The Last Word
It seems all echelons of the Labour Party are in capable off saying sorry for anything, unless of course it is for the actions of the British people hundreds of years ago. It seems the official line of "regret" will have to do from Ellie Gellard. As for the cowardly councillor Tim Cheetham he deleted his words in silence. Says a lot!
Just a few final words on all this. Regular commenter here, blogger
Dick Puddlecoat
, has a damning response to what was christened "Skate-Gate". TB was as shocked as he was offended by such callous words from the two labourites and while he was blogging in anger, a more reserved approach from Dick is well worth a read
:Now, it has been mentioned in the comments that TB is being a trifle precious here, and, in an ideal world, they would have a point. However, this is Labour we are talking about. You know, the party which has systematically thinned the collective skin of the entire nation?Well said that man. Read the whole piece
They have not merely discouraged comments which could be construed as offensive, they have legislated to criminalise them but, and this is crucial, only for those who are deemed worthy by socialists. Hate speech is illegal if others utter it towards Labour's friends, but perfectly acceptable if aimed by their elected officials and party apparatchiks at those who are not stamped as 'approved' by the left.
Say you don't like Muslims and you could end up behind bars, but wishing death on Thatcher is fair game even for tinpot Tim and ever ready Ellie.
See, the commenters at TB's place tend to possess more of a spine than that attributed to the public by Labour during their tenure, but then, those who are not socialist have always tended to believe that the world is a difficult place and one should learn to cope with it rather than be nursemaided through the whole experience.
Labour, though, have decided that the country should be filled with individuals who have the right not to be offended ... ever. So much so, that we regularly read of innocuous ads receiving complaints from dainty flowers who either see offence that wasn't there, or who are quite simply too stupid to understand the joke.
So surely, if Labour aren't to be accused of hypocrisy (hey, stop laughing, I'm trying to be serious here), Mrs Thatcher should be expecting an apology quite soon, no?
Well. No. Because the response has been depressingly predictable.
"The official line to take tonight seems to be smear TB as a sexist, all very well coordinated kids."
Hammer. Knee. Jerk.
As usual, rather than tackle the problem, the preferred method is an ad hom smear.
Talking about a woman? That'll be sexist. Concerned that immigration policy is wrong-headed? That'll be racist. Worried that schools are putting too much emphasis on same sex relationships? You're a homophobe.
The implication is that this was only a joke and not meant to be offensive, so TB, and Mrs Thatcher's friends and family, should just chill out.
Perhaps they might be inclined to if Labour hadn't spent a couple of decades just not getting the fucking joke themselves. Or, as A N Wilson put it at the weekend.
"I would much rather live in a world where comedians sometimes 'go too far', than in a tight-lipped dictatorship where you do not dare to make a joke because someone else will think it 'totally unacceptable' - to use that pompous phrase which is trotted out all too often nowadays by the thought police. Acceptable to whom?
It is patronising to women, Jews, black people, Irish people, or indeed to anyone, to suggest they are too thin-skinned ever to hear a joke in which some stereotypical attitude is betrayed."
Them's your rules, Labour. You're the ones who promoted this atmosphere of instant mistrust of the jovial word. You're the ones who dictate that no offence should ever be perceived, let alone intended. You're the ones who have set the agenda and acted on it.
Yet wishing death or injury will be conveniently set aside in this instance, because Labour are not consistent, merely selfish.
They scream when they, or their pet groups, are even mildly offended - hell, they even scream when their pet groups are not offended but Labour think that they should be. But when it comes to Labour offending others, that's a different matter entirely. Their own right to post objectionable messages or hate speech is assiduously guarded. After all, theirs is the righteous ideology and cannot ever be questioned.
You must understand. It's not offensive when Labour do it. Got that?
here
.
Posts
16 comments:
"The Last Word", you say.
I'll take you at your word, worthless as it is.
Puddlecoat's rant would be a joke if it weren't so pernicious. There is a seismic difference between the offense of stirring up hatred ('Kill all queers' etc), which has been rightly made illegal, and what you here criticise Ellie Gellard and co. for saying in a tweet. To claim that they are the same is a gratuitous smack in the face to anyone who has experienced genuine hate speech. It's a real shame you felt the need to endorse Puddlecoat's garbage.
Unfortunately in the past few years Labour has gone from being the party of the sturdy working classes to the party of social outcasts, rejects and other assorted losers. They want revenge for the fact that they were bullied at school so from now on nobody must be allowed to say anything mean ever again. Unless it's them taking a shot at their evil oppressors of course.
"It's a real shame you felt the need to endorse Puddlecoat's garbage."
It's not as if he gave himself much choice after banking so much on so little.
Legislation against words is ridiculous, by all means be offended though.
Haha love the irony of Tim "Manic" obsessive? Ireland lecturing about banking on so little.
The man invented clutching at straws.
Soho Politico: Is not wishing an accident on a frail person because of her humiliation of Labour policy 20 or 30 years ago considered hate speech in Labour's world?
"Kill all queers" (which isn't the only thing that can be prosecuted under Labour's over-sensitive legislation, so stop sensationalising)? Isn't that the same sentiment as "I hope Thatcher is hurt badly cos wouldn't that be funny"?
Err ... and I think you'd better look up 'rant' in the dictionary.
Harry, if you mean "I am rubber, you are glue!", then say "I am rubber, you are glue!"
Nobody's legislated against playground taunts.
"No referring to the identity of TB."
This is your first and only warning Timothy.
My sandpit my rules.
This whole silly spat has kept me chuckling away on these dark November evenings :-)
@Dick Puddlecote:
It is you alone who is guilty of sensationalising. Your tirade was an attempt to mislead people about what the recent hate laws proscribe, and to imply, wrongly, that they penalise jokes and the mere voicing of criticism. They do not. As you full well know (or perhaps you don't?) one is guilty of the offense of stirring up hatred against religious groups or gay people if, and only if, one's speech is intentionally threatening. On that basis, saying that one hopes Thatcher, or anyone else, will be hurt is not hate speech, no. But by all means go on pretending that a justified law, protecting minorities against the deliberately threatening words and behaviour of others is really some sort of Stalinist plot.
Soho Politico: Keep defending the indefensible, eh?
Didn't the Lords battle like crazy to stop Labour's gay hate law becoming a punishment on free speech?
You know they did.
So, tell me. If someone said it would be funny if a gay person was to suffer a nasty accident, potentially lethal, simply for being gay, would Labour's hate law kick in, or would it be deemed merely humourous badinage?
Cool over-exaggeration and ad homs though. Nice to see a Labour shill so aggravated. ;-)
Still bugs you that Thatcher destroyed socialism so comprehensively, doesn't it?
Isn't it time you moved on?
The biggest problem I have with this, is that if they apologised and said "it was a joke, didn't really want an injury to occur, sorry", then this whole incident would have been forgotten now.
Soho - While Puddlecoat may have exaggerated, I don't think that he did in this case, as we have heard planty of comedians being in trouble over race. Not to mention that the Lords had to send an amendment 4 times to the commons so that I as a christian can condemn homosexual relations as immoral. If they hadn't, I could be charged with inciting hatred (even though I'm just clarifying my position).
Bit of a false expectation there. That it was a joke should have been obvious, and it was immediately apparent to any sensible, reasonable person that no-one was actually calling for an old woman to fall down or be cast down the stairs. Why should they apologise because someone overreacted or, worse, deliberately misrepresented their position?
@ Dick Puddlecote:
Tory peers voted repeatedly to scuttle the law, yes. And unfortunately they succeeded. What they did was unconscionable. There is no free speech justification for intentionally threatening others, and the amendment will only serve to make prosecution of genuine hate speech more difficult.
Re: your imagined scenario: no, as you describe what he says, the person who hopes gay people will suffer accidents would not be guilty of an offense. To repeat, for about the fourth time: the law prohibits threatening words only. Now, if someone promised to make sure that gay people met with an accident, or exhorted others to do likewise, that would be different.
You do not appear to know what an ad hominem argument is, because I have not directed any against you.
I must say I find it astonishing that you have the nerve to tell me that *I* must move on from Thatcher, when it is you who has repeatedly brought her up. For the record, I was not even 10 years old when Thatcher left office. It is fairly safe to say then, contrary to what you accuse me of, that I am not today eaten up by any political grievances acquired during her premiership.
A fascinating debate that seems to have got a little personal, but at the heart is the question of free speech. It seems in politics all sides like to publicly wish ill on their opponents and throw scorn on them in often fairly childish ways.
There is a big difference between encouraging hate and just deriding but often it can be a fine line and one that is often overstepped in politics where there are no rules. I think the problem with this sort of political discourse is that actually it confuses the public. Calling Cameron or Edward Timpson etc a 'toff' didn't work. Calling Blair a Liar didn't work. So will calling Brown and Darling Deadwood work any better.
There seems to be too much negativity and name calling which can only contribute to public cynicism and apathy. Conflating these isues of political banter with freedom to say anything is a problem. On the one hand it trivialises bullying; on the other allows any proper political criticism to be labelled as sexist, racist etc. Perhaps what we need is a better standard of discourse in public life. Where a party leader is criticised for his politics and not his age, eyesight, background, behaviour as a teenager - I could go on - and more sense in what we are able to openly discuss without being castigated. It is easy to close down an argument by calling your opponent a fascist, sadly that seems to be done all too often by politicians who make and break the same rules and standards on a daily basis.
That was my rant, all criticism will be taken as a hurtful and personal attack :)