"We have a society in which one of the greatest things you can do is a platform to see victim status, and one of the qualifications for that is that you have these exquisitely tender feelings about things and sensibilities which are easily offended." - Brit Hume
So here we are again on the blogs talking about people being offended. Ever since the local election campaign last year, it seems everyone's looking for the next sign of offending someone and jumping on it like its going out of fashion. In the past few months we had John Worrow over comments here, Tony Flaig hurt by being called a "lickspittle" during a debate over Children's Services and now Ian Driver hurt by a blog entry by Mike Harrison about a description of some woman as a "frustrated, dried up bint". Does anyone in Thanet even know this woman?
Come on, these complaints wont result in anything so why bother? Alright, you get a bit of attention for a while but nothing meaningful actually results from it. So what if Harrison is a misogynist?! He's a grown man and can say and do what he likes. Whatever happened to being tolerant?
The problem is that this hyper-sensitivity to anything offensive to anyone is that you end up with the constant threat upon those commenting. Eventually bloggers will cut out the entertainment from their blogs. In short, you'll end up with Ville Views... This subtle form of censorship is absurd and perverse. Why does talk of exposing bigots usually mean silencing them instead?
I'm sure I've hurt someone's feelings in the writing of this. If so, I await the Blog Warden's cuffs and interrogation...
45 comments:
I'm offended already and will be reporting you to the nearest 'Diversity Blog Warden' for proper investigation and sanction.
It was the tories like DrM that bought in the TDC blogging protocol so they should stick to it. In the case of Tony, not only was it an obnoxious word that was used but it was also completely untrue. If you cant win an argument without resorting to an insulting personal attack then you have lost.
James
Agree entirely. If you engage in politics you have to have a thick skin so on the surface these sensibilities seem a bit sham. However if you consider what Cllrs Worrow and Driver hope to gain from it all then it may make more sense.
Cllr Driver is, I think, the easier of the two. He is an experienced political strategist, well versed in the underhand power-grabbing methods of his mentors in MT, SLP and the most devious of them all, Ken Livingston. Remember his coup to take control of the GLC? Anyway ID has noted that, in Cllrs Hart and Poole, he is dealing with a couple of political lightweights so he just needs to clear out a few Labour old guard before making his move. Note that he hasn't left the Labour Party.
Cllr Worrow - you tell me. I'm sure he has a plan!
In regards to the TDC so-called 'Blogging Protocol' I'm sorry to say and mixing my metaphors, that you can lead a socialist to water but you can't make him drink..
It was only common sense guidance in regards to what one can and cannot write with a position in public life.
If your in "public life" you should
already know what is decent to say and not say, the problem lies in that to many people go into local and national politics for the betterment of themselves and not for the public who voted fot them
I hear the woman refered to as a "Bint" is allegedly a Lesbian?
Confused am I for can a lesbian not also be a bint? Even more puzzled as I search for Tony's alleged obnoxious word, the dastardly Lib/Dem that he is. Heaven forbid that he should go the whole hog and start head butting gay MPs in the Strangers Bar or is that only the sport of Labour politicians.
you can say backward things about Lesbians on this blog
Ive no idea and no interest in the woman's sexuality and its irrelevant here. Nice try though.
Ian did quit Labour, leading eventually to Labour losing a seat on Overview and Scrutiny last month. True, he could return but political credibility extends only so far...
The fact that a Blogging Protocol is deemed important is an indictment of the behaviour of Councillors. Its a farce when you have to write down that you shouldnt be nasty about someone. A lot of these Councillors are Governors and know full well how to behave in public.
Grumble over.
There is over-sensitivity and it is exploited by politicians of all parties to score cheap political points over their opponents. But, and it's a big but, if remarks that are made are rooted in personal bigotry or prejudice - as may have been the case with the original name-calling involving John Worrow, then the situation is more significant and serious.
Further, those who claim to be leaders in the community have a duty and an obligation to be more careful about what they say and do. They do have influence on others. If a violent thug who attacks gays, blacks, or whoever draws some authority from a "leader" mouthing bigoted comments, that demonstrates the risk and the price.
What about a violent black or gay thug or don't such things exist. Did I only imagine those muggings when living in Lewsiham?
Spot on 18:59, not only that, racist and homophobic abuse is a crime. The only thing that let the Conservative bigot off the hook was his ill health, the sickening thing was his collegues attacked the victim.
11:43 thinks that being black has some kind of connection with being a mugger. I guess blogs like this will encourage such people.
Didn't a previous comment refer to violent thugs attacking black and gay people. My point was simply that victims can also be aggressors and no one group has a monopoly on violent behaviour.
We live in a modern world. Or at least Paul Weller said we did. The words frustrated dried up bint are not part of this
James
I was making a genuine offer. I have since been reliably informed that instead of addressing the issue - an apology - MH & colleagues are planning a "hate campaign" against me based on information I revealled. This was something I was warned about earlier not a good move - avoid the issue and dish the dirt on the person who raised the issue. The likelihood of my complaint being pulled is receeding fast
Ian
Ian is sounding more like his (former?) friend John every day!
Wrong 23:04, Ian is being his own man, has seen what the local electorate failed to see; that Thanet Labour are a weak, rotten, badly led old team and he may just be the man to sort it out.
At least he isn't all things to all men like so many politicians.
Ian is a disgruntled ex-Labour cllr who only supports the Tories out of spite & not because of his true beliefs... John Worrow in reverse! Pathetic, the pair of them.
Ian does not support the Tories, he simply opposes what passes for Labour in Thanet. There is a difference.
John W, on the other hand, is motivated entirely by self interest and supports Labour in return for some questionable special portfolio status.
Good to see the political right - led by Westgate's answer to Amy Johnson - is continuing to spit venom over Councillor Worrow. Whatever his motives and principles, the way he's riled that hideous bunch is great to see.
10:06 Ian Driver does not seem to have done much for Labour's digestive systems either and the current spat with Mike Harrison is reaching legal action proportions.
That, of course, after earlier inviting Cllr Richardson outside at a meeting, but then, head butting is in vogue with Labour politicians at the moment.
Perhaps in your blinkers you had not noticed these things.
Tell us more about the Cllr Richardson incident.
Bad politicians in all Parties - and there are some! - need to grow up and start setting a better example. I was referring to childish, spiteful local protagonists who refuse to let the Worrow issue die and continue to post poisonous and provocative remarks to stoke the fire. Nothing more than that.
As an ardent follower of the blogs, I rather thought the Worrow issue had died down other than some interest in when he is going to start his Diversity job and appoint his blog wardens. Indeed, to some extent it has been superceded by the Driver defection, but I suppose it does tend to depend on which blogs you read. Tory ones rubbished Worrow and then Labour ones rubbished Driver with equal intensity.
I think the reference earlier about inviting a fellow councillor outside, relates to an incident at a Labour group meeting when Ian was called a tosser and reacted like most red blooded males would in the circumstances.
Seems there is a bit of growing up needed all round the place.
The Worrow issue would die down - it should, it's boring, not helped by his own erratic behaviour - but Moores over on Thanet Life for one won't let it. It suits him to keep making childish "jokes" and provocative remarks. I agree with you that there is a lot of growing up needed.
Why has all this oversensitivity only started since May last year? - or is that a self answering question. Everyone has their own opinion and that is their right of Freedom of Speech. Politicians should be prepared to take the knocks without running to Mummy all the time. Now just get on with sorting Thanet out!!!!
10:14 Wherever were you before May last year. As I recall back then we still had local politicians, we still had cry babies, name calling and point scoring, whilst the bloggers poured scorn on the administration. Nothing really changes.
I see the Westgate Wonder now has Jack Cohen in his sights, allowing, and promoting, all sorts of offensive bile against him. Muck-spreading par excellence. Of course, he wouldn'r have allowed any such comments when Cohen was still in the Tory Party. That is the sort of low-life hypocrisy that gives politics the bad name it has.
Ive been accused of the very same. We all have different styles of blogging and topics we like to blog about. Im not going to hold it against him or ask him to tone down his blog though.
9:21, what is your problem with our flying councillor. Did he nick your girlfriend or something when you were a teenager.
Jack Cohen set himself up to be attacked, but he is certainly big and ugly enough to fight his own battles.
With you it is just any reason to have a go at Biggles and, whilst you pretend it is political, it comes over as very personal.
Double-standards, hypocrisy, arrogance, self-promotion, insidiousness, waspishness, are just some of my problems with politicians like the flying c***(******), Anon of 12.16. Just my humble opinion of course.
Opinions are personal. What else could they be?
All very well 20:23, and an impressive list of adjectives, but it is not certain politicians with you, just one. Which rather negates your case and gives the impression of a vendetta of some kind.
How many other local politicians blog, Anon, and how many a) malign others and muck-rake and muck-spread in the way the Westgate Councillor does and b) display the characteristics I have listed? He fits the bill; there's no question of my being "selective".
Several other local politicians blog, 23:10, most malign others when it suits them and muck raking leaps in from time to time when neglected kittens and drink driving are resurrected to support their claims.
Like I said, yours is a personal vendetta. Not noticed you attacking Mike Harrison over his 'bint' description of a lady or Ian Driver for his well publicised decimation of HM's character. No, with you it is a fixation and it is only a question of time, if not already happening, before you start stalking the guy. Maybe he rejected you at sometime?
Oh dear, Anon of 10.16, you are a nasty piece of work, aren't you. Obviously fit in so well with those you admire and defend. There's a huge difference between anything on the blogs from those you've mentioned and Moores's offerings. His latest attack on Worrow provides further evidence. But I get the clear impression that evidence, fact and history will have no impact on your assessment, opinion and comments.
Clearly a central, embedded tactic in the political right locally is to smear, malign and insult anyone who does not support the "cause". Rather worrying, but perhaps not surprising.
7:07, I don't do causes and are you not equally guilty of smearing those, me in this case as a nasty piece of work, who do not support your very blinkered one person attacks.
As for right, I actually despise Cameron and have a sneaking regard for Ian Driver for his forthright views, even if I do not agree with them.
I also despise bigots like you.
If you believe that challenging bad behaviour and malice in others is bigotry, Anon, so be it. We have sharply different beliefs and understandings. Moores is perfectly entitled to his politiics and his opinions, some of which I support. What I don't support is his behaviour and attitude, and his treatment of (certain) others, and I sometimes point that out. If you believe that to be a vendetta, then again, we have a sharply different viewpoint. But I think we have bored others enough wirh this exchange, don't you?
Agreed, 11:32, but it would be nice if, for once, you attacked someone other than Moores.
I have challenged several other people, Anon, and supported many more. The problem with and for those of us who blog anonymously - or using varying pseoudonyms (as some do) - is not knowing which comments come from a single source.
More than happy to use a pseudonym if you are, 14:46. How about I blog as Winston and you choose one now for yourself. Interested to see what you comed up with.
Can I call myself Adolf?
Adolf, will do nicely, especially as I read your book. Bit paranoid and psychopathic in places but different.
A different, mischief- making Anon there, "Winston". I have. no wish to play the pseudonym game, thank you.
As you implied earlier, which anon is which? I understand why but it does mean we are taken less seriously.
Post a Comment