Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote: The UK and USA are a bit unusual among modern democratic nations in not having some form of proportional voting system.
Given that UKIP obtained 4 million votes at their peak, and given your dislike for Farage and UKIP, would you be happy with a PR voting system that sent 20-30 UKIP MPs to The Commons?
For some people, 1 UKIP MP is one to many, never mind 30!
Absolutely yes!
I made the point after the 2015 election that it was completely unjust that UKIP had scored I think it was 13% of the vote and didn't get a single seat. If I remember correctly, their only MP was elected on the Conservative ticket and crossed the floor later.
If we are to operate our government as a parliamentary representative democracy, people have to be properly represented. This means it is better having your enemy inside your tent pissing out, rather than outside your tent pissing in.
I disagree. It depends on what you believe is most important, being able to have a party that vaguely represents your views or a specific representative who may or may not align with your political or moral beliefs but who's primary job is to represent the views of the people they represent. Personally I prefer the FPTP system as it gives me a local representative who can be held to account. PR gives you little direct accountability. Personally I would like to see the ability to recall MPs and for less of a focus on the power of the party, so more ability for an MP to make their own choice when voting rather than go down the PR route. PR would just lead to more of a gap between politicians and the general public and a more entrenched political class.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Fruit and vegetables are being left to rot on British farms because of a shortage of labour, according to the National Farmers Union, which is calling on the government to implement a seasonal agricultural workers scheme to fix the problem.
Ali Capper, whose fruit farm on the border between Herefordshire and Worcestershire sells Gala apples to supermarkets, said the business had 20 per cent fewer workers than usual in September.
“If the fruit becomes over-ripe, the skin gets tacky and greasy, added Ms Capper, who is chair of the NFU’s horticulture team. “We ended up having to send 100 bins of Gala apples for juice. Those apples should have been Class 1 apples on supermarket shelves. To a farmer, sending Class 1 apples for juice is a waste.”
She said apples used for juice fetched one-fifth of the price of those sold to supermarkets for eating.
The NFU’s monthly labour survey showed a 29 per cent shortfall in seasonal workers for horticulture businesses in September, up from 17 per cent in May.
The UK farming industry is heavily dependent on pickers from the EU — notably eastern Europe — for seasonal work. Low unemployment rates and the seasonal nature of farm work makes it difficult to attract domestic pickers, the sector argues.
At the same time, the UK has also become less attractive to seasonal workers mostly from Romania and Bulgaria because of the fall in the value of sterling against the euro since Britain voted last year in a referendum to leave the EU.
Minette Batters, deputy chair of the NFU, said the UK urgently needed to re-introduce a seasonal agriculture workers scheme similar to the one that existed between 1945 and 2013.
She added most EU countries operate such arrangements, which typically extend well beyond the regional bloc to include other nations, such as Ukraine, Thailand and Morocco.
“Waste hasn’t been catastrophic this year but we don’t want this to get to a seismic scale [next year] — we want the government to act,” said Ms Batters. “Farms are having to move people around, people are having to work longer hours, which is putting strain on already strained businesses.”
Ms Capper said farmers were reluctant to speak publicly about the fruit and vegetables they were leaving to rot in fields, for fear that supermarket groups would think they were not running their businesses effectively.
She cited the case of a soft fruit farmer in Scotland who grows 350 tons of blueberries but had to leave between 50 to 100 tons to waste because of a labour shortage, which cost him £500,000.
A Kent soft fruit farmer was unable to find enough labour to pick 100 tons of raspberries, out of a total of 2,000 tons, which cost him £700,000, said Ms Capper, adding that broccoli, cauliflower and pumpkins were also rotting in fields.
Beverly Dixon, director of human resources at G’s, one of the UK’s largest growers of vegetables, said labour trends did not bode well for next summer.
“We had double the number of no-shows and double the number of early leavers this summer, which added to our labour bill,” she added. “Usually we have a waiting list of 700 to 800 people in July. This year we had zero.”
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that access to overseas migrant labour was a policy area led by the Home Office.
It added: “We recognise securing a strong agricultural workforce is crucial as we develop a new approach to farming outside the EU. The government has commissioned advice from the migration advisory committee to better understand reliance on EU migrant workers across the wider economy and we will work closely with our food and farming industry to consider their specific needs.”
According to Defra, there were 67,000 seasonal workers in 2015, while farming industry figures put the number at about 80,000.
but we're supposed to grow more food to counteract the price rises that ...
Appearing before the international trade committee, Liam Fox was forced to admit that EU trade arrangements with other countries, like Israel, South Korea and the US, could not be rolled over after Brexit and would need to be negotiated.
This doesn't stop the nonsense, of course. Fox was still insisting he can sort all of these arrangements by the time the UK leaves the EU in March 2019. But in fact there are 759 arrangements, according to the Financial Times, on everything from customs arrangements to agricultural quotas to pharmaceutical rules.
Meanwhile, David Davis was admitting to a Lords committee that the withdrawal agreement "will probably favour the [European] Union". He also - and this went unnoticed by most of the media - effectively ruled out no-deal.
...I believe that works out to be around 3 trade deals done and dusted every 2 days.
seven years plus some of the current deals have been/are being worked on for .
Only one person in UK's Brexit negotiation team has experience making trade deals
When asked how many officials in the Brexit department had previous involvement making similar deals, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox could name only one
..hope he doesn't get ill.
Or want any time off.
Or sleep.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/03 18:28:00
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I'd guess, if it's true, that they're mostly/all in super-safe seats so by-elections would just return more Tories.
That depends. Remember Amber Rudd was meant to be in a safe seat and only won by a tiny margin. Suppose they are in London or Remainer areas? By-elections traditionally have a lower turn out but what happens if people turn up to stick one in the Governments eye metaphorically. The Tories are that bad at the moment I would not be surprised if even safe seats look wobbly.
Of course as it's Christmas we might just end up with a big turkey.
It would be interesting though. Wrexit would have to be put on hold, there wouldn't be any chance of agreeing anything before next October as Labour will likely win and completely change senior civil servants...
I disagree. It depends on what you believe is most important, being able to have a party that vaguely represents your views or a specific representative who may or may not align with your political or moral beliefs but who's primary job is to represent the views of the people they represent. Personally I prefer the FPTP system as it gives me a local representative who can be held to account. PR gives you little direct accountability. Personally I would like to see the ability to recall MPs and for less of a focus on the power of the party, so more ability for an MP to make their own choice when voting rather than go down the PR route. PR would just lead to more of a gap between politicians and the general public and a more entrenched political class.
Except the current system doesn't either. Hardly anyone votes on what the local MP does and is dominated by Government politics. There may be a few exceptions but in the majority we don't have local representation in that way. You can easily have local representation in a PR system anyway. All you do is regionalise the PR system and then anyone of those MPs ca be you local representative. The advantage is that complaining about UC to your Tory MP that is IDS is about as useful as going swimming with lead lined trousers on, you wouldn't have that with a regionalised PR system because you can go and speak to the MP that more aligns with your political views.
And bringing Andrew Neil into it by saying it's the sort of thing he would have liked? Bloody, bloody stupid.
The thing is she is quoting statements. Now yes they are horrible jokes, but as a population we tend to ignore things we can't see or hear whilst sticking our fingers in our ears. Sometimes we need to hear these things to realise how abhorrent they are. People don't like to hear it because it embarrasses people (and there will be some that likely laughed at such jokes in the past). If you hide nasty spiteful things they tend to carry on under the surface. To truly deal with them you have to shine a spotlight on them and make people feel uncomfortable so they can be aware of them when they come across them in the future.
Only one person in UK's Brexit negotiation team has experience making trade deals
When asked how many officials in the Brexit department had previous involvement making similar deals, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox could name only one
..hope he doesn't get ill.
Or want any time off.
Or sleep.
or she...I hear they are however leaving. The have a job with the EU, better working hours, better pay and bosses that actually listen to them rather than just lusting over them at lunch time.
However don't worry I hear they have someone lined up. David Davis has found a 10 year old the successfully managed to get £1000 from him in exchange for the kid's rotten apple core. DD thinks they have potential to help him with the EU. He's not sure though what the use of a mouldy apple core is to him though?
