/ Jo Brand

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Postmanpat 13 Jun 2019

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9286844/jo-brand-refuses-apologise-bbc-acid-attack/

Christ, the state of us.

It never occurred to her that encouraging people to throw battery acid on politicians or people you disagree with might be offensive apparently. Because her mind isn’t diseased presumably.

I’m not familiar with Mr Baker’s, oops Ms.Brand's    work, but I suspect the BBC would be better off without it. Strangely enough the BBC doesn't agree.

pmp

Post edited at 17:39
63
Andy Hardy 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Farage said he would "don khaki and pick up a rifle" if he didn't get his way; just after the referendum he was on telly saying it was a revolution, but that "no shot had been fired" conveniently forgetting the murder of Jo Cox by a brexiter.

Having said all that J. Brand is about as funny as toothache, and should definitely be "rested" from my tellybox.

9
Tyler 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

What's your concern? You think it might be interpreted as a call to arms by Jo Brand and Radio 4 comedy fans?

If you are choosing to be this literal about things I guess there's no point me mentioning things like context, or that the program was a satirical one called Heresy, or that the comment was followed by "I’m not going to do it. It’s purely a fantasy, but I think milkshakes are pathetic, I honestly do, sorry." It's probably also not worth trying to explain the nuanced difference between this joke and Count Dakula's jokes about raping Jess Phillips or Farage's "pick up a rifle" comment (neither comment I would attempt to suppress by the way, I just think they are f*cking despicable things to say because of, you know, context). Except, it doesn't need explaining to you, you know all this which makes me puzzled why you are behaving like a half witted below the line Daily Mail commentor when you are obviously nothing of the sort.

A couple of years ago I would have believed the idea of press freedom being curbed in this country as crazy conspiracy theory nonsense. But now you look at what Trump is doing, and the booing of a moderate journalist yesterday by MPs (actual MPs) supporting Johnson and I wonder. Then I come on here and see someone who is intelligent and rational doing Farage's bidding in trying to manipulate what is considered free speech and I wonder some more....

Or, to quote you from the Danny Baker thread, "Are you saying intent is irrelevant?"

EDIT: Or, you again, from the same thread: " On a broader point, the difference between deliberately giving  offence and taking offence is very important. If all that matters is whether Y claims to be offended by something then X is always guilty. A dangerous concept." 

Post edited at 18:17
7
birdie num num 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

....Especially as I’ve recently invested heavily in Nesquik shares ready for the second round of Brexit....Bitch.

5
Tom V 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Tyler:

She was pretty quick in resorting to The Clarkson Defence.

9
Jon Stewart 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

When I heard her make the joke, I thought, "you shouldn't have said that" - because acid attacks are a real problem right now, not because joking about violence towards politicians is wrong. If you're going to make such a joke, it would be better with a more broadly humorous form of violence, not a deeply unfunny kind that's too close to reality.

I judge whether it was really harmful by the consequences: I don't think the Radio 4 audience who heard the joke will be influenced towards violent behaviour. It doesn't normalise any harmful attitudes, because neither Jo Brand nor her audience actually think it's OK to throw battery acid on anyone. It could be argued that it normalises the idea that it's OK to joke about throwing battery acid on people, but I'm afraid I don't think that's much of a change - people make very harsh jokes about violence all the time, and that's fine. And I think that joking about violence towards a particular politician isn't the same as joking about violence to people in general who hold a certain point of view. Had she said that she fantasised about throwing battery acid on brexit voters, I would see that as a big problem. 

So, I think it was the wrong thing to say, and I would consider anyone saying the same thing about a politician I respected was a total scumbag. If she was banned from the BBC I would think that was reasonable; on the other hand, I don't think she's done any great harm (I don't think Nigel Farage or anyone else is now at any greater risk) so if they choose to do nothing and say they support the freedom to make harsh jokes about politicians, that's fine with me too.

1
Eric9Points 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

You're absolutely right.

Outrage seems to be selective.

If a right wing comic had suggested throwing battery acid over Jeremy Corbyn or God forbid, Diane Abbot the howls of indignation and horror would have been deafening. We'd be treated to a week of opinion pieces in the Grauniad invoking the memory of Jo Cox and grimly forecasting the end of democracy in the UK.

I actually think it's quite funny but not the sort of thing you can say in public in case some sort of phuqwit thinks it's giving them permission to do actually do it.

17
MG 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

It's grossly distasteful and quite possibly dangerous as some nutter may take her up on it.

Remarkable however you pick up on this but have been silent on the endless similar (and worse) threats and actual attacks from Brexiteers.  Right-wing populists stir up hatred, threaten and deliver violence, attack institutions, and you support their cause.  Left-wing bizarre comedian makes one similar "joke" and all of a sudden you find it problematic.

9
EarlyBird 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> ... Count Dakula's jokes about raping Jess Phillips 

It was actually that other Brexit Party slimeball, Sarkon or something, who made those humorous comments. 

2
TobyA 13 Jun 2019
In reply to EarlyBird:

> It was actually that other Brexit Party slimeball, Sarkon or something, who made those humorous comments. 


UKIP, not Brexit Party, if we are trying to be super accurate! ;-)

Post edited at 18:56
Bellie 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Christ, the state of us.

> It never occurred to her that encouraging people to throw battery acid on politicians or people you disagree with might be offensive apparently. Because her mind isn’t diseased presumably.

> I’m not familiar with Mr Baker’s, oops Ms.Brand's    work, but I suspect the BBC would be better off without it. Strangely enough the BBC doesn't agree.

> pmp

(c) JCM 2019

tjdodd 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Tyler:

I think a big issue though is that Jo Brand making such jokes helps to legitimise things like the Jess Phillips rape "joke" - by legitimise I mean in the mind of Carl Benjamin and his followers, it definitely does not legitimise it in my own view.

From the Guardian

'Carl Benjamin, Ukip’s candidate for South West England, sent a tweet to the MP for Birmingham Yardley in 2016 saying “I wouldn’t even rape you.” He added to the comments in a recent video saying: “With enough pressure, I might cave.”'

I saw him being interviewed subsequently about his comments.  He consistently said he was clearly joking and kept using the argument that as it was clearly comedy you can say what you want.  I can well imagine if he was interviewed now he would use Jo Brand's joke to further try to legitimise what he said.  It was one of the most uncomfortable and sickening interviews I have ever seen.

I am personally very pro free speech and strongly believe in giving people the opportunity to say what they want to allow constructive debate.  At least this gives some opportunity to change viewpoints.  However, Carl Benjamin is, in my view, a vile person and likely has followers who would act on his "jokes".

Unfortunately some people are increasingly using the free speech argument to defend the indefensible.  When jokes such as that from Jo Brand go beyond Radio 4 into the mainstream I fear this presents the opportunity to legitimise vile comments.

1
tjdodd 13 Jun 2019
Postmanpat 13 Jun 2019
In reply to tjdodd:

> Some intelligent comments from Ricky Gervais on this

  Good old Ricky. Saves me the need to explain the point.

5
MrsBuggins 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Vile woman

15
john arran 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Tyler:

Thank you for saying all of the things I hope I would have said had I seen PMP's awful post earlier.

7
Postmanpat 13 Jun 2019
In reply to john arran:

> Thank you for saying all of the things I hope I would have said had I seen PMP's awful post earlier.

  Does the hypocrisy of you lot have absolutely no bounds? 

Htf does context become important for JB but not for DB? Either bad taste bad jokes are acceptable or they’re not. Which is it?

Post edited at 20:44
9
john arran 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Bad taste jokes are acceptable. It was stupid that DB was fired, even though he was being stupid when he made the joke.

2
Postmanpat 13 Jun 2019
In reply to john arran:

> Bad taste jokes are acceptable. It was stupid that DB was fired, even though he was being stupid when he made the joke.

So we agree. So how come the BBC has dual standards? Is that OK with you?

5
Deadeye 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Christ, the state of us.

> It never occurred to her that encouraging people to throw battery acid on politicians or people you disagree with might be offensive apparently. Because her mind isn’t diseased presumably.

> I’m not familiar with Mr Baker’s, oops Ms.Brand's    work, but I suspect the BBC would be better off without it. Strangely enough the BBC doesn't agree.

> pmp


I think some respondents may not have been paying attention.  Here, let me help: https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/danny_baker-704401?v=1#x8986448

Timmd 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Does the hypocrisy of you lot have absolutely no bounds? 

> Htf does context become important for JB but not for DB? Either bad taste bad jokes are acceptable or they’re not. Which is it?

I guess when one keeps in mind that bad and good taste are subjective things, which means the seriousness with which one might respond to jokes is, exactly how hypocritical people are being can be hard to define too. Is a joke which can seem racist worse or not as bad as a joke about throwing battery acid which is preceded by the person saying it, saying they'd not actually do it?

Post edited at 21:13
Postmanpat 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> Is a joke which can seem racist worse or not as bad as a joke about throwing battery acid which is preceded by the person saying it, saying they'd not actually do it?

>

  Followed, not preceded. And how does a grovelling apology (Baker) compare to a refusal to apologise or explain (JB).

  I think they both deserve a word of caution followed by an apology. What do you think?

4
Pan Ron 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> What's your concern? You think it might be interpreted as a call to arms by Jo Brand and Radio 4 comedy fans?

What's good for the gander must be good for the goose.  Seems to be a very subjective line being drawn between what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable humour.  As far as I can tell your chances of getting away with being edgy, or being deemed deplorable, and resulting levels of outrage, correlate more closely with where you sit on the political spectrum than anything else.

3
Pan Ron 13 Jun 2019
In reply to tjdodd:

> I am personally very pro free speech and strongly believe in giving people the opportunity to say what they want to allow constructive debate.  At least this gives some opportunity to change viewpoints.  However, Carl Benjamin is, in my view, a vile person and likely has followers who would act on his "jokes".

Really?  Which side of the political spectrum have been throwing liquids at the other recently and which side of the political spectrum, if public discourse is to be believed, represents an existential threat to our wellbeing and worthy of attack?  Who do you think is more likely to chuck acid at someone?

Sargon of Arkad's comments were distasteful and I strongly suspect he wishes he'd never made it so flippantly.  But it should be evident from them that he was in no way encouraging rape.  If he was, and saying you wouldn't rape someone can be read as an incitement, then Brand saying she wished acid was thrown at politicians is surely every bit as much an incitement?

How is a divide being so easily drawn between one person's comment being good and another evil?

3
john arran 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

The BBC hasn't been OK with me for a while now. It seems to have been taken over by Brexiters unwilling to confront the illegality of the 2016 referendum and unwilling to put the mood of the public to another test.

11
Postmanpat 13 Jun 2019
In reply to john arran:

> The BBC hasn't been OK with me for a while now. It seems to have been taken over by Brexiters unwilling to confront the illegality of the 2016 referendum and unwilling to put the mood of the public to another test.

  Presumably because it's chock full of brexiteers, as people like Peston have pointed out.

  But, back to the subject: are you happy with its dual standards in this case?

2
john arran 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

   But, back to the subject: are you happy with its dual standards in this case?

No

pec 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Brand is now being investigated by the police for her "joke" which in reality was nothing of the sort. To claim this was a joke is to stretch the definition of the word beyond any reasonable definition.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/police-investigate-jo-brand-over-remark-about-throwing-battery-acid-at-politicians-a4166921.html

It wasn't wrapped up in anything even vaguely resembling a joke. It was just part of a typical whinging rant about people she happens to disagree with but like so many self righteous, right on, lefty liberals she seems to think her moral superiority can justify this appallingly crass nonsense, as long as its her side dishing it out.

Apparently the BBC agrees with the mealy mouthed excuse that jokes made on Heresy are "deliberately provocative as the title implies" as if by calling the programme Heresy gives you carte blanche to spout your bile and hatred.

Before Brand delivered the "punch line" she had just told us how easy it is to hate these people. This wasn't comedy, it was an insight into the minds of the hypocrites that preach tolerance, understanding and inclusivity as long as it's on their terms.

I wonder when the BBC will demonstrate its commitment to political neutrality by putting a right wing comedian on Heresy to spout jokes about crucifying muslim paedophile gangs or forcibly raping lesbians, just to "put them straight you know"?

I'm sure it'll be just fine as long they use the Brand defence of saying they "aren't really going to do it, its just a fantasy".

Post edited at 22:24
17
john arran 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

How can you so easily ignore the fact that one of them is a comedian making comments within the context of a comedy programme ... and the other is a hateful misogynist spreading hate?

6
aln 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Hypocrite

5
aln 13 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

You prick

12
aln 13 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

> Brand is now being investigated by the police for her "joke" which in reality was nothing of the sort. To claim this was a joke is to stretch the definition of the word beyond any reasonable definition.

> It wasn't wrapped up in anything even vaguely resembling a joke. It was just part of a typical whinging rant about people she happens to disagree with but like so many self righteous, right on, lefty liberals she seems to think her moral superiority can justify this appallingly crass nonsense, as long as its her side dishing it out.

> Apparently the BBC agrees with the mealy mouthed excuse that jokes made on Heresy are "deliberately provocative as the title implies" as if by calling the programme Heresy gives you carte blanche to spout your bile and hatred.

> Before Brand delivered the "punch line" she had just told us how easy it is to hate these people. This wasn't comedy, it was an insight into the minds of the hypocrites that preach tolerance, understanding and inclusivity as long as it's on their terms.

> I wonder when the BBC will demonstrate its commitment to political neutrality by putting a right wing comedian on Heresy to spout jokes about crucifying muslim paedophile gangs or forcibly raping lesbians, just to "put them straight you know"?

> I'm sure it'll be just fine as long they say use the Brand defence of saying they "aren't really going to do it, its just a fantasy".

What a horrible post.

5
Postmanpat 13 Jun 2019
In reply to aln:

> Hypocrite

Two possibilities here: you’ve not the thread or you’ve arrived home from the pub 😀

8
MrsBuggins 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Well the hypocritical, bigotted left wing guardianistas of UKC are really showing themselves and, along with the likes of Brand and the

BBC, plumbing the depths of depravity. Spurred on by the indifference of the moderators they hold themselves morally and intellectually superior to anyone who dares to oppose their views. F*ckwits, all of them.

Post edited at 22:35
16
aln 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>you’ve not the thread

What does that mean? 

2
pec 13 Jun 2019
In reply to aln:

> What a horrible post.


Yes, and intentionally so, to amplify the point I'm making.

In case you missed my point, Brand's "joke" was way beyond horrible and yet the screaming hypocrites of the left, including on here will defend the indefensible if its their side in the dock.

Its ok to joke about throwing acid at people you disagree with (as long as they're right wing of course), but anything equally disgusting that offends your personal morality is somehow beyond the pale.

Just to be clear for those who struggle to read with understanding. I find the idea of crucifying muslims and forcibly raping lesbians as abhorent and unsuitable for making jokes about as throwing acid in people's faces because you disagree with them.

8
MG 13 Jun 2019
In reply to MrsBuggins:

>  and intelectually superior to 

Hmm, maybe with some justification? 

6
Postmanpat 13 Jun 2019
In reply to aln:

> >you’ve not the thread

> What does that mean? 


What it says. I think, as I've said " I think they both deserve a word of caution followed by an apology." or,as somebody else put it, "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".My problem is with the dual standards and hypocrisy of those who condemn Baker but not Brand. For example, the BBC.

If you didn't understand that, or you think it is hypocritical, you either didn't read the thread or you're pissed.

7
MG 13 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

Which is why you and PMP were so vocal in highlighting how horrible they were at the time... 

2
pec 13 Jun 2019
In reply to john arran:

> How can you so easily ignore the fact that one of them is a comedian making comments within the context of a comedy programme ... and the other is a hateful misogynist spreading hate?


Because the comedian is a hate filled zealot spreading hate and at license fee payers expense to boot.

7
john arran 13 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

At least you didn't deign to disagree.

1
Postmanpat 13 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> Which is why you and PMP were so vocal in highlighting how horrible they were at the time... 


No I wasn't, just as I wasn't vocal in highlighting how horrible Jo Brand was at the time, and neither was pec. I'm vocal in highlighting the utter hypocrisy of the BBC and certain people on UKC for their selective respect for the concept of free speech.

Post edited at 22:34
4
Pan Ron 13 Jun 2019
In reply to john arran:

> How can you so easily ignore the fact that one of them is a comedian making comments within the context of a comedy programme ... and the other is a hateful misogynist spreading hate?

Quite easily.  Because I view Benjamin as someone who is simply a right-winger and as such an avowed critic of third-wave feminism - not a misogynist.  They are two different things and if we can accept that hating Jews and hating Israeli foreign policy may not be the same thing then you should be able to accept that opposition to a political ideology is different from hating women.  Conflating the two, and frankly nearly every accusation of misogyny I've heard levelled at political commentators, comes across as dishonest.

He's someone who defines his politics around, among other things, a view that there is an inequity in the media treatment of men v women.  Its not a popular view and turns the standard narrative on its head.  For that (and his arrogant sounding delivery style no doubt) he is pilloried.  Male suicide is one of those areas he bangs on about and was one of the rationales being made to Jess Philips for having a "Men's Day" as well as a "Women's day".  A proposition that met with complete contempt from her.  And from there the social media spat erupted, with Philips complaining about rape threats on Twitter and Benjamin stating "I wouldn't even rape you".

And from that, all kinds of assumptions have been drawn.

Sargon of Arkad, like Steven Crowder, is somewhat of a comedian and a border-line shock-jock.  His entire delivery is to say things that are unsayable, to pull apart people's arguments in a style that can be amusing (I actually find it tedious, get bored of his clips pretty quick and haven't felt remotely compelled to click "follow").   But I'll grant him that what he produces is every bit as much intended to be humour and light-hearted as political-comedy on TV.  If presenting in this style is considered "hate", if coming out with stuff that is considered acceptably mainstream when aimed at men is misogyny, then its kind of making his point - a double standard exists. 

It looks to me that people were offended more because the comments weren't presented in the context of when they were made, but in light of him becoming a more outspoken right-winger and UKIP candidate they re-surfaced with a "Look at this evil man" framing.  As I've said before, Jim Jeffries makes rape jokes all the time, describing the tears rolling down a girl's cheeks as he coerces her into sex with drugs....but his politics a different so there's not so much as a fart of objection when he comes out with it.  Humour, taste and moral acceptability clearly gets defined by your political alignment.

Post edited at 22:42
6
EarlyBird 13 Jun 2019
In reply to TobyA:

> UKIP, not Brexit Party, if we are trying to be super accurate! ;-)

Oh, yes! Oops. Can't think how I got the two parties confused.

MG 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Right. So perceived hypocrisy by perceived left=terrible. Threats of violence = all cool. Got it. 

4
Postmanpat 13 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> Right. So perceived hypocrisy by perceived left=terrible. Threats of violence = all cool. Got it. 

 What are you referring to? Jo Brand or something else?

Post edited at 22:45
1
aln 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> or you're pissed.

Or, 'you've not the thread' doesn't make sense. 

2
MG 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Er no. 

1
Postmanpat 13 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> Er no. 


So what are you referring to ? Danny Baker?

1
MG 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

And Jo Brand

FactorXXX 13 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> Right. So perceived hypocrisy by perceived left=terrible. Threats of violence = all cool. Got it. 

Threats of violence?
The allegation of hypocrisy is surely directed at the different treatments of Baker and Brand by the BBC and on places such as UKC, etc.
Not sure where the 'Threats of violence' comes from.

Postmanpat 13 Jun 2019
In reply to aln:

> Or, 'you've not the thread' doesn't make sense. 


Why on earth not? Is the apostrophe a problem? "you have not read the thread" (question mark)

7
Postmanpat 13 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> And Jo Brand


So what is the threat of violence to which you are referring?

MG 13 Jun 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

Throwing acid!?

PMP is in a lather of some perceived hypocrisy but quite cool with such threats, which we know are at times carried out by followers of those who make them "as a joke" 

Postmanpat 13 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> Throwing acid!?

> PMP is in a lather of some perceived hypocrisy but quite cool with such threats, which we know are at times carried out by followers of those who make them "as a joke" 


What the fXck are you talking about?

4
Bob Kemp 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> As I've said before, Jim Jeffries makes rape jokes all the time, describing the tears rolling down a girl's cheeks as he coerces her into sex with drugs....but his politics a different so there's not so much as a fart of objection when he comes out with it.  

Of course there were objections, loads of them. He's supposedly a reformed character now of course.

MG 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> What the fXck are you talking about?

Your posts. You wrote them, I assume? 

1
Tyler 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I'm vocal in highlighting the utter hypocrisy of the BBC and certain people on UKC for their selective respect for the concept of free speech.

Your use of the "diseased minds" might have hinted that that was what you were on about but your misrepresentation of what she said as "encouraging people to throw battery acid on politicians" puts you firmly in the camp of wanting to remove all context (including the clarificationretraction that immediately followed) in an effort to score political points. You were being deliberately obtuse and that was the man thrust of your first post, the Danny Baker stuff was obscured by this.

You also seem to have created a straw man that everyone defending JB on this thread were also keen to throw Danny Baker under the bus, I'm not sure that was the case. 

2
Pan Ron 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Of course there were objections, loads of them. He's supposedly a reformed character now of course.

I never saw any.  Have barely heard a peep against him.  Just sell-out crowds all joyfully laughing along. 

It seems easy enough to get away with a rape joke or two.  You just have to mix it in with criticism of the NRA or Trump, so the viewers know you're a "good guy" and not the enemy.  Something Sargon of Arkad failed to learn.

5
john arran 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I rest my case m'lud. The defence has admitted guilt.

2
Postmanpat 13 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> Your posts. You wrote them, I assume? 


So where am "I cool with threats of violence"?

2
aln 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

you've not read the thread

you haven't read the thread 

Was it one of those you were aiming for?

1
MG 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Tyler:

Apparently this was a parody of an earlier post that pmp didn't link to (we were meant to remember??) and his beef is actually with the BBC 🙄

FactorXXX 13 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> Throwing acid!?
> PMP is in a lather of some perceived hypocrisy but quite cool with such threats, which we know are at times carried out by followers of those who make them "as a joke" 

I'm confused.
It was Brand that made a joke about the acid throwing.
Maybe I've missed something and PMP has previously laughed away similar comments made by right wing comedians/commentators, etc.

Anyway, that is still ignoring the crux argument of the thread: 
Why sack Baker but defend Brand?

Pefa 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

A racist is a racist though ye know,whether on the telly, ukc or any social media. 

Postmanpat 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> Your use of the "diseased minds" might have hinted that that was what you were on about but your misrepresentation of what she said as "encouraging people to throw battery acid on politicians" puts you firmly in the camp of wanting to remove all context (including the clarificationretraction that immediately followed) in an effort to score political points. You were being deliberately obtuse and that was the man thrust of your first post, the Danny Baker stuff was obscured by this.

> You also seem to have created a straw man that everyone defending JB on this thread were also keen to throw Danny Baker under the bus, I'm not sure that was the case. 

The BBC was happy to throw him under a bus as were many on UKC!

Talk of obfuscation! The point is simple: the BBC and others didn't accept context as a defence for Baker but they do for Brand. It's a blindingly clear case of double standards. What the hell is obscure about that? If you didn't get it at first it was pointed out clearly by somebody else's reference to JCM's original post.

4
FactorXXX 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> A racist is a racist though ye know,whether on the telly, ukc or any social media. 

You say UKC in your post which implies that you believe someone on UKC is racist.
Care to clarify?

Postmanpat 13 Jun 2019
In reply to aln:

> you've not read the thread

> you haven't read the thread 

> Was it one of those you were aiming for?


The first is what I wrote. The second has the same meaning. What on earth are you on about?

8
Postmanpat 13 Jun 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Maybe I've missed something and PMP has previously laughed away similar comments made by right wing comedians/commentators, etc.

>

  I can only infer that not condemning every horrible comment by right wing people means support for them. In the same way presumably MG is a supporter of the Yorkshire Ripper and Ghengis Khan because he hasn't condemned them on UKC?

2
aln 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The first is what I wrote. 

No you didn't. 

1
FactorXXX 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The first is what I wrote. The second has the same meaning. What on earth are you on about?

To end the argument. In your original post, you omitted the word 'read'. 

Postmanpat 13 Jun 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> To end the argument. In your original post, you omitted the word 'read'. 


LOL, yes, my mistake but actually I clarified it at 22.27 and 22.49 which rather confirms that aln is not reading the thread

Post edited at 23:27
8
Tyler 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The BBC was happy to throw him under a bus as were many on UKC!

> Talk of obfuscation! The point is simple: the BBC and others didn't accept context as a defence for Baker but they do for Brand. It's a blindingly clear case of double standards. What the hell is obscure about that? If you didn't get it at first it was pointed out clearly by somebody else's reference to JCM's original post.

The point was not obvious because what stood out was your distortion of what she said. If you were making a point BBC hypocrisy (which I am prepared to accept you were) then maybe you shouldn't have hoped on the Farage bandwagon of pillorying JB but stuck to the point.  My other point stands, the people defending JB here are not the ones throwing DB under a bus

Tyler 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> What's good for the gander must be good for the goose.  Seems to be a very subjective line being drawn between what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable humour.  As far as I can tell your chances of getting away with being edgy, or being deemed deplorable, and resulting levels of outrage, correlate more closely with where you sit on the political spectrum than anything else.

Or not given Danny Baker was very much from the luvvie left side of the political spectrum.

> Which side of the political spectrum have been throwing liquids at the other recently 

I think its 2:1 (Farrage, Tommy Robinson:Femi) excluding that old duffer who spilt yogurt on himself. 


> and which side of the political spectrum, if public discourse is to be believed, represents an existential threat to our well being and worthy of attack?  
Quite the oppoiste, not worthy of being attacked but worthy of listening to as they pose such a threat to order. How many politicians, particularly from the right, have made dire warnings that Brexit must be delivered because of the fear of violence etc. Its why they fear a dozen jobless nobbers in yellow vests shouting abuse and feel happy enough to ignore 700,000 peaceful protesters.


> Who do you think is more likely to chuck acid at someone?
This might surprise you but I'd say its the side that has murdered a politician, that right wing politicians have said will begin civil unrest if they are ignored. The side that is represented by someone currently charged with assaulting a journalist because they didn't like their point of view (James Goddard) and lead by someone who has multiple convictions for violence and draws its base from testosterone furled young men. The side that is endlessly haranguing female politicians they disagree with with threats of sexual violence. Obviously I can't *prove* this so you can tell me I'm wrong and that the real threat comes from mumsy Radio 4 listeners whipped into violent rage by an overweight elderly female nurse turned comic.  

> Sargon of Arkad's comments were distasteful and I strongly suspect he wishes he'd never made it so flippantly.  But it should be evident from them that he was in no way encouraging rape.  If he was, and saying you wouldn't rape someone can be read as an incitement, then Brand saying she wished acid was thrown at politicians is surely every bit as much an incitement?

I don't think it was incitement to rape either, I do think think it was an attempt to intimidate. This might be a bit too woke for you but the implication of "I wouldn't even rape you" is 'I could if I wanted'. You'll no doubt say he didn't *actually* say that which is true but that's how intimidation works and he has mobilised a legion of keyboard warriors who do actually and unambiguously threaten rape and he has done nothing to walk his comments back so I'm not sure regrets them.

> How is a divide being so easily drawn between one person's comment being good and another evil?

No one has said its good just that it has been taken out of context and politicised. Answer me this, can you really not appreciate there is a difference between the circumstances of Jo Brand's distasteful joke and the other examples given? Do you really not see there is a difference between how they might be received and processed by the respective audiences. 

Post edited at 23:39
5
Tyler 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   I think they both deserve a word of caution followed by an apology. What do you think?

Yes, who are you arguing with that is saying any different?

1
Tyler 13 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> Apparently this was a parody of an earlier post that pmp didn't link to (we were meant to remember??) and his beef is actually with the BBC 🙄

I think I get it. PMP was not actually saying JB was awful even though he exaggerated her words to make what she said seem much worse than it actually was in a manner that other right wingers have? I'm still unclear whether he thinks she was actually inciting violence but assuming he doesn't a few people (Pan Ron and pec) have since jumped in to say that she actually was and they genuinely believe this or are they being parodies of other right wing idiots and Daily Mail headline writers?

1
Pefa 13 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

BBC eh you should write in to points of view for any answers, I mean gosh!

Perhaps this Brand was pissed off at the ukip guy making jokes about raping women. 

1
john arran 14 Jun 2019
In reply to EarlyBird:

> Oh, yes! Oops. Can't think how I got the two parties confused.

Well one's a single policy party inextricably associated with Nigel Farage that seems obsessed with preventing the wrong sort if people from working in the UK (but most certainly is in no way racist). And the other one is ... help me out here, I've forgotten which one I've already covered.

1
pec 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> I'm still unclear whether he thinks she was actually inciting violence but assuming he doesn't a few people (Pan Ron and pec) have since jumped in to say that she actually was and they genuinely believe this

I certainly have not said that she was inciting violence. I've accused her of making a joke which is well beyond tasteless and of being a sanctimonious hypocrite and accused the BBC for defending the indefensible and at a tangent gross bias in its "comedy" output.

5
Postmanpat 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> >   I think they both deserve a word of caution followed by an apology. What do you think?

> Yes, who are you arguing with that is saying any different?

>

The BBC and those who thought Baker should be fired in JCM’s thread

1
Tyler 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The BBC and those who thought Baker should be fired in JCM’s thread

But none of them are here! Are you missing Rom?

Tyler 14 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

> I certainly have not said that she was inciting violence. I've accused her of making a joke which is well beyond tasteless and of being a sanctimonious hypocrite and accused the BBC for defending the indefensible and at a tangent gross bias in its "comedy" output.

If it wasn't inciting violence (the only accusation being made against what she said) why is it indefensible?

birdie num num 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

The parallel between the Danny Baker and Jo Brand attempts at humour are that they are both guilty of similar dickheadery.

I can understand Danny Baker being a dickhead but I thought Jo Brand was smarter than that. Particularly as the most widely reported acid attacks in the UK are against women. 

1
JoshOvki 14 Jun 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Why sack Baker but defend Brand?

Baker worked for the BBC, Brand doesn't, so they can't fire her?

Andy Hardy 14 Jun 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Anyway, that is still ignoring the crux argument of the thread: 

> Why sack Baker but defend Brand?

They can't sack her, because she doesn't work for them. I CBA to find out if they are "defending" her...

Harry Jarvis 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It never occurred to her that encouraging people to throw battery acid on politicians or people you disagree with might be offensive apparently. Because her mind isn’t diseased presumably.

It was a disgraceful and deeply stupid thing to say. We live in a time of too much division and hatred, and there is nothing good to come from such vitriol. She should be ashamed. 

Postmanpat 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> They can't sack her, because she doesn't work for them. I CBA to find out if they are "defending" her...

Well, their website says they are.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48611424

pec 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> If it wasn't inciting violence (the only accusation being made against what she said) why is it indefensible?


I've already answered that question.

4
Postmanpat 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> But none of them are here!

Which is interesting in itself, although I assume that jcm has been busy sticking pins in his Boris doll

Timmd 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Followed, not preceded. And how does a grovelling apology (Baker) compare to a refusal to apologise or explain (JB).

>   I think they both deserve a word of caution followed by an apology. What do you think?

I think that Danny Baker should have known better, given that people with brown skin still get monkey chants aimed at them, like Asian children playing football, and 'probably' should have been fired. I think Jo Brand should apologise towards reducing how febrile things currently are politically in the UK.

Dave Garnett 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> When I heard her make the joke, I thought, "you shouldn't have said that" - because acid attacks are a real problem right now, not because joking about violence towards politicians is wrong. If you're going to make such a joke, it would be better with a more broadly humorous form of violence, not a deeply unfunny kind that's too close to reality.

That was my reaction too.  The whole premise of the show (which, I thought, fell somewhat flat despite a strong cast) is to be deliberately provocative and Jo Brand is well-known as being pretty direct but, in a largely improvised live show, I think she misjudged this.

She's not my favourite comedian but I think it's worth bearing in mind the excellent work she does in publicising mental health issues before rushing out with the torches and pitchforks.  

1
Pan Ron 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> I think that Danny Baker should have known better, given that people with brown skin still get monkey chants aimed at them, like Asian children playing football, and 'probably' should have been fired. I think Jo Brand should apologise towards reducing how febrile things currently are politically in the UK.

You seem to be saying the Baker case is more serious than the Brand one.  Making a potentially offensive statement deserves sacking, but encouraging permanent disfigurement deserves only an apology?

Can you see how that looks like razor-thin distinctions are being made about issues that are quite wide apart and where you stand politically seems to be what decides this?

5
Rob Exile Ward 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

As an unabashed fan of Jo Brand I'm surprised and very disappointed at her 'quip'; if Farage had said the same about her (he wouldn't, at least not in public; he's too clever) then he would have been sanctioned, and sadly I think Brand should be too.

I still think that Baker's tweet was so egregious and so wrong on so many levels that it was not compatible with employment by the BBC. Footballers are still confronted with banana skin throwing FFS, and to post that about a young couple and their new born was just … I'm still speechless. 

So PP, how are you going to squeeze my response into your tribal agenda?

Timmd 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> You seem to be saying the Baker case is more serious than the Brand one.  Making a potentially offensive statement deserves sacking, but encouraging permanent disfigurement deserves only an apology?

> Can you see how that looks like razor-thin distinctions are being made about issues that are quite wide apart and where you stand politically seems to be what decides this?

To be honest, it's because racism is the root for lots of things, from social exclusion, to violence, disfigurement and death (Steven Lawrence), that I think Danny Baker's tweet was so stupid, as recently as this year too a football game which some Asian children were playing in had members of the crowd making monkey chants at them, but I see you point.

I'd question whether it's down to my politics that I feel like I do, and might put it down to a visceral emotional reaction I had against Danny Baker's tweet (because of the above). You've got me pondering about myself though, and any biases I may have. I'll get back to you.

More broadly, I think the subjective nature of humor and offence make it hard for anybody to be too categorical about the right point of view to have. 

Post edited at 10:28
Rob Exile Ward 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Timmd:

If Baker had posted that photo about my first grandchild, I would have wanted to tear his head off. And that's without any racist element.

1
Moley 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> That was my reaction too.  The whole premise of the show (which, I thought, fell somewhat flat despite a strong cast) is to be deliberately provocative and Jo Brand is well-known as being pretty direct but, in a largely improvised live show, I think she misjudged this.

> She's not my favourite comedian but I think it's worth bearing in mind the excellent work she does in publicising mental health issues before rushing out with the torches and pitchforks.  


I too am with you on this, I heard it live and thought it didn't sound funny, a bit of a nasty streak, it was the sort of comment I would expect from a pissed bloke in a pub mouthing off about someone.

Comedy is very subjective as are the boundaries, but if a comedian is going to make attacks on individuals (in this case involving very relevant type of violence) it needs to be exceedingly funny to work. My test is to try and think how it would sound if the attack was on someone you looked up to and respected - whether a politician, celebrity, sportsperson, climber, whoever.

I don't think it is a sacking offence, she tried to make a joke and it was a crap joke and sounded vindictive on national radio (not some obscure comedy stage). Apology from Brand and BBC accept they should have edited it out would suffice for me.

galpinos 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The point is simple: the BBC and others didn't accept context as a defence for Baker but they do for Brand.

The case for context in Jo Brand's case is compelling, she was on a comedy show in which the idea is to say outrageous things and she caveated* it straight after. The case for context Danny Baker's case is less clear.

I agree that there is an obvious mis-match in the handling of the two instances by the BBC and that plays into the hands of certain commentators. Danny Bakers case seemed made worse by his reluctant apology but Jo Brand doesn't seem to have come out with an apology either. I imagine she regretted saying it as soon as it left her mouth.

*Is caveated a word? 

Tyler 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> if Farage had said the same about her (he wouldn't, at least not in public; he's too clever) then he would have been sanctioned, and sadly I think Brand should be too.

So you think comedians on the BBC (or anywhere?) should be held to the same standards as leaders of political parties seeking election?

I am aware this sort of thing enables people to make a false equivalence between one and the other I am just surprised that intelligent people would do this unless it is in furtherance of an agenda.

You're going to busy writing letters to the DG of the BBC if every you watch any of Frankie Boyle's output on there (or many other comedians), it's definitely not the sort of thing I would want MPs to be coming out with, I guess I'm just a hypocrite.

Also, there's no difference, in your view, between a male making a quip about violence towards a single woman rather than a female making a quip about violence against a group?

Postmanpat 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> So you think comedians on the BBC (or anywhere?) should be held to the same standards as leaders of political parties seeking election?

>

And do you really believe that if, for exampleJim Davidson, made the same remark as Jo Brand but about Caroline Lucas he'd have been defended by the BBC?

Post edited at 10:38
2
Timmd 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The BBC was happy to throw him under a bus as were many on UKC!

> Talk of obfuscation! The point is simple: the BBC and others didn't accept context as a defence for Baker but they do for Brand.

What was the defensible context for Baker?

Postmanpat 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> What was the defensible context for Baker?

That the chimpanzee photo was a running gag he'd used before usually in the context of taking the piss out of posh people, which was what he was doing in this case.

4
Tyler 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> And do you really believe that if, for example Jim Davidson, made the same remark as Jo Brand but about Caroline Lucas he'd have been defended by the BBC?

I'm not here for the BBC bias debate but for the faux outrage and false equivalence debate. However, I think I did cover this "Also, there's no difference, in your view, between a male making a quip about violence towards a single woman rather than a female making a quip about violence against a group?"

I also don't think Jim is a good enough comedian to make a remark like this into a joke because in Brand's version it relies on the trope that at least half of the milkshake victims are violent thugs and the perpetrator of violence (Jo Brand) is a harmless old women. In the Davidson version you'd have to believe that Caroline Lucas is horrible (even her detractors would struggle to make this accusation stick) and that Jim Davidson is not a cvnt.

Post edited at 10:49
2
MG 14 Jun 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> It was Brand that made a joke about the acid throwing. Maybe I've missed something and PMP has previously laughed away similar comments made by right wing comedians/commentators, etc.

He routinely ignores them while routinely jumping on any perceived  discretion by anyone on "the left".

> Anyway, that is still ignoring the crux argument of the thread:  Why sack Baker but defend Brand?

That only became the crux about 50 posts in.  The OP was about threatening acid throwing.

Postmanpat 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Tyler:

>

> I also don't think Jim is a good enough comedian to make a remark like this into a joke because in Brand's version it relies on the trope that at least half of the milkshake victims are violent thugs and the perpetrator of violence (Jo Brand) is a harmless old women. In the Davidson version you'd have to believe that Caroline Lucas is horrible (even her detractors would struggle to make this accusation stick) and that Jim Davidson is not a cvnt.

  So, one of your reasons is simply that you believe Jim Davidson is a baddie and Caroline Lucas is a goodie whereas Jo Brand is not a baddie and Nigel Farage is. You've made the point for me .  No doubt the BBC feels the same hence it's defence of Brand and it is based on political bias.

  Personally I find Brand funnier than Jim Davidson. Whether the joke is funny or not is not really the point but Jo Brand was encouraging others (nasty left wing thugs) to throw acid, not threatening to do it herself.

Post edited at 10:58
7
krikoman 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Really?  Which side of the political spectrum have been throwing liquids at the other recently and which side of the political spectrum,

I give, in which side?

5
Postmanpat 14 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> He routinely ignores them while routinely jumping on any perceived  discretion by anyone on "the left".

> That only became the crux about 50 posts in.  The OP was about threatening acid throwing.

Of course it wasn't . It was a clear reference to JCM's original post and thereby intended to highlight the hypocrisy of the left. Eric9points grasped that immediately . You failed to even after I supported Gervais's article making exactly my point. You simply didn't grasp the point whereas most others did.

You still don't seem to get it. Although I think both Baker and Brand's behaviour was inappropriate, unlike the bigots of the left I believe that people should be allowed to make mistakes. That is myt target, not Jo Brand.

And why are you so supportive of the Yorkshire Ripper?

4
Tyler 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   So, one of your reasons is simply that you believe Jim Davidson is a baddie and Caroline Lucas is a goodie whereas Jo Brand is not a baddie and Nigel Farage is.

Well my main reason was the one I gave first which you have ignored. This secondary reason is not really as simplisitc as you make out but one of context (again). Besides, the violent thug I referenced was Tommy Robinson not Farage but (again) you knew that.

> Whether the joke is funny or not is not really the point

Agreed but something has to be recognisably a joke, you can't make any remark and then just call it a joke.

> but Jo Brand was encouraging others (nasty left wing thugs) to throw acid, not threatening to do it herself.

Christ we're back to this! I thought it had been established you didn't actually believe this but were parodying something else. If this is what you genuinely believe I think I'm going to have to leave this, as you must be more fundamentalist than I had given you credit for.

Post edited at 11:09
3
Postmanpat 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> Well my main reason was the one I gave first which you have ignored. This secondary reason is not really as simplisitc as you make out but one of context (again). Besides, the violent thug I referenced was Tommy Robinson not Farage but (again) you knew that.

>

  Actually I didn't and it wasn't clear from the quotes of Brand's joke that I read.

In terms of "faux outrage". Do you not recognise that this starts with people pretending to be outraged by minor blunders like Baker's joke or using the wrong racial jargon in some obscure context.. When Farage et al hit back they are simply using the left's silly tactics against them?

What is the "false equivalence" to which you are referring?

> > Whether the joke is funny or not is not really the point

> Agreed but something has to be recognisably a joke, you can't make any remark and then just call it a joke.

>

  So Baker's comment wasn't a joke?

> Christ we're back to this! I thought it had been established you didn't actually believe this but were parodying something else. If this is what you genuinely believe I think I'm going to have to leave this, as you must be more fundamentalist than I had given you credit for.

>

  FFS. You defended Brand's joke on the specious grounds that she isn't a thug. I was simply making the point this is irrelevant and explaining why.

 I wrote an answer to Timdd of on this but he deleted his post so it disappeared. It went something like this: of course no reasonable person could really think that Brand was encouraging people to throw acid. But there are lots of unreasonable people around (eg.the guy who murdered Jo Cox).

  But then again, no reasonable person could think that Baker is a racist.

3
Timmd 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

The most consistent approach might seem to be to have suspended them both.

Post edited at 11:27
FactorXXX 14 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> He routinely ignores them while routinely jumping on any perceived  discretion by anyone on "the left".

The same argument could be levelled at many users on UKC and about many topics. Quo quid pro. 

> That only became the crux about 50 posts in.  The OP was about threatening acid throwing.

The OP was very much about the comparison between Baker and Brand's treatment. In fact, it was so much a comparison that it mimicked the OP that criticised Baker...

MG 14 Jun 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> The same argument could be levelled at many users on UKC and about many topics. Quo quid pro. 

Yes, exactly.  If someone's posts are dominated by support for, say, the Liberal Democrats, it's reasonable to suppose they don't support The Brexit Party.

> The OP was very much about the comparison between Baker and Brand's treatment. In fact, it was so much a comparison that it mimicked the OP that criticised Baker..

THis only became apparent about 50 posts in.  For some reason PMP thinks we all have an encyclopedic memory of posts from months ago

Postmanpat 14 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> Yes, exactly.  If someone's posts are dominated by support for, say, the Liberal Democrats, it's reasonable to suppose they don't support The Brexit Party.

>

   But why are you so supportive of the Yorkshire Ripper?

> THis only became apparent about 50 posts in.  For some reason PMP thinks we all have an encyclopedic memory of posts from months ago

  Only to you. Eric got it 6 posts in. Bellie linked to JCM's post 10 posts in (hence an encylopedic memory was not required, simply paying attention would do). I commented that Ricky Gervais had made my point for me 12 posts in , and I explicity made the point at 15 and 17 posts in. And Deadeye linked to JCM's post at 20.59 .

PS.My count maybe slightly out but I'm sure you'll be keen to find them.

  If none of this is enough for you to grasp the point when all these people did then the problem clearly lies with you.

4
FactorXXX 14 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> Yes, exactly.  If someone's posts are dominated by support for, say, the Liberal Democrats, it's reasonable to suppose they don't support The Brexit Party.

What are you trying to say?
That PMP must support 'Right Wing' wrong doings because he criticises 'Left Wing' wrong doings on UKC?  By that logic, every person posting on UKC that criticises 'Right Wing' wrong doings must also support 'Left Wing' wrong doings.  If that is the case, there must be an awful lot of UKC'rs that condone 'Left Wing' wrong doings...

> THis only became apparent about 50 posts in.  For some reason PMP thinks we all have an encyclopedic memory of posts from months ago.

Well, it was highlighted by Bellie after 10 posts and under an hour and a half from when the Thread started.
For completeness, even though I didn't recognise the specific thread that PMP was mimicking, I did have a recollection of something similar in the not too distant past and fully realised what PMP intended with the OP.
The JCM/Baker Thread was from a Month ago and not Months.

3
Duncan Bourne 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I know its terrible in the past we would have just shot them

Postmanpat 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> I know its terrible in the past we would have just shot them


Who? The BBC? That's a bit harsh

Post edited at 13:13
The New NickB 14 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> I give, in which side?

I’ll help you here, there have been some well publicised incidents involving milkshakes, these have come from anti-Brexit campaigners (not sure if that is the case with the original Tommy Robinson milkshake).

The flip side is that Brexit supporters have murdered an MP, conspired to murder another and a police officer and been responsible for thousands of other violent attacks.

I heard Jo Brand’s words on Radio 4. I was a little surprised and had glad that she followed it up with a disclaimer. I am also aware of the context of the programme. It has occurred to me that the point of the joke was to highlight the disparity in violence. Maybe I am overthinking it!

2
Duncan Bourne 14 Jun 2019
Pefa 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

As far as the BBC goes-

Baker showed he was racist by "jokingly" showing a mixed race baby as a monkey.

Brand "joked" about throwing acid on a right wing thug. 

It could be argued that only one is directly inciting life changing physical violence so it could be said Brands "joke", is worse than Baker's and she should be sacked like he was. 

So did the BBC sack Clarkson many years ago when he called out for " all striking workers to be shot in front of their families"? 

Did you gleefully jump on here immediately after hearing this from Clarkson and scream for his head like you do now for Brand Postmanpat? 

I rest my case M'lud. 

Post edited at 14:55
1
Postmanpat 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> Did you jump on hear immediately after hearing this from Clarkson and scream for his head like you do now for Brand Postmanpat? 

>

  Jesus , can I have some of whatever you've been on?

    If you actually bothered to read the thread, even the last few posts, you would notice that I am explicitly NOT calling for Brand's head just as I didn't call form Clarkson's head or Baker's head. I am simply asking that the BBC  not employ double standards in dealing with these issues. (I actually suggested that a reprimand and an apology by Brand might appropriate as it might have been from Baker)

3
Pefa 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Ironically Anders Brevik the right wing moron/ thug who mass murdered scores of left wing kids by shooting them in cold blood a year or two after Clarksons comment about dragging striking workers from their homes and shooting them in front of their families did say that Clarkson was one of his favourite comedians. 

Post edited at 15:00
1
Postmanpat 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> Ironically Anders Brevik the right wing thug who mass murdered scores of left wing kids did state a few years after Clarksons comment about dragging striking workers from their homes and shooting them in front of their families that Clarkson was one of his favourite comedians. 


  Fascinating but completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed. Brevik's  a nutjob authoritarian. Friend of yours?

Post edited at 14:40
9
Pefa 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

If the BBC (whom I despise and would never buy a license from) did have double standards as you say in this case then they would have sacked Brand for inciting violence and not Clarkson for inciting violence but they didn't, so no double standards at all as inciting violence is OK for a Tory like Clarkson years ago so why not for a "lefty" now? 

Post edited at 14:40
1
krikoman 14 Jun 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> I’ll help you here, there have been some well publicised incidents involving milkshakes, these have come from anti-Brexit campaigners (not sure if that is the case with the original Tommy Robinson milkshake).

Thanks for trying, to help that is, but I'm not sure you did.

Anti-Brexit, or anti-far right? and "campaigners"? I don't think Danyaal Mahmud, was a campaigner for anything, AFAIK he's a Muslim bloke who dislikes Yaxley and his mob.

Carl Benjamin, may have been "shaked" because of his rape "joke" and his other far right tenancies, so why are you assuming anti-Brexiteers?

Jon Greengrass 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Pefa:

AFAIK Jo Brand is not an employee of the BBC, she was speaking as a guest ( presumably with an appearance fee), so they can't sack her. It will be interesting to see how long it is before she is invited to appear again.

The programme was pre-recorded and will have been edited prior to broadcast, so the responsibility falls on the editor in choosing to broadcast Jo Brand's joke.

Postmanpat 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> If the BBC (whom I despise and would never buy a license from) did have double standards as you say in this case then they would have sacked Brand for inciting violence and not Clarkson for inciting violence but they didn't, so no double standards at all as inciting violence is OK for a Tory like Clarkson years ago so why not for a "lefty" now? 


  Firstly because it was long time ago before the leftie Twitter bigots really got going and secondly because Top Gear was a huge earner for them. Call me cynical. But they got him in the end The BBC did, of course, apologise for JC's comments which they have not felt the need to  for JB's. 

  Notable, of course, that even then the self righteous left was calling for Clarkson's head. In your world, of course, it would have been the shooting squad.

Post edited at 14:59
7
Andy Hardy 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Fascinating but completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed. Brevik's  a nutjob authoritarian. Friend of yours?


Fascinating and completely central to the point I'd have said. Language used in the media, online and elsewhere matters. If the words chosen legitimise violence or bigotry, some knob, somewhere will take it a green light for violence. I am amazed JB hasn't joined those dots years ago, especially after Brevik, and Jo Cox.

The New NickB 14 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

In Benjamin’s case he was a UKIP candidate,  Farage is obviously a Brexit figurehead, the old bloke who got milkshaked at the polling station, was wearing a Brexit Party rosette. I expressed my own doubts about the Tommy Robinson milkshaking. However, you do seem to missed the main point I was making.

1
Pefa 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Notable, of course, that even then the self righteous left was calling for Clarkson's head. In your world, of course, it would have been the shooting squad.

No that's Clarksons world. 

It was Clarkson shouting out for all striking workers to be dragged out and shot in front of their families not me but you are correct I would have sacked him and thrown him in jail for a year or two. Yea probably two and a massive fine which would have gone directly to the striking workers fighting fund. 

2
Postmanpat 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Fascinating and completely central to the point I'd have said. Language used in the media, online and elsewhere matters. If the words chosen legitimise violence or bigotry, some knob, somewhere will take it a green light for violence. I am amazed JB hasn't joined those dots years ago, especially after Brevik, and Jo Cox.

  A point which I have made. But are we close down open discussion and black humour for fear of the lunatics out there? That is a very dangerous path to take.

3
Andy Hardy 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   A point which I have made. But are we close down open discussion and black humour for fear of the lunatics out there? That is a very dangerous path to take.


For me a big red line to be drawn is: does the language used justify, normalise or incite violence? and I would also add that we are on a dangerous path if we don't draw that line, humour or no.

Tyler 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Actually I didn't and it wasn't clear from the quotes of Brand's joke that I read.

> In terms of "faux outrage". Do you not recognise that this starts with people pretending to be outraged by minor blunders like Baker's joke or using the wrong racial jargon in some obscure context.. When Farage et al hit back they are simply using the left's silly tactics against them?

> What is the "false equivalence" to which you are referring?

I'm loath to get into it as its not the argument you seem to be interested in and I don't want to be dragged down another rabbit hole but I think there is a false equivalence between a political leader's rhetoric intended to whip up his followers (a number of whom have unpleasant tendencies) and joke by a comedian in a comedy setting. I also think there is a false equivalence between Sargon of Arkad joke's and Jo Brands joke for reasons mentioned above (gender and physical power of person telling joke, intent, audience etc.) but I understand that is more difficult to justify and depending on your political persuasion you will either agree or not.

>   So Baker's comment wasn't a joke?

FFS, I think Bakers comment was a joke, you are tilting at Windmills, everyone you are trying to argue with on this thread thinks Baker was joking and not a racist.

>   FFS. You defended Brand's joke on the specious grounds that she isn't a thug. I was simply making the point this is irrelevant and explaining why.

No I defended Brand's joke on the basis it was a joke, by a comedian and only a genuine, 24 carat idiot would see it as anything else if they are being honest. And whilst i agree whether you or i find it funny or not is irrelevant it must at least have the components of a joke, e.g. I couldn't come up to you in the street and threaten to throw acid over you and then later claim I was joking.

>  I wrote an answer to Timdd of on this but he deleted his post so it disappeared. It went something like this: of course no reasonable person could really think that Brand was encouraging people to throw acid. But there are lots of unreasonable people around (eg.the guy who murdered Jo Cox).

