Musical Homophobia - or The Homophobia Histories

[amateur51]

But at least, even if so, the glass would be half full of something worth imbibing, whereas I shudder to imagine what Mr Pee's might contain, even if it isn't pee...

There are clubs up West where ... no, praps not

[Beef Oven!]

I don't know; does it matter?

Stop fagging, Sunday's a day off.

[ahinton]

Stop fagging, Sunday's a day off.

I beg your pardon (even though I am unsure why)? Fagging? I've not smoked since I was 14! - and, since I am a composer, Sunday is NOT a day off!...

[Beef Oven!]

I beg your pardon (even though I am unsure why)? Fagging?

It's just that many of your RB inspired posts put me in mind of Tom Brown's Schooldays. Ignore me, I'm just a lawn-mower, you can tell me by the way I walk.

Don't be composing too late, even The Lord rested on Sunday.

[ahinton]

It's just that many of your RB inspired posts put me in mind of Tom Brown's Schooldays

What if anything you might mean by such posts and what you claim to be put in mind of are issues for you, not for me and, accordingly, I cannot comment on them, not least because I don't have the faintest idea what you're on about.

Ignore me

Only when such a response might seem the most appropriate, which is by no means all the time.

I'm just a lawn-mower

Petrol-driven? electric? robotic? Should I refer to the post about Nige claiming to be unable to do his job without a little grass in order to grassp your reference/inference here?

you can tell me by the way I walk

I can't; I've never seen you do anything, let alone walk.

Don't be composing too late, even The Lord rested on Sunday.

The Lord didn't have to write what I do.

[Beef Oven!]

What if anything you might mean by such posts and what you claim to be put in mind of are issues for you, not for me and, accordingly, I cannot comment on them, not least because I don't have the faintest idea what you're on about.


Only when such a response might seem the most appropriate, which is by no means all the time.


Petrol-driven? electric? robotic? Should I refer to the post about Nige claiming to be unable to do his job without a little grass in order to grassp your reference/inference here?


I can't; I've never seen you do anything, let alone walk.


The Lord didn't have to write what I do.

Good night Al.

[Barbirollians]

Some of the recent posts on here fully justify FF's stance on the politics and current affairs forum

[Tony Halstead]

Some of the recent posts on here fully justify FF's stance on the politics and current affairs forum

Agreed, absolutely so!

[Beef Oven!]

Some of the recent posts on here fully justify FF's stance on the politics and current affairs forum

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pgqa3cVOxUc

[ahinton]

Some of the recent posts on here fully justify FF's stance on the politics and current affairs forum

Whilst I agree, I cannot see that merely moving it is likely to make a great deal of difference. I assume her decision to be based largely upon understandable concern about the backbiting to which some discussions descend and the fact that, when they do so, the subject and its seropis, articulate and intelligent discussion tend as a rule to get masked by it, which is a great pity. In the discussion of that decision, I very much agreee with Richard Barrett when he highlights the problem that singling out this sector of the board for such treatment risks overriding the very question of what is political and what is not. I also agree with Mr Pee's view on this decision. I don't think that I've ever previously agreed with Richard Barrett AND Mr Pee, so something's clearly at stake here!

In short, I think it a pity that the secotr of the board has been moved rather than exercising some judicious control over certain contributions when matters appear to get out of hand. Like many others here, I have much admiration for FF's moderation of this forum but I happen not to think that this the best decision that she's ever made.

[jean]

I've just switched on Newsnight to see Rupert Everett talking about being gay in Russia.

One thing he said I hadn't thought of - that the culture of informing on your neighbours is still very much alive and well, so that if you wanted to keep your head down and not attract attention, you might not find it easy to manage.

[jean]

I have found the link for you. It's here, about 23 minutes in:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b039xq00/Newsnight_11_09_2013/

[ahinton]

I've just switched on Newsnight to see Rupert Everett talking about being gay in Russia.

One thing he said I hadn't thought of - that the culture of informing on your neighbours is still very much alive and well, so that if you wanted to keep your head down and not attract attention, you might not find it easy to manage.

