The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party.
Neither is trustworthy.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:39:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party.
Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
On 28/04/2023 17:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:39:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party.
Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
Is distancing itself from the situation. Rather than throw Sharp under a
bus, I think Sunak encouraged him to resign.
Here's the full report.
https://publicappointmentscommissioner.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-28-OCPA-DECISION-NOTICE-IN-RELATION-TO-THE-APPOINTMENT-OF-CHAIR-OF-THE-BBC-BOARD-MR-RICHARD-SHARP.pdf
It's worth reading, given that the Times described it as a "damning"
report even though it contains only mild, restrained criticism of Sharp
for failing to declare "potential perceived" conflicts of interest, a
"risk of a perception". Not even actual conflicts, just matters that could
be perceived as such.
It doesn't recommend his removal (which isn't up to the author of the
report, Adam Heppinstall KC) and it does not say that Sharp arranged or helped to arrange a loan to Boris Johnson
even though the Press keeps telling us that he did.
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party.
Neither is trustworthy.
On 28/04/2023 18:19, The Todal wrote:
On 28/04/2023 17:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:39:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party.
Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
Is distancing itself from the situation. Rather than throw Sharp under
a bus, I think Sunak encouraged him to resign.
He can't have tried very hard then.
FWIW I am more inclined to give the credit to Tim Davie (as is the BBC).
Sharp only resigned *after* the report was issued. It had been clear for
some time that his position at the BBC was completely untenable.
Witness the recent Match of the Day debacle where his silence was
deafening! What use is a BBC Chairman who dare not appear in public?
On 28/04/2023 20:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/04/2023 18:19, The Todal wrote:
On 28/04/2023 17:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:39:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party.
Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
Is distancing itself from the situation. Rather than throw Sharp
under a bus, I think Sunak encouraged him to resign.
He can't have tried very hard then.
FWIW I am more inclined to give the credit to Tim Davie (as is the BBC).
Credit for what?
For worrying about the image of the BBC and a continuing controversy
which needed to be resolved? I have no doubt that Sharp felt the same.
Sharp only resigned *after* the report was issued. It had been clear
for some time that his position at the BBC was completely untenable.
That's what journalists were saying. "Untenable". They love to tell us
that careers are hanging by a thread, even if it's merely a consensus of journalists vying with each other to predict the moment of the likely resignation.
Witness the recent Match of the Day debacle where his silence was
deafening! What use is a BBC Chairman who dare not appear in public?
It wasn't Sharp's job to issue statements about whether or not Lineker
had broken his contract. It would have been improper to do so whether in support of Lineker or in condemnation of him.
Keir Starmer the former lawyer turned demagogue has condemned Diane
Abbott's controversial letter as "antisemitic" when it plainly isn't.
People in positions of responsibility should shut the fuck up and wait
for the outcome of a properly run investigation.
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile
Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is considered
by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the worst excesses of Julius Streicher.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-boss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
On 28/04/2023 20:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/04/2023 18:19, The Todal wrote:
On 28/04/2023 17:41, Jethro_uk wrote:He can't have tried very hard then.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:39:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party.
Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
Is distancing itself from the situation. Rather than throw Sharp
under a bus, I think Sunak encouraged him to resign.
FWIW I am more inclined to give the credit to Tim Davie (as is the BBC).
Credit for what?
For worrying about the image of the BBC and a continuing controversy
which needed to be resolved? I have no doubt that Sharp felt the same.
Sharp only resigned *after* the report was issued. It had been clear
for some time that his position at the BBC was completely untenable.
That's what journalists were saying. "Untenable". They love to tell us
that careers are hanging by a thread, even if it's merely a consensus
of journalists vying with each other to predict the moment of the
likely resignation.
Witness the recent Match of the Day debacle where his silence was >>deafening! What use is a BBC Chairman who dare not appear in public?
It wasn't Sharp's job to issue statements about whether or not Lineker
had broken his contract. It would have been improper to do so whether
in support of Lineker or in condemnation of him.
Keir Starmer the former lawyer turned demagogue has condemned Diane
Abbott's controversial letter as "antisemitic" when it plainly isn't.
People in positions of responsibility should shut the fuck up and wait
for the outcome of a properly run investigation.
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile
Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is considered
by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the worst >excesses of Julius Streicher.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-bo >ss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
The Todal writes
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile >Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is considered
by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the worst >excesses of Julius Streicher.
Nothing to do with "woke fraternity" (whatever that implies)
The inclusion of an octopus being carried by Sharp is a standard
anti-Semitic trope.
No ifs or buts or excuses. It was anti-Semitic
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-bo >ss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
On 28/04/2023 20:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/04/2023 18:19, The Todal wrote:
On 28/04/2023 17:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:39:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party.
Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
Is distancing itself from the situation. Rather than throw Sharp under
a bus, I think Sunak encouraged him to resign.
He can't have tried very hard then.
FWIW I am more inclined to give the credit to Tim Davie (as is the BBC).
Credit for what?
For worrying about the image of the BBC and a continuing controversy
which needed to be resolved? I have no doubt that Sharp felt the same.
Sharp only resigned *after* the report was issued. It had been clear for
some time that his position at the BBC was completely untenable.
That's what journalists were saying. "Untenable". They love to tell us
that careers are hanging by a thread, even if it's merely a consensus of journalists vying with each other to predict the moment of the likely resignation.
Witness the recent Match of the Day debacle where his silence was
deafening! What use is a BBC Chairman who dare not appear in public?
It wasn't Sharp's job to issue statements about whether or not Lineker
had broken his contract. It would have been improper to do so whether in support of Lineker or in condemnation of him.
Keir Starmer the former lawyer turned demagogue has condemned Diane
Abbott's controversial letter as "antisemitic" when it plainly isn't.
People in positions of responsibility should shut the fuck up and wait
for the outcome of a properly run investigation.
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile
Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is considered
by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the worst excesses of Julius Streicher.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-boss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:44:38 PM UTC+1, Bryan Morris wrote:
The Todal writes
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile
Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is considered
by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the worst
excesses of Julius Streicher.
Nothing to do with "woke fraternity" (whatever that implies)
The inclusion of an octopus being carried by Sharp is a standard
anti-Semitic trope.
Apparently it was actually a squid, if that makes any difference.
No ifs or buts or excuses. It was anti-Semitic
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-bo >>> ss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
In message <kb72snFr42oU1@mid.individual.net>, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> writes
On 28/04/2023 20:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/04/2023 18:19, The Todal wrote:
On 28/04/2023 17:41, Jethro_uk wrote:He can't have tried very hard then.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:39:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party. >>>>>> Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
Is distancing itself from the situation. Rather than throw Sharp
under a bus, I think Sunak encouraged him to resign.
FWIW I am more inclined to give the credit to Tim Davie (as is the BBC).
Credit for what?
For worrying about the image of the BBC and a continuing controversy
which needed to be resolved? I have no doubt that Sharp felt the same.
Sharp only resigned *after* the report was issued. It had been clear
for some time that his position at the BBC was completely untenable.
That's what journalists were saying. "Untenable". They love to tell us
that careers are hanging by a thread, even if it's merely a consensus
of journalists vying with each other to predict the moment of the
likely resignation.
Witness the recent Match of the Day debacle where his silence was
deafening! What use is a BBC Chairman who dare not appear in public?
It wasn't Sharp's job to issue statements about whether or not Lineker
had broken his contract. It would have been improper to do so whether
in support of Lineker or in condemnation of him.
Keir Starmer the former lawyer turned demagogue has condemned Diane
Abbott's controversial letter as "antisemitic" when it plainly isn't.
People in positions of responsibility should shut the fuck up and wait
for the outcome of a properly run investigation.
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile
Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is considered
by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the worst
excesses of Julius Streicher.
Nothing to do with "woke fraternity" (whatever that implies)
The inclusion of an octopus being carried by Sharp is a standard
anti-Semitic trope.
No ifs or buts or excuses. It was anti-Semitic
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-bo
ss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
On 30 Apr 2023 at 19:44:06 BST, "Bryan Morris" <Bryan@brymor.me.uk> wrote:
In message <kb72snFr42oU1@mid.individual.net>, The Todal
<the_todal@icloud.com> writes
On 28/04/2023 20:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/04/2023 18:19, The Todal wrote:Credit for what?
On 28/04/2023 17:41, Jethro_uk wrote:He can't have tried very hard then.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:39:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party. >>>>>>> Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
Is distancing itself from the situation. Rather than throw Sharp
under a bus, I think Sunak encouraged him to resign.
FWIW I am more inclined to give the credit to Tim Davie (as is the BBC). >>>
For worrying about the image of the BBC and a continuing controversy
which needed to be resolved? I have no doubt that Sharp felt the same.
Sharp only resigned *after* the report was issued. It had been clear >>>> for some time that his position at the BBC was completely untenable.
That's what journalists were saying. "Untenable". They love to tell us
that careers are hanging by a thread, even if it's merely a consensus
of journalists vying with each other to predict the moment of the
likely resignation.
Witness the recent Match of the Day debacle where his silence was
deafening! What use is a BBC Chairman who dare not appear in public?
It wasn't Sharp's job to issue statements about whether or not Lineker
had broken his contract. It would have been improper to do so whether
in support of Lineker or in condemnation of him.
Keir Starmer the former lawyer turned demagogue has condemned Diane
Abbott's controversial letter as "antisemitic" when it plainly isn't.
People in positions of responsibility should shut the fuck up and wait
for the outcome of a properly run investigation.
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile
Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is considered
by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the worst
excesses of Julius Streicher.
Nothing to do with "woke fraternity" (whatever that implies)
The inclusion of an octopus being carried by Sharp is a standard
anti-Semitic trope.
I thought it was a squid? But why is this an anti-semitic trope, if I may admit my total ignorance?
On 30 Apr 2023 at 12:48:39 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2023 20:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/04/2023 18:19, The Todal wrote:
On 28/04/2023 17:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:39:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party. >>>>>> Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
Is distancing itself from the situation. Rather than throw Sharp under >>>> a bus, I think Sunak encouraged him to resign.
He can't have tried very hard then.
FWIW I am more inclined to give the credit to Tim Davie (as is the BBC).
Credit for what?
For worrying about the image of the BBC and a continuing controversy
which needed to be resolved? I have no doubt that Sharp felt the same.
Sharp only resigned *after* the report was issued. It had been clear for >>> some time that his position at the BBC was completely untenable.
That's what journalists were saying. "Untenable". They love to tell us
that careers are hanging by a thread, even if it's merely a consensus of
journalists vying with each other to predict the moment of the likely
resignation.
