First up there’s this story on the BBC website about a Napoleon theme park outside Paris. Doubtless if the little Corporal was alive today, the BBC would be shouting ‘Vive l’Empereur!‘ with the best of them. Oddly, no, that’s not the right word. Let me think. . . . Ahh yes. Predictably, the plans for the park have no mention of Waterloo. Anyhow, this from Charles Napoleon, a descendent of the odious little authoritarian who is speaking out in defence of his ancestor:
“Yes, Napoleon made war. But behind the French armies came new institutions, new administrations, new rules – all inspired by the French revolution, by equality and justice. It was liberation through conquest.”
Liberation through conquest? What? Smacks of Arbeit Macht Frei to me, but don’t mention the Austrian Corporal in Charles’ earshot, they were nothing alike at all, oh no.
And new rules! Huzzah! Just what we all always cry out for, new rules! Saints be praised we’re saved! Liberation through conquest, give me strength. I wonder if the BBC would publish same without comment if it was George W talking about Iraq?
Next up is Red Ken, displaying qualities that would have him tarred and feathered if he were anyone else, but it’s OK, discrimination is fine as long as it comes from a Righteous approved outlet (from the Torygraph):
“every psephological study I’ve seen in the 40 years I’ve been following politics shows the main factor that determines how people how vote is their income level. It varies, a lot of people vote against their own economic interest very often, but that is the main factor and it’s not anti-Semitic to say that.”
Just in case you need a highlighter on that, Dan Hodges spells it out;
In Britain, in 2012, that is the pitch coming from a mainstream political candidate to his supporters: “The Jews are opposed to me – and us – because of their wealth.”
Wow. I’ve invoked his spirit already so I might as well do it again. How long before Red Ken asks ‘how do you solve a problem like Avi?’
That really is something.
And then, following these two is arch-arseclown extraordinaire and Pravda lackwit Richard Bacon who is banging on about the Archers, (also from the Torygraph).
“I honestly believe there are two types of people in the world: those who find The Archers boring … and those who find it boring but pretend to enjoy it as they think it makes them look superior,”
No, not quite you odious, self-satisfied, whinging little twit. There are four types, the two you mentioned and the third camp, those who enjoy it, and the fourth camp, the one I’m sat in, those who don’t listen to it and couldn’t give a tinker’s cuss about it.
Bacon said he longed for a day when he could drive his children to after school activities without having to listen to fictional characters bemoaning the price of poultry feed or worrying about which farmer uses which type of machinery.
Without having to? What, has someone done a number on your car radio? Is it permanently on and tuned to R4? I mean, I don’t blame you for not listening to R5L in your car, even if it is your station, have you heard the output? It’s bloody disastrous, footie commentary, Fighting Talk and Mayo and Kermode on a Friday aside, and your show’s the worst.
The always entertaining James Denningpole explains in the same paper why Bacon is right, but for all the wrong reasons. He also writes about and links to his ever so entertaining dust-up with Bacon on Bacon’s show the other day.
Hmmm, given Bonaparte, Livingstone and Bacon lined up and one consequence free opportunity to give one of them a hefty kick in nadgers, I’d probably plump for Bacon.
‘Oooooh noez! I haz a twoll!’