Somehow I don't think Mr Humphries will be overly upset by controversial comments turning up on Today. If the MP hadn't done a John Major, how many people would even know about the poll?

As for the choice of wording, all the better for those headlines (I note the Indy took that sentiment literally). I've heard much worse on Radio 4 in the day -- in fact, I don't believe there remains any worse to hear! -- the station seems to be a secret vault of hearty colloquial expressions.

I don't agree with the MP however. So long as it's on the spur of the moment and not premeditated revenge, householders should be allowed to use any level of force against intruders; it could literally be a life and death decision, and there isn't time to worry about what's "proportionate" or no.

*Tries to hastily cram multitude of wriggly critters back into their can*

(Edited by Byron 02/01/2004 14:15)

---

by Byron
*Tries to hastily cram multitude of wriggly critters back into their can*

---

LOL!

---

by Byron
As for the choice of wording, all the better for those headlines (I note the Indy took that sentiment literally). I've heard much worse on Radio 4 in the day -- in fact, I don't believe there remains any worse to hear! -- the station seems to be a secret vault of hearty colloquial expressions.

---

I wasn't worried about the Indy's choice of wording either, I was merely remembering a thread on censorship that fell off the edge of the T21 interim board a while ago (for some reason, that incident sticks in my mind )

Oh yes, you were right to post the warning and not the actual wording.

Personally, I wish MPs would do this more. We all know they're thinking it, and it gives us some great soundbites (whether intended or no, this particular one is a classic). From the number of strictly nessesary quotes Alistaire "[censored] Gilligan" Cambell's little comment recieved, I don't think I'm alone here!

What gets me about people getting themselves in a twist over this is that Stephen Pound was quoting someone else! The original phrase was spoken by one Dick Tuck, after losing the California State Senate Race, where he only got 15 votes (it is also variously attributed to other people). Stephen Pound was expressing his dissatisfaction in a lighthearted way (with which incidentally I happen to agree, but that's by the by), and using someone else's words. Ergo, SP himself was not commenting on the marital state of Today listeners' parents...

D'oh, you're quite right, my first hit when I typed it into google was: " 'The people have spoken, the *********' [my asterisks] --from the concession speech of former CA State Senate candidate, Dick Tuck."

Big disadvantage of print, no body language (or tone of voice in this case) to judge the comments by. Also a great example of how someone's words can be spectacularly misrepresented in reporting. Surprised the Indy, or their heroically pedantic letter writers, didn't pick this one up. Think I might have to set them straight if you haven't already.

Another good one is Lyndon Johnson on why he kept known enemies in cabinet: "It's better to have them inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in!"

You may write, if you credit my original research!

Seriously, I was listening to Today when this happened, and he made it obvious that it was a quote, and his tone of voice was a mix of light-hearted and bitter - after all, he'd said before he didn't want that result, and was being honest (I've just seen what I typed - an honest politician!!??????!) *faints*
I remember being mildly shocked at hearing that word at that time in the morning on radio 4, rather than at hearing it at all. It certainly had Jimmy Naughtie a bit flustered!

Journalists reporting on something they haven't heard, well I never!

You've obviously not tuned into one of their early morning repeats of the evening play. I heard things at 10am in a play about Vietnam that would make Tarantino blush (before he nicked... sorry, payed homage to them in his next film).

Then there was that time when a certain artwork by Gilbert and George was discussed by name at 6pm on Radio 3; that definitely had me spitting out my shepherd's pie!

Highbrow BBC radio, a secret cradle of filth for the nation.

(Edited by Byron 06/01/2004 17:40)

---

by Byron
Then there was that time when a certain artwork by Gilbert and George was discussed by name at 6pm on Radio 3

---

Ah yes, but, you see, that counts as art and therefore cannot possibly be filthy...
Anyway, am practically unshockable, as have done a degree in Eng Lit, and have therefore read more porn than you have had hot dinners...!

---

by Bee
Ah yes, but, you see, that counts as art and therefore cannot possibly be filthy...

---

As they told themselves when perfecting the art of looking concious in close proxcimity to Tracy Emin's soiled matress.

