Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: ncRover on February 18, 2023, 02:14:06 pm
-
The children’s books are getting edited by “sensitivity readers” so that nobody gets offended by terms such as “fat” and “ugly”.
I don’t even know where to start with this. Is anybody here going to defend such editing of the past? It might seem like nothing but it’s a slippery slope.
Full examples provided in this article.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/17/roald-dahl-woke-overhaul-offensive-words-removed/
-
The world has gone mad, people seek things to be offended about, Tiger Woods banter between friends is another example!
-
Here’s another one:
“Medieval classics may be ‘racist and misogynist’, say Oxford scholars
University puts trigger warning on works such as The Canterbury Tales as students told they might encounter ‘troubling’ themes”
Fancy that!
-
Here’s another one:
“Medieval classics may be ‘racist and misogynist’, say Oxford scholars
University puts trigger warning on works such as The Canterbury Tales as students told they might encounter ‘troubling’ themes”
Fancy that!
As part of my degree, we studied the great Thomas Hardy, one of my favourite authors of all time. One of the women on the course, an ultra feminist, maintained that Hardy's novels showed him to be a misogynist.
Unbelievable.
-
People can be two things SS. It's possible to be a truly great artist and also to be an utter t**t.
-
People can be two things SS. It's possible to be a truly great artist and also to be an utter t**t.
Which one of Hardy's novels shows him to be an utter tw*t?
-
Here comes the far left.
-
People can be two things SS. It's possible to be a truly great artist and also to be an utter t**t.
Which one of Hardy's novels shows him to be an utter tw*t?
I've no idea. I've never read any. I was speaking generally.
-
It's just like when Bowdler cleaned up Shakespeare. Political Correctness gone mad!!
-
Here’s another one:
“Medieval classics may be ‘racist and misogynist’, say Oxford scholars
University puts trigger warning on works such as The Canterbury Tales as students told they might encounter ‘troubling’ themes”
Fancy that!
As part of my degree, we studied the great Thomas Hardy, one of my favourite authors of all time. One of the women on the course, an ultra feminist, maintained that Hardy's novels showed him to be a misogynist.
Unbelievable.
What evidence did she give for this SS?
-
I suppose one could view 'editing' as how society develops, teaches and adapts to more modern thinking. We wouldn't want any curriculum to stay static forever, would we? The original books will still be there in a dusty corner for reference so we can look back to see if the changes made were correct.
-
If modern thinking goes as far as removing the words small men for small people and removing the word female, then it won't be long before history is rewritten.
Maybe the church will rewrite religion.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2018/nov/21/not-in-his-name-god-is-gender-neutral-says-archbishop-of-canterbury
Oh, The Arch Bishop of Banterbury is already trying.
I have brought my kids up to be non racists and non homophobic, but I'll be honest, I cannot tolerate this whole new woke bullshit.
It's polluting young minds, especially the vulnerable.
72 genders! My left hairy male bollock!
I will refuse to pander to the pronoun brigade because where will it stop?
-
The AB of C makes a proclamation about something that was invented thousands of years ago and you're concerned about it?
There are 4,000 recognised religions in the world all speak the truth
-
I suppose one could view 'editing' as how society develops, teaches and adapts to more modern thinking. We wouldn't want any curriculum to stay static forever, would we? The original books will still be there in a dusty corner for reference so we can look back to see if the changes made were correct.
Write new books that are better perhaps instead of editing the creative works of someone long dead who can’t say otherwise?
Do you think it’s offensive to paint a caricature baddy as fat and ugly? This is about “diversity” apparently. Nudga is right, where does it end?
-
Sydney, another ten or twenty years people may have the acronym pronoun MAP in their email bio, would that be acceptable?
-
The world and those in it are in constant flux and I don't see things the same way as my parents but learn from the grandkids. As I said the original books are still there and besides if things stayed the same what would Tony Robinson do for a living?
-
The world and those in it are in constant flux and I don't see things the same way as my parents but learn from the grandkids. As I said the original books are still there and besides if things stayed the same what would Tony Robinson do for a living?
Of course, but the past can’t be changed? Like Is aid people are free to write new books.
If we remove everything slightly uncomfortable or offensive for the next generation they will wilt at the smallest pressure in life.
You didn’t answer my previous question. Do you agree with what these people thought were “offensive”?
-
Sydney maybe look up what Nudga meant there
-
why?
-
The world and those in it are in constant flux and I don't see things the same way as my parents but learn from the grandkids. As I said the original books are still there and besides if things stayed the same what would Tony Robinson do for a living?
Of course, but the past can’t be changed? Like Is aid people are free to write new books.
If we remove everything slightly uncomfortable or offensive for the next generation they will wilt at the smallest pressure in life.
You didn’t answer my previous question. Do you agree with what these people thought were “offensive”?
Isn't that the truth .
Attempting to remove ALL adversity in life creates weak character which then manifests itself in even greater problems such as susceptibility to mental health issues .
Adversity builds character and makes you not only stronger but wiser too .
Life is a rollercoaster not a Dutch railway line .
Common sense please .
-
There are so many other things to get concerned about, for me this ain't one of them.
-
The world and those in it are in constant flux and I don't see things the same way as my parents but learn from the grandkids. As I said the original books are still there and besides if things stayed the same what would Tony Robinson do for a living?
Of course, but the past can’t be changed? Like Is aid people are free to write new books.
If we remove everything slightly uncomfortable or offensive for the next generation they will wilt at the smallest pressure in life.
You didn’t answer my previous question. Do you agree with what these people thought were “offensive”?
The past is always being changed - it's how historians make a living.
Current societies have always attempted to shape the ideas put forward in the present too. There was massive censorship in Hardy's time which affected his writing - as SS can no doubt tell us.
-
His story.
-
Things that were once acceptable are often not nowadays. If judgment was brought against us now for some of our behaviour 40-odd years ago half of us would be locked up!
On the other hand, things that were once unacceptable are often acceptable now. Many people who were locked up for unacceptable behaviour back then wouldn't be now.
The past is the past.
-
I suppose one could view 'editing' as how society develops, teaches and adapts to more modern thinking. We wouldn't want any curriculum to stay static forever, would we? The original books will still be there in a dusty corner for reference so we can look back to see if the changes made were correct.
Write new books that are better perhaps instead of editing the creative works of someone long dead who can’t say otherwise?
Do you think it’s offensive to paint a caricature baddy as fat and ugly? This is about “diversity” apparently. Nudga is right, where does it end?
Let's explore your logic
Do you think it offensive to set a caricature baddy as a Jew?
-
Is it offensive to portray Boris Johnson as a pig?
-
What will we need to start calling Asian restaurants, we won't be able to call them Thai or Indian or Chinese if some had their way. The corner shop run by a family from Pakistan was always call The Pa........ no I better not say it don't want to offend anyone but it was never meant to be offensive when I was young
-
Is it offensive to portray Boris Johnson as a pig?
Yes a pig is grown up, a greasy piglet on the other hand.....
-
Is it offensive to portray Boris Johnson as a pig?
I imagine the pig is traumatised by the comparison.
-
I suppose one could view 'editing' as how society develops, teaches and adapts to more modern thinking. We wouldn't want any curriculum to stay static forever, would we? The original books will still be there in a dusty corner for reference so we can look back to see if the changes made were correct.
Write new books that are better perhaps instead of editing the creative works of someone long dead who can’t say otherwise?
Do you think it’s offensive to paint a caricature baddy as fat and ugly? This is about “diversity” apparently. Nudga is right, where does it end?
Let's explore your logic
Do you think it offensive to set a caricature baddy as a Jew?
No not really, why? That wasn’t the point in question.
-
It's the principle though. It's lazy stereotyping. Making a baddie fat and ugly and a good slim and beautiful is a bit crap really isn't it? And doing that in kids' books is worse than crap. It's insidious.
-
I once tried reading Atlas Shrugged to see if I was missing something and the libertarians had a founding principle in their great work of fiction.
I got about three pages in when the hero was introduced as lean, blonde, firm jawed.
I gave up at that because it clearly wasn't worth the effort.
-
What's your take on transmen and gay men being overtly sexual and flirting with the same sex on children's TV?
-
What's your take on transmen and gay men being overtly sexual and flirting with the same sex on children's TV?
Same as my reaction to any adult acting sexually with children. What a strange question to ask.
-
Do you change channels and refuse to put it on your TV again?
-
It's the principle though. It's lazy stereotyping. Making a baddie fat and ugly and a good slim and beautiful is a bit crap really isn't it? And doing that in kids' books is worse than crap. It's insidious.
Are you trying to equate making fun of someone being fat to making fun of someone for being Jewish?
Like I’ve said, the past is the past and people can write new books if it offends them so much.
-
I once tried reading Atlas Shrugged to see if I was missing something and the libertarians had a founding principle in their great work of fiction.
I got about three pages in when the hero was introduced as lean, blonde, firm jawed.
I gave up at that because it clearly wasn't worth the effort.
What about Greek mythology then? No overweight gods and heroes there. Let’s edit that too.
-
Is it offensive to portray Boris Johnson as a pig?
I imagine the pig is traumatised by the comparison.
Fell right into the trap.
-
Is it offensive to portray Boris Johnson as a pig?
Yes a pig is grown up, a greasy piglet on the other hand.....
If a pig is grown up at least it stops anyone from comparing you to one.
-
Has anyone questioned when this all started? IMHO it started when in kids sports days every kid had to be a winner and there wasn’t a loser. Now those kids are the ones re-writing Dahl. Where will it end?
-
It will end with wimps, fear, ever more political correctness and, one way or another, censorship. We already have at least half of that lot now.
BobG
-
Should some of the violent imagery, inappropriate language and misogyny be taken out of the works of other famous historical writers too?
How about Shakespeare?
"Is this a mildly pointed stick which I see before me?"
"By the clicking of my thumbs, something not so nice this way comes."
Or some of our most famous sayings?
"Hell hath no consternation like a person of non-specific gender scorned"
-
It's the principle though. It's lazy stereotyping. Making a baddie fat and ugly and a good slim and beautiful is a bit crap really isn't it? And doing that in kids' books is worse than crap. It's insidious.
Are you trying to equate making fun of someone being fat to making fun of someone for being Jewish?
Like I’ve said, the past is the past and people can write new books if it offends them so much.
I'm saying they are both lazy, sloppy and insidious stereotypes, which reflect the prejudices of the author.
-
It's the principle though. It's lazy stereotyping. Making a baddie fat and ugly and a good slim and beautiful is a bit crap really isn't it? And doing that in kids' books is worse than crap. It's insidious.
Are you trying to equate making fun of someone being fat to making fun of someone for being Jewish?
Like I’ve said, the past is the past and people can write new books if it offends them so much.
I'm saying they are both lazy, sloppy and insidious stereotypes, which reflect the prejudices of the author.
I didn’t realise he was an anti-Semite but there were no examples of that given in the article. Nor are there any examples in his work?
That’s fair enough, that’s your opinion.
With that in mind, do you think:
A) That the morality police should edit an authors creative work posthumously.
B) People can decide for themselves whether they spend their time and money on the books.
A quote that sums this culture we find ourselves in;
“If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behaviour.”
-
Is it offensive to portray Boris Johnson as a pig?
Yes a pig is grown up, a greasy piglet on the other hand.....
If a pig is grown up at least it stops anyone from comparing you to one.
My Grandchildren love me though
So what's your take on it, Johnson portrayed as pig that is?
-
My grandchildren love me also, but not because I call people I dislike "pigs".
-
The AB of C makes a proclamation about something that was invented thousands of years ago and you're concerned about it?
There are 4,000 recognised religions in the world all speak the truth
Trust you to come in with your usual anti-religion bile. You're an atheist, as is your privilege, some of us are believers, as is our privilege; and there is no proof to say who is right or wrong.
Put your bigotry to one side for a bit.
-
It's the principle though. It's lazy stereotyping. Making a baddie fat and ugly and a good slim and beautiful is a bit crap really isn't it? And doing that in kids' books is worse than crap. It's insidious.
Are you trying to equate making fun of someone being fat to making fun of someone for being Jewish?
Like I’ve said, the past is the past and people can write new books if it offends them so much.
I'm saying they are both lazy, sloppy and insidious stereotypes, which reflect the prejudices of the author.
I didn’t realise he was an anti-Semite but there were no examples of that given in the article. Nor are there any examples in his work?
That’s fair enough, that’s your opinion.
With that in mind, do you think:
A) That the morality police should edit an authors creative work posthumously.
B) People can decide for themselves whether they spend their time and money on the books.
A quote that sums this culture we find ourselves in;
“If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behaviour.”
I didn't say Dahl was an anti-Semite. I was giving an example of another lazy stereotype and asking if that was acceptable.
Your use of the phrase "moral police" is disappointing. It implies that you've made your mind up that the people who disagree with you on this don't have valid points to make, and I stead should be belittled with a perjorative term.
Funny how language works...
