More in the press about ‘Nick’ Griffin, with the news that he is going to be a Barking candidate in the forthcoming General Election.
In the context of all the distaste and outrage generated by Nick Griffin and his friends, the irritation I am about to express may seem a bit trivial, but here I go anyway. Why, courtesy of the media, is he known to us as Nick?
Presumably his given name wasn’t Nick, unless his mother - divining that he was always going to be a bit short of gravitas, or because of some directly diabolical suspicions - actually called him after Old Nick. Presumably his name is Nicholas, so why can’t the media call him that?
The most horrible manifestation of this uncalled-for familiarity was at the time of the ‘Fred’ West trial, when we had constantly to hear the person concerned (just about the most repulsive individual most of us could ever hope not to meet) referred to as Fred, as if he were our big chum.
Why the hell couldn’t they have referred to him as Frederick West?
Why does this upset me, when it obviously doesn’t bother anyone else in the whole of the UK media? I don’t know. I’ll try to calm down a bit now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Probably for the same reasons that the evil editor at the Dorset Echo was always referred to as 'DAVE' Murdock rather than the more respectable and less cuddly David.
ReplyDeleteT