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/11/03 19:06:13
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Only recently someone else in the public eye quoted something offensive and was then taken to task as through they said it and meant it. Are we incapable of discussing issues and using language in Frank terms without offence being caused? If you can’t even repeat and quote language used it stifles debate. “Hush, yo can’t discuss this or quote them because you say bad words”. Total and utter nonsense.
I think there are things that are genuinely so shocking and anti-social that to use them as figures of speech or examples of X or Y actually is a stupid thing if you don't think carefully about the situation. It's not like Harriet Harman was constructing a serious academic argument in a paper.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think there are things that are genuinely so shocking and anti-social that to use them as figures of speech or examples of X or Y actually is a stupid thing if you don't think carefully about the situation. It's not like Harriet Harman was constructing a serious academic argument in a paper.
Well she was to an extent as she was talking about her autobiography and the struggles against what at the time was more in your face bigotry, racism and sexism. I do not people should fear pointing out sentences, statements, jokes or whatever that are completely abhorrent as a way of highlighting those things. Many people will quite casually gloss over things when basically you say "we said some really naughty things at times", because some will believe that it is an exaggeration, some that it probably wasn't that bad, some that it was the times back then and so on - allowing them to ignore things they would prefer not to see/hear/talk about. You have to expose some of these concepts even if it makes people uncomfortable because that is the way you challenge what is being said (and why).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/03 22:42:09
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
So then why the suggestion that Andrew Neil would have found it funny in the past?
Saying shocking things with the intent to shock into awareness, to deliver an undisguised truth to the audience, can be done well. Diane Abbott, for as much as I loath her, did it very well when she used the N word on a live broadcast. It was shocking and honest, it was done well.
Almost everything about Harman's blunder, as well intentioned as it may have been, was wrong.
And bringing Andrew Neil into it by saying it's the sort of thing he would have liked? Bloody, bloody stupid.
Watching that last night, I was struck by the reaction of the comedienne and Portillio who were both espousing free speech and the right to offend, and how that changed when Harriet Harman actually said something offensive. Andrew Neil couldn't tell her to shut up quick enough.
What was also mildly offensive was the overt right wing leaning of Andrew Neil. He fawned all over Edwin Curry, and consistently talked over and assisted the conservative attack on Harriet. I've noticed it before, and it's starting to become more and more blatant. Right wing dogma and opinion is given free uninterrupted airtime, rebuttals and challenges are obfuscated by the host to the point that the conservative guests don't even have to respond....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/04 01:12:22
Henry wrote: So then why the suggestion that Andrew Neil would have found it funny in the past?
This. Unless you're literally addressing a facist, making a Holocaust Joke and then effectively saying 'That's the sort of humour you like, innit?' is probably a bad idea. She tried to score a political one up over Neil with a Holocaust joke.
That's the 'unacceptable' context, not the fact she stated that these jokes exist. If she'd stopped before that point, it would have been all right.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/04 08:19:46
And bringing Andrew Neil into it by saying it's the sort of thing he would have liked? Bloody, bloody stupid.
Watching that last night, I was struck by the reaction of the comedienne and Portillio who were both espousing free speech and the right to offend, and how that changed when Harriet Harman actually said something offensive. Andrew Neil couldn't tell her to shut up quick enough.
And this really was the point she was trying to make. They were discussing whether some jokes by comedians are acceptable and why some don't even realise that these things are offensive. So she has pointed out that is clearly offensive but was allowed to put in magazines (and which editors allowed) because they thought of it as 'harmless' fun. Basically what AN and MP were espousing is that 'mild' racist jokes are 'harmless' until the point someone carries out an atrocity that they can no longer be considered 'harmless'.
What I find interesting is the reaction of AN. From my experience those that angrily shut down an argument have just had a nerve pinched and things said were too close to the bone...
What was also mildly offensive was the overt right wing leaning of Andrew Neil. He fawned all over Edwin Curry, and consistently talked over and assisted the conservative attack on Harriet. I've noticed it before, and it's starting to become more and more blatant. Right wing dogma and opinion is given free uninterrupted airtime, rebuttals and challenges are obfuscated by the host to the point that the conservative guests don't even have to respond....
