Living Wittily

When Government Ministers either Ignore History or are Ignorant of History

Written by

admin

in

Amongst the astonishing deficits of the current Conservative Government is an ignorance, a culpable and culturally unprecedented ignorance, of history and its importance as a resource for wisdom in political discourse and policy development. Along with the frenzy to obtain exemption from employment rights which are integral to our E membership, there is of course the rhetorical nonsense about the interference of Brussels with our judicial freedoms and national sovereignty by our being signatories to the European Convention of Human Rights.

It was about time someone exposed this dangerous and narrowed down national self interest for what it is – yes, all the aforementioned, but actually an embarrassingly ignorant awareness of the origins and rationale for the ECHR, and the central part played by Britain in drafting and implementing it following the brutalities and moral catastrophes of two European wars which engulfed the world. Patrick Stewart brings Shakesperean gravitas and Monty Pythonesque deconstruction to this sketch – his parting obscentiy is not a form of discourse I would personally endorse or repeat – but it has the merit of being unambiguous and memorably comprehensive.  

Enjoy it here

Comments

9 responses to “When Government Ministers either Ignore History or are Ignorant of History”

  1. angalmond avatar
    angalmond

    A very comprehensive explanation of the ECHR. What concerns me is that if I share it there will be those sincere people who are more worried about the expletive used at the end than the implications of the arguments.

    Reply
  2. angalmond avatar
    angalmond

    A very comprehensive explanation of the ECHR. What concerns me is that if I share it there will be those sincere people who are more worried about the expletive used at the end than the implications of the arguments.

    Reply
  3. angalmond avatar
    angalmond

    A very comprehensive explanation of the ECHR. What concerns me is that if I share it there will be those sincere people who are more worried about the expletive used at the end than the implications of the arguments.

    Reply
  4. Jim Gordon avatar
    Jim Gordon

    Yes Angela – but there’s something equally worrying that oversensitivity to an expletive can eclipse an issue as important as our support for the ECHR. Is the same moral sensitivity alive to the ethical consequences of the UK withdrawing its signature to such a fundamental document? I guess the film makers would reply that outrage and strong language express the justifiable anger of those who see the ECHR as a non negotiable collaboration on behalf of humanity. Sometimes being sincerely oversensitive gets in the way of an affirmative obedience to the truth. For myself, other people’s use of expletives trouble me not ever since the days I worked in a brickwork as a teenager and heard a range of adjectives for every conceivable occasion 🙂

    Reply
  5. Jim Gordon avatar
    Jim Gordon

    Yes Angela – but there’s something equally worrying that oversensitivity to an expletive can eclipse an issue as important as our support for the ECHR. Is the same moral sensitivity alive to the ethical consequences of the UK withdrawing its signature to such a fundamental document? I guess the film makers would reply that outrage and strong language express the justifiable anger of those who see the ECHR as a non negotiable collaboration on behalf of humanity. Sometimes being sincerely oversensitive gets in the way of an affirmative obedience to the truth. For myself, other people’s use of expletives trouble me not ever since the days I worked in a brickwork as a teenager and heard a range of adjectives for every conceivable occasion 🙂

    Reply
  6. Jim Gordon avatar
    Jim Gordon

    Yes Angela – but there’s something equally worrying that oversensitivity to an expletive can eclipse an issue as important as our support for the ECHR. Is the same moral sensitivity alive to the ethical consequences of the UK withdrawing its signature to such a fundamental document? I guess the film makers would reply that outrage and strong language express the justifiable anger of those who see the ECHR as a non negotiable collaboration on behalf of humanity. Sometimes being sincerely oversensitive gets in the way of an affirmative obedience to the truth. For myself, other people’s use of expletives trouble me not ever since the days I worked in a brickwork as a teenager and heard a range of adjectives for every conceivable occasion 🙂

    Reply
  7. Dave Summers avatar
    Dave Summers

    Jim, I agree totally that oversensitivity to language can eclipse the bigger issues. As one of my church elders once said, both memorably and dismissively, in a similar debate, “when you’ve heard one ‘F***’ you’ve heard them all.”
    But I think the use of the word in this film is not about justifiable anger. It is the central character being beaten in the argument but refusing to admit it to himself: in effect saying “la la la la la I can’t hear you”. It is anger, but the opposite of justifiable.

    Reply
  8. Dave Summers avatar
    Dave Summers

    Jim, I agree totally that oversensitivity to language can eclipse the bigger issues. As one of my church elders once said, both memorably and dismissively, in a similar debate, “when you’ve heard one ‘F***’ you’ve heard them all.”
    But I think the use of the word in this film is not about justifiable anger. It is the central character being beaten in the argument but refusing to admit it to himself: in effect saying “la la la la la I can’t hear you”. It is anger, but the opposite of justifiable.

    Reply
  9. Dave Summers avatar
    Dave Summers

    Jim, I agree totally that oversensitivity to language can eclipse the bigger issues. As one of my church elders once said, both memorably and dismissively, in a similar debate, “when you’ve heard one ‘F***’ you’ve heard them all.”
    But I think the use of the word in this film is not about justifiable anger. It is the central character being beaten in the argument but refusing to admit it to himself: in effect saying “la la la la la I can’t hear you”. It is anger, but the opposite of justifiable.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Jim Gordon Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts