Thursday, June 18, 2009

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

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?


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?


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).


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.

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".

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.

Henry Crun said...

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

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!

Wossat? said...

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

John_R said...

Rat Fink

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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 (!!)

JonnyB said...


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, - particularly risible.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.