Jon "Nazi" Gaunt Invokes Arch-Enemy in Failed Effort to Save His Own Ass

You couldn't make it up.

It's hypocrisy gone mad don't you know.

Jon Gaunt, if you don't no, is a monstrous tit and an awful bore of a man, a vile mouth on a stick perpetuating myths and faux man-in-the-street bigoted ideologies and passing them off as entertainment. He also works for the Sun, on their Sun Talk radio station, which is billed as, I fucking kid you not: "The home of free speech."


What kind of home I wonder? A care home? A mental home? Anyway, I digress...

Back in 2008 he called a Redbridge councillor a Nazi and was sacked, something that surprised and upset him a great deal, indeed he was so vexed he came over all bemused by it all. The daft racist, being a sore loser and no doubt believing his listeners fevered sycophancy awarded him some kind of special status, decided to challenge the ruling and failed.

Not one to be deterred, Gaunty (as the rabid bigot is jauntily titled) went to the High Court in order to challenge the OFCOM ruling, perhaps rightly sniffing some sort of martyrdom status amongst the particularly thick and myopic individuals that make up his fan base.

Jon Gaunt was crying freedom of speech and here is where the hypocrisy comes in.

His defence of his ridiculous outburst was centred on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, a piece of legislation created by the Council of Europe, a precursor to the very European Union that Gaunty despises and a body that strives for similar goals with regards to European unity and integration. Goals that Jon Gaunt spends a great deal of time frothing at the mouth at and hectoring.

So let me get this straight Mr. Gaunt. You hate Europe with every inch of your corpulent frame but when it suits your own aims, you thrash about in its legislation like an oil stricken whale?

You'll be glad to know that he lost the case but no doubt, hiding behind yelps about freedom of speech, he will keep appealing.

Making it personal

Jon Gaunt featured in Matthew Norman's Diary yesterday.

Matthew started of his column taking about Liz Jones of the Daily Mail but soon gets to Gaunty...

Gaunty's grudge

Over at The Sun, another leading columnist has, for now at least, survived a change of editors. Jon Gaunt ploughs elegantly on in his Friday slot under new boss Dominic Mohan, and on current form, no wonder. In his own special way, Gaunty is barely less committed to sharing his life with readers than Liz, and while Friday's effort fell short of the memorable account of how he used to masturbate over the underwear of the stepmother known to his teenage self as "the slag", there was much else to delight. His update on a continuing struggle with the debt-collection department of David Lloyd Leisure was particularly enthralling. If there's one thing that marks the great columnist apart, it's the courage to use public space to execute private grudges. Well done, Gaunty.

Yes, well done indeed.

The problem with content like that is, should the Ed put it on the outside of the paywall to entice visitors to pay for more, or on the inside once NewsCorp have got the money? Tough decision.

Gaunty goes supernatural

I saw this next quote from Matthew Norman on the Independent's site and thought I'd have a look at Gaunty's piece for myself, see what else he said, but where once there were columnists, and there are now none. Not just the link to the columnists page removed, but the page itself now.

Anyway, here is Matthew's notes on the subject of Jacko and Gaunty...

...it fell to Jon Gaunt to strike the perfect note in The Paedo Gazette (formerly The Sun), by fixating on the child interference angle. "It is never too late ... to send a clear warning to others that they will never get away with their heinous crimes," wrote Gaunty of a deceased man never convicted of anything. "Even in death." Precisely how he means to pursue Mr Jackson is not made clear, but the item is on its way to the Afterlife Department at Bletchley Park, and should be decoded within a fortnight.

Nudge, nudge, wink, wink

Matthew Normans' Diary:

The Sun last week devoted many pages to covering the subject of violence committed by women against their men folk. "I want society to understand domestic abuse DOES affect men," said Ian McNicholl, whose former partner has been jailed for seven years for maltreating him horrifically, on the front page.


In Tuesday's edition of the paper there was extensive pictorial evidence of the abuse the victim sustained, presnted under the headline "Punched, burned, glassed & broken...by my wife-to-be". Among much else, the poor chap had a steam iron branded on to his arm, his lap doused with boiling water and cigarettes stubbed out on his penis.

All of which brings us to the inaugural Humphrys-Paxo Question of the Month. A day after all this appeared in the newspaper for which he writes, my favourite columnist Jon Gaunt interviewed Mr McNicholl on SunTalk the internet radio station which proudly describes itself as the Home of Free Speech.

