Current

Thursday, June 18, 2009

The Amazing Jack Night and the Mystery of Danny Finkelstein's Cock

Posted by Devil's Kitchen at 6/18/2009 08:22:00 pm

I'm sorry: that title should read "The Amazing Jack Night and the Mystery of why Danny Finkelstein's such a cock"...

There has been considerable comment around the blogs of The Times's exposure of Night Jack's real identity: A Very British Dude has a pretty comprehensive roundup of those views, and his comment is pretty spot on.
Nightjack's blog was as successful as it was because he was an insider saying what the public already know: That the police have been given too much power and have been corrupted by the culture of targets. Every time a new-Labour home secretary suggested that the fall in crime was a success rather than an artifact of statistics, you could point to Nightjack's blog and say "you're talking rot, Home Secretary". There is clearly a public interest in allowing him to have his say, and the public interest is most definitely not being served by the Times' campaign to out prominent bloggers, nor is it by the deletion of an excellent blog, and it is increasingly looking like a dying industry destroying its competition.

Suffice to say, your humble Devil realises that we bloggers have no legal entitlement to anonymity and, indeed, I have not been particularly anonymous for some time now. However, in blogging circles, I prefer to be referred to as "DK" or "The Devil" or "Devil's Kitchen" rather than my real name because the manner in which this blog is written—and the selection of views covered therein—is hardly the complete version of me. It is, if you like, merely one aspect.

In any case, your humble Devil reveals enough to allow readers to judge whether or not I know what I am talking about, as did Jack Night—that blog could never have been written by someone who was not what he said he was.

But that is not enough for Times lapdog Danny fucking Finkelstein.
What, say, if it turned out that NightJack wasn't actually a detective at all? Or that he was Sir Ian Blair? Are we really saying that his identity isn't a public matter?

Look, Danny fucking Finkelstein—Jack Night was not Sir Ian Blair was he? And he was a detective, wasn't he? So, given that you found out that Jack Night was who he said he was, what possible justification could you have for publishing that information?

None.

Danny is often known as "The Fink"; the name is pretty apt for, when your humble Devil was knee-high to a fire-breathing demon of Hell, "a fink" was a tattle-tale—someone dishonourable, disagreeable and generally slimy and unpleasant.

This dictionary defines "fink" as:
  • A contemptible person.

  • An informer.

  • A hired strikebreaker.

This Fink is most definitely a contemptible person.
In fact, I have to confess to surprise at the attitude of some other bloggers. Most of the time, we promote the fearless revelation of truth and expose hypocrisy.

I'm sorry, Fink, but what is this "we", you fucking Johnny-Come-Lately? You're no blogger—you're a fucking MSM shill. You regurgitate whatever crap your employer wants you to post and, unlike most of us, your agenda is entirely hidden.

It's twats like you, Fink, who clog up the blogosphere, with your Establishment-sanctioned news-bites and your irritating "I'm a real journo" smugness.

You aren't a blogger—you are simply publishing pieces that would otherwise be published were it not for the fact that you employer doesn't value your snippet of writing or this particular piece of facile opinion enough to put them into the print edition.

And what "hypocrisy", exactly, was Jack Night indulging in that you and your odious colleagues saw fit to "expose" him? What "truth" has been revealed by publishing his name?

None.

Tell me, Fink: when you get home at night and you look at yourself in the mirror—having just washed the taste of Rupert Murdoch's cum out of your mouth (but you can never quite eradicate it, can you, Fink?)—does a single little tear roll down your face? It should do.

Fink by name and fink by nature—that's our Danny.

Needless to say, your humble Devil is boycotting Times Comment Central (not that that's much of a hardship, frankly).

Labels: , , ,


Posted by Devil's Kitchen at 6/18/2009 08:22:00 pm


19 Blogger Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this the same 'fink' that does as he's told no matter what? The one who has an agenda so hidden it's almost in plain sight? The fink who sucks so much mainstream cock he needs multiple mouths?

I sincerely hope not.

6/21/2009 01:56:00 am  
Blogger Richard said...

