Tuesday, August 08, 2006

What the hell is Aaro on about?

Can anyone make head nor tail of this? It looks like about a quarter of it is just trying to say "Communists are in general really nasty people", in which case takes one to know one.

But the other three quarters are very definitely trying to suggest that the jury's verdict was perverse and that Sheridan was in fact a philanderer, pervert and cokehead (I think that those were the matters at issue in the trial, I haven't been following it closely).

I presume that the bit where Aaro explains how this is completely different from the Today program asking questions about John Prescott got cut for reasons of space, which is a shame. Also not clear to me why Aaro's pretence at merely covering the minutiae of the Scottish libel bar is any less ludicrous a figleaf for prurience than the public interest in Prescott's mistress. The distinction between the Times and a pointless scandal-sheet does not need to be made however.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read it really late last night, and I read it as "Communists are in general really nasty people" and all the evidence from witnesses that Tommy Sheridan was those three things was proof that they were liars. But I'm willing to accept that there may have been a degree of projection on my part, and I thought he was having a (necessarily subtle) dig at tabloid tactics and mores (and at those who play along; see it's not the NotW, it's the people who encourage it with tip-offs and tittle-tattle).

Of course, Dave may not be saying "Communists are in general really nasty people", only "the wrong sort of Communists are in general really nasty people". Different thing, entirely.

8/08/2006 02:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aaro's columns like Nick's seem to be becoming increasing obtuse and difficult to fathom.

BTW did anybody see the Aaro spoof in the Saturday's Guradian? Most of the "Norman Johnson" pieces have been desperately unfunny but I think this week's one was really spot on and quite brutal in its own way- I especially likeed the last three paragraphs:

"Yes, I'm suffering here on the Heath, more, I'd guess, than the many good people who think that an immediate ceasefire is the route to saving lives in Lebanon. Why? Because, unlike my esteemed colleagues, I know it's not that simple. No pain, no gain. Can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. Or legs. Sure, I too would like to hold a picnic without pain. To marinade a lamb chop with a clear conscience. To throw a frisbee to my youngest without contrasting this carefree gesture with the plight of all those kids who'll never a throw a frisbee again. But here's my point. That's exactly what Hizbullah want us to think.

Work it out. The more soldiers they kidnap, the more the Israeli missiles rain down, the more picnics get ruined and the louder will be the bleating for a ceasefire from feeble western liberals who want to enjoy their summer evenings in peace. Just get Blair to lean on Bush, the bleaters' orthodoxy goes, and we can savour our coleslaw again. In your dreams.

God knows it gets lonely out here on the Heath, standing up to the might of Hizbullah. And it's tough, keeping thoughts of jihadism from spoiling the sylvan scene. I look around, at the buttercups and bright daisies, and think of the poignant, torn stems and broken blooms that now litter the ruined verges of Beirut. Nobody wants wildflowers to get squashed. Or kids. Least of all me. You know me. I've got kids myself. But is that reason enough for me to take the easy route, to the appeasers' side? I see a dog. I think of lost Lebanese dogs called whatever the Lebanese is for Spot. Dogs whose barks have been silenced for ever. Sad. But perhaps necessary. I pour myself another glass and reflect that this, unlike my peace of mind, is something Hizbullah cannot take away from me. How long can I endure such suffering? For once, I do not know.

8/08/2006 03:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To be honest, I briefly thought of 'Mary Archer' when the verdict came in, but then Julie Bindel in the Guardian thought the verdict was perverse as well because, well, because Sheridan's a bloke - so DA's not alone (though Bindel makes for a very odd bedfellow).

8/09/2006 08:25:00 AM  
Blogger Sonic said...

Proves he knows sod all about Scottish politics (as does the News of the World who published the piece)

Certain elements of the SSP have been out to get Tommy since the 2003 elections, they jumped on the NOTW story as a means to do that and got humiliated.

8/10/2006 01:29:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home