Thursday, 26 April 2012

Judicial Review of The Orwell Prize being considered

It appears that the Orwell Prize is the only prize for political writing in the UK.

It is certainly the case that the way they have awarded their prizes in the past has a proven track record of Left Liberal bias which they do not even bother to deny.

This year, they have two judges for blogging, both of whom have Labour Party connections viz Suzanne Moore and Hopi Sen.

I duly protested but my objections were brushed aside contemptuously.  Suzanne Moore's attitude was "People like us can do this to people like you.  It is a given."  The arrogance and presumption is breathtaking, but there you are - this is how an established member of the liberal feminist matriarchy behaves and thinks.

I would like to explore therefore the possibility of applying for judicial review.

Is the Orwell Prize a public body?

Not obviously because it was established privately but has the sponsorship of a registered charity - the Media Standards Trust. 

But it is the only organisation in the land awarding prizes for political writing.  There ain't no other.

It is a charity that serves a public purpose viz:

"The Media Standards Trust is an independent registered charity which aims to foster high standards in news media on behalf of the public. We’re a ‘think-and-do-tank’, conducting research on important media issues but also running projects to promote quality, transparency and accountability in news.

We believe high standards of news and information are critical to the health of our democratic society."

There is no denying however that it serves a public purpose in the expression of political thought through political writing, but it has taken upon itself the role of a public censor by a biased tribunal. Labour Party supporters do not pride themselves on dealing fairly and justly with people in the nationalist movement.  Indeed, they make a policy of treating us like a sub-human scum and are proud of this fact.

I am not saying that no obviously "right-wing" journalists are ever been awarded a prize, but the blogging prize is the only one that allows new talent to come forward.  People who regularly read "right-wing" writers such as Simon Heffer and Peter Hitchens would rightly demand why their favourite "right-wing" journalist is never awarded a prize when only the Guardianistas and the Observeritas are, and the Orwell Prize would have to shuffle their feet uneasily.

However, being relatively unknown, I do not have enough readers and supporters in a position to vociferously question the award of the Prize to a series of obviously rather dull Left Liberal bloggers rather than to radical right revolutionary me.

It is new talent that needs to be showcased here and I would argue that it is even more important that the blog prize judges be seen to be impartial.

Suzanne Moore is the opposite of impartial since she has run several online campaigns to get people to block me from following me on Twitter.   There may have been other online campaigns that she has run that I am not aware of.

Since it is clearly a problem that political thought has deteriorated in quality and narrowed in range, it is now even all the more important that the invalid that is Free Speech is nursed back into robust health again in this country.

Below are most of the grounds that I think may apply in this case:

Ignoring relevant considerations or taking irrelevant considerations into account

Suzanne Moore clearly thought she had the right to exclude me on the grounds that I was once the Election Agent for the BNP.

I wrote informing the Council Members of the Orwell Trust but they all ignored me.


It was clearly irrational of her to think she had the right to exclude me on the grounds that I was once Election Agent for the BNP.

Breach of natural justice

The fact that both blog prize judges had Labour Party connections meant that The rule against bias has been clearly breached.  There was clearly actual and imputed bias in this case since both judges had Labour Party connections and it is well-known that the Reds in the Labour Party feel a venomous hatred towards anyone with a different view to them.  While Hopi Sen took care not to show overt hostility, Suzanne Moore did no such thing.

Suzanne Moore is an unmarried mother and it would have offended her to be classified as an SSM at and to read my anti-feminist views.

She may not have liked my idea of fielding a BNP candidate in North Hackney & Stoke Newington either in the last General Election, when she was standing.

It is my view that the BNP would easily have got more votes than she received (a derisory 258 votes), even in her own constituency, and that is why she now LOATHES me with a seething, burning, boiling passion.   Too bad then that the BNP did not have the guts to do it and opted for where they knew they would get more votes but less publicity, because they wanted to play safe.

the Prize’s ambition [is] to encourage political argument and enthuse the public about politics and political writing"

"‘to encourage writing in good English – while giving equal value to style and content, politics or public policy, whether political, economic, social or cultural – of a kind aimed at or accessible to the reading public, not to specialist or academic audiences."

In short, to turn political writing into an art.

I wonder, though, whether there are any lawyers in this land of many lawyers if just one good one would be prepared to act on this matter of great public interest.

If the BNP were properly organised it would of course support me and even instruct a decent firm of solicitors to pursue this case, but it too is as cowed by the matriarchy as the LibLabCon because its supporters and members are the ones most affected by the widespread illegitimacy that Suzanne Moore and her feminist ilk has caused to spread like a cancer  in this country.

No comments: