We could always replace PMQs with this since it does not matter what they say...
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
do {
printf("PB Tory: Boris was brilliant. Starmer was sh*t\n");
printf("PB nonTory: Boris was sh*t. Starmer was brilliant\n");
} while ( borisIsPM );
return 0;
}
Very inefficient code there, could have done it with one print statement.
Readabilty and clarity trumps efficiency. Have you not read Weinberg?
To be honest I am not sure how much longer the party will support Boris
He is obviously unwell, made a dreadful error of judgment over Cummings, and his approval ratings are tanking
It has been said on here many times how ruthless the conservative party are with their leaders, and I expect some may, even now, be penning letters to Graham Brady
The moment when you're in the trenches and the enemy is advancing is not the time to shoot your officers in the back.
Am wondering how many episodes of Top Of The Pops from the 1960s, 70s and 80s have been erased or simply not shown because of offences by disc jockeys, bands and singers?
Speaking of which, I've noticed a lot lately how much of Monty Python and Fawlty Towers is basically humour based on other people's disabilities: mocking someone who stutters or who has a lisp (Life of Brian), a deaf woman (whole episode of Fawlty Towers), someone who can't speak good English (most of Fawlty Towers).
Funny in the 1970's. Crap in 2020.
Life of Brian rips the piss out of religion for 90 minutes and yet you have found some minor offence other than that that most people will have forgotten. I expect that 99% of people who have seen the film would not have pointed to that as the offensive/controversial bit.
The best satirisation of the Far Left too.
It offended an enormous number of people at the time, and probably still does offend a lot of people. If being offended gives people the right to demand censorship or to tear down statues the religious will undoubtably want a crack at that too.
Speaking of which, I've noticed a lot lately how much of Monty Python and Fawlty Towers is basically humour based on other people's disabilities: mocking someone who stutters or who has a lisp (Life of Brian), a deaf woman (whole episode of Fawlty Towers), someone who can't speak good English (most of Fawlty Towers).
Funny in the 1970's. Crap in 2020.
Are you kidding? Those two shows are arguably the best British comedy ever made!
To be honest I am not sure how much longer the party will support Boris
He is obviously unwell, made a dreadful error of judgment over Cummings, and his approval ratings are tanking
It has been said on here many times how ruthless the conservative party are with their leaders, and I expect some may, even now, be penning letters to Graham Brady
The moment when you're in the trenches and the enemy is advancing is not the time to shoot your officers in the back.
What a really peculiar view to take.
Wrong as well. As @Dura_Ace will surely point out, much the best time to shoot the officers is when the enemy can be plausibly blamed for it.
Your mischievous streak will doubtless get you into trouble one day.
As you well know my point, probably poorly worded granted, was with the analogy rather than the wisdom of fragging..
Speaking of which, I've noticed a lot lately how much of Monty Python and Fawlty Towers is basically humour based on other people's disabilities: mocking someone who stutters or who has a lisp (Life of Brian), a deaf woman (whole episode of Fawlty Towers), someone who can't speak good English (most of Fawlty Towers).
Funny in the 1970's. Crap in 2020.
Life of Brian rips the piss out of religion for 90 minutes and yet you have found some minor offence other than that that most people will have forgotten. I expect that 99% of people who have seen the film would not have pointed to that as the offensive/controversial bit.
The best satirisation of the Far Left too.
It offended an enormous number of people at the time, and probably still does offend a lot of people. If being offended gives people the right to demand censorship or to tear down statues the religious will undoubtably want a crack at that too.
But they did. It was banned by many local authorities at the time under pressure from religious groups.
Speaking of which, I've noticed a lot lately how much of Monty Python and Fawlty Towers is basically humour based on other people's disabilities: mocking someone who stutters or who has a lisp (Life of Brian), a deaf woman (whole episode of Fawlty Towers), someone who can't speak good English (most of Fawlty Towers).
Funny in the 1970's. Crap in 2020.
Life of Brian rips the piss out of religion for 90 minutes and yet you have found some minor offence other than that that most people will have forgotten. I expect that 99% of people who have seen the film would not have pointed to that as the offensive/controversial bit.
The best way to judge comedy tends to be is it punching up or down? Punching up and mocking those in positions of power and influence (spitting image, the new statesman, father ted) tends to stand the test of time rather than those punching down and mocking the powerless and poor.
Am wondering how many episodes of Top Of The Pops from the 1960s, 70s and 80s have been erased or simply not shown because of offences by disc jockeys, bands and singers?
They keep showing 1989 episodes on BBC2 or BBC4 at the present time. Saturday evenings I think.
To be honest I am not sure how much longer the party will support Boris
He is obviously unwell, made a dreadful error of judgment over Cummings, and his approval ratings are tanking
It has been said on here many times how ruthless the conservative party are with their leaders, and I expect some may, even now, be penning letters to Graham Brady
The moment when you're in the trenches and the enemy is advancing is not the time to shoot your officers in the back.
What a really peculiar view to take.
