The Daily Mirror has an exclusive: “EXCLUSIVE: Farmer protest organiser was behind racist and homophobic posts online”
An organiser of this week’s Farmers’ protest in London wrote historic messages including racist and homophobic language online attacking Labour voters, it can be revealed.
“It can be revealed” – this looks like it’s going to be spicy.
Clive Bailye, one of the five farmers who organised the march in the capital, is founder of online community The Farming Forum.
But a Mirror investigation found Mr Bailye had posted a series of remarks using racist language, and disparaging remarks towards people with disabilities, the unemployed and LGBT people.
During the 2019 general election, Mr Bailye suggested “only a disabled, unemployed, black, LGBT, transgender, non tax paying, homeless, vegan immigrant in immediate need of NHS help” would vote for Labour.
I’m waiting for the part where Mr Bailye actually says that being a disabled, unemployed, black, LGBT, transgender, non tax paying, homeless, vegan immigrant in immediate need of NHS help is bad. Unless the Mirror thinks that voting Labour is bad?
In other disparaging comments about race, gender, religion, and disabled people, Mr Bailye suggested “the way to get something done is to claim […] you tripped an suffered injury […] maybe throw in something about being a disabled, transsexual, black, muslim, vegan with learning difficulties while your at it”.
Again, that is an assertion about how claiming to be any of those things gets more favourable treatment, not an actual insult to the groups concerned.
In more recent posts, this summer – in the fall out of riots across England – Mr Bailye posted asking whether “if accused of being far right / anti immigrant hate speech in court do we think saying “i’m on the spectrum” would get you off ?”.
Well, would it? The question is not unreasonable. The official guidelines of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales on sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders, or neurological impairments state that the fact that an offender has such a condition should always be considered by the court, although it will not necessarily have an impact on sentencing. It is certainly commonplace for people in the dock to put forward their autism as a mitigating factor.
He also repeated a conspiracy theory in the same post, saying “We have two tier law in this country it seems”.
If belief in the existence of “two-tier law” in the UK is a conspiracy theory, it is one that half the country shares.
Does the Mirror ( which constituency historically might be expected to be working class Labour supporters ) think those sentiments are not largely held by Labour voters outside Islington ?
Redundancy much?
I suppose it is only a matter of time before Leftists who support the grinding down of private owners of property – farmers in this case – will seek to smear them as holding horrible views.
This may sound like hyperbole, but there is more than a touch of 1930s Soviet propoganda vis the kulaks in Ukraine about the way that Starmer, Rachel from the Accounts Dept and the rest of these people think about farmers, or indeed anyone who has had the sense to see through their pound-shop Marxian bullshit.
Instead of forced labour camps such as the gulag, you get little chats by Essex Police.
Oddly enough, I had a similar thought just yesterday, attacking farmers, reducing food production, in its modern iteration; ‘re-wilding’, ‘set aside’, ‘solar installations on farm land’, new build estates on prime farm land, so on and so forth, will have a similar effect to the collectivisation of the farms in the Ukraine in the ’30s. Reduced domestic food production.
John McTernan is reported to have said that Labour now has the opportunity to ‘do to the Farmers, what Thatcher did to the miners …’ – In a country that already imports 40% of its food supply, I’d hardly describe such sentiments as ‘constructive’.
If belief in the existence of “two-tier law” in the UK is a conspiracy theory, it is one that half the country shares.
Yep, the lower tier!
Edit. 6 captur goes to comment. I don’t think your site likes my VPN!
The Daily Mirror is supposed to be a newspaper for the “Working Class” – people who do hard manual work. But it is using the language of Frankfurt School “Critical Theory” Marxism – “racism”, “sexism”, “homophobia”, “transphobia” and-so-on.
That is the language of wealthy leftists, the sort of people who buy the Guardian and the “I” newspapers. If the Daily Mirror carries on doing this – ordinary working people will no longer buy the newspaper.
Go Woke = Go Broke.
I doubt if there are many ‘ordinary working people’ buying the Mirror these days. Just as few of the middle class buy the Telegraph or the Guardian. I’d hazard a guess that the newspapers have all lost [most of] their circulation to the internet.
I postulate this was the case when they took out ‘page 3’. Which was, what? A decade ago ?
