Bruno star Baron Cohen death threats

Continuing our expedition into the world of tabloid journalism we soon came upon the Daily Express, that once-great newspaper that is nowadays read only by those who collect china with pictures of the Royal family on it, which carries a story on Sacha Baron Cohen (pictured right) - the creator of Ali G, Borat and Bruno - and how he has apparently received death threats from a terrorist organisation called the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade.

The Express got the story via the Daily Star who, they report, say that the AAMB "has claimed responsibility for recent terrorist attacks." Interesting - and why on Earth would a man of Baron Cohen's undoubted intelligence choose to satirise a real terrorist group, since doing so would be tantamount to suicide? Maybe the Express were thinking along the same lines, because they contacted Baron Cohen's spokesperson who told them: "I don't know anything about this."

Hmm. Over to the Star's website for more information it is, then. Using the page's search function, we soon found the following:

(original here)

That looks like the one we're after, doesn't it? So we clicked and were rewarded with:

(original here)

That page had a picture of a very pretty lady without very many clothes on, so that bit was alright; but we do wonder if just maybe the Daily Star is using the time-honoured red-top journalistic technique known as "making stuff up" and had to take the story down a bit sharpish because Baron Cohen's lawyers got in touch? If so, they may well be forced to print an apology - however, we shall never know because one look at the filthy little rag every couple of months is about all we can handle.

Sacha Baron Cohen image from Wikipedia, used in accordance with Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license.

The example set by MPs

There has been much in the news during the last few months on the apparent need for Parliament to clean up its act in order for it to set a good example to the public, a subject discussed by the really quite adorable Reverend Richard Coles - possibly Britain's only truly cool vicar - on yesterday's Daily Politics TV programme in his typically eloquent way.

Reverend Richard Coles - possibly Britain's only truly cool vicar.

MPs and their ethics, of lack thereof, has of course been the topic of a million news reports and probably even more blog posts (a sizable percentage of them here on Acid Rabbi). Rev. Coles is in a very good position to comment upon the supposed failure of Parliament to provide the electorate with moral guidance because of his position in the Church of England, an organisation that also once served in such a capacity but which has seen its authority all but vanish within the last couple of generations. But why did the public feel that they no longer needed to look to the Church for an ethical example? After all, a surprisingly large section of the population still believe in God - when asked, more than 70% will describe themselves as Christian (0.7% list their beliefs as Jedi - which amusingly outnumbers the 0.5% of us who are Jews).

Perhaps, in these days when almost all of us benefit from an education and access to a far larger amount of information than ever before, we feel that we are capable of deciding for ourselves. Most of us have well-formed values and morals of our own and will make our own minds up when confronted with decisions.

According to a 2007 BBC survey, 83% of the public believe that Britain is in a moral decline. Yet that same surveys reveals that 92% of people would stop to help a stranger who had collapsed in the street. Interestingly, 97% of those who claimed to have no religion said they'd help in this way, compared to 92% among those who claimed to be Christian.

Imagine that you are walking past a cash machine when it suddenly ejects a £20 note. What would you do? In April this year, a couple were sentenced after they took £61,000 from just such a cash machine. Wondering whether this was an indication that the British are indeed no longer to be trusted, the Times decided to carry out an experiment in which a reporter visited cash machines, withdrew £20 and then walked away without taking the money to see if passers-by or the next person in the queue would pocket the cash. The experiment was carried out four times in London's Moorgate and on each occasion the next person in the queue caught up with the reporter and handed over the money. In Shoreditch, one man kept the £20, another returned it. In Islington, the reporter tried it twice - both times, the money was returned to him. The same thing happened in Portsmouth, even though the reporter spent two hours playing the same trick. Six people in Cheshire did likewise, and again in Wilmslow even though the reporter pretended not to hear the person trying to get their attention. "It's just a case of behaving as you'd want people to behave to you," said one Cheshire resident.

In Gateshead, in the same month, a high street branch of Barclays was left unlocked overnight by contractors. The first person to discover the mistake immediately alerted the police. A similar incident took place at a North Yorkshire branch of HSBC in February. We read often of elderly people being mugged and beaten, but little of the hundreds of thousands of people in this country involved in charitable work to raise funds to improve old people's lives, nor those who work in jobs supporting them. Every British town has at least one charity shop, staffed by volunteers giving up their own time to help some deserving cause or another. These are hard economic times for many of us, yet we gave £1.3 billion to charities in the financial year 2007-08.

If we no longer need the Church as a moral compass, do we need politicians to set us a good example? Are they even in a position to do so?

Do we need the church as a moral compass anymore? It seems that many people do not, and will act in a trustworthy and charitable manner simply because they choose to do so. Do we need politicians to set us a good example or, as well-informed adults, are we capable of making our own decisions and living out lives in a way that we decide for ourselves? Besides, aren't MPs supposed to be our servants rather than rulers teaching us lowly and simple common folk how to live in the correct way?

MP blusters about expense claims live on BBC

Labour peer Lord Foulkes (pictured right) appeared on the lunchtime BBC news today and attempted to defend his colleague's ludicrous expense claims. Carrie Gracie, a presenter on the broadcaster's 24 hour news channel, asked the peer if he agreed with those demading that ministers and MPs who abused the expenses system should have to pay back the money they claimed for. But the poor woman must have felt as though she'd been viciously attacked by a damp tissue when he turned on her in an attempt to divert attention from himself, asking her how much she was being paid for conducting the interview. Proving she's a lot more open about her finances than most politicians, Ms. Gracie informed him that she receives a salary of £92,000 per annum. He replied that she was being paid "nearly twice as much as an MP to come on and talk nonsense," obviously unaware that the current basic salary for an MP is £64,766 - which, in fact, is £22,766 more than half of Gracie's wage and a good wodge of cash more than the average UK family's income of approximately £32,799. But then, if you can get your swimming pool cleaned out like some MPs have been doing recently and then have the tax-payer foot the bill, I expect you soon lose all track of the value of money. Lord Foulkes then accused the BBC and other media of paying no attention to all the good work carried out by MPs and claimed that newsreaders including Jeremy Paxman and John Humphreys "come on TV and sneer at democracy and undermine democracy. The vast majority of MPs are being undermined by you." Perhaps he feels that MP's activities should not be open to public scrutiny? Gracie showed grace when she apologised to the peer for interrupting him, to which Foulkes showed he's a fucker by replying, "You're not at all sorry to interrupt me - every time an MP comes on you constantly harass them."

Could we also point out that Gracie's salary is paid by the BBC, which none of us are forced to finance - if we feel it's unfair, we can avoid the cost by not having a television licence (whether or not you feel this means you should also not own a television is up to you) - whereas Foulkes' salary - like that of all Government ministers - is paid through taxes, which those of us who can't afford to piss off to some tax haven or another have no choice but to pay?