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?
Golly!
My mum gave me a golly when I was small, bought it in antique shop I think. It had yellow hair. I remember being very very small and staring at it and not liking it.
I still got all those old things in a container in the old pig house roof. When i’m next up there I’ll photograph it so you can see how scary it is.
I had a golly bank, you put the penny in one hand pulled the other arm and arm came up and penny went into its mouth, no idea what happened to it but doubt it would be pc today.
As a chap of a certain age, and a voracious reader when young, I was brought up reading the entire canon of unsound, non-PC stuff and enjoyed it all tremendously, though not uncritically. Blyton, Dahl, Buckeridge (Jennings and Derbyshire), Just William, W.E. Johns (Biggles, Ginger and Algy), and many, many more infiltrated my young. susceptible mind.
And yet here I am, retired, a woke liberal leftie, safely immune (I'd claim) from anti-semitism, racism, sexism and misogyny, and from using nasty words to describe people's personality or physical traits.
It's absolute nonsense to rewrite literature, and it's absolute nonsense to issue trigger warnings and stuff like that. Let history be, and teach people to understand the context in which stuff was written, whether that be Blyton or Shakespeare.
I'm a big Just William fan but would you not draw the line at the story in William the Detective where they attack a Jewish owned shop (William and the Nasties) (ie Nazis). It is conventionally omitted from recent editions.
As a chap of a certain age, and a voracious reader when young, I was brought up reading the entire canon of unsound, non-PC stuff and enjoyed it all tremendously, though not uncritically. Blyton, Dahl, Buckeridge (Jennings and Derbyshire), Just William, W.E. Johns (Biggles, Ginger and Algy), and many, many more infiltrated my young. susceptible mind.
And yet here I am, retired, a woke liberal leftie, safely immune (I'd claim) from anti-semitism, racism, sexism and misogyny, and from using nasty words to describe people's personality or physical traits.
It's absolute nonsense to rewrite literature, and it's absolute nonsense to issue trigger warnings and stuff like that. Let history be, and teach people to understand the context in which stuff was written, whether that be Blyton or Shakespeare.
I'm a big Just William fan but would you not draw the line at the story in William the Detective where they attack a Jewish owned shop (William and the Nasties) (ie Nazis). It is conventionally omitted from recent editions.
Well, South Park produced "The Passion of the Jew", where Cartman forces his Jewish friend to apologise to the class for having killed Christ.
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.
I have a soft spot for Blyton's books as my mother read them too me when I was small and very ill in bed with a combination of chicken pox and food poisoning. Though I do remember us both laughing at some of the more obvious social ticks she had when describing characters.
Blyton's books are usually an exciting read, albeit a touch formulaic. Her snobbery is absolutely hilarious though, and is one reason why her books are so camp and spoofable.
It was finding a copy of Five on a Hike Together in a bag ready to go to charity at my Grandma's house sometime in the early 80s - the first 'proper' book I ever read, alone and unguided, without pictures on every page - that gave me a lifelong love of books and reading. After I'd devoured a ton of Blyton stuff I then shifted to the Just William books.
I'm no professional Yorkshireman, but they painted a very different world to the one I grew up in. A little part of me will always wish I went to boarding school. Which is weird because another, much bigger, part of me would like to see private education abolished.
I enjoyed reading those sorts of Blyton books to my children (and Roald Dahl) because they are fun to read out loud. I tended to adopt various comedy accents for the characters, and read the Blyton narrator voice in an archaic manner with lashings of vocal ginger beer. It’s very clearly fiction and not real life, but the little world it creates is compelling. The famous five gave me a lifelong excitement at the idea of small West Country coves and mysterious offshore islands.
Danny the Champion of the world was my first self-read book and its motifs live with me to this day, including a rather unwarranted feeling about the deliciousness of pheasant.
Swallows and Amazons for me, complete with Titty and Roger. And the two very idnependent young ladies, Nancy and I forget the other.
Peggy!
The politics of Swallow and Amazons is much less troubling. I loved those books when I was little, they were the first proper books I read to myself.
The accents of the local characters are a bit trickier as Cumbrian dialect isn’t as easy to master as the combination of West Country burr and Ray Winstone cockney criminal required for the average friendly local / baddie in famous 5.
I used to deploy a range of accents when I read to the kids. For some reason I always did the Gruffalo as a Glaswegian, while the mouse was a crafty Cockney. The youngest one still likes to have the Katie Morag books read to her in full-on Scottish. Grannie Mainland, who is a bit posh, always ends up sounding like she's from Morningside, even though I'm pretty sure she's a Weegie.
True Cockney is very difficult to imitate. Notably embarrassing attempts include Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady and Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins.
I think it is the glottal stop that is the main problem, whilst the distortion of vowels and arbitrary elimination of certain consonants add to the difficulty.
It just ain't a natural way to talk.
Criticism of Audrey Hepburn! We could fall out!
Actually I thought she did her flower lady quite well. She didn't try to capture the east-end accent but just the slight abrasiveness of it.
'My Fair Lady' is probably my favourite film though.
No danger, Omnium. I'm totally with you of AH, but it's little more than a token effort and since language and class was central to the story you have to acknowledge she was miscast in this instance.
I'm not sure I do agree. AH, Rex Harrison and Wilfred Hyde-Whyte make that film shine in a way that few others do. She would have been miscast of the other two hadn't put on such an incredible performance to make her seem as she was cast.
Stanley Holloway (had to look it up but I'd have got his name eventually) was clearly not of the East End, and yet he captured something.
Edit: Actually looking him up SH was born in Holloway and went to school in Stratford (wikipedia). So he wasn't so far off.
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.
I have a soft spot for Blyton's books as my mother read them too me when I was small and very ill in bed with a combination of chicken pox and food poisoning. Though I do remember us both laughing at some of the more obvious social ticks she had when describing characters.
Blyton's books are usually an exciting read, albeit a touch formulaic. Her snobbery is absolutely hilarious though, and is one reason why her books are so camp and spoofable.
It was finding a copy of Five on a Hike Together in a bag ready to go to charity at my Grandma's house sometime in the early 80s - the first 'proper' book I ever read, alone and unguided, without pictures on every page - that gave me a lifelong love of books and reading. After I'd devoured a ton of Blyton stuff I then shifted to the Just William books.
I'm no professional Yorkshireman, but they painted a very different world to the one I grew up in. A little part of me will always wish I went to boarding school. Which is weird because another, much bigger, part of me would like to see private education abolished.
I enjoyed reading those sorts of Blyton books to my children (and Roald Dahl) because they are fun to read out loud. I tended to adopt various comedy accents for the characters, and read the Blyton narrator voice in an archaic manner with lashings of vocal ginger beer. It’s very clearly fiction and not real life, but the little world it creates is compelling. The famous five gave me a lifelong excitement at the idea of small West Country coves and mysterious offshore islands.
Danny the Champion of the world was my first self-read book and its motifs live with me to this day, including a rather unwarranted feeling about the deliciousness of pheasant.
Swallows and Amazons for me, complete with Titty and Roger. And the two very idnependent young ladies, Nancy and I forget the other.
Peggy!
The politics of Swallow and Amazons is much less troubling. I loved those books when I was little, they were the first proper books I read to myself.
The accents of the local characters are a bit trickier as Cumbrian dialect isn’t as easy to master as the combination of West Country burr and Ray Winstone cockney criminal required for the average friendly local / baddie in famous 5.
I used to deploy a range of accents when I read to the kids. For some reason I always did the Gruffalo as a Glaswegian, while the mouse was a crafty Cockney. The youngest one still likes to have the Katie Morag books read to her in full-on Scottish. Grannie Mainland, who is a bit posh, always ends up sounding like she's from Morningside, even though I'm pretty sure she's a Weegie.
True Cockney is very difficult to imitate. Notably embarrassing attempts include Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady and Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins.
I think it is the glottal stop that is the main problem, whilst the distortion of vowels and arbitrary elimination of certain consonants add to the difficulty.
It just ain't a natural way to talk.
Criticism of Audrey Hepburn! We could fall out!
Actually I thought she did her flower lady quite well. She didn't try to capture the east-end accent but just the slight abrasiveness of it.
'My Fair Lady' is probably my favourite film though.
No danger, Omnium. I'm totally with you of AH, but it's little more than a token effort and since language and class was central to the story you have to acknowledge she was miscast in this instance.
I'm not sure I do agree. AH, Rex Harrison and Wilfred Hyde-Whyte make that film shine in a way that few others do. She would have been miscast of the other two hadn't put on such an incredible performance to make her seem as she was cast.
Stanley Holloway (had to look it up but I'd have got his name eventually) was clearly not of the East End, and yet he captured something.
She acted the part well and it is a great film, but the flawed accent is irritating.
Holloway was born in Manor Park and schooled in Stratford, so not strictly a Cockney but the local accent would have been indistinguishable and he would certainly have heard plenty of it.
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.
I have a soft spot for Blyton's books as my mother read them too me when I was small and very ill in bed with a combination of chicken pox and food poisoning. Though I do remember us both laughing at some of the more obvious social ticks she had when describing characters.
Blyton's books are usually an exciting read, albeit a touch formulaic. Her snobbery is absolutely hilarious though, and is one reason why her books are so camp and spoofable.