I obviously never saw this but I did see you write at 11:06 this morning "but Jo Brand was encouraging others (nasty left wing thugs) to throw acid, not threatening to do it herself." There was no hint of a joke or sarcasm when you posted that so it certainly seemed as though you thought "Jo Brand was encouraging others (nasty left wing thugs) to throw acid, not threatening to do it herself" as the only place you countered this, until now, was in a post that never got posted! Added to this is the tone of your posts; your view might be that you think both JB and DB were legitimately making jokes but you have continued to demonise JB and anyone supporting her so it looks as though you don't see them as equivalent.

>   But then again, no reasonable person could think that Baker is a racist.

I know, which is exactly what I said in the very thread you assumed everyone had committed to memory. 

Post edited at 15:42
krikoman 14 Jun 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> In Benjamin’s case he was a UKIP candidate,

What difference does that make, if it was someone against his far right leanings or his misogyny? People can be many things and this fellow seems to have a good collection of some of the worst, yet you've decided it was his anti-Brexit stance that people objected to, enough to chuck something his way.

> ...However, you do seem to missed the main point I was making.

I'm good at that, I simply think your assumption of "sides" might be wrong, to presume it's Brexit Vs Remainers.

 And you did call the throwers "anti-Brexit campaigners" there's no evidence of this.

Post edited at 15:43
1
Postmanpat 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> I'm loath to get into it as its not the argument you seem to be interested in and I don't want to be dragged down another rabbit hole but I think there is a false equivalence between a political leader's rhetoric intended to whip up his followers (a number of whom have unpleasant tendencies) and joke by a comedian in a comedy setting.

>

   Well, it's not an equivalence I've drawn because I am not very familiar with the cases you are referring to. Regarding politicians, I agree that they should be very careful.

> FFS, yes!

Yes, what?

> No I defended Brand's joke on the basis it was a joke, by a comedian and only a genuine,

>

   Well, since we both agree it was a joke I don't see your point.

> I obviously never saw this but I did see you write at 11:06 this morning "but Jo Brand was encouraging others (nasty left wing thugs) to throw acid, not threatening to do it herself." There was no hint of a joke or sarcasm when you posted that so it certainly seemed as though you thought "

>

 Context is important, to coin a phrase. It was in the context of countering your explanation of why her joke was better than one Jim Davidson could make " because in Brand's version it relies on the trope that at least half of the milkshake victims are violent thugs and the perpetrator of violence (Jo Brand) is a harmless old women. ". I was pointing out that this was not really true because her joke was not about her throwing acid but about encouraging thugs to do it.

  But it's not really relevant. We've both agreed it's a joke. My problem with Brand, if I have one is that she feels the sense of entitlement to make the joke and I strongly suspect that she wouldn't extend that to Jim Davidson et al, (although it sounds like she was self aware enough to start back pedalling pretty quickly). My problem is much greater with the BBC which feels she is "one of us" and therefore that it's OK to give her a freedom that I don't think it would grant to others.

  It's good to see Ricky Gervais standing up for freedom of speech. I don't find him terribly funny these days but at least he is prepared to challenge boundaries in his humour. If a few more comedians stood up for each other's right to shock rather than only their own or their kindred political spirits they might do themselves a favour.

> I know, which is exactly what I said in the very thread you assumed everyone had committed to memory. 

Good, so remind me ,why are you in such a lather?

4
The New NickB 14 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

>  And you did call the throwers "anti-Brexit campaigners" there's no evidence of this.

That’s not really true is it. 

neilh 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Best example in the Brand context was for Glastonbury where they decided to stop that band who had songs based on " Kill the Tory scum" or something like that.At least the Glastonbury organisers had the sense to realise that it may not be a good idea in todays environment.

If Glasto get the picture then I am sure the BBC can.

Post edited at 16:36
1
The New NickB 14 Jun 2019
In reply to neilh:

Context is somewhat different. Anyway, I would have thought Tories get special status, being an endangered species!

Pefa 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> >   But then again, no reasonable person could think that Baker is a racist.

> I know, which is exactly what I said in the very thread you assumed everyone had committed to memory.

I just wondered how you know Baker is not a racist, perhaps this is something I missed about him in the past which shows him standing up against racism in a campaign or at a rally or I don't know but I am open to knowing why you think that. 

3
krikoman 14 Jun 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> That’s not really true is it. 


Obviously not "I’ll help you here, there have been some well publicised incidents involving milkshakes, these have come from anti-Brexit campaigners (not sure if that is the case with the original Tommy Robinson milkshake)."

1
The New NickB 14 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

The bit that isn’t really true is that “there’s no evidence of this”.

Take for example Paul Crowther, who milkshaked Farage, he campaigned for a second referendum. I’m not having a go at remainers or campaigning against Brexit. It’s a description that I am happy to be applied to me.

MrsBuggins 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Pefa:

What's he actually done that is racist? This is a genuine question.

The New NickB 14 Jun 2019
In reply to mypyrex:

> What's he actually done that is racist? This is a genuine question.

Who?

MrsBuggins 14 Jun 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> Who?


This chap Baker

Post edited at 17:46
krikoman 14 Jun 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> The bit that isn’t really true is that “there’s no evidence of this”.

> Take for example Paul Crowther, who milkshaked Farage, he campaigned for a second referendum. I’m not having a go at remainers or campaigning against Brexit. It’s a description that I am happy to be applied to me.


Fine so that's one,  and you can call them owt you like, I just find it a bit of a broad brush to call them all campaigners, for anything, never mind anti-Brexit, but that's up to you.

But you did call them campaigners and then told me it wasn't really true? When I said you had!?!?

Pefa 14 Jun 2019
In reply to MrsBuggins:

> What's he actually done that is racist? This is a genuine question.

When the first ever mixed race Royal baby was born Baker showed it as a monkey. Didn't you hear about it? 

neilh 14 Jun 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

Not really. Glasto I believe tdecided it was inappropriate in today’s context of not encouraging violence. 

It s a similar thing. 

birdie num num 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Folks should just say ‘boom boom’ whenever they make a joke so everyone around can relax and realise they don’t need to take offence.

Pan Ron 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> Or not given Danny Baker was very much from the luvvie left side of the political spectrum.

The fact that the odd leftie gets caught up in the fray, like the spat between terfs and transgenders, is less a result of even-handedness and more a result of "anyone right of me" being deemed problematic.  I don't think you can pretend outrage is being evenly applied across the political spectrum, though it would be fair to say the right is increasingly playing the left at its own game.

> I think its 2:1 (Farrage, Tommy Robinson:Femi) excluding that old duffer who spilt yogurt on himself. 

I wasn't aware the old duffer spilt his yoghurt.  Is that really the case?

> This might surprise you but I'd say its the side that has murdered a politician, that right wing politicians have said will begin civil unrest if they are ignored.

Civil unrest is likely given how polarised the issue is.  As much as some on the right might be inciting it I think they are equally stating a reality.  Its probably only the unlikelihood of Brexit happening which has prevented threats of unrest from Remainers.  I'm sure if Remain had won the referendum 52 to 48, yet the Tories decided to go ahead with Brexit anyway, we'd be seeing just as much antagonism from the Remain camp.

I'm not enamoured with the Brexit ring-leaders, especially those on the hard-Brexit side.  I just don't see the Remainers (or anti-Trumpers, as the recent protests at his visit showed) being much more peaceful or reasonable.

> I don't think it was incitement to rape either, I do think think it was an attempt to intimidate. This might be a bit too woke for you but the implication of "I wouldn't even rape you" is 'I could if I wanted'.

I can see how you could come to that impression.  But I think he was simply trying to be as obnoxious as possible to someone who was using the fact that they were being trolled on social media to give them a free-pass on their lack of interest in male suicide statistics.  Social media, and Twitter in particular, has a habit of leading to insane escalations in accusations and counter-statements.  I can understand why he is unwilling to retract his comments especially if to do so would be to validate the claims being made against him (that he encourages rape, he supports rape, he threatens rape, etc) and to undermine his original point. 

> Answer me this, can you really not appreciate there is a difference between the circumstances of Jo Brand's distasteful joke and the other examples given? Do you really not see there is a difference between how they might be received and processed by the respective audiences. 

I can see how all these cases can be viewed differently.  It's possible to view each as excusable or deplorable interchangeably, depending on what degree you are willing claim to be outraged. 

What I don't get is how you can honestly be outraged about one, to the point that it requires summary dismissal from employment, while shrugging your shoulders at another.  The distinctions seem to be arbitrary or concocted to suit a political standpoint.  I'd like to wind back to a time where the comments were seen for what they are - poor jokes, not indicative of some greater failing or injustice in society.  Unfortunately we're far beyond that as outrage culture has, over the last decade, become a very effective tool to shut down viewpoints you disagree with.  

4
Timmd 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I'm interested in the term 'outrage culture'. Within the context of Asian children being given monkey chants in 2019 while playing in a football team, how would you view people taking against Danny Baker's tweet about the Royal baby?

2
Robert Durran 14 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Well, I have to admit that I've fantasised about assasinating Farage (Note: I'm NOT actually going to do it). I wonder how many people fantasised about assassinating Hitler in the 1930's........... Not that Farage is as bad as Hitler, but he is certainly edging this country in a very dangerous direction.

1
The New NickB 14 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> But you did call them campaigners and then told me it wasn't really true? When I said you had!?!?

FFS. No I didn’t, don’t act the fool!

The New NickB 14 Jun 2019
In reply to neilh:

No, we are talking about the context of saying something of a radio programme called ‘heresy’.

The New NickB 14 Jun 2019
In reply to mypyrex:

> This chap Baker

He compared a mixed race baby to a monkey. I’m prepared to accept the defence of being so stupid that he didn’t realise that he was being staggeringly racist. However, it’s still staggeringly racist.

MrsBuggins 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> When the first ever mixed race Royal baby was born Baker showed it as a monkey. Didn't you hear about it? 


No, I hadn't heard about it. I would not have asked otherwise.

1
neilh 15 Jun 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

We now live in a country in which the politically motivated assassination of an MPis a reality for the first time since the heyday of the IRA and the connection between rhetoric and lethal physical violence cannot easily be dismissed.

As per the Guardian in an article on the Glastonbury issue  

prior to the Cox assassination both the Brand and the glasto one would have been ignored.

The Cox assassination is the context for both.  

In reply to The New NickB:

Unless you accept what he says, which is that he was poking fun at the royals being posh, didn't consider the racial connotations. 

I sympathise if that's the case as, not personally being obsessed with the private life of royals or race, I didn't notice the connotations either; even more, I was surprised that so many people jumped to the conclusion that he was deliberately conflating mixed-race people with monkeys (i.e. a racist) rather than having made an honest mistake. 

The response seemed so lacking in generosity of spirit, and your judgement and condemnation exemplifies that. What if you were to say something that, unbeknownst to you, was highly offensive to some group? Would you accept that you should be sacked, or would you hope to be able to apologise for an honest mistake and move on?

2
Yanis Nayu 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I hate Farage with a passion, and I can think of many reasons why her saying what she said is not as bad as, for example, Farage talking about taking up arms (while we had Goddard and his merry band of mouth-breathing morons harassing MPs in Westminster), but I don’t think it’s acceptable in the current climate. 

1
pec 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> I wasn't aware the old duffer spilt his yoghurt.  Is that really the case?

No, its just a social media rumour eagerly leapt upon by those with a vested interest in doing so and started by former spin doctor (AKA professional liar) Alastair Campbell who claimed they might have been faked becuase there was no eveidence of the actual act.

Well, it will come as no surprise to anyone who doesn't live in the Westminster bubble that whilst high profile politicians might by followed everywhere by a media entourage, unknown 81 year campaigners don't attract that kind of attention so it's highly unlikely anyone would have filmed it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-party-milkshake-picture-fake-yoghurt-army-veteran-don-macnaughton-a8929626.html

It's interesting to note Tyler's description of the man as an "old duffer". Its indicative of the left's willingness to dehumanise anyone they disagree with (whilst preaching tolerance and compassion when it suits them) and of course their sanctimonious hypocrisy because if an 81 year old had got caught up in some police scuffle with climate protesters they'd have described him as vulnerable pensioner.

Post edited at 09:53
5
Postmanpat 15 Jun 2019
In reply to crossdressingrodney:

> The response seemed so lacking in generosity of spirit, and your judgement and condemnation exemplifies that. What if you were to say something that, unbeknownst to you, was highly offensive to some group? Would you accept that you should be sacked, or would you hope to be able to apologise for an honest mistake and move on?

>

  Don't be silly. You are demonstrating old fashioned (aka:reactionary) values of decency, reason and forgiveness. The morally superior new liberals' don't need to bother with all that.  Faaasssccciiiist!!!

Post edited at 11:28
5
Rob Exile Ward 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

What ARE you smoking nowadays?

You used to be the reasoned voice of the right, providing a coherent exposition of an alternative point of view. I don't recall you often being shouted down, threatened or insulted.

Nowadays you fall back on the cliche of ' left wing facism' at every turn, even though very few here are anything but bleeding heart liberals totally dismayed by Corbyn and his cronies.

Post edited at 12:38
1
Timmd 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> I'm interested in the term 'outrage culture'. Within the context of Asian children being given monkey chants in 2019 while playing in a football team, how would you view people taking against Danny Baker's tweet about the Royal baby?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-48093032

Taken from the BBC.

..............

