The famed English sense of humour
We're sure that Labour, the Tories, the Lib Dems and the Unionist media en masse will once again line up to say that this is all just another bit of harmless fun banter and the sour-faced Nats really need to learn to take a joke. Right?
It's an extraordinary piece by Daily Telegraph leader writer Robert Colvile, following on from comments made by a former chairman of Conservative Future and current UKIP councillor, Tom Bursnall, and up-and-coming UKIP starlet Alexandra Swann, in which they suggested taking the vote away from the unemployed. Colvile's twist on the idea is that low-value members of the electorate be allowed to have a vote, but that richer people should get an extra one for every £10,000 in tax they pay.
(We're touched by the charmingly naive notion that rich people actually pay tax, and also by the choice of figures, which would imply that people earning £50,000 are no better in Colvile's eyes than filthy dole scroungers.)
Colvile's definition of low-value voters is "the unemployed, feckless and Scottish (I'm sorry if that's tautologous)", meaning that if a person is Scottish then it probably goes without saying that they're also unemployed and feckless. (Despite the fact that Scottish unemployment is lower than the rest of the UK, and Scottish employment is higher.) Yeah, we know – our sides are splitting too.
(The Telegraph, incidentally, has form on this. As recently as last year it ran another piece from a different writer also suggesting the unemployed shouldn't be allowed to vote, followed by an endorsement from the paper's deputy editor. It seems to be an idea that's gathering support.)
We look forward to the next rib-tickler. But for God's sake nobody suggest that any of this is "anti-Scottish", okay? We can't help but feel the Unionists would somehow manage to turn it into a call for Joan McAlpine to be sacked again.
…
…
[EDIT 1.44pm: We discuss this in the comments but should probably add something above the line too for the sake of clarity. As our headline suggests, Mr Colvile's defence will likely be that his piece is intended as satire, based on the 1729 Jonathan Swift tract "A Modest Proposal…" and signified by the similar title. The words "modest proposal" also appear in the Ian Cowie piece from 2011. However, even if Colvile and Cowie, and the Telegraph's deputy editor Benedict Brogan also in 2011, were ALL attempting to satirise the absurdity of the idea – something about which we have very serious doubts, given the Telegraph's political ideology and the repetition of the "joke", which hangs entirely on people getting a pretty obscure reference which in Cowie's case is buried deep in the text – it would be a stupid and irresponsible act. The reactions in the comments on all the pieces show that to many Telegraph readers the notion is, unsurprisingly, not at all ludicrous. At the very, very best, the Telegraph's writers are shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre for a laugh, over and over again.]
Only four-letter swearwords can appropriately sum up how I feel about this little cretin. So I shall refrain from summing him up.
This is bizarre. They want Scotland to remain in the union, yet they keep throwing around these stupid insults. If i didn't already want independence to help make Scotland a better place, I'd vote for it just to stick two fingers up at snivelling little public schoolboys like this toad. The more of these type of articles I read, the more triumphalist I'll be when we win.
Remind me, is this still the "laugh at you" stage, or have we reached the "come to fight you" stage?
I think you may have falen for his little joke. The title is the clue.
I'm not sure that the Swift reference excuses it, especially in the context of Bursnall's comments. But I shall be sure to test it out by submitting my fun knockabout piece "Why We Should Drive All The Niggers, Pakis And Fucking Queers Into The Sea" (but including the words "modest proposal" in the middle of a sentence three-quarters of the way through) to the Telegraph next week.
It's not about excusing anything. He's being absurd to reveal the inherent idiocy of the argument he's pretending to make. It's not an obscure reference. It's a direct reference to when Swift did the same thing regarding the treatment of the Irish.
I disagree. In context it's entirely believable. It's the Telegraph. Sometimes satire means saying things you actually think, but in a funny way.
No, satire never means that. But someone may try to make something look like satire to do that. Here, I doubt very much he has.
Children, last week as you recall we discussed Cybernats, this week we'll be discussing Cybercnuts…..now open your Telegraph at page 24 and yes this will be in the end of term exam.
Did they not previously have this type of franchise in Northern Ireland ? .
'allowing.people to vote on how other peoples money is spent' isnt that why change to the constitution is needed? because msps ccurrently vote on how to spend money allocated from elsewhere?
My comment, which may well be removed from The Telegraph site.
Ah, the long list of distinguished reasons for leaving the union grows longer every day.
Couild it be that we have a situation where all these "intellectuals" who keep popping their head above the papapet and shooting off about Scotland are really cybernats in disguise? No only joking, even all us cybernats would NEVER go down the road these cretins are travelling.
In the past, when I was unmoderated on NNS, I have joked about rebuilding the wall. However, as these ignorant xenophobes continue to air their diatribe of bile I am slowly coming to the conclusion that rebuilding the wall WOULD in fact be a very good idea, if for no other reason than to keep these witless, brainless wonders at arms length. No this has nothing to do with Glasgow Council's ALEO's.
Most have Col-ville. He has Col-vile.
I fully endorse RevStu's sentiments and analysis of this piece. While I appreciate John X's views, I suspect in the context he 's being too sophisticated: it is after all the Torygraph.
Oh lordy. The clue is in the title, idiots.
Sorry to interrupt what is, pretty much, a rather unpleasant, embittered, small-minded little circle jerk here, but might I humbly proffer a piece of advice? Before going off at the deep end about "the English" or whatever, yet again, might I humbly suggest that a little more research? There's nowt wrong with the 'famed English sense of humour', but plenty wrong with the lack thereof for a few embittered xenophobic types who don't appear to be very well read, even as regards subject matter apparently very close to their blackened hearts.
Spoilsport.
It's my party and I'll rant if I want to! 😀
"Before going off at the deep end about "the English" or whatever, yet again, might I humbly suggest that a little more research?"
Much the same could be said for you, in regard of the previous comments discussing the Swift reference and the marked edit made to the piece itself 25 minutes before your comment.
"Much the same could be said for you, in regard of the previous comments discussing the Swift reference and the marked edit made to the piece itself 25 minutes before your comment."
Er no, since I wasn't the one posting this piece on my blog in the first place, nor did I have to rely on one of my correspondents to point out the blindingly obvious to me – after the fact.
Besides which, having skimmed your "edit" (at least, as it was a few minutes ago 😉 ), this doesn't seem like much of a retraction to me. In fact, I'd say it seems that you're more or less standing by your original piece, even after having had the benefit of more worldly input from John X.
"Er no, since I wasn't the one posting this piece on my blog in the first place, nor did I have to rely on one of my correspondents to point out the blindingly obvious to me – after the fact."
John didn't tell me about Swift. In fact I mentioned the Swift reference to him on IM before he did, as I'm sure he'll confirm if you ask him.
Well, if you yourself appreciated this overwhelmingly likely satirical/historic reference (and Heavens above, could anyone actually believe this was a serious proposal in any event), I'm not sure how this improves the situation.
Oh, and it's only "blindingly obvious" if you happen to be familiar with 300-year-old literary satire. Given that half the population of the country was recently surprised to find out the Titanic was a real ship, the arrogant smugness of that assertion seems wildly misplaced.
"Heavens above, could anyone actually believe this was a serious proposal in any event"
Ask the two former-Tory, now UKIP, elected councillors. They completely forgot to use the words "modest proposal".
Well for a start, I was talking about you. Sorry, I expect vastly higher standards of intelligence and most especially relevant knowledge from you, not some random cretinous imbecile.
Besides which, I'm sorry, but you've chosen to publish extensively on this subject, so I'd argue that irrespective of any personal expectations that I might have, you've a duty to nominally research stuff like this, and gain knowledge where it is lacking, before going off at the deep end about "the English". Not that you'll care one jot, but from where I am sitting stuff like this does you no credit and provides easy ammunition for your oponents to write off all that you say, even though some of it may actually be perfectly valid.
You noticed that the entire piece is about misguided attempts at "humour", right?
Sigh.
Yes, I did indeed notice that. But you failed to mention the Swift reference that you actually fully appreciated when you submitted that piece, which is therefore disingenuous to put it mildly. You also wrote extremely defensively, wilfully ignoring the key satire element which expressly self-mocks the "arguments" made in that Telegraph piece and those fools that actually subscribe to them).
You portrayed the humour of this piece as being an apparent stereotyping of Scots as benefit scroungers or whatever by "The English" (although quite why the English should equate en masse to the views and output of The Daily Telegraph is anyone's guess), whereas in fact the reality was vastly more subtle, sophisticated and ironically supportive of your position in general – which you say you well appreciated anyway. You set about insinuating the former despite this knowledge – garnering (trolling?) what I assume was the desired response from some of your posters.
Context is critical, as you well know.
Whether or not one is sufficiently au fait with 18th century political satire (Personally I am not, but I don't think that alone is sifficient to classify me as a cretin), surely the point is that in the current environment when feelings are running high (ie the Scot Nats are sensitive to preceived insults and slurs, and the Brit Nats are surly because the Scot Nats reject the concept if British nationality and want to run their own affairs), then the responsible thing if you are a media outlet trying to persuade Scots that we all belong together is not to give them any chance to misconstrue what you are saying about them?
As has already been said, in a time when a significant number of people are unable to distinguish between historical fact and fiction (recent surveys such as the Titanic one mentioned already) then the vast majority will react by feeling insulted rather than saying "ah yes, it;s a modern take on that satirical article from 1729". Rightly or wrongly the most likely result will be to stoke up anti English feeling rather than engender a warm feelign about how witty our neighbours are.
Sorry if I was unclear: I am no apologist for newspaper journalists.