It was finding a copy of Five on a Hike Together in a bag ready to go to charity at my Grandma's house sometime in the early 80s - the first 'proper' book I ever read, alone and unguided, without pictures on every page - that gave me a lifelong love of books and reading. After I'd devoured a ton of Blyton stuff I then shifted to the Just William books.
I'm no professional Yorkshireman, but they painted a very different world to the one I grew up in. A little part of me will always wish I went to boarding school. Which is weird because another, much bigger, part of me would like to see private education abolished.
I enjoyed reading those sorts of Blyton books to my children (and Roald Dahl) because they are fun to read out loud. I tended to adopt various comedy accents for the characters, and read the Blyton narrator voice in an archaic manner with lashings of vocal ginger beer. It’s very clearly fiction and not real life, but the little world it creates is compelling. The famous five gave me a lifelong excitement at the idea of small West Country coves and mysterious offshore islands.
Danny the Champion of the world was my first self-read book and its motifs live with me to this day, including a rather unwarranted feeling about the deliciousness of pheasant.
Swallows and Amazons for me, complete with Titty and Roger. And the two very idnependent young ladies, Nancy and I forget the other.
Peggy!
The politics of Swallow and Amazons is much less troubling. I loved those books when I was little, they were the first proper books I read to myself.
The accents of the local characters are a bit trickier as Cumbrian dialect isn’t as easy to master as the combination of West Country burr and Ray Winstone cockney criminal required for the average friendly local / baddie in famous 5.
I used to deploy a range of accents when I read to the kids. For some reason I always did the Gruffalo as a Glaswegian, while the mouse was a crafty Cockney. The youngest one still likes to have the Katie Morag books read to her in full-on Scottish. Grannie Mainland, who is a bit posh, always ends up sounding like she's from Morningside, even though I'm pretty sure she's a Weegie.
True Cockney is very difficult to imitate. Notably embarrassing attempts include Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady and Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins.
I think it is the glottal stop that is the main problem, whilst the distortion of vowels and arbitrary elimination of certain consonants add to the difficulty.
It just ain't a natural way to talk.
Shouldn't that be naturwal?
I always thought it was the the r blending into a w that marked true cockney out from the Norf Lahnden I grew up surrwounded by.
As a chap of a certain age, and a voracious reader when young, I was brought up reading the entire canon of unsound, non-PC stuff and enjoyed it all tremendously, though not uncritically. Blyton, Dahl, Buckeridge (Jennings and Derbyshire), Just William, W.E. Johns (Biggles, Ginger and Algy), and many, many more infiltrated my young. susceptible mind.
And yet here I am, retired, a woke liberal leftie, safely immune (I'd claim) from anti-semitism, racism, sexism and misogyny, and from using nasty words to describe people's personality or physical traits.
It's absolute nonsense to rewrite literature, and it's absolute nonsense to issue trigger warnings and stuff like that. Let history be, and teach people to understand the context in which stuff was written, whether that be Blyton or Shakespeare.
I'm a big Just William fan but would you not draw the line at the story in William the Detective where they attack a Jewish owned shop (William and the Nasties) (ie Nazis). It is conventionally omitted from recent editions.
Well, South Park produced "The Passion of the Jew", where Cartman forces his Jewish friend to apologise to the class for having killed Christ.
South Park is for adult audiences and obviously satire.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
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?
Golly!
Noddy has already had the woke treatment. I’m sure it vexes some. Not me.
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?
Golly!
Noddy has already had the woke treatment. I’m sure it vexes some. Not me.
The funny thing is that, although the W-T-P books are out of copyright, the Disney films aren't. So they had to make a film which could not be mistaken for a Disney adaptation - I think they have succeeded!
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?
Golly!
My mum gave me a golly when I was small, bought it in antique shop I think. It had yellow hair. I remember being very very small and staring at it and not liking it.
I still got all those old things in a container in the old pig house roof. When i’m next up there I’ll photograph it so you can see how scary it is.
Like this.
Who in the right mind thought it cool giving something like this to a kid? Even looking at it as an adult you could base a horror movie franchise around it.
It's like one of those horrifying shrunken Cambodian foetuses in The Bible of the Dead, that's used in the diabolical arts.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
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?
Well that, I'm afraid, is just sick.
Danny the Champion of the World is an outstanding work.
As is Fantastic Mr Fox, Boy, and Going Solo. There's very little wrong with James and the Giant Peach either. Indeed, fuck it, his whole body of work is pretty bloody outstanding.
His work varies tremendously. DTCOTW and JATGP are both wonderful, happy and uplifting. Whereas the Twits, for example, is disturbing and unpleasant.
It tends to depend on how quickly the cartoonishly unpleasant characters (such as Aunts Spiker and Sponge) can be got out of the way.
Roald Dahl, though, is one of the few writers who can both plot well and write well. His language is a joy. I don't mind the replacement of an odd word whose once-benign meaning has become anachronistic, if it can be done without changing the meter, but I'd lament a rewrite to fit in with modern sensitivities. (I recently read DTCOTW to my daughter, and was struck by how it wouldn't be written now. Not any of the major modern transgressions, but: - poaching presented as a good thing, at least in that the poacher gets to eat tasty meat - a small boy driving a car presented as somewhat heroic - stoicism presented as a virtue)
The Twits is fantastic. You don't know what you're talking about. My kids still laugh about the worm spaghetti and the eye at the bottom of the beer.
The only questionable one is Esio Trot, where an old man manipulates a younger lady into marriage.
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?
Golly!
My mum gave me a golly when I was small, bought it in antique shop I think. It had yellow hair. I remember being very very small and staring at it and not liking it.
I still got all those old things in a container in the old pig house roof. When i’m next up there I’ll photograph it so you can see how scary it is.
I had a golly bank, you put the penny in one hand pulled the other arm and arm came up and penny went into its mouth, no idea what happened to it but doubt it would be pc today.
I had one as well. You sometimes used to see them on shop counters as a way of giving to charity.
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.
I have a soft spot for Blyton's books as my mother read them too me when I was small and very ill in bed with a combination of chicken pox and food poisoning. Though I do remember us both laughing at some of the more obvious social ticks she had when describing characters.
Blyton's books are usually an exciting read, albeit a touch formulaic. Her snobbery is absolutely hilarious though, and is one reason why her books are so camp and spoofable.
It was finding a copy of Five on a Hike Together in a bag ready to go to charity at my Grandma's house sometime in the early 80s - the first 'proper' book I ever read, alone and unguided, without pictures on every page - that gave me a lifelong love of books and reading. After I'd devoured a ton of Blyton stuff I then shifted to the Just William books.
I'm no professional Yorkshireman, but they painted a very different world to the one I grew up in. A little part of me will always wish I went to boarding school. Which is weird because another, much bigger, part of me would like to see private education abolished.
I enjoyed reading those sorts of Blyton books to my children (and Roald Dahl) because they are fun to read out loud. I tended to adopt various comedy accents for the characters, and read the Blyton narrator voice in an archaic manner with lashings of vocal ginger beer. It’s very clearly fiction and not real life, but the little world it creates is compelling. The famous five gave me a lifelong excitement at the idea of small West Country coves and mysterious offshore islands.
Danny the Champion of the world was my first self-read book and its motifs live with me to this day, including a rather unwarranted feeling about the deliciousness of pheasant.
Swallows and Amazons for me, complete with Titty and Roger. And the two very idnependent young ladies, Nancy and I forget the other.
Peggy!
The politics of Swallow and Amazons is much less troubling. I loved those books when I was little, they were the first proper books I read to myself.
The accents of the local characters are a bit trickier as Cumbrian dialect isn’t as easy to master as the combination of West Country burr and Ray Winstone cockney criminal required for the average friendly local / baddie in famous 5.
I used to deploy a range of accents when I read to the kids. For some reason I always did the Gruffalo as a Glaswegian, while the mouse was a crafty Cockney. The youngest one still likes to have the Katie Morag books read to her in full-on Scottish. Grannie Mainland, who is a bit posh, always ends up sounding like she's from Morningside, even though I'm pretty sure she's a Weegie.
True Cockney is very difficult to imitate. Notably embarrassing attempts include Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady and Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins.
I think it is the glottal stop that is the main problem, whilst the distortion of vowels and arbitrary elimination of certain consonants add to the difficulty.
It just ain't a natural way to talk.
Criticism of Audrey Hepburn! We could fall out!
Actually I thought she did her flower lady quite well. She didn't try to capture the east-end accent but just the slight abrasiveness of it.
'My Fair Lady' is probably my favourite film though.
No danger, Omnium. I'm totally with you of AH, but it's little more than a token effort and since language and class was central to the story you have to acknowledge she was miscast in this instance.
I'm not sure I do agree. AH, Rex Harrison and Wilfred Hyde-Whyte make that film shine in a way that few others do. She would have been miscast of the other two hadn't put on such an incredible performance to make her seem as she was cast.
Stanley Holloway (had to look it up but I'd have got his name eventually) was clearly not of the East End, and yet he captured something.
She acted the part well and it is a great film, but the flawed accent is irritating.
Holloway was born in Manor Park and schooled in Stratford, so not strictly a Cockney but the local accent would have been indistinguishable and he would certainly have heard plenty of it.
(Oddly I just posted the same two observations.)
There are recordings of East end speech of the time.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Since when have Islam and Judaism limited marriage to one man and one woman? Islam allows four wives. Jewish Kings like Solomon had hundreds.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Since when have Islam and Judaism limited marriage to one man and one woman? Islam allows four wives. Jewish Kings like Solomon had hundreds.
Why would anyone want more than one wife? And even that, I'm thinking, may have been too many.
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?
Well that, I'm afraid, is just sick.
Danny the Champion of the World is an outstanding work.
As is Fantastic Mr Fox, Boy, and Going Solo. There's very little wrong with James and the Giant Peach either. Indeed, fuck it, his whole body of work is pretty bloody outstanding.
His work varies tremendously. DTCOTW and JATGP are both wonderful, happy and uplifting. Whereas the Twits, for example, is disturbing and unpleasant.
It tends to depend on how quickly the cartoonishly unpleasant characters (such as Aunts Spiker and Sponge) can be got out of the way.
Roald Dahl, though, is one of the few writers who can both plot well and write well. His language is a joy. I don't mind the replacement of an odd word whose once-benign meaning has become anachronistic, if it can be done without changing the meter, but I'd lament a rewrite to fit in with modern sensitivities. (I recently read DTCOTW to my daughter, and was struck by how it wouldn't be written now. Not any of the major modern transgressions, but: - poaching presented as a good thing, at least in that the poacher gets to eat tasty meat - a small boy driving a car presented as somewhat heroic - stoicism presented as a virtue)
The Twits is fantastic. You don't know what you're talking about. My kids still laugh about the worm spaghetti and the eye at the bottom of the beer.
The only questionable one is Esio Trot, where an old man manipulates a younger lady into marriage.
Apparently that character was based on a PBer, although I'm damned if I can work out which.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I expect plenty of people would be offended by that statement.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Since when have Islam and Judaism limited marriage to one man and one woman? Islam allows four wives. Jewish Kings like Solomon had hundreds.
Why would anyone want more than one wife? And even that, I'm thinking, may have been too many.
I believe the thinking is that they will complain to each other and spare you the ear ache.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
Not sure that fudge will cut it either way
"marriage is between a man and a woman." No gays then
"I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear" No men in womens' spaces then
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Since when have Islam and Judaism limited marriage to one man and one woman? Islam allows four wives. Jewish Kings like Solomon had hundreds.
Why would anyone want more than one wife? And even that, I'm thinking, may have been too many.
One to do the cooking; one to do the gardening; one to do the housework; and a fourth to do the shopping.
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?
Well that, I'm afraid, is just sick.
Danny the Champion of the World is an outstanding work.
As is Fantastic Mr Fox, Boy, and Going Solo. There's very little wrong with James and the Giant Peach either. Indeed, fuck it, his whole body of work is pretty bloody outstanding.
His work varies tremendously. DTCOTW and JATGP are both wonderful, happy and uplifting. Whereas the Twits, for example, is disturbing and unpleasant.
It tends to depend on how quickly the cartoonishly unpleasant characters (such as Aunts Spiker and Sponge) can be got out of the way.
Roald Dahl, though, is one of the few writers who can both plot well and write well. His language is a joy. I don't mind the replacement of an odd word whose once-benign meaning has become anachronistic, if it can be done without changing the meter, but I'd lament a rewrite to fit in with modern sensitivities. (I recently read DTCOTW to my daughter, and was struck by how it wouldn't be written now. Not any of the major modern transgressions, but: - poaching presented as a good thing, at least in that the poacher gets to eat tasty meat - a small boy driving a car presented as somewhat heroic - stoicism presented as a virtue)
You could be describing a Harry Potter book:
- small boy driving a car ✓ - stoicism and bravery in the face of immense personal difficulty ✓ - poaching... hmmm...
As a chap of a certain age, and a voracious reader when young, I was brought up reading the entire canon of unsound, non-PC stuff and enjoyed it all tremendously, though not uncritically. Blyton, Dahl, Buckeridge (Jennings and Derbyshire), Just William, W.E. Johns (Biggles, Ginger and Algy), and many, many more infiltrated my young. susceptible mind.
And yet here I am, retired, a woke liberal leftie, safely immune (I'd claim) from anti-semitism, racism, sexism and misogyny, and from using nasty words to describe people's personality or physical traits.
It's absolute nonsense to rewrite literature, and it's absolute nonsense to issue trigger warnings and stuff like that. Let history be, and teach people to understand the context in which stuff was written, whether that be Blyton or Shakespeare.
I'm a big Just William fan but would you not draw the line at the story in William the Detective where they attack a Jewish owned shop (William and the Nasties) (ie Nazis). It is conventionally omitted from recent editions.
I guess it's better to omit than rewrite. But basically I'm strongly opposed to censorship or rewriting of literature or other artistic forms on "this is offensive in 2023" grounds. Only by leaving such material intact can we really understand the historical context in which such work is created.
We can't erase the past: much better to confront it and understand it, and let it serve as a warning for the future. We wouldn't wish to ban Mein Kampf, would we?
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?
Golly!
My mum gave me a golly when I was small, bought it in antique shop I think. It had yellow hair. I remember being very very small and staring at it and not liking it.
I still got all those old things in a container in the old pig house roof. When i’m next up there I’ll photograph it so you can see how scary it is.
Like this.
Who in the right mind thought it cool giving something like this to a kid? Even looking at it as an adult you could base a horror movie franchise around it.
It's like one of those horrifying shrunken Cambodian foetuses in The Bible of the Dead, that's used in the diabolical arts.
An excellent read I am sure
As it happens, it was very good. Probably, the best of Sean Thomas' novels. Alistair Meeks liked it a lot as well, IIRC.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I expect plenty of people would be offended by that statement.
Mine or hers?
Like I said, plenty of people would see that view as being bigoted. I don't agree with what she said there, but I wouldn't go as far to say she is.
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?
Well that, I'm afraid, is just sick.
Danny the Champion of the World is an outstanding work.
As is Fantastic Mr Fox, Boy, and Going Solo. There's very little wrong with James and the Giant Peach either. Indeed, fuck it, his whole body of work is pretty bloody outstanding.
His work varies tremendously. DTCOTW and JATGP are both wonderful, happy and uplifting. Whereas the Twits, for example, is disturbing and unpleasant.
It tends to depend on how quickly the cartoonishly unpleasant characters (such as Aunts Spiker and Sponge) can be got out of the way.
Roald Dahl, though, is one of the few writers who can both plot well and write well. His language is a joy. I don't mind the replacement of an odd word whose once-benign meaning has become anachronistic, if it can be done without changing the meter, but I'd lament a rewrite to fit in with modern sensitivities. (I recently read DTCOTW to my daughter, and was struck by how it wouldn't be written now. Not any of the major modern transgressions, but: - poaching presented as a good thing, at least in that the poacher gets to eat tasty meat - a small boy driving a car presented as somewhat heroic - stoicism presented as a virtue)
I grant you that the Twits is one of his weaker works.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
She is entitled to her own opinion and clearly states so does everybody else. That is not being anti anything except in the minds of bigots.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I expect plenty of people would be offended by that statement.
Mine or hers?
Like I said, plenty of people would see that view as being bigoted. I don't agree with what she said there, but I wouldn't go as far to say she is.
Hers. I think it's unexceptionable, but I'm not her target audience.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Since when have Islam and Judaism limited marriage to one man and one woman? Islam allows four wives. Jewish Kings like Solomon had hundreds.
Off topic: Just approaching That London on the train. Baroness Warsi sitting a few tables away from me. Last time I saw her was when I was in the Question Time audience and she demolished Nick Griffin.
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?
Golly!
My mum gave me a golly when I was small, bought it in antique shop I think. It had yellow hair. I remember being very very small and staring at it and not liking it.
I still got all those old things in a container in the old pig house roof. When i’m next up there I’ll photograph it so you can see how scary it is.
I had a golly bank, you put the penny in one hand pulled the other arm and arm came up and penny went into its mouth, no idea what happened to it but doubt it would be pc today.
I had one as well. You sometimes used to see them on shop counters as a way of giving to charity.
Me too. They were common, as was the Robertson's Marmalade gollywog. Nobody thought anything of it, probably because nothing malicious was intended.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Since when have Islam and Judaism limited marriage to one man and one woman? Islam allows four wives. Jewish Kings like Solomon had hundreds.
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.
I have a soft spot for Blyton's books as my mother read them too me when I was small and very ill in bed with a combination of chicken pox and food poisoning. Though I do remember us both laughing at some of the more obvious social ticks she had when describing characters.
Blyton's books are usually an exciting read, albeit a touch formulaic. Her snobbery is absolutely hilarious though, and is one reason why her books are so camp and spoofable.
It was finding a copy of Five on a Hike Together in a bag ready to go to charity at my Grandma's house sometime in the early 80s - the first 'proper' book I ever read, alone and unguided, without pictures on every page - that gave me a lifelong love of books and reading. After I'd devoured a ton of Blyton stuff I then shifted to the Just William books.
I'm no professional Yorkshireman, but they painted a very different world to the one I grew up in. A little part of me will always wish I went to boarding school. Which is weird because another, much bigger, part of me would like to see private education abolished.
I enjoyed reading those sorts of Blyton books to my children (and Roald Dahl) because they are fun to read out loud. I tended to adopt various comedy accents for the characters, and read the Blyton narrator voice in an archaic manner with lashings of vocal ginger beer. It’s very clearly fiction and not real life, but the little world it creates is compelling. The famous five gave me a lifelong excitement at the idea of small West Country coves and mysterious offshore islands.
