UK Politics

[sun-star]

Well, he's gone. Let's hope ID cards go with him.


(we have up-to-the-minute political comment here, you know )

[The Gaffer]

Now that he's gone I feel a bit sorry for him. He got a good slagging on Have I Got News for You, though, so it was all worthwhile.

What do you reckon to this theatre that's been trashed by a mob of protesters?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

haha - blunkett is gone!!

i agrres with you sun-star, ID cards should be a scrapped idea now that 'old davey 4 mistresses' is out of the picture

[The Gaffer]

Can you have a mistress if you're not married?

[Durin1]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

What do you reckon to this theatre that's been trashed by a mob of protesters?

Well, I was there and it was a bit disappointing that a few people got over-heated and decided to lob stones through the window, though i'd hardly call it "mobs" and "trashing". It is forgotten that the vast majority of protesters were peaceful and had been protesting for over a week, in peaceful circumstances.

What the media tend to forget is that the Rep was implored to "tweak" the setting of the play (from a Sikh Temple to something like a community centre), not to have it fully cancelled. Sikhs believe in freedom of speech and recognise that "bad" people come from all walks of life. However, with this freedom of speech comes also a responsibility to show sensitivity to people's religious beliefs, including their places of prayer. The sensationalist and deplorable scenes that were portrayed in the play should not have been set in a religious institution.

The play showed: rape, homosexuality, murder, abuse and other shannanigans within a religious institution that simply does not happen within a Sikh Temple.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

haha - blunkett is gone!!

Yeah. Have I Got News Fir You made sure we all know that one.

i agrres with you sun-star, ID cards should be a scrapped idea now that 'old davey 4 mistresses' is out of the picture

Yeah. ID cards wasn't his greatest ever idea.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Durin1

Well, I was there and it was a bit disappointing that a few people got over-heated and decided to lob stones through the window, though i'd hardly call it "mobs" and "trashing". It is forgotten that the vast majority of protesters were peaceful and had been protesting for over a week, in peaceful circumstances.

What the media tend to forget is that the Rep was implored to "tweak" the setting of the play (from a Sikh Temple to something like a community centre), not to have it fully cancelled. Sikhs believe in freedom of speech and recognise that "bad" people come from all walks of life. However, with this freedom of speech comes also a responsibility to show sensitivity to people's religious beliefs, including their places of prayer. The sensationalist and deplorable scenes that were portrayed in the play should not have been set in a religious institution.

The play showed: rape, homosexuality, murder, abuse and other shannanigans within a religious institution that simply does not happen within a Sikh Temple.

Wow! A first hand account! Were you lobbing bricks or in the audience? Maybe both??

Yes, I suspected as much. The media did report that there had been peaceful protests all week but it wasn't given all that much prominence and you could just tell that they'd exaggerated the violence.

Me, I agree that it's a stupid thing to do (i.e. go out of your way to piss off an entire religion), but it's made me think again about this "Incitement to Religious Hatred" thing. Initially I thought it was a good idea, but I'm not so sure now.

In the case of this play, would that constitute incitement to religious hatred? I'm sure the Sikhs would argue that it so misrepresented their religion that the effect was to do so. But what about the playwrite's perspective? We aren't overburdened with female views on life as a Sikh; maybe there is an important message about gender inequality that is being kept quiet here.

Essentially, it will boil down to a judge's interpretation of the nature of the incitement, and that could be a pedant's charter. Perhaps they should get rid of the existing blasphemy law instead.

[Durin1]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Wow! A first hand account! Were you lobbing bricks or in the audience? Maybe both??

Yes, I suspected as much. The media did report that there had been peaceful protests all week but it wasn't given all that much prominence and you could just tell that they'd exaggerated the violence.

Me, I agree that it's a stupid thing to do (i.e. go out of your way to piss off an entire religion), but it's made me think again about this "Incitement to Religious Hatred" thing. Initially I thought it was a good idea, but I'm not so sure now.

In the case of this play, would that constitute incitement to religious hatred? I'm sure the Sikhs would argue that it so misrepresented their religion that the effect was to do so. But what about the playwrite's perspective? We aren't overburdened with female views on life as a Sikh; maybe there is an important message about gender inequality that is being kept quiet here.

Essentially, it will boil down to a judge's interpretation of the nature of the incitement, and that could be a pedant's charter. Perhaps they should get rid of the existing blasphemy law instead.

There seem to be too many possible grey areas to this "Incitement of Relgious Hatred" thing that the govt wants to bring out.