-
Here’s another one:
“Medieval classics may be ‘racist and misogynist’, say Oxford scholars
University puts trigger warning on works such as The Canterbury Tales as students told they might encounter ‘troubling’ themes”
Fancy that!
As part of my degree, we studied the great Thomas Hardy, one of my favourite authors of all time. One of the women on the course, an ultra feminist, maintained that Hardy's novels showed him to be a misogynist.
Unbelievable.
What evidence did she give for this SS?
It was when we studied "Tess of the d'Urbervilles", Wilts. She put the constant demise of Tess throughout the story as being down to Hardy being a woman hater, when in actual fact it was because of the bigotry of Victorian society, which Hardy was alluding to.
-
The AB of C makes a proclamation about something that was invented thousands of years ago and you're concerned about it?
There are 4,000 recognised religions in the world all speak the truth
Trust you to come in with your usual anti-religion bile. You're an atheist, as is your privilege, some of us are believers, as is our privilege; and there is no proof to say who is right or wrong.
Put your bigotry to one side for a bit.
Steve, I am also an atheist and I have my own views on religion. I just cannot be doing with these new ideals that are trying to rewrite history and culture to suit an agenda.
Welby says God is non-binary but how does the lords prayer start?
-
It's the principle though. It's lazy stereotyping. Making a baddie fat and ugly and a good slim and beautiful is a bit crap really isn't it? And doing that in kids' books is worse than crap. It's insidious.
Are you trying to equate making fun of someone being fat to making fun of someone for being Jewish?
Like I’ve said, the past is the past and people can write new books if it offends them so much.
I'm saying they are both lazy, sloppy and insidious stereotypes, which reflect the prejudices of the author.
I didn’t realise he was an anti-Semite but there were no examples of that given in the article. Nor are there any examples in his work?
That’s fair enough, that’s your opinion.
With that in mind, do you think:
A) That the morality police should edit an authors creative work posthumously.
B) People can decide for themselves whether they spend their time and money on the books.
A quote that sums this culture we find ourselves in;
“If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behaviour.”
I didn't say Dahl was an anti-Semite. I was giving an example of another lazy stereotype and asking if that was acceptable.
Your use of the phrase "moral police" is disappointing. It implies that you've made your mind up that the people who disagree with you on this don't have valid points to make, and I stead should be belittled with a perjorative term.
Funny how language works...
I know you didn’t, but it’s way worse to caricature someone for being Jewish than overweight so I’m not sure it’s a valid example. I said that because I think it highlights how it’s possible to find value in a writer’s work without endorsing their personal views.
Ok, I’ll rephrase that if you answer my question please. Because, I think it’s obvious where I stand on this.
Would you rather?
A) Potentially offensive literary classics are edited to avoid potential distress to the reader. This is more important than the author’s intellectual property and a truthful representation of the past.
B) People can decide for themselves whether they spend their time and money on the books. Culture changes naturally and new books come in to favour to reflect the society of the time.
You condemned the burning of books on the Ukraine thread so I’m interested in your response.
-
The AB of C makes a proclamation about something that was invented thousands of years ago and you're concerned about it?
There are 4,000 recognised religions in the world all speak the truth
Trust you to come in with your usual anti-religion bile. You're an atheist, as is your privilege, some of us are believers, as is our privilege; and there is no proof to say who is right or wrong.
Put your bigotry to one side for a bit.
Steve, I am also an atheist and I have my own views on religion. I just cannot be doing with these new ideals that are trying to rewrite history and culture to suit an agenda.
Welby says God is non-binary but how does the lords prayer start?
I agree with you, Nudga, you can't play about with semantics the way Welby is doing.
It certainly won't affect the Catholic Church, of which I'm a member. In fact, if anything, the Catholic Church is often criticised for not accepting change enough.
-
Has anyone questioned when this all started? IMHO it started when in kids sports days every kid had to be a winner and there wasn’t a loser. Now those kids are the ones re-writing Dahl. Where will it end?
It started when the demand for cultural problems to solve outstripped the supply.
-
Here’s another one:
“Medieval classics may be ‘racist and misogynist’, say Oxford scholars
University puts trigger warning on works such as The Canterbury Tales as students told they might encounter ‘troubling’ themes”
Fancy that!
As part of my degree, we studied the great Thomas Hardy, one of my favourite authors of all time. One of the women on the course, an ultra feminist, maintained that Hardy's novels showed him to be a misogynist.
Unbelievable.
What evidence did she give for this SS?
It was when we studied "Tess of the d'Urbervilles", Wilts. She put the constant demise of Tess throughout the story as being down to Hardy being a woman hater, when in actual fact it was because of the bigotry of Victorian society, which Hardy was alluding to.
She just sounds like a really bad student.
-
Nudga.
Do you reckon the man who wrote the Lords Prayer knew God personally?
-
Nudga.
Do you reckon the man who wrote the Lords Prayer knew God personally?
No, because that's impossible, in my opinion.
-
So...?
-
Just back on topic. I assumed that Puffin had just changed the odd word here or there e.g. removing words like "fat", "ugly" etc. But actually they've changed entire passages. Example: -
In The Witches the witches all need to wear wigs and gloves.
Original passage by Dahl "Don't be foolish" my grandmother said "you can't go round pulling the hair of every lady you meet, even if she is wearing gloves. Just try it and see what happens."
A very Dahlesque piece of writing to make 9 year olds giggle at the thought of doing something so naughty.
New passage "Don't be foolish" my grandmother said "Besides, there are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that."
Unbelievable! And rubbish in comparison.
They're taking the very fun and mischievousness out of the text which makes Dahl's work so very popular.
-
Here’s another one:
“Medieval classics may be ‘racist and misogynist’, say Oxford scholars
University puts trigger warning on works such as The Canterbury Tales as students told they might encounter ‘troubling’ themes”
Fancy that!
As part of my degree, we studied the great Thomas Hardy, one of my favourite authors of all time. One of the women on the course, an ultra feminist, maintained that Hardy's novels showed him to be a misogynist.
Unbelievable.
What evidence did she give for this SS?
It was when we studied "Tess of the d'Urbervilles", Wilts. She put the constant demise of Tess throughout the story as being down to Hardy being a woman hater, when in actual fact it was because of the bigotry of Victorian society, which Hardy was alluding to.
She just sounds like a really bad student.
She was. Always missing lectures, always late with assignments.
As far as I know, she didn't graduate. Another one who expected something for nothing in life.
-
The AB of C makes a proclamation about something that was invented thousands of years ago and you're concerned about it?
There are 4,000 recognised religions in the world all speak the truth
Trust you to come in with your usual anti-religion bile. You're an atheist, as is your privilege, some of us are believers, as is our privilege; and there is no proof to say who is right or wrong.
Put your bigotry to one side for a bit.
we've discussed this before, then you said it wasn't religion it was faith.
-
And just think, if the of the first novels about one of those 4,000 religions hadn't been translated, those in the western world may have had to learn Hebrew or another language.
-
The point about 4,000 religions is surely that each and every one of them claims to speak truth and the followers of every one claim theirs is the true faith. Some proselytise their chosen religion.
The difficulty that Sydney, I, and many millions of others have with the concept of religion is that each and every one of these 4,000 claim to be the one True religion.
It don't compute do it.
BobG
-
Everybody has their own meaning to life because there is no all binding meaning. If religion helps people to live their life with a meaning that resonates with them, then good for them.
The major religions are a thing for a reason. They have been here long before we have and will remain long after we will.
-
I'm pretty sure the greeks, romans and scandi's were thinking along those lines too for a while.
-
Here’s another one:
“Medieval classics may be ‘racist and misogynist’, say Oxford scholars
University puts trigger warning on works such as The Canterbury Tales as students told they might encounter ‘troubling’ themes”
Fancy that!
As part of my degree, we studied the great Thomas Hardy, one of my favourite authors of all time. One of the women on the course, an ultra feminist, maintained that Hardy's novels showed him to be a misogynist.
Unbelievable.
What evidence did she give for this SS?
It was when we studied "Tess of the d'Urbervilles", Wilts. She put the constant demise of Tess throughout the story as being down to Hardy being a woman hater, when in actual fact it was because of the bigotry of Victorian society, which Hardy was alluding to.
'Justice was done and the president of the immortals had finished his sport with Tess' (or something like that). Wonder what she thought to The Mayor of Casterbridge?
Some people want to be offending by anything. And others want to be able to offend them. As this thread has shown.
-
And just think, if the of the first novels about one of those 4,000 religions hadn't been translated, those in the western world may have had to learn Hebrew or another language.
And it has been re-written/re-edited several times. To bring it up-to-date with a 'modern' readership.
Presumably that's wrong and it should still be in Latin?
-
I guess one way to look at the editing especially in regards to the Dahl books is if you are happy to have your kids, any kids use what they've read in and around the classroom and the home, for others to use it the workplace and of course on the forum then it should be ok to leave it as it is.
-
My grandchildren love me also, but not because I call people I dislike "pigs".
No you just stick to calling/inferring people childish, but your answer to the question I asked is?
-
My grandchildren love me also, but not because I call people I dislike "pigs".
No you just stick to calling/inferring people childish, but your answer to the question I asked is?
I think comparing Johnson to a pig is rather childish.
-
At last, an answer to a direct question keep it up BB
I'd better just stick to call him a liar
-
A or B, BST?
-
Excuse me?
-
At last, an answer to a direct question keep it up BB
I'd better just stick to call him a liar
Good lad. Perhaps the next stage of the new improved you is to call out a liar irrespective of what political party they belong to. There will be plenty of opportunitites when Labour get in next.
-
And I will unlike you with this shower, as I would irespective of which Party is in power Other than never voting Tory I have no political alliegiance
-
Might I add getting your facts right as part of your development also?
-
Excuse me?
My question to you on reply #50
-
Might I add getting your facts right as part of your development also?
Please point me in the correct direction and I will apologise
-
I can do that for you, regarding your comment "unlike you with this shower, as I would irespective of which Party is in".
I've never denied Boris is a liar. He was voted leader with full knowledge of the fact. But he is what many people describe as an honest liar, unlike many of his opponents.
For the record, in fear of repeating myself, I didn't vote Tory.
-
Lovely, that's a great start but can you point me in the direction of previous posts where you have criticised or condemned a Tory.
Oh for the record I haven't said or implied you actually voted Tory
-
My apologies, I missed that.
Of those two choices, I'd certainly go for B. But that's a rather simplistic dichotomy if you don't mind me saying so. Sometimes society needs a shove to discuss and reflect on these issues. Without the sort of shove that this "re-writing" gives, we don't tend to reflect on the lazy and insidious stereotyping that often exists in works from previous generations and we risk promulgating it down the generations.
There's a third way of looking at the issue of course. That Dahl was a brilliant and engaging author who created works that children love, while also being a deeply unpleasant personality who injected many of his own prejudices into his works. Why not try to bring his work up to date by saving the brilliance and excising the bigotry?
That, I'd suggest, is the best way to deal with books aimed at children. Classic fiction aimed at an adult audience is, I think, in a different category. Here, I'd let bigotry and stereotyping stand as being part of what the culture was then. But I certainly wouldn't get upset about people pointing out and critiquing the bigotry and stereotyping.
By the way, it turns out Dahl WAS anti-Semitic. Here's some text from and article of his from 1983.
“There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity. I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.”
-
Oh, by the way, as an example of how you can retain the joy of the story while removing (some) of the lazy bigotry, it's worth noting that in the first edition of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the Oompah Loompahs were black African pygmies. Later editions and the original film re-cast them as non-race specific.
How would you have felt about watching a kids' film in which the Oompah Loompahs had all been black?
-
Lovely, that's a great start but can you point me in the direction of previous posts where you have criticised or condemned a Tory.
Oh for the record I haven't said or implied you actually voted Tory
For the record, I never said you did.
Also for the record, with fear of repeating myself in answering this question far too often than should have been necessary, I defended Boris simply to balance up the barrage of hate portrayed on this forum, albeit by just a handful of people.
Now, how about that apology?
-
What I think you're saying BB is that you knew Johnson was a pathological liar, the line of whom we've never seen in UK politics. And, rather than reflect on that and criticise his lying, because a few folk pointed out his lies, you took it on yourself to try to convince yourself that other politicians are at least as bad.
-
False equivalence, is the simple last resort of those on a political side who simply cannot bear for their chosen representatives to be shown to be liars or corrupt.
-
So it doesn't matter that Johnson was sacked from one job for inventing a story in an article.
It doesn't matter that Johnson started his career writing lying articles about EU regulations that didn't exist.
It doesn't matter that he got sacked from his first political job for lying to his boss about whether he was cheating on his wife.
It doesn't matter that he tipped the Brexit vote by lying about EU payments and the imminent ascension of Turkey.
It doesn't matter that Johnson attended numerous parties when we were on lockdown, lied to Parliament about it and has now run up a bill of more that £1/4m of public money defending his lies.
None of that matters, because Starmer once slipped up in Parliament when defending himself from another lie from Johnson, said something incorrect and set the record straight within the hour.
In BB-land, Starmer is as big a liar as Johnson. And Starmer is to be criticised for that while he makes no comment on Johnson.
-
Lovely, that's a great start but can you point me in the direction of previous posts where you have criticised or condemned a Tory.
Oh for the record I haven't said or implied you actually voted Tory
For the record, I never said you did.
Also for the record, with fear of repeating myself in answering this question far too often than should have been necessary, I defended Boris simply to balance up the barrage of hate portrayed on this forum, albeit by just a handful of people.
Now, how about that apology?
Previous posts?
-
My apologies, I missed that.
Of those two choices, I'd certainly go for B. But that's a rather simplistic dichotomy if you don't mind me saying so. Sometimes society needs a shove to discuss and reflect on these issues. Without the sort of shove that this "re-writing" gives, we don't tend to reflect on the lazy and insidious stereotyping that often exists in works from previous generations and we risk promulgating it down the generations.
There's a third way of looking at the issue of course. That Dahl was a brilliant and engaging author who created works that children love, while also being a deeply unpleasant personality who injected many of his own prejudices into his works. Why not try to bring his work up to date by saving the brilliance and excising the bigotry?
That, I'd suggest, is the best way to deal with books aimed at children. Classic fiction aimed at an adult audience is, I think, in a different category. Here, I'd let bigotry and stereotyping stand as being part of what the culture was then. But I certainly wouldn't get upset about people pointing out and critiquing the bigotry and stereotyping.
By the way, it turns out Dahl WAS anti-Semitic. Here's some text from and article of his from 1983.
“There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity. I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.”
Thank you.
Yes I found that example of him being a nasty piece of work yesterday, but I can’t find any examples like that in his works.
Again making fun of race / religion is obviously where I draw the line as that freedom of speech encroaches on other’s freedom, as well as just being disgusting.
But again, the examples given in the article are nowhere near that offensive. How inoffensive do we want our society to get? Stadium bans for Rovers fans who shout “you fat bas**rd” when the opposition GK takes a kick?
Yes this is children’s books but it’s adults who are getting offended here. Like Sydney said above, I’ll add to that and say that the parents can make decisions rather than have this insidious culture that seeks to control everything.
I think artistic integrity, intellectual property and an accurate representation of past work trump the issue with content in question here.
Good debating as always.
-
I'm pretty sure the greeks, romans and scandi's were thinking along those lines too for a while.
Good point, but that’s more the replacement of some religions with others due to the collapse of civilisations I think.
The African continent has 1.2 billion people and is growing. The vast majority of them are Christian or Muslim. So don’t assume that the decline of religion in the western world is indicative of a global pattern. You also shouldn’t assume that our civilised society isn’t in part as a result of the order that religion gives to chaos.
Until science objectively tells us the best rules for life or explains to us why there is a physical realm rather than nothing, humans will continue to elicit religious behaviour.
You could argue that rigid political ideology is a form of religious behaviour without the worship of a deity.
-
I'm pretty sure the greeks, romans and scandi's were thinking along those lines too for a while.
Good point, but that’s more the replacement of some religions with others due to the collapse of civilisations I think.
The African continent has 1.2 billion people and is growing. The vast majority of them are Christian or Muslim. So don’t assume that the decline of religion in the western world is indicative of a global pattern. You also shouldn’t assume that our civilised society isn’t in part as a result of the order that religion gives to chaos.
Until science objectively tells us the best rules for life or explains to us why there is a physical realm rather than nothing, humans will continue to elicit religious behaviour.
You could argue that rigid political ideology is a form of religious behaviour without the worship of a deity.
Your right about the spread and continual draw of religion especially in the developing world.
What you have to ask yourself is why is religion and openly religious people in the west a declining situation.
Is it because these people consider themselves to have a superior intellect and don't need all this mumbo jumbo? or could it be that some of this disposition have an unconscious bias towards developing regions and their populations, customs and creeds.
I would imagine most are not even aware of this fact but some will be and they will be telling you why that's not the case anytime soon.
-
What I think you're saying BB is that you knew Johnson was a pathological liar, the line of whom we've never seen in UK politics. And, rather than reflect on that and criticise his lying, because a few folk pointed out his lies, you took it on yourself to try to convince yourself that other politicians are at least as bad.
What you think I'm saying is incorrect, so there's no change there. I never denied Johnson told lies, unlike you who never admitted Starmer did. In your bent and biased world, only Johnson told lies, whereas Starmer only made untruthful mistakes!
Social media nowadays means politicians are under the spotlight 24/7, meaning anything and everything they say, either on or off the record is brought out in public, enabling people, like you, to select and share those that suit your agenda. That has left us with a country full of hate and bad losers who will no longer accept a vote that goes against them.
With the amount of time spent with cameras pushed in their faces these days, there is little wonder why the leading one and most detested by the bad losers, Boris Johnson, was the one accused of being the biggest liar seen in UK politics. What encourages this is Johnsons off the cuff remarks which are all far too often taken far too seriously by those, like you, with an agenda.
I honestly think if Brian Clough was a Tory MP he'd be called a liar because he said he'd often take a walk across the River Trent.
Starmer will be just as bad when he has the pressure of being in power, and those who will be on the losing side of the vote this time will get their revenge and rip Starmer a new arsehole.
I will be one of them.
-
False equivalence, is the simple last resort of those on a political side who simply cannot bear for their chosen representatives to be shown to be liars or corrupt.
Nah, having no policies and spending all day criticizing the opposition is the simple last resort of a political side.
-
Has anyone questioned when this all started? IMHO it started when in kids sports days every kid had to be a winner and there wasn’t a loser. Now those kids are the ones re-writing Dahl. Where will it end?
Many would agree with this, you could also say that academia drives a great deal of this type of group think. Around this particular time it was also the case that schools and teachers began to take a massive step back from partaking in extra curricular activities with kids, during and after school, using all sorts of spurious reasons for this from child safeguarding to uninsured activities and even the sale and loss of school playing fields.
In my opinion a massive corner was turned when this happened, a great many kids were lost to unsocial behaviour, drug taking, gangs and general misbehaviour. Its never recovered and we now have a completely dumbed down section of society, without a care or thought for anything but, junk telly, celebrity seeking, throwaway lifestyles.
In the meantime the real dangerous instigators and political agitators are trying to rewrite history into their perspective and lead society down the road of their particular crusade and narrative, without question and comment from a placid and dumbed down populace.
-
What I think you're saying BB is that you knew Johnson was a pathological liar, the line of whom we've never seen in UK politics. And, rather than reflect on that and criticise his lying, because a few folk pointed out his lies, you took it on yourself to try to convince yourself that other politicians are at least as bad.
What you think I'm saying is incorrect, so there's no change there. I never denied Johnson told lies, unlike you who never admitted Starmer did. In your bent and biased world, only Johnson told lies, whereas Starmer only made untruthful mistakes!
Social media nowadays means politicians are under the spotlight 24/7, meaning anything and everything they say, either on or off the record is brought out in public, enabling people, like you, to select and share those that suit your agenda. That has left us with a country full of hate and bad losers who will no longer accept a vote that goes against them.
With the amount of time spent with cameras pushed in their faces these days, there is little wonder why the leading one and most detested by the bad losers, Boris Johnson, was the one accused of being the biggest liar seen in UK politics. What encourages this is Johnsons off the cuff remarks which are all far too often taken far too seriously by those, like you, with an agenda.
I honestly think if Brian Clough was a Tory MP he'd be called a liar because he said he'd often take a walk across the River Trent.
Starmer will be just as bad when he has the pressure of being in power, and those who will be on the losing side of the vote this time will get their revenge and rip Starmer a new arsehole.
I will be one of them.
Do you want me to go back and dig out you denying that Johnson deliberately lied over the £350m on the bus?
And it's nothing to do with off the cuff remarks (Although he does regularly lie on those too - every politician stumbles at some point off the cuff: the point is whether you correct the record when a factually incorrect comment is made in the heat of the moment).
The point is that Johnson, unlike any previous politician, has a career-long record of lying when he takes his time to make considered statements, or write articles.-Show me any other PM whose career started with him working as a journalist and deliberately lying about EU regulations or simply inventing stories. That's deliberate lying in slow time, not slipping up in an off the cuff quote.
I accept that all politicians spin and dissemble and put the best gloss on everything they say. What I don't accept is that any major politician until Johnson, made a career out of blatantly lying about matters of objective truth. The fact that you don't see the difference is illuminating.
-
I'm pretty sure the greeks, romans and scandi's were thinking along those lines too for a while.
Good point, but that’s more the replacement of some religions with others due to the collapse of civilisations I think.
The African continent has 1.2 billion people and is growing. The vast majority of them are Christian or Muslim. So don’t assume that the decline of religion in the western world is indicative of a global pattern. You also shouldn’t assume that our civilised society isn’t in part as a result of the order that religion gives to chaos.
Until science objectively tells us the best rules for life or explains to us why there is a physical realm rather than nothing, humans will continue to elicit religious behaviour.
You could argue that rigid political ideology is a form of religious behaviour without the worship of a deity.
Good post, NC. Especially the 3rd paragraph which is in line with some of Einstein's thinking.
-
What I think you're saying BB is that you knew Johnson was a pathological liar, the line of whom we've never seen in UK politics. And, rather than reflect on that and criticise his lying, because a few folk pointed out his lies, you took it on yourself to try to convince yourself that other politicians are at least as bad.
What you think I'm saying is incorrect, so there's no change there. I never denied Johnson told lies, unlike you who never admitted Starmer did. In your bent and biased world, only Johnson told lies, whereas Starmer only made untruthful mistakes!
Social media nowadays means politicians are under the spotlight 24/7, meaning anything and everything they say, either on or off the record is brought out in public, enabling people, like you, to select and share those that suit your agenda. That has left us with a country full of hate and bad losers who will no longer accept a vote that goes against them.
With the amount of time spent with cameras pushed in their faces these days, there is little wonder why the leading one and most detested by the bad losers, Boris Johnson, was the one accused of being the biggest liar seen in UK politics. What encourages this is Johnsons off the cuff remarks which are all far too often taken far too seriously by those, like you, with an agenda.
I honestly think if Brian Clough was a Tory MP he'd be called a liar because he said he'd often take a walk across the River Trent.
Starmer will be just as bad when he has the pressure of being in power, and those who will be on the losing side of the vote this time will get their revenge and rip Starmer a new arsehole.
I will be one of them.
Do you want me to go back and dig out you denying that Johnson deliberately lied over the £350m on the bus?
And it's nothing to do with off the cuff remarks (Although he does regularly lie on those too - every politician stumbles at some point off the cuff: the point is whether you correct the record when a factually incorrect comment is made in the heat of the moment).
The point is that Johnson, unlike any previous politician, has a career-long record of lying when he takes his time to make considered statements, or write articles.-Show me any other PM whose career started with him working as a journalist and deliberately lying about EU regulations or simply inventing stories. That's deliberate lying in slow time, not slipping up in an off the cuff quote.
I accept that all politicians spin and dissemble and put the best gloss on everything they say. What I don't accept is that any major politician until Johnson, made a career out of blatantly lying about matters of objective truth. The fact that you don't see the difference is illuminating.
Yes, by all means, go back and dig out my denying that Johnson deliberately lied over the £350m bus slogan.
I've already said that Johnson has a career-long record of lying and people who voted for him as leader knew that, just as the public who voted for him knew it.
What is illuminating is it is only lies of Tories that you fetch up on this site, whilst defending Labour lies.
-
Tell me which Labour lies I've defended.
-
Starmers lies over the EU vaccine, for one.
-
I'm pretty sure the greeks, romans and scandi's were thinking along those lines too for a while.
Good point, but that’s more the replacement of some religions with others due to the collapse of civilisations I think.
The African continent has 1.2 billion people and is growing. The vast majority of them are Christian or Muslim. So don’t assume that the decline of religion in the western world is indicative of a global pattern. You also shouldn’t assume that our civilised society isn’t in part as a result of the order that religion gives to chaos.
Until science objectively tells us the best rules for life or explains to us why there is a physical realm rather than nothing, humans will continue to elicit religious behaviour.
You could argue that rigid political ideology is a form of religious behaviour without the worship of a deity.
Good post, NC. Especially the 3rd paragraph which is in line with some of Einstein's thinking.
Thank you.
-
I'm pretty sure the greeks, romans and scandi's were thinking along those lines too for a while.
Good point, but that’s more the replacement of some religions with others due to the collapse of civilisations I think.
The African continent has 1.2 billion people and is growing. The vast majority of them are Christian or Muslim. So don’t assume that the decline of religion in the western world is indicative of a global pattern. You also shouldn’t assume that our civilised society isn’t in part as a result of the order that religion gives to chaos.
Until science objectively tells us the best rules for life or explains to us why there is a physical realm rather than nothing, humans will continue to elicit religious behaviour.
You could argue that rigid political ideology is a form of religious behaviour without the worship of a deity.
Your right about the spread and continual draw of religion especially in the developing world.
What you have to ask yourself is why is religion and openly religious people in the west a declining situation.
Is it because these people consider themselves to have a superior intellect and don't need all this mumbo jumbo? or could it be that some of this disposition have an unconscious bias towards developing regions and their populations, customs and creeds.
I would imagine most are not even aware of this fact but some will be and they will be telling you why that's not the case anytime soon.
Yes dd I think it is the feeling of superior intellect. I don’t follow a religion per se but I’m critiquing those who would call any religion “made up nonsense”. It’s very close-minded and dismissive. Especially when these know-it-all liberal types have only selectively followed science in the last few years.
-
Starmers lies over the EU vaccine, for one.
Jesus wept. It never ends.
-
Labour deputy Angela Rayner being at the Beergate event after a series of denials.
-
A series of denials by whom?
-
The Labour party? You?
-
Who made the denials? Last time I checked "The Labour party" wasn't able to speak.
YOU are raising this b*llocks again so I assume you know what you are talking abo...
D'oh! I've done it again haven't I?
-
https://youtu.be/TBjXfQjBuhE
-
Really simple question BB. Even for you.
Who denied it? Which person denied Raynor was at the work event?
-
Watch the video, daft lad.
-
I want YOU to explain it. Along with your explanation about this being "a series of denials".
-
Lost again haven't you billy lad!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You're a fake.
-
I'm pretty sure the greeks, romans and scandi's were thinking along those lines too for a while.
Good point, but that’s more the replacement of some religions with others due to the collapse of civilisations I think.
The African continent has 1.2 billion people and is growing. The vast majority of them are Christian or Muslim. So don’t assume that the decline of religion in the western world is indicative of a global pattern. You also shouldn’t assume that our civilised society isn’t in part as a result of the order that religion gives to chaos.
Until science objectively tells us the best rules for life or explains to us why there is a physical realm rather than nothing, humans will continue to elicit religious behaviour.
You could argue that rigid political ideology is a form of religious behaviour without the worship of a deity.
Good post, NC. Especially the 3rd paragraph which is in line with some of Einstein's thinking.
Thank you.
The thing about science is that it's progressive and improves upon itself, math is the only thing that doesn't change.
-
BB
You're the worst kind of fool. A fool who knows exactly how wrong he is, and still insists on being wrong.
There wasn't "a series" of denials.
A journalist from The Mail phoned up the Labour press office ONCE, months before this was in the news, and spoke to a junior staffer who got it wrong.
There was, to the best of my knowledge, no "series" of denials. When the story became such a massive thing months later (as twisted, bitter individuals like you sought to convince themselves that they didn't have to criticise Johnson because Starmer was as bad) the previous wrong statement was corrected.
Meanwhile, the Labour party was involved in such a Grassy Knoll style conspiracy about Rayner, that she'd put photos on her social media accounts at the time of the Durham meeting, showing her there with Starmer.
You're a fool. You'll always be a fool. Because in your heart, you'd rather be a wrong fool than admit other people are right.
-
BST
I see you're doing the usual, applying a last-ditch attempt at saving your arse by questioning ONE word in my summary of events. No attempt whatsoever in understanding the reason why I used the term 'series', which was because it took Labour so long to rectify the mistake (lie if it was a Tory story). Maybe it was wrong of me to assume the question would have been asked more than once during that time of hiding the truth.
I also see you're doing the usual in blindly defending your beloved Labour Party, only this time you're denying what the Labour party itself has already admitted to!
....Unless you're telling the truth and the Labour party is lying again?
-
It took Labour so long to rectify the mistake you fool, because no-one even queried it for nearly 5 months.
Someone in the office made a mistake. The office has junior staff handling routine enquiries dozens of times a day. Sometimes they will get things wrong. Do you expect them to forensically check every item of routine communication to make sure nothing that passes your lie test has slipped out?
And if they were deliberately trying to deceive by knowingly telling an untruth (the dictionary definition of a lie) don't you think they'd have got Rayner to take down the photos of her at Durham?
Hey, here's a thought! Maybe there was no lie, because there was nothing to lie about, because no offence had been committed. Which is what the police concluded, and you, twisted, bitter person that you are, refused to accept.
You're beyond embarrassing.
-
You're so out of touch, owd lad, I genuinely think you actually believe that. Maybe that's why you spend so much time on this forum, because, unlike the real world, you have a handful of people who'll agree with you on here.
-
Don't forget the handful who won't
-
Don't forget the handful who won't
Absolutely. There is only a handful of those now. Most of the level-headed posters have stopped participating.
-
Yeah. I've stopped posting on these threads due to the complete b*llocks you continue to contribute BB.
Why BST carries on engaging with you is beyond me.
At least that other WUM from Belton seems to have given up.
-
TT, explain what is b*llocks about my point.
-
No.
-
No.
I'll give you full marks for predictability!
-
I've heard plenty of shit in my time. But the wilful. blind, unthinking shit you perpetually utter BB is in a class of its own. You destroy. You decry. You never offer constructive solutions, or evidence. You are beneath contempt.
BobG
-
Single Malt?
-
What will we need to start calling Asian restaurants, we won't be able to call them Thai or Indian or Chinese if some had their way. The corner shop run by a family from Pakistan was always call The Pa........ no I better not say it don't want to offend anyone but it was never meant to be offensive when I was young
The problem there Raven, is that the majority of those (me included) who used that term quite innocently back in the day had no idea whether the owners were Pakistani, Indian or from any other nationality.
Ignorant at best.
-
Yeah. I've stopped posting on these threads due to the complete b*llocks you continue to contribute BB.
Why BST carries on engaging with you is beyond me.
At least that other WUM from Belton seems to have given up.
b*llocks Tommy. You have no idea why I post less than in the past.
-
I'm pretty sure the greeks, romans and scandi's were thinking along those lines too for a while.
Good point, but that’s more the replacement of some religions with others due to the collapse of civilisations I think.
The African continent has 1.2 billion people and is growing. The vast majority of them are Christian or Muslim. So don’t assume that the decline of religion in the western world is indicative of a global pattern. You also shouldn’t assume that our civilised society isn’t in part as a result of the order that religion gives to chaos.
Until science objectively tells us the best rules for life or explains to us why there is a physical realm rather than nothing, humans will continue to elicit religious behaviour.