I stopped reading after this “…racist language, and disparaging remarks towards people with disabilities, the unemployed and LGBT people…”, knowing that the likely ‘language’ was nothing more or less than I’d use.
Which is to say, language that no one in their right mind would have any objection to, even if they disagreed with the substance (ideas!) of that language.
APL and GregWA.
Indeed.
“only a disabled, unemployed, black, LGBT, transgender, non tax paying, homeless, vegan immigrant in immediate need of NHS help” would vote for Labour.
Only an able-bodied, white, straight, cisgender, employed, meat-eating non-disabled person would vote Tory.
It’s honestly pathetic to think that someone wrote the original sentence didn’t mean to disparage everyone they mentioned. I would cheerfully beat the fuck out of anyone who said that.
This is very interesting: the guy that wrote the original sentence is obviously an *utter dick* who meant that disabled, black people, LGBT, transgender, *non tax paying* types are somehow “lesser” (I eat meat, I’m also disabled)
Focus on “non tax paying types”
I dunno, but as a libertarian, I’m kind of in favour of non-tax paying types.
This cunt seems to be in favour of taxes. Very questionable indeed.
I read it to say that the Left has really become – or perhaps always has been – a messy coalition of people who are, individually, mathematically excluded from democratic power, but can find power – have actually found power – by coalescing.
He’s appealing to his own base, which is really a common thing to do. He didn’t used to have to worry about this. Used to be, the “normie” crowd was the biggest, electorally, and none of the other groups could compete. Coalition changed that.
He’s just pointing out that his own group needs to get with this modern program. I think you’re projecting “hate” onto a reasonable political-organizing idea. Given history, that projection isn’t whacko – but to say that one group can’t also follow identitarian formula when everyone else does isn’t going to get you anywhere.
Calling him a hateful bigot shuts down debate. Pointing out commonalities in needs and tactics is a more profitable path. You want him on your side – it’s a more productive method than working to exclude him would be. We just sort of saw this play out in the US.
Bobby:
I read it differently, as an attempt to be sarcastic. An attempt which is not an utter failure, because it is a fact that the demographic most favorable to Kamala was intersectional (Black women). That’s assuming that one can apply to the UK what we have learned from the US election, of course.
The major problem with this sarcasm, however, is that it fails to point out a deep truth: even disabled, unemployed, black, LGBT, transgender, non tax paying, homeless, vegan immigrants, vote Labour because they suffer from false consciousness.
Snorri – agreed.
In the end Collectivist policies benefit no one – not even the groups in society that support them most fanatically.
For example, the break down of order in the cities (under “anarcho tyranny” where “everything is policed – apart from crime” with dissent being crushed, but such things as robbery de facto ignored), eventually hurts everyone – even high government officials and their corporate “Partners” – and it is especially hurts “vulnerable communities”.
And the breakdown of the economy due to Collectivist policies eventually means that even the very high salaries of officials do not buy much – eventually buy nothing.
Sort of.
In both countries, the incumbents “lost” the election, rather than the opposition “winning” the election. In the UK, Starmer “won” basically because support for the existing Conservative Party utterly collapsed. Starmer won on a whole bunch of neo-liberal policies but by also not being (in “colour of his tie” terms) an actual Conservative – even though most of his policies are Conservative, and his vote share was utterly pathetic (rightly so, in my opinion).
In the US, Trump didn’t pick up any more votes than he did in 2020 (not meaninigfully), but Kamala run a neo-liberal right-wing campaign, and haemorrhaged something like 10 million votes vs the more ostensibly left-wing platform that Biden ran on in 2020 (he didn’t keep his promises, obviously, but that’s not the point).
It’s not really about what Paul calls “Collectivist policies” or “anarcho-tyrrany” – mainly because neither party is espousing “collectivist policies”, but also because Paul hasn’t got a scooby what those terms mean, but more that marginalised communities have been left with literally nowhere to go, so they’ve with-held their vote, period.
“Calling him a hateful bigot shuts down debate.”
bobby b, brother, in all honesty – I know it paints me as the “intolerant left”, but I’m tired of tolerance. The tolerant left are, like, 4 doors down on the right, at this point (pun accidental but apposite). These guys are trying to kill me and mine, at this point.