Then I'm glad we're never likely to have to share a trench
Statues. There are far too many of them cluttering up the place. Most are of little historical or artistic value. They were simply a late Victorian/Edwardian fashion. There is a huge one in my local market town sitting in the middle of the main junction. Causing traffic to pile up down the main street. If it weren't there a roundabout or extra lane for turning would be available. Many statues are simply there because they are there and have been for living memory.
It's a shame Sir John Betjeman isn't still around to debunk this kind of thinking.
To be honest I am not sure how much longer the party will support Boris
He is obviously unwell, made a dreadful error of judgment over Cummings, and his approval ratings are tanking
It has been said on here many times how ruthless the conservative party are with their leaders, and I expect some may, even now, be penning letters to Graham Brady
The moment when you're in the trenches and the enemy is advancing is not the time to shoot your officers in the back.
Speaking of which, I've noticed a lot lately how much of Monty Python and Fawlty Towers is basically humour based on other people's disabilities: mocking someone who stutters or who has a lisp (Life of Brian), a deaf woman (whole episode of Fawlty Towers), someone who can't speak good English (most of Fawlty Towers).
Funny in the 1970's. Crap in 2020.
Life of Brian rips the piss out of religion for 90 minutes and yet you have found some minor offence other than that that most people will have forgotten. I expect that 99% of people who have seen the film would not have pointed to that as the offensive/controversial bit.
The best satirisation of the Far Left too.
It offended an enormous number of people at the time, and probably still does offend a lot of people. If being offended gives people the right to demand censorship or to tear down statues the religious will undoubtably want a crack at that too.
But they did. It was banned by many local authorities at the time under pressure from religious groups.
I know, but if we are going to start that sort of thing again it won't be just the "right" people wanting a go.
To be honest I am not sure how much longer the party will support Boris
He is obviously unwell, made a dreadful error of judgment over Cummings, and his approval ratings are tanking
It has been said on here many times how ruthless the conservative party are with their leaders, and I expect some may, even now, be penning letters to Graham Brady
The moment when you're in the trenches and the enemy is advancing is not the time to shoot your officers in the back.
I would not shoot anyone in the back, front or at all
However, Boris is failing in health and has made a huge error of judgment
Cummings is his poll tax moment
I think his poll tax moment will be measured by exactly two metres.
This government will be the most unpopular in modern times by this time next year imho.
Virus, economic crisis, no deal brexit, more crisis, food shortages.
Speaking of which, I've noticed a lot lately how much of Monty Python and Fawlty Towers is basically humour based on other people's disabilities: mocking someone who stutters or who has a lisp (Life of Brian), a deaf woman (whole episode of Fawlty Towers), someone who can't speak good English (most of Fawlty Towers).
Funny in the 1970's. Crap in 2020.
Life of Brian rips the piss out of religion for 90 minutes and yet you have found some minor offence other than that that most people will have forgotten. I expect that 99% of people who have seen the film would not have pointed to that as the offensive/controversial bit.
The best satirisation of the Far Left too.
It offended an enormous number of people at the time, and probably still does offend a lot of people. If being offended gives people the right to demand censorship or to tear down statues the religious will undoubtably want a crack at that too.
It probably offended a different group of people in 1979 to those it offends today.
Am wondering how many episodes of Top Of The Pops from the 1960s, 70s and 80s have been erased or simply not shown because of offences by disc jockeys, bands and singers?
The episodes featuring Sir Jim are now, obviously, expunged from the BBC's reruns. I was thinking the other day: are there any pop songs from recent decades that would be deemed too politically offensive to air today? Stuff like Skrewdriver aside, none came to mind.
Speaking of which, I've noticed a lot lately how much of Monty Python and Fawlty Towers is basically humour based on other people's disabilities: mocking someone who stutters or who has a lisp (Life of Brian), a deaf woman (whole episode of Fawlty Towers), someone who can't speak good English (most of Fawlty Towers).
Funny in the 1970's. Crap in 2020.
Life of Brian rips the piss out of religion for 90 minutes and yet you have found some minor offence other than that that most people will have forgotten. I expect that 99% of people who have seen the film would not have pointed to that as the offensive/controversial bit.
The best way to judge comedy tends to be is it punching up or down? Punching up and mocking those in positions of power and influence (spitting image, the new statesman, father ted) tends to stand the test of time rather than those punching down and mocking the powerless and poor.
Every group can come up with a way of defining itself as a powerless minority. I don't think it's at all easy to judge such things.
To be honest I am not sure how much longer the party will support Boris
He is obviously unwell, made a dreadful error of judgment over Cummings, and his approval ratings are tanking
It has been said on here many times how ruthless the conservative party are with their leaders, and I expect some may, even now, be penning letters to Graham Brady
The moment when you're in the trenches and the enemy is advancing is not the time to shoot your officers in the back.
What a really peculiar view to take.
Wrong as well. As @Dura_Ace will surely point out, much the best time to shoot the officers is when the enemy can be plausibly blamed for it.
Your mischievous streak will doubtless get you into trouble one day.
As you well know my point, probably poorly worded granted, was with the analogy rather than the wisdom of fragging..
Speaking of which, I've noticed a lot lately how much of Monty Python and Fawlty Towers is basically humour based on other people's disabilities: mocking someone who stutters or who has a lisp (Life of Brian), a deaf woman (whole episode of Fawlty Towers), someone who can't speak good English (most of Fawlty Towers).
Funny in the 1970's. Crap in 2020.
Life of Brian rips the piss out of religion for 90 minutes and yet you have found some minor offence other than that that most people will have forgotten. I expect that 99% of people who have seen the film would not have pointed to that as the offensive/controversial bit.
The best satirisation of the Far Left too.
It offended an enormous number of people at the time, and probably still does offend a lot of people. If being offended gives people the right to demand censorship or to tear down statues the religious will undoubtably want a crack at that too.
But they did. It was banned by many local authorities at the time under pressure from religious groups.
I know, but if we are going to start that sort of thing again it won't be just the "right" people wanting a go.
Statues. There are far too many of them cluttering up the place. Most are of little historical or artistic value. They were simply a late Victorian/Edwardian fashion. There is a huge one in my local market town sitting in the middle of the main junction. Causing traffic to pile up down the main street. If it weren't there a roundabout or extra lane for turning would be available. Many statues are simply there because they are there and have been for living memory.
It's a shame Sir John Betjeman isn't still around to debunk this kind of thinking.
How so? We knock down and replace all kinds of buildings which have no historical or artistic utility, all the time. Why are statues special?
Very quick post: my wife has just come in furious about this - HBO have pulled Gone with the Wind.
They've said it: "glorifies the antebellum south" and (perpetuates) "painful stereotypes of people of colour", although they claim they will restore it at some point in the future with a warning. Let's see if they do.
The BBC article goes on to say that Disney are reviewing Dumbo. I'm not making this up:
This madness won't end. It's not just statues: it's music, art, films, show, words.. culture. Anything that might not sit well now with the professionally offended and the leading-edge norms of today, policed by an extremely nervous media politik.
Not really understanding the outrage. And you are genuinely outraged, I can feel it, it's not some sort of reverse virtue-signalling.
So I'm hoping to be allowed to probe.
Are you worried about "where we draw the line" or about the drawing of any line at all?
To help answer, I would ask you to consider that -
On The Buses is never repeated. Neither is Love Thy Neighbour. The name of the dog - "N*gg*r" - in the Battle Of Britain film is now edited out. We get no opportunity these days to enjoy the Black & White Minstrels. Jim Davison is effectively banned from primetime TV. The late great Bernard Manning has been relegated to YouTube. There are warnings published for LOADS of works from the past that contain outmoded racist stereoptyes.
Are you unhappy with all the above and wish to see it reversed?
Or do you think this process of revisionism should simply STOP - right here and right NOW - because iyo the line has been drawn in exactly the right place?
@kinabulu, I will answer your questions as long as you answer mine - because I'm not sensing where you'd draw the line the other way either?
My posts today have been about a series of shows either being pulled for good, or temporarily with a promise they'll come back with a warning. I don't see why Little Britain should fall into the former category, or Dumbo the latter, and I expect more and more of this in the days and weeks to come.
The way you've phrased it is slightly out-of-date. I'd draw a distinction between a live broadcast to everyone and available on streaming by personal selection, which I view on drawing from a library.
(1) Dambusters - warning at start. Live broadcast and streaming ok. It's a very important film and part of our cultural heritage. (2) Love Thy Neighbour - very strong warning at start. Possibly some edits. Streaming ok with consent box. I also watched it after reading on here how awful it was: it satires the openly racist views held at the time. (3) Jim Davidson - warning. Streaming ok. (4) Bernard Manning - youtube only.
I haven't heard of On The Buses.
Now, let me ask you: are you ok with Men Behaving Badly, I'm Alan Partridge, League of Gentlemen, The Office, Snow White, Fantasia and Alice in Wonderland staying up too?
Because I can guarantee you some will find something to offend in those too.
Your 1st 4 - the sitcoms - are all fine by me. The 3 films I think would be too but can't swear to it because I either haven't seen or have forgotten them.
"Fine" meaning I think they should be freely available for streaming without edit.
But it wasn't so much where you and I would draw the line that I was getting at - it was whether you are rejecting the whole idea of this sort of revisionism, i.e. saying lines should not be drawn anywhere. That works of the past should be sacrosanct, regardless of social changes. And clearly you are not saying this. You do accept that revisionism is sometimes valid and desirable just as I do.
It thus boils down to where one draws the line on drawing the line (as it were).
Which leaves me even more surprised at your vehemence about what is happening. Aren't we just taking stock and having a look at how racism is viewed and presented in the light of a big political "moment"? Isn't that how things like this tend to happen? Bet we are soon looking back on this as something quite modest and certainly far from revolutionary.
Speaking of which, I've noticed a lot lately how much of Monty Python and Fawlty Towers is basically humour based on other people's disabilities: mocking someone who stutters or who has a lisp (Life of Brian), a deaf woman (whole episode of Fawlty Towers), someone who can't speak good English (most of Fawlty Towers).
Funny in the 1970's. Crap in 2020.
Life of Brian rips the piss out of religion for 90 minutes and yet you have found some minor offence other than that that most people will have forgotten. I expect that 99% of people who have seen the film would not have pointed to that as the offensive/controversial bit.
The best satirisation of the Far Left too.
It offended an enormous number of people at the time, and probably still does offend a lot of people. If being offended gives people the right to demand censorship or to tear down statues the religious will undoubtably want a crack at that too.
But they did. It was banned by many local authorities at the time under pressure from religious groups.
It wasn’t shown in Aberystwyth until the woman who played Julia became Mayoress. It was never formally banned (contrary to popular belief) it’s just neither of the cinemas would show it.
So she hosted a special showing with - I think - Palin and Jones present.
Strange for one of her first acts as Mayoress would be to show a film that depicted her completely naked, but at least that deflected awkward questions about her husband’s sex life...
Further to the comments about the suitability or not of various TV programmes to be screened now...
I'm re-reading the first Flashman book - I read a few of them years ago and saw some mention of them recently (might have been on here, can't remember) - so thought I'd read them again.
Now I'm left of centre but not especially 'woke', or a prude or easily offended by any stretch of the imagination, but the casual, repeated use of the n-word in the book is making me uncomfortable and is spoiling the book for me, to be honest.
Yes, I know that it is written in the voice of a Victorian bloke, and in real life people of that time very probably used the word without a second thought. I fully appreciate the past had different mores and attitudes. Flashman, as a novel, might well be satirising those attitudes. But even though I know all that, whenever my eyes skin across the n-word it is jarring with me, even if the language is aiming for historical authenticity.
I don't know whether I would have felt so put out by its use a few weeks ago, or whether the current situation is acting as a catalyst.
The book was first published in 1969 - before my time but am I right in thinking that even at that point it was becoming unacceptable in general usage?
Yes, it was. Flashman is a villain protagonist, who tends to share the beliefs of the most racist of his contemporaries, tempered by honesty as a diarist, and respect for the people of colour he meets on the battlefield.
Most readers find him an entertaining villain protagonist.
If even a person as reprehensible as Flashman finds the slave trade horrifying, you see how shockingly bad it is.
Yes, I get all that. My point is that with all that considered, the use of the word is still very jarring.
Somebody coincidentally mentioned a Flashman novel about the slave trade, probably while I was typing my initial comment, which you refer to. I haven’t read that one, maybe I will at some point.
I’m not reflecting on the personality of a fictional character, I am saying that no matter how nuanced and caveated the use of the word is, I am finding it jarring and uncomfortable to even read it when it’s used accurately in strictly historical terms.
To be honest I am not sure how much longer the party will support Boris
He is obviously unwell, made a dreadful error of judgment over Cummings, and his approval ratings are tanking
It has been said on here many times how ruthless the conservative party are with their leaders, and I expect some may, even now, be penning letters to Graham Brady
The moment when you're in the trenches and the enemy is advancing is not the time to shoot your officers in the back.
What a really peculiar view to take.
Wrong as well. As @Dura_Ace will surely point out, much the best time to shoot the officers is when the enemy can be plausibly blamed for it.
Your mischievous streak will doubtless get you into trouble one day.
As you well know my point, probably poorly worded granted, was with the analogy rather than the wisdom of fragging..
Quite. Analogies tend to be misleading even if well made; that one was not, in the slightest.
To be honest I am not sure how much longer the party will support Boris
He is obviously unwell, made a dreadful error of judgment over Cummings, and his approval ratings are tanking
It has been said on here many times how ruthless the conservative party are with their leaders, and I expect some may, even now, be penning letters to Graham Brady
The moment when you're in the trenches and the enemy is advancing is not the time to shoot your officers in the back.
What a really peculiar view to take.
Wrong as well. As @Dura_Ace will surely point out, much the best time to shoot the officers is when the enemy can be plausibly blamed for it.
Your mischievous streak will doubtless get you into trouble one day.
As you well know my point, probably poorly worded granted, was with the analogy rather than the wisdom of fragging..
I was saying that BluestBlue was wrong. Not you.
Apologies if that was unclear.
In Ledbury we were always suspicious of those from the other side of May Hill! Sorry for snapping.
To be honest I am not sure how much longer the party will support Boris
He is obviously unwell, made a dreadful error of judgment over Cummings, and his approval ratings are tanking
It has been said on here many times how ruthless the conservative party are with their leaders, and I expect some may, even now, be penning letters to Graham Brady
The moment when you're in the trenches and the enemy is advancing is not the time to shoot your officers in the back.
What a really peculiar view to take.
Wrong as well. As @Dura_Ace will surely point out, much the best time to shoot the officers is when the enemy can be plausibly blamed for it.
Your mischievous streak will doubtless get you into trouble one day.
As you well know my point, probably poorly worded granted, was with the analogy rather than the wisdom of fragging..
I was saying that BluestBlue was wrong. Not you.
Apologies if that was unclear.
In Ledbury we were always suspicious of those from the other side of May Hill! Sorry for snapping.
Oi! Do you mind? I was born in Newent. That’s north of May Hill.
It’s those buggers from Huntley and Longhope you’ve got to watch.
Speaking of which, I've noticed a lot lately how much of Monty Python and Fawlty Towers is basically humour based on other people's disabilities: mocking someone who stutters or who has a lisp (Life of Brian), a deaf woman (whole episode of Fawlty Towers), someone who can't speak good English (most of Fawlty Towers).
Funny in the 1970's. Crap in 2020.
Life of Brian rips the piss out of religion for 90 minutes and yet you have found some minor offence other than that that most people will have forgotten. I expect that 99% of people who have seen the film would not have pointed to that as the offensive/controversial bit.
The best satirisation of the Far Left too.
It offended an enormous number of people at the time, and probably still does offend a lot of people. If being offended gives people the right to demand censorship or to tear down statues the religious will undoubtably want a crack at that too.
But they did. It was banned by many local authorities at the time under pressure from religious groups.
I know, but if we are going to start that sort of thing again it won't be just the "right" people wanting a go.
Statues. There are far too many of them cluttering up the place. Most are of little historical or artistic value. They were simply a late Victorian/Edwardian fashion. There is a huge one in my local market town sitting in the middle of the main junction. Causing traffic to pile up down the main street. If it weren't there a roundabout or extra lane for turning would be available. Many statues are simply there because they are there and have been for living memory.
It's a shame Sir John Betjeman isn't still around to debunk this kind of thinking.
How so? We knock down and replace all kinds of buildings which have no historical or artistic utility, all the time. Why are statues special?
Because they are part of the historic fabric of our towns and cities. They give them character, distinctiveness etc. Sir John railed against the wanton destruction of so much of our heritage which, at the time, were deemed to have "no historical or artistic utility" by the planners, bureaucratic etc who wrecked so many of our great cities. Thank God he managed to save St Pancras.
When it comes to "extra lane for turning" vs statue of local dignitary I know which side of the argument I'm likely to be on.
Am wondering how many episodes of Top Of The Pops from the 1960s, 70s and 80s have been erased or simply not shown because of offences by disc jockeys, bands and singers?
The episodes featuring Sir Jim are now, obviously, expunged from the BBC's reruns. I was thinking the other day: are there any pop songs from recent decades that would be deemed too politically offensive to air today? Stuff like Skrewdriver aside, none came to mind.
Having said that, I doubt this would get beyond the cutting-room floor these days. Although, being on TOTP2, the BBC did presumably see fit to re-screen a decade so after it was first broadcast.
To be honest I am not sure how much longer the party will support Boris
He is obviously unwell, made a dreadful error of judgment over Cummings, and his approval ratings are tanking
It has been said on here many times how ruthless the conservative party are with their leaders, and I expect some may, even now, be penning letters to Graham Brady
The moment when you're in the trenches and the enemy is advancing is not the time to shoot your officers in the back.
I would not shoot anyone in the back, front or at all
However, Boris is failing in health and has made a huge error of judgment
Cummings is his poll tax moment
I think his poll tax moment will be measured by exactly two metres.
This government will be the most unpopular in modern times by this time next year imho.
Virus, economic crisis, no deal brexit, more crisis, food shortages.
I think the depth of the unpopularity will come before then. September/October
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia sums up.whatbis going on at the moment very nicely.
A more pertinent quote to reflect people's fears this week would be:
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day be day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except the endless present in which the party is always right."
To be honest I am not sure how much longer the party will support Boris
He is obviously unwell, made a dreadful error of judgment over Cummings, and his approval ratings are tanking
It has been said on here many times how ruthless the conservative party are with their leaders, and I expect some may, even now, be penning letters to Graham Brady
The moment when you're in the trenches and the enemy is advancing is not the time to shoot your officers in the back.
I would not shoot anyone in the back, front or at all
However, Boris is failing in health and has made a huge error of judgment
Cummings is his poll tax moment
Cummings is really not poll tax. The country has already moved on from Cummings did it move on from poll tax that quickly?
If it's comparable to anything it could be Blair taking Ecclestone's million pound donation then changing the proposed tobacco law to exempt F1 for years.
Though I'd argue less serious than that but it's comparable in lasting effect and being so early in the term.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia sums up.whatbis going on at the moment very nicely.
A more pertinent quote to reflect people's fears this week would be:
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day be day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except the endless present in which the party is always right."
Speaking of which, I've noticed a lot lately how much of Monty Python and Fawlty Towers is basically humour based on other people's disabilities: mocking someone who stutters or who has a lisp (Life of Brian), a deaf woman (whole episode of Fawlty Towers), someone who can't speak good English (most of Fawlty Towers).
Funny in the 1970's. Crap in 2020.
Nope. The joke is on Basil Fawlty who is intolerant and has no understanding. Same as Alan Partridge or David Brent.
Basil IS the main joke, yes.
But many of the 'Basil dominating Manuel' scenes invite the viewer to laugh at what is essentially mental and physical abuse of a helpless migrant worker by his boss. Basil would be prosecuted for it these days and rightly so.
Still, it's net great imo. I just enjoy the genius bits and mentally tune out the scenes that make me feel complicit in a crime.
I tend to watch episodes for 10-15 minutes laughing out loud and then feel a pressing need to leave the room. Its just too uncomfortable.
Exactly that. Mix of brilliance and (tbh) what I wish was not there at all.
