I agree there is probably some of that in what they say. Particularly in some of the more thoretical difficult stuff. Some of it can be a bit intelectual for me to be sure about it.
And they do strike poses, and are probably a bit deliberately provocative. (And I'm sure that they would admit to it too).
So when Claire Fox starts off a discussion on the radio, about ethical shopping, she says that she doesn't want an ethical lecture when she's out shopping. That's bound to get on the nerves of some people, but I think they make a fair set of arguments in a series of articles about ethical living.
It just takes a bit of time to get what they say sometimes. And other people will never accept that way of thinking as they have a different outlook, where action is always better that just hot air.

I like foxes, and all animals, but I respected their argument that fox hunting shouldn't be banned, as doing it is a cultural tradition for so many people, and that some dead foxes weren't such a high price to pay to allow people to continue it.
I think they said something like that anway.

And on the Diversity is divisive line of arguments, about the cult of victimology and on why an ''anti-Nazi'' anti-racist out look isn't enough, I don't see any better arguments.

That a lot of the left will look at arguments like those (for just a minute), and go WTF?? I think is a problem.
''Spiked'' get things wrong sometimes, (I would imagine) but get a lot right too.

Damon, seriously!
it was because i was pissed off at people using "culture" as a justification for cruel, inhumane behaviour that i started the "tis just culture" thread.

Now I know you're taking the piss.

No, I wasn't.


This post has been (heavily) edited, after reading Sarah lady in the post below this one, I thought it best.


Feeling I had to censor my post like that over ''you know what'' is what I find quite disturbing actually.

Oi! You lot - Toby has banned us from talking about Fox hunting - are you trying to get in trouble?!

I agree with SL. I have tried and failed several times in several threads to follow your thinking Damon, but you seem to be trying too hard, thinking that everyone has the time and the energy to analyse every word they read and write. On one level you take things too literally, then on another you seem to overanalyse. It's quite confusing.

Oh, and so I am on thread, I like the idea of Ken Livingstone, but the reality often disappoints!

damon started it

Oh wilburpig, why did you have to go and edit your post last night?
What was it you said I might have: asperger syndrone? It's a possibility, I've never been tested.

And about over analysing things, maybe I do. But things are extremely complex sometimes.

For example, on sunday night, as I do most weeks, I listened to two programes on my local BBC radio by and for the black community. Talk about over analysing things. In one programme the DJ and his studio guests and phone in callers spent two hours talking about how society had percived the 2 black contestants on Big Brother.
Brian, (who was brought up in Essex by white foster parents) wasn't a real black man apparently, as he spent too much time amongst white people. He was popular with the general public because he didn't come across as ''black.'' (It sounds to me, a lot like what John McWhorter wrote in his book Authentically Black which I tried to write about more than a year ago).
Charley on the other hand wasn't liked, as she came over as too black.
And they went on like this for the whole programme.
They have 4 hours of this kind of talk every week. Inward looking, often, very Afrocentric.

I have said many times my opinion is more, that group identity politics has some drawbacks to intergration and harmony.
Remember that article Diersity is divisive? In which Munira Mirza said:

It's probably right around there somewhewe, that I ''loose'' people and they start going: ''WTF? That damon's a nutter.''

No, Damon. The simple fact that Who's Your Caddy? is number 10 on the USA Weekend Box-Office list is what's actually quite disturbing. Though your forced-self-censorship does get honorable mention...

What, and the fact that an issue like fox hunting obviously raises such passions on this forum, that it can't even be talked about isn't disturbing?
It disturbs me.


(That's why, when I get called an idiot it's not too hurtful )

were you here when hunting was discussed in detail with some pro hunters? it turned really nasty. i think they would have turned their dogs on some of us... That's why it's banned.

Damon, there are several problems with "Spiked".
First, whilst I could accept a critique of 'ethical living' on the basis that it is tokenistic or that it is unlikely to have any real impact, when they come out with that sort of argument, it is always backed up with claims that "the science is wrong anyway"; if you read it carefully, their real objection is to being 'told what to do' (not that they are).
Similarly, on fox-hunting, their argument was not about 'culture'; the culture of foxhunting was never threatened by the law, because every aspect of the activity remained legal except for the [hideously] cruel bit. And Pink Shay has covered that perfectly in my view - if something is wrong, the fact that it is part of someone's culture doesn't make it right.
However, "Spiked" were actually opposing the ban on purely libertarian grounds; they do seem to share a distorted kind of humanist philosphy that consistently opposes animal rights and promotes exploitation of animals in a variety of contexts (not just hunting but also vivisection), but ultimately, their whole angle is about individual freedom: pro-hunting, anti-ID cards, anti-environmental regulation et cetera et cetera, all from a libertarian perspective.
And as such, they end up a lot of the time saying exactly the same things as the "Daily Telegraph") except that the Telegraph doesn't claim to be 'Left' or 'Progressive'.
And the problem with their line on racism (which I think does have some good points) is that often they don't seem to be saying that "an ''anti-Nazi'' anti-racist out look isn't enough" but simply attacking that outlook without putting forward anything else.

I agree with the Munira Mirza article that damon posted from Nov 06. I mixed with a lot of black political activists in the 80's and early 90's. The debate would often range around, anti racism versus multi culturalism, there is definitely a debate proggresives can have around equality of oportunity versus diversity.

We would talk about the differences between black nationalism and black socialism, some of the people I knew are now in the Labour Party and some in Respect. For the record I'm for anti racism/equality of oportunity/Labour.

The debate then was mostly a race or class one. With increased prosperity in this country and the almost complete dissapearence of absolute poverty (we now mostly talk of relative poverty) then the people who rejected definition by race cannot use class as much so what do you champion then? For me Social Democracy and western liberal values.

Ken Livingstone has always been part of this debate, that middle class rainbow coalition politics borrowed from the USA.

Anyway Boris Johnson seems popular with many young voters and might give KL a harder fight than many expect.

Flipping hell Mick, why didn't you speak up sooner? I've posted that same article about six times since then.
Apart from barmyrob and JBoyd, it's gone by unnoticed.

I really don't think Boris stands a chance btw. You have to live within the 33 boroughs to get a vote.
The Henley on Thames people don't count.

And JB, what I would disagree with about you there, is, that I don't think that the cruel bit is so much to get upset about. It's a question of degree.

I think you're right, and I don't really see why that's a problem.

I don't know Mick, they've got him in their sights now. It will get very dirty if he gets to run for the Tories.

Blimey JB, you're cruising for a bruising.

And so are you Mick H.

Did no one else have some doubts, about Ken breaking down in tears as he apologised for London's role in the slave trade?
And then being comforted by Jessie Jackson who was with him on the podium?
They are definitely from the same stock I reckon.
(Meaning that you can't help wondering about their probity.)

Is this the work of Mata?

Amazing! I'll have to show her that - she'll want it as her work wallpaper!

Tonight on Channel 4 at 8pm

I read Martin Bright's piece on this in this weeks New Statesman magazine, and wasn't particularly impressed by it. I hope the documentry is better.

They seem to be going after Lee Jasper really hard - the london eve standard has been right on his trail as well recently. The latest accusation seems to be about using public money to discredit Trevor Phillips.

I'll be interested to see the documentary but I expect Teflon Ken to see them off.(probably by sacrificing Jasper to the sharks.)

I thought some of the stuff in the documentry wasn't that good. I don't know how far Jasper can be implicated in wrong doing. He shells out some cash on some of his favorite projects like 'Brixton Base' which is a community center where young people can use recording equipment, and where meetings about subjects like these were held.
But it's not really that much money. £18,000 here and there. They openly admit that some of these projects will fail. But it is the attempt at building grass roots community organisations that they are proud of.
I could go along with that some of the way, (even if I might think some of the politics that was being taught at Brixton Base was a bit dodgy). And that website I just did a link to, is also funded by Ken's GLA

I didn't know the extent that Ken had a group of people around him, all from the same Trotskist group ''Socialist Action.''
They do like their £100,000 plus salaries.

Anyone interested in this story, just google 'Ken Livingstone Martin Bright' - and even add ''Boris'' if you want to read about the London Mayoral election that is coming up in the next couple of months.
It's going to get dirty.

Suggestions that he drinks at work were a bit dubious I thought. He claims he had a cold when he was drinking whiskey while speaking publicly one morning.

He's guilty as charged though IMO, for getting it wrong in some of his dealings with Islamists.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is not impressed.

I havent seen the doc yet but like you Damon Ive now read the NS piece. Also not that impressed.He didnt seem to have much on him. the drinking seems a bit of a nothing.

However Id have loved them to give Peter Tatchell a camera - and for him to have made the programme.

I really respect Tatchell and the way he opposed KL on the visit of the homophobic,antisemitic,misogynistic, suicide bombing supporting cleric.

Hed have given an interesting angle on it. Coming from the left in his criticism.

Its also poignant that while KL has made a lot of dough from his political career, - Tatchell lives on a council estate and is extremely principled.

I agree.

Anyway, Andrew Gilligan of the Evening Standard (and of Dr David Kelly fame) has been saying stuff like this.

Spiked said this about it.

I found the spiked article very interesting.Well argued and well written - so thank for posting it. But I couldnt agree,- I do think Doreen Lawrence and the guy Parry who lost his son in an IRA attack, have worthwhile things to contribute to these debates.

You often find that from an experience of personal adversity comes a kind of positive.EG people who set up charities for a certain illness when they lose a loved one to it.

(Thats not to say that Doreen Lawrence, or Parry are beyond criticism.)

I thought of your post last night Arturo, as I was listening to BBC London's sunday night special with Dotun Adebayo - who I think is a seriously cool guy. It's worth haveing a liston to on listen again, as it gives an insight into the kind of politics that Ken's GLA is running with. It's the 2nd half of the first hour when he has the director of ''opperation black vote'' - Simon Woolley in the studio to talk politics.
Opperation Black Vote was set up by Woolley and Lee Jasper, so it was interesting to hear the kinds of views that Jasper is close to. On the face of it I would support OBV. It sounds laudable. Wanting to get more ethnic minority people into parliament, so that it ''looks'' more like the general population of this country.

But it sounds like some of these campaigning groups are more of an industry in them selves, with the 1990 Trust, papers like the Voice and New Nation, and websites like Black Information Link, taking Kens money, and then backing him politically and smearing Boris Johnson with the ''racist'' tag.
Boris made some ill-judged flippant remarks that were not intended to be racist, but were seized upon, and I have heard the accusations that he is a racist being shouted from the back of a public debate between the three candidates.
Woolley (and even Adebayo) tossed that around a bit, like Doreen Lawerence did. (Her newly opened ''Stephen Lawerence center'' also takes Ken's money).

It's all a bit grubby in my opinion. Johnson has been forced to apologise for his remarks, even though he insists they were taken out of context, which I think they were. I think his apology should be excepted and that be the end of it.

I just think it's good to keep an eye on the politis of the thing.

Refering to Black people as piccaninnies is racist, there is no other context for this remark.

The fact that Damon's managed to post an entire reply without too many typos would suggest he's not wearing a pillowcase on his head (and not been drinking)

I don't agree with your assertion Jon, but that would hardly be surprising. Johnson was guilty of niavety, and perhaps, a lack of sensitivity or foresight. I think you have to make a judgement on his intention in making comments like that.
That people take offense, I don't think is good enough. (but I admit, I maybe be a bit off on this, because of Dotun Adebayo also having that view).

I have heard callers ringing into radio shows all weekend taking grave offense at the ''attack on Islam'' in the media. Saturday's sun was quite dreadful, and some it is Islamophobic - but when you have pissed off callers asking ''why are you always talking about us Muslims - why is everybody always attacking the Muslims?'' I think you can say back to them - ''just because you take offense - doesn't mean that you have a righteous grievance.''

Should Tom and Jerry be taken off the air, because of the portrayal of the black house servant?

Or all the sterotyped roles of black people in 1930's Hollywood?
Stuff like ''Love thy neighbour'' are probably unsuitable to be shown in anything other than a historical way today - but Johnson was making a mockery of the old film footage of the Queen visiting Africa in the 50's.
I might be wrong on some of this - but this paragrah from the Spiked article is on the right track I think.

I think the real question is... Would you be offended if your mom's face was superimposed onto the head of the house servant, and, if so, why would you be offended?

I think that I could well be the case. It's an interesting question, and one that could be of interest to discuss over a forum. I was trying to discuss some of this stuff with Leftie well over a year ago this stuff by John McWhorter.
This chapter in his book entitled Authentically Black was titled: The "Can You Find the Stereotype?" Game

It's worth a skim through - but I know know that this sort of thing is very unpopular on the forum - so would know not to expect much interest. Or if any one did take an interest, the discussion might be sabotaged.

No thanks. I find whites discussing blacks to be SO boring. With or without links.

That's worth saying again.

It's exactly that kind of everyday flippant remark that is exactly what racism is. (Ok, it may be an everyday remark for Boris, if not for most people, but still, you get my point.)

I get so tired of the "don't call me a racist--racism is bad so you shouldn't call me a bad thing" refrain. Um, then don't be racist/say racist things, etc.

It's not the naming that's the problem, it's the oppression that's being named.

I don't care what his feeble excuse is--that comment is inexcusable.

Well of course I wasn't talking about you Zippy. And that statement (of yours) itself sounds a bit dodgy to me. Why can't people who are white, discuss the politics that is promoted by Ken Livingstone, Lee Jasper (his adviser on London race issues), websites like Black Information Link, the 1990 Trust, The New Nation newspaper, Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson?

It's about politics, not about race first and formost. But people will try to racialise those politics - and suggest that to critisise them is not acceptable - certainly not from whites, and that blacks that do, are sellouts and Uncle Toms. But I can see why a lot of people would find all this SO boring.

And I suppose that in the same manner, non Muslims should not discuss anything to do with Islamic issues.
For example, the widespread practice of first-cousin marriage - which leads to a 13 fold increase in the chances of children from that marriage of having genitic disorders.

This British minister faced calls to resign for raising the issue the other day. He was told it was not his business to be talking about it. It was something for the community and scientists to discuss.

That's the sort of thing I think Zippy means when he says he finds ''whites discussing blacks SO boring''.
It has taken a long time, but I now understand the forum much better than I did a year ago.

Personally though I still find this sort of thing more to my way of thinking:
But that article was written by a bloke called Neil Davenport.
And he looks like this

I agree that Johnson's comments were racist.Using unusual terminology doesnt get you off the hook.
Well I dont vote for tories anyway.

But I find Mr Livingstone's - (what Id most generously describe as) ambivolent attitude to Jews - also means I cant vote for him anymore. (and not just that,- telling rail workers to scab a couple of times - is another indication of how far he's slipped.)

I really dont see myself voting lib dem tho,- so??

I think Johnson's comments can be put on a par with Ken's.
Ill advised (wrong) as people were bound to take offense.
But Lib Dem candidate Brian Paddick, was a frontline police sergeant in the SPG (riot squad) during the 1981 Brixton riots.
So none of them are perfect.

The confirmation that from october this year, any car with an engine size of 2.5 litres or above, will be charged £25 a day for entering the congestion zone was all over the London media yesterday.


Edited: (I was only going to leave that up for a day).

I've heard Ken wants to invest in bicycle lanes for London and introduce a rent-a-bike scheme like Paris has.
Sounds like an excellent idea to me.
I saw Richard Hammond in a Top Gear episode cycle through London and that looked too scary, even for a seasoned cyclist like me. Imagine being thrown in with the buses....
Cyclelanes are the civilised way forward.

Damion, lets be frank about this. You really didn't know what the fuck you were saying did you

I can't do Internet Radio at work so I'll have to use my imagination.

Click to view attachment

No I suppose I didn't too much, pink shay. Well maybe a bit I thought: but it's nice to know you cared enough to tune in

And Jon, if you loose the hair, that's uncannily accurate

Cycle lanes currently in London are rubbish - cars are allowed to park in them and everyone ignores them anyway

Most cyclists in London are cunts anyway

I keep meaning to walk around with a metre long pole to thrust through the spokes of the next wanker that rides across in front of me on a pedestrian crossing.

Hey, damon! I've got the producer of Down The Line on the phone. He wants to know your contact details so he sue you for copyright infringement.

This isn't just a London thing BR ... I was nearly mown down by a cyclist who decided that the red light on a pedestrian crossing didn't apply to him in my northern hometown. The bar steward didn't even hear me shouting at him due to the fact that he had phones in his ears .... if he couldn't hear me how the **** could he hear the traffic around him.

The purpose of cycle lanes is to seperate cyclists from the rest of the traffic, for a reason...

It will be interesting to see if Ken's rental bike scheme can work in London. My initial skepticism says no, but that's mainly because details are still sketchy.
I heard that a £100 deposit will have to be paid first. And the bikes are meant for only short term use. Hourly fees will rise sharply after a couple of hours, to discourage hoarding.
The scheme will require a full time team of mechanics, and a recovery crew to collect bicycles thrown into canals or vandalized, (which I'm sure is unavoidable).
This being London, I'm sure they will cost more than the 1 Euro per half an hour that they cost in Paris.

But I welcome this idea, if only to see if it can work or not.
btw - the Tory is a proper cyclist who has called for sharia law for bike thieves.

I hate to disappoint you Damon, but Paris isn't that different from London, so if it works there, it'll work in London is my bet.

In Sevilla they also had a rentabike scheme that worked well.

And bike thieves have their own circle in hell and sharia law is too good for them.

Just a word on Johnson's personality. As well as the stuff about ''AK47's falling silent'' and that unfortunate reaction to it, (meaning I don't think he is a racist), he also says things like this: (which he said at his local Islington Cyclists’ Action Group):


You see that last sentence? (about riding a bike and talking on your phone).

He maybe a 'buffon' but I think you have to take all these pronouncements together, and then take an average. Going after one (the Pickannies/watermellon smile) in isolation, perhaps is a bit harsh.

Taking them all together, it may just be that he's a Tory toff, who wouldn't be a good mayor.
Or of course, he may be a nasty racist, who would be a divisive figure in London's diverse landscape.
Or (it's a long shot) - he could be a half decent mayor. - He does seem to have gotten more serious in these last weeks.

Anyone half interested in this election just has to google BBC London - go for ''Listen again'' and there will be the latest radio interviews with the candidates.

Fucking Hell: Lee Jasper (a close adviser) has been suspended a few hours ago.
Of course it may just be a judicial procedure. I don't think Lee is personally corrupt.
But who knows?

Yeah, people. I mean, if someone has only participated in one measly lynching for example, an average of his behaviour may still show he's not that bad...

Didnt Billy Bragg do a documentary about Glastonbury with Johnson a few years back?

And are they still mates? I seem to remember reading somewhere they are.

Should BB disassociate himself from Johnson after these comments?

The same way he made it clear he cant stand Galloway.

I think he did a feature for the BBC with Boris, he took him round Glastonbury trying to convert him to an alternative way of life/thinking.
If I remember rightly Boris' reaction was to say "I think this place is marvellous, perfect example of capitalism working - you can buy anything here, even in a field"

Not sure if it made him and Billy friends, exactly...

Isn't Johnson just a bit of a characature of himself? I don't think he takes himself very seriously and his rants are often hilarious. Using language as once uttered in the 'empire' for a rant is right up his toff alley. Yes it's racist, but come on, it's Boris Johnson.... a dying breed, an anachronism and a funny one at that.

And he was very right about Glastonbury....

Bill and Boris do have a strange connection (no pun intended) from way back. It was a media thing. Which I never understood. However, he has much closer connections with Ken.

Ken has his faults, for sure, but the thought of this odious upper-class right-wing Tory (who can still use terms like "picanninies") becoming Mayor of London gets me off my arse, politically, for the first time in ages.