This pc guff is getting ridiculous

[poolman]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1131709/What-shall-Grumpy-Pirate-PC-childrens-charity-sobers-Drunken-Sailor-nursery-rhyme.html

What next ?

Baa Baa Black Sheep ? Or is that already banned from schools :grr:

[hibsbollah]

Theyre trying to ban Christmas as well dontchya know:blah::rolleyes:

[col02]

Woo hoo let's change the country by changing words to a nursery rhyme rather than addressing serious issues like poverty in certain area's where discrimination is rife! :bitchy:

[The_Todd]

You're forgetting your source: The Daily Mail.

I'm sorry, but that newspaper has such a horrid outlook on everything but I'm refusing to even follow that link.

"PC Gone Mad" is a phrase the Daily Mail and it's readers get moist to.

[GlesgaeHibby]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1131709/What-shall-Grumpy-Pirate-PC-childrens-charity-sobers-Drunken-Sailor-nursery-rhyme.html

What next ?

Baa Baa Black Sheep ? Or is that already banned from schools :grr:

I'm pretty sure it is. We also don't have black boards anymore, they are chalk boards.:grr: Its black and its a board, what else are you meant to call it? How on earth is that offending anybody?

[lyonhibs]

You're forgetting your source: The Daily Mail.

I'm sorry, but that newspaper has such a horrid outlook on everything but I'm refusing to even follow that link.

"PC Gone Mad" is a phrase the Daily Mail and it's readers get moist to.

:agree: :agree: The Daily Mail pandering to its reactionary, sensationalist clientele.

[hibsdaft]

i am sure this will be a very effective measure in tackling alchohol problems in the UK :agree:




:fibber:

[Hibbyradge]

What's the problem with changing the words? :confused:

It was a stupid song then and it's a wee bit nicer stupid song now.

And it's for children.

You adults can continue singing the old version if you want.

I'm guessing that singing The Drunken Sailor must form part of your usual routine, given all the fuss you're making.

[MyJo]

Baa baa black sheep is now "baa baa rainbow sheep"

[Speedy]

It's basically a different song when you think about it


I'm pretty sure it is. We also don't have black boards anymore, they are chalk boards.:grr: Its black and its a board, what else are you meant to call it? How on earth is that offending anybody?

I don't know where this started exactly but when the touch board things came in and they were used alongside blackboards the teachers would refer to them as blackboards and whiteboards. It was only really when the blackboards were scrapped that I noticed people calling them chalk boards. Which I assumed was to point out that you used chalk on them and not a magic pen or whatever they are called.


Baa baa black sheep is now "baa baa rainbow sheep"

Could you actually name a nursery or school that sings baa baa rainbow sheep?

[Danderhall Hibs]

Could you actually name a nursery or school that sings baa baa rainbow sheep?


Pinocchio's at Lasswade/Bonnyrigg circa 2005.

Although not saying "rainbow sheep" they were changing the colours to "red", "blue" etc. so as not to discriminate. :rolleyes:

[MyJo]

Could you actually name a nursery or school that sings baa baa rainbow sheep?

Duloch Nursery & Primary in Dunfermline and my wife is a childminder who sings "baa baa red/blue/green etc sheep" with her kids because she isn't allowed to sing black sheep.

[Woody1985]

Could you actually name a nursery or school that sings baa baa rainbow sheep?

The answers above sort of screws your arguement eh!

I'm guessing the next statement was going to be along the lines of 'it's some made up BS by the Daily Mail'. :LOL:

[Speedy]

The answers above sort of screws your arguement eh!

I'm guessing the next statement was going to be along the lines of 'it's some made up BS by the Daily Mail'. :LOL:

I wouldn't have suggested that it was made up but I did think it perhaps happened in one place and people made out that it was like that everywhere.

Edit: People should just boycott the song completely

2nd Edit: I still think it's over exagerrated

[Woody1985]

I wouldn't have suggested that it was made up but I did think it perhaps happened in one place and people made out that it was like that everywhere.

Edit: People should just boycott the song completely

2nd Edit: I still think it's over exagerrated

They should just return it to black sheep because different ethnicities hardly seem like a minority anymore anyway.

Whenever you walk through Edinburgh's suburbs and places with high rises etc (generally more poverished areas) it feels more like a trip to downtown Baghdad / Compton. :LOL:

[Sir David Gray]

These groups would be far better teaching children about respect and manners so that they don't go around stealing, terrorising communities and cheating, instead of worrying that little, harmless nursery rhymes that have been sung for generations, might turn them into alcoholics (Drunken Sailor), racists (Baa Baa Black Sheep) or make them develop Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (Humpty Dumpty).

[LiverpoolHibs]

Since these stories invariably turn out to be either complete bollocks or twisted versions of the reality, I'll treat this with the requisite degree of scepticism.

And as I understand it, the oft-mentioned Baa-Baa Rainbow Sheep is actually to do with teaching children about colours (which it is rather well suited to) rather than anything more 'sinister'.

[Ed De Gramo]

A once proud Britain brought to it's knees by the PC brigade :agree:

In America....they say "God Bless The US of A"

If we said "God bless the UK!" we'd get accused of being racist :agree:

[LiverpoolHibs]

A once proud Britain brought to it's knees by the PC brigade :agree:

In America....they say "God Bless The US of A"

If we said "God bless the UK!" we'd get accused of being racist :agree:

That gave me my biggest laugh of the day so far, many thanks. :greengrin

[alex plode]

Since these stories invariably turn out to be either complete bollocks or twisted versions of the reality, I'll treat this with the requisite degree of scepticism.

And as I understand it, the oft-mentioned Baa-Baa Rainbow Sheep is actually to do with teaching children about colours (which it is rather well suited to) rather than anything more 'sinister'.

It's political correctness gone too far !! :Ummm:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4782856.stm

[Speedy]

It's political correctness gone too far !! :Ummm:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4782856.stm

Did you read that article you posted? It's disagreeing with the pc stuff.

[Hibrandenburg]

Since these stories invariably turn out to be either complete bollocks or twisted versions of the reality, I'll treat this with the requisite degree of scepticism.

And as I understand it, the oft-mentioned Baa-Baa Rainbow Sheep is actually to do with teaching children about colours (which it is rather well suited to) rather than anything more 'sinister'.

What I don't get is that sheep are black and white, some even both. Telling kids that sheep are all colours of the rainbow is simply not true.

[Pete]

Since these stories invariably turn out to be either complete bollocks or twisted versions of the reality, I'll treat this with the requisite degree of scepticism.

And as I understand it, the oft-mentioned Baa-Baa Rainbow Sheep is actually to do with teaching children about colours (which it is rather well suited to) rather than anything more 'sinister'.

Well why not create a new nursery rhyme teaching children about colours?
The fact remains that the word "black" is being replaced or gradually diluted because somebody, somewhere has decided that some group of people might be offended.

The fact that anyone over the age of twenty sings "black sheep" to their kids and that nurseries are singing something different only serves to highlight the specific word. Kids will just ask why there's different versions and what's wrong with "black sheep". It just defeats the purpose of the whole excercise.

Sheep are both black and white. Why not just alternate the verses and keep it factual?....or will that somehow highlight racial difference?

To be honest, You could find fault in any nursery rhyme so why not just ban them all or leave them alone?

[steakbake]

You're forgetting your source: The Daily Mail.

I'm sorry, but that newspaper has such a horrid outlook on everything but I'm refusing to even follow that link.

"PC Gone Mad" is a phrase the Daily Mail and it's readers get moist to.

:top marks

i hate the daily mail with an unreasonable and zealous passion.

it destroys me to think that my parents read that guff and im always on at them to stop buying it.

this, after all, was the newspaper who supported Mr Hitler until the Nazi's invaded Prague. not to mention being the only newspaper in the uk who didnt support the boycott of south africa during the apartheid regime.

as for the song, fk it.

it will always be the drunken sailor song to me. besides, i never sing it any more anyway so what do i care? i might actually start doing so with the new lyrics, just to noise up the Mail readers in my family.

[Pete]

:top marks

i hate the daily mail with an unreasonable and zealous passion.

it destroys me to think that my parents read that guff and im always on at them to stop buying it.

this, after all, was the newspaper who supported Mr Hitler until the Nazi's invaded Prague. not to mention being the only newspaper in the uk who didnt support the boycott of south africa during the apartheid regime.

as for the song, fk it.

it will always be the drunken sailor song to me. besides, i never sing it any more anyway so what do i care? i might actually start doing so with the new lyrics, just to noise up the Mail readers in my family.

Like it or not the Daily Mail deals in facts.

You might not like their slant but I'm happy that they present stories that other papers conveniently ignore due to their own specific leanings.

I try to read papers from both ends of the spectrum when I can and cut through the stances. I think that way you get more facts and a truer representation of what's actually going on. I would never dismiss one paper as unreadable because you never know what you might find out.


However, after looking at todays front cover of the star it's safe to say I'm not even going to look at or mention that paper again!!:bitchy:

[Sir David Gray]

Well why not create a new nursery rhyme teaching children about colours?
The fact remains that the word "black" is being replaced or gradually diluted because somebody, somewhere has decided that some group of people might be offended.

The fact that anyone over the age of twenty sings "black sheep" to their kids and that nurseries are singing something different only serves to highlight the specific word. Kids will just ask why there's different versions and what's wrong with "black sheep". It just defeats the purpose of the whole excercise.

Sheep are both black and white. Why not just alternate the verses and keep it factual?....or will that somehow highlight racial difference?

To be honest, You could find fault in any nursery rhyme so why not just ban them all or leave them alone?

:agree: By highlighting these things, these people who are so intent on saving children from the clutches of prejudice, are actually making the problem worse. Children have an innocence about them, they do not know what they are singing and do not sing about black sheep or drunken sailors, to be deliberately offensive. So, as you rightly point out, by telling children that they can no longer sing particular lyrics, they start to ask questions about issues that they would otherwise be none the wiser about.

Again, as you correctly point out, sheep are either black or white. I have yet to see a green sheep, a blue sheep, a red sheep or a pink sheep with yellow spots, so to sing about such a thing is just stupid.

[Hibrandenburg]

:agree: By highlighting these things, these people who are so intent on saving children from the clutches of prejudice, are actually making the problem worse. Children have an innocence about them, they do not know what they are singing and do not sing about black sheep or drunken sailors, to be deliberately offensive. So, as you rightly point out, by telling children that they can no longer sing particular lyrics, they start to ask questions about issues that they would otherwise be none the wiser about.

Again, as you correctly point out, sheep are either black or white. I have yet to see a green sheep, a blue sheep, a red sheep or a pink sheep with yellow spots, so to sing about such a thing is just stupid.


How come we're teaching our kids that sheep are different colours but we're all the same :confused:

[steakbake]

Like it or not the Daily Mail deals in facts.

You might not like their slant but I'm happy that they present stories that other papers conveniently ignore due to their own specific leanings.

I try to read papers from both ends of the spectrum when I can and cut through the stances. I think that way you get more facts and a truer representation of what's actually going on. I would never dismiss one paper as unreadable because you never know what you might find out.


However, after looking at todays front cover of the star it's safe to say I'm not even going to look at or mention that paper again!!:bitchy:

:coffee:

what is the daily star up to today?

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/67902/British-proud-give-us-our-traditions-back/ - i thought this was pretty moronic. i know that your average 'brit' lives in the past, but there's no need to draw attention to it.

[Mibbes Aye]

:agree: By highlighting these things, these people who are so intent on saving children from the clutches of prejudice, are actually making the problem worse. Children have an innocence about them, they do not know what they are singing and do not sing about black sheep or drunken sailors, to be deliberately offensive. So, as you rightly point out, by telling children that they can no longer sing particular lyrics, they start to ask questions about issues that they would otherwise be none the wiser about.

Again, as you correctly point out, sheep are either black or white. I have yet to see a green sheep, a blue sheep, a red sheep or a pink sheep with yellow spots, so to sing about such a thing is just stupid.

Practically every nursery rhyme, revised or not, is either stupid, surreal or slightly sinister.

What amuses me about this is the number of posters (I'm going to gamble hugely and guess they're all white) who protest so much about the words of a nursery rhyme.

There are real problems in this country to do with race and ethnicity but they're not to do with so-called 'political corectness'.

They're to do with the fact that if you're black and British you're more likely to be unemployed than if you're white.

If you do work, you'll earn less in your lifetime than a white man.

You're less likely to reach the top of your career ladder than a white man, and that's taking account of the ratio of population.

You're far more likely to live in poverty.

You're far more likely to experience child poverty.

You're more likely to be a victim of crime.

Your chances of achieving a position of power in this country (MP, High Court judge, senior civil servant, senior police officer, senior armed forces officer) are less than the ethnic make-up of the population should suggest.

To my mind, they're the things worth getting angry about. The fact that literally millions of people have worsened life chances and the thing in common is their skin colour.

[RyeSloan]

Not sure you can call 'Drunken Sailor' a nursery rhyme at all, it's a sea shanty which is clearly different.

'Drunken Sailor' in its original form would make little sense to minors and to be honest is not really appropriate or relevant for a class room of 4 years olds to be signing so I have little problem with some little organisation writing new words to the tune for kids to sing along to.

True there is a bit of a history of organisations and councils going ott with their PC gone mad thing but really these initiatives often have little effect as the majority carry on regardless of what some university or council memo says.

[sleeping giant]

:top marks

i hate the daily mail with an unreasonable and zealous passion.

it destroys me to think that my parents read that guff and im always on at them to stop buying it.

this, after all, was the newspaper who supported Mr Hitler until the Nazi's invaded Prague. not to mention being the only newspaper in the uk who didnt support the boycott of south africa during the apartheid regime.

as for the song, fk it.

it will always be the drunken sailor song to me. besides, i never sing it any more anyway so what do i care? i might actually start doing so with the new lyrics, just to noise up the Mail readers in my family.

Just like the UK and US governments and the International bankers.

[Woody1985]

Practically every nursery rhyme, revised or not, is either stupid, surreal or slightly sinister.

What amuses me about this is the number of posters (I'm going to gamble hugely and guess they're all white) who protest so much about the words of a nursery rhyme.

There are real problems in this country to do with race and ethnicity but they're not to do with so-called 'political corectness'.

They're to do with the fact that if you're black and British you're more likely to be unemployed than if you're white.

If you do work, you'll earn less in your lifetime than a white man.

You're less likely to reach the top of your career ladder than a white man, and that's taking account of the ratio of population.

You're far more likely to live in poverty.

You're far more likely to experience child poverty.

You're more likely to be a victim of crime.

Your chances of achieving a position of power in this country (MP, High Court judge, senior civil servant, senior police officer, senior armed forces officer) are less than the ethnic make-up of the population should suggest.

To my mind, they're the things worth getting angry about. The fact that literally millions of people have worsened life chances and the thing in common is their skin colour.

Have you done some statistical analysis on this?

My opinion is that if there is a bigger population of white people in a country then of course they're going to have a much larger chance to progress and reach the top. A simple comparison is Scotland and England national teams, one has a much larger base to choose from and therefore much more likely to reach the top. If we were to build a team with Scotland and England right now the English would far outweight us.

That's the fact of life. Giving jobs to people who are not white even if they are not the best for the job IMO is even more degrading than anything else.

I don't think we'll start to see more ethnics in parliment etc for another generation. If someone came to our country say 30 years ago, had a kid at that time and that person is now 29-30yo do you expect them to have one of the top jobs above? All of the senior roles you mention above will probably have very little or no 29-30 year olds in place.

Going back to bla bla black sheep. If these schools are changing the words to teach kids colours etc can anyone confirm if any of the versions still use 'black sheep'? I'm guessing not.

[Mibbes Aye]

Have you done some statistical analysis on this?

My opinion is that if there is a bigger population of white people in a country then of course they're going to have a much larger chance to progress and reach the top. A simple comparison is Scotland and England national teams, one has a much larger base to choose from and therefore much more likely to reach the top. If we were to build a team with Scotland and England right now the English would far outweight us..

These are official figures. And they're proportional, so it doesn't matter how many people of each group there are, it's the percentage that counts.


I don't think we'll start to see more ethnics in parliment etc for another generation. If someone came to our country say 30 years ago, had a kid at that time and that person is now 29-30yo do you expect them to have one of the top jobs above? All of the senior roles you mention above will probably have very little or no 29-30 year olds in place.


That's right, there weren't any non-white people in the UK until 30 years ago.

[--------]

What's the problem with changing the words? :confused:

It was a stupid song then and it's a wee bit nicer stupid song now.

And it's for children.

You adults can continue singing the old version if you want.

I'm guessing that singing The Drunken Sailor must form part of your usual routine, given all the fuss you're making.



Totally agree. The original wasn't a children's song - it was a shanty sung by sailors in the days of sailing ships when they were raising the anchor. The new words are far more appropriate for a children's song, IMO.

And as far as I'm aware, most of these Daily Mail stories about "PC gone mad" are rubbish, written by morons and believed by the sort of people who read (and believe) the Daily Mail.

[IndieHibby]

Practically every nursery rhyme, revised or not, is either stupid, surreal or slightly sinister.

What amuses me about this is the number of posters (I'm going to gamble hugely and guess they're all white) who protest so much about the words of a nursery rhyme.

There are real problems in this country to do with race and ethnicity but they're not to do with so-called 'political corectness'.

They're to do with the fact that if you're black and British you're more likely to be unemployed than if you're white.

If you do work, you'll earn less in your lifetime than a white man.

You're less likely to reach the top of your career ladder than a white man, and that's taking account of the ratio of population.

You're far more likely to live in poverty.

You're far more likely to experience child poverty.

You're more likely to be a victim of crime.

Your chances of achieving a position of power in this country (MP, High Court judge, senior civil servant, senior police officer, senior armed forces officer) are less than the ethnic make-up of the population should suggest.

To my mind, they're the things worth getting angry about. The fact that literally millions of people have worsened life chances and the thing in common is their skin colour.

Where is your proof of this? Did these surveys measure things like work ethic, aspiration, managability, attitude to authority? I doubt it. Are these things not a factor? Not only that - do they not matter more (in employment) than skin colour? Either skin colour matters or it does not.

I don't trust any of the 'official stats' any more. I have learned over and over again, the meaning of the phrase "there are lies, damned lies and then there are statisics". Stats are just data and tell you nothing other than that which you set out to prove.

You may be angry, but you are angry on behalf of the people in question. In which case, you need to be clear about why the problem exists. I'd contend it has less to do with racism, and more to do with attitude. People (black, white or brown) need to have an aspirational attitude and a desire for hard work. If this is the case, then often you won't hear about these people being poor, as they work their way out of poverty.

As it stands, the next demographic to be highlighted for 'victim' status is poor white males. What will the stats tell us about them, that we don't already know?

As for nursery rhymes, I think Falkirk Hibee has it right. An ostrich would be proud of the logic behind removing references to alcohol from this rhyme. As if mocking a drunken person (as this is the 'tone' of the rhyme) encourages drinking? PEER PRESSURE does this perfectly well. PARENTS do this perfectly well. When are people going to stop pussy footing aroung the issue of 'bad children' and wake up to the fact that all of these problems are the responsibility of PARENTS.

Nanny state strikes again.

[Woody1985]

These are official figures. And they're proportional, so it doesn't matter how many people of each group there are, it's the percentage that counts.

That's right, there weren't any non-white people in the UK until 30 years ago.

Proportions don't matter as much as people would like to think. You could have 20 people all stupid that happen to be of certain race and another race with 10 really intelligent people. Do you think it's right that the 20 people should have the biggest representation? For info, I'm not using this to compare black, white, tan people before some poeple jump to conclusion without pulling their head out their rses.

Get a bib for yor slavering pal. Where did I say that? People on here are so far up there own rse it's unbelievable. You've not even tried to see the reasoning in what I've said. I was using 30 years as an example... Go back 50 years and there would have been even less people of ethnic origins.

Do you think it's right that people should come to the country and then automatically be able to dictate what goes on and be represented at the highest level just because of their origins even if they don't have the necessary skills etc?

[Mibbes Aye]

Proportions don't matter as much as people would like to think. You could have 20 people all stupid that happen to be of certain race and another race with 10 really intelligent people. Do you think it's right that the 20 people should have the biggest representation? For info, I'm not using this to compare black, white, tan people before some poeple jump to conclusion without pulling their head out their rses.

Get a bib for yor slavering pal. Where did I say that? People on here are so far up there own rse it's unbelievable. You've not even tried to see the reasoning in what I've said. I was using 30 years as an example... Go back 50 years and there would have been even less people of ethnic origins.

Do you think it's right that people should come to the country and then automatically be able to dictate what goes on and be represented at the highest level just because of their origins even if they don't have the necessary skills etc?

Why do you think all black people come here from abroad?

[Mibbes Aye]

[/b]

Where is your proof of this? Did these surveys measure things like work ethic, aspiration, managability, attitude to authority? I doubt it. Are these things not a factor? Not only that - do they not matter more (in employment) than skin colour? Either skin colour matters or it does not.



I actually agree with you to an extent - there are lots of different factors that affect life chances, some genetic, some environmental, some capable of being addressed or redressed by the individual, some less so or not.

My point is that across a whole raft of things we might consider as indicative of life chances - employment, earnings, education, access to advancement, access to positions of power - there is a consistent and marked under-performance or under-representation of non-white people in relation to the general population.

Now at one extreme I suppose you could argue it's just chance. It all comes down to the individual and it just so happens that more black people have individually done worse and that's led to these figures.

Alternatively, if you're into racial supremacy you might argue that it's merely evidence of white superiority - other ethnicities being innately inferior and this being reflected in their respective life chances.

Shifting towards the other end of the spectrum you could argue that societally and structurally, there are multiple barriers that affect people, on the basis of their race, to such an extent that it can swamp individual characteristics or mitigate them to such an extent that arguably the range of your opportunities in life are mapped out before you are born, depending on what colour you are.

I suppose the upshot is that if one wants to look for simple answers one can find them. Whether they are accurate is another thing.

[alex plode]

Did you read that article you posted? It's disagreeing with the pc stuff.

Some of the article infers disagreement with the "pc stuff" - the bulk of the article explains why some nurseries actually sing "baa baa rainbow sheep".
It also answers the quesion you posed in post #10.- but no - I didn't read it before posting...just took a flyer it would be relevant :dizzy:

[Sir David Gray]

Practically every nursery rhyme, revised or not, is either stupid, surreal or slightly sinister.

What amuses me about this is the number of posters (I'm going to gamble hugely and guess they're all white) who protest so much about the words of a nursery rhyme.

There are real problems in this country to do with race and ethnicity but they're not to do with so-called 'political corectness'.

They're to do with the fact that if you're black and British you're more likely to be unemployed than if you're white.

If you do work, you'll earn less in your lifetime than a white man.

You're less likely to reach the top of your career ladder than a white man, and that's taking account of the ratio of population.

You're far more likely to live in poverty.

You're far more likely to experience child poverty.

You're more likely to be a victim of crime.

Your chances of achieving a position of power in this country (MP, High Court judge, senior civil servant, senior police officer, senior armed forces officer) are less than the ethnic make-up of the population should suggest.

To my mind, they're the things worth getting angry about. The fact that literally millions of people have worsened life chances and the thing in common is their skin colour.

Of course most nursery rhymes are a bit silly, but at least 'Baa baa black sheep' is realistic. If 'Baa baa rainbow sheep' was the original version of the song, then fine. But it's not, and the only reason that version exists is because a few obtrusive individuals in council offices have decided that singing about black sheep might offend some black people, so they ban it from being sung in their local authority.


I actually agree with you to an extent - there are lots of different factors that affect life chances, some genetic, some environmental, some capable of being addressed or redressed by the individual, some less so or not.

My point is that across a whole raft of things we might consider as indicative of life chances - employment, earnings, education, access to advancement, access to positions of power - there is a consistent and marked under-performance or under-representation of non-white people in relation to the general population.

Now at one extreme I suppose you could argue it's just chance. It all comes down to the individual and it just so happens that more black people have individually done worse and that's led to these figures.

Alternatively, if you're into racial supremacy you might argue that it's merely evidence of white superiority - other ethnicities being innately inferior and this being reflected in their respective life chances.

Shifting towards the other end of the spectrum you could argue that societally and structurally, there are multiple barriers that affect people, on the basis of their race, to such an extent that it can swamp individual characteristics or mitigate them to such an extent that arguably the range of your opportunities in life are mapped out before you are born, depending on what colour you are.

I suppose the upshot is that if one wants to look for simple answers one can find them. Whether they are accurate is another thing.

I would hate to think that people are overlooked for certain jobs, because of their skin colour. If I was an employer and I was doing interviewing for a position at my company, I would pick the best candidate based on how they did at the interview, their qualifications and their experiences etc. and I wouldn't care less about the colour of their skin. If that person happened to be non-white then fine. However, I would also hate to think that employers would be pressured into giving jobs to non-whites, just so Government statistics look good. If the best candidate is white, then they should get the job, regardless of how that looks on Government records.

Not too sure how we've got onto this from discussing nursery rhymes. :confused:


As for nursery rhymes, I think Falkirk Hibee has it right. An ostrich would be proud of the logic behind removing references to alcohol from this rhyme. As if mocking a drunken person (as this is the 'tone' of the rhyme) encourages drinking? PEER PRESSURE does this perfectly well. PARENTS do this perfectly well. When are people going to stop pussy footing aroung the issue of 'bad children' and wake up to the fact that all of these problems are the responsibility of PARENTS.

Nanny state strikes again.

:agree:

[Hiber-nation]

Change....some folk really hate it don't they?

[majorhibs]

Change....some folk really hate it don't they?

If it aint broke- dont try fix it... is that no one of those early American nursery rhyme things?

[Hibrandenburg]

What about Ali Bali! Or is that detrimental to our relationship with our Turkish citizens?

Ali Bali (http://www.mamalisa.com/?p=780&t=es&c=110)

[Steve-O]

Like it or not the Daily Mail deals in facts.

:

:faf: :faf:

Like when they blame movies / TV / Video games for various crimes?

[lyonhibs]

Like it or not the Daily Mail deals in facts.

You might not like their slant but I'm happy that they present stories that other papers conveniently ignore due to their own specific leanings.

I try to read papers from both ends of the spectrum when I can and cut through the stances. I think that way you get more facts and a truer representation of what's actually going on. I would never dismiss one paper as unreadable because you never know what you might find out.


However, after looking at todays front cover of the star it's safe to say I'm not even going to look at or mention that paper again!!:bitchy:

Yourself and Gramo's fantastic quotes on this matter are undoubtedly amongst the highest quality entertainment on this matter I have ever read.

Daily Mail = facts??!!!

Simply fantastic, mon ami, simply fantastic.

[sleeping giant]

Yourself and Gramo's fantastic quotes on this matter are undoubtedly amongst the highest quality entertainment on this matter I have ever read.

Daily Mail = facts??!!!

Simply fantastic, mon ami, simply fantastic.
You might not agree with his comments but why do you have to be such a dick about it.

Erse

[lyonhibs]

You might not agree with his comments but why do you have to be such a dick about it.

Erse

True - I was a tad drunk when posting. Apologies to those quoted.

[sleeping giant]

True - I was a tad drunk when posting. Apologies to those quoted.

Fair play to you Lyon. I was expecting an intellectual roasting:greengrin
Apologies for calling you an erse.

[hibsbollah]

Like it or not the Daily Mail deals in facts.



:cup::clapper::cheers::faf:

[Ed De Gramo]

Yourself and Gramo's fantastic quotes on this matter are undoubtedly amongst the highest quality entertainment on this matter I have ever read.

Daily Mail = facts??!!!

Simply fantastic, mon ami, simply fantastic.

Bolt :bye::bye::bye:

[Nakedmanoncrack]

Of course most nursery rhymes are a bit silly, but at least 'Baa baa black sheep' is realistic. If 'Baa baa rainbow sheep' was the original version of the song, then fine. But it's not, and the only reason that version exists is because a few obtrusive individuals in council offices have decided that singing about black sheep might offend some black people, so they ban it from being sung in their local authority.



What local authority is it that has 'Banned' the singing of this song?
It's certainly not Edinburgh City Council.

[Sir David Gray]

What local authority is it that has 'Banned' the singing of this song?
It's certainly not Edinburgh City Council.

I didn't say it was. :confused:

From doing a quick search, it would seem that officials in Birmingham, London and the Glasgow area have all made attempts to ban the lyrics of 'Baa baa black sheep'.

[Nakedmanoncrack]

I didn't say it was. :confused:

From doing a quick search, it would seem that officials in Birmingham, London and the Glasgow area have all made attempts to ban the lyrics of 'Baa baa black sheep'.

But have any of them actually banned it?
The closest thing I know of is that Birmingham issued guidlines, i.e a recommendation that it should be avoided, this was later withdrawn.
But to read this thread it's clear that many are of the opinion that it is simply banned, which is pure myth.

[Sir David Gray]

But have any of them actually banned it?
The closest thing I know of is that Birmingham issued guidlines, i.e a recommendation that it should be avoided, this was later withdrawn.
But to read this thread it's clear that many are of the opinion that it is simply banned, which is pure myth.

I'm not saying that this is a widespread ban, I realise that the places that have banned these nursery rhymes are in the minority.

But, the fact that there are people out there who even consider banning such an innocent nursery rhyme is bad enough, as far as i'm concerned.

[Woody1985]

Why do you think all black people come here from abroad?

Is that the only point you could come up with? :faf:

No I don't but I bet the majority of non white Brits only came to the country in the last 50 years.

[The_Todd]

Like it or not the Daily Mail deals in facts.



:faf:

So it does.

[superbam]

Like it or not the Daily Mail deals in facts.

You might not like their slant but I'm happy that they present stories that other papers conveniently ignore due to their own specific leanings.


:hilarious

That is quality mate, cheers. And presumably the Daily Mail has no such "leanings?"

[Mibbes Aye]

Is that the only point you could come up with? :faf:.

I was responding to the only bit of your post that came close to being understandable


No I don't but I bet the majority of non white Brits only came to the country in the last 50 years.

Well, the last census would say you were wrong.

It says the majority of non-white people in this country were born here.

[RyeSloan]

I was responding to the only bit of your post that came close to being understandable



Well, the last census would say you were wrong.

It says the majority of non-white people in this country were born here.

The majority of those in the last 50 years though I would say....:devil:

[RyeSloan]

Like it or not the Daily Mail deals in facts.



Tee hee that is comical...try reading the Street of Shame for a few weeks and come back and say that with a straight face!!

[Sir David Gray]

The Daily Mail is the same as any other newspaper, in that they report stories that support their own agendas. Which is a centre-right, anti-immigration, anti-EU, pro-Conservative, pro-Union/monarchy (amongst other things) agenda.

Every newspaper does that.

[Woody1985]

The majority of those in the last 50 years though I would say....:devil:

That's the point I was getting at.

Thank **** someone understands rather just slavering pish.

[RyeSloan]

That's the point I was getting at.

Thank **** someone understands rather just slavering pish.

True, problem is I am quite adept at doing both equally as well as often as each other :greengrin :greengrin

[Betty Boop]

Carole Thatcher has been dropped from the One Show, after referring to a black tennis player as a "golliwog". http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/bbc-bans-carol-thatcher-after-golliwog-comment-1544994.html

[SlickShoes]

A once proud Britain brought to it's knees by the PC brigade :agree:

In America....they say "God Bless The US of A"

If we said "God bless the UK!" we'd get accused of being racist :agree:

I dont know if your being sarcastic or just posting tripe?

No one would be called racist for saying "god bless the UK" what race is offended by that?

And yes america is a shining example, land of the free they say...

[Pete]

The Daily Mail is the same as any other newspaper, in that they report stories that support their own agendas. Which is a centre-right, anti-immigration, anti-EU, pro-Conservative, pro-Union/monarchy (amongst other things) agenda.

Every newspaper does that.

What some people don't seem to understand is that no matter what the story...It contains FACTS....THEREFORE THE DAILY MAIL DEALS IN FACTS!!

If it regularly reported fabricated stories containing untruths it would be snowed under by libel cases. The paper in questions political leanings are irrelevant.


Maybe for some it's a lot easier to reply in a sheep-like fashion with smiley men rather than actually try and understand that.

[LiverpoolHibs]

What some people don't seem to understand is that no matter what the story...It contains FACTS....THEREFORE THE DAILY MAIL DEALS IN FACTS!!

If it regularly reported fabricated stories containing untruths it would be snowed under by libel cases. The paper in questions political leanings are irrelevant.


Maybe for some it's a lot easier to reply in a sheep-like fashion with smiley men rather than actually try and understand that.

Private Eye deals in facts yet it's never away from libel cases.

And most publications report facts, but that's pretty irrelevant. It's the analysis of the facts that's important.

Richard Littlejohn - as an exampe of a Mail columnist - rarely lies (per se) it doesn't make him any less of a disgusting bigoted prick.

[RyeSloan]

Private Eye deals in facts yet it's never away from libel cases.

And most publications report facts, but that's pretty irrelevant. It's the analysis of the facts that's important.

Richard Littlejohn - as an exampe of a Mail columnist - rarely lies (per se) it doesn't make him any less of a disgusting bigoted prick.

This weeks Street of Shame's first article is surely the perfect proof of your point.

[LiverpoolHibs]

This weeks Street of Shame's first article is surely the perfect proof of your point.

What's that then? I haven't seen it yet.

[HibsMax]

What I don't get is that sheep are black and white, some even both. Telling kids that sheep are all colours of the rainbow is simply not true.

My thoughts exactly. While not all sailors are drunks, some sheep are definitely black and some are white. How can simple facts be offensive?

I can see it now...

Child : Mommy, look at that white sheep.
Mom : Now, Honey, it's not a white sheep, it's a sheep with wool that reflects all colours of the spectrum.
Child : Oh!
...
Child : Mommy, Mommy, look! There's a black sheep.
Mom : Ho Ho. You're so silly. That's not a black sheep, that's a sheep with wool that absorbs all the colours of the spectrum. Really, what do they teach 4 year olds these days? Tsk, tsk.

[Sir David Gray]

What some people don't seem to understand is that no matter what the story...It contains FACTS....THEREFORE THE DAILY MAIL DEALS IN FACTS!!

If it regularly reported fabricated stories containing untruths it would be snowed under by libel cases. The paper in questions political leanings are irrelevant.


Maybe for some it's a lot easier to reply in a sheep-like fashion with smiley men rather than actually try and understand that.

I know that, i'm agreeing with you.

All I meant was, every single newspaper reports stories and present them from a perspective that will suit their readership.

The Daily Mail is no different. People may not like their slant, but that doesn't mean the stories they cover are any less true than any other newspaper.


Private Eye deals in facts yet it's never away from libel cases.

And most publications report facts, but that's pretty irrelevant. It's the analysis of the facts that's important.

Richard Littlejohn - as an exampe of a Mail columnist - rarely lies (per se) it doesn't make him any less of a disgusting bigoted prick.

Is that a fact or just your opinion? :wink:

[Speedy]

What some people don't seem to understand is that no matter what the story...It contains FACTS....THEREFORE THE DAILY MAIL DEALS IN FACTS!!

If it regularly reported fabricated stories containing untruths it would be snowed under by libel cases. The paper in questions political leanings are irrelevant.


Maybe for some it's a lot easier to reply in a sheep-like fashion with smiley men rather than actually try and understand that.

I don't read the daily mail so I'm not going to argue about whether it deals in facts or not but you can report facts in a way that supports you own agenda. You could report some facts but not others or give misleading statistics.

e.g. You could say that 75% of uk road accidents are cause by men under 25. However you may choose not to mention that 75% of drivers are men under 25.

That wasn't an attempt at a real fact, just numbers plucked from the top of my head

[Phil D. Rolls]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1131709/What-shall-Grumpy-Pirate-PC-childrens-charity-sobers-Drunken-Sailor-nursery-rhyme.html

What next ?

Baa Baa Black Sheep ? Or is that already banned from schools :grr:

The Daily Mail, that great bastion of liberal thinking! Didn't they support Facism in the 30s. Mind you in a world without consideration for others - wouldn't we all?

[--------]

The Daily Mail, that great bastion of liberal thinking! Didn't they support Facism in the 30s. Mind you in a world without consideration for others - wouldn't we all?


They did indeed - supported Mosley and the British Union Of Fascists, argued consistently for appeasement, and Rothermere (the owner) was a great buddy of Hitler.

He reckoned Hitler was a very reasonable man who only wanted peace, and said so, repeatedly, in the pages of the Mail.

Nothing like printing the facts undistorted by political bias, hm? :cool2:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Is that a fact or just your opinion? :wink:

I'd say it's pretty indisputable!

[--------]

I'd say it's pretty indisputable!


:agree: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-423549/Littlejohn-Spare-Peoples-Prostitute-routine-.html

Nice chap.

[LiverpoolHibs]

:agree: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-423549/Littlejohn-Spare-Peoples-Prostitute-routine-.html

Nice chap.

Quite.

I love his entry in the book, 'Is it just me or is everything ****?' I've removed some of it as it gets rather rude. :greengrin

Richard Littlejohn, gays constantly sharking after.

Richard Littlejohn is quite hard done by. I don’t just mean the way he looks – that face and so on. People can be really very rude about him. These people go around saying the million-a year Mail columnist is "just a greasy homophobic ****house". They say he’s the sort of unmitigated nasty person who could suggest we should be pleased if refugees drown on their way to Britain. The sort of heartless f*** who could say of the Rwandan genocide and the terrorised people fleeing it:


"Does anyone really give a monkey’s about what happens in Rwanda? If the Mbongo tribe wants to wipe out the Mbingo tribe then as far as I am concerned that is entirely a matter for them",



Not caring about the gross associations of the word "monkey's" or maybe even actively enjoying them.


"What a c***." That is what these people say.


But what is clear from Mr Littlejohn’s articles (he often expounds on the matter), and what might go some way to explaining his advanced level of anxiety and social fear, is that he is under constant pressure from gay people – or, if you will, "proselytising homosexuals and lesbians" who are forever "recruiting outside schoolgates". The country is being increasingly gripped by an all-pervasive, creeping, fully gay conspiracy, chock full of men whose only wish is to give Richard Littlejohn a good bumming.



It’s "poovery". They want, quite literally, to touch his little john.


Dick? He’s having none if it. Maybe if all these ‘homosexualists’ gave him some space he’d calm down a bit and stop being such a ****er. We just don’t know.

[--------]

Quite.

I love his entry in the book, 'Is it just me or is everything ****?' I've removed some of it as it gets rather rude. :greengrin

Richard Littlejohn, gays constantly sharking after.

Richard Littlejohn is quite hard done by. I don’t just mean the way he looks – that face and so on. People can be really very rude about him. These people go around saying the million-a year Mail columnist is "just a greasy homophobic ****house". They say he’s the sort of unmitigated nasty person who could suggest we should be pleased if refugees drown on their way to Britain. The sort of heartless f*** who could say of the Rwandan genocide and the terrorised people fleeing it:


"Does anyone really give a monkey’s about what happens in Rwanda? If the Mbongo tribe wants to wipe out the Mbingo tribe then as far as I am concerned that is entirely a matter for them",



Not caring about the gross associations of the word "monkey's" or maybe even actively enjoying them.


"What a c***." That is what these people say.


But what is clear from Mr Littlejohn’s articles (he often expounds on the matter), and what might go some way to explaining his advanced level of anxiety and social fear, is that he is under constant pressure from gay people – or, if you will, "proselytising homosexuals and lesbians" who are forever "recruiting outside schoolgates". The country is being increasingly gripped by an all-pervasive, creeping, fully gay conspiracy, chock full of men whose only wish is to give Richard Littlejohn a good bumming.



It’s "poovery". They want, quite literally, to touch his little john.


Dick? He’s having none if it. Maybe if all these ‘homosexualists’ gave him some space he’d calm down a bit and stop being such a ****er. We just don’t know.



Poor chap. I never realised he was having such a difficult time of it. :greengrin

[--------]

The Daily Mail is the same as any other newspaper, in that they report stories that support their own agendas. Which is a centre-right, anti-immigration, anti-EU, pro-Conservative, pro-Union/monarchy (amongst other things) agenda.

Every newspaper does that.


Do you REALLY consider anti-immigration, anti-EU, pro-Conservative, pro-Union, pro-Monarchy (and the other things) CENTRE-Right?

