deborah orr?
deborah phwoar?
deborah whore?

oh my aching sides

If/when Damon enters this forum topic, it's quite possible he may never leave...

She's a real woman.
Compared to her, you're just a couple of girls.

So who should I be more worried about?

Damon for his devotion; or Zippy for his, erm, dedication?

hey dame. i'd rather be a girl than a...... um.... err..... git.

Best edited out I think.

If that was a Frank Furedi than, yes, best to not post it here.

Zippy, can you stick this up your Frank Furedi


Turning free speech into a negotiable commodoty.

That's prety hot, isn't it Zippy???

Damon, I also think it's pretty fatuous; I don't think that the Left ever supported 'free speech' as an absolute.
And, interestingly, 'Spiked' aren't entirely consistent about it: have a look at some of the articles Michael Fitzpatrick has written about the MMR panic. I think he's absolutely correct in arguing that the evidence linking the MMR jab and autism is weak and that the panic is based on bad science. He recently pointed out that the panic is now leading to children suffering unnecessarily from measles (which is nasty and even potentially fatal).
And he wrote:

So what's the difference between arguing that the Lancet shouldn't publish an article and that the Oxford Union shouldn't invite Irving and Griffin to speak? It's a similar principle - namely that free speech should be curtailed to prevent harm.

I have no idea about MMR JBoyd. It's science and I don't understand it.
What ever you might have thought of that article by Frank Furedi, the principle behind it is pretty sound when it comes to how to deal with the the far right (or the Nazi's as many on the left like to call them).
I said yesterday that I couldn't see why Griffin and Irving had been invited to Oxford. It was unnecessary, and I thought it fair enough that people might object. but seeing it on TV, I thought that the protesters looked a bit pathetic, and might be even helping the BNP's cause.
If the BNP didn't exist, it might be necessary to invent them. They are just right really. Not big and powerful like the FN in France, but obnoxious enough to serve as a rallying point agaist racism.

But it can also have the effect that people who think they have no voice about things that concern them, can protest by voting for such an extreme party.
Today on a radio phone in programme, there was a lot of annoyance about the British teacher who has been locked up in Sudan for calling a teddy bear Mohammed. You can imagine some of the grumbles: ''they (muslims) coming over here, doing what they like ..... etc etc
I might have even posted that story in the tis just culture thread, but got shouted down for mentioning tha fact of there being 600 honor killings in Iraq every year. (Something to do with culture I thought)
That was inflamatory of me apparently.
You see what can happen in a censorious climate?
It ends up with strictly enforced PC.
Which boosts the reactionary right.

The MMR analogy is simple; a panic about the safety of the vaccine followed the publication of an article. 'Spiked' pointed out that it was based on 'bad science'. They also pointed out that the resulting drop in immunisation rates was causing illness and (potentially in a few cases) death or disability. They argued that the article should not have been published. So they were effectively saying that 'freedom of speech' should be curtailed if it had the potential to cause real harm. And I think that in that instance, they got it exactly right.

not just science Damon

This is a perfect example of why I wub Debs.
Deborah Orr: We can't put the blame for terrorism solely on our multicultural society

Talking of those five young British muslim men who were found not guilty (on appeal) of criminaly having downloaded or viewed extremest jihadi stuff over the internet. (I too support their acquittal).

But Ms Orr highlights the dilemma. She doesn't fall for that Royal United Services Institute's report on national security that came out last week that suggested we were in perilous straits in Britain because of the creep of Islamism. (Things aren't great, but it's no time to panic).

The papers got all hysterical about that report last week, and Debs herself said this:

and she goes on to say this ( )

Anyway, I won't go on, but if you are at all interested, have a read of that article.

See She gets it right every time. (I bet Jon think she's a cross burning pillowcase wearer ).

But even though Deborah is not backing ''progressive'' Ken Livingstone, when you read her writing, like in today's Independent, about the missing schoolgirl from Yorkshire, you can see that she is one of the best columnists in the UK.

I've edited out the stuff I wrote here. It wasn't serious.

Maybe Maria was right. Now she's citcising Stonewall
And what's she implying when she says ''I don't know which group is more up itself''??

