Journalism is ruining Politics

[StuartO]

We've always had sensationalism ingrained into journalism and perhaps it's just got more flagrant recently.  And maybe there's always been as story in lower class people falling on hard times when someone (rather than they themselves) could have prevented it.  But during the past two years or so, hasn't it all got a bit silly?  And isn't it getting to the stage when it's obstructing any real hope of good government?

 

Take the example of Grenfell Tower.  We are learning that the risk of fire in a tower block was much higher that previously thought because the external cladding could take hold and spread the fire and the "experts" and officials who were supposed to get the Building Regulations right didn't see it coming.  Maybe the odd politician delayed or frustrated the progress of reform too, by giving preference to his or her pet project.  Maybe some officials or politicians will turn out to have been corrupt.  These things happen.

 

And when a group of people in social housing suffer the consequences and die, there is never any question of blaming them in any way because they are poor people and therefore by definition they are deprived and deserving - that's the default journalistic line.  Rentamob have been encouraged to rally and make a fuss; maybe some of the self-appointed supporters and spokespeople have actually helped to displaced residents rather than indulged in opportunistic political activism. 

 

No matter if the residents were occupying flats in Grenfell Tower illegally as sub-tenants or were over-crowded or had compromised safety themselves in any way, we ignore all that and concentrate on treating them as victimes who deserve recompense.  And maybe they do deserve to be treated in a kindly way; some of them will have harrowing experiences, even if some will merely have been inconvenienced.  And they aren't all heroes either; one man "lost touch with" (i.e. abandoned) his wife during the rush to escape and she died.

 

And the Chief Executive and Chairman of the Local Authority had to be scapegoats, perhaps so that more senior, central government politicians didn't have to.  Perhaps they are personally grateful that by leaving their posts they are off the hook of dealing with the aftermath.

 

It's a real mess and for my money bad journalism is at the root of the difficulties presented for good government and for the future of democracy.

 

[John52]

StuartO - 2017-07-15 8:46 AM

No matter if the residents were occupying flats in Grenfell Tower illegally as sub-tenants or were over-crowded >

Dou you blame the residents for that?

Or their illegal raketeering landlords and the civil servants who let them get away with it?

[John52]

I think we have always had outrageous newspaper headlines because they sell more papers than honest sensible and boring papers like the Guardian.

Virtue signalling irritates me more - People falling over themselves to call out bigotry, pedophilia or whatever where it doesn't even necessarily exist, simply for the purpose of making themselves look good. It seems to plague social networks in particular, and often there's a horrible sort of mob mentality to it as everyone jumps on the bandwagon. Also, taking offence seems to have become a sort of hobby for many people.

[Bulletguy]

 

I'd hope lessons have been learned from the Grenfell tragedy which reminded me of the Bradford City FC stadium fire in 1985 which killed 56 people. There is a very good full length clip on YouTube of that, i think taken from a television station as in the bottom corner of the picture there is a time lapse clock. That building turned into a raging inferno within a very short space of time. It was an antiquated wood roofed building which should have been demolished years ago but not helped by the mass of rubbish left underneath the stadium. It was a disaster waiting to happen but i believe that, and Hillsborough, changed football stadium design permanently.

 

Irrespective of the type of housing all should meet safety requirements and it seems that Grenfell did not (re. cladding). Complacency had a lot to do with Bradford disaster but in the case of Grenfell it seems the alarm bells were clattering away long back.......but nobody was listening. The two women who were active in trying to bring matters to the attention of the Council are now both dead.

 

 

[Violet1956]

I’m unclear about what you mean by the phrase “bad journalism” Stuart or how reporting on the Grenfell Tower disaster is an example of it. Is there a specific report or more than one that has given you cause for concern?

 

As far as I can see from the reports on Grenfell that I have read there’s a considerable amount of speculation about what went wrong, who may be responsible and what factors have contributed to the disaster, including the behaviour of those who lived in the tower. I take your point that it is unlikely that the victims whether dead or alive were all heroes however it is understandable is it not that the press have not identified any resident as a “villain”. You can’t be sued for praising someone but you can be sued for libel if you write misleading or factually incorrect statements damning someone. They would need to be very sure of their grounds for doing so.

