Jump to content

Manx Radio


Desperate Dan

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

You May know him by his stage name, however. Keith Lemon. There are 3 people I switch over TV channels to avoid. Thatcher, Farage and Lemon. 

I thought it was better with Faragher. Added a local dimension and had us wondering which Faragher.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Declan said:

I think the outcome will be the traditional Manx solution of "lessons have been learnt, lets move on." Jordon's speech seems to offer that olive branch. Although I do hope that Stu gets away with a reprimand and returns with a less confrontational approach, I couldn't sign a petition demanding that without some sort of apology or acknowledgement that mistakes have been made.

I hope when conciliation is needed PK isn't his only adviser.

Did it bollox I beg to differ.

To my mind appeasement is never a good outcome anyway.

There is only one reason I can think of as to why Jordan would continue with very public, personal attacks on Stu Peters including in his "speech". Put simply Stu is being held up as "proof" that racism is prevalent on the island thus justifying their actions and no doubt swelling the ranks.

Which is why, of course, they set out to stitch him up in the first place. This isn't rocket science.

If the Communications Commission exonerate Stu, and I hope they do, then I would hope Mr Peters would then sue their arses for defamation.

Of course, these days the victims rarely, if ever, get any kind of justice at all...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Mr Newbie said:

Is still think Cleese and the writing team were clearly lampooning the racist views of people just like the Major who had often returned to the UK to retire from colonial assignments they had in the 50s and 60s.

 

I don't think there is even the slightest doubt about that. Same with the Alf Garnett character. The writers were absolutely on message. The atmosphere has just become so febrile now that those subtle messages are also seen as racist. You can't argue with stupid as Cleese says, and as Stu Peters found out.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, gettafa said:
1 hour ago, Declan said:

Papa Lazerou in League of Gentlemen isn't a white man blacking up to ridicule a black man - it's a white man blacking up to ridicule a white man blacking up.

Good post,  ^ is the nub.

Once humour goes beyond a superficial level many people are unable to think beyond knee-jerk offence. I appreciate it's not always clear-cut, and in this case I would imagine people laugh at the the initial level of the 'joke'.

The 'british' can laugh at or deprecate themselves freely, whichI have found many people don't get, but that is what the major is all (silly old coot from another age, type thing).

It's actually even more complex than you suggest.  There's what you might call the Alf Garnett Problem.  Most people at the time saw Til Death Us Do Part for what it was meant to be - a satire on the character's racism and other views, which were constantly being challenged and being deflated by the other members of his family.  But as Warren Mitchell's Wiki says "While the series aimed to satirise racism, it actually also gained the support of many bigoted racists who perceived Alf as 'the voice of reason'" (something which Mitchell found a constant annoyance).  So even anti-racist satire can be taken as reinforcement by racists.

In contrast I don't think that many people missed the satire and were offended by the racist views (the main objector was Mary Whitehouse who objected to the swearing and probably thought racism should be expressed in a more genteel manner).  I suspect the situation is the same at present and it's a very small percentage of BLM supporters who miss the point of satirical stuff such as Fawlty Towers - and a lot of those that do are attention-seekers or trolls.  What is significant is the way that the views of this tiny minority are being promoted as being representative of the whole movement in the media and the much more widely and passionately held views of the vast majority about what really matters are being ignored.  But for Anglo-American media turning everything into a culture war seems to be the default.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think part of the problem is the decisions are being made not by the creatives or even by editors but in the boardrooms of corporations like UKTV. So it's like when Eddie Teare was minister of health and thought most people had health insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, woolley said:

I don't think there is even the slightest doubt about that. Same with the Alf Garnett character. The writers were absolutely on message. The atmosphere has just become so febrile now that those subtle messages are also seen as racist. You can't argue with stupid as Cleese says, and as Stu Peters found out.

The writers knew what they were doing you can even see it in Cleese’s face in that clip that the Major is exasperating him with his views. All this has got crazy now. Some woman on the BBC this morning demanding the right to take down any statute that they believe to be wrong in some way. It’s like the thought police have landed and they want to erase history. I get people having an issue in the states with statutes of Robert E Lee etc. I sort of even get Cecil Rhodes although I’m sure many people at Oxford still brag about getting a Rhodes Scholarship. But demanding the right that some people arbitrarily get to decide what stays up or comes down is just crazy. I thought they wanted to start a debate. So let’s have a debate and a vote on which parts of our history get to come down as a society not a load of people taking offense and smashing things that they don’t like up. It’s getting a bit like Fahrenheit 451 now. Let’s just burn things to stop people having to think about anything. 

Edited by Mr Newbie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mr Newbie said:

The writers knew what they were doing you can even see it in Cleese’s face in that clip that the Major is exasperating him with his views. All this has got crazy now. Some woman on the BBC this morning demanding the right to take down any statute that they believe to be wrong in some way. It’s like the thought police have landed and they want to erase history. I get people having an issue in the states with statutes of Robert E Lee etc. I sort of even get Cecil Rhodes although I’m sure many people at Oxford still brag about getting a Rhodes Scholarship. But demanding the right that some people arbitrarily get to decide what stays up or comes down is just crazy. I thought they wanted to start a debate. So let’s have a debate and a vote on which parts of our history get to come down as a society not a load of people taking offense and smashing things that they don’t like up. It’s getting a bit like Fahrenheit 451 now. Let’s just burn things to stop people having to think about anything. 

They have the bit between their teeth. Defund the police. Police free zones and the funds given to communities to police themselves instead. Change the school curriculum. Reparations for colonial crimes. This is going nowhere good, but it's been coming for a long time.

Seen Chaz in the US? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53017776

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, woolley said:

They have the bit between their teeth. Defund the police. Police free zones and the funds given to communities to police themselves instead. Change the school curriculum. Reparations for colonial crimes. This is going nowhere good, but it's been coming for a long time.

Seen Chaz in the US? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53017776

De-funding the police is basically asking to hand law enforcement to drug dealers. As that’s what will happen in a lot of US towns. Police force goes, a load of local do-gooders and / or nutters take over community patrols, then ultimately a load of drug dealers will force the do-gooders out by intimidating them and take over the streets. It’s sort of asking for your problems to be worse. Unless all your mates are drug dealers of course. 

Edited by Mr Newbie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr Newbie said:

De-funding the police is basically asking to hand law enforcement to drug dealers. As that’s what will happen in a lot of US towns. Police force goes, a load of local do-gooders take over community patrols, then ultimately a load of drug dealers will force the do-gooders out by intimidating them and take over the streets it’s sort of asking for your problems to be worse. Unless all your mates are drug dealers of course. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, woolley said:

They have the bit between their teeth. Defund the police. Police free zones and the funds given to communities to police themselves instead. Change the school curriculum. Reparations for colonial crimes. This is going nowhere good, but it's been coming for a long time.

Seen Chaz in the US? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53017776

How Thatcherite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Declan said:

How Thatcherite

Expand on that?

ETA: OK, sort of get it. Apart from the reparations for colonial crimes bit. These are the stated aims.

Maybe they want the gold reserves? Too bad. Gordon Brown got there first.

Edited by woolley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...