Now that’s news. Forget all this “big embarrassment”. Politicians aren’t embarrassed by Wikileaks. They lie, they get elected, and then they lie some more. Embarrassment isn’t in their glossary. Power is.

So the media is in a spot of bother. All they can talk about is “political embarrassment” because they can’t or won’t editorialise the US Embassy Cables. So it’s left for us to interpret and we’re puzzled. If the tabloids screamed, “US Fixed UK Election!“, and then described the undermining of Brown’s premiership with dirty tricks, then people would know what to think because that’s exactly what happened. The US undermined Brown from the start of his premiership, and I find that worrying.

US Diplomats Spied on UN Leadership Of course they did, but if the tabloids screamed: “US Spies On Everyone!” what then? It’s easy to see how the US could spy on everyone from the info we have:  “Washington also wanted credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even frequent-flyer account numbers for UN figures and “biographic and biometric information on UN Security Council permanent representatives”. The secret “national human intelligence collection directive” was sent to US missions at the UN in New York, Vienna and Rome; 33 embassies and consulates, including those in London, Paris and Moscow.”

The what? Run that past me again. The SECRET “national human intelligence collection directive“. Once upon a time people laughed at conspiracy theorists, now they’re saying, “What embarrassment? I can’t see anything embarrassing.”  But this is information that governments think we shouldn’t see in 30 years, 50 years, 100 years, or ever. It’s hardly surprising. Never mind the drip feed, what about the spoon feed.

Speaking of spoon feeding, yesterday the media carried the story about an asylum seeker Aso Mohammed Ibrahim who has just been granted permission to stay in the UK. In 2003, he served a prison sentence for driving while disqualified and failing to stop after an accident in which a 12 year old girl was killed. However in the same headline the media is allowed to spoon feed by linking the death of the girl AND his permission to stay in the UK, the inference being,  “despite killing a girl“. There’s no link between the two stories. The 2003 court judged the accident was an accident. He was guilty of  driving while disqualified and failing to stop. Terrible. What a monster. He served his sentence. So how can the media be allowed to add to this story by editorialising? The Upper Immigration Tribunal quite rightly threw out the appeal (by the father of the girl), saying the judge had considered the case in a ‘legally correct’ way. End of both stories, but not in the media who spin and spin and stir when they want to, ie when there’s a Muslim asylum seeker involved. Even BBC Radio 4 news edited the story. Selective editorialising. Very poor.

In the same way I was surprised to find, I shouldn’t be, that a lot of people think Julian Assange was convicted of rape. He hasn’t been. He hasn’t even been charged. Did you see the way I emboldened Assange and rape to make your eyes link the two and avoid the words in between.  It’s a form of mind control. Anyway, I was pleased to see that in Sweden you can be arrested for not answering a woman’s phone call. The Swedes are sensible. Haven’t you seen the profound Abba: The Movie or tried cutting up a sensible root vegetable from Sweden? Apparently Swedes aren’t even true root vegetables. That’s how sensible they are.