Witness the recent Match of the Day debacle where his silence was
deafening! What use is a BBC Chairman who dare not appear in public?
It wasn't Sharp's job to issue statements about whether or not Lineker
had broken his contract. It would have been improper to do so whether in
support of Lineker or in condemnation of him.
Keir Starmer the former lawyer turned demagogue has condemned Diane
Abbott's controversial letter as "antisemitic" when it plainly isn't.
People in positions of responsibility should shut the fuck up and wait
for the outcome of a properly run investigation.
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile
Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is considered
by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the worst
excesses of Julius Streicher.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-boss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
I hesitate to disagree with you but in this instance, because I generally agree with you about faux anti-semitism. But in this case I see nothing in Sharp's facial appearance to justify the caricature and surely it is pure anti-semitism to draw attention to the fact that someone who possibly and unprovenly acquires the chairmanship of the BBC corruptly is a Jewish banker by background? If he were Swedish would it be relevant? If he acquired control
of an armament firm selling to Israel it might, controversially, be relevant?
In message <kb72snFr42oU1@mid.individual.net>, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> writes
On 28/04/2023 20:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/04/2023 18:19, The Todal wrote:
On 28/04/2023 17:41, Jethro_uk wrote:He can't have tried very hard then.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:39:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party. >>>>>> Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
Is distancing itself from the situation. Rather than throw Sharp
under a bus, I think Sunak encouraged him to resign.
FWIW I am more inclined to give the credit to Tim Davie (as is the BBC).
Credit for what?
For worrying about the image of the BBC and a continuing controversy
which needed to be resolved? I have no doubt that Sharp felt the same.
Sharp only resigned *after* the report was issued. It had been clear
for some time that his position at the BBC was completely untenable.
That's what journalists were saying. "Untenable". They love to tell us
that careers are hanging by a thread, even if it's merely a consensus
of journalists vying with each other to predict the moment of the
likely resignation.
Witness the recent Match of the Day debacle where his silence was
deafening! What use is a BBC Chairman who dare not appear in public?
It wasn't Sharp's job to issue statements about whether or not Lineker
had broken his contract. It would have been improper to do so whether
in support of Lineker or in condemnation of him.
Keir Starmer the former lawyer turned demagogue has condemned Diane
Abbott's controversial letter as "antisemitic" when it plainly isn't.
People in positions of responsibility should shut the fuck up and wait
for the outcome of a properly run investigation.
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile
Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is
considered by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany
and the worst excesses of Julius Streicher.
Nothing to do with "woke fraternity" (whatever that implies)
The inclusion of an octopus being carried by Sharp is a standard
anti-Semitic trope.
No ifs or buts or excuses. It was anti-Semitic
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-bo
ss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
On 30/04/2023 19:44, Bryan Morris wrote:
The inclusion of an octopus being carried by Sharp is a standard anti-Semitic trope.
Does someone have a list of animals and symbols I mustn't use in fear of being called antisemitic?
Fredxx wrote:
Bryan Morris wrote:
The inclusion of an octopus being carried by Sharp is a
standard anti-Semitic trope.
Does someone have a list of animals and symbols I mustn't use in
fear of being called antisemitic?
The Observers Book of Anti-Semitic Tropes.
On 30/04/2023 21:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023 at 12:48:39 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2023 20:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/04/2023 18:19, The Todal wrote:
On 28/04/2023 17:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:39:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party. >>>>>>> Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
Is distancing itself from the situation. Rather than throw Sharp under >>>>> a bus, I think Sunak encouraged him to resign.
He can't have tried very hard then.
FWIW I am more inclined to give the credit to Tim Davie (as is the
BBC).
Credit for what?
For worrying about the image of the BBC and a continuing controversy
which needed to be resolved? I have no doubt that Sharp felt the same. >>>
Sharp only resigned *after* the report was issued. It had been clear
for
some time that his position at the BBC was completely untenable.
That's what journalists were saying. "Untenable". They love to tell us
that careers are hanging by a thread, even if it's merely a consensus of >>> journalists vying with each other to predict the moment of the likely
resignation.
Witness the recent Match of the Day debacle where his silence was
deafening! What use is a BBC Chairman who dare not appear in public?
It wasn't Sharp's job to issue statements about whether or not Lineker
had broken his contract. It would have been improper to do so whether in >>> support of Lineker or in condemnation of him.
Keir Starmer the former lawyer turned demagogue has condemned Diane
Abbott's controversial letter as "antisemitic" when it plainly isn't.
People in positions of responsibility should shut the fuck up and wait
for the outcome of a properly run investigation.
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile
Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is considered
by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the worst
excesses of Julius Streicher.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-boss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
I hesitate to disagree with you but in this instance, because I generally
agree with you about faux anti-semitism. But in this case I see
nothing in
Sharp's facial appearance to justify the caricature and surely it is pure
anti-semitism to draw attention to the fact that someone who possibly and
unprovenly acquires the chairmanship of the BBC corruptly is a Jewish
banker
by background? If he were Swedish would it be relevant? If he acquired
control
of an armament firm selling to Israel it might, controversially, be
relevant?
If Richard Sharp didn't happen to be Jewish but had exactly the same
face - which a cartoonist is usually entitled to distort for comic
purposes - the cartoon would presumably be acceptable. Former Goldman
Sachs banker, allegedly (though actually it isn't true but many believe
it to be true) part of the steaming dungheap of corruption that Boris presided over.
Because he happens to be Jewish, the cartoon is deemed to be antisemitic.
So what now - is he to be protected from criticism, is his past life as
a rich influential banker to be airbrushed from history and removed from
all press coverage?
Is the Guardian's cartoon a small but important step towards the next
pogrom of Jews?
On 30/04/2023 21:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023 at 19:44:06 BST, "Bryan Morris" <Bryan@brymor.me.uk> wrote: >>
In message <kb72snFr42oU1@mid.individual.net>, The Todal
<the_todal@icloud.com> writes
On 28/04/2023 20:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/04/2023 18:19, The Todal wrote:Credit for what?
On 28/04/2023 17:41, Jethro_uk wrote:He can't have tried very hard then.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:39:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party. >>>>>>>> Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
Is distancing itself from the situation. Rather than throw Sharp
under a bus, I think Sunak encouraged him to resign.
FWIW I am more inclined to give the credit to Tim Davie (as is the BBC). >>>>
For worrying about the image of the BBC and a continuing controversy
which needed to be resolved? I have no doubt that Sharp felt the same. >>>>
Sharp only resigned *after* the report was issued. It had been clear >>>>> for some time that his position at the BBC was completely untenable. >>>>That's what journalists were saying. "Untenable". They love to tell us >>>> that careers are hanging by a thread, even if it's merely a consensus
of journalists vying with each other to predict the moment of the
likely resignation.
Witness the recent Match of the Day debacle where his silence was
deafening! What use is a BBC Chairman who dare not appear in public? >>>>>
It wasn't Sharp's job to issue statements about whether or not Lineker >>>> had broken his contract. It would have been improper to do so whether
in support of Lineker or in condemnation of him.
Keir Starmer the former lawyer turned demagogue has condemned Diane
Abbott's controversial letter as "antisemitic" when it plainly isn't.
People in positions of responsibility should shut the fuck up and wait >>>> for the outcome of a properly run investigation.
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile
Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is considered >>>> by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the worst >>>> excesses of Julius Streicher.
Nothing to do with "woke fraternity" (whatever that implies)
The inclusion of an octopus being carried by Sharp is a standard
anti-Semitic trope.
I thought it was a squid? But why is this an anti-semitic trope, if I may
admit my total ignorance?
The cartoon shows a grotesque Boris Johnson on top of a huge dung-heap
with big sacks of money next to him.
Imagine if Boris Johnson happened to be Jewish. Then the cartoon would instantly become a hideous antisemitic insult, implying that Jews have
all the money and all the influence and are responsible for all the corruption. Not Boris. Jews.
On 30/04/2023 19:44, Bryan Morris wrote:
In message <kb72snFr42oU1@mid.individual.net>, The Todal
<the_todal@icloud.com> writes
On 28/04/2023 20:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/04/2023 18:19, The Todal wrote:Credit for what?
On 28/04/2023 17:41, Jethro_uk wrote:He can't have tried very hard then.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:39:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party. >>>>>>> Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
Is distancing itself from the situation. Rather than throw Sharp
under a bus, I think Sunak encouraged him to resign.
FWIW I am more inclined to give the credit to Tim Davie (as is the BBC). >>>
For worrying about the image of the BBC and a continuing controversy
which needed to be resolved? I have no doubt that Sharp felt the same.
Sharp only resigned *after* the report was issued. It had been clear
for some time that his position at the BBC was completely untenable.
That's what journalists were saying. "Untenable". They love to tell us
that careers are hanging by a thread, even if it's merely a consensus
of journalists vying with each other to predict the moment of the
likely resignation.
Witness the recent Match of the Day debacle where his silence was
deafening! What use is a BBC Chairman who dare not appear in public?
It wasn't Sharp's job to issue statements about whether or not Lineker
had broken his contract. It would have been improper to do so whether
in support of Lineker or in condemnation of him.
Keir Starmer the former lawyer turned demagogue has condemned Diane
Abbott's controversial letter as "antisemitic" when it plainly isn't.
People in positions of responsibility should shut the fuck up and wait
for the outcome of a properly run investigation.
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile
Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is
considered by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany
and the worst excesses of Julius Streicher.
Nothing to do with "woke fraternity" (whatever that implies)
The inclusion of an octopus being carried by Sharp is a standard
anti-Semitic trope.
Does someone have a list of animals and symbols I mustn't use in fear of being called antisemitic?
No ifs or buts or excuses. It was anti-Semitic
What if the animal was a squid, would that make a difference?
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-bo >>> ss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
On 30/04/2023 21:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023 at 12:48:39 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2023 20:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/04/2023 18:19, The Todal wrote:Credit for what?
On 28/04/2023 17:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:39:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party. >>>>>>> Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
Is distancing itself from the situation. Rather than throw Sharp under >>>>> a bus, I think Sunak encouraged him to resign.
He can't have tried very hard then.
FWIW I am more inclined to give the credit to Tim Davie (as is the BBC). >>>
For worrying about the image of the BBC and a continuing controversy
which needed to be resolved? I have no doubt that Sharp felt the same.
Sharp only resigned *after* the report was issued. It had been clear for >>>> some time that his position at the BBC was completely untenable.
That's what journalists were saying. "Untenable". They love to tell us
that careers are hanging by a thread, even if it's merely a consensus of >>> journalists vying with each other to predict the moment of the likely
resignation.
Witness the recent Match of the Day debacle where his silence was
deafening! What use is a BBC Chairman who dare not appear in public?
It wasn't Sharp's job to issue statements about whether or not Lineker
had broken his contract. It would have been improper to do so whether in >>> support of Lineker or in condemnation of him.
Keir Starmer the former lawyer turned demagogue has condemned Diane
Abbott's controversial letter as "antisemitic" when it plainly isn't.
People in positions of responsibility should shut the fuck up and wait
for the outcome of a properly run investigation.
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile
Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is considered
by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the worst
excesses of Julius Streicher.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-boss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
I hesitate to disagree with you but in this instance, because I generally
agree with you about faux anti-semitism. But in this case I see nothing in >> Sharp's facial appearance to justify the caricature and surely it is pure
anti-semitism to draw attention to the fact that someone who possibly and
unprovenly acquires the chairmanship of the BBC corruptly is a Jewish banker >> by background? If he were Swedish would it be relevant? If he acquired control
of an armament firm selling to Israel it might, controversially, be relevant?
If Richard Sharp didn't happen to be Jewish but had exactly the same
face - which a cartoonist is usually entitled to distort for comic
purposes - the cartoon would presumably be acceptable.
Former Goldman
Sachs banker, allegedly (though actually it isn't true but many believe
it to be true) part of the steaming dungheap of corruption that Boris presided over.
Because he happens to be Jewish, the cartoon is deemed to be antisemitic.
So what now - is he to be protected from criticism, is his past life as
a rich influential banker to be airbrushed from history and removed from
all press coverage?
Is the Guardian's cartoon a small but important step towards the next
pogrom of Jews?
Roger Hayter wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour
Party. Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
Is distancing itself from the situation. Rather than throw
Sharp under a bus, I think Sunak encouraged him to resign.
He can't have tried very hard then.
FWIW I am more inclined to give the credit to Tim Davie (as is
the BBC).
Credit for what?
For worrying about the image of the BBC and a continuing
controversy which needed to be resolved? I have no doubt that
Sharp felt the same.
Sharp only resigned *after* the report was issued. It had been
clear for some time that his position at the BBC was completely
untenable.
That's what journalists were saying. "Untenable". They love to
tell us that careers are hanging by a thread, even if it's
merely a consensus of journalists vying with each other to
predict the moment of the likely resignation.
Witness the recent Match of the Day debacle where his silence
was deafening! What use is a BBC Chairman who dare not appear
in public?
It wasn't Sharp's job to issue statements about whether or not
Lineker had broken his contract. It would have been improper to
do so whether in support of Lineker or in condemnation of him.
Keir Starmer the former lawyer turned demagogue has condemned
Diane Abbott's controversial letter as "antisemitic" when it
plainly isn't. People in positions of responsibility should shut
the fuck up and wait for the outcome of a properly run
investigation.
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high
profile Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman
Sachs is considered by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of
Nazi Germany and the worst excesses of Julius Streicher.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing
-bbc-boss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
I hesitate to disagree with you but in this instance, because I
generally agree with you about faux anti-semitism. But in this
case I see nothing in Sharp's facial appearance to justify the
caricature and surely it is pure anti-semitism to draw attention
to the fact that someone who possibly and unprovenly acquires the
chairmanship of the BBC corruptly is a Jewish banker by
background? If he were Swedish would it be relevant? If he
acquired control of an armament firm selling to Israel it might,
controversially, be relevant?
If Richard Sharp didn't happen to be Jewish but had exactly the
same face - which a cartoonist is usually entitled to distort for
comic purposes - the cartoon would presumably be acceptable.
Former Goldman Sachs banker, allegedly (though actually it isn't
true but many believe it to be true) part of the steaming dungheap
of corruption that Boris presided over.
Because he happens to be Jewish, the cartoon is deemed to be
antisemitic.
So what now - is he to be protected from criticism, is his past
life as a rich influential banker to be airbrushed from history
and removed from all press coverage?
Is the Guardian's cartoon a small but important step towards the
next pogrom of Jews?
On 30/04/2023 21:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023 at 12:48:39 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2023 20:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/04/2023 18:19, The Todal wrote:Credit for what?
On 28/04/2023 17:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:39:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party. >>>>>>> Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
Is distancing itself from the situation. Rather than throw Sharp under >>>>> a bus, I think Sunak encouraged him to resign.
He can't have tried very hard then.
FWIW I am more inclined to give the credit to Tim Davie (as is the BBC). >>>
For worrying about the image of the BBC and a continuing controversy
which needed to be resolved? I have no doubt that Sharp felt the same. >>>
Sharp only resigned *after* the report was issued. It had been clear for >>>> some time that his position at the BBC was completely untenable.
That's what journalists were saying. "Untenable". They love to tell us
that careers are hanging by a thread, even if it's merely a consensus of >>> journalists vying with each other to predict the moment of the likely
resignation.
Witness the recent Match of the Day debacle where his silence was
deafening! What use is a BBC Chairman who dare not appear in public?
It wasn't Sharp's job to issue statements about whether or not Lineker
had broken his contract. It would have been improper to do so whether in >>> support of Lineker or in condemnation of him.
Keir Starmer the former lawyer turned demagogue has condemned Diane
Abbott's controversial letter as "antisemitic" when it plainly isn't.
People in positions of responsibility should shut the fuck up and wait
for the outcome of a properly run investigation.
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile
Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is considered
by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the worst
excesses of Julius Streicher.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-boss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
I hesitate to disagree with you but in this instance, because I generally
agree with you about faux anti-semitism. But in this case I see nothing in >> Sharp's facial appearance to justify the caricature and surely it is pure
anti-semitism to draw attention to the fact that someone who possibly and
unprovenly acquires the chairmanship of the BBC corruptly is a Jewish banker >> by background? If he were Swedish would it be relevant? If he acquired control
of an armament firm selling to Israel it might, controversially, be relevant?
If Richard Sharp didn't happen to be Jewish but had exactly the same face - which a cartoonist is usually entitled to distort for comic purposes - the cartoon would presumably be acceptable.
On 30/04/2023 23:29, The Todal wrote:
On 30/04/2023 21:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023 at 12:48:39 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 28/04/2023 20:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/04/2023 18:19, The Todal wrote:
On 28/04/2023 17:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:39:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party. >>>>>>>> Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
Is distancing itself from the situation. Rather than throw Sharp under >>>>>> a bus, I think Sunak encouraged him to resign.
He can't have tried very hard then.
FWIW I am more inclined to give the credit to Tim Davie (as is the
BBC).
Credit for what?
For worrying about the image of the BBC and a continuing controversy
which needed to be resolved? I have no doubt that Sharp felt the same. >>>>
Sharp only resigned *after* the report was issued. It had been clear >>>>> for
some time that his position at the BBC was completely untenable.
That's what journalists were saying. "Untenable". They love to tell us >>>> that careers are hanging by a thread, even if it's merely a consensus of >>>> journalists vying with each other to predict the moment of the likely
resignation.
Witness the recent Match of the Day debacle where his silence was
deafening! What use is a BBC Chairman who dare not appear in public? >>>>>
It wasn't Sharp's job to issue statements about whether or not Lineker >>>> had broken his contract. It would have been improper to do so whether in >>>> support of Lineker or in condemnation of him.
Keir Starmer the former lawyer turned demagogue has condemned Diane
Abbott's controversial letter as "antisemitic" when it plainly isn't.
People in positions of responsibility should shut the fuck up and wait >>>> for the outcome of a properly run investigation.
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile
Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is considered >>>> by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the worst >>>> excesses of Julius Streicher.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-boss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
I hesitate to disagree with you but in this instance, because I generally >>> agree with you about faux anti-semitism. But in this case I see
nothing in
Sharp's facial appearance to justify the caricature and surely it is pure >>> anti-semitism to draw attention to the fact that someone who possibly and >>> unprovenly acquires the chairmanship of the BBC corruptly is a Jewish
banker
by background? If he were Swedish would it be relevant? If he acquired
control
of an armament firm selling to Israel it might, controversially, be
relevant?
If Richard Sharp didn't happen to be Jewish but had exactly the same
face - which a cartoonist is usually entitled to distort for comic
purposes - the cartoon would presumably be acceptable. Former Goldman
Sachs banker, allegedly (though actually it isn't true but many believe
it to be true) part of the steaming dungheap of corruption that Boris
presided over.
Because he happens to be Jewish, the cartoon is deemed to be antisemitic.
So what now - is he to be protected from criticism, is his past life as
a rich influential banker to be airbrushed from history and removed from
all press coverage?
Is the Guardian's cartoon a small but important step towards the next
pogrom of Jews?
When a pendulum swings one way to an extreme position, then there is the
real likelihood of it swinging just as far the other way. It is a scary prospect.
In the same way woke and snowflake have become derogatory terms
that are
a result of fashionable views I'm left wondering what term will become
the norm to be critical of an oversensitivity to call anyone antisemitic?
Perhaps Palestinians will hijack the term antisemitism, after all they
are the true Semites?
pensive hamster <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
Bryan Morris wrote:
The inclusion of an octopus being carried by Sharp is a
standard anti-Semitic trope.
Does someone have a list of animals and symbols I mustn't use in
fear of being called antisemitic?
The Observers Book of Anti-Semitic Tropes.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Persistent-Prejudice-Anti-Semitic-Standards- Anti-Israel-ebook/dp/B0B23ZYDH2/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1N5OHZPBWJO12 &keywords=Anti-Semitic+Tropes&qid=1682899452&s=books&sprefix=anti- semitic+tropes%2Cstripbooks%2C201&sr=1-1
On 30 Apr 2023 at 23:33:12 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2023 21:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023 at 19:44:06 BST, "Bryan Morris" <Bryan@brymor.me.uk> wrote: >>>
In message <kb72snFr42oU1@mid.individual.net>, The Todal
<the_todal@icloud.com> writes
On 28/04/2023 20:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/04/2023 18:19, The Todal wrote:Credit for what?
On 28/04/2023 17:41, Jethro_uk wrote:He can't have tried very hard then.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:39:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party. >>>>>>>>> Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
Is distancing itself from the situation. Rather than throw Sharp >>>>>>> under a bus, I think Sunak encouraged him to resign.
FWIW I am more inclined to give the credit to Tim Davie (as is the BBC). >>>>>
For worrying about the image of the BBC and a continuing controversy >>>>> which needed to be resolved? I have no doubt that Sharp felt the same. >>>>>
Sharp only resigned *after* the report was issued. It had been clear >>>>>> for some time that his position at the BBC was completely untenable. >>>>>That's what journalists were saying. "Untenable". They love to tell us >>>>> that careers are hanging by a thread, even if it's merely a consensus >>>>> of journalists vying with each other to predict the moment of the
likely resignation.
Witness the recent Match of the Day debacle where his silence was >>>>>> deafening! What use is a BBC Chairman who dare not appear in public? >>>>>>
It wasn't Sharp's job to issue statements about whether or not Lineker >>>>> had broken his contract. It would have been improper to do so whether >>>>> in support of Lineker or in condemnation of him.
Keir Starmer the former lawyer turned demagogue has condemned Diane
Abbott's controversial letter as "antisemitic" when it plainly isn't. >>>>> People in positions of responsibility should shut the fuck up and wait >>>>> for the outcome of a properly run investigation.
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile >>>>> Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is considered >>>>> by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the worst >>>>> excesses of Julius Streicher.
Nothing to do with "woke fraternity" (whatever that implies)
The inclusion of an octopus being carried by Sharp is a standard
anti-Semitic trope.
I thought it was a squid? But why is this an anti-semitic trope, if I may >>> admit my total ignorance?
The cartoon shows a grotesque Boris Johnson on top of a huge dung-heap
with big sacks of money next to him.
Imagine if Boris Johnson happened to be Jewish. Then the cartoon would
instantly become a hideous antisemitic insult, implying that Jews have
all the money and all the influence and are responsible for all the
corruption. Not Boris. Jews.
Sure, people would say that. They might even sincerely believe it. But I'd only agree with them if the cartoonist drew Boris's face as a caricature jewish face or put other anti-semitic tropes in the drawing. Otherwise I would
say it was just an anti-Boris cartoon.
The Guardian cartoon was deliberately antisemitic. Do you think if Sharp had worked at RBS or HSBC instead of Goldman Sachs their totally irrelevant name would be on the box?
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour
Party. Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
Is distancing itself from the situation. Rather than throw
Sharp under a bus, I think Sunak encouraged him to resign.
He can't have tried very hard then.
FWIW I am more inclined to give the credit to Tim Davie (as is
the BBC).
Credit for what?
For worrying about the image of the BBC and a continuing
controversy which needed to be resolved? I have no doubt that
Sharp felt the same.
Sharp only resigned *after* the report was issued. It had been
clear for some time that his position at the BBC was completely
untenable.
That's what journalists were saying. "Untenable". They love to
tell us that careers are hanging by a thread, even if it's
merely a consensus of journalists vying with each other to
predict the moment of the likely resignation.
Witness the recent Match of the Day debacle where his silence
was deafening! What use is a BBC Chairman who dare not appear
in public?
It wasn't Sharp's job to issue statements about whether or not
Lineker had broken his contract. It would have been improper to
do so whether in support of Lineker or in condemnation of him.
Keir Starmer the former lawyer turned demagogue has condemned
Diane Abbott's controversial letter as "antisemitic" when it
plainly isn't. People in positions of responsibility should shut
the fuck up and wait for the outcome of a properly run
investigation.
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high
profile Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman
Sachs is considered by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of
Nazi Germany and the worst excesses of Julius Streicher.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing
-bbc-boss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
I hesitate to disagree with you but in this instance, because I
generally agree with you about faux anti-semitism. But in this
case I see nothing in Sharp's facial appearance to justify the
caricature and surely it is pure anti-semitism to draw attention
to the fact that someone who possibly and unprovenly acquires the
chairmanship of the BBC corruptly is a Jewish banker by
background? If he were Swedish would it be relevant? If he
acquired control of an armament firm selling to Israel it might,
controversially, be relevant?
If Richard Sharp didn't happen to be Jewish but had exactly the
same face - which a cartoonist is usually entitled to distort for
comic purposes - the cartoon would presumably be acceptable.
Former Goldman Sachs banker, allegedly (though actually it isn't
true but many believe it to be true) part of the steaming dungheap
of corruption that Boris presided over.
I agree. Calling it antisemitic is a stretch. I doubt that's what
was intended, and I doubt that most people would see it that way.
Because he happens to be Jewish, the cartoon is deemed to be
antisemitic.
So what now - is he to be protected from criticism, is his past
life as a rich influential banker to be airbrushed from history
and removed from all press coverage?
Is the Guardian's cartoon a small but important step towards the
next pogrom of Jews?
On 30/04/2023 23:29, The Todal wrote:
On 30/04/2023 21:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023 at 12:48:39 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile
Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is considered >>>> by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the worst >>>> excesses of Julius Streicher.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-boss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
I hesitate to disagree with you but in this instance, because I
generally
agree with you about faux anti-semitism. But in this case I see
nothing in
Sharp's facial appearance to justify the caricature and surely it is
pure
anti-semitism to draw attention to the fact that someone who possibly
and
unprovenly acquires the chairmanship of the BBC corruptly is a Jewish
banker
by background? If he were Swedish would it be relevant? If he
acquired control
of an armament firm selling to Israel it might, controversially, be
relevant?
If Richard Sharp didn't happen to be Jewish but had exactly the same
face - which a cartoonist is usually entitled to distort for comic
purposes - the cartoon would presumably be acceptable.
It might help if the cartoon was in the least amusing?
Here's the full report.
https://publicappointmentscommissioner.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-28-OCPA-DECISION-NOTICE-IN-RELATION-TO-THE-APPOINTMENT-OF-CHAIR-OF-THE-BBC-BOARD-MR-RICHARD-SHARP.pdf
It's worth reading, given that the Times described it as a "damning"
report even though it contains only mild, restrained criticism of Sharp
for failing to declare "potential perceived" conflicts of interest, a
"risk of a perception". Not even actual conflicts, just matters that
could be perceived as such.
It doesn't recommend his removal (which isn't up to the author of the
report, Adam Heppinstall KC) and it does not say that Sharp arranged or helped to arrange a loan to Boris Johnson even though the Press keeps
telling us that he did.
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party.
Neither is trustworthy.
One criticism in the report has nothing to do with any wrongdoing by
Sharp. "Leaks and briefing to the press of “preferred candidates” for public appointments (referred to as “pre-briefing”) should be prohibited by Ministers. If this does happen, then mitigating steps should be considered. In this case such pre-briefing may well have discouraged
people from applying for this role".
And Heppinstall recommends that there should be a new, updated conflicts
of interest policy which should be issued to candidates. Perhaps if that
had been done in time, Sharp would not have failed to declare this theoretical perceived potential conflict of interest.
On 01/05/2023 00:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023 at 23:33:12 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2023 21:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023 at 19:44:06 BST, "Bryan Morris" <Bryan@brymor.me.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <kb72snFr42oU1@mid.individual.net>, The Todal
<the_todal@icloud.com> writes
On 28/04/2023 20:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/04/2023 18:19, The Todal wrote:
On 28/04/2023 17:41, Jethro_uk wrote:He can't have tried very hard then.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:39:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party. >>>>>>>>>> Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
Is distancing itself from the situation. Rather than throw Sharp >>>>>>>> under a bus, I think Sunak encouraged him to resign.
FWIW I am more inclined to give the credit to Tim Davie (as is the BBC).
Credit for what?
For worrying about the image of the BBC and a continuing controversy >>>>>> which needed to be resolved? I have no doubt that Sharp felt the same. >>>>>>
Sharp only resigned *after* the report was issued. It had been clear >>>>>>> for some time that his position at the BBC was completely untenable. >>>>>>That's what journalists were saying. "Untenable". They love to tell us >>>>>> that careers are hanging by a thread, even if it's merely a consensus >>>>>> of journalists vying with each other to predict the moment of the
likely resignation.
Witness the recent Match of the Day debacle where his silence was >>>>>>> deafening! What use is a BBC Chairman who dare not appear in public? >>>>>>>
It wasn't Sharp's job to issue statements about whether or not Lineker >>>>>> had broken his contract. It would have been improper to do so whether >>>>>> in support of Lineker or in condemnation of him.
Keir Starmer the former lawyer turned demagogue has condemned Diane >>>>>> Abbott's controversial letter as "antisemitic" when it plainly isn't. >>>>>> People in positions of responsibility should shut the fuck up and wait >>>>>> for the outcome of a properly run investigation.
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile >>>>>> Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is considered >>>>>> by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the worst >>>>>> excesses of Julius Streicher.
Nothing to do with "woke fraternity" (whatever that implies)
The inclusion of an octopus being carried by Sharp is a standard
anti-Semitic trope.
I thought it was a squid? But why is this an anti-semitic trope, if I may >>>> admit my total ignorance?
The cartoon shows a grotesque Boris Johnson on top of a huge dung-heap
with big sacks of money next to him.
Imagine if Boris Johnson happened to be Jewish. Then the cartoon would
instantly become a hideous antisemitic insult, implying that Jews have
all the money and all the influence and are responsible for all the
corruption. Not Boris. Jews.
Sure, people would say that. They might even sincerely believe it. But I'd >> only agree with them if the cartoonist drew Boris's face as a caricature
jewish face or put other anti-semitic tropes in the drawing. Otherwise I would
say it was just an anti-Boris cartoon.
The Guardian cartoon was deliberately antisemitic. Do you think if Sharp had >> worked at RBS or HSBC instead of Goldman Sachs their totally irrelevant name >> would be on the box?
I find it really bizarre that you can claim that the cartoon was "deliberately" antisemitic, as if the newspaper and its cartoonist have
a track record of antisemitism or are infected with the plague of
unconscious antisemitism.
Sharp was Rishi Sunak's boss at Goldman Sachs, so it has a relevance if
you buy into the anti-Sharp theories, that his attributes as a rich
banker and his ability to arrange loans or to make donations to the Tory party made him the most attractive candidate for the job.
Strip away the wealth, the banking and the supposed secret loan, and
you're left with absolutely nothing to criticise Sharp for.
The actual story about Sharp is: rich donor asked him if Boris needed
some money, Sharp said "you'll have to discuss that with the Cabinet Secretary, I can't have anything to do with this" and our journalists regularly misrepresent that as "arranged a loan for Boris". By spreading
a lie about Sharp, the journalists lit the touchpaper of an antisemitic trope.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Here's the full report.
https://publicappointmentscommissioner.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-28-OCPA-DECISION-NOTICE-IN-RELATION-TO-THE-APPOINTMENT-OF-CHAIR-OF-THE-BBC-BOARD-MR-RICHARD-SHARP.pdf
It's worth reading, given that the Times described it as a "damning"
report even though it contains only mild, restrained criticism of Sharp
for failing to declare "potential perceived" conflicts of interest, a
"risk of a perception". Not even actual conflicts, just matters that
could be perceived as such.
It doesn't recommend his removal (which isn't up to the author of the
report, Adam Heppinstall KC) and it does not say that Sharp arranged or
helped to arrange a loan to Boris Johnson even though the Press keeps
telling us that he did.
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party.
Neither is trustworthy.
One criticism in the report has nothing to do with any wrongdoing by
Sharp. "Leaks and briefing to the press of “preferred candidates” for
public appointments (referred to as “pre-briefing”) should be prohibited >> by Ministers. If this does happen, then mitigating steps should be
considered. In this case such pre-briefing may well have discouraged
people from applying for this role".
And Heppinstall recommends that there should be a new, updated conflicts
of interest policy which should be issued to candidates. Perhaps if that
had been done in time, Sharp would not have failed to declare this
theoretical perceived potential conflict of interest.
During my time in industry, we weren’t allowed to accept gifts of significant value - things like mugs, pens etc were fine, go beyond that
and you’d be in trouble. Nor could you accept ‘lavish’ entertainment. Lavish wasn’t defined, I was invited to the Cheltenham Gold Cup by a Company - I politely declined thinking it was lavish - and my line manager said it would have been ok. Not being a racing fan, I wasn’t disappointed. This was so engrained, when I received a gift voucher from a parent at the end of the pupils time in the school, I checked with the Head. Gifts like boxes of chocolate etc weren’t unusual but a gift voucher seemed a little too much.
Thus, to me, the idea of Sharp being appointed given the circumstances is totally inappropriate.
On 01/05/2023 10:31, kat wrote:
On 30/04/2023 23:29, The Todal wrote:
On 30/04/2023 21:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023 at 12:48:39 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile >>>>> Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is considered >>>>> by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the worst >>>>> excesses of Julius Streicher.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-boss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
I hesitate to disagree with you but in this instance, because I generally >>>> agree with you about faux anti-semitism. But in this case I see nothing in >>>> Sharp's facial appearance to justify the caricature and surely it is pure >>>> anti-semitism to draw attention to the fact that someone who possibly and >>>> unprovenly acquires the chairmanship of the BBC corruptly is a Jewish banker
by background? If he were Swedish would it be relevant? If he acquired control
of an armament firm selling to Israel it might, controversially, be relevant?
If Richard Sharp didn't happen to be Jewish but had exactly the same face - >>> which a cartoonist is usually entitled to distort for comic purposes - the >>> cartoon would presumably be acceptable.
It might help if the cartoon was in the least amusing?
Well, that's political cartoons for you. They aren't always intended to make us
laugh. Some are intended to make us angry.
On 01/05/2023 10:57, The Todal wrote:
On 01/05/2023 10:31, kat wrote:
On 30/04/2023 23:29, The Todal wrote:
On 30/04/2023 21:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023 at 12:48:39 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile >>>>>> Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is
considered
by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the
worst
excesses of Julius Streicher.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-boss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
I hesitate to disagree with you but in this instance, because I
generally
agree with you about faux anti-semitism. But in this case I see
nothing in
Sharp's facial appearance to justify the caricature and surely it
is pure
anti-semitism to draw attention to the fact that someone who
possibly and
unprovenly acquires the chairmanship of the BBC corruptly is a
Jewish banker
by background? If he were Swedish would it be relevant? If he
acquired control
of an armament firm selling to Israel it might, controversially, be
relevant?
If Richard Sharp didn't happen to be Jewish but had exactly the same
face - which a cartoonist is usually entitled to distort for comic
purposes - the cartoon would presumably be acceptable.
It might help if the cartoon was in the least amusing?
Well, that's political cartoons for you. They aren't always intended
to make us laugh. Some are intended to make us angry.
I was following on from your comment "for comic purposes" . This one failed to make me angry as well. I just thought it a bit pathetic.
On 01/05/2023 20:59, kat wrote:
On 01/05/2023 10:57, The Todal wrote:
On 01/05/2023 10:31, kat wrote:
On 30/04/2023 23:29, The Todal wrote:
On 30/04/2023 21:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023 at 12:48:39 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile >>>>>>> Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is considered >>>>>>> by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the worst >>>>>>> excesses of Julius Streicher.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-boss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
I hesitate to disagree with you but in this instance, because I generally
agree with you about faux anti-semitism. But in this case I see nothing in
Sharp's facial appearance to justify the caricature and surely it is pure
anti-semitism to draw attention to the fact that someone who possibly and
unprovenly acquires the chairmanship of the BBC corruptly is a Jewish banker
by background? If he were Swedish would it be relevant? If he acquired >>>>>> control
of an armament firm selling to Israel it might, controversially, be relevant?
If Richard Sharp didn't happen to be Jewish but had exactly the same face -
which a cartoonist is usually entitled to distort for comic purposes - the
cartoon would presumably be acceptable.
It might help if the cartoon was in the least amusing?
Well, that's political cartoons for you. They aren't always intended to make
us laugh. Some are intended to make us angry.
I was following on from your comment "for comic purposes" . This one failed
to make me angry as well. I just thought it a bit pathetic.
Any anger was intended to be directed at Boris Johnson, obviously. The notion
that he presided over a regime of lies and evasions and jobs for his mates might
make some people angry, or might make them rather sad. I don't think I can see
any pathos in the cartoon.
On 01/05/2023 22:59, The Todal wrote:
On 01/05/2023 20:59, kat wrote:
On 01/05/2023 10:57, The Todal wrote:
On 01/05/2023 10:31, kat wrote:
On 30/04/2023 23:29, The Todal wrote:
On 30/04/2023 21:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023 at 12:48:39 BST, "The Todal"
<the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been >>>>>>>> criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high
profile
Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is
considered
by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the >>>>>>>> worst
excesses of Julius Streicher.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-boss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
I hesitate to disagree with you but in this instance, because I
generally
agree with you about faux anti-semitism. But in this case I see
nothing in
Sharp's facial appearance to justify the caricature and surely it >>>>>>> is pure
anti-semitism to draw attention to the fact that someone who
possibly and
unprovenly acquires the chairmanship of the BBC corruptly is a
Jewish banker
by background? If he were Swedish would it be relevant? If he
acquired control
of an armament firm selling to Israel it might, controversially, >>>>>>> be relevant?
If Richard Sharp didn't happen to be Jewish but had exactly the
same face - which a cartoonist is usually entitled to distort for
comic purposes - the cartoon would presumably be acceptable.
It might help if the cartoon was in the least amusing?
Well, that's political cartoons for you. They aren't always
intended to make us laugh. Some are intended to make us angry.
I was following on from your comment "for comic purposes" . This
one failed to make me angry as well. I just thought it a bit pathetic.
Any anger was intended to be directed at Boris Johnson, obviously.
The notion that he presided over a regime of lies and evasions and
jobs for his mates might make some people angry, or might make them
rather sad. I don't think I can see any pathos in the cartoon.
An alternative meaning of "pathetic" is
"miserably inadequate".
On 30 Apr 2023 at 12:48:39 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2023 20:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/04/2023 18:19, The Todal wrote:
On 28/04/2023 17:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:39:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The Press has misrepresented the facts and so has the Labour Party. >>>>>> Neither is trustworthy.
And the Tory party is ?
Is distancing itself from the situation. Rather than throw Sharp under >>>> a bus, I think Sunak encouraged him to resign.
He can't have tried very hard then.
FWIW I am more inclined to give the credit to Tim Davie (as is the BBC).
Credit for what?
For worrying about the image of the BBC and a continuing controversy
which needed to be resolved? I have no doubt that Sharp felt the same.
Sharp only resigned *after* the report was issued. It had been clear for >>> some time that his position at the BBC was completely untenable.
That's what journalists were saying. "Untenable". They love to tell us
that careers are hanging by a thread, even if it's merely a consensus of
journalists vying with each other to predict the moment of the likely
resignation.
Witness the recent Match of the Day debacle where his silence was
deafening! What use is a BBC Chairman who dare not appear in public?
It wasn't Sharp's job to issue statements about whether or not Lineker
had broken his contract. It would have been improper to do so whether in
support of Lineker or in condemnation of him.
Keir Starmer the former lawyer turned demagogue has condemned Diane
Abbott's controversial letter as "antisemitic" when it plainly isn't.
People in positions of responsibility should shut the fuck up and wait
for the outcome of a properly run investigation.
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high profile
Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs is considered
by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the worst
excesses of Julius Streicher.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-boss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197
I hesitate to disagree with you but in this instance, because I generally agree with you about faux anti-semitism. But in this case I see nothing in Sharp's facial appearance to justify the caricature and surely it is pure anti-semitism to draw attention to the fact that someone who possibly and unprovenly acquires the chairmanship of the BBC corruptly is a Jewish banker by background? If he were Swedish would it be relevant? If he acquired control
of an armament firm selling to Israel it might, controversially, be relevant?
On 30/04/2023 22:48, pensive hamster wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:44:38?PM UTC+1, Bryan Morris wrote:
The Todal writes
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high
profile Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs
is considered by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi
Germany and the worst excesses of Julius Streicher.
Nothing to do with "woke fraternity" (whatever that implies)
The inclusion of an octopus being carried by Sharp is a standard
anti-Semitic trope.
Apparently it was actually a squid, if that makes any difference.
No ifs or buts or excuses. It was anti-Semitic
It actually wasn't antisemitic. No ifs, no buts, just a cartoonist
who isn't an antisemite and a cartoon that has been misinterpreted by
those who make it their dogged mission to see antisemitism wherever
they possibly can. However, the hysteria seems to be infectious now.
From the Times:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said yesterday: "We have
written to The Guardian requesting an urgent meeting with the editor
Kath Viner in regard to yesterday's shocking cartoon in the paper,
which contained antisemitic tropes.
"This is far from the first time the paper has crossed the line in
terms of highly questionable content connected to the Jewish
community."
The cartoon, drawn by Martin Rowson, showed Sharp with exaggerated
facial features, depicting him holding a box marked "Goldman
Sachs", where he previously worked as a banker, alongside an image
of a malevolent squid and a pig eating.
Rowson, 64, said the cartoon was a failure "on many levels" and
said that Sharp was not "the main target of the satire", arguing
that he had "rushed at something without allowing enough time to
consider things with the depth and care they require, thereby letting
slip in stupid ambiguities that have ended up appearing to be
something I never intended".
He said he was at school with Sharp, 67, and knew he was Jewish, but
added that "his Jewishness never crossed my mind as I drew him"
and that he had only "twisted his features according to the
standard cartooning playbook".
The squid is a reference to a quote from Rolling Stone magazine,
which once said the bank Goldman Sachs was "a great vampire squid
wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood
funnel into anything that smells like money".
On 23:15 30 Apr 2023, The Todal said:
On 30/04/2023 22:48, pensive hamster wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:44:38?PM UTC+1, Bryan Morris wrote:
The Todal writes
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high
profile Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman Sachs
is considered by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of Nazi
Germany and the worst excesses of Julius Streicher.
Nothing to do with "woke fraternity" (whatever that implies)
The inclusion of an octopus being carried by Sharp is a standard
anti-Semitic trope.
Apparently it was actually a squid, if that makes any difference.
No ifs or buts or excuses. It was anti-Semitic
It actually wasn't antisemitic. No ifs, no buts, just a cartoonist
who isn't an antisemite and a cartoon that has been misinterpreted by
those who make it their dogged mission to see antisemitism wherever
they possibly can. However, the hysteria seems to be infectious now.
From the Times:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said yesterday: "We have
written to The Guardian requesting an urgent meeting with the editor
Kath Viner in regard to yesterday's shocking cartoon in the paper,
which contained antisemitic tropes.
"This is far from the first time the paper has crossed the line in
terms of highly questionable content connected to the Jewish
community."
The cartoon, drawn by Martin Rowson, showed Sharp with exaggerated
facial features, depicting him holding a box marked "Goldman
Sachs", where he previously worked as a banker, alongside an image
of a malevolent squid and a pig eating.
Rowson, 64, said the cartoon was a failure "on many levels" and
said that Sharp was not "the main target of the satire", arguing
that he had "rushed at something without allowing enough time to
consider things with the depth and care they require, thereby letting
slip in stupid ambiguities that have ended up appearing to be
something I never intended".
He said he was at school with Sharp, 67, and knew he was Jewish, but
added that "his Jewishness never crossed my mind as I drew him"
and that he had only "twisted his features according to the
standard cartooning playbook".
The squid is a reference to a quote from Rolling Stone magazine,
which once said the bank Goldman Sachs was "a great vampire squid
wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood
funnel into anything that smells like money".
It's hard to imagine a weaker excuse.
Martin Rowson, who drew the cartoon, apologised by saying he
"rushed at something without allowing enough time to consider
things with the depth and care they require, letting slip in stupid
ambiguities"
That's highly reminiscent of Dianne Abbott's claim that she too rushed
out a draft of her letter before it was ready. These anti-semitic
racists are like peas in a pod.
On 04/05/2023 14:03, Pamela wrote:
On 23:15 30 Apr 2023, The Todal said:
On 30/04/2023 22:48, pensive hamster wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:44:38?PM UTC+1, Bryan Morris wrote:
The Todal writes
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high
profile Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman
Sachs is considered by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of
Nazi Germany and the worst excesses of Julius Streicher.
Nothing to do with "woke fraternity" (whatever that implies)
The inclusion of an octopus being carried by Sharp is a standard
anti-Semitic trope.
Apparently it was actually a squid, if that makes any difference.
No ifs or buts or excuses. It was anti-Semitic
It actually wasn't antisemitic. No ifs, no buts, just a cartoonist
who isn't an antisemite and a cartoon that has been misinterpreted
by those who make it their dogged mission to see antisemitism
wherever they possibly can. However, the hysteria seems to be
infectious now.
From the Times:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said yesterday: "We have
written to The Guardian requesting an urgent meeting with the
editor Kath Viner in regard to yesterday's shocking cartoon in the
paper, which contained antisemitic tropes.
"This is far from the first time the paper has crossed the line in
terms of highly questionable content connected to the Jewish
community."
The cartoon, drawn by Martin Rowson, showed Sharp with exaggerated
facial features, depicting him holding a box marked "Goldman
Sachs", where he previously worked as a banker, alongside an image
of a malevolent squid and a pig eating.
Rowson, 64, said the cartoon was a failure "on many levels" and
said that Sharp was not "the main target of the satire", arguing
that he had "rushed at something without allowing enough time to
consider things with the depth and care they require, thereby
letting slip in stupid ambiguities that have ended up appearing to
be something I never intended".
He said he was at school with Sharp, 67, and knew he was Jewish,
but added that "his Jewishness never crossed my mind as I drew him"
and that he had only "twisted his features according to the
standard cartooning playbook".
The squid is a reference to a quote from Rolling Stone magazine,
which once said the bank Goldman Sachs was "a great vampire squid
wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood
funnel into anything that smells like money".
It's hard to imagine a weaker excuse.
Martin Rowson, who drew the cartoon, apologised by saying he
"rushed at something without allowing enough time to consider
things with the depth and care they require, letting slip in
stupid ambiguities"
That's highly reminiscent of Dianne Abbott's claim that she too
rushed out a draft of her letter before it was ready. These
anti-semitic racists are like peas in a pod.
However, neither Rowson nor Abbott is actually antisemitic. That's
the point.
It is possible to inadvertently cause offence to people, without
being bigoted towards them.
An alternative theory is that you can be unconsciously antisemitic,
bigoted without even being aware that you are bigoted. It assumes a
lofty superiority of those who are always on the alert for other
people's biases.
On 09:54 5 May 2023, The Todal said:
On 04/05/2023 14:03, Pamela wrote:
On 23:15 30 Apr 2023, The Todal said:
On 30/04/2023 22:48, pensive hamster wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:44:38?PM UTC+1, Bryan Morris wrote:
The Todal writes
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high
profile Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman
Sachs is considered by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of
Nazi Germany and the worst excesses of Julius Streicher.
Nothing to do with "woke fraternity" (whatever that implies)
The inclusion of an octopus being carried by Sharp is a standard
anti-Semitic trope.
Apparently it was actually a squid, if that makes any difference.
No ifs or buts or excuses. It was anti-Semitic
It actually wasn't antisemitic. No ifs, no buts, just a cartoonist
who isn't an antisemite and a cartoon that has been misinterpreted
by those who make it their dogged mission to see antisemitism
wherever they possibly can. However, the hysteria seems to be
infectious now.
From the Times:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said yesterday: "We have
written to The Guardian requesting an urgent meeting with the
editor Kath Viner in regard to yesterday's shocking cartoon in the
paper, which contained antisemitic tropes.
"This is far from the first time the paper has crossed the line in
terms of highly questionable content connected to the Jewish
community."
The cartoon, drawn by Martin Rowson, showed Sharp with exaggerated
facial features, depicting him holding a box marked "Goldman
Sachs", where he previously worked as a banker, alongside an image
of a malevolent squid and a pig eating.
Rowson, 64, said the cartoon was a failure "on many levels" and
said that Sharp was not "the main target of the satire", arguing
that he had "rushed at something without allowing enough time to
consider things with the depth and care they require, thereby
letting slip in stupid ambiguities that have ended up appearing to
be something I never intended".
He said he was at school with Sharp, 67, and knew he was Jewish,
but added that "his Jewishness never crossed my mind as I drew him"
and that he had only "twisted his features according to the
standard cartooning playbook".
The squid is a reference to a quote from Rolling Stone magazine,
which once said the bank Goldman Sachs was "a great vampire squid
wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood
funnel into anything that smells like money".
It's hard to imagine a weaker excuse.
Martin Rowson, who drew the cartoon, apologised by saying he
"rushed at something without allowing enough time to consider
things with the depth and care they require, letting slip in
stupid ambiguities"
That's highly reminiscent of Dianne Abbott's claim that she too
rushed out a draft of her letter before it was ready. These
anti-semitic racists are like peas in a pod.
However, neither Rowson nor Abbott is actually antisemitic. That's
the point.
It is possible to inadvertently cause offence to people, without
being bigoted towards them.
Diane Abbott caused offence because she was bigoted in her
letter towards Jews and other minorities. Possibly she had been
emboldened by discussions which exaggerate black victimhood and she
then says other minorities don't really suffer.
An alternative theory is that you can be unconsciously antisemitic,
bigoted without even being aware that you are bigoted. It assumes a
lofty superiority of those who are always on the alert for other
people's biases.
"Nothing says bias like someone who absolutely refuses to
discuss the possibility that they might be biased"
-- Diane Abbott.
https://tinyurl.com/mr3pnxm7
When she sent her son to a private school, Abbott admitted saying one
thing and doing another. How far do those double standards extend?
On 09:54 5 May 2023, The Todal said:
On 04/05/2023 14:03, Pamela wrote:
On 23:15 30 Apr 2023, The Todal said:
On 30/04/2023 22:48, pensive hamster wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:44:38?PM UTC+1, Bryan Morris wrote:
The Todal writes
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has been
criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a high
profile Jewish man with a reminder of his career at Goldman
Sachs is considered by the woke fraternity to be reminiscent of
Nazi Germany and the worst excesses of Julius Streicher.
Nothing to do with "woke fraternity" (whatever that implies)
The inclusion of an octopus being carried by Sharp is a standard
anti-Semitic trope.
Apparently it was actually a squid, if that makes any difference.
No ifs or buts or excuses. It was anti-Semitic
It actually wasn't antisemitic. No ifs, no buts, just a cartoonist
who isn't an antisemite and a cartoon that has been misinterpreted
by those who make it their dogged mission to see antisemitism
wherever they possibly can. However, the hysteria seems to be
infectious now.
From the Times:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said yesterday: "We have
written to The Guardian requesting an urgent meeting with the
editor Kath Viner in regard to yesterday's shocking cartoon in the
paper, which contained antisemitic tropes.
"This is far from the first time the paper has crossed the line in
terms of highly questionable content connected to the Jewish
community."
The cartoon, drawn by Martin Rowson, showed Sharp with exaggerated
facial features, depicting him holding a box marked "Goldman
Sachs", where he previously worked as a banker, alongside an image
of a malevolent squid and a pig eating.
Rowson, 64, said the cartoon was a failure "on many levels" and
said that Sharp was not "the main target of the satire", arguing
that he had "rushed at something without allowing enough time to
consider things with the depth and care they require, thereby
letting slip in stupid ambiguities that have ended up appearing to
be something I never intended".
He said he was at school with Sharp, 67, and knew he was Jewish,
but added that "his Jewishness never crossed my mind as I drew him"
and that he had only "twisted his features according to the
standard cartooning playbook".
The squid is a reference to a quote from Rolling Stone magazine,
which once said the bank Goldman Sachs was "a great vampire squid
wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood
funnel into anything that smells like money".
It's hard to imagine a weaker excuse.
Martin Rowson, who drew the cartoon, apologised by saying he
"rushed at something without allowing enough time to consider
things with the depth and care they require, letting slip in
stupid ambiguities"
That's highly reminiscent of Dianne Abbott's claim that she too
rushed out a draft of her letter before it was ready. These
anti-semitic racists are like peas in a pod.
However, neither Rowson nor Abbott is actually antisemitic. That's
the point.
It is possible to inadvertently cause offence to people, without
being bigoted towards them.
Diane Abbott caused offence because she was bigoted in her
letter towards Jews and other minorities. Possibly she had been
emboldened by discussions which exaggerate black victimhood and she
then says other minorities don't really suffer.
An alternative theory is that you can be unconsciously antisemitic,
bigoted without even being aware that you are bigoted. It assumes a
lofty superiority of those who are always on the alert for other
people's biases.
"Nothing says bias like someone who absolutely refuses to
discuss the possibility that they might be biased"
-- Diane Abbott.
https://tinyurl.com/mr3pnxm7
When she sent her son to a private school, Abbott admitted saying one
thing and doing another. How far do those double standards extend?
When she sent her son to a private school, Abbott admitted
saying one thing and doing another. How far do those double
standards extend?
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message news:XnsAFFBA96AB6E5791F3A2@135.181.20.170...
When she sent her son to a private school, Abbott admitted
saying one thing and doing another. How far do those double
standards extend?
And what exactly did she say ?
That for instance, private schools should be abolished
because as things stand, with some notable exceptions,
they offer a far superior standard of education as
can be offered by State Schools ?
Surely all Diane Abbot is doing in sending her son to a
private school is simply confirming her belief that
until they're abolished, private schools offer a higher
standard of education ?
Whether she's correct in that belief is neither here
nor there,
Or are you demanding that Diane Abbot should send her son
to a school where she believes he will receive an
*inferior* standard of education ?
So where exactly are the "double standards" ?
On 04/05/2023 14:03, Pamela wrote:
On 23:15 30 Apr 2023, The Todal said:
Martin Rowson, who drew the cartoon, apologised by saying he
"rushed at something without allowing enough time to consider
things with the depth and care they require, letting slip in stupid >> ambiguities"
That's highly reminiscent of Dianne Abbott's claim that she too rushed
out a draft of her letter before it was ready. These anti-semitic
racists are like peas in a pod.
However, neither Rowson nor Abbott is actually antisemitic. That's the
point.
It is possible to inadvertently cause offence to people, without being bigoted towards them.
An alternative theory is that you can be unconsciously antisemitic,
bigoted without even being aware that you are bigoted. It assumes a
lofty superiority of those who are always on the alert for other
people's biases.
On 5 May 2023 at 16:39:15 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 09:54 5 May 2023, The Todal said:
On 04/05/2023 14:03, Pamela wrote:
On 23:15 30 Apr 2023, The Todal said:
On 30/04/2023 22:48, pensive hamster wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:44:38?PM UTC+1, Bryan Morris
wrote:
The Todal writes
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, a cartoon of Richard Sharp has
been criticised as antisemitic because the juxtaposition of a
high profile Jewish man with a reminder of his career at
Goldman Sachs is considered by the woke fraternity to be
reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the worst excesses of Julius
Streicher.
Nothing to do with "woke fraternity" (whatever that implies)
The inclusion of an octopus being carried by Sharp is a
standard anti-Semitic trope.
Apparently it was actually a squid, if that makes any
difference.
No ifs or buts or excuses. It was anti-Semitic
It actually wasn't antisemitic. No ifs, no buts, just a
cartoonist who isn't an antisemite and a cartoon that has been
misinterpreted by those who make it their dogged mission to see
antisemitism wherever they possibly can. However, the hysteria
seems to be infectious now.
From the Times:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said yesterday: "We have
written to The Guardian requesting an urgent meeting with the
editor Kath Viner in regard to yesterday's shocking cartoon in
the paper, which contained antisemitic tropes.
"This is far from the first time the paper has crossed the line
in terms of highly questionable content connected to the Jewish
community."
The cartoon, drawn by Martin Rowson, showed Sharp with
exaggerated facial features, depicting him holding a box marked
"Goldman Sachs", where he previously worked as a banker,
alongside an image of a malevolent squid and a pig eating.
Rowson, 64, said the cartoon was a failure "on many levels" and
said that Sharp was not "the main target of the satire", arguing
that he had "rushed at something without allowing enough time to
consider things with the depth and care they require, thereby
letting slip in stupid ambiguities that have ended up appearing
to be something I never intended".
He said he was at school with Sharp, 67, and knew he was Jewish,
but added that "his Jewishness never crossed my mind as I drew
him" and that he had only "twisted his features according to the
standard cartooning playbook".
The squid is a reference to a quote from Rolling Stone magazine,
which once said the bank Goldman Sachs was "a great vampire squid
wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its
blood funnel into anything that smells like money".
It's hard to imagine a weaker excuse.
Martin Rowson, who drew the cartoon, apologised by saying he
"rushed at something without allowing enough time to consider
things with the depth and care they require, letting slip in
stupid ambiguities"
That's highly reminiscent of Dianne Abbott's claim that she too
rushed out a draft of her letter before it was ready. These
anti-semitic racists are like peas in a pod.
However, neither Rowson nor Abbott is actually antisemitic. That's
the point.
It is possible to inadvertently cause offence to people, without
being bigoted towards them.
Diane Abbott caused offence because she was bigoted in her
letter towards Jews and other minorities. Possibly she had been
emboldened by discussions which exaggerate black victimhood and she
then says other minorities don't really suffer.
An alternative theory is that you can be unconsciously antisemitic,
bigoted without even being aware that you are bigoted. It assumes a
lofty superiority of those who are always on the alert for other
people's biases.
"Nothing says bias like someone who absolutely refuses to
discuss the possibility that they might be biased"
-- Diane Abbott.
https://tinyurl.com/mr3pnxm7
When she sent her son to a private school, Abbott admitted saying
one thing and doing another. How far do those double standards
extend?
I did the same. To protect him from the Metropolitan Police and
biased teachers more than anything. I think her action was completely reasonable in the circumstances.
On 05/05/2023 09:54 am, The Todal wrote:
On 04/05/2023 14:03, Pamela wrote:[ .. ]
On 23:15 30 Apr 2023, The Todal said:
Martin Rowson, who drew the cartoon, apologised by saying he
"rushed at something without allowing enough time to consider
things with the depth and care they require, letting slip in stupid >>> ambiguities"
That's highly reminiscent of Dianne Abbott's claim that she too rushed
out a draft of her letter before it was ready. These anti-semitic
racists are like peas in a pod.
However, neither Rowson nor Abbott is actually antisemitic. That's the
point.
How do you know that?
On 18:21 5 May 2023, Roger Hayter said:
On 5 May 2023 at 16:39:15 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
When she sent her son to a private school, Abbott admitted saying
one thing and doing another. How far do those double standards
extend?
I did the same. To protect him from the Metropolitan Police and
biased teachers more than anything. I think her action was completely
reasonable in the circumstances.
Your comment abour protection is similar to the explanation Diane
Abbott gave (in her case it was to protect her son from joining a
gang). However, she had loudly criticised Tony Blair and Harriet Harman
for not sending their children to state schools. Is this what is meant
by hypocrisy?
In her defence she said: "I had to choose between my reputation as a politician and my son". Well, it didn't do much for her reputation as a politician.
It didn't do much for her son either, when he showed his manner by
spitting at and biting police officers. I believe he was charged with
11 offences, 9 of which were assaults. Nice boy. Don't know what came
from that expensive education.
On 05/05/2023 07:51 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsAFFBA96AB6E5791F3A2@135.181.20.170...
When she sent her son to a private school, Abbott admitted
saying one thing and doing another. How far do those double
standards extend?
And what exactly did she say ?
That for instance, private schools should be abolished
because as things stand, with some notable exceptions,
they offer a far superior standard of education as
can be offered by State Schools ?
Surely all Diane Abbot is doing in sending her son to a
private school is simply confirming her belief that
until they're abolished, private schools offer a higher
standard of education ?
Whether she's correct in that belief is neither here
nor there,
Or are you demanding that Diane Abbot should send her son
to a school where she believes he will receive an
*inferior* standard of education ?
So where exactly are the "double standards" ?
Oh, that is so easy-peasy... she wants to bring about, or at least help bring, about a situation where other parents, even those in her exalted financial position, simply don't have the choice she not only had but embraced.
There. That wasn't hard, was it?
On 05/05/2023 07:51 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsAFFBA96AB6E5791F3A2@135.181.20.170...
When she sent her son to a private school, Abbott admitted
saying one thing and doing another. How far do those double
standards extend?
And what exactly did she say ?
That for instance, private schools should be abolished
because as things stand, with some notable exceptions,
they offer a far superior standard of education as
can be offered by State Schools ?
Surely all Diane Abbot is doing in sending her son to a
private school is simply confirming her belief that
until they're abolished, private schools offer a higher
standard of education ?
Whether she's correct in that belief is neither here
nor there,
Or are you demanding that Diane Abbot should send her son
to a school where she believes he will receive an
*inferior* standard of education ?
So where exactly are the "double standards" ?
Oh, that is so easy-peasy... she wants to bring about, or at least help bring, about a situation where other parents, even those in her exalted financial position, simply don't have the choice she not only had but embraced.
There. That wasn't hard, was it?
On 5 May 2023 at 21:00:15 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 05/05/2023 07:51 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsAFFBA96AB6E5791F3A2@135.181.20.170...
When she sent her son to a private school, Abbott admitted
saying one thing and doing another. How far do those double
standards extend?
And what exactly did she say ?
That for instance, private schools should be abolished
because as things stand, with some notable exceptions,
they offer a far superior standard of education as
can be offered by State Schools ?
Surely all Diane Abbot is doing in sending her son to a
private school is simply confirming her belief that
until they're abolished, private schools offer a higher
standard of education ?
Whether she's correct in that belief is neither here
nor there,
Or are you demanding that Diane Abbot should send her son
to a school where she believes he will receive an
*inferior* standard of education ?
So where exactly are the "double standards" ?
Oh, that is so easy-peasy... she wants to bring about, or at least help
bring, about a situation where other parents, even those in her exalted
financial position, simply don't have the choice she not only had but
embraced.
There. That wasn't hard, was it?
Based on the face validity of the proposition that if rich people had to send their children to state schools then what currently goes on in such schools would not be tolerated. And also that they would be better funded.
On 5 May 2023 at 21:00:15 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 05/05/2023 07:51 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsAFFBA96AB6E5791F3A2@135.181.20.170...
When she sent her son to a private school, Abbott admitted
saying one thing and doing another. How far do those double
standards extend?
And what exactly did she say ?
That for instance, private schools should be abolished
because as things stand, with some notable exceptions,
they offer a far superior standard of education as
can be offered by State Schools ?
Surely all Diane Abbot is doing in sending her son to a
private school is simply confirming her belief that
until they're abolished, private schools offer a higher
standard of education ?
Whether she's correct in that belief is neither here
nor there,
Or are you demanding that Diane Abbot should send her son
to a school where she believes he will receive an
*inferior* standard of education ?
So where exactly are the "double standards" ?
Oh, that is so easy-peasy... she wants to bring about, or at least help
bring, about a situation where other parents, even those in her exalted
financial position, simply don't have the choice she not only had but
embraced.
There. That wasn't hard, was it?
Based on the face validity of the proposition that if rich people had to send their children to state schools then what currently goes on in such schools would not be tolerated. And also that they would be better funded.
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote in message news:kbl5ieF2829U4@mid.individual.net...
On 05/05/2023 07:51 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsAFFBA96AB6E5791F3A2@135.181.20.170...
When she sent her son to a private school, Abbott admitted
saying one thing and doing another. How far do those double
standards extend?
And what exactly did she say ?
That for instance, private schools should be abolished
because as things stand, with some notable exceptions,
they offer a far superior standard of education as
can be offered by State Schools ?
Surely all Diane Abbot is doing in sending her son to a
private school is simply confirming her belief that
until they're abolished, private schools offer a higher
standard of education ?
Whether she's correct in that belief is neither here
nor there,
Or are you demanding that Diane Abbot should send her son
to a school where she believes he will receive an
*inferior* standard of education ?
So where exactly are the "double standards" ?
Oh, that is so easy-peasy... she wants to bring about, or at least help
bring, about a situation where other parents, even those in her exalted
financial position, simply don't have the choice she not only had but
embraced.
There. That wasn't hard, was it?
She wants to bring about a situation where nobody including herself
would need to pay to secure an adequate education for their children.
Its not a case of no longer "having" a choice but no longer "needing"
to have a choice if an adequate education can be provided by state
schools. Possibly that is where you're going wrong.
But until that situation comes about, in the meantime she has no option
but to pay.
That wasn't hard, was it?
bb
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote in message news:kbl5ieF2829U4@mid.individual.net...
On 05/05/2023 07:51 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsAFFBA96AB6E5791F3A2@135.181.20.170...
When she sent her son to a private school, Abbott admitted
saying one thing and doing another. How far do those double
standards extend?
And what exactly did she say ?
That for instance, private schools should be abolished
because as things stand, with some notable exceptions,
they offer a far superior standard of education as
can be offered by State Schools ?
Surely all Diane Abbot is doing in sending her son to a
private school is simply confirming her belief that
until they're abolished, private schools offer a higher
standard of education ?
Whether she's correct in that belief is neither here
nor there,
Or are you demanding that Diane Abbot should send her son
to a school where she believes he will receive an
*inferior* standard of education ?
So where exactly are the "double standards" ?
Oh, that is so easy-peasy... she wants to bring about, or at least help
bring, about a situation where other parents, even those in her exalted
financial position, simply don't have the choice she not only had but
embraced.
There. That wasn't hard, was it?
She wants to bring about a situation where nobody including herself
would need to pay to secure an adequate education for their children.
Its not a case of no longer "having" a choice but no longer "needing"
to have a choice if an adequate education can be provided by state
schools. Possibly that is where you're going wrong.
But until that situation comes about, in the meantime she has no option
but to pay.
That wasn't hard, was it?
On 06/05/2023 12:07 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kbl5ieF2829U4@mid.individual.net...
On 05/05/2023 07:51 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsAFFBA96AB6E5791F3A2@135.181.20.170...
When she sent her son to a private school, Abbott admitted
saying one thing and doing another. How far do those double
standards extend?
And what exactly did she say ?
That for instance, private schools should be abolished
because as things stand, with some notable exceptions,
they offer a far superior standard of education as
can be offered by State Schools ?
Surely all Diane Abbot is doing in sending her son to a
private school is simply confirming her belief that
until they're abolished, private schools offer a higher
standard of education ?
Whether she's correct in that belief is neither here
nor there,
Or are you demanding that Diane Abbot should send her son
to a school where she believes he will receive an
*inferior* standard of education ?
So where exactly are the "double standards" ?
Oh, that is so easy-peasy... she wants to bring about, or at least help
bring, about a situation where other parents, even those in her exalted
financial position, simply don't have the choice she not only had but
embraced.
There. That wasn't hard, was it?
She wants to bring about a situation where nobody including herself
would need to pay to secure an adequate education for their children.
No.
She wants to bring about a situation where nobody including herself
would be able to pay to secure an adequate education for their children.
Quite different.
Its not a case of no longer "having" a choice but no longer "needing"
to have a choice if an adequate education can be provided by state
schools. Possibly that is where you're going wrong.
That might be how she would put it.
But it's rubbish.
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
When she sent her son to a private school, Abbott admitted
saying one thing and doing another. How far do those double
standards extend?
And what exactly did she say ?
That for instance, private schools should be abolished
because as things stand, with some notable exceptions,
they offer a far superior standard of education as
can be offered by State Schools ?
Surely all Diane Abbot is doing in sending her son to a
private school is simply confirming her belief that
until they're abolished, private schools offer a higher
standard of education ?
Whether she's correct in that belief is neither here
nor there,
Or are you demanding that Diane Abbot should send her son
to a school where she believes he will receive an
*inferior* standard of education ?
So where exactly are the "double standards" ?
Oh, that is so easy-peasy... she wants to bring about, or at least help >>>> bring, about a situation where other parents, even those in her exalted >>>> financial position, simply don't have the choice she not only had but
embraced.
There. That wasn't hard, was it?
She wants to bring about a situation where nobody including herself
would need to pay to secure an adequate education for their children.
No.
She wants to bring about a situation where nobody including herself
would be able to pay to secure an adequate education for their children.
Quite different.
No it isn't.
Nobody would be *able* to pay because nobody would *need* to pay.
That's the point.
It's no different to food rationing in wartime.
There is a limited supply of teachers just as there was a limited supply
of food in wartime,
And to stop rich people buying up all the food - or employing all the best teachers - they would be required to buy the same food or employ the
same teachers working in the same schools as does everybody else
As there would be nowhere else for those teachers to work.
No, That's how I've just put itIts not a case of no longer "having" a choice but no longer "needing"
to have a choice if an adequate education can be provided by state
schools. Possibly that is where you're going wrong.
That might be how she would put it.
I'm considering this argument purely on it's merits. In the abstract
Not in terms of "personalities" Which in admittedly less enlightened times was characterised as the way only women and girls argued
But it's rubbish.
And FYI "But it's rubbish" doesn't constitute an argument in any
sense at all, but merely signals your growing frustration,
On 06/05/2023 09:37 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
[Pamela:]
[billy bookcase:]When she sent her son to a private school, Abbott admitted
saying one thing and doing another. How far do those double
standards extend?
[JN:]And what exactly did she say ?
That for instance, private schools should be abolished
because as things stand, with some notable exceptions,
they offer a far superior standard of education as
can be offered by State Schools ?
Surely all Diane Abbot is doing in sending her son to a
private school is simply confirming her belief that
until they're abolished, private schools offer a higher
standard of education ?
Whether she's correct in that belief is neither here
nor there,
Or are you demanding that Diane Abbot should send her son
to a school where she believes he will receive an
*inferior* standard of education ?
So where exactly are the "double standards" ?
[billy bookcase:]Oh, that is so easy-peasy... she wants to bring about, or at least
help
bring, about a situation where other parents, even those in her
exalted
financial position, simply don't have the choice she not only had but >>>>> embraced.
There. That wasn't hard, was it?
[JN:]She wants to bring about a situation where nobody including herself
would need to pay to secure an adequate education for their children.
No.
She wants to bring about a situation where nobody including herself
would be able to pay to secure an adequate education for their children. >>> Quite different.
No it isn't.
Nobody would be *able* to pay because nobody would *need* to pay.
The first six word of that response are in agreement with, and are an endorsement of, my point.
You say: "Nobody would be *able* to pay".
And that's what I said.
Adding in some half-baked theoretical and wholly political excuse for removing the basic human right to educates one's children doesn't change
the facts. And the fact is that Abbott wants a situation where nobody is
able to pay for education for their children.
That's the point.
Well... quite.
It's no different to food rationing in wartime.
When was the war declared? I must have missed it. Was it earlier today?
And were private schools all closed during wartime (I know that some
were temporarily relocated)?
There is a limited supply of teachers just as there was a limited supply
of food in wartime,
And to stop rich people buying up all the food - or employing all the
best
teachers - they would be required to buy the same food or employ the
same teachers working in the same schools as does everybody else
As there would be nowhere else for those teachers to work.
Even if what you said there were true (and you produce absolutely no
evidence for it), why should it be addressed by a permanent and
egregious removal of human rights? That's not only the right for parents
to choose their child's school within the limits of their resources, but
also the rights of teachers to choose the school to which they submit
their applications for posts?
No, That's how I've just put itIts not a case of no longer "having" a choice but no longer "needing"
to have a choice if an adequate education can be provided by state
schools. Possibly that is where you're going wrong.
That might be how she would put it.
It still might be how Abbott the Innumerate might put it.
Arguably, even now, right now, there is no need to pay for education.
The state system could accommodate every child and every child would
receive an education of sorts. But even so many parents choose to pay, despite the fact they don't strictly need to. But there are other considerations...
I'm considering this argument purely on it's merits. In the abstract
Not in terms of "personalities" Which in admittedly less enlightened
times
was characterised as the way only women and girls argued
That's OK. I am considering it purely in terms of the principles
involved. Children are not the property of, or resources available to,
the state. Neither, for that matter, are teachers.
But it's rubbish.
And FYI "But it's rubbish" doesn't constitute an argument in any
sense at all, but merely signals your growing frustration,
Abbott's argument boils down to her having more rights then me. You are supporting it, even though you know it's rubbish.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 42:13:09 |
| Calls: | 6,708 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,353,929 |