Guardian

A Modern Fairy Tale, inspired by ‘Comment is Free’


Once upon a time there was a boy called Mardy,* who was an average student but was not popular at school, mainly because of the way his father, a single parent whose wife left him, had raised him. 

Mardy was brought up to believe that he was naturally superior to everyone else and that it was fine for him to “defend” himself by getting his retaliation in first.  His father’s rationale was that it worked well for him when he had been at school and made people fearful of offending him, but Mardy would do this unthinkingly, far too often and inappropriately.  Far from making other pupils afraid to offend him, his failure to apply it more carefully meant that his aggressive behaviour made them increasingly annoyed and they made no secret of it.

A while ago Mardy was hauled before the Principal because of a gratuitously offensive essay he had written about the inferior status of girls which he circulated at school, no doubt to try to curry favour with the top dogs there.  He told the principal that his father had read the essay and agreed with it and could not understand what all the fuss was about.  Mardy’s father accompanied him to the principal’s office, where he was advised to write an appropriate apology for the offence he had caused, which would be similarly circulated. 

He flatly refused, arguing that the article was true and many of his mates believed it.   His father, of course, sided with Mardy against the principal – who, unfortunately, was far too weak to stand up for himself – and accused the principal of bullying his son.

The result was that Mardy was not punished for what he wrote, nor was he forced to apologise.  No-one forgot it, not least because he did not allow them to do so, and he subsequently become even more arrogant and big-headed and hostile towards girls. 

Every time the essay was referred to at school he’d go running home to his dad, complaining that he was being bullied.  Dad made countless visits to the school and even threatened the Principal, which resulted in the entire school community being warned to leave Mardy alone.  Far from helping matters it made them much worse.  

The pupils were furious that the Principal was so spineless as to grant Mardy special protected status.  Mardy and his father took away the entirely the wrong message, so Mardy’s behaviour towards the girls in his class, and towards female teachers, became even more obnoxious, and matters escalated culminating in a week where he was shunned totally even by the same top dogs who were initially impressed.

His Facebook page became the focus of calls for him to leave the school and there was a demonstration outside the Principal’s office to have him permanently excluded.

But nothing changed. The Principal remained weak, and the more people disagreed with Mardy the more obnoxious and verbally abusive he became and the more open he was about his hatred of girls and women.

Finally, a group of parents involved the school governors, who ordered Mardy to attend a special meeting in order to explain himself and provide reasons why he should not be permanently excluded from the school.

I wish that I could say that Mardy learned his lesson from this confrontation and that everyone then lived happily ever after, but Mardy attended the meeting and, far from being rude, was embarrassingly self-pitying.  He said that it was plain that “everyone was against him” but that his essay had been fair comment and “everyone knew” that it was true so why should he apologise for telling the truth?  

No matter how reasonable and keen to understand him were the school governors, the more belligerently self-pitying Mardy became – and was devastated and infuriated by turns when they found his behaviour so unfitting that he was excluded permanently from their school.

What conclusion can be drawn from this story?

We know that life sometimes imitates what passes for art.

For a true account, which mirrors this fairy tale, see here

For an insight into the damage done by an overprotective father figure see here.

Also, see CiF Watch’s post on the overprotective father, here.

*(“Mard” is a northern English term for wimpish)

Categories: Guardian

Tagged as:

27 replies »

  1. This is really funny. In a serious kind of way.

    I can only hope that the underlying meanings alert good people to the dangers facing UK society today.

  2. I hope so too, NobblyStick, and particularly the dangers facing them from the likes of the Guardian/CiF who claim to speak for them.

  3. I think that henceforward 8th July should be declared Belligerent Self-Pity Day, or Mehdi Gras.

    Everyone should polish up all their grudges and argue with everyone around them who they think doesn’t recognise their full worth, or is getting at them for being black, brown, yellow, Jewish, Muslim, wearing glasses, wearing odd socks, carrying an out of date phone, eating smelly food in the office, &c &c, and should whinge about imagined grievances non-stop. At the end of Mehdi Gras there should be prizes for the one who whinges the longest, or who manages to get the most people whingeing on his side, or who is holding the most grudges and for the longest time and alienates the most people.

    There should also be a prize for the one who has complained most often during the past year to his/her mother or father or boss or teacher about the way he/she is being treated.

  4. Has Jonathan Freedland’s support done more harm than good for Mehdi Hasan?

    I don’t know but they did a very serious harm for all non-jihadist Muslims, the liberal left and especially to the Guardian. While I can understand MH’s distress who has been caught more than one occasions spitting his racist crap (maybe his past job tells something about the New Statesman and the bankruptcy of the European left).
    Theobald Freedland is a totally different matter… He is the real Guardian – you either agree with me or you are a racist who must be silenced.

    • “Of course, you people here never allow a right of reply”

      So many ways to view this statement, other than with pure contempt of course.

      First, please give us your evidence that this site routinely denies a right of reply to the authors it mentions.

      Second, even if they did, please explain why Medhi can’t just post a reply, as you do.

      The people who censor are CIF, as when they removed a thousand plus post that merely reminded Medhi that criticism of him is (a) justified and (b) not racist.

      • So calling a Muslim who has routinely condemned extremists a “goatfucker” is (a) justified and (b) not racist?

        Nice to know where you’re coming from.

