Saturday, 21 September 2013

Blip: Aeolus: UKIP/Bloom/Sluts

UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom was recently ‘suspended from formal involvement in party business’ because of a string of comments he made that have pissed off the all-powerful, oligarchical crowd of fuckwits that inhabit this country. You know the ones: Those that have no understanding of subtlety, no humour and no developed sense of empathy: Everything is as they see it, anyone who thinks otherwise is ‘deluded’.  

Now I’m not here to dwell on what he said (though I will start with that), I’m here to discuss the reaction to these comments in general as well as a piece of rather disgusting behaviour of a journalist hounding (‘interviewing’) Bloom. First, he talked about British Foreign aid going to ‘bongo-bongo land’. Perhaps not the ideal choice of words if you want to develop a reputation of being politically correct, though it does touch on a very important issue.

i.e. Britain wasting a fortune on foreign aid as a thinly disguised furthering of the maniacal expansionism of Western democracies. As transparent as Christian missionaries. Especially while the country is so bemoaning the benefits budget. We can send our pounds to bongo-bongo land (as in, foreign countries that we have nothing to do with) but we can’t look after our own people. Anyway, not the issue at hand.

The second comment was a joke wherein Bloom said ‘This place is full of sluts’ referring to a group of female activists at the UKIP annual conference. The joke relies on the original meaning of the word ‘slut’ from the 14th century (of unknown origin, sadly, or this would be easier to explain to etymological noobs). The older meaning of the word, which Bloom’s generation would have been more privy to, is a slovenly or dirty woman. The comment was made in response to women at the meeting saying they’ve never cleaned behind their fridges.

The offense was merely due to an unfortunate word choice. If he’d said ‘this place is full of slovenly women’, there would be no problem (though, admittedly, it’s less snappy) because it’s not the meaning that’s the problem, it’s the misunderstanding. More importantly though, it wasn’t the women (the supposedly insulted women) who were terribly offended at this, it was other, uninvolved people who were so enraged at a word choice that didn’t fit with their conception of things that they had to demand action be taken.

I’ve said it many times but why stop saying something before it ceases to be true? Wouldn’t life be so easy if everyone had to cohere to your world view?

As for the action of the journalist (a profession known the world over to attract and create scum of the highest order): As a furtherance of his questioning of Bloom, after Bloom’s initial explanation was very annoying as it was sensible and not offensive at all, the journalist tried to create a little controversy and play off a common set of rumours about UKIP and racism.

He showed Bloom a UKIP conference magazine (or some such party literature) that was decorated with faces of members over the front cover and he asked Bloom why there were no ‘Black faces’ on the front. Bloom was, I think understandably, annoyed at this and stormed off after calling the journalist a racist and swinging the magazine at him.

Is it really possible to deny that the journalist was being racist? Of all the people there, he was the only one to bring skin colour into it and with a view to there being too much white and not enough black. The awful thing is that this insensitive comment was part of an attack on Bloom. The journalist says something terrible but the accusations remain on Bloom. That’s the modern media for you. The views and depictions of the media shift and change with the winds at the behest of nobody but constant scandal. Naturally the journalists are only too happy to satisfy this demand and now It seems if you have a camera and/or a notepad and are working towards keeping the winds changing, you can get away with a hell of a lot more without getting in any trouble. Chasing lone women down alleyways, camping out outside people’s houses, accosting people in the street, following them when they leave and shouting at them, demanding that they answer your questions. Would any of these activities be any different without the word ‘journalist’?

Answers on a postcard! 


No comments:

Post a Comment

Please tell us what you think and don't be afraid to be honest, that's what we're here for.