You know he joined the Conservative club when he was university, worked with Murdoch and was a founding chairmen in Sky TV. You'd get more impartiality by inviting Ed Milliband to report on the Tory party conference!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/04 10:23:56
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Now I’ve found it on YouTube I still don’t have a problem with what she said when repeating the joke, because you can’t seriously discuss things that are offensive and then dance around with euphemisms so that everyone is guessing what you’re talking about, particularly at 10pm well after the watershed. Like when Diane Abbott said ‘n—� b—�’ on TV when talking about abuse she receives. If she said ‘they called me bad words’ no one would take it seriously. If you’re offended, you should be, but don’t blame the person highlighting the issue.
But it was very rude of Harman to accuse Andrew Neil of liking that kind of joke, knowing he had not even the air time to respond, so no wonder he was not happy. Is there any evidence he’s found such material funny or acceptable in the past? I don’t think he angrily shut her down because it cut too close to him, but because he was smeared seconds before he had to wrap up the programme denying him a opportunity of response.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/04 11:00:54
Because he has made what many would consider racist jokes to his friends in the past apparently?
Could I get a reliable source for this? Because I've just scanned his wiki page and found nothing except the fact that whilst he worked at the Times, they hired David Irving to make a translation. If he does actually casually make racist jokes all the time, perhaps there would be some merit to it, but so far I've been unable to find anything from googling various combinations of keywords.
What I find interesting is the reaction of AN. From my experience those that angrily shut down an argument have just had a nerve pinched and things said were too close to the bone...
Errr....no? It could just be that you're offended someone would say something to/about you, and you see no point in discussing it with them? Or it wouldn't be appropriate to do so in that place? Or several other reasons? You're kind of putting your own insinuation/spin on it there.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/04 11:08:40
Except the current system doesn't either. Hardly anyone votes on what the local MP does and is dominated by Government politics. There may be a few exceptions but in the majority we don't have local representation in that way. You can easily have local representation in a PR system anyway. All you do is regionalise the PR system and then anyone of those MPs ca be you local representative. The advantage is that complaining about UC to your Tory MP that is IDS is about as useful as going swimming with lead lined trousers on, you wouldn't have that with a regionalised PR system because you can go and speak to the MP that more aligns with your political views.
This. The local MP for my home town is the minister of state for schools. He has done feth all to fix the issue of the schools of the area being underfunded relative to the national average.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
be it Tory/Labour/whomever how is it even vaguely acceptable to be that incapable of normal behaviour ?
If that was any of us behaving like that in our jobs then we'd be out on our arses sharpish.
Spoiler:
well... least that's the dumbest take of the week done then...
Oh.
"squawking"
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Because he has made what many would consider racist jokes to his friends in the past apparently?
Could I get a reliable source for this? Because I've just scanned his wiki page and found nothing except the fact that whilst he worked at the Times, they hired David Irving to make a translation. If he does actually casually make racist jokes all the time, perhaps there would be some merit to it, but so far I've been unable to find anything from googling various combinations of keywords.
It depends on what you mean by reliable. Even papers like Private Eye, Guardian etc have their own political views and hence can end up distorting issues dependent on peoples views that are writing articles.
But here's one mention (and way before all this came to light)
Andrew Neil is not a racist. Not in any meaningful sense. He has been caught making a joke that in the mouths of others might be seen as proof of racism, but it was delivered to someone who probably considers him a friend, and in the company of friends we do get away with things that can look very damning when taken out of context. Andrew Neil is not, let me repeat, not a racist.
Errr....no? It could just be that you're offended someone would say something to/about you, and you see no point in discussing it with them? Or it wouldn't be appropriate to do so in that place? Or several other reasons? You're kind of putting your own insinuation/spin on it there.
In my experience there are two ways people deal with these types of accusations. Those where there is a kernel of truth to them tend to be more aggressive in their defence to try and push the boundaries well away from the tweaked nerve "how dare you suggest that" etc. Those that where the shot is miles off tend to take a more measured approach such as "It's unfortunate you think that, what things do you think I have said that makes you think this way?" It is unlikely he finds similar things 'funny' now, but in the past, well, I have my suspicions. And really that comes back to the point Harman was trying to make. Jokes that seem like 'a bit of fun' now (as was being argued on the other side) are and are later deemed deeply offensive.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/05 10:08:58
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Yeah, I found that, but discounted it because it's
a) a private blog, and
b) belongs to a politically active socialist. It's literally called 'Workers United' and has written several other blog posts trying to attack Neil before this even came out. He goes on about how 'Andrew Neil also thinks he is entitled to having his extreme Thatcherite prejudices shoved down the license fee payers throats,' and various other things.