Surely 'up itself' is homophobic in this context (that's right isn't it geoff?? ..... barmyrob???)


So I guess that makes Deborah Orr homophobic too - (and is probably one of the reasons why I like her).

Here's the add on YouTube.

The latest teenager to die in London (the 21st this year) was killed near Deborah Orr's home.
This is what she wrote about it today in the Independent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime...ity-871801.html

I have tried to talk about this stuff on here for over two years. But that has got me nowhere.

Deborah is great. But you might remember, not quite good enough for Maria.
It was the story of Thomas Beatie (the pregnant man) that did it for her, (as far as Deborah Orr was concerned).
It was the ''terrible'' comment that perhaps Mr Beatie was making a bit of an exhibition of himself by appearing in the worlds newspapers, shaving in the mirror, six months pregnant.
It was a throw away comment, and pretty harmless really.
But it failed the BB forum PC test.

Why Stockwell is like Ms Orr describes it, could be an interesting discussion somewhere.
But not on here.

She said it not me.

But it is one of those issues I have wondered about. In my time on this forum I have never seen it discussed.
You can get called homophobic at the drop of a hat on this forum (I have been) - even if you admit to being ''a bit gay'' yourself.
I was over at my local internet cafe in Streatham last sunday afternoon, and there's a public toilet across the road which I go into on occasion. It's a cruising place - which is a little off putting when you're only going in for a pee.
I've nothing against it really, but it does come across as sleezy.
It's a bit rough. Anyway, Debs said this:

Wow. Frigid prude writes overtly homophobic article shock. She thinks heterosexuals don't engage in dogging? What a moron.

I guess damon can't be any stupider than the editor of the Independent for thinking that this was worth publishing.

Joe, you need to put some clothes on your argument, otherwise you just sound elitist.

''...... overtly homophobic article'' - why? Maybe it is, but why it is has to be explained - or it just sounds like more dodging of the issue like was done on here over the case of the Avon Fire crew (who were strongly disciplined by the fire service because they had mocked guys having sex in the bushes at a well known cruising spot).

You say she writes a homophobic article (by speaking against a practice you liken to dogging).
In the PC thread I quoted some people on a gay website who had said things like this over allegations that the city council in Bristol was being homophobic, by cutting back bushes at that particular cruising location on the downs.


I was just trying to get a handle on what is and what is not homophobia.
The Rainbow group and the Terrence Higgins Trust in Bristol (who reported and made the complaint of homophobia to the Avon Fire Service), seem to be of the opinion that outdoor gay sex should not be derided like ''dogging''. And have said that it's homophobic to equate the two.

So Joe, can you see why I'm pulling you up a bit here?
I would like to be told how I would explain this to the guys when I go into work this afternoon.
I'll be working for a conference equipment hire company, which has a wharehouse full of lighting and sound equipment, and a bunch of guys dressed in black who you could call roadies.
They load the vans and trucks, then another group at the conference site unload and set up the gear.

They are just regular fellas. Funnily enough, at the wharehouse most of them seem to be English locals (white black Asian) and most of the crews out at the sites (who set up and take down) seem to be either Australian, (white) South African, or Eastern European.
I digress a bit, but while hoping they might get the idea of Billy's ''s-e-x-u-a-l-i-t-y'' - some of them might struggle a bit with the idea of outdoor gay sex and even the idea of camp itself.
I have known and worked (and been perfectly friendly with) with many camp guys over the years, but I myself have never really understood ''camp''.

I read this article in the Independent yesterday which was saying how dreadful many Americans are going to find the new American series of Little Britain.
Cole Moreton: These Limeys may be too slimy for the States

This jumped out at me:

This is a fairly typical post by me I'd say. Is it so bad to talk like this?
As TV chef Delia Smith might say:
''Come on ...... let's be 'avin you''

I'll explain to you why it's a homophobic article when you explain why public sex is a homosexual issue.

It's rather unfortunate that you made the post in the same week that a quarter of adult Britons (hint: less than a quarter of adult Britons are gay) said that they had sex in public.

