The admission didn’t come easy. It’s fair to say it was forced but at least Miri AF squeezed out the words ‘weird and inappropriate’ after a two-day online battle where she feigned shock and horror at being called out for double standards, firing machine gun rate insults to ward off taking personal responsibility.
Rod Liddle bad. Delingpole? Look the other way.
Some of us could see the hypocrisy straight off. The old schoolers. Others not so much. What’s the problem? Who cares if Miri ignores Delingpole’s book, the one she can’t remember, but focuses on Rod Liddle’s old articles about fancying minors? Who cares if she refuses to acknowledge Delingpole’s pedo parts despite singing the book’s praises in July 2023 before appearing at least three times on his podcast?
Well, on an ethical basis, it becomes problematic when one takes the moral high ground writing about these matters, as Miri has in her Substack Psychos, schizos and Rod Liddle. The discerning reader can’t help but notice the omission. It becomes a Delingpole shaped elephant in between the sentences.
Why does Delinpgole get special treatment? Is it because he offers Miri and friends a platform and a larger audience than they’re used to? Is there something else we should know about? A deal of some kind, maybe. It’s distracting, in other words. Thoughts start to stray.
That’s why it’s much better to be clear these things up as they arise, like in March 2025 when I first brought this issue to the table. Imagine if Miri had simply said, ‘Yeah those passages are a bit creepy and inappropriate alright. I must have completely overlooked those parts when reading the book when I was 19. I’ll put it to James in our next podcast’. We could have skipped all this scrapping and nastiness. Instead she chose to ignore the Delingpole elephant and allowed the tension to build. Why won’t Miri acknowledge the passages? I kept thinking. She’d clearly seen them. From time to time, I’d remind her in a respectful manner, to no avail.
An updated response after such glowing praise for the creepy book would have been the right thing to do. Ignoring the pedo parts was the wrong thing to do. At least if ethics applied. This is really basic. Ignoring the pedo parts of Delingpole’s book then focusing on Rod Liddle’s minor attraction excerpts only brings into sharp focus the special treatment that Delingpole’s was getting for whatever reason.
Clearly Miri did not like being held to account. In fact, she flipped. She tried every trick in the book to dodge taking responsibility for her own words and actions. It wasn’t pretty. We got to see the vicious tactics deployed to sidestep this basic ethical issue, one that she had created herself through her own choices. Miri was merciless while attempting to look the victim. Thankfully more and more of us are getting good at recognising this behaviour for what it is: deflection, projection, hysterics. The lady doth protest too much methinks.
Strangely Miri displayed all the traits of the psycho she had written about in her article about Rod Liddle, without any hint of irony. This fact seems to upset her greatly when pointed out. It should. It was like holding a mirror up to her own bad behaviour.
Suffice it to say, this sorry episode has been an excellent example of why ethics are so important in journalism. We’re in this mess because they’ve disappeared from every walk of life and the guilty use similar tactics at deflection when held to account. It gets dirty and underhand. You need your wits about you to withstand the assault and hold firm.
Still, at least Miri has admitted the pedo parts in Delingpole’s book are indeed ‘weird and inappropriate’. Better late than never. If she was to display some personal responsibility and prove she means it, she’d go a step further and apologise for all those rotten insults she flung my way for merely pointing out the obvious. Yes I’m old school. That would be the correct thing to do. If ethics were involved. She was bang out of order for responding in such a vitriolic manner.
Interestingly her associate, Francis O’Neill doesn’t seem to think that Delingpole’s pedo bits in his book are that big a deal. He chose the word ‘satire’ to describe them. Isn’t that revealing? Miri had written that Rod Liddle’s schtick about teachers shagging kids certainly wasn’t satire. I wonder does Francis O’Neill agree. He wrote in the comments about Delingpole:
You’ve got to laugh this point. This really shouldn’t be so difficult. It’s very telling that it’s turned into a bunfight. It didn’t have to be this way. Basic ethics would have avoided all of this.
Another funny one. Miri’s husband Mark Finch hasn’t stopped. He’s probably still in the comments sections letting off steam. He just won’t let go. All because I had the audacity to point out his wife’s double standards. He produced this ‘gotcha’ moment on X. He’s coming at me from many platforms! You’ve got to admire his determination and stamina.
Yes I used to write begging letters to Jimmy Savile as a kid hoping he’d fix it for me to meet Michael Jackson. Thankfully he never responded. This apparently, is on par with Miri giving special treatment to Delingpole, until forced to acknowledge his book. Make it make sense.
I’m beginning to realise most people don’t really get how ethics work and I’m wondering if it’s because we’ve turned our backs on God. This stuff should be easy. New Age thinking must be responsible for the confusion. Your truth, my truth malarkey.
Poor ole Mark he’s frothing at the mouth. Here he is on Substack genuinely concerned about my mental health. Isn’t he lovely?
Anyway there are enough people involved in this bunfight without adding any more but the overarching lesson here is that without ethics, we get substandard journalism. We get lies, misdirection, projection, obfuscation, deflection, gaslighting and lots and lots of frenzied insults.
We need ethics.
We need people who understand them and cherish them. We need people who can call it as it is straight way. No delays. No prodding. No persuasion.
Ethics help avoid so much trouble down the road.
Miri and Mark Finch, feel free to apologise at your ease.
You were wrong. Your response was wrong.
Take personal responsibility.
Do the right thing.
Related articles:
Blind spot or turning a blind eye? Miri AF and the Delingpole problem
Tricky questions: Doc Malik holds James Delingpole to account
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.