Another day down at the old Bully and Bush
As regular readers will be aware, in general I find BlairSupporter (usually referred to here as Uncle Jimmy after Reggie Perrin's uncle, on account of his expressed wish to see our elected government and free press thrown out and replaced with a band of right-thinking paramilitary loonies) to be a figure of fun. Sometimes, though, he goes beyond fun and acts as a conduit for something altogether nastier. Usually it's either Islamophobia or plain old-fashioned racism, though sometimes it's homophobia. Every now and then, though, a different kind of nastiness erupts, which is why I have returned to Jimmy's site today like a dog to its vomit.
Consider: in this post, Jimmy covers the interruption of Tony Blair's testimony to the Levenson Enquiry by a nutter who sneaked in via the judges' entrance and proceeded to shout accusations about the Iraq War at Blair, accusing him of being a war criminal. I should say right at the outset that my opinion of the nutter does not differ greatly from Jimmy's, though our reasons diverge more than a little. Blair isn't a war criminal: he is a suspected war criminal who should be brought to trial as soon as possible. if (as BS keeps telling us) the Sainted One is totally blameless, then he has nothing to fear and everything to gain by presenting himself voluntarily for trial. However, interrupting a hearing on a totally separate matter and yelling slogans doesn't do much to advance the cause of bringing Blair to justice. A more productive strategy might be to get individual countries to hold their own trials (in absentia if necessary) as happened recently with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others. Now as they travel around the world they will be forever looking over their shoulder, Secret Service or no Secret Service: and that would be an excellent start with Blair.
I was quite surprised by how little time BlairSupporter spends on the nutter himself: he puts far more effort into castigating his supporters in the blogosphere and on Twitter (and one other person, but we'll come back to that). Jimmy just can't get his head round the fact that Blair is one of the least popular British political figures of my lifetime (especially in the Scotland from which Jimmy pretends to hail). Nor can he accept that, except for American neocons and their few British fans, nobody on the planet believes that the Iraq war was either lawfully entered into or lawfully carried out. That war crimes were committed is denied only by those to whom the lives of poor brown people are unimportant (like BlairSupporter, and of course Blair). That Toe-Nibbler shares responsibility for those crimes is likely enough to be worth testing in a court. Of course the online chatter is full of it when someone starts shouting on TV about the Iraq war. For BlairSupporter to infer(*) that all those who oppose the Iraq war would have cheered if Lord Leveson had been murdered is simply barking. And I can't speak for the others, but I'd be furious if someone assassinated Blair. I'd be sad because I don't like murder, but furious because it would mean the bastard would have escaped justice.
Funny though that the only person I've seen fantasizing about Blair's being shot is....Uncle Jimmy himself. Funny that he imagines that Lawley-Wakelin had some kind of magic gun which had escaped detection when he passed through the metal detectors and security screening before getting access to the corridor he used. (No, wait, it's coming to me now....the security guards are all wicked leftist trade unionists who would collude in any plot to assassinate Blair. Is that it, Jimmy?) Funniest of all to think that this racist mouthpiece, who glibly calls for non-violent (and more importantly non-white) protestors to be stripped of their citizenship and locked up, has never uttered a single word on his blog to condemn the worst act of terrorist murder Europe has seen this century.
I wasn't at all surprised, though, to note that in his zeal to paint everyone except Tony Blair and himself as part of some massive anti-Blair conspiracy BlairSupporter takes a sly and thoroughly unpleasant shot (metaphorically, I should say, before Jimmy turns up here saying I accused him of running into the courtroom with a magic gun) at a member of the enquiry's legal team, who can be seen in the video Jimmy posts sitting behind Robert Jay QC, counsel to the enquiry. Here is the video:
Let's take a look at Jimmy's comments. We begin with his crazed gunman fantasy, and go on from there:
Then he pulled out a gun and shot dead The Judge, the Prize Witness and the Leading Barrister. Oh and the young legal beaver woman behind the barrister, even though she had clearly been enthralled by the enticing merry dance. [Would someone advise this young "legal person" one doesn't smirk tellingly when one's judicial hearing is interrupted, especially when it is being shown live to the world? (See first few seconds into video.)]
I've watched the start of that clip several times, and I see a young woman (1) nearly jump out of her skin when the nutter appears (2) look very worried (3) turn to say something to a colleague (we can't tell what, but probably "How the hell did he get up there?") to which the colleague makes no response. Does anyone except Jimmy see a "telling smirk"? But hey, here's a young, vulnerable girl, a ripe-for-cyber-bullying member of the legal team which was asking The Sainted One questions (and thus completely misunderstanding the correct relationship between the law of the land and Tony Blair). How utterly like Jimmy to fling out a drive-by smear against someone who is unable to defend herself. But then that's bullies for you.
Just one more thing (imagine I said that in my best Peter Falk Colombo voice). Jimmy: what exactly is a "legal beaver"? I went through my Shorter Oxford Dictionary, my Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, and extensive online searching. The only usages of "legal beaver" I found were as the title of a short story by Dolores Labouchere (set in the USA) and as part of the title of a book for new law graduates by an American attorney in Louisiana. (Oh, and as the alias of a 68-year-old Lancashire woman on an online dating site.) So: did Jimmy just get confused? Did "eager beaver" and "legal eagle" collide in the menagerie inside his head? Is this some Louisiana usage known only to Americans like Jimmy? While I always enjoy racking up evidence for Jimmy's real origins - let's see that birth certificate! (:-)) - I suspect the truth is less fun, if much more typical of his general nastiness. You see, so far I've been treating "legal beaver" as a two-word phrase. But what if Jimmy simply used the two words separately? The meaning of "legal beaver" might be unclear, but that of "beaver" is perfectly clear, thank you very much. And he does emphasize in the very next word that he is talking about a woman. (I only just noticed that in many of the definitions of "beaver" as a slang word for female genitals the usage is described as "originally U.S." So no escape even here for Yankee Doodle Jimmy!)
So in just a few lying words about a video clip he hopes we won't actually bother to watch, BlairSupporter not only defames a defenceless legal assistant by suggesting that she was looking forward to seeing Tony Blair assassinated, but he deploys his very best American periphrasis to label her a legal cunt. To quote from Mark Twain's The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg, "That's got the hall-mark on it!"
Funnily enough, if Jimmy had actually come right out and called the woman a cunt he might have had a better chance of convincing people of his Glaswegian antecedents.
* And yes, I do mean infer. Though if I had written "imply" that would also have been true. One of the few instances when either word will do, though they would of course emphasize different aspects of Jimmy's barkingness.