The Guardian and the censorship of horror films

The Guardian is the so-called ‘liberal voice’ of the UK, and now proposes itself as one of the leading liberal voices online. It often comes out against horror films and this week, Jigsaw (a return of the Saw films) is released as this particular film series returns from the dead.

An article by Benjamin Lee was published in the paper decrying the ‘return of torture porn’ and yet again the paper sets their sights on the horror genre and in particular, ‘torture porn’ which they’ve written more or less the same article since 2007.

I get why middle class liberals at the Guardian may hates films like Jigsaw. They are after all designed for mass audiences and this sort of middle class sneering is aimed at all mass forms of entertainment, but it’s the priggish sense of superiority from the contributors and commentators mixed with a barely suppressed push for censorship that should be concerning. This isn’t to say I think Jigsaw will be a good film, it probably won’t be as barring the first Saw film there’s pretty thin pickings in that series but I get why people watch them. These are rollercoaster rides. The audience can safely wallow in gore, enjoy a few mild scares and go home safely. Yeah, the films are shite without any real importance but so what? Censoring them wouldn’t work but it’d make these middle class liberals happy they’re controlling the ‘masses’ for what they think is their own benefit.

Violent and gory stories are part of our culture. They’re embedded in religion, history and culture, so while things like Jigsaw may be bad films but they’re just part of who we are. Censoring for the wider public good is simply, bollocks and perhaps the middle class media shouldn’t be so sneering at such entertainment because people might enjoy them for what they are?

Why is the Guardian lying about Alex Salmond wiping off Scotland’s Poll Tax debt?

The Guardian today printed an editorial about the recent announcement by Alex Salmond that Poll Tax debt was to be wiped in Scotland after attempts by some Labour councils in Scotland to start collecting outstanding debts from 25 years ago after all the people who’d newly registered for the Scottish Independence referendum were on the electoral register. It should be pointed out Poll Tax debts were wiped in England and Wales in 1999, and that Labour didn’t support non-payment of the tax as a method of protest at the time. I mention these things which need to be noted because they’re exceptionally relevant in relation to the version of history and current events the Guardian is painting in it’s editorial.

See, what the Guardian is trying to paint is that £425 million of unpaid taxes are floating around in Scotland from people who should pay it, and Alex Salmond is being a ruthless popularist in abolishing people’s Poll Tax debt and that people should pay their taxes!! Problem is that these Labour councils were breaking the law by going after cases more than 20 years old as in Scotland, there’s a 20 year law (it’s seven in England and Wales) saying debt over that time cannot be collected.

In fact Alex Salmond called into a radio programme not only to make this point clear, but to hand Jim Gifford, one of the Labour councilors intending to go after people fro money, their arse. Listen for yourself.

One of the things you’ll not see in the Guardian editorial is any mention at all of the 20 year law, mainly because it’d utterly change the intention of the piece from something that criticises Salmond to something that should attack Labour councils going after debt illegally and praising the Scottish government for wiping clean the slates of people who were paying their debt off who’d probably repaid it several times over by now. It’d attack Labour for standing by the Tories but no, instead it’s an attack on Salmond written for I assume, Labour and Lib Dem supporters south of the border in order to I assume, whip up a concentrated assault on the SNP and probably Scotland itself by those supposedly of the left.

It’s an astonishing bit of media manipulation whatever the reason which beggars belief that they think that people wouldn’t complain or point out the truth. So here you go. Facts are clearly not sacred when it comes to attacking your political opponents which also means printing articles which don’t just do that, but also get incredibly preachy and the Guardian really shouldn’t get on it’s high horse about people not paying their taxes considering what they do to avoid paying taxes themselves. That makes it even more repulsive and I suggest emailing if you’re angry enough to make your voice heard.

Why is the Guardian against Scottish Independence?

During this debate on Scottish Independence the usual suspects have been firmly on the Unionist side. We’ve seen the Sun, the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Express and the Metro all firmly  pushing the party line from Westminster. The Independent has been a mess which is typical of a paper that’s all over the place, but it’s the role of The Guardian that’s the most puzzling.

The Guardian is the paper which proclaims itself to be a liberal and progressive voice, except it’s very firmly taking an editorial line against independence, and has been since the start of the campaign proper two years ago. You’d expect the paper and it’s editor Alan Rusbridger, to firmly come out in support of an independent Scotland based upon firm social democratic principles, except they don’t.

Here’s some examples.

Now you might say those are perfectly fine, and they are as after all the Guardian is hardly an impartial voice, but it pretends to be balanced but it clearly isn’t as the anti-independence articles outnumber the ones by the likes of George Monbiot, by at least 3-1. Then there’s how they distort stories to fit a certain narrative, so for examples Sunday’s perfectly peaceful demo at the BBC in Glasgow is being painted as ‘press intimidation’ when it was entirely peaceful and conducted in good Glaswegian humour.


Why this matter is because the Guardian has a crucial voice in shaping how the left in the South form opinion because the Guardian under Rusbridger’s editorship has firmly become a paper of the South, not to mention the US and Australia, but less so the less of the UK. It still has, or at least, had a place in providing an alternative. It is trying to cover its arse with things like this splendid Billy Bragg piece aimed at the Left in England especially (the Left in Wales seem to be starting something of their own) but on the whole it’s drummed the establishment beat. It’s also veered into cheap insults with every single article on Scottish Independence has this ad for Steve Bell’s Alex Salmond squeezy stress doll.


I wouldn’t mind if there was say, an Alistair Darling one, or a David Cameron one, but this is it. On every article. It’s frankly, taking the fucking piss not because I’m a huge supporter of the SNP, which I’m not, but because they’ve done they best to reduce the campaign to a SNP V Better Together/Labour one and that is an insult to the millions of people in Scotland who are debating right now and won’t vote for the SNP in 2016.

If you’re a leftish liberal Guardian reader in London or the South then you’re being fed a lie. It’s a sad state of affairs when the paper which has spent years wondering when something to challenge the established order would arrive in the UK and it happens in Scotland and they don’t bother about it.

Now, the conspiracy theorist Craig Murray posted this the other day:

No declaration of interest from Rusbridger in Guardian pro-union editorial over Benshie estate he stands to inherit through his wife, daughter of Lord Mackie


There is a Lord Mackie, and he does indeed occasionally do stuff in the Lords, as for the Benshie estate, that’s harder to confirm though house prices in Benshie are around the £250k mark, which means a tidy profit for any landowner. There is however a popping of the myth that Rusbridger is anti-establishment when in fact, he’s firmly part of it but he does need to declare his interests as if he is due to come into the ownership of Scottish land and he’s using the Guardian to manipulate the debate then what credibility he had left is gone.

There is however no point asking him, or indeed his daughter who works at the paper under her mother’s maiden name as they didn’t want to let such an obvious case of nepotism to stand out, though it did eventually. There’s no chance of a straight answer.

So you the reader have to make sure that you don’t read one paper or get the one world view because you’re not getting the full picture.

The media’s hindsight in regards Rolf Harris…

There’s a couple of articles in The Guardian about Rolf Harris today. Both contain amazing amounts of hindsight, though this first article by Jonathan Jones contains not just amazing amounts of hindsight but Olympic sized swimming pools full of middle class smuggery that he could see Harris’s ‘dark side’ as if he was some sort of Jedi Warrior.

Long before Rolf Harris was convicted of 12 counts of indecent assault, including one against a girl aged seven or eight, I got a minor glimpse of his now notorious dark side.

I was sent to the press unveiling of his portrait of the Queen at her Buckingham Palace art gallery in 2005, at the height of his success when his Rolf on Art programmes had become the flagship of popular art history on the BBC (“Can you see what it is yet? It’s Monet’s waterlily pond …”)

The press conference was a sickening display of fawning over Harris and his fatuous painting, and something in me snapped. I asked him if he seriously believed that his portrait was a good work of art.

Anger suddenly crossed his previously beaming face. That dark side … The BBC’s senior person there – its head of factual television – spoke up to assert how “popular” Harris and his art were. How dare I criticise an artist so loved?


