UKC

Did you hear him this morning on Today? He made a 'joke' - which he'd obviously prepared - comparing being interviewed by John Humphries with 'being invited into Harvey Weinstein's bedroom.' Shamefully, the audience laughed.

So, one minute there is this great possibility that sexual predation, unwanted attention and the casting couch have no place in the 21st century, that it's no longer amusing, tolerable or 'just something men do' - and the next, Gove makes a totally unfunny joke about it. Utterly bizarre.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

??! That's weird. Sounds like a Frankie Boyle gag (i.e. one played with complete self-awareness to deliberately make the audience feel uncomfortable) not something a member of the Cabinet might come out with on Today. Hilarious, but for all the wrong reasons.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Maybe he’s been watching Trump and taking lessons.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I thought he came over OK and it was quite funny. Not normally a Govinista by the way.

His point was that they were both quite scary experiences, he wasn't condoning Weinstein or belittling womens' experiences.

In reply to Pedro50:

'belittling womens' experiences.'

That was EXACTLY what he was doing.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Apparently Nick Robinson realised immediately what he' said and teweeted.

Gove has now issued an unconditional apology - he's a liar, I heard the b*stard, he'd prepared that 'joke' before the programme.

In reply to Pedro50:

You can dissect what he said and analyse it, but even if you don’t think it’s offensive, it shows a staggering lack of judgement for someone in his position.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I noticed you managed to miss out this extract from the BBC.

As some laughter was heard from Humphrey and the audience, Neil Kinnock added , "John goes way past groping".

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Yeah, okay. But how long would you last as a public figure before you were apologising publically for calling someone a "liar" and a "b*stard"?

In reply to Gone for good:

You're correct and I shouldn't have done. Kinnock didn't cover himself in glory either.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Humprhrys. The name is Humphrys.

Tell you what: I won't be silly enough to make political capital by feigning offence about what some Labour backbencher purportedly said 15 years ago or another's supposedly humourous comment at a half cut bash if you won't be silly enough to do the same about a gaffe by a Tory. Personally I like black humour, but there's a time and a place.

In reply to Pedro50:

I have to say that I agree. He said a couple of quite amusing (and self-deprecating) things. Yes, it was a bit edgy but, unless it was an artefact of where the microphones were placed, it got a huge laugh.

I wouldn't have said it but I didn't think it was so terrible, in context. I'm definitely not a Gove fan and as so often, he's in danger of creating more offence in the manner of the apology than the original comment, especially if he goes down the 'spur of the moment' tack when it turns out it was prepared.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

My comment about this Wiener-stein business is: why do people pronounce his name as 'Wine-steen', when it clearly should be pronounced 'Wine-stine'?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Make up your mind man!

In reply to Rob Parsons:

It should be "Vine-shtine" for that matter.

In reply to aln:


Hangs head in shame.....

In reply to Postmanpat:

You've completely lost me. A senior politician makes a pre-prepaid and totally inappropriate joke on one of the most public platforms that are available to him. Substitute Weinstein for Jimmy Saville and you get some idea just how inappropriate and irresponsible it was.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I'm sorry, but I really can't get upset at this joke.

Jovial comparisons along the lines of "A is as bad as B" are not belittling victims of B or making out that B is not bad. Indeed, the comparison only works if you think that B is bad.

Thus if one says that an interview is "like going 10 rounds with Mohammed Ali" or something, the comparison is clearly exaggerated, but the whole point is that the thing you're comparing it to is a bad experience.

We really should allow politicians more leeway, rather than getting all offended at things like this. Of course people also complain if politicians are formulaic, avoid questions, and don't talk freely.


Even if he did prepare the joke, that does *not* mean that the apology is insincere! He could have reflected and reconsidered!

Sorry, but can't we criticise politicians for important things, such as their policies?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



I love it when we have threads full of blokes explaining how women perceive things and getting indignant on their behalf.

My wife thinks Gove's a cock, but she understood the point he was making.

In reply


Did he prepare the joke?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I once dated a bird who had eczema. She had cracking tits.

He should have used that instead.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Quite. Amazing that so many Americans can't pronounce their own names...

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well yes, but then politicians such as Gove are happy to jump on gaffes like this by other politicians, and be all offended for political gains if it suits them. So f*ck him.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


He didn't say "Jimmy Saville", he said "Weinstein". Saville was accused of raping children. When you are quoting someone, you cannot substitute things for what they said.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I don't expect any better from Gove, he is a toxic individual who has done no end of damage to the country.

However, the Prime Minister has chosen not the take heed of my opinion and the man remains in Cabinet to lobby for Dacre and Murdoch. Given the emerging sex scandal in parliament and the Prime Minister's statement yesterday, his joke represents a major embarrassment for the government.

In reply to Pero:


Is that a description of Gove?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Hmm.

I think Gove is a despicable wankstain, and he really should have known that he was risking outrage by saying that.

But I'm also not too keen on living in a country where using dark humour to describe a situation where you feel deeply uncomfortable is considered beyond the pale. If anything, he was showing an unusual hint of humanity, there.

There are better things to slate Gove for, really.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I guess the difference is that being interviewed, or boxing with Muhammad Ali are consensual activities. Whereas being sexually assaulted is not.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

You may have a point but why not save your left wing, politically correct, moral indignation for things that matter instead of sounding like an immature, outraged, teenage, social justice warrior. It's trivia.

Al

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Most of the cabinet and indeed the P.M
seem to be way up on the Spectrum - inappropriate comments, lack of demonstrated empathy & socially awkwardness seem like just another day in U.K. politics.

D

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

i suppose it is also not funny because John Humphreys is not that tough an interviewer. He also appears to be somewhat aligned with Gove politically. Humphreys does go on holiday with David Davis after all. In fact letting Gove get away with an ill judged joke like that shows he is no Paxman!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-davis-brexit-drunk-dian...

In reply to Pedro50:


This is quite commonly reported about Gove: in person he seems an OK sort of guy, even quite engaging. Pity he doesn't seem able to carry over some of that sensitivity towards other people in to his policies.

Perhaps he's going to turn out to be a bit like Portillo: apparently happy to pursue 'nasty' policies when in government, but nowadays manages to come across as a pretty decent, self-deprecating sort of guy with a corny sense of humour and a taste for brightly-coloured clothes - at least as far as one can tell from the time he spends on TV trolling around on trains. He also seems surprisingly non-partisan when he gets to discuss political history with folks he "meets" on his travels.

