Forum Topic

SALUTE A LOCAL HERO

Salute a LOCAL HERONot sure Mr Toby Young is still living in the Borough.    He certainly was so let us salute him as a local hero for setting up the Free Speech Union.  It is needed.  Police are wasting ever more time investigating non-crime “hate incidents” and packs of de-platforming leftie students are constantly trying to dictate what should be on the curriculum of the university we pay for them to attend.  Woe unto the city in which the child is king!   They should be “sent down” for such impertinence.Here in Ealing, without consulting residents and without even discussing it themselves, the Council adopted the intellectually dubious definition of “islamophobia”.   What is that about other than to supress discussion of the ideology of Islam?   At least the definition of anti-semitism makes sense.  It refers to people not an ideology.   And examples of it are not difficult to discover.  Just look at statements made by some of Starmer’s front bench. 

Andrew Farmer ● 2011d34 Comments

Nothing wrong with controversy.  Nothing wrong with courting it to introduce an interesting topic (and rouse lazy minds).  Nothing controversial with Mr Young’s Free Speech Union. As to Joel Golby’s article in the Guardian, you must be insensitive to the  way the English language is used in the article – it is hardly subtle - if you think it is “an interesting summary of Toby Young's new venture”.  That suggests it is an objective account of it.  No . It is a ham-fisted, sarcastic commentary on it (“a sort of grift-cum-movement”), designed to flatter the prejudices of Guardian readers.  The second part of it is an attack on Mr Young.  The article as a whole is a heavy-handed, densely-worded attempt at virtuoso writing.  Its subject is not Mr Young at all.  Its subject is the writer himself: “Hello.  I’m Joel.  Aren’t I a clever boy? “  Mr Golby will need to declutter his prose style if he wants to move on to serious writing.

Andrew Farmer ● 1991d

A few points1.  Your defence of Shah.  The words originated in an Owen Jones spoof.  However, the words are what the words are.  The point is Shah TOOK THEM SERIOUSLY and LIKED THEM.    She then “unliked” them.  I suggest that was because she realised, she had again given away something nasty in her character – and, oh dear, no longer had the authority or manly arm of Owen to support her. She already had “form”.  She had retweeted antisemitic memes.  “Just really unfortunate”, thought Rupa Huq.  No. Just really antisemitic.  She later posted a tribute to Winnie Mandela with a “meme”:  "Together, hand in hand, with our matches and our necklaces, we shall liberate this country." The necklaces were tyres.  The matches were to set them alight around people’s necks.  This was excused as an accident. Ms Shah seems prone to accidents that reveal the unsavoury content of her mind.  2.  Her background.  One would have thought that that might have made her more sympathetic to girls who had suffered far worse abuse.    3.  You write: The case of the girl who was confronted by her abuser has nothing to do with free speech but is down to failures in Police and Home Office.  I agree.  I did not say that, however.  My reference to the incident was in the second part of my post which dealt with Starmer’s front bench, not the first part that dealt with free speech.4.  As to “LGBT”, it bundles together different categories of people. Its job-lot approach is offensive to some of those denoted by the individual letters.  They may not wish to be identified with this collective and its agenda.  They may not wish to play the identity game at all and be identified as homosexual or lesbian as though that was the only significant thing about them. In my experience, most transsexuals are happy to have had their dilemma resolved by surgery and just want to get on with their lives.  It is transactivists who stir up hostility and provoke ridicule.  5. “LGBT” was latterly tagged on, along with much else, to the original politically motivated proposal for the Council to adopt the definition of Islamophobia, handed down from on high, actually Southall, by Councillor Mason. The purpose of this widening of the proposal was to disguise what this is really about, which is what the definition of Islamophobia is really about - supressing discussion of Islam. 

Andrew Farmer ● 1995d

My post shows an interesting summary of Toby Young's new venture.  The date is appropriate.  Both you and TY court controversy.

Philippa Bond ● 1995d

Interesting how you pick on Naz Shah who realised straight away and deleted that comment which was on a parody account of another politician. Considering her family background which involved abuse and violence i am pretty sure those were not her view. You make a good point about non crime hate speech. It is difficult that if you express an opinion or lack of comfort on some subjects you can be accused. We have become a world of trolls. The T bit in LGBT is something that needs discussion and thought. By having a discussion we can persuade and learn from each other. The lack of discussion will prevent this. Some aspects of self identification and trans people in elite sport are aspects that need some thought. The Navratilova documentary was excellent on that. The case of the girl who was confronted by her abuser has nothing to do with free speech but is down to failures in Police and Home Office. Our border controls are pretty inefficient. Naz Shah is an example of a woman who has learned some tough lessons in life and has made a couple of mistakes but learned. There are many others in Parliament who appear to have learned nothing!!

Peter Chadburn ● 1996d

I asked people to check the Free Speech Union website.  I have just checked it  myself.  Its most recent case involves a matter I raised in my post:  non-crime hate speech.  A lady was accused of “hate speech” because she countered a petition to have the dictionary definition of the word “woman” extended to include “transgender woman” with one of her own asking for the traditional definition to remain.  Behind this particular issue, of course, is the general issue of whether it is still acceptable to hold the view that there are two biological sexes without being accused of hate speech. This is relevant in Ealing because of the Council’s adoption of the LGBT, agenda (the “T” being the relevant letter). Are employees of the Council free to hold and express the view that there are two biological sexes without fear of being sacked?  Another matter I raised was Starmer’s front bench.  I was reminded of that when Sky News reported that a girl who had been raped at the age of 13 came face to face with her abuser in the Rochdale Asda.  He had lost his appeal against deportation to Pakistan but was still here in our country.  She left her trolley and fled in tears. I wondered how she would have reacted if she had come face to face with Starmer’s Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion, Naz Shah, infamous for approving of this statement: "Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity". I wonder what our local Labour Representatives think about it.  After all, “elsewhere” is as near as Oxford where a victim was not only raped but BRANDED.  A good idea to ask them, a test of whether they put common decency before party loyalty.

Andrew Farmer ● 1996d

Ms Bond,Your previous contribution was one of several that were irrelevant to the original post. “Settling a score with Toby Young” is how I would characterise them.    You now refer us to copy of the Guardian two and a half months old.  It uses insulting language, “Grifter”.  It was written barely hours after the organisation was announced and cannot possibly have known how it would shape up.  It was a “Settling a score with Toby Young” exercise just like yours.  If you are seriously interested in the issues involved here, why not look at the Free Speech Union’s website and see what it has been dealing with.  Some of the issues are just the ones I referred to in my original post as making it a valuable innovation in public life. 

Andrew Farmer ● 1999d

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/24/toby-young-free-speech-union-twitter

Philippa Bond ● 2000d

I joined the Ealing Today forum a few months ago thinking to discover relevant adult debate. On the whole I haven't been disappointed but this topic is an exception. The subject was Mr. Young's Free Speech Union. Hardly any of you bothered to address this topic but instead indulged in puerile insults.

Bettina Margaret Thwaite ● 2000d

Not sure about the distinguished bit, there is only you and wrigley got any time for Young on here.Anyway, when I read wrigley's post, the famous saying by Denis Healey came to mind when ticked off by Geoffrey Howe.

Keith Iddon ● 2000d

That Mr Wrigley sounds terribly magisterial.  You'd better hope he's not presiding when you're up before the bench for soliciting an attack on a distinguished member of the community.Take him down!

Andrew Farmer ● 2000d

Blimey..that's me told off by a complete stranger then. Tell me Wrigley, how do you type whilst sitting on your high horse? LOL!

Keith Iddon ● 2003d

In the past, I’ve commented on the unhelpful way contributors wander away from the original subject.  Here, no one seems to have understood what the subject is.  It was clear to me that when Mr Farmer used a grandiose headline for his post, saluting a local hero, he was being humorous in order to stir folk up.  He is still succeeding with Iddon and Brooks, repeatedly rising to the bait.  In their most recent contributions, they appear to be talking to one another.  I’ll leave it to Mr Farmer to continue having fun at their expense.However, I feel that some of their comments lower the tone of the Forum. They resort to personal insult (“Too late chap to try and recover your own low standards” - Brooks) or threatening language (“Give him a slap for me” – Iddon).  One may not agree with what someone has written, but it is surely possible to discuss it in courteous terms.  One may not agree with what Mr Chadburn has written, but he writes sensibly and offers something of substance that is susceptible of discussion and earns respect for that.  It is an old-fashioned thing called decorum.  Let’s be old-fashioned.  This post is about Young’s Free Speech Union.  People seem to have commented on everything Young has ever said but ignored what alone is relevant here, his Free Speech Union.  Mr Farmer raised other issues: police wasting time investigating non-crime hate incidents, students dictating what should be on the curriculum of their university and Ealing adopting the definition of “islamophobia”.  Does anyone have anything to contribute?

vincent paul wrigley ● 2003d

From what I can see he may be a Farmer, but he is not outstanding in his field.

Keith Iddon ● 2004d

Probably, but closed minds, incapable of admitting mistakes, are always difficult to fathom.

N V Brooks ● 2004d

NV, I think you have touched a nerve there.

Keith Iddon ● 2004d

Dear Mr Brooks, I am pleased to see that your medication is working. I was rather worried that when I rattled your cage it might have caused you serious trauma.  It certainly played havoc with your punctuation.  At least, your little outbursts are now briefer. Keep taking the cocoa and bromide. And, in this of time of lockdown,  why not consider an English Language course?

Andrew Farmer ● 2004d

Mr Chadburn, I can only agree with you about the unreliability of the MSM but Piers Morgan is perhaps not a happy example of something better, sacked from the Mirror after authorising fake photographs of British soldiers abusing prisoners and condemned by Leveson for unreliable testimony. Jimmy Savile, of course, was a fan.  Morgan was on TV a few days ago interviewing a good reason for mistrusting the BBC, the disgraced Panorama producer, John Sweeney, evidently trying to insinuate himself back into public acceptability after his humiliation. Did you pick up on the hilarious expose of Sweeney?  In case you didn’t, let me describe what happened.  Sweeney turned up in a studio to grill a victim for an upcoming show, only to find the studio had been set up to set him up.  He was confronted with a video of himself getting a young lady drunk so that she would dish the dirt on the subject of the programme he was “researching”.  Acting as agent provocateur, he used foul racist and homophobic language (“bloody woofter” “Irish scum”, “Honkey”).  He recounted gleefully how he shouted sexually offensive remarks at lady in a street in Tehran.  (Persian ladies have enough to contend with since the country was taken over by a totalitarian Arabic cult).  He remarked at one point: “It was unusual to meet a white working class male in the news room. It was so unusual that me and one of my mates went down there to have a drink with him in the way you would with a cannibal from the Amazonia or maybe a creature from outer space”.    And there was worse:  shooting gays. The shocking thing was the BBC did not sack him.  I complained directly to the Director General (Tony Hall).  He did not respond himself of course.  It was treated as a routine complaint.  The final thing the BBC was prepared to offer was that it noted the points I has made but didn’t “consider they suggest evidence of a possible breach of standards.”  Which tells us all we need to know about the standards prevailing at the BBC.    And, of course, this incident, as hilarious as it was sinister and which had public showings around the country somehow did not make it onto BBC news.  BBC news distorts news by omission and edits events according to an agenda.  Another example of bad practice: the recent revelation that all the NHS representatives in a recent Panorama programme were specially selected Labour activists.  Randomly selected contributors might have voiced the same views; they had valid points to make; the matter was serious; but this evidence of an agenda destroyed trust in the programme.At least with the Guardian and the Mail we know where they stand and are sometimes able, with the aid of social media, to fathom the truth in the gulf between them.  But the BBC? 

Andrew Farmer ● 2006d

Not a wind-up chap and you are clutching at straws.
Admit that you were wrong and move on.

N V Brooks ● 2008d

I understand the importance of free speech but this also means we can criticise hopefully intelligently. But to be honest when i look at TV today and the internet there is so much crap it is difficult to find the truth. I have learned so much during the brexit debate and process and am now learning about the virus. I expect that things i know now will change. For me the use of bots and fake news from russian and other malign sources are in danger of corrupting democracy. we have to investigate so much before we can be sure of anything. We must question and sadly our press is too much of a Boris fan club to be reliable. Thank God that piers morgan has decided to point out the lies.

Peter Chadburn ● 2008d

Well, it seems my wind-up is still working with you, Mr Brooks.  I thought, when I gave my post that slightly controversial headline, that Ealing’s distinguished illiterati would see through my wheeze and realise they were being triggered.  You are, of course, welcome to your opinion  That is free speech.  I am the last person to wish to silence you.  You write with such politeness and elegance of expression – and in this time of plague we need someone to keep us laughing.  If anyone should seek to de-platform you, you will be able to turn to Mr Young for help.  Now, what you need to do is calm down.  Have a nice cup of cocoa with bromide in it and read the post again.  Look beyond the headline   And to my other respondents, fun aside, my post raises serious issues.  I would like to hear your opinions.  If you want to raise other issues – herd immunity, for instance – go ahead, and criticise Mr Young in your post if you wish.These forum discussions, in general, would be better if people kept on topic. 

Andrew Farmer ● 2008d

I am delighted to be 'naive' if it means not supporting a misogynistic, eugenics supporting individual

Too late chap to try and recover your own low standards by claiming that your original, valedictory  post was anything other than intended by 'ooh look at me, I was trying to provoke a response'' Twaddle and you know it. Try and pick better heroes next time.

N V Brooks ● 2009d

Mr Brooks, You are naïve.  You don’t realise when someone is playing you.  I put the matter in the way I did (“Local Hero”) to rattle your cages.  I was rewarded by Mr Owen’s embarrassing exhibition of vulgar abuse and Iddon’s use of the forum to incite/solicit a physical attack on Mr Young.  That said, I do believe that Mr Young’s Free Speech Union is a valuable addition to public life and that he deserves praise for. 

Andrew Farmer ● 2009d

Your original post invited us to "salute a local hero"
For countless contrary points well made including his support of eugenics, sexism, misogyny, anti-disabled rights is it beyond comprehension that you call has received no 'traction'?

N V Brooks ● 2009d

The point of this post was to congratulate Mr Young on setting up the Free Speech Union.  Not one response so far has any relevance to that. Instead, the usual suspects have indulged themselves, this time by making criticisms of Mr Young, worthless in their brevity and which, valid or not, do not take away from the valuable national service he is providing.And what about Owen and Iddon?  Mr Owen has confessed to assaulting a member of the transport staff. Mr Owen, this is not a confessional and I am not a father confessor.  I would advise you, if you were not punished at the time, to hand yourself in at the police station and disburden yourself of guilt that way..  As for Mr Iddon, how stupid must he be to incite an act of violence against Mr Young on this public forum.  I am familiar enough with criminal discourse to know that “give him a slap” means something more serious than a slap.Ms Kelly sensibly asks: “Are we even capable of having grown-up conversations any more? Apparently not as far Owen and Iddon are concerned. 

Andrew Farmer ● 2009d

It's ALWAYS about money, eventually.To think otherwise is naive in the extreme.

Rosco White ● 2010d

'Have you got your phraseology correct?'Yes, thanks.The damage to our economy will cost lives, both in this country and in the developing world. And then there are the deaths that are occurring from other causes because treatment of, say, cancer has been halted. And then there are the suicides and the murder/suicides of which there have now been several.You're doing exactly what I said: a kneejerk insistence that it's balancing lives against money when it's actually balancing lives against other lives.

Susan Kelly ● 2010d

Ben, if you happen to see Young again please give him a slap for me.

Keith Iddon ● 2010d

Ending lockdown has certain dependencies on statistics testing and the ability to open up the economy in a measured and safe as possible way. Also we need to carry on the culture of the lockdown and not return to old habits. The thought of crowds at ealing broadway squeezing onto trains is a horrifying thought. Compulsory masks and thermal checks at major stations maybe the norm. So difficult to judge but the expected date of 26th May appears possible. But we need to be able to test a lot more. The slowness of this government in taking serious action makes us very vulnerable to the second wave. The nightingale hospitals are one success but leaving care homes out to dry has cost too many lives.

Peter Chadburn ● 2010d

Have you got your phraseology correct?I thought continuing lockdown is shown to save lives, and that ending it early risks/ensures an even worse second wave? As happened with the Spanish Flu?Of course lockdown can't go on indefinitely, the economic costs will be/are already catastrophic so there will come a crossover point of the economies of the world surviving versus an "acceptable" level of lives lost.Tricky one, but what do I know, it's all rather complex for me.

Rosco White ● 2010d

He certainly still lives in Acton.I'm not a fan but he has set up a Lockdown Sceptics website in an attempt to open a debate about when and how lockdown should end. As usual, the instant response is that people who want to end lockdown care more about money than lives -- as if it was as black and white as that.We need a grown-up conversation about it -- about the lives that will be lost by the lockdown continuing indefinitely.Are we even capable of having grown-up conversations any more?

Susan Kelly ● 2010d

Toby Young, son of Lord Young of Dartington, is a ghastly gobby posh yob who I have had the displeasure of knowing for around 40 years. He is vulgar, despicable and cunning. He thought he was a man of the people when at 18 he was a London Bus conductor on the 88 bus, but he didn't handle himself very well when I gave him a good old slap! I was 15 at the time!

Ben Owen ● 2011d

Pro-eugenics Anti-equality (notably when referring to disabled people) Sexist
Probably among the last people I would qualify as a 'hero' local or otherwise.

N V Brooks ● 2011d

and of eugenics.

Philippa Bond ● 2011d

Sadly he is also a fan of herd immunity.

Peter Chadburn ● 2011d