 sj |
||
|
||
Richard Digance
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: The Borchester Echo Date: 10 Jul 09 - 04:07 AM Bleating about free speech when confronting racism is a cop-out Yes it is, as is regarding those who treat ant-feminism, homophobia, discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, creed or physical/mental divergance, indeed anyone who's a bit different as suitable fodder for so-called "comedy" that turns to hatred The nazi filth have gained but two seats in the European parliament, so Joe Offer thinks that's not worth worrying about. Wrong. Not only does it afford them a veneer of respectability (not to mention funding) but it needs to be seen in the light of many more councillors at lower echelons of local government scattered throughout the land (could easily have included one individual who used to post here), preying insidiously on the disaffected poor, scared for their jobs, their housing, their health service and education provision. As someone remarked elsewhere. Hitler started off with only one seat. How an American can blandly turn a benign, blind eye to low-level populist fascism trading on ignorance defeats me. America truly is, as Ruth says, the culture that virtually invented self-righteous sanctimony. Even in golden California, your governor isn't exactly a beacon of free thought and progressive thinking. But what does one resident who's "in charge" around here do? He relegates what was by far the most important thread ever begun here, Folk Against Fascism, into the basement merely because of the irrelevant ramblings of a tiny group of benighted nutters. As for the actual topic of this thread, I reviewed Richard Digance's first recording Pisces with the remark that they may have had their chips. I've no idea of the veracity of what he's alleged to have said onstage recently as I've never seen him since. But if any performer comes out with that sort of drivel it would indicate that the fish had begun to stink rather badly. Footnote: Absolutely none of this applies to Peter Bellamy who, (apart from being one the finest interpreters of English (and indeed American) song ever) and although not exactly an SWP adherent, was one of the most open-minded, intelligent and interesting freethinkers I ever had the honour of debating with. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:09 AM "How's the view from up there on that high horse, by the way?" For all thos apologists who support the 'rights of Fascists. - probably a bit better than from the gutter Lizzie. From The Irish Times this morning. "BNP says sink migrant boats LONDON - British National Party leader Nick Griffin said boats carrying migrants from Africa to Europe should be sunk to stop Europe being "swamped by the Third World". Mr Griffin, one of two members of the far-right party elected to the European Parliament last month, said occupants of sunk boats could be given life rafts to get back to Africa.-(PA)" Now let's hear it for the far right - hip-hip........ Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:28 AM "as is regarding those who treat ant-feminism" Not for this ant, she loves her station in life. :0) a> |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: John MacKenzie Date: 10 Jul 09 - 06:26 AM For someone who is supposed to be an impartial referee on Mudcat, you seem to me to be expressing a partiality for your own views taking precedence over those of your posters Joe. Mind you, for a website that professes an 'anything goes apart from personal attacks', policy, there seems to be an awful lot of personal likes and dislikes involved, in what views one can, and cannot, express. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: The Sandman Date: 10 Jul 09 - 07:21 AM the issue here is:calling someone racist when no back up evidence has been provided. I support Folk against Fascism. I do not support unsubstantiated allegations against fellow professional musicians.Dick Miles |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Backwoodsman Date: 10 Jul 09 - 07:47 AM I'm not a professional musician, just a very-infrequently-booked semi, but I fully support Dick's post above - all of it. Hence my previous post. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 10 Jul 09 - 08:05 AM Yup, I'm with Dick on this as well..absolutely. The word 'racist' is flung around way too easily by some who so often have other agendas. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: GUEST, Richard Bridge elsewhere Date: 10 Jul 09 - 08:14 AM It seems to me that several issues are becoming entangled. 1. Is RD a racist? So far probably not, although perhaps unwise in choice of words on one occasion (and who among us can say we do better than that?) 2. Accordingly the OP on the thread on Facebook was probably a shit-stirrer, maybe even one from the BNP hoping to handicap FaF. 3. If he is, so what? This is difficult. I would certainly not knowingly suport the use of a folk festival as a platform (even indirect, if for example the loathsome Griffin might be able to say, if David Hannam played Cropredy, "Our members support traditional British music and play at traditional folk festivals") for the BNP. However, if we blacklist people merely because they are members of a political party, are we not as bad as Senator McCarthy was? - Incidentally I put my words badly in this area, previously. But where to draw the line? I would want an undertaking not to sing anti-abortion songs, and while I find some of Bellamy's choices from Kipling tastless in the modern world, I think they fall on the right side of the line. Organisers - it becomes harder. What if Nick Griffin was an able interpreter of traditional folk song? I would bar him because his singing would not be separable from his propaganda. 