I didn’t think Harris was a Great Artist, but he was a great cartoonist, however Jones here isn’t interested in either a critique of Harris as an artists (which to be fair, isn’t ever going to happen now) but is instead trying to use his power of hindsight that he indeed, was clever and smart enough to see the ‘dark side’ because Harris and his press officer seemed annoyed at him. Jones uses this amazing power of hindsight to then launch a quite amazing attack upon what he sees as ‘worthless’ art, or anything popular in pop culture that he disapproves of.

In the case of Harris, I would be happy to see all his art destroyed, but I already felt that way back in 2005. Even as a child, I found his art on television soporific. He was never a good artist and it’s too late for collectors of his work to say they feel duped now – they were suckers to fall for such worthless cultural detritus in the first place. Collectors may even have a happy ending: some speculate that the notoriety of the artist will enhance his prices. People pay for paintings by Hitler – I can image Rolf’s similarly vacuous images becoming cult items.

Perhaps it all goes to show that the middlebrow is inherently corrupt. What goes on in Tracey Emin’s bed is far more honest, far more decent, than what has gone on in the name of bland entertainment and mild art, it turns out. Chocolate box art is a lie.


It’s worth reading the full piece just to read how much of an arsehole Jones comes over as but obviously if someone as diligent, smart and amazingly superior as Jones thought there was something to uncover about Harris then he’d have surely had a word in a journalists ear to see if there was anything worth digging up? Oh, he didn’t. Instead he’s just saying with the aid of 20/20 vision looking back and saying he may have possibly seen something, but he’s better than the plebs so there!

Marginally better is this one from Simon Hattenstone which at least admits some remorse for not actually doing the job of a journalist, but since the Harris verdict large parts of the media are closing ranks suggesting we should never be fooled by the likes of Harris or Jimmy Savile. We should look under the surface at what’s underneath and so on.

The problem is that although most of us believed Harris was a good man (I’d been one of many who’d enjoyed his Glastonbury performances which are memories now ruined), there’s stories flying around that some in the media knew of some stories regarding Harris but never printed or investigated them. They also apparently knew stories about Max Clifford but did nothing and of course the stories about Jimmy Savile are legion, not to mention that he didn’t even bother to hide the fact he was a paedophile but instead let the media obfuscate the matter for him.

I like most other people had no idea about Harris, but if people in the media did, they should have investigated it. Savile was known about and I’d heard stories about Savile going back to being a kid at school in Glasgow in the 70’s but wrote these off as stories until having these stories repeated to me in the 80’s and 90’s. These were stories told in playgrounds, pubs, workplaces and everywhere around the country but no investigative journalist looked into them to prove them, or perhaps clear the name of someone who at the time, was still massively popular?

The hindsight being shown by the media is of course a distraction from the fact they failed to do their jobs. It’s entirely right that the BBC and anyone in that organisation who helped cover up this abuse is brought to justice, but there’s a responsibility that the media failed to uphold so rather than admitting they fucked up, we’re getting these astonishingly self-righteous articles which mainly suggest they knew it all along, which is of course, utter, utter shite.

The abuses being uncovered are because they were covered up not just by people in the BBC, but the media and the establishment as a whole. There’s been a few journalists who have written about these topics and have done some amazing work, with Nick Davies being a very notable example of someone who still upholds the best of investigative journalism on the subject with articles like this.

Ultimately though it’s always inaction that lets abuse continue, be that the inaction of someone in power not listening to a victim trying to tell their story, or the inaction of a journalist who did nothing at the time but feel the need to rub salt in the wound by telling the people off for not being as smart as them, after the fact of course. Perhaps if more journalists actually did their job people like Harris might not have gotten away with it for so long?

England Prevails-The sad story of UKIP’s ‘earthquake’

It’s the day when results for the European Elections across the EU and far right parties like the National Front in France have won a number of seats. Here in the UK, our far right party of the day is UKIP who have, sadly, won themselves a number of MEP’s, including one in Scotland which is depressing to say the least. Nigel Farage is now saying UKIP are the ‘third force’ in a four party system.

Problem is for UKIP, reality says another thing. As I write this, Scotland still has to declare but this is the percentages of the parties as I write this.


UKIP are indeed top of the pile. The first party that ins’t Tory or Labour to win a British national election since the Second World War.There are however things to note and let’s start by pointing out where The Greens are. They’re fourth on with an addition MEP on a slightly reduced share of the vote. Imagine if those parts of the media that alleges itself to be ‘progressive’ like say, The Guardian, had pushed for the Greens instead of telling their readers that UKIP were racists in a stream of articles which according to Private Eye, have been fed to them by the Tories.


If true, then that’s simply extraordinary. It’s also something which if found to be true should make Alan Rusbridger resign as they had a chance to present an alternative vision, but instead jumped to help out the Tories. Think about the implications of that for a minute and when you’ve picked up your jaw realise that there is an establishment that was working against UKIP but instead of The Guardian telling the Tories to fuck off, they allegedly jumped into bed with them. So much for ‘progressive’ politics, or offering any sort of genuine left wing alternative.

As for the BBC’s cheerleading for Farage and UKIP thanks mainly to the odious Nick Robinson. Well, that’s also creating a media-led narrative which paints UKIP as ‘outsiders’ (they’re not) against the establishment. It makes good, tabloid telly and it’s a narrative much of the media lapped up. It’s entirely wrong of course but it doesn’t stop it being repeated across a media mainly based in London.

Now I admit to having voted Green as I outlined here, but with reservations but they seem to be a good protest vote against the establishment that isn’t a bunch of xenophobic fascists and racists. Had say, The Guardian fell behind them, or presented the other options instead of shilling for the Tories or preaching to the converted, then things may possibly be different. We’ll never know. We do know they put out this extraordinary piece with the headline ”Ukip results reveal divide between London and rest of England” on Friday which pushed the line that smart, educated, cosmopolitan London were too clever for UKIP. The facts however are that virtually every major English city, so Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds, Blackburn, Manchester, Wigan, Sunderland, Newcastle and many others have no UKIP Councillors. Here in Bristol where UKIP spent what must be tens of thousands of pounds judging by the amount of billboards across the city, they only walked away with one seat.

UKIP’s ‘earthquake’ actually wasn’t anything of the kind on Friday, and although the European Elections have been a victory for them, there are reasons for this. Go back up and look at the graphic of what party got what percentages of votes. Look at how the BNP vote has collapsed. It doesn’t take a genius to work out where that vote has probably went to, especially when you note the amount of EDL supporters who are very vocal UKIP supporters on social media. For example:


A wee shufty through Twitter will find hundreds, if not thousands, more like this. UKIP may not be openly racist, or saying they openly court racism but they and it’s getting them support. It’s worked but it’s too easy to suggest it’s only just EDL and former BNP voters voting UKIP, it’s not. There’s people who want to simply give the establishment a bloody nose and if UKIP are racist, well, it’s not the point. It’s about using the system to voice dissent. UKIP have been smart enough (either by design or accident) to take advantage of this so that Farage sets himself up outside of the establishment and is giving Westminster a bloody nose. The truth is that Farage is as much part of the establishment as Cameron, Milliband and Clegg, and doesn’t stand for free speech, and in fact has tried to actively suppress free speech in this election. This doesn’t matter though to UKIP voters as they see UKIP standing for something which is a vision of Britain, and more specifically, England standing dominant over all, including the other countries of the United Kingdom. For them England Prevails and they see Farage’s vision so they vote for it. It’s smoke and mirrors but people voted for it. UKIP are for something, even if the smarter among us know it’s a lie.

Here’s the problem with many of us on the left. We’ve been against so many things for so long, we’ve forgotten what it’s like to be for something so it’s easy to complain about the Daily Mail, or Tweet about ‘Bullingdon Boys’, but presenting a decent, alternative to right wing politics that people of all classes can look at and consider something to vote for?


So when Russell Brand says that voting is a waste of time vast chunks of people on the left, especially young people, think this is a great idea. Selling a vision of apathy or that voting changes nothing looks pretty fucking hollow today as UKIP sail into seats across the UK, including one in Scotland. it doesn’t look like voting is a ‘waste of time’ today. I think Nigel Farage is quite grateful of people like Brand ensuring younger voters don’t turn out as they buy into Brand’s sixth form political rhetoric. It allows the media to shape the idea that it’s only London that votes against UKIP, or that in the words of Nick Robinson, UKIP are causing an ‘earthquake’ when the reality of the night is that, well, UKIP won on a 34% turnout.


That’s 66% who didn’t vote. They couldn’t even muster up the energy to spoil a ballot paper. I don’t blame UKIP voters for this. They’re wankers but they’re wankers who voted for something, even if it’s xenophobia and racism. You lot who didn’t vote did nothing to help, especially in the European elections which uses PR and your vote actually means something. You could have voted Green, or No2Eu, or SNP, or Plaid Cymru, or any of the leftish alternatives. Fuck, you could even have voted for one of the three main parties but no, you didn’t do anything so you’re now going to sit back an complain about how the EU does things, or Nigel Farage/Ed Milliband/Alex Salmond. David Cameron/whomever, or how your city is run but you didn’t do that one thing that people have died to get, which is vote.

Well done, you’re as culpable for this as someone who put an X by UKIP on the ballot paper.

So what now? Well Nick Robinson on the BBC is still wittering on about how so very important Nigel Farage is, and Labour and the Tories are trying to work out how much more like UKIP they can become, while the Lib Dems are going to tear themselves apart. The post mortem in Scotland is going to be an interesting one but it speaks volumes that the UKIP MEP for Scotland has a home address in London.  Will UKIP even win a seat in the general election next year? Possibly, but now they have over 20 MEP’s that’s over twenty opportunities for the sort of enormous fuck ups of the type we’re used to from UKIP.

Like the BNP before them, UKIP have to prove they walk the talk. They won’t, or at least, the majority won’t as there’s rattling skeletons (there’s already rumours all their new MEP’s are donating 10#% of their salary to be paid into UKIP’s coffers, something not permitted by law) still to be exposed with UKIP’s new MEP’s and fantastic groups like Hope not Hate, and the odd journalist here and there will expose. However without something for people to vote for, UKIP aren’t going away.

Democracy is hard. That’s the point. Sitting on you arse apathetically complaining leads to this. People now have just under a year to wake up and work out what they’re going to do.

So just what is it that you want to do?

Is it ok for adults to read comics?


One of the things to come out of the increasingly depressing aftermath of the ‘last Alan Moore interview’ is a discussion of who exactly comics are for which is the subject of an article by Jonathon Jones in The Guardian titled Is it really OK for adults to superhero-worship Alan Moore’s comics? Now the article is a load of nonsense from someone who is an ‘expert’ in the arts but knows next to nothing about the art form he’s talking about, but is it ok for adults to read comics?

Yes, of course it is. A book like Maus can only work as a comic and is every bit an adult book. Same goes for Persepolis, Lost Girls, Black Hole, Alice in Sunderland and dozens upon dozens of examples of comics that are adult, or at least, not juvenile in nature. Jones argument also hinges upon comics being a naturally childish genre that adults have only recently been reading, but that’s not true in the UK , and it’s certainly not been true in much of Europe and Japan where comics are an accepted artform and have been for decades.

Jones argument works only if you accept that the likes of Marvel and DC’s superhero lines are the mainstream and they’re not. Well, at least they’ve not been for at least a decade, and when things like Robert Crumb’s Book of Genesis becomes a bestseller then you have to wonder just where the mainstream lies.


Comics are everywhere in the mainstream from Bitstrips to webcomics to just everywhere you turn and most people probably don’t think they’re reading comics but they are. They might not realise what they’re reading is a supposed childish artform but they are. Comics can do anything and by ‘anything’ I don’t mean big sweeping superhero battles but they can tell the sort of little stories you won’t see in film or TV, or in the media generally, and with the internet they can be distributed to a vast number of people in a way that’s never happened before.

So yes, it’s perfectly fine for adults to read comics because the chance is they’ve been doing it for years and they’re doing it today & there’s bugger all wrong with that. The question really should be is whether there’s enough good comics out there for adults, or people of all ages to be reading and that’s a different question, not to mention one that needs to touch upon some uncomfortable truths about comics but that’s a blog for another time…

Laura Sneddon responds to the ‘last Alan Moore interview?’

