Notice she emphasises she would get a grip on the Scottish economy and finances. Suggests a clear shift to the right after Sturgeon if she succeeds her
LOL
have you seen the state of Scotlands finances ? And she's been in charge of them.
Kate Peron
{Image of zillions of shirtless Scots outside the Scottish Parliament}
Ever been to Glasgow when it stops raining?
I do have memories of being stuck in the Holiday Inn Express in Motherwell.
It stopped raining briefly, but it was January.
What year? Extraordinary assertions require exceptional evidence.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Ooh, so they did tip off the Russkies. The official ones at least.
Fair play to everyone involved in that operation, impressive that they were prepared to do things so differently to the very tight and paranoid movement of the President that usually happens.
I suppose the logic was the advance warning might give Russia pause before attacking any trains. Rather than accidentally launching WWIII by absent-mindedly blowing up POTUS.
is there any evidence that Kate Forbes is a right-winger (beyond her socially conservative religious views, if they are considered right-wing?). I can't find much about her online. How does she shape up and square up to the flame-haired Ash re:political positioning?
She is a spending hawk who backs tax cuts as well as a social conservative
As a small independent state close to a larger neighbour, by far the better route economically for Scotland post-Indy, would be as a huge free zone similar to Ireland.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
And should there be a forced silence from politicians if businesses choose to be 'unwoke'?
Forced ?
Okay let's use the word principled. Is it okay for politicians to ever offer opinions on how businesses operate their affairs?
Sure it is. I think in this case, Sunak’s opinion is just irrelevant pandering to a particular audience, but no reason he can’t do that.
I took CHB’s comment as his opinion on what Sunak ought to do, which is also fair enough.
I'm guessing his spokesperson was asked a question.
My own feeling is a lot of lot of liberals/leftists are simply angry at this being exploited by the right because they know how silly it is but are too cowardly to speak up about it. However the government really ought to be focusing on the things it is responsible for like sorting out the nonsense in our universities and making sure intellectual rigour is maintained.
Strikes me that Forbes is probably the best choice for the SNP. Has a new, fresh-face factor and can triangulate on recent woes. Likely to be more centrist. Could disillusion some, but importantly is fresh enough that she could re-energise support elsewhere. The church stuff will get quoted at her often. She will need to be savvy about how she handles that.
Regan will be divisive and Yousaf will be too continuity Sturgeon and has too much baggage.
FWIW I don’t think any of them will have an easy ride and all 3 will probably preside over a period of retrenchment in support, the extent of that will be the question.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
Anyone else having problems with outlook/hotmail? Junk mail appears to have stopped working and everything is ending up in my inbox.
No I do not want funeral insurance nor am interested in adult incontinence pads, and that bitcoin deposit is just going to have to sit there….along with the FedEx delivery….
If Forbes wins will the Greens crash the power share arrangement?
Maybe we'll have an interesting Scottish Parliament election to get our teeth into this spring?
Wouldn't that be exciting?
If Forbes wins, hopefully the SNP will crash the power share agreement. If Forbes wins, will they still be any point in Alba continuing?
Depends if she really wants independence, that has been lacking from SNP for some time now.
Surely if they do or if they don't, their starter for 10 has to be good governance, and that is an area they have been lacking in recently. There is an awful lot a new leader can do to bolster their cause that isn't just answering "if we were independent" to every question.
Spectator type Unionist Tories are (genuinely) scared of Kate Forbes, partly because she is photogenic, clever, eloquent, Cambridge educated etc
But they are also scared of her because, well, she is a Tory. Church going, quite traditional, and economically truly conservative. A sane Liz Truss in tartan, a Scottish Thatcher, who will run Scotland rather well, increasing the appeal of Indy
But what frightens British Tories might also frighten a lot of Scots, in the opposite direction. We keep being told Scotland is to the left of England. If Forbes becomes FM, that hypothesis will be severely tested
The Tories should be grateful. It was the SNP that put Thatcher in office.
Anyone who thinks Scotland is to the left of England should visit Scotland and educate themselves.
You shouldnn't be;lieve that old canard about the Tories. It was Labour who put Mrs T in office, by being crap, as I well remember. And as Jim Callaghan himself said.
All 11 SNP MPs voted in favour of Margaret Thatcher's no confidence motion that won by 1 vote and brought down the Labour government. If they hadn't wanted a Tory govt to replace the Labour one, they shouldn't have done that.
If even a single SNP MP had abstained, Thatcher would have lost the vote. They knew what they were doing.
The 40% rule in the Scottish devolution referendum earlier that month was certainly a huge error. I hope there's never another rule of that kind in any future referendum.
The Labour Government would have fallen some time shortly afterwards. It was on life support, like their MPs. Hanging on by its fingernails for a few months more would probably have given Maggie 10 or 20 onto her majority. There's no way Callaghan would have turned things around to prevent a Tory majority.
The SNP put a dead Government out of its misery is all.
She has the potential to be quite persuasive. If she succeeds in bringing support for independence up above 60% and towards two-thirds, it would be a much better start for an independent Scotland than 52% support would provide.
Anyone else having problems with outlook/hotmail? Junk mail appears to have stopped working and everything is ending up in my inbox.
No I do not want funeral insurance nor am interested in adult incontinence pads, and that bitcoin deposit is just going to have to sit there….along with the FedEx delivery….
Pretty toe curling actually. Several points arise: visually it was a 'Come to Scotland for your cliche holiday' advertisement.
It depicted a perfect Scotland in every way. Beautiful, heritage, peaceful, platitudinuous, rivers, mist, mountains, tartanish scarves. If it's that good, then the UK government and belonging to the UK must be great.
So why need the SNP? What she can't show us is that because of the wickedness of Westminster our hospitals and schools are awful, that suicidal and murderous drug addicts and dealers litter the streets, that alcoholism is rife, that violent men have been put in with women prisoners, that her party backs high levels of gender fluidity, gay marriage and indiscriminate abortion. That Scotland despite the extra funding it gets from England is a bit of a mess.
Because her problem is that the SNP have been no better at running Scotland so far, and people have spotted this. And much of what the SNP's image stands for the direct opposite of Kate Forbes.
Notice she emphasises she would get a grip on the Scottish economy and finances. Suggests a clear shift to the right after Sturgeon if she succeeds her
LOL
have you seen the state of Scotlands finances ? And she's been in charge of them.
Kate Peron
{Image of zillions of shirtless Scots outside the Scottish Parliament}
Ever been to Glasgow when it stops raining?
I do have memories of being stuck in the Holiday Inn Express in Motherwell.
It stopped raining briefly, but it was January.
What year? Extraordinary assertions require exceptional evidence.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
And should there be a forced silence from politicians if businesses choose to be 'unwoke'?
Forced ?
Okay let's use the word principled. Is it okay for politicians to ever offer opinions on how businesses operate their affairs?
Sure it is. I think in this case, Sunak’s opinion is just irrelevant pandering to a particular audience, but no reason he can’t do that.
I took CHB’s comment as his opinion on what Sunak ought to do, which is also fair enough.
I'm guessing his spokesperson was asked a question.
My own feeling is a lot of lot of liberals/leftists are simply angry at this being exploited by the right because they know how silly it is but are too cowardly to speak up about it. However the government really ought to be focusing on the things it is responsible for like sorting out the nonsense in our universities and making sure intellectual rigour is maintained.
My feeling is that you’re quite keen on a culture war, and frustrated that this isn’t really an issue that works for you.
Anyone else having problems with outlook/hotmail? Junk mail appears to have stopped working and everything is ending up in my inbox.
No I do not want funeral insurance nor am interested in adult incontinence pads, and that bitcoin deposit is just going to have to sit there….along with the FedEx delivery….
Did they turn over the filtering job to the new "AI"?
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
Heaven knows who should defend it. But Netflix bought the rights to the stories, so they have the rights to do what they like with them. Even if it's something foolish. (Whether it is foolish or not, I don't know- probably some of the changes are sensible updatings and some are dumb. And stories do get re-written over time, though this timeframe is awfully short.)
Another observation- somewhere on my bookshelf, I have a collection of Roald Dhal's adult stories for study in secondary schools. I bet that wouldn't happen today.
But ultimately, the stories have been bought by a business. That's capitalism. And if Rishi believes what he claims to, that means that Netflix's business is none of his business.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
I'm tempted to back Regan. I have a cheeky £1 on Cherry at 100.
Is Regan VALUE?
Gonerilly piss some people off if she wins.
Who and why? She seems classic moderate left?
She's not really well known even with the membership and she pinned her colours to the mast over the GRA, for better or worse. Regan also sent her kids to private school, which whatever one's opinion of that kinda thing is not a net positive.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
Reminds me of the good old days of Political Correctness.
When the comedians overstepped the mark - "We didn't mean that. No-one said that was the plan. Plus there is no such thing as Political Correctness."
Notice she emphasises she would get a grip on the Scottish economy and finances. Suggests a clear shift to the right after Sturgeon if she succeeds her
LOL
have you seen the state of Scotlands finances ? And she's been in charge of them.
Kate Peron
{Image of zillions of shirtless Scots outside the Scottish Parliament}
Ever been to Glasgow when it stops raining?
I do have memories of being stuck in the Holiday Inn Express in Motherwell.
It stopped raining briefly, but it was January.
What year? Extraordinary assertions require exceptional evidence.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
Heaven knows who should defend it. But Netflix bought the rights to the stories, so they have the rights to do what they like with them. Even if it's something foolish. (Whether it is foolish or not, I don't know- probably some of the changes are sensible updatings and some are dumb. And stories do get re-written over time, though this timeframe is awfully short.)
Another observation- somewhere on my bookshelf, I have a collection of Roald Dhal's adult stories for study in secondary schools. I bet that wouldn't happen today.
But ultimately, the stories have been bought by a business. That's capitalism. And if Rishi believes what he claims to, that means that Netflix's business is none of his business.
In as much as I care either way (which I don't, really*) the changes seem minor. I imagine this kind of thing happens all the time in translated versions of various works, with zero fuss.
*even if they've completely messed them up and changed all the meaning - if the new versions are really crap, they won't sell, there will be a scramble for old secondhand versions and the publisher will get the message
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
Dahl and Tolkien both edited their own works, of course. Often very extensively.
But I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of other people doing it. All other considerations aside, if they do that arguably it's not really the author's work and should have somebody else's name on it as well. Like that horror, the abridged novel.
If a publisher thinks a story is inappropriate for modern tastes and sensibilities, nobody is forcing them to sell it.
Ooh, so they did tip off the Russkies. The official ones at least.
Fair play to everyone involved in that operation, impressive that they were prepared to do things so differently to the very tight and paranoid movement of the President that usually happens.
I suppose the logic was the advance warning might give Russia pause before attacking any trains. Rather than accidentally launching WWIII by absent-mindedly blowing up POTUS.
Plus making sure that any military moves in Poland et al, weren't interpreted by someone in the Kremlin as NATO getting ready to march on Moscow.
I'm tempted to back Regan. I have a cheeky £1 on Cherry at 100.
Is Regan VALUE?
Anyone got a price for Truss?
Are we sure Kate Forbes isn't Liz Truss in disguise, or vice versa?
Kate ELIZABETH Forbes Mary ELIZABETH Truss
Forbes was conveniently on "maternity leave" while Liz Truss was PM.
Has anyone ever seen them in the same room?
Like I said, "SHE'S A WITCH! And a massive hypocrite because she's a Christian but doesn't practice the scourge the poor politics of our owner's preference. More reportage including scandalous photos of her NOT in a skimpy bathing suit so we can criticise her figure on pages 6,7,8."
I see KCIII has been doing his bit to help with Ukrainian military training by running a session on standing around looking awkward and wasting your time while a VIP visits with their photographer.
I'm tempted to back Regan. I have a cheeky £1 on Cherry at 100.
Is Regan VALUE?
Gonerilly piss some people off if she wins.
Who and why? She seems classic moderate left?
She's not really well known even with the membership and she pinned her colours to the mast over the GRA, for better or worse. Regan also sent her kids to private school, which whatever one's opinion of that kinda thing is not a net positive.
Yousaf went to the same private school as Sarwar - which is possibly an issue for some of the membership.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
And should there be a forced silence from politicians if businesses choose to be 'unwoke'?
Forced ?
Okay let's use the word principled. Is it okay for politicians to ever offer opinions on how businesses operate their affairs?
Sure it is. I think in this case, Sunak’s opinion is just irrelevant pandering to a particular audience, but no reason he can’t do that.
I took CHB’s comment as his opinion on what Sunak ought to do, which is also fair enough.
I'm guessing his spokesperson was asked a question.
My own feeling is a lot of lot of liberals/leftists are simply angry at this being exploited by the right because they know how silly it is but are too cowardly to speak up about it. However the government really ought to be focusing on the things it is responsible for like sorting out the nonsense in our universities and making sure intellectual rigour is maintained.
What's "the nonsense in our universities"? I'm currently on site at a university and experiencing only normal levels of nonsense (stupid admin, dodgy VLEs). Maintaining my intellectual rigour with regular visits to PB
You keep saying this. She isn't. Reads like she wants to encourage business growth and a booming economy and then share the proceeds of growth. That's centre left at best - Cameronism / Orange Bookism. Not right wing where your lot wanted slash and burn business growth where the proceeds of growth would be shared with their patron's BVI bank accounts.
I'm tempted to back Regan. I have a cheeky £1 on Cherry at 100.
I think the top 2 should be tied or even the other way around:
1. Yousaf has rattled off a few endorsements, Forbes yet to do so even though she's now announced (so presumably would have showed a couple if she had them in her pocket to show momentum); 2. The media is very much talking about Forbes' social views which might be very tricky for her with the membership.
It's far from over, and she has better ratings with the public at large, but there are a couple of straws in the wind for the campaign so far and both are bad for her.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
And should there be a forced silence from politicians if businesses choose to be 'unwoke'?
Forced ?
Okay let's use the word principled. Is it okay for politicians to ever offer opinions on how businesses operate their affairs?
Sure it is. I think in this case, Sunak’s opinion is just irrelevant pandering to a particular audience, but no reason he can’t do that.
I took CHB’s comment as his opinion on what Sunak ought to do, which is also fair enough.
I'm guessing his spokesperson was asked a question.
My own feeling is a lot of lot of liberals/leftists are simply angry at this being exploited by the right because they know how silly it is but are too cowardly to speak up about it. However the government really ought to be focusing on the things it is responsible for like sorting out the nonsense in our universities and making sure intellectual rigour is maintained.
What's "the nonsense in our universities"? I'm currently on site at a university and experiencing only normal levels of nonsense (stupid admin, dodgy VLEs). Maintaining my intellectual rigour with regular visits to PB
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
It seems like a dumb thing to do but is presumably driven by commercial motivations - ie wanting to keep selling the books to as wide a range of people as possible. Way back in the 1980s when my mum was doing teacher training she remembers they noted some difficult aspects to the books, eg how do you read the books to a class of children with overweight kids in the class when they equate being overweight to being greedy, lacking in self control etc and could make it more likely the kid gets bullied? My own feeling with Dahl's books is they are very well written and really appeal to children but certainly have some problematic features. We have them at home and certainly didn't ban them but would talk about some of the aspects of the books that didn't sit right with us with the kids. They are intelligent enough to make up their own mind. I think it's weird that Sunak is getting involved. I'm sure he has better things to be getting on with.
Kate Forbes would even make me consider voting SNP in an SNP and SLab marginal. I would never have considered voting for any other SNP leader but the socially conservative, economically centre right, pro monarchy Forbes is not a million miles from me, apart from on the Union of course and my being a bit more of a social liberal than she is!
So what you are saying is that she is right wing and a nationalist. Sounds a little ominous
Only to an idiot
Must be ominous to you then as the biggest fuckwit thicko that ever comes on here. I mean why do you? It must make your little peabrain explode with chippyness every time you realise you are the dumbest in the room. Then again you are actually so thick you don't even realise how intensely stupid you really are, but then nationalism always the "philosophy" for the intellectually extremely challenged.
Now go and book yourself in to have your blood pressure taken you Anglophobic gammon-faced Scoto-fascist. You are now going to be ranting around your two bed bungalow so much you are going to get complaints from the neighbours again
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
Dahl and Tolkien both edited their own works, of course. Often very extensively.
But I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of other people doing it. All other considerations aside, if they do that arguably it's not really the author's work and should have somebody else's name on it as well. Like that horror, the abridged novel.
If a publisher thinks a story is inappropriate for modern tastes and sensibilities, nobody is forcing them to sell it.
Yes. There are many things that are legal. But in really bad taste.
The abridged novel is.... I hate them. Oh, how I hate them.
On topic, she has a lovely lilt and she's quite telegenic. So both ticks in this age where sound and sight seem to be so important.
And well done to her team for finding such rare blue sky footage over the Cuillins.
All-in-all a very slick video launch.
Lilt’s been rebranded so it’s “…she has a lovely Fanta Pineapple and Grapefruit…” if you’re being pedantic
Political Correctness gone mad: "Correcting" Roald Dahl classics to impose 2023 morals on books written generations earlier. Political Correctness not gone mad: ditching the "yeah mon" faux Caribbean branding because sales have died and it needs a relaunch that won't piss off the target audience.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
It seems like a dumb thing to do but is presumably driven by commercial motivations - ie wanting to keep selling the books to as wide a range of people as possible. Way back in the 1980s when my mum was doing teacher training she remembers they noted some difficult aspects to the books, eg how do you read the books to a class of children with overweight kids in the class when they equate being overweight to being greedy, lacking in self control etc and could make it more likely the kid gets bullied? My own feeling with Dahl's books is they are very well written and really appeal to children but certainly have some problematic features. We have them at home and certainly didn't ban them but would talk about some of the aspects of the books that didn't sit right with us with the kids. They are intelligent enough to make up their own mind. I think it's weird that Sunak is getting involved. I'm sure he has better things to be getting on with.
Frankly, I've never liked Roald Dahl's books. I think they're both unpleasant and somewhat disturbing. That's the plotlines, not the characters so much. About the only one I really enjoyed was Matilda, and even that has its moments.
But there's 'not liking something' and 'bowdlerising.' Should we ban the The Wife of Bath's Prologue as well because it shows marital violence and sexual exploitation? Or Titus Andronicus because it promotes cannibalism?
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
Dahl and Tolkien both edited their own works, of course. Often very extensively.
But I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of other people doing it. All other considerations aside, if they do that arguably it's not really the author's work and should have somebody else's name on it as well. Like that horror, the abridged novel.
If a publisher thinks a story is inappropriate for modern tastes and sensibilities, nobody is forcing them to sell it.
Hmm, cunning ruse to extend the copyright for another 70* years?
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
Dahl and Tolkien both edited their own works, of course. Often very extensively.
But I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of other people doing it. All other considerations aside, if they do that arguably it's not really the author's work and should have somebody else's name on it as well. Like that horror, the abridged novel.
If a publisher thinks a story is inappropriate for modern tastes and sensibilities, nobody is forcing them to sell it.
Hmm, cunning ruse to extend the copyright for another 70* years?
(only on the amended versions, of course)
*or whatever it is at the moment
Wouldn't work, because the original works would still lapse in copyright in 2060 under current laws, even if altered versions had been published.
You keep saying this. She isn't. Reads like she wants to encourage business growth and a booming economy and then share the proceeds of growth. That's centre left at best - Cameronism / Orange Bookism. Not right wing where your lot wanted slash and burn business growth where the proceeds of growth would be shared with their patron's BVI bank accounts.
Can you see the difference?
The later is a stereotype of the Right used by those who want to claim they are on the Left, while promoting capitalist growth.
On topic, she has a lovely lilt and she's quite telegenic. So both ticks in this age where sound and sight seem to be so important.
And well done to her team for finding such rare blue sky footage over the Cuillins.
All-in-all a very slick video launch.
Lilt’s been rebranded so it’s “…she has a lovely Fanta Pineapple and Grapefruit…” if you’re being pedantic
Political Correctness gone mad: "Correcting" Roald Dahl classics to impose 2023 morals on books written generations earlier. Political Correctness not gone mad: ditching the "yeah mon" faux Caribbean branding because sales have died and it needs a relaunch that won't piss off the target audience.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
And should there be a forced silence from politicians if businesses choose to be 'unwoke'?
Forced ?
Okay let's use the word principled. Is it okay for politicians to ever offer opinions on how businesses operate their affairs?
Sure it is. I think in this case, Sunak’s opinion is just irrelevant pandering to a particular audience, but no reason he can’t do that.
I took CHB’s comment as his opinion on what Sunak ought to do, which is also fair enough.
I'm guessing his spokesperson was asked a question.
My own feeling is a lot of lot of liberals/leftists are simply angry at this being exploited by the right because they know how silly it is but are too cowardly to speak up about it. However the government really ought to be focusing on the things it is responsible for like sorting out the nonsense in our universities and making sure intellectual rigour is maintained.
What's "the nonsense in our universities"? I'm currently on site at a university and experiencing only normal levels of nonsense (stupid admin, dodgy VLEs). Maintaining my intellectual rigour with regular visits to PB
Probably talking about that strain of anti-democratic extremism among the young. If we lose the war with Sparta, they will be all over the State like a tramp on chips.
It's all that dodgy ex-sculptor in the Philosophy Dept. I tell you. We should keep an eye on him.
EDIT: He is obviously a bit suspect. Not from a Russell Group uni.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
Dahl and Tolkien both edited their own works, of course. Often very extensively.
But I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of other people doing it. All other considerations aside, if they do that arguably it's not really the author's work and should have somebody else's name on it as well. Like that horror, the abridged novel.
If a publisher thinks a story is inappropriate for modern tastes and sensibilities, nobody is forcing them to sell it.
I think that describes a pretty broad consensus on the issue. No one wants Shakespeare’s Befriending of the Small Rodent.
I'm currently backing up my spare computer (a Mac) for the first time in six years.
I'm thinking it's going to take six years at current rate of progress!
Just bought a new one.. its lighning quick compared to my 12 Yr old dell. The tower no longer exists just a solid state drive the dimensions of of a sky q box approx.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
Dahl and Tolkien both edited their own works, of course. Often very extensively.
But I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of other people doing it. All other considerations aside, if they do that arguably it's not really the author's work and should have somebody else's name on it as well. Like that horror, the abridged novel.
If a publisher thinks a story is inappropriate for modern tastes and sensibilities, nobody is forcing them to sell it.
I think that describes a pretty broad consensus on the issue. No one wants Shakespeare’s Befriending of the Small Rodent.
As for his anti-Welsh remarks in the History plays...
Jordan Peterson is a dick, the never ending story. Anyone got a clue what 'toxically feminine' is, too much cloying perfume or excessively lacy underwear?
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
And should there be a forced silence from politicians if businesses choose to be 'unwoke'?
Forced ?
Okay let's use the word principled. Is it okay for politicians to ever offer opinions on how businesses operate their affairs?
Sure it is. I think in this case, Sunak’s opinion is just irrelevant pandering to a particular audience, but no reason he can’t do that.
I took CHB’s comment as his opinion on what Sunak ought to do, which is also fair enough.
I'm guessing his spokesperson was asked a question.
My own feeling is a lot of lot of liberals/leftists are simply angry at this being exploited by the right because they know how silly it is but are too cowardly to speak up about it. However the government really ought to be focusing on the things it is responsible for like sorting out the nonsense in our universities and making sure intellectual rigour is maintained.
What's "the nonsense in our universities"? I'm currently on site at a university and experiencing only normal levels of nonsense (stupid admin, dodgy VLEs). Maintaining my intellectual rigour with regular visits to PB
The Russell Group?
Sure, but there are universities not infected with that nonsense
(Sadly not my own - although RG is less relevant now, I think, except maybe for undergrad admissions; I don't get the sense that we do much RG related as opposed to UKEA coordinated or regional groupings, including non-RG universities, related.)
You keep saying this. She isn't. Reads like she wants to encourage business growth and a booming economy and then share the proceeds of growth. That's centre left at best - Cameronism / Orange Bookism. Not right wing where your lot wanted slash and burn business growth where the proceeds of growth would be shared with their patron's BVI bank accounts.
Can you see the difference?
The later is a stereotype of the Right used by those who want to claim they are on the Left, while promoting capitalist growth.
What is wrong with capitalism? Or growth? Remember that capitalism drove so much of the societal changes that modernised the world. Business owners literally building houses, shops, whole towns for their workforce. The circulation of a growing pile of money which they can profit from whilst everyone benefits
What the Tories represent isn't capitalism. Its Spivism. The extraction of a growing pile of money whilst everyone else suffers.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
Dahl and Tolkien both edited their own works, of course. Often very extensively.
But I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of other people doing it. All other considerations aside, if they do that arguably it's not really the author's work and should have somebody else's name on it as well. Like that horror, the abridged novel.
If a publisher thinks a story is inappropriate for modern tastes and sensibilities, nobody is forcing them to sell it.
I think that describes a pretty broad consensus on the issue. No one wants Shakespeare’s Befriending of the Small Rodent.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
Dahl and Tolkien both edited their own works, of course. Often very extensively.
But I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of other people doing it. All other considerations aside, if they do that arguably it's not really the author's work and should have somebody else's name on it as well. Like that horror, the abridged novel.
If a publisher thinks a story is inappropriate for modern tastes and sensibilities, nobody is forcing them to sell it.
I think that describes a pretty broad consensus on the issue. No one wants Shakespeare’s Befriending of the Small Rodent.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
Dahl and Tolkien both edited their own works, of course. Often very extensively.
But I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of other people doing it. All other considerations aside, if they do that arguably it's not really the author's work and should have somebody else's name on it as well. Like that horror, the abridged novel.
If a publisher thinks a story is inappropriate for modern tastes and sensibilities, nobody is forcing them to sell it.
I think that describes a pretty broad consensus on the issue. No one wants Shakespeare’s Befriending of the Small Rodent.
As for his anti-Welsh remarks in the History plays...
That was remarkably brave of him, given Henry Tudor’s origins.
On topic, she has a lovely lilt and she's quite telegenic. So both ticks in this age where sound and sight seem to be so important.
And well done to her team for finding such rare blue sky footage over the Cuillins.
All-in-all a very slick video launch.
Lilt’s been rebranded so it’s “…she has a lovely Fanta Pineapple and Grapefruit…” if you’re being pedantic
Political Correctness gone mad: "Correcting" Roald Dahl classics to impose 2023 morals on books written generations earlier. Political Correctness not gone mad: ditching the "yeah mon" faux Caribbean branding because sales have died and it needs a relaunch that won't piss off the target audience.
What about Enid Blyton and Noddy?
I do wonder if one of the drivers is this - boxed sets of Bylton, Dahl etc are quite cheap now, on Amazon. There was a thing, around where I live, of middle class parents buying them, and putting individual book in party bags for the birthdays. All the youngsters would do a swap meet at the end of parties - "I've got this one, you have this one etc."
So they all ended up with the complete set of each of these, quite rapidly.
Maybe a parent actually tried reading one and got upset?
On topic, she has a lovely lilt and she's quite telegenic. So both ticks in this age where sound and sight seem to be so important.
And well done to her team for finding such rare blue sky footage over the Cuillins.
All-in-all a very slick video launch.
Lilt’s been rebranded so it’s “…she has a lovely Fanta Pineapple and Grapefruit…” if you’re being pedantic
Political Correctness gone mad: "Correcting" Roald Dahl classics to impose 2023 morals on books written generations earlier. Political Correctness not gone mad: ditching the "yeah mon" faux Caribbean branding because sales have died and it needs a relaunch that won't piss off the target audience.
What about Enid Blyton and Noddy?
Eugh. The very very worst kids books ever - Mallory Towers, St Clares and all the other books that reinforced that only posh kids going to the right schools were worth anything. Having a gender-fluid character in the Famous Five not enough to save her, because George like the rest of them was a ponce, gender fluid or not.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
It seems like a dumb thing to do but is presumably driven by commercial motivations - ie wanting to keep selling the books to as wide a range of people as possible. Way back in the 1980s when my mum was doing teacher training she remembers they noted some difficult aspects to the books, eg how do you read the books to a class of children with overweight kids in the class when they equate being overweight to being greedy, lacking in self control etc and could make it more likely the kid gets bullied? My own feeling with Dahl's books is they are very well written and really appeal to children but certainly have some problematic features. We have them at home and certainly didn't ban them but would talk about some of the aspects of the books that didn't sit right with us with the kids. They are intelligent enough to make up their own mind. I think it's weird that Sunak is getting involved. I'm sure he has better things to be getting on with.
Frankly, I've never liked Roald Dahl's books. I think they're both unpleasant and somewhat disturbing. That's the plotlines, not the characters so much. About the only one I really enjoyed was Matilda, and even that has its moments.
But there's 'not liking something' and 'bowdlerising.' Should we ban the The Wife of Bath's Prologue as well because it shows marital violence and sexual exploitation? Or Titus Andronicus because it promotes cannibalism?
Yes it feels like an unnecessary interference in the text - people can make up their own minds. But presumably it is being driven by commercial motivations - the owners of the copyright want to sell more books to more people by removing a few elements that some people might not like. That feels wrong but it's their property. One can certainly think of precedents, eg the title of And Then There Were None was only changed in UK editions in 1985, several years after Agatha Christine's death - I'm presuming that most people are okay with that? Would anyone buy it for their kids to read with the original title? I don't think I would.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
And should there be a forced silence from politicians if businesses choose to be 'unwoke'?
Forced ?
Okay let's use the word principled. Is it okay for politicians to ever offer opinions on how businesses operate their affairs?
Sure it is. I think in this case, Sunak’s opinion is just irrelevant pandering to a particular audience, but no reason he can’t do that.
I took CHB’s comment as his opinion on what Sunak ought to do, which is also fair enough.
I'm guessing his spokesperson was asked a question.
My own feeling is a lot of lot of liberals/leftists are simply angry at this being exploited by the right because they know how silly it is but are too cowardly to speak up about it. However the government really ought to be focusing on the things it is responsible for like sorting out the nonsense in our universities and making sure intellectual rigour is maintained.
What's "the nonsense in our universities"? I'm currently on site at a university and experiencing only normal levels of nonsense (stupid admin, dodgy VLEs). Maintaining my intellectual rigour with regular visits to PB
Probably talking about that strain of anti-democratic extremism among the young. If we lose the war with Sparta, they will be all over the State like a tramp on chips.
It's all that dodgy ex-sculptor in the Philosophy Dept. I tell you. We should keep an eye on him.
EDIT: He is obviously a bit suspect. Not from a Russell Group uni.
Actually... Our current/recent leaders are all university educated (RG, no less) and have made a right pig's ear of things, so maybe there is a fundamental problem in higher education.
Jordan Peterson is a dick, the never ending story. Anyone got a clue what 'toxically feminine' is, too much cloying perfume or excessively lacy underwear?
I’ve never understood anything he comes up with, so haven’t been able to work our whether he’s deliberately offensive, or just offensively stupid.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
It seems like a dumb thing to do but is presumably driven by commercial motivations - ie wanting to keep selling the books to as wide a range of people as possible. Way back in the 1980s when my mum was doing teacher training she remembers they noted some difficult aspects to the books, eg how do you read the books to a class of children with overweight kids in the class when they equate being overweight to being greedy, lacking in self control etc and could make it more likely the kid gets bullied? My own feeling with Dahl's books is they are very well written and really appeal to children but certainly have some problematic features. We have them at home and certainly didn't ban them but would talk about some of the aspects of the books that didn't sit right with us with the kids. They are intelligent enough to make up their own mind. I think it's weird that Sunak is getting involved. I'm sure he has better things to be getting on with.
Frankly, I've never liked Roald Dahl's books. I think they're both unpleasant and somewhat disturbing. That's the plotlines, not the characters so much. About the only one I really enjoyed was Matilda, and even that has its moments.
But there's 'not liking something' and 'bowdlerising.' Should we ban the The Wife of Bath's Prologue as well because it shows marital violence and sexual exploitation? Or Titus Andronicus because it promotes cannibalism?
I think there's something quite dishonest about it. Someone can always have a go at writing stories in a similar style for modern sensibilities and context.
By some accounts Roald Dahl wasn't a nice person. Publishing books under his name that wouldn't offend anyone is an act of make-believe.
I'd rather they stopped printing the books altogether then rewrite them.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
And should there be a forced silence from politicians if businesses choose to be 'unwoke'?
Forced ?
Okay let's use the word principled. Is it okay for politicians to ever offer opinions on how businesses operate their affairs?
Sure it is. I think in this case, Sunak’s opinion is just irrelevant pandering to a particular audience, but no reason he can’t do that.
I took CHB’s comment as his opinion on what Sunak ought to do, which is also fair enough.
I'm guessing his spokesperson was asked a question.
My own feeling is a lot of lot of liberals/leftists are simply angry at this being exploited by the right because they know how silly it is but are too cowardly to speak up about it. However the government really ought to be focusing on the things it is responsible for like sorting out the nonsense in our universities and making sure intellectual rigour is maintained.
What's "the nonsense in our universities"? I'm currently on site at a university and experiencing only normal levels of nonsense (stupid admin, dodgy VLEs). Maintaining my intellectual rigour with regular visits to PB
Probably talking about that strain of anti-democratic extremism among the young. If we lose the war with Sparta, they will be all over the State like a tramp on chips.
It's all that dodgy ex-sculptor in the Philosophy Dept. I tell you. We should keep an eye on him.
EDIT: He is obviously a bit suspect. Not from a Russell Group uni.
Actually... Our current/recent leaders are all university educated (RG, no less) and have made a right pig's ear of things, so maybe there is a fundamental problem in higher education.
All the more reason why we should have had a proper working class person like Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. Someone who didn't grow up with a silver spoon. Or a spoon at all. St Jeremy. Cruelly denied by that turncoat Tory Nicola Sturgeon.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
And should there be a forced silence from politicians if businesses choose to be 'unwoke'?
Forced ?
Okay let's use the word principled. Is it okay for politicians to ever offer opinions on how businesses operate their affairs?
Sure it is. I think in this case, Sunak’s opinion is just irrelevant pandering to a particular audience, but no reason he can’t do that.
I took CHB’s comment as his opinion on what Sunak ought to do, which is also fair enough.
I'm guessing his spokesperson was asked a question.
My own feeling is a lot of lot of liberals/leftists are simply angry at this being exploited by the right because they know how silly it is but are too cowardly to speak up about it. However the government really ought to be focusing on the things it is responsible for like sorting out the nonsense in our universities and making sure intellectual rigour is maintained.
What's "the nonsense in our universities"? I'm currently on site at a university and experiencing only normal levels of nonsense (stupid admin, dodgy VLEs). Maintaining my intellectual rigour with regular visits to PB
Probably talking about that strain of anti-democratic extremism among the young. If we lose the war with Sparta, they will be all over the State like a tramp on chips.
It's all that dodgy ex-sculptor in the Philosophy Dept. I tell you. We should keep an eye on him.
EDIT: He is obviously a bit suspect. Not from a Russell Group uni.
Actually... Our current/recent leaders are all university educated (RG, no less) and have made a right pig's ear of things, so maybe there is a fundamental problem in higher education.
No signs of declaring the entire male population of Dover a danger to the state. Yet.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
And should there be a forced silence from politicians if businesses choose to be 'unwoke'?
Forced ?
Okay let's use the word principled. Is it okay for politicians to ever offer opinions on how businesses operate their affairs?
Sure it is. I think in this case, Sunak’s opinion is just irrelevant pandering to a particular audience, but no reason he can’t do that.
I took CHB’s comment as his opinion on what Sunak ought to do, which is also fair enough.
I'm guessing his spokesperson was asked a question.
My own feeling is a lot of lot of liberals/leftists are simply angry at this being exploited by the right because they know how silly it is but are too cowardly to speak up about it. However the government really ought to be focusing on the things it is responsible for like sorting out the nonsense in our universities and making sure intellectual rigour is maintained.
What's "the nonsense in our universities"? I'm currently on site at a university and experiencing only normal levels of nonsense (stupid admin, dodgy VLEs). Maintaining my intellectual rigour with regular visits to PB
The Russell Group?
Sure, but there are universities not infected with that nonsense
(Sadly not my own - although RG is less relevant now, I think, except maybe for undergrad admissions; I don't get the sense that we do much RG related as opposed to UKEA coordinated or regional groupings, including non-RG universities, related.)
I suspect he’s favouring a DeSantis kind of approach to academic freedom.
You keep saying this. She isn't. Reads like she wants to encourage business growth and a booming economy and then share the proceeds of growth. That's centre left at best - Cameronism / Orange Bookism. Not right wing where your lot wanted slash and burn business growth where the proceeds of growth would be shared with their patron's BVI bank accounts.
Can you see the difference?
The later is a stereotype of the Right used by those who want to claim they are on the Left, while promoting capitalist growth.
What is wrong with capitalism? Or growth? Remember that capitalism drove so much of the societal changes that modernised the world. Business owners literally building houses, shops, whole towns for their workforce. The circulation of a growing pile of money which they can profit from whilst everyone benefits
What the Tories represent isn't capitalism. Its Spivism. The extraction of a growing pile of money whilst everyone else suffers.
If the Tories represented pure capitalism there would be no NHS, all healthcare would be provided by private health insurance companies. There would be no non contributory welfare state either and no public housing. All schools would be private not state funded and paid for by fees.
Taxes would be being slashed now and an axe taken to public spending and regulations.
In reality the Tories have never been pure capitalist, even under Thatcher and Truss and certainly not now. They have just been more capitalist than socialist or social democrat and Labour the reverse while not being pure socialist either
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
It seems like a dumb thing to do but is presumably driven by commercial motivations - ie wanting to keep selling the books to as wide a range of people as possible. Way back in the 1980s when my mum was doing teacher training she remembers they noted some difficult aspects to the books, eg how do you read the books to a class of children with overweight kids in the class when they equate being overweight to being greedy, lacking in self control etc and could make it more likely the kid gets bullied? My own feeling with Dahl's books is they are very well written and really appeal to children but certainly have some problematic features. We have them at home and certainly didn't ban them but would talk about some of the aspects of the books that didn't sit right with us with the kids. They are intelligent enough to make up their own mind. I think it's weird that Sunak is getting involved. I'm sure he has better things to be getting on with.
Frankly, I've never liked Roald Dahl's books. I think they're both unpleasant and somewhat disturbing. That's the plotlines, not the characters so much. About the only one I really enjoyed was Matilda, and even that has its moments.
But there's 'not liking something' and 'bowdlerising.' Should we ban the The Wife of Bath's Prologue as well because it shows marital violence and sexual exploitation? Or Titus Andronicus because it promotes cannibalism?
Yes it feels like an unnecessary interference in the text - people can make up their own minds. But presumably it is being driven by commercial motivations - the owners of the copyright want to sell more books to more people by removing a few elements that some people might not like. That feels wrong but it's their property. One can certainly think of precedents, eg the title of And Then There Were None was only changed in UK editions in 1985, several years after Agatha Christine's death - I'm presuming that most people are okay with that? Would anyone buy it for their kids to read with the original title? I don't think I would.
Well since last time I saw an edition with the original title on it was priced at over a grand, presumably several people would.
I'm tempted to back Regan. I have a cheeky £1 on Cherry at 100.
I think the top 2 should be tied or even the other way around:
1. Yousaf has rattled off a few endorsements, Forbes yet to do so even though she's now announced (so presumably would have showed a couple if she had them in her pocket to show momentum); 2. The media is very much talking about Forbes' social views which might be very tricky for her with the membership.
It's far from over, and she has better ratings with the public at large, but there are a couple of straws in the wind for the campaign so far and both are bad for her.
I was looking at old numbers, endorsements are now 9 Forbes vs 12 Yousaf. 1 for Regan. Pretty clear 2 horse race unless someone else announces with some supporters.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
And should there be a forced silence from politicians if businesses choose to be 'unwoke'?
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
And should there be a forced silence from politicians if businesses choose to be 'unwoke'?
Forced ?
Okay let's use the word principled. Is it okay for politicians to ever offer opinions on how businesses operate their affairs?
Sure it is. I think in this case, Sunak’s opinion is just irrelevant pandering to a particular audience, but no reason he can’t do that.
I took CHB’s comment as his opinion on what Sunak ought to do, which is also fair enough.
You keep saying this. She isn't. Reads like she wants to encourage business growth and a booming economy and then share the proceeds of growth. That's centre left at best - Cameronism / Orange Bookism. Not right wing where your lot wanted slash and burn business growth where the proceeds of growth would be shared with their patron's BVI bank accounts.
Can you see the difference?
The later is a stereotype of the Right used by those who want to claim they are on the Left, while promoting capitalist growth.
What is wrong with capitalism? Or growth? Remember that capitalism drove so much of the societal changes that modernised the world. Business owners literally building houses, shops, whole towns for their workforce. The circulation of a growing pile of money which they can profit from whilst everyone benefits
What the Tories represent isn't capitalism. Its Spivism. The extraction of a growing pile of money whilst everyone else suffers.
If the Tories represented pure capitalism there would be no NHS, all healthcare would be provided by private health insurance companies. There would be no non contributory welfare state either and no public housing. All schools would be private not state funded and paid for by fees.
Taxes would be being slashed now and an axe taken to public spending and regulations.
In reality the Tories have never been pure capitalist, even under Thatcher and Truss and certainly not now. They have just been more capitalist than socialist or social democrat and Labour the reverse while not being pure socialist either
There would also be much less rampaging corruption in the government.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
Shows the futility of trying to inject politics into literary arguments. They eventually become so confused that no one really knows which side they were supposed to be on.
On topic, she has a lovely lilt and she's quite telegenic. So both ticks in this age where sound and sight seem to be so important.
And well done to her team for finding such rare blue sky footage over the Cuillins.
All-in-all a very slick video launch.
Lilt’s been rebranded so it’s “…she has a lovely Fanta Pineapple and Grapefruit…” if you’re being pedantic
Political Correctness gone mad: "Correcting" Roald Dahl classics to impose 2023 morals on books written generations earlier. Political Correctness not gone mad: ditching the "yeah mon" faux Caribbean branding because sales have died and it needs a relaunch that won't piss off the target audience.
What about Enid Blyton and Noddy?
Eugh. The very very worst kids books ever - Mallory Towers, St Clares and all the other books that reinforced that only posh kids going to the right schools were worth anything. Having a gender-fluid character in the Famous Five not enough to save her, because George like the rest of them was a ponce, gender fluid or not.
The thing is that Dahl and Blyton are very popular with children. The Rev Awdrey too - whose books are clearly authoritarian propaganda disguised as nice stories about trains (I loved them as a kid). I think the explanation is that children are inherently right wing - they are afraid of anything unfamiliar, they think the world revolves around them and they tend to view the world as a simplistic fight between good and evil. Most of us grow out of this mindset and develop different reading habits and political views as we get older.
You keep saying this. She isn't. Reads like she wants to encourage business growth and a booming economy and then share the proceeds of growth. That's centre left at best - Cameronism / Orange Bookism. Not right wing where your lot wanted slash and burn business growth where the proceeds of growth would be shared with their patron's BVI bank accounts.
Can you see the difference?
The later is a stereotype of the Right used by those who want to claim they are on the Left, while promoting capitalist growth.
What is wrong with capitalism? Or growth? Remember that capitalism drove so much of the societal changes that modernised the world. Business owners literally building houses, shops, whole towns for their workforce. The circulation of a growing pile of money which they can profit from whilst everyone benefits
What the Tories represent isn't capitalism. Its Spivism. The extraction of a growing pile of money whilst everyone else suffers.
My form of capitalism is the Nordish variety, I am a strong believer in social democracy.
On topic, she has a lovely lilt and she's quite telegenic. So both ticks in this age where sound and sight seem to be so important.
And well done to her team for finding such rare blue sky footage over the Cuillins.
All-in-all a very slick video launch.
Lilt’s been rebranded so it’s “…she has a lovely Fanta Pineapple and Grapefruit…” if you’re being pedantic
Political Correctness gone mad: "Correcting" Roald Dahl classics to impose 2023 morals on books written generations earlier. Political Correctness not gone mad: ditching the "yeah mon" faux Caribbean branding because sales have died and it needs a relaunch that won't piss off the target audience.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
Dahl and Tolkien both edited their own works, of course. Often very extensively.
But I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of other people doing it. All other considerations aside, if they do that arguably it's not really the author's work and should have somebody else's name on it as well. Like that horror, the abridged novel.
If a publisher thinks a story is inappropriate for modern tastes and sensibilities, nobody is forcing them to sell it.
I think that describes a pretty broad consensus on the issue. No one wants Shakespeare’s Befriending of the Small Rodent.
Not least because shrews are Small Insectivores.
You think a bowdleriser would make so fine a distinction ? (Scrabbling desperately.)
Comments
And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
If so, why would you think that?
My own feeling is a lot of lot of liberals/leftists are simply angry at this being exploited by the right because they know how silly it is but are too cowardly to speak up about it. However the government really ought to be focusing on the things it is responsible for like sorting out the nonsense in our universities and making sure intellectual rigour is maintained.
Strikes me that Forbes is probably the best choice for the SNP. Has a new, fresh-face factor and can triangulate on recent woes. Likely to be more centrist. Could disillusion some, but importantly is fresh enough that she could re-energise support elsewhere. The church stuff will get quoted at her often. She will need to be savvy about how she handles that.
Regan will be divisive and Yousaf will be too continuity Sturgeon and has too much baggage.
FWIW I don’t think any of them will have an easy ride and all 3 will probably preside over a period of retrenchment in support, the extent of that will be the question.
There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
No I do not want funeral insurance nor am interested in adult incontinence pads, and that bitcoin deposit is just going to have to sit there….along with the FedEx delivery….
The SNP put a dead Government out of its misery is all.
And well done to her team for finding such rare blue sky footage over the Cuillins.
All-in-all a very slick video launch.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/20/23607056/microsoft-outlook-spam-email-filters-not-working-broken
It depicted a perfect Scotland in every way. Beautiful, heritage, peaceful, platitudinuous, rivers, mist, mountains, tartanish scarves. If it's that good, then the UK government and belonging to the UK must be great.
So why need the SNP? What she can't show us is that because of the wickedness of Westminster our hospitals and schools are awful, that suicidal and murderous drug addicts and dealers litter the streets, that alcoholism is rife, that violent men have been put in with women prisoners, that her party backs high levels of gender fluidity, gay marriage and indiscriminate abortion. That Scotland despite the extra funding it gets from England is a bit of a mess.
Because her problem is that the SNP have been no better at running Scotland so far, and people have spotted this. And much of what the SNP's image stands for the direct opposite of Kate Forbes.
Politics as PR.
https://www.shanelynn.ie/wet-rainy-cyling-commute-in-ireland-with-wunderground-and-python/
Interesting to see that London is so much drier than Amsterdam.
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1627660209626791938
So I expect there will all sorts of vicious vitriol thrown at her by the right-wing press.
Coming to a Scottish Daily Mail column as early as tomorrow.
Another observation- somewhere on my bookshelf, I have a collection of Roald Dhal's adult stories for study in secondary schools. I bet that wouldn't happen today.
But ultimately, the stories have been bought by a business. That's capitalism. And if Rishi believes what he claims to, that means that Netflix's business is none of his business.
Kate ELIZABETH Forbes
Mary ELIZABETH Truss
Forbes was conveniently on "maternity leave" while Liz Truss was PM.
When the comedians overstepped the mark - "We didn't mean that. No-one said that was the plan. Plus there is no such thing as Political Correctness."
Given Forbes is more rightwing than Sunak, let alone Starmer and Sturgeon hardly a surprise
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/16/snp-has-rising-star-even-dangerous-union-sturgeon/
*even if they've completely messed them up and changed all the meaning - if the new versions are really crap, they won't sell, there will be a scramble for old secondhand versions and the publisher will get the message
But I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of other people doing it. All other considerations aside, if they do that arguably it's not really the author's work and should have somebody else's name on it as well. Like that horror, the abridged novel.
If a publisher thinks a story is inappropriate for modern tastes and sensibilities, nobody is forcing them to sell it.
Humza appears to be incredibly divisive.
Forbes comes across as quite young and inexperienced even in her slick campaign video, although I doubt this bothers most voters.
Like I said, "SHE'S A WITCH! And a massive hypocrite because she's a Christian but doesn't practice the scourge the poor politics of our owner's preference. More reportage including scandalous photos of her NOT in a skimpy bathing suit so we can criticise her figure on pages 6,7,8."
Top marks all round!
Can you see the difference?
1. Yousaf has rattled off a few endorsements, Forbes yet to do so even though she's now announced (so presumably would have showed a couple if she had them in her pocket to show momentum);
2. The media is very much talking about Forbes' social views which might be very tricky for her with the membership.
It's far from over, and she has better ratings with the public at large, but there are a couple of straws in the wind for the campaign so far and both are bad for her.
My own feeling with Dahl's books is they are very well written and really appeal to children but certainly have some problematic features. We have them at home and certainly didn't ban them but would talk about some of the aspects of the books that didn't sit right with us with the kids. They are intelligent enough to make up their own mind.
I think it's weird that Sunak is getting involved. I'm sure he has better things to be getting on with.
Now go and book yourself in to have your blood pressure taken you Anglophobic gammon-faced Scoto-fascist. You are now going to be ranting around your two bed bungalow so much you are going to get complaints from the neighbours again
The abridged novel is.... I hate them. Oh, how I hate them.
Political Correctness not gone mad: ditching the "yeah mon" faux Caribbean branding because sales have died and it needs a relaunch that won't piss off the target audience.
But there's 'not liking something' and 'bowdlerising.' Should we ban the The Wife of Bath's Prologue as well because it shows marital violence and sexual exploitation? Or Titus Andronicus because it promotes cannibalism?
https://twitter.com/SalmanRushdie/status/1627375615165755392?s=20
(only on the amended versions, of course)
*or whatever it is at the moment
I'm thinking it's going to take six years at current rate of progress!
It's all that dodgy ex-sculptor in the Philosophy Dept. I tell you. We should keep an eye on him.
EDIT: He is obviously a bit suspect. Not from a Russell Group uni.
No one wants Shakespeare’s Befriending of the Small Rodent.
Anyone got a clue what 'toxically feminine' is, too much cloying perfume or excessively lacy underwear?
(Sadly not my own - although RG is less relevant now, I think, except maybe for undergrad admissions; I don't get the sense that we do much RG related as opposed to UKEA coordinated or regional groupings, including non-RG universities, related.)
What the Tories represent isn't capitalism. Its Spivism. The extraction of a growing pile of money whilst everyone else suffers.
So they all ended up with the complete set of each of these, quite rapidly.
Maybe a parent actually tried reading one and got upset?
One can certainly think of precedents, eg the title of And Then There Were None was only changed in UK editions in 1985, several years after Agatha Christine's death - I'm presuming that most people are okay with that? Would anyone buy it for their kids to read with the original title? I don't think I would.
By some accounts Roald Dahl wasn't a nice person. Publishing books under his name that wouldn't offend anyone is an act of make-believe.
I'd rather they stopped printing the books altogether then rewrite them.
Taxes would be being slashed now and an axe taken to public spending and regulations.
In reality the Tories have never been pure capitalist, even under Thatcher and Truss and certainly not now. They have just been more capitalist than socialist or social democrat and Labour the reverse while not being pure socialist either
They eventually become so confused that no one really knows which side they were supposed to be on.
I think the explanation is that children are inherently right wing - they are afraid of anything unfamiliar, they think the world revolves around them and they tend to view the world as a simplistic fight between good and evil. Most of us grow out of this mindset and develop different reading habits and political views as we get older.
(Scrabbling desperately.)