This “personal view” by historian David Cannadine is a strange mishmash of an article. To start with, I’ve never heard of this “Guy Fawkes Day”. Bonfire Night is presumably what he means.
It is explicitly stated to be the personal view of the author, so it can be held to a somewhat less stringent standard of impartiality than the BBC’s main output. Somewhat. (Although see this comment by PaulC, who says that the BBC is fond of plausible deniability in its selection of experts.) Just how willing do you think the BBC would be to publish an appeal for prejudice against any other nation than the United States?
And the Americanised Halloween is sweeping all before it – a vivid reminder of just how powerfully American culture and American consumerism can be transported across the Atlantic.
But here, perhaps, is an opportunity for the revival of 5 November. For those who wish to protest at the ever increasing Americanisation of our world might take up Bonfire Night as their cause.
Huh? I, too, would like to see Bonfire Night revived – but Cannadine’s argument that this traditional British festival should be revived because too much attention is being given to American ways of celebrating another festival the week before is just a near-random excuse for anti-Americanism.
The BBC and other media outlets gave a good deal of attention to the Islamic festival of Eid-al-Fitr that took place this year on November 4. Yet the BBC would not publish an article containing a call for people to take up Bonfire Night in protest at increasing Islamisation. Even if the BBC would publish a serious “personal view” article by someone arguing that increasing Islamisation was either undesirable or happening at all, which I doubt it would, it would never even consider allowing a someone writing in that context to advocate pointless needling for the sake of it. (“Making faces at Uncle Sam”)
But how comparable are the two? At this point I started off on a breakdown of the respective risks to public order of whipping up anti-Muslim and anti-American sentiment. Then I decided to omit it on grounds of space. Summary: immediate risk higher for anti-Muslim prejudice, long term risk higher for anti-American, and the risk is non-trivial in both cases. Yet we – even I, who make quite a point of complaining about it – have got so used to anti-Americanism that I scarcely notice it any more. Don’t judge Cannadine too harshly: not all of us can step clear of the prejudices of our class and era.
It’s a pity. Cannadine does describe the positive historical reasons for wanting to celebrate Guy Fawkes’ failure, albeit far more half-heartedly than he speaks of his sterile wish to “make faces at Uncle Sam”. Also he makes some good points about the real reason Bonfire Night has been downvalued: not trick-or-treating a few days earlier but endless safety nannyism. First they said that you were an irresponsible parent if you dared let off bangers in your own back garden and that all would be well if you went to a public display, then they made public displays more and more burdensome to run by means of firework restrictions and insurance premiums. Oh, and, as Cannadine himself says, another reason for the downgrading of Bonfire Night is that Britain is “now a multi-faith society.” At this point my more sharp-tongued relatives might point out that there is no “now” about it; the Catholics have been in Britain somewhat longer than the Protestants, actually. Blimey, just when the Irish component of Catholicism in Britain had finally just about let its historical grievances become history, along comes the victim culture to tell ’em to get resenting again. Cannadine seems half in this and half out of this: he wants Guys to be burned in every back yard again – yet he says:
It’s possible to be a Catholic Briton and admire Nelson; it’s hard to be a Catholic Briton without wincing at the sight of an effigy of Guy Fawkes going up in flames. I’m not a Catholic, but I do rather sympathise.
Well, my parents were devout Catholics of Irish descent and throughout my childhood our family always burnt a Guy come November 5, as did the families of my equally Catholic schoolfriends. Why? Because Guy Fawkes was a terrorist. That’s not just what I say now, it’s what we said then.
Happy Bonfire Night.
I’m particularly glad to read this excellent post from Natalie Solent as I heard David Cannadine’s broadcast yesterday and was so amused by it, I later had a good chuckle at Cannadine’s expense on the phone to a friend from the States.
I don’t think, however, I quite have Ms Solent’s ability to shrug-off the reflexive anti-Americansim worn so uniformly by the chattering classes. I think it is deeply damaging, as well as hypocritical, condescending and all the other words one might use to describe its essential silliness.
What I found so curious about Cannadine’s little essay (though I confess, by the end, I was finding the washing up more fascinating and may have lost his thread somewhat) was that he seemed to see the celebration of our foiling a plot to have this country ruled from Catholic Europe, as some sort of gesture towards the EU.
But, as I say, by that point removing dried-on egg from a dinner plate seemed a better use of my time than listening yet more of this bien pensant BBC pseudery.
Timewatch on BBC1 last night was nominally about the gunpowder plot, but it was in fact a fifty-minute
apologia/advert for Al Quaeda, with Antonia Fraser singing loudest of the
lot (Harold Pinter’s missis). The first shot of the programme was Antonia Fraser saying: “When you see how catholics were treated in England you can see why people turn to terrorism”. Soon after an Oxford scholar was telling us that Catesby and co were rich and intellgent with a genuine greivance, like the terrorists of the arab world.
No opposing opinion was offered.
I’m guessing that the popularity of Halloween (anywhere) has less to do with the overwhelming power of US culture and more to do with the irresistible power of candy. Beware the power of candy! The funny thing is, I doubt most Americans would identify this as our holiday. The United States is loaded with holidays from other cultures. (Multiculturalism at work and succeeding!) Halloween, Octoberfest, Cinco de Mayo, Saint Patrick’s Day… Who knows who’s holidays these are, or what they are all about, but they all get noted and celebrated with equal gusto here. Ironically, David Cannadine could probably get Guy Falkes Day celebrated in the US as easily as he could revive it in England. The bonfire is a good start, (but leave the burning Catholics out, please.), now all you need is a festive theme drink for the parties. I’m telling you, alcohol and fire, it would be a blast!
Steve
Don’t forget Valentine’s Day!
PS: More candy!
Steve_Mac
You are right. Any excuse to get drunk and dawdle around with exotic-looking baubles (Halloween costumes, Chinese New Year dragons, Cinco de Mayo pinatas) is fine with Americans. I hear they are having “Persian Day” parades in New York now, because of the Iranians. Whatever.
But as I said on the other thread, what bugs me about this article is the Beeb’s hypocrisy in waving the “We are losing our British culture to the Americans” flag.
For all of its commercialism, Halloween is in fact a holiday with roots in the British Isles — a Celtic celebration that goes back centuries. The Celts who burned lamps in turnips in their own countries found North American pumpkins better for the task when they moved over here. Hence the grinning and ubiquitous Jack-o-lantern.
Ramadan, on the other hand, which the Beeb seems to be oh-so-deleriously-happy to shove down the throats of native Brits, is a completely foreign holiday from a completely foreign, non-British, non-Celtic culture.
So which tradition is more foreign: Halloween or Ramadan?
But lord help us if anyone suggested that celebrating Guy Fawkes day was a way of “poking one in the eyes” at the Islamification of Britain.
Beeb you are disgusting hypocrites as always.
GCooper,
I assumed the bit where he said that Guy Fawkes was a good European was a joke. In fact the whole thing had a tone of being nearly but not quite funny. This is a useful style to adopt – one gets one’s point made well enough, but if anyone argues back, the writer can say “have you no sense of humour?”
If you smell wood burning tonight its not Paris and it aint Lewes, its Polly Toynbee desperatly trying to figure out how to blame President Bush and the war in Iraq for the Paris Riots.
Guy Fawkes was a religious convert (in this case protestant to catholic). Sound familiar?
http://www.explore.parliament.uk/cms/DocumentUploads/guyfawkes.doc
Fawkes and co. had no chance of taking over the British Isles, even if the gunpowder had gone off – but still he tried to blow people up. Sound familiar?
Fawkes was trying to push a religious doctrine on a nation that did not want it. Sound familiar?
Yes, the parallels are amazing • it just depends which end of the argument you are on. It’s a shame the BBC refuses to show the ‘diversity’ of views. A shame, that is, but no surprise.
Funny how they dislike burning an effigy of Fawkes • a historical figure. They don’t seem to mind burning effigies of modern-day Americans or Jews.
today on the bbc:
“president bush has been running into a lot of trouble.write to us and tell us how he has affected you.”
fishing in troubled waters?or just encouragement to dislike president bush?
Most visitors to this site believe that BBC reporters deliberately ignore the US separation of powers (executive/legislative, federal/state) in order to home in on their anti-Bush line.
But a blurb on Gavin Hewitt in the Money section of the Sunday Times shows that for Hewitt ignorance can certainly provide no excuse for overstating the powers of the POTUS.
Hewitt was born in Penge, south London, and attended secondary school in Leatherhead, Surrey. He read American politics at Durham University.
How can anyone say Bonfire Night is in decline? Last night I went to a huge fireword display attended by thousands of people all paying £5. When I was growing up in the fifties such events were almost unknown.
The fireworks now go on for about two weeks. When I was a child they went on for barely a week.
There are also plenty of back-garden bonfires in the suburbs and the country.
The really BIG change is the demise of Penny for the Guy, which Trick or Treat HAS replaced.
Where is the BBC outrage at the rioting in Paris?
Is this the end of the French/European Social model?
Everywhere left wing policies result in human agony, still the BBC remain blind and dumbstruck.
Had these riots been in the US we would have 24/7 coverage. John Simpson would be mewling from the scene. Kirsty Wark would be puking all over anyone who would listen.James Naughtie would be bringing his unique Scottish socialist insight to the end of American Capitalism. Kirsty Wark would have to break away from interviewing Junkies to bash President Booosh.
SiN – as someone correctly pointed out before, the BBC believes that racial trouble and tension in the US is the result of the American system, i.e. Capitalism.
France is the ideal country for these middle-class socialists – good food and wine, an overbearing government and a pervasive welfare state. So it must come as a great shock that this social paradise is being rocked (wrecked?) by massive and widespread rioting and disorder. To only answer they have which doesn’t involve a fundamental challenge to their world view is that the riots are caused by racism.
Me Catholic. Me think Guy Fawkes Day discriminates against Catholics. Me want Outreach Worker, free weekend in Rome (to visit Vatican honest…)and additional pyschi-wotnot support. PLUS my lawyer says to demand (not ask) free massages and aromatheraphy every November for at least a week prior to and fortnight after Burn the Honoured Martyr Day.
Think me have chance? Me praying hard!
The Politics Show is wanting our suggestions
Nominate most important political protest
Rosa Parks’ actions galvanised the American civil rights movement. What is the most important protest?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/default.stm
Jon Sopel ends the show by reminding viewers that the BBC are wanting suggestions for “protests that have made a difference, not your current favorite”
So the campaign to keep Saddam in power must surely now be a lost cause, & perhaps the BBC are not confident that its follow up, i.e. impeach/vote out the leaders who deposed Saddam, will ever make a difference.
“Not surprisingly, Catholic Britons have always been uncomfortable with 5 November, and nowadays there are frequent calls to abolish an event which seems to them to be based on little more than religious bigotry and intolerance.
“It’s possible to be a Catholic Briton and admire Nelson; it’s hard to be a Catholic Briton without wincing at the sight of an effigy of Guy Fawkes going up in flames. I’m not a Catholic, but I do rather sympathise.”
Huh? “Frequent calls”? From whom? By self-flagellating liberal intellectuals? Roman Catholic leaders?
This article has to be complete tosh, surely?
I can assure Mr Cannadine that it is perfectly easy to be a Catholic on 5 November. Believe me, it is.
Does he really think that British Catholics take ‘offence’ at Bonfire Night? Has the effete British liberal’s feelings of vicarious guilt and self-loathing plumbed such depths that he is now talking about the abolition of a perfectly enjoyable annual exercise which commemorates something that took place – or, more to the point, didn’t take place – 400 years ago?
One suspects that Bonfire Night’s greatest threat comes, not from ‘offended’ Catholics, but from Health and Safety fanatics and well-meaning idiots like Cannadine.