I mean, I'll take the Guardian, Times, BBC, Reuters, FT, Independent, Economist, Private Eye, heck, I'll even take the Mail or Al Jazeera (with an appropriately large salt pinch). I'm just looking for details beyond half a rumour that he told a racist joke to a friend once. If you can give me something, then I can accept Harman's statement as something other than her using Holocaust jokes purely to one up a political commentator. Which would be disgusting and unacceptable.
I've tried, but within ten minutes of searching, I couldn't find anything, so I'm asking if you can stump up some sort of even quarter-credible source for it. Because if you can't, you're kind of doing the same thing as her by assuming that he totally goes around telling racist jokes with no evidence for that fact.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2017/11/05 10:45:48
I think it'd be pretty difficult to find the kind of evidence you're describing because if it did exist, it's likely to be offline somewhere in the mists of time and memory, plus if it did exist it's unlikely that the BBC would have offered him any sort of work at all.
So, it's likely that there is no evidence at all, but perhaps Harriet knew something of his past? That's also unlikely.
However, my immediate impression when I watched this the first time and without analysing what was said too deeply at the time, was that she was attacking the "kind of things" that Neil and that other woman were defending, but from a different era when racism was more pronounced and extreme.
Obviously this came across poorly, and without time to explain, especially after being talked over and shut down again.
Personally I don't think Andrew Neil is an anti-semite, I also doubt he found these things funny in the past, but the issue was taking offence, and Harriet Harmon proved her point accidentally very well. The defenders of free speech, and attackers of those who take offense, got their knickers in a twist very quickly and proved that there is a line, it just varies with the person, and context.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
r_squared wrote: I think it'd be pretty difficult to find the kind of evidence you're describing because if it did exist, it's likely to be offline somewhere in the mists of time and memory, plus if it did exist it's unlikely that the BBC would have offered him any sort of work at all.
So, it's likely that there is no evidence at all, but perhaps Harriet knew something of his past? That's also unlikely.
I dunno, you can still easily find scandals derived from overheard conversations in Gladstone's era. If there's actually something to it beyond 'I heard a rumour', there's usually a newspaper report on it somewhere. The press love a good scandal after all!
However, my immediate impression when I watched this the first time and without analysing what was said too deeply at the time, was that she was attacking the "kind of things" that Neil and that other woman were defending, but from a different era when racism was more pronounced and extreme.
Quite possibly. And I don't think any reasonable person would have an issue with that. The problem is tacking on the personal oneupmanship. That's what turns something from a genuine point into something offensive.
I can say 'Slavery is bad', but the minute I add 'you absolute nobhead' onto the tail end of that statement, it becomes offensive, you know? Likewise, if I say, 'Holocaust jokes like this are bad', it's a fine sentiment, but when I add 'but I bet you like stuff like that, don't you?' to the tail-end, it immediately alters the dynamic of the conversation. It turns from the abstract to the personal, it changes from a discussion to an attack. And in a scenario like that, if there's really nothing more than rumour that McNeill tells nasty jokes (and let's be honest, there are rumours the sun still goes around the earth), he's perfectly within his rights to shut it down. You're invited on political talk shows to argue your own policies, not make personal attacks on the hosts.
That being said, this is all a storm in a teacup. I've heard worse jokes walking down the street, some of them are even funny at times (black humour is a thing), and this is just a politician attacking a political talk show host (not the first time). Not really anything worth getting riled up over, and certainly not worth the media storm. 'Harriet Harman says something mildly offensive to Andrew Neill' really isn't a headline involving much of importance to the world.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/05 12:03:51
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/05 12:25:21
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I've tried, but within ten minutes of searching, I couldn't find anything, so I'm asking if you can stump up some sort of even quarter-credible source for it. Because if you can't, you're kind of doing the same thing as her by assuming that he totally goes around telling racist jokes with no evidence for that fact.
Unfortunately the internet was not freely available 20-30 years ago so records are more sketchy from back then and will hence be more of word of mouth (unless someone happens to keep copies of the papers from the 70s lying around). However a couple of more recent ones of what he might consider OK but is actually racism from him:-
22nd October 2009 - Referred to Diane Abbott as a 'chocolate hobnob'
6th December 2012 - Made a joke referring to Nigerians and email scams
Both generated complaints about being offensive
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/05 13:29:06
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Whirlwind wrote: Unfortunately the internet was not freely available 20-30 years ago so records are more sketchy from back then and will hence be more of word of mouth (unless someone happens to keep copies of the papers from the 70s lying around).
So in other words, Harman was out of order, because there's about the same level of proof on that one as David Icke and the lizard people. Gotcha.
22nd October 2009 - Referred to Diane Abbott as a 'chocolte hobnob'
A quick google on this one reveals that he was opening a show whilst talking about Gordon Brown's inability to name a biscuit. He then turned to the two people next to him (one was white and one was black) and said ""And here we have our very own chocolate HobNob and custard cream of late-night telly."
Given that he calls a white person a custard cream right next to the chocolate hobnob statement, I think only a moron would call that racist or take offence.
6th December 2012 - Made a joke referring to Nigerians and email scams
Again, after a little investigation, the offence taken was that he mentioned 'Nigeria' and 'Email scammers' in the same breath of a joke, because the people making the complaints felt that associating the two together has to be based upon racism. Given that practically everyone on this forum discusses 'Nigerian scammers' and it's widely recognised as a colloquial phrase now for that type of scam, I'm not really seeing much to complain about.
If that's the worst the man ever says, I'm sure he'll get the bends after dying he'll ascend so fast.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/05 13:51:55
Whirlwind wrote: Unfortunately the internet was not freely available 20-30 years ago so records are more sketchy from back then and will hence be more of word of mouth (unless someone happens to keep copies of the papers from the 70s lying around).
So in other words, Harman was out of order, because there's about the same level of proof on that one as David Icke and the lizard people. Gotcha.
No just that the evidence is not as easily available on the internet for people like us to look over. I'm sure Harman knew why she was saying these things (and she hasn't apologised which makes me even further believe that she accepts what she said) because we don't here have access to microfiche readers and the archived information does not mean it doesn't exist. Just that it is not easily available for us here behind computer screens to get access to it. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist however...
22nd October 2009 - Referred to Diane Abbott as a 'chocolte hobnob'
A quick google on this one reveals that he was opening a show whilst talking about Gordon Brown's inability to name a biscuit. He then turned to the two people next to him (one was white and one was black) and said ""And here we have our very own chocolate HobNob and custard cream of late-night telly."
Given that he calls a white person a custard cream right next to the chocolate hobnob statement, I think only a moron would call that racist or take offence.
6th December 2012 - Made a joke referring to Nigerians and email scams
Again, after a little investigation, the offence taken was that he mentioned 'Nigeria' and 'Email scammers' in the same breath of a joke, because the people making the complaints felt that associating the two together has to be based upon racism. Given that practically everyone on this forum discusses 'Nigerian scammers' and it's widely recognised as a colloquial phrase now for that type of scam, I'm not really seeing much to complain about.
To be honest I'm not really surprised you'd say this. Yes they were 'jokes' at the expense of the current news but that doesn't make them not racist from other peoples perspective. Indeed you are rather eloquently making the point HH was making. That some 'jokes' at different times are deemed 'OK' doesn't actually make them any more insulting to certain parts of society. Do all email scammers come from Nigeria? Do we know that? What makes it acceptable to point out Nigerians as the source of email scams, is this not insulting to a group of people simply because of their race? Just because it is a colloquial statement doesn't make it correct to use, it is just an argument for continuing a type of soft racism along the lines "that it's OK we mean no harm". Should you not as a Mod really be recognising this and correcting people to just use "email scammers" rather than seeing it as acceptable? What if the jokes reference was changed to "jewish email scammers" because of where some originated - this would be unacceptable but "Nigerian email scammers" is OK?
As for the biscuits he was specifically highlighting and making a jokes out of people based on their skin colour so it can be deemed offensive. People did complain and did take offence at the joke (to the point they pulled the next week's show); they are not 'morons' for feeling that the joke is inappropriate (that just implies a lack of empathy as to how some people might view such a joke). He could quite have easily have said digestive vs hobnob. Instead he chose two that specifically highlighted differences in skin colour hence implying a racially motivated joke undertone.
But this is by the by, HH was commenting on an old 'joke' that was racially insensitive at best and is in reality downright obnoxious; she claimed that AN would have found such racially motivated jokes funny in the past. You asked for evidence he did and I've provided it with the above jokes he made on TV. So in fact she was correct in her statement.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/05 14:30:15
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Yes they were 'jokes' at the expense of the current news but that doesn't make them not racist from other peoples perspective.
Almost everything seems to offend someone somewhere. It’s doesnt mean you can legitimately characterise it as racist. I don’t recall Diane Abbott taking issue with the chocolate hobnob comment, surely if she isn’t bothered then it pretty much ends there. On the matter of Nigerian scams, well a hell of a lot of email scams come from Nigeria, that’s true not racist. Trying to use either of those examples as arguments for Andrew Neil finding holocaust jokes about fitting Jews into ashtrays it a colossal stretch. Maybe Harriet Harman knows more, but someone is going to have to come up with the goods.
No just that the evidence is not as easily available on the internet for people like us to look over.
I ran the keywords into historical news archives. I got nothing. Internet be damned, there's literally nothing published. Even David Icke gives sources (if badly). You could claim literally anything with this level of evidence.
I could, for example, claim that you are Harriet Harman.
As for the biscuits he was specifically highlighting and making a jokes out of people based on their skin colour so it can be deemed offensive.
This, I think, underlines the obvious counterpoint to that you've made above. Namely that somebody taking offence at a statement does not, in and of itself, make a statement offensive. What matters is the intent, context, and content, combined with the greater ethical subjectivity as perceived by society. I'm reasonably confident in asserting that the overwhelming majority of people would be unlikely to find this joke racist/offensive in this context(after all, part of the joke is calling a white person a biscuit as well), and therefore it isn't offensive.
We can keep arguing this one if you like, but we're going to start moving into the realms of the philosophy of ethics pretty damn fast. So you'll want to start a new thread for it.
she claimed that AN would have found such racially motivated jokes funny in the past. You asked for evidence he did and I've provided it with the above jokes he made on TV. So in fact she was correct in her statement.
You have a very strange definition of 'racially motivated'. To take the biscuit example, the reason the joke was quite clearly made was clearly because he was looking for joke statements (to get a laugh) and biscuit analogies (to play on current events). There is no 'racial motivation'. A motivation is by its very definition, the reason for which somebody says or does something. For his joke to be racially motivated, one would have to assume that Neill is a) racist, and b) consequently looking for ways in which he could bring race into his jokes.
For which, there is not a jot of evidence. Once again, your statements actually reveal you to be putting your own spin on things to try and attack Neill. Why I've no idea. I'm not exactly fond of the man myself, he's an overblown overrated commentator. But you seem awfully credulous and willing to believe the worst of him with virtually no evidence of any kind. It's quite bizare.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/11/05 15:01:44
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Is this what British politics has come to? Outrage over people being compared to biscuits on a comedy show?
I wish it was as harmless and banal as that. Sadly the current state of our politics is a whirling shitstorm of confusion, lies, outrage, and good old fashioned incompetence. I just wish I could see an end in sight, but I can't.
As an example, I was called a traitor, and it was suggested that I should reflect on my oath of alleigance for voicing the opinion that I thought that leaving the EU to WTO rules was not the best idea. If I wasn't controlling the urge to punch the [gentleman] in the fething mouth, I might have suggested politely that they feth off. As it happened my boss heard, stepped in and deflected rather brilliantly, and suggested we move elsewhere.
This was during a polite morning coffee, not after an evening power drinking turbo-shandies.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/05 16:46:11
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
seven years plus some of the current deals have been/are being worked on for .