I did not say that I thought this piece, even within its intended context (which to be fair, would have been appreciated for its actual intended audience, namely The Daily Telegraph which is, if nothing else, at least generally well educated and intelligent), was well advised. Newspaper journalists quite deliberately use techniques such as this to promote a reaction; this is quite intentional.
It seems to me that RevStu has done something very much along the same lines here, with his readership?
There's many a thing said in jest. Whether inside or outside the UK there will always be plutocrats who would take away the hard earned rights of weaker people. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
"Rightly or wrongly the most likely result will be to stoke up anti English feeling rather than engender a warm feelign about how witty our neighbours are."
Precisely, hence my comment about shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Or as I put it to John X on IM:
"I speak at a BNP meeting. I give my 'Drive the niggers and Pakis into the sea' speech, cleverly burying the key phrase somewhere inside it. The audience goes out and burns down a couple of curry houses, killing 26 people. My fault?"
Which of course it would be, never mind the fact that it was all an attempt at clever arch satire. Or put another way – what are the odds we'd find the phrase "modest proposal" somewhere in the 1500 pages of Anders Breivik's manifesto? If we do, does that mean he's just kidding around?
………..The audience goes out and burns down a couple of curry houses, killing 26 people. My fault?”
Colville certainly has plenty of literalists in the comments to his piece…………
Exactly. For all Cavey's claims of the Telegraph's "intelligent" readership, every time they've repeated this same "joke" a very substantial part of their audience has taken it seriously. As such, it's reckless and dangerous.
"which you say you well appreciated anyway"
I said no such thing. My knowledge of the Swift piece stretches back as far as today. Just rather earlier today than your comment suggested.
OK, I am getting confused here, is Starkey being satirical or just an arse?
He was always an arse before. Why suppose he's being "satirical" now? The pompous, self-regarding little prick has form for anti-Scottish rants. Just remove his batteries and he stops being a nuisance.
The answer is Starkey is both! And I would contend that the majority of the so called 'educated' Telegraph readers would view this comment consistent with Odone's offensive remarks the other day. And as to the question of why do they say this stuff but want us to 'stay in thje Union'. That's simple the majority of English people don't want us to 'stay' – they simply want to remain in control and see our independence as diminishing their ever reducing 'Empire' and notion of superiority. And can you imagine their attempts at 'satire' if we vote 'No'???????
Robert Colvile chortled: "Under my system, the unemployed, feckless and Scottish (I'm sorry if that's tautologous)"
OK, lets do contrast and compare the comments from this cockroach.
Let's replace "Scottish" with "Pakistani". Now, does that sound acceptable, or would this rodent-faced d1ck get run out of town for deeply insulting and racist speech?
This pusillanimous chinless wonder would not dare say this north of the border, nor say the same about the other ethnic minority in the example given above.
He would not say it because he knows it to be deeply offensive. He would not say it because he knows he would be sacked. He would not say it, because he is well aware it is hate speech and he leaves himself open to criminal prosecution.
"In the United Kingdom, several statutes protect several categories of persons from hate speech. The statutes forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both."Wikipedia
"Exactly. For all Cavey's claims of the Telegraph's "intelligent" readership, every time they've repeated this same "joke" a very substantial part of their audience has taken it seriously. As such, it's reckless and dangerous."
As I have made perfectly clear, I am not saying that this piece was not ill advised or in poor taste, notwithstanding the actual satirical context upon which it was based. As I say, I am no apologist for the behaviour of newspaper journalists and their trolling antics; no doubt they have their own agenda and I very much doubt things are any better in this respect north of the border, either.
Nor do I deny the stupidity of those who swallow stuff like this at face-value, for that matter. Whether or not one appreciated the actual, specific historical context of this piece is one thing (though I'd like to think that a blog having hundreds of thousands of monthly page-views, which specialises in matters of Home Nation affairs/independence, which surely must include an historical context, may have twigged), but to not recognise it as self-parodying sattire at all, is to my mind quite another.
I do stand by my comment, though, suggesting that your average reader of the Telegraph – particularly those who can be arsed reading the paper in its entirely and hence minor articles/commentary such as this – is likely to be at least reasonably intelligent, and more importantly in this case, well read. It's not as though this piece was in The Sun or Daily Mirror afterall; it was not intended for consumption by the stupid.
In terms of "dangerous and reckless" though, as ill-advised and in poor taste as this piece undoubtedly is in my view, I would have to say that this blog entry about the supposed "famed English sense of humour" – given the aforestated readership – is at least equally unfortunate, in my opinion.
"I said no such thing. My knowledge of the Swift piece stretches back as far as today. Just rather earlier today than your comment suggested."
Apologies, I took your comments to mean that you did know, when you wrote the piece. In that case then, my original comments are applicable.
Just to add, "The English" are not some homogenous Borg-mind of 50 million Daily Telegraph subscribers.
If he wants to be "satirical" after the fashion of Swift, he should try writing for an organ with a more learned readership. Most of this will go right over the heads of the average Telegrpah reader.
BTW, anyone now minded to search Breivik's manifesto for "modest proposal" should be looking for the words "beskgedent" and "forslag", the Norwegian equivelents.
Final addition, I've seen plenty of stuff on this blog that I would most certainly characterise as inflammatory, possibly even "reckless and dangerous"(?) as regards stirring up potential ill feeling and the rest.
I'd hate an English person to read this blog/comments and assume that your average Scot loathed the ground they walked on. In my experience, Scottish hospitality is superior to anywhere else in the World, bar none, and the Country itself is breathtakingly beautiful, from what I have seen of it.
"Captain Caveman says:
April 19, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Sorry if I was unclear: I am no apologist for newspaper journalists.
I did not say that I thought this piece, even within its intended context (which to be fair, would have been appreciated for its actual intended audience, namely The Daily Telegraph which is, if nothing else, at least generally well educated and intelligent),"
Ah – I get it – that will be satire again?
The Telegraph, these days, resembles nothing more than the Daily Mail with the writing joined up.
The Barclay Bros have done for the Torygraph as they did for the Scotsman.
"OK, I am getting confused here, is Starkey being satirical or just an arse?"
If I had to choose, I'd say the latter. There again, this is presumably yet another example of the Clarkson-esque polemic rubbish, the likes of which I was reading this blog praising the other day? One assumes Dr Starkey is simply attempting to gain a reaction from the sleepwalking masses, for reason(s) serving his own agenda or otherwise, just as journalists, politicians and even advertising executives do. Carefully considered, crafted and substantive argument, beyond the soundbite, thereby requiring actual due consideration and thought rather than knee-jerk reaction, are so 20th Century, it would appear.
I wonder if the Captain Caveman here is the same one nominated in several "Troll" categories in the 1st annual Amazon Video Games Forum "Troll" Awards
http://www.amazon.com/forum/video%20games?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1T1DM93QU4XL1&cdThread=Tx1KCTIR2W4CNHZ
Ah yes, here we go: "Attention, Stupid People", in praise of the polemic:
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/?s=polemic
One man's David Starkey is another man's Joan McAlpine…
Captain Cavemen opined: ". . your average reader of the Telegraph . . is likely to be at least reasonably intelligent, and more importantly in this case, well read."
I read the Telegraph every day and enjoy very many of the comments from contributors. My sense is that on the whole, most Telegraph readers are not overly burdened with intelligence, nor do their posts evince excessive study or curiosity about the world beyond the Home Counties.
While there is certainly the occasional erudite post from a member of the angry wing of the Nasty Party, it is the exception that proves the rule. The average readers of the Telegraph are identifiable by their many crayoned statements of encouragement, that we Scots scroungers should eat our fried Mars Bars, STFU, and get the frak out.
Captain Caveman worried: "I'd hate an English person to read this blog/comments and assume that your average Scot loathed the ground they walked on."
I wonder if you could cite the statements herein that denigrate the English people on denigrate any person because they are English rather than because of their behavior?
If you cannot or will not, would it be reasonable to conclude that your conclusions are baseless and their predicates, with out merit?
Christian Wright says:
April 19, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Captain Caveman worried: "I'd hate an English person to read this blog/comments and assume that your average Scot loathed the ground they walked on."
I wonder if you could cite the statements herein that denigrate the English people on denigrate any person because they are English rather than because of their behavior?
If you cannot or will not, would it be reasonable to conclude that your conclusions are baseless and their predicates, with out merit?
################################################################
Are you saying he's talking shite?
Interesting Christian; you have me at a disadvantage there, since I only occasionally read the Telegraph, or indeed any newspaper. However, you mentioned erudite posts from supporters of the 'Nasty Party'?
I must confess my incredulity at this; such a concept truly does tax the imagination (albeit this was mitigated somewhat by your qualifying statement that these were very few in number). After all, Labour supporters aren't generally known for their coherent, rational argument, their erudite powers of observation or articulate prose. Looking back in even the most cursory fashion over the last 15 years and surveying the resulting wreckage – moral, financial, political, you name it really – they're certainly not known for their empiricism.
As regards your second post, I'm no expert as to the contents of this blog. Might I suggest, as a starting point, however, that you re-read the title of this very article, and thus its basic apparent premise.
How very strange eh? Stuart N. Hardy's and HenBroon's posts only just now appeared; they weren't there 5 mins ago (and I was logging in and logging out afresh each time). Well I never.
No, it wasn't me who was nominated for 'Best Troll' or whatever, principally because (a) I've never posted on Amazon's gaming forum and (b) I'm not a troll.
Accusing someone as being a troll, presumably simply because their perfectly earnestly held opinions don't happen to correlate with your own, is the tactic of either the desperate, idiotic or pre-pubescent, in my experience.