Speaking of which, I've noticed a lot lately how much of Monty Python and Fawlty Towers is basically humour based on other people's disabilities: mocking someone who stutters or who has a lisp (Life of Brian), a deaf woman (whole episode of Fawlty Towers), someone who can't speak good English (most of Fawlty Towers).
Funny in the 1970's. Crap in 2020.
Life of Brian rips the piss out of religion for 90 minutes and yet you have found some minor offence other than that that most people will have forgotten. I expect that 99% of people who have seen the film would not have pointed to that as the offensive/controversial bit.
The best way to judge comedy tends to be is it punching up or down? Punching up and mocking those in positions of power and influence (spitting image, the new statesman, father ted) tends to stand the test of time rather than those punching down and mocking the powerless and poor.
Every group can come up with a way of defining itself as a powerless minority. I don't think it's at all easy to judge such things.
Of course it's open to interpretation, but i'd say mocking wealthy conservative mp's (the new statesman), politicians and celebrity culture (spitting image) and the Irish catholic church (Father Ted) are pretty clear cut examples of 'punching up'.
Eddie Murphy's jokes about AIDS in his 80s stand up are a classic example of punching down.
Further to the comments about the suitability or not of various TV programmes to be screened now...
I'm re-reading the first Flashman book - I read a few of them years ago and saw some mention of them recently (might have been on here, can't remember) - so thought I'd read them again.
Now I'm left of centre but not especially 'woke', or a prude or easily offended by any stretch of the imagination, but the casual, repeated use of the n-word in the book is making me uncomfortable and is spoiling the book for me, to be honest.
Yes, I know that it is written in the voice of a Victorian bloke, and in real life people of that time very probably used the word without a second thought. I fully appreciate the past had different mores and attitudes. Flashman, as a novel, might well be satirising those attitudes. But even though I know all that, whenever my eyes skin across the n-word it is jarring with me, even if the language is aiming for historical authenticity.
I don't know whether I would have felt so put out by its use a few weeks ago, or whether the current situation is acting as a catalyst.
The book was first published in 1969 - before my time but am I right in thinking that even at that point it was becoming unacceptable in general usage?
Yes, it was. Flashman is a villain protagonist, who tends to share the beliefs of the most racist of his contemporaries, tempered by honesty as a diarist, and respect for the people of colour he meets on the battlefield.
Most readers find him an entertaining villain protagonist.
If even a person as reprehensible as Flashman finds the slave trade horrifying, you see how shockingly bad it is.
Yes, I get all that. My point is that with all that considered, the use of the word is still very jarring.
Somebody coincidentally mentioned a Flashman novel about the slave trade, probably while I was typing my initial comment, which you refer to. I haven’t read that one, maybe I will at some point.
I’m not reflecting on the personality of a fictional character, I am saying that no matter how nuanced and caveated the use of the word is, I am finding it jarring and uncomfortable to even read it when it’s used accurately in strictly historical terms.
My wife picked up my copy of Flashman but was really put off by that. Some things can be really jarring. I find the misogyny in the unexpurgated version of the Three Musketeers quite jaw-dropping.
We could always replace PMQs with this since it does not matter what they say...
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
do {
printf("PB Tory: Boris was brilliant. Starmer was sh*t\n");
printf("PB nonTory: Boris was sh*t. Starmer was brilliant\n");
} while ( borisIsPM );
return 0;
}
Very inefficient code there, could have done it with one print statement.
Wouldn't you want to create a function which decides to print a statement based on the poster's party affiliation?
Further to the comments about the suitability or not of various TV programmes to be screened now...
I'm re-reading the first Flashman book - I read a few of them years ago and saw some mention of them recently (might have been on here, can't remember) - so thought I'd read them again.
Now I'm left of centre but not especially 'woke', or a prude or easily offended by any stretch of the imagination, but the casual, repeated use of the n-word in the book is making me uncomfortable and is spoiling the book for me, to be honest.
Yes, I know that it is written in the voice of a Victorian bloke, and in real life people of that time very probably used the word without a second thought. I fully appreciate the past had different mores and attitudes. Flashman, as a novel, might well be satirising those attitudes. But even though I know all that, whenever my eyes skin across the n-word it is jarring with me, even if the language is aiming for historical authenticity.
I don't know whether I would have felt so put out by its use a few weeks ago, or whether the current situation is acting as a catalyst.
The book was first published in 1969 - before my time but am I right in thinking that even at that point it was becoming unacceptable in general usage?
Yes, it was. Flashman is a villain protagonist, who tends to share the beliefs of the most racist of his contemporaries, tempered by honesty as a diarist, and respect for the people of colour he meets on the battlefield.
Most readers find him an entertaining villain protagonist.
If even a person as reprehensible as Flashman finds the slave trade horrifying, you see how shockingly bad it is.
Yes, I get all that. My point is that with all that considered, the use of the word is still very jarring.
Somebody coincidentally mentioned a Flashman novel about the slave trade, probably while I was typing my initial comment, which you refer to. I haven’t read that one, maybe I will at some point.
I’m not reflecting on the personality of a fictional character, I am saying that no matter how nuanced and caveated the use of the word is, I am finding it jarring and uncomfortable to even read it when it’s used accurately in strictly historical terms.
