It's good to have standards. Just...not more than one at a a time.

If Jeremy Clarkson must apologise to Gordon Brown, then Margaret Thatcher is owed an apology too

I have followed this for a while. Time to weigh in.

Uniquely funded; uniquely run.

At the very least, on top of some very questionable personal agendas masquerading as policy, there does seem to be a multiplicity of standards (certainly more than two) at the institution I am required to co-fund.

What is most worrying is the mindset in 'the bubble'. This programme, (which I have to say I have followed and enjoyed enormously over the years, and indeed found most of the two above named protagonists pretty funny when they don't descend into left-leaning 'right-on' ad hominems to an easy to whip up crowd), is 'live' is it not? Or at least topical to a few days.

Did it not occur to any involved that, especially with Ms. Brand present, that what they deem acceptable and 'edgy' might to others be as offensive, if not more so in its mass broadcast form, as something that may have been said in private but got a set of collective PC knickers in a twist and various folk running to teacher? I'd like to think if it had been 'Have I Got News For You', Ms. Brand at least might have found herself on a rather uncomfortable end of the others' wit, as did the unfortunate original presenter.

It's like there is a cloak of immunity over the gilded ones who grace our public airwaves, so long as they conform to, or better yet enhance the groupthink. From Gaza to gobby comics, I am getting a bit tired of being included in what the BBC and its invited, restricted-membership 'in-crowd' thinks I think (or at least thinks I should), and presumes to represent or claim on my behalf.

Actually, for all that actually happens tangibly in reaction, there might well be.

This is not the service promised. I want my refund.


Not that I am within the sound of Bow Bells, but I wonder if there are certain senior ladies from the politico-media establishment elite who have taken it upon themselves to be 'guardians of our thinking' (and I am sure Ms. Brand will be on board with the sentiment if not the targets) who, in this new phrasing-cautious era, might be referred to as 'a bit of a Jay Hunt'?


On a more serious, or at least less trivial note, this latest episode really represents another concerning metaphor for the culture of image vs. reality, and process vs. result that is being foisted upon us by our elected, and often totally unrepresentative (and very definitely unelected) 'masters' and 'mistresses' (or whatever the heck collective term they can come up with and deem now required over a taxpayer-funded outreach weekend).

A person who does not believe themselves at fault and says so can find the full force of the law thrown at them. A totally unrepentant felon briefly mouths some weasel words and the legal system rewards them with limitless concessions.

Sorry is no longer the hardest word; it is now, in some quarters, without value, at least to those of us not interested in just the words but also the deeds, and refuse to engage with the silly semantic games that so entertain, and seemingly satisfy too many who should know better, and betray their positions by indulging so easily in them.

Being seen to be something, or not, is now of more value than actually doing anything, or not. A slippery path across the board, with no good outcome for any of us, complicit or not.

Addendum - I have often wondered what racism/being racist is; it seems at best a rather moving/evolving entity. Just been led to this: racismtest.com - not going to go near it, at least online, for all sorts of reasons, but interesting that it's there.

No comments: