|
Post by ahinton on Jul 16, 2013 10:22:54 GMT -5
Good afternoon to you all! I trust that you are enjoying the hot summer weather today. For the record, I generally prefer a blue shirt, Neil, occasionally striped! Harvie and Hudson - Slim Fit Azure Blue Shirt - SF10I do have black, brown and red shirts, too, although I rarely wear them out. Out of interest, ahinton, do you ever wear a shirt these days? As a matter of act, yes, but why only "these days" and why in any case do you ask, given that my choice of clothing has no relevance to this thread?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 11:06:59 GMT -5
The colour of your shirt is completely on topic, ahinton, and as there is something of a heat wave, I thought that you might be wearing a T-shirt, for example.
If you do not believe me, re-read the thread. Is Simon Heffer a black shirt, a brown shirt or something else entirely, Neil? Out of interest, are you wearing a T-shirt today?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 16, 2013 11:41:27 GMT -5
The colour of your shirt is completely on topic, ahinton How can it be, since I am not a right-wing presenter of music programmes on R3 and am thereore not the subject? and as there is something of a heat wave, I thought that you might be wearing a T-shirt, for example. By "these days" you made it insufficiently clear that you were referring specifically to today but, as I have said, what I am wearing has nothing to do with the topic of Simon Heffer (which has now been braodened by Mr McG also to encompass Dr Starkey) as a guest presenter on R3. If you do not believe me, re-read the thread. Is Simon Heffer a black shirt, a brown shirt or something else entirely, Neil? Out of interest, are you wearing a T-shirt today? Ah, now at least you are returning to the topic of Mr Heffer, albeit merely en passant but, once again, what relevance to this thead is the matter of what Mr McG might be wearing today (and, come to mention it, what bussiness is it of either of us anyway)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 12:21:36 GMT -5
If I may address one of your many fascinating questions directly, ahinton: Because our politics are arguably far more important than Simon Heffer's, and certainly in the context of this particular discussion. Simon Heffer, you might have noticed, is not taking part! In Kantian terms, I ought, ahinton, therefore I can. As I happen to know Simon, I shall therefore speak for him, on this particular occasion, although his politics are not my politics. I may be a racist thug, Neil, but you are a subversive pinko! Why should I listen to you? According to Bismarck, politics is the apprenticeship of the possible, Sydney. What is possible on BBC Radio 3, Neil, and more importantly, what do you consider to be desirable on Radio 3 over coming years? Speaking for myself (kleines c), I would not ban presenters on the basis that I do not share their politics. If so, I would probably have to ban all presenters! Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. Wikipedia - Categorical imperative
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 16, 2013 17:00:05 GMT -5
If I may address one of your many fascinating questions directly, ahinton: Because our politics are arguably far more important than Simon Heffer's, and certainly in the context of this particular discussion. Simon Heffer, you might have noticed, is not taking part! In Kantian terms, I ought, ahinton, therefore I can. As I happen to know Simon, I shall therefore speak for him, on this particular occasion, although his politics are not my politics. I may be a racist thug, Neil, but you are a subversive pinko! Why should I listen to you? According to Bismarck, politics is the apprenticeship of the possible, Sydney. What is possible on BBC Radio 3, Neil, and more importantly, what do you consider to be desirable on Radio 3 over coming years? Speaking for myself (kleines c), I would not ban presenters on the basis that I do not share their politics. If so, I would probably have to ban all presenters! Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. Wikipedia - Categorical imperative.
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on Jul 17, 2013 2:51:55 GMT -5
I would not ban presenters on the basis that I do not share their politics. Nor have I ever suggested doing so. I have said that by placing a series about British music in the hands of one particularly thuggish representative of an extremist right-wing party, the BBC has broken its statutory obligations to political fairness and objectivity. When a second series was placed in the hands of a second rightwing extremist - David Starkey - any doubt that this was merely an unfortunate oversight evaporated. It's evidently a deliberate policy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2013 2:58:19 GMT -5
I can only offer you, Neil McGowan, and everyone reading 'The Third', my full and unreserved apologies.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 17, 2013 3:52:22 GMT -5
I would not ban presenters on the basis that I do not share their politics. Nor have I ever suggested doing so. I have said that by placing a series about British music in the hands of one particularly thuggish representative of an extremist right-wing party, the BBC has broken its statutory obligations to political fairness and objectivity. When a second series was placed in the hands of a second rightwing extremist - David Starkey - any doubt that this was merely an unfortunate oversight evaporated. It's evidently a deliberate policy. There seem to be two distinct issues here. Firstly, if indeed it is so - that is to say a wilful general policy of the BBC rather than one that is intended to apply only to certain specific areas of its operation - why do you suppose that such guest presenters were invited onto R3 to present programmes about British music when clearly the audiences for them, though not small, would certainly have been but a fraction of audiences for programmes on other BBC channels? Wouldn't that seem to be a rather ineffective way in which to implement such a policy in practice? Secondly, if the programmes themselves contained no direct or indirect promotion of UKIP or other right-wing organisations or thinking (and, although I've not heard any of them, it seems as though they did not), on what grounds can BBC reasonably be accused of having "broken its statutory obligations to political fairness and objectivity" when it would appear that "politics", objective or otherwise, did not feature as such in the programme content? What I suspect that you are really referring to here is the more general question of BBC giving a voice of any kind to people of such persuasion and whether it might risk breaching those statutory obligations thereby; however, the problem here is that the only way to guarantee the avoidance of this might ultimately be to implement a policy to avoid mention of their very names other than when obliged to do so in news and current affairs programmes where not to do so would make BBC a laughing stock - and the follow-on problem associated with this is that those who declare their support for a legal political party would be entitled to protest if no such ban were imposed on supporters or all political parties. In other words, until and unless right-wing-political parties such as UKIP and BNP and similarly inclined non-party activist groups such as EDL are officially outlawed in Britain, there can be no legal justification for BBC denying their representatives at least a proportionate voice, whether we like it or not. But to return to the subject - I maintain that the only reason to question the appropriateness of inviting such people to present music programmes on R3 is if they possess insufficient knowledge of the subject concerned and are not especially effective at presenting.
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on Jul 17, 2013 4:25:39 GMT -5
Neither Starkey nor Heffer have any background or reputation in the sphere of classical music.
Selecting them - over anyone else, for example someone who did have a knowledge of classical music - has therefore clearly been done on the basis of their notoreity as nationalist extremists alone.
They've been presented with a platform to boost their public credibility on the back of an alleged interest in British classical music.
This is political bias as its most crude and blunt.
Any parrot can read from a script put in their hand. These programs were clearly written, scripted and produced by others.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 17, 2013 4:57:02 GMT -5
Neither Starkey nor Heffer have any background or reputation in the sphere of classical music. Selecting them - over anyone else, for example someone who did have a knowledge of classical music - has therefore clearly been done on the basis of their notoreity as nationalist extremists alone. They've been presented with a platform to boost their public credibility on the back of an alleged interest in British classical music. This is political bias as its most crude and blunt. If indeed neither presenter has sufficient knowledge of British "classical" music, then, as I suggested earlier, the extension of an invitation to either to front such programmes is questionable; proving that the issue of such invitations in wilful and conscious ignorance of such shortcomings was for the express purpose of "boosting the public credibility" of their recipients (as what? musicologists?) and "done on the basis of their notoriety as nationalist extremists alone" is, however, quite another matter that, as I stated earlier, would require the provision of sufficient documentary evidence (including but by no means limited to contractual material) in support of it; apart from any other consideration, I remain puzzled as to how this exercise could possibly have succeeded as allegedly planned in any case, in that letting Heffer and Starkey present these programmes has done nothing obvious to enhance their political reputations or promote the kinds of views that they hold, even to that fraction of the minority R3 audience that actually listened to all or any of them. Any parrot can read from a script put in their hand. These programs were clearly written, scripted and produced by others. The first of these is clearly true but the second might or might not be true; again, incontrovertible and clear evidence of the latter would need to be provided in order to prove it.
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on Jul 17, 2013 5:11:22 GMT -5
Ah, but our dear Friends in Another Place are positively billing and cooing over it all. And what is important to Tristram and Fenella is not the actual outcome amongst the burghers of Britain - but the soundbites they are able to cull from sites like the Fiends, to evidence their fine work to their bosses. It's all fwightfully convenient - since no actual poll of the entire audience is possible, a sample which illustrates A Good Job Done is jolly handy! The appearance of success is more important than actual success - it pays the mortgage. By forcing Starkey to work to a pre-recordered script of their own authorship - instead of the vituperative racist bile he is inclined to spit out when cornered impromptu - the BBC has salvaged his reputation. Many said he would 'never work again' after his last debacle. So it's all been marvellously successful for the neocon nuts! Hooray for racist nutcases, eh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2013 5:16:06 GMT -5
Good morning to you all, once again! I trust that all is well with all of you. If I may nevertheless address your final question below, and above, directly, Neil: Do you have any particular race in mind, or is this just anyone who is not the same colo(u)r, culture or creed as kleines c? You will have to watch out then, Neil. As I am bright red, particularly in this hot weather, my particular colouring is relatively rare! Most of the world logically therefore faces the wrath of kleines c. Joking aside, on topic, I should perhaps report that the distinguished historian, David Starkey, is about to explore how the story of British music has been shaped by the monarchy. BBC Two (television) - David Starkey's Music and MonarchyI should perhaps clarify that what Simon Heffer, David Starkey and kleines c all have in common, although in very different ways, is that politically, they often find themselves to the right of centre, and possibly even to the right of Sydney Grew, ahinton and Neil McGowan. Now I am not going to argue that the Right is right, and the Left is wrong, as far as I am concerned, the Left is just as likely to be right as the Right. What I would say, however, is that there is often more than one way to crack a nut. Would you not agree, Neil?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 17, 2013 10:01:04 GMT -5
I should perhaps clarify that what Simon Heffer, David Starkey and kleines c all have in common, although in very different ways, is that politically, they often find themselves to the right of centre, and possibly even to the right of Sydney Grew, ahinton and Neil McGowan. To the extent that, your subsequent putative caveats notwithstanding, the above might be taken to imply that I am politically of seriously right-wing inclination, I must take due exception and point out your error here - one which seems the graver in the light of your lack of direct knowledge of my political views.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2013 10:02:40 GMT -5
Once again, I can only offer you my full and unreserved apologies, ahinton, and everyone else reading 'The Third'!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 17, 2013 10:11:52 GMT -5
Once again, I can only offer you my full and unreserved apologies, ahinton. Graciously accepted; thank you. That said, perhaps somone should put Simon on the line for the purpose of trying to ascertain if indeed he did conduct his own research rather than relying heavily upon that of others; you can just see it, can't you? Q. Well, did you, Heffer? A. What a swell party this is!
|
|