Wednesday, September 07, 2005

What John Humphreys Should Have Said....

It seems John Humphreys has been "disciplined" by the BBC, for making a few mildly unflattering remarks about various government ministers. I could take some time here to ponder upon a broadcasting organisation that expects someone to make a show based around current affairs, and then, seemingly, not have any opinion on the matter - and the obvious perceived slight on us as listeners, who are apparently so stupid and sheeplike that we can't make up our own minds on these matters. But they've been done to death - and if not now, then when the former Today Programme producer, Rod Liddle, was sacked, for writing in his Guardian column that Tories are fairly offensive. So, instead, lets contemplate what Humphreys could have said, indeed, should have said, which really could have brought the ire of the authorities down on him. How about, instead of the relatively innocuous "some politicians don't seem to care whether or not they tell the truth", the much more hard-hitting, "Charles Clarke is a fat, lying shit".
Unreasonable? I wouldn't say so. Not when Mr Clarke has said, according to a Reuters report, that the EU must accept some erosion of civil rights to fight terrorism. This website (well, you know, me, but let's try to make it sound important...) has conclusively shown, in recent weeks, that the whole rights/security debate is a false dichotomy, and Mr Clarke is simply restating basic falsehoods, in an attempt to win support from the right-wing media. Quite what civil rights must we give up, eh, Charlie? The right to be chauffeur driven to meetings, at which I get told what to think by Blair/Bush? The right to leave government and walk straight into a highly paid consultancy job with a large multinational which has a vested interest in the area of the government I used to work in? The right to sell out every last principle you ever once proclaimed, and crap on the working class from a great height? No, those rights will remain untouched. The only rights we'll see abolished are those of the poor, the desperate, the bottom end of society, from going about their business unchallenged. And of course, if people think that those in power are after them, they're more likely to harbour grudges. And maybe become terrorists. Hmmm. Interesting, that, isn't it?
If we need to put the lie to Clarke's comments any further, how about: "It seems to me we have to give the same rights to those humans who want to travel without being blown up on an underground train", which he apparently said, again according to Reuters (see http://uk.news.yahoo.com/06092005/325/eu-must-accept-erosion-civil-rights-clarke.html if you're interested - always need to cite my sources...). Well, excuse me, Mr Clarke, but don't we already have laws which protect people who wish to do just that, without recourse to pissing on us further? I was under the impression that murder was illegal. I may be wrong. After all, Mr Tony's government seem to be getting away with There you go, John Humphreys - get me to write your after dinner speeches in future. My rates are very reasonable...

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home