By printing his stuff gives the impression that the newspaper endorses his viewpoint, the Guardian were more than happy to print the said article without any disclaimer.
By printing his stuff gives the impression that the newspaper endorses his viewpoint, the Guardian were more than happy to print the said article without any disclaimer.
Why would anyone assume that the newspaper endorses the views of any letter? Real newspapers print pro and anti letters on subjects all the time.
I used to like him, but seems to hate everyone in the whole solar system!:grin:
It's because he's a troll, says things to turn the spotlight onto him. Often derailing subjects into hate filled tangents. Wouldn't be so bad, but people give him the attention he can't get elsewhere. A complete tool.
Perhaps you can show me an example of them giving a platform to views it doesn't approve of?
I don't know what the views The Guardian does and doesn't approve of because I'm not The Guardian. I imagine it probably does ignore some letters because they are at odds with the editor's views. I'm not The Guardian letters editor either.
The two aren't opposites though. I will agree with the second part that maybe it doesn't print letters it disagrees with, but it doesn't follow that therefore everything it prints it endorses as its own view.
. When he was put in the asylum it wasn't for any acts of violence, he was said to be utterly uninterested in looking after himself or his appearance or working. During his years at the asylum this didn't change.
.
Things were different back then. These days they'd just put him on Jeremy Kyle
I don't know what the views The Guardian does and doesn't approve of because I'm not The Guardian. I imagine it probably does ignore some letters because they are at odds with the editor's views. I'm not The Guardian letters editor either.
The two aren't opposites though. I will agree with the second part that maybe it doesn't print letters it disagrees with, but it doesn't follow that therefore everything it prints it endorses as its own view.
That letter they printed could not be perceived in a good light, even the author knows it looked bad and with retrospective hindsight distanced himself from it.
I cant see the Guardian printing a similar letter by a public figure calling for the reintroduction of capital punishment, withdrawal from the EU, cut to foreign aid budget etc. because the Guardian is fundamentally opposed to those things.
But they're more than happy to print his highly questionable demands which indicates they are not fundamentally opposed to the idea.
Anyone who gives a platform to such views has to be viewed with suspicion.
That letter they printed could not be perceived in a good light, even the author knows it looked bad and with retrospective hindsight distanced himself from it.
Well the author claims it was edited misleadingly, who knows. The only people who know the truth for sure will presumably be the author and the editors.
I see a letter defending a book about an apparently historical and scientific analysis about the subject of adult-child sex against calls for censorship, and concluding that "society should acknowledge that not all sex is unwanted, abusive or harmful." which apparently is the book's conclusion.
The Guardian then published letters from other people criticising him for this position.
I don't see any fault in the guardian publishing any of those letters, or any apparent bias. I suppose I would have to have read The Guardian at the time to get an idea of whether there was any or not on this issue.
I still hardly see the relevance or why you brought it up though.
they're more than happy to print his highly questionable demands which indicates they are not fundamentally opposed to the idea.
Well, maybe they just weren't fundamentally opposed to his letter in the way you are. The subject of ages of consent and relative morality etc is a complex one, so acknowledging that the the past and other countries have different moral codes to present day Britain is something more people should actually think about, which Tatchell claims, now at least, was what he really meant and that his letter was just intended to defend free speech etc. *shrug*
Anyone who gives a platform to such views has to be viewed with suspicion.
Well the Daily Mail has since re-published his views, with the comment that it's a free country and that societal norms change so what was shocking in 1997 might not be in the future. That presumably makes them a terribly suspicious publication :)
I cant see the Guardian printing a similar letter by a public figure calling for the reintroduction of capital punishment
A quick Google, not quite the guardian, but close enough ;)
The Observer letters. Sunday 17 August 2003
David Aaronovitch does not wish to live in a society which enforces capital punishment (Comment, last week). By the same token, I and around 70 per cent of the population do not wish to live in a society where the average sentence for taking another's life is just 12 and a half years. I also do not want to live in a society which boasts the highest level of violent crime in Europe, and where millions of elderly people are too frightened to walk the streets. I also do not want to live in a society which has the highest percentage of children born out of wedlock in Europe, knowing full well the cost to society in terms of crime and social disintegration of the one-parent family. A dose of moderate social conservatism is a price worth paying to reduce these problems.
The 1950s may have been no 'Eden' - but our society was undoubtedly more cohesive. From a left-wing viewpoint, I find the 1950s a better model than the dumbed-down, capitalist Britain of 2003. Neil Clark
Botley, Oxford
I also do not want to live in a society which has the highest percentage of children born out of wedlock in Europe, knowing full well the cost to society in terms of crime and social disintegration of the one-parent family.
Off you trot then, Neil!
Lee
(brought up by a single mum, and father of two kids born out of wedlock. IT'S ALL MY FAULT!!!!!!1)
Comments
By printing his stuff gives the impression that the newspaper endorses his viewpoint, the Guardian were more than happy to print the said article without any disclaimer.
I don't need to think, Richard Littlejohn does that for me LOL! :p
Why would anyone assume that the newspaper endorses the views of any letter? Real newspapers print pro and anti letters on subjects all the time.
I used to like him, but seems to hate everyone in the whole solar system!:grin:
The Guardian only prints stuff it approves of...
Perhaps you can show me an example of them giving a platform to views it doesn't approve of?
It's because he's a troll, says things to turn the spotlight onto him. Often derailing subjects into hate filled tangents. Wouldn't be so bad, but people give him the attention he can't get elsewhere. A complete tool.
Littlecock, Big Opinion!
I don't know what the views The Guardian does and doesn't approve of because I'm not The Guardian. I imagine it probably does ignore some letters because they are at odds with the editor's views. I'm not The Guardian letters editor either.
The two aren't opposites though. I will agree with the second part that maybe it doesn't print letters it disagrees with, but it doesn't follow that therefore everything it prints it endorses as its own view.
Things were different back then. These days they'd just put him on Jeremy Kyle
That's easy enough. Or do you think they approve the views of Norman Tebbit?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/15/norman-tebbit-interview
That letter they printed could not be perceived in a good light, even the author knows it looked bad and with retrospective hindsight distanced himself from it.
I cant see the Guardian printing a similar letter by a public figure calling for the reintroduction of capital punishment, withdrawal from the EU, cut to foreign aid budget etc. because the Guardian is fundamentally opposed to those things.
But they're more than happy to print his highly questionable demands which indicates they are not fundamentally opposed to the idea.
Anyone who gives a platform to such views has to be viewed with suspicion.
There's a difference between writing an article about or interviewing and giving platform to.
The 1997 letter was clearly giving platform to.
you even said something like this world cup just gone was the worst one ever, lol
It was wasn't it? :lol:
can't remember tbh
no it didn't have those bloody trumpets
Unless you're German the World Cup was a load of crap, I've forgotten about it already, the only stand out moment was Suarez biting the Italian guy!
and Brazil getting slaughtered
Sorry, forgot about that!
Kinda switched off after Englands 2nd game!
I see a letter defending a book about an apparently historical and scientific analysis about the subject of adult-child sex against calls for censorship, and concluding that "society should acknowledge that not all sex is unwanted, abusive or harmful." which apparently is the book's conclusion.
The Guardian then published letters from other people criticising him for this position.
I don't see any fault in the guardian publishing any of those letters, or any apparent bias. I suppose I would have to have read The Guardian at the time to get an idea of whether there was any or not on this issue.
I still hardly see the relevance or why you brought it up though.
Well, maybe they just weren't fundamentally opposed to his letter in the way you are. The subject of ages of consent and relative morality etc is a complex one, so acknowledging that the the past and other countries have different moral codes to present day Britain is something more people should actually think about, which Tatchell claims, now at least, was what he really meant and that his letter was just intended to defend free speech etc. *shrug*
Well the Daily Mail has since re-published his views, with the comment that it's a free country and that societal norms change so what was shocking in 1997 might not be in the future. That presumably makes them a terribly suspicious publication :)
A quick Google, not quite the guardian, but close enough ;)
The Observer letters. Sunday 17 August 2003
Don't know why they let that one slip under the radar, must be the bit at the end where he stated he was a lefty and hated capitalism :lol:
Probably because he writes for their newspaper :lol:
Ah well that explains it!
Well yes, but he also writes for the Daily Mail :p
A left-winger capital punishment supporter who writes for the Daily Mail...
DOES NOT COMPUTE!
That's a Daily Mail article right there.:p
Off you trot then, Neil!
Lee
(brought up by a single mum, and father of two kids born out of wedlock. IT'S ALL MY FAULT!!!!!!1)
Had to read that a few times!
You killed the prostitutes?