Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Just seen the post below
and she seemed liek a bit of a dick, kind of unstructured and a bit ranted, she made him seem pretty reasonable
i don't know anything else about her though, she might be great
I mean sure, they protect and support men who threaten to punch women in the throat, but I don't think throat-punching's an actual policy. Be fair.
The tallest of all orders.
that Fabricant tweet :/
what an idiot
We all know Fabricant's a bit of a loose cannon but using language like that is just daft.
"There's nothing wrong with wanting to punch Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in the throat."
This world, I tell you.
Hate absolutely everything he stands for.
Decent music taste excluded, mind. He's ruined Midlake for me :(
do you know where I can get the timetable for the outrage bus?
Michael and the Fabricants
£5, the Brixton Windmill, Saturday.
"I’m not the most politically correct of individuals. As I’ve written before, I’m a bit of a weekend sexist. I’ve not really thrown my weight behind the campaigns for women on banknotes or taking back Twitter from the trolls."
RIGHT ON IT THOUGH
and he's trying to get a bit of a cavalier reputation
but he's just total pump
he's the CG of the tory party basically
I'm confused. I thought we were talking about fabricant?
Do I need to actually READ the article?
but obviously his backhanded swipes against things that I do agree with aren't great.
Anyone like to take a guess?
But you're welcome to think so
politically opposed to Delingpole, Liddle etc but no less irritating
what exactly are they contrary in relation to?
Penny has written some fairly decent articles about sexism in the British left. Owen Jones has definitely written some interesting pieces and he is a pretty excellent public speaker.
I'm not a fan of how they are constructed/constuct themselves as these Bright Young Things but their actual journalism and the sort of stuff they say doesn't seem to be "just left wing contrarians".
Don't know enough about Penny to comment but Jones's recent writing for the Guardian (ignoring his slightly brainfarty comments on Iraq this week) has been very impressive on a wide range of subjects.
The guy's a bit of a prat, but he's not a contrarian.
He stirs up the left and winds up the right. James Delingpole is equally as adept at doing the opposite.
They both get their desired reactions on twitter/comments sections. Drive up website hits and make money for tehir employers.
I've no doubt that either of them are nice chaps IRL
They both have very clear and impassioned ideological positions and robustly stick to them without fear of what the other side think. Delingpole deliberately goes on a wind up at times; Jones arrogantly lambasts Tories at times, but neither are classically contrarian (although if I had to choose I'd say Delingpole's more guilty of it).
Delingpole wouldn't know evidence if it came up to him and slapped him on the arse.
It's a big socialist plot hiding behind environmental concerns
his article on Tony Blair this week was very enjoyable: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/16/Tony-Blair-on-Iraq-utterly-wrong-about-everything
(If you ignore his central ideological standpoints which doubtless also encompass hatred of humanitarian aid etc.)
And he is an amusing chap to listen to when not talking politics
But the cons outweigh the pros with him.
Plus the Breitbart is populated by c**ts and run by a massive c**t
Going on about the history of British radicalism, when the issue at hand actually referred to children being raised under extremist religious conservatism, as opposed to being raised as part a liberal-minded, tolerant country.
Obviously he's going to oppose the gov't line on the subject of radical history, and the PM's "British values" drive is clumsy and a bit of a joke, but at it's root it was a story that's nothing to do with any of the topics that Jones brought up.
"snatching his wig and throwing it across the studio"
All it was ever meant to be was the notion of treating all others with respect.
28 reports from 6pm to 1030pm: so not all after the defeat
I know that companies like to run ads with any tenous connection to the World Cup at the moment but this seems to be pushing it a bit.
just that the ITV thing you linked to was twaddle.
so you said:
"I know that companies like to run ads with any tenous connection to the World Cup at the moment but this seems to be pushing it a bit."
Were you not saying that the connection drawn, by the police, between England matches being on and a noticeable rise in reported incidents domestic violence, was tenuous? Cause you definitely did relate it to other "tenuous" connections people make with the World Cup. Why is this particular connection "pushing it"?
was trying to make a relevant point. The story is really that an increase in heavy boozing causes an increase in domestic violence.
Same applies in Glasgow when the Old Firm play
but the ITV article does a really terrible job with it, it has to be said. The subject needs more copy to explain the connection between the 2 things and it's very, very poor that a major news outlet can be like `Ah yeah let's put this little tidbit about domestic violence in`. Shows that they themselves haven't taken it seriously. Which is pretty offensive.
The BBC article presents it perfectly well, with the explanation the subject deserves.
Not sure why j_l_b thinks it's sensationalist though. Bit worrying.
and they relate to different England matches.
Point still stands though - the BBC presented the information much better.
(although I do think it might be an important aspect of the problem).
The original ITV article, which is apparently so poorly written, mentions that the police expect the problem to get worse during the world cup. j_l_b_ seems to think this is tenuous?
for someone talking about how terribly written and unclear the article was, he's not exactly done a great job of explaining or clarifying his own comments.
All ITV needed to do was explain that the number of incidents represented a rise in `normal` levels of domestic incidents at this time and devote a bit more time to explaining the problem. Saying `Kent Police said they received 28 reports of domestic violence between 6pm and 10.30pm last night following England's defeat in the World Cup` doesn't mean anything in isolation (other than the fact that 28 incidents is 28 too many already).
It's just poor journalism - the subject matter deserves better. Glad the BBC did a better job with it (albeit on a different game). But yeah I don't agree with the tone (sorry) of a fair few of the other comments here. Poor, maybe, but tenuous and sensationalist? Absolutely not.
Yeah exactly - hence I've asked j_l_b_ to explain why he thinks that
the tenous comment was just a joke about World Cup ads. Bit ill advised really.
I have no doubt that domestic violence rises when competitions like this are on. I was just pointing out the ITV link between this particular defeat and the rise wasn't wholly accurate.
All sorted. Good.
Like the BBC piece linked to here
The ITV was poorly written and partly inaccurate. DV is still a valid problem, particularly when associated with alcohol
when the articles about it are well written?
you lot are an absolute joke sometimes
me discussing the widespread problem of domestic violence, which statistically is more common during football tournaments, and challenging someone who was suggesting this to be a "tenuous" connection, is to be self-absorbed or something to do with my ego/opinion of myself (or whatever "get over yourself seriously" means).
I actually find it "creepy" that instead of being able to conceive that I might just think it's worth challenging someone who seems to be downplaying the prevalence of dv, or at least derailing a discussion about it with their pedantic complaints, you assume that I must just enjoy arguing with you. Instead of being able to believe that I just disagree with you, you assume I have some personal ulterior motive. I find it creepy when people tell me what it is that I *really* want, as if they know me better, and I'm just lying .
Or derailed any discussion.
The link you provided for evidence of the very real problem of DV during football was poor. It was fair too short, misleading and inaccurate. You could've have chosen to lead with the BBC piece you posted later, but you didn't.
A few of us pointed out that the ITV piece was awful, then you jumped on those comments to accuse us of belittling DV and denying it exists. Which I haven't done and don't believe
It certainly isn't the case that a few of you merely "pointed out that the ITV piece was awful" - j_l_b_ actually said the connection made in the article was "tenuous". you've totally failed to appreciate that one important point.
he's now said:
"the tenous comment was just a joke about World Cup ads. Bit ill advised really."
What have you been arguing with me about?
I've argued with j_l_b_ about his belief that the link between DV and the world cup was tenuous. He's since admitted it was an ill-judged joke.
I've argued with you about whether articles discussing DV should be well-written in order for people to take them seriously. Then you seem to have gone on a weird detour about how you think I revel in arguing about these things.
Here is my response about what we were/are arguing about, before we both went all ad hominem
...whereas you if anything have been quick to drop the matter?
but yeah what a totally ludicrous thing to say
The reporting was inaccurate, which may lead to people not taking the very real issue of DV seriously.
Pointing this out doesn't mean that I or anyone else think DV isn't a problem
is it too much to expect that most people can understand the gist of what they read? this is now a discussion about the merits of this fucking regional itv news update, not about DV. well done
Write the piece properly in the first place
people like you will always find something to nitpick. when you yourself are the only judge of what 'properly' is there's always always someone with a problem.
That's all. Give the guy a break.
I might be missing something but what does the ITV article have to do with Yasmin Alibhai Brown?
"which may lead to people not taking the very real issue of DV seriously."
people not taking the issue of DV seriously because the times in the article werent the same as the match time means those people are being thick.
also the irony of you complaining about those journalists being "contrarians" when this is your contribution to a discussion about domestic violence.
That's my point, sorry you seem to think me pointing that out suggests I'm some kind of drunken wife beating apologist, "mate"
about a serious issue like domestic violence to be accurate and well written
You're complaining that it doesn't say 'during and after' rather than just 'after', because apart from that its only real 'issue' is that it's very brief, so far as I can see?
As DD says, it's a Mail Online classic tactic, which this subject does not deserve
More likely (given the brevity of the piece) it's just about the headline length issues and someone being a bit sloppy. It hardly deserves this much scrutiny.
JESUS CHRIST DON'T MAKE ME TALK ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
That BBC link is much better
And no one has denied it's an issue have they?
why would the fact that ITV got the precise times of the reports make it tenuous? Just cause they didn't all actually come "after" the defeat doesn't mean the connection with the world cup is "tenuous".
So weird that you guys prefer to nit-pick about this stuff than actually engage with it.
Like, the police have provided STATISTICS about the disproportionate amount of calls they get about DV when football is on and that's just "bit sensationalist". rather than a quite shocking and legitimate thing to be reporting on.
I honestly do not get how some of you people don't understand what massive pricks you can be about this sort of thing.
as in claiming it was the defeat of the England team that led to the rise
And haven't said otherwise in the thread
but i think it is really important that the issue is reported on accurately. i don't see how bringing up the inaccuracy of the article is saying it isn't a real issue?
how would you like us to engage with it?
The only inaccuracy I can find is that an already long headline isn't 2 words longer to account for the football equivalent of Comic Book Guy to come in and say, "Well strictly, the England game didn't finish until 10.04 BST and it wasn't until it finished that this was actually a 'Defeat'."
Or maybe I missed a huge extra slab of misreporting?
Game started at 8pm until 945pm
This is a ridiculous sub thread
Just several people on here genuinely seem to think they can't take something "seriously" if they're a slight inaccuracy in the headline.
Quite bizarre really that I'm getting all this from Gringo about how I "revel" in these threads etc. but j_l_b_ ( i.e. the guy I actually challenged on this) hasn't even bothered to respond to my question about why he thought the subject of the ITV article was "tenuous".
Because I can tell you that is 100% not true
You should know that by now. He likes to snipe at our middle-class sneering at lower classes. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he misses the mark and he tends not to get too involved either way.
What has this whole sub-thread got to do with Yasmin Alibhai Brown?
Not even sure why DD posted the link in here in the first place?
The thread was about Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Rod Liddle and Michael Fabricant. What is the connection to the World Cup/domestic violence issue?
and that is part of our society's culture of misogyny.
I don't think
are you actually for real
it's ok to step away from this
100% fine any time
This isn't group think or anything like this but you've been a really bizarre bell end here. Happens to the best of us but really you're coming across like a sack of shit.
Not sure why I should step back from being actively insulted, but she is free to carry on
racism is acceptable and then linked an article to about racially motivated violence would you struggle to connect the 2?
Was this meant for me?
The original tweet by the Tory man about how he would like to punch the journalist woman just because he finds her irritating, normalizes and legitimizes violence against women. The articles which I posted about the rise in domestic violence during England football matches demonstrate that it apparently doesn't take very much to trigger violent behaviour against women. Comments which make light of and normalize violence against women contribute to the problem and can mean more people are being abused.
Nice to get back in the saddle again, especially now as she has taken to patronising me
It was a genuine question so thanks for the response.
Maybe slightly dim on my part, although I don't think it's necessarily obvious that a thread about Fabricant's idiotic and misogynistic remarks lends itself to a discussion about a rise in domestic violence - presumably mostly against women - during the England game. Could have done without some of the patronising responses.
A no-mark Tory MP made some idiotic and misogynistic remarks the day after the England game about a woman he doesn't even know. Those remarks had no bearing on the people who perpetrated domestic violence in the hours before, during and after the England game last night.
I agree that comments which normalise misogynistic violence may perpetuate the problem of misogynistic violence itself (some of which may be domestic violence). It just wasn't obvious to me that the parameters of the thread had extended to that discussion, particularly given that you simply posted a link with no comment and the subthread then descended into a red herring discussion about the inaccuracy of the article's headline.
Rather than overestimating my intelligence, I think you probably overestimated my ability to read your mind.
Probably really dumb and stupid because I'M IN_LIMBO DERP
Why is it considered that physical violence against women is 'normalised' in modern Western society?
The vast majority of men I've met would look down on another man who hits a woman, and consider them not a 'real man' for doing so. The stock response is shock and outrage rather than just 'it happens'.
This is probably 101 stuff, but srs question.
in western society has been normalised she said that comments like the ones made by Fabricant normalise violence against women.
Surely that would make it seem less 'normal'?
and it's the *reaction* (from the liberal sissy blogosphere blah blah) that makes it seem less normal, non?
makes the act more normal, though. If I went on Twitter tomorrow and told everyone to drink bleach, I wouldn't be making the idea seem more normal, I'd just be making myself seem more abnormal.
if he had said something completely different, then the effect might have been completely different, yes ;)
it just seems to me that expressing it serves only to denormalise one's self than normalise the idea. I'm not saying at all that women aren't treated as second-class citizens in many ways, but the idea that it's okay to beat a female partner seems to have been in steep decline for decades...
It does have a certain momentum
because only 1/9th of that time frame (less than that if i'm going to be a Comic Book Guy too) was after the game. to me it reads like a very conscious mistatement.
also domestic abuse is obviously a societal issue and i'm not sure pinning it in such a way is helpful.
"also domestic abuse is obviously a societal issue and i'm not sure pinning it in such a way is helpful."
ffs of course domestic abuse is a "societal issue" but why would making it known that it seems to become more frequent during football matches suggest otherwise? I would argue that it's very helpful to look at the links between heavy drinking, male-dominated and macho culture and a rise in domestic abuse.
if i'm being lambasted for saying that its a societal issue i'm not sure how i should respond really. how should we engage with the piece?
- "yes, i think it is the heavy drinking that is more of an issue than England losing" is complete conjecture. the two issues aren't separate anyway.
- "if i'm being lambasted for saying that its a societal issue i'm not sure how i should respond really." I've literally just said "of course domestic abuse is a "societal issue" " so how the fuck would I be lambasting you for that?
- " how should we engage with the piece?" Be a bit less incredulous
* if you weren't lambasting me i'm not sure why you'd say 'ffs', but maybe i read you wrong so ok.
* i wasn't asking how we shouldn't engage, but how we should?
as an aside, i don't think i was being 'incredulous'.
also you're an intelligent grown-up. if you haven't already gathered from this conversation how i think this topic should be "engaged with" then i'm not gonna spend time answering a ridicously broad question like:
"how should we engage with the piece?"
focus on what the article's getting at, not the quality of a fucking ITV regional news update
From my experience on here, if I were to tell you what I want people "to do about it" I would get even more grief off of people who are weirdly hostile to my positions.
I can tell you what I think people should do about domestic violence but I don't at all accept that I have any more responsibility than others - in the context of this thread or generally - to set out what should be done.
Sorry if I'm not answering a reasonable question here but I sense this is a slightly unfair personal demand.
i'm just geniunely not sure exactly what we are supposed to engage with from the article? Bar just going on and saying how shocking the prevailance of domestic abuse is. But even then that just sounds like a platitude.
not that it wasnt finished by 10
maybe 6pm til 10pm is a standard unit of police reporting though? like a statistical window?
weeknight time between getting home and bed, ish
How many domestic violence incidents Kent Police would get called about between 6 and 10.30 on any other Thursday evening where there wasn't a football game?
Didn't expect this one to do more than a dozen or so tbh
"REAL MEN DON'T HIT WOMEN" Shame he's missed off his implied caveat "even if they want to". What a fucking gent eh.
A feeling of shock, a sick stomach, and sadness
"Mr Ruffley has written to Chief Constable Alastair McWhirter to ask what the force is doing to clampdown on domestic violence."
Er, arresting you?
in reference to his earlier twitter post: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/yasmin-alibhai-brown-and-the-punch-that-never-was/
Surprised that an MP can have that lack of intelligence/nous before hitting `tweet` but there you go.
Is that a wig and a pink feather boa?
I honestly thought he was wearing a wig.
as if anyone would actually BUY a wig that looked like that...
I'm really not sure if it is one or not.
still a dick though.