''Vice chair Ahmed Maravia, who runs a club in Leicester, said "little kids" often heard monkey chants and Islamophobic remarks at games.

Mr Maravia, the chief executive of the Community Football Academy, said some of his under-14s once left the pitch in tears, despite winning, because of abuse.

He said he had also 'heard "monkey chants" at an under-nines game and told how a parent once offered a banana to a child, saying they "should be used to it".''

...............

Given the above, I'm thinking that any opposition to Danny Baker's tweet (misguidedly comparing a brown skinned baby to a monkey without racist intent) being seen as a part of 'outrage culture' - may be rather misplaced. To say the least. Such tweets are succor for the shits who'd give bananas to Asian children paying football.

Not many people are shits, but adults handing bananas to Asian children likely qualify...

Post edited at 13:30
Pan Ron 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Timmd:

There's a simple answer to your question: "intent".

Intent is exactly why you never accuse a black rapper of being racist when he says "nigger", and if we're happy to grant context there then you should be able to grant context to a comedian, with a long history of using a monkey meme, describing a royal birth that has only the loosest of connections to black people. 

The proximity of Baker's Twitter post, to racists at a football match, is about as tenuous as you can get.  Yet it cost him his job.  That strikes me as ridiculous.  So I can see why Brand is getting hammered now - how can you claim to be triggered by one, with the most extreme of consequences, while considering the other (an actual threat) to be acceptable?

3
Timmd 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Intent is exactly why you never accuse a black rapper of being racist when he says "nigger", and if we're happy to grant context there then you should be able to grant context to a comedian, with a long history of using a monkey meme, describing a royal birth that has only the loosest of connections to black people. 

> The proximity of Baker's Twitter post, to racists at a football match, is about as tenuous as you can get.  Yet it cost him his job.  That strikes me as ridiculous.  So I can see why Brand is getting hammered now - how can you claim to be triggered by one, with the most extreme of consequences, while considering the other (an actual threat) to be acceptable?

Let me outline it for you. Brown baby (not black) compared to a monkey in a tweet by a well known media type. Ignorant type sees the tweet and thinks 'Ha, that's funny', my son's school is playing some Asian kids later this week, I'll take a banana' - proceeds to hand banana to Asian youth, who bursts into tears. 

This kind of thing actually happens anyway (see the BBC article), so can you *genuinely* not see how Danny Baker's tweet would be (at the very least) unhelpful, and that it's not just part of 'outrage culture' to find anything wrong with it, given the context of racism in the UK? Everything which happens within society is interconnected - that much is inescapable.  

Post edited at 13:45
1
Postmanpat 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> What ARE you smoking nowadays?

>

   I think the remainer reaction to brexit was probably the tipping point. Otherwise apparently reasonable people adopting scorn and abuse and trying to undermine a democratic vote on the basis that they were simply better people, better educated, more intelligent, more knowledgeable and more moral so their view must triumph. That, I think combined with the relentless propaganda, now embraced by the mainstream media, for the radical feminism, identity driven victimhood etc etc  agenda which treats alternative viewpoints as some form of neo-blasphemy.

  The former maybe opened my eyes to the mindset of the "liberal left". I had always rather naively assumed that they respected other political points of view and understood that many decent people didn't or couldn't share their values. Hence I treated them and their views with respect.(not so much the "Tory scum" crowd.) It turns out that they not only disagree with these others but despise them and make no attempt to understand them. It's one thing having different views about, for example, the role of the State, but quite another thinking that people who have a different view of , for example, localism and local community over internationalism and international community (and therefore probably about immigration) should be the subject of such scorn.

  Of course, I'm wrong to sink their level (you'll realise my shout of "fascist" was a parody) but believe me it's hard to resist it. It seems to be the only chance one has of puncturing peoples' bubble. That, of course, and sheer exasperation.

7
Pan Ron 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Timmd:

It probably does happen on occasion. But incredibly, and increasingly, rarely.  Right-wing attacks and outright racism are dwindling to the point that all we can point to are tenuous connections like this.  They are probably now not much more frequent than the myriad of reasons kids get teased for in daily life.

I'm not sure someone only loosely connected to that, someone whose crime may be nothing more than being "unhelpful", needs to lose their job.  That is the definition of outrage culture.  Its the kind of thing that results in sackings for simply stating facts, or presenting unwelcome news.  That's not stopping despotism - its the thin end of the wedge towards it  My feelings are hurt, you need to be fired.

2
Timmd 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> It probably does happen on occasion. But incredibly, and increasingly, rarely.  Right-wing attacks and outright racism are dwindling to the point that all we can point to are tenuous connections like this.  They are probably now not much more frequent than the myriad of reasons kids get teased for in daily life.

Why do you think it's increasingly rarely, and why would a new organisation have been set up to address the very problem of children being on the receiving end of abuse while playing football (see the BBC article) if the problem is increasingly rare?

> I'm not sure someone only loosely connected to that, someone whose crime may be nothing more than being "unhelpful", needs to lose their job.

Please don't do that, I said 'at the very least, unhelpful'.

>  That is the definition of outrage culture.  Its the kind of thing that results in sackings for simply stating facts, or presenting unwelcome news.  That's not stopping despotism - its the thin end of the wedge towards it  My feelings are hurt, you need to be fired.

It isn't the definition, because that's not what I said, it's what you've misquoted me as saying. If you're going to skew things like that, it's very difficult to have a conversation*.

Edit * Speaking straightforwardly.  

Post edited at 14:00
FactorXXX 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> What ARE you smoking nowadays?

I'm a Remainer and have to say that the behaviour of fellow Remainers on UKC is sometimes approaching the ridiculous when it comes to the amount of hatred shown to people that don't share their sentiments.  You might not see it because I've got a feeling that you side with the more 'militant' Remainers on UKC and therefore to you it seems acceptable.
I used to recommend UKC to non-climbers as I felt it was the best discussion forum on the Internet. I would now be embarrassed to recommend it.  

Timmd 15 Jun 2019
In reply to FactorXXX: I agree. 

I qualify the above with saying that I have in mind Michael Farage speaking before the referendum, saying that if the result was as close as it has turned out to be, but in favour of Remain, that the issue wouldn't turn out to have been settled.  It makes me wonder if what is seen among some Remainers isn't just a side to human nature which would be being deplored from the other side if things were reversed, and think that it's not something unique to (some) Remainers - while still not being great. 

My feeling is that it's a side of human nature which has surfaced more than something specific to one demographic, that some Brexiters would be raising Hell at the moment still if things were reversed. Humans hey?  

Edit: I think it's important to remember what Farage said, towards lessening any demonising of each other.

Post edited at 14:25
Bob Kemp 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

'Outrage culture' is not merely a left-wing liberal thing. Various sectors of the right indulge in it too. It's part of a general tendency towards the debasement of social and political discourse that's accompanied the rise of social media. 

Robert Durran 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Timmd

> My feeling is...... that the Brexiters  would be raising Hell at the moment still if things were reversed.

Let's all keep really hoping we'll get a chance to find out in due course

Post edited at 14:31
Timmd 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Social media has been cleverly programmed to make us outraged and then feel moved to share things while in the heat of the moment apparently.

Pan Ron 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> Why do you think it's increasingly rarely, and why would a new organisation have been set up to address the very problem of children being on the receiving end of abuse while playing football (see the BBC article) if the problem is increasingly rare?

It depends where you look.  But you can't ignore that the world we live in has become hugely more tolerant, be that towards minorities, minority rights, or simply the tone taken towards those perceived as transgressing these norms.  There is ample evidence to support that (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/02/is-right-wing-terrorism-violence-rise/) and we seem to be increasingly looking under rocks to find evidence of racism - which if you go looking for, and are increasingly incentivised in doing, you'll be sure to find it.  But that doesn't mean it is increasing.  Of course, if you read the Guardian, you'd believe the opposite given simply "commenting negatively about immigration" implies racism in their books (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/20/racism-on-the-rise-since-brexit-vote-nationwide-study-reveals).  By that metric, given I'm straight and white, and I see increasing numbers of scholarships and funding opportunities for black or LGBTQ, I could equally claim to be discriminated against (regardless of how many advantages I might also have).  The shock headlines earn clicks and clicks earn. 

> Please don't do that, I said 'at the very least, unhelpful'.

But you are right.  His crime was to be "unhelpful".  Nothing more and probably a lot less than that.

> It isn't the definition, because that's not what I said, it's what you've misquoted me as saying. If you're going to skew things like that, it's very difficult to have a conversation*.

I'm a bit lost then.  To me, social media and mainstream media storms, because someone said something light-hearted and flippant, with little or no ill-intent, which then prompts a visit from the police and calls for them to be sacked, is the very definition of outrage culture.  Say you're outraged on Twitter, especially if you have a blue check-mark and a few thousand followers, and you get quoted in the news, and heads will roll.

It is a recent thing and it is growing in volume and frequency.  It is largely driven by the distorting effect of social media, the algorithms it uses to feed us, and that social media outrage has now become a driver of mainstream news.  Hearing Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadde try to defend plainly evident biases in the types of conversation Twitter bans or allows was especially scary in light of this.  Its no surprise you would consider the world to be getting worse and that right-leaning commentary is in need of tougher sanctions than left-leaning commentary.  The media has become increasingly distorted and for all the interest liberals have in concepts like unconscious bias, as the dissimilar treatment of transgressing media figures shows, they are unable to spot their own biases even in when they are right in the spotlight.

2
Timmd 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> In reply to Timmd

> Let's all keep really hoping we'll get a chance to find out in due course

I'd love us to remain, but as the next best thing keeping our human and workers rights and environmental and food protections and standards as they have been under the EU (or better) is what I ultimately want, if we do leave the EU. The signs don't look promising towards them staying as good a the moment.  This seems to be the turning point for me, towards getting more involved in politics, towards making a fuss and trying to stop any standards from slipping.

Post edited at 14:38
Timmd 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> But you are right.  His crime was to be "unhelpful".  Nothing more and probably a lot less than that.

I vaguely get the feeling that you're doing it again, skewing what I posted towards minimising it. I said '(at the very least) unhelpful', but within that term, is potentially giving encouragement to anybody with racist leanings, which to my mind is A Very Bad Thing - because Asian children have been on the blunt end of monkey chants and been given bananas (to what degree may be hard to define). 

It seems I need to lose my English trait for understatement when posting on here. 

Post edited at 14:44
Dave Garnett 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>    I think the remainer reaction to brexit was probably the tipping point. Otherwise apparently reasonable people adopting scorn and abuse and trying to undermine a democratic vote on the basis that they were simply better people, better educated, more intelligent, more knowledgeable and more moral so their view must triumph.

I take your point.  I‘m very troubled by the consequences of being seen to ignore a democratic vote.  On the other hand, I’m extremely troubled by the consequences of following it.

It’s impossible to say this without appearing to be exactly the patronising elitist you are complaining about but do you think we should follow the advice of the less knowledgeable on a technical decision like this? It’s enormously frustrating to hear people who obviously don’t have the least idea of the issues and consequences saying ‘just leave’ (I’ve just sat through Any Answers).  

I like to think I’m a democrat but to accept the principle that the vote of someone who knows literally nothing  about a particular issue is worth the same as that of someone who has spent their life practising expertise in that area is hard to swallow. Which is exactly we have a representative democracy so it happens as rarely as possible.

Of course, if you really believe in the will of the people, presumably you’re a supporter of the restitution of capital punishment?

pec 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> I qualify the above with saying that I have in mind Michael Farage speaking before the referendum, saying that if the result was as close as it has turned out to be, but in favour of Remain, that the issue wouldn't turn out to have been settled.

The difference is though that no matter what Farage (Nigel BTW not Michael ) might have said, if remain had won, how likely is it that a large tranche of MPs elected on a manifesto pledge to respect the referendum result would effectively have paralysed parliament for 3 years and be on the cusp of forcing a second referendum to get their own way? Sure, the ERG would still want one, but as c.100 out of 650 MP's they wouldn't be getting anywhere.

We're now 5 years on from the Scottish Independance Referendum. The SNP haven't stopped banging on about it since but any realsitic prospect of another vote has been firmly put back in its box for the foreseeable future.

So the argument that Farage would still be campaigning for another vote is no excuse for the lies and duplicity of the militant remainers hellbent on overturning the biggest democratic mandate in our history.

4
pec 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Dave Garnett:

>It’s impossible to say this without appearing to be exactly the patronising elitist you are complaining about

> I like to think I’m a democrat but to accept the principle that the vote of someone who knows literally nothing  about a particular issue is worth the same as that of someone who has spent their life practising expertise in that area is hard to swallow. Which is exactly we have a representative democracy so it happens as rarely as possible.

The electorate is the electorate for better or for worse. Its the same electorate that votes in local, general and European elections and we follow their instructions without question and have done so following every other referendum. What makes you think the Irish were all so well informed about the Good Friday Agreement that they could critically evaluate the evidence rather than vote on gut instinct for example?

The problem with your argument is that its based on the premise that all leavers are thick and all remainers are clever which is patronising nonsense.

There are plenty of people who are well practised in politics who think we should leave, albeit in a minority but then history is full of examples of experts getting it wrong. Likewise there are plenty of stupid remainers (even some of the ones with degrees) who just fell in line with what their tribe told them they should think and then convinced themselves it was right because some sh*t that appears in their Facebook feed says so.