"So you weren't enjoying it or anything?" asked Gaunty. "I wasn't enjoying it at all," replied Mr McNicholl. Well, it was hardly being tied to the bedposts with fluffy pink handcuffs, or having drops of hot wax dribbled on to his nipples, was it? Still, always best to make sure.

The launch of SunTalk and Abu Qatada.

Today saw the launch of SunTalk, which is little more than the paper kindly stepping in and giving Jon Gaunt a job, after he was sadly sacked from TalkSport for calling a councillor a "Nazi". Because it only broadcasts on the internet and not over the actual airwaves or on DAB, this also handily means that it isn't regulated by Ofcom, instead by the rather weaker Press Complaints Commission. The Grauniad listened in so you didn't have to, and here are some of the choicer parts, with David Cameron being Gaunt's first guest:

10.34am: "Are you ready for some more calls, prime minister?" asks Gaunty. Is there a chance he might be a little right-leaning, do you think? Let's not get ahead of ourselves, says the Tory leader. "Oh come on, behave yourself," says Gaunt. "I bet you stand in front of the mirror wondering what it will be like to be prime minister?" Which reminds me a little of the Alan Partridge episode when he quizzes a distant royal: "Do you want to be Queen? Yes, she wants to be Queen!"

10.39am: It's SunSport's Ian McGarry. "Morning, prime minister." Crikey. He's at it as well. Have I missed something? So this is what they mean by the "home of free speech". If this was a radio station licensed and regulated by Ofcom, then someone might have put a call in by now.

...

10.53am: "For all those of you who say you hate me, it's a bumper day for you," says Gaunty. "There are four pages of me in the Sun. You can put it on the dartboard." "Use it to light your fire," suggests Cameron. In case you missed it earlier, SunTalk is here. Ah, we're onto immigration. "But there are a million illegals!" suggests Gaunty. "What are you going to do about them?" Ah, yes. "Illegals." Lovely noun.

11.07am: Another caller on Cameron: "He's got a true face, some fair eyes, and I would vote for him anytime." Which just about sums up the tone of the programme so far. This ToryTalk programme is a triumph.

...

11.44am: It's Sun political editors old and new, Trevor Kavanagh and George Pascoe-Watson. "Everyone knows that Labour is going to lose the next general election...." Hmm, can you feel a subliminal message here? For those listeners who were not already aware, it does not cost any money to send an email to SunTalk, says Gaunt. Phonecalls are charged at a local rate. "Not a premium rip off rate, as some stations charge, naming no names!" says Gaunty. Let it go, Jon, let it go.

11.45am: "The reason we want to be on the internet is because we want to be the home of free speech," explains Gaunty. "We are not regulated by Ofcom, we are regulated by the Press Complaints Commission. We don't want people to libel anyone or any of that nonsense, we want people to talk from the heart. If we were a traditional radio station that would not be possible." What he's trying to say, I think, is that you can go a little bit further on the web. But not TOO far, obviously. But how far is too far?

...

1.20pm: "We've put it together in six weeks. It sounds like it!" jokes Gaunt. And it does a bit. For a phone-in show there were only a handful of phonecalls worth listening to. Gaunt is a consummate radio pro and hurries things along - sometimes too quickly, in fact - and had a big name guest in the shape of David Cameron. But once the prime minister, as Gaunt insisted on calling him, exited stage right, the programme lost any sense of occasion, with one Sun columnist turning up after another. Some of them were better value than others - we needed more Ally Ross and Gordon Smart, less P&O travel guide, which felt like it lasted forever. I haven't checked my watch, but possibly it did. Gaunt's dedicated band of followers will enjoy it, I am sure, and if you agree with everything you read in the Sun, then you will appreciate most of the things you hear on SunTalk. But it could have done with a little bit more light and shade, a little bit of left with its right. Preaching to the converted can make for awfully boring radio. Strangely for a project that was so keen to big itself up as the "home of free speech" where people would "talk from the heart", SunTalk played it safe.

The Sun managed to get this sensational story out of Gaunt's interview:

DAVID Cameron today sensationally revealed he is planning TWO TERMS in power if he wins the next general election.

Politician in wanting to stay in government for more than one parliament shock!!!

Only slightly less seriously, there is something intensely humourous about having page 3 girls on the "radio", as the programme also had - Gaunt himself, after all, has a face for radio. Meanwhile, on actual radio, Chris Moyles had a 12-minute long "rant" about Saturday's front page Sun story which suggested that he was shortly to be removed from the Radio 1 breakfast, which indeed does seem dubious when you consider, however much you might personally dislike Moyles, he's been the most successful breakfast DJ on the station for years. Somehow you imagine that SunTalk isn't likely to threaten Radio 1's listening figures any time soon.

P.S.

There's an standard piece of nonsense in today's Sun regarding Abu Qatada, obviously briefed to them by a friendly "security source":

JAILED hate preacher Abu Qatada was linked to al-Qaeda for the first time yesterday — by one of the terror group’s own leaders.

Adil al-Abbab, revealed recently as Osama Bin Laden’s head of religious affairs in Saudi Arabia, said: “Free our prisoners and the prisoners of the Muslims. O Allah! Free Sheikh Abu Qatada.”

An indication of how important Adil al-Abbab is can be noted by searching Google for him - the Sun's story is the first result. The second helpfully links us to an English translation of al-Abbab's address, and he does indeed call for Allah to free Qatada. He also however calls for the freeing of plenty of others:

O Allah! Free our prisoners and the prisoners of the Muslims!

O Allah! Free Shiekh Dr. Omar Abdul‐Rahman! Sheikh Rifa’i Taha, Sheikh Sulaiman Al‐Ulwan, Sheikh Waleed Al‐Sinani, Sheikh Saeed Aal Al‐Za’eer, Sheikh Faris Aal Shuwayyil, Sheikh Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, Sheikh Abu Hafs Al‐Mauritani.

O Allah! Free Sheikh Muhammad Al‐Fizazi, Sheikh Abu Qatadah Al‐Filistini, Sheikh Na‐sar Al‐Marsad, and all the other Muslims.

Most of these are indeed either jihadists or linked to al-Qaida; others Google turns up next to nothing for, and one, Sheikh Waleed Al-Sinani is mentioned in this Amnesty International briefing on Saudi Arabia as being a prisoner of conscience because of his political beliefs and views on human rights.

In any case, the idea that because some speaker no one has previously heard of calls for the release of Qatada instantly links him definitively to al-Qaida is absurd. It gets even more so, though:

Qatada, long suspected of being the network’s top European envoy, was respectfully referred to as “Sheikh” which denotes leadership.

Err, no, although a nice try. Sheikh literally means elder, but in this instance it is being used almost certainly in the sense of Qatada being a religious scholar. al-Qaida uses "sheikh" loosely in any case: they have long referred to Osama bin Laden as being a sheikh, although he has no formal religious training and no authority to issue fatwas, something that he was criticised for doing previously, including by those predisposed towards al-Qaida's brand of Islam.

A UK security source said of the web rant: “This is clearly an own goal.

“These calls for his freedom from a senior al-Qaeda figure end any doubt about his significance to Bin Laden.”

Of course. Presumably bin Laden feels the same about Al-Sinani as well then? The problem with Qatada is that he is enigmatic, as posts over on my place have repeatedly made clear. He probably is an Islamic extremist, but whether he actually supports al-Qaida or not is another matter entirely. This tainting by association is very weak stuff.

The Poor old Beeb

I'm sorry, but I'm gonna call out Jon Gaunt right now. He's a bully and a bit of a shit.

The BBC has had a torrid 12-months or so. The 'Wossy/Brand' affair (Sachsgate™), which has to be the most overblown media hissy fit since the last one, still rumbles on like some colossal gelatinous space blob - consuming column inches and careers with unrelenting appetite.

Then, as if flogging dead horses were a national sport, the lefties and proggies have taken the Beeb to task over its refusal to show an appeal for Palestinians caught in the Israeli siege of Gaza.

Now exhausted and emasculated, having been poked, beaten and punched by both the left and right, the BBC has to contend with the flabby frame of Jon Gaunt piling on like an over-excitable school-yard bully.

On the pages of last Friday's Sun - which lets remember is part of the very same family of outlets that includes the BBC's main rival: Sky TV - Gaunty welcomes the Beeb's gutless decision not to air the Gazan appeal, before spending the rest of his column in a bitchy tirade against auntie that had all the fairness and plurality of a Klan lynching.

When Sun readers follow these diatribes, do they actually understand The Sun's (or rather News Corporation's) commercial interest in attacking The BBC? I'm all for free speech, but I've never seen a disclaimer printed below these bitch-pieces, explaining the paper's interest in the network's fortunes.

Is it right that Murdoch uses The Sun as his own salivating attack dog? And what do we think of Gaunt, a man apparently willing and eager to whore himself out as Rupe's lieutenant?

Well I think 'Jon Gaunt: rent-a-shit' has a nice ring to it.

Monday morning quickie

Just a couple of bits from Matthew Norman this morning:
The first about that nice chap who spends half his life in Florida:

Kelvin MacKenzie leaps aboard Charles Moore's licence fee-avoidance bandwagon. Kelvin doesn't reveal whether he's criminalised himself like Charles intends, but he urges readers to do so, and well done to him for that. No one speaks with more moral authority on the failure to sack Jonathan Ross than the man who retracted a most sincere apology for libelling the dead of Hillsborough.

And the second is about your friend and mine, Gaunty:

During a joint appearance with Shami Chakrabarti on Jeremy Vine's Radio Two show last week, Jon Gaunt declared that "Magna Carta is for the nobs but the Human Rights Act is for the ordinary working man." Meanwhile, in his latest Sun meisterwork, he distances himself from every aspect of that legislation other than its enshrinement of the right to freedom of expression he believes should restore him to his berth on TalkSport.

Dangerous populism

The inconsistency of Mr. Gaunt

On the 3rd of this month I wrote about how "Jon Gaunt is the most appalling hypocrite". I pointed out that even though Gaunty had spent years railing against New Labour's "nanny state", his own moral politics demand even greater state control over our lives.

In this week's column, Gaunt's confused and duplicitous idea of state intervention was evident, as he tackles the tricky subject of Baby P - a story that has dominated the news cycle ::

A child needs a mum and a dad if possible.

[...]

The doctrine of always trying to keep the “family” together is garbage.

Jon walks his carefully constructed nuance with the words "if possible" and "always". He carefully checks the box marked "golden rule of rightwing social populism: the traditional family unit is best", and qualifies it by claiming that in fact this premise is "garbage". So which is it, Jon?

Also, this "doctrine" you speak of?

Social services remove children from their unfit parents all the time, usually to the righteous indignation of rightwing populists like as Gaunt. That the nuclear family is best, and that social services merely meddle in people's lives, has always been The Sun's default position.

Never has there been a doctrine of keeping kids with abusive parents. As one of our writers wrote this week, working in the Social Services is a thankless career. You're criticised for interfering in family life, yet you're crucified in the national press if you're too cautious in breaking up a family and a case turns into a criminal one.

Indeed, without even the slightest awareness of his own inconsistency, Gaunt for the second time in as many columns, refers to the Social Services (who he's arguing weren't strict or interventionist enough) as the "SS" - unsubtly comparing the department to Hitler's Schutzstaffel (this was also, no doubt, a little dig at his current personal woes).

You can't, in all seriousness, allude to the SS and then accuse the Social Service system of being wishy washy.

Now Jon Gaunt grew up in the care system. So he should be forgiven for having a complex view of the role of social services in our lives - but let's be frank, a careful and informed opinion hardly fits Gaunt's bombastic populism, does it?

This is the problem with this brand of lazy commentary: Gaunt and others are allowed to flit between attacking the nanny state for its social excess and demanding that heads roll when they're accused of not interfering enough.

Commentators never adhere to the same consistency they demand from politicians: a blatant disregard for the privileged position they hold in our society.

Bringing politics into the debate

Also in the same column; Jon Gaunt condemns Gordon Brown for accusing David Cameron of trying to score political points, during a PMQ session that featured a heated exchange over failures in the case of Baby P.

There was no party politics. But Labour have been playing at social engineering for the past 11 years. I believe the ultimate responsibility lies with them and the Guardianistas that they have created in every section of public life.

So in the very same paragraph where he argues that Cameron wasn't attempting to bring party politics into the debate, Gaunt launches into a partisan tirade against who he blames for the baby's death.

Hypocrisy? Gaunty? Never!

So it's not with the abusive mother and boyfriend, where the "the ultimate responsibility lies", or indeed the Haringey social services, but with the government and those loathsome Guardian readers [meme alert!].

Of course everyone directly involved in Baby P’s case must be sacked.

How very big of you Jon. Without knowing the outcome of either the police or government investigations, Lord Gaunty feels qualified to demand the immediate termination of everyone involved.

Is this not lynch mob journalism at its very worst?

Even stopped clocks...

...are right twice a day. And today is one of those times.

Jon Gaunt:

I’VE never smoked but I HAVE been in care and I know what it feels like as a kid to be alone, completely alone, with no one to love you.

So that’s why I know that the politically correct twits (with an A) at Redbridge council, East London, who have banned smokers from fostering children are completely and utterly wrong.

Tonight in Britain more than 60,000 children won’t have a special person to tuck them in at night, read them a story or take an interest in what happened during their day at school

But Jon just couldn't help himself:

TalkSport presenter Jon Gaunt has been suspended by the UTV-owned station after he called a London councillor a "Nazi" during a live debate.

Sony award-winning Gaunt, who writes a column for the Sun, also called the councillor an "ignorant pig" during the discussion about a local authority plan to ban smokers from fostering children.

Godwins Law, anyone?

Hat-tip, Scaryduck

Update 18/11/08:
Jon got the sack from Talksport.

Gaunts' Britian

Talking of Jon Gaunt...

Matthew Norman:

In Brits we trust

On the op-ed page of The Sun are extracts from Gaunty’s Best of British: It’s Called Great Britain Not Rubbish Britain, and many thanks to Rebekah Wade for offering the choicest cuts from an opus on which I still haven’t lavished £18.99. Included in this saliva-inducing amuse bouche of Gaunty faves are not only the great British summer fete, pork scratchings, saucy seaside postcards, queuing (“What is it with us Brits and queuing?”), HP Sauce, marmalade and the NHS (no direct comparison with the French system, but we take the point).

Also making the cut is tolerance.

Jon Gaunt is the most appalling hypocrite

Oh this really got my goat.

Having spent the last few years railing against the "nanny-state", Jon Gaunt wrote in his most recent column about how the parents of Danny James (who was left paralysed after a serious Rugby injury) travelled with him to Switzerland, in order for Danny to visit a euthanasia clinic.

After vilifying Danny's loving, and no doubt grieving parents, Gaunty points out that "Assisted suicide is a crime in this country and it should remain so."

That may be true, but it doesn't make it right. What right does the State really have to force a person to suffer a life they find unbearable? Surely the ultimate line between state authority and personal liberty is one of life itself.

Jon Gaunt is all very well bitching endlessly about the Labour government's interference in our daily lives, but then he takes utterly illiberal positions like this. I know I say this every time, but the guy's a 24-carat gold hypocrite ::

But no, his parents took him to Switzerland and instead of truly confronting the horror of their actions, politicians are now turning a blind eye to the death clinics and refusing to even have the moral debate in this country.

This is not a theocracy, Jon. I couldn't give a monkeys what politicians think about this, there is no "moral debate" worth having. The State has no legitimate right to block suicides - assisted or not.

Taking their son to Switzerland must have been a harrowing experience, but Danny's parents understood that his fundamental human right is to self-determination.

It was Danny's wish to die. That's all we need to know.

Gaunty: Comedy Genius

A couple of months ago when I agreed to write for The Sun - Tabloid Lies, I chose columnist Jon Gaunt as my "beat", because I thought the rightwing blowhard would be a rich view of material.

I suppose I was right and wrong.

Jon Gaunt certainly makes the informed reader bristle, but then his material is so heavily recycled it's hard for me to find anything new to say about it.

For one, he constantly uses lazy hyperbole with little regard to the sophistication of an issue. This is annoying as it's just plain populism - but then in The Sun, what isn't?

Another trick is his propensity to re-use the same anecdote time and time again.

Take his most recent column where he brings up abandoned Gurkhas and Abu Hamza - both of which starred in last week's column. (For the record I applaud Gaunt for standing with the Gurkhas and raising their profile, but I do question his motives, as he constantly uses the issue to bash less-worthy immigrants).

Always accompanying his favourite anecdotes are Gaunty's favourite generalisations - his memes. This week we're treated to a gluten of rightwing memes, which leave a seasoned Gaunty reader like me feeling overwhelmed by the seething vitriol.

He had the government's "support" for the "feckless", the foreigners (of course), and the "long-term useless" (I wondered what the difference was between the feckless and the long-term useless, but my head began to hurt).

Then we read Gaunty bashing the government for rising crime (it's not rising), immigration, taxes, fuel and energy costs (errr, we have an unregulated market for energy - Thatcher's legacy, I seem to recall), and unemployment.

It's a constant and relentless stream of rightwing talking points. It's exactly what keeps highly paid columnists like Gaunty busy. He knows he can rehash the same tired memes every week, and he knows that the salivating editors at The Sun will lap it up. I just wish I had thought of it first (I guess being a principled liberal blogger is what I have to do to get some sleep at night).

But this week it wasn't the tired old anecdotes or the barrage of memes that made me bristle, it was Gaunty's utterly appalling attempt to insert humour into his piece. The guy just isn't the comedy genius he thinks he is.

First we have Jon accusing Brown of lying to the people during his speech at the Labour Conference, claiming "Del Boy has been more honest down Peckham market". Oh hilarious. And if that didn't have you giggling like a schoolgirl, he compares David Miliband to Rodney Trotter.

Oh please, Jon. Stop it. You're killing me.

Next, reflecting on a Jackie Wilson song used by Labour, he joked that we'd be better off with darts player Jocky Wilson running the country. Did you see what he did there? He swapped Jackie with Jocky! This is comedy gold people. *sighs*

Oh, but wait. Jon's not finished with you yet.

Jon now claims that hook-handed, benefit loving terror-monger Abu Hamza (him again), would be "sticking two fingers up at all of us if he still had a hand". Hahahahaha*breath*hahahahaha! Bill Hicks eat your heart out.

Observant readers may have noticed a hint of sarcasm in my commentary. Well, as said, Jon Gaunt isn't the comedy genius he thinks he is. This is crap Sun humour. It isn't funny and Gaunt does it all the time. His stand-up routine must be crucifying.

Oh, and if you think I'm being unfair - check out Bill Saporito's latest column in Time to see how piss-taking is really done.

Until next time, folks. Cheers.

Money for old rope

Jon Gaunt really is a lazy so-and-so.

A couple of weeks ago I covered a Gaunty column where he filled his entire page with a reader's letter. This week he's responded to developments in the debate on immigration, with a lengthy rant about how Britain is full™, which is an almost word-for-word copy of a column he published back in February.

In both articles he uses the usual watery language so beloved by migration obsessed columnists: referring to immigrants "swamping Britain", how they're "pouring into the country", and how government strategies do "nothing to stem the flow of migrants". Water is a useful analogy in reference to migration, as it conveys an unstoppable force and the lethal reality of drowning.

Such loaded language is potent, but it's also incredibly lazy as it's usually used in lieu of reasoned argument. An interesting drinking game (no pun intended), might be to listen to an anti-migration rant and then down a shot every time a watery verb is employed. I guarantee you'll be pissed before long.

A tale of a working family

Anecdotes are a favourite tool of the columnist. They attempt to wrap an entire national narrative around a single tear-sodden story.

And readers? Well they just lap it up.

On Friday Jon Gaunt, the self-appointed crusader against all things politically correct and the willing mouth-piece of 'White-Van Man', published a reader's letter as his weekly column. It's a story of a working family trying to ends meet after the birth of their first child. A story that The Sun headlines: "This is where you've gone wrong, Gordon"

Now I have no idea if the letter is genuine (indeed I’ve no reason to doubt its authenticity), but what surprised me was the letter's consistency with the current crop of rightwing memes. I'll pull a few paragraphs and maybe you’ll see what I mean.

"My name is Kelly. I know you must get a hundred letters like this every week but I need to rant, and what's the point in writing to a politician – they are too busy with the environment to care.

The first point Kelly makes is that writing to a politician would be pointless. As if somehow Gaunty's more representative than her elected member of parliament. This is a theme Gaunt uses regularly on his TalkSport radio show. He claims he has decades of experience in consumer radio, however my experience of Gaunt's style is to run with instances of misunderstanding and bureaucratic bungling and then use his position in the media to abuse whatever PR or communications representative is unlucky enough to pick up the phone. The actual issue is usually just an honest mistake, but that doesn't stop Gaunty from ranting for several minutes about how useless the said company is, and how it takes a hero like Gaunty to put things right.

Of course it makes for great talk radio, but the reality is that most MPs - of all parties - take their constituency casework very seriously, and that had Kelly contacted her MP, chances are he or she would have provided Kelly with information about any further support that may be available. The MP would have certainly agreed to meet with Kelly and listen to her plight.

