Pleb, bigot or toff

[LondonMix]

In the famous words of Chris Rock...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVIs0D2acgw

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I dunno. Snobbery/discrimination is unpleasant

> either way, but there is something particularly

> distasteful about those in a privileged position

> looking down on those less fortunate.

[Ridgley]

It?s funny I spent the weekend with my in-laws in Essex my mother-in-law comes from a posh background and my father-in-law comes from an East Ends back ground they were arguing about this very point.

I think the problem with the Tories is not that they come from a privileged back ground it is their action like the pleb gate,the standard ticket gate,

[Jeremy]

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hang on, that's what I said! And first!

>

> @#$%&

I know. I was agreeing with you!

[maxxi]

Annette Curtain Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is "Muppet" ever/still acceptable ?

Only post "Clown" and/or ante "Divv" (in any 40 minute period)

One can also be 'a bit plebby' but never 'a bit toffee' because that sounds a bit plebby.

[RosieH]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> RosieH Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Hang on, that's what I said! And first!

> >

> > @#$%&

>

>

> I know. I was agreeing with you!

Yeah, but then people agreed with you and no one agreed with me and I'm sulking.

[katie1997]

What Rosie said. Earlier.

[RosieH]

Thank you

[david_carnell]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But what about the apparently irresistable rise in

> suspicion of any, and every, institution or

> individual in a position of power.

>

> It appears that the working assumption is that if

> the organisation is big or powerful (BBC, Banking,

> Police, Parliament, Major manufacturers,

> Supermarkets, the press) or the individual is

> aristocratic, rich or through fame & celebrity in

> an "elevated" position (sportsmen & woment, pop

> stars, TV personalities, politicians) then they

> must be, de facto, abusing this position.

>

> Now I recognise that just because we're paranoid

> it doesn't mean someone isn't following us - but I

> think this working assumption is lazy thinking and

> gnaws away at mutual respect, courtesy and the

> fabric of society as a whole.

>

> Without trust and respect society fails and

> anarchy rules.

Mamora Man - I'm not exactly a Telegraph reader but their deputy editor, Ben Brogan, nails it:

"[in reference to the MP's expenses scandal] Parliament was laid low by its own corruption. The banks soon followed, their reputations destroyed by greed and its global consequences. Then came the media?s turn, wrecked by criminality in one organisation, and the police, shamed by Hillsborough. Now it is the BBC that is being put to the sword, for ignoring the vile behaviour of Jimmy Savile. Everywhere, institutions are in retreat."

At the moment, trust in authority and institutions are at an all time low in my opinion. Mitchell's outburst was just one more in a long line of behaviours from politicians of both sides, and from once-great institutions, that have eroded the trust that was once put in them by the British public.

Trust is earned, not given. And once betrayed it is extremely difficult to win back.

[Ted Max]

It might also help if any particular vested interest at a given time desisted from using "the BBC", "Parliament", "the police" instead of targeting their ire at the individuals responsible. Of course, the temptation to advance ones cause by generalising from the particular is too much to resist, vis the "great, something to hammer the Beeb with" stuff coming from Rob Wilson, Maria Miller and David Cameron (more codedly) at the moment (this is just a current example, of course).

Unless, of course, you genuinely believe in the culpability of systems and processes, which is fine for generalising your target, but also gives the wrong-doers a let off, "It was the system that was wrong, not the people involved."

Yes, this has implications for things like corporate manslaughter responsibility and "institutionalised racism" but what the hey - we're talking about the public discourse here, not legal culpability as defined by law.

Finally, call me a loony but institutions should exist to serve people, not rule them. The majority of the respect and trust should flow from the institutions, not to them. Insert tail/dog metaphor here.

[Marmora Man]

I agree with both the above comments - particularly the need for institutions to serve, earn respect and trust. But a few dodgy Admirals / Generals, corrupt police, or weak media managers should not be allowed to skewer the reputations of organisations.

However, I do worry about the default position tending toward suspicion and mistrust - this is something that responsible commentators should refrain from fuelling by, as Ted Max, suggests pointing out that individual failings are not, necessarily, indicative of institutional failing.

As one, minor, example - the BBC (as an insitution) has been rather good at reporting honestly on failings of managers and individuals involved in the Saville saga. There are few organisations that are prepared to be so upfront in this way and the BBC (as an institution) should be applauded for this.

[david_carnell]

I think the problems arises when such behaviour is not limited to a few "dodgy generals" but is seen as institutional, to quote a famous line from the MacPherson report.

If, to take the Savile example, the public feel that the protection of famous stars from the law was not merely the action of the few but a culture of behaviour from top to bottom where nobody feels able to speak out then the whole organisation is tarnished regardless.

And I think the idea of institutionalisation is absolutely front and centre currently. The whole of the financial sector is seen as being cretinous and oleaginous where blame is probably more correctly apportioned only with a few select individuals within a few select institutions.

Whilst I don't doubt that some MPs are stand-up folk, the impression amongst the public with every breaking financial/expenses/gate/saga is that the entire lot are rapacious thieves.

Appearances and impressions matter and the sooner MPs/police/bankers/BBC realise this and get their houses in order the sooner trust could be restored. But they seem to show very little inclination to do so and, worse, intent on defending themselves in the face of obvious guilt.

[????]

i agree. As an illustation, I'm just staggered that the last cabinet resignation on principle/taking responsibility was Lord Carrington (82?)

[Ted Max]

Robin Cook? Can't remember the exact timeline of his affair and opposition to Gulf War. But official reason was oppo to the war.

"It is with regret I have today resigned from the cabinet. I can't accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support."

AND THEY KILLED UP HIM A MOUNTAIN FOR IT!!!!

[????]

Yup. I was going to correct my post earlier on resigned on the principle of Ministerial Responsibility or whatever it is. Others, notably Robin Cook, have resigned on a matter principle ...or in other cases expediency, since.

[El Pibe]

I think as time wore on the Tories simply thought there was no opposition and they could do what they want, particulalry after Major (for goodness sake) won an election.

New Labour felt that doing bad things wasn't worth resigning (or apologising) over because deep down they were you know morally good 'orses and that was the important thing.

I do think Blair himself damaged and poisoned politics more fundamentally than any other single factor in the last thirty years.

[????]

..i'd include Campbell with him

[El Pibe]

Mind you when it comes to BLair I generally make up the extremes of the standard deviation. that you ignore, so feel free to do so.

Yeah, it was a special meeting of minds for sure, a special breed of world weary cynicism doing the necessary dirty deeds to allow the one with bulletproof selfblief to pursue his holy mission.

*shudders involuntarily*

[david_carnell]

I'd agree on Blair but not on Campbell.

Attacking new Labour spin is like blaming antelopes for running quickly when lions are chasing them.

The shoeing Labour got from the red-top and Associated Press media in the 1980s and early 90s was such that their tactics were absolutely required. And every other govt has had press attack dogs (Bernard Ingham anyone) who did just as unpleasant stuff behind the scenes but never copped the flack Campbell did.

[Ridgley]

Include Margret Thatcher as well gasily women!!

[El Pibe]

SHe may have been ghastly and polarising but I don't think she damaged the institurions of politics as such.

She told a couple of porkies but deceit didn't underpin her principles of gov't.

Compared to Blair (in this respect at any rate) she was a saint.

[Mick Mac]

Sorry to bring Northern Ireland into it but Thatcher brought in a shoot to kill policy in northern ireland which promoted institutionalised killing. It was the subject of a public enquiry and when John stalker concluded yes there was a shoot to kill policy, he got dumped pdq.

Blair did his best and more then most to solve northern irelands problems.

[Mick Mac]

So she did much worse than damage the institution of politics, she damaged the institution of law.

Blair did his best and more then most to solve

> northern irelands problems."

[El Pibe]

And Blair didn't damage the institution of law...oooh no.

I'll agree that Northern Ireland was his great legacy, though admittedly it was really the legacy of John Major, he just had a nice fat majority not to fuck it up too much.

Funnily enough those cosy days of shoot to kill being somehow controversial seem to have been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Shoot to Kill was responsible for a dozen or so killings if memory serves, Obama has killed thousands of people including US citizens in all sorts of jurisdictions on the most dubious of intelligence with protocols that say any male of a certain age in a certain area is basically fair game;whilst we kidnap to order and outsource torture, interrogation and extraducial killing, and noone seems to bat an eyelid any more.

Depressing.

[LadyDeliah]

Agreed El Pibe

[Ridgley]

A saint fucking nightmare the most unfeeling bitch that governed this country.