Your argument is also based on the false premise that there is a right and a wrong answer the the referendum question. Something all those 'clever' remainers don't seem to have grasped is that we were actually offered a choice to which there is no right and wrong answer because it depends upon what you value most.

Sorry but you actually do sound like all the other patronising elitists.

7
Bob Kemp 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

You're leaning a bit heavily on that first article. It doesn't say that the world has grown more tolerant. What the article identifies is that violence has declined as the populist right wing parties have grown and activists have moved online. They've also become more subtle in their approach. And still: 

 "That said, such parties do in some cases represent a threat to liberal democratic values and minority rights, which affects more people and may have more dire consequences in the long run than their violent counterparts."

Timmd 15 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

> So the argument that Farage would still be campaigning for another vote is no excuse for the lies and duplicity of the militant remainers hellbent on overturning the biggest democratic mandate in our history.

You're right of course, it is Nigel and not Michael. What you say is true at face value but - being as objective as I can be while being a remainer, with the Electoral Commission (an independent body as far as I know) raising questions about the legitimacy of some of what happened/what was done by 'the Brexit side', and Boris Johnson being taken to court over finding out whether he lied in public office by talking about how much is given to the EU which could otherwise go to the NHS, if we 'are' going to leave, it's got to be in a way in which the side which won has nothing questionable hanging over it in terms of legitimacy, in a way that's 'as spic and span as possible' you might say.

To me this is something bigger than leaving or remaining, and is about the integrity of democracy itself - the same concern you have essential, but about a different part of the process. If the process was fully without questions relating to it, and it's what people voted for, I'd be sad but I'd accept the result of democracy. The process of doing something as big as this can't have any questions about legitimacy relating to it.  It's hard to know how things come across online, but I am definitely keen for democracy to be upheld, otherwise we're in a dire situation. Democracy 'done right' is inarguable with, which is what I want to know to be the case with the referendum (Boris Johnson hasn't helped towards that).

Edit; Having posted the above, I have a voice in my head telling me that I would be saying this because I'm a remainer, but I like to think that I've enough discipline/maturity to accept results I don't like within a democracy.

Post edited at 15:43
elsewhere 15 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

Are these 'militant remainers' in elected positions? If so ,they have a democratic mandate and  a duty to campaign for what they think  is the national interest. Otherwise why do we bother electing anybody?

Post edited at 15:53
MG 15 Jun 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> I'm a Remainer and have to say that the behaviour of fellow Remainers on UKC is sometimes approaching the ridiculous when it comes to the amount of hatred shown to people that don't share their sentiments. 

Given that brexiteers have in the last two and half years

  • Recycled nazi-era anti immigration posters
  • Broken electoral law
  • Attacked judges as "enemies of the people"
  • Threatened MPs to point they can't live in their own homes and wear body cameras
  • Called  MPs traitors and sabateurs
  • Conducted violent protests with numerous arrests (c.f. no arrests on remainers marches)
  • Are threatening to prorogue parliament
  • Are about to elect a liar, fraud and facilitator of violence as PM

I'd say remainers have been pretty measured, with only the "milkshake" incidents being unacceptable.  None of these actions would have been even vaguely acceptable or supported by any but the lunatic fringe until the last few years.  That they are now accepted and supported by great swathes of the population and politicians does indeed show that brexiteers are as whole better people, however unpalatable that might be to PMP.

Post edited at 16:13
1
Postmanpat 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> I take your point.  I‘m very troubled by the consequences of being seen to ignore a democratic vote.  On the other hand, I’m extremely troubled by the consequences of following it.

>

   It is , of course , a complicated issue which political philosophers have wrestled with since ancient Athens. The irony, of course, is that for centuries it was the landed classes who resisted a broader franchise for pretty much exactly the reasons that some of the educated elite are making now. There are serious academics and others (Dawkins is one I believe) who support the introduction of epistocracy (new word for me recently) ie.that the franchise should be limited to or weighted in favour of more educated people. Funnily enough this would give Professor Dawkins views more weight that the the bloke in the factory (or call centre).

  I don't believe that EU membership is simply a "technical" issue. But that aside, I believe that the representative of the people, whilst not following their every whim (eg.capital punishment) has to represent their interests. What brexit told us is that the political classes have alienated themselves from a very large segment of the population, across a broad range of issues, who therefore no longer feel represented.

This, of course, is what the landed classes tended to do for long periods, hence the intermittent outbreaks of political violence (think Peterloo) and the eventual introduction of the universal franchise.

  Essentially the genie of popular democracy came out of the bottle in the early 20th century. You can't put it back in without provoking a revolution. There is no perfect solution but for representative democracy to survive it has to re-establish a relationship with the electorate and the trust of the electorate. Lying to it, trying to overturn its wishes, and condemning the values that many of the electorate (the "deplorables") hold is having the opposite effect. Maybe more direct democracy is the answer? Maybe the penalty of democracy is getting it wrong sometimes?

Post edited at 16:17
5
MG 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   > condemning the values that many of the electorate (the "deplorables") hold is having the opposite effect. 

You think endorsing the values of those who are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic..." is the way ahead, I assume in that case?

5
pec 15 Jun 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> Are these 'militant remainers' in elected positions? If so ,they have a democratic mandate and  a duty to campaign for what they think  is the national interest. Otherwise why do we bother electing anybody?


The ones in the Commons are clearly elected and it is they who are doing their best to stop Brexit. Their democratic mandate to do what the hell they want however is somewhat tempered by the fact that most of them voted to give us a referendum in the first place and agreed to the question on it which they've only retrospectively decided was the wrong question and didn't think to mention the bit about the result not being binding until after they didn't get the answer they were hoping for, voted to trigger article 50 in the full knowledge that it would result in a legal default that we leave with no deal unless they agreed with the deal on offer (which they won't) and of course they were elected on a manifesto promise to respect the result of the vote, which clearly they don't.

Who are the liars?

1
Postmanpat 15 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> >   > condemning the values that many of the electorate (the "deplorables") hold is having the opposite effect. 

> You think endorsing the values of those who are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic..." is the way ahead, I assume in that case?

  I knew would say that. It just demonstrates a lack of any real curiousity about  the subject. Yes, all those amongst brexiteers and in some cases were a motivation for their vote. Many of them probably exist amongst remainers. But caricaturing a complex set of values and reasons like this is inaccurate and unhelpful.

  I'll suggest a couple of things for you to educate yourself with (we can all play at being patronising): Eatwell and Goodwin "Nationalism Populism, the revolt against liberal democracy", David Runciman "How democracy ends", Goodhart "The British Dream" ( I believe his "The road to somewhere" is also good.) All of them are basically left of centre and probably remainer academics/authors. They might help you get beyond your caricatures and even recognise that the threat to democracy is not coming exclusively from the right. Indeed, the behaviour of Professor Dawkins and his mates would appear to suggest it comes from the leftish remainers.

4
MG 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   I knew would say that. It just demonstrates a lack of any real curiousity about  the subject. Yes, all those amongst brexiteers and in some cases were a motivation for their vote. Many of them probably exist amongst remainers. But caricaturing a complex set of values and reasons like this is inaccurate and unhelpful.

No, your quote is from HIlary Clinton and I provided the rest, which you omitted.  It was appalling politics on her part, of course, but objecting to those values is what decent people do.  If you can't bring yourself to do so, then that tells us a lot about you.  It has no direct connection with brexit.

Post edited at 16:40
1
elsewhere 15 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

> The ones in the Commons are clearly elected and it is they who are doing their best to stop Brexit. Their democratic mandate to do what the hell they want however is somewhat tempered by the fact that most of them voted to give us a referendum in the first place and agreed to the question on it which they've only retrospectively decided was the wrong question and didn't think to mention the bit about the result not being binding until after they didn't get the answer they were hoping for, voted to trigger article 50 in the full knowledge that it would result in a legal default that we leave with no deal unless they agreed with the deal on offer (which they won't) and of course they were elected on a manifesto promise to respect the result of the vote, which clearly they don't.

> Who are the liars?

Those who say there is a single clear democratic mandate rather than multiple inconsistent and conflicting democratic mandates from referendum and Westminster, Holyrood, Welsh Assembly, Stormont (suspended?) and MEPs.

Postmanpat 15 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> No, your quote is from HIlary Clinton and I provided the rest, which you omitted.  It was appalling politics on her part, of course, but objecting to those values is what decent people do.  If you can't bring yourself to do so, then that tells us a lot about you.  It has no direct connection with brexit.


Oh stop being ridiculous. I've condemned those values lots of times and am happy to do so again. I'm prefectly aware you "provided the rest". That's what I am replying to.

You still haven't condemned the Yorkshire Ripper despite my asking twice so should I assume you're a supporter?

I've tried to raise the level but you aren't interested. That you can't get beyond this drumbeat of abuse and can't engage with sensible debate pretty much provides the answer to RobExile's query

Post edited at 17:19
4
MG 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Abuse?  What are you on about? If any challenge to your position is abuse in your eyes,  I suggest you leave UKC.

Above your wrote that politicans were wrong about "... condemning the values that many of the electorate (the "deplorables").."  I pointed out that the remainder of the quote means you are arguing it is wrong for politicians to condemn racism etc. - that was what Clinton was talking about.  If you don't think this, don't write it.  And if you do write it, don't get upset when it is pointed out.    

Post edited at 17:31
MG 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

BTW, if I had posted in favour of politicians not condemning the values of violent rapists, you might have a point about your Yorkshire Ripper comments.  But I didn't

pec 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> What you say is true at face value but - being as objective as I can be while being a remainer, with the Electoral Commission (an independent body as far as I know) raising questions about the legitimacy of some of what happened/what was done by 'the Brexit side', and Boris Johnson being taken to court over finding out whether he lied in public office by talking about how much is given to the EU which could otherwise go to the NHS, if we 'are' going to leave, it's got to be in a way in which the side which won has nothing questionable hanging over it in terms of legitimacy, in a way that's 'as spic and span as possible' you might say.

Vote Leave breached its £7m limit by around £450k but with a total leave spend of c.£13.5m against a total remain spend of c.£19.5m which doesn't even include the £9m the government spent on sending a pro remain leaflet to every household, so you can see why this complaint does seem like sour grapes by remainers given the massive advantage they had.

Of course electoral fraud happens all the time and it's always wrong (those responsible from Vote Leave have been punished) but results aren't automatically overturned because of it and the High Court has rejected the challenge to annul the result anyway.

The Boris case has been thrown out of court but again, his claim (which incidentally I did not support) was open to challenge during the campaign and it most certainly was challenged. I maintain that it did at least as much damage to his cause as it did good.

The remain camp really needs to engage in some introspection and have a long hard think about why it was inable to put forward a convincing case despite all the advantages it had, instead it is just clutching at straws.

> Edit; Having posted the above, I have a voice in my head telling me that I would be saying this because I'm a remainer, but I like to think that I've enough discipline/maturity to accept results I don't like within a democracy.

I genuinely respect that fact that amoungst the regular remain posters on here you are one of the few capable of such introspection. Hope that's some consolation

6
Timmd 15 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

> I genuinely respect that fact that amoungst the regular remain posters on here you are one of the few capable of such introspection. Hope that's some consolation

Thank you, a compliment is welcome whatever the circumstances.

Post edited at 19:50
MG 15 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

> Vote Leave breached its £7m limit by around £450k but with a total leave spend of c.£13.5m against a total remain spend of c.£19.5m

If you look at the sums spent by the day of polling, they are practically identical.  Why more millions were spent afterwards is unclear.    Why do think breaking the law is OK?

Graph towards the bottom

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/campaign-spending-and-donations-at-referendums/campaign-spending-at-the-eu-referendum

elsewhere 15 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

You could do with some brexiteer introspection.

Why is brexit support declining?

Why have brexiteers resigned so often?

Why are some brexiteers convinced they are mere victims of  remain subterfuge rather than a powerful political force?

Why have brexiteers failed to convince parliament?

Why have brexiteers been unable to negotiate the easiest deal in history?

Why are brexiteers navel gazing within the tory party, Westminster or the UK rather focused on international* relations? 

*Brexit is international unless we adopt North Korean Juche (self reliant nationalist isolationist lunacy).

1
Dave Garnett 15 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

> The problem with your argument is that its based on the premise that all leavers are thick and all remainers are clever which is patronising nonsense.

It's not to do with intelligence, it's to do with knowledge and relevant experience.  Like to knowledge to realise that you are being lied to.

Likewise there are plenty of stupid remainers (even some of the ones with degrees) who just fell in line with what their tribe told them they should think and then convinced themselves it was right because some sh*t that appears in their Facebook feed says so.

Possibly, although I don't do Facebook so I've no idea what I might have been told there.

> Your argument is also based on the false premise that there is a right and a wrong answer the the referendum question.

Absolutely not.  My greatest frustration is that there wasn't any logical (or, at least, actionable) answer to the question as put. 

pec 15 Jun 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> Thank you, a compliment is welcome whatever the circumstances.


I know we probably don't agree on a lot on here, but you always manage to sound very reasonable which I think is quite hard online, sadly it seems to bring out the worst in people.

1
pec 15 Jun 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> You could do with some brexiteer introspection.

> Why is brexit support declining?

> etc etc

The points you raise are either subjective opinions, a function of the refusal of remainers to accept the result or quite simply not true, apply each of those to the points you raise to find the best fit!

A long time ago I gave up arguing about Brexit on here because it's become completely pointless but I have the occasional lapse, how we got onto this on a Jo Brand thread is a bit baffling but life's too short so I can't be bothered to expand any further, sorry.

