Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Indeed... | |
Author: Dave (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 14:45:56 01/14/05 Fri In reply to: Ian (Australia) 's message, "Would there be the same outcry if he wore a Che Guevara t-shirt? I suspect not" on 14:05:13 01/14/05 Fri If you want to gauge whether this furor about morals, ethics and responsibility, or whether it is about politics, motivated by republicanism or class hatred, you only need to read the comments on the BBC News "Have Your Say" page. The usual rhetoric about privilege, insensitivity and aloofness are once again conspicuous. Some are even suggesting that he should not be allowed to go to Sandhurst! I would tell them to take a chill-pill and stop their politically motivated hysteria, but my comments are never published anyway: no doubt due to the BBC’s right-of-centre spam filter. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Media mayhem | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:24:10 01/15/05 Sat Have you noticed how hard the media are pushing this? If I didn't know better I'd begin to think that they had an agenda ;-) 24 hours after the story broke, it seemed like a very minor thing, since he had apologised, the Jewish Council of GB had accepted his apology on the grounds that it was a poor choice of costume and not an explicit statement of his political principles. 48 hours afterwards, the BBC had been calling up anyone and everyone who might make a slightly stricter comment, and came up with that deranged Labour MP who thought that he should be disqualified from going to Sandhurst (which wouldn't happen in the case of any other Sandhurst applicant). Now, 72 hours later, there are three page spreads in all the papers as more and more 'public figures' and rent-a-quote dinosaurs begin to realise the potential for just a few more column inches in the twilight of their careers. All of them seem terribly offended that we were not more offended. I even saw in a newspaper today one of those "for" and "against" pages, where two blokes are found to argue one side each: in this case, is Harry a spiteful and offensive young hooligan who would have been a BNP skinhead had his pater not been HRH the P of W, or is he just a party animal with a wry sense of humour which occasionally goes beyond the usual boundaries of good taste? This is not in itself surprising; but the fact that they managed to dig up two El Alamein veterans for the article (of which there can't be more than a dozen left) and pay them to have their say rather suggests and extraordinary amount of effort to 'keep the story going'. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |