I’LL let this fascinating film clip speak for itself. Unearthed by the Pirate Party – fans of file-sharing who I admit to never having heard of before seeing this – it’s one of Hampstead’s oldest residents in full steam, shouting about the freedom of the press in 1942.  As the caption says, Michael Foot was acting editor of the Evening Standard at the time. I wonder what he thinks of the way it looks these days.

I was actually pretty sad to learn yesterday that London Lite is no more. The free newspaper launched in 2006 to compete with thelondonpaper has now published its final issue. That year signalled a revolution in freesheets as Metro was joined by two publications aimed at catching the rush hour commuters and providing them with latest news and sport. In August 2009 came the announcement that thelondonpaper was to close down. I wasn’t too disappointed because I preferred the Lite anyway. But now I have to stick with The Evening Standard which doesn’t have as many pictures and, let’s face it, that was the reason why everyone read the Lite. I feel sorry for the journos and for these lot who now have to go back to working at Subway.

A rivalry more fierce than Arsenal and Spurs

But the London Undeground will move on and remain one of the most fascinating places in the world. I mean where else will you see this:

Comics were criticised for not being realistic enough

Or this:

I don't get it, do they have jobs?

Or indeed this:

Random happy stranger...

So life will go on I guess. But this will make it MUCH harder to pretend I am reading something so I don’t have to give up my seat to a granny.

Twitter has had quite the month. Its ascension from mere social-network to a serious apparatus of democracy and free expression has been a slow one, but the last five weeks may prove catalytic in this transformation.

First there was the Trafigura incident. Carter-Ruck, the libel-law firm, imposed a super-injunction on The Guardian preventing the paper from reporting a parliamentary question – temporarily revoking this ancient right of freedom. The blogosphere lit up. Twitter, too, was soon alive with complaint. Carter-Ruck bucked; the injunction was lifted.  It was The Guardian who celebrated. But they too saw this as a victory for Twitter – and, more importantly, the masses on Twitter.

Continuing in this trend, attentions were turned to Jan Moir in The Daily Mail. Her – at best – questionable column concerning the death of Stephen Gately attracted a record 22,000 complaints to the PCC, after outrage spread across the net. Charlie Brooker, the ever-popular columnist, no doubt played a part in channelling this outrage into coherency, but Twitter and the blogosphere had once again played a crucial role in dictating the media’s agenda. The fact the PCC’s website crashed under the sheer volume of visitors is part-testimony to just where the mob came from.

Just this week, The Guardian was once again gagged and a case was brought against the Evening Standard. The latter had revealed the name of a former Mi5 agent who was set to release their memoirs. And the Standard’s defence? The information was already in the public domain – where it remains. It is too late not to report the details, they argued. Twitter and the blogosphere had hold of it, and they weren’t letting go.

On each occasion, Twitter and the blogosphere impacted massively on the media, and on politics. Yet the press too can manipulate. The Standard’s defence probably used Twitter, above all else, as an excuse. Twitter is being used by the press to gage public opinion: it’s the lazy-man’s poll. The question is, however, whether or not this poll is self-sufficient. If Twitter is starved of publicity by the mass media, and thus not in the public domain, does it become useless? Twitter made a ripple, the press made the wave.

Twitter’s ability to impact politics, or indeed society, can be overstated. Without sensible reporting on its trends in a widely-circulated newspaper, it can become a thousand voices shouting into nothingness. However, with the blogosphere, Twitter could succeed without the traditional mass-media. If the blogosphere analyses and reports what the masses on Twitter are saying, we’re essentially witnessing democracy at its purest.

The power of the blogosphere, after the past month of activity, has convinced the PCC, under Baroness Buscombe, to consider bringing it under their jurisdiction. The New Statesman was first to rebuff these suggestions, slamming the PCC. It isn’t fit to regulate the press, never mind the free and vibrant web, they argued.

Yet her considerations represent the power which the media perceives the blogosphere and Twitter to possess. It may too represent fears over their potential to render the traditional press redundant. Whilst Britain’s strict libel laws already mean the blogosphere must regulate itself to extents, if serious regulation is implemented, it may cease to be so special. Its raw, organic nature is its appeal.

And whilst there are already bloggers who have achieved fame – or infamy – the finest working in journalism will always work in a commercial sphere. As soon as the blogosphere becomes commercially driven, it will defeat itself. In an age of uncertainty surrounding the media and its future, the blogosphere and Twitter should be welcomed, not only, as revolutionary but as a refreshing take on the way information is circulated. This golden age of free comment should be celebrated, never feared.

Found another interesting video, this time on the Independent newspaper website.

It’s called ‘Melting Pot’ and it’s part of their Green TV section. It’s all about green activism and features members of groups such as Plane Stupid and Greenpeace.

It was an extremely enlightening video, exploring and exposing the lengths to which the authorities (chiefly the police) go to undermine environmental protests and activists, in effect attempting to curtail citizens’ right to freedom of expression.

And so, the police send undercover agents to infiltrate various organisations to spy on, and discredit and disrupt, their operations.

In one bit of the film, a Greenpeace activist spoke about when he, along with the members of his protest group, were labeled terrorists. At the time they were protesting against the growth in the short haul market (deemed particularly damaging to the environment) and had camped out on one of the taxiways of Nottingham’s East Midlands airport (chosen because it specialises in short haul flights). This prevented planes from leaving. They called it ‘Sermon on the Runway.’

OK, that is a pretty extreme demonstration of green activism and they did breach security, but I don’t think it warranted them being labeled as terrorists all the same. I mean, they had apparently notified the police in advance of this peaceful protest and by positioning themselves on the taxiway, rather than the runway, had taken steps to ensure the public’s safety by allowing planes to land in case of an emergency.

Other parts of the film featured politicians and lawyers talking about how police tactics push the use of terrorism legislation to the extreme and into a grey area. It is being used to stop and search any protester, for example.

Journalists who participated in the film explained that they are routinely arrested and held without charge after covering a protest. And they are held until news deadlines pass. Clearly an attempt at news management.

A section showed a freelance journalist being questioned by police at a protest. He was following the event and police began quizzing him on what he was doing. When he told them that he was a freelancer, the police said ‘oh, so you’re not really a member of the press then.’ He was eventually told to turn off his camera. It all seemed pretty fascist if you ask me.

Activists claim that the press is biased in favour of big business. The Evening Standard was indeed slapped on the wrist by the Press Complaints Commission for fabricating a story about climate change campaigners at Heathrow in what activists have called a blatant attempt to smear their activities.

What was interesting was hearing, from a journalist, that environmental activism reporting is not exactly professional. Journalists are simply reading from press releases that are sent to them by corporations and simply regurgitating it. They don’t even bother going to the protests to see the other side of things.

Firstly, that’s plane lazy. And secondly, and far more importantly, it’s just shocking how bad that sort of journalism is. In fact, it’s not even journalism, it’s PR. It just contributes to the negative spinning against environmental campaigners.

We, as journalism students, are quite rightly taught about the ethics and professional standards we must uphold when we enter the real world. We are the voice that brings the news into the living rooms of people around the country. As such, there is an unquestionable need to be impartial and objective in order to inform in the best and most effective manner.

Just last week, a guest lecturer told us that journalists have never enjoyed the public’s trust, and that it is getting in fact getting worse. I think one of the stats we were presented with showed that print journalists are considered less trustworthy than estate agents. Enough said. Shoddy reporting of any kind just undermines the profession’s credibility and needs to be addressed.

Portions of the press are playing a significant role in pushing activists to the extreme and fringe of environmental debate.

I personally may not agree with the manner in which environmental protests are carried out, but you can bet that should I be called upon to cover an event at some point in my career, I will be out there getting the other side of the story and not just sitting behind my desk, relying solely upon the PR machine of big business to report what is happening.

If you’re interested, check out the video. Just click here. I found it be an informative watch and it certainly raised question in my head on how environmental protests are dealt with by the police and how the press goes about the reporting of such news.

In The Loop cast members and director

Recently a friend showed me In The Loop, the awesome British political comedy that is a spin-off from the BBC TV series In The Thick Of It . Having perhaps got into the TV show a little late I am now desperately trying to catch up on the latest series of on i-player and wondering how to view the previous two series. Isn’t it annoying how i-player doesn’t have a back catalogue?

The first I heard about both the movie and the TV series was when Mark Kermode and the infamous Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell reviewed the film on the culture show- which turned out to be less of a review of the movie and more of a playground brawl between Kermode and Campbell. It nevertheless introduced the link between Campbell and the In The Thick Of It character of Malcom Tucker- the foul-mouthed and unscrupulous spin doctor fictional character.

It was therefore very interesting today to hear from ultra experienced political journalist Charles Reiss- who was Political Editor of the Evening Standard for 20 years. He gave a lecture on political spin and told us some great stories about his encounters with the real spin doctors including Alastair Campbell. He said that he had been at press event with the then PM Tony Blair and had asked an awkward question. Campbell was standing right beside him, leaned over him and simply said C**T.

Having heard so much about Campbell’s reputation- it’s nice to hear it from someone whose experienced it first hand.

I was surprised to read this piece on Brand Republic today reporting that 48% of people in the UK would pay to use online and mobile news sites.

This surprised me for two reasons.  First, it’s a well-known fact that nobody likes paying for anything.  Second, we’ve just come out of the back end of the London Paper/London Lite/Evening Standard cycle, a lot of which can be applied to the online space because of the reams of readily available and quality content available at the click of a button.

The Evening Standard, for decades London’s premier newspaper, has been free for just over a month now and by dropping the price tag it has effectively killed off all other freesheets.  Not surprising – if you had the choice between a BMW and a Lada I think I can guess what would you take.

Replicate this scenario online.  If The Independent started charging for content, what percentage of users would jump ship to guardian.co.uk?  We might see it work with the Economists and Spectators of this world, who have high-end readerships for which money, generally speaking, isn’t an issue, but I can’t see it happening for general news sites.

Another problem for the online world is the BBC.  The Beeb is without doubt the best news website around and one that will be free so long as the British taxpayer continue to pay their dues.  With such a large percentage of online readers already using the BBC as their site of choice, what is the future incentive for them to leave and pay for a service somewhere else?

Mobile news is, perhaps, a different beast.  I would pay for a decent iPhone app that gives me the easiest and fastest access to news on the move.  Sky News have the best platform in this space I have seen so far (admittedly having just owned the iPhone for a week!) and I would not have been adverse to paying for the pleasure of that download.

One thing’s for sure, the online industry has to change to make it commercially viable in the long-term.  Whether or not that means charging for all content or just the ‘premium services’ remains to be seen.  For me, it’s more along the lines of the latter and supplementary services that can only be offered online.

Maybe it’s just us Brits being tight?  Maybe it’s just my Scottish heritage coming through?  Either way, I’m not going to be paying for online content anytime soon.

9月18日に廃刊となったthelondonpaperと同時期（2006年）に発刊されたロンドンのフリーペーパー、London Liteも、先週13日金曜日に廃刊となった。月曜から金曜まで、黄色とえんじ色のユニフォーム姿のスタッフがチューブの駅の周りで夕方頃に配布、9月には発行部数40万部を記録していたLondon Liteだが、この廃刊は、The Evening Standardが有料から無料になった時に予想されていたから、さして驚かなかった。The Evening Standardが10月12日に無料になってから、両紙を読んでいたが、元有料紙だけあってなかなか充実した内容を誇るThe Evening Standardに比べ、内容が薄く、読み応えがない感は否めなかった。

しかし13日の金曜日を終わりの日としたのは、偶然か、それともイギリス人らしいブラック・ジョークなのか。

Another free paper in London, London Lite, is gone on last Friday, after its rival the londonpaper stopped its circulation on September 18. Launched in 2006 around the same time with the londonpaper, London Lite had a daily circulation of 400,000 in September, and was distributed around the tube stations across the city in the evening by the staffs in yellow and dark purple uniforms. I didn’t get surprised its discontinuance, because it was expected when the Evening Standard turned free on October 12th. I read both papers since then, but in compare to the Evening Standard with its substantial and wide variety of topics, London Lite was poor in quality and didn’t have much to read.

By the way, is it coincidence or a joke to choose Friday the 13th for its final day?

I’m loving that the Evening Standard is free now. I barely ever bought it when it cost 50p, but now it is clearly the superior choice to the London Lite (which, it seems, is on its way). I also admire the Standard’s new editorial approach under Geordie Greig which stresses optimism and pride over cynicism and defeatism wherever possible. Sometimes, however, a dose of cynicism can be rather healthy.

This week, the Evening Standard fell for a massive con. Page three of the paper was given over to Forbes Risk, who offer to “squat proof” swanky West London houses for the extortionate fee of £2,600 per week. The picture gives the impression that these men, dubbed ‘The Squatbusters’, mean business, and implies that they would not be afraid to resort to violence if needs be. Just look at those black coats and crossed arms. Grr.

Who ya gonna call? Squatbusters (Photo: Evening Standard)

However, anyone who knows anything about squatting will point out that squatters can only claim residence if the house is empty. If someone is already inhabiting the house when the squatters attempt to enter, then it is trespassing and they can go to jail. So all Forbes Risk’s Squatbusters are doing is living in a house for £2.6k per week. Hardly taxing stuff; this is basically glamourised house-sitting. I wonder if they also offer to check the TV on a daily basis to make sure it’s still working, or provide a sofa warming service for the gullible owners.

This is a perfect example of having much more money than sense. Surely the owners should be making money out of this, not spending. The example of ‘protection through occupation‘ is well established in the case of vacant offices, whereby office space is rented out at a reduced rate if the occupiers agree to leave on short notice if needed.

In my part of East London, long-term squatting is quite a serious problem. There are two disused pubs within five minutes walk from my flat that are occupied by squatters and the owners seem powerless to remove them. Squatting is a major concern all across London, but paying people to live in your flat seems to be the most absurd solution possible.

Today’s closure of London Lite, while terrible news for its staff and distributors, hasn’t exactly been greeted with much sadness from the capital’s newspaper readers. For despite its chirpy name, it was actually one of the most sour, spiteful reads around; a freesheet that promoted a culture of envy and entitlement, which looked like a dog’s dinner and left a similar aftertaste. It’s no surprise that today’s final edition suggests readers switch to the Daily Mail’s website, best known for promoting homophobe Jan Moir.

But it brings to an end a three-year chapter in London’s media history which saw competition for newspaper readers that hasn’t been seen for over 20 years. When Rupert Murdoch announced his plan to take on London with The London Paper, the capital’s media looked ripe for a shake-up. The lumbering, complacent Evening Standard was already seen as out of touch, a paper which hated London. The London Paper would love London. The Standard’s response was to launch a spoiler against a spoiler – to convert its free afternoon Standard Lite into London Lite. After all, Associated Newspapers had cracked the morning market with Metro, now 10 years old, so what could go wrong?

Everything. London Lite was panned by critics, but lost money. The London Paper was praised by critics, but still lost money. And the Standard’s fortunes went into freefall.

Eventually Associated raised the white flag… and sold a weakened Standard. A change in priorities at News International sounded the death knell for The London Paper, and without its rival, there was no point to London Lite. And in between, the Standard’s new management raised its own white flag, and started handing out the Standard for free, removing it from newsagents across Greater London and concentrating on central London distribution.

So what are we left with?

In 2006, London had a fairly strong evening newspaper, wildly out of touch with the city it claimed to serve, but widely available, with its billboards wielding great influence across the capital.

In 2009, London has a severely weakened evening newspaper, still wildly out of touch with the city it claims to serve, and neither it nor its billboards are often seen outside the centre of the capital.

Did anyone think the battle of London’s evening papers would lead to this? What should have happened is that the Standard should have raised its game – maybe switched to a part free/part paid-for model – and started covering London properly and not obsessing over the concerns of a moneyed minority. Instead, it’s stayed aloof from the concerns of most Londoners, and now even doesn’t even appear in the areas where most of them live. Effectively, much of London doesn’t have an evening newspaper. After all, there’s no point in the Standard writing about Deptford if the paper’s not available in Deptford.

You can say many things about Rupert Murdoch, but he has a reputation as a newspaper man and I really don’t think his intention when launching The London Paper was to completely kill off London’s newspapers. This week’s Private Eye claims the Standard is due to make a £10m loss this year, will lose £15m in cover revenue from going free, and losing the £5m London Lite paid it to use its stories will punch a bigger hole in its funding – together with paying an army of distributors (the old Standard vendors were self-employed). The Eye claims Associated Newspapers is waiting for the Standard to fold before launching an afternoon edition of Metro in London.

“The Standard is the one paper devoured daily by all London’s decision makers and opinion formers, by its influentials,” writes Standard editor Geordie Greig in the introduction to its annual Influentials survey, its attempt to butter up those with cash and influence by giving them even more coverage. “Indeed, it is now read by more than a million Londoners, from cabbies to cabinet ministers, builders to bankers: an influential paper for the most influential city.

The problem is, though, if your paper’s not seen across London, then it becomes about as influential as the Paddington & Westminster Times. That title reports what goes on in central London, and is widely seen in central London. But beyond there… zilch. And rightly so. The Standard should be bigger and better than that, but at the moment, it isn’t. If Geordie Greig’s pals are so “influential”, could one of them do London a favour and tell him to sort his act out before it’s too late?

Yesterday I read an interesting article in the Evening Standard about London’s 1000 most influential people in 2009. As London is definitely one of those places you can call “the hub of the world”, more interesting it is to know, who are the people with influence?

In yesterdays edition, the evening standard introduced 25 newcomers to the list. Some of them are only in their 20’s. One of them is 23-year-old Fawn James, who inherited £650 million worth of properties in Soho.

Besides Model Lily Donaldson, 22 or Rap artist Tinchy Stryder, 22 there is chocolatier William Curley, 37 who won the Best British Chocolatiers prize this year. He recently opened a new shop in Pimlico Green. I always knew that chocolate and beauty rules the world. Another one on the list is Gurkha campaigner Joanna Lumley, 63, a former model and Bond girl, who has been very present in the news about her Gurkha campaign.

Under the Top 10 are:

1. Boris Johnson, Mayor of London
2. Lord Mandelson, Business Secretary
3. Gordon Brown, Prime Minister
4. David Cameron, Conservative Leader
5. Mervyn King, Bank of England Governor
6. Sir Paul Stephenson, Metropolitan Police Commissioner
7. Sir Philip Green, Bhs and Arcadia boss
8. James Murdoch, News Corporation Europe chief executive
9. Sir Martin Sorrell, WPP boss
10. Sir Nicholas Serota, Director of the Tate

Celebrating London:

The Evening Standard celebrated this event at Burberry in Horseferry House asking some of the guests, why London is such a fantastic place to live. Boris Johnson said: “London is the greatest city in the world. The earth is the greatest and most influential planet in the universe and therefore I think I am the mayor of the most influential city in the universe”

To see the video for this event click here.

It’s new, it’s free, and it’s really really good.  Stylist is a quality women’s weekly which comes out every Wednesday and can be found at tube stations around London as well as in other locations around the country.  It’s not about the daily news, more about everything else us women might be interested in – put across with upbeat and interesting editorial, stylish art direction and great fashion and beauty content.  There’s no obvious celeb factor but even so, publications like Grazia must be shaking in their knee-high boots. 

It’s interesting to see how much free stuff there is now for consumers.  Even the Evening Standard announced it would become free –  and that carries a glossy magazine on a friday too.  

Over the summer, when I was anticipating going to see Fleetwood Mac with my mom in Milwaukee, I wasn’t exactly composed or eloquent about it.  I really just can’t help myself!  Something about Her Most Fabulousness Miss Stephanie Nicks just makes me go all floopy.  (It could be a word.)

I felt the same way anticipating my second Fleetwood Mac show, this time here in London, but found myself feeling the need to reign it in a bit more… It’s one thing making a fool of yourself in front of your mom – who once gave birth to you, diapered your poopy butt, watched the worst of your tantrums, etc etc etc and still loves you anyway.  It’s a whole ‘nother matter doing so in front of your husband, a colleague, and colleague’s wife who you have only just met!

After that first show, I posted a pretty comprehensive review of what was one of the best nights I’ve had in my 27-holy-crap-almost-28 years!

And I have to say, this time around was much the same!!!  Despite a few twats in the row behind us, The Mac most certainly did not disappoint!!!

The Evening Standard published a really great review and I generally agree wholeheartedly with Mr David Smyth, except that I’d give it 5 stars instead of just 4!

“How heartwarming it is when a band of a certain vintage recognises that another new album would be about as welcome as rheumatism and heads out to play everyone’s favourite songs with no ulterior motive.

“This time we said: ‘Let’s just go out and have fun,’” claimed guitarist Lindsey Buckingham as Fleetwood Mac’s Unleashed tour arrived in London for the first of three arena shows. There have been rumours of a new album and even of Sheryl Crow taking the place of the long-departed Christine McVie but perhaps they got bored waiting for inspiration and decided to remind themselves of their many finest moments.

With a set drawn largely from the classic Seventies album trilogy of Fleetwood Mac, Rumours and Tusk, there could be few complaints about song choices. Other bases were briefly covered with a solo composition each for Buckingham and co-vocalist Stevie Nicks, a nod to the band’s early hard-blues incarnation with Peter Green’s stormy Oh Well and even a gibbering Mick Fleetwood drum solo.

But the music that dominated was that written by Buckingham and Nicks when they were in the middle of an agonising relationship break-up. Dreams, Second Hand News and Go Your Own Way all summoned glorious melodies from a painful place.

Here the ex-couple arrived on stage arm in arm and embraced after Nicks had finished her ballad Sara. In his sixties, Buckingham has become more of a rock singer than he was, often barking his lines and offering a finger-bruising solo interpretation of Big Love.

Nicks remained instantly recognisable in floaty outfits that were only missing a maypole. In black here, if she had appeared on your doorstep this weekend you would have handed over all your sweets quick for fear of being egged. That reedy voice, though, remains a thing of witchcraft.

With Rumours still high on the list of the biggest-selling albums ever, the band can’t be journeying the globe again just for the money.

Furious drawn-out versions of Gold Dust Woman and World Turning demonstrated an undimmed passion for playing and suggested a simple truth: they still love these songs as much as the rest of us.”

Saturday night was their second of three London shows, and I’m just so SO glad that I went!

Our seats were right next to the stage, which was a bit odd, as we were mostly watching their profiles..  But it was all the more thrilling when they turned towards us, because we were also in the centre of the fourth row, only just above their eye level, and you guys, I’m not even kidding…. Stevie walked towards our section, arms raised and waving, and I swear she was looking at me and smiling!!!

I love Smyth’s line: ” That reedy voice, though, remains a thing of witchcraft.”  It’s true, you know… she is MAGIC!!!

Yesterday after a day of phone canvassing in my constituency I returned home sat down at my computer and launched my twitter app; yes I am THAT interesting. I read through a couple of tweets, found out it had been raining, discovered that some people didn’t like getting out of bed on a Sunday and spotted that Nadine Dorries thought Kevin Maguire was a “vile scum bag.” Now I had no idea why she was posting this, and as someone who doesn’t usually read the Mirror I would probably have remained none the wiser if it hadn’t been for her tweet. But her bile piqued my curiosity, so I thought I’d have a look. Turns out poor perennial victim Nads was referring to this – an article in that day’s Sunday Mirror, that Maguire had tweeted a link to, on how Nads employs nepotism, and her daughters, at the tax payers’ expense.

Perhaps she took exception to lines like this:

“despite some of the brightest graduates in the country vying for jobs in Parliament, she insisted her children were the best for the job.”

Just as I finished reading the piece this popped up from Nads “What a shame that Kevin Maguire is so lazy and incompetent that he has to lift stories from @paulwaugh blog and twist.”

OK, I have to admit that I rose to the bait and tweeted in reply: “Not as lazy and incompetent as to hand out to your kids tax payer funded jobs, as if they were sweets.” I know, a bit snippy, and not the best word-smithery, but I was restricted by a 140 character limit, not to mention a piss-poor grasp of the English language.

I sent the tweet off without expecting a reply – but as Nads had brought the subject up on Twitter I thought surely she was going to tweet some rebuttal to the article, or at least make some attempt to explain to us tweeting tax payers why her daughters were worth £28K/year.

In the article, Nadine was quoted as saying “They go the extra mile. My constituents love Jenny and Philippa because when they speak to them they know they have my ear.”

Now, although I’m not a constituent of Nads, my taxes do go some way towards paying her children’s wages. And by Nadine’s own admission, she feels it’s important that we the public ‘have her ear’. So even if I didn’t expect a reply, I did expect some kind of reaction, or information, or something – other than being blocked.

So, was my smart-arse, confrontational response enough to get me blocked? Perhaps. But don’t I (and the other twitter users blocked by @NadineDorriesMP that day) have a right to question how our tax is spent?

As I mentioned at the start I had spent most of the day calling round voters in my area and talking to them, amongst other things, about what their priorities were, and what they most wanted their government to do for them. On this particular day, like many days before, the most common concern was job security for the individuals I spoke to, and worries about employment for their children. This is, of course, something Nadine has mentioned before:

“We have known for the past year that she (Jennifer) would graduate and probably not find employment.”

So you would think that Nads might be sensitive to how the public face the same fears. (It’s interesting that in Dorrie’s World these similar fears mean that Nads believes we will all sympathise with her decisions to milk the system for her offspring’s benefit).

But unlike MPs, most voters I talked to don’t have the luxury of being able to hand out jobs funded by the tax payer to their own children.

However that’s not the sort of thing Nads likes to hear.

UPDATE:

Looks like it’s both me and Nads who are lazy and incompetent. When I first published this blog I wrote that Kevin Maguire had written the piece that had got Nads so riled (and judging by her reaction that was Nads assumption too), but this morning Kevin got in touch with me to point out that the piece was in fact written by Adrian Butler and Vincent Moss (clearly stated in the byline and totally missed by me, and I think Nads). My apologies to Adrian, Vincent and Kevin for the mistake.

I wonder if Nads will use Twitter to apologise to Mr Maguire for getting it wrong. Let me know if she does?

• Why Iraq is NO reason to reject President Blair
• Why the Iraq Inquiry is not a reason to reject President Blair
• Chat of the day: Barack Obama and Herman van Who? Rompuy/

It’s an interesting time for us Blairites isn’t it?

Tony Blair hits the headlines more than Brown does, the Tories are running scared again and we witness a new episode of severe outbreak of Blairphobia in the public.

Lovely.Just like in good,old times.

I am ready to fight (just to warn the Blair-bashers out there)

——————————————–

Learn here why it’s better to start loving Tony (especially for the Guardianists,Indies and Mail bigots!!!)

If you generously ignore the sarcasm of the article,it provides you with the ultimate truth:

Why we should stop worrying and learn to love Tony Blair

Tony Blair leads a charmed life, does he not? Property tycoon, in-demand international speaker, high-powered peace negotiator, part-time adviser to a major US bank (with a more-than-full-time salary), faith supremo (whom even the Pope himself was proud personally to welcome as a convert), handsome, clever, and above all rich, he has lived more than two years since shaking the dust of Downing Street from his shoes with very little – make that nothing – to distress or vex him.