In the continuing fuss over the ‘last Alan Moore interview?’ on Slovobooks a few weeks ago, there’s been a lack of response from the people Moore generally slags off in his interview, that is apart from Laura Sneddon threatening legal action towards Moore, and one assumes, Pádraig Ó Méalóid  for running the interview. That’s changed today with Sneddon releasing a blog in which she states:

I would like to correct the various defamatory remarks and factual inaccuracies regarding myself in the latest interview with Alan Moore.

As a freelancer I unfortunately do not have access to the same legal support as an employee when pursuing the publication of remarks that are defamatory towards myself in my profession. This makes pursuing the publisher of such a defamatory work costly and time consuming. I have sought legal advice and am now pursuing some of the available avenues open to me.

Given the cost of taking things further at this point however I sincerely hope that having presented the facts as below that these corrections are made available wherever the original piece has been reported and that the defamatory remarks are appropriately removed.

Considering that I’m one of those places that has commented heavily upon the original piece, I assume that I’m also to make these corrections, but let’s look at the facts she presents here.

  • I have interviewed Alan Moore twice, once for The Independent on Sunday, and once for SciFiNow (which I spiked with the support of my editor).

This is a fact. It is however only relevant in that she’s interviewed Moore far, far less than she has Grant Morrison. A quick check on The Guardian’s site reveals 53 results for the search term ‘Laura Sneddon’. including an extraordinary amount of coverage of Grant Morrison. This proves nothing about anything but is presented purely as a fact.

  • I confirmed prior to publication of the review of Century 2009 with the publisher, Knockabout, that it was ok to mention the elements of the plot related to Harry Potter.

One assume Knockabout though it was ok to mention it when interviewing Moore and they didn’t think it’d be slapped in a feature in The Independent before the book was released. What seems to have been missed is this Guardian article quoting Sneddon’s blog printed a day after The Independent piece. This is again before the book is released.

  • Century 2009 was not an embargoed title in book shops, and was on sale to the public two days prior to the review being published.

This is journalist speak, and it’s downright dishonest. Sneddon would know what the embargo was for and she’d know that not all the readership would have bought or received their copies. It’s also moving the goalposts a tad so the allegation that she broke an embargo is no longer an issue for her because, hey some readers may, possibly have had the book.

  • At no time did I show my review copy of Century 2009 to any other party.
  • The news story relating to Century 2009 was not what I expected, but was not written by me. I did however provide a quote.

So ok, she didn’t show her copy to anyone, but she provided a quote, blogged about it and generally shouted about it to anyone listening.

  • I reached out to Moore after being made aware he was unhappy with the coverage of Century 2009.

I don’t doubt she did. However this is something that’s never going to mean anything unless you’re Sneddon or Moore, or indeed, know what form the contact was.

  • Shortly after publication of the review I received correspondence from Knockabout (publisher of Century 2009) stating that it was the suggested headline in the review, which had been picked up and run with, which had caused the upset. They also stated that had I not made such an observation somebody else most likely would have and that otherwise the review was great.
  • I parted on good terms with Knockabout and continue to pitch coverage of their titles to various publications.

Moore comments that Sneddon wouldn’t have been the only person responsible for the Independent article. Whether she’s on good terms with Knockabout is between her and Knockabout owner Tony Bennett.

  • I have never spoken to Melinda Gebbie (Moore’s wife) on the phone.

This is something where you have to take the word of Gebbie and Moore, or Sneddon. One says one thing and the other denies it. It’s never going to be proven unless there’s a recording and I don’t think GCHQ will have kept that one if it exists.

  • I attended Melinda Gebbie’s talk at the Edinburgh Book Festival, which I wrote up for The Beat.
  • At Melinda Gebbie’s book signing at the Edinburgh Book Festival I mentioned the write-up for The Beat and how helpful her talk had been for my PhD studies, and when she paused at the name on my press badge I apologized for any upset that had been caused in relation to the Century 2009 review – Gebbie was pleasant and friendly and I thought no more of it.

