AT TODAY’s Business Questions in the Commons, Shadow Leader of the House, Alan Duncan, asked for:
A debate on moral authority so that this house can help establish a code of modern manners for privacy, humour and comment which can be practiced and agreed by everyone in place of the current chaos which provokes animosity and condemnation where it all could be so much better handled.
Huh? “…that this house can help establish a code of modern manners for privacy, humour and comment”?
Seriously?
Jumping on a bandwagon is one thing; hijacking it and driving off in a completely new direction is another thing altogether. Is there anyone out there, anyone at all, who would subject themselves to “a code of modern manners for privacy, humour and comment” established by the House of Commons?
Big Brother is listening to your jokes
As for the “current chaos”, what on earth is he complaining about? “Chaos” is what happens when individuals exercise their right to express themselves in a way that is humorous, at least to some; never to all. Yes, sometimes that means people will be offended (see the Carol Thatcher and the Jonathan Ross “controversies”), but that’s an inevitable consequence of free speech. Monty Python was offensive to some, as was Punch, as is Private Eye, Have I Got News For You, Rory Bremner… do I need to go on?
God save us from politicians who think they’re qualified to decide what we should and should not laugh at. And before you say anything, yes, I know it would never happen, I know that as I write this, AD is probably issuing a “clarification” explaining that he didn’t mean what he said.
But for a very intelligent politician, he has made a very stupid mistake by suggesting such a ludicrous gimmick in his lame attempt to exploit the public’s irritation at the behaviour of comedians and other clebrities.
But at least no Tory can ever again accuse Labour of attempting to impose “thought control”.
Back to top
Thursday 5 February 2009 at 11:32 pm
in place of the current chaos which provokes animosity and condemnation where it all could be so much better handled.
Perhaps i’ve misread Tom, but it seems to me that instead of trying to regulate what you “should or should not laugh at” or trying to be the “thought police”, he’s actually agreeing with your sentiments?
“..the current chaos which provokes animosity and condemnation..” as in, the example of Jo Brand (oh the irony) taking offense at Carol Thatcher’s private “joke”, and then the massive overreaction by the BBC and the media.
It seems to me he’s looking into establishing a “code” that will actually provide a basis for your sentiments, and allow people a “right of free expression” that will not be attacked in the current manner by people looking to find something grossely offensive in the least little thing?
I wonder how he’s expecting this “code” to work exactly? Noble sentiments, but I can’t see it having any application at all?
I have another recent example btw. One NHS Trust in England ran a poster campaign showing women turning into what were effectivly men dresses as women, as a warning to women of the damage caused by drinking excessively etc… Who took offense? The Transgendered society or whatever the hell they call themselves. Apparantly showing women turning into men due to excess alcohol was offensive to them and their members, and stoked hatred etc… How absolutely bloody pathetic.
Thursday 5 February 2009 at 11:53 pm
I agree with you Tom.
What a stupid statement, this country has just gone so soft on so many things like this. just what does he think we are.
Lets all agree if you put the milk or the tea in the cup first.Its as daft as that.
Friday 6 February 2009 at 7:26 am
Seems to me that there’s a differnce between “free speech” and the “code of modern manners” proposed by Alan Duncan, although his proposal perhaps smacks of gesture politics rather than something likely to be effective.
Friday 6 February 2009 at 7:52 am
The issue he should be talking about is the different standards of the BBC. Why does Ross who caused such offence ON AIR possibly broke the law have a 3 month ban. Against Thather who made an offensive remark to some by using a word IN PRIVATE be sacked.
Its just not consistant
I accept that some words and phrases are now offencive I understand that. But those same people who are offended should remember that we used these words every day in the past as just part of our normal life. Not as racist comments but just words we had grown up with. In Thatchers case I would describe her as careless not offensive in this case. Younger people who have been drilled in the equality topic should remember that older people have not, and we do not have the same horror of such words.I think we are more tollerant of such things where as today people are so easily offended.
Friday 6 February 2009 at 8:58 am
A debate on moral authority so that this house can help establish a code of modern manners…
Hmmm I wonder what Mr Duncan’s view is on Jeremy Clarkson’s latest outburst?
“[In the UK] we’ve got this one-eyed Scottish idiot. He keeps telling us everything’s fine and he’s saved the world and we know he’s lying…”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7873624.stm
Probably will stay quiet I’ll guess.
Odd seeing Shami Chakrabarti on QT last night, one moment putting her human rights hat for torture etc then taking it off for Carol Thatcher – essentially launching into a rant about how everyone was offended (speak for yerself) and giving a list of words we can and cannot say.
Friday 6 February 2009 at 9:16 am
“You obviously lost touch with reality a long time ago.”
Alan Slevin
unfortunate (or was it) that this endorsement was run directly under an advertisement consisting of a stream of quotes from senior labour party figures
Friday 6 February 2009 at 9:42 am
Yawn.
And the next subject is?
Friday 6 February 2009 at 9:55 am
Madasafish – This news just in: no-one’s forcing you to visit this site or leave comments.
Friday 6 February 2009 at 10:13 am
Well just because someone may be calling for thought control this is no reason not to expose New Labour when they try to and do impose their wish to control what people say, think and do.
As a member of a party that wishes to collate and share freely private information about every one in the UK, manage the internet, say how much we can drink, ban smoking, impose ID cards etc.
You do seem rather a maverick in your beliefs that individual freedom and liberty are good things.
Did you speak out, in public, against your own party’s statist tendencies?
I do agree that having a sackload of MPs (of any affiliation) actually try and impose a moral code is farcical given that many of the members of the present party in power seem intent on enriching themselves by selling access.
Even better that the first proposal to clean up the money for laws farago has nothing to do with that but is just Labour trying to ban conservatives using retroactive legislation shows what Labour morals consist of.