I think I may be a PCist

Newsnight - Big picture: crisis, crash, depression? - (posted here as there was no other thread for the day at that time)

At least, if that defines a mortal loathing of anything that uses an ill-defined, unproven spanner to seize up the system, especially with a monetary motive often in tow..

I was just watching this morning's report of the accusations of racism in the Met.

I will be interested in how this plays out.

All this has come to a head mostly during the recent multi-year tenure of which ex-mayor and which, now ex-, head of the Met?

As far as I can gather Mayor Johnson has responded, quite quickly (if only with another 'inquiry', like they ever do anything). I wonder how some media will address this so soon after the critiques of his role in the resignation of a bloke he said (during his campaign) he couldn't work with. And, it seems, was at the head of this latest PC- (in all senses of the word) 'spat'.

Which is cropping up a lot these days. It seems we are now in a society where senior managers have to work with/keep employed/promote folk that they cannot work with (tricky one, I agree), but who also may not be up to the job.

Nothing like a target, quota or positive advocacy (with inevitably unpopular views - which possibly get deemed racist? - amongst those within not being blessed) to keep things feisty in the state of Denmark.

Odd way to run an efficient business.

And I must keep an ear out for the way words fly about. I am never too sure these days what 'racist' or 'racism' means, but there is surely a difference between proven examples of it and any Tom, Dick or [insert name of balance here] using it to set up a compo claim with the support of the media?

Addendum: My first blog post rejection. Not sure whether to be appalled, or proud.

The story so far...

On 6 Oct 2008, at 11:32, blogpaulmason wrote:

Dear BBC Blog contributor,

Thank you for contributing to a BBC Blog. Unfortunately we've had to remove your content below

Postings to BBC blogs will be removed if they appear to be potentially defamatory.

You can find out more about Defamation at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/hub/HouseRules-Defamation

You can read the BBC Blog and messageboard House Rules in full here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/popup_house_rules.html

If you can rewrite your contribution to remove the problem, we'd be happy for you to post it again.

Please note that anyone who seriously or repeatedly breaks the House Rules may have action taken against their account.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/popup_breaking_rules.html

Regards,

The BBC Blog Team

A reply has been in order:

Dear Sirs,

As I cannot see a problem , and you have not seen fit to specify what it might be out of a myriad possible options and catch-alls, I am currently unable to rewrite it.

Care to explain which part is defamatory, and to whom, as that seems to be where you are headed.

Having read the definition:

Exposing the individual or organisation to hatred, ridicule or contempt;

Causing the individual or organisation to be shunned or avoided;

Lowering the individual or organisation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society; or

Disparaging the individual in their office, profession or trade or the organisation's office, profession or trade.

You are having a laugh, right?

I'd say that by this definition almost no content should even get on your broadcast (especially some satirical shows) output, let alone a blog.

Rgds,