Danny the Champion of the world was my first self-read book and its motifs live with me to this day, including a rather unwarranted feeling about the deliciousness of pheasant.
Swallows and Amazons for me, complete with Titty and Roger. And the two very idnependent young ladies, Nancy and I forget the other.
Peggy!
The politics of Swallow and Amazons is much less troubling. I loved those books when I was little, they were the first proper books I read to myself.
The accents of the local characters are a bit trickier as Cumbrian dialect isn’t as easy to master as the combination of West Country burr and Ray Winstone cockney criminal required for the average friendly local / baddie in famous 5.
I used to deploy a range of accents when I read to the kids. For some reason I always did the Gruffalo as a Glaswegian, while the mouse was a crafty Cockney. The youngest one still likes to have the Katie Morag books read to her in full-on Scottish. Grannie Mainland, who is a bit posh, always ends up sounding like she's from Morningside, even though I'm pretty sure she's a Weegie.
True Cockney is very difficult to imitate. Notably embarrassing attempts include Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady and Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins.
I think it is the glottal stop that is the main problem, whilst the distortion of vowels and arbitrary elimination of certain consonants add to the difficulty.
It just ain't a natural way to talk.
Criticism of Audrey Hepburn! We could fall out!
Actually I thought she did her flower lady quite well. She didn't try to capture the east-end accent but just the slight abrasiveness of it.
'My Fair Lady' is probably my favourite film though.
Agreed. The camera has never loved anyone the way it loved Audrey. And MFL is just a joyous film.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Since when have Islam and Judaism limited marriage to one man and one woman? Islam allows four wives. Jewish Kings like Solomon had hundreds.
Why would anyone want more than one wife? And even that, I'm thinking, may have been too many.
I believe the thinking is that they will complain to each other and spare you the ear ache.
Now, I'm no expert on this, but isn't it more likely they'll all complain to you about each other?
That sounds - candidly - like a complete nightmare.
Whenever I hear about bigamists who kept two families in two different towns, I think, WTF? Why? You've got half your time on your own, you lucky bastard. Why would you add a second family???
This discussion is making me feel a bit of an oddball in that I have virtually no recall of these old classic children's books, Blyton, Dahl, Just William etc. Either I didn't read them or (perhaps more likely) I did and they left little impression.
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?
Well that, I'm afraid, is just sick.
Danny the Champion of the World is an outstanding work.
As is Fantastic Mr Fox, Boy, and Going Solo. There's very little wrong with James and the Giant Peach either. Indeed, fuck it, his whole body of work is pretty bloody outstanding.
His work varies tremendously. DTCOTW and JATGP are both wonderful, happy and uplifting. Whereas the Twits, for example, is disturbing and unpleasant.
It tends to depend on how quickly the cartoonishly unpleasant characters (such as Aunts Spiker and Sponge) can be got out of the way.
Roald Dahl, though, is one of the few writers who can both plot well and write well. His language is a joy. I don't mind the replacement of an odd word whose once-benign meaning has become anachronistic, if it can be done without changing the meter, but I'd lament a rewrite to fit in with modern sensitivities. (I recently read DTCOTW to my daughter, and was struck by how it wouldn't be written now. Not any of the major modern transgressions, but: - poaching presented as a good thing, at least in that the poacher gets to eat tasty meat - a small boy driving a car presented as somewhat heroic - stoicism presented as a virtue)
The Twits was one of my favourites as a kid - but it's obviously an unreal grotesque, and as a kid you understand that as intuitively as you understand that DTCOTW or Boy is not.
His theme around fat=bad is a bit of an odd one (and again, even as a kid having read a few of his books you notice it) but he's hardly alone in that. And simply changing the words can't really take away the fundamental issue that he often equates a person's personality with their appearance (the bald witches are another). TBH, like most people I think changing the words here is a bit PC-gone-mad and is a gift to the Proper Bin Men crew.
The one I never really got on with was the BFG. Can't think why in retrospect; maybe his propensity for silly made-up words just went to far in that one.
Off topic: Just approaching That London on the train. Baroness Warsi sitting a few tables away from me. Last time I saw her was when I was in the Question Time audience and she demolished Nick Griffin.
I guess you'll both be slaving away at your desks until thursday evening.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Since when have Islam and Judaism limited marriage to one man and one woman? Islam allows four wives. Jewish Kings like Solomon had hundreds.
Why would anyone want more than one wife? And even that, I'm thinking, may have been too many.
One to do the cooking; one to do the gardening; one to do the housework; and a fourth to do the shopping.
I think it's cheaper to outsource those roles to professionals.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Since when have Islam and Judaism limited marriage to one man and one woman? Islam allows four wives. Jewish Kings like Solomon had hundreds.
Why would anyone want more than one wife? And even that, I'm thinking, may have been too many.
One to do the cooking; one to do the gardening; one to do the housework; and a fourth to do the shopping.
And when all four stare icily at you for traipsing through the house in your muddy shoes?
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Since when have Islam and Judaism limited marriage to one man and one woman? Islam allows four wives. Jewish Kings like Solomon had hundreds.
Why would anyone want more than one wife? And even that, I'm thinking, may have been too many.
One to do the cooking; one to do the gardening; one to do the housework; and a fourth to do the shopping.
I think it's cheaper to outsource those roles to professionals.
Or as Clement Freud once put it, 'cheaper to rent than to buy'.
(Jeez, how close to the ban hammer are we getting here?)
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?
Well that, I'm afraid, is just sick.
Danny the Champion of the World is an outstanding work.
As is Fantastic Mr Fox, Boy, and Going Solo. There's very little wrong with James and the Giant Peach either. Indeed, fuck it, his whole body of work is pretty bloody outstanding.
His work varies tremendously. DTCOTW and JATGP are both wonderful, happy and uplifting. Whereas the Twits, for example, is disturbing and unpleasant.
It tends to depend on how quickly the cartoonishly unpleasant characters (such as Aunts Spiker and Sponge) can be got out of the way.
Roald Dahl, though, is one of the few writers who can both plot well and write well. His language is a joy. I don't mind the replacement of an odd word whose once-benign meaning has become anachronistic, if it can be done without changing the meter, but I'd lament a rewrite to fit in with modern sensitivities. (I recently read DTCOTW to my daughter, and was struck by how it wouldn't be written now. Not any of the major modern transgressions, but: - poaching presented as a good thing, at least in that the poacher gets to eat tasty meat - a small boy driving a car presented as somewhat heroic - stoicism presented as a virtue)
The Twits was one of my favourites as a kid - but it's obviously an unreal grotesque, and as a kid you understand that as intuitively as you understand that DTCOTW or Boy is not.
His theme around fat=bad is a bit of an odd one (and again, even as a kid having read a few of his books you notice it) but he's hardly alone in that. And simply changing the words can't really take away the fundamental issue that he often equates a person's personality with their appearance (the bald witches are another). TBH, like most people I think changing the words here is a bit PC-gone-mad and is a gift to the Proper Bin Men crew.
The one I never really got on with was the BFG. Can't think why in retrospect; maybe his propensity for silly made-up words just went to far in that one.
I guess when RD was writing (over 60 years ago, remember) being fat was very unusual and probably a sign of something bad. Not like now.
Meanwhile, the Labour poll lead is plumping up- Starmer had better hope it doesn't end like Augustus Gloop;
Labour leads by 27%, the largest lead for Labour since Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (18 February):
Labour 51% (+3) Conservative 24% (-3) Liberal Democrat 10% (+1) Reform UK 6% (–) Green 5% (–) SNP 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I expect plenty of people would be offended by that statement.
Rest assured that loads of people will be offended by its assertion and its denial.
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?
Golly!
My mum gave me a golly when I was small, bought it in antique shop I think. It had yellow hair. I remember being very very small and staring at it and not liking it.
I still got all those old things in a container in the old pig house roof. When i’m next up there I’ll photograph it so you can see how scary it is.
I had a golly bank, you put the penny in one hand pulled the other arm and arm came up and penny went into its mouth, no idea what happened to it but doubt it would be pc today.
I had one as well. You sometimes used to see them on shop counters as a way of giving to charity.
Me too. They were common, as was the Robertson's Marmalade gollywog. Nobody thought anything of it, probably because nothing malicious was intended.
The intent isn't always the point though. My great grandma had a cat whose name was an extremely offensive racist term (think Dambusters). There was no malice intended there either, and it doesn't make her a bad person, but nor does it make it right. Times move on, and for the better.
Incidentally, my mum had one of those cast iron penny banks where the woman ate the penny - she was called DINAH (printed on the back). I wonder how popular they were? I've not seen one since then.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
It'll be interesting to see if she manages any better than Tim Farron did as Lib Dem leader in somewhat similar circumstances.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
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.
I have a soft spot for Blyton's books as my mother read them too me when I was small and very ill in bed with a combination of chicken pox and food poisoning. Though I do remember us both laughing at some of the more obvious social ticks she had when describing characters.
Blyton's books are usually an exciting read, albeit a touch formulaic. Her snobbery is absolutely hilarious though, and is one reason why her books are so camp and spoofable.
It was finding a copy of Five on a Hike Together in a bag ready to go to charity at my Grandma's house sometime in the early 80s - the first 'proper' book I ever read, alone and unguided, without pictures on every page - that gave me a lifelong love of books and reading. After I'd devoured a ton of Blyton stuff I then shifted to the Just William books.
I'm no professional Yorkshireman, but they painted a very different world to the one I grew up in. A little part of me will always wish I went to boarding school. Which is weird because another, much bigger, part of me would like to see private education abolished.
I enjoyed reading those sorts of Blyton books to my children (and Roald Dahl) because they are fun to read out loud. I tended to adopt various comedy accents for the characters, and read the Blyton narrator voice in an archaic manner with lashings of vocal ginger beer. It’s very clearly fiction and not real life, but the little world it creates is compelling. The famous five gave me a lifelong excitement at the idea of small West Country coves and mysterious offshore islands.
Danny the Champion of the world was my first self-read book and its motifs live with me to this day, including a rather unwarranted feeling about the deliciousness of pheasant.
Swallows and Amazons for me, complete with Titty and Roger. And the two very idnependent young ladies, Nancy and I forget the other.
Peggy!
The politics of Swallow and Amazons is much less troubling. I loved those books when I was little, they were the first proper books I read to myself.
The accents of the local characters are a bit trickier as Cumbrian dialect isn’t as easy to master as the combination of West Country burr and Ray Winstone cockney criminal required for the average friendly local / baddie in famous 5.
I used to deploy a range of accents when I read to the kids. For some reason I always did the Gruffalo as a Glaswegian, while the mouse was a crafty Cockney. The youngest one still likes to have the Katie Morag books read to her in full-on Scottish. Grannie Mainland, who is a bit posh, always ends up sounding like she's from Morningside, even though I'm pretty sure she's a Weegie.
True Cockney is very difficult to imitate. Notably embarrassing attempts include Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady and Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins.
I think it is the glottal stop that is the main problem, whilst the distortion of vowels and arbitrary elimination of certain consonants add to the difficulty.
It just ain't a natural way to talk.
Criticism of Audrey Hepburn! We could fall out!
Actually I thought she did her flower lady quite well. She didn't try to capture the east-end accent but just the slight abrasiveness of it.
'My Fair Lady' is probably my favourite film though.
Agreed. The camera has never loved anyone the way it loved Audrey. And MFL is just a joyous film.
This quite amazing profile of Sir Rex Harrison has him feeling she was miscast.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
She is entitled to her own opinion and clearly states so does everybody else. That is not being anti anything except in the minds of bigots.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
She is entitled to her own opinion and clearly states so does everybody else. That is not being anti anything except in the minds of bigots.
You are both correct.
The key thing is what she decides to do with her political power, assuming she wins.
And that may prove to be a disappointment to some of her supporters.
This discussion is making me feel a bit of an oddball in that I have virtually no recall of these old classic children's books, Blyton, Dahl, Just William etc. Either I didn't read them or (perhaps more likely) I did and they left little impression.
What books (if any) do you remember?
I really liked Robert Westall as a bairn; he seems to have fallen out of favour now. The Hobbit was my favourite book (and is still up there tbh; he good genuinely spin a good, crisp and non-noodly yarn when he turned his mind to it, that Tolkien fella).
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?
Golly!
My mum gave me a golly when I was small, bought it in antique shop I think. It had yellow hair. I remember being very very small and staring at it and not liking it.
I still got all those old things in a container in the old pig house roof. When i’m next up there I’ll photograph it so you can see how scary it is.
I had a golly bank, you put the penny in one hand pulled the other arm and arm came up and penny went into its mouth, no idea what happened to it but doubt it would be pc today.
I had one as well. You sometimes used to see them on shop counters as a way of giving to charity.
Me too. They were common, as was the Robertson's Marmalade gollywog. Nobody thought anything of it, probably because nothing malicious was intended.
The intent isn't always the point though. My great grandma had a cat whose name was an extremely offensive racist term (think Dambusters). There was no malice intended there either, and it doesn't make her a bad person, but nor does it make it right. Times move on, and for the better.
Incidentally, my mum had one of those cast iron penny banks where the woman ate the penny - she was called DINAH (printed on the back). I wonder how popular they were? I've not seen one since then.
No, I take your point, G. People should take care, and avoid causing offence where possible.
I know the Dambusters case. It's interesting. It's plainly not racist. The dog is black, ffs. It should be left in, if only to indicate to later generations how the name could be used innocently at that time.
You wouldn't do it now though, and I suspect your great grandma was a little behind the times , but definitely not malicious.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
The Government’s net competency rating stands at -38% this week, down six points from last Sunday, and the joint-worst rating we’ve recorded since Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister. Altogether, 15% find the Government competent (-3), and 53% find the Government incompetent (+3). More of those who voted Conservative in 2019 find the Government to be incompetent (38%) than competent (29%).
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak receives a net approval rating of -22%, down six points from our poll last Sunday, and the lowest approval rating he has recorded as either Prime Minister or Chancellor. Yesterday’s poll finds 24% approving of his overall job performance (-4) against 46% (+2) disapproving.
Labour leader Keir Starmer’s net approval rating stands at +12%, up three points from last week. 38% approve of Starmer’s job performance (+1), while 26% disapprove (-2).
Keir Starmer has undoubtedly put Labour in its strongest position since 2005.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭
Starmer is a lucky general.
Starmer appears to be a lucky general. He's not yet won a battle. Nonetheless there's a long list of the eliminated and a decent list of the coerced - he's perhaps fighting and winning the battles that actually matter for him.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭
Starmer is a lucky general.
As Mitt Romney once said:
"I believe marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman... and a woman... and a woman..."
And finally, Keir Starmer (41%, +1) leads Rishi Sunak (32%, -2) by nine points on who would be the better Prime Minister at this moment, the joint-largest lead he has held over Sunak since Sunak became Prime Minister in October.
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?
Well that, I'm afraid, is just sick.
Danny the Champion of the World is an outstanding work.
As is Fantastic Mr Fox, Boy, and Going Solo. There's very little wrong with James and the Giant Peach either. Indeed, fuck it, his whole body of work is pretty bloody outstanding.
His work varies tremendously. DTCOTW and JATGP are both wonderful, happy and uplifting. Whereas the Twits, for example, is disturbing and unpleasant.
It tends to depend on how quickly the cartoonishly unpleasant characters (such as Aunts Spiker and Sponge) can be got out of the way.
Roald Dahl, though, is one of the few writers who can both plot well and write well. His language is a joy. I don't mind the replacement of an odd word whose once-benign meaning has become anachronistic, if it can be done without changing the meter, but I'd lament a rewrite to fit in with modern sensitivities. (I recently read DTCOTW to my daughter, and was struck by how it wouldn't be written now. Not any of the major modern transgressions, but: - poaching presented as a good thing, at least in that the poacher gets to eat tasty meat - a small boy driving a car presented as somewhat heroic - stoicism presented as a virtue)
The Twits was one of my favourites as a kid - but it's obviously an unreal grotesque, and as a kid you understand that as intuitively as you understand that DTCOTW or Boy is not.
His theme around fat=bad is a bit of an odd one (and again, even as a kid having read a few of his books you notice it) but he's hardly alone in that. And simply changing the words can't really take away the fundamental issue that he often equates a person's personality with their appearance (the bald witches are another). TBH, like most people I think changing the words here is a bit PC-gone-mad and is a gift to the Proper Bin Men crew.
The one I never really got on with was the BFG. Can't think why in retrospect; maybe his propensity for silly made-up words just went to far in that one.
I guess when RD was writing (over 60 years ago, remember) being fat was very unusual and probably a sign of something bad. Not like now.
Meanwhile, the Labour poll lead is plumping up- Starmer had better hope it doesn't end like Augustus Gloop;
Labour leads by 27%, the largest lead for Labour since Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (18 February):
Labour 51% (+3) Conservative 24% (-3) Liberal Democrat 10% (+1) Reform UK 6% (–) Green 5% (–) SNP 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
She is entitled to her own opinion and clearly states so does everybody else. That is not being anti anything except in the minds of bigots.
You are both correct.
Isn't she implying that she thinks that same-sex marriage is immoral? Of course she can think whatever she wants, but this seems like textbook bigotry to me. And if it isn't going to inform her policy position on this issue, why does she even tell us? And what does she mean "that's what I practice?" Unless she is actually officiating at weddings it seems to mean that she herself is married to a man, and won't marry a woman. Which is a weird thing to say.
Also, most of the mainstream protestant churches in Europe (with the notable exception of the CofE) accept same-sex marriage.
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?
Well that, I'm afraid, is just sick.
Danny the Champion of the World is an outstanding work.
As is Fantastic Mr Fox, Boy, and Going Solo. There's very little wrong with James and the Giant Peach either. Indeed, fuck it, his whole body of work is pretty bloody outstanding.
His work varies tremendously. DTCOTW and JATGP are both wonderful, happy and uplifting. Whereas the Twits, for example, is disturbing and unpleasant.
It tends to depend on how quickly the cartoonishly unpleasant characters (such as Aunts Spiker and Sponge) can be got out of the way.
Roald Dahl, though, is one of the few writers who can both plot well and write well. His language is a joy. I don't mind the replacement of an odd word whose once-benign meaning has become anachronistic, if it can be done without changing the meter, but I'd lament a rewrite to fit in with modern sensitivities. (I recently read DTCOTW to my daughter, and was struck by how it wouldn't be written now. Not any of the major modern transgressions, but: - poaching presented as a good thing, at least in that the poacher gets to eat tasty meat - a small boy driving a car presented as somewhat heroic - stoicism presented as a virtue)
The Twits was one of my favourites as a kid - but it's obviously an unreal grotesque, and as a kid you understand that as intuitively as you understand that DTCOTW or Boy is not.
His theme around fat=bad is a bit of an odd one (and again, even as a kid having read a few of his books you notice it) but he's hardly alone in that. And simply changing the words can't really take away the fundamental issue that he often equates a person's personality with their appearance (the bald witches are another). TBH, like most people I think changing the words here is a bit PC-gone-mad and is a gift to the Proper Bin Men crew.
The one I never really got on with was the BFG. Can't think why in retrospect; maybe his propensity for silly made-up words just went to far in that one.
I guess when RD was writing (over 60 years ago, remember) being fat was very unusual and probably a sign of something bad. Not like now.
Meanwhile, the Labour poll lead is plumping up- Starmer had better hope it doesn't end like Augustus Gloop;
Labour leads by 27%, the largest lead for Labour since Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (18 February):
Labour 51% (+3) Conservative 24% (-3) Liberal Democrat 10% (+1) Reform UK 6% (–) Green 5% (–) SNP 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
"She is entitled to her own opinion", well yes but I'm also entitled to call her out for it.
Forbes thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, that is exactly what those opposing gay marriage said. She might not be a bigot but she is certainly not in tune with modern values.
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?
Well that, I'm afraid, is just sick.
Danny the Champion of the World is an outstanding work.
As is Fantastic Mr Fox, Boy, and Going Solo. There's very little wrong with James and the Giant Peach either. Indeed, fuck it, his whole body of work is pretty bloody outstanding.
His work varies tremendously. DTCOTW and JATGP are both wonderful, happy and uplifting. Whereas the Twits, for example, is disturbing and unpleasant.
It tends to depend on how quickly the cartoonishly unpleasant characters (such as Aunts Spiker and Sponge) can be got out of the way.
Roald Dahl, though, is one of the few writers who can both plot well and write well. His language is a joy. I don't mind the replacement of an odd word whose once-benign meaning has become anachronistic, if it can be done without changing the meter, but I'd lament a rewrite to fit in with modern sensitivities. (I recently read DTCOTW to my daughter, and was struck by how it wouldn't be written now. Not any of the major modern transgressions, but: - poaching presented as a good thing, at least in that the poacher gets to eat tasty meat - a small boy driving a car presented as somewhat heroic - stoicism presented as a virtue)
The Twits was one of my favourites as a kid - but it's obviously an unreal grotesque, and as a kid you understand that as intuitively as you understand that DTCOTW or Boy is not.
His theme around fat=bad is a bit of an odd one (and again, even as a kid having read a few of his books you notice it) but he's hardly alone in that. And simply changing the words can't really take away the fundamental issue that he often equates a person's personality with their appearance (the bald witches are another). TBH, like most people I think changing the words here is a bit PC-gone-mad and is a gift to the Proper Bin Men crew.
The one I never really got on with was the BFG. Can't think why in retrospect; maybe his propensity for silly made-up words just went to far in that one.
I guess when RD was writing (over 60 years ago, remember) being fat was very unusual and probably a sign of something bad. Not like now.
Meanwhile, the Labour poll lead is plumping up- Starmer had better hope it doesn't end like Augustus Gloop;
Labour leads by 27%, the largest lead for Labour since Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (18 February):
Labour 51% (+3) Conservative 24% (-3) Liberal Democrat 10% (+1) Reform UK 6% (–) Green 5% (–) SNP 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Sunak went from +60 to -22, an astonishing drop but I long have predicted it, as have others. He is useless.
I think you're right. At the height of Covid, when Sunak was doling out largesse right, left and centre, I seem to recall he was amazingly popular. His fall from grace has been rapid and precipitous. And at least part of that fall stems, I think, from the fact that he doesn't lead very well, and seems incapable of imposing his will on his own party, let alone the rest of the country.
Stock levels in supermarkets, at least in my area, definitely took a step down with Brexit and have never recovered. I don't think it's primarily due to driver shortage. Rather supermarkets discovered they could run their systems hot - without costly stock buffers and with more empty shelves - and not suffer a customer backlash.
And if it all looks a bit East German, they can always blame Brexit.
Sunak went from +60 to -22, an astonishing drop but I long have predicted it, as have others. He is useless.
I think you're right. At the height of Covid, when Sunak was doling out largesse right, left and centre, I seem to recall he was amazingly popular. His fall from grace has been rapid and precipitous. And at least part of that fall stems, I think, from the fact that he doesn't lead very well, and seems incapable of imposing his will on his own party, let alone the rest of the country.
He is "weak, weak, weak", Starmer really ought to bring that line back.
Starmer looks strong compared to him and I think the public are starting to see that. The Tories are out of ideas and out of control and Sunak is unable or unwilling to do anything about it.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
If someone's stated "personal philosophical or religious positions" are against equal human rights, then it is right to criticise those positions. But the idea that Roman Catholics and Muslims aren't criticised (in the UK) is the opposite of my experience.
Ms Forbes, a member of the Free Church of Scotland, was asked whether a man should be able to marry another man.
She says: "Equal marriage is a legal right and therefore I would defend that legal commitment.
"Incidentally though I would hope that others can defend the rights of other minorities, including religious minorities that might take a different view."
She said there was a distinction to be made between personal morality and practice - and a person's political responsibilities as a lawmaker.
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?
Well that, I'm afraid, is just sick.
Danny the Champion of the World is an outstanding work.
As is Fantastic Mr Fox, Boy, and Going Solo. There's very little wrong with James and the Giant Peach either. Indeed, fuck it, his whole body of work is pretty bloody outstanding.
His work varies tremendously. DTCOTW and JATGP are both wonderful, happy and uplifting. Whereas the Twits, for example, is disturbing and unpleasant.
It tends to depend on how quickly the cartoonishly unpleasant characters (such as Aunts Spiker and Sponge) can be got out of the way.
Roald Dahl, though, is one of the few writers who can both plot well and write well. His language is a joy. I don't mind the replacement of an odd word whose once-benign meaning has become anachronistic, if it can be done without changing the meter, but I'd lament a rewrite to fit in with modern sensitivities. (I recently read DTCOTW to my daughter, and was struck by how it wouldn't be written now. Not any of the major modern transgressions, but: - poaching presented as a good thing, at least in that the poacher gets to eat tasty meat - a small boy driving a car presented as somewhat heroic - stoicism presented as a virtue)
The Twits was one of my favourites as a kid - but it's obviously an unreal grotesque, and as a kid you understand that as intuitively as you understand that DTCOTW or Boy is not.
His theme around fat=bad is a bit of an odd one (and again, even as a kid having read a few of his books you notice it) but he's hardly alone in that. And simply changing the words can't really take away the fundamental issue that he often equates a person's personality with their appearance (the bald witches are another). TBH, like most people I think changing the words here is a bit PC-gone-mad and is a gift to the Proper Bin Men crew.
The one I never really got on with was the BFG. Can't think why in retrospect; maybe his propensity for silly made-up words just went to far in that one.
I guess when RD was writing (over 60 years ago, remember) being fat was very unusual and probably a sign of something bad. Not like now.
Meanwhile, the Labour poll lead is plumping up- Starmer had better hope it doesn't end like Augustus Gloop;
Labour leads by 27%, the largest lead for Labour since Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (18 February):
Labour 51% (+3) Conservative 24% (-3) Liberal Democrat 10% (+1) Reform UK 6% (–) Green 5% (–) SNP 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭
Starmer is a lucky general.
Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.
The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism
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.)
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?
Well that, I'm afraid, is just sick.
Danny the Champion of the World is an outstanding work.
As is Fantastic Mr Fox, Boy, and Going Solo. There's very little wrong with James and the Giant Peach either. Indeed, fuck it, his whole body of work is pretty bloody outstanding.
This is a thing where to explain is to lose. (see the failed attempts at "it doesn't work like that" from Remain in 2016.) Politically, what matters is the perception.
Also, at the very least, Brexit has reduced the degrees of flex and freedom in the system. Maybe not by much, but the invisible hand is at least a bit constrained by the new arrangements compared with the old ones. And that's always going to come at a price. It may be a price worth paying, but denying the price is silly.
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?
Well that, I'm afraid, is just sick.
Danny the Champion of the World is an outstanding work.
As is Fantastic Mr Fox, Boy, and Going Solo. There's very little wrong with James and the Giant Peach either. Indeed, fuck it, his whole body of work is pretty bloody outstanding.
His work varies tremendously. DTCOTW and JATGP are both wonderful, happy and uplifting. Whereas the Twits, for example, is disturbing and unpleasant.
It tends to depend on how quickly the cartoonishly unpleasant characters (such as Aunts Spiker and Sponge) can be got out of the way.
Roald Dahl, though, is one of the few writers who can both plot well and write well. His language is a joy. I don't mind the replacement of an odd word whose once-benign meaning has become anachronistic, if it can be done without changing the meter, but I'd lament a rewrite to fit in with modern sensitivities. (I recently read DTCOTW to my daughter, and was struck by how it wouldn't be written now. Not any of the major modern transgressions, but: - poaching presented as a good thing, at least in that the poacher gets to eat tasty meat - a small boy driving a car presented as somewhat heroic - stoicism presented as a virtue)
The Twits was one of my favourites as a kid - but it's obviously an unreal grotesque, and as a kid you understand that as intuitively as you understand that DTCOTW or Boy is not.
His theme around fat=bad is a bit of an odd one (and again, even as a kid having read a few of his books you notice it) but he's hardly alone in that. And simply changing the words can't really take away the fundamental issue that he often equates a person's personality with their appearance (the bald witches are another). TBH, like most people I think changing the words here is a bit PC-gone-mad and is a gift to the Proper Bin Men crew.
The one I never really got on with was the BFG. Can't think why in retrospect; maybe his propensity for silly made-up words just went to far in that one.
I guess when RD was writing (over 60 years ago, remember) being fat was very unusual and probably a sign of something bad. Not like now.
Meanwhile, the Labour poll lead is plumping up- Starmer had better hope it doesn't end like Augustus Gloop;
Labour leads by 27%, the largest lead for Labour since Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (18 February):
Labour 51% (+3) Conservative 24% (-3) Liberal Democrat 10% (+1) Reform UK 6% (–) Green 5% (–) SNP 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
BREAKING: Lancashire Police confirm that a body recovered from the River Wyre has now been identified as Nicola Bulley. Her family are "devastated", say police.
Ms Forbes, a member of the Free Church of Scotland, was asked whether a man should be able to marry another man.
She says: "Equal marriage is a legal right and therefore I would defend that legal commitment.
"Incidentally though I would hope that others can defend the rights of other minorities, including religious minorities that might take a different view."
She said there was a distinction to be made between personal morality and practice - and a person's political responsibilities as a lawmaker.
Hmmmm.
What happens when those things conflict though. As a leader you need to sometimes take a moral stand on things. It’s harder to do if people know your core personal beliefs are at odds with the stance you take politically.
I understand the distinction, I just don’t think it’s going to hold water when she is placed under the microscope.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
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?
Golly!
My mum gave me a golly when I was small, bought it in antique shop I think. It had yellow hair. I remember being very very small and staring at it and not liking it.
I still got all those old things in a container in the old pig house roof. When i’m next up there I’ll photograph it so you can see how scary it is.
I had a golly bank, you put the penny in one hand pulled the other arm and arm came up and penny went into its mouth, no idea what happened to it but doubt it would be pc today.
I had one as well. You sometimes used to see them on shop counters as a way of giving to charity.
Me too. They were common, as was the Robertson's Marmalade gollywog. Nobody thought anything of it, probably because nothing malicious was intended.
The intent isn't always the point though. My great grandma had a cat whose name was an extremely offensive racist term (think Dambusters). There was no malice intended there either, and it doesn't make her a bad person, but nor does it make it right. Times move on, and for the better.
Incidentally, my mum had one of those cast iron penny banks where the woman ate the penny - she was called DINAH (printed on the back). I wonder how popular they were? I've not seen one since then.
No, I take your point, G. People should take care, and avoid causing offence where possible.
I know the Dambusters case. It's interesting. It's plainly not racist. The dog is black, ffs. It should be left in, if only to indicate to later generations how the name could be used innocently at that time.
You wouldn't do it now though, and I suspect your great grandma was a little behind the times , but definitely not malicious.
I get the non malicious part but not sure about the plainly not racist. Unconscious racism is often not meant to be malicious but is still racism. In one of the numerous autobiographies of fighter pilots I’ve read, the author (not a famous one) wrote after a particularly gruelling set of ops of ‘being worked like n***ers’, to me not malicious but still racist. It’d be interesting to see in the fairly rare cases of aircrews of different races serving together what language was considered acceptable.
My gran used the phrase ‘n***er brown’ frequently, and wonderful woman that she was, she was a teeny bit racist. She was born in 1901 so hardly unusual I guess.
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?
Well that, I'm afraid, is just sick.
Danny the Champion of the World is an outstanding work.
As is Fantastic Mr Fox, Boy, and Going Solo. There's very little wrong with James and the Giant Peach either. Indeed, fuck it, his whole body of work is pretty bloody outstanding.
His work varies tremendously. DTCOTW and JATGP are both wonderful, happy and uplifting. Whereas the Twits, for example, is disturbing and unpleasant.
It tends to depend on how quickly the cartoonishly unpleasant characters (such as Aunts Spiker and Sponge) can be got out of the way.
Roald Dahl, though, is one of the few writers who can both plot well and write well. His language is a joy. I don't mind the replacement of an odd word whose once-benign meaning has become anachronistic, if it can be done without changing the meter, but I'd lament a rewrite to fit in with modern sensitivities. (I recently read DTCOTW to my daughter, and was struck by how it wouldn't be written now. Not any of the major modern transgressions, but: - poaching presented as a good thing, at least in that the poacher gets to eat tasty meat - a small boy driving a car presented as somewhat heroic - stoicism presented as a virtue)
The Twits was one of my favourites as a kid - but it's obviously an unreal grotesque, and as a kid you understand that as intuitively as you understand that DTCOTW or Boy is not.
His theme around fat=bad is a bit of an odd one (and again, even as a kid having read a few of his books you notice it) but he's hardly alone in that. And simply changing the words can't really take away the fundamental issue that he often equates a person's personality with their appearance (the bald witches are another). TBH, like most people I think changing the words here is a bit PC-gone-mad and is a gift to the Proper Bin Men crew.
The one I never really got on with was the BFG. Can't think why in retrospect; maybe his propensity for silly made-up words just went to far in that one.
I guess when RD was writing (over 60 years ago, remember) being fat was very unusual and probably a sign of something bad. Not like now.
Meanwhile, the Labour poll lead is plumping up- Starmer had better hope it doesn't end like Augustus Gloop;
Labour leads by 27%, the largest lead for Labour since Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (18 February):
Labour 51% (+3) Conservative 24% (-3) Liberal Democrat 10% (+1) Reform UK 6% (–) Green 5% (–) SNP 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
Why is homosexuality ever wrong? What is wrong with two people who love each other?
Where do you draw the line, are people allowed to say that Jewish people are inferior to others? What about black people?
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?
Well that, I'm afraid, is just sick.
Danny the Champion of the World is an outstanding work.
As is Fantastic Mr Fox, Boy, and Going Solo. There's very little wrong with James and the Giant Peach either. Indeed, fuck it, his whole body of work is pretty bloody outstanding.
His work varies tremendously. DTCOTW and JATGP are both wonderful, happy and uplifting. Whereas the Twits, for example, is disturbing and unpleasant.
It tends to depend on how quickly the cartoonishly unpleasant characters (such as Aunts Spiker and Sponge) can be got out of the way.
Roald Dahl, though, is one of the few writers who can both plot well and write well. His language is a joy. I don't mind the replacement of an odd word whose once-benign meaning has become anachronistic, if it can be done without changing the meter, but I'd lament a rewrite to fit in with modern sensitivities. (I recently read DTCOTW to my daughter, and was struck by how it wouldn't be written now. Not any of the major modern transgressions, but: - poaching presented as a good thing, at least in that the poacher gets to eat tasty meat - a small boy driving a car presented as somewhat heroic - stoicism presented as a virtue)
The Twits was one of my favourites as a kid - but it's obviously an unreal grotesque, and as a kid you understand that as intuitively as you understand that DTCOTW or Boy is not.
His theme around fat=bad is a bit of an odd one (and again, even as a kid having read a few of his books you notice it) but he's hardly alone in that. And simply changing the words can't really take away the fundamental issue that he often equates a person's personality with their appearance (the bald witches are another). TBH, like most people I think changing the words here is a bit PC-gone-mad and is a gift to the Proper Bin Men crew.
The one I never really got on with was the BFG. Can't think why in retrospect; maybe his propensity for silly made-up words just went to far in that one.
I guess when RD was writing (over 60 years ago, remember) being fat was very unusual and probably a sign of something bad. Not like now.
Meanwhile, the Labour poll lead is plumping up- Starmer had better hope it doesn't end like Augustus Gloop;
Labour leads by 27%, the largest lead for Labour since Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (18 February):
Labour 51% (+3) Conservative 24% (-3) Liberal Democrat 10% (+1) Reform UK 6% (–) Green 5% (–) SNP 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
That's huge, and from a pollster that hasn't always been particularly favorable to Labour.
The May elections are going to be a bloodbath.
Another subsample lead for SLAB too (Omnisis the other day). You can't read too much into them, but SLAB didn't get any subsample leads (post indy-ref) till recently.
Ms Forbes, a member of the Free Church of Scotland, was asked whether a man should be able to marry another man.
She says: "Equal marriage is a legal right and therefore I would defend that legal commitment.
"Incidentally though I would hope that others can defend the rights of other minorities, including religious minorities that might take a different view."
She said there was a distinction to be made between personal morality and practice - and a person's political responsibilities as a lawmaker.
She has the makings of a proper liberal. Liberalism is a procedure for the conduct of society, not a set of policies. Its point is that different views flourish with free debate and open argument. Policies should be based on the minimum amount of forbidding and compelling, and buttressed by the power of voters to change policies they don't like.
She will be in trouble with anti-liberals, who don't in their hearts want people disagreeing with them.
Absolutely damming statement from the family naming Sky and ITV plus others of irresponsible journalism and contacting them when expressly told not to
It is time the media were held to account over their irresponsible journalism
I've long been a member of the How Do You Feel club.
That's is, if ever involved in some major incident, they stick a microphone under your nose and ask that stupid, stupid question... You take time to consider. Than a punch to their nose. Then say "Like that, mostly".
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭
Starmer is a lucky general.
Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.
The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
if you are a liberal the reverse is also true: Those who believe homosexuality is right have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against those who believe it is wrong has no place in a liberal society.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭
Starmer is a lucky general.
Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.
The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism
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?
Golly!
My mum gave me a golly when I was small, bought it in antique shop I think. It had yellow hair. I remember being very very small and staring at it and not liking it.
I still got all those old things in a container in the old pig house roof. When i’m next up there I’ll photograph it so you can see how scary it is.
I had a golly bank, you put the penny in one hand pulled the other arm and arm came up and penny went into its mouth, no idea what happened to it but doubt it would be pc today.
I had one as well. You sometimes used to see them on shop counters as a way of giving to charity.
Me too. They were common, as was the Robertson's Marmalade gollywog. Nobody thought anything of it, probably because nothing malicious was intended.
The intent isn't always the point though. My great grandma had a cat whose name was an extremely offensive racist term (think Dambusters). There was no malice intended there either, and it doesn't make her a bad person, but nor does it make it right. Times move on, and for the better.
Incidentally, my mum had one of those cast iron penny banks where the woman ate the penny - she was called DINAH (printed on the back). I wonder how popular they were? I've not seen one since then.
No, I take your point, G. People should take care, and avoid causing offence where possible.
I know the Dambusters case. It's interesting. It's plainly not racist. The dog is black, ffs. It should be left in, if only to indicate to later generations how the name could be used innocently at that time.
You wouldn't do it now though, and I suspect your great grandma was a little behind the times , but definitely not malicious.
I get the non malicious part but not sure about the plainly not racist. Unconscious racism is often not meant to be malicious but is still racism. In one of the numerous autobiographies of fighter pilots I’ve read, the author (not a famous one) wrote after a particularly gruelling set of ops of ‘being worked like n***ers’, to me not malicious but still racist. It’d be interesting to see in the fairly rare cases of aircrews of different races serving together what language was considered acceptable.
My gran used the phrase ‘n***er brown’ frequently, and wonderful woman that she was, she was a teeny bit racist. She was born in 1901 so hardly unusual I guess.
That's interesting, Div, but less difficult or complicated than is widely thought.
The phrase 'working like a nigger' was commonplace in my youth but then we barely ever saw a real black person so it was literally just a figure of speech, loosely derived I suspect from accounts of plantation workers. It wasn't intentionally racist but as it became increasingly evident that it could be inadvertantly so, it became less common and was supplanted by the less offensive alternatives.
No dog has yet been heard to complain that I occasionally work like one.
Comments
Edit2: Just intended edit one as an edit!
Holloway was born in Manor Park and schooled in Stratford, so not strictly a Cockney but the local accent would have been indistinguishable and he would certainly have heard plenty of it.
I always thought it was the the r blending into a w that marked true cockney out from the Norf Lahnden I grew up surrwounded by.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
So they had to make a film which could not be mistaken for a Disney adaptation - I think they have succeeded!
'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
The only questionable one is Esio Trot, where an old man manipulates a younger lady into marriage.
There are recordings of East end speech of the time.
"marriage is between a man and a woman." No gays then
"I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear" No men in womens' spaces then
Is Isla a man or woman?
- small boy driving a car ✓
- stoicism and bravery in the face of immense personal difficulty ✓
- poaching... hmmm...
We can't erase the past: much better to confront it and understand it, and let it serve as a warning for the future. We wouldn't wish to ban Mein Kampf, would we?
Like I said, plenty of people would see that view as being bigoted. I don't agree with what she said there, but I wouldn't go as far to say she is.
That is obvious to anyone that isn't a cretin.
That sounds - candidly - like a complete nightmare.
Whenever I hear about bigamists who kept two families in two different towns, I think, WTF? Why? You've got half your time on your own, you lucky bastard. Why would you add a second family???
His theme around fat=bad is a bit of an odd one (and again, even as a kid having read a few of his books you notice it) but he's hardly alone in that. And simply changing the words can't really take away the fundamental issue that he often equates a person's personality with their appearance (the bald witches are another). TBH, like most people I think changing the words here is a bit PC-gone-mad and is a gift to the Proper Bin Men crew.
The one I never really got on with was the BFG. Can't think why in retrospect; maybe his propensity for silly made-up words just went to far in that one.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
(Jeez, how close to the ban hammer are we getting here?)
Meanwhile, the Labour poll lead is plumping up- Starmer had better hope it doesn't end like Augustus Gloop;
Labour leads by 27%, the largest lead for Labour since Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (18 February):
Labour 51% (+3)
Conservative 24% (-3)
Liberal Democrat 10% (+1)
Reform UK 6% (–)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (-1)
Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 12 February
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1627714707585892370
Incidentally, my mum had one of those cast iron penny banks where the woman ate the penny - she was called DINAH (printed on the back). I wonder how popular they were? I've not seen one since then.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
He really was a piece of work.
https://www.comedy.co.uk/features/comedy_chronicles/rex-harrison-his-greatest-hits/
Starmer is a lucky general.
1. bad weather in southern Europe and North Africa (h/t British Retail Consortium)
2. high cost of energy (British Tomato Growers Association)
(but you'll get more retweets if you blame #Brexit... 😉)
https://twitter.com/julianhjessop/status/1627713286115295245
And that may prove to be a disappointment to some of her supporters.
I really liked Robert Westall as a bairn; he seems to have fallen out of favour now. The Hobbit was my favourite book (and is still up there tbh; he good genuinely spin a good, crisp and non-noodly yarn when he turned his mind to it, that Tolkien fella).
I know the Dambusters case. It's interesting. It's plainly not racist. The dog is black, ffs. It should be left in, if only to indicate to later generations how the name could be used innocently at that time.
You wouldn't do it now though, and I suspect your great grandma was a little behind the times , but definitely not malicious.
Labour leader Keir Starmer’s net approval rating stands at +12%, up three points from last week. 38% approve of Starmer’s job performance (+1), while 26% disapprove (-2).
Keir Starmer has undoubtedly put Labour in its strongest position since 2005.
"I believe marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman... and a woman... and a woman..."
Labour 39%
Tories 33%
Lib Dems 11%
Greens 7%
SNP 5%
Reform 4%
Others 2%
Also, most of the mainstream protestant churches in Europe (with the notable exception of the CofE) accept same-sex marriage.
The May elections are going to be a bloodbath.
Forbes thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, that is exactly what those opposing gay marriage said. She might not be a bigot but she is certainly not in tune with modern values.
And if it all looks a bit East German, they can always blame Brexit.
Starmer looks strong compared to him and I think the public are starting to see that. The Tories are out of ideas and out of control and Sunak is unable or unwilling to do anything about it.
She says: "Equal marriage is a legal right and therefore I would defend that legal commitment.
"Incidentally though I would hope that others can defend the rights of other minorities, including religious minorities that might take a different view."
She said there was a distinction to be made between personal morality and practice - and a person's political responsibilities as a lawmaker.
The local Conservatives just solved this for me by posting a leaflet dedicated almost exclusively to rubbishing the LDs.
Thanks lads.
The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism
This is a thing where to explain is to lose. (see the failed attempts at "it doesn't work like that" from Remain in 2016.) Politically, what matters is the perception.
Also, at the very least, Brexit has reduced the degrees of flex and freedom in the system. Maybe not by much, but the invisible hand is at least a bit constrained by the new arrangements compared with the old ones. And that's always going to come at a price. It may be a price worth paying, but denying the price is silly.
BREAKING: Lancashire Police confirm that a body recovered from the River Wyre has now been identified as Nicola Bulley. Her family are "devastated", say police.
What happens when those things conflict though. As a leader you need to sometimes take a moral stand on things. It’s harder to do if people know your core personal beliefs are at odds with the stance you take politically.
I understand the distinction, I just don’t think it’s going to hold water when she is placed under the microscope.
My gran used the phrase ‘n***er brown’ frequently, and wonderful woman that she was, she was a teeny bit racist. She was born in 1901 so hardly unusual I guess.
I think the media need holding accountable. Some of the journalism - particularly from Sky- has been distasteful and woeful
Where do you draw the line, are people allowed to say that Jewish people are inferior to others? What about black people?
It is time the media were held to account over their irresponsible journalism
She will be in trouble with anti-liberals, who don't in their hearts want people disagreeing with them.
That's is, if ever involved in some major incident, they stick a microphone under your nose and ask that stupid, stupid question... You take time to consider. Than a punch to their nose. Then say "Like that, mostly".
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/20/low-uptake-for-free-voter-id-scheme-among-elderly-and-young-people-in-uk
Liberalism is very hard work.
I do not know much about this requirement but does it affect postal votes as my wife and I have had postal votes for years ?
The phrase 'working like a nigger' was commonplace in my youth but then we barely ever saw a real black person so it was literally just a figure of speech, loosely derived I suspect from accounts of plantation workers. It wasn't intentionally racist but as it became increasingly evident that it could be inadvertantly so, it became less common and was supplanted by the less offensive alternatives.
No dog has yet been heard to complain that I occasionally work like one.