4. Joe. I think Joe has as much right to post here as anyone else, so long as it is clear that he does so with his personal hat on and not his mod's hat on. I think he is overdoing the right to shout "fire", but I would support his liberty to say what he has. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Rasener Date: 10 Jul 09 - 08:45 AM I hate this sort of accusation. Some years back, when I was IT training manager for a company darn sarf, I had to bring in a third party trainer to do a 2 day course at a company in Croyden, coupled with quite a number of days at the same company. This trainer had excellent references and had been used by us on numerous occasions. Anyway, I received the evaluations of the course and one evaluation was severely critical of his behaviour to the women in the course. So much so, I had to suspend him, until I had investigated the issues. This guy was in danger of losing his job with the 3rd party company as well as losing any work with us. I went to the company and interviewed all the people who were in the course and talked with the personnel director. The conclusion was that this lady was little bit older than the others and took offence at the guys popularity with the other women. It was deemed that he had done nothing wrong and we re-instated him and he carried on training at that company. The poor guy was so distraught about it all as he didn't understand what he had done wrong. We eventually got an apology from the lady in question. Just a thought |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Backwoodsman Date: 10 Jul 09 - 08:54 AM Yup. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: The Sandman Date: 10 Jul 09 - 09:08 AM interesting Richard . you would only be able to bar him if you were running your club in a seperate room,everybody is free to walk in to a pub,if there was a sing along in the bar,you could do nothing about it,without the landlords permission. so if MBS George,walked into the middle bar at Sidmouth,you could not prevent her from entering the pub,all that you could do is walk out,or try to talk to her to change her views. MBS George was acandidate for the BNP,Richard Digance was not,for FAF to be successful it needs to aim its fire correctly,not just scatter shot randomly.,and it needs to control posts. Joan Crump was correct to remove the unsubstantiated allegation on face book,I think Richard Digance is owed an apology. Joan Crump mentions her friendship with Ian Anderson,I dont understand the relevance of this,does it mean that Richard Digance wont get an apology? what does it mean?why mention it, life is too short is a phrase used by thousands,and was not invented by the editor of Folk Roots. talkabout tilting at Windmills and scattering Red Herrings. Don Quixote where art thou? |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 Jul 09 - 10:23 AM Why does RD need any sort of apology (except from the OP over on FaF)? It seems perhaps a good job that I brought the issue up here, since we seem to be tending to the view that the OP there was wrong. As to the rest of your post, I don't see your point. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: The Sandman Date: 10 Jul 09 - 10:36 AM well Richard ,you are a lawyer,he has been libelled by the op,and its possible[you would know the legal situation better than me] that the controllers of the site,could be deemed to have been negligent in not removing it earlier. certainly the op should apologise,did I suggest anyone else should,no I did not. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Date: 10 Jul 09 - 10:48 AM Put your arses away people. No-one on this thread has called Richard Digance a racist or has said that it's ok to call someone a racist when its unsubstantiated. Villan, as a manager myself, I say you did the right thing. Suspension is NOT a punishment and that was presumably made clear to the guy concerned (not that it's a pleasant experience having been on the recieving end of a suspension in the past. too!). Credit to you that you investigated it thoroughly, got to the bottom of it and ensured a just solution prevailed. Now what did this have to so with the thread again? Anyway, the key point is that Ruth Archer did the right thing bay taking down the thread with the possibly malicious accusation from the Folk Against Facism Facebook page. Surely that's the end of the story, isn't it? I don't think anyone is suggesting we convene some sort of Mudkangaroo court, are they? |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: The Borchester Echo Date: 10 Jul 09 - 12:23 PM I've been puzzling all afternoon over whatever Villan's tedious work-related spat had to do with performers who include inappropriate material onstage. IF Richard Digance (or anyone) lapses into Jim Davidson-style, offensive racist claptrap, it obviously needs looking at. That Vin Garbutt has performed publicly provocative songs that offended - indeed distressed - many women is beyond doubt. The sentiments are his views to which he is unfortunately entitled but neither he nor any man has the right to dictate to women on that subject. I'd gladly watch a set of environmental songs and whistle tunes from him because he's good but enslaving, reactionary propaganda like Innocents should be reserved for gigs at the Society For The Production Of Unwanted Children (or whatever they're calling themselves nowadays). |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 10 Jul 09 - 12:38 PM "The sentiments are his views to which he is unfortunately entitled but neither he nor any man has the right to dictate to women on that subject." Could I just put a word in for the men here. When it's a personal thing for men, that is, *their* baby too, I think they do have a right to an opinion, actually. Ultimately, the woman is the one who decides, but to say that men have no right to an opinion whatsoever on this subject is crap. No-one has the right to 'dictate' to men what they can and can't have opinions about, and as a woman, I can say that, on their behalf, whereas they'd get their heads bitten off for it. We are one species, not two different ones, and ALL of us have a right to our opinions, in my view, at least. And hey, spare a thought for some men who actually have to stand by, perhaps desperate to have a child, and watch whilst that is taken away from them. There are so often two sides to abortion...three actually, because of course, there is also the 'innocent soul' as well. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: The Borchester Echo Date: 10 Jul 09 - 12:50 PM Predictable lack of perception and airheaded inability to comprehend, as usual. What I said is that a festival mainstage is not the place to expound complex ideas which have such profound personal and political implications. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:05 PM Play nicely, persons of gender! |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Howard Jones Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:14 PM "What I said is that a festival mainstage is not the place to expound complex ideas which have such profound personal and political implications." Why not? There are plenty of performers who make their politics an integral part of their performance - not just their songs but their patter too. Singers like Pete Seeger, Dick Gaughan, Roy Bailey and Leon Rosselson come to mind. Are you saying they shouldn't express their political opinions, or is it just those whose opinions you disagree with? |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: The Borchester Echo Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:34 PM Of course not. I was referring specifically to those opinions under discussion in this thread which inflict distress on people who are thus discriminated against, namely ethnic minorities in the case of racism and women being oppressed by reason of of their sexuality. I am saying that it is inappropriate for any performer holding such views to inflict them on a festival audience. None of the work of Pete Seeger, Dick Gaughan, Roy Bailey nor Leon Rosselson is in this category, or anything like it. (Is this National Fatuousness Day?) |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Rasener Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:41 PM >>but neither he nor any man has the right to dictate to women on that subject<< I agree entirely with you Dianne even though you are constantly putting men down. I have a lovely wife and 2 lovely daughters and support their rights implicitally and stand up for them when required, beleive me. My wife had an abortion for personal reasons and I supported her, but she made the decision. I took her to the clinic and told this religious women by the entrance to get a job with sex and travel, when she tried to stop my wife going in as she was sinning and all that crap. I supported her afterwards and we got through it. I have also put Vin Garbutt on at Faldingworth Live. Why would I not. Just becuase he has strong religious opinions about abortion. If he were to say anything to me, I would probably tell him to get a job with sex and travel as well, but that wouldn't stop me booking him. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Backwoodsman Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:45 PM The Thought Police are watching you.................. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: John MacKenzie Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:47 PM If someone misunderstands your post, then I suggest you didn't express yourself clearly enough. It is also not safe to assume that a post is a response to your post, unless it quotes your post. BTW Lizzie One of us must be maturing, that's twice this month I've agreed with you. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: George Papavgeris Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:48 PM Be fair, Borchester Echo, Howard Jones is not being fatuous. While I personally agree overall with the political views of Seeger, Gaughan, Bailey and Rosselson, I happen to know other people who feel distressed when hearing such views, and even discriminated against. I may not agree with such people, I may even think that they are silly or oversensitive, but hey, we cannot legislate for people's feelings. In this, Joe Offer is right - it has to be the same sauce for goose and gander, otherwise it can appear as partial censorship driven by personal likes and dislikes. This (i.e. whether a performer's politics matter if he/she does not preach them, from the stage; and whether it is OK or not to use the stage to expound political messages) is a minefield, and I for one cannot see where a line can be drawn authoritatively and impartially. I know where I would like to draw the line, but I can also see that my arguments for doing so would be mainly driven by my personal opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: The Sandman Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:54 PM Jesus Christ. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: The Borchester Echo Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:56 PM Discrimination on the grounds of race and gender is not a matter of "personal opinion". It is illegal and has been for the past 30 odd years. Altering the lack of perception of backwoods neanderthals does, sadly, take longer. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Rasener Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:22 PM >>Jesus Christ. << Do you mean George? |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Rasener Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:24 PM Oh and Dianne >>backwoods neanderthals << What bloody century are you living in? |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: George Papavgeris Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:24 PM Discrimination on grounds of gender or race is indeed illegal, and rightly so; but as long as the law is too toothless to outlaw the BNP for espousing race discrimination (which surely they clearly do) we are stuck with it unfortunately. We are then left firing at the minnows, the Ken Whatshisnames (who made that comment on Facebook) of this world, while letting the big white elephant charge about the room. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: George Papavgeris Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:31 PM I still stand by my 01:48 PM post. I do know such people and the fact that I disagree with them does not mean that I feel free to ignore their rights. If there is to be a line between what is OK to do and what is not, then the line has to be drawn based on generic arguments so as to have absolutely undisputed validity. And it has to be tested against extreme conditions to see if it passes. OK, of course in the real world things are imperfect, and we pass laws as best we can, and then try to implement them as best we can. But let's not kid ourselves that they represent "absolute truth". |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:34 PM Isn't "Backwoods" a term referring to a place where err 'ill educated peoples' might happen to reside, rather than any specific individual on this forum, who may have chosen to adopt this particular term as an ID. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:38 PM No, it wasn't "George" he was Brian, and he wasn't the son of God he was just a vey naughty boy. Neanderthals have been extinct for some time now, but modern research indicates that the shape of their breathing passages might have made them excellent singers. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: George Papavgeris Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:40 PM But we have veered off the main point which was the unsubstantiated (and I believe, totally wrong) allegation against RD. Ken Whatshisface's statement was potentially libellous, and Ruth Archer was right to eliminate the related thread. I believe these points are undisputed by anyone who has posted here. Not much more to say. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:46 PM Cheers George, easy to forget the stated purpose of this thread. As you say, the allegations were basically determined to be unfounded. I'll ensure I refrain from posting to this thread from here on. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: George Papavgeris Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:47 PM Crow Sister, that is indeed how I took the "backwoods neanderthals" reference - i.e. referring to those people I mentioned who are (mistakenly in my view) offended and distressed by the songs and politics of Seeger, Bailey, Rosselson etc. I never thought it was meant personally at me or anyone else. But "backwoods neandethals" have rights too; and if the reference was meant to imply that lack of education, or perception, or even common sense, somehow denudes such "neanderthals" of their rights and makes it OK to screw them, then I would disagree vehemently with such a view (which I would consider dangerously elitist). |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Jul 09 - 03:30 PM
