Talk:Peter Hitchens/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Supporting UKIP? 2 Sprucing up the article 3 Hello 195.93.x.x 4 The 'real' Peter Hitchens 5 This Sceptic Isle 6 Edits by 195.92.x.x 7 Slander is too easy 8 "Tough on Blacks"??? 9 conservative journalist 10 NPOV tag

Supporting UKIP?

I have been reading the article on Peter Hitchens and the discussions on this page with some interest. I have also just, rather belatedly, read 'The Abolition of Britain', which I think is excellent; even though I don't agree with absolutely everything Mr. Hitchens says, I think its fundamental analysis of the appalling 'cultural revolution' which has disfigured this country was both accurate and timely. One thing that puzzles me, reading Mr. Hitchen's idea about the current state of party politics in Britain, is his hostility to UKIP. I agree totally with his assessment of the utter uselessness of Cameron's 'New Labour Tories', and for some time now I too have been contemplating the imminent collapse of the Conservative Party as really the only hope for the future. But surely it's obvious that the only party that really stands to gain massively from this is UKIP? Not only in their central aim, of Britain's withdrawal from the EU, but in all their other, genuinely conservative, policies, they seem to me to chime in with everything that Mr. Hitchens has been arguing for years. They are the only respectable, non-racist, non-'far-right' party in existence in the UK who have a real chance of benefiting from the disillusionment and sense of disenfranhisment of millions who would naturally have voted Tory in the past. Why not support them? Calling them a 'Dad's Army' party is surely inadequate - and after all, though the real 'Dad's Army' may have not have been the most convincing opposition to the European storm-troopers, they were an awful lot better than nothing? And in this case there is the time, and opportunity, to build UKIP into an efficient, convincing mass movement; what it needs is mass membership, finance and the arrival of more, dynamic, charismatic and committed organisers. *Which is exactly what could, and should, happen when the Tory party splits'.* We should be preparing the way for this by supporting and building up the credibility of UKIP - which has actually done amazingly well for a small and underfunded party - rather than by running it down. Mr. Hitchen's proposal of mass abstention by voters is far more unrealistic, in my opinion; after all, UKIP is there, it's an existing party with some credibility, and it has the potential to become something great. The Labour Party, whatever it may have been perverted into today, arose from similar small(ish) beginnings, and for decades it decided the fate of this country (to our great loss, in the end). Recently, after much thought, having never belonged to any political organisation, I myself joined UKIP. It's not that I'm overwhelmingly optimistic about the future, but surely it's better to join those who are actually trying to DO something to save our country than sit on the sidelines theorising or carping? Laurence Hughes. Lahgbr 20:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Laurence - I believe UKIP applauds anyone who is critical of the three old parties and their desire to turn the UK into a vassal of the wholly undemocratic EU. However many of those that advocate an alternative, and especially those who work in the media, have to maintain an appearance of impartiality otherwise they might find themselves out of work. Miamomimi 14:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sprucing up the article

I see Hitchens has documented his evolution diatribe as part of the main wiki entry. I thought it placed perfectly on the talk page and was interested in reading it but find the version on the main page a bit wordy and soap box (as is his wont) Surely the main page is not to preach but to concisely document the facts. I mean, is "intelligent, educated people are and ought to be free to decide for themselves which explanation they prefer" really necessary? Who decides who's intelligent and aren't we all educated or is that subject to Hitchens' opinion? And does conjecture such as "while evolutionists might like their opponents to be as dogmatic as they are" and personal comment such "yet behave with arrogant scorn to those who dare to doubt them" really belong? I'm fairly new to this but thought I'd flag it up and leave it to those with better writing skills than mine to decide. Miamomimi 01:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have tided up things a bit and have removed some dubious material. It isn't entirely clear to me why you allow "clockback" to edit the article. You must know that it's against the rules. Also the section on the "proposed new political movement" is way too long and needs reducing in my view. Laurence Boyce 10:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now removed the "proposed new political movement" section, which I don't believe anyone in the world has read from beginning to end. However, I retained the leading paragraph in the preceding section. Otherwise I'm in the process of generally tidying up/reducing the article. Laurence Boyce 17:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've finished "tidying up" the article. I've removed quite a bit in the process. Much of it sounded like it had been written by the subject, which I guess was because it had! I've removed the tag, as there doesn't seem to have been any recent discussion about this. Please discuss or revert, if you are unhappy with what I have done. Thanks. Laurence Boyce 20:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I rather enjoyed Mr Hitchens attack on the theory of evolution. Just a few years ago I had to endure this subtle mind programming during science lessons and even then, when I knew nothing I found the idea faintly absurd. A fiercely argued book could be quite influential don't you think? Oh, and can someone please revert Boycies vandalism.Young Pup 23:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Young Pup. It's not vandalism when I have explained what I have done, why I have done it, and have encouraged a discussion. Laurence Boyce 10:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Laurence, I support the edits you have made to the article. Only the entertainment value of Clockback's ego stopped me doing something similiar. I am hardly "showing good faith" in my attitude, but we are in a special case situation with this particular subject's kind of active participation. Philip Cross 14:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Philip I agree - Peter can be hilarious and I didn't object to his correcting his own entry, how could I when the one person to know the truth about him is him?! I just thought his contributions could be better written on the main page and Laurence Boyce has done that. Miamomimi 09:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I prefered the inclusion of the section on evolution. It was written mostly by the subject of the article himself and should have been written in more neutral language, but I think it is quite a significant point that Peter Hitchens attacks a theory that has been accepted by the mainstream scientific community for many years now.

On this subject, I found the following quote by Richard Dawkins interesting (RD's unwavering bluntness makes me chuckle here): "I am quite sure I never said that [religious people are fools, demonical or mad]. My only statement that even comes close was not about religious people, but about anti-evolutionists. I wrote, in The New York Times in 1989, ‘It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.’ Now, that sounds terribly extreme and intolerant, doesn’t it? But think about it. All I was doing was stating, more clearly and unequivocally than appeals to some people, a proposition that they themselves would accept on reflection."

Oops! Now I can see why Mr. Hitchens loves the eminent Professor Dawkins so much.

-Neural 12:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, fair point. At the end of the day it's just a bloke with a conviction. But if Clockback counters with 'a tree falling in the forest makes a sound because God hears it' then I may have to strangle the milkman (obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products). Miamomimi 15:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello 195.93.x.x

Please do not make highly tendentious edits to the article. Why not obtain an account and join the discussion if you wish to take part? Laurence Boyce 15:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Anon editor is now claiming to be Peter Hitchens. One of his edit comments said "I've forgotten my password". I highly doubt Mr. Hitchens would be trying to depict himself as a galloping racist. Can we semi-protect the article so that only registered users can edit? That worked with the Woman article that somebody kept attacking a while ago. Otherwise, these edit-wars often drag on all day, or for days on end. -Neural 15:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of protection if it was easy. But then I'm against all anon editing. Laurence Boyce 17:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's easy enough - just a matter of asking an admin to semi-protect it. If this continues, I'll have to get somebody to do it (I do some anti-vandalism but I'm not an admin) -Neural 00:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing my article with reverts. I will sue your bottoms. -Peter Jonathan Hitchens 13:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to confirm to anyone interested that the person using my name above is not me, and that any contributions or edits of the site by me are done when I, Peter Hitchens, am signed in as Clockback 13:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest barring the vandal? There's a 'Peter Hitchens' on Guido's blog and he's often hilarious (and quoted in The Times Online) but in the humour stakes I don't think this vandal can compete. Miamomimi 17:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I contacted an admin ealier today. Hopefully . . . Laurence Boyce 17:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Having had a look at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy it's a last resort, but if this starts again could well be justified. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection may be the quickest approach, and reports on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism are also worthwhile. ...dave souza, talk 19:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A start has been made: see also the talk page. ..dave souza, talk 21:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[originally placed under "Just to confirm..." above] But should you be editing the article at all, Peter? Look at WP:AB Magic Pickle 22:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back Magic Pickle, where have you been? This would seem to cover Peter's contributions from the WP policy on autobiography you refer to:

"However, in clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism, and not just a content dispute. Similarly, you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on. However, be prepared that if the fact has different interpretations, others will edit it."

