Question Time watch (because I’m not going to)
Frankly, I can’t be bothered to stay up for it, but the comments of those who do will be appreciated. Things to look out for will obviously include how well they labour the fact that one of the two Republicans they’ve allowed on is the grandson of Nixon (after all, why else was he invited) and how the audience is made up. Since they’re only doing this one episode in the US, I know they’ll want to have made sure there’s a balance of Republican and Democrat supporters…
Hugh,
As you already know I have the greatest repect for your opinions on a wide range of subjects and your fair and cosidered posts have taught me much, that said I dislike the thought of others setting boundaries and moral limits, a slippery slope and the trouble with slippery slopes is they are er slippy? Ahem, never mind, I myself am gay so from that perspective I can comment with some authority I believe, PC has damaged our society beyond measure so forgive me if I seem sensitive to it, I myself would hate to think someone couldnt talk to me in a straightforward way because they are conditioned to think certain words may hurt my feelings!
I care nothing for the moral frameworks that others may wish to impose on me(years of it cured me of that), Its taken me years of inner struggle to accept myself and indeed others for the incredibly unique creations we all are, believe me when I say this, I have never and will never force my morality on anyone else but I certainly will say exactly what I think regardless.
Hugh, I urge you to take the post in the spirit in which it was intended, poor composition accepted!
That’s fair enough, Casssandra, but I’m afraid I’m not going to stop very occasionally complaining about some comments (about three times in two years is my current rate I think), as I do think they limit the blogs appeal and prevent its case finding a wider audience. People can then make up their own minds whether they find that argument is convincing enough to make it worthwhile moderating their language.
I think a far more insulting comment was that of Grant, implying that black people didn’t die in WW2. Complete and utter insensitivity.
Just an observation…..
Have you noticed how many BBC hacks are heading over State Side to “cover the election”?
Without being too scientific about it, I believe that the following are in/about to go to the US:
Breakfast, BBC News, BBC News Channel, BBC America, News night, Daily Politics, This Week, QT, News night Review, Today, World at One……
In terms of personal, this means that the following will be reporting/ commenting from the US (all of the top of my head):
Wark, Esler, Urban, Crick, Paxman, Neil, Abbott, Portillo, Watts, Dimbleby, Schama, Marshall, Frei, Webb, Mason, Evans, Peston, Naughtie, Hewitt, James , and god knows who else……plus the camera and production crews.
Perhaps they are all hoping to be invited to the “after election party” if the Son of God wins? Christ This Week is aired TWO DAYS after the election!
Yet when it came to the American Football last Sunday they managed to have a partnership with CBS-how strange that they can do it for that yet not for the election? There are plenty of American expats living in the UK- but QT HAD TO GO TO Washington…..
I accept that the BBC needs bodies on the ground-but the entire News and Current Affairs Department (so it seems)? It puts a new spin on “curbing excesses”.
No worries about Global warming or Taxpayers money there me thinks!
Cassandra, you claim to champion freedom of thought and expression, yet seem rather flustered by my exercising those rights to disagree with you. So flustered, in fact, you’ve managed to either distort (knowingly or otherwise) or ignore almost everything I wrote in my comment.
I’ll happily address each point you’ve made above, and ask that this time – should you decide to reply to me – you might actually address what I say, rather than what you seem to imagine I’m saying.
You ask:
“Did I pass a comment about anyone being Gay or not? You seem to make quite free with accusations and finger pointing for someone who professes a dislike the subject of PC.”
No, and if you read what I wrote with any degree of concentration, you’ll see that nowhere is it even implied that you had said anything offensive. I am loath to imagine you are deliberately distorting my argument, so I must assume you have simply misunderstood everything I wrote as a personal attack requiring a hyper-sensitive response from you.
You wrote:
“We may disagree with each other but without a free interchange of ideas and beliefs set within our individual moral structures this site would as soul crushlingly boring as labourhome etc.”
Yes, precisely. The idea of some commenters is that Schama’s politics now entitle us to use words like “mincer” and “camp twat” against him. Hugh and myself, and others, have – presumably with your blessing – the freedom to think and to state openly the idea that we find this counterproductive in the context of the purpose and credibility of this site. You, in turn, have the right to disagree with us in the name of your lofty principles. No one is banning anyone or censoring them. No-one has done anything except exercise their right to speak their mind. So what is your problem with that process? It’s called an exchange of ideas. Person A says a certain thing, Persons B and C say that the tone adopted by Person A could be damaging to the site’s purposes, Person D disagrees. No problem with that, is there? Good.
