We are all guilty of it: being in receipt of only half of the facts and coming to an instant decision because of who was supposed to have said what. I confess that I often lapse into it; I instinctively rail against The Daily Mail's headlines and feel I should take an opposing view to whatever George Osborne says is the right course for Britain. I'm by instinct sympathetic to the "muesli eating, do-gooding Guardian editorials" and think that blogger Sunny Hundal is a sage, whose opinions are incontrovertible fact that needs no investigation. While Peter Oborne's editorials in the Telegraph deserve no time as they have absolutely no merit.
The stunning and powerful headline "Murders" in the Daily Mail, was testament to the power of the expected saying the unexpected. Only the Daily Mail and probably the Sun could have run that headline, one that made middle Britain sit up and take notice of institutional racism. The effects of racial disadvantage were not an issue for most Britons, so speaking in that manner to its core constituency was a post war British game changer. That headline said that Black people were British in a way that would not have had the same resonance or readership coming from say the Independent. I'm grateful that this right of centre newspaper had the guts and foresight to run that headline regardless of whether Mr Lawrence had once painted the editor's house or not. It was a ballsy move that helped change British opinion when it comes to race and race relations.
The powerful sentiments from across the political and social divide expressed after the life sentences handed down on Stephens Lawrence's killers was an all too rare occurrence in Britain. It was something that all right minded people could agree with and get behind. There are precious few of these moments, it's one of the few upsides from this grisly and heinous murder. However less than 24 hours later, we are back to knee jerk responses:" I'll defend or I'll blindly attack" mode with this Diane Abbott brouhaha over race. It's hard not to wish that the response to Stephen Lawrence's murder had been as quick as it was to that tweet, but Stephen was murdered in 1993 a life time ago (according to criminal sentences), Britain is in part at least a different society.
Wind the clock back a few weeks and be honest did anyone really think Jeremy Clarkson wanted public service strikers shot? No, it was a joke. Depending on where you stand politically it was either a good one or an ill judged one, but a joke it was. However, the usual suspects on the left jumped up and down and claimed that he should be sacked from the BBC for making the kind of comments that we expect from him and that it's his job to make, as a professional right wing caricature. Today the self-same people in the most part can be found defending Dianne Abbott after her tweetmare, while those decrying PC madness in regards to Clarkson's comments are using the same rule against the MP for Hackney , a neat and defying act of political gymnastics.
Do people on the right really believe that she thinks that all ''White people love playing 'divide & rule"? I don't think so, though maybe I'm naïve. I'm inclined to believe that her tweet was taken out of context. 140 characters is a restrictive format and encourages people to make complex points in a simplistic manner, moreover, the nature of Twitter which leads to one on one discussions taking place in a public arena, blurring the boundaries between a public reputation and private exchanges inevitably results in individuals being pilloried as they express themselves in this way. But for the "I want to be outraged brigade" on the right, that tweet serves to demonise and it's fun to call a hypocrite and racist someone who they instinctively dismiss for her political stance on the very same issues. Challenge views we don't understand or disagree with, yes but do it without vitriolic censure.
I'm not going to win many friends with my next line but I think that 'most' people and politicians on the right and left are decent people, not out on the take and inherently corrupt or stupid, but like me prone to instant reactions when mostly reflection before thinking and speaking is apt. Yes I think David Cameron is a toff, who comes from a class of people who think that it is a their divine place to rule and to guide Britain, but I also think that he seems like a nice enough bloke who probably has the country's best interests at heart. When you boil it down this will not be too different from mine, though we look at the issues in a different way because of our very dissimilar upbringings. Some of my best friends are Tories.
I like Alan Hanson, he looks like Captain Scarlett and knows a lot about football, but anyone excusing his silly 'coloured' slip the other day should do the same for Diane Abbott and her 'white people' gaffe. Let us call the real racists, racists and the real idiots the idiots that they are. I for one don't think we should pillory people and instantly demand that they lose their livelihoods over a slip between mic and lip. Let's all just get on with the really important things in life, oppose real injustice, engage in constructive debate and give the benefit of the doubt before we condemn in an instant.