesbian respondents live with a child.” Did it even cross these closed minded peoples’ heads that the one third of bisexual families mentioned were quite possibly living in a happy straight household and that the low rate of gay families with children might possibly have something to do with the way society has scapegoated gay parents and how much mad controversy there was about letting gay people adopt.

Naturally surveys like this must be taken seriously due to their obvious ‘accuracy’ and ‘impartiality’. If these articles tell us that only 480,000 adults describe themselves as gay or lesbian then of course we should ignore the fact that 2.2 million or 6.7% of British citizens use Gaydar or Gaydar Girls, just one of the many internet dating websites for LGBT members of society. Never mind the fact that most gay people, just like most straight people, aren’t even on sex hook up or dating websites.

Now that those champions of equality such as The Sun and The Daily Mail have given us this information, which shows us the ‘correct’ percentage of gay people in the British population, The Sun suggests that:

“Now we have a clearer view of the real figures, we need to start asking some serious questions about the vast sums of taxpayers’ money being spent on such a small minority and the disproportionate amount of attention they receive both in Whitehall and in the media.”

You know what would be easier? Turning around

And The Daily Mail proudly states that this survey has exploded “the assumption – long promoted by social experts and lobbyists – that the number is up to ten times higher than this at one in ten.”

Obviously The Sun aren’t completely hostile towards lesbians, as long as it blurs the line between news and porn. The image they used to illustrate the story is obviously a correct representation of lesbians in today’s society and NOT two women both contorting themselves to face the camera for the pleasure of shit head male Sun readers.

Although this ridiculous survey was probably just the result of stupidity at the ONS, the reaction of the right wing press shows that they clearly have an agenda to use homophobia as a way of cutting vital services that the LGBT community depends on, as seen in Glasgow. Here it is pretty much impossible to meet other gay or lesbian people unless you’re one of these well educated, confident, managerial types, who can afford to go to an expensive bar or club. Obviously unsure young people trying to figure out who they are DO NOT EXIST so they don’t need any money spent on supporting their needs.

When two babies were bitten in their house by a fox the other day, I wondered why the media were going so absolutely baws oot crazy about it, and made a quiet wee joke to myself that foxes were going to be the Daily Mail’s new target. Lo and behold, the campaign begins! It’s taken me about three attempts to actually start writing this post, because I’m a pretty sensible person and I can’t stop pissing myself at the Daily Fail article in question; it’s genuinely one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a long time, and I can’t help wishing that I’d written it as a satire piece for Letfield.

For those that can’t be bothered clicking the link, the article is a kind of hideous mash up of Countryside Alliance rhetoric and the Daily Mail’s own special brand of moral crusading; it would seem that, for them, foxes are the new terrorists. According to the ‘journalist’ who wrote this, Rory Knight Bruce, there’s a concerted PR campaign to give foxes a false cuddly image, which unites animal rights activists and Roald Dahl in a fiendish conspiracy to make children think foxes are their friends. Presumably the foxes made a generous contribution to Dahl’s estate so that it would be easy for them to find vulnerable children whose faces they can rip off.

A few years back, I was walking home and I saw a red fox just outside my house. I stopped downwind of it and crouched down to watch it a wee while, because I’ve always been an obsessive fan of animals. There was another girl coming from the opposite direction, and she had a pretty different reaction. She saw the fox, froze, and then ran screaming away from it. I laughed at the time, but apparently the mail considers that a measured reaction to these clearly evil and vicious little bastards.

They interview a completely unbiased trapper who makes his living shooting foxes, and surprisingly enough he says anyone who views them as essentially benign is “living in cloud cuckoo land” and then goes on to list a number of domestic animals that have supposedly been lost to fox attacks. Did anyone really need this wanker to give them the news that foxes like to eat small furry animals that have probably been left outside? He also totally overstates the incidence of foxes attacking dogs and cats. Foxes tend to be not much bigger than your average cat, and much smaller than the dogs most people have. Also, a lot of small dogs such as terriers have been bred for killing ‘vermin’ and would easily beat a fox in a fight. It would seem though that it’s the eating of a koi carp that cost £1500 that really offends Trapper Wank. Those damn foxes have no respect for private property! What are they, animals?! No doubt they raised the money to bribe Roald Dahl and the pro-fox sophists by selling the expensive koi meat down Brick Lane.

