Because I am not very much of a morning person, it would be very dangerous for me to assume that anything I ‘heard’ on the Today programme was actually said, rather than something I cooked up in a dream. On a number of occassions I have gone through a whole morning imagining that this scandal or that had been announced only to realise that it was a product of my own fevered imaginings.
Fortunately, these days we have the marvels of interweb wireless technology and so if I think I heard something truly outrageous I can go back and check.
Well, it turns out I did here the aural equivalent of a big steaming pile of donkey bollocks this morning, emanating from the mouth of Daily Mail columnist Ann Atkins doing the Smug Religious Person of the Day slot:
When I heard that such a significant historian [as David Irving] held such extraordinary notions, I longed to learn why.
I’m sorry? Significant historian? SIGNIFICANT HISTORIAN?! Quaequam Blag! In what way has his work been “significant”? I’d love to know who she would categorise as an amateur chancer.
For the record, I think it is an outrage that he has been locked up. One of my reasons is that it gives his opinions a certain credibility and makes him appear to be a more significant person than he actually is. Ann Atkins has just provided us with a solid gold example of that.
PS Did you notice how on all the TV footage of the trial, Irving seems more concerned with getting his book in shot than the fact that he’s about to get locked up for three years?