Right-wing all the time, and FAR-right quite a lot of the time, IMO. :cool2:

[RyeSloan]

What's that then? I haven't seen it yet.


Basically about a Mail story headed "Greedy beyond belief" where they bemoan the huge salaries of various people but conveniently forget to mention Dacre himself earned more than the Lloyds TSB chief or £3m more than the much maligned Hornby they were busy lambasting.

Oh and just the usual stories about the Mail using pap's photos (which they promised never to use again), getting the wrong person and invading privacy but hey this is the Mail the upholder of all moral standards (apart from their own!)

[lyonhibs]

Richard Littlejohn is a ****.

How anyone can dispuite this is beyond me. A immigrant doctor could save him from dying and he'd probably still pull up the "a British native could be doing your job, show me your documentation" line.

The man makes me sick.

[The_Todd]

Richard Littlejohn is a ****.

How anyone can dispuite this is beyond me. A immigrant doctor could save him from dying and he'd probably still pull up the "a British native could be doing your job, show me your documentation" line.

The man makes me sick.

He woudn't care for documentation. He hates immigrants whether legal or not.

"You couldn't make it up"

:bitchy:

[Pete]

I know that, i'm agreeing with you.

All I meant was, every single newspaper reports stories and present them from a perspective that will suit their readership.

The Daily Mail is no different. People may not like their slant, but that doesn't mean the stories they cover are any less true than any other newspaper.




Apologies for the misunderstanding. I agreed with your quoted post but used it to stress my point.

If any of the smiley men brigade are willing to give me evidence of the daily mail being less factual in general than any other paper then do so.

If any of you can prove it with statistics then go ahead because I'm open-minded enough to accept it and learn from it.

[Sir David Gray]

I'd say it's pretty indisputable!

He has said things that are too extreme (the prostitutes article is one such example that was totally out of order). But I don't see a problem with a lot of what he says.


Do you REALLY consider anti-immigration, anti-EU, pro-Conservative, pro-Union, pro-Monarchy (and the other things) CENTRE-Right?

Right-wing all the time, and FAR-right quite a lot of the time, IMO.

Yeah, I accept that it's more right wing than centre-right. I wouldn't agree that it's far right, though.

[LiverpoolHibs]

He has said things that are too extreme (the prostitutes article is one such example that was totally out of order). But I don't see a problem with a lot of what he says.

Plus the previously mentioned comments about Rwanda and homosexuality, his comments on Travellers and constant lies about asylum seekers.

The man is a complete and utter ****ing prick.

The transcript of his argument with Will Self is absolutely fantastic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1390395.stm

On his 'novel' (arf!) To Hell In A Handcart..

SELF: It is a 400 page... I've read 200 pages of it and that is a 200 page recruiting leaflet for the BNP.

LITTLEJOHN: Well, you can't comment until you have read the other 200.

SELF: Why? Does it suddenly turn into Tolstoy?



:tee hee:

[Sergio sledge]

When the BNP memberslist was published recently did anyone do a search for a Mr R Littlejohn? Wouldn't be a surprised to find him there.

How this idiot gets published in a mainstream daily, even the mail, I don't know!

[Storar]

A once proud Britain brought to it's knees by the PC brigade :agree:


I adore you

[Pete]

Plus the previously mentioned comments about Rwanda and homosexuality, his comments on Travellers and constant lies about asylum seekers.

The man is a complete and utter ****ing prick.

The transcript of his argument with Will Self is absolutely fantastic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1390395.stm

On his 'novel' (arf!) To Hell In A Handcart..

SELF: It is a 400 page... I've read 200 pages of it and that is a 200 page recruiting leaflet for the BNP.

LITTLEJOHN: Well, you can't comment until you have read the other 200.

SELF: Why? Does it suddenly turn into Tolstoy?



:tee hee:


I'm surprised somone as intelligent as you doesn't see Richard Littlejohn for what he is....an act!

It's the same as jon gaunts radio show used to be.

There are so may acceptable faces of the left on the media but there has to be balance...so right wing caricatures are actually saught after...hence gaunts radio career.

Littlejohn knows that a certain audience will hang on every word he says... so white van man who reads the sun will see him as an intellectual voice.

Somebody has to be the object of left wing anger...However, if you were stuck in a lift with gaunt or littlejohn for an hour you would probably understand why their personal polital beliefs are multiplied by ten and projected to the nation.

[Steve-O]

What some people don't seem to understand is that no matter what the story...It contains FACTS....THEREFORE THE DAILY MAIL DEALS IN FACTS!!

If it regularly reported fabricated stories containing untruths it would be snowed under by libel cases. The paper in questions political leanings are irrelevant.


Maybe for some it's a lot easier to reply in a sheep-like fashion with smiley men rather than actually try and understand that.

So when they try to blame movies etc for violent crime, this is a FACT is it? Despite the fact it's never actually been proven?

[Pete]

So when they try to blame movies etc for violent crime, this is a FACT is it? Despite the fact it's never actually been proven?

You've answered your own question.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I'm surprised somone as intelligent as you doesn't see Richard Littlejohn for what he is....an act!

It's the same as jon gaunts radio show used to be.

There are so may acceptable faces of the left on the media but there has to be balance...so right wing caricatures are actually saught after...hence gaunts radio career.

Littlejohn knows that a certain audience will hang on every word he says... so white van man who reads the sun will see him as an intellectual voice.

Somebody has to be the object of left wing anger...However, if you were stuck in a lift with gaunt or littlejohn for an hour you would probably understand why their personal polital beliefs are multiplied by ten and projected to the nation.

I'm not sure that's true. If we accept that, his afforementioned 'novel' must have been written in a 'novelist as character' kinda style, which might make him a something of a literary genius. Roland Barthes would be very proud of him. :wink:

And I might be being slow but I don't understand your final point. There's certainly an element of the caricature about him I'll give you that. There's also an audience for him (and similarly Gaunt), that's why I consider him quite so hateful and dangerous.

N.B. I also wouldn't say there's a sparsity of right-wing commentators in the media, quite the opposite.

[Betty Boop]

I'm not sure that's true. If we accept that, his afforementioned 'novel' must have been written in a 'novelist as character' kinda style, which might make him a something of a literary genius. Roland Barthes would be very proud of him. :wink:

And I might be being slow but I don't understand your final point. There's certainly an element of the caricature about him I'll give you that. There's also an audience for him (and similarly Gaunt), that's why I consider him quite so hateful and dangerous.

N.B. I also wouldn't say there's a sparsity of right-wing commentators in the media, quite the opposite.
So true! :agree:

[hibsbollah]

I loved it when Littlejohn says 'I don't set out to be Tolstoy. It is a much more complex book than that.' :bye::faf:

[--------]

I loved it when Littlejohn says 'I don't set out to be Tolstoy. It is a much more complex book than that.' :bye::faf:


Modest wee flower, ain't he? :cool2:

I dislike Littlejohn and those of his ilk profoundly. It seems to me that he verbalises and gives respectability to views and attitudes which are fundamentally destructive of any concept of a decent society.

Quote: "Does anyone really give a monkey’s about what happens in Rwanda? If the Mbongo tribe wants to wipe out the Mbingo tribe then as far as I am concerned that is entirely a matter for them..."

The death-toll in Rwanda has been estimated at around 800,000 to 1,000,000. Recently, the killing re-started. And Littlejohn, unfortunately, is right - not a lot of people in the West care. Why? Because the dead have black skins. Responsible journalism doesn't dismiss this as acceptable. But Littlejohn does.

To characterise the victims as the "Mbongo" and "Mbingo" tribes is grossly insulting and seems to me to be the worst sort of racism. And we're to wash our hands of a tribal hatred whose roots reach back to colonial times? Times when the Congo was the personal property of the King of the Belgians, and the colonial regime there was just about the most appalling of all the European regimes forced on the African peoples by European Imperialism? The mess in the Congo is of European making. But Littlejohn would never admit that.

I do wonder why he feels such a need to lash out at helpless people like those genocide victims, or the prostitutes murdered in Ipswich. Seems to me to be a bad case of keyboard bully, tbh.

But at least it's obvious why he doesn't like Will Self - WS humiliated him in public by telling him just hiow much his 400-page super-Tolstoyan masterpiece of a novel was worth. Bog-paper.

[hibsbollah]

Will Self is that rarest of creatures, someone with a superb intellect and also dead funny on primetime TV. I do agree with Littlejohn on one thing; David Aaronovitch is a prize tit, although im sure myself and Dick dislike him for polar opposite reasons:greengrin

[--------]

I loved it when Littlejohn says 'I don't set out to be Tolstoy. It is a much more complex book than that.' :bye::faf:


Just read it right through.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1390395.stm

If that was a boxing match, the ref would have had to stop it to save Littlejohn further punishment. TKO in the third.

The Andrew Roberts who really liked Littlejohn's novel, btw, carries a distinct whiff of the ubermensch about with him. He's on record as having defended both the Amritsar Massacre and the concentration camps set up by the British Army during the Boer War as "necessary". A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900 has a number of quite astonishing errors in it (though I think after they were pointed out, he's revised it). And he's a great admirer of the Springbok Club - South African white supremacists who advocate the re-colonisation of Africa by "civilised European nations".

"Great writer" he is NOT. Even his status as a historian is under question.


And THIS exchange?

SELF: I don't regard myself as British, I dissent from that.
LITTLEJOHN: Well I do. (Regards himself as British, that is.)
SELF: What does it say on the passport - the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - that is actual latest constitutional formulation of what Britain is. I regard myself as a citizen of an archipelago that happens to be called Britain.
LITTLEJOHN: You are not still on heroin are you?

What a pillock. :faf:

[hibsbollah]

Just read it right through.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1390395.stm

If that was a boxing match, the ref would have had to stop it to save Littlejohn further punishment. TKO in the third.

Andrew Roberts, btw, carries a distinct whiff of the ubermensch about with him. He's on record as having defended both the Amritsar Massacre and the concentration camps set up by the British Army during the Boer War as "necessary". A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900

A lot of popular historians at the moment (David Starkey and Niall Ferguson in particular) seem to want to portray the British Empire as a positive, benevolent force. As an academic discipline, history seems to be one of these subjects that needs to put forward a 'revisionist' point of view every five minutes, even when the facts speak for themselves. We're definitely in a 'right wing' period when it comes to interpreting history:bitchy:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Just read it right through.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1390395.stm

If that was a boxing match, the ref would have had to stop it to save Littlejohn further punishment. TKO in the third.

The Andrew Roberts who really liked Littlejohn's novel, btw, carries a distinct whiff of the ubermensch about with him. He's on record as having defended both the Amritsar Massacre and the concentration camps set up by the British Army during the Boer War as "necessary". A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900 has a number of quite astonishing errors in it (though I think after they were pointed out, he's revised it). And he's a great admirer of the Springbok Club - South African white supremacists who advocate the re-colonisation of Africa by "civilised European nations".

"Great writer" he is NOT. Even his status as a historian is under question.


And THIS exchange?

SELF: I don't regard myself as British, I dissent from that.
LITTLEJOHN: Well I do. (Regards himself as British, that is.)
SELF: What does it say on the passport - the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - that is actual latest constitutional formulation of what Britain is. I regard myself as a citizen of an archipelago that happens to be called Britain.
LITTLEJOHN: You are not still on heroin are you?

What a pillock. :faf:

Self's final comments in that - on Lttlejohn's comments about John Prescott - are absolutely fantastic. I'm not a big fan of him as a novelist, but he's a very insightful chap.

[LiverpoolHibs]

A lot of popular historians at the moment (David Starkey and Niall Ferguson in particular) seem to want to portray the British Empire as a positive, benevolent force. As an academic discipline, history seems to be one of these subjects that needs to put forward a 'revisionist' point of view every five minutes, even when the facts speak for themselves. We're definitely in a 'right wing' period when it comes to interpreting history:bitchy:

Well, there's an argument to be made that that is absolutely vital to any academic discipline - and the 'Arts' in particular. It keeps things rigorous and vital whether or not it's always accurate (as such) or not.

N.B. I still can't stand Roberts, Ferguson et. al., however. :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

Well, there's an argument to be made that that is absolutely vital to any academic discipline - and the 'Arts' in particular. It keeps things rigorous and vital whether or not it's always accurate (as such) or not.

N.B. I still can't stand Roberts, Ferguson et. al., however. :greengrin

That's one interpretation. There is another though, which suggests that revisionism keeps the historians in question well paid, from publishers eager to take crisp twenty pound notes from eager, wealthy, Home Counties undergraduates who have a reading list sourced from the same publishers:greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

That's one interpretation. There is another though, which suggests that revisionism keeps the historians in question well paid, from publishers eager to take crisp twenty pound notes from eager, wealthy, Home Counties undergraduates who have a reading list sourced from the same publishers:greengrin

:tee hee:

[--------]

Self's final comments in that - on Lttlejohn's comments about John Prescott - are absolutely fantastic. I'm not a big fan of him as a novelist, but he's a very insightful chap.


I get the impression that poor Nicky's kinda out of his depth there.

But it really wasn't fair of WS to have actually READ Littlejohn's tripe. Meant L'john couldn't lie about what was in it. :greengrin

Regarding Roberts as a "historian" - I'm not sure I would grace him with the title - there are historians who re-examine contemporary sources and materials and revise their conclusions in accordance with those sources and materials, and there are those who revise their conclusions FIRST, and then DISTORT the contemporary sources and materials. And then of course there are those like David Irving who make it up as they go along. Roberts appears to me to be one of the second group, in danger perhaps of shading towards the third.

And of course your point about revisionism keeping historians in the limelight and well-paid would also be true.

Rather nasty piece of work, IMO.