The mail then goes on to give us the shocking news that foxes mark their territory by pissing and shitting! You know, unlike nearly every other animal to walk the planet. What dirty wee bastards! See if you’re THAT bothered about foxes coming in your garden for a shit and your chickens are actually being taken by them, then there are a couple of things you can do.  You need to get a handy male friend and ask him to piss all over your garden instead. Oh, and dig your fucking coop fence in, you stupid noob.

A fox lets out a groan of satisfaction after taking a huge dump on the Daily Mail editor's head.

Of course, it’s not just that fox shit is clearly disgusting, oh no, we have to remember that these dangerous animals can give us diseases as well! The Daily Mail informs us that fox shit can carry Toxascaris, a variety of parasitic roundworm. We’re also given the scary statistic that there are around one hundred new cases of Toxascaris a year in humans! If you know anything about statistics, medicine or not being a chump, then you should be pissing yourself right now, because one hundred cases a year is nothing. It’s the same as the number of cases of the very rare Q Fever, an infection that usually turns up in people who work closely with animals. Of course, the mail doesn’t tell you that, and they also don’t tell you that domestic dogs and cats also carry Toxascaris.

Hillariously, the mail also mentions a few foxes who, in the course of their natural chewing behaviour, developed a taste for brake fluid and started biting through the cables on cars, and it’s almost like the writer thinks there was some kind of malicious intent behind it. However, this shouldn’t really surprise us given that he spends a couple of paragraphs whining about how nasty foxes have been to him and his family. One vixen, who he tried to rescue from a collapsed earth, had the temerity to bite him! Why, who could imagine a frightened and cornered wild animal biting a person who touched them? Any animal worker will tell you that being bitten is part of the job when you get close to wildlife.

He also tells us that he believes two of his family terriers were killed by foxes. One through mange (because dogs never, ever get mange without the help of a fox) and one due to a “characteristically vicious assault”, which suggests to me that he didn’t actually see the fox killing his dog. Quite apart from that, if his dog was killed by a fox, it’s very likely that the terrier (as I’ve already said, they have hunting and killing in their genes) started the fight.

And then there’s the big issue. Rory cites two instances of foxes attacking children to boost his campaign against their brushy reign of terror. What he doesn’t tell you is that these two cases are pretty much the only two in a fucking age. The BBC felt the need to do a measured evaluation of how often foxes attack people, and I can save you the bother of going to look it up. The answer is (drumroll) almost never, you foaming at the mouth mail reading chumps.

From all this easily debunked nonsense, Rory reaches “the inescapable conclusion that the urban fox is a pest that needs to be controlled.” Well I’ll tell you what, following his logic (disease, bite rates etc.) then clearly we need to shoot all the domestic dogs and cats in the UK, and probably all the small furry pets too, because they bite people a hell of a lot more than foxes do. SSY demands that we start to eliminate this dangerous menace NOW, and we further posit that any objections to this plan are just lily livered liberal nonsense that does not recognise the fact that humans are clearly superior to other animals, and have a right to destroy any part of the natural world that inconveniences them in any way.

The face of evil.

By A. Journalistnotascientist

A study/case report/article today published by a medical research group/university/charity revealed that a popular food/lifesaving medicine/controversial activity may cause/reduce risk of cancer/heart disease/stroke. It was found that some people who ate the food/took the medicine/did the activity later went on to develop/did not develop cancer/heart disease/stroke and despite that fact that no link between them has been shown, this newspaper/magazine/blog recommends immediately eating/taking/doing more/less of the food/medicine/activity. This research contradicts previous studies/case reports/articles that have shown the opposite effect, but this article will conveniently forget the results we distorted last week to cause fear and sell more papers/magazines/get more blog hits. This newspaper/magazine/blog also recommends ignoring the advice of your well qualified and experienced doctor/nurse/pharmacist and instead taking all of your medical advice from some journalist looking for a good story. Further handpicked results/inspirational tales/hate speech will follow later in the week to rile up public support/anger/disgust for whoever/whatever/wherever we’re telling you to worship/hate/throw bricks through the window of and campaign outside with poorly spelled placards this week.