You wrote:
“You will please note and acknowledge that I have never engaged in deriding a person on their supposed sexual nature”
You will please note and acknowledge that nowhere in my previous comment did I make any such suggestion, even by implication. Why so ultra-sensitive?
You wrote:
“IMHO political correctness is a deadly cancer on the body of free dabate, I hate,fear and despise it because it has been used to bully and stiffle true debate.”
I despise political correctness for the same reason. But I am also sceptical of those who apply that label to anyone who prefers old-fashioned, traditional, conservative decency and courtesy to name-calling, spiteful, nastiness. Political Correctness is used to stifle debate, so it would be a shame if the accusation of political correctness were used by you to stifle a debate about whether language such as “mincer” and “camp twat” is wholly counterproductive to the aims of this site?
You wrote:
“May I suggest that if you are so ultra sensitive to the rough and tumble of this blog you may wish to visit sites that more suit your sensitive nature.”
No Cassandra you may not. Your own response to my comment displays at least as much hyper-sensitivity as my comment did, so please drop this trite and rather predictable nonsense. If people have the right to comment, then I have the right to respond, as do you. That’s the way you want it, right?
Is anyone allowed to find anything tactically stupid, and say so in plain terms, without some champion of free speech advising them to find somewhere else to comment? Do you even see the irony, Cassandra?
Sorry the above is me….
I am? Hum, I never knew I was you. I’m loving it though!
Hee hee…..sorry the anon comment….. 🙂
Hum,
Right. So who am I? Did I write the anon comment now?
“Hum” – is that name by any chance chosen after the domesticated Humbert Humbert from Lolita? If so, we are both characters from my two favourite novels.
If not, please disregard 🙂
Several times today on Radio 4 I have heard a BBC reporter saying that things are bad for McCain, Palin is widely rejected, and ……”the latest poll shows Obama with an 11% lead”. I have heard NO other poll mentioned by the BBC in recent days.
RealClearPolitics has an average poll lead for Obama of 5.9% – which includes that 11% poll. The “safest” polls, conducted daily, are probably Rasmussen – now showing a 4% Obama lead, it was 3% two days before – and Gallup showing an Obama lead of 5% now, – it had also been at 3% the day before.
So how come the BBC is pushing the “outlier” poll showing a much larger lead ? It is NOT the latest poll anyway.
What were the odds for the BBC reporting the Rasmussen or Gallup polls when the showed a 3% lead ? Zero ?
Relentless, grind-you-down bias. Costing us millions and millions of pounds.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Further to my previous post – it is not just bias about the polling lead – it is a bloody lie that the BBC is pushing.
Having just re-read some of the posts above, and with some time to reflect, I rather regret my original “Is Simon Schama gay ? ” post. I guess I had a Russell Brand ” heat of the moment” moment. And it does distract from the purpose of this website.
Hugh, above, makes a good point about Iain Dale.
But, to one of the posters above, I would point out that someone can be married with children and still be gay.
However, in true BBC fashion , I am going to draw a line under this and move on !
It says so much about so many of the commenters on this site that they resort to offensive, homophobic language when discussing the author of one of the great pieces of popular history of the past few years (Citizens) and one of the great pieces of popular historical TV (A History of Britain).
The fact that he is straight and married says a lot about the right wing myopia and bigotry of so many people who comment on this board.
Although he does come over as a camp homosexual, i believe simon schama is married with children.Although in this day and age that doesnt really mean anything i suppose.
Grant: However, in true BBC fashion , I am going to draw a line under this and move on.
I’m sorry, Grant, I can’t allow that. I have decided to send you on a sensitivity training course in New York. It’s going to cost £15,000 (and I’m going to need a £200 contribution from you all, budgets being what they are) but I think everyone here will find it is worth it to get the comments they deserve.
For an historian, Simon Schama has always been strangely quiet about how he sees the future of Britain, Europe and the west.
Are there no lessons he can draw upon from history about mass migrations, Islam, multi-ethnic states, and isolated autocratic elites?
Disraeli:
Not sure that Schama’s quite as good as his fans crack him up to be:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_/ai_n8983975
Anonymous | 31.10.08 – 1:05 pm |
Without being too scientific about it, I believe that the following are in/about to go to the US:
Breakfast, BBC News, BBC News Channel, BBC America, News night, Daily Politics, This Week, QT, News night Review, Today, World at One……
In terms of personal, this means that the following will be reporting/ commenting from the US (all of the top of my head):
Wark, Esler, Urban, Crick, Paxman, Neil, Abbott, Portillo, Watts, Dimbleby, Schama, Marshall, Frei, Webb, Mason, Evans, Peston, Naughtie, Hewitt, James , and god knows who else……plus the camera and production crews.
Yeah, but it’s not like the BBC believes this is The Most Important Election In Human History or anything. That’s just in my fevered imagination. They always cover the US elections this feverishly, surely.
Frei and Webb live here already, though, so they shouldn’t be included in your list.
Hugh 3:17
I would love to take you up on your offer of a sensitivity course, although £15000 seems a bit cheap.
Can you promise me two things ? First it will not be in New York, second there will be no Beeboids on the course. My sensitivity doesn’t quite extend that far.
Disraeli 3:10
Can you please explain the difference between “right-wing myopia and bigotry” and left-wing myopia and bigotry ?
Hugh,
Point taken and many thanks.
Henryflower,
Great post and good points well made, ill have to think hard about the points raised.
Perhaps I am sensitive to the nature of PC perhaps too sensitive, given the nature of advice and the reasoning behind it I think on balance you and Hugh were right to call it the way you did and I was mistaken(again)!
Must do better next time? Knowing me probably not, but we all live and learn eh(not me it seems)?
I must add that having been in contact with a PC driven culture and forced to co-operate with it, I saw it for the false god it was.
HenryFlower:”Who are you to demand that gay men must come out?”
Hear, hear! All this talk about gay is a bore; I wish they would all stay in.
Cassandra 12:11
Just caught up with your post and haven’t scrolled down yet.
I think I apologised earlier for an ill-considered, juvenile, comment about gays.
I really admire your candour.
Keep on posting !!
Schama is a stupid prick. His sexual preferences have NIL to do with the subject matter.
to be told what I can or cannot say by other posters sticks in my throat
Tough cheese. Other people are as entitled to object to your comments as you are to make them. Too hot for you? Leave the kitchen.
I refuse to wear a poppy, simply because of the pressure to wear one. I am hardly ‘left wing’.
Point Taken David…..but Sky, C4 and ITN seem to have far fewer hacks over in the States.
Grant, Hugh, Cassandra – well said one and all. Difficult and thorny issues, as ever, and it’s hard to know what the right approach is. I’m against PC and against censorship or moderation; but then again, self-policing hasn’t served the BBC well, so why should we expect it to work on these boards…
Pleasure thinking about these things with you, and apologies if it got a tad long-winded and over-heated.
But I like it that way! 😉
Nearly Oxfordian: “Schama is a stupid prick”.
Take this how you will, but there’s not much that an intelligent person could possibly add to that.
I cannot tell you all how very, very entertaining it is to read Brits debate what is and is not polite, all so very politely.
Please, can someone list what these fellows, who won’t post here because it is too offensive, would like to read when they arrive? A list of do’s and don’ts, perhaps.
Frankly, amid the pedantry a few swear words and name calling, precisly timed, equals good comic relief. But then I am a Palin fan and no proff. (do not read “poof”).
Did you know if you put a frog in a kettle of cold water, and then heated it up, the frog would boil to death and never try to jump out.
I’m not sure why this is, but I think it has something to do with the limited intelligence of frogs.
What it makes the tea taste like afterwards though is anyone’s guess.
betyangelo, we want the site to be credible, because we actually want something done about the BBC, and if we can avoid giving liberals the ammunition with which to dismiss us as homophobic, racist, ranting, far-right nutjobs, then the site will by definition have broader appeal and stand more chance of being noticed by serious people.
It has nothing really to do with politeness. You catch more flies with sugar than with shit, as they say. I really find very little in life offensive; life’s too short. But the fact is, we’re here basically to campaign, to disseminate a message, not merely to vent spleen.
Would Sarah Palin get very far if she publicly dismissed anyone who disagreed with her as a “twat” or a “mincer”? I’ve also seen the phrase “paki scum” on this forum. She might even think those things in her head, but has the sense not to say them. Sure, if she did say them, some infantile part of my mind would be as amused as hell, but she couldn’t be taken seriously.
You say “Brits” – may I ask, do you live in the UK or not? I do, and I risk a fine of £1000 or imprisonment every time I turn on my television to watch something on Channel 4. For that reason, this site actually matters. And because it matters, I hope people think about what discredits the site and what does not. That’s all I hope for; is that too proscriptive for you? It shouldn’t be. It’s just common sense.