"You're no blogger ... [you] clog up the blogosphere ..."

Hence the term "clog" rather than blog - an elision of "corporate" and "blog". The rest stems from that - as in "clogger".

6/21/2009 10:28:00 am  
Anonymous Rob said...

"Most of the time, we promote the fearless revelation of truth and expose hypocrisy."

Hypocrisy is self-exposed here. The Times, like the rest of the MSM, is balls-deep in the Lobby system. This is specifically designed to prevent the revelation of truth.

The Times - lapdog establishment stooge of Labour.

6/21/2009 10:30:00 am  
Blogger Henry Crun said...

Aha! I now understand what is meant by the term "Rat Fink" in the Wizard of Id cartoon strip

6/21/2009 10:41:00 am  
Blogger Bishop Brennan said...

Yup, Fink is a cunt of the highest order. As for the Times, the best thing that can be said about it is that it used to be a newspaper. The worst - unpublishable, even on the Kitchen!

6/21/2009 02:01:00 pm  
Anonymous Wossat? said...

Jack Night jackbooted. Forget Fink, it's wankstain. Although finkstain works just as well...

6/21/2009 03:11:00 pm  
Anonymous John_R said...

Rat Fink

Why is the Times the problem rather than the Judge and/or the law?

6/21/2009 03:39:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What, say, if it turned out that NightJack wasn't actually a detective at all? Or that he was Sir Ian Blair? Are we really saying that his identity isn't a public matter?"

What if a journalist refers to 'sources'? How do I know they haven't just invented them having spent the afternoon in the pub?

When a columnist refers to their own experience readers have no clue as to how detailed that is.

At least with a regular blogger readers can refer to a range of posts to gauge credibility and read comments by other readers.

Is the simple fact that columnists careers are being ruined by blogs? Why read idle speculation by a professional scribe when one can read informed comment by a professional?

6/21/2009 04:38:00 pm  
Anonymous North Northwester said...

It's pretty simple.

If the system sucks, and if the political leadership; Government benches and 'Opposition' alike are part of the same cosy, negligent, profligate club of conspirators against the public good, and if they censor or try to censor all criticism (and if the bribe the press and the TV into silence through public sector jobs advertising and 'public information films' advertising revenues), then anonymous blogging is one of freedom's last chances to expose the rotten parts of that system.

Too bad we aren't always perfect, but compared to the political class, we're bloody angels.

Fink's set himself against that tiny area of freedom.

I wonder who decided that The Thunderer should become The Informer?

6/21/2009 04:56:00 pm  
Anonymous Gareth said...

DK said: "Look, Danny fucking Finkelstein—Jack Night was not Sir Ian Blair was he? And he was a detective, wasn't he? So, given that you found out that Jack Night was who he said he was, what possible justification could you have for publishing that information?"

You're coming at it from the wrong direction. The press is free (as are we) to publish what it likes except in particular circumstances. Most of what gets printed is absolute shite and I'd love to see them try and justify it. But they don't have to. The real issue is; What justification would Night Jack have to restrain that freedom of the press or anyone else who wanted to out him? The answer is none. He made himself identifiable. The Times made their choice and are rightly being slated for it but that is beside the point when it comes to the law.

There are two other issues: Sources and anonymous/pseudonym written articles.

With regards to sources they are protected in law but authors are not. Night Jack was the author and as such had no justification for his attempted gagging order. Had he been providing another blogger with stories that would be a different matter. Had he been providing newspapers with stories they may have been able to better anonymise the details he provided.

As for anonymous articles they are very wrong in my opinion. But there should be no legislation or regulation dictating that anonymous publishing must stop. That would stop anonymous blogging too. There is is ample freedom for any media outlet or blogger to name the true writers of articles, much as Guido does from time to time. All that is required is freedom and consequences.

6/21/2009 05:42:00 pm  
Anonymous Call me Infidel said...

I watched Finklestein on Newsnight recently trying to make light of MPs troughing. Kelvin Mackenzie ripped him a new arsehole. Fink is indeed a Fink.