As for "talking shite", well, what can I say, eh? Rapier wit if ever there was.
… And on that bombshell etc.
with ref., to starkey:
i think Godwin's Law applies.
Captain Caveman wrote weakly: "re-read the title of this very article, and thus its basic apparent premise."
Now, are you saying that the title :"The Famed English Sense of Humour", is in some sense ethnically or racially demeaning or derogatory? If you are saying that, could explain your reasoning? If you are not saying that, then what are you saying?
You admit that you, "only occasionally read the Telegraph"; how then did you conclude that, ". . your average reader of the Telegraph . . is likely to be at least reasonably intelligent, and more importantly in this case, well read"?
Would it be fair to say that in truth, given your lack of familiarity with the average Telegraph reader, that this statement has no value whatsoever?
Just to refresh your memory, the question I asked was:". . [C]ould cite the statements herein that denigrate the English people on denigrate any person because they are English rather than because of their behavior? "
Alas you have failed to proved any example, and therefore would you agree with me that the evidence is that your fear that, "[A]n English person [reading] this blog/comments [might] assume that your average Scot loathed the ground they walked on", is baseless and without merit? That in fact there is no statement in this blog thread that would cause a reasonable person to reach the same conclusions as your good self?
Isn't it true Captain, that your whole complaint is naught but a confection of your own making?
HenBroon wrote: "Are you saying he's talking shite?"
You might say that; I couldn't possibly comment.
Should be: Alas you have failed to provide any example, and therefore . .
I thought I'd made my view on this perfectly clear. A premise is defined as "a proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn". This premise of this article, as evidenced by the title "The famed English sense of humour", appears to be that it is an English trait to regard making offensive, stereotypical jokes about the Scottish being typically "unemployed and feckless", despite the fact that actually, the article being relied upon was a piece of satire whose actual meaning appears to be something quite different, as we've been discussing at length.
It's really very simple: the humour of "The English" – even if such a thing exists as all, broad brush applied to 50 million people – clearly does not comprise of offensive, baseless, xenophobic stereotyping towards the Scottish. It therefore seems a perfectly reasonable concern on my part that any English person reading the article might think that your average Scot regards the English in this light, whereas as I've said, my own experience of some 30 years or more is that the Scots are quite the most delightful, hospitable people on the planet who don't hate the English at all. At least none of the many that I've met.
Right. Now, I read the other day here that "having the last word does not mean you've won the argument", which people might want to bear in mind. I've made the points I wanted to make, to my complete satisfaction and frankly, have no desire to continue against a backdrop of phantom posts appearing from nowhere, being told I'm a troll or "talking shite". I've better things to do with my time, so I'll bid you good evening.
@ Captain Caveman
I can see where you are coming from regarding the slight to English pride but if the title of this article is a slight, then you have accepted that the content of the article being commented upon in the Wings Piece was not intended to be humorous but insulting.
polemic (noun)
a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something: his polemic against the cultural relativism of the Sixties [mass noun]: a writer of feminist polemic
(usually polemics) the practice of engaging in controversial debate or dispute: the history of science has become embroiled in religious polemics
Polemic, or the engaging in controversial debate, is not the same as insulting an individual, race or country! It can be an attack on a position or belief, but it is usually made from a point of contension rather than just to enflame emotions and insult the intended target.
Starkey was not seeking debate, he was being insulting.
McAlpine was seeking to stimulate debate on the nature of the abuse of power within the union.
These are nto evenly remotely similar in style or intent.
P.S. The posters are not phantom. They were in pre-mod for their first posts as they are new (Just to check they arent spam bots). Congratulations, your polemic inspired them to contribute.
well that was fun while it lasted. i am dksappointed to find that because i haven't read swift and didnt recognise 18th century satire that i am apparently ill educated. in my time i have read the works of brecht and boll in the original german, sorley maclean in gaelic but i guess as I have a different frame of reference to someone from the home counties then I just have to resign myself to life as an ignorant bumpkin. ho hum.
"Right. Now, I read the other day here that "having the last word does not mean you've won the argument", which people might want to bear in mind. I've made the points I wanted to make, to my complete satisfaction and frankly, have no desire to continue against a backdrop of phantom posts appearing from nowhere, being told I'm a troll or "talking shite". I've better things to do with my time, so I'll bid you good evening."
Splendid. I believed I'd made my views clear on Wings Over Sealand with regard to how welcome your contributions were on any blog of mine. The situation has not changed.
I can see where you are coming from regarding the slight to English pride but if the title of this article is a slight, then you have accepted that the content of the article being commented upon in the Wings Piece was not intended to be humorous but insulting.
No, I think we've established in this thread that actually, the Telegraph piece was trying to be humorous albeit in an escoteric, obscure, ill-advised and ultimately stupid fashion. Like I said, I do not in any way excuse the provocative, smarmy, disingenuous antics of newspaper journalists – but that's hardly the fault of the English en masse.
"Polemic, or the engaging in controversial debate, is not the same as insulting an individual, race or country! It can be an attack on a position or belief, but it is usually made from a point of contension rather than just to enflame emotions and insult the intended target."
OK, fair point. (In my defence, I did say that Starkey was being an arse, in my humble opinion).
"Starkey was not seeking debate, he was being insulting."
No, he may have conceivably been seeking debate, but just going about it in an entirely unacceptable manner. On the other hand, he may have simply been trying to raise his profile, or whatever – who knows.
I'd say being polemic often means being insulting to at least some degree, by definition. RevStu used the prime example of Jeremy Clarkson in his original piece and he's certainly insulted a few people and entire nations in his time.
"P.S. The posters are not phantom. They were in pre-mod for their first posts as they are new"
OK, thanks for clearing that up.
"Splendid. I believed I'd made my views clear on Wings Over Sealand with regard to how welcome your contributions were on any blog of mine. The situation has not changed."
Ah yes, now you mention it, I do recall now. Something about me not paying towards your blog IIRC wasn't it?
Forgive me, I read your recent piece about there being no "donate button" here, and other stuff about how you don't moderate, how you welcome dissenting opinion from Unionists and so on and so forth, so presumed this wasn't an issue. Oh well.
Impressive response to my perfectly serious points on your part, there. Basically "get lost this is my board".
You're not banned. You're just not welcome. Dissenting opinions are welcome. You, I've learned from long experience, are something altogether more corrosive.
It was not apparent to most people of Jonothan Swift's era that he was being ironic. It is, frankly a difficult text, even when you know the solution is not to be taken seriously. Those reading it without a primer would have been shocked and horrified. Which was clearly what Swift set out to do. It counterposed the outrageous as meretricious and the sensible as beyond reason. It's juxtaposition was to ask you to side with the unthinkable rather than disturb the rulers of the day. It is a brilliant piece of work.
I'll stand corrected, but I think it was contained in a book of essays that we read for Higher English all these years ago.
This ersatz junk from the Telegraph is doltish by comparison.
Captain Caveman dissembled: ". . thought I'd made my view on this perfectly clear. A premise is defined as "a proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn". This premise of this article . . "
Reading your reply, and searching for a way to frame it, I am enamored of two disparate metaphors. One is of a man twisting himself into a pretzel, and the other is the title of a Leonard Cohen song, "Bird on a Wire". Both I think elegantly sum-up your predicament.
I urge you to consider Denis Healey's First Rule of Holes: When you're in one, stop digging.
Well actually I am banned from your forum – for posting on your other blog at that.
Still, no worries. If you don't want me here, I'll still lurk as I enjoy reading your stuff, just as I always have, but I'll not post from now on.
… And since you edited your post, which I cannot do of course, as for me being "corrosive", I assume that's just another way of saying "capable of presenting a counter argument". If I was just some idiot troll with an unpleasant, nasty agenda, there's no way that you, of all people, would've tolerated that for the best part of 10 years. Kid yourself all you like, but you know that isn't the case.
As regards CW's post above, yup, that's got me: I'm contorting into a pretzel/digging myself into a hole, for reason(s) unexplained. Wow, that's one great comeback there.
Permit me to pop up here, if you don't mind, with a reminiscence on the English sense of humour.
Something like 30 odd years ago, I was idly watching TV one evening. It was BBC, and the show was one of those home counties middle class situation comedies they do so well, readers of a certain (old) age might remember it “Man about the House” I think it was.
Anyway, part way through this show a joke was unrolling and the punch line, can't remember the joke, was that “the Scots all lived in caves”. Boom Boom.
I think this was the first time I had heard us disparaged. I got the phone book, got the BBC Queen Margaret Drive phone number and called them up. Nothing to do with us, mate.
Next morning I called the race relations board, and spoke to a person for whom English was not their first language, explained my grievance and was told the Scots were not an distinct ethnic group. So no action there.
Sent a letter the BBC London, and got a reply which, if I recall, meant nothing.
I think we seem to have replaced the “daft paddies” in the English put-down pantheon.
The first time I came across a literary reference to Swift and his modest proposal – back as a teenager in the 70's – was a reference to it a serious solution to the Irish Problem of that time (ie the troubles). Strangely enough it was in the Telegraph. (Uni Library, someone else had the Guardian). I'm not sure if the writer or subie at that time understood irony or simply thought that Swift was serious. I suspect that latter, and interesting to see that the Telegraph readership also has a serious problem with Irony.
Tearlach,
Now that is fascinating.
Swift spoke, deliberately, in the most inhumane way possible. It reminds me of Robert Blochs' joke "I really have the heart of a small boy. I keep it in a jar on my desk".
I doubt that even the Telegraph Journalist, aka Robert Colvile, knows what he did.
He is a very foolish man.
When I saw the words "Modest Proposal" in the title of the piece, I was expecting biting satire, rapier wit and penetrating insight.
The article was a pile of crap. It wasn't amusing, it wasn't clever and I don't know if it was meant to be satirical or not. Since I don't imagine the author used the words "modest proposal" by accident, I'm left with the assumption that he was trying to say something clever, witty and satirical.
I simply have no idea what that was.
Captain Caveman,
Do you have a point to offer?
I know about Swift, you know about Swift, do you necessarily think everyone else should know about Swift?
According to you, Telegraph readers are synonymous with an intelligensia just oozing with Swiftian wit and wisdom.
I give you this, directly from the people you love:
"Government employees should also not be allowed to vote."
"Most hard working Scots leave, to find work, down South.;-)
Etc, etc.
I am too bored to go through the rest of it.
If I remember the original, about the only clue that it is a satire is well on in when he referes to babies being suitable food for landlords as they have feasted on the parents already
Similarly with the Telegraph piece, it's only with calling the service for the young "national Servitude" that you can get the clue it might be a spoof
As the disabled rights campaigner Kaliya Franklin made clear, such is the level of politics in the UK that it is truly hard to know if it is satire or not
And, the tautology thing was not satire
All in all it looks like "kidding on the Square" – it's a joke, but we mean it
Starkey is, IMO, more of an issue than this zombie boy.
Do I smell the blood of a Doctor Who fan on this thread?
:p
I can see why you think of Captain Caveman as corrosive and unwelcome RevStu.
He gave you one hell of a beating in an erudite and highly amusing manner – most entertaining.
In fact, I would go as far as to say you got 'bitch slapped'.
Christian Wright said:
I wonder if you could cite the statements herein that denigrate the English people on denigrate any person because they are English rather than because of their behavior?
Check out this link Christian on this very site: http://wingsland.podgamer.com/everyone-in-britain-is-a-moron/#more-3519
I'll grant you that RevStu doesn't just denigrate the English though.
I thought his headline: "The Scots are Cringing, Pitiful Scum" particularly hilarious.
I don't know Swift or satire – being the Nationalists Fool – but could you explain why that headline isn't denigrating to the Scots. It's passed me by.
Apologising for being foolish in advance.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/fury-at-historians-salmond-hitler-rant.17355866
someones sense of humour in the West Midlands is alive and well….I can't believe that comment made it through the censor…….missed out the Modest Proposal disclaimer though, maybe he should have said without prejudice……
Pfft. The Scottish reference is just an aside in an article whose main target is the poor (as opposed to, in my reading of the context, the rich). However from a quick read of the article I don't think Robert Colville's words match what he intended to convey.
As the article is written, the poor/feckless/Scot get one vote, then for every £10,000 paid in tax an extra vote. So an Englishman who pays £11,000 in tax gets one vote, but a Scot who pays £11,000 in tax gets two votes?
"If I was just some idiot troll with an unpleasant, nasty agenda, there's no way that you, of all people, would've tolerated that for the best part of 10 years."
That, in fact, is just a measure of how much I'm prepared to put up with in the interests of inviting dissent. But your evasion, straw men and regular tantrums finally exhausted my patience. I console myself with the thought that 10 years is at least quite a lot of patience to have employed.
"I'll grant you that RevStu doesn't just denigrate the English though"
Sigh. The challenge, which you even went to the trouble of quoting, was to find anywhere I denigrated the English "because they are English rather than because of their behavior". The piece you cite was very clear and detailed about the specific behaviour it was attacking all four of the UK's constituent parts for (in essence, voting Labour and Tory). It had, staggeringly obviously, nothing to do with where anyone happened to be born.
Well, this may be satirical, it may even be humorous (I wouldn't know being ill bred and barely literate), but I do know it's not to my taste and very much in the current vein of Jock/Nat baiting throw away lines to be found on the telegraph.
I'm laughing politely on the inside to show I'm a good sport and not a chippy Jock. No really, I am.
"That, in fact, is just a measure of how much I'm prepared to put up with in the interests of inviting dissent. But your evasion, straw men and regular tantrums finally exhausted my patience. I console myself with the thought that 10 years is at least quite a lot of patience to have employed."
Heh. Yes, you're the very epitome of tolerance, I'm sure (lol)
See now, case in point. I "do the decent thing" and fall on my sword as it were, not wishing to fill what is a highly successful blog with a bunch of tedious, tiresome stuff about the past – doing the gentlemanly thing and leaving it at that. But of course, that's not enough for you is it Stuart; you have edit your post after the fact with your "corrosive" remarks, and now, fully a day later, with the above.
Of course, I don't deny that were aspects of my conduct over that time that weren't great, but then the same could equally well be said of you. But actually, if you recall, as I've said, you predominantly "lost your patience" at my not contributing financially to your blog IIRC (despite never actually having been asked), which is kind of ironic, really.