Furthermore, I have no idea which planet Cannadine has been living on but if his first encounter with the trappings of Hallowe’en took place in the early 1970s America then one wonders what sort of childhood he endured. ‘Snapdragons’, that snazzy thing when you look in the mirror and see your future wife/hubby, apple-dunking and witches have been a part of Hallowe’en for generations.
‘Trick-or-treating’ may be a more modern addition to the Hallowe’en experience but irrational fears of an encounter with a murderous paedophile – rather than Cannadine’s desired ‘anti-American’ cultural backlash – will probably put paid to this practice.
What a tit.
Best regards,
Off Topic:
Imagine, instead of the horrendous, bitter slaughter of the repeatedly foiled attempts to breakout from Normandy in WWII, the Allies had actually faced only a few pockets of small arms fire and some nasty booby traps. As the troops swept through and carried out their mission with tactical ease, can you see the headline “France offensive meets resistance” as being normal?
Back then you probably wouldn’t. But today the BBC spins this typically negative and misleading headline:
Iraq offensive meets resistance
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4409332.stm
Even though I know the BBC to be disingenuous in the extreme, I still clicked on the link expecting to read about some kind of significant setback for the multi-national force. “Iraq offensive meets little resistance” would fit the page and paint the proper picture, but the BBC is too busy trying to build up the part of the “insurgency” in that country.
.
TAoL – I would be surprised if more than 5% of the British population were even aware that Fawkes was a Catholic, let alone cause enough trouble to elicit “frequent calls” to abolish it.
Nick Cohen in the Observer (in an article on the metropolitan elite) effortlessly includes the BBC in the list of lefty media
When I go out of central London, I meet people who don’t think Labour has done a bad job. On the internet, there has been an explosion of left-wing journalism which daily tears apart London’s progressive orthodoxy. But in the mainstream liberal media, there is unremitting contempt. Social pressure and the fear of saying the wrong thing help keep the loathing in place. The result is a uniformity of view at the BBC, Guardian, Independent and New Statesman, which is stronger than it has ever been.
Cohen also quotes Michael Frayn from 1963
the small world of metropolitan liberalism…’the radical middle-classes, the do-gooders; the readers of the News Chronicle, the Guardian, and The Observer; the signers of petitions; the backbone of the BBC’
Backbone! When are the Conservatives going to accept that the BBC is their permanent opponent, far more deadly than another political party. When are they going to suggest that the era of compulsory funding of their enemy should cease?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1635348,00.html
I wasn’t aware the BBC had a backbone…
It has a rubber spine.
PJF: re the BBC article you linked, did you notice at the beginning that the Iraqi army weren’t referred to as “Iraqi armed forces” or “troops” but as “government soldiers”? It’s very subtle, but there’s a hint in that phrase that they’re not entirely legitimate.
Wait until the BBC remember that the British Armed Forces MUST be made legitimate EVERY year by the passage of the Armed Forces Act…..if Blair “forgets” to do it then we can disband the entire British military machine and call them ‘insurgents’, “unauthorised government troops” or ‘mercenaries’ perhaps?
The Frinch
A poetic comment on the riots:
http://pointfiveblog.com/index.php/2005/11/480
And on a seasonal note, something more depressing: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,24390-1859072,00.html
So, India Knight has had her epiphany. It took the barbarians at the gate (or barbarians in Primrose Hill) to do it, so you can guarantee they are well entrenched in other parts of Britain.
On a different, but related topic, I can think of a way of stopping the riots in Paris. I imagine that the liberal intelligensia, who control the media and government social services, live in particular arrondisements of Paris. I imagine that these areas are well to do and generally peaceful. I guarantee they aren’t the same concrete encampments currently being burned nightly, so they are sympathetic to the rioters.
What the French government should do is to arrange for a few thousand of these ‘urban guerillas’ to run amok in these ‘liberal’ areas for a few nights. After two or three nights of burned out cars and bricks through windows the left-wing media will be screaming for an authoritarian crackdown.
Rob
“It took the barbarians of …Primrose Hill”
Well not exactly. My guess is about 1/4 mile east, Queens Crescent, and for the big prize I bet I could give you the surname of one of the kids involved. India Knight may have just had her epiphany but the rest of the people in that area have been suffering the barbarian onslaught for a generation with very little sympathy from Times columnists.
It’s possible to be a Catholic Briton and admire Nelson; it’s hard to be a Catholic Briton without wincing at the sight of an effigy of Guy Fawkes going up in flames. I’m not a Catholic, but I do rather sympathise.
I’ve never heard such fucking rubbish in my life. We had a fantastic bonfire night last night – fireworks, burning guy, the lot. I’d just come back from Mass.
The Catholics of this country are, by and large, the children and grandchildren of assimilated immigrants from Ireland, Italy and Poland. Do you hear us whining about our “anger” or that the fact that our Catholic brethren are under the cosh in Muslim lands makes us so “aliented” that we feel the need to blow up a Mosque?
No.
The way the BBC twists itself in knots trying to justify the soft soaping of Muslims beggars belief. Now they’re using Catholics. Unbelievable.
OT
The subject of today’s World Service ‘Talking Point’, hosted by Robin Lustig was President Bush, and the guest was Professor Robert Lieber of Georgetown University – knowledgeable and balanced in his comments and with no discernible axe to grind. Listeners who spoke on the programme or e-mailed comments seemed fairly evenly balanced between Bush-bashers and supporters. I was pleasantly surprised.
Lustig even managed to gently remind a Palestinian caller who was moaning and groaning about Bush that the latter was the first American president to call for a viable, independent Palestinian state. So I think the BBC deserves credit for this programme.
Early on, though, I thought we were in for a real Bush-bashing fest when Lustig appeared to give a caller free rein to vent his spleen. Here’s how it went:
Robin: …Tariq [whatshisname] from the Hague in the Netherlands. Tariq, you’re Syrian, is that right?
Tariq: That’s correct.
Robin: OK, so what do you make of how Mr. Bush is dealing with the whole Middle East issue and perhaps particularly now with Syria.
Tarq: Well, actually , on all fronts nothing shocks me about Bush anymore. It doesn’t alarm me that he was almost assassinated by a pretzel or that he waves at Stevie Wonder. That’s Ok, Stevie’s only been blind since birth. But what really chills my bones is the fact that he got reelected. But I mean Bush in a way encompasses the American dream so well – a man with no intellectual prowess or moral judgement has become the Presdent of the US. So go figure. ….A battle that is yet to be won [in Afghanistan] and a country that has been left in shambles in a sea of corruption with very little support. Bush’s foreign policy has been rife with hypocrisy and a disastrous misjudgement, especially in the Middle East. The military attack on Iraq and the more recent political attack on Syria are great examples.
Robin: Al-al-alright, Tariq, wai..wai…I get the message…just hang on a second. What Mr. Bush’s defenders would say is here is a man who is dealing with tyranny wherever he can and is trying slowly but steadily to increase the chances of freedom and democracy in countries which have not enjoyed either of these two things over many years. Now do you see no sign of that happening at all?
Tariq: I would say that the Iraqi election is. I would give you th…I would give Bush that one….I think the one in Afghanistan is farcical. While no-one will or should shed a tear for Saddam, the Iraqi people have paid a higher price than they would have had Saddam remained in power…
Robin: Alright, Tariq…
Tariq: ….lets not be deceived by Washington’s sudden concern for …towards Syria’s occupation quote unquote of Lebanon when they have approved it for 28 years and we have countries like Saudi Arabia which does not even allow anybody to vote or women to even drive, yet it’s being praised by Bush for its unyielding steps towards democracy.
Robin: Uh..OK T-Tariq…stop there, stop there…OK th-thankyou for that.
I think the BBC might just be starting to discover that when you open Pandora’s box, that’s it.
Jihad in Europe
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9938333/site/newsweek/
hm. David Cannadine left the UK about 20 years ago for the States – is he back now then?
Just thought you would like to know -if you didn’t hear it on Today- that Lee Jasper (Livingstone’s race relations adviser)is going to France to offer his thoughts on why france has failed to intergrate its ethnic groups; in contrast to Britain where,as you all know,we have a wonderful Multicultural utopia.
The liberal media here are clealy using these riots to vindicate the approach the British establishment has taken vis-a-vis Multiculturalism.
The BBC ends almost every report on the french riots concluding the french have a lot to learn from us on the issue of intergration.What the french understand is the cost of multiculturalism to their national identity if they took this approach.In England we have bought, and continue to buy, the peace of our ethnic groups by pandering to their every whim.How long can this last?
I must say that as a Yorkshireman and a Catholic I’ve never taken any sort of offence at Guy Fawkes’night. I used to harbour a mild regret that he’d failed to blow up Bacon (try to read “Magna Instauratio” and you’ll see why), but that was more than balanced by relief that Lancelot Andrewes had been spared.
O/T Anti-terror laws & The 5Live phone in today.
They done a text vote. Those for and against the 90 option. Over 70% agreed with the 90% option.
Oddly, during the phone-in most of the callers were against the 90 day option.
Also, the main argument seemed to be “if we hold them for 90 days then release them, they would come out angry and would be more likely to cause trouble”.
That seems to be the main argument. Very odd.
RE: Rob White
I’d say, if the security services have monitored an individual or group for a sustained period, have voice recordings of them, other material evidence, then clearly the 90 day option MAY be considered.
however, this whole thing, is kind of going down the route of what next?
the problem is the current govt have abused their power for so long, and effectively destroyed the judicial system with their constant meddling, now they expect to introduce for want of another word “draconian” powers.
we are a free nation, whilst i believe in chasing these terrorists until the end of the earth, clearly we need to remember that we risk becoming like them.
in the second world war, we won just because of that. we treated nazis that we captured with respect and looked after them. we wanted to prove we werent like them.
if we go down this road, we are proving that we are falling for their evil and wicked ways.
re: the BBC Guy Falkes, any suggestion that he was some kind of martyr is worrying. He was about to commit mass murder and destroy a democratic system. hardly very catholic.
in his case, evidence was needed and he was caught in the act. And that was hundreds of years ago, we didnt lock him up before !!!
we had a procedure, law, and freedom to respect, just as now in the 21st Century.
A stronger immigration policy would prevent a lot of the fanatics ever coming here would help.
What seems to be ignored in the Beeb’s sudden sympathy for “poor Mr Fawkes” and co. is that they were not seeking “human rights” for catholics but Catholic hegemony in a mainly protestant country and doing so with the help of foreign powers, mainly Spain.
I wonder why – is it because the barmier “intellectuals” of left or right in this country always seem to think they need to embrace such powers to deal with whatever they see as wrong in this country?
Look at the precedents:
1. The French revolution
2. Nazism
3. Soviet communism
4. Islamism
In each and every case significant sections of society especially the intelligentsia find no difficultyy in allying themselves to foreign powers. And it isn’tjust the treason to nation involved (though that is bad enough). With the exception of “3” above there is almost invariable treason to the very ideals they expouse. Nowehere is this more evident than the soft pedalling now going on where islamism is concerned ignoring the fact that like 16thC Catholicism modern islamism is a hegemonistic movemetnand one whcih certainly does not promise the fairness, equality or humazn rights about which its western apologists so happily (and endlessly) prattle.
Further to Rob White’s comments on the 90 days, the BBC do not seem to find room to report the 70%+ in favour of the PM’s proposal in today’s YouGov poll
http://www.yougov.com/archives/archivesPolitical.asp?jID=2&sID=2&rID=2&wID=0&uID=
Ian Barnes as a loyal Tory sides with Tory MPs against most potential Tory voters. He complains about Mrs Blair, who sympathised with Palestian terrorists. What about Tory front bench man, Dominic Grieve, who sympathised with the 7/7 bombers.