6/21/2009 06:14:00 pm  
Blogger Katabasis said...

Boycotting Times Comment Central?

I can't see how anyone would bother with it in the first place - it has to be the worst of the MSM broadsheet comment facilities.

I've never had a single comment published there. Not once. I've never used "foul" language either so I'm not sure why they never get through.

The most maddening thing though is the retroactive censorship. You'll go onto an article in the morning to find 25 hostile comments, and in the afternoon, there are only four. FFS.

WV: Creedi (!!)

6/21/2009 06:18:00 pm  
Blogger JonnyB said...

Sigh.

I hate commenting on stuff like this, as it just encourages them. But it's like the terrorism thing. Some people - and those at The Times are particularly culpable - invent an entity because it helps them rationalise things. Hence: 'The Bloggers'. Latest example, http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6543067.ece - particularly risible.

There is no 'the bloggers'. There are people. With blogs.

6/21/2009 08:36:00 pm  
Blogger 13eastie said...

The "public interest" argument here is crass and paradoxical.

1) Public interest in the identity of the author of a blog that cannot now be published is nil.

2) Especially now that the Times has established the veracity of the blog, there is a clear public interest in such material continuing to be published. The Times has actually acted against the public interest.

6/21/2009 08:40:00 pm  
Anonymous bergen said...

A "fink" was a Pinkerton undercover agent used to break strikes in the USA around the turn of the 20th century.

Now it means an unprincipled prat who is like the dog in the old HMV adverts listening to Murdoch from the gramophone.

Thankfully I resolved never to buy a Murdoch rag again years ago-one of the few decisions I've never regretted.

6/22/2009 04:19:00 pm  
Anonymous the a&e charge nurse said...

Bravo, Devil - lets hope your high octane attack evens the score after the Fink's odious defense of the Times bullying.

This creepy little bagman was even panned by the blog section of his own readership.

Is it any surprise that journos do very badly when the public are asked to name which professions they trust - hell, according to this Mori poll journos did even worse than politicians ........ worse than politicians, I didn't think that was possible.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6105616.stm

6/22/2009 04:35:00 pm  
Blogger The Penguin said...

He's like most all of the MSM knobs who claim to be bloggers, they don't engage in the comments section so they are no more bloggers than that slimeball Voldemort - who STILL hasn't got out of a meeting apparently. Unless he was just lying, of course....

The Penguin

6/22/2009 05:25:00 pm  
Blogger Carl Gardner said...

Gareth: it's not right that sources are protected in law, I don't think. It's journalists who are protected from revealing their sources. I think it would be perfectly lawful for the Times to reveal, say, the identities of all its anonymous police sources, and applying the principles it relied on to justify its outing of NightJack, it ought to do so. The fact that it does not shows its behaviour up as utterly hypocritical.

And call me naive, but as someone who'se not commented much at Times Comment Central, I am shocked and angry about the way it selectively publishes comments. I've commented on this story, or tried to, on Daniel Finkelstein's blog and Oliver Kamm's, and under Anna Mikhailova's recent article, and have done so in a reasonable, temperate, non-obscene and non-libellous way. But I've been critical of the Times and - guess what? - most of my comments seem to have disappeared into the ether.

I'm not tribalist, and I'm not against newspapers. But this episode really has damaged my respect for professional - or should that be paid? - journalists. The Times is certainly not meeting the standards I as a mere blogger try to maintain, for instance, and selectively censors criticism on its own website. How sad.

6/23/2009 12:20:00 am  
Anonymous Gareth said...

Carl Gardener said: "Gareth: it's not right that sources are protected in law, I don't think. It's journalists who are protected from revealing their sources."

That's a better way of putting it than I did. A source cannot (usually) be forced into the public by the law. They are one step removed from publishing for a reason and the writer is the one who accepts the consequences of what is published.

On the other hand, the success or failure of injunctions aside, there is nothing to stop sources being named by other writers.