This opening paragraph also contains the first insertion of a right-wing meme, one that suggests that politicians are more concerned with the environment than families like Kelly’s. Of course if this were the case we might actually hit some of our carbon targets. What this meme alludes to is that touchstone rightwing issue - tax. Congestion charges and fuel duty are regular themes for right-wing commentators to bash Westminster. In the current economy this is especially potent.

Kelly goes on to explain how she's on the minimum wage and her husband brings in a tad more. She complains that her work forced her to take maternity leave at 8-months. Of course this isn't a Westminster stipulation, and as we don't know in what environment Kelly works, we can't really comment. No doubt, however, it's got something to do with a Health & Safety fascist somewhere along the line.

Kelly goes on...

"...fast-forward nine weeks and we are £1,400 into our overdraft with no way out and my son dresses head to toe in George.

Firstly, as a father of two young kids (a three-year old and a one-year old), debts of £1,400 seem modest - especially in 9-weeks. Also, I don't really see dressing in "George" as being a problem. The stuff is well-made and fashionable. I know my kids have some George clothes. This seems awfully sneery, as if the government has an obligation to give Kelly Baby Gap vouchers. This is the reality of having a family - you have to make sacrifices. T'was always so.

"I get £113 maternity pay. My partner had to take two weeks' holiday because we couldn't afford paternity pay. I get £20 child tax credit and am not entitled to working tax credit because I am under 25!!

Statutory maternity pay is provided by your employer. It is a cost that must be incurred by businesses often struggling in an increasingly competitive economy. The cost to the business also includes replacing Kelly. Should we really put increased pressure on businesses? Also, I had to wrangle time for paternity leave, including using some holidays because I couldn't afford to lose money. So what should the government do, Kelly? Force these businesses to fork out for full-pay for that fortnight or should Brown send you a cheque himself?

Now I'm sorry if I come across as being a bit harsh. I want more couples to have babies and I want society to do what it can. But why is a right-wing rag giving time to a tale of working class woe? What's in for them? Surely they don't want greater benefits for Kelly, and as a result bigger taxes for us all?

Kelly now explains how she's not entitled to certain benefits because she's in full-employment, under-25 (she'll get Working Tax Credit at 25 - she's 24), and because the baby's father lives with her :

"...I'm in this position because I have a partner. Because my baby has a daddy. Because I have a job.

If I was single or on benefits, my rent would be paid, ditto my council tax. I would have been given £500 to buy the baby a pram and cot, etc.

I would still receive £113 maternity pay, but I would also get an extra £100 each week in child and tax credits, regardless of my age. My son, instead of receiving the £250 child trust fund from the Government, would get £500.

And to top it all off, I would be paid to be with my son and would not be expected to go back to work until he is seven!!

So this is why this is red meat to Gaunty and his like. This letter hasn't been published because it's a clarion call to society to do more for working families. Quite the opposite, the reason this letter was published is because it's an open attack on that most loathsome of creatures - the single parent.

Kelly is not so much desperate for help, as desperate to crow about what other people are getting. Society, it seems, has some cheek to try and create a decent situation for a one-parent child to be born into. Not only must the child not have the benefit of two-parents, it must also be born into poverty as the mother had the carelessness to get herself knocked up (it's single mums the right hate, single fathers are invariably depicted as martyrs).

"Why is it suddenly better to be single? Or a layabout content to live off benefits? Why is the Government ONLY helping single parent families and rewarding the idiots of the land who refuse to work and contribute like everybody else?

You see? Single parents and "layabouts". It's all about drawing attention to the benefits that the country's worse-off receive. Why do layabouts and single-parents get all the help (Kelly is forgetting about the benefits she actually does get), rather than wholesome hard-working families like Kelly's?

"I feel cheated by so-called Great Britain. From where I'm sitting, it's not so great."

Oh look! It's nother right-wing meme. "So-Called Great Britain" is often used on Gaunty's radio show. I even think there is a promotional audio with just than line. Another meme Gaunty loves to quote is "Broken Britain" - something I'm sure I'll touch on in future posts.

This is exactly the sort of story The Sun, and the wider rightwing commentariat, adore. It's a bloody steak to working readers who are told to resent the "freeloaders" who enjoy handouts from the government. It also, by way of the partisan headline, gives the paper the chance to pour more scorn on Gordon Brown - the man they blame for all things related to the "culture of benefits". Oh, and less I forget, it's great copy for Gaunty.