Talk:Peter Hitchens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

An individual covered in this article, Peter Hitchens, has edited Wikipedia as Clockback (talk • contribs).

.

Contents 1 Photograph 2 Starkey's Last Word 3 Hope for the future 4 Position on Iraq 5 "Former Trotskyist" Category 6 Private Eye 7 Article source 8 Toff at the Top 9 Geese and Ganders 10 English Parliament

[edit] Photograph

The old photograph was removed by Wikipedia over concerns about copyright infringement. I think we'll be ok with the new one. Valentine Hayes signed in as 66.46.239.3 01:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Shame about the piccy tho Val - with the background growing out of his neck he looks like he has gills as if he's some strange reptile. Not so much neanderthal man as proof positive of evolution. Miamomimi

His brother has some cracking pics available. Adopt your best brooding pose Peter and get in front of someone's camera - someone who knows the basics! Miamomimi 22:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Pity that PH is only lurking these days. Philip Cross 10:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

maybe PH has something lucrative up his sleeve that's demanding his attention like.. broadcasting Miamomimi 21:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Or talking about drugs [1] Miamomimi 00:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starkey's Last Word

I noticed PH on Starkey's Last Word recently. I found it a tad unfair to have three liberals ganging up against one moral puritan, however much I disagree with Hitchens. I think David Starkey and chums were on shakier ground with the drugs issue than on prostitution, but they were able to shout Peter down and keep him in his corner. It would have been good to have someone like Melanie Philips to back up Peter's arguments, and make things more even. I would love to see a country free of heroin, crack cocaine, and even mind-numbing cannabis... I'm with the Right-wingers on this one. I think more could be done to smash the drugs trade, rather than simply legalizing and handing out drugs...

Btw... yes, the social revolution of the sixties and the "end" of repression was supposed to sweep aside a lot of problems. But it failed. Afterall, "free love" and polyamory hardly became the norm or a template for all relationships, did it? The social norm is still monogamy and a certain amount of repression. A vast number of people may use p.ornography, but it is still shrouded in shame and guilt. The British are hardly the most sexually liberated people on earth. So, in response, it never really caught on. The moral and social norms are still slowly shifting, often back and forth like a pendulum. Hopefully, the long-term shift is in the direction of more liberalism. I can already hear Peter's teeth grinding... "Bloody liberals"...-Neural 16:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know if it is possible to view this particular episode on the internet? I know there are some other videos but I don't see "Starkey's Last Word".

David Starkey is not a liberal, except on a handful of issues like gay rights. Philip Cross 17:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Neural - I think there is a lot of confusion over the American movement such as "summer of love" etc and the British. Whilst there may have been some cultural crossover I firmly believe that the British movement for women was a resounding success, not a failure. For example, women can now get credit which allows them a mortgage with which to buy a house and be independant of a man. This was not possible in the 60's. Even a rental agreement usually had to have a man as guarantor. So women who were not rich had little choice but to go from father to husband as little more than property. With a husband a woman could not fail to be aware that she was effectively sleeping with the landlord! The dynamic of any relationship must have been affected by this to some degree, sometimes a great degree. Also through the 70's and into the 80's (and even later) it was galling for a woman to sit next to a man doing the same job and be paid less money for it, simply because of her gender. And, the pill was hailed as a blessing to those wives who not only had husbands who demanded unprotected sex because they didn't like wearing protection ('Nah, it's like having a bath with your wellies on') but wives who may enjoy their sex lives as such and wanted that freedom for themselves. Sadly they were not aware of the drugs they were putting into their bodies every day and neither were the doctors until pill after pill was withdrawn and replaced. I think the problem generally has been knowing when to stop. In some circumstances abortion is necessary but taking children out of school after the results of sex ed classes for their 2nd abortion at the age of 14 is obscene. Of course monogomy in a happy marriage is favourite and the best circumstances for children but some circumstances dictate that it is better for all concerned to part and Peter Hitchens' holier than thou crusade to return society to that depicted in the film The Magdelene Sisters isn't the answer to the pendulum going too far the other way. Miamomimi (tilde won't work, sorry)

[edit] Hope for the future

I’ve just listened to PH discussing the first children’s commissioner on the Today prog and I considered the words of the Commissioner – that children need to be listened to and their needs actioned. I have worked with children and remember being at school. If you collected a sample of 15 yr old boys across the class spectrum from all over the country and asked if they would rather read PH’s reading list or play video games I guess the majority would choose the games. Actually I doubt all of them could read, which may limit the games they could play. (I understand it's illiteracy that’s the main problem shown by the prison population Peter, the marital status of your parents is incidental) I think PH and JH are correct in their assertion that caring for children is an adult responsibility and to abdicate that responsibility in the name of equality is wrong. This government seems to have fashionable agendas such as it now being legal to sodomise a 16 year old boy but illegal to send him to the corner shop to buy cigarettes [2]. NuLab has shown it cannot ensure the basics of protection and care and continues to persecute the innocent; removing children from homes on PC reasons and ignoring those in real danger. It is a useless parent substitute. It wastes money on poster campaigns when conviction rates are next to useless. An old saying sums them up: all mouth and no trousers. But this State homogenisation of children, wanting now to keep them in schools till aged 18, seems sinister to me. PH warns us with his experiences of a communist regime and I remember that Hitler loved children and was very proud of his little soldiers. After much thought (and questioning of those involved) I think PH has a point when he denounces HM Opposition who have no plans to recind the actions of this government and says that “the EU parliament operates as a supreme soviet” So who the hell is running this asylum?? Michael Gove said that someone should slap a preservation order on PH but who will slap one on the UK? Will it be David Cameron, whom PH says wants office more than he wants power – a career politician? Will he turn the clock back in education to a better time? I doubt it. I will be interested to see PH’s prog on DC

I hope this prog gives us a balanced insight into the Conservative hope for the future.

Miamomimi 18:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Position on Iraq

I understand that Peter is against the US led Iraq intervention but I recall his disagreement was because they were going grant Iraq sovereignty. Speaking on the BBC's Question Time before the invasion he said he preferred that they annex Iraq like it was under the British Empire.

Can anyone else confirm this?

--Z o l t a r 21:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Former Trotskyist" Category

This has to be a joke surely?? Michaeltyne 13:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In what way? Hitchens was a member of the SWP [sic] from 1969-75, by his own admission. Checking through some of the people in the category will show its validity. Philip Cross 20:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be pedantic, but I was never a member of the 'SWP'. The organisation I belonged to, the International Socialists, certainly had its faults and problems, but was never unhinged enough to imagine that group of about 3,000 people, mainly composed of students, was a political party. That development came after I left. I am amazed that anyone could be unaware of my past membrship of the IS, given the way that I can hardly appear on the BBC, or be interviewed by the Guardian, without this ancient fact being referred to. It's not that I object, so much as that many other people who were also revolutionaries in their youth, escape this treatment - in my view because it says a lot more about them then it does about me. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 10:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It just seemed so improbable, and there are no references for me to follow to verify it. I've checked a few other sites, and I now believe it. Wonders never cease! Michaeltyne 09:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well that's why it probably gets mentioned a lot - because it seems so improbable to many people. It really is a total case of changing one's mind, as it were. Magic Pickle 15:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Private Eye

Peter gets quite a mention in the latest Private Eye, about how he pursued a blogger to his home and banged on the door while the guy was in his underpants. Would this be appropriate to add to the article? I was thinking of adding Peter's Private Eye nickname Peter "Bonkers" Hitchens to the article as not everyone gets a nickname in Private Eye and it adds Peter to illustrious company. Magic Pickle 15:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr Pickle, This account is largely inaccurate and even where true is misleading. I pursued nobody. The person involved was not 'a blogger' but an individual who had for some months been impersonating me on various internet sites for some time, writing in my name a series of coarse and foul-mouthed rants. Were I a major celebrity, nobody would have been confused by this. The fake would have been obvious. If my name were a common one, then it wouldn't matter if someone else used it, even if - as in this case - he took care to use the exact same spelling that I use. But as a minor celebrity, who is strongly disliked by many people who never read what I actually write, because they already know they don't like it, I found myself receiving messages from people who genuinely believed that this impersonator was me.

They asked why I swore so much and seemed to be drunk all the time. Imagine if your neighbours, the parents and teachers at your child's school, the local vicar, shopkeepers, all started to receive obscene and foul-mouthed letters purporting to come from you. In the end you might manage to persuade them all that they were fakes, but the bad smell would always linger. That is as near as I can get to explaining how this feels. I therefore requested the main site on which this individal posted his material to ask him to desist. After initially sympathising, the person in charge of this site decided not to help, and many contributors to that site exulted in my discomfiture. I hope none of these people ever has his name stolen by someone else. But if they did have this experience, they would know how very nasty it is. 'Private Eye' knows how important names are. That is why all its articles are unsigned, or signed only by pseudonyms.

I then took steps to track down the author. I used no underhand methods. I had found the location of the person's house, but not its actual number. I bicycled there in my lunch-hour (funny the way Private Eye contrives to suggest that there is something odd in my arriving by bicycle. Surely this is a virtous means of transport, in Mr Hislop's universe?) to discover the house number. I was then able - through the electoral register - to discover who the person was. I did not hammer on his door or seek to speak to him or engage in any outburst. My later contacts with him were by e-mail. He has since accepted that his conduct was wrong and apologised for the distress it caused me. I have accepted this. I would like to know how anyone else would have dealt with the same problem, and how I could have handled it in a more civilised or restrained manner.

As for the name 'Bonkers', this nasty epithet was given to me in the early 1980s not by Private Eye but by fellow-members of the then Labour and Industrial Correspondents' Group, the labour reporters' version of the Parliamentary lobby, now I think defunct. It was a punishment for not following the gang. I opposed the decision by that group to affiliate to a very left-wing body (I was a Labour Party member at the time) called the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom. I also refused to toe the generally hard left, fellow-travelling line followed by the several leading members of that group. And I sought contacts among groups they despised, particularly the 'right-wing' executive of the then Engineering Union. I have always thought it no coincidence that this deliberate mockery of dissent, classifying it as a personal failing and a pathology, came from people who were apologists for the Soviet regime and its agents of influence in the British Labour movement. At that time the USSR was famous for its tactic of classifying dissidents as mentally ill, and subjecting them to terrible mistreatment as a result.

As for Private Eye, which is supposed to be an anti-establishment magazine (or was when I began reading it in 1965, when most newsagents wouldn't stock it and headmasters confiscated it on sight) , I merely wonder why it should have the animus against me that motivated the recent article. I am not exactly an establishment figure, I have no authority over others, and I attack the powerful, not the weak. I suspect that Private Eye has become part of a fashionable establishment itself, which is one of the reasons why it is so much duller than it used to be, and also why it doesn't like me.

Petr Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 13:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, does Private Eye actually contrive to suggest that there was something odd about your mode of transport? It is described thusly: "Having managed to acquire the home address of "Peter Hitchens", Peter Hitchens cycled there". Sounds to me like a straightforward description rather than an implied "isn't he odd?" I'd also suggest you needn't wonder where the "animus" comes from as I don't think they have any towards you. The article's existence can be attributed to the fact that it appears in a section of the magazine which reports scurrilous, unusual and amusing events amongst the UK press, which you have to admit this does qualify as. Nothing to do with harbouring any animosity towards you, if as you believe they indeed do. In fact you're one of the few journalists I can think of who never really seems to come in for any stick from the Eye, as opposed to the likes of Heffer and Littlejohn.

I only started reading the Eye about a year ago after picking up a leftover copy on a train and have always found it to be amusing and informative - The investigation into the NHS IT cock-up in the same issue is terrific. I'm curious as to why you say its alot duller than it used to be? Regards Nsign 14:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr Nsign( you see, you don't want us to know your real name. I entirely sympathise, but do you see, in that case, how unpleasant it might be if someone knew your real name and stole it?). You know little of the techniques of this sort of gossip item. The trick is done by innuendo, not by direct accusation. For instance, if you turn to the original you will find that by the use of inverted commas doubt is cast on the way in which I found the address. Nobody checked. Had they done so, I could have told them about the entirely legitimate means I used. As for the bike, what does it matter how I got there? Had I gone in a taxi or by car, would it have been mentioned? No. The bike was mentioned because Private Eye thinks cycling is undignified and silly and hopes its readers will too. As for Private Eye's animus against me, do you imagine it gives me pleasure to be called 'Bonkers'in a large-circulation magazine aimed mainly at people in my trade, and read by my children's schoolfellows and teachers? And do you think the anonymous author of this account intends it to give me pleasure? The 'Street of Shame' section is generally about people making fools of themselves, or about hypocrisy. The only bits which are 'amusing' ie the imagined scene of me hammering on the door, and the tale of the impersonator wearing underpants, are untrue. But nobody checked with me. Perhaps you can explain to me what is foolish, irrational, ridiculous or unhinged about my behaviour in this instance? Or hypocritical? As I seek to explain above, I was responding in a measured and reasonable way to a nasty, creepy piece of persecution.

Since, as you say, you only started reading the magazine a year ago, it is not surprising that you are unaware of any animus it may hold towards me. It has been going on much longer than that. The same goes for your 'curiosity' about my assertion that it's duller than it used to be. Private Eye is a child of the 1960s cultural revolution, and throve on the stuffiness and hypocrisy of the Macmillan era. That establishment, dying even then, is long gone. The teenage readers of Private Eye in those times, and the schoolboys and students who used to watch its TV equivalent, 'That was the Week that was', are now more or less in charge of Britain. So it has to find other things to attack. I'm 'rightwing' so I'll do. Better still, I used to be a Trotskyist more than 30 years ago and I'm 'rightwing' now. How very much more interesting than all the senior Labour politicians and BBC journalists who were Marxist revolutionaries 30 years ago, and remain left-wing now, and have power and influence. The weary, cliched humour of Radio 4's News Quiz, and its TV version 'Have I got News for You', are all still stuck in the categories of the 1960s left, just like the Eye. It really used to be funnier, and sharper.

Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 17:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter: You’re right about names: I don’t like to post under my real name, unless someone asks for it who I think is trustworthy, then I’ll happily supply it. I occasionally post on your blog as “Steve B”.

I can indeed explain what is foolish, irrational, ridiculous, unhinged or hypocritical about your behaviour: Absolutely nothing. But I don’t think the Eye actually suggested that there was. They quite frequently bang on about the dire state of public transport and lament the use of gaz-guzzling cars, and I fail to see why you think they think cycling is silly. You’re interpreting the fact that they mentioned cycling as a direct pop at you, which I think is wrong – certainly when I read the article I never considered the fact that you used a bike to be odd in any way and I don’t think the implication was intended. But if as you say they’ve had something against you for longer than that then I accept you may well be right – Not having been a long-time reader I can’t comment. Credit where its due though, the Eye devotes a vast amount of space laying into both senior Labour politicians and the BBC. It’s my impression that their favourite (and easiest) target is New Labour, rather than anyone from the right. If the Eye is indeed less funny and sharp than it was, then that’s a shame, considering how much raw material they have to work with these days. Regards. Nsign 10:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Animus" is to misunderstand the nature of Private Eye. It needs to fill its pages, and truth is not really an issue. I too used to read every issue (for a while, in the early 80s - page filling was a visible problem even then) and be outraged at the endemic corruption of our world, however as the number of apologies for inaccuracies mounted up, and as I saw their hatchet work on situations and people I knew a little of, its perceinved value as a scandal sheet dropped. It was never really that funny, and was endlessly repetitious. Rich Farmbrough, 13:02 11 March 2007 (GMT).

Right, well to get back to the article - what should we add to it about all this? Something or nothing? Magic Pickle 12:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In the overall scheme of things, it doesn't seem very important so I'll vote no. It is intersting that Peter himself feels it is worthy of comment though. If it can be verified, the history of the 'bonkers' nickname might be worth adding though. In the spirit of using real names - Mark Dixon - Mnd999 10:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this would really add anything informative to the entry, so best to leave it out. Nsign 10:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How about a "myths and misapprehensions" section? Or just Trivia 1Z 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the impersonator's site: [[3]], which is rather offensive...

The impersonator six months or so ranting on the Guido Fawkes blog, here's a typical example (see the comments) [4] something that the real Peter Hitchens objected to last September. [5]

The starting of the fake Peter Hitcens blog appears to have led to the real Hitchens confronting him - see here.[6]

The fake has now renamed his blog "The Hitch". Nssdfdsfds 01:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article source

This article has been cited in an online source: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23388471-details/Wikipedia+-+how+accurate+is+the+online+encyclopedia/article.do

Optionally Template:Onlinesource could be used to record it.

-- Stbalbach 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And Peter gives Wikipedia a careful thumbs up! - so thanks Peter! While I'm here, I might point out to those who like to state their real name after each entry - instead of writing "Mr X signed in as Example", why not simply change the name of your user id to Mr X - it then spares you the chore of having to write 'signed in as'. just a thought. Magic Pickle 01:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toff at the Top

Hitchens has produced a documentary about David Cameron, which will be aired in Great Britain this Monday March 26th at 8pm BST, on Channel 4. You may read his announcement of the broadcast here:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/03/toff_at_the_top.html

If anyone out there has the technological know-how, please save a high-quality (preferably digital) recording of this documentary and make it available over google video or youtube (google video is by far the superior platform).

Or, at least, just make sure that you make a decent recording - if you don't know how to put it on the web just ask an expert to help you. I hope to see it available online as soon as possible after the initial airing. Cheers. V. Hayes signed in as 66.46.239.3 15:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I stopped rioting, got on my bike and learned how to use BitTorrent technology to capture a high-quality copy of the documentary myself. I have now formatted and uploaded the AVI to Google Video, once cleared for broadcast it will be available from google.com within 24 hours. Val Hayes signed in as 66.46.239.3 02:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice one Val - many thanks. Can whoever sees it first provide a link? Miamomimi 12:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5974149400224307391&hl=en Val Hayes signed in as New Canadian 13:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geese and Ganders

Who keeps removing unflattering (bur relevant and verifiable) material? If PH can call Cameron a Toff (etc etc etc), Sam Wollaston can call him Gollum. 1Z 23:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hear Hear. If I can dish it out, I ought to be able to take it. And 'Toff' is such a cruel and inaccurate description of Mr Cameron, too. Whereas 'Gollum' is positively flattering compared with a lot of things I get called. Fun to see the Tories joining in, though, after all these years of being insulted by the Left. By the way, what does the 'etc etc etc' refer to? Peter Hitchens signed in as Clockback 11:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the United States and I have no idea what this is about. Lord of the Rings? You might want to include a bit of context. My argument against inclusion is that political comments of this sort might seem dated and ephemeral down the road. As I admit I don't know what I'm talking about, feel free to ignore me. I didn't know what a "Toff" was until 30 seconds ago. Can I be Voldemort? Yakuman 12:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The original comment (which was not written by me) had a context: Wollaston was commenting on Hitchens use of invective. No-one has picked up on this, instead they just assume that invective cannot be used against PH, although he himself is free to engage in name-calling. Political comment of any sort is likely to be epheremeal; on that basis the whole article should be deleted since PH's entire career is as a political commentator. OTOH, PH made a documentary about the conservative party, an it seems entirely reasonable to note fact in the section dealing with his views on the conservative party. Indeed an editor who was not involved in the edit war has added references.1Z 12:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English Parliament

What are Peter's views on the creation of an English parliament? It may be relevant to the section on his views on Scottish and Welsh devolution. 81.157.217.177 16:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

He is dismissive of the idea, as you can read in some of his columns:

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/mailonsunday.html?in_page_id=1791&in_article_id=413275&in_author_id=224 http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=379635&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=224

218.45.193.1 09:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)