It always seems so hard to talk on this forum about things that should be straight foreward and easy to understand.
It's like bowling against a very defensive batsman in cricket. No matter what swing or spin or pace you try to put on the ball, a defensive shot just kills it dead.

Joe, cruising is a gay issue. It has always been (most often in the past out of necessity).
That hetrosexual ''dogging'' has also become more popular may be true, though I would hazard a guess and say that the proportion of hetrosexual women who have taken part in such activities is tiny in comparison to the proportion of gay men who have done this. (Or have friends and socialise with people for whom this is just a normal part of life).

Here are some YouTubes on the subjuct.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=I7Ampu8jxP8&...feature=related

That hetrosexual couples might have sex outdoors is a different thing. Those people have usually known each other for more than 30 seconds.
I'm not passing a judgement on gay cruising. I have no problem with it. But I also accept that some people disaprove of promiscuous sexual activity.
One female BB forum member once chided another (female) poster for writing something (she thought) was overly sexually crude. (I had just thought it was funny - but people have different judgements on things like that.)

Joe, sorry to sound a bit ''off'' - but I would trust Deborah Orr's judgement on something like this before most (not all) forum members. I have been (bizarrly IMO) called a homophobe by someone on this forum, and you youself Joe are not that forthcoming about things.
You seem to prefer to just make a comment and then disappear.

I mean..... I still remember you saying I wouldn't understand someone like Mike Fitzpatrick (who I first heard speak about 19 years ago) when he was reviewing Richard Dawkin's book.
I admit I'm no intellectual, and would struggle to understand all the detail and concepts in the following arguments. But I get much of it. Quite a bit - but not all. It's just a hobby really.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/issues/C55/

Oh, I get it now. She's quite happy for heterosexual couples to carve up London's common lands, just so long as the land carving sex they have comes with strings. I was thrown off by the headline, I guess. I know a guy who writes a newspaper column, and he's always on the phone shouting at editors who have given his piece a retarded headline, so I'll have to forgive her -- her point was entirely about strings.

Oh wait, no, that wasn't her point at all, was it?



Lol. How did she determine the species origin of the excrement? Is her anonymous friend Dr Gillian McKeith, PhD?



[Citation needed]

Ho hum. So you want to pick up the 'strings' thing. Is this where the homophobia lies?
Like where I said this:

30 seconds - 30 minutes who's counting? Is that what what you're saying Joe?
What's the difference between cruising in a park for gay sex with a total stranger in the bushes, or hetro couples getting it on so soon after meeting in a club??
That's a fair enough point - and one which I would personally endorse, (meaning - I don't care either way.)
I don't need to defend D.Orr's use of words - (about the dog with crap on its face) - and am not defending them. She can speak for herself. Though I have heard (only anecdotally) about busy cruising spots having human crap about the place. But that's not something I want to dwell on too much.
But by saying: ''[Citation needed]'' about the prevelence of random sexual acts being part of mainstreem gay society in a way that they are not in hetosexuality, is akin to asking for evidence of a difference in the sexual nature/culture of men and women. It's bleedin' obvious.

My reason for bringing this up at all was to see if anyone else thought there was something slightly dishonest about the way that homosexuality and gay lifestyles have been pushed.
It was Joe that brought the word ''prude'' up here. It's quite a loaded word as it implies something negative about someone who is prudish.
I don't consider myself prudish at all. I first encountered very open gay lifestyles when I spent a winter in Key West Florida in the mid 80's.
Go to a gay club there (like I did often) and you might see gay porn being shown on TV's above the bar and people having sex in the toilets. Who cares? I didn't.
Framed photos on the wall of some quite extreme gay sexual acts. Fine - no bother.
(Though I did find it funny when the function of the 'glory hole' in the toilet cubicles was first explained to me).

But does that mean that everyone has to be as casual about this as I am .... or be considered a homophobe?
The fact that barmyrob has called me homophobic must mean that the bar for passing the PC homophobe test must be set very high. What else would I have to do? - detail any gay sexual encounters I might have had myself??

The reason I use the word 'dishonest' is because by normalising homosexuality so much, you are denying the full meaning of things like camp.

And you are demanding that ''regular'' hetro people get everything the way you do.
Hang around The Castro in San Francisco like I did in 1986 and the culture and the lifestyle was clearly different. Buffed up guys in tight T shirts (sashaying about to the Pet Shop Boys) were everywhere.

Is it homophobic not to care for Gok Wan and his fashion programmes?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq__xI5fe2U&...feature=related
I don't really care for any of the obviously gay TV presenters these days. Though I like Boy George and (obviously) respect people like Sir Ian McKellan.

I used to work with this guy Justin (from Colin and Justin). Nice bloke, a bit camp - though not as much as he seems to be putting it on here.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Vvl4-hfBA
His personality obviously appeals to a mainstream audience, as does something about these ''queer eye for the straight guy'' TV programmes.

I suppose my point is: to expect everybody to get it though, is asking a lot. (And that it's a bit sanctimonious to sit in judgement on people).

Dude, are you really that stupid. My point was the exact opposite. You were the one who conjured strings from nowhere. Orr was not talking about strings in her article. You seemed to think that she was. She wasn't. She was talking about public sex acts. I was merely pointing this out. Congratulations for missing that. Have you got it this time?

To avoid confusing things further, we can ignore the rest of your post for now, since it is off topic (the topic is Deborah Orr, remember, and I think I remember establishing somewhere that Orr was talking about public sex acts and not strings).

I am therefore still waiting for a citation showing that public acts of heterosexual sex are "tiny" in comparison to public acts of gay sex, and therefore why Orr's article about sex in public is right to identify it as a gay issue.

This is going the same way as the Avon Firefighters isn't it? (ie: nowhere).
Joe you mentioned strings twice in your last post.

I had mentioned about knowing someone for more than 30 seconds previously, but you started the sentence talking about her.

Maybe I am a bit thick (bound to be compared to someone who's just finished university), but it doesn't help (communicating like this) to prefer cleverness over plain speaking. After a few days it kills off any discussion.
Someone even piped up about the Avon Fire crew thing and said I was being ''creepy'' by persuing that story. (By wanting to suggest that the fire cheif of Avon Fire and Rescue had behaved in a PC manner when he had seriously reprimanded that fire crew for driving to the downs and laughing at the men having sex).
Remember, he had origionally ordered them (as well as being demoted and fined £1000) to attend a weekend Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender conference.

So where were we? Oh yes, it seems it's up to me to be proving something, when you Joe are the one who came out and said her article was homophpbic and that she was being prudish.
Are you prudish if you don't like to see porn on the top shelves of newsagents? I know my sister once said something about it at her local shop. She didn't like the idea of her ten year old daughter seeing them.
Was that her being prudish? I'm really not sure myself.

As for who has more outdoor sex; hetros or gays? Even if you can pull me up on some clever technicality (and laugh at me for being stupid) my point that the open gay lifestyle of going to gay venues and mixing with large numbers of gay men in bars, clubs and saunas has a different sexual culture to the majority hetro experiences.
Yes of course there are hetro places like these gay saunas, but I can't remember speaking to any hetro person who has been to a swingers or sex club.
But I have known gay guys who frequent gay saunas (and gay cinemas where you get a condom when you pay the entrance fee).
Of course, hetro guys pay to have and watch sex. But that's quite different.

If you want to equate a gay club where sex takes place on the premises with a ''pick up joint'' in hetro clubland, then I suppose you can.
And say that gay cruising is no more mainstream in gay culture than dogging is amongst hetros .... you can do that too. But it doesn't really correspond with reality.
Or maybe it does and I just need to get out more (as things have changed).

Btw, maybe that's it. Maybe dogging is as popular as gay cruising has been. Although I doubt if women using public toilets are going to be too happy about people giving them the come on and loitering about the place.
Maybe they would be being 'prudish' if they didn't care for that.

Maybe somebody else could help me out here because Joe seems to want some proof. Some numbers and (perhaps) graphs. I don't have them.

But Orr said this in her article:

So she seems to be saying that it is a gay issue because historically it was part of the culture.
In many ways, was the culture.
I remember in the mid 70's going to the toilets at Victoria station one evening and seeing the dozens of suited men all standing at the urinals eyeing each other and looking about. It was a sight to behold.

