Archive for the 'political_correctness' category

V.S. Naipaul’s view of migration and integration

September 26, 2007 10:15 am

The incredibly intelligent and well travelled V.S. Naipaul gave an interview to Radio 4 earlier this week.

Here are some interesting views on integration and immigration in the UK

And here’s the full 30 minute interview

Whiting up

September 25, 2007 2:47 pm

Here’s something that intrigues me (along with phrases like “that’s their word”) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7010885.stm

One of Bollywood’s biggest film stars is being criticised by Asian campaigners for promoting a skin-lightening cream - a product that is now on the shelves of British shops.

There’s a man who has no luck with the girls. He has markedly darker skin than his friends and the girl he is after. In a real song-and-dance Bollywood extravaganza, one of the biggest heart throbs of Indian cinema, Shahrukh Khan, hands over a cream to the hapless chap, along with some mild admonishment.

Within a few weeks, the young man has turned much lighter-skinned and confident. As he strides down the road like a modern-day answer to John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever, the girls start flocking to him and chanting: “Hi handsome, hi handsome.” Khan comes back into view with the product, Fair and Handsome.

The skin-lightening cream for men, along with its more feminine counterparts, has found its way into Asian supermarkets and stores in the UK.

I just find it faintly odd how “isms” apparently work one way - if someone wants to stick on a bit of boot polish to play a part in a film or play, that’s fine. If Greg Dyke wants to refer to the BBC as hideously white that seems fine too. I just wonder if anyone referring to BBC’s 1Xtra music station as hideously black would get the same response. Not that I’m suggesting that it is in any way, but you see my point about things going one way?

One in ten British Asians support Honour Killings

August 24, 2007 11:22 am

From BBC News

One in 10 young British Asians believes so-called honour killings can be justified, according to a poll for the BBC’s Asian Network.

It was interesting that Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour did three shows about this, and it makes rather revealing and disturbing listening…

More info

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7002404.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/honourcrimes/ 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/7004674.stm

Personal faith should stay personal

August 18, 2007 11:06 pm

Pat Condell

Personal faith should stay personal - it has no place in other people’s lives

Amen to that!

See also

Juror listens to MP3 player under hijab - escapes penalty.

August 16, 2007 12:16 pm

What…the…hell???

The attorney general has decided a juror who allegedly listened to music during a murder trial will face no further legal action. Ruhela Khanom, in her 20s, was accused of hiding an MP3 player and earphones beneath an Islamic hijab or headscarf.

This is BOUND to stir up hostility - people have been JAILED for less.

I’ll post the reply from my MP when I get it.

The environment agency - discrimination or just institutionalised racism?

August 8, 2007 10:33 pm

Either way this story is the kind of thing that’ll make your blood boil.

Just have a listen….

Newsflash - Comedian speaks sense!

July 20, 2007 7:41 pm

I’m very VERY impressed with Marcus Brigstocke on The Now Show this evening

Have a listen

Update: And here’s his followup piece the week after…

If you like this, you’ll love Pat Condell .

This isn’t the first well thought out rant that Brigstocke has delivered - here are his views on fox hunting.

Rewriting history.

June 16, 2007 7:15 pm

I’m a child of the 70’s, and I remember what it was like in early 80’s, and I remember being quite disturbed to read last year that the BBC were cutting out all references to the word “paki shop” in “Only Fools and Horses.” For God’s sake, either show the episode as it was made, or don’t. Can anyone else think of a regime that cut out inconvenient parts of history books, or tried to re-write history?
Even my ultra-lefty friends, offensive as we all find the term “paki shop”, don’t think that pretending the 70’s/80’s was different is a good idea

While thinking about this, I found this blog which puts it quite well.

They quoted the BBC Programme Complaints Unit as saying “research shows that [the] perceived offensiveness [of the term "Paki"] has increased significantly over the intervening years, and, in the absence of a particular contextual justification, its use in programmes is no longer acceptable.”

In future the BBC “would try and make sure those words are edited out so they don’t cause offence to our audiences”.

So, a programme which was suitable for broadcast 40 years ago is not suitable for broadcast now because if it were produced today it would be deemed offensive. What would that policy mean if it was transferred to books in a Library? According to the BBC, should we be monitoring and winnowing catalogues to ensure that no-one reads offensive material? Or should we do what the Victorians did to Shakespeare (and what the Beeb is doing to Only Fools and Horses) and bowdlerize offending texts?

Then on Friday I heard that the BBC had edited the phrase “that sort do, don’t they”, referring to his camp cellmate Lukewarm’s ability to keep his cell clean, and apparently the phrase was taken out because it could be offensive to homosexuals.

Did anyone gay complain? Of course not. They even had the campest man alive, Christopher Biggins on the show to say it shouldn’t be edited. It’s always the case. Handwringing twats just need to shut up and stop trying to rewrite history - I’ll decided for myself if something’s offensive.