Thanks to the ever reliable Daily Mail, we have learnt of a terrifying new trend sweeping Britain’s young people by storm. Imported from the USA, it’s the latest craze… ditch your pokemon cards, kids, there’s a new cool status symbol in town – pouring booze in your eye.

Even as drunken student antics go, it was, by any stretch of the imagination, a disturbing scene. Surrounded by cheering rugby players, applauded by fellow members of the university netball team, 19-year-old Melissa Fontaine tipped back her head and giggled as fellow drinkers in the Students’ Union bar pulled apart her eyelids and allowed them to pour a shot of vodka into her left eye.

‘Vodka eyeballing’, as it is known in student circles, is the latest drinking craze to sweep through Britain’s universities.

Now, let’s get one thing straight before we begin – people getting really fucked and trying to do so through orifices other than their mouths is not a new thing. A quick straw poll among the SSY members at hand shows that all but one of us had heard of or seen people putting shots of vodka in their eye – fucking years ago. As the Daily Mail themselves mention, it was even featured in the film Kevin and Perry Go Large which was released ten years ago. And if the Daily Mail think drinking through your eye is bad, they must not have met anyone who’s doused a tampon in vodka and stuck it up their arse – or at least anyone that’s admitted to it.

Their story is based on a exclusive interview with Melissa, one victim of the eyeballing trend – but there’s a shocking twist in Melissa’s tale…

It would be easy, of course, to dismiss Melissa as nothing more than a silly ‘ladette’. But it is hard to reconcile that stereotype with the young woman she is today, fresh out of university in London with a first-class English degree, the privately-educated daughter of financiers, and an aspiring writer.

In short she is not the kind of young woman who might naturally be associated with Britain’s spiralling binge-drinking youth culture.

The rugby players were the worst, but because of feminism, you’re expected, as a woman, to keep up with them. The guys set a precedent and you have to follow. That’s what drives the whole ladette culture. Women believing they have to be equal in every single way.

UKIP are the most successful minor party in British electoral history. Despite having no MP’s, no official backing from any major newspaper, and only 70 councillors UKIP were able to beat the Lib Dems and come third in 2004’s European Elections. Last year they went further, coming second and beating the governing Labour Party. Today UKIP send as many MEP’s to Brussels as Labour do. This is a formiddable achievement for a party that was only founded in 1993.

Despite this fantastic growth, there has been very little discussion or criticism of UKIP on the Left. This is despite UKIP representing a “radical” right-wing constituency, with MEP’s further to the right than most Tory MP’s and who would attack the standard of living of working people quite dramatically if elected.

Most concern on the Left to radical right wing parties has been directed to the growth of the BNP, who picked up 2 MEP’s at the last European Election. UKIP is very obviously and clearly not the same kind of party as the BNP but there is definitely competition between both parties for the same anti-EU, anti-Immigration, nationalist vote. This vote isn’t homogeneous however and there are important differences. UKIP attract a wealthier, home counties right-wing vote, compared to the BNP who attract support from much poorer areas in English cities.

UKIP and the BNP also have differences in how they view society should be organised; UKIP are made up of Thatcherites who are too Eurosceptic for the Tory Party but still uphold the free market and libertarian values. The BNP in contrast support protectionism for British companies – this has led to some on the Tory nutter right to attack the BNP as “Left-wing”. Farage, UKIP’s former leader and best known public figure says the difference between them and the BNP is that they are the “do what you like party” and the BNP are the “hang em and flog em party”.

Parliament for the jocks you say? What ho, no, let them use the one behind me!

Of course the biggest and most fundamental difference between the two parties is that the BNP is still a neo-Nazi organisation pretending to be a populist right wing one, while UKIP is just a populist right-wing party. UKIP doesn’t believe in the racial supremacy fantasies of the BNP and has no problems with ethnic minorities as candidates or members. It’s for this reason that it would be unimaginable (and wrong) for UKIP to be no platformed the way the BNP is.

Despite these important differences however, UKIP deserves a lot more attention and criticism from the Left than it has got. It’s generally been ignored by the Left as it is not in any position to control the Government or Local councils and because its not a fascist organisation like the BNP. However UKIP may not always be the eccentric party of ex-Tory Daily Mail readers, able to attract a bit of a laugh now and again with some Bernard Manning style comments about women or attacking the EU President as a damp rag.

UKIP’s potential danger can be seen in the man they invited last week to the House of Lords – Geert Wilders. UKIP’s leader, Lord Pearson invited Wilders to broadcast his anti-Muslim film “Fitna”. Wilders was also welcomed to London by the English Defence Leage, producing an unholy trinity of football casuals, ex-Tory lords and Wilders. This display was another example of the EDL are acting as violent thugs for ideas which are circulated and promoted by well heeled members of the establishment who are far more “respectable” than they are.

I likesh a shmoke and a pancake, but I don't likesh the Mushlimsh

UKIP have tried to justify their love in with Wilders on the basis that we need to have a discussion about “radical Islam”. Time and time again however Wilders has made clear that his problem is with Islam, and sees no difference between moderate and radical Muslims. Wilders today is the most successful far-Right politician in Europe, and has a real chance of becoming the next Prime Minister of the Netherlands.

Wilders has made it a demand for any coalition Government in which his Party for Freedom (PVV) takes part, that the hijab is banned from all public institutions; meaning any Muslim who wears the hijab will be banned from working in or using a library, swimming pool, school etc. Wilders does not even attempt to cover his attack on Muslims by saying its about secularism – he openly says Jewish skull caps and crucifixes will not be affected by this law, as they are a part of western culture.

People should remember that the hijab is not the burqa. Unlike the burqa, which is an extreme form of Islamic dress worn by a very small number of Muslims in Europe the Hijab is a far more modest headscarf little different from a nuns habit. The hijab is worn by a massive proportion of Muslim women – banning them from wearing it is a clear attack on their civil rights. There is no practical difference between someone who wears a hijab, a turban or skullcap in how they do their job or use public services. They have been singled out because they are Muslims.

Wilders has also called for the banning of the Koran, and for Guantanamo bay style facilities for Muslims in the Netherlands. He is also a staunch defender of Israel – Wilders PVV is in fact interested with fighting a war against the freedoms of the Netherlands’s Muslim minority.

How far UKIP will go down the PVV road remains to be seen, but it is clear that they are attempting to win support not just from attacking the EU but now from attacking Muslims. UKIP have become the first party in the UK to call for the banning of the Burka in all public places. This is further than even the BNP wants to go – they only want the burka banned in govt buildings. Whatever criticism can be made of the burka for it’s attacks on women’s rights it’s clear that if UKIP are cosying up with Wilders it is unlikely they are banning it to emancipate Muslim women.

UKIP also need to be dug up by the Left for their hypocrisy on the issues of democracy and accountability they claim to uphold. UKIP have won virtually all their support on their largely correct attacks on the European President and European Commission for being totally unaccountable and unelected – but they see no contradiction between these institutions and having an unelected Lord as leader! There is no attack on the House of Lords from UKIP on what it is, an undemocratic chamber which has the power to stop laws being made by a parliament with elected MP’s.

UKIP’s policy on Scotland also betrays their Tory roots – they call for the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, an act that would return Scotland to the bad old days of the 80’s where our votes were irrelevant, and the votes of middle England would decide who rules Scotland.

After all as bad as the EU parliament is, its done nothing like force the poll tax on Scotland using MP’s elected in England – but then again, that wouldn’t bother UKIP much seeing as they argue for a “flat tax”. A flat tax means that everyone pays the same amount of tax for their services regardless of their income, which was of course the exact same principle the poll tax used. They also call for a reduction in the rate of corporation tax, referring to Thatcher and Reagan’s UK and USA as a justification. This flat tax would also mean less funding for public services, cutting jobs and services in order to transfer even more wealth to the rich. This “freedom” for companies to do whatever they want is part of UKIP’s attack on the alleged “social democratic consensus” at Westminster.

Both this flat tax and reduction in corporation tax would be another salvo in a war which has been going on for 30 years, a war between the richest 1% of the population who have seen their wealth skyrocket whilst the working majority have seen their wealth stagnate or barely increase. Alongside their cosying up to someone who is determined to deny public services and jobs to Muslims in the Netherlands, it shows up UKIP as being a bit more dangerous than their charismatic and dotty English Toff MEP’s suggest.

Right now UKIP are unlikely to put into practice any of these policies. Both parties of the radical right in the UK, the BNP and UKIP have major barriers to growth. In the case of the BNP it’s their racism and neo-Nazi baggage. For UKIP its being identified as solely interested in Europe.

The PVV in the Netherlands shows that these barriers can be overcome however. If UKIP and the BNP dealt with these barriers by dumping Griffin and other neo-Nazis, paid more attention to domestic affairs and founded a new radical right party along the lines of the PVV there is little to stop them from emulating Wilders success. There is clearly a very large vote for opposing the EU, immigration, political correctness and for old school Tory values that Cameron has had to cede somewhat to take the centre ground.

Such a party of the radical right would pose a threat to Scotland’s democratic rights, working peoples status in the tax system, funding to public services and civil rights of Muslims in the UK. Remember that the next time you see Nigel Farage guffaw on Question Time and ask if anyone wants to go for a punt and a Pimms.

Remember 1998? It was the year of Titanic, it was the year Google was founded and it was the year George Michael was found doing naughty things in a toilet. It was also the year in which The Lancet, one of the world’s most respected medical journals, published an article that seemed to show a link between the MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) vaccination and autism. The world went mental. Suddenly the papers were filled with headlines about how your healthy toddler was almost certainly going to develop this disorder the second the needle went in. In 2002 alone, 1257 articles were published about the scare. Thousands of worried parents stopped their children from getting the jag, deeming it to be too great a risk. What happened? By 2008, the country was in the grip of a mumps epidemic and measles was declared endemic in the UK for the first time in 14 years. What must have been a very difficult decision for parents to make could have been made a lot easier by this week’s news. The report was rubbish.

The Flawless Logic Behind the MMR Scare

The Lancet has made a full retraction of the article, the report’s lead researcher, Dr Andrew Wakefield, is facing a General Medical Council tribunal and the newspapers’ ten year run of scare stories has been made to look a bit silly. While the medical community has known for quite some time that there is absolutely no evidence of a link between MMR and autism, the newspaper scare stories kept the fear alive. Why? Because fear sells papers. Never mind the potential damage to people’s lives, the babies killed by measles, the old lady who dies because she’s scared to take her blood pressure tablets – readers are scared of what vital information they could be missing by not buying the paper. Pick up any copy of the Daily Mail or Take a Break and turn to the health section. Every day something different is giving you cancer, a different medication is apparently unnecessary or a new treatment is going to kill you. Its irresponsible reporting and it can damage lives. These articles aren’t written by doctors, they’re written by journalists and cobbled together from hearsay, taken out of context and bent to suit their message. No-one wants to hear about the 19,999,999 people whose lives were saved, let’s hear about the one person whose hair fell out! (and whose life was also saved, but that bit isn’t important) This is what capitalism is about: make money at any cost. Its easy to get taken in by newspapers and magazines pretending to care about your health but they just want you to stay scared enough to keep buying their rag. The whole MMR scare could have been over years ago if it wasn’t for the fact that it sold papers. Check out kill-or-cure.heroku.com for a full list of what the Daily Mail says will either cause or cure cancer and you’ll soon see that either they aren’t to be believed or we’re all going to die pretty soon. And don’t forget that if you ever do worry about biscuits causing cancer, the best person to ask is your doctor or pharmacist. If only That’s Life magazine asked them, some more kids might be alive today.

We all know that the Daily Mail are idiots.

I’d like to be able to say that they’ve exceeded themselves with their latest exploits, but in reality it’s just more of the same pish. Unless you’re a middle class, middle aged, straight white man, the Daily Mail hates you – and it hates a big proportion of the people in that bracket, too.

What’ve they done this time? Stephen Fry said it pretty well with this:

I gather a repulsive nobody writing in a paper no one of any decency would be seen dead with has written something loathesome and inhumane.

Exactly. Some idiot has written a lovely article about how Stephen Gately being dead is proof that gays are evil, civil partnerships are depraved, and happy gay families are a myth. Fuck off!

When, quite rightly, there was an outcry, the author published a response, stating:

In what is clearly a heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones.

Well, we at SSY have always taken pride in being mischievous and will continue to do so.

You can make a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission  here.