 

Veronica

 

[Brian Kirby]

StuartO - 2017-07-15 8:46 AMWe've always had sensationalism ingrained into journalism and perhaps it's just got more flagrant recently.  And maybe there's always been as story in lower class people falling on hard times when someone (rather than they themselves) could have prevented it.  But during the past two years or so, hasn't it all got a bit silly?  And isn't it getting to the stage when it's obstructing any real hope of good government?

 

Take the example of Grenfell Tower.  We are learning that the risk of fire in a tower block was much higher that previously thought because the external cladding could take hold and spread the fire and the "experts" and officials who were supposed to get the Building Regulations right didn't see it coming.  Maybe the odd politician delayed or frustrated the progress of reform too, by giving preference to his or her pet project.  Maybe some officials or politicians will turn out to have been corrupt.  These things happen.

 

And when a group of people in social housing suffer the consequences and die, there is never any question of blaming them in any way because they are poor people and therefore by definition they are deprived and deserving - that's the default journalistic line.  Rentamob have been encouraged to rally and make a fuss; maybe some of the self-appointed supporters and spokespeople have actually helped to displaced residents rather than indulged in opportunistic political activism. 

 

No matter if the residents were occupying flats in Grenfell Tower illegally as sub-tenants or were over-crowded or had compromised safety themselves in any way, we ignore all that and concentrate on treating them as victimes who deserve recompense.  And maybe they do deserve to be treated in a kindly way; some of them will have harrowing experiences, even if some will merely have been inconvenienced.  And they aren't all heroes either; one man "lost touch with" (i.e. abandoned) his wife during the rush to escape and she died.

 

And the Chief Executive and Chairman of the Local Authority had to be scapegoats, perhaps so that more senior, central government politicians didn't have to.  Perhaps they are personally grateful that by leaving their posts they are off the hook of dealing with the aftermath.

 

It's a real mess and for my money bad journalism is at the root of the difficulties presented for good government and for the future of democracy.

You are displaying some very uncomfortable attitudes to this group of people Stuart. You may wish to read back what you have written, and re-think some of it. How many people doing modest jobs could afford to live in London in private rented/privately owned housing? Public housing is a reality of life for many people of modest means. In essence, you seem merely to be saying that they should have chosen their parents with greater care. As should we all, I suppose.I agree that many of the journalists are missing the point that the only "reason" for the fire seems to have been that some unfortunate's fridge/freezer caught fire, and the only reason that the fire spread so catastrophically as it did is that flammable cladding and insulation had been fitted to the external walls in contravention of Building Regulations. There is some doubt over the extent to which the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea formally approved the use of these materials, but they admit to their building control department having "vetted" the drawings and specification, to having inspected the progress of the works on 16 occasions during construction, and to having signed the completion certificate. That seems to me to place them firmly in the hot seat. The exact extent of their culpability remains to be exposed, but on present evidence it appears to be substantial.

[StuartO]

My frustration is with the journalists who report in politically correct stereotypes these days, of which the automatically-deserving-and-therefore-beyond-criticism-poor are examples.  I could have chosen the late Princess of Wales as an example who is nowadays only ever reported as if she was a saint, which she obviously wasn't.

 

I don't object at all to a kindly approach to caring for and rehoming genuine survivors of something like Grenfell Tower.  I don't object to responsible officers and elected officials being held to account.  I would be delighted to see anyone who sublet any of the flats in Grenfell being held to account and for the officers who fail to weed out sub-letting and deal with it to be dealt with too. 

 

I don't think former residents should be given immunity from prosecution for anything they would otherwise face if discovered unless there is a good and specif reason the exercise clemency.  Nor should they be automatically immune from immigration checks deported if their immigration status turns out to be illegal, just because they are survivors.

