Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Minding Our Manners – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited August 21 in General
imageMinding Our Manners – politicalbetting.com

A man tries to murder a British writer for what he wrote in a novel published 34 years ago, 10 years before the would-be murderer was born. A Police Community Support Officer in Britain seeks to lecture a woman about changing her views on trans rights despite two police officers having previously visited and determined that the woman was committing no offence by displaying a sticker, expressing different views to that of the PCSO, in her window. A British university warns students that Hardy novels have scenes showing cruelty in nature which they might find upsetting, assuming that is that none of them have ever had a pet cat, in which case they would have been exposed to lots of natural feline cruelty from a very young age.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,503
    edited August 16
    Will this cure the lack of thread problem?

    oh, and THIRST!!!!

    On topic, does this new zeitgest mean I can't call the DfE c***s any more? Because if so, it sucks harder than Carrie on being promised a bonus.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,127
    Complete bollox. Sorry if that offends :wink:

    (In reality, of course, I agree wholeheartedy. Apart fom anything else, it would be a very dull world if everyone thought and spoke the same. If I wanted that I'd not be here, for starters.)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,969
    RIP Chris Hitchens.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,058
    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,115
    FPT

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Balrog said:

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT.
    The crisis in schools is another thing not yet visible in the urgent in tray.
    I have remarked on PB before that I've been thinking about going back into teaching for September.
    We are now six weeks since my application for a DBS (I've had one before, and have moved once since, in the same Police authority).
    Still nowt. Target is 14 days.
    Thinking of giving up and doing summat else. Have had positive responses for potential employment from several schools, but they can't just wait for my DBS to come, with no position filled. Or not come.
    Another shambles.

    Surely DBS should be instant in today's digital age ?
    We recruited someone from London recently, and the Met took 6 months to do the DBS.
    I've applied for a job in school (non teaching), since retirement, to help with new energy bills. Been waiting for a Dbs for a month now. I don’t think it will be resolved for September. Both me and the school are now stuck.
    Have you tried Disclosure Scotland. They provide same criminal records check service as DBS for anyone in the UK but historically are much faster. They used to take a week, I don't know how it takes now. They look at the same national systems as DBS so just as valid.
    Shhhh!

    SNPbad!

    Never deviate from PB’s favourite memes.
    How is that an SNP story? You’ll be saying Rangers and Celtic being shit at football are due to the SNP next.
    Disclosure Scotland is an executive agency of the Scottish Government. It works well. The English agency doesn’t.

    https://www.mygov.scot/organisations/disclosure-scotland

    Shall we judge the performance of the English government by Manchester United results?
    I had a dbs back in days last summer. A few anecdotes do not data make.
    Angus Council recently took more than 5 months to renew my MiL's Blue badge. It was applied for in good time and not particularly complicated, Strangely enough the age related disabilities that shhe had 3 years ago have not gotten better in the meantime. It took weeks to confirm that Angus at least would not give a ticket to someone with an out of date badge but Dundee never replied to numerous inquiries as to what they would do with an out of date, out of area badge.

    The backlog for registration of title deeds in Scotland is also at record levels and seriously impeding onward transactions.

    Both of these seem to arise from working from home in jobs that require you to look at physical things not readily available online. When you have the stories about DVLA or Passports this seems to be an endemic public sector problem from which Scotland is not immune.
    My Dad (83) is currently still without his driving licence after a poorly time eye test in December (between two sets of cataract surgery). He should have been fine to drive for the last 7 months. Recently retested and all good, but still no licence.

    Stories from the DVLA from covid are atrocious. They need a rocket up there arses. There is no competition - you can't go to another provider, so its a captive market. So for all the talk of privatisation (you know who you are) beware that state run entities are not always better.
    One of the best ideas to have come out of the Tory leadship race, was Kemi Badenoch’s suggestion that the six-figure heads of arms-length agencies such as the DVLA, need to be held accountable for such failures to perform their basic functions. This has gone on for two years now, yet no-one has been fired for the shambles. If DVLA were a private sector company, the shareholders would have fired the CEO a long time ago.
    What if the CEO says in order to succeed they need either more money from govt or fewer things to do? It is the government ministers who should be responsible, they are in charge.
    They make their income from the fees they charge for their services - and from selling your data to parking cowboys, in fact maybe that’s why they’re short of resources after the pandemic.
    So DVLA net gives money to the treasury for performing a core govt responsibility but can't find the staff who are happy to do the job without striking? In which case I would expect the govt minister to say keep a bit more of the cash, give the staff a pay rise before inflation gets even worse, and improve the service.
    Can't do that without breaking civil service pay rates which would create problems elsewhere

    The DVLA issues are interesting because large parts of it are functioning perfectly (pass your driving test and the new license arrives in days) but anything out of the ordinary or requires a human being and things fall apart.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,115
    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,491
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,347
    The PCSO issue is properly bonkers, how much training are they getting? The discussion on the other thread with the casual acceptance of the police being "creative" in finding reasons to stop people they don't like sets the culture for now even PCSO's to think that they are somehow in charge, rather than part of a system serving the public.

    On Rushdie, his book was either rubbish or beyond my reading ability but we should all be Charlie and stand together.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,115
    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
    And? It's still sexual assault and if the initial posters didn't mention the issue who is liable - I suspect the venue becomes jointly so once they are aware of the issue after the first show

    If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,127

    I'm not sure it's possible to be as absolute about things as this header makes out. What about things like racist or homophobic abuse? Aren't we glad that that kind of language, which is when it comes down to it just another form of hurting people's feelings, illegal? I certainly am glad that my children don't have to live in a permanent state of fear of being racially abused as my wife did growing up in the 1980s.
    People who have the privilege of not living under this kind of fear usually have little understanding of how debilitating it is. I think that lofty discussions of freedom of speech need to acknowledge this reality, otherwise they are really not engaging with the issue. FWIW I think that you should be able to freely insult people's beliefs but not insult them over a characteristic over which they have no control. The trans debate is probably where this distinction becomes murkiest, which is why it is so vitriolic on both sides.

    Yep, for sure. Although I didn't read that as contradictory to the header.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 9,512

    The PCSO issue is properly bonkers, how much training are they getting? The discussion on the other thread with the casual acceptance of the police being "creative" in finding reasons to stop people they don't like sets the culture for now even PCSO's to think that they are somehow in charge, rather than part of a system serving the public.

    On Rushdie, his book was either rubbish or beyond my reading ability but we should all be Charlie and stand together.

    To be clear, I wasn't endorsing the police being creative, more making a point about stopping of drivers.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,693
    Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me

    Bring back the old playground saw

    - thanks for the header Cyclefree
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 34,873
    edited August 16
    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
    And? It's still sexual assault and if the initial posters didn't mention the issue who is liable - I suspect the venue becomes jointly so once they are aware of the issue after the first show

    If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
    Both parties seem strangely coy about stating explicitly what were the actions that the whole stushie revolves around.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,347
    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
    And? It's still sexual assault and if the initial posters didn't mention the issue who is liable - I suspect the venue becomes jointly so once they are aware of the issue after the first show

    If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
    Is a strip club sexual assault? A live drawing class? Surely not, and surely the same applies to a comedy venue hosting a known outrageous comic?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 34,873
    geoffw said:

    Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me

    Bring back the old playground saw

    - thanks for the header Cyclefree

    What if the words are 'I'm going to deploy sticks and stones if you don't mind your ways'?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,013
    The most baffling part of the whole transphobic sticker/PCSO contretemps is why the woman chose to have and record for subsequent distribution a lengthy debate with the Plastic Police on the doorstep instead of telling them to fuck off.

    Possible attention starved conflict seeker. PB.com regulars may know the type.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,127
    eek said:

    FPT

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Balrog said:

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT.
    The crisis in schools is another thing not yet visible in the urgent in tray.
    I have remarked on PB before that I've been thinking about going back into teaching for September.
    We are now six weeks since my application for a DBS (I've had one before, and have moved once since, in the same Police authority).
    Still nowt. Target is 14 days.
    Thinking of giving up and doing summat else. Have had positive responses for potential employment from several schools, but they can't just wait for my DBS to come, with no position filled. Or not come.
    Another shambles.

    Surely DBS should be instant in today's digital age ?
    We recruited someone from London recently, and the Met took 6 months to do the DBS.
    I've applied for a job in school (non teaching), since retirement, to help with new energy bills. Been waiting for a Dbs for a month now. I don’t think it will be resolved for September. Both me and the school are now stuck.
    Have you tried Disclosure Scotland. They provide same criminal records check service as DBS for anyone in the UK but historically are much faster. They used to take a week, I don't know how it takes now. They look at the same national systems as DBS so just as valid.
    Shhhh!

    SNPbad!

    Never deviate from PB’s favourite memes.
    How is that an SNP story? You’ll be saying Rangers and Celtic being shit at football are due to the SNP next.
    Disclosure Scotland is an executive agency of the Scottish Government. It works well. The English agency doesn’t.

    https://www.mygov.scot/organisations/disclosure-scotland

    Shall we judge the performance of the English government by Manchester United results?
    I had a dbs back in days last summer. A few anecdotes do not data make.
    Angus Council recently took more than 5 months to renew my MiL's Blue badge. It was applied for in good time and not particularly complicated, Strangely enough the age related disabilities that shhe had 3 years ago have not gotten better in the meantime. It took weeks to confirm that Angus at least would not give a ticket to someone with an out of date badge but Dundee never replied to numerous inquiries as to what they would do with an out of date, out of area badge.

    The backlog for registration of title deeds in Scotland is also at record levels and seriously impeding onward transactions.

    Both of these seem to arise from working from home in jobs that require you to look at physical things not readily available online. When you have the stories about DVLA or Passports this seems to be an endemic public sector problem from which Scotland is not immune.
    My Dad (83) is currently still without his driving licence after a poorly time eye test in December (between two sets of cataract surgery). He should have been fine to drive for the last 7 months. Recently retested and all good, but still no licence.

    Stories from the DVLA from covid are atrocious. They need a rocket up there arses. There is no competition - you can't go to another provider, so its a captive market. So for all the talk of privatisation (you know who you are) beware that state run entities are not always better.
    One of the best ideas to have come out of the Tory leadship race, was Kemi Badenoch’s suggestion that the six-figure heads of arms-length agencies such as the DVLA, need to be held accountable for such failures to perform their basic functions. This has gone on for two years now, yet no-one has been fired for the shambles. If DVLA were a private sector company, the shareholders would have fired the CEO a long time ago.
    What if the CEO says in order to succeed they need either more money from govt or fewer things to do? It is the government ministers who should be responsible, they are in charge.
    They make their income from the fees they charge for their services - and from selling your data to parking cowboys, in fact maybe that’s why they’re short of resources after the pandemic.
    So DVLA net gives money to the treasury for performing a core govt responsibility but can't find the staff who are happy to do the job without striking? In which case I would expect the govt minister to say keep a bit more of the cash, give the staff a pay rise before inflation gets even worse, and improve the service.
    Can't do that without breaking civil service pay rates which would create problems elsewhere

    The DVLA issues are interesting because large parts of it are functioning perfectly (pass your driving test and the new license arrives in days) but anything out of the ordinary or requires a human being and things fall apart.
    Is DVLA real Civil Service or an exec agency? When I worked at the Patent Office there was some freedom in pay, not sure whether we had different pay scales (I think we maybe did) or they fiddled it somehow. But we also returned sizeable profits to the Treasury, which annoyed people when pay was squeezed (as it was). Periodically the pay squeeze would lead to a bit of a mass exodus - there were always better paid but harder work jobs in industry in patent surveillance/IP or training contracts with patent attorney firms. The exodus would then lead to a better pay settlement, which was then again gradually eroded with respect to inflation until the next exodus. My boss, when I left, begged me in my exit interview to say I was leaving over pay. Really I was leaving more due to extreme boredom!

    Given it takes a couple of years to really train a patent examiner (we weren't reckoned to be profitable until about two years in post) it never seemed the most efficient way of doing things.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 29,112
    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
    And? It's still sexual assault and if the initial posters didn't mention the issue who is liable - I suspect the venue becomes jointly so once they are aware of the issue after the first show

    If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
    The "Freedom of Speech" bit reminds me of a column that Poly Toynbee wrote in the Guardian. She really like the connotations of the word Libertarian, but disliked the negativity that libertarians had for state power.

    Apparently the word, in her view, should be given to people like her, who supported ID cards and the massive databases behind them. Because thinking of the children is the truly libertarian position.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,115

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
    And? It's still sexual assault and if the initial posters didn't mention the issue who is liable - I suspect the venue becomes jointly so once they are aware of the issue after the first show

    If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
    Both parties seem strangely coy about stating explicitly what were the actions that the whole stushie revolves around.
    Almost like there is a criminal case being investigated...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 29,112
    ydoethur said:

    Will this cure the lack of thread problem?

    oh, and THIRST!!!!

    On topic, does this new zeitgest mean I can't call the DfE c***s any more? Because if so, it sucks harder than Carrie on being promised a bonus.

    They are PWWFHBRTAC

    People Who Would Formerly Have Been Referred To As C***s

    Incidentally, I am trying to work out how to monetise my idea that "Criminals" should be labelled as "Members Of The Legally Challenged Community".

    Should be able to get a medium sized government funded charity out of that one. Which leaves the critical question - what kind of Range Rover should I drive as head of said charity?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,011
    Dura_Ace said:

    The most baffling part of the whole transphobic sticker/PCSO contretemps is why the woman chose to have and record for subsequent distribution a lengthy debate with the Plastic Police on the doorstep instead of telling them to fuck off.

    Possible attention starved conflict seeker. PB.com regulars may know the type.

    Perhaps to deal with another common type of PB regular - those who deny that such interference by the state actually takes place.

  • DriverDriver Posts: 925
    There are two possible responses to "that's offensive":



    Or, of course, Stephen Fry's rather pithier response.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,250
    Still no real rain here ffs... a couple of drops for about 2 mins doesn't count.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,127

    ydoethur said:

    Will this cure the lack of thread problem?

    oh, and THIRST!!!!

    On topic, does this new zeitgest mean I can't call the DfE c***s any more? Because if so, it sucks harder than Carrie on being promised a bonus.

    They are PWWFHBRTAC

    People Who Would Formerly Have Been Referred To As C***s

    Incidentally, I am trying to work out how to monetise my idea that "Criminals" should be labelled as "Members Of The Legally Challenged Community".

    Should be able to get a medium sized government funded charity out of that one. Which leaves the critical question - what kind of Range Rover should I drive as head of said charity?
    A stolen one? :wink:
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,491

    The PCSO issue is properly bonkers, how much training are they getting? The discussion on the other thread with the casual acceptance of the police being "creative" in finding reasons to stop people they don't like sets the culture for now even PCSO's to think that they are somehow in charge, rather than part of a system serving the public.

    On Rushdie, his book was either rubbish or beyond my reading ability but we should all be Charlie and stand together.

    Well we sort of should. Religious belief on the part of primitive and stupid people is not really on a par with belief in anarcho syndicalism or whatever, it is transmitted by one's parents and seems to be hardwired into a particularly credulous module in the brain, so it has more of the inherited characteristic about it than the thought out intellectual stance. Given the demographics of this country trolling the Muslims is 99% coterminous with trolling the subcontinentals, which is not great.

    So, sure, be Charley but be aware of where it is likely to get you, and a lot of innocent bystanders. You can dress up in a chicken suit and follow me round all you want, but I find it prudent to keep my thinking on the Prophet pbuh to myself.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,109
    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Balrog said:

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT.
    The crisis in schools is another thing not yet visible in the urgent in tray.
    I have remarked on PB before that I've been thinking about going back into teaching for September.
    We are now six weeks since my application for a DBS (I've had one before, and have moved once since, in the same Police authority).
    Still nowt. Target is 14 days.
    Thinking of giving up and doing summat else. Have had positive responses for potential employment from several schools, but they can't just wait for my DBS to come, with no position filled. Or not come.
    Another shambles.

    Surely DBS should be instant in today's digital age ?
    We recruited someone from London recently, and the Met took 6 months to do the DBS.
    I've applied for a job in school (non teaching), since retirement, to help with new energy bills. Been waiting for a Dbs for a month now. I don’t think it will be resolved for September. Both me and the school are now stuck.
    Have you tried Disclosure Scotland. They provide same criminal records check service as DBS for anyone in the UK but historically are much faster. They used to take a week, I don't know how it takes now. They look at the same national systems as DBS so just as valid.
    Shhhh!

    SNPbad!

    Never deviate from PB’s favourite memes.
    How is that an SNP story? You’ll be saying Rangers and Celtic being shit at football are due to the SNP next.
    Disclosure Scotland is an executive agency of the Scottish Government. It works well. The English agency doesn’t.

    https://www.mygov.scot/organisations/disclosure-scotland

    Shall we judge the performance of the English government by Manchester United results?
    I'm just thinking back to when Rangers went bust thanks to HMRC, an executive agency of UKG, requiring that taxes be paid. I seem to recall that quite a few fans blamed the SNP (albeit amongst other things).
    Not really a plausible story. As if HMRC actually got somebody to pay tax.
    HMRC won the court case (after many years), but they didn’t get a penny, because Rangers no longer legally exists.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-40501361
    Sounds like HMRC.
    It is reminiscent of the Covid loans fraud scandal: a lot of the companies were subsequently simply wrapped up. A lot of people who should be behind bars are instead laughing all the way to the bank.

    The cheek is that “Rangers” still claim all their pre-2012 achievements. Funny that. They don’t exist for tax purposes, but they do for sporting purposes.
    Of course they do, because the club is the fans, not the legal entity. It's the same reason why AFC Wimbledon has the history of Wimbledon FC (and the Milton Keynes franchise has had to agree to that).
    Er, they absolutely are the legal entity, that's their formal existence. If that's meaningless then its totally correct they shouldn't be able to benefit from a tax wheeze.

    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Is UK energy just irretrievably fucked ?

    Energy production in Scotland seems pretty good..

    Have had interesting conversations with my Spanish FIL these last few weeks out here. Spain isn't on the hook to Russia for energy - their gas comes from north Africa apparently. Spain supposedly told the EU where to stick its energy reduction targets and is unhappy with paying Ukraine-affected market prices for gas when its gas isn't affected.

    That feels very similar to energy generation in Scotland. TNUoS - Transmission Network Use of System charges from the National Grid make it 20% more expensive to generate renewable power in Scotland (where it is plentiful) vs England. Why? Because the PLC wants to recoup £dollah for use of its wires, and the power needs to be sent such a long way to reach that London.

    This is insane. We need more renewable energy, not less. Yet the privatised "let the market decide" industry is using 30 years out of date models to penalise the power generation we have.
    There is a solution. If England doesn't want clean Scottish energy, lets stop transmitting it. Then the distance sent is much less, the cost falls, and life gets cheaper in Scotland. See, I have just written my first practical reason why Scotland should become independent.

    Stockholm Syndrome: feelings of trust and affection towards your kidnapper
    Mansfield Syndrome: feelings of trust and affection towards the party who made your shitty town more shitty
    Buchan Syndrome: realising that however bonkers Sindy appears on the surface, there are genuine practical issues behind it that unionists have no answers to
    Post of the week, so far.

    The more you delve into the topic, the more practical issues you will find. Self-government is simply common sense, and independence is normal.
    Yes, but we've spent 300 years persecuting the Scots for the sheer pleasure of it. What makes you think we're going to stop now?
    300?

    I make it approx 1,100 years. At the very least.

    It must be one of the oldest still-extant rivalries on the planet.
    Whilst neither is now independent i expect few modern nations are as old as England and Scotland and so close to their present forms too.
    CD13 said:

    Mr EPG,

    Have I ever gone above the speed limit? Of course. Have I ever been fined for it?. Yes. I've been breathalysed and failed it. Back to the station with no argument, and I squeezed under the limit at the intoximeter there. They gave my car keys back and I was free. That was in 1984, and I learned my lesson. Never again.

    I've no illusions about the police. I played rugby for a while and I've always said that you can tell how rough a game it's going to be by counting how many players are Welsh and how many are coppers.

    Sections of the middle-class seem to look down on the police, regarding them as intellectually inferior. I know nothing about this athlete but he's acting like he fancies himself as being beyond the law now.

    I dont look down on the police as intellectually inferior. I've known some very able senior officers. But I feel like I have little choice but to look down on them as institutionally one of the least competent organisations I've ever seen, and one of the most arrogant and resistant to change, which given their power over the citizenry is a big worry.

    It isnt a few bad apples, it is simply too widespread in so many different areas to not be fundamentally broken as a service.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 43,148
    edited August 16
    IshmaelZ said:

    geoffw said:

    Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me

    Bring back the old playground saw

    - thanks for the header Cyclefree

    Unless you are one of the getting on for a thousand child suicides per year in the uk, the vast majority caused at least in part by verbal bullying.
    Indeed.
    While I'm largely in agreement with the points made in the header, it does rather gloss over the existence, and consequences of such abuse.
    Then again, saying that government ought not to be criminalising public speech is not the same thing as saying that (for example) schools may not discipline pupils for such abuse.

    Similarly the phrase "...we have meekly accepted that beliefs should be protected..." ignores the other side of the coin. Robust freedom of speech means that we do indeed protect the expression of those beliefs.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,011
    edited August 16
    Not surprisingly I agree with this header entirely.

    In answer to Onlylivingboy's reasonable point below about racist or sexist abuse - Cyclefree does not refer to physical characteristics. She deals with beliefs and opinions. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that it is unacceptable to attack or denigrate someone for something they have no control over - their sex and sexual orientation, age, skin colour or other physical characteristic or something like their place of birth. There should be some safeguards in place to protect people from abuse or discrimination in those cases. But it is entirely acceptable to scorn someone for their views and opinions - whether they are religious, social or political. Neither the state nor other organisations have any place in outlawing some opinions nor protecting others from criticism.
  • Well said Cyclefree.

    It was wrong to "protect" religion and belief when the law was changed and it is still wrong now, that is one of the first laws I would repeal if I was able to. Protecting hurt feelings shouldn't be the realm of the Police, or Employment Tribunals or anything else.

    If your belief can not stand up to challenge its not a very good belief, that we are all on this site so willing to be challenged (and anyone who isn't wouldn't stick around for long) is part of what makes this such a good site for discussions.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,284
    These things are not really comparable....

    Warnings ahead of books or whatever just saying "heads up, these sensitive topics are being discussed, if that's a specific issue for you, be aware" is not the same as "fatwa on the non-believer" is not the same as "these are legal but unsocial acts".

    The first has been commonplace with films literally all my life and I think since the inception of films (you get the rating screen with descriptions of what takes place). This is less about "offence" or "censorship" and more about giving people the opportunity to prepare themselves in the face of things they may find difficult. For instance, as a depressive with self-harming tendencies, it is useful to know ahead of time if graphic descriptions of self harm are occurring so I can make sure I am in a good headspace to read it, or maybe not read it if I'm in a bad headspace and choose to read it later. This is what "trigger warnings" are - just warnings that stuff is being discussed that maybe shouldn't come as a surprise if you have trauma around those things that may trigger an unwanted response. Nothing about that is about offense, it is just the papers saying it is all about that sort of stuff.

    I would argue the fatwa is also not about offense, in the typical sense, it is about an ideology that demands it be defended with violence. Whilst it has been carried out by a non state actor, it was officially backed by a state for a very long time, and backed unofficially by that state and members of it. That is more like the kind of thing the FBI did to MLK, or the CIA tried to do to Castro, or our own police force has done to protest movements here - a semi official use of force in furtherance of specific state ideological goals. Still reprehensible, but nowhere near on the scale of "offence".

    On the topic of politeness / offense, in my youth I was very much a "will say what is true even if it upsets you" person - and looking back I just clearly wasn't a nice person. If you interact with others with empathy and attempts at understanding, even if you disagree with them, you shouldn't aim to hurt them. And much of the online discussions about things that do harm people are quite easily solvable - take misgendering and such, v few people find it an unforgivable sin if people occasionally accidentally misgender them; what they are against is purposeful and continuous misgendering even after it has been explained because that shows a level of contempt for them as a person. In the same way as someone with "William" on their birth certificate may prefer to go as "Bill" or, like my dad, prefer to go by their middle name - what's the issue with using someone's preferred name and pronouns, when it does no harm to you and is so immensely important to them?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,708
    edited August 16
    It's only possible for large numbers of people to live together relatively harmoniously in crowded cities because most people make the effort not to give offence most of the time.

    So, I want to live in a society where people are free to cause offence, but where that freedom is exercised infrequently. This is a fine balancing act. If you don't exercise a freedom then, at some point, the freedom ceases to exist. And yet, needlessly causing offence reduces the sum total of human happiness. It is a clear social ill to be discouraged.

    One of the social functions of a performer, such as Jerry Sadowitz, is to say and do things that wouldn't be socially acceptable at a wedding, or a night out. It's to be expected that we would generally disapprove of such things, but allow them to happen. I'm never likely to choose to go to see Jerry Sadowitz perform, but I hope just enough people will do so to prove that we remain a free society.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,013

    Dura_Ace said:

    The most baffling part of the whole transphobic sticker/PCSO contretemps is why the woman chose to have and record for subsequent distribution a lengthy debate with the Plastic Police on the doorstep instead of telling them to fuck off.

    Possible attention starved conflict seeker. PB.com regulars may know the type.

    If she had told them to fuck off, they would have arrested her for a verbal assault on a police officer - it would have given them exactly the opening they needed.

    No they don't. I've told plastic and regular cops to fuck off plenty of times.

    It's never in your interest to interact or engage with the police to any degree.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 925
    kle4 said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Balrog said:

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT.
    The crisis in schools is another thing not yet visible in the urgent in tray.
    I have remarked on PB before that I've been thinking about going back into teaching for September.
    We are now six weeks since my application for a DBS (I've had one before, and have moved once since, in the same Police authority).
    Still nowt. Target is 14 days.
    Thinking of giving up and doing summat else. Have had positive responses for potential employment from several schools, but they can't just wait for my DBS to come, with no position filled. Or not come.
    Another shambles.

    Surely DBS should be instant in today's digital age ?
    We recruited someone from London recently, and the Met took 6 months to do the DBS.
    I've applied for a job in school (non teaching), since retirement, to help with new energy bills. Been waiting for a Dbs for a month now. I don’t think it will be resolved for September. Both me and the school are now stuck.
    Have you tried Disclosure Scotland. They provide same criminal records check service as DBS for anyone in the UK but historically are much faster. They used to take a week, I don't know how it takes now. They look at the same national systems as DBS so just as valid.
    Shhhh!

    SNPbad!

    Never deviate from PB’s favourite memes.
    How is that an SNP story? You’ll be saying Rangers and Celtic being shit at football are due to the SNP next.
    Disclosure Scotland is an executive agency of the Scottish Government. It works well. The English agency doesn’t.

    https://www.mygov.scot/organisations/disclosure-scotland

    Shall we judge the performance of the English government by Manchester United results?
    I'm just thinking back to when Rangers went bust thanks to HMRC, an executive agency of UKG, requiring that taxes be paid. I seem to recall that quite a few fans blamed the SNP (albeit amongst other things).
    Not really a plausible story. As if HMRC actually got somebody to pay tax.
    HMRC won the court case (after many years), but they didn’t get a penny, because Rangers no longer legally exists.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-40501361
    Sounds like HMRC.
    It is reminiscent of the Covid loans fraud scandal: a lot of the companies were subsequently simply wrapped up. A lot of people who should be behind bars are instead laughing all the way to the bank.

    The cheek is that “Rangers” still claim all their pre-2012 achievements. Funny that. They don’t exist for tax purposes, but they do for sporting purposes.
    Of course they do, because the club is the fans, not the legal entity. It's the same reason why AFC Wimbledon has the history of Wimbledon FC (and the Milton Keynes franchise has had to agree to that).
    Er, they absolutely are the legal entity, that's their formal existence. If that's meaningless then its totally correct they shouldn't be able to benefit from a tax wheeze.
    Their formal existence, sure. But not their emotional existence. Unless you're going to claim, for example, that Middlesbrough FC has no history before 1986.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,691
    I disagree with the core message of the "sticks and stones" rhyme. Words can hurt more than actions. Words can be a form of violence. Mental not physical but violence nonetheless. There's no binary rule imo that words are in one domain and actions in another more serious one. All cases on their merits.
  • So glad that dickhead "IncorrectHorseB" has left, what a prat
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,693
     
    kinabalu said:

    I disagree with the core message of the "sticks and stones" rhyme. Words can hurt more than actions. Words can be a form of violence. Mental not physical but violence nonetheless. There's no binary rule imo that words are in one domain and actions in another more serious one. All cases on their merits.

    ok ok, I take it back.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 43,148

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
    And? It's still sexual assault and if the initial posters didn't mention the issue who is liable - I suspect the venue becomes jointly so once they are aware of the issue after the first show

    If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
    Is a strip club sexual assault? A live drawing class? Surely not, and surely the same applies to a comedy venue hosting a known outrageous comic?
    That would depend upon the nature of the outrage on the night in question, and whether either venue or audience were given sufficient warning.

    A feature of Sadowitz's comedy is that he tries to avoid much disclosure of what goes on in his performances, as he values the element of surprise (and has regularly stated as much).
    It's perhaps then disingenuous to claim that everyone ought to have known what to expect.

    In any event it's not an assault on freedom of speech for a venue to change its mind about hosting him. Rather, both sides need to look at the contract they signed.
    His fellow comics claiming "this is a Spartacus moment" are still more ridiculous. Are they all going to be exposing themselves in sympathy ?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,619
    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
    And? It's still sexual assault and if the initial posters didn't mention the issue who is liable - I suspect the venue becomes jointly so once they are aware of the issue after the first show

    If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
    Is a strip club sexual assault? A live drawing class? Surely not, and surely the same applies to a comedy venue hosting a known outrageous comic?
    That would depend upon the nature of the outrage on the night in question, and whether either venue or audience were given sufficient warning.

    A feature of Sadowitz's comedy is that he tries to avoid much disclosure of what goes on in his performances, as he values the element of surprise (and has regularly stated as much).
    It's perhaps then disingenuous to claim that everyone ought to have known what to expect.

    In any event it's not an assault on freedom of speech for a venue to change its mind about hosting him. Rather, both sides need to look at the contract they signed.
    His fellow comics claiming "this is a Spartacus moment" are still more ridiculous. Are they all going to be exposing themselves in sympathy ?
    Or you could actually research what you are talking about. The advertising for the gig told everyone, beforehand, that “Sadowitz will get his dick out”
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 29,112
    Selebian said:

    ydoethur said:

    Will this cure the lack of thread problem?

    oh, and THIRST!!!!

    On topic, does this new zeitgest mean I can't call the DfE c***s any more? Because if so, it sucks harder than Carrie on being promised a bonus.

    They are PWWFHBRTAC

    People Who Would Formerly Have Been Referred To As C***s

    Incidentally, I am trying to work out how to monetise my idea that "Criminals" should be labelled as "Members Of The Legally Challenged Community".

    Should be able to get a medium sized government funded charity out of that one. Which leaves the critical question - what kind of Range Rover should I drive as head of said charity?
    A stolen one? :wink:
    Well "stolen" if you think that was a misuse of charity funds. Which would make you a bigot who needs to be cancelled, of course.

    Is an Overfinch too much?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,109
    edited August 16
    Is this really the zeitgeist cyclefree asks? The answer is yes, why even ask?

    The avoidance of offence I am quite sure a lot of people think is a genuine, legal matter. So many people use a 'I believe in X, but you shouldn't be able to say Y' without even getting close to issues of discriminatory or inciting speech, or indeed issues of facing consequences for your words on a non legal basis.

    As cyclefree notes the courts have, thankfully, rubbished the idea being approached by police over 'non crime hate incidents' is not a big deal, yet it is abundantly clear the police don't care, that's why it had to go to the court of appeal in the first place, as their attitude seems to be that their heart was in the right place, and who cares about what is either lawful or reasonable.

    I think the point about politeness out of fear of the consequences is simply cowardice masquerading as etiquette is a very good one. I'm as guilty of it as anyone, as it is just easier and, on some issues, safer, and I think we will see more and more of it.

    As to the question of whether religion or belief should be a protected characteristic or not, I confess I'm not really certain. I feel like removing it would not achieve anything or could have negative consequences. Certainly people and institutions act like things are protected characteristics which are not already, and if the zeitgeist is treating these things as inviolable, or emphasising as a matter of practicality best not to even risk it, what would really change? I feel like there are risks of not including religion or belief, even if at present we are giving too much deference.

    There's any number of things you probably should not say or do to give offence, but we should feel able to offend. We should not be obliged to be deferential to the beliefs of others, yet this is not a recent thing, just look at Shirley Williams and the audience in that QT clip outraged at the idea someone caused offence to others, as if that offence is the person's fault rather than oversensitive believers.

    I maintain, and I know people disagree with this conclusion, that if you cannot take mockery or comment of your faith without getting angry, then I feel like your faith is not actually that strong, because you act like a child and lash out rather than, I don't know, turning the other cheek or letting petty matters not affect your belief.
  • Simon_PeachSimon_Peach Posts: 281
    A current item on BBC News illustrates the current vogue for being offended and making sure the world knows that you are offended:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-62552706

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 103,034
    edited August 16
    Yes absolutely freedom of religion and belief should be protected. In fact that also ensures tolerance of those practising other religions or holding other beliefs
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,347
    eek said:

    FPT

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Balrog said:

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT.
    The crisis in schools is another thing not yet visible in the urgent in tray.
    I have remarked on PB before that I've been thinking about going back into teaching for September.
    We are now six weeks since my application for a DBS (I've had one before, and have moved once since, in the same Police authority).
    Still nowt. Target is 14 days.
    Thinking of giving up and doing summat else. Have had positive responses for potential employment from several schools, but they can't just wait for my DBS to come, with no position filled. Or not come.
    Another shambles.

    Surely DBS should be instant in today's digital age ?
    We recruited someone from London recently, and the Met took 6 months to do the DBS.
    I've applied for a job in school (non teaching), since retirement, to help with new energy bills. Been waiting for a Dbs for a month now. I don’t think it will be resolved for September. Both me and the school are now stuck.
    Have you tried Disclosure Scotland. They provide same criminal records check service as DBS for anyone in the UK but historically are much faster. They used to take a week, I don't know how it takes now. They look at the same national systems as DBS so just as valid.
    Shhhh!Dr

    SNPbad!

    Never deviate from PB’s favourite memes.
    How is that an SNP story? You’ll be saying Rangers and Celtic being shit at football are due to the SNP next.
    Disclosure Scotland is an executive agency of the Scottish Government. It works well. The English agency doesn’t.

    https://www.mygov.scot/organisations/disclosure-scotland

    Shall we judge the performance of the English government by Manchester United results?
    I had a dbs back in days last summer. A few anecdotes do not data make.
    Angus Council recently took more than 5 months to renew my MiL's Blue badge. It was applied for in good time and not particularly complicated, Strangely enough the age related disabilities that shhe had 3 years ago have not gotten better in the meantime. It took weeks to confirm that Angus at least would not give a ticket to someone with an out of date badge but Dundee never replied to numerous inquiries as to what they would do with an out of date, out of area badge.

    The backlog for registration of title deeds in Scotland is also at record levels and seriously impeding onward transactions.

    Both of these seem to arise from working from home in jobs that require you to look at physical things not readily available online. When you have the stories about DVLA or Passports this seems to be an endemic public sector problem from which Scotland is not immune.
    My Dad (83) is currently still without his driving licence after a poorly time eye test in December (between two sets of cataract surgery). He should have been fine to drive for the last 7 months. Recently retested and all good, but still no licence.

    Stories from the DVLA from covid are atrocious. They need a rocket up there arses. There is no competition - you can't go to another provider, so its a captive market. So for all the talk of privatisation (you know who you are) beware that state run entities are not always better.
    One of the best ideas to have come out of the Tory leadship race, was Kemi Badenoch’s suggestion that the six-figure heads of arms-length agencies such as the DVLA, need to be held accountable for such failures to perform their basic functions. This has gone on for two years now, yet no-one has been fired for the shambles. If DVLA were a private sector company, the shareholders would have fired the CEO a long time ago.
    What if the CEO says in order to succeed they need either more money from govt or fewer things to do? It is the government ministers who should be responsible, they are in charge.
    They make their income from the fees they charge for their services - and from selling your data to parking cowboys, in fact maybe that’s why they’re short of resources after the pandemic.
    So DVLA net gives money to the treasury for performing a core govt responsibility but can't find the staff who are happy to do the job without striking? In which case I would expect the govt minister to say keep a bit more of the cash, give the staff a pay rise before inflation gets even worse, and improve the service.
    Can't do that without breaking civil service pay rates which would create problems elsewhere

    The DVLA issues are interesting because large parts of it are functioning perfectly (pass your driving test and the new license arrives in days) but anything out of the ordinary or requires a human being and things fall apart.
    Driving tests were being hijacked by scalpers a month or two ago, so not great at all.

    I don't think a link between DVLA pay and civil service pay absolves ministers of responsibility for making it work. Either set national civil service pay rates at a level that works, or change the system to allow more flexibility. Either are perfectly possible.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 43,148
    edited August 16
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
    And? It's still sexual assault and if the initial posters didn't mention the issue who is liable - I suspect the venue becomes jointly so once they are aware of the issue after the first show

    If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
    Is a strip club sexual assault? A live drawing class? Surely not, and surely the same applies to a comedy venue hosting a known outrageous comic?
    That would depend upon the nature of the outrage on the night in question, and whether either venue or audience were given sufficient warning.

    A feature of Sadowitz's comedy is that he tries to avoid much disclosure of what goes on in his performances, as he values the element of surprise (and has regularly stated as much).
    It's perhaps then disingenuous to claim that everyone ought to have known what to expect.

    In any event it's not an assault on freedom of speech for a venue to change its mind about hosting him. Rather, both sides need to look at the contract they signed.
    His fellow comics claiming "this is a Spartacus moment" are still more ridiculous. Are they all going to be exposing themselves in sympathy ?
    Or you could actually research what you are talking about. The advertising for the gig told everyone, beforehand, that “Sadowitz will get his dick out”
    How does that invalidate the points I made ?
    We don't know what actually happened.

    And, btw, can you link to said advertising ?

    This is what the ticket site said:
    https://tickets.edfringe.com/whats-on/jerry-sadowitz-not-for-anyone
    Jerry Sadowitz returns with his whacky impressions of Greta Thunberg, Frankie Boyle and deep vein thrombosis. He also promises to do less hate-fuelled swearing and focus more on faux liberal pish in order to appeal to the middle class and their disposable income and personalities. 'Please note that I might just do card tricks and say nothing for a whole hour or I might just do the usual "screaming fascist" schtick. Or both. Patrons may wish to drink alcohol pre-show to avoid boredom, embarrassment and guilt.'
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,029
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    The Fringe hosted the Puppetry of the Penis guys for years. So long as everyone involved knows that willy waving may be involved & has the choice to be there or not, taking offence at that seems ludicrous.

    There seems to be a lot of commentary on this by people that weren’t there & didn’t see Jerry’s act. Has anyone who was there on the night said anything?

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,058
    edited August 16

    A current item on BBC News illustrates the current vogue for being offended and making sure the world knows that you are offended:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-62552706

    It’s very sad to see comedians joining the ranks of the professionally offended. Eclair has made dozens of risqué jokes over the years, but now wants to join in the woke mob trying to get things cancelled.

    Meanwhile, I’m sure Jerry Sadowitz getting cancelled has sold several thousand tickets for his next tour, and the Pleasance in Edinburgh will be known as hosting the Mainstream rather than the Fringe next year.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,661
    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,594
    Betfair next prime minister
    1.09 Liz Truss 92%
    11 Rishi Sunak 9%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.09 Liz Truss 92%
    11 Rishi Sunak 9%
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,109
    Driver said:

    kle4 said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Balrog said:

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT.
    The crisis in schools is another thing not yet visible in the urgent in tray.
    I have remarked on PB before that I've been thinking about going back into teaching for September.
    We are now six weeks since my application for a DBS (I've had one before, and have moved once since, in the same Police authority).
    Still nowt. Target is 14 days.
    Thinking of giving up and doing summat else. Have had positive responses for potential employment from several schools, but they can't just wait for my DBS to come, with no position filled. Or not come.
    Another shambles.

    Surely DBS should be instant in today's digital age ?
    We recruited someone from London recently, and the Met took 6 months to do the DBS.
    I've applied for a job in school (non teaching), since retirement, to help with new energy bills. Been waiting for a Dbs for a month now. I don’t think it will be resolved for September. Both me and the school are now stuck.
    Have you tried Disclosure Scotland. They provide same criminal records check service as DBS for anyone in the UK but historically are much faster. They used to take a week, I don't know how it takes now. They look at the same national systems as DBS so just as valid.
    Shhhh!

    SNPbad!

    Never deviate from PB’s favourite memes.
    How is that an SNP story? You’ll be saying Rangers and Celtic being shit at football are due to the SNP next.
    Disclosure Scotland is an executive agency of the Scottish Government. It works well. The English agency doesn’t.

    https://www.mygov.scot/organisations/disclosure-scotland

    Shall we judge the performance of the English government by Manchester United results?
    I'm just thinking back to when Rangers went bust thanks to HMRC, an executive agency of UKG, requiring that taxes be paid. I seem to recall that quite a few fans blamed the SNP (albeit amongst other things).
    Not really a plausible story. As if HMRC actually got somebody to pay tax.
    HMRC won the court case (after many years), but they didn’t get a penny, because Rangers no longer legally exists.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-40501361
    Sounds like HMRC.
    It is reminiscent of the Covid loans fraud scandal: a lot of the companies were subsequently simply wrapped up. A lot of people who should be behind bars are instead laughing all the way to the bank.

    The cheek is that “Rangers” still claim all their pre-2012 achievements. Funny that. They don’t exist for tax purposes, but they do for sporting purposes.
    Of course they do, because the club is the fans, not the legal entity. It's the same reason why AFC Wimbledon has the history of Wimbledon FC (and the Milton Keynes franchise has had to agree to that).
    Er, they absolutely are the legal entity, that's their formal existence. If that's meaningless then its totally correct they shouldn't be able to benefit from a tax wheeze.
    Their formal existence, sure. But not their emotional existence. Unless you're going to claim, for example, that Middlesbrough FC has no history before 1986.
    If they want to emphasise their emotional existence they can have their legal existence match it and face up to any financial or legal consequences of that. If they want a new legal identity for whatever reason, perfectly legitimate, but I would claim their legacy identity has that history but not them directly.

    In the same way we do call the Conservatives Tories, and the legacy of the Tories is relevant, but they are not formally Tories and cannot claim directly its achievements.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,417
    Mr. Peach, I read that Crown Paints story a little earlier. Thought the joke was quite amusing, but even if you think it's a dud I'm perplexed as to how offence comes into it.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,619
    edited August 16
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
    And? It's still sexual assault and if the initial posters didn't mention the issue who is liable - I suspect the venue becomes jointly so once they are aware of the issue after the first show

    If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
    Is a strip club sexual assault? A live drawing class? Surely not, and surely the same applies to a comedy venue hosting a known outrageous comic?
    That would depend upon the nature of the outrage on the night in question, and whether either venue or audience were given sufficient warning.

    A feature of Sadowitz's comedy is that he tries to avoid much disclosure of what goes on in his performances, as he values the element of surprise (and has regularly stated as much).
    It's perhaps then disingenuous to claim that everyone ought to have known what to expect.

    In any event it's not an assault on freedom of speech for a venue to change its mind about hosting him. Rather, both sides need to look at the contract they signed.
    His fellow comics claiming "this is a Spartacus moment" are still more ridiculous. Are they all going to be exposing themselves in sympathy ?
    Or you could actually research what you are talking about. The advertising for the gig told everyone, beforehand, that “Sadowitz will get his dick out”
    How does that invalidate the points I made ?
    We don't know what actually happened.
    I do (I think). I have comedian friends who’ve told me what happened

    He got his dick out. As was forewarned. Some lady got offended. Exposing yourself *could* be seen as a sexual offence. The Pleasance got scared and cancelled him
  • Simon_PeachSimon_Peach Posts: 281

    Mr. Peach, I read that Crown Paints story a little earlier. Thought the joke was quite amusing, but even if you think it's a dud I'm perplexed as to how offence comes into it.

    Agree that the offendee has had to work hard on this one…
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,127

    So glad that dickhead "IncorrectHorseB" has left, what a prat

    You haven't made it on PB until there's an unconvincing parody version of you :wink: Ask HYUFD. Ask SeanT (although in his case he has parody versions of parody versions).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,109

    ydoethur said:

    Will this cure the lack of thread problem?

    oh, and THIRST!!!!

    On topic, does this new zeitgest mean I can't call the DfE c***s any more? Because if so, it sucks harder than Carrie on being promised a bonus.

    Incidentally, I am trying to work out how to monetise my idea that "Criminals" should be labelled as "Members Of The Legally Challenged Community".

    I do recall Clive Stafford Smith of Reprieve at a talk going on about not using labels like criminals, and whilst I generally am on the side of us treating the convicted better, during and after serving their time (and of ways to serve less time, but more usefully), he never really came up with an answer to questions people had about what we say instead.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,199

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.09 Liz Truss 92%
    11 Rishi Sunak 9%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.09 Liz Truss 92%
    11 Rishi Sunak 9%

    Dominic Raab -1% to be next PM?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,347
    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
    And? It's still sexual assault and if the initial posters didn't mention the issue who is liable - I suspect the venue becomes jointly so once they are aware of the issue after the first show

    If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
    Is a strip club sexual assault? A live drawing class? Surely not, and surely the same applies to a comedy venue hosting a known outrageous comic?
    That would depend upon the nature of the outrage on the night in question, and whether either venue or audience were given sufficient warning.

    A feature of Sadowitz's comedy is that he tries to avoid much disclosure of what goes on in his performances, as he values the element of surprise (and has regularly stated as much).
    It's perhaps then disingenuous to claim that everyone ought to have known what to expect.

    In any event it's not an assault on freedom of speech for a venue to change its mind about hosting him. Rather, both sides need to look at the contract they signed.
    His fellow comics claiming "this is a Spartacus moment" are still more ridiculous. Are they all going to be exposing themselves in sympathy ?
    Does it really need sufficient warning? If I went to any generic comedy night with a handful of unknown comics, if one of them got naked, I would not really think anyone has been assaulted.

    Of course it is possible that a comic does commit a sexual assault during a show, but I do struggle to see accept that mere nakedness on its own from performer on stage could constitute that.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,109
    To be briefer, for once, I feel like a fundamental issue with our modern worries over giving offence and of showing respect, is the difference between respect/tolerance and 'deference'.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,876
    So a day after Labour annouce their energy policy the price of Gas Futures reaches record levels. If traders think that the Government will pay people's bills then the price will keep going up.

    Its a bit like when a central bank tries to protect his currency, it always fails if traders smell blood.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 43,148

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,011

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
    And? It's still sexual assault and if the initial posters didn't mention the issue who is liable - I suspect the venue becomes jointly so once they are aware of the issue after the first show

    If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
    Is a strip club sexual assault? A live drawing class? Surely not, and surely the same applies to a comedy venue hosting a known outrageous comic?
    That would depend upon the nature of the outrage on the night in question, and whether either venue or audience were given sufficient warning.

    A feature of Sadowitz's comedy is that he tries to avoid much disclosure of what goes on in his performances, as he values the element of surprise (and has regularly stated as much).
    It's perhaps then disingenuous to claim that everyone ought to have known what to expect.

    In any event it's not an assault on freedom of speech for a venue to change its mind about hosting him. Rather, both sides need to look at the contract they signed.
    His fellow comics claiming "this is a Spartacus moment" are still more ridiculous. Are they all going to be exposing themselves in sympathy ?
    Does it really need sufficient warning? If I went to any generic comedy night with a handful of unknown comics, if one of them got naked, I would not really think anyone has been assaulted.

    Of course it is possible that a comic does commit a sexual assault during a show, but I do struggle to see accept that mere nakedness on its own from performer on stage could constitute that.
    I am reminded of the TV show OTT some 40 years ago which featured the Balloon Dance. There is nothing really new under the sun.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,619

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    PissChrist was, in fact, a serious piece of art. It said “this looks like heresy or sacrilege, but what I am actually saying is that all aspects of human life - even our snot, shit and piss - are sacred. And therefore beautiful. Urine is yellow, but it is golden. Celebrate”

    It was the modern art equivalent of Caravaggio scandalously portraying the apostles as dirty, sweat-stained common workmen
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,109
    edited August 16

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
    And? It's still sexual assault and if the initial posters didn't mention the issue who is liable - I suspect the venue becomes jointly so once they are aware of the issue after the first show

    If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
    Is a strip club sexual assault? A live drawing class? Surely not, and surely the same applies to a comedy venue hosting a known outrageous comic?
    That would depend upon the nature of the outrage on the night in question, and whether either venue or audience were given sufficient warning.

    A feature of Sadowitz's comedy is that he tries to avoid much disclosure of what goes on in his performances, as he values the element of surprise (and has regularly stated as much).
    It's perhaps then disingenuous to claim that everyone ought to have known what to expect.

    In any event it's not an assault on freedom of speech for a venue to change its mind about hosting him. Rather, both sides need to look at the contract they signed.
    His fellow comics claiming "this is a Spartacus moment" are still more ridiculous. Are they all going to be exposing themselves in sympathy ?
    Does it really need sufficient warning? If I went to any generic comedy night with a handful of unknown comics, if one of them got naked, I would not really think anyone has been assaulted.

    Of course it is possible that a comic does commit a sexual assault during a show, but I do struggle to see accept that mere nakedness on its own from performer on stage could constitute that.
    This may be where I'm a bit more snowflakey, but I feel like people might need at least a little heads up as to the nature of a show before deciding whether getting outraged is reasonable. A blanket note that it may contain graphic or offensive content I'd think would (or should) inure against claims of outrage and be sufficient for hosters to hold their ground on the basis that 'Look, we bloody said it might offend'.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,005

    Mr. Peach, I read that Crown Paints story a little earlier. Thought the joke was quite amusing, but even if you think it's a dud I'm perplexed as to how offence comes into it.

    Agree that the offendee has had to work hard on this one…
    Personally I thought it in poor taste, and I also thought it was quite offensive to women.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,058

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
    And? It's still sexual assault and if the initial posters didn't mention the issue who is liable - I suspect the venue becomes jointly so once they are aware of the issue after the first show

    If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
    Is a strip club sexual assault? A live drawing class? Surely not, and surely the same applies to a comedy venue hosting a known outrageous comic?
    That would depend upon the nature of the outrage on the night in question, and whether either venue or audience were given sufficient warning.

    A feature of Sadowitz's comedy is that he tries to avoid much disclosure of what goes on in his performances, as he values the element of surprise (and has regularly stated as much).
    It's perhaps then disingenuous to claim that everyone ought to have known what to expect.

    In any event it's not an assault on freedom of speech for a venue to change its mind about hosting him. Rather, both sides need to look at the contract they signed.
    His fellow comics claiming "this is a Spartacus moment" are still more ridiculous. Are they all going to be exposing themselves in sympathy ?
    Does it really need sufficient warning? If I went to any generic comedy night with a handful of unknown comics, if one of them got naked, I would not really think anyone has been assaulted.

    Of course it is possible that a comic does commit a sexual assault during a show, but I do struggle to see accept that mere nakedness on its own from performer on stage could constitute that.
    Indeed. Sadowitz has been willy-waving on stage for at least three decades.

    The standard expected of a random night in a comedy club is if anything a little higher, than a show for a named act known for his outrageous material. If it says Jerry Sadowitz (or Frankie Boyle, Jimmy Carr, Bernard Manning etc) on the ticket, then you know it’s not going to be an evening of PG-rated jokes you might otherwise hear on afternoon radio.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 29,112
    kle4 said:

    Is this really the zeitgeist cyclefree asks? The answer is yes, why even ask?

    The avoidance of offence I am quite sure a lot of people think is a genuine, legal matter. So many people use a 'I believe in X, but you shouldn't be able to say Y' without even getting close to issues of discriminatory or inciting speech, or indeed issues of facing consequences for your words on a non legal basis.

    As cyclefree notes the courts have, thankfully, rubbished the idea being approached by police over 'non crime hate incidents' is not a big deal, yet it is abundantly clear the police don't care, that's why it had to go to the court of appeal in the first place, as their attitude seems to be that their heart was in the right place, and who cares about what is either lawful or reasonable.

    I think the point about politeness out of fear of the consequences is simply cowardice masquerading as etiquette is a very good one. I'm as guilty of it as anyone, as it is just easier and, on some issues, safer, and I think we will see more and more of it.

    As to the question of whether religion or belief should be a protected characteristic or not, I confess I'm not really certain. I feel like removing it would not achieve anything or could have negative consequences. Certainly people and institutions act like things are protected characteristics which are not already, and if the zeitgeist is treating these things as inviolable, or emphasising as a matter of practicality best not to even risk it, what would really change? I feel like there are risks of not including religion or belief, even if at present we are giving too much deference.

    There's any number of things you probably should not say or do to give offence, but we should feel able to offend. We should not be obliged to be deferential to the beliefs of others, yet this is not a recent thing, just look at Shirley Williams and the audience in that QT clip outraged at the idea someone caused offence to others, as if that offence is the person's fault rather than oversensitive believers.

    I maintain, and I know people disagree with this conclusion, that if you cannot take mockery or comment of your faith without getting angry, then I feel like your faith is not actually that strong, because you act like a child and lash out rather than, I don't know, turning the other cheek or letting petty matters not affect your belief.

    I think the bit that people missed, is that the police are attempting to create a new category of crime.

    What penalty should we have for wearing a loud shirt in a built up area? What should it be for being in possession of an offensive wife?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,347

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
    And? It's still sexual assault and if the initial posters didn't mention the issue who is liable - I suspect the venue becomes jointly so once they are aware of the issue after the first show

    If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
    Is a strip club sexual assault? A live drawing class? Surely not, and surely the same applies to a comedy venue hosting a known outrageous comic?
    That would depend upon the nature of the outrage on the night in question, and whether either venue or audience were given sufficient warning.

    A feature of Sadowitz's comedy is that he tries to avoid much disclosure of what goes on in his performances, as he values the element of surprise (and has regularly stated as much).
    It's perhaps then disingenuous to claim that everyone ought to have known what to expect.

    In any event it's not an assault on freedom of speech for a venue to change its mind about hosting him. Rather, both sides need to look at the contract they signed.
    His fellow comics claiming "this is a Spartacus moment" are still more ridiculous. Are they all going to be exposing themselves in sympathy ?
    Does it really need sufficient warning? If I went to any generic comedy night with a handful of unknown comics, if one of them got naked, I would not really think anyone has been assaulted.

    Of course it is possible that a comic does commit a sexual assault during a show, but I do struggle to see accept that mere nakedness on its own from performer on stage could constitute that.
    I am reminded of the TV show OTT some 40 years ago which featured the Balloon Dance. There is nothing really new under the sun.
    Or our friend the Ukrainian president......

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oua0Puihrkc
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,109

    Mr. Peach, I read that Crown Paints story a little earlier. Thought the joke was quite amusing, but even if you think it's a dud I'm perplexed as to how offence comes into it.

    Agree that the offendee has had to work hard on this one…
    Personally I thought it in poor taste, and I also thought it was quite offensive to women.
    It was a lame attempt at humour - hardly seems the sort of thing to launch dozens of complaints. Not everyone will find the same thing funny, and the company will decide whether going that route worked or not. If it didn't, they'll do different kinds of ad in future.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 29,112
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Will this cure the lack of thread problem?

    oh, and THIRST!!!!

    On topic, does this new zeitgest mean I can't call the DfE c***s any more? Because if so, it sucks harder than Carrie on being promised a bonus.

    Incidentally, I am trying to work out how to monetise my idea that "Criminals" should be labelled as "Members Of The Legally Challenged Community".

    I do recall Clive Stafford Smith of Reprieve at a talk going on about not using labels like criminals, and whilst I generally am on the side of us treating the convicted better, during and after serving their time (and of ways to serve less time, but more usefully), he never really came up with an answer to questions people had about what we say instead.
    The pointlessness of changing the label, but doing nothing about the bottle, the shelf it is on, the shops it is available in, the price it is sold for....

    As the great philosopher said about the invention of the wheel - "OK, Mr Smartypants, what colour should it be?"
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,011
    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 43,148

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
    And? It's still sexual assault and if the initial posters didn't mention the issue who is liable - I suspect the venue becomes jointly so once they are aware of the issue after the first show

    If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
    Is a strip club sexual assault? A live drawing class? Surely not, and surely the same applies to a comedy venue hosting a known outrageous comic?
    That would depend upon the nature of the outrage on the night in question, and whether either venue or audience were given sufficient warning.

    A feature of Sadowitz's comedy is that he tries to avoid much disclosure of what goes on in his performances, as he values the element of surprise (and has regularly stated as much).
    It's perhaps then disingenuous to claim that everyone ought to have known what to expect.

    In any event it's not an assault on freedom of speech for a venue to change its mind about hosting him. Rather, both sides need to look at the contract they signed.
    His fellow comics claiming "this is a Spartacus moment" are still more ridiculous. Are they all going to be exposing themselves in sympathy ?
    Does it really need sufficient warning? If I went to any generic comedy night with a handful of unknown comics, if one of them got naked, I would not really think anyone has been assaulted.

    Of course it is possible that a comic does commit a sexual assault during a show, but I do struggle to see accept that mere nakedness on its own from performer on stage could constitute that.
    Well neither would I.
    Just pointing out that other than those who were actually there, and omniscient @Leon , we don't know for certain what happened.

    The cancellation of further performances is a possibly related, but separate issue.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,109
    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Politeness is a virtue, but I think she makes a decent point that we get enforced or faux politeness, and that is not so much a virtue.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,005
    kle4 said:

    Mr. Peach, I read that Crown Paints story a little earlier. Thought the joke was quite amusing, but even if you think it's a dud I'm perplexed as to how offence comes into it.

    Agree that the offendee has had to work hard on this one…
    Personally I thought it in poor taste, and I also thought it was quite offensive to women.
    It was a lame attempt at humour - hardly seems the sort of thing to launch dozens of complaints. Not everyone will find the same thing funny, and the company will decide whether going that route worked or not. If it didn't, they'll do different kinds of ad in future.
    Will it, or will it not, increase sales?
    Is an ad like this likely to get the company talked about and therefore brought into public attention?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 43,148
    Sandpit said:

    A current item on BBC News illustrates the current vogue for being offended and making sure the world knows that you are offended:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-62552706

    It’s very sad to see comedians joining the ranks of the professionally offended...
    Including, apparently, Sadowitz.

    Jerry Sadowitz hits back after show cancelled: ‘My act is being cheapened’
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,969


    Of course it is possible that a comic does commit a sexual assault during a show, but I do struggle to see accept that mere nakedness on its own from performer on stage could constitute that.

    I know it is, but I don't think nakedness by itself should be seen as offensive.
    Having a daughter made me realise it's entirely socially constructed rather than anything inherent (Even if it does go back thousands of years).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,109
    Dura_Ace said:

    The most baffling part of the whole transphobic sticker/PCSO contretemps is why the woman chose to have and record for subsequent distribution a lengthy debate with the Plastic Police on the doorstep instead of telling them to fuck off.

    Possible attention starved conflict seeker. PB.com regulars may know the type.

    Maybe. Although given how angrily the police (or their support) react to people disagreeing with them I'd say even having a debate with them is bolder than many people would do. We're not all Dura Ace style devil may cares, alas!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,109

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
    And? It's still sexual assault and if the initial posters didn't mention the issue who is liable - I suspect the venue becomes jointly so once they are aware of the issue after the first show

    If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
    Is a strip club sexual assault? A live drawing class? Surely not, and surely the same applies to a comedy venue hosting a known outrageous comic?
    That would depend upon the nature of the outrage on the night in question, and whether either venue or audience were given sufficient warning.

    A feature of Sadowitz's comedy is that he tries to avoid much disclosure of what goes on in his performances, as he values the element of surprise (and has regularly stated as much).
    It's perhaps then disingenuous to claim that everyone ought to have known what to expect.

    In any event it's not an assault on freedom of speech for a venue to change its mind about hosting him. Rather, both sides need to look at the contract they signed.
    His fellow comics claiming "this is a Spartacus moment" are still more ridiculous. Are they all going to be exposing themselves in sympathy ?
    Does it really need sufficient warning? If I went to any generic comedy night with a handful of unknown comics, if one of them got naked, I would not really think anyone has been assaulted.

    Of course it is possible that a comic does commit a sexual assault during a show, but I do struggle to see accept that mere nakedness on its own from performer on stage could constitute that.
    I am reminded of the TV show OTT some 40 years ago which featured the Balloon Dance. There is nothing really new under the sun.
    Or our friend the Ukrainian president......

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oua0Puihrkc
    That better have been actual playing not miming or I will lose all respect for this charlatan.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 43,148

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    I agree - and said as much upthread.
    That doesn't make politeness undesirable.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,109
    Pulpstar said:


    Of course it is possible that a comic does commit a sexual assault during a show, but I do struggle to see accept that mere nakedness on its own from performer on stage could constitute that.

    I know it is, but I don't think nakedness by itself should be seen as offensive.
    Having a daughter made me realise it's entirely socially constructed rather than anything inherent (Even if it does go back thousands of years).
    I don't have stats on it, but I think, certainly here, we've always been very prudish about nudity. Any hint of sexuality let alone nudity seemingly sees a film rating go up quite significantly. That still seems to hold out now, whereas language appears to be getting less strict in that sense, at least from the early days of South Park:

    Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 43,148
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
    And? It's still sexual assault and if the initial posters didn't mention the issue who is liable - I suspect the venue becomes jointly so once they are aware of the issue after the first show

    If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
    Is a strip club sexual assault? A live drawing class? Surely not, and surely the same applies to a comedy venue hosting a known outrageous comic?
    That would depend upon the nature of the outrage on the night in question, and whether either venue or audience were given sufficient warning.

    A feature of Sadowitz's comedy is that he tries to avoid much disclosure of what goes on in his performances, as he values the element of surprise (and has regularly stated as much).
    It's perhaps then disingenuous to claim that everyone ought to have known what to expect.

    In any event it's not an assault on freedom of speech for a venue to change its mind about hosting him. Rather, both sides need to look at the contract they signed.
    His fellow comics claiming "this is a Spartacus moment" are still more ridiculous. Are they all going to be exposing themselves in sympathy ?
    Does it really need sufficient warning? If I went to any generic comedy night with a handful of unknown comics, if one of them got naked, I would not really think anyone has been assaulted.

    Of course it is possible that a comic does commit a sexual assault during a show, but I do struggle to see accept that mere nakedness on its own from performer on stage could constitute that.
    This may be where I'm a bit more snowflakey, but I feel like people might need at least a little heads up as to the nature of a show before deciding whether getting outraged is reasonable. A blanket note that it may contain graphic or offensive content I'd think would (or should) inure against claims of outrage and be sufficient for hosters to hold their ground on the basis that 'Look, we bloody said it might offend'.
    What the venue actually advertised about the act:
    https://tickets.edfringe.com/whats-on/jerry-sadowitz-not-for-anyone
    Jerry Sadowitz returns with his whacky impressions of Greta Thunberg, Frankie Boyle and deep vein thrombosis. He also promises to do less hate-fuelled swearing and focus more on faux liberal pish in order to appeal to the middle class and their disposable income and personalities. 'Please note that I might just do card tricks and say nothing for a whole hour or I might just do the usual "screaming fascist" schtick. Or both. Patrons may wish to drink alcohol pre-show to avoid boredom, embarrassment and guilt.'

    I haven't come across any other adverts, FWIW.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,263
    edited August 16

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
    And? It's still sexual assault and if the initial posters didn't mention the issue who is liable - I suspect the venue becomes jointly so once they are aware of the issue after the first show

    If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
    Is a strip club sexual assault? A live drawing class? Surely not, and surely the same applies to a comedy venue hosting a known outrageous comic?
    That would depend upon the nature of the outrage on the night in question, and whether either venue or audience were given sufficient warning.

    A feature of Sadowitz's comedy is that he tries to avoid much disclosure of what goes on in his performances, as he values the element of surprise (and has regularly stated as much).
    It's perhaps then disingenuous to claim that everyone ought to have known what to expect.

    In any event it's not an assault on freedom of speech for a venue to change its mind about hosting him. Rather, both sides need to look at the contract they signed.
    His fellow comics claiming "this is a Spartacus moment" are still more ridiculous. Are they all going to be exposing themselves in sympathy ?
    Does it really need sufficient warning? If I went to any generic comedy night with a handful of unknown comics, if one of them got naked, I would not really think anyone has been assaulted.

    Of course it is possible that a comic does commit a sexual assault during a show, but I do struggle to see accept that mere nakedness on its own from performer on stage could constitute that.
    I am reminded of the TV show OTT some 40 years ago which featured the Balloon Dance. There is nothing really new under the sun.
    Though both the Malcom Hardee Ballon Dance and the Emperor's New Clothes sketch on Who Dares Wins were very cleverly done to ensure that you never actually saw anything. It was all in your filthy mind, which is where it should be, because the pictures are bound to be better in your imagination. (They certainly are in mine.) Ask Humphrey Lyttleton and Samantha.

    And there is a genuine problem here. Taboo breaking is exciting and thrilling, and that's entertaining. Great- we all need a laugh these days. But the taboo line needs to keep moving to keep the thrill going. And eventually it can cross a line into things that are genuinely harmful. I don't know what the answer is, beyond Don't Be A Dick being a good maxim for life, and saving showing your dick for special friends being good advice.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,708
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Politeness is a virtue, but I think she makes a decent point that we get enforced or faux politeness, and that is not so much a virtue.
    Faux politeness is something of a middle-class English vice that is really quite infuriating.

    On our last visit my stepmother caused my wife serious offence and excluded her from a day out, by refusing to use the bus instead of the train. As we were leaving she attempted a sort of smoothing over, with a sorry-not-sorry non-apology, which was a lot worse than saying nothing.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,109

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
    And? It's still sexual assault and if the initial posters didn't mention the issue who is liable - I suspect the venue becomes jointly so once they are aware of the issue after the first show

    If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
    Is a strip club sexual assault? A live drawing class? Surely not, and surely the same applies to a comedy venue hosting a known outrageous comic?
    That would depend upon the nature of the outrage on the night in question, and whether either venue or audience were given sufficient warning.

    A feature of Sadowitz's comedy is that he tries to avoid much disclosure of what goes on in his performances, as he values the element of surprise (and has regularly stated as much).
    It's perhaps then disingenuous to claim that everyone ought to have known what to expect.

    In any event it's not an assault on freedom of speech for a venue to change its mind about hosting him. Rather, both sides need to look at the contract they signed.
    His fellow comics claiming "this is a Spartacus moment" are still more ridiculous. Are they all going to be exposing themselves in sympathy ?
    Does it really need sufficient warning? If I went to any generic comedy night with a handful of unknown comics, if one of them got naked, I would not really think anyone has been assaulted.

    Of course it is possible that a comic does commit a sexual assault during a show, but I do struggle to see accept that mere nakedness on its own from performer on stage could constitute that.
    I am reminded of the TV show OTT some 40 years ago which featured the Balloon Dance. There is nothing really new under the sun.
    Though both the Malcom Hardee Ballon Dance and the Emperor's New Clothes sketch on Who Dares Wins were very cleverly done to ensure that you never actually saw anything. It was all in your filthy mind, which is where it should be, because the pictures are bound to be better in your imagination. (They certainly are in mine.) Ask Humphrey Lyttleton and Samantha.

    And there is a genuine problem here. Taboo breaking is exciting and thrilling, and that's entertaining. Great- we all need a laugh these days. But the taboo line needs to keep moving to keep the thrill going. And eventually it can cross a line into things that are genuinely harmful. I don't know what the answer is, beyond Don't Be A Dick being a good maxim for life, and saving showing your dick for special friends being good advice.
    Don't be a dick is a good rule for life (and the moral of A Christmas Carol), and encouraging people not to be dicks is a good aim, but forcing people not to be dicks is another matter, using the resources of the state (without legal basis) to seek to stop people being dicks for example. Being a shock monger comedian is a little different, since unclever offence causing schtick will not inherently be amusing, but a smartly done bit of shock will be for many.

    If you ignore that he was a murderous psycopath, the villain of Demolition Man had a good point.

    Simon Phoenix: Look, you can't take away people's right to be assholes

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,491

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,619
    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, as usual from Cyclefree. Hope Salman Rushdie can recover from his injuries.

    There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.

    There is something else going on with the Jerry Sadowitz story. I've heard a rumour that there is a sexual assault allegation involved - which puts a different spin on things and explains why the venue reacted the way it did.
    Not necessarily, just getting your knob out could constitute sexual assault.
    And? It's still sexual assault and if the initial posters didn't mention the issue who is liable - I suspect the venue becomes jointly so once they are aware of the issue after the first show

    If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
    Is a strip club sexual assault? A live drawing class? Surely not, and surely the same applies to a comedy venue hosting a known outrageous comic?
    That would depend upon the nature of the outrage on the night in question, and whether either venue or audience were given sufficient warning.

    A feature of Sadowitz's comedy is that he tries to avoid much disclosure of what goes on in his performances, as he values the element of surprise (and has regularly stated as much).
    It's perhaps then disingenuous to claim that everyone ought to have known what to expect.

    In any event it's not an assault on freedom of speech for a venue to change its mind about hosting him. Rather, both sides need to look at the contract they signed.
    His fellow comics claiming "this is a Spartacus moment" are still more ridiculous. Are they all going to be exposing themselves in sympathy ?
    Does it really need sufficient warning? If I went to any generic comedy night with a handful of unknown comics, if one of them got naked, I would not really think anyone has been assaulted.

    Of course it is possible that a comic does commit a sexual assault during a show, but I do struggle to see accept that mere nakedness on its own from performer on stage could constitute that.
    This may be where I'm a bit more snowflakey, but I feel like people might need at least a little heads up as to the nature of a show before deciding whether getting outraged is reasonable. A blanket note that it may contain graphic or offensive content I'd think would (or should) inure against claims of outrage and be sufficient for hosters to hold their ground on the basis that 'Look, we bloody said it might offend'.
    What the venue actually advertised about the act:
    https://tickets.edfringe.com/whats-on/jerry-sadowitz-not-for-anyone
    Jerry Sadowitz returns with his whacky impressions of Greta Thunberg, Frankie Boyle and deep vein thrombosis. He also promises to do less hate-fuelled swearing and focus more on faux liberal pish in order to appeal to the middle class and their disposable income and personalities. 'Please note that I might just do card tricks and say nothing for a whole hour or I might just do the usual "screaming fascist" schtick. Or both. Patrons may wish to drink alcohol pre-show to avoid boredom, embarrassment and guilt.'

    I haven't come across any other adverts, FWIW.
    You didn’t try very hard

    https://unherd.com/2022/08/jerry-sadowitz-is-too-good-to-cancel/

    “Anyone who has undertaken the least research into Sadowitz will know what they are in for. The Pleasance was certainly aware of his style and content (and his tendency to expose his penis) well in advance of the festival. Sadowitz had even posted a promo video in which he referred to himself in the third person, saying: “He’s gonna be funny. He’s gonna be rude. He’s gonna do magic tricks. He’s gonna do impressions. HE’S GONNA GET HIS DICK OUT. He’s gonna do every fucking
    thing.”

    Why do you have to be spoon fed this stuff?

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,109
    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    So would you make things stronger and make it actually illegal to cause offence in such a manner? You have been very clear you think the person causing offence is partly responsible for masses of deaths, and so definitely should not say such things, but is it your contention that people should be prevented from saying such things, or that they should be abandoned to face the consequences if crazy people go after them? Presumably you have no wish to be disciminatory, but some faiths or groups are more likely to react to offence than others, so if you do think people should not be able to say such things, is it a blanket rule or targeted such that offence against some is ok but not others?

    Genuine questions - we are not going to agree on the issue of responsibility, which we've done to death, but I am very unclear what reaction you think there should be.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,417
    Mr. kle4, worth recalling Phoenix was only half of the villainy in that film, the chaos to the freedom-destroying order of... er... Sir Humphrey.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,190
    Liz Truss now leads SKS by 4% in the polls.

    Labour still leads the Tories by 7%. SKS huge drag on Labour.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,568
    edited August 16
    Jerry Sadowitz had his record banned cos it said Jimmy Savile was a paedophile. In 1987.
    He is one of the greatest close up magicians of all time.
    He is also a hardcore misanthrope. Frankie Boyle without the empathy. Bernard Manning without the smile.
    He should be on telly.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,109
    edited August 16

    Mr. kle4, worth recalling Phoenix was only half of the villainy in that film, the chaos to the freedom-destroying order of... er... Sir Humphrey.

    Genuinely a great and clever film. Nigel Hawthorne should have been in more movies.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,332
    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    The most baffling part of the whole transphobic sticker/PCSO contretemps is why the woman chose to have and record for subsequent distribution a lengthy debate with the Plastic Police on the doorstep instead of telling them to fuck off.

    Possible attention starved conflict seeker. PB.com regulars may know the type.

    Maybe. Although given how angrily the police (or their support) react to people disagreeing with them I'd say even having a debate with them is bolder than many people would do. We're not all Dura Ace style devil may cares, alas!
    Maybe the debate seemed safer than telling the polis to do one?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,491

    Liz Truss now leads SKS by 4% in the polls.

    Labour still leads the Tories by 7%. SKS huge drag on Labour.

    Yebbut he pLAyeD a bLiNDeR cos he said gas shud cost less innit.

    Forensic.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,619
    dixiedean said:

    Jerry Sadowitz had his record banned cos it said Jimmy Savile was a paedophile. In 1987.
    He is one of the greatest close up magicians of all time.
    He is also a hardcore misanthrope. Frankie Boyle without the empathy. Bernard Manning without the smile.
    He should be on telly.

    I saw him live at the Criterion about 20 years ago. One of the very few comics I would class as a genius. Eddie izzard at his peak was another

    And yes: fantastic magician

    Interestingly he is one of the few comics I know who is apparently respected by ALL other comics, whatever their politics or genre or whatever
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,109
    Ah, excellent, my copy of The Satanic Verses has just arrived in the post. I've heard it isn't actually very good, but we shall see.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,661
    Leon said:



    PissChrist was, in fact, a serious piece of art. It said “this looks like heresy or sacrilege, but what I am actually saying is that all aspects of human life - even our snot, shit and piss - are sacred. And therefore beautiful. Urine is yellow, but it is golden. Celebrate”

    It was the modern art equivalent of Caravaggio scandalously portraying the apostles as dirty, sweat-stained common workmen

    Ah, I see. Fair enough, then - with a small reservation that I winder if there wasn't more attention-seeking than celebration of beauty. But I don't know that, and you may be right that it's a poor example of gratuitous offence.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,109

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    The parable of the Wolf and the Lamb may be appropriate - a cruel person will always find an excuse for cruelty.
This discussion has been closed.