        • I understand all the words in your post, but I cannot understand the relevance to mine, which was about right of reply.

          Did you want a quote from the goat?

          I suggest you revisit the Thatre of the Absurd thread, where a senior member of the Freedom Theatre is engaging in a spirited rebutal of the idea that a man who had demonstrably upset conservative Palestinians was in fact killed by conservative Palestinians

    • Of course, you people here never allow a right of reply – and all the brainless chumps BTL lap it up.

      Hmmmm! Perhaps someone on CiFWatch could respond to that. Have any of The Guardian/CiF luminaries requested being allowed to post a response on ‘the (probably) hated’ CiFWatch site?

      Pretz. Do you think that they would request this? I mean, CiFWatch is the ‘stuff of nightmares’ for them in their insulated world just one level below paradise.

      • All I mean is: why doesn’t CiFW post Hasan’s own explanation of his comments?

        Why not let people visiting this site make up their own minds?

        Just look at the frankly embarrassing distortion of quotes in the piece on the Theatre of Absurd.

        • “Why not let people visiting this site make up their own minds?”

          pretzelberg, I would imagine that almost all the people who visit this site, unlike the mouth breathers at the other place, are capable of reading what is written here and agreeing or disagreeing with it without feeling that they have been placed under pressure to do either.

          This site does not delete comments which disagree with the author (for proof of that, look at how many of your own still remain) unlike CiF who regularly do so in some nasty and dishonest and totally transparent attempt to make it seem that everyone who posted agreed with the ideas, however daft.

          What teases me is that they lack the insight to realise that this does not work! Whenever there is a thread like “poor Mehdi’s” there are so many deletions that below the line looks like a sieve!

          Can it be that the CiF movers and shakers really believe that these sorts of antics will go unnoticed or unquestioned here and elsewhere?

          • This site does not delete comments which disagree with the author
            Indeed, but nobody is disputing that.

            … unlike CiF who regularly do so in some nasty and dishonest and totally transparent attempt to make it seem that everyone who posted agreed with the ideas, however daft.

            You must be joking! Whatever the political direction of a CiF article, there are always plenty of BTL comments disagreeing with it.

    • It was clear to me from the off that this was “satire”. But you knew that – not that it prevents you from posting a laughable ad hominem.

      The issue I have is that this piece is rubbish satire. Clearly I have higher standards than you and many others here on that front.

      And you call me a “literal thinker cognitively stuck at about age seven”?

      What a hoot you guys are!!

      • Post us some of what you believe to be high class satire pretzelberg.

        I am teased by why you are made so uncomfortable by this article. You waste a lot of energy squealing your opinion here as if it is fact.

        One definition of satire is “the use of wit, especially irony, sarcasm, and ridicule, to criticize faults.” For myself, I believe that Medusa has hit the bulls-eye:

        She has “poor Mehdi’s” personality disposition down to a fine art, including his tendency to distort facts and truth, his arrogance and the too-ready inclination to throw his toys out of the pram if anyone disagrees with him and then to wail in self-pity when he writes arrant nonsense and people criticise it for what it is. His article was a complete, sick-making disgrace.

        And Freedland has also disgraced himself by allowing himself to be wheeled onto the sinking ship of “poor Mehdi’s” reputation, and the Bungler shown himself to be as patently silly as ever he was, so neither has done “poor Mehdi” any good at all.

        • One definition of satire is “the use of wit, especially irony, sarcasm, and ridicule, to criticize faults.” For myself, I believe that Medusa has hit the bulls-eye:

          Presumably your bulls-eye is one that takes up the entire board – although only when you agree with the message, of course.

          In terms of “satire” this was very, very wide of the mark IMO.

          And I notice you didn’t criticise the idiot who posted that laughable ad hominem at me.

    • You are such a contrarian pretzelberg.

      Are you one of the “brainless chumps” by any chance? If not, why are you consorting with the rest of us?

  5. Mardy is Israel and over protective daddy is the US of A right ?

    A ‘live’ demonstration of your difficulty in connecting with the real world.

  6. Welcome back, Medusa. A strong tale, immediately comprehensible even to guadianistas

  7. RZ : “Mardy is Israel and over protective daddy is the US of A right ?”

    Are you suggesting the Palestinians are all girls?

    Don’t think they’ll apreciate this one in downtown Gaza.

    And who’s the mum who left?
    Was she little miss Britain?

    Add the French into this and you get a right love triangle.

  8. We know that CiF tampers with the “recommends” of its posters. We also know that “poor Mehdi” took a right royal pasting there. Harry’s Place is running an article that the first five pro “poor Mehdi” comments have been artificially bumped up on Friday 13th, to make it look as though masses of people are in support of him.

    I wouldn’t put it past him or his nasty little chums to put out a three line whip, so wounded must be his overweening pride. It’ll make no difference to intelligent people, of course, who will still treat the article with the contempt it deserves, but it may provide a Band Aid for “poor Mehdi’s” ego. After all, dragging all sorts of people to vote the way they are told, and perhaps even manufacturing votes by people who don’t exist, is becoming common in other sorts of voting scenarios in the UK, too, notably in by elections and council elections where there are large Muslim communities, and was instrumental in bringing in an Islamist-supporting council in Tower Hamlets, in London, and electing Gorgeous George Galloway to parliament.