|
Here’s my idea. Tomorrow we form a party, and campaign to legalise all child porn.
Chris Langham is a very good actor. I’d love to write an article just about that, as anyone yet to see him in The Thick Of It is genuinely several years behind greatness. I’d love to write that article, but that’d be like writing an article on David Irving based entirely on his taste in shoes. Though I might suggest that to Fashion: ‘The jackboot look is IN! Look how they match the armbands!’
The Union’s cancelled Langham’s invitation to speak, on the back of comments from Kidscape that they worry about ‘the message being sent to the victims.’ Suddenly the Union cares about things being criminal, in much the same way as they didn’t when inviting, Gerry Adams, Richard Nixon (treason), OJ Simpson (‘domestic violence’) and Michael Jackson (‘The Earth Song’). Is treason a victimless crime? Maybe this is where Langham went wrong. If he’d simply spent less time on indecent images and more time on, say, stealing the Presidency of the United States, he’d be in that chamber like a shot.
Add to this the more recent, obvious examples: last term, one Union officer bent backwards over broken glass for five hours, in case Nick Griffin needed an interesting hat-stand. The response, presumably, is that politics simply matters more. So here’s my idea. Tomorrow we form a party, and campaign to legalise all child porn. Two, four, six, eight, let’s watch children masturbate! They’ll have to let us in, because then it’s political. It’s free speech! If that fails, we’ll chant ‘TURF OUT THE DARKIES’, until we’re just political enough to be above contempt.
Ironically enough, the Union said Langham was originally scheduled to speak about his ‘vilification in the media.’ Then they cancelled the event after he was, er, vilified in the media. Surely that just gave him more to say? There’s also the further irony of axing a debate society speech over ‘controversy’: isn’t that what a debating society’s for? Get a thesaurus, look up ‘debate’ – you get ‘controversy’. You can’t have too much. You might as well cancel surfing due to a waterlogged sea.
In fact, if we were to ban every person from the Union who was a sex offender or otherwise criminal, their total membership would fall to precisely the number of members who would sue me for saying this. As Union speakers’ crimes go, Langham’s is relatively tiny. He looked at child porn once or twice. Take Ardal O’Hanlon (5th Week): he made My Hero. Not just once, but for five series. What kind of message does this send to the victims, all seven million of them?
» 21 comments
1"Offensive"
on Saturday, 03 May 2008 09:12
I'll buy you a drink for every person that threatens to kill you for that last paragraph.
Though, somehow, I feel like I can't quite afford to promise that.
2"why?"
on Saturday, 03 May 2008 14:50
I don't understand why you're having a go at the union for cancelling Langham, when the issue is actually that they didn't stop Nixon, Griffin, etc. The fact that other borderline criminals have previously spoken does not make it ok for Langham to speak. This example should be brought up and followed in the future, to block other undesirable speakers - I am assuming that you don't want to hear Josef Fritzl (or whoever else the Union decides to invite) talking.
In a slightly similar direction, why is Peter Bowden still writing for the Cherwell? I just read all his articles, and while I agree with his view in most of them, I totally disagree with the way the articles have no argument beyond offensive what-if scenarios. I'm clearly not alone in thinking this because many/most of the comments on the other articles are to the same effect. We agree with the view but not the argument. I guess we can just ignore him though...
3comment
on Saturday, 03 May 2008 15:18
Trying to be offensive for the sake of it does not make a good article. I thought last week might have been a one off, but unfortunately it looks like Bowden is actually just a shite journalist.
4"this"
on Saturday, 03 May 2008 16:01
Matter of taste. I don't think there's ever been a claim that this is serious "journalism" of any kind. That's why this goes next to Fit College and Evelyn, rather than, say, in the "comment" section.
I direct you to comment 9 of the Liveblogging Pennsylvania thread.
Either of the two above commenters reveal your full names, the position you hold within the student media, and point me to a better Features article printed in either of the student papers, any time in the last three years. Do that, and I will personally deliver ten pounds in an envelope to your college.
5"re:this"
on Saturday, 03 May 2008 16:57
I apologise, you\\\'re right. I can\\\'t find any better features article because the other three on the Cherwell site are all like this, and the OXStu site returns 0 results when I click features.
With regard to your comment #9: We\\\'re not slating him for having a view. I even said I agreed with his view. \\\"If it\\\'s good, where\\\'s the problem?\\\" It\\\'s not good, that is the problem. \\\"And if it\\\'s bad ... what were you expecting?\\\" I was expecting better. I therefore said what I thought would make his future articles better. As TheDog said, being offensive for the sake of it is not necessarily funny. Charlie Brooker can do it, but PB hasn\\\'t learnt how yet.
Also, my post had a valid question to the author - why *is* he having a go at the union for having double standards when they\\\'ve done the right thing this time. If we can\\\'t ask
6comment
on Saturday, 03 May 2008 17:02
Why do you ask for these people\\\'s positions within the student media? Presumably it is because you believe that one cannot give useful and meaningful criticism if they are not a \\\"journalist\\\" themselves. This is surely ludicrous - perhaps you have favourite bands or a football team, I am certain that you pass judgement on other talents and art forms many times daily. It is exactly this kind of arrogance (coupled with the asking for a better article in the past three years) that makes your writing utterly insufferable and needlessly offensive.
7"Dave"
on Saturday, 03 May 2008 17:35
I didn't say it was supposed to be serious, I know it's supposed to be amusing. Unfortunately, it isn't. If you think this is the pinnacle of student journalism, I pity you. Check most editions over the last 3 years from either paper for a better article.
Oh, and you can keep your ten pounds.
8comment
on Sunday, 04 May 2008 23:38
Peter Bowden's column is an offence against laughter & all English prose. He is a mâché Brooker, copied with all the subtlety of a forklift, & the fun of its manual. Fire him, I implore you, for writing's sake, & joy's.
9"Everyone"
on Monday, 05 May 2008 00:14
I genuinely love you all, so, so much. You have no idea how much these comments - entirely impartial, obviously - are making me laugh. It's nice to have something making someone laugh under a PB byline, isn't it? So cheers.
In a slightly similar direction, I was wondering recently whether to quit writing after these eight columns, or press for a third term. I think I'll keep writing, now. As we all know, student writing is all about the ego, and having people line up to kick me in the journalistic bollocks is quite a trip. As long as you're here, I'll be. Won't it be fun? Maybe we can be friends!
Oh, and who's this "Charlie Brooker" bloke? All my jokes are plagiarised from Iannucci and Stewart Lee, but I'll look him up.
"Fire him for writing's sake and joy's".
That's going on the CV...
10comment
on Monday, 05 May 2008 15:10
I literally hate you.
11"okay..."
on Monday, 05 May 2008 15:29
Four terms? I think four terms.
12"Oh, come on"
on Monday, 05 May 2008 19:29
Some people find him funny. And if you look back through last term's, you'll find many good ones. I agree that last week's was slightly off, and frankly I prefer it when he sticks to less politicized subjects than union invites, but frankly, that's up to him to raise the standard, and up to Cherwell to decide who they commission. He's run next to fit college, for god's sake. His argument doesn't need make much more sense than evelyn's....
Also AC, I think the reason your comment wasn't answered was because it's a stupid question -- actually read what he's written and I think it becomes pretty clear that in his view the union didn't do the "right thing" this time....
13comment
on Monday, 05 May 2008 21:37
What I find most offensive about this article is the picture accompanying it.
14"re: comment 13"
on Tuesday, 06 May 2008 01:01
I agree with comment 13. Can we maybe pay someone to be me?
15comment
on Tuesday, 06 May 2008 07:55
Have you really got nothing better to do than comment on your own article? Surely you should be thinking about your next piece of journalistic dog shit?
16comment
on Wednesday, 07 May 2008 15:17
What an impassioned argument for free speech; it really drives home the fact that just because people have the right to say something, it does mean what they are saying is of any merit. Why say such controversial such simply for the sake of supposed humour and popularity? Go and work for the Daily Star or something.
17comment
on Thursday, 08 May 2008 11:42
Lay off him! Go read something else if you disapprove.
18"well"
on Friday, 09 May 2008 23:20
i personally thought it was quite funny.
an acquired taste perhaps
19comment
on Saturday, 10 May 2008 14:18
Jesus Christ! Why bother to constantly complain if you don't like the column? Your views obviously aren't going to stop PB writing, so go and try to oppress somebody else. I like the way PB writes, but its just an opinion. You don't have to agree, but don't take offence against a point of view. If everyone kept their opinions to themselves hardly anything of interest would ever be said or written and we would live a very bland world.
20"."
on Saturday, 10 May 2008 14:35
what happened to the duck that types gay
21"Hmm"
on Tuesday, 20 May 2008 07:02
This may not count as I'm not at uni any more and I now live in Australia where comedy is thin on the ground but I thought it was funny...
» Have your say
|
