“not long ago, to question multiculturalism…risked being branded racist and pushed into the loathesome corner with paedophiles and climate change deniers“Now that is so downright offensive to anyone who has quite reasonable doubts about the veracity of 'Climate Change Science' I don't even know where to begin. It was bad enough being lumped by ignorant media pundits into the same corner as historical revisionists who denied that the WW2 slaughter of Jews, Gypsies, Disabled and homosexuals happened, but with paedophiles? I can forgive blinkered ignorance, and even stupidity. However, that sort of insult borders on unforgivable. It's the kind of ill considered remark that richly deserves a punch in the mouth. On the other hand, perhaps that is the reaction craved. "OO look at the bad man mummy, he hit me!" If it wasn't so politically correct and infantile it might be funny.
There is a better way which will be more effective recompense for the offence and provocation offered. Taken from one of the penultimate songs from the Who's Rock opera 'Tommy' the line goes; "Let's forget you, better still."
Mister Buerk, you owe a lot of people an apology for that ill considered and unpleasant remark. Not that any mealy mouthed insincere public offerings without your immediate dismissal will be enough to atone. Now get out of that Moral Maze.
Update: Cranmer thinks that Buerk was lampooning colleagues who routinely make the same type of assertion. Having listened to the linked clip twice, I'm not inclined to agree. Although having written that I don't listen to Radio 4 or watch the propaganda mill that BBC TV has become, and have not done so for several years before leaving the UK. I leave that for stronger stomachs.
Addendum: Lets face it, if someone can get booted out of their job for saying 'jungle drums' when casually referring to a rumour mill, then why should someone else not be sacked for comparing those who do not agree with them to paedophiles or similar? Lampoon or not.
Sauce for the goose. Let's see some parity here.
Posts
6 comments:
Bishop Hill has updated. Some feel that Buerk is not having a go at sceptics but at the BBC for treating sceptics and their opinions as they would treat paedophiles. I've had a listen to what he actually said (30 secs in or so) and I tend to agree. Doesn't say anything either way about the man's own opinion except that he thinks that until recently the chattering classes - and he used the term - held AGW sceptics and anyone who questioned multiculti-ism in the same contempt as paedos. And he's right apart from one thing: "until recently" suggests it's no longer like that but I think it still is, just a little less than it has been.
AE,
Listened to the clip twice and I'm not convinced of the 'lampoon' argument. Aren't lampoons supposed to be amusing in some way?
I don't think he was lampooning, or at least that's not the word I'd choose. As you say, not amusing and didn't sound like he was trying to be. But nor did he give any indication that those were his personal views. He may well be a warmist personally - I don't know - but he's always struck me more as the kind of old school journo who tries to provide balance and has become increasingly frustrated that the BBC now demands it's journos provide polemics. What I got seemed more like he was painting a hyperbolic picture of BBC policy. Lampooning is, as I say, a poor word choice. I'd have described it as a criticism of the BBC's increasingly open bias on certain topics. I think he was doing a "Sissons".
ARGH. Errant apostrophe. Kill it. Kill it with fire.
Consider it thrown, nay hurled, into the nearest active caldera.
Killing with fire in a pretty impressive way. Appreciated.
Post a Comment