5
MG 15 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

> The points you raise are either subjective opinions,

They were all simply questions.  This sort of evasion is what makes people think brexiteers are ignorant (not stupid, which is different).  If you can't address obvious questions about the situation but simply walk off when they are posed, this suggests very strongly you (brexiteers generally) don't have answers.

2
pec 15 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> If you look at the sums spent by the day of polling, they are practically identical.  Why more millions were spent afterwards is unclear.   

Perhaps they were paying off "dues" ;-)

The graph of course doesn't include the £9.3m bung the government gave to the remain side by sending out it's propaganda leaflet to very house in the land, factor that in and things look very different.

Why do think breaking the law is OK?

I don't, the people responsible have been punished but the high court has ruled that the result remains valid.

2
elsewhere 15 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

> The points you raise are either subjective opinions, a function of the refusal of remainers to accept the result or quite simply not true, apply each of those to the points you raise to find the best fit!

> A long time ago I gave up arguing about Brexit on here because it's become completely pointless but I have the occasional lapse, how we got onto this on a Jo Brand thread is a bit baffling but life's too short so I can't be bothered to expand any further, sorry.

So, no answers. What a surprise.

That in my opinion is why brexit support is declining. Brexiteers haven't delivered a coherent plan that is acceptable to  a majority opinion in our elected parliament.

Brexit got a democratic mandate for a plan. It was not a democratic mandate for no plan.

Since few voters believe we  can see the future we use our subjective opinion on how we see the future.

Do you base you judgements on objective facts you know from the future? If so can you tell me the lottery numbers for next week? Thanks V V V much.

Post edited at 20:42
4
Robert Durran 15 Jun 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> That in my opinion is why brexit support is declining. Brexiteers haven't delivered a coherent plan that is acceptable to  a majority opinion in our elected parliament.

Or, perhaps to put it another way, once you look at any given specific Brexit plan (as opposed to nebulous slogans and fantasies), remaining always looks preferable.

1
pec 16 Jun 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> So, no answers. What a surprise.

>In reply to MG:

>This sort of evasion is what makes people think brexiteers are ignorant

I could answer your questions, I could write a dissertation on them, but what's the point? You've been told the answers a thousand times already but there's none so deaf as those that will not hear.
And that's precisely why I gave up debating Brexit on here, because it was no longer debate. The threads had simply become a vehicle for a small but fanatical band of militant remainers to pour scorn on anyone who questioned the orthodoxy of their secular Europeanist religion.
And I'm not alone, most other leavers and indeed rational remainers gave up for the same reason, you only have to scroll upthread and see the contempt that some remainers have for their fellow travellers.
This started off as a Jo Brand thread and somehow I've got dragged into a Brexit debate which is why I'm getting out. If you want to turn this into another remain echo chamber and convince yourselves your right about everything go ahead but you don't need me to do that. Just remember though, the Brexit cat is out of the bag and it's not going back in.

Post edited at 09:53
6
Postmanpat 16 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> Abuse?  What are you on about? If any challenge to your position is abuse in your eyes,  I suggest you leave UKC.

Accusing people of "endorsing the values of those who are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic..." is abuse.

> Above your wrote that politicans were wrong about "... condemning the values that many of the electorate (the "deplorables").."  I pointed out that the remainder of the quote means you are arguing it is wrong for politicians to condemn racism etc. - that was what Clinton was talking about.  If you don't think this, don't write it.  And if you do write it, don't get upset when it is pointed out.    

>

  You have the same problem as Clinton and you have just demonstrated that  .You believe that people who disagree with you are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic..." ie."deplorable". Some of course may be, but millions aren't. Clinton was not wrong to condemn those values as "deplorable". She was wrong to assume that these were the values of most of those who voted against her and that therefore anyone opposing her endorsed those values. You apparently can't understand this.

4
MG 16 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Accusing people of "endorsing the values of those who are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic..." is abuse.

Not if they just done exactly that, as you did. I know you probably weren't aware of the rest of what she said but nonetheless it's what you did. The sensible thing would to just acknowledge your mistake rather than getting all upset 

>   You have the same problem as Clinton and you have just demonstrated that  .You believe that people who disagree with you are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic..." ie."deplorable". 

No, I don't, and I've never even hinted as such. That your "argument" is at this level is telling. 

Post edited at 13:09
1
MG 16 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

> >In reply to MG:

> >This sort of evasion is what makes people think brexiteers are ignorant

> I could answer your questions, I could write a dissertation on them, but what's the point? You've been told the answers a thousand times already but there's none so deaf as those that will

Well quite. The thing is those questions have never been properly answered. When posed, the answers are always one of : evasion, arm-waving platitudes, or "oh shit, this is actually difficult and damaging". The last of course is why brexit hasn't happened yet.

There could have been a brexit that the country would have accepted and not been hugely damaging - EEA or some such. But the zealots wouldn't wear it... 

Post edited at 13:19
2
Postmanpat 16 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> Not if they just done exactly that, as you did. I know you probably weren't aware of the rest of what she said but nonetheless it's what you did. The sensible thing would to just acknowledge your mistake rather than getting all upset 

> No, I don't, and I've never even hinted as such. That your "argument" is at this level is telling. 

   What is so hard for you to understand? Clinton was not wrong to regard racism, homophobia etc as "deplorable". She was wrong to accuse half the electorate of holding these views and so being "deplorable". That is why I referenced her terminology. Criticising her (or you) for this error therefore is not "endorsing these values".

  Despite your denial you have many times conflated a vote to leave with xenophobia etc. If you want to explicitly state that you don't believe that brexiteers are  implicitly xenophobic, racist or little Englanders then go ahead.

4
MG 16 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I have said brexiteers are motivated by at least one of xenophobia, zealotry or ignorance.  Which I believe to be the case. Your claims that I think they are all racist homophobic etc are simply lies. Or abuse in your parlance.

And before you start, xenophobia is not the same as racism, and ignorance is not the same as being dim. 

Post edited at 13:45
5
Postmanpat 16 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

> I have said brexiteers are motivated by at least one of xenophobia, zealotry or ignorance.  Which I believe to be the case. Your claims that I think they are all racist homophobic etc are simply lies. Or abuse in your parlance.

> And before you start, xenophobia is not the same as racism, and ignorance is not the same as being dim. 

Ah, just the xenophobia and ignorance then.No abuse there.  What a load of ignorant bollocks. I rest my case.

Post edited at 14:07
8
Rob Exile Ward 16 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't argue that, and never have. There's a hardcore of racists, maybe 20% of the population, there always is and for the foreseeable future always will be: they're Farage's core. I don't like them, I don't respect them, but they exist and we have to live with it.

I have never found it hard to sympathise with those whose predominant response to the Remain campaign was 'well if that punch of sh*ts think its so great, I'm DEFINITELY voting against it.' The lack of competence, passion, clarity and coherent argument sank the Remain campaign at every turn. Voting leave was a rational response to that, and I cannot hold that response against any Leave voter

(True anecdote: I met an old school friend the other day who happened to be a Brexiteer. Needless to say I gave him both barrels of my ' greatest social, economic and environmental project in the history of the world, hugely in need of ongoing reform but with core values that no-one could argue with, blah blah blah"; he said that I was the first person he'd heard who'd extended any argument other than a narrow economic one.).

Unfortunately you and I both know it's a slow burn catastrophe. Our childrens' life choices have already been reduced; manufacturing is going to be decimated; the NHS will struggle to cope; our standard of living will erode. In 10 years time people will be going on holiday to Europe and saying 'Oo their schools are nice; their streets don't have litter; people don't seem to work such long hours; their medical care is great; their environmental protection seems better; they live in nicer houses; they've got better public transport.' I don't expect PM Johnson will be standing up and saying 'but this is what you voted for.'

2
Bob Hughes 17 Jun 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Accusing people of "endorsing the values of those who are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic..." is abuse.

>   You have the same problem as Clinton and you have just demonstrated that  .You believe that people who disagree with you are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic..." ie."deplorable". Some of course may be, but millions aren't. Clinton was not wrong to condemn those values as "deplorable". She was wrong to assume that these were the values of most of those who voted against her and that therefore anyone opposing her endorsed those values. You apparently can't understand this.

<pedant> what Clinton actually said was that half trumps supporters were deplorable. And that  other half  “feel that the government has let them down” and are “desperate for change.”

“Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well,” </pedant>

krikoman 17 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

> Your argument is also based on the false premise that there is a right and a wrong answer the the referendum question. Something all those 'clever' remainers don't seem to have grasped is that we were actually offered a choice to which there is no right and wrong answer because it depends upon what you value most.

> Sorry but you actually do sound like all the other patronising elitists.

You don't think the electorate, were lied to?

If not, where's our £350M a week for the NHS?

There might not be any right or wrong answer, but there's certainly right and wrong promises of what we'll get out of it.

2
krikoman 17 Jun 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

FFS!! Yourself.

Can you please explain this sentence from your posted Friday 13:32 then please, "I’ll help you here, there have been some well publicised incidents involving milkshakes, these have come from anti-Brexit campaigners (not sure if that is the case with the original Tommy Robinson milkshake)."

I've highlighted the relevant phrase again, just in case.

Now tell me again,  you didn't call them anti-Brexit campaigners.

1
neilh 17 Jun 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The issue with your proposition is that a knowledegable Brexiter can equally point out that France's so called superb medical system is in crises at the moment ( Doctors in potential strike in Paris hospitals) due to underfunding for example.If you speak to people who know the education system then German infratructure spending on new schools is poor compared with UK. Housing stock in some parts  of say Italy or Spain is shocking.So there is a counter narrative.

The argument that gets thrown at me is that people like Juncker etc are just voting themselves big salaries and these Eurocrats have nice pensions.And why is there still this money being wasted every 6 months when they move from Brussels to Strasbourg and back?What is the answer to this?

You need a European dream and idea. Federalism and closer integration is not a buy in to change Brexiters minds.

The New NickB 17 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> Now tell me again,  you didn't call them anti-Brexit campaigners.

I will say this once more. I have never said that I didn’t call them anti-Brexit campaigners.

I said that your claim that they weren’t anti-Brexit campaigners was false and provided evidence to back that up. 

I can accept your initial mistake, but this is the third time I have corrected you.

krikoman 17 Jun 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> I will say this once more. I have never said that I didn’t call them anti-Brexit campaigners.

> I said that your claim that they weren’t anti-Brexit campaigners was false and provided evidence to back that up. 

You only provided evidence for one bloke, and he is so obnoxious there could have been any number of groups / people who might like to have a go.

> I can accept your initial mistake, but this is the third time I have corrected you.

Apology accepted

4
Rob Exile Ward 17 Jun 2019
In reply to neilh:

I'm not a federalist and I'm not necessarily in favour of closer integration - I never was. For me one of the potential benefits of the EU was more regional autonomy - Wales, Scotland, N Ireland, England - each having more devolved power under an EU umbrella, that ensured a level playing field, facilitated friction-free but regulated trade between members, allocated development funding on a long term strategic basis, looked after supra national interests such as the environment, external migration, international trade, cooperated on defence  and held individual governments to account on human rights issues. 
 

Post edited at 12:11
The New NickB 17 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> You only provided evidence for one bloke, and he is so obnoxious there could have been any number of groups / people who might like to have a go.

That makes no sense.

> Apology accepted

I’m not the one who needs to apologise.

Rob Parsons 17 Jun 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I'm not a federalist and I'm not necessarily in favour of closer integration - I never was.

However that is the entire thrust of the European project, isn't it?

> For me one of the potential benefits of the EU was more regional autonomy - Wales, Scotland, N Ireland, England - each having more devolved power under an EU umbrella

The EU has nothing to say on - and nothing to do with - such devolution.

1
krikoman 17 Jun 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> That makes no sense.

> I’m not the one who needs to apologise.


Let's leave it there, you've tired me out, I surrender. You obviously decided everyone chucking milkshakes is a Remainer, whatever obnoxious views the receivers of the milkshakes views are on any number of subjects or their vile comments / statements about all sorts of things, racism and misogyny included, but it's all anti-Brexit campaigners, so let leave it there.

1
Rob Exile Ward 17 Jun 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

'However that is the entire thrust of the European project, isn't it?' No, not the entire thrust at all; and of course, the EU is what the member states want to make it. 

And the EU has played a significant role in supporting local issues: there's a reason that Plaid Cymru and the SNP have been such vociferous supporters.

The New NickB 17 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

Yes, let’s leave it there! It has been an interesting insight in to he post truth world though.

neilh 17 Jun 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Human rights is a completley different  European legal structure( often gets confused with the EU). Defence...Nato... still ticking away quite nicely.

What you are saying just does not grab alot of English voters.And the regional investment funding in the North East etc has not exactly worked nor grabbed people's attention. Often looked on as a failure.

And you have to look at some of the people who support Brexit--- Mervyn King--- hardly lightweight.He is wheeled out to give a more serious view away from the Farage rabid idiocy.

It needs more bite if you move away from economic arguments.

I had hoped that the lady Danish commissioner would be in line for one of the really top jobs, but she appears to being pushed out for another German.Pity it needs somebody like this to internally reform the EU quickly, to get us back to voting remain in huge swathes.

Anyway this as moved along way off Jo brand..let us leave it at that

Post edited at 16:59

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.