It seems to me that what this particular aspect of the topic raises is the rôle of informants and whistleblowers and the general public expectations of such people in terms of the extent to which such activities might be perceived as public duties for the benefit of society. In the part of rural France with which I am at least reasonably familiar, the sheer number of fonctionnaries is noticeably disproportionate to the numbers of people in local or national government service in Britain; whilst the jury may be out on the question of whether, how or to what extent this fact alone might account for a culture of snooping on one's neighbours, there is still an unwritten perception of a greater need to keep one's affairs under wraps as far as possible.

The sheer irony of Russia having given temporary political asylum to an American whistleblower while at the same time encouraging, or tacitly or overtly endorsing, or at the very least turning a blind eye to, the kinds of informing culture referred to here is not lost on me. It's a potentially dangerous practice that is not necessarily encouraged overtly and directly by the letter of the law itself (by which I mean that, as far as I am aware, a Russian citizen cannot be prosecuted for failing to inform and whistleblow). It should, after all, be the responsibility of the police and judiciary to ensure adherence to the law of the land, even in cases such as this where the law itself is regarded by some both inside and outside Russia as flawed by virtue of contravening certain citizens' human rights; a society that instead places undue reliance on unlicensed informants and whistleblowers risks descending into dependence upon vigilantism.

[Serial_Apologist]

It seems to me that what this particular aspect of the topic raises is the rôle of informants and whistleblowers and the general public expectations of such people in terms of the extent to which such activities might be perceived as public duties for the benefit of society. In the part of rural France with which I am at least reasonably familiar, the sheer number of fonctionnaries is noticeably disproportionate to the numbers of people in local or national government service in Britain; whilst the jury may be out on the question of whether, how or to what extent this fact alone might account for a culture of snooping on one's neighbours, there is still an unwritten perception of a greater need to keep one's affairs under wraps as far as possible.

The sheer irony of Russia having given temporary political asylum to an American whistleblower while at the same time encouraging, or tacitly or overtly endorsing, or at the very least turning a blind eye to, the kinds of informing culture referred to here is not lost on me. It's a potentially dangerous practice that is not necessarily encouraged overtly and directly by the letter of the law itself (by which I mean that, as far as I am aware, a Russian citizen cannot be prosecuted for failing to inform and whistleblow). It should, after all, be the responsibility of the police and judiciary to ensure adherence to the law of the land, even in cases such as this where the law itself is regarded by some both inside and outside Russia as flawed by virtue of contravening certain citizens' human rights; a society that instead places undue reliance on unlicensed informants and whistleblowers risks descending into dependence upon vigilantism.

Interesting comments, in the light of this morning's very interesting discussion on "Whistleblowers: Saints or Stirrers", on Radio 4 (No iPlayer but repeated at 9.30 tonight), which painted its subject matter as heroes, because the notion of snitchers as not being heroes is deeply implanted in this country, and has provided a cover-up for all manner of sins for which politics has been blamed. Where one draws the line between telling tales and blowing the cover on all manner of corrupt practices is not so easy to distinguish in the stakes of moral universals.

[ahinton]

Interesting comments, in the light of this morning's very interesting discussion on "Whistleblowers: Saints or Stirrers", on Radio 4 (No iPlayer but repeated at 9.30 tonight), which painted its subject matter as heroes, because the notion of snitchers as not being heroes is deeply implanted in this country, and has provided a cover-up for all manner of sins for which politics has been blamed. Where one draws the line between telling tales and blowing the cover on all manner of corrupt practices is not so easy to distinguish in the stakes of moral universals.

That's right. I only managed to catch a small bit of that programme this morning. I suppose that one way in which one could at least try to distinguish the Manning / Snowden type from the local busybody type, at least in certain cases, is to regard the former as seeking to expose governmental breaches of the law of the land whereas the "best" that the latter can do to justify their snoopings would be attempting to claim to be be taking advantage of ill-conceived law.