Joe, I did a link to the review of this book somewhere else recently. It's one I'll have to buy as it looks interesting.
Once upon a time the streets of the capital heaved with jolly sailors and guardsmen just looking for gentlemen to have fun with. Then gay liberation came along and ruined it for everyone

I get the feeling we're not going to get any further than this.
Is this where Martyn and Maria make their judgements?

Forget about that last post. I've been on the wagon for some weeks now (did anyone notice?), but yesterday was a bit of an off day.
Thing is ..... are we going to get beyond Joe's assertation that Deborah Orr was being ovetly homophobic?

I don't think we are.
In fact, I know that we are not.
This is where Martyn's ''wanker'' and Maria's ''''ignore him'' opinions come in.
Of course Deborah Orr is not homophobic.
WTF does homophobic mean anyway? Joe (sure as hell) is not going to tell us.
Either is Sarah lady or barmyrob.
Wilburpig or pink shay too.

At the moment I put BB forum people talking about 'homophobia' on a par with the Islamophobia Watch website.

Meaning that: yes there is Islamophobia about. But there is also fair comment which has been called Islamophobia.
Kind of like when Debs Orrr was posted up on that website for being ''Islamobhobic'' because she had spoken out against the niqab.

normal service has thankfully been resumed,

Joe is obviously a clever guy, and compared to him I am probably ''stupid''. I left school in 1979.

I said that it was important (essential) to ''put clothes on your argument'' and you (Joe) have not done so.
Which in my opinion invalidates your argument.
Whether Deborah Orr was right to air her opinion the way she did I'm not sure. I wish I was on a forum where that issue could be discussed in a genial way. I can see where Joe is coming from, and maybe he's right and Orr's column, which she does just to make her living, could possibly be of benifit to people who are hostile to gay people.
What Joe said should be the start of a conversation not the end of it. You have to explain using those words.
What Joe said was contadictory. And is just like the Avon firefighters story.
There, the fire chief Kevin Pearson seriously damaged the careers of four firemen because they had mocked men having sex at a known cruising spot.
Yes (as I said at the time) they were out of order and it was definately a disciplinery matter for the Fire Service. But it was really about (at the beginning) the mens ''homophobia'' and Avon Fire and Rescue made a pigs ear out of it I thought.

Joe asks me to prove that cruising is more prevalent than dogging. I can't prove anything, but am just going on what I thought was common knowledge. That gay sexuality is different from hetro sexuality in all kinds of ways. And that cruising is mainstream in a way that ''dogging'' or men paying for sex is not.
The Spartacus International Gay Guide 2008 (£14.99) proves that point does it not?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spartacus-Internat...8/dp/386187783X

I am beginning to wonder if being a Billy Bragg fan can be injurus to ones intellectual development.
What I mean is, that as bright and clever as people like barmyrob are, there develops this uncritical nature that becomes political correctness.

It starts with ''Fuck off KLF'' and the Sun .... and ends up like this:

That btw way is not meant to be overtly hostile. It may seem that way, but it's not from my point of view (and I'm doing the typing).
It's just a disagreement with that (IMO) lazy way of talking. Martyn has said the same thing recently.

I think that McW says it better:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11372?in=00:28:48

I read Deborah today and she reminded me of something I was saying myself last week in the Multi ethnic London thread.
About community meetings like the one that was broadcast on the radio, and how they can be dominated by people's agendas.
To which Pink Shay responded to like this:

It's funny really. I get called a Troll for saying stuff like this .. but at least I make an effort - unlike Jon (see above).

I was in Deborah's road a week ago. I knew it was Guildford Rd Stockwell because she had said so in the paper. I wonderd (not too hard) which house was hers. It's big white houses on one side, and blocks of council flats on the other. Maybe she's in a council flat (but probably not). Anyway, here's the rest of it:

The guy who was billed as the main speaker sounds a bit like barmyrob don't you think?
See those word I highlighted?? Maybe Deborah Orr is a Troll too (or would be if she joined this forum).