The Verdict of the Stoa

Neil Clark is even more objectionably stupid than Stephen Pollard. In fact, it’s not even close. He’s been ahead of Pollard in the stupidity stakes ever since he started conversing with a spambot in the comments section of his own blog (18 months ago or so? not sure), but he’s now way, way out ahead of the rest of the field.

And remember: this isn’t just about 91 interpreters, and nothing, but nothing has actually yet been achieved. This campaign is about everyone who is in in fear of their lives owing to their links to the British forces in Iraq, and their families: i.e., quite a few thousand people. If you haven’t already, write to your MP. Especially if your MP is Hugh Bayley, who doesn’t seem to have much of a clue.

Campaign video over here. (It’s both funny and gruesome, so be careful.)

UPDATE [5 minutes later]: Jamie Kenny says it so much better than I ever could.

7 thoughts on “The Verdict of the Stoa”

  1. WOW. That’s a really, really terrible piece. It’s not just the sentiment, which is vile, but the logic is embarrassing. As a piece of writing it’s just a disgrace.

  2. I did a Technorati search on “Neil Clark” to see what kind of feedback the piece was getting in the blogosphere, and was genuinely surprised to see that there was not one single even vaguely supportive post. (Aside from Clark’s own blog, which clearly doesn’t count).

    I could find just one person who agrees with the central sentiment (viz. refusing asylum to Iraqi interpreters), but he bends over backwards to emphasise that his reasons are different from Clark’s. In fact, I’ll quote his pen-portrait of Clark directly:

    “How this utter cunt could write the shite he did here is quite beyond me…this man is a genuine fucking lowlife. He is looking for and adding negativity to an already negative situation in order to validate his fucking cretinous anti-war views and vice versa for others.”

    These are not, to put it mildly, sweet nothings murmured in a loved one’s ear.

  3. Bayley writes:

    people can present themselves as having worked for the United Kingdom and, providing their other circumstances mean they would qualify for refugee status, their application would be considered.

    Surely everybody’s application is at least “considered”?

  4. Yeah, Michael, try searching harder. I have been posting about these creatures since the 23rd July, and have returned to the theme quite a few times this month.

    Looking at it now, I reckon that we are on to a winner either way. If your harkis get the chop, then who will ever collaborate with western imperialism ever again? If they get saved, then we can claim that the warmongers care more about Iraqi collaborators than they do about British soldiers – who presumably will carry on dying while the harkis get to enjoy their new lives.

    Win-win as I see it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *