The Tough Arm of the Law

[David Gwilliam]

These germans and greeks, coming here and taking our council palaces ;-)

I realise that this is not meant seriously. However, the comment gets repeated so often that it is worth mentioning that only one member of the monarchy was not born in Britain. That is Prince Philip who was born in Greece but came to Britain as a boy, was educated in Scotland and fought in the Second World War as a member of the Royal Navy. The present Queen was born in England with an English father and Scottish mother. No member of the royal family is German although the obscure wife of the Duke of Kent was born in the Czech Republic when it was under Nazi iccupation. Since George III was born in London in 1738 every British monarch had been born in Britain.
If I labour the point it is because the royal family being German has been repeated so often that many people believe it is true. H G Wells described George V (born in London) as "alien and uninspiring." George commented "I may be uninspiring but I'm damned if I am alien".

At the risk of irking DG further, the nadiaurg is not paid for by either..

I did not criticize the ownership of The Guardian though I do like the word "irking"

Blimey, I think you got the wrong stick there. I was attempting to imply that they are as bad as one another. No news sells like bad news after all, and in the current climate for newspapers it is all about sales.

Still at least neither is the NOTW. Today's relevations re the Milly Dowler case really do deserve some serious jail time for reporters and editors alike.

I frequently get the wrong end of the stick. Cynics have even accused me of deliberately doing it to provoke.

I am agree completely about the News Of The World. However, despite praising the police earlier I am even more bothered by their role in it than by the journalists. It is clear that high level police officers have deliberately obstructed the enquiry. As recently as last month Tom Watson the MP who has done such a good job pursuing this was told by the polce officer conducting the rnquiry that most of the papers they had were "outside their terms of reference." This was nonsense and the officer must have known it was nonsense. David Cameron replied rightly that a police inquiry has no terms of reference.

If I deal with that point at length it is because I feel strongly about it. Two years ago I was being asked how can you believe in Parliament with that expenses racket and I replied that it is because I believe in parliament that I feel so strongly. I have nothing but contempt for the News Of The Worls. It is because I believe so strongly in the British police that I feel strongly when I feel let down.

 

[David Gwilliam]

But the Mail often has favourable stories about the Royal family.

It also has unfavourable stories. This morning the Mail had a story about the |Prince of Wales "summoning" ministers. As the Queen delegates more Charles will increasingly meet with ministers. many people do not realise that constitutionally any task the Queen does can be delegated to the Prince of Wales.

Take The Guardian in contrast. The Guardian is so besotted with the monarchy and its journalistgs so keen to toe the editorial line that last week William and Kate were criticized for joining in the Mexican wave at Wimbledon. What would The Guardian have written if they had ignored the wave.
This is not the worst. Some years ago a Guardian sportswriter was so sycophantic to the editorial line that he criticised Kevin Keegan. What had Keegan done wrong - he had sung the National Anthem.

 

[Blue Maniac]

:icon_smil

45 minutes later, nobody has said anything like 'get a room you benders'. Is everybody ill?

 

[Jeff]

Take The Guardian in contrast. The Guardian is so besotted with the monarchy and its journalistgs so keen to toe the editorial line that last week William and Kate were criticized for joining in the Mexican wave at Wimbledon. What would The Guardian have written if they had ignored the wave.

Are you talking about David Mitchell's column?
He's not a journalist, he's a comedian/writer/actor.

 

[jb5000]

Are you talking about David Mitchell's column?
He's not a journalist, he's a comedian/writer/actor.

He certainly is not a comedian/writer/actor either.

 

[Billyjof]

Are you talking about David Mitchell's column?
He's not a journalist, he's a comedian/writer/actor.

He certainly is not a comedian/writer/actor either.

There is of course the twice booker prize shortlisted author of the same name, but I'm pretty sure you can find strong evidence that this particular David Mitchell is all of the above.

 

[Cate Fox]

There is of course the twice booker prize shortlisted author of the same name, but I'm pretty sure you can find strong evidence that this particular David Mitchell is all of the above.

Is this the same David Mitchell that was on that Channel 4 car crash of a show based on news events?

 

[David Gwilliam]

Surely if somebody is paid to write regularly for newspapers he is a journalist. He may also be a comedian or an actor.

 

[Billyjof]

Is this the same David Mitchell that was on that Channel 4 car crash of a show based on news events?

I don't know, Care to elaborate?

Surely if somebody is paid to write regularly for newspapers he is a journalist. He may also be a comedian or an actor.

He acts in Peep Show which I love, not sure he is the greatest actor in the world, but he's definately an actor.
He's often on QI and Have I Got News For You which maybe scripted to some degree, but I enjoy his comedy input. He even has a BAFTA and three British Comedy awards so says Wikipedia.

I can safely say David Mitchell can claim to be of some sort, a Comedian/Actor/Writer more so than someone such as Hugh Dennis. This is however my honest opinion.

 

[Real Sharapova]

Surely if somebody is paid to write regularly for newspapers he is a journalist. He may also be a comedian or an actor.

I read Mitchell's column in The Observer and read the piece you refer to ( it wasn't in The Gruaniad, although I appreciate they share common ownership ). I read it more as him being bit anal about keeping sporting traditions, and if I were William's media spokesman I don't think I would have lost too much sleep over it. I also don't thing Mitchell would bow to any editorial line, but perhaps I'm a bit simple. Finally I would say that Mitchell is most surely not a journalist. He writes a column that is from time to time a little bit funny. I'd call him a part time writer. I doubt if he would call himself a journalist.

 

[Real Sharapova]

Take The Guardian in contrast. The Guardian is so besotted with the monarchy and its journalists so keen to toe the editorial line.

You obviously didn't read their edition after the recent Royal Wedding. OK, it had the expected coverage of the " Not The Royal Wedding Parties ", which were, as you would expect, rather tiresome. The other 95% of the coverage, and there was a lot of it, was pretty evenhanded and reflected the general mood of the country. Most of the editorial/opinion pieces were pretty positive about the whole thing.

 

[Steven]

And **** you with your homophobia.

Hardly polite and kind.

 

[Cate Fox]

Hardly polite and kind.

I dont know why you are bothering Steven, its nutty season on here.

 

[jb5000]

Hardly polite and kind.

And I don't apologise for either.

 

[Blue Maniac]

I dont know why you are bothering Steven, its nutty season on here.

Glad you noticed.

And I don't apologise for either.

Good.

 

[RHYDAL]

45 minutes later, nobody has said anything like 'get a room you benders'. Is everybody ill?

No, just Homer.

 

[Cate Fox]

Glad you noticed.

Ok...why the sarcasm?

 

[Blue Maniac]

Ok...why the sarcasm?

Why would you assume I'm being sarcastic?

 

[Cate Fox]

Why would you assume I'm being sarcastic?

Because your responses tend to be that way at the moment.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Because your responses tend to be that way at the moment.

Occasionally I'm serious.