Home > Stephen Pollard

Tuesday 2 December 2008

Dare to dream and make your ultimate trip a reality

The latest culture as recommended by our staff

Michael Henderson

Michael Henderson suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value events

Click here for exclusive articles, offers, tasting notes and discussion

Explanation and apology

Friday, 8th June 2007

A couple of people have emailed to say that my mentions of Neil Clark are boring and unworthy of me. I should, they say, have bigger fish to fry.

And the thing is, they're right. But...

The reason I give his outpourings entirely unmerited and disproportionate coverage is that I find it both bizarre and wrong that a man who is a proud apologist for a genocidal butcher should be treated as having anything worthwhile to contribute to the mainstream media (I leave out the 'blogosphere', since no one can, or should, be able to control the content people choose to put on their own sites).

Reading Clark's opinions in the mainstream media is little different in spirit from reading David Irving's, both in their apologias for mass murderers and in their use of unreliable sources. Would Irving be commissioned by, say, the Guardian, to offer his thoughts on the appointment of a new French foreign minister? Merely to pose the question is to show the absurdity of it. Yet a man who eulogises another genocidal butcher - and, equally offensively in its way, who harks back with nostalgia to the tyranny of the Warsaw Pact - is. And so I think it is necessary to show just how wrong and stupid Clark is, lest anyone take him seriously on any matter of importance.

He has also sought - albeit with utter incompetence - to silence criticism of his methods through a libel writ against Oliver Kamm. Not that one should be surprised that a defender of Communist tyranny or Slobodan Milosevic does not believe in the right of others to criticise him or his views.

It is also, I have to confess, sometimes fun to shoot fish in a barrel.

I'm sorry if it's boring when I mention Clark. And I get the message - I'll do my best to resist the temptation to mention him, and try to make this a Clark-free zone.

But I hope you see why, trivial and stupid as he is, it's important that his idiocy is properly ridiculed.

Previous Back to Stephen Pollard Next

Blogs: Clive Davis | Melanie Phillips | Americano | Coffee House | Trading Floor

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (6)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Joshua

June 8th, 2007 5:58pm

Clarkie makes such a wonderful target. This morning he posts a pic of Ana Ivanović. Now Clarkie can't post a normal pic like everyone else. Nope, he has to republish a pic that wouldn't look out of place in an ad for a soft porn site. Sure enough, I check out its provenance and find Clarkie's taken it from a porn site with the extremely apposite name, "Maria Sharapova Upskirts". What next, "Slobodan Milo�ević Uptrousers"?

Koki

June 9th, 2007 10:47am

Mr. Pollard, you seem to have some evidence when you call Mr. Milosevic a "genocidal butcher". Carla del Ponte woul have given anything to have the evidence you seem to have. In the end the Hague "disposed of Milosevic" in the only way they could. He died a free man. Or does innocent until proven guilty mean nothing to you!?!

As Mr. Clark is married to a Hungarian to grew up in the country under "such terrible circumstances" perhaps he is the one who knows more about it than you do.

To use your words, in the shape the world is in, your comments are "trivial and stupid"

Koki

June 10th, 2007 11:35am

You ask people to post comments and then you don't print them. Does this mean that you do not take kindly to criticism of any sort but feel justified in handing it out?

Mr. Pollard, seems to have some evidence when he calls Mr. Milosevic a "genocidal butcher". Carla del Ponte woul have given anything to have the evidence he seems to have. In the end the Hague "disposed of Milosevic" in the only way they could. He died a free man. Or does innocent until proven guilty apply only to Britain and the US!?!

As Mr. Clark is married to a Hungarian who grew up in the country under "such terrible circumstances" perhaps he is the one who knows more about it than Mr. Pollard do.

To use Mr. Pollard's words, in the shape the world is in, his comments are "trivial and stupid"

Stephen Pollard

June 10th, 2007 11:50am

'Kiko' - that's complete nonsense. In the month that this blog's been up, we've only not posted one comment, which was libellous. Feel free to comment away - anyone who believes that "the Hague "disposed of Milosevic" in the only way they could" is welcome to show the world how bizarre their views really are.

KOKI

June 10th, 2007 6:44pm

No matter. It worked on the second attempt.

Mr. Milosevic was denied expert medical attention. This was as good as a death sentence. Anyone who had any interest in the case knew that. You don't even have to dig deep to uncover this information.

Naser Oric, the butcher of Srebrenica, was freed by the Hague after two years! There was so much evidence on the atrocities which he himself filmed. This also is a matter of public record.

The message is it's OK to kill Serbs and burn down their vilages.

However, the world still awaits your evidence regarding Milosevic.