Personal thing – I absolutely cannot stand and have utter contempt for this completely vacuous ‘celeb’ culture that has fermented in British society in the past generation.
At least in the past if someone was given great status they had usually earned it through unique talent. I’m not a fan of the Beatles but they’d be a good example of that from the past. It’s not like that anymore. Now almost any freak or degenerate can get their tits out or show their dick and you’ll have C4 or even the BBC rushing to have them on a ‘reality’ show. Perhaps even Question Time (for reasons unknown they had Eddie Izzard on recently).
When a society treats such people like demigods then that society has totally lost its way. People actually form attachments and emotions for these people even though they know nothing about them in reality. Back in the 70’s and 80’s Jimmy Saville hosted the most watched family entertainment show in the land. Children were central to the entire show. I wonder how many viewers thought of Saville as a real family icon back then. Why would it be any different today?
There are likely a wealth of these people whose public image has you fooled, but don’t forget that their public image is shaped by a plethora of advisors and agents. From time to time I read people fawn over Simon Cowell for example. Why? This is a man who gave a large sum of money to aid in the defence of convicted paedophile, Jonathan King (among MANY other questionable actions). Not saying Cowell is a paedophile but I’d question anyone who would befriend or financially defend one. Maybe that’s just me.
It makes me sick to my stomach that we have a society that places such people on a pedestal that they are often ill-deserving of. People give them far too much credence and do not realise that the bulk of them have massive egos and are only interested in something for the money or because it might look good for their career.
We could get any one of them to endorse our campaign very easily – so long as we agreed to pay a massive fee via their agent. All of hell would freeze over before I would give them one penny to endorse something as important as this. People have this false perception that the second you let a Cowell know the story that he is sure to be all over it and using his position and money to drive it. It doesn’t work like that. Not remotely. You would either have to pay them a vast fee or it would need to be good for a flagging career.
On occasion you may get a Tweet out of one of them. Whoopee! For one thing they often employ people to manage their Twitter – so it’s often not even them Tweeting. Secondly, okay, so they Tweet – big deal. People’s reactions to getting a Tweet from some comedian or performer reminds me of grateful slaves gathering the crumbs flicked from their master’s table. Don’t even get me started on the fake virtue signalling of taking to Facebook and writing ‘RIP’ any time some obscure actor dies.
The only saving grace is that at least British culture hasn’t ever extended such gushing sycophancy to politicians. They have in the US but not here. It would feel surreal here if the public started giving the celeb status to Teresa May or Michael Gove that people do in the US to Obama, Clinton, or Trump. I think I would throw up if we did, but generally we do not.
And yet I still see signs of it even if they are watered down compared to the fanfare across the pond. Maybe it’s just me but we seem to regard politicians as being somehow above us and then I see all this gushing praise if one of them so happens to even slightly do the job they are well paid to do.
I honestly don’t think we should afford gushing praise to any politician who comes close to doing the job they are paid to do, do you? Isn’t that the whole point of them being an MP to start with – to represent the people and their constituents? Of course it is, so when one of them does their job then they are… just doing what they are meant to do. It’s not a favour. It’s meant to be their duty. Only a volunteer or a volunteer force is meriting of any true praise since he/they are not paid to do it. They do it out of a sense of absolute right and wrong.
We said ‘thanks’ at the time when Anna Turley (ex-MP) first flagged the case up back in April. It’s cool that she did but it was also her paid duty since she is Redcar based and they were in Redcar. It also provoked a million people to submit a petition and it spawned Operation Frankish and the media shitstorm that followed from there.
But then there was simply nothing from her relating to the case or legal changes at all. Not to us and not anywhere else we were aware of. We didn’t mention her in any context at all until we did this site post this week.
It was called – ‘What Now, Anna Turley MP?’
Here’s the direct link in case you missed it first time over:
As the title suggests, it was really a piece saying that while it was good she took an interest in April that it’s now July so what had her follow-through been? Keep in mind she had never before contacted us, not even when she did have peak interest back in April.
You can call it a massive and random coincidence if you will but literally a day or two after posting that, we were e-mailed by her and quite out of the blue. We documented that as well.
Here: ‘Anna Turley MP Contacts Opfrank’.
I’ll go out on a limb here and propose that she contacted us having read the the first post that I linked you to. But hey, it could be another random coincidence, just like the random coincidence of three people identical to the mother and brothers living in Darlo when in fact they had “lefted the cuntry” (sic).
Now here’s the part we liked, at least to start with:
”Firstly, I wanted to thank you for raising awareness and campaigning for justice for Baby. The actions of the Frankish Brothers were horrific, and their sentence must be increased. I will continue to press the Justice Secretary to call for their sentence to be reviewed. I have, as yet, received no response to my letter to Michael Gove. This is probably due to his preoccupation with the referendum, but it is not acceptable. I will also be campaigning to change the law and increase the sentencing for animal cruelty which is far too low, as this terrible case has demonstrated. The 30th June is the date I can apply for a Bill to address this so will be updating every one once I have done that…”
Now that part was just perfect. It wasn’t so perfect that she resigned only hours after sending this though. I’d sooner she had waited 24 hours and then sent it, rather than send it and then resign. She states that she can apply for a Bill on June 30th, but I am truly not sure if she would still retain those powers having resigned. I honestly just don’t know if an MP can resign and then apply for a Bill.
I’d suggest not, not if the resignation is with immediate effect. However, if there is some sort of period in which they retain their rights then maybe it is plausible and maybe she will do that very thing. I won’t answer for her in that regard and despite sending us a lengthy e-mail and even asking for a number to call us, we gave a detailed reply and heard nothing since.
I got the impression from her e-mail that there was a sense of urgency and that she wanted to speak to us that day. Not due to the part of her e-mail we have shown you – but the part we did not.
In actual fact the part that we did not publish made up by far the biggest part of the e-mail and not so much the brothers or the dog per se. The biggest % of it was about the vet. Why didn’t we publish it all? After all, if a then MP sends us a message in her role as an MP and does not request that we don’t share it then why not?
The first reason is that at the time she was an MP. That’s why we published only the definitely clear and positive part of the e-mail, we were very confused by the rest as there were contradictions and little anomalies in it. It wasn’t just me that thought so. Both Phil and Nemo read the unedited version and they also thought that it not only made up the majority of the message but it didn’t really make much sense at times.
It only created more questions than it did provide answers. To three individual and fairly bright men the entire message felt like the opening statement was simply a gateway to what she really wanted to speak about – the specific vet in question.
The only answer was to reply back to her and raise some points and ask some pertinent questions about the edited part. So we did. We sent back a good reply, we raised some excellent counter points and the entire OF team read what was sent. All of them fully agreed that what was asked was absolutely on point and fair. We even stated why all three of us were confused. That’s why we didn’t run that part, because at the time she was an MP and because we were left so confused at some of what she wrote that the best action was to give her a chance to clarify and address our counter-points.
If we had just put it out there then it most certainly would have caused similar confusion and questions in all of you, of that I feel sure. Then everyone would be confused – including us. A few days have gone by, she has since resigned, and I don’t have any idea what she has planned for the future – that’s her call. We haven’t heard back though, and before anyone says it I am sure she will be busy with her resignation stuff (but she did want to call us though).
It’s a paradox, because on one hand I feel that if an MP writes to a group over a public matter then its fair game to publish it all AND our counter-points, but on the other hand we were sort of holding out for her to come back to us.
Not being funny, but owing to some of the stuff in the edited version it didn’t feel like the sort of thing she wanted to sit on. Then you’d get your Ann Turley groupies whining like a cat in a dog home just because we dared to question their most favourite ex-MP. And then we’d all need a paracetemol the diameter of a dustbin lid to cope with the huge big moan from said groupies.