 

[Violet1956]

I get what you’re saying Stuart. The press do have a predisposition to distinguish saints from sinners as a “bright line” assessment on occasion. Diana is one such example. However I think more has to come out about the tenants/occupants of Grenfell Tower before they can report on “the sinners” with any confidence. What the authorities should do with the “sinners” if/when they are discovered will no doubt depend on a whole host of factors.

 

Veronica

[StuartO]

The core of my concern is that we don't seem to have any investigative journalism any more - unless they are targetting establishemnt figures and other "unworthy" or "fair game" figures, as dictated by populist thinking and political correctness. There's no longer any "without fear or favour" in what journalists do.

 

[RogerC]

StuartO - 2017-07-17 12:24 PMThe core of my concern is that we don't seem to have any investigative journalism any more - unless they are targetting establishemnt figures and other "unworthy" or "fair game" figures, as dictated by populist thinking and political correctness. There's no longer any "without fear or favour" in what journalists do.

IMO it's not just the press that is 'dumbing down' and pandering to the masses...or the uber PC brigade.  Remember the police raid on Cliff Richards residence covered by live TV news and a helicopter overhead streaming live images of the raid?  It seems to be a result of 24 hour coverage, instant communication and driven by these two aspects the 'news' becomes more speculative, more centred on the 'expert!! opinion of the reporter' instead of simply reporting the facts.  Embellishment seems to be the order of the day....add in sensationalism and you have a recipe for news that has an element of truth but a whole lot more of speculation and padding. 

In responding to these aspects politicians et al have been tutored in the art of soundbites which reduces their impact on those who take a deeper interest in politics etc and targets the 'really couldn't care less masses'.........so yes in a way I agree with the OP.  News isn't news any more it is merely the basis for a 24/7/365 industry to sell to the masses.

[Violet1956]

 

It seems to me that most of us on this forum who have regularly engaged in political discussion realise that the news, as reported in various forms of media, has to be scrutinised for bias. I say “amen” to that. Let’s continue to search out the truth behind the headlines.

 

Veronica

 

 

[pepe63xnotuse]

Violet1956 - 2017-07-17 8:27 PM

 

It seems to me that most of us on this forum who have regularly engaged in political discussion realise that the news, as reported in various forms of media, has to be scrutinised for bias. I say “amen” to that. Let’s continue to search out the truth behind the headlines.

 

Veronica

 

 

Unfortunately, a good many people will only "scrutinise for bias" or "search for the truth", when the headline/news report is saying something that they disagree with..... :-S

 

Whereas if it happens to be saying something that they would like to believe to be true and that would fit their narrative, then they will quote it as gospel....

[malc d]

We don't get enough " news " these days - but we do get far too much discussion of Westminster trivia.

 

I want to hear facts about what has happened around world - and not what journalists think about it.

 

Discussion programs should be a separate item.

 

 

(...... and if I want rubbish and speculation - I'll join Twitter and Facebook )

 

 

:-(

[pepe63xnotuse]

I agree entirely Malc...

 

Most mainstream "news" programmes/reports now, are little more than *chat shows....

 

(*which I haven't got a problem with, as long as they're saying stuff I agree with.....;-) )

 

As mentioned up thread, they feel that they've got to fill the airwaves with something 24/7...... :-S

 

( a case of: Never mind the quality..feel the width..?)

[malc d]

pepe63 - 2017-07-18 9:21 AM

 

I agree entirely Malc...

 

Most mainstream "news" programmes/reports now, are little more than *chat shows....

 

(*which I haven't got a problem with, as long as they're saying stuff I agree with.....;-) )

 

As mentioned up thread, they feel that they've got to fill the airwaves with something 24/7...... :-S

 

( a case of: Never mind the quality..feel the width..?)

 

 

 

 

................... and the FIRST " journalists " to get rid of are the ones who stand in Downing street all day and shout stupid questions at people going in and out of No. 10 !!

 

 

>:-)

[StuartO]

Another few examples: Why shouldn't Tim Farron be able to say that sodomy is sinful if that's what he thinks?  Doesn't it matter that homosexual activists want to force us all to accept that their sexual practices are "normal" when for some of us they are a perversion and abhorrent?  And why does it justify the removal of the Conservative Whip from an MP just because she used the time-honoured idiom "nigger in the woodpile"?  Why can't we make jokes about Irish people being a bit thick or Welsh people being stroppy?  Why is it unacceptable to point out (the scientific fact) that while the average IQ for caucasians on the Eysenk scale is 100 but for negroes (or in modern terminology Afro-Carribeans) it is only 80?  Why do we have to avoid offending some groups (such as Asian imigrant descendents originating from Pakistan by calling them Pakis, which was used simply as a contraction long before it was used pejoritavely) but we probably can still use phrases like "trailer trash" and "paedos" providing we don't add a racial, religious or sexual orientation tag?  Thank goodness I can still ask for a black coffee in Costa!

 

[antony1969]

StuartO - 2017-07-18 9:42 AMAnother few examples: Why shouldn't Tim Farron be able to say that sodomy is sinful if that's what he thinks?  Doesn't it matter that homosexual activists want to force us all to accept that their sexual practices are "normal" when for some of us they are a perversion and abhorrent?  And why does it justify the removal of the Conservative Whip from an MP just because she used the time-honoured idiom "nigger in the woodpile"?  Why can't we make jokes about Irish people being a bit thick or Welsh people being stroppy?  Why is it unacceptable to point out (the scientific fact) that while the average IQ for caucasians on the Eysenk scale is 100 but for negroes (or in modern terminology Afro-Carribeans) it is only 80?  Why do we have to avoid offending some groups (such as Asian imigrant descendents originating from Pakistan by calling them Pakis, which was used simply as a contraction long before it was used pejoritavely) but we probably can still use phrases like "trailer trash" and "paedos" providing we don't add a racial, religious or sexual orientation tag?  Thank goodness I can still ask for a black coffee in Costa!

If you can't say certain things on a free motorhome forum without getting the usual drab , boring names hurled at you what chance do politicians have ??? ... The permanent professionally offended who live here and many other places try to stamp down free speech with insults for those that bring up certain subjects ... The permanently offended are to blame for the lack of quality and challenging journalism as they like to squash anything that doesn't sit well in the world they want to live

[Brian Kirby]

antony1969 - 2017-07-18 9:50 AM............................ The permanently offended are to blame for the lack of quality and challenging journalism as they like to squash anything that doesn't sit well in the world they want to live

But then, isn't that exactly what the OP was doing? Saying that aspects of the news don't reflect the world in which he wants to live?

 

All words are merely words, until they acquire pejorative meanings. So, why can't one make jokes about the Irish, for example? Ever tried doing that in a Irish pub, or even better in a pub in Ireland? No? Why on earth not? :-D

 

I guess we all have a "right" to cause offence, providing we are willing to take the consequences. The problem with these "jokes" is that they are received as personal attacks by anyone who falls into the subject group. People belong to those groups through no fault of their own: membership is imposed by their parents. So, as I said above, all they amount to is a majority group selecting a minority group as the butt of their humour - because the minority chose their parents badly. Comforting for those in the majority group, who know they are stronger in number, but for the minority group?

 

We are back to Robert Owen, are we not? "All the world is queer, except for thee and me, and even thou art a little queer." But then, Owen was Welsh (cue Welsh jokes), who settled initially in Scotland (cue Scots jokes), later moved to England (cue immigrant jokes) and a socialist (cue socialist jokes). We remain as those who thought people from the next village odd, and made jokes about them, while others thought them all unsophisticated yokels, and made jokes about them. Progress, eh? :-D

[StuartO]

It would indeed be a brave Englishman who started telling mocking jokes about the Irish in a pub in Dublin, even if they were very funny jokes and he had the comedic timing to deliver them well.

 

But isn't that a question of tact and choosing good and appropriate comedy material for your audience rather than of freedom of speech?  If you deliberately set out to be offensive to people who are effectively your hosts then you deserve what you get.

 

What I'm annoyed by is people who have become almost professional complainers, keen to pick up any and every politically incorrect thing, often as a way of riding their hobby horse issue and lacking any respect for other peoples' right to an opinion.

 

[Violet1956]

StuartO - 2017-07-18 9:42 AMAnother few examples: Why shouldn't Tim Farron be able to say that sodomy is sinful if that's what he thinks?  Doesn't it matter that homosexual activists want to force us all to accept that their sexual practices are "normal" when for some of us they are a perversion and abhorrent?  And why does it justify the removal of the Conservative Whip from an MP just because she used the time-honoured idiom "nigger in the woodpile"?  Why can't we make jokes about Irish people being a bit thick or Welsh people being stroppy?  Why is it unacceptable to point out (the scientific fact) that while the average IQ for caucasians on the Eysenk scale is 100 but for negroes (or in modern terminology Afro-Carribeans) it is only 80?  Why do we have to avoid offending some groups (such as Asian imigrant descendents originating from Pakistan by calling them Pakis, which was used simply as a contraction long before it was used pejoritavely) but we probably can still use phrases like "trailer trash" and "paedos" providing we don't add a racial, religious or sexual orientation tag?  Thank goodness I can still ask for a black coffee in Costa!

Whilst freedom of speech is an important principle it does not confer an unlimited right to express oneself in a manner that is insulting to others whether deliberately or not. I cringe at some of the terms that were in common usage in my childhood because they are so obviously born of derogatory stereotypes. It’s all to easy to pretend that some of these terms are no more offensive than “the Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman in the pub” type jokes but I believe everyone knows that we would be kidding ourselves on that front. And isn’t context often everything? For example the term “nigger” when used by a white person is capable of being grossly offensive as it harks back to slavery and the treatment of black people as lesser human beings or not really human at all. When used in conversation between two or more black people it’s simply an ironic way in which they identify with each other and in no way carries the inference that the person who utters it thinks themselves as belonging to a race far superior to that of those who hear it. As for the IQ tests Stuart there’s no harm in quoting them but we should be wary about the interpretation of the results-http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.htmlVeronica

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-18 11:54 AM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-18 9:50 AM............................ The permanently offended are to blame for the lack of quality and challenging journalism as they like to squash anything that doesn't sit well in the world they want to live

But then, isn't that exactly what the OP was doing? Saying that aspects of the news don't reflect the world in which he wants to live?

 

All words are merely words, until they acquire pejorative meanings. So, why can't one make jokes about the Irish, for example? Ever tried doing that in a Irish pub, or even better in a pub in Ireland? No? Why on earth not? :-D

 

I guess we all have a "right" to cause offence, providing we are willing to take the consequences. The problem with these "jokes" is that they are received as personal attacks by anyone who falls into the subject group. People belong to those groups through no fault of their own: membership is imposed by their parents. So, as I said above, all they amount to is a majority group selecting a minority group as the butt of their humour - because the minority chose their parents badly. Comforting for those in the majority group, who know they are stronger in number, but for the minority group?

 

We are back to Robert Owen, are we not? "All the world is queer, except for thee and me, and even thou art a little queer." But then, Owen was Welsh (cue Welsh jokes), who settled initially in Scotland (cue Scots jokes), later moved to England (cue immigrant jokes) and a socialist (cue socialist jokes). We remain as those who thought people from the next village odd, and made jokes about them, while others thought them all unsophisticated yokels, and made jokes about them. Progress, eh? :-D

 

Ive no idea what the original OP was doing and I presume you don't either as you've asked him to re-think some of his post

As for joking with the Irish of course I have and blacks who've called me all the names under the sun and Ive called them back ... Offended ? no never and neither were they ... My point wasn't regarding jokes anyway it was regarding difficult for some subjects ... Like Muslim peadophiles , immigration and the likes ... Well we all know what ignoring Muslim peadophile gangs did or calling those that highlighted it , they carried on abusing innocent girls didn't they and we all know what ignoring folk who have concerns about immigration did when it came to deciding stay or leave in the Brexit vote , it meant we left as that is widely acknowledged as the main thing leave voters were concerned about ... Maybe its better to be like Gordon Brown and call us all horrible bigots and ignore the concerns of many ?

