The Last Ditch by Tom Paine

7 responses to “Another embarrassment (or two)”

1. 

   Caledonian Jim

   February 6, 2009

   Yes, whatever the merits or otherwise of Carol Thatcher’s stance, it seems that too many people want not only to act as monitors of private conversations, but also re-educators ensuring that in addition to losing your job if you use an “unacceptable” (to them) word, you’ve also got to be somehow brainwashed to ensure no repeat of the offence.
   It’s one thing trying to censor what people say – but when you are arrogant enough to believe you have the right to dictate how they think, why even Joseph Stalin didn’t go that far. And it’s striking that these “offences” are only linked to colour – if you’re called Jock, Taffy or Paddy, it seems Shami won’t rush breathlessly to your side demanding apologies and grabbing P45’s.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Guthrum

   February 6, 2009

   The bit I do not like is that having made that remark Carol Thatcher would have been met with the ‘stunned silence’ from the right on crowd she was chatting to,that is fair enough, the fact that somebody felt it neccessary to ‘report’ the matter.
   Too many years of this we will have informers on every shopfloor, in every office etc looking for the slightest transgression of thought to report in exchange for advancement

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   Vasco

   February 6, 2009

   AS for ‘Liberty’, never forget that it was originally the National Council for Civil Liberties and was a trade union front organisation, to the extent thatit would have been better named the Commissariat for Taking Liberties.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   wonderfulforhisage

   February 6, 2009

   I believe that ridicule is the best way of dealing with those offended by words. A word is only a vibration in the air and has no meaning until the hearer’s brain interprets it. For instance when I was a teenager learning German, my friends and I were forever trying to manipulate classroom sessions so that the master in charge would say ‘fahrt’ (go in German) but pronounced in the same way that a native English speaker pronounces ‘fart’. Goodness what a hoot.
   It follows that it is the listener who is ‘doing’ the offending – in a way a form of mental self abuse . In other words the speaker can’t give offence – the listener has to take it. So, if the listener is out of control of their mental process and ‘takes’ offence, this if obviously a sign of being weak minded and rather pathetic and, according to my ex housemaster, is conducive to poor eyesight in later years, which is self evidently true of whoever it was who sneaked on Carol T.
   Q.E.D.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   John

   February 6, 2009

   This raises questions about whether Liberty can really be called a libertarian organisation in any meaningful sense.

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   Martin

   February 6, 2009

   I once considered joining them myself; I decided I had better not until I looked further into their real aims. Now, like John, I don’t know whether they are “Libertarian” to any real degree. A shame too.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   BDZ

   February 8, 2009

   I have to agree, Liberty and Shami Chakrabati are not particularly libertarian and often seem uncomfortable with the fact that free speech in free societies means you’ll have to hear opinions and remarks that you find distasteful and even the rise of ideas and beliefs that you detest. I’ve never thought that Shami really wants this happen and the Question Time remarks don’t really help to convince me that this is not the case. I’ve always thought she was more a spokesperson for some of the more subtley repressive forms of political correctness that are popular on the left.

   LikeLike

   Reply