6/23/2009 12:37:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Testimonials

  • "The best British political/libertarian blog on the web. Consistently excellent but not for the squeamish."—Christopher Snowdon
  • "[He] runs the infamous and fantastically sweary Devil’s Kitchen blog, and because he’s one of the naughtiest geeks (second only to the incredibly, incredibly naughty Guido Fawkes) he’s right at the top of the evil dork hierarchy."—Charlotte Gore
  • "I met the Devil's Kitchen the other night. What a charming young man he is, and considerably modest too..."—Peter Briffa
  • "The Devil's Kitchen exposes hypocrisy everywhere, no holds barred."—Wrinkled Weasel
  • "People can still be controversial and influential whilst retaining integrity—Devil's Kitchen springs to mind—and attract frequent but intelligent comment."—Steve Shark, at B&D
  • "Sometimes too much, sometimes wrong, sometimes just too much but always worth a read. Not so much a blog as a force of nature."—The Nameless Libertarian
  • "The Devil's Kitchen—a terrifying blog that covers an astonishing range of subjects with an informed passion and a rage against the machine that leaves me in awe..."—Polaris
  • "He rants like no one else in the blogosphere. But it's ranting in an eloquent, if sweary, kind of way. Eton taught him a lot."—Iain Dale
  • "But for all that, he is a brilliant writer—incisive, fisker- extraordinaire and with an over developed sense of humour... And he can back up his sometimes extraordinary views with some good old fashioned intellectual rigour... I'm promoting him on my blogroll to a daily read."—Iain Dale
  • "... an intelligent guy and a brilliant writer..."—A Very British Dude
  • "... the glorious Devil's Kitchen blog—it's not for the squeamish or easily offended..."—Samizdata
  • "... a very, smart article... takes a pretty firm libertarian line on the matter."—Samizdata
  • "By the way, DK seems to be on fucking good form at the moment."—Brian Mickelthwait
  • "Perhaps the best paragraph ever written in the history of human creation. It's our Devil on fine form."—Vindico
  • "Devil's Kitchen is the big name on the free-market libertarian strand of the British blogosphere... Profane rants are the immediate stand-out feature of DK's blog, but the ranting is backed up by some formidable argument on a wide range of issues particularly relating to British and European parliamentary politics, economics, and civil liberties."—Question That
  • "... an excellent, intelligent UK political blog which includes a great deal of swearing."—Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
  • "I like the Devil's Kitchen. I think it's one of the best written and funniest blogs in the business."—Conservative Party Reptile
  • "The. Top. UK. Blogger."—My Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
  • "For sheer intelligence, erudition and fun, Iain Dale's Diary, Cranmer and Devil's Kitchen are so far ahead of the rest I don't see how they can figure in a top ten. They are the Beatles, Stones and Who of the blog world; the Astair, Bogart and Marlon Brando of the blog world; the Gerswin, Porter and Novello of the blog world; the Dot Cotton, Pat Butcher, Bette Lynch of the blog world..."—Wrinkled Weasel
  • "It's the blogging equivalent of someone eating Ostrich Vindaloo, washed down by ten bottles of Jamaican hot pepper sauce and then proceeding to breathe very close to your face while talking about how lovely our politicians are... But there's much more to his writing than four letter words."—Tom Tyler
  • "God bless the Devil's Kitchen... Colourful as his invective is, I cannot fault his accuracy."—Tom Paine
  • "The Devil's Kitchen is a life-affirming, life-enhancing blog ... This particular post will also lead you to some of the best soldiers in the army of swearbloggers of which he is Field Marshal."—The Last Ditch
  • "... underneath all the ranting and swearing [DK]'s a very intelligent and thoughtful writer whom many people ... take seriously, despite disagreeing with much of what he says."—Not Saussure
  • "... the most foul-mouthed of bloggers, Devils Kitchen, was always likely to provoke (sometimes disgust, but more often admiration)."—The Times Online
  • "The always entertaining Mr Devil's Kitchen..."—The Times's Comment Central