Makes you wonder what positive character traits some of these people choose to suppress or keep hidden when they decide to go in to politics - and how they justify it to themselves.

In reply to skog:


You don't - you live in a country where it's considered beyond the pale for a senior politician to use serious and systematic sexual abuse as the basis for a joke to be broadcast on a serious current affairs show, which is as it should be.


There are plenty of things to slate Gove for, that doesn't mean we should allow what you consider to be "lesser" unacceptable behaviour to go unchallenged.

If I made a rape joke at work and someone complained to HR that it made them feel uncomfortable I'd be quite rightly dragged over the coals, and if I made it amongst friends and realised from someone's reaction that I'd touched a raw nerve I'd be mortified.

In reply to Deadeye:
'My wife thinks Gove's a cock, but she understood the point he was making. '

That being interviewed by John Humphrys - which is what he's paid to do - is the same as being raped, or allowing yourself to be groped so you can might get a bit part as a movie extra?

You'll have to explain the point to me, because I don't quite get it.

The irony is that I'm not at all a lefty snowflake on this sexual harassment business, it's not at all clear to me where the acceptable and natural awkwardness and risk taking of making a pass - 'faint heart never won fair lady' - shades into harassment and assault.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I thought the joke was quite funny, and is a reflection on our hand wringing society that Gove is now a public enemy.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Michelle McManus only won Pop Idol because she was fat.

It would be funny if jazz star Jamie Cullum was sodomised with his own piano.

Girls Aloud - I advise you to sack Sarah and the remaining four members, come have an orgy with me.

In reply to Ciro:

I don't think Gove made a rape joke, did he?

He made a throwaway quip comparing his own stressful, mildly unpleasant situation with a stressful, very unpleasant situation which happens to be currently very much in the public focus.

As an alternative, he could have said, say, that it was like finding himself in the Colloseum, surrounded by lions. If he had, he probably wouldn't be being called out for being callous about religious persecution, as it isn't currently very popular to give that much though.

As I said, he was careless. He has said he's sorry. It's all getting a bit too much attention for what it is. Gove remains a wanker, but not because of this.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

>>
Possibly a bigger reflection on you than on me.....

In reply to aln:


Examples?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Really?

In reply to skog:


No, you're right... when he compared being invited onto the show to being invited to Weinstein's room, he was referring to Weinstein's reputation for halitosis... the numerous recent public rape accusations didn't even cross his mind. Silly me.


Indeed. The lack of calling out would have been nothing to do with the fact that, there isn't much of a societal problem with feeding people to lions any more.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Kinnock liked the joke

In reply to icnoble:


Yes, the Gove haters seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that his reaction was, I would have thought, more offensive than the joke.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I listened to it live in the car. I laughed. The audience laughed, JH laughed. NK laughed. Everyone was laughing. There might have been some people not laughing but this was a live Today program broadcast. Not a Bernard Manning gig. It was not Dapper Laughs. It was a funny joke.

I smell anti Tory/Gove bandwagon jumping as many have said above

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



Really ? faux indignation, on here ?
.... next you'll be telling me that the site is over run with the rampantly pedantic and the excessively judgmental .

In reply to Ciro:


Oh come on, people are killed, mutilated and suppressed because of their religion all the time. It's not at all obvious that it's less of a problem than gender discrimination.

The public likes to get worked up about one or two bad things at a time; this one's causing an outrage because it touches on a currently popular theme. If the Weinstein story had died away quietly because of something else filling the news, there wouldn't have been the same reaction.

Do you ever laugh at edgy jokes, or enjoy black humour? Do you ever make them?

I'm a bleeding-heart liberal leftie snowflake, and I do.

Women are treated poorly, even in modern Western society, yes. All other things being equal, being female leaves you disadvantaged, and more physically vulnerable. We should be addressing this (actually, we are; that's good but it needs to improve).

Gove's quip did nothing to worsen this - it wouldn't even have worked if being invited to Weinstein's room wasn't a deeply unpleasant thought, so he was acknowledging that.

In reply to skog:


Shouldn't that be 'vankstein' ?

In reply to Stichtplate:



You forgot to capitalise the 'f' in 'faux'...

In reply to Ridge:
A salesperson at a place I used to work once described a sofa, to a customer, as being made of 'fox leather'.




For the avoidance of doubt, no foxes were hurt in the production, or relation, of this anecdote.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Michael Gove not very nice.
Shock.
Horror.

In other news, cheese not vegan.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Oh dear I can't provide any links. Does that mean Mr. Gove isn't a shitty self serving piece of whatever?

In reply to bouldery bits:

It doesn't mean it's OK coz we acknowledge he's a cnut.

In reply to aln:


Yeah, what we going to do about it? I tell you what. Nothing.

Nowt.

NADA.

Zilch.

Zip.

Except be indignant. I'm fed up of wasting my energy on these people who are meant to be serving our interests. Total waste of time.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Even more of an idiot than I thought: "what's the best issue I could use to make a joke out of right now; I know..."

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Exactly right. If he'd joked about being a Christian being thrown to the lions, that's innocuous but the Weinstein case is too immediate and serious to be joked about in exactly the same way as Saville cannot be the subject of a respectable joke.

In reply to skog:



No sides were split either.

In reply to skog:





The outrage his carefully crafted quip has engendered may do something to promote an intolerance for attacks on women.
Maybe that's what the wonderfully intelligent Gove (and incredibly well-mannered) intended all along.

In reply to aln:

Leftie luvvies exposed as a bunch of self serving women abusing gender pay gapping hypocrites and what do the ukc lefties do? Attack some people off colour joke by one of their many hate figures and accuse him of hypocrisy.
Lefties: doncha just luvem?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I think all the women that have come on this thread to support Gove prove that you called it wrong.....

In reply to Pete Pozman:


<quiet applause>

In reply to The New NickB:
I'm actually amazed at the reaction, I thought this was so self-evidently beyond the pale - and rightly so - in the current climate that only PP would have the temerity to defend him. (I appreciate that no one's going to defend Kinnock, equally culpable but at least with the defences of no longer being in office and being significantly older, I imagine Glenys will have given him a right ear bashing though.)

Apparently TM is having to contemplate an emergency reshuffle because of allegations of serious misconduct. The next few days will be interesting..

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Personally I couldn't give a stuff about Gove or his poor attempt at what passes for humour in political circles. What I find more unsettling is the increasing incidence of manufactured outrage in the service of political correctness and point scoring. The real danger is not that we might lose the services of a few prats like Gove, but that we might lose the off colour joke itself, subsumed under a tide of the right on and the indignant.

Black humour provides a useful safety valve for people struggling in the face of the depressingly grim. As such it has long been a mainstay of morale right across the services, the NHS and indeed, the canteens and offices of a great many high pressure businesses. When confronted by the truly awful, the ability to laugh is often the first step in finding the strength to overcome.

In reply to Ciro:



Numerous? Maybe I'm out of the loop but I've only heard of three. Did you genuinely think it was a very large number? Did skog mention bad breath? No and no because you are sarcastically joking about Harvey Weinstein, an alleged rapist. 

Let me know if I'm reading into this too much, but surely exaggerating about the number of alleged rapes denegrates the fact that one rape is a very bad thing.

If you look hard enough there's plenty to offended at. I'm not a Gove fan, but he's not equivocating an interview to sexual assualt, he's using the huge gulf between them for comedic effect.

He clearly thinks that one is by order of magnitude worse than the other or he wouldn't think it was funny. That's how that particular kind of joke works, it's designed to be incredulous to the point of a shock laugh.

In reply to Stichtplate:

But.... but I haven't got a sense of humour. I replaced it years ago with a sense of manufactured outrage in order to make me look serious, and to con people that I have moral gravity. You may say this is narcissistic. Fine by me, because that means we're talking about me, and I LOVE talking about ME and my moral superiority.

Anyway, that's enough about me - let's talk about you. What do you think of me?

In reply to Martin W:



Apologies for going off at a tangent, but I think your point is a fascinating one. I can't claim to be particularly aware of Gove, but when Portillo was in government I found him highly objectionable - pompous, opinionated, smug and dismissive. I've seen him in recent years in political discussions on current affairs programs and found him to be completely the opposite. He now seems highly intelligent, thoughtful, considerate, and engaging. There's no evidence of dogma and plenty of insight. In his government years I would have hurled metaphorical rocks at him. These days, I'd very likely vote for him.

Off the top of my head, I see 3 possibilities here:

1) Politicians are indeed suppressing their good nature, as you suggest.

2) Once they leave politics, they're older and wiser and changed for the better.

3) When they enter politics they're lost and bewildered, particularly if they are in power. The issues they face are so complex and the pressures on them so numerous and varied that they turn to dogma as a sword to slice through the Gordian knot.

These possibilities aren't mutually exclusive, of course, but I think option 3 is rarely considered but could often be the case.

What do you think?

In reply to skog:


Why is it such a popular theme... is it just jumping on a bandwagon or could it be because it touches on something that affects a lot of people quite deeply? In the wake of the Weinstein story, my facebook feed was filled with female friends and family reporting #MeToo. Some of them were revealing details that must have been uncomfortable for them to put out into the public domain and I don't believe they did this in order to "get worked up".


Of course I do, although much less than I used to and I'd be much more careful about my audience these days.... as I alluded to previously, context is important. What might be OK with close friends would not be OK in the workplace for example, and what might be OK for Frankie Boyle is not OK for a senior politician on a serious political show.

To put Gove's joke in context, a Labour MP had been suspended for historical sexist and homophobic comments, and it had just been revealed that there's a westminster WhatsApp group in which new employees are warned who the parliamentary sex pests are, with resignations expected. That him and Kinnock thought the subject was still something to joke about shows not just an astonishing lack of judgement IMO, it's also very telling of their mindset.

I'm glad he apologised unreservedly for what he said (and not the more usual apologising for any offence caused), but that fact that some people on here seem to think it was perfectly OK for him to make illustrates why we still need to talk about it.

In reply to Ciro:

Agree with all you've said.

To add one more point; in my opinion political correctness is a force for good. Most people happily forget that but, in itself, it is an important driver of social change. Again, in my opinion, the vast majority of that change has been for good but there is still plenty more required. The thorny issue of sexual politics is only now starting to get a real public discourse, it seems. But probably long overdue.

Dislike if you will but please don't just give a dog whistle response to the term 'political correctness'.

In reply to FreshSlate:


Perhaps I could have expressed myself better - numerous complaints of rape, sexual assault and harrassment. 50 is numerous and none of the above are trivial.


You're reading into it too much.


No one, as far as I'm aware, is claiming he was. The fact that he thought that, in his position, it was OK to use the gulf between them for comedic effect is not OK.


He's not Howard Stern, it's not his job to shock, it's his job to represent his constituents and help run the country.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Can you still get that app which enabled you to slap Michael Gove's face as often as you want. At the time I refrained but I reckon it's time he got what's coming to him. Nasty , nasty man. (And that's for what he did to education.)

In reply to Ciro:


Both, if course.

It's a very important issue - but so are lots of other things which are not currently receiving the same level of attention.

It's good that it's so in the public mind just now, but using it in black humour doesn't detract from that at all - if anything, it helps keep it there.

In reply to Ciro:

Also important, since we're overanalysing things to death anyway, is that Gove wasn't actually joking about Weinstein's activities - he was using them as an example of something horrible to use for exaggerated comparison, when joking about the unpleasantness of being interviewed in front of an audience.

In reply to FreshSlate:

There are currently 10 full rape allegations and numerous other allegations where it would have been attempted rape or sexual assault. 81 victims have come forward, and it seems likely that there will be more.

In reply to skog:

Gove is a tw*t. That comparison was in poor taste to say the least.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I'm sorry. I obviously haven't been keeping track.

Could someone please remind me when Weinstein's trial was and whether he was found guilty or not.

Thanks.

In reply to Thrudge:

4. The adversarial nature of win-at-all-costs debate, with a press that loves pointing out political "loss", "weakness", or "flip flops", and a public who seem to lap up what they read, drives politicians towards entrenched positions and hardened approaches.

In reply to Oceanrower:

Think through the logic of your position - Gove obviously thinks that Weinstein has *something* pretty significant to answer for or the 'joke' wouldn't have made any sense at all.

Your point isn't perhaps quite as clever as you think it is.

In reply to Oceanrower:



Perhaps you should ask Michael Gove, the former Justice Secretary obviously didn't want that distinction to get in the way of him telling his joke.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



Well, that should save the taxpayer some money then.

All we have to do is ask Gove whether he thinks "*something* pretty significant" has happened and we can save the whole cost of juries, judges, trials, etc., etc.

You appear to have an interesting take on the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. I hope to God you're not a lawyer, judge or copper!

In reply to Oceanrower:

Why are you criticising Rob for what Michael Gove thinks?

In reply to The New NickB:

Yes, agreed. Why on earth should we let the little matter of someone's innocence or guilt get in the way of a good joke.

In reply to Oceanrower:

If you think the appropriateness of Gove's joke hinges on whether or not, at some point in the future, Weinstein is proven to be guilty of the charges that are being levelled against him, I fear you've rather missed the point.

In reply to Oceanrower:


Or indeed a bad joke.

In reply to The New NickB:


I'm not. I'm criticising the implied position that, just because Gove thinks he's guilty (or the joke wouldn't have made sense) he must actually BE guilty.

In reply to The New NickB:


Well, that we agree on.

In reply to Ciro:

What charges? I've just looked and, as far as I can see, there have been absolutely no charges of any kind (let alone arrests) either side of the channel.

There have been allegations, yes, but, unlike others on here( and, it would appear, Michael Gove), I strongly believe in the rule of law!

In reply to David Martin:

I'm not sure either the public or press are quite as much to blame as you think. Obama faced down many of his critics with nuanced and honest answers to questions which received wisdom said no politician would get away with. I remember the late Robin Cooke - I think being interviewed by Humphrys - putting his hands up and saying, 'No you're quite correct, we were wrong about that.' The sky didn't fall in; it was barely reported.

I think politicians could 'get away with' a lot more honesty and equivocation if they developed some bottle as well as rather more wit. 'That's a very interesting question Mr Humphrys, and I'm afraid it's not clear what the best course of action is at the moment. But when it is be sure we'll let you know.'

In reply to David Martin:

Good point.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I couldn't agree more. Your Robin Cook example is an excellent one.

In reply to Ciro:



'Perhaps I could have expressed myself better' and 'you're reading into it too much'? You'd make a poor politician, you have to be straight out of the gate with an unreserved apology for these kinds of gaffs.



You've also mentioned Frankie Boyle before as well as Stern, so the joke appears to be fine to be made, publically so by celebrities at that, but slightly too edgy from Gove it seems.

I'm struggling to get excited by this, as much of a boot as we'd like to put in politicians, this is pretty thin.

In reply to David Martin:


5. Party politics is a deeply flawed system that stifles any politicians ability do what they believe to be best for the nation.

In reply to Oceanrower:


The idiom to "level a charge against" someone means to make a public accusation - not neccessarily a formal legal one.


Again, if you think the appropriateness of Gove's comment hinges on whether or not Weinstein did what he's being accused of, you've missed the point.

In reply to FreshSlate:

Well if you can't see the difference between the public responsibilities of a senior politician and a shock jock, I guess we're talking cross purposes. I'm off out to enjoy the sunshine, have a nice afternoon.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

'Man not upset at joke which potentially belittles the sexual harassment of women' shocker

It's just something which struck me...

In reply to Ciro:


I see they are different, and you have some different standards for people in different jobs. I perfectly understand that. All I'm saying is that it's less bad than something which is unacceptable for anyone in any position if you like.

... Enjoy the last hour or so of it! Clocks have gone back unfortunately!

In reply to Oceanrower:

I take it then, after all that's been said, you'd still be quite happy employing Weinstein in a role where he had power over vulnerable women?

Or maybe prove criminal guilt isn't the only sensible way to judge people

In reply to Timmd:

I think everyone agrees it was a joke in poor taste. The point is that if every careless utterance by politicians is pounced on and used to present them as monsters, pretty soon we will end up with only the blandest of bland standing. And they won't be any good at governing.

Gove is populist, anti-intellectual zealot but this is irrelevant manufactured outrage.

In reply to MG:



What about O'mara?

I'm not sure where I stand on him, obviously he said some daft shite, but it was 13+ years ago, aren't we all allowed to make mistakes?

In reply to timjones:

Another good one, helps me expand my thinking on this. Cheers.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I guess a lot of it comes down to how they start out presenting themselves. Obama's bread and butter was, like Truedeau, an appeal to the heart. Some politicians, possibly though know particular desire, fall in to the "bruiser" camp, renouned for their cut and thrust and ability to mangle opponents. Probably quite a satisfying place to be until you find out you've overstepped the mark, by which time the amassed lines of opponents with grievances against you prevent winding back your debating style.

My recollection of Portillo is vague, mainly about some scandal to do with homosexual daliances in his younger years. No doubt he could be a nasty one in parliament. But he seems to come across throughly decent in his current television persona. Seems its possible for people to turn the corner. Even Glen Beck has gone from the very definition of an ar$ehole to now holding some pretty liberal-left views

In reply to krikoman:



It sounds like there is more of pattern to his comments so they perhaps reveal the "real" him. Even so, I'd be inclined to agree and judge him on his actions in parliament.

In reply to Timmd:

Any views on whether this should be allowed?

youtube.com/watch?v=YM6_5EcJ790&

I suspect, at our present rate, in a decade or two Jim Jeffries will be up there with golliwogs, native Indian haloween costumes, and binary gender pronouns.

In reply to Ciro:


Are you suggesting that if something is a serious issue (and sexual assault certainly is a serious issue) then it is not an appropriate topic for jokes?

Why not? Why shouldn't we make jokes about serious issues?

In reply to Timmd:


I still don't get the suggestion that the joke belittles sexual harassment.

Suppose someone were of the opinion that sexual harassment is no big deal and not something to make a fuss about.

That would mean that Gove's joke amounts to: "being interviewed by you is no big deal and not something to make a fuss about".

Does anyone think that that was Gove's intent? The joke simply doesn't make sense that way.

In reply to David Martin:

Isn't that the point of comedy though, to satirise and poke fun at what's NOT acceptable?

The thing about Gove, is he's not a comedian, he's an MP, and while he maybe a clown, it doesn't follow that he's funny.

O'mara seems like a bit of a tw*t, but I've said tw*tish things, in the right circles, which would sound horrendous if quoted out of context, or even to different people to whom I said them too.

That doesn't make me an arsehole, other things do that.

In reply to Thrudge:


Because, MPs are people they are no different to you and me, with their own foibles and faults, I do think we expect too much of them sometimes.

It would be nice if they could be honest though, that would make a great difference.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Comparing, as Gove could be interpreted as doing, a slightly awkward interview to rape does belittle rape. It was a poor joke in poor taste but only those looking for outrage would really believe he thinks this.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Not at all, as I've said more than once context is important.

Gove and Kinnock's workplace, it had just been revealed, is rife with sexual harassment - a scandal that threatens to destabalise the government. The fact that as that scandal was errupting, they still felt it was appropriate to make jokes about sexual harassment on a program where listeners were not tuning in expecting to hear risque humour, seemingly oblivious to the backlash that was certain to occur, suggests to me that neither of them take the matter as seriously as they should.

I am at a loss to understand how anyone could think this was an appropriate gag for an MP to make at any time, never mind right now.

In reply to Ciro:


But you can take a topic seriously *and* make a joke about it. The two are not exclusive. Indeed, one often jokes about something precisely because it is a major concern.

As an example, political cartoonists both take politics seriously and make satirical jokes about it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



Yes, but this joke didn’t do that. Rather than “punching up” as good satire does, it was a lame attempt to use the Weinstein situation as some sort of self deprecation.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

It arguably does make light of it though, because sexual harassment is worse than any kind of interview would be, I would suggest, especially by somebody as nice at heart as John Humpheries(sp) at least .

Thinking about that MP who joked about two sharks talking about going to Morecambe Bay because one of them fancied a Chinese (after the Chinese cockle pickers drowned there), I'm thinking that it's always going to be risky to joke about serious things if one is a politician, because humour is so subjective, and politicians don't have the luxury of not caring if they offend people in the same way that comedians can do (so long as they can earn a crust).

In reply to Timmd:


Why sure! These sort of jovial comparisons are *always* exaggerated! You always compare it with something that is accepted as much worse. No-one thinks that Gove was making a literal comparison, saying that both are the same degree of bad.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



Of course you can, the aforementioned Mr Boyle clearly also takes his politics seriously and makes jokes about it. But Frankie Boyle's public persona would not be suitable for an MP... Boris Johnson is an aberration, not a shining example of how to behave.

Gove represents his constituents in parliament, and is part of the government that is now tasked with tackling the harassment problem in parliament, and as such will be expected to show he takes the concerns of his constituents and women in general seriously. Joking about an alleged serial sexual abuser is not the way to do that, and the fact that he couldn't see it suggests he doesn't consider the subject to be so important.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Come on - surely you're smarter than this. Watch some Stewart Lee and then see if that helps you understand. Of course it's important to make jokes about serious issues but not that man at that time in that place and in that way. The world is full of people (usually men) who genuinely don't 'get it' in these situations (although sometimes they're just being wilful). I don't think you're one of them.

Ciro, you've done a great job; don't feel you need to keep going!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
(Not Gove's) derogatory language on the ‘Morrissey Solo’ website message board includes calling homosexuals “fudge packers” who “drive up the Marmite motorway”. He says gay people are “bitter and resentful about being homosexual”.


"“Just cos he writes about gayness and gay issues, doesn’t mean he drives up the Marmite motorway, or for that matter, allows someone else to drive up his…

“You do mean ‘took it up the ass’ figuratively don’t you?… I just think that this story is much more poignantly romantic than fudge packing Jake or anyone else in a causual manner and I don’t want such a lovely vista to be spoilt.

“I find it funny how some homosexuals think they have the monopoly on being subject to abuse, they should try being Ginger…”

“To those of you that are bitter and resentful about being homosexual, maybe you need to take a bit of pride in your gayness, it’s not something to be ashamed of.”

In reply to Big Ger:

Context is everything.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
I can't believe this. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, that you've actually *heard* the interview.

Gove is not a comedian. He is a politician; a 'leader'.

His 'joke', clearly pre-prepared, equated his being interviewed by Humphrys, with women being subjected to unwanted advances up to and including rape. There's no wiggle room there.

His attitude is exactly the attitude that has to be changed. And yours does too, particularly in your environment where there are more skeletons in cupboards than there are cupboards to hide them.

In reply to MG:
'Gove is populist, anti-intellectual zealot but this is irrelevant manufactured outrage.'

I don't buy that, in fact I think you're missing the point entirely. I believe Gove's 'joke' depended on equating different 'uncomfortable' situations - a stressful interview (though anyone who can't handle Humphrys should be sacked anyway) - with an unwelcome and maybe persistent attempt at a pass.

The issue that it is getting wider recognition is that those unwelcome and persistent passes have often not stopped there. In situations where men have significant power over women and their careers, those unwelcome approaches have often morphed into assault and full on rape, with the targets (I loathe the term 'victim') assuming that it must be be par for the course, though knowing it shouldn't.

Briefly we seemed to be getting somewhere; Gove's 'joke' showed that he just didn't get it at all.

In reply to MG:


People often make the mistake that two things juxtaposed are being compared but that isn't the case here, if they were in anyway comparable then the joke wouldn't work.

In that sense it doesn't belittle rape nor, as Diane Abbott has it does it 'undermine women', it expresses disapproval of Weinstein, just through humour rather the obvious method of saying he's done bad.

The point of humour is it's mild inappropriateness, there's no point saying it's inappropriate because it's designed to be - that's partly where the humour lies.

In reply to krikoman:



What about the more recent "But in an incident in March, Mr O'Mara, who was DJing in a nightclub, made comments to her that "aren't broadcastable" and called her an "ugly bitch", she said." ?https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-41750136
He sounds lovely.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

The whole 'it was ages ago, can't we forgive him' thing is kind of missing the point here. If you made those comments, you're basically a nasty piece of work, in my view. I would never make them and I would think less of anybody (including anyone I called a friend, or a student of mine) if I heard them say them. And I'd usually 'call them out' on it too, to use the vernacular. Of course, a leopard can change its spots (or can it?), but as a politician, in the modern world, you aren't given that benefit of the doubt. If you were a nasty piece of work 10 or 20 years ago, why do we have to bother assuming that you're not a nasty piece of work now?