Philip Cross 22:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. I think Peter may be having to do this sort of editing a lot....but the rest of us are here to help as well! I would also just like to let Peter know that my real name is Mark, since I know he doesn't like usernames. Magic Pickle 22:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The 'real' Peter Hitchens

It seems that Peter Hitchens is concerned about being confused with another of the same name, commenting on politics on someone's blog [1]. Apparently "There are 45 Peter Hitchens listed in the UK, 20 on the current electoral roll and 6 on the Directors Report" There is an analyst at Teather & Greenwood by the name of Peter Hitchens. Personally I think the article here is fine but in the interest of the subject I'm just asking whether Wiki should allow some sort of name addition to confirm that this is the 'real' Peter Hitchens and wondering what you would suggest? Miamomimi 12:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, just wanted to mention that I didn't add the reference to said blog above in the misc section of the main article. Any contribution from me is signed as here and if I had done it I would have named the blog/link. Miamomimi 17:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This Sceptic Isle

I've looked for a link, hopefully to download the prog, or ref to a review at least or transcript of this prog. The one's I've found are either old prog listings on the day it was broadcast or have an unfortunate political bias I want to avoid. It's a good prog and I'm interested in it's factual content. I've even applied to 'Clockback' himself but it seems "communication and reason" go out the window where I'm concerned. I think there should be something in the reference section to this work but am getting nowhere. Can anyone else provide info? Miamomimi 13:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 195.92.x.x

I'm not very happy with these latest edits by 195.92, but I've had my three reverts for now. To my mind it's a detail from 15 years ago which doesn't really merit inclusion in the section. The first reference is not ideal, as it requires some sort of sign on – I haven't read it. The rest of the contribution is editorial. This strikes me as being the sort of thing that is of great interest to the contributor, but of little interest to anyone else. Could 195.92 be Christopher Story by any chance? Does anyone know anything about this? Laurence Boyce 19:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Er no, I am not Christopher Story, or Anatoliy Golitsyn for that matter. Hitchens seriously believes that the events that led to the collapse of a global superpower were probably orchestrated by KGB, and by implication believes that the Soviet Union never really collapsed at all and the territory controlled by the KGB until 1991 is still under the control of the KGB today. I feel this belief would form a very significant element in Hitchens' world perspective (and anyone else's for that matter) and should be included in his Wikipedia entry - that's all. 195.92.67.75 22:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it was giving ridiculous prominence to a throwaway remark in a discursive article, which was expressed as a suspicion and cannot possibly bear the weight of the fanciful 'implications' loaded upon it by Mr Anonymous here. That's why I've deleted it. On the other hand, I think the suspicion( separated from the elaborate constructs with which Mr Anonymous tries to link it) is perfectly reasonable and worth expressing. the idea that I don't think the Soviet Union collapsed is ridiculous. I watched it happen. The Soviet Union had effectively ceased to exist well before the 1991 putsch (in which, you'll recall, KGB heavies including Kryuchkov and Pugo took a prominent part). The official account of Pugo's 'suicide' while waiting for police officers to arrest him (bizarrely, they phoned ahead to say they were coming) is extremely odd. So are lots of other elements of the story. None of the surviving conspirators was severely punished, unless you count Pugo. Yanayev, the coup's drunken, twitching figurehead whose gibbering performance at the putschists' press conference did much to ensure its failure, had been appointed by Gorbachev eight months before against the protests of most of Gorbachev's colleagues. I had hurried back to Moscow the day before from the Crimea because Yegor Yakovlev, a genuine reformer, had publicly warned that a coup might be in the making. Who had told him? Gorbachev's charmed life in the USSR ( he and Raisa were allowed to travel abroad together in the 1950s) and his rapid rise to high office cannot be explained without reference to the patronage he received from Yuri Andropov of the KGB. I think it's legitimate to wonder if things were entirely as they appeared. That's all. It is, by the way, demonstrably true that the KGB lives on as the FSB, that Vladimir Putin is a former KGB officer who speaks warmly of his Alma Mater, and that Russian, as opposed to Soviet, power is rapidly re-establishing itself in the areas formerly dominated by the USSR. Just look at recent events in Ukraine, and current events in Georgia. But what would I know? Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 07:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mr Hitchens, I think you are reading too much into the situation as well. A cursory look at post-Soviet Russian politics and Putin's rise to power reveals something less sinister, pure political pragmatism and expediency.

• Yuri Andropov is seen by many as the originator of the perestroika reforms, he brought Yakovlev back from political exile in Canada to head the USSR Academy of Sciences Institute of International Relations and the World Economy in 1983.

• Gorbachev appointed Yanayev and co in order to pacify Communist Party hardliners.

• The leaders of the 1991 August Coup and the September/October 1993 parliamentary uprising were freed by an amnesty from the newly-elected anti-Yeltsin, communist/nationalist-dominated State Duma in early 1994. Had Yeltsin got his way, the plotters would have at least got life imprisonment.

• The Russian establishment, then led by the corrupt Yeltsin family and the hated oligarchs, desperately needed to preserve the political status quo by finding a loyal "tough-guy" figure who could prevent the Communist Party leader, Gennady Zyuganov, from gaining the presidency in 2000 (which was also blatantly stolen from him in 1996). Putin, as head of the FSB, fitted the bill perfectly and, in exchange for the presidency, gave the Yeltsin family immunity from prosecution.

• Putin's recent behaviour in Georgia and Ukraine is very popular with the Russian electorate. He would have been accused of being unpatriotic and weak, a "Yeltsin Mk.II", had he not acted in those situations. It is pure Realpolitik, Russian style.

Regards 217.134.88.145 17:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

But I'm not reading anything into it. I don't know enough to do so. I'm merely stating that I find the conventional wisdom incomplete and unpersuasive. Your contributions above ( though the excuse for the appointment of Yanayev is frankly feeble, and was regarded as such by many of Gorbachev's allies at the time) tend to strengthen, rather than weaken my point that the main author of Soviet reform may well have been the KGB - your mention of Andropov is apposite and perfectly correct, but it doesn't fit with the common western view that 'liberals' were the main authors of the change. On the contrary it came from the very heart of the CPSU establishment. I've no doubt Great-Russian chauvinism will always be popular in Russia, but Putin isn't facing an election and his behaviour in Ukraine and Georgia is not solely for effect on Russian opinion. He is actively re-asserting Russia's status as a European, Asian (and increasingly Middle Eastern) power - a status much eaier to maintain and much more likely to last than its temporary and unsuccessful attempt to be a global power. Clockback 12:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Putin's rise to power was more by accident, due to failed IMF-dictated economic policies and resulting widespread social anarchy, than by any long-term design. Yes, I concur with your view that the reformers came from factions within in the leaderships of the KGB and CPSU (Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Yakovlev, Primakov, Grigory Yavlinsky, Yegor Gaidar, etc.) - I have studied Russian affairs for more than 15 years now and this is how I have understood it from my sources. I have always believed Gorbachev to be realistic-minded, sincere man and a genuine democratic reformer. Maybe you could address your concerns to Gorbachev personally, he has a lot of time on his hands nowadays and he would probably oblige. Regards 195.92.67.74 16:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Slander is too easy