As for the playwright's perspective, it had nothing to do with gender inequality (where, if people knew about the Sikh religion, they would know that it preaches [and practices] equality of men and women); she deliberately stirred up things to make a name for herself, exploiting naive (or ignorant) and negative perceptions of Asians. She did this with her earlier play set amongst a (cliched) dysfunctional asian family.

btw, I refrained from lobbing stones and bricks

[The Gaffer]

Good on you sir.

Thanks for this, it's very illuminating.

It reeks a bit of the Satanic Verses episode, though in that case I think the offense was bit more tenuous.

[The Gaffer]

So, what do people think about Prince Harry getting dressed up like a Nazi?

And what about the response?

Me, I think it's great to see the younger generation continuing the traditions of the Royal Family
i.e. being a complete embarrassment to the nation.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Me, I think it's great to see the younger generation continuing the traditions of the Royal Family
i.e. being a complete embarrassment to the nation.

The only reaosn why they're an embarrassment is because they have cameras following their every move. If you had cameras on you 24/7 - I'm sure you would be considered a complete embarrassment.

As for the Nazi uniform - I think it was completely wrong. It's one thing to dress up in one of those rubber Adolf Hitler or bin Ladin masks - it's another to dress up in a nazi uniform. It would be similar to if a president's children dressed up in a KKK outfit.

Having said that - I personally don't think he supports the Nazi movement or anything like that. It was Queen Elizabeth herself that used to do the radio addresses when she was little to calm the nation - so I'm sure she's sitting down with him and having a serious talk with him.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

So, what do people think about Prince Harry getting dressed up like a Nazi?

And what about the response?

Me, I think it's great to see the younger generation continuing the traditions of the Royal Family
i.e. being a complete embarrassment to the nation.

Although he is young he is a member of the Royal Family, and as JD said, you can't do something like that if you have cameras following you 24/7.
And he could be a role model to younger people of society so dressing up as a Nazi isn't the best ever thing to do.

[Janny]

While it is certainly not acceptable, I do feel sympathy. I have heard and seen, and will hear and see much worse at school.

[Hemel]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Can you have a mistress if you're not married?

Which is what I've also been wondering when the hostile media persist in calling Camilla Parker-Bowle's Prince Charles's mistress.

btw, I see Prince Charles is arranging that both his sons go to Auschswitz - good for him! (Though I see also that the 'Duchess of York' is speaking up to defend Harry ... heavens, now he is truly doomed! (There was a wonderfully acid comment from one of the tv newspeople yesterday about her ... 'when she was royal ...' ))

what kind of school do you go to, Janny?

[Janny]

Grammar school, like Michael Howard. Don't expect the 'most intelligent' 25% to be intellegent.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Janny

Don't expect the 'most intelligent' 25% to be intellegent.

Or able to spell.

I think Harry was totally wrong to do it because he should have some sense of his position and everything, but I actually don't see how it's different to dressing up as Osama bin Laden at Halloween. Where is the difference?

[Janny]

Well, Sunny, you must be aware of the British apathetic view of harmless old Ozzie. Where's the old evil roll eyes when you need him?

I think it has be... well... useful that no-one has let William take the share of the blame for this that he wanted to take. Just as well for the throne really.

And shut up. I can't spell.

[The Gaffer]

I think the difference is what the swastika means to Jews (and gays, gypsies etc, but mostly Jews). A person could only wear a swastika who was completely unaware or indifferent to how Jewish people would feel about it.

I've got another question: on PFI. Bit of a hot potato in the public sector at the moment. (PFI = Private Finance Initiative; getting private investment into public sector building projects [schools, hospitals, roads and the like]).

On the plus side, we've got NHS treatment centres, some of them PFI-funded, slashing the waiting lists and putting the screws on the private health sector.

On the minus side, it seems to cost more in the long term. Take the Skye Bridge: one of the first ever PFI projects. It cost £39m to build, they got a £12m government grant for it, the consortium took £27m in tolls since 1995 (making it the most expensive road trip in the world), and it's just been bought out by the government for another £27m. I make that a cost of £66m to us for a 39m project, while the consortium invested (39-12=) £27m in 1994 and got £54m back in 2005.

What do you think?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

have you seen michael howerd/oliver letwin's crazy plan to reduce taxes?
someone ought to give them a calculator!!

[The Gaffer]

No, just seen the headlines anticipating it. Hilariously, not even their own MPs are going to vote for them.