If the govt want the 90 days because 70% of the public want it then lets have it.
On the same basis, lets have hanging, withdrawl from the EU and lets abolish state funding of the BBC too.
To Will.
I take it you are a supporter of Cherie the beloved? i;m glad to see you too share most people’s disgust at her support of suicide bombers.
Problem is for her and her husband, they’re now on their and our door steps and its slightly more difficult to deal with than she first thought??
I bet she regrets her comments..
The truth of the matter is, are you somehow suggesting that the 90 day idea came from Cherie?
If so, it would make complete sense, she no doubt understands the law given her profession. However, my main concern is that the law is not manipulated, as with everything else in this country..
People have noticed now, who pulls the strings in No. 10. Perhaps its about time we became more sensible with the way we address issues ?
If you see her, ask her how the armoured car is? Our soldiers in Iraq on £13 000 a year don’t have that luxury and yet serve her husband without question. Perhaps she could help them? Imagine it were Euan?
Fair deal, Mr Necrotizing.
Note that opinion poll results are totally contradictory to the “balance of comments” on (D)HYS
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=172&edition=1&ttl=20051107123155&#paginator
Whilst Mr N points out the reasonable
application of public opinion, former BBC man Robin Oakley, at the PM’s press conference, shows the contempt of the media for their public, by suggesting that if the PM wants the public opinion to have an influence on the 90 days, “will we have a return of the ducking stool?”
Ian Barnes, I do not support the views of Mrs Blair. But she is not an MP or member of the government.
I notice you are silent on the more disgraceful views of Grieve, who is a possible future member of the cabinet.
Ian Barnes,
My issue was that pre-phone in the numbers were hugely in favour of the 90 day option.
Then during the phone in it was horrifically biased AGAINST the 90 day option and most of the callers were against the 90 day option.
The arguments were biased, one-sided claptrap encouraged by the whining liberal sarcasm which is Ms Derbyshire.
O/T 5Live again. Anti-American rubbish. Report on Man Utd win over Chelsea “…however the Galzers were not there to see the win as they were watching their other team, Tampa, get beat”.
Oh, they just could resist it could they. I’m in such a good mood when I get into the office!
TBDW (That Bloody Derbishire Woman) is the worst thing that ever happened to Radio 5 Live…..(I used to listen to it 24 hours a day, but I like millions of others have turned away since it has become a Liberal beating stick with which to “force” through “public opinion”)……
Maybe you could write to TBDWs producer and ask him why the show seemed to be so Biased against public opinion.
The Producer is a Mr Hussain Hussani……:o)….maybe thats a clue.
OT Polls: The BBC News team seldom have ‘polls’ of public opinion on their website. Sky News have one every day e.g. using the ‘red button’ on your remote etc. Polls must terrify the BBC. How can they get their consistently left wing message out when the public aren’t consistently left wing?
Anyway BBC News online have a poll today:
Blair appeal to MPs on terror law
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4411358.stm
Sidebar: VOTE
Terror laws: How long should suspects be held?
RESULT: As at 2:15pm
90 days = 33%
42 days = 6%
28 days = 26%
No change = 35%
2320 Votes Cast
I make that 65% of those who voted want to see an increase in the time police can hold suspects to at least 28 days or more.
If the poll is representative of public opinion (& taken with the YouGOV poll for Sky News today), the majority of the public favour an increase to 28days or more. You’d never know that from BBC News coverage. The impresion given from BBC News is that Blair is a foamy-mouthed right wing nut job in the final throws of a dead duck leadership and who the opposition, his party, and the public, view as ‘out of touch’.
Of course the BBC reminds us “Results are indicative and may not reflect public opinion” Certainly the online polls are not indicitive of BBC opinion. Hence their rarity.
WILL
Cherie runs the government old boy
We all know that, just because she isnt officially an MP or official member of the government. Please try not to pretend you don’t know that.
Dominic Grieve, what comments are you talking about? Lets not get too emotional here.
Cherie is the one who supports suicide bombers, the same suicide bombers that killed british nationals only a few months ago. Let’s not forget that.
She can’t accept the fact that she was wrong, is no one else;s problem but her’s.
We all know, she writes speeches for Tony, tells him what to say and advises him legally.
Lets start accepting facts and stop pretending she is the victim here.
We all know she is dangerous, its just that now that the public know too, her final years in power will not be as easy as she had originally forseen.
And remember,playing politics with British soldiers, sending to war one minute, arresting them the next and then amazingly releasing them people begin to ask questions about motive?
And might i add Will, you didnt answer any of my questions, in particular the one about the armoured car? Only for the priveleged few i take it?
Ian – I said I am not interested in Mrs Blair. It is ridiculous to suggest that she dictates government policy when you & her both oppose Mr Blair’s attempts to curb terrorist acts.
Even though you say
Cherie is the one who supports suicide bombers, the same suicide bombers that killed british nationals only a few months ago. Let’s not forget that
I don’t recall Mrs Blair sympathising with the London bombers, only those in Israel. But Grieve referring to the 7/7 bomers said
“Interviewed on Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Grieve said: “I have to say, I find the suicide bombing totally explicable in terms of the level of anger which many members of the Muslim community seem to have about a large number of things.'”
http://www.j-n-v.org/London_Blasts/L_B_rapid_rebuttal_050803.htm
(note this is a link to a site agreeing with Grieve)
Will,
The conservatives need a clear out. There’s too many right wing socialists with a sense of entitlement. Thanks for identifying one person to sack ASAP.
Imagine if you will France with a National Front Government but still in the EU.
Dominic Grieve isn’t the only one needing kicked into touch – John Bercow, Tim Yeo, Ken Clark et al need to be transfered to the LibDems asap. Their role in the Conservative Party is that of Gramscian sedition as is seen by the fact that, for the moment, there is effectively no mainstream opposition to the elimination of Britishness.
OT – John Simpson BBC World Affairs Editor on riots in France:
Violence exposes France’s weaknesses
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4414442.stm
Simpo has an interesting description of the government in France:
“President Jacques Chirac and the centre-right government which supports him”
and
“…the demonstrators know that the governmental system they are facing is deeply, perhaps incurably, sclerotic.”
Hmmmm…..“sclerotic”? That’s for sure. “centre right government”?? Not as we (in the UK) know it.
“Socialist” would be a reasonable description of government policy in France. State run utilities, high levels of employment protection, high levels of market intervention (subsidies etc) and, as a result of all the above, high levels of unemployed, requiring high levels of state support (benefits). It’s a nasty spiral, and painful to break – see “Thatcherism”, 1980s Britain.
On Simpo’s pay grade, one would expect some incisive comments or analysis but the article appears void of anything more that statements of the obvious.
He ends on a disapointing ‘something must be done’ note. Yes, but what?
“France is going to have to change towards its unwilling, often unwelcome young second-generation population, and accommodate them better.”
If “accommodate them better” means reducing employment protection so that they have a better chance of employment, that might help. But Simpo doesn’t clarify what he is suggesting here.
“It is not enough to demand that these people drop their sense of themselves and fit in with the way France has traditionally ordered its affairs.”
What Simpo is referring to as “drop their sense of themselves” is unclear. Is he talking about religion/islam? The headscarves ban?
“But most of all there has to be change in attitudes at the top. And if Mr Chirac cannot do it, he will be fatally damaged as president.”
Again Simpo doesn’t explain what he means by “there has to be a change in attitude at the top” so it’s pretty much guesswork here. A massive housebuilding programme for immigrants? Free Korans for all? New bank holidays during Eid?
Who knows, but in Simpo’s own words, “something must be done”.
If this is the best Simpo can come up with, he would have been better interviewing some decent commentators who have some piercing analysis/views (how about starting with Sarkozy and de Villepin? – you are the BBC for goodness sake!). Simpo’s report is pretty limp even by the BBC’s own low standards.
As many comentators here have pointed out. Should have sent Frei. (or Webb, for a laugh.).