Why do many people who disagree with Peter Hitchens's views resort so often to crude slander? I saw Peter on a political slot on BBC2 last night. One of the regulars (some tedious politican) summed his view up as being "tough on crime, tough on blacks..." Why do people keep insinuating that Mr. Hitchens is a racist? There are plenty of other things his critics could ridicule if they wished, so why do people keep making these insinuations? The anon editor made similar edits to this article a while ago. Hitchens has never issued any racist comments. Simply being opposed to immigration is not racism. What about white immigrants from Poland and elsewhere? Is he being racist against these? Being opposed to multiculturalism is not racism. A culture is not a race. I come up against similar fatuous arguments when I criticize religion - people insinuate that Islam is a "race" of some sort. It is a belief-system.

I've found myself sharing a few of Peter's views in recent years. His arguments in favour of the Monarchy are sound for the following reason: would any of us feel comfortable having "President Blair" or "President Cameron" as our head of state? That chilling idea kills the Republican idea at a stroke - for me at least. I would rather have a harmless and powerless upper-class eccentric like Prince Charles as a king and head of state.

He is also correct to point out that tens of thousands of people are not represented by three parties that are almost indistinguishable.

It is easy to mock Peter by painting a caricature of him. But it is impossible to deny that some of his view make sense and always have done. Even if his views on religion and science are rather medieval and wrong. (Buy Dawkins's excellent The God Delusion, everyone!)

-Neural 13:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Neural, don't fret too much about this. People keep making insinuations against me because they are unable to counter my arguments, and so resort instead to personal abuse or defamation. It's the oldest trick of the lazy and the ignorant, and it will go on until the world ends. If you make any kind of unfashionable stand, you will make enemies who will behave like this. It's no fun, mainly because it is always distressing to see reason overborne by personal abuse. The distress mainly lies in watching people being fooled by it, as they so often are. The person who uses this method gets his reward. But you have to put up with it unless you want to be bland. I am sure I am a horrible person (indeed, Christian belief starts with the admission that none of us is capable of goodness unaided, and we are all fallen creatures who repeatedly fall back into error, contrary to the belief of many atheists who imagine that Christians think themselves specially 'good'. ) So what if I am bad? The question is, am I right, or am I wrong?. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 12:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And here is an illustration; Clockback puts his comment above mine thus dismissing it, and me, yet mine was in answer to the original comment in this section and should have been respected as such and left in place. Abbott and Portillo DID respond to Hitchens arguments and did not "resort instead to personal abuse or defamation" (as Hitchens does, but usually by private email). Publically Hitchens obviously prefers martyrdom as a mechanism to deliver "personal abuse or defamation" - "It's the oldest trick of the lazy and the ignorant"? Miamomimi 13:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't feel too sorry for him Neural - he's not always the chap he appears on Wiki. I don't wish to detail his character here but Diane Abbott and Michael Portillo raised two good points which Peter belittled, such is his wont. A persons reaction can make a slight out of a comment even where none was intended. As is usual in the political village, there is history there, although Abbott seems to have formed an opinion with the help of Google. But when it comes to Hitchens' socio-political views, it's not just his views on religion that are archaic. Miamomimi 18:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well... I have to hop from one foot to the other now. After defending a few of Hitchens's views (especially against people who try to paint him as a racist without any proof at all) I think some criticism is in order.

Mr. Hitchens outdid himself in the Mail on Sunday this week with a page of reactionary propaganda. We had misty-eyed nostalgia about feudalism (the Sark). And we had Hitchens praising the Amish and Muslims for taking their fantasies or delusions (religion) so seriously as to base their lives and societies on such nonsense.

The fact that he holds up the Amish as some ideal of society just about says it all. These are people who take their bedtime stories so seriously that they even view the internal combustion engine as technology gone mad – a sure pathway to sin. I notice that, although they shun all “modern” technology, they don’t go so far as to shun modern medicine when they’re ill. If everyone lived like the Amish, there would be no science and no medicine at all, btw.

The Amish have exemption from the law that says children have a right to an education. Their kids are taught basic reading and writing, and the Bible. Obviously, the kids get no say in the matter. The most important thing is to protect the diversity of cultures. The Amish preserve their culture by strictly enforcing ignorance and backwardness. They do not have crimes like theft: after all, what is there to steal?

This is the ideal of society we get when people take religion seriously: backwardness, the legitimization of anti-homosexual bigotry, the indoctrination of minds too young to have a chance. What if one of their kids wants to know about science, physics, chemistry, biology… the wonders of their Lord’s creation? Too bad, the poor mites.

The Amish are like a nicer, more charming and friendly, peaceful version of the Taliban. But presumably, the only reason the Amish don’t strictly enforce Old Testament laws themselves (the execution of children who cheek their parents, etc) is that even legal exemption for religion has its limits, even in the USA’s incumbent theocracy.

Such an ideal of taking faith seriously. It becomes increasingly evident why Hitchens uses the moniker Clockback.

He also shows a fair amount of cynicism. He suspects, perhaps rightly, that many of his readers are unthinking sheep given to mob mentality, and so he resorts to obvious alarmist trickery. We must put a stop to sexual liberation, for instance, because otherwise a backlash will force all women into burkas. Well, yes, it might, if social conservatives like Peter get their way. What circular logic.

I want to assure people (sadly, it is needed) that it is possible to be a liberal atheist like me and still have empathy and compassion for people. It is possible to be an atheist and a good person, despite what a huge number of misguided people think. Religion has no monopoly on morality whatsoever. Religious morality is arbitrary in the sense that Christians pick and choose which morals to take seriously and which to discard (such as stoning blasphemers to death). It is also arbitrary in the sense that each religion has different moral codes, and no religion has any way to demonstate that it is the only valid religion - other than interfaith conflict. Matthew, signed in as -Neural 12:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Neural, yes (and I'm a Christian!) "The fact that he holds up the Amish as some ideal of society just about says it all" indeed! The thing is, on his blog he concentrates on the gun crime issue. I can't quote from the article as it's dissapeared but there was a feature in The Telegraph of 'My life with the Amish community' (wed oct 4th, Features P.29) which said that young Amish men are allowed to go into town to taste ALL that life has to offer, which doesn't sound very moral to me, and 20% don't return to Amish life. Also, young Amish girls are encouraged to have 'sleepovers' and one girl admitted to having sex at age 14, under her parents roof and orchestrated by them. Now, call me old-fashioned 'Clockback' but that doesn't seem too restrained to me. Or could it be folks that Hitchens hasn't researched this AT ALL and the only information he has about this "reproach to the rest of America" actually comes from the Hollywood "wonderful film Witness"? Miamomimi 18:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Miamomimi, you might be interested in certain sections of Dawkins's book that deal with philosophical arguments in favour of God. His critique should be stimulating even for a believer. Also see his "Ultimate Boeing 747" argument. I can't imagine how anyone could find a way around it - we'll see. There's also a section on New Testament theology that Christians might find interesting. Everyone ought to read this book with an open mind. If it doesn't have the effects that the author hopes, then, to paraphrase Penn and Teller, humanity is screwed. -Neural 14:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I would be most interested to read that and value your recommendation. This is the book you recommended earlier? I'm guessing it can be found on Amazon. As you know I find theocentric discussion interesting and have created a blog for the purpose but it needs some updating which will happen. I can't find a link for the article I mentioned but I found more on the Amish case. I read in The Week magazine that Jim Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies warns we have 10 years to save the planet from global warming or humanity is screwed anyway. Oh Lord! Miamomimi 10:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Got the book - eventually from a little bookshop in S.Kensington on the way to see.... Peter Hitchens! Miamomimi

"Tough on Blacks"???

I regret the fact that this frenzied thought-crusher, issued by Dianne Abbot, seems to have been passed over with relatively little discussion. As others have stated, it's all very well for people like Peter Hitchens, confident (semi-)public figures, to brush aside this kind of assault.

But many others, in the course of their daily lives, are intimidated and cowered into frightened silence by exactly this kind of brutal, bullying tactic that Miss. Abbot and the rest of the intolerant Politically-Correct mob so enjoy deploying. Anyone who so much as dares breathe in a direction other than hard-left is set upon, mercilessly, by these verbal thugs.

I was vaguely disappointed not to see a public and unequivocal condemnation of Dianne Abbot on Peter's blog this morning. Hopefully we'll still get one.

If anyone is interested, the edition of BBC2's 'This Week' programme on which this incident occurred may be reviewed online at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_week

Thanks, Valentine Hayes signed in as New Canadian 21:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Or read Peter Hitchens' submission here. Philip Cross 21:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just as important not to have a "public and unequivocal condemnation" of every politician that makes a mistake - we'd never stop! Abbott said she wasn't trying to be offensive and obviously thought that to be PH's genuine position. Peter didn't "brush aside this assault" he insisted at the time it was addressed and refuted the charge. It was dealt with. When "set upon, mercilessly, by these verbal thugs" in the shape of one formiddable female, I'm confident Peter can more than take care of himself. Miamomimi 11:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with 99% of what Peter Hitchens says, but thought Abbott's description of his views was lazy and crude. I have little respect for her anyway after her son went to a private school, which she admits is hypocritical. Magic Pickle 22:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

conservative journalist

Philip Cross - Hi, rather than get into a revert war, which I wouldn't do I thought I'd discuss here. When you say "Miamomimi I'm well aware PH has some views which would not be described as conservative, but that is his own self-description" - do you mean the description I removed was put there by peter? I suppose this puts the NPOV firmly in contention then. I've heard this label questioned and refuted by the great and the good and don't think it's relevant in that place as his political affiliations and opinions are detailed later. Miamomimi

As far as I know "conservative" was not added by Peter himself, but it is a self-description he uses on his blog and elsewhere. Certainly he has rejected the liberal tag on numerous occasions as you must know, though his views on ID cards, for instance, are not conservative (which is what I was principally thinking of), and he has been connected with Liberty, an organisation not usually thought of positively by Conservatives. ID cards were in any case first proposed about fifteen yeats ago, although as we know Peter does not consider its then proponents to be conservatives.

As I say on your user page, the article summaries are intended as a precis and thus a significant point is likely to be repeated in the body of the article.

Cheers again!

Philip Cross 21:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Philip. I'm still not comfortable with the label 'conservative journalist'. What is a conservative? What is a conservative journalist? Can Peter really be said to be a conservative journalist? Does that mean he has a conservative manner in public? Or does it mean that his writing his conservative? I'm sorry but you can't convince me of that one. There are so many things the word Conservative can mean. Are we talking 'conservative' as explained in eg. the Consise Oxford English Dictionary? (namely the edition sitting on my lap right now) If we are then does the 'conservative' we are using mean "averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values" in this context? Because I refute that - I don't believe PH is averse to change or innovation if it serves a sensible and necessary purpose. Or is it meant in a political context that Peter is "favouring free enterprise, private ownership and socially conservative ideas"? And if it means he supports socially conservative ideas then they should be defined 'cause I'm not sure what they are any more after hearing a public debate where they were apparently put forward. In fact, in that debate I learned to change my mind. The meaning of the word 'Conservative' doesn't mean what I thought it meant. (do you get what I mean?) The most obvious interpretation is "of or relating to a Conservative Party" and Peter doesn't support the existing Conservative party. Neither is he like a stick of rock which, if you broke him in the middle, would have 'Tory' running through it. Peter is just NOT a dyed in the wool Tory and never has been. If you mean "purposely low for the sake of caution" then no, I'm sorry, Peter is a reactionary and a rebel. This label just doesn't fit. He's a British Journalist. He does his job and does it well. In my view he's an excellent investigative journalist and also a columnist. His own politics and opinions are put forward in his MoS column but in no way shape or form can these be said to be 'conservative' ie. moderate or supporting the Conservative party of this country. Edmund Burke is said to be "one of the fathers of modern conservatism" and if Peters views can be described as coinciding with "Burke's 'liberal' conservatism" then they should be so described in the body of the text and not as a label for the man as Peter is more than his political views in this position in the article and his politics are dealt with later. Anyway, I don't think the word 'conservative' sums up Peter's political make-up. His history and current work shows that. The label doesn't fit and shouldn't be there. I want to remove it. And if Peter himself wants it to stay then I'll take him on (think Neo in The Matrix Peter - the fingers are beckoning) because i might choose to describe myself on a Wiki page as a stunning sex kitten but that wouldn't necesarily make it true or an accurate or complete label for who or what I am. And thanks Philip for the kind words about Fortean Faith (in which, incidentally, I focus on Peter Hitchens' views on marriage) much appreciated. I would welcome your comments there too. Cheers! Miamomimi 11:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ms Miamomimi, "averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values" would describe someone using Clockback as a handle rather well, and the majority of Peter's opinions. Describing Peter as reactionary, a self-description I don't recall him using, or "right-wing" might violate rhe neutral point of view rule given their often derogatory usage. The BBC remember persistently described Berlusconi's government as "centre right", despite legal practices which would normally be described as authoritarian. Ofcause, only using "authoritarian" to describe the former Italian government would be quite wrong given the behaviour of John Reid, Tony Blair and co, to pre-empt a likely response.

The use of a lower case "c" would normally distinguish between the Conservative Party and conservatism as an ideology, even if it is often only non-conservatives who view it as such. Most modern conservative's in any case have substituted "relativism" (or "cultural Marxism" as Peter and Melanie Phillips call it) for the Burkean perception of European revolutions, or later Communism, as being a threat to Great Britain.

I'm mystified why you are making so much of an uncontroversial phrase; "a journalist of predominently consevative attitudes" might remove any syntactical confusion, but would be unnecessarily clumsy.

Cheers,

Philip Cross 13:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

well if it's going to be so clumsy best leave it out then and let the body text explain. As "Most modern conservative's in any case have substituted" something else there's a case to question it so I think it's best left out. Do you agree I can delete it? Miamomimi 14:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I can only conclude that you are being mischevious. I am sure someone other than me will put it back in if you remove it. Philip Cross 15:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well yes I am mischevious but in this instance I am also decided in my belif that this label doesn't fit and isn't necessary there. By the way I'm curious, why the 'Ms'? Were you too being "mischevious"? Miamomimi 15:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Despite trying to remove this tag on a number of occasions, it appears to have resurfaced again. I do not think it should be there. In September, I went through the entire article and removed and reworked a considerable amount of tendentious material. I am therefore personally satisfied that the article is now reasonably neutral. There does however appear to be an opposing viewpoint which says that the tag deserves to be there purely on account of the subject's involvement in writing the article. I don't think this is right. To my mind, all tags should be viewed as a temporary measure while an issue gets discussed and resolved. To display a tag semi-permanently is in my view a bit lazy, akin to web sites which seem to be permanently "under construction." In the light of the efforts I made on the article, I would appreciate it if points of dispute were raised here on a case by case basis. The tag says to see talk for a discussion, but there is no discussion taking place. That will not do. Laurence Boyce 16:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Laurence there is a discussion taking place but it's half term. Please bear with me - I'm a Mum! Miamomimi 21:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I think the issue has been resolved so I'll take the tag off now if everyone's ok with that? Y'all ok with that? I'll leave it a couple of days for others to comment if they want then if the tag hasn't already gone I'll delete that too then Miamomimi 15:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed tag Laurence. To be honest, if it's put back/article changed or whatever then it's down to you guys. I can't explain. I'm far too upset. Miamomimi 20:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)