Gebbie doesn’t seem like the sort of person to smash a Buckfast bottle in your face while shouting ‘come on then, who wants some!!?’ at the top of her lungs. I’ve been pleasant to people in a work, or a semi-professional setting, who I disliked or couldn’t fucking stand the sight of because, well, I’m an adult. This is I assume what Gebbie was being when she met Sneddon.

  • I did not request an interview with Melinda Gebbie at the Edinburgh Book Festival, nor did I mention any of the publications whom I was freelancing for at the time.

If Sneddon introduced herself as a freelance journalist then she surely would have mentioned who she worked for in order to add credibility but if she didn’t ask for an interview then why would Sneddon mention she didn’t mention any publications? This doesn’t make sense to me and as someone who’s spent much of the last 14 years teaching salespeople I can spot a fib a mile off and this sets my Spidey Sense tingling.

  • I have the complete support of my editor at The Independent on Sunday, and the editors of the other publications that I work for.

I’d be shocked if she didn’t as The Independent, etc should back a contributor. However at the same time this comment seems more for her own benefit than ours.

There is however no response to the allegations that she aided Will Brooker in his online slagging of Moore’s film , Act of Faith, which he hadn’t seen and opinions seemed to be derived only from what he’d heard and the film’s trailer.

After the evening at the Prince Charles cinema, Brooker took to Twitter to make a series of comments that were designed to whip up a fuss, and Twitter is a perfect place to create a firestorm. Sneddon added to this by putting Brooker’s Tweets on Storify in a page now deleted, but the internet is a cruel thing so the cache is here with all of Brooker’s Tweets along with (I assume) the reaction he was expecting.

Now all of this is people throwing shite at each other online, and frankly it’s sad, if somewhat interesting to see the reactions play out but I assure you, I am not going to remove the ”defamatory” remarks from the links to the Slovobooks Alan Moore interview because none of what Sneddon has given as ‘proof’ is just hearsay, or incredibly desperate in it’s attempt to create credibility for someone who, frankly, has seen much of what credibility they had go swimming away.

There’s a good debate waiting to break out in the wake of Moore’s interview, and frankly, little of that has broken out, but before it does lets make clear that although Moore obviously has no agenda beyond putting his own points forward against the serious allegation he’s a racist and a misogynist, while others involved with this seem like they’re more interested in creating controversy  to help promote their own agendas. So for the sake of all sanity, lets have an informed debate.

This is probably the last I’m blogging about this unless the mood takes me or I think of something interesting to say. I’m going back to talking bollocks and annoying UKIP…..

The Guardian discovers ‘The Last Alan Moore interview?’

Today’s Guardian runs a piece about the recent ‘Last Alan Moore interview?’ that journalist Pádraig Ó Méalóid conducted with Moore in December. Now, the Guardian doesn’t actually add anything to the somewhat frantic, and often daft response to this interview that’s burst online over the last few weeks but it’s a fairer summary of the interview than most, though the lack of any mention of Moore’s comments in regards Grant Morrison, Laura Sneddon or the ‘Batman scholar’ is probably something to do with wanting to keep out of an argument and nothing to do with all three being Guardian contributors in some shape or form.

There’s also no mention of Moore’s apology over his comments regarding Gordon Brown, which were scarily close to Jeremy Clarkson’s comments about Brown.

Though these comments were the subject of a glorious routine by Stewart Lee.

It’s amazingly interesting to watch the reaction blossom out like some great fireball (which I’ve contributed to in my own small way here) that’s enveloping modern culture, but also how so many people reacting to this interview think Moore’s some sort of lunatic because he doesn’t want to be part of the machine in the same way other artists like say, Grant Morrison, clearly does. There’s an incredulity about Moore’s position in that he surely is in it for the publicity or the money?

Clearly he isn’t. This isn’t to say he’s not a comfortable man financially but he’s worked for it, but by refusing to play the usual game in our modern capitalist society where money and glamour mean more than knowledge or creativity he’s set himself outside most artists operating in popular culture. That annoys people brought up on a diet of Thatcherism, and are currently sucking the shiny plastic cock of Cameronism, and this makes me warm inside that Moore’s position fucks people off. It’s simply wonderful and it makes me glad people like Moore are around refusing to play the game.