You could argue that rigid political ideology is a form of religious behaviour without the worship of a deity.
Your right about the spread and continual draw of religion especially in the developing world.
What you have to ask yourself is why is religion and openly religious people in the west a declining situation.
Is it because these people consider themselves to have a superior intellect and don't need all this mumbo jumbo? or could it be that some of this disposition have an unconscious bias towards developing regions and their populations, customs and creeds.
I would imagine most are not even aware of this fact but some will be and they will be telling you why that's not the case anytime soon.
Yes dd I think it is the feeling of superior intellect. I don’t follow a religion per se but I’m critiquing those who would call any religion “made up nonsense”. It’s very close-minded and dismissive. Especially when these know-it-all liberal types have only selectively followed science in the last few years.
A fine example from the Labour MP for Exeter here
https://twitter.com/benpbradshaw/status/1628052795420024833?s=46&t=ew2zhuY5a18ATIpF10kwsg
-
Oh dear, after spending years cultivating religious minorities i would imagine his party handlers would not be best pleased with Mr Bradshaw. In fact when you consider Bradshaw's personal situation it makes his statement even more puzzling when reacting to minorities.
-
Oh dear, after spending years cultivating religious minorities i would imagine his party handlers would not be best pleased with Mr Bradshaw. In fact when you consider Bradshaw's personal situation it makes his statement even more puzzling when reacting to minorities.
What’s his personal situation?
-
Bradshaw is in a civil relationship to another man.
-
So, let me get this right.
A gay man should be respectful to a religious fundamentalist who thinks he is a sinner and who would deny him the right to form a legally respected partnership with his soulmate, because they are both minorities?
I don't think it quite works like that.
-
So, let me get this right.
A gay man should be respectful to a religious fundamentalist who thinks he is a sinner and who would deny him the right to form a legally respected partnership with his soulmate, because they are both minorities?
I don't think it quite works like that.
As usual reading far too much into a post, my comparison was just that they are both minorities in the UK, the whys and wherefores of if they both agree with each other's personal situation is another story.
-
DD.
You said it was puzzling that Bradshaw should comment on minorities. If you didn't mean that Bradshaw shouldn't comment on minorities because he is a minority, then I apologise for misunderstanding.
-
DD.
You said it was puzzling that Bradshaw should comment on minorities. If you didn't mean that Bradshaw shouldn't comment on minorities because he is a minority, then I apologise for misunderstanding.
Apology accepted!
-
A bit of a test coming up for Starmer here. He needs to rebuke Bradshaw publicly for such a statement of religious intolerance, especially with an election on the way.
We're not just talking about Christian voters here; far from it.
-
It's not "religious" intolerance.
It's giving a fortnight, but defensible opinion on a very particular type of religious belief - one that claims that the literal answers are given in an ancient book, and there's no questioning that.
Bradshaw is strictly correct. People with those beliefs DO have a part of their brain missing - the part that weighs up evidence and makes choices on matters of morality is switched off because it's not required.
If we are talking about intolerance, I think I'd start with the politician who said that a fundamental and natural part of his being makes Bradshaw's existence sinful. Just stop and think what it would feel like to have some bigot tell you that, before you rush to slag off his response.
-
It's not "religious" intolerance.
It's giving a fortnight, but defensible opinion on a very particular type of religious belief - one that claims that the literal answers are given in an ancient book, and there's no questioning that.
Bradshaw is strictly correct. People with those beliefs DO have a part of their brain missing - the part that weighs up evidence and makes choices on matters of morality is switched off because it's not required.
If we are talking about intolerance, I think I'd start with the politician who said that a fundamental and natural part of his being makes Bradshaw's existence sinful. Just stop and think what it would feel like to have some bigot tell you that, before you rush to slag off his response.
OK, I'll change the semantics a bit to "perceived religious intolerance". My concern here is voters. I would imagine most Muslims in this country are Labour voters, and possibly Hindus and other religions in deprived areas.
Labour made the mistake last time in completely misjudging the mood of a certain faction of people. They mustn't make those kind of mistakes again, and Starmer's going to be grilled constantly by the mainly right wing media over the next 18 months or so on every issue perceivable.
The Tories are there for the taking. Labour must make sure they don't f*ck it up on cultural issues.
-
It's not "religious" intolerance.
It's giving a fortnight, but defensible opinion on a very particular type of religious belief - one that claims that the literal answers are given in an ancient book, and there's no questioning that.
Bradshaw is strictly correct. People with those beliefs DO have a part of their brain missing - the part that weighs up evidence and makes choices on matters of morality is switched off because it's not required.
If we are talking about intolerance, I think I'd start with the politician who said that a fundamental and natural part of his being makes Bradshaw's existence sinful. Just stop and think what it would feel like to have some bigot tell you that, before you rush to slag off his response.
OK, I'll change the semantics a bit to "perceived religious intolerance". My concern here is voters. I would imagine most Muslims in this country are Labour voters, and possibly Hindus and other religions in deprived areas.
Labour made the mistake last time in completely misjudging the mood of a certain faction of people. They mustn't make those kind of mistakes again, and Starmer's going to be grilled constantly by the mainly right wing media over the next 18 months or so on every issue perceivable.
The Tories are there for the taking. Labour must make sure they don't f*ck it up on cultural issues.
”In 2010, Muslims favoured Labour, whilst the Jewish vote was more for the Conservatives. The Hindu vote tended to Labour, although was more balanced in 2010. The Sikh vote was evenly split between the two main parties, whilst the Buddhist vote was disproportionately for the Liberal Democrats.”
https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/cmsfiles/archive/files/Reports/Voting%20and%20Values%20in%20Britain%20executve%20summary%20FINAL%20revised%201.pdf
-
So apparently there replacing fat with enormous, i would rather be called a fat bas… than a enormous one!
-
Puffin annouce plan to publish classic edition of Dahl's work alongside new editions.
When we were talking about this at work I said it was all a PR stunt by the publishing company to get people talking about hem sell more books.
U's all been had!! Welcome to free market capitalism.
https://twitter.com/thebookseller/status/1629087668054249472
-
All this political correctness is driving normal people mad. It's the likes of poor old big enormous yorkshire pudding I feel sorry for.
-
I'm told that Netflix have bought the rights to Dahls books. Now there couldn't possibly be a link there, could there?
-
Possibly but it was 18 months ago RR
-
Well you can all calm down now.
If you want to buy the version where he talks about weird African languages, you can. If you want to buy a version where that's replaced by ",weird languages" you can buy that one instead.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64759118
I wonder which one Queen Camilla will choose...