Politicians are different to most of the rest us (it's where the whole idea of 'in public life' comes from because they're elected not just on their abilities, their skills and knowledge but on their character. In fact, they're mostly elected (especially the most senior of them) on their character. When we thought Tony Blair had good character we loved him. When we realised he'd become a self-serving egotist and / or religious zealot (or was he always?!), we thought less of his character and came to loathe him. We didn't think he was less skilled or less experienced.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

To be fair to all these people who don't get it - you asked them to defend him, and they are. They just don't get it, and they're mostly men, and I'm guessing they would score relatively low on empathy.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Of course context is everything

One is a Tory minister making a bad joke.

The other is a Labour MP making profoundly insulting, rampantly sexist, and homophobic comments.

Only one of them deserves approbation.

In reply to Big Ger:

I'm not sure that either deserve approbation.

In reply to Big Ger:





Which one are you praising? Weirdo.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Hmmmn, he said that being interviewed by Humpheries was like entering Weinstein's bedroom.

I think you're bright enough to work out how this could be taken as negating the seriousness of sexual harassment.

In reply to Timmd:



Forgot the smiley.

In reply to krikoman:


Yep, this is exactly what I was driving at, although I would qualify it a little bit: I think if you're a politician with power (including being in a party in opposition) then that power gives you an additional moral and civic responsibility to think carefully and act correctly. What it should not do is burden you with the responsibility of being perfect in every word and deed. I think the idea that it does is one promoted by the media and unthinkingly endorsed by many of us.

In reply to sg:


You're slightly right -there is a humour sex/gender split but wrong in the sense that it's not men who don't get it, it's women.

Female difficulties with humour has been well documented but there is good neurological evidence for it now too.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4844976/

The problem is that humour is mostly based on incongruity and females have an evolutionary aversion to risk and therefore incongruity.

If you detect an incongruous situation in the woods, a pattern of leaves that look like a bear then risk aversion says walk the other way. OTOH if you are less risk averse to the incongruity you might test it first (by throwing a rock at it) before deciding to proceed.

Ambiguous situations threaten female natural conservatism and they process the incongruity differently.

Males OTOH are used to testing incongruity, challenging it and through humour even creating it, controlling it and playing with it.

So females see the mild inappropriateness of the situation and have a natural aversion to it, whereas males quickly see the inconsequence and the humour.

Add in the social policing of appropriate/inappropriate behaviour and it's clear why women will stick to a conservative interpretation of the situation.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Where did I say either deserves praise?

In reply to Pero:

The point is, he is an ugly bastard and the likelyhood of him having consential sex with a series of young beautiful actresses is highly unlikely. ( but just about possible to contemplate if the said actresses believed it would further their careers, and that is his most likely successful line of defence )

In reply to Big Ger:


Only one of them deserves “approbation,” ie approval.

Opprobrium?

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Well spotted, my error, whoopsy, post in haste repent at leisure.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


So what? Are you saying that only professional comedians are allowed to make jokes in public? I'd think it good if politicians came to talk more naturally and normally.


No it did not. These kind of jovial, exaggerated comparisons only work if you think that the thing you're comparing it to is in fact much worse.


No it doesn't. Making a joke about such matters does *not* mean that he also does not take them seriously.

Your hatred of Tories is colouring your whole perception of this.

In reply to Andy Clarke:



or disapprobation

In reply to Coel Hellier:

You've mixed me up with someone else. I don't hate Tories, though there's not many in the current crop I admire. And I recognise that many of their policy positions have merit.

I personally don't doubt that I would have been just as disappointed had a Labour politician made the same 'joke' and would have made the same post.

In reply to Sir Chasm:



But at the moment, that's her word against his. Who knows who said what and how that conversation might have started.

I'm not defending him, but so far it's something he did 13 years ago and a woman, who might have an axe to grind.

still he's ginger, so it probably all true ( While we're talking about inappropriate jokes)

In reply to sg:


Doesn't that depend on context, audience and intent. I've said and heard some pretty awful stuff, which is fine in the right place, print it in a newspaper and it would look horrendous. some of the people who I've heard say such things are kind, caring and aren't in any way nasty pieces of work.

On the other hand I've heard less from people who really are nasty and mean a lot more than what they say.

Like I said I don't know O'mara, so I can't really judge, I know from personal experiences my thoughts and prejudices from 10-15 years ago, and beyond that, have changed throughout my life, so I can't see why this isn't possible for other people too.

In reply to Big Ger:





One of them has had the party whip removed and faces an investigation by that party.

The other...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Doesn't look like it's stopping at these 2. Given the public displays of casual sexism we've seen in both houses and from all parties since they began broadcasting sittings, I dread to think what has been going on in private, but I think we are starting to find out.

In reply to Pero:


You appear to be implying Saville would be an unacceptable comparison because he stands accused of raping children whereas Weinstein *only* stands accused of raping adults? Surely not?

Gove's a bellend but he's not daft and should have known better, much better
jk

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

>I believe Gove's 'joke' depended on equating different 'uncomfortable' situations - a stressful interview (though anyone who can't handle Humphrys should be sacked anyway) - with an unwelcome and maybe persistent attempt at a pass.

That's correct


That's where I disagree. It was a clumsy inappropriate joke, but that's all - I don't think it says anything at all about Gove's actual beliefs or understanding of sexual harassment and attacks.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):



Seems to belong to a party with a bit of a (alleged) problem.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/leaked-spreadsheet-reveals-sexual-...

In reply to timjones:


Other countries with fairer electoral systems make it work rather better than we do. The idea isn't inherently flawed but our implementation is poor.
jk

In reply to jkarran:



Can you provide an example of a country where politicians don't have to kowtow to the party line rather than doing what they think is best?

As for "fairer electoral systems" I guess that our views on the fairness of our system are dependent on whether you vote for the person or the party?

In reply to timjones:


Germany would be a good example of a country where more proportional representation tends to lead to coalition governments which necessitates pragmatic compromise in policy making which in turn prevents a competitive race to the bottom resulting in better policy outcomes. Compare for example if you're actually interested German and British justice policies, their outcomes and costs, policies formed without the pressure of being seen to be 'tougher on crime' than the other each election because everyone knows the reality will ultimately be a reasonable compromise unlike with a majority government. Something our electoral system has evolved to select for from two core parties. Those are broadly similar countries, economically developed, socially and culturally similar, shared religious history informing moral leanings all of which feed into this area of policy making but significantly different approaches resulting largely from a different approach to electing their representatives..


The discussion related to party politics so I think it's fair to assume it's the way FPTP and party politics interact to distort the result of elections and routinely disenfranchise millions that I object to. Obviously one can vote freely and fairly for an individual in the UK but the result of a national election in terms of who actually wields power (and how much power) can be a very poor expression of the nation's vote.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

I'm not sure that we are talking about the same thing.

How many German politicians have managed to get elected without aligning their views to a single political party?

I can't see how proportional representation ca do anything to help with this problem.

I don;t want politicians that toe a party line in search of success, I want politicians that are willing and able to do what is best for the nation.

In reply to timjones:



I don't know to be honest but as it's very hard anywhere for individuals to achieve the profile of a funded party and those backed by the party I'd assume very few. The point is people know those they elect (party affiliated or not) will be going to work in a more cooperative, less combative environment so both the pitch to to the public and the resulting policies tend to be better considered, less extreme and result in better outcomes.


It forces parties to cooperate and to make pitches that can be delivered from coalition where they will have to hammer out compromise solutions without the extremes which tend to result from competition to appear especially tough on one issue or lenient on another. Our system of dominant single party government and toothless opposition (as tends to exist for the majority of a political cycle) produced by FPTP does not force this compromise and it does incentivise parties to promote strongly differentiated policy positions, often far from the optimal. Policies that are torn up and re-implemented with each change of government at significant cost as the wheel is reinvented each cycle.


Politicians need parties and parties need loyalty, that's just reality. If you want that situation to produce good policy everyone feels they have a stake in then our FPTP two party system is not a good way to go about it. Anyway, we've wandered a good way off topic.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

Globally the UK system is well known for its ability to govern as a compromise compared with other systems.

In reply to jkarran:

I don't think I'd agree that the party system produces a less combative environment, it produces extra combat based on unthinking party allegiances and an apparently deep-seated need to knock your opposition.

I'd also say that we are not very far off topic, the need to score points over other parties that often leads to things like this being blown out of all proportion.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

On reflection, to me it's less about the technicality of jokes, or how different brains process things in men and women, and more to do with the fact that he's currently being investigated for rape and sexual assault. It's not so cheery for any of his victims who've only recently felt they can speak about what happened. To come from a public figure like Gove and be broadcast in the national media of a country, such a joke seems pretty insensitive (to me). I can't quite understand how people can't see this.

In reply to neilh:

As compared with the utterly broken American system perhaps. Still it leaves the majority of votes counting for nothing and produces periodic relatively extreme policy reversals driven by competitive dogma rather than evidence based incremental improvement in policy.
jk

In reply to Timmd:


Gove's joke rests on accepting that Weinstein is guilty! It makes it a commonplace that Weinstein's conduct was wrong. That makes it easier for victims to come forward, about Weinstein and about similar others.

If anyone were to be upset by Gove's joke it should be Weinstein, upset about the presumption of guilt.

Let's make a comparison. It is now a commonplace that Catholic priests have a long track record of abusing children. Lots of jokes about this have been made and do the rounds. That climate makes it much easier for victims to come make allegations. It makes it more likely that victims will be believed, because the guilt is so presumed that the guilty party is the butt of jokes.

This is way better than a climate where things are taken so seriously that one may not joke about it, and where allegations are regarded as so serious that they need to be hushed up.

In reply to timjones:


We appear to be in agreement to some degree. My point is that when parties know they will need to cooperate in government they tend to make more moderate offerings while in competition freeing them to rely on evidence over dogma to steer policy once in power. Our system is designed (evolved) to produce a dominant government which does not for most of its time in office need to compromise so can rule dogmatically producing poor policy which will repeatedly be torn up and replaced with similarly dogmatic poor policy with each successive change of governing party.
jk

In reply to Coel Hellier:


You genuinely can't see how it's an insensitive thing to joke about with any of Weinstein's victims in mind?

It seems plausible that he is guilty, given how he's been stripped of any positions of status within the film industry, sacked from his own company, his 'ways' have been talked about since the 90's, individuals have come forwards with their own accounts of what happened to them, and people have been paid to keep quiet, too. Either that, or he's one of the most unfortunate innocent people one has heard of.


Personally, I was under the impression that it was greater media exposure of abuses happening, which has led to both people coming forward about themselves being abused, and people making jokes about it too, that it was the revelations which can before the jokes did.


I don't agree that joking about something makes victims more likely to believed, I think it's instances becoming uncovered and other victims coming out, which leads to people being more likely to be taken seriously. It's such a vulnerable thing, to speak about being sexually abused, that people become emboldened when others speak out too.

In reply to Timmd:
Do you object to all jokes about unpleasant behaviour, or just certain ones such as here that are lame and aim at the wrong thing? For example, Private Eye routinely lampoons those in power for behaving badly. Do you object?


In fact:
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers/cover-1455

In reply to jkarran:



There are certainly some big merits to coalition politics but look at the way that our electorate punished the Lib-Dems for being pragmatic entering a coalition.

Is there any electoral system that can prevent such a senseless kneejerk reaction?

In reply to MG:
Good question. I think it's to do with the position of Michael Gove, that politicians are meant to be people doing an important job - taking serious things seriously. It's this combined with the intimate nature (for the victims) of what Weinstein may have done, which is what makes me think it's insensitive of Gove to have made his joke, because he represents the UK politically.

It's not about jokes about unpleasant things, as such, more the position of Gove and the 'current' nature of what he joked about combined. There may be holes to be found in what I think, but I'm as human as the rest of us in the end, so there's probably going to be (if you see what I mean).

In reply to jkarran:

And Spain is hardly a glowing example at the moment...if only they had decided to bit the bullet and have a proper referundum.Then there is Austria. And do we really want UKIP having MP's in the Commons, which is the downside of PR.

The periodic extremes are usually corrected in the UK system.Not sure the current one is extreme as nobody in any party can agree on anything whether it be Con or Labour.

In reply to MG:

Pretty close to the bone that......and funny....just like Gove's was in a dark way.

In reply to timjones:


At federal level, none, even though quite a few MPs have switched party allegiances. Most famously, when the Liberals almost split after denouncing the coalition with the Social Democrats and forming a coalition with Kohl's conservatives, quite a few social liberals joined the SPD, several rising to the rank of minister later.


PR makes starting small parties that fit the interest of some sector of society worth the effort. Once you clear the 5% hurdle, your voters will be represented!
Hence, there will be more small parties, in which even small groups of representatives do have an influence on the party lines.

The Bavarian CSU is a special case (as it is a large party at state level), but for the Liberals, Greens, and the postcommunist Linke MPs and the local committees that nominate them typically shape the party line, rather than kowtowing to it.

In contrast, change in the SPD and CDU appears to occur more in a top down manner (of course, these are rough approximations).


Again, more parties with a realistic chance of representation (and governing by forming coalitions) means that it is easier to find some program that comes closer to one's political ideals.

To then actually do what is best for the nation I cannot see how you could do it without a party machine. How will you be elected, where do you find the personnel to govern according to your ideas should you win?

CB

In reply to timjones:

Obviously I believe a form of proportional representation would go a long way to achieving this: from the outset everyone knows coalition is the likely outcome, expectations are managed and the value of evidence over dogma in steering policy is elevated.

Pragmatism in coalition is good but expectations do need to be managed which is possible under PR but under FPTP pretty much leaves us stuck with a dysfunctional two party system of adversarial government and opposition and a few distinctive campaign groups gaining precarious footings at the fringes.
jk

In reply to neilh:


I'm not sure what Spain's secessionist regions have to do with arguing against PR?

Do we want UKIP MP's? Hell yes if people are voting for them in their millions! I'd never vote for them and I fervently disagree with what they stand for but I think it's appalling that millions of people can vote for a party yet achieve no representation in our parliament. Hear them, debate with them and win the argument. Silencing dissent will not work, it did not work and now we're going to pay a heavy price for that policy.

We appear to fundamentally disagree that people we disagree with achieving representation is a good thing.


Corrected or just dogmatically turned on their head periodically? Debatable.
jk

In reply to Ciro:




Do you know that Gove knew about the Scandal?

In reply to Timmd:


Consider that the joke:

-- constitutes talking about such issues, rather than hushing them up.
-- treats the complaints as credible and accurate
-- presumes the guilt of the male being complained about.

... all things that victims speaking up do want.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Indeed and possibly but none the less it seems a rather unwise choice of joke for a former justice secretary given Weinstein has yet to even face charges let alone a trial in a court of law.


On the contrary I'd imagine he's over the moon or at least his barrister will be.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


I'm no lawyer, but I reckon Gove's safe from that.

Despite the outrage about his "rape joke" or how he's "trivialising sexual assault", what he actually said was:

"Well, I know what you mean. Sometimes I think that coming into the studio with you, John, is a bit like going into Harvey Weinstein’s bedroom.
...
You just pray that you emerge with your dignity intact, but the broader point is that, yes, you can make a fool of yourself."

No mention of rape. A likely allusion to sexual assault, but it could just as well be saying that Weinstein is repulsive and prone to making unwanted sexual advances, or referring to Weinstein's own rather weak confession that the way he's "behaved with colleagues in the past has caused a lot of pain".

There seems to have been quite a bit of "value added" to Gove's clumsy quip, after he made it.

In reply to jkarran:

No system is perfect.... that is clear. For every plus for PR there is a minus and so on.

The one advanatge with the Uk system is history and tradition which has shown it generally works. Yes it could be tweeked-- for example the pairing system could be eliminated by electronic voting. On the other hand it means that Labour is forcing the Conservatives to vote on every issue and get MP's in the house.

Even Churchill had a few iffy times in the House during WWII, unreal though that seems now.

In reply to neilh:

Looks like Kevin Spacey is the next to fall. Does explain why he was so good as Frank Underwood....he wasn't acting.

In reply to FreshSlate:


Given that it had been reported in the papers and Theresa May had issued an official response the day before, and he's a government minister with people who's job it is to brief him on current affairs that could crop up before he goes live on radio, I think it's a fairly safe assumption to make.

In reply to neilh:

History and tradition of something working don't mean something isn't awful or that it couldn't work better. We've had a 'history and tradition' of government by warlords, violent religious oppression, white supremacy, slave holding and limited suffrage among other horrors we'd now no doubt rather forget but we've managed to move past that as times changed, I think we could manage a little electoral reform without the sky falling in, not that we will of course unless the trend in Turkeys voting for Christmas continues.

I'm sorry, I don't understand the Churchill reference.
jk

In reply to skog:

Crikey, the full quote really does change the tone of it.

More and more I'm finding it hard to join the moral outrage and this is a perfect example of why. Selective reporting, more to the story than meets the eye, and manufactured anger for political gain.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



Where to even start? Jokes about priests abusing children are much older than me... they weren't part of the solution, they were part of the problem. Those jokes trivilise and normalise the issue - helping create a culture where allegations and whispers can be laughed off.

One of the reasons it's so hard to come forward is the intense shame abuse victims feel, and mocking the crime doesn't make it easier, it adds to that shame.

In reply to Ciro:


When to start is the question you should be asking yourself.


Most of those jokes mock the criminal, not the crime.

None of them make child abuse 'normal', despite what you make up in your head.

In reply to David Martin:

I actually thought the full quote made it worse - to imply that "make a fool of yourself" is a potential outcome from being sexually abused seems to stray away from merely criticising the perpetrator, and towards victim blaming.

In reply to Timmd:

I think it’s plausible to consider him guilty, as he’s admitted it (except the rapes).

In reply to Ciro:


I don’t think that is right at all - if anything it brings it out in the open and only normalises belief that it has happened/does happen.


Again, I’m really not sure you’re right, or more to the point you may be right for some victims but not others.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

I’m not sure he hadn’t moved on from the joke by that point.

Listening to the recording, I thought Kinnock’s contribution was worse.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

No, I'm not clear either - although it does give context to the joke, which doesn't help.

Full disclosure - I haven't heard the whole think so don't know (a) whether listening would mitigate, or (b) whether Kinnock is worse as you suggest.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

I think the problem is that it’s open to so much dissection and interpretation it makes it a very unwise thing for a politician to say.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Have you listened to it? Here's a clip:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/28/michael-gove-apologises-cl...

It seems clear to me that the joke ended before "but the broader point is that, yes, you can make a fool of yourself"

The audience certainly found it funny...

In reply to Ciro:


Fair enough. Looks like the Sun published a story on the 26th Gove did his interview early on the 28th so maybe he did know.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):



Thanks, I thought the responses were proportionate too.