Baroness Thatcher has died

[wintonian]

Sounds to me like he's saying it's OK to exercise your right to free speech so long as it agrees with prevailing view (which may or may not be censored)

But what is the 'prevailing view'?

The Tory's would have you believe that there is an out pouring of grief on the scale of that seen for Diana even f they have to silence dissenters to make us believe that so that history records the peoples love and warmth. Which all sounds a bit like North Korea to me.

On the other hand their are those who couldn't stand the old bag and are trying to exercise their freedom to say that without being stamped on by the state, and would say she is vilified by whole communities and almost the entire working class, but loved by the elite/ middle classes that benefited from her policies.

But whether it's more hugs and cuddles or handbags at dawn probably depend on which end of the country you are in and indeed to some extent which country you are in.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I also find it ironic that the papers who hate being censored (see the Mail complaining about harassment in the Lucy Meadows case after calls for Littlejohn to be sacked over what he wrote about her) are now trying to censor the BBC and those that have bought this track...

Well that's the Tory mindset isn't it? If it disagrees with you stamp on it as evidence of declining moral values in society, but if it agrees with you then it's freedom of speech and evidence of a united country.

 

[SS4]

But what is the 'prevailing view'?

The Tory's would have you believe that there is an out pouring of grief on the scale of that seen for Diana even f they have to silence dissenters to make us believe that so that history records the peoples love and warmth. Which all sounds a bit like North Korea to me.

On the other hand their are those who couldn't stand the old bag and are trying to exercise their freedom to say that without being stamped on by the state, and would say she is vilified by whole communities and almost the entire working class, but loved by the elite/ middle classes that benefited from her policies.
.

Perhaps prevailing view was the wrong term, feel free to change it to "what we [the BBC] tell you is right" which, to my eyes and ears, has not been dissimilar from North Korea after the death of the last leader

The press is very powerful (it's easily argued that it's too powerful) and individuals do not have such a broad diffusion (for some reason I think the French diffuser fits better than the English broadcast) leading to influence of thought. How often have we been forced to rely upon media reports - and how often have they proved false or incomplete?

 

[wintonian]

Perhaps prevailing view was the wrong term, feel free to change it to "what we [the BBC] tell you is right" which, to my eyes and ears, has not been dissimilar from North Korea after the death of the last leader

Agreed.

The press is very powerful (it's easily argued that it's too powerful) and individuals do not have such a broad diffusion (for some reason I think the French diffuser fits better than the English broadcast) leading to influence of thought. How often have we been forced to rely upon media reports - and how often have they proved false or incomplete?

The trouble is if you have something to say and you want as many people as possible to hear it then you need to publicise it through the media, it being impracticable to write to, phone, visit large numbers of people, or at least you can't do it very often.

Because of the freedom of the press (& wider media) they are free to have their own opinions on economic theory and how the country should run. It is by promoting those ideals and values, whilst being critical of alternative viewpoints, that they get to decide how we the people think for ourselves.

 

[LE Greys]

In general, I would say she did a few good things, but some of them would have been done by any P.M. in that position. A Labour PM would almost certainly have fought the Falklands War, although maybe not in the same way. I've never agreed with Thatcherite economic policies, oddly from the point of view of a High Tory from the East Anglian countryside who saw someone stealing policies from Liberal economics to court our traditional enemies, London businessmen. This was also quite clever, the decline of the Liberal Party left a gap in the market (if you like) but to me it marked the point where the Conservative Party turned its back on its traditional supporters.

The result of all this was a country run for the interests of business rather than either the people or the traditional establishment. The main concern of business is making money, not long-term stability and prosperity. We are currently reaping the rewards of that. She was a bad thing for the country and the Conservative Party. If I had an invitation to the funeral, it would be shreaded and burned.

 

[Railsigns]

So basically censorship is still alive and kicking in the 21st Century.

It is on this forum.

 

[4SRKT]

Why? Are people buying it because of its music (I presume that is what gets songs in the charts)? Probably not. Is it in some way making a serious political statement? Probably not. Is it anything other than the equivalent of a group of fifth-formers farting in front of the Headmaster? Probably not. It merits a piece on Newsbeat, but not much more. If that's the best this generation can do by way of protesting through music, we're all doomed:roll:

What would you do, o truly tremendous one? You seem to have considered opinions on what is or isn't a good means of protesting through music?

 

[Oswyntail]

But none of that is relevant.

The official chart is not a list of peoples favourite music during the week, rather it is a list of the most purchased music during the week.

Yet again the BBC takes the Tory line - oh what was that I said in #530 again?

If a protester ran on the pitch at a Premiership match, tackled a player, got the ball and cleanly put it in the back of the net, that would be reported as an incident but not included in the score. That would not be censorship. This is, equally, a hijacking of a standard process to make a point. As such, it should be reported as an incident, and not included in the "score". It is not a serious political statement - in football terms, it is akin to the idiots who shout "F*** Off" as the background to interviews with managers.
As for the "Tory line", I have seen no official party statement as to what the BBC should do, and as many MPs saying let it be as not.

 

[4SRKT]

If a protester ran on the pitch at a Premiership match, tackled a player, got the ball and cleanly put it in the back of the net, that would be reported as an incident but not included in the score. That would not be censorship. This is, equally, a hijacking of a standard process to make a point. As such, it should be reported as an incident, and not included in the "score". It is not a serious political statement - in football terms, it is akin to the idiots who shout "F*** Off" as the background to interviews with managers.
As for the "Tory line", I have seen no official party statement as to what the BBC should do, and as many MPs saying let it be as not.

That is the most tenuous and faintly ridiculous analogy I have read in a long time, and it is disappointing that someone of your obvious intelligence didn't self-censor such drivel. I hope you didn't spend too long working on it.

 

[Oswyntail]

What would you do, o truly tremendous one? You seem to have considered opinions on what is or isn't a good means of protesting through music?

Please - not my formal title! "O worshipful one" will do.
Well, I seem to remember a whole tranche of songs like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC9pc4U40sI
or this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntLsElbW9Xo
But I am rather old!

 

[wintonian]

Ben Coopers blog post

I find the campaign to promote the song in response to the death of Baroness Thatcher as distasteful as anyone and I’ve thought long and hard about how to respond.

So it's for the BBC to make decision on public morality now is it? Large numbers of people may find it distasteful true, but it's not for the media to tell the rest of us that we should also find it smiler.

On one side there is the understandable anger of large numbers of people who are appalled by this campaign. On the other there is the question of whether the chart show – which has run since the birth of Radio 1 in 1967 – can ignore a high new entry which clearly reflects the views of a big enough portion of the record buying public to propel it up the charts. Above all, in the middle of this furore is a grieving family.

I think he missed a bit between the first 2 sentences: "On the other hand there are also large numbers of people who are appalled at how her policies negativity effected the country. Then there is the question...."

Yes there is a grieving family and although I do find that Carol somewhat irritating, she does at least command some self respect.

That Mark on the other hand getting himself barred from the USA for trying to stage a coup in an oil rich TPLC (Equatorial Guinea) and getting himself imprisoned (mummy paid his bail). As well as getting mummy to win contacts for his own companies, including one to sell arms to Saudi Arabia. Well the less said about him the better and he's practically been exiled from the country in any case.

The phrases "jobs for the boys" and "Tory corruption" would seem to fit quite nicely into the same sentence here.

Nobody at Radio 1 wishes to cause offence but nor do I believe that we can ignore the song in the chart show, which is traditionally a formal record of the biggest selling singles of the week. That in turn means that all songs in the chart become an historic fact.

Historic fact eh? You're sounding like the chart run-down is some king of neutral radio program that outputs ridged, unchangeable facts.

I admit I also thought that until some plonker decided that they could censor it at will as an act of subservience to their Tory masters in power. In order for them to continue to spoon feed this drivel and pull us into line, so as not to embarrass the government on one hand, while making them feel better about themselves on the other..

 

[Oswyntail]

That is the most tenuous and faintly ridiculous analogy I have read in a long time, and it is disappointing that someone of your obvious intelligence didn't self-censor such drivel. I hope you didn't spend too long working on it.

Do you believe that the "Ding dong" project is truly a serious protest? I think "tenuous and faintly" ridiculous just about sums it up. Frankly, likening it to football over-dignifies it.

 

[wintonian]

That is the most tenuous and faintly ridiculous analogy I have read in a long time

This bit I am inclined to agree with and as such doesn't (IMO) it require a response.

 

[DarloRich]

Who actually in the higher echelons of the Conservative Party were the main movers in orchestrating her removal as the leader of that party ?

The catalyst for the contest was really the resignation of Geoffrey Howe, the foreign Secretary at the time. His resignation speech in the commons is one of the most damaging pieces of political oratory in British history. if you want to read it in full it is here : http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199091/cmhansrd/1990-11-13/Debate-1.html#Debate-1_spnew49 but the most memorable line was It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease only for them to find, the moment the first balls are bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain.

Within a week of this speech Michael Heseltine had launched a leadership challenge. Thatcher failed to win by the required margin. To win she she needed to have a margin of victory over the runner-up of 15 per cent of the total electorate. This meant she need a 56 vote majority. She got just under 52 and was 4 votes short of out right victory triggering a second ballot. This was despite having a clear majority of votes cast. This was the point

She consulted each of her ministers in turn who basically said you cant win because whilst we will support you the parliamentary party wont. This was the agreed line and most stuck to it. It was obviously not the response she was looking for as she withdrew from the contest.

Hesiltine, John Major & Douglas Hurd came forward to contest the second ballot which was won by Major, with less votes than Thatcher and still not enough to win the overall contest. A third round looked likely.

However very shortly after the result Hurd & Hesiltine withdrew and accepted nice cabinet posts from the winner, Mr Major.

It is interesting to read in the diaries of Alan Clark how he and others pleaded with Thatcher to become more personally involved in the election campaign and exert her authority over some of her ministers and back benchers to ensure victory as she did when challenged in 1989 by Sir Anthony Meyer. One wonders how things might have turned out if she did.

 

[4SRKT]

Do you believe that the "Ding dong" project is truly a serious protest? I think "tenuous and faintly" ridiculous just about sums it up. Frankly, likening it to football over-dignifies it.

That doesn't matter. You attempted to draw an analogy that simply doesn't make sense. The 'standard process' of the charts is that ANYONE can buy ANY record for ANY reason. The standard process of a football match is that 22 players are allowed to play and nobody else. Therefore there is no comparison whatever.

FWIW I think the Ding Dong thing is a bit of a laugh. Not everything has to be serious you know.

 

[wintonian]

The catalyst for the contest was really the resignation of Geoffrey Howe, the foreign Secretary at the time. His resignation speech in the commons is one of the most damaging pieces of political oratory in British history. if you want to read it in full it is here : http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199091/cmhansrd/1990-11-13/Debate-1.html#Debate-1_spnew49 but the most memorable line was It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease only for them to find, the moment the first balls are bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain.

Part 1 (of 2) of it, poor quality but then given the time I'm almost surprised it's there.

[youtube]kvyAMjGSoKQ[/youtube]

He's quite unhappy about the direction on Europe, winch might sound familiar and we have been described (by whom I forget) in the past as "reluctant European partners".

 

[jon0844]

All the people who died by Hitler (as people all over the social networks have now proved Godwin's Law by comparing Thatcher to him) would be well chuffed to hear that a few students and other idiots have made a comparison that suggests Maggie T was just like Hitler. I doubt they'd have minded living during her time in power quite so much. Frankly, these people have now offended people who really do have a reason to be offended, such as the families of those who were killed.

And to think the BBC is censoring free speech is also ridiculous. They've talked about the issue, they've explained their reasoning and will explain things to their viewers/listeners. If people think this is censorship as you might expect in China or North Korea, I really do think some people have lost the plot! Censorship would mean the BBC wouldn't have mentioned it at all - and they've not done that at all.

The latest news appears to be that they'll play a snippet, talk a bit about it and move on (which isn't like Frankie Goes To Hollywood, which people are now ranting about on Twitter). That's their right, and it's certainly a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't - so this is roughly middle of the road.

 

[SS4]

If a protester ran on the pitch at a Premiership match, tackled a player, got the ball and cleanly put it in the back of the net, that would be reported as an incident but not included in the score. That would not be censorship. This is, equally, a hijacking of a standard process to make a point. As such, it should be reported as an incident, and not included in the "score". It is not a serious political statement - in football terms, it is akin to the idiots who shout "F*** Off" as the background to interviews with managers.
As for the "Tory line", I have seen no official party statement as to what the BBC should do, and as many MPs saying let it be as not.

The reasoning behind the sales is irrelevant though. Answer me this, if a song gets makes enough sales to get to number 1 should it be played? Yes or no. I find a large number of songs in the charts as disgraceful and sexist but they're still played.

You'd have thought the BBC would have learnt their lesson by trying to censor rage against the machine for profanity

 

[4SRKT]

Maybe the BBC should do what they do what they sometimes do with 'offensive' songs and overdub the offending word, such as 'Life's a piece of spit' in 'Always look on the Bright Side of Life'.

How about 'Ding Dong the Bitch is dead'?

 

[jon0844]

The BBC is talking about their decision again right now. I guess they don't fully understand what censorship is!

 

[DarloRich]

Part 1 (of 2) of it, poor quality but then given the time I'm almost surprised it's there.

He's quite unhappy about the direction on Europe, winch might sound familiar and we have been described (by whom I forget) in the past as "reluctant European partners".

I think the first televised pictures from the commons were in late 1989

 

[wintonian]

All the people who died by Hitler (as people all over the social networks have now proved Godwin's Law by comparing Thatcher to him) would be well chuffed to hear that a few students and other idiots have made a comparison that suggests Maggie T was just like Hitler. I doubt they'd have minded living during her time in power quite so much. Frankly, these people have now offended people who really do have a reason to be offended, such as the families of those who were killed.

I agree the Hitler parody is taking it a bit far, but then people (as they are) want to express their feelings in the strongest possible way so there can be no doubt about ones feelings. In order to achieve this people have a habit of relating the person to the most hated historical figure they can think of, normally Hitler, being a recent historical figure.

Saying I hate Thatcher as much as/ more than Queen Mary I, doesn't quite resonate in the same way

 

[SS4]

And to think the BBC is censoring free speech is also ridiculous. They've talked about the issue, they've explained their reasoning and will explain things to their viewers/listeners. If people think this is censorship as you might expect in China or North Korea, I really do think some people have lost the plot!

The latest news appears to be that they'll play a snippet, name it and move on. That's their right, and it's certainly a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't - so this is roughly middle of the road.

Playing the track is the only way to remain impartial - it's a chart show playing a song in the charts.

By choosing not to play the song in it's entirety (where they normally would) because of politics makes a mockery of that just as playing it solely for the same reasons would be just as impartial, by doing so they've lost any respect and impartiality. It would be very easy to explain it as part of this impartiality and the nature of the show could have been made to anyone complaining. That is why I deplore the BBC's decision to not play the track in accordance with any other track reaching the same position.

It matters not if the majority think the BBC have done the right thing, freedom of speech and editorial integrity is easy when you pander to the majority - sometimes "difficult" decisions have to be taken. Their news programming is becoming like this too, especially in international affairs. True or not can you see the BBC reporting on what Paul Sidorczuk said in the latest post in the Islamic Spring thread (an example of selective editing by me with that title?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The BBC is talking about their decision again right now. I guess they don't fully understand what censorship is!

cen·sor·ship
/ˈsensərˌSHip/
Noun
The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.

I think they do!

 

[yorksrob]

The catalyst for the contest was really the resignation of Geoffrey Howe, the foreign Secretary at the time. His resignation speech in the commons is one of the most damaging pieces of political oratory in British history. if you want to read it in full it is here : http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199091/cmhansrd/1990-11-13/Debate-1.html#Debate-1_spnew49 but the most memorable line was It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease only for them to find, the moment the first balls are bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain.

Within a week of this speech Michael Heseltine had launched a leadership challenge. Thatcher failed to win by the required margin. To win she she needed to have a margin of victory over the runner-up of 15 per cent of the total electorate. This meant she need a 56 vote majority. She got just under 52 and was 4 votes short of out right victory triggering a second ballot. This was despite having a clear majority of votes cast. This was the point

She consulted each of her ministers in turn who basically said you cant win because whilst we will support you the parliamentary party wont. This was the agreed line and most stuck to it. It was obviously not the response she was looking for as she withdrew from the contest.

Hesiltine, John Major & Douglas Hurd came forward to contest the second ballot which was won by Major, with less votes than Thatcher and still not enough to win the overall contest. A third round looked likely.

However very shortly after the result Hurd & Hesiltine withdrew and accepted nice cabinet posts from the winner, Mr Major.

It is interesting to read in the diaries of Alan Clark how he and others pleaded with Thatcher to become more personally involved in the election campaign and exert her authority over some of her ministers and back benchers to ensure victory as she did when challenged in 1989 by Sir Anthony Meyer. One wonders how things might have turned out if she did.

It speaks volumes about the Tory party that they were happy to stand by and watch Mrs T do any amount of damage, yet as soon as she pointed out the reality of the EU they ditched her.

I suppose there's nothing like being savaged by a dead sheep.

 

[jon0844]

I think they do!

Even just before EastEnders, they quite clearly said the name of the track - so surely that's the bit they'd not mention and just refer to it as an 'offensive track' or similar.

The track is crap anyway. 20,000 people got it into the charts but anyone into music won't want to hear it, any more than the people who downloaded it will.

 

[LE Greys]

It speaks volumes about the Tory party that they were happy to stand by and watch Mrs T do any amount of damage, yet as soon as she pointed out the reality of the EU they ditched her.

I suppose there's nothing like being savaged by a dead sheep.

The Tory Party has always been an alliance between various elements. She annoyed my side of the party, the traditionalists, by getting close to big business. Ultimately, it was that side that threw her out, though. They ended up installing Major instead, and look where that got us.

I'm actually listening to Question Time now, and someone from UKIP is talking about how the current 'big three' are so similar, New Labour does not represent Old Labour. To add a personal comment, we haven't had a Conservative PM since Ted Heath.

 

[Johnuk123]

So it's okey for people to exercise their right to free speech as along as you don't tell anyone about it. :roll:

I think you'll find that absolute free speech is specifically against the law and has been for quite some time.

Nobody with the possible exception of an m.p. in Parliament can say anything they like about anybody else.

The Public Order Act 1986
The Football Offences Act 1991
The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

All these and other acts contain so many exceptions to the concept of free speech that it is in fact quite non-existent.

 

[wintonian]

Quite, one does need to remember that Torys weren't always bad people and they were in fact in agreement over the need for the creation of the welfare state through 'One Nation Conservatism', just that they disagreed about how it should be implemented. However this broad consensus was termed 'Buskellism' after Hugh Gaitskel (Labour chancellor and shadow chancellor) and Richard Butler (Conservative chancellor).

But I digress again.

 

[wintonian]

The Tory Party has always been an alliance between various elements. She annoyed my side of the party, the traditionalists, by getting close to big business. Ultimately, it was that side that threw her out, though. They ended up installing Major instead, and look where that got us.

I'm actually listening to Question Time now, and someone from UKIP is talking about how the current 'big three' are so similar, New Labour does not represent Old Labour. To add a personal comment, we haven't had a Conservative PM since Ted Heath.

I'm not a fan of cross posting but I'll make an exception, as my reply here would be similar to the one in the other thread.

Quite, one does need to remember that Torys weren't always bad people and they were in fact in agreement over the need for the creation of the welfare state through 'One Nation Conservatism', just that they disagreed about how it should be implemented. However this broad consensus was termed 'Buskellism' after Hugh Gaitskel (Labour chancellor and shadow chancellor) and Richard Butler (Conservative chancellor).

But I digress again.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think you'll find that absolute free speech is specifically against the law and has been for quite some time.

Nobody with the possible exception of an m.p. in Parliament can say anything they like about anybody else.

The Public Order Act 1986
The Football Offences Act 1991
The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

All these and other acts contain so many exceptions to the concept of free speech that it is in fact quite non-existent.

But do we not have free speech except where it is specificity prohibited making it somewhat conditional admittedly? But then society has decided rights and freedoms are conditional upon not infringing those of others.

 

[Johnuk123]

Isn't that what I said ? absolute free speech is illegal, you cannot exercise your right to say exactly what you want only what is not deemed offensive.

 

[yorksrob]

The Tory Party has always been an alliance between various elements. She annoyed my side of the party, the traditionalists, by getting close to big business. Ultimately, it was that side that threw her out, though. They ended up installing Major instead, and look where that got us.

I'm actually listening to Question Time now, and someone from UKIP is talking about how the current 'big three' are so similar, New Labour does not represent Old Labour. To add a personal comment, we haven't had a Conservative PM since Ted Heath.

Speaking as a non-Conservative, I must admit, from a philosophical point of view, one of the big disappointments for me about Thatcherism has been how a philosophy espousing self betterment and individual responsibility (which, within reason are quite decent traits for any society) was so quickly subsumed by the sort of rampant corporate corruption that has brought the Country to its knees of late.

That said, whenever I hear the captains of big business commenting on our relationship with the EU, they always sound as though they would be a lot more comfortable with Mr Heath's view of foreign affairs than Mrs Thatcher's.