  • "Frankly, this is ranting of the very highest calibre."—The Nameless Libertarian
  • "I don't mean it literally, or even metaphorically. I just find that his atheism aside, I agree with everything the Devil (of Kitchen fame...) says. I particularly enjoy his well crafted and sharp swearing, especially when addressed at self righteous lefties..."—The Tin Drummer
  • "Spot on accurate and delightful in its simplicity, Devil's Kitchen is one of the reasons that we're not ready to write off EUroweenie-land just yet. At least not until we get done evacuating the ones with brains."—Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
  • "This hugely entertaining, articulate, witty Scottish commentator is also one of the most foul-mouthed bloggers around. Gird up your loins and have a look. Essential reading."—Doctor Crippen
  • "The Devil's Kitchen is one of the foremost blogs in the UK. The DK is bawdy, foul-mouthed, tasteless, vulgar, offensive and frequently goes beyond all boundaries of taste and decency. So why on earth does Dr Crippen read the DK? Because he reduces me to a state of quivering, helpless laughter."—Doctor Crippen's Grand Rounds
  • "DK is a take-no-prisoners sort of libertarian. His blog is renowned for its propensity for foul-mouthed invective, which can be both amusing and tiresome by turns. Nevertheless, he is usually lucid, often scintillating and sometimes illuminating."—Dr Syn
  • "If you enjoy a superior anti-Left rant, albeit one with a heavy dash of cursing, you could do worse than visit the Devil's Kitchen. The Devil is an astute observer of the evils of NuLabour, that's for sure. I for one stand converted to the Devil and all his works."—Istanbul Tory
  • "... a sick individual."—Peter Briffa
  • "This fellow is sharp as a tack, funny as hell, and—when something pisses him off—meaner than a badger with a case of the bullhead clap."—Green Hell
  • "Foul-mouthed eloquence of the highest standard. In bad taste, offensive, immoderate and slanderous. F***ing brilliant!—Guest, No2ID Forum
  • "a powerfully written right-of-center blog..."—Mangan's Miscellany
  • "I tend to enjoy Devil's Kitchen not only because I disagree with him quite a lot of the time but because I actually have to use my brain to articulate why."—Rhetorically Speaking
  • "This blog is currently slamming. Politics certainly ain't all my own. But style and prose is tight, fierce, provocative. And funny. OK, I am a child—swear words still crack a laugh."—Qwan
  • "hedonistic, abrasive but usually good-natured..."—The G-Gnome
  • "10,000 words per hour blogging output... prolific or obsessive compulsive I have yet to decide..."—Europhobia
  • "a more favoured blog from the sensible Right..."—Great Britain...
  • "Devils Kitchen, a right thinking man indeed..."—EU Serf
  • "an excellent blog..."—Rottweiler Puppy
  • "Anyone can cuss. But to curse in an imaginative fashion takes work."—Liftport Staff Blog
  • "The Devil's Kitchen: really very funny political blog."—Ink & Incapability
  • "I've been laffing fit to burst at the unashamed sweariness of the Devil's Kitchen ~ certainly my favourite place recently."—SoupDragon
  • "You can't beat the writing and general I-may-not-know-about-being-polite-but-I-know-what-I-like attitude."—SoupDragon
  • "Best. Fisking. Ever. I'm still laughing."—LC Wes, Imperial Mohel
  • "Art."—Bob
  • "It made me laugh out loud, and laugh so hard—and I don't even get all the references... I hope his politics don't offend you, but he is very funny."—Furious, WoT Forum
  • "DK himself is unashamedly right-wing, vitriolic and foul mouthed, liberally scattering his posts with four-letter-words... Not to be read if you're easily offended, but highly entertaining and very much tongue in cheek..."—Everything Is Electric
  • "This blog is absolutely wasted here and should be on the front page of one of the broadsheets..."—Commenter at The Kitchen
  • "[This Labour government] is the most mendacious, dishonest, endemically corrupt, power-hungry, incompetent, illiberal fucking shower of shits that has ruled this country..."—DK

Blogroll

Campaign Links

All: Daily Reads (in no particular order)

Politics (in no particular order)

Climate Change (in no particular order)

General & Humour (in no particular order)

Mac,Design Tech & IT (in no particular order)