People who make death threats are fuck-witters

I apologise in advance but this post could edge into rant territory. I try not to rant, but sometimes I do. Forgive me, but a blog is for blogging my insignificant thoughts and I certainly have a lot to get off my chest.

It concerns someone who has attracted quite a bit of interest, both in print and on Twitter: Sara Malm. I will not repeat her story or link to her i piece, because the content of her piece is not relevant. Instead I want to point to the ever-growing trend of death threats. Malm’s piece has proved controversial and spurned abuse, insults, response posts and messages threatening her life. Malm tweeted about the threats, saying:

“I'm done explaining myself. If you didn't understand it on Friday I doubt you will now. Stop sending me death threats, they're pathetic.”

“Although some of the personal ones are quite terrifying. Some douchebag tracked down my baby sis on fb and threatened me through her.”

People who read opinion writing, then disagree with it and then tell the writer they will kill them need to understand something. One, everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how much you disagree with it. Two, threatening to kill someone because of their beliefs is a sad indictment of some members of the human race. Three, going so far as to use the Internet to track down people’s family, just to use them as a way of threatening someone is.. is.. no words. No words can describe the stupidity of some people. Stupidity is not a strong enough word. Completely moronic, fuck-wittery is a bit closer I suppose.

Here is a simple life lesson that these fuck-witters should read, digest and adapt: people should be allowed to have an opinion without you wanting to kill them for it. Call me a revolutionary, hey, call me crazy, but that is my opinion. No doubt someone read that and disagreed. In which case, I will be sleeping tonight with an eye open and a nail gun underneath my pillow. 

      

I have used Malm as an example because it is a recent example. But the sad thing is there seems to be a growing number of people, who receive death threats. Some journalists in volatile areas receive threats from gangsters, corrupt police officers and military chiefs for revealing their wrongdoings. Some are Sara Malm or Samantha Brick. I am not lumping the two together, but they both had an opinion and both had their lives threatened. Is it me or should people be allowed to have a view without that fear? And this is not just a journalistic thing. Look at Rebecca Black, Alan Davies, One Direction from America, the Top Gear team, Alexandra Burke, Anton Ferdinand. Each has had death threats because of one reason or another and they happen so often now that it is hard to list all of them. I cannot believe I just wrote that sentence. It is difficult to comprehend but death threats are now the norm. That is the reality and it does not matter if it is genuine threats or Internet trolls. That is still a person, being told they are going to be killed.

Welcome to the human race, where we kill those we disagree with. R.I.P, sanity.

Sara Malm and the need to say why

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" has never been more relevant for a Miss Sara Malm. Her opinion piece on the Indy has been ruthlessly torn to shreds by an angry readership, who see her view on teacher strikes as "ignorant", "nasty" and "delusional" among other adjectives. 

First of all, a note to some readers. I quoted Voltaire in the intro to this post, because it sums up the hate-storm that Malm has weathered in the past few days. It is fair to disagree with her opinions but plainly insulting her, labelling as a "twit", "idiot" and "imbecile" is stupid. Some argue that Malm needs to understand her history, to understand that workers unions are a product of an effective democracy but guess what else is? Pluralism. 

A diversity of views informs debate and strengthens democracy, by saying "this is how I feel, but others disagree and this is why". By all means, it is your right to disagree with Malm. I disagree too, for reasons that will likely be a follow-up to this post in the next few days. But for some readers to ignore the issues in favour of hateful responses, even going so far as to find her blog and trash it, is not how democracy should be. People fought in blood and sweat for the right to strike, to exercise their power to give us a clean, safe environment in which to work. However it was our ancestors who fought for the freedom of speech. It was those people who gave Malm the opportunity to speak, and for the readers to insult the course she studies, as well as the people on that course (which, by the way, would include me).

I will finish this by saying that not all of the commentators on Malm's piece are the subject of this post. Some offered factual, insightful opinion, grounded in logic that act as an effective counter to Malm's views. Some people even agreed with her, commending her opinion and the way in which she articulated it. But their voices have been drowned out by those who rush in to call her "the new Samantha Brick" and then leave again without saying why. Just say why and then we can take it from there.

Local journalism: a gallery of oddballs

So I have spent a week at the Medway Messenger, a regional newspaper in the South East. And my first thought is this: you meet some very strange characters.

In my first week, with another to come, I have had what one reporter has described as an "interesting one". I have been to/covered a suicide inquest, two fires, a multiple shooting, Medway residents on board the Titanic in 1912 and a man who looks like George Michael who met George Michael. Before I went to the Messenger, I was warned it had a reputation as a crime paper. To be fair, that presumption was not off the mark.

But the stories I have done, the people I have spoken to do and the countless calls made have given me an epiphany. It may be fun to hear someone talk about their dog or their resurrected hamster called Jesus but it is these people that I want to hear about. I understand that local journalism has its place as a local champion, acting as a check on those in power and scrutinising local figures and institutions. This does happen and it is effective. Yet those characters who call in, the gallery of oddballs, are what makes local journalism so damn fun. Some of their stories are heartbreaking, but some are just laugh out loud funny.

It is their stories that local journalism should not be afraid to publish. At a time when the local press is criticised for being too light-hearted, I do not think there is anything wrong with that. A regional newspaper is the representation of a community and the people of that community should be celebrated. Their triumphs, their failures, their passions should be the centrepiece of any local newspaper, because they are not only your readers, but your neighbours. If they have a worthy story to tell, let them tell it.

Next week: fuck knows. I will probably end up interviewing a three-eyed fish-man thing who made it through to the next round of The Voice.

Boris vs Ken: the political Hell in a Cell

The London mayoral election has been something of a political Hell in a Cell, with two men delivering verbal chair shots and sledgehammers to the skull. They even went nose-to-nose in a lift, whilst Boris shouted at Ken: "You are a fucking liar!"

It made me think that whilst politics should be a case of substance over style, I cannot help but enjoy a bloody political grudge match. Politicians go to all kinds of trouble to seem kind and good-natured and respectful of everyone and everything. They shake hands with commoners in the street, kiss babies on the forehead, or eat a sausage roll in Greggs. Even when they lose, they say how disappointed they are, but how happy they were to lose to a candidate of such remarkable stature. Boris and Ken are not immune to this. Whilst they faced each other down in the lift journey from hell for Lib Dem candidate, Brian Paddick, they were en-route to a photo opportunity on a sixth floor terrace. No doubt they shook hands and tightened their grip to make the other squirm through their toothy, false smiles.

If a politician does not like another, we tend to know already. So why do they hide it? Out of fear of losing voters? In the past, there have been times when a politician losing their rag has helped them. When Gordon Brown was revealed to have some "anger issues" in 2010, his approval ratings actually increased. When John Prescott punched a man who egged him in the face, people liked him more. Now I am not saying that Cameron in the face of depressing polls should Hulk up and boot-stomp the closest protester. As fun as that would be to watch, it is a tad over the top.

The point is at a time when the million dollar question in politics is "how do we look more human," the answer is not look awkward in a Greggs, whilst Ed Balls, with his jacket over his shoulder, buys the guys some pasties. Politicians should not be so afraid to look naturally human. They should not worry about making sure their tie matches their mood ring, out of fear that the Daily Mail reports on it (you can imagine the headline now: HYPOCRITE CLEGG WEARS CALM BLUE TIE WHEN RING SHOWS MODERATE ANGER).

To me, the battle for London is one of the most exciting elections of the past decade. It has people talking about it which is always a good thing. Even if they are talking about a bust-up in a lift, it inevitably leads to discussion about why they had the bust-up and that leads to the issues, the substance over the style. Not every election should be modelled in the same way as this one, because democracy would suffer from the negativity and personal nature of this politics, especially when two candidates have a genuine respect for each other. But if the opportunity arose for David Cameron and Ed Miliband to settle the next general election in a steel cage, it would take an unfortunate collision with a bus to stop me from watching.