Huckleberry Finn is well worth reading for an understanding of contemporary attitudes. Mark Twain was near enough in time to represent the period in which he set the book. One of the great American novels.
On the impact of slavery on the societies it created in the Caribbean, V S Naipaul's "The Middle Passage" is simply brilliant. His first travel book. Sponsored by one of the Prime Ministers of the newly independent island nations. Don't think he can have expected what he got. Naipaul never let any considerations get in the way of what he believed was true.
Am wondering how many episodes of Top Of The Pops from the 1960s, 70s and 80s have been erased or simply not shown because of offences by disc jockeys, bands and singers?
The episodes featuring Sir Jim are now, obviously, expunged from the BBC's reruns. I was thinking the other day: are there any pop songs from recent decades that would be deemed too politically offensive to air today? Stuff like Skrewdriver aside, none came to mind.
Having said that, I doubt this would get beyond the cutting-room floor these days. Although, being on TOTP2, the BBC did presumably see fit to re-screen a decade so after it was first broadcast.
I remember a couple of years ago being shown a photo of a Jimmy Savile themed party organised by some Conservative students. Somehow, it never made it into the media.
This argument about schools and whose fault it is they aren't back - listen to the PM when he breathlessly bangs the dispatch box. 2m distancing is here to stay. And 2m spacing Means Schools Cant Go Back. Not because of teachers. Because there isnt physical space in schools to bring all students back and have 2m spacing.
Why are the teachers saying it's unsafe? Because 2m spacing requirements of the government say it's unsafe...
I cannot understand why the WHO insist one metre spacing is safe
Almost as though you are not a health care professional nor have ever worked in health-related occupations.
The point is WHO recommend a metre our scientists 2 metres
So why the contradiction
And no need to be rude
I thought the WHO recommended a range of 0.9m to 1.8m :-).
India proved a noble prospect for Scots on the make. So much so, in fact, that as early as 1750 almost 40 per cent of the writers — or clerks — working for the company in Bengal were Scots. Thirty years later the proportion of Scots had risen to nearly half; this at a time when Scotland’s population was barely a sixth of England’s. Half of the East India Company’s regiments were raised in Scotland. There was no English Empire; it was a British enterprise and often a brutal and sinful one.
The Scots are more British than the English when it comes to leading the Empire. Sorry Nats, much as nationalists all round the world like to burn books and rewrite history, you cannot cover that fact up. The Scots loved to expand empire.
You are absolutely right. Scots of all classes enthusiastically took part in the plunder and brought the money home. It is a part of our history we need to talk about and deal with. I can see this may lead to statue toppling and street renaming in the process Alistair so eloquently describes in the header. The first step in dealing with a problem is to admit you have one, and Scotland as a nation needs to do this just as Bristol does. Glasgow, as a west coast port where sugar and tobacco and rum were landed, has just as big a problem. Doubtless there will be many there who want to brush it under the carpet just as in Bristol.
Quite agree.
It puts the conservative wing of Unionism in a bit of quandary however. They're dying to use it as vehicle for attacking Scottishness and making sure that we know that we've dipped our hands in the blood as much as anyone (or in some cases even deeper in the gore, see the nincompoop that you're replying to - 'The Scots are more British than the English when it comes to leading the Empire.'). Otoh they shrivel up at the thought of allying themselves with BLM, iconoclasts and assorted anti Imperialists.
It's yet another example of them tying themselves into knots because they only have one policy and haven't bothered spending any time on coming up with a consistent moral position on anything much.
This is exactly what I said this morning. Nothing to do with the little scrotes pushing statues into harbours, everything to do with left-wing politicians using the 'moment' to push on with their agenda.
Speaking of which, I've noticed a lot lately how much of Monty Python and Fawlty Towers is basically humour based on other people's disabilities: mocking someone who stutters or who has a lisp (Life of Brian), a deaf woman (whole episode of Fawlty Towers), someone who can't speak good English (most of Fawlty Towers).
Funny in the 1970's. Crap in 2020.
Life of Brian rips the piss out of religion for 90 minutes and yet you have found some minor offence other than that that most people will have forgotten. I expect that 99% of people who have seen the film would not have pointed to that as the offensive/controversial bit.
To be honest I am not sure how much longer the party will support Boris
He is obviously unwell, made a dreadful error of judgment over Cummings, and his approval ratings are tanking
It has been said on here many times how ruthless the conservative party are with their leaders, and I expect some may, even now, be penning letters to Graham Brady
The moment when you're in the trenches and the enemy is advancing is not the time to shoot your officers in the back.
'Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed,...…… History has stopped.' (George Orwell, 1984)
To be honest I am not sure how much longer the party will support Boris
He is obviously unwell, made a dreadful error of judgment over Cummings, and his approval ratings are tanking
It has been said on here many times how ruthless the conservative party are with their leaders, and I expect some may, even now, be penning letters to Graham Brady
The moment when you're in the trenches and the enemy is advancing is not the time to shoot your officers in the back.
What a really peculiar view to take.
Wrong as well. As @Dura_Ace will surely point out, much the best time to shoot the officers is when the enemy can be plausibly blamed for it.
Your mischievous streak will doubtless get you into trouble one day.
As you well know my point, probably poorly worded granted, was with the analogy rather than the wisdom of fragging..
I was saying that BluestBlue was wrong. Not you.
Apologies if that was unclear.
In Ledbury we were always suspicious of those from the other side of May Hill! Sorry for snapping.
Oi! Do you mind? I was born in Newent. That’s north of May Hill.
It’s those buggers from Huntley and Longhope you’ve got to watch.
I never ever felt comfortable turning right onto the Dymock Road after the Ross Road Roundabout. That is where one could just faintly start hearing the dualling banjos.
Scottish bailout puts Trump's golf resorts in line for £1m tax rebate
Donald Trump’s Scottish golf courses are expected to get a tax rebate of nearly £1m as part of a government bailout for tourism businesses hit by the coronavirus crisis, the Guardian can reveal....
Before the coronavirus crisis, Trump Turnberry had been due to pay £850,766 in property tax this year and Trump Aberdeenshire £121,170. The Trump Turnberry’s tax bill was recently reduced to £770,845, upon appeal....
The revelation comes as some Democrats in the US Congress raise questions about whether it is lawful for Trump’s companies to accept any benefits from a foreign country, including bailout funds from the UK and Scottish governments.
Comments
As you well know my point, probably poorly worded granted, was with the analogy rather than the wisdom of fragging..
*Edited extra bit: in Life of Brian etc.
Policing comedy according to what's ok in everyday life is daft.
Gone with the Wind pulled!
A step too far.
Virus, economic crisis, no deal brexit, more crisis, food shortages.
Apologies if that was unclear.
Why are statues special?
"Fine" meaning I think they should be freely available for streaming without edit.
But it wasn't so much where you and I would draw the line that I was getting at - it was whether you are rejecting the whole idea of this sort of revisionism, i.e. saying lines should not be drawn anywhere. That works of the past should be sacrosanct, regardless of social changes. And clearly you are not saying this. You do accept that revisionism is sometimes valid and desirable just as I do.
It thus boils down to where one draws the line on drawing the line (as it were).
Which leaves me even more surprised at your vehemence about what is happening. Aren't we just taking stock and having a look at how racism is viewed and presented in the light of a big political "moment"? Isn't that how things like this tend to happen? Bet we are soon looking back on this as something quite modest and certainly far from revolutionary.
So she hosted a special showing with - I think - Palin and Jones present.
Strange for one of her first acts as Mayoress would be to show a film that depicted her completely naked, but at least that deflected awkward questions about her husband’s sex life...
Somebody coincidentally mentioned a Flashman novel about the slave trade, probably while I was typing my initial comment, which you refer to. I haven’t read that one, maybe I will at some point.
I’m not reflecting on the personality of a fictional character, I am saying that no matter how nuanced and caveated the use of the word is, I am finding it jarring and uncomfortable to even read it when it’s used accurately in strictly historical terms.
Analogies tend to be misleading even if well made; that one was not, in the slightest.
It’s those buggers from Huntley and Longhope you’ve got to watch.
When it comes to "extra lane for turning" vs statue of local dignitary I know which side of the argument I'm likely to be on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5i6dlS4W6w
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day be day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except the endless present in which the party is always right."
If it's comparable to anything it could be Blair taking Ecclestone's million pound donation then changing the proposed tobacco law to exempt F1 for years.
Though I'd argue less serious than that but it's comparable in lasting effect and being so early in the term.
Eddie Murphy's jokes about AIDS in his 80s stand up are a classic example of punching down.
In the high police violence areas low crim violence tends to be the norm!
On the impact of slavery on the societies it created in the Caribbean, V S Naipaul's "The Middle Passage" is simply brilliant. His first travel book. Sponsored by one of the Prime Ministers of the newly independent island nations. Don't think he can have expected what he got. Naipaul never let any considerations get in the way of what he believed was true.
It puts the conservative wing of Unionism in a bit of quandary however. They're dying to use it as vehicle for attacking Scottishness and making sure that we know that we've dipped our hands in the blood as much as anyone (or in some cases even deeper in the gore, see the nincompoop that you're replying to - 'The Scots are more British than the English when it comes to leading the Empire.'). Otoh they shrivel up at the thought of allying themselves with BLM, iconoclasts and assorted anti Imperialists.
It's yet another example of them tying themselves into knots because they only have one policy and haven't bothered spending any time on coming up with a consistent moral position on anything much.
Donald Trump’s Scottish golf courses are expected to get a tax rebate of nearly £1m as part of a government bailout for tourism businesses hit by the coronavirus crisis, the Guardian can reveal....
Before the coronavirus crisis, Trump Turnberry had been due to pay £850,766 in property tax this year and Trump Aberdeenshire £121,170. The Trump Turnberry’s tax bill was recently reduced to £770,845, upon appeal....
The revelation comes as some Democrats in the US Congress raise questions about whether it is lawful for Trump’s companies to accept any benefits from a foreign country, including bailout funds from the UK and Scottish governments.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/10/scottish-bailout-means-trumps-golf-resorts-in-line-for-1m-tax-rebate