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2017-07-18 1:03 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-18 11:54 AM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-18 9:50 AM............................ The permanently offended are to blame for the lack of quality and challenging journalism as they like to squash anything that doesn't sit well in the world they want to live

But then, isn't that exactly what the OP was doing? Saying that aspects of the news don't reflect the world in which he wants to live?

 

All words are merely words, until they acquire pejorative meanings. So, why can't one make jokes about the Irish, for example? Ever tried doing that in a Irish pub, or even better in a pub in Ireland? No? Why on earth not? :-D

 

I guess we all have a "right" to cause offence, providing we are willing to take the consequences. The problem with these "jokes" is that they are received as personal attacks by anyone who falls into the subject group. People belong to those groups through no fault of their own: membership is imposed by their parents. So, as I said above, all they amount to is a majority group selecting a minority group as the butt of their humour - because the minority chose their parents badly. Comforting for those in the majority group, who know they are stronger in number, but for the minority group?

 

We are back to Robert Owen, are we not? "All the world is queer, except for thee and me, and even thou art a little queer." But then, Owen was Welsh (cue Welsh jokes), who settled initially in Scotland (cue Scots jokes), later moved to England (cue immigrant jokes) and a socialist (cue socialist jokes). We remain as those who thought people from the next village odd, and made jokes about them, while others thought them all unsophisticated yokels, and made jokes about them. Progress, eh? :-D

 

Ive no idea what the original OP was doing and I presume you don't either as you've asked him to re-think some of his post

As for joking with the Irish of course I have and blacks who've called me all the names under the sun and Ive called them back ... Offended ? no never and neither were they ... My point wasn't regarding jokes anyway it was regarding difficult for some subjects ... Like Muslim peadophiles , immigration and the likes ... Well we all know what ignoring Muslim peadophile gangs did or calling those that highlighted it , they carried on abusing innocent girls didn't they and we all know what ignoring folk who have concerns about immigration did when it came to deciding stay or leave in the Brexit vote , it meant we left as that is widely acknowledged as the main thing leave voters were concerned about ... Maybe its better to be like Gordon Brown and call us all horrible bigots and ignore the concerns of many ?

 

The problem with the term "Muslim Paedophiles" is pretty obvious to me Antony. We don't identify other paedophiles routinely by reference to their religion e.g. "Christian Paedophile" "Catholic Paedophile" "Methodist or Sikh Paedophile" and so on, because to do so would cast everyone who espoused a particular religion in a bad light. It is not about ignoring what part these offender's cultural or religious background played in their offending but about acknowledging that it is inappropriate to denigrate all people who profess the same faith or come from the same culture due to the actions of a few. Though the difference may be a subtle one it is nonetheless important because there is no evidence that all Muslims in the UK are prone to paedophilia nor are they inclined to seek to justify acts of rape and sexual abuse of children on religious grounds.

 

Veronica

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2017-07-18 2:30 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-18 1:03 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-18 11:54 AM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-18 9:50 AM............................ The permanently offended are to blame for the lack of quality and challenging journalism as they like to squash anything that doesn't sit well in the world they want to live

But then, isn't that exactly what the OP was doing? Saying that aspects of the news don't reflect the world in which he wants to live?

 

All words are merely words, until they acquire pejorative meanings. So, why can't one make jokes about the Irish, for example? Ever tried doing that in a Irish pub, or even better in a pub in Ireland? No? Why on earth not? :-D

 

I guess we all have a "right" to cause offence, providing we are willing to take the consequences. The problem with these "jokes" is that they are received as personal attacks by anyone who falls into the subject group. People belong to those groups through no fault of their own: membership is imposed by their parents. So, as I said above, all they amount to is a majority group selecting a minority group as the butt of their humour - because the minority chose their parents badly. Comforting for those in the majority group, who know they are stronger in number, but for the minority group?

 

We are back to Robert Owen, are we not? "All the world is queer, except for thee and me, and even thou art a little queer." But then, Owen was Welsh (cue Welsh jokes), who settled initially in Scotland (cue Scots jokes), later moved to England (cue immigrant jokes) and a socialist (cue socialist jokes). We remain as those who thought people from the next village odd, and made jokes about them, while others thought them all unsophisticated yokels, and made jokes about them. Progress, eh? :-D

 

Ive no idea what the original OP was doing and I presume you don't either as you've asked him to re-think some of his post

As for joking with the Irish of course I have and blacks who've called me all the names under the sun and Ive called them back ... Offended ? no never and neither were they ... My point wasn't regarding jokes anyway it was regarding difficult for some subjects ... Like Muslim peadophiles , immigration and the likes ... Well we all know what ignoring Muslim peadophile gangs did or calling those that highlighted it , they carried on abusing innocent girls didn't they and we all know what ignoring folk who have concerns about immigration did when it came to deciding stay or leave in the Brexit vote , it meant we left as that is widely acknowledged as the main thing leave voters were concerned about ... Maybe its better to be like Gordon Brown and call us all horrible bigots and ignore the concerns of many ?

 

The problem with the term "Muslim Paedophiles" is pretty obvious to me Antony. We don't identify other paedophiles routinely by reference to their religion e.g. "Christian Paedophile" "Catholic Paedophile" "Methodist or Sikh Paedophile" and so on, because to do so would cast everyone who espoused a particular religion in a bad light. It is not about ignoring what part these offender's cultural or religious background played in their offending but about acknowledging that it is inappropriate to denigrate all people who profess the same faith or come from the same culture due to the actions of a few. Though the difference may be a subtle one it is nonetheless important because there is no evidence that all Muslims in the UK are prone to paedophilia nor are they inclined to seek to justify acts of rape and sexual abuse of children on religious grounds.

 

Veronica

 

But the problem with Muslim peadophiles is Veronica which is obvious to me is that they the Muslim peadophiles 99% of the time specifically target not just any young girls but white young girls which makes the abuse they inflict on innocent children a little different in my book ... Its a little like saying Catholic Priest abuses boy , well why do we need to say Catholic Priest ? we don't say mechanic or engineer abuses boy do we ? ... Muslims specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they ? ... The description is used time and again to the victims ... Its a little like saying in-breeding isn't a problem with Muslims or high criminality when the truth tells a different story ... The info is easy to find just possibly not in The Guardian

[Brian Kirby]

StuartO - 2017-07-18 12:39 PMIt would indeed be a brave Englishman who started telling mocking jokes about the Irish in a pub in Dublin, even if they were very funny jokes and he had the comedic timing to deliver them well.

 

But isn't that a question of tact and choosing good and appropriate comedy material for your audience rather than of freedom of speech?  If you deliberately set out to be offensive to people who are effectively your hosts then you deserve what you get.

 

What I'm annoyed by is people who have become almost professional complainers, keen to pick up any and every politically incorrect thing, often as a way of riding their hobby horse issue and lacking any respect for other peoples' right to an opinion.

Sorry Stuart, but can't resist. Pot and kettle? :-D

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2017-07-18 3:05 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-07-18 2:30 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-18 1:03 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-18 11:54 AM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-18 9:50 AM............................ The permanently offended are to blame for the lack of quality and challenging journalism as they like to squash anything that doesn't sit well in the world they want to live

But then, isn't that exactly what the OP was doing? Saying that aspects of the news don't reflect the world in which he wants to live?

 

All words are merely words, until they acquire pejorative meanings. So, why can't one make jokes about the Irish, for example? Ever tried doing that in a Irish pub, or even better in a pub in Ireland? No? Why on earth not? :-D

 

I guess we all have a "right" to cause offence, providing we are willing to take the consequences. The problem with these "jokes" is that they are received as personal attacks by anyone who falls into the subject group. People belong to those groups through no fault of their own: membership is imposed by their parents. So, as I said above, all they amount to is a majority group selecting a minority group as the butt of their humour - because the minority chose their parents badly. Comforting for those in the majority group, who know they are stronger in number, but for the minority group?

 

We are back to Robert Owen, are we not? "All the world is queer, except for thee and me, and even thou art a little queer." But then, Owen was Welsh (cue Welsh jokes), who settled initially in Scotland (cue Scots jokes), later moved to England (cue immigrant jokes) and a socialist (cue socialist jokes). We remain as those who thought people from the next village odd, and made jokes about them, while others thought them all unsophisticated yokels, and made jokes about them. Progress, eh? :-D

 

Ive no idea what the original OP was doing and I presume you don't either as you've asked him to re-think some of his post

As for joking with the Irish of course I have and blacks who've called me all the names under the sun and Ive called them back ... Offended ? no never and neither were they ... My point wasn't regarding jokes anyway it was regarding difficult for some subjects ... Like Muslim peadophiles , immigration and the likes ... Well we all know what ignoring Muslim peadophile gangs did or calling those that highlighted it , they carried on abusing innocent girls didn't they and we all know what ignoring folk who have concerns about immigration did when it came to deciding stay or leave in the Brexit vote , it meant we left as that is widely acknowledged as the main thing leave voters were concerned about ... Maybe its better to be like Gordon Brown and call us all horrible bigots and ignore the concerns of many ?

 

The problem with the term "Muslim Paedophiles" is pretty obvious to me Antony. We don't identify other paedophiles routinely by reference to their religion e.g. "Christian Paedophile" "Catholic Paedophile" "Methodist or Sikh Paedophile" and so on, because to do so would cast everyone who espoused a particular religion in a bad light. It is not about ignoring what part these offender's cultural or religious background played in their offending but about acknowledging that it is inappropriate to denigrate all people who profess the same faith or come from the same culture due to the actions of a few. Though the difference may be a subtle one it is nonetheless important because there is no evidence that all Muslims in the UK are prone to paedophilia nor are they inclined to seek to justify acts of rape and sexual abuse of children on religious grounds.

 

Veronica

 

But the problem with Muslim peadophiles is Veronica which is obvious to me is that they the Muslim peadophiles 99% of the time specifically target not just any young girls but white young girls which makes the abuse they inflict on innocent children a little different in my book ... Its a little like saying Catholic Priest abuses boy , well why do we need to say Catholic Priest ? we don't say mechanic or engineer abuses boy do we ? ... Muslims specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they ? ... The description is used time and again to the victims ... Its a little like saying in-breeding isn't a problem with Muslims or high criminality when the truth tells a different story ... The info is easy to find just possibly not in The Guardian

 

You know Antony I don't believe that you and I are speaking from an entirely different hymn sheet ;-)

 

The Rotherham and Rochdale scandals reveal a particularly odious contempt on the part of the perpetrators for their victims which was based on a warped view of what was and was not acceptable behaviour on the part of young girls/women which had it roots in misogynistic attitudes towards women and girls that pervades many who espouse the Muslim faith. I would still maintain however that we should be wary of describing the perpetrators as "Muslim Paedophiles" because no matter how rife the abuse of those girls was it has not been demonstrated that all Muslim men in the UK pose a threat to young white girls. That is not to deny that there is a need in Mosques, schools and other places where the tenets of the Muslim faith are taught for the emphasis on teaching to be that women and girls are equal in the eyes of God to men and boys. I believe I am justified in expressing my disappointment that the same rigorous standards have yet to be applied to the Church of England and my own now abandoned Catholicism because there are men and women in the ranks of both who still appear to deny this by the very structures they have created and seek to defend.

 

Veronica