With several comfortable homes and a sunny disposition, he surely unites in his person all the blessings of existence. For most mere mortals, that would be enough – along with the onerous joys of “writing” his memoirs for an unheard-of advance. Blair, however, is willing (if long-whispered reports are to be believed) to sacrifice his life of ease for the tough, thankless task of being the European Union’s first ever Lord High President, to sit and talk, on behalf of a whole grateful continent, with his peers from the United States and China, to cause traffic-jams in the name of international harmony.

He is the obvious candidate, as the Guardian reminds us. “He has the stature to play a leading role on the world’s stage. He has the charm to cajole, the experience to back off, and the steeliness to persevere. He possesses that magic quality lesser worthies on the European stage so woefully lack.” Or as that most beloved of Telegraph columnists, Mary Riddell, put it today, “his impatience, his grandstanding and his enthusiasm for liberal intervention would galvanise a sclerotic Europe that must… become a powerhouse of foreign policy.” He will also, surely, be the man who can at last make us love Europe, as once we loved him. Some of us, anyway.

Are we not uniquely privileged, we inhabitants of an otherwise undistinguished island, to be the land that bred this hero, as Macedon bore Alexander, or Corsica brought forth Napoleon Bonaparte? Truly, we are not worthy: but he is, nevertheless, our gift to the world, as were Shakespeare, Newton, even Churchill. How the French will look upon with dismay as their own president has to wait his turn, how the Germans will recognise too late that they have lost yet another war. And our hearts will burst with pride. As that prince among politicians, David Miliband, put it so truthfully the other day, “it would be very good for Britain, as well as very good for Europe”. And, best of all, we won’t even have to vote for him. Other, wiser people will take that burden from us, as the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty completes the longed-for transformation of the European Union from an association of independent member states into a beneficent imperial superstate.

Yet there are those – many, it would seem – who are unhappy at the prospect. Not the emulous French, who seem to be among Tony’s most fervent supporters, but people in Britain. Truly it was said that a prophet is without honour in his own country. From the Left and the Right the ingrates come to put the boot in. In the Guardian there’s George Monbiot, that climate change bore, who claims that the Left is “united in revulsion” and that Blair himself is “one of the two greatest living mass murderers on earth.” He fantasises about the Man of Faith being hauled in front of the international court in The Hague. From a different place entirely comes Max Hastings, writing in the Mail that it is “extraordinary, indeed grotesque, that a leader whose standing in his own country is at rock bottom should be deemed a worthy first president of Europe.”

What is extraordinary about that? Has not the EU long been the destination of choice for politicians rejected by their domestic electorates? Neil Kinnock, anyone? A place where they can prove themselves and make a real contribution – almost like a rehabilitation centre for once and never-quite leaders. Tony Blair’s new job, if he gets it, will be the same but on a grander scale, as he himself is on a grander scale. The role of the president is tailor-made for his talents. Without him, its potential will be unrealised, the shiny new Lisbon Europe runs the risk of being stillborn. With him, 500 million of us will have our own Obama. And Obama – who, after meeting him on two occasions, felt moved to hail him publicly as “my good friend Tony”, such is the man’s magic – will surely want to listen to his advice. Would he really pay so much attention to some nonentity from Luxembourg? Of course not.

Most peculiar is the obsession that Blair’s detractors still have with the Iraq war, the mistakes he allegedly made, the slight gloss he put on the truth in furtherance of his noble aim of toppling Saddam Hussein and reshaping the Middle East in George W Bush’s image. “It is hard to imagine a more devastating indictment of a leader than that he took his country to war under false pretences” harrumphs Hastings. The otherwise pro-Blair Guardian wonders if Europe should be “represented by a man who has thus far failed to provide satisfactory answers to so many questions which bear on his trustworthiness”. I struggle to see the relevance of this. The war is over (well, over-ish); surely it is time, as Mr Blair himself likes to say, to “move on”. If his fellow European leaders are happy to forgive Tony his small slip (if slip it was), then his own countrymen and women should have a similar generosity.

Against the Iraq war, after all, must be set the profound and wonderful change he wrought in our nation. Think what a kinder, happier, safer place it is now than when he rescued it from the malign grip of John Major and Kenneth Clarke. And it’s scarcely Blair’s fault if the economy collapsed shortly after he left. The economy was always Gordon’s responsibility. Tony just did the smiley stuff, the world peace, the election victories. He was good at that. Soon, let’s hope, he will be winning victories for Europe.

It’s jealousy, plainly, that explains the churlish reaction in Britain to Blair’s potential candidacy. David Cameron is worried about being overshadowed and outgunned, when he comes to power, by a man of whom he remains deeply in awe. Columnists and green-eyed failed politicians on all sides just can’t get over the fact that he’s Tony Blair and they’re not. They’ve noticed that the rules of luck and karma that bring down most mortals don’t apply to Anthony Charles Lynton, that whatever he does and whatever is said about him he will always emerge on top, that he has been kissed by the angels. Their only recourse is to jeer and try to do him down, to take pop-shots at him as though they were grand restaurant critics and he a mere baboon. But they only do themselves down. Yes, it’s unfair, but so is life. They should grow up, and realise that what’s good for Tony Blair is good for Europe, and what’s good for Europe is good for the world.

Sadly, though, it may not happen. Der Spiegel is reporting that Blair has “only a slim chance”: “Blair would steal the show from the foreign minister and marginalize the heads of government of Europe’s smaller nations. The distribution of power within the EU could shift fundamentally. And nobody really wants that.” So Tony may be forced to spend more time with his money after all. What a pity.

————————————————-

Mind the insightful debate some  Blairites and I had with some typical malicious Blair-dissers. I was even accused of literary fel(l)atio. LOL

Julie · 6 hours ago

Thanks for the ultimate truth (I generously ignore your sarcasm).Tony Blair is a world class politician.
If the EU wants to become an important global actor,it needs a strong President.He who laughs last, laughs loudest.Do you know who will have the last laugh?!

asquith 39p · 4 hours ago

I looked at your blog, Julie. I find it incomprehensible.How can you laud Blair yet hate Brown? I have met people like you in real life, but always people who liked Blair for having a nice smile & pretty hair rather than because he did anything Brown isn’t doing.There isn’t a single Brown policy I can think of that wasn’t started by Blair. I know of no significant Blair policy that Brown hasn’t faithfully followed. All the problems I have with Brown, I also had with Blair because they are pretty much the same thing, but one has better PR.I continue to find Blairites contemptible.

Madison_ 16p · 36 minutes ago

“Thanks for the ultimate truth (I generously ignore your sarcasm). “Is that an example of youth irony? Old folk like me find it hard to tell.

Actually it’s the truth of the people not brainwashed by the liberal leftie loonies.

Julie · 3 hours ago

The Blair-dissers don’t like me?!Ohhh, am I suppose to be sad?
I must have done something right…Let me tell you why I can’t stand Brown.
Tony Blair was elected for a full third term in office by the British people (despite Iraq,btw).But Gordon Brown and his nasty cronies ousted him in a disgraceful coup.I am still disgusted by their behaviour.I will not forget.Of course Brown is following many of Tony Blair’s policies now. There is just one very big difference: He doesn’t succeed.He has no vision,no leadership,nothing.Just being the anti-Blair isn’t good enough.Tony Blair has more to offer than a nice smile and expensive suits.He was a great Prime Minister and the EU should feel honoured to have him as President.

asquith 39p · 3 hours ago

I don’t like or dislike you, particularly since I have had quite a big dinner & am thus in no mood to care deeply about anything. Blair resigned because he was unpopular, a fact which people forget. The recession would have happened on his watch too.I agree that Brown is woeful. Do you hear me praising him? I just insist that those who slag him off should also slag Blair off, lest they be exposed as hypocrites.No one had any complaints about Brown’s cronies, least of all Blair, when they were being Blair’s cronies. What sort of great, wonderful politician is it who has such a snake as his top henchman for 10 years? You should explain the basis of Blair’s “greatness” in policy terms.

Julie · 2 hours ago

You seem to have selective memories Mr. Asquith.Tony Blair did not resign because he was unpopular but because he was pushed out by Brown&co.The infamous “curry house plot” and all those ministerial resignations by Brownites forced him out.I remember him saying: “I would have preferred to do this in my own way.”
At the time of his departure,Labour’s average score in the polls was 33 per cent.If you compare this result to other European countries,it’s just normal.Merkel’s CDU got 33,8 per cent in Germany and she was re-elected as Chancellor.”No one had any complaints about Brown’s cronies, least of all Blair, when they were being Blair’s cronies.”
Correct me if I am wrong,but as far as I am concerned Tom Watson and Ed Balls never have been Blairites.I am no hypocrite Mr. Asquith,I just distinguish carefully.
Tony Blair is a great and wonderful politician,yes.In many parts of the world people admire his leadership.The former Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern recently called him a hero again and that’s how people in Kosovo,Africa and many in Afghanistan and Iraq consider him as well.Just in case you are interested:http://puschiii.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/exclusiv…History will judge Tony Blair kindly.
Remember,he who laughs last, laughs loudest.

 

Perspix 21p · 1 hour ago

Don’t take this the wrong way Julie but I think your writing would sound more lucid and convincing without the hero worship and literary Felatio.

KBPlayer 8p · 57 minutes ago

Don’t take this the wrong way, Perspix, but I think your criticism would sound more acute and telling if you learned to spell fellatio.

Madison_ 17p · 31 minutes ago

See, this is the type of sarcasm I don’t quite get. Whether it was the spelling or the meaning that you objected to.I haven’t got the hang of this internet based discourse yet.

Perspix 21p · 26 minutes ago

Madison. Please report to KBPlayer’s office and write out “I must not end my sentences with a preposition” 100 times.

Perspix 21p · 30 minutes ago

Quite right, KBPlayer. But I’m so glad you managed to understand the comment despite my error.

Julie · 14 minutes ago

Perspix, as you may have recognised I referred to Bertie Ahern when talking about Blair the hero.It’s a quote:
Tony Blair, he said, was a “hero in Ireland, in every quarter” for the time he devoted to driving the peace process.See here:
http://www.crackerjack.co.uk/gloucestershire/revi…Like it or not, but some people call The Man a hero.
Ahhh and purleaseee don’t take this the wrong way.Cheers.

 

Thornavis. · 59 minutes ago

Julie. Let me see if I’ve got this right, Gordon Brown hasn’t done anything different from St.Tone but you still hate him and that’s because he plotted to bring down your hero ? So your concern is mainly with personalities rather than policies, right ? A bit shallow don’t you think ? Perhaps you could describe ( briefly please ) just what exactly it was the great man did that you admire so much, just the policies no need for the hagiography.

BlairSupporter · 33 minutes ago

I really enjoyed this article. No, really I did.So I have used it in its entirety, without the comments of course, but linking back here.Hope that’s fine with you, Heresiarch.

BlairSupporter · 30 minutes ago

To Thornavis,I have a little list here – only 50, I’m afraid. Though I imagine there are more.http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/labours-b…

Ohhhhh music in my ears.You’ve made my day Mrs. McElvoy

The Blairites are back – and they want to run Europe

Will he, won’t he? Rarely has there been such a fuss over a job without the main candidate having even said he wants it.

Tony Blair, however, has always been jolly good at getting other people to do things for him.

Gordon Brown has nodded approval, David Miliband is spouting about the need for a major figure to do the job - and when the other leading contender comes from Luxembourg, there isn’t a lot of competition.

Leading foreign policy figures are lobbying in Brussels for a revival of Brand Blair: Jonathan Powell, Mr Blair’s most loyal and gifted adviser, has quietly rejoined his team.

Filming an item on his modus operandi for the BBC’s One Show this week, its contributors reminded me of the readiness of people to take risks on his behalf, just because he asks them to do so.

His election agent John Burton recalls a smart young lawyer turning up in a North-East constituency just before the deadline for nominations, and, being Blair, he somehow swung a team of sceptical Geordies behind him.

This rest is history. Now the mature Blair has to pull off a similar trick on a grander stage.

Europe has too few figures these days who could define the new role of president of the European Council.

Mr Blair, for all his flaws, could. He has the contacts, the perseverance and the guile to make fractious partners work together.

Notwithstanding the considerable impact on his finances (always an issue with the Blairs) and the mixed delights of a job in the maw of Brussels, he wants the next step in politics. “If he could run for American president,” says one of his oldest political friends, “he’d do that as well.”

So he has entrusted the job of making his case to a former aide, now Foreign Secretary, David Miliband.

The Blair-Miliband axis is a significant one,  because it stood the test of New Labour’s fractured times. Miliband was the ex-PM’s first policy chief.

Mr Blair duly urged his protégé to challenge Mr Brown when he was forced to step down, though Mr Miliband demurred, such was his terror of taking on Gordon.

Both men are ardent pro-Europeans, who regard the failure to challenge Brownite monetary Euroscepticism as one of the failures of their years at the helm.

So the man himself wants to fulfil a neglected part of the 1997 covenant, while his old sidekick also wants to establish himself as a major voice in Europe before voters call time on his present job next spring.

Mr Miliband might well, as rumoured, have an eye on the new European foreign minister’s job, if his old boss doesn’t get the presidency.

My guess is that he has another audience in mind, closer to home. Whatever can be said of the other candidates for Labour’s tattered crown - Ed Balls, Jon Cruddas, Ed Milliband and possibly Alan Johnson or Harriet Harman - they have zilch experience of the outside world, negligible interest in foreign and security matters and barely know anyone who matters beyond Dover.

Mr Miliband has his own weaknesses. He still tends to argue defensively rather than winningly, and the contours of his politics are foggy. But he does understand Washington, Moscow, the Iranian dilemma and big power relations.

A Labour leader cannot afford to be entirely adrift of the big international debates or wholly parochial.

And in a future contest, he is set to receive Mr Blair’s benediction to beef up his credentials with the Right of the party.

Many would rule Mr Blair out on grounds of his leading role in the Iraq war. The major bomb attack in Baghdad this week is yet another sign that its miscalculations never let him go.

That objection can only intensify domestically when the Iraq inquiry begins work later this month.

It has not so far, however, been a central consideration for Mr Blair’s main backers in the EU.

They care more about who can give the institution a purpose, amid the Babylon of its 27 members, and the confusion over what its role is to be, once the Lisbon Treaty is established.

For a man who pursued one of the most divisive foreign policy decisions in recent history to set about the task of crafting a united foreign and security policy, is a paradox.

Is it any less absurd, though, than entrusting such a task to a compromise candidate from a small nation? This is a test of how serious the EU really is about its own grandiose intentions.

The most violent opposition comes not from Blair’s traditional anti-war opponents but from the Conservatives.

Having earlier declared they were “relaxed” at the prospect of President Blair, they have become near-hysterical in their opposition to a Tony revival, signalling that support for it would be seen as a “hostile act”.

That shift has been driven largely by William Hague and Liam Fox, a powerful new alliance in shadow cabinet, who have convinced David Cameron that he has a lot to lose from having an old PM as king across the water.

That Mr Cameron has taken this bait shows how scared of Mr Blair the New Tories still are and how edgy the leadership is about the prospect of him casting a long shadow from Brussels.

Mr Cameron knows his own European position is a terrible muddle. Lord Heseltine quite rightly  points out that positioning the Tories as a party of protest in the EU is a short-term strategy and will have to be adjusted once they are in power.

Is a new leader with a lot on his plate at home and a war in Afghanistan to manage really going to sit around unpicking clauses in the Lisbon Treaty?

The Tory leader thus risks ending up in the odd position, as a man who used to boast of being the “heir to Blair”, of campaigning against a centre-Right (in EU terms), pro-market candidate who is more likely to take a sympathetic view of his government’s position on many key issues of the day than anyone else in the race.

Guessing the outcome of these things is a mug’s game. Official Europe has more fault lines than the Grand Canyon and between small countries anxious to avoid being rolled over by “Old Europe”, Iraq-avengers and the residual annoyance felt on the Continent with Britain for staying out of the euro, it looks like an uphill struggle for Tony the European.

I’m still sceptical about his chances but if he wants to shift the argument decisively, he must signal that he wants the role.

It is confusing and a touch arrogant to expect others to do the work while muttering about the Europeans needing to define what they want from the presidency.

It’s a funny thing about Mr Blair: he’s been gone from power for more than two years but he never quite goes away. I rather doubt he ever will.

Associated Newspapers plans to close freesheet London Lite, the company said Tuesday, putting 36 jobs at risk. The announcement comes two weeks after the London Evening Standard, which Associated’s parent company Daily Mail & General Trust has a minority stake in, went free, and barely a month since News International’s rival freesheet, the London Paper, closed. The company the 36 London Lite employees would be consulted before a final decision was made about job losses. “There were profitable weeks for the London Lite since the closure of the London Paper, but taking everything under consideration they can’t see their way forward to long-term profitability,” a source said. The 182-year-old Evening Standard dropped its 50p cover price and went free on Monday 12 October, distributing 600,000 copies a day and putting extra pressure on the London Lite, which puts out about 400,000 each day. After News International closed the London Paper in September, speculation was rife that the London Lite would also close, but Associated initially persevered with the freesheet, which never made a profit

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/27/london-lite-associated-newspapers

Publishers announce London Lite faces closure as early as next month.

It’s a sad day as publishers announce the inevitable closure of London Lite, causing 36 employees to potentially lose their jobs, but this may just lead London down a greener path … 

The repercussions of big-brand monopolisation became evident once again yesterday, as the owners of newspaper London Lite – the last remaining competitor to the Evening Standard – announced that they could close as early as next month.

A sharp decline in profits became evident after the formerly paid-for Standard became a freesheet earlier this month. This was thanks to the fortunes of new Russian owner Alexander Lebedev, who is currently distributing 600,000 copies a day throughout the capital.

Yet for the environmentalists amongst the British population, the closure of a newspaper that gives away over 400,000 copies a day will fill their green hearts with joy.

This was evident on The Times website, where readers commented on the impending closure.

Davina Suderland said: “Good news! Less paper equals less tree cutting equals less CO2 (I think that’s how it goes) Onward with web-based news distribution. All they need to do now is figure out to monetise the product. Oops! Didn’t mean to seed that debate again.”

 And she wasn’t alone either, Andrew Brown wrote: “Close it down quick – less litter on the streets.”

These quotes highlight, amongst other things, a major contemporary debate within journalism: The ‘greener’ digital revolution versus the ‘CO2 emitting’ periodical. 

 Like many other free daily newspapers, the London Lite is generally discarded by its readers as soon as they have finished with it. The short life span of the newspaper is environmentally questionable and has been criticised in the past.

According to Westminster City Council, these newspapers made up a quarter of all rubbish in the West End and much of this litter went un-recycled. In order to counter this problem, a deal was struck in January 2008 between the publishers of the free London titles at the time, News International and Associated Newspapers. They decided to share a £35,000 bill to provide Westminster with 70 newspaper recycling bins at 56 spots in the West End. This created more than 400 tonnes of waste in a year which the companies were to take care of.

Yet, this deal was only drawn up after Westminster Council threatened to ban the newspaper from distributing in the area as the waste was fast becoming an insurmountable problem. It was decided that News International would take responsibility for papers in the Oxford Street and Charing Cross areas, while Associated Newspapers would manage the waste in Leicester Square and Victoria Station.

Last year John Leitch, Circulation Director of London Lite, said: “This new recycling initiative further reinforces our green credentials and our litter picker operation which has run since the launch.”

This just causes further confusion to the inevitable closure of the paper, as those involved will have to decide whether to maintain this service to the environment or to ditch it like the public will continue to ditch the Evening Standard.

So, only a month after thelondonpaper said tatty-byes, we now have the joyous news that the other free evening rag London Lite is also buggering off. Good riddance! What was “Lite” about it anyway? American spelling aside, what were they trying to convey with a name like that? I don’t think they were trying to declare that their organ was going to be a bastion of insightful editorial and the unwavering vanguard of the Fourth Estate.

No, this was the title that boldly claimed to be printed with ink that didn’t come off on one’s hands; it was also printed with articles that didn’t come off on one’s mind. Their shamelessly content-free nonsense will not be missed by me; they simply acted as carriers for advertisements that people gladly picked up because they were disguised as newspapers. That and they enjoyed doing the Sudoku while trapped on the Northern Line.

I hope now that my daily walk to the tube station on the streets of London will return to the serene journeys they once were, without the need to constantly avoid those ubiquitous free-vendors (frendors?) thrusting their advertorials at me, declaring “Free paper!”.

Having no more need to fight my way past these obstructions, equally the Underground trains will no longer be littered with these sadly discarded publications. Easy come, easy go. Surely nobody believed the lie that they were somehow doing other people a favour by kindly leaving it for them on the tube after having read it and sneezed into it. No, this was littering, plain and simple. They even started to print advertisements pointing out this fact, but these people would have just sneezed onto the advert and carried on regardless.

And once again our beloved but crowded tube trains will return to being the cattle carriages that they once were, the aisles being for the benefit of people standing and not as an extension of the reading rooms of commuters wielding their “thelondonLitepapers” awkwardly, trying to pretend that this isn’t the only newspaper they’ve ever read apart from their Mum’s Daily Mail or Dad’s Telegraph when they go to their parents’ house.

What surprises me is how quickly this has happened: thelondonpaper has only been gone since September and the Evening Standard has only been free for two weeks, after a brief trial of the free-vend model. Having said that, it is owned and run by a Russian ex-spy and we know the Russians despatch their rivals quickly and efficiently.

I expect the Evening Standard to put their cover price back up again, maybe to 60p to really strike fear in the hearts of any other would-be competitors, and we can forget about the whole silly free paper nonsense and move on. If you want to read a newspaper, you pay for it, and if you don’t you don’t. Besides, and I am certainly not on any green bandwagon or anything, but it can’t be good for the enviro- oh you get the idea.

So that was the free newspaper revolution in London. Hello, goodbye. Easy come, easy go.

So, the latest news is that Associated Newspapers will be closing the London Lite. Another sad blow to the newspaper industry and the ad only business model, which has already claimed thelondonpaper.

With the Evening Standard shifting its pricing strategy and increasingly low distribution affecting newspaper ad sales, it’s not entirely surprising that the Lite (originally created to be a lighter and more digestible version of the Standard) is in some trouble. It’s hard to compete against the better version of yourself, and in fact this might be a strategic move by AN (part owners of the Standard) to bolster the position of the Standard as The Evening Paper. A great tag team with the mrning’s Metro, also owned by the Associated team.

Nonetheless it’s a sad time, when two young newspapers have fallen within just a few months. But in this economy where it’s all about survival of the fittest, this probably could not be helped.

The Jan Moir outrage continues to bubble, with the Daily Mail’s Irish edition distancing itself from the London paper’s columnist this morning, and some of the media’s smarter minds putting to the test Moir’s claim that the fury over her column was actually “heavily orchestrated”. Not like the Mail to orchestrate any campaigns, of course, oh no sireee.

Friday’s regional news version of online outrage – the anger over Tube station worker “Ian from Holborn” being caught humiliating a passenger in front of a platform full of people – has meanwhile, become last week’s dead pixels, with, one presumes, his bosses getting ready to quietly dispense with his services or move him somewhere where he can’t call paying customers “divs”. Which would all seem fair enough. Except… oh look, an orchestrated campaign against him!

Evening Standard, Friday 16 October – Tube man suspended for ‘little git’ rant at trapped passenger: A Tube worker has been caught on camera abusing an elderly passenger, calling him a “jumped- up little git”. The employee lost his temper when the man politely complained about getting his arm stuck in a door for several seconds as he tried to leave a train. Mayor Boris Johnson said he was appalled by the incident. TfL today suspended the worker while it launched an investigation.

Splashed all over the front page of the later editions following the video being passed all around the internet, and Boris’s press officer deciding to intervene on Twitter.

Evening Standard, Monday 19 October – I’m an easygoing Jedi, says Tube worker in abuse row: A London Underground worker accused of launching a foul-mouthed tirade at an elderly passenger describes himself as an “easygoing” type. Ian Morbin, 25, was filmed at Holborn station calling the man a “jumped-up little git” after the customer complained about getting his arm stuck in a Tube door…. On his Facebook profile, which has since been taken down, Mr Morbin describes himself as an “easygoing guy”. The customer service assistant writes: “My future will be in either the driving of Tube trains or trucks. I’m often mistaken for unfriendly because I tend to be quiet, but don’t assume that means I hate you, or that I’m bored!” Mr Morbin says his religion is “Jedi” and his interests include “hauntings”, clubbing, rock music gigs and trucks.

Basically, nothing new has happened, but the Standard managed to peek at his Facebook profile (they weren’t the only ones) and discovered the guy’s a bit of a geek. The Pulitzer Prize is on its way, guys.

And then it goes on… this, I’m reliably informed (the ES is now barely-available in SE London), is today’s early front page lead:

Evening Standard, Tuesday 20 October – Angry passengers: Sack the rudest worker on the Tube: Passengers called today for an abusive Tube worker to be sacked after more commuters came forward with complaints about his behaviour.

As if they hadn’t on Friday?

BBC employee Andrea Lee told the Standard she now avoids the station after Mr Morbin — who claims to be an “easygoing Jedi” on his Facebook profile — once screamed at her: “You’re my f***ing problem.”

Ms Lee, 26, had complained about his treatment of another elderly passenger but said Mr Morbin turned on her angrily and “started screaming and chased me down the platform”.

The “really frightening” incident last month reduced her to tears. She said: “I work in customer services and there’s no way that somebody like him should be working in a job where he has to interact with the public.”

Security officer Liam Felton, 29, said he was told to “walk under a bus” by Mr Morbin earlier this month.

I do wonder if all these concerned citizens had complained to Transport for London before going running to the Standard. And, hold on, I could have called the Standard under a false name, and told them he’d insulted my mother. This isn’t news reporting at all, it’s a campaign to get a man sacked. I had to deal with two rude twerps on the electrical counter at Waitrose in Canary Wharf the other day, but I’m not going to devote blog post after blog post to trying to get them fired. But then the Evening Standard has never liked Tube workers, and here’s a good chance to extend hostilities.

Sure, it doesn’t look as if Mr Morbin is particularly suited to the pressures of dealing with irate punters day in, day out, but the Standard’s massively over-reacting to a single incident that’s only been partially captured on film. Ian Morbin hasn’t killed anyone, he’s not stolen millions of pounds, he hasn’t injured anyone, he’s just, it seems, acted like an idiot and been filmed doing it. This is like trapping a fly under a glass and watching it until it runs out of air and dies. This isn’t responsible reporting, it’s a witch hunt. Even more so, when you open your website pages up to comments like these…

Of course, the stupid thing is that this campaign could make it harder for London Underground to dismiss him – he’s well within his rights to claim he’s been harrassed by the media. Even if Tube bosses were to allow Morbin back onto the platforms – and it’s their call, not the Evening Standard’s – the paper’s campaign would make it impossible for him to do so. How much would it cost London taxpayers to find him a new role, or to train someone new to replace him?

“We will remain the only London newspaper committed to a tradition of high quality journalism,” Standard editor Geordie Greig said when it was announced the paper was withdrawing from south-east London going free. If his idea of “quality journalism” is picking on an easy target again, again, and again, then the Evening Standard is clearly in worse trouble than I first thought.