---

[b]Anyway, am practically unshockable, as have done a degree in Eng Lit, and have therefore read more porn than you have had hot dinners...!

---

Don't bet on it. (*Looks over to his copy of The Collected Poems of John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, which I won't be posting in my poem thread. Wait, probably not someone one wants to put about that.*)

A topical piece on this in today's Grauniad, seems those commoners who enjoy Radio 1 can't be allowed into the hallowed hall of Anglo-Saxon. Though if anyone besides us is actually reading this, they should be warned that, being the Guardian, it contains extremely strong language.

www.guardian.co.uk/tv_and_radio/story/0,3604,1117393,00.html

---

by Byron
Don't bet on it. (*Looks over to his copy of The Collected Poems of John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, which I won't be posting in my poem thread.

---

*fond memories of Rochester question in Finals*...
Trust me, Rochester is quite close to inoffensive in the grand scheme of things! Read much Swift lately?! Coprophilious voyeur-porn masquerading as satire, lovely...

It does seem that "Anglo-Saxon words" become acceptable when attached to a high-culture label. This is not right and is not proper; imho, popular culture is far too denigrated (unless it's Tatu or boy bands, in which case it's all fair game! ) - and "obscenities" can be a valid tool for challenging or questioning an unresponsive state machine.
However, when all's said and done, even in culturally valid contexts, I find obscenities actually quite tiresome; and there are more offensive things to be found containing no swear words at all. But that's only mho...
And I think you should take yourself off to read Thomas Nashe's "The Choice of Valentines", which has a much different name to those in the know...

(Edited by Bee 07/01/2004 16:55)

---

*fond memories of Rochester question in Finals*...
Trust me, Rochester is quite close to inoffensive in the grand scheme of things! Read much Swift lately?! Coprophilious voyeur-porn masquerading as satire, lovely...

---

No really, it's just the thing this season Tristian!

I'll never think of the Houyhnhnm in the same way again.

---

It does seem that "Anglo-Saxon words" become acceptable when attached to a high-culture label. This is not right and is not proper; imho, popular culture is far too denigrated (unless it's Tatu or boy bands, in which case it's all fair game! ) - and "obscenities" can be a valid tool for challenging or questioning an unresponsive state machine.
However, when all's said and done, even in culturally valid contexts, I find obscenities actually quite tiresome; and there are more offensive things to be found containing no swear words at all. But that's only mho...
And I think you should take yourself off to read Thomas Nashe's "The Choice of Valentines", which has a much different name to those in the know...

---

Ah the perennial nature of offence debate, how I missed thee. The reaction to Stephen Fry saying **** and Vinnie Jones saying **** speak volumes (though to be fair, accompanying threats of gangland execution may play their part here).

There's undoubtedly more offensive material out there than short words for fun things; Mr Powell's little ditty is delivered in perfect Oxbridge English, and disturbs infinitely more than the title of a punk-rock group, yet I know which one you can hear midday on the TV. Affectation wins out over disgust.

Any repetition, taboo or no, is tiresome, but a carefully judged deployment can be a gem. I defy anyone to improve on that line from Withnail and I!

(Edited by Byron 07/01/2004 17:27)

You guys are *reading* porn?! Do you really need me to point out the fundamental mistake here?? Freaks!!

---

by PictureOfFlowers
You guys are *reading* porn?!

---

The pictures are much better in my head...!

Whoops, don't know how I missed your post till now, Byron...

---

by Byron
I'll never think of the Houyhnhnm in the same way again.

---

Indeed. Try reading anything about Strephon or Celia
(Young Strephon cries in amorous fits,
Oh Celia, Celia, Celia....{censored!}

---

by Byron
Affectation wins out over disgust.

---

Or perhaps class-consciousness...? Swearing in a "lower-class" context is deemed offensive, but in a "high-culture" context is considered as social comment, etc. Though as our dear Dean Swift has shown above, canonical writers are also human...

And with you on the "carefully judged deployment"!

---

by Byron
D'oh, you're quite right, my first hit when I typed it into google was: " 'The people have spoken, the *********' [my asterisks] --from the concession speech of former CA State Senate candidate, Dick Tuck."

Big disadvantage of print, no body language (or tone of voice in this case) to judge the comments by. Also a great example of how someone's words can be spectacularly misrepresented in reporting. Surprised the Indy, or their heroically pedantic letter writers, didn't pick this one up. Think I might have to set them straight if you haven't already.

---

Somebody did set them straight in the letters section a few days later. What's more surprising is that the Daily Mail, which I bought that Friday for reasons that are far too complicated to go into here, did much better. They quoted (retrieving Mail from the recyclables bag): 'I can't remember who it was who said, "The people have spoken - the bastards".' Which prompted me to Google it and include that in the thread I started on AOL Politics:

'Subject: Today programme to push for 'Martin Law'.
Date: 02/01/04 11:49 GMT Standard Time
From: StarredArk
MsgId: <20040102064916.12835.00049019@mbs-r10.aol.com>



News

When are they going to learn that democracy just doesn't work?!

BTW, apparently, Pound was quoting Dick Tuck, congressional candidate, who said, "The people have spokenÂ… the beasts*!" in his concession speech.


*Bowdlerised, because you never know these days.'

Although, as Bee suggested, the words have previous form. Someone on Urban75 said they go back 30 years...

---

by Bee
Whoops, don't know how I missed your post till now, Byron...

---

It'll be all that Swift, you naughty girl!

---

Or perhaps class-consciousness...? Swearing in a "lower-class" context is deemed offensive, but in a "high-culture" context is considered as social comment, etc. Though as our dear Dean Swift has shown above, canonical writers are also human...

And with you on the "carefully judged deployment"!

---

Absolutely. And it's not just colourful monosyllables this applies to: the BBFC were happy to pass the arthouse Salo uncut with an 18 certificate, but censored Wes Craven's Last House on the Left, and it doesn't take a Nobel to work out the perceptions of their respective audiences. "Context" can be a flimsy disguise for class prejudice; and of course, the chappies doing the deciding are peculiarly immune. It's a impressively brazen arrogance for the better sort to accord themselves the right to comment on those ghastly commoners: the little spat between Irvine Welsh and Alexander McCall Smith as reported in today's Indy shows this is still going strong.

If you want filth in cannonical writers, the first two bastions of the language are the best place to look. Wily old Wil was more circumspect, but I don't believe you could read genuinely uncensored Chaucer until after it had been decided the wives and servants could cope!

---

by The_Host
Somebody did set them straight in the letters section a few days later.

---

Drat, missed that, and I was looking out for it.

Vox populi

Sir: You did an injustice to Stephen Pound MP (report, 2 January) in failing to recognise his rueful use of a witticism attributed to the US congressman Maurice Udall ("The people have spoken, the ********" ), following his rejection in the presidential primary elections in the 1970s.

RICHARD HUGGETT
Tunbridge Wells, Kent

Well said that man.

---

[b]What's more surprising is that the Daily Mail, which I bought that Friday for reasons that are far too complicated to go into here, did much better. They quoted (retrieving Mail from the recyclables bag): 'I can't remember who it was who said, "The people have spoken - the bastards".' Which prompted me to Google it and include that in the thread I started on AOL Politics:

'Subject: Today programme to push for 'Martin Law'.
Date: 02/01/04 11:49 GMT Standard Time
From: StarredArk
MsgId: <20040102064916.12835.00049019@mbs-r10.aol.com>



News

When are they going to learn that democracy just doesn't work?!

BTW, apparently, Pound was quoting Dick Tuck, congressional candidate, who said, "The people have spoken? the beasts*!" in his concession speech.


*Bowdlerised, because you never know these days.'

Although, as Bee suggested, the words have previous form. Someone on Urban75 said they go back 30 years...

---

Very interesting, it appears then that the Indy deliberately excluded the qualification that pre-empted the comment to make a better story. Maybe their new format is contagious to their news values!

(Edited by Byron 08/01/2004 15:12)

---

by Bee
The pictures are much better in my head...!

---

Nah, the pictures are much better when they take a few seconds to download. But you have to delete them pretty sharpish or they'll put you in jail...