That's when I know it's not worth staying in the argument - when people start using abbreviations I don't understand.... -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: The Sandman Date: 10 Jul 09 - 03:43 PM richard digance ,original poster,folk against fascism, face book. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Jul 09 - 04:03 PM Yeah, I know, Dick - but still, the abbreviations do make me wonder why the English can't speak English. But as for this need to label and suppress, I just can't agree. Why can't we give people an opportunity to speak, and then refute what they have to say? Isn't that more effective than silencing them, or smothering them with shouts of "asshole"? Why are we so afraid of differing opinions, that we feel called to silence them instead of answering them? I certainly agree that the BNP is dangerous and that their election to two seats in the EU is distressing, but I find it far more helpful to hear rational facts and logical opinions about them and what they've done. All the shouting, just sounds like...shouting. When both sides of an argument resort to shouting and name-calling, then both sides sound alike. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: The Borchester Echo Date: 10 Jul 09 - 04:09 PM El Greko's so annoyingly reasonable, isn't he? I much prefer the Robb Johnson brand of reasonableness: demand the impossible now. So it's elitist to expect neanderthals to come up to speed with the world as it ought to be and practise respect towards all its citizens? Well, long live elitism. Joe Offer: what more do you need to listen to or read from the collected litany of the fallout from fascism? |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: John MacKenzie Date: 10 Jul 09 - 04:11 PM That's a bloody arrogant remark Joe! |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Tug the Cox Date: 10 Jul 09 - 04:15 PM Erm.... but why was Richard Digance called a racist, and why are people who don't approve of abortion called sexiata even if they are women? Lots of heat,, very little light. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Morris-ey Date: 10 Jul 09 - 04:19 PM I don't recall Vin being convicted of any offence. He writes and sings songs. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 10 Jul 09 - 04:56 PM In a democracy, freedom of speech is paramount, isn't it, whether you like it or not. Anything else is surely a dictatorship of some form or another. Joe's right in this one, in my view. You may hate what the BNP stands for, you may loathe them with every inch of your soul, but they too have freedom of speech, even if they use and abuse theirs to conjure up hatred, as do some in here. Besides, it's far better to have the BNP out in the open, on Youtube, hearing what they have to say, isn't it? I'd rather be able to see and hear Nick Griffin in the open, than never know who he was, never know who was behind the BNP, or who any of them are. I truly don't think the British people are going to overwhelmingly vote for the BNP in their millions. A small fraction has done, yes, but that does not mean the entire country is going to and it's highly insulting to suggest that is what's going to happen. Geez, we are one of the most tolerant countries in the world, and it would be good if we remembered that. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:03 PM
Yeah, that's kinda what I had in mind. You know, a rational discussion, based on factual information. Cool down on the hysteria, and smack 'em down with logic. I get the impression that the BMP, like all tyrants, feed on hysteria. Why feed 'em? If I suppress a person's right to speak, I make a martyr of him. If I let him speak, I allow him the opportunity to make a fool of himself. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: The Sandman Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:05 PM MBS George ,the BNP candidate for chippenham and mudcat member knows this,that is why she dare not engage in discussion,because the BNP is intellectually bankrupt,and she knows that the BNP will be made to look Stupid. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:10 PM Well, Dick, I have to say that I don't think MBSGeorge has been given a fair chance to speak. And in fairness, I have to agree that "free speech" ain't all what it's cracked up to be in the US, either - even among liberals. The US "political correctness" movement, with its constantly-changing list of unacceptable speech, can be a real damper on free discussion. Why can't people argue with my ideas, and not with the words I choose to express them? For example: I can't talk about disabled people because I can't keep up with the list of appropriate terminology - is "disabled" a bad word nowadays? I can't say "[whatever]-challenged" without gagging. That probably means that I am "euphemism-challenged," and I should be compensated somehow for my disability. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: glueman Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:18 PM Richard Digance is someone who occupied the TV in my formative years for no obvious reason, along with chaps like Richard Stilgoe and James Burke. Apart from that I have nothing against the chap. Just thought I'd share. |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: TheSnail Date: 10 Jul 09 - 08:07 PM Joe Offer make me wonder why the English can't speak English. Hah! Why should we be lectured on how to speak our own language by some ^&*$£@* colonial who can't even spell arsehole properly? |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Jul 09 - 08:24 PM I can spell it either way....I just don't. love, -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Richard Digance From: George Papavgeris Date: 11 Jul 09 - 01:09 AM If this thread gets any more personal there'll be trouser-dropping. Not toosure I want to get into that... |
| Share Thread: |