I'm prepared to leave things at that at move on, as stated. However (and assuming you don't actually ban me from here, just like you have done at your forum, for the above mentioned dispute on your blog), if you insist on dragging me back into this thread, or any other, then I shall respond accordingly. Deal?
As staggeringly obvious as the satire of the piece by Colvile.
Still, good to know that your overt xenophobia isn't xenophobia really, it's petulant misanthropy. Trebles all round, cheers.
On Starkey, Colvile and telegraph flavoured people.
It seems to me there is a gulf of difference between intelligence and wisdom, you can have all the intelligence in the world at your finger tips but if you don't have the wisdom to deploy it safely and effectively, you should probably keep your mouth shut or computer turned off.
I don't read Swift but I have enough wisdom to know that if I wrote or said the things alluded to here; it wouldn't have a positive effect on the average person involved in the conversation.
Its also why I never get involved in long arguments in the 'comments' sections of blogs.
Except this, which I admit is a lapse so I'll just put an egg in my shoe and beat it.
"As staggeringly obvious as the satire of the piece by Colvile."
Which is, of course, staggeringly obvious IF, and only if, you happen to be aware of the particular fairly obscure 300-year-old piece of satire he's referencing. If you're not, it sounds like a typical day at the Telegraph. No prior literary knowledge was required to interpret my blog, so your excuse for so spectacularly misrepresenting it is difficult to discern.
To my clearly uneducated eye it doesn't look staggeringly obvious to the widely read and intelligent commentators of the Telegraph either. That being the case what chance do the minky Scots have……..
I'm sure half a dozen old blokes down their gentlemen's club(not 21st century type of gentlemens club) chuckled though and with that knowledge Mr Colville can sleep easy.
Sarky Starkey must have a book to sell…..and the Herald are looking at the furore on the Telegraph site with envy and have started their own little flame war using their inside man from the other end of the M6….Not that I'm cynical.
I was perfectly familiar with the Swift piece before I read the Torygraph article, and I was completely underwhelmed. Swift was a genius, and simply borrowing a couple of words to paste above a nasty-minded and entirely unfunny piece does not satire make.
I will be honest and write that I haven't read much of early 18th Century literature, so that most make me thick right? I can't be articulate and informed as Colvile because he has read this literature and I haven't.
It is beyond bloody boring and tiresome the same monocell metropolitian neuron being twanged and thinking I am so clever and the wee jockos aren't.
A fanny is still a fanny no matter how posh their vowels.
I posted on the Herald in reply to that. Here is the entirety of my original post.
Now here is what actually appeared under my name.
Well, what's the point. I'm (yet again) considering saving a few quid a week, and my paperboy a walk.
Do you really think Mckeown is a Herald plant? It's quite a sickening thought, if true.
The only reason I said that is that his posting rate is a pretty good barometer for the level of activity on the site and he . The name looks made up to me but then I'm not a big Bay City Rollers fan…. note that his post was completely unedited unlike quite a few of the others that seemed innocuous post edit after his. I hope not as his english is pretty grim at times…..not that I'm any expert being Scottish…
As I said earlier I knew a girl that did this as part of her job at a much smaller paper than the Herald of course.
I now find I can't post at all on the Herald page. The comments box contains the words "please wait…." and I can't type anything. Can anyone tell me if this is just a problem with the site, or if it's their subtle way of banning me?
I've been reading the Herald since I was at the school. While I lived in England I tried hard to get the paper there, having a postal subscription for some time (foiled by the inadequacies of the post, in fact). When I moved back to Scotland, one of the criteria I set for househunting was that it should be somewhere a paperboy was prepared to show up with a copy before I sat down to breakfast.
I've had many letters printed over the years. For a long time, I never had anything I wrote either rejected or edited. Recently, letters of mine have been edited to make them read subtly differently from my original intention, as if there was an editorial hand intent on making even readers' letters toe a "house line" – and I'm not just talking about letters on political matters.
I posted today criticising the moderation policy for allowing that appalling rant by Mckeown through the net – while censoring far far more innocuous comments. My post was fairly meaningless shorn of the criticism of the moderation. If they are so over-sensitive to criticism that they would ban someone for expressing such a view, I may indeed save that paperboy a walk.
OK, fair enough, I have the comments box back. I can't be bothered saying anything more, but perhaps the paperboy's shoeleather will take a beating for a bit longer.
They never publish anything that criticises their moderation policy.
Fine. They have to read it to decide to mod it off. It was the possibility that they might have banned me for criticising them that was the annoying part.
Do you think they would publish a post wondering about someone in the West Midlands who is poised over his computer to get the first comment in at 5am?
They never publish anything that criticises their moderation policy.
Ah, does it not make your chest swell with pride knowing that the PRAVDA and Communism philosophies are alive and well and opperating within the confines of the Herald newspaper. 😀