We don’t expect people who get punched in the head for a living to be that bright but

This is going a bit far isn’t it?

Police have launched a hate crime investigation following comments about homosexuality made by the world heavyweight champion boxer, Tyson Fury.

Greater Manchester Police (GMP) said that the force had received a report of hate crime following comments made about homosexuality on the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire programme.

“We can confirm that at 10.30am this morning we received a report of a hate crime follow comments made about homosexuality on the Victoria Derbyshire programme,” said a GMP spokesperson. “As with all hate crime we are taking it extremely seriously and will be attending the victim’s address to take a statement in due course.”

What victim of this non-existent crime?

Hang the lot of them.

74 thoughts on “We don’t expect people who get punched in the head for a living to be that bright but”

  1. As a neoliberal sophist I intend to report Ritchie.

    What, neoliberal sophists aren’t protected from hate? Why is that?

  2. Wasn’t there a petition with over a 100k signatures? Doesn’t someone have to act when that happens?

    Genuine questions, I just don’t know nor can be bothered to look it up.

    This is precisely a case where the guy should be allowed to say what he wants and then get widely ridiculed and gets voted out at the first stage.

    I’ve not much doubt that he’s said to someone that he’d kill all gays, or something, but has he said so in public?

    do I care?

  3. I expect this very same force was recently saying that because of cuts they will no longer be able to respond to certain crimes, eg trivial ones like burglary

    It isn’t a case of lack of resources. As always, it is what they choose to spend those resources on. They simply choose to spend those resources on persuing people guilty in their eyes of WrongThought.

    The same with the BBC. I have heard it said so many times that it isn’t fair that the BBC cannot compete with Sky when bidding for sporting rights. This is an organisation with a turnover in excess of £500bn. I think Sky is similar. The BBC simply choose to spend it on something else.

  4. No Arnald, somebody doesn’t have to act when 100,000 leftist numpties sign a petition. One of them might well be you. And would the world be coming to when it starts listening to you?

  5. Hope the police keep details of these types of complainants.

    Might be useful, you know, to have a list of enemies of freedom, one day?

  6. I of course mean, to shame them on social media, as would be the apt and poetic punishment for such tatle tales.

  7. Mind you, what has the world come to when a dickhead like Tyson Fury becomes a martyr for free speech and freedom?

  8. Ronny

    “And would the world be coming to when it starts listening to you?”

    I’ll take that as I read it. I would hope that the world would be coming to when it starts listening to me. It would be another Age of Enlightenment.

    Of course, if you meant

    “And would the world be coming too when it starts listening to you?”

    Then yes, I am that good.

  9. I’m not sure arresting people because 100,000 people signed a petition is a very good idea. Sounds a bit like “mob rule” to me.

  10. No Arnald, he said nothing about killing gays. All he said is that he doesn’t agree with a law that allow homosexuality to be legal. That’s his right to hold an opinion, an opinion which doesn’t match that of all the SJWs which is why they are all up in arms.

    He doesn’t hate people who are gay, just that he believes that according to his religious beliefs, similar beliefs to Muslims by the way, homosexuality is immoral and therefore should not have legal rights like marriage.

  11. “Scummy minority of leftist freak” rule is the correct label.

    That such a law exists shows what a shithole this nation now is. I hope he tells the cops “See you in court”. The cunts work on threats. Trying to jail people for their relatively mild opinions is still a bridge to far for them. Perhaps they’ll give Sacha Wass the job of prosecuting

    Lots of people listen to you Arnald. It’s just that they then conclude correctly that you are an evil dickhead.

  12. @Arnald – I note that Murphy has started plugging protest songs on his website.

    Surely you could knock one up for him to plug?

  13. Interesting to see lefties reacting to this.

    They promote the most outrageous, unlawful behaviour by the State and others, like dear old Arnald here.

    Because loads of people try to deny the public voting for whom they wish on a TV program, it’s alright for the Old Bill to arrest someone on the basis of one complaint for something that shouldn’t be a crime in the first place.

    Be careful what you wish for. In all the societies where lefties have ruled, eventually what is acceptable behaviour becomes narrower and more in tune with the whim of the State.

    There is a reason why the USSR and East Germany collapsed. The day may come, should Corbyn and McDonnell gain power, when even people like Arnald will be arrested and tried without a jury, behind closed doors for thinking something Jeremy didn’t like. And should the judge, inexplicably, deliver a verdict that Jez didn’t like, try Arnald over and over until Arnald was banged up.

    Most of which seems already to be legally possible in our little land of the “free”.

  14. Given the track record of socialism Arnald is more likely to end up “hanged up” rather than “banged up”.

    Almost worth it but still not because of the danger to the rest of us.

  15. The day may come, should Corbyn and McDonnell gain power, when even people like Arnald will be arrested and tried without a jury, behind closed doors for thinking something Jeremy didn’t like.

    You mean like in the Family Courts that Blair introduced?

    “Hate Crime” legislation is simply a means to give activists direct access to the justice system, in the same way as the “double the sentence hotline”.

  16. Rob,

    “The same with the BBC. I have heard it said so many times that it isn’t fair that the BBC cannot compete with Sky when bidding for sporting rights. This is an organisation with a turnover in excess of £500bn. I think Sky is similar. The BBC simply choose to spend it on something else.”

    And the BBC pretty much made Sky as big as it was by their choices. It’s not just football. The BBC have a general contempt for their male audience. Turn on BBC2 in the evening and you’ll get cookery and craft shows. BBC1 has chat shows. Even when they make say, a police or murder drama, it’s clearly pushed towards women than men. Their drama is almost entirely of the Judi Dench in a bonnet variety rather than something contemporary (again, much loved by women).

    The best thing I’ve seen on TV this year is The Man in the High Castle, the drama on Amazon. The BBC could have made that, even had talks to make it. Probably dropped it in favour of doing some more Dickens adaptations, like there aren’t enough of those already.

  17. AndrewC

    “Surely you could knock one up for him to plug”

    In the calypso style of Mike Read, maybe? (Although in the style of Mike Reid would actually be very funny).

    Windy Miller

    “They promote the most outrageous, unlawful behaviour by the State and others, like dear old Arnald here”

    What behaviour do I promote? I’m agreeing with the general consensus on this thread about this chap saying stuff and the over-reaction involving the rozzers.

    I wouldn’t have put him in a list for a sports personality of the year as he’s only just risen to a relevant perceived status in the last few weeks.

    People are seriously deranged if they think the likes of Jeremy Corbyn will be locking people up for thoughts.

  18. Ironman,

    It is only the people whose views are considered as dickheadish who can be martyrs for freedom of speech as it is their views which the repulsive, authoritarian SJWs seek to outlaw.

  19. “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending dickheads. For it is against dickheads that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”

    -HL Mencken

  20. And yet Muhammad Ali – who had ‘interesting’ views on whites, gays and women – was BBC sports personality of the CENTURY!

  21. I see your Ali and counter it with Clare Balding (though she didn’t get a nomination).

    Gay, white women go!

  22. The BBC could have made that, even had talks to make it. Probably dropped it in favour of doing some more Dickens adaptations, like there aren’t enough of those already.

    And even they managed to miss out on Downton Abbey, probably the best-selling British costume drama in a generation.

  23. Oh Arnald, why do you lefties always, but always, descend into insulting people you disagree with rather than refuting their arguments?

    I was last called “windy” when I was at primary school. Which tells me all I need to know about you and your views.

  24. IanB

    I’m defending a Dickihead’s right to speak, it’s a matter.of principle.

    What’s your take on it?

  25. “why do you lefties always, but always, descend into insulting people you disagree with rather than refuting their arguments?”

    Then this.must be a leftist blog.

  26. Ironman-

    Who is or is not a dickhead is a subjective, personal matter for the individual, not an objective fact. I think David Cameron is a dickhead, but that’s just my opinion. My only take is that, per the Mencken quote, those who are denounced are usually those who need defending. As a younger man, I used to speak up for gays. Now I find myself speaking up for “homophobes”. Because all have a right to speak, regardless of what others think of what they say.

  27. Well thanks for the pious lecture. What a paragon you are, OR WOULD BE HAD YOU NOT FELT THE NEED TO USE. INVERTED COMMAS AROUND.DICKHEAD. What a pity you don’t feel.able to express.an opinion on Tyson Fury’s comments; pressure to conform on his blog?

    Me, I say he’s a dickhead who has a right to hold his dickhead view and express it in this dickhead manner.

  28. And I’m saying that that’s your opinion, and that it’s people who are denounced in that manner who need defending. The inverted commas were because I was being grammatically correct. The sentence doesn’t work without them.

    I see that your SJW tendency requires me to agree or disagree with your subjective opinion though. It’s not that I don’t feel..able to express..an opinion, it’s that I don’t really have one. It’s just his view.

    Are we now so sad as a people that we have to have the BBC pronounce who is a “dickhead”? What’s next? “Sports Cunt Of The Year”?

  29. The Beeb (WatO) reports that our parliamentarians are to debate whether Donald Trump should be barred from entry into the UK.

    Is there anything, anywhere that isn’t depressing?

  30. Mr Miller

    I wasn’t intending to insult you. Some of my best friends are millers. But why this ‘leftists do’ nonsense? Is it the Pavlovian response again?

    I say something in direct agreement with you with regards the subject and you still manage to contrive ‘evil leftists like Arnald are doing things I disagree with’.

    And this blog throws around insults like there’s no tomorrow. But stupid rightists don’t know no nothing not nor none.

  31. To answer the original question – yes, it is going too far. More than a bit, in my opinion.

    Fury is entirely entitled to his own opinions and, probably less than many of us would want, entitled to state them. I mean, if he is a homophobic misogynist, wouldn’t you want to know?

    Personally, I don’t particularly care but then I don’t particularly care about most professional sport.

    Also, people are entirely entitled to petition the BBC to withdraw him from the “Sports Personality of the Year” (although I did like Melanie McDonagh’s piece in the Spectator about the absurd tautology of the title.) And the Beeb, despite its semi-public nature, is somewhat entitled to bow under that pressure.

    I think it shouldn’t, but I think a lot of things that wouldn’t even occur to a senior BBC manager, never mind resonate with them.

  32. Tim Newman,

    “And even they managed to miss out on Downton Abbey, probably the best-selling British costume drama in a generation.”

    My thinking there (and Upstairs Downstairs is the one of the previous generation) is that it’s contemporary. OK, it’s set in an old country house with servants, but it’s telling 21st century stories. People in 1923 didn’t talk about how beastly that Hitler chap was after the Beer Hall Putsch.

    It’s why Much Ado About Nothing doesn’t quite work like it once did. A woman shagging another bloke when she’s not married isn’t a big deal like it was in the 16th century.

  33. Bloke in North Dorset

    “a GMP spokesperson. “As with all hate crime we are taking it extremely seriously and will be attending the victim’s address to take a statement in due course.””

    And IanB was taken to task yesterday for claiming we were freer in the 1960s. I certainly don’t remember police wasting time on hate crime.

  34. @ Ironman
    This is *not* a leftist blog. It is *Tim’s* blog and his metier/style is to refute errors.
    Some commentators behave like spoilt brats but only a minority. If you compare Tim’s comments with those of Murphy you will noticethe difference.

  35. The miserable little snark, sorry, ‘victim’ has grandly conceded that Fury is entitled to hold his opinion but should not be permitted to express it. Keep it in the closet, as it were.

    Well, that’s OK then.

  36. Tim Newman,

    And yes, if there’s an organisation that’s lost a lot of its supporters, it’s the police. There used to be a general respect for the police amongst the middle classes, but the Gatso did huge damage for no public benefit. It’s a fascist bureaucrat’s idea of policing, a machine that can catch every infraction, regardless of sense or context.

    Add that to the fact that they (along with the judiciary) are fucking useless when it comes to dealing with theft, and a lot of people wonder what the hell their money is being spent on.

  37. Fury’s comments about homosexulaity, blah blah, are just mainstream Christianity, and he’s a mainstream Christian.

    If his objection is religious, then whatever He’s only a dickhead if he fails to hate the sin but love the sinner.

  38. I’ve just seen that the guy who reported Fury for his views on gays has been a fan of boxing “since Muhammad Ali”.

    A man who had his own views on gays, rather similar to those of Mr Fury.

    With the added icing that Ali blamed white people for homosexuality.

  39. Bear in mind that loving the sinner involves saving them from the sin, which includes denouncing the sin, so it’s entirely Christian to do so. For instance Christians don’t approach fornication with “and I’m not going to criticise fornication, and if you want to fornicate, I’m fine with that”.

    Which is the point I keep making about morals and moralism in our modern society. We are denying anyone the right to any moral view (such as homosexuality being sinful) except the solitary view propounded by the Progressive priesthood. I keep banging on about this because so many conservatives and non-leftists think that the Left are amoral or immoral (e.g. in promoting homosexuality) when in fact they are the most fierce moralist force imaginable; it’s just that the morals they impose are not the traditional ones; just as for instance Islamic morality is different to Christian morality in many respects.

  40. Bind

    “And IanB was taken to task yesterday for claiming we were freer in the 1960s. I certainly don’t remember police wasting time on hate crime.”

    1. IanB claimed we were freer under Attlee, not the 60s. 2. What you say about hate crime is true, and deplorable. However, think about being gay in 1945-50. Or even female.

  41. Well, I was referring to the general period of the post-war consensus, roughly from Attlee into the early 1970s. But yes, I stand by that. Gays are an unusual exception in regard to liberty for a particular reason, but even so gay rights in general has led to a great expansion of the State into the control of opinion. Gays may be more free, but now “homophobes” bear the wrath they once bore.

    I’m not quite sure what State persecution of women there was in the late 1940s, perhaps you could enlighten us.

  42. IanB

    “And I’m saying that that’s your opinion, ”

    Well as it was presented as such oiu’ll forgive me for not being terribly impressed you’ve called it so.
    Now, what is your opinion of Tyson Fury? Me, I say he’s a dickhead who’s entitled to be a dickhead. And no, it doesn’t require any inverted commas.
    You know, I do suspect that you are so strangely reliant on the good opinion of this disparate group, no member of which you will ever count as a friend in the real world, that you are shy of offering an opinion . That’s another of my opinions by the way.

  43. So Much For Subtlety

    Ironman – “No Arnald, somebody doesn’t have to act when 100,000 leftist numpties sign a petition. One of them might well be you.”

    Feel the burn Arnie. You know you have gone too far to the Left when Rusty criticises you from the Right.

    Ironman – “Mind you, what has the world come to when a dickhead like Tyson Fury becomes a martyr for free speech and freedom?”

    I don’t think Fury picked that fight. I think the SJW did. So he becomes a martyr when people like you try to martyr him.

  44. Ironman,

    It may be hard for you to believe as a social justice moral leader, but I don’t have an opinion on Tyson Fury. I hadn’t even heard of him until yesterday. I don’t share his religion and its values if that’s any help, but if I called everyone with different faith opinions “dickheads” that’d be pretty much everyone.

    You see I understand that in your view everyone must have a moral opinion on everything and everyone else, and thus be counted amongst the saints or the reprobates, but that’s not how I view the world.

    One thing I do think is kind of dickheadish is this idea that one must preface a defence of somebody’s right to speak with an affirmation that one does not agree with them. You may have noticed that I try to make a policy of avoiding that formula- which is one of the things which I think annoys you.

  45. I’ve been in a bar off the Tottenham Court Road this evening and have just won my bet that IanB, being the bullshitter he is, would fall back on not having an opinion. (Actually I suggested he would proclaim his right not to EXPRESS an opinion. But near enough, two bottles of beer have been bought for me).
    So, even though he contributes to the post and must now be fully aware of Tyson Fury’s comment (and so fully aware it doesn’t amount to imcitement, which after all he wouldn’t be coming in to support would he) he professes not to have an opinion; bullshit from a bullshitter.

    Still, I ‘m not satisfied until I can literally dine out on him, so:-
    “One thing I do think is kind of dickheadish is this idea that one must preface a defence of somebody’s right to speak with an affirmation that one does not agree with them”
    Who thinks that genius? I am personally happy to let people who agree with me have their say too; who isn’t? Or are you just missing the point entirely.

  46. My, you do take this seriously Mr Rusty, don’t you?

    My position is that I refuse to be forced to take sides. I do not agree with Fury. But that doesn’t mean I have to denounce him.

    Like I said, you can’t grasp this. Everyone’s either with you and your self-righteous mob, or is the enemy. It’s people like you, about whom I do have an opinion, who have destroyed liberalism. Because nothing is ever none of your fucking business is it?

    If Mr Fury likes tomatoes, I disagree with him on that. It doesn’t mean I approve or disapprove of his taste in tomatoes. That’s his opinion. He’s entitled to it. His likes and dislikes do not affect me.

    But yours do. So I am happy to offer the opinion that you’re a dickhead.

  47. IanB:

    Yesterday at 6.04pm you wrote:

    I’d frankly rather live under Attlee’s post-war dispensation of Gas Boards and Coal Boards than what we have now

    It hardly unreasonable to take that to be referring solely to the period 1945-50.

    I’m not quite sure what State persecution of women there was in the late 1940s, perhaps you could enlighten us.

    I never claimed that there was “State persecution of women”. I claimed that women are freer today than they were in Attlee’s time.

    Freedom is more than an absence of state intervention or control. The late 40’s and early 50’s were notable for their stifling social conformity. Respectable young women required chaperones. Dress codes were rigid. Abortion was illegal. Contraception was not widely available, particularly not to single women. Few women went to university compared to the number of men. Many jobs were closed to women. Young women were expected to resign from their jobs when they married.

  48. Theo-

    And yet in that time period Kathleen Kenyon was in the Middle East revolutionising the archaeology of the area.

    As I said, if I didn’t make it clear, I was thinking of the whole post-war period (I define two modern eras as the post-war consensus, and then the neo-progressive era we now live in) and was talking about State policy (Coal Boards and Gas Boards) rather than social conventions. I’ve stated often enough that I am actively opposed to those socially “conservative” conventions about gender roles and sexuality, but we have plenty of stifling conventions now. Look at the shitstorm over Trump’s muslim statement. Try being a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, etc and making your way in modern respectable society.

    And considering the number of war babies of dubious parentage, your view of womens’ freedom may be a little bit stereotypical anyway.

  49. NB The Catholic post was at Mr Rusty.

    Theo, I should also remind you that the first reliable contraception, the pill, didn’t arrive until the early 1960s. That was the single greatest factor by orders of magnitude in making sexual choice available to women.

  50. “I do not agree with Fury.”

    Guess what Einstein, that’s called ‘an opinion’.

    It’s people like you, about whom I do have an opinion, who have destroyed liberalism.”

    Er, I have been defending the man’s right to express his view even though I detest it. If you think that is destroying liberalism then you clearly have not the faintest idea what it is.

    “His likes and dislikes do not affect me. But yours do.”

    This is really sad. An online ‘community’ isn’t actually a community. You and I.will never meet and my opinions do not, or at least really really should not, affect you in the slightest way. That you think they do is…ooh worrying.

  51. Ironman,

    The reason your opinion matters is that it is people like you who impose these dogmas generally, as with your constant Spanish Inquisition impressions here. The point I am making is that I refuse to be drawn into denunciations and that regrettable habit of prefacing a defence of speech with one.

    “I deplore this despicable monster, but he has a right to speak…”

    and so on.

  52. Respectable young women required chaperones. Dress codes were rigid.

    So I suppose all the working, and quite a few middle, class women who took no notice of such things, the great majority of women in fact, weren’t respectable ? I wasn’t around in the late forties and not old enough in the fifties to notice such things but my mum was of course and she hates this version of history, because she knows how untrue it is. One of the few things that really gets her angry is hearing modern middle class women, who neither know or care anything about the lives of their social inferiors ( although always claiming to care deeply ), banging on about how no woman before about 1970 was free and who seem to imagine that none of them ever held down a proper job. She has a lot of stories about her girlhood in the 1930s when the gradually suburbanising village she lived in still had much of its rural character and how tolerant everyone was of the various unconventional family lives some people led. Her best friend for instance was the daughter of the local semi prostitute who had what would now be regarded as an open marriage, no one cared about either aspect of her life.

    The past may be a different country but it’s not another planet.

  53. If Mr Fury likes tomatoes, I disagree with him on that. It doesn’t mean I approve or disapprove of his taste in tomatoes.

    Okay. But not when it comes to celery. That’s pogrom time.

    (I’m willing to make an exception for upper class twits dipping celery stalks in to salt but that’s only because I think that need to be preserved for the sniggering of future generations. )

  54. IanB

    “And yet in that time period Kathleen Kenyon was in the Middle East revolutionising the archaeology of the area.”

    Yes, and there were other pioneering women. But a few swallows don’t make a summer.

    “As I said, if I didn’t make it clear, I was thinking of the whole post-war period”

    OK, but I’m not a mind reader. I can only go on what you write.

    “Look at the shitstorm over Trump’s muslim statement. Try being a racist, a sexist, a uhomophobe, etc and making your way in modern respectable society.”

    True, but this sound and fury is arguably a sign of pluralism. The most oppressive conventions are often those that nobody mentions.

    “And considering the number of war babies of dubious parentage, your view of womens’ freedom may be a little bit stereotypical anyway.”

    Or the war babies showed the lack of abortion and contraception available? And so women’s lack of freedom at that time.

  55. IanB

     “I should also remind you that the first reliable contraception, the pill, didn’t arrive until the early 1960s. That was the single greatest factor by orders of magnitude in making sexual choice available to women.”

    Condoms were pretty reliable, but single women found them difficult to obtain, if my mother was to be believed.

  56. Like I said, the pill revolutionised contraception in the early 1960s. Until then, every act of sexual intercourse was a potential pregnancy, and social conventions reflected that. Just as the nature of housework changed radically in the 20th century. Men had similar strictly imposed gender roles on them as providers to women and children. We can’t consider these issues of liberty; they were just the way people had to act in order to survive. You may as well complain that most people couldn’t take foreign holidays before the invention of the jumbo jet. The reality is that, until very recent times, life revolved around sustaining the family and childbirth. It isn’t in any reasonable sense a measure of liberty.

    Whereas modern hate speech laws and political correctness have no pragmatic origin, and very much are a liberty issue.

    In terms of liberty- the power of the State- in most ways people were more free in 1950 than now. Even if their practical life choices were more limited by circumstance. What I as a libertarian desire is to regain the legal liberty to go with the greater range of choice we now have. And given the choice of evils, I think I really would prefer the Gas Board and the Coal Board to imprisoning people for saying nasty things about foreigners or gays.

  57. Theo-

    Condoms were pretty reliable, but single women found them difficult to obtain, if my mother was to be believed.

    And made out of industrial strength inner tube rubber as well. Not very desirable as part of a sexual experience, even worse than modern ones. The ability to have sex without the use of any sort of contraption (not a typo) was the major breakthrough, and it didn’t happen until the early 1960s.

  58. Thornavis

    “So I suppose all the working, and quite a few middle, class women who took no notice of such things, the great majority of women in fact, weren’t respectable ?”

    ‘Respectable’ should have been in scare quotes. I am not claiming ‘all’, but rather ‘many’. Certainly, the lives my aunts and mother lived then were very restricted by today’s standards.

  59. IanB
    You are a master of the non sequitur. Of course the pill was a major breakthrough. My point is that single women didn’t have ready access to the best contraception available in the 40s and 50s. Which is one reason why they were less free then than now.

  60. Philip Scott Thomas

    @Theophrastus

    …a few swallows don’t make a summer

    Perhaps not, but they do make for an interesting first date.

  61. Philip Scott Thomas

    There are plenty of gay polemicists who would agree with IanB; the period before the legalisation of gay sex was actually more liberating.

    Before the legalisation of gay sex, the polemicists say, the divide between straight and gay was more fluid. There was always the member of the Household Cavalry who was willing to have his dick sucked for cash, as well as any number of working class lads such as the local garage mechanic. How do we know this? Well, diaries of gay men from the time give us a pretty good clue…

    The legalisation of homosexuality, however, created a finite, defined line between gay and straight. No longer were lads willing to put out for cash, as that might mean they were ‘gay’. The end result was that casual gay sex became rarer and more difficult to find.

  62. ‘Respectable’ should have been in scare quotes. I am not claiming ‘all’, but rather ‘many’. Certainly, the lives my aunts and mother lived then were very restricted by today’s standards.

    The lives of everyone were more restricted ( from our perspective ) in those days, for a number of reasons but I can’t help feeling that Ian B is basically right in suggesting that despite all the advances and improvements to living standards since then we’ve lost a lot of freedom without quite realising it, life today is horribly convention bound in many ways. One way being exemplified by Ironman’s self righteous bile which he directs at anyone who displeases him, typical of the kind of vilification visited upon anyone who dares to challenge or even fails to parrot, the required orthodoxies of the time. That didn’t happen so much in the past because people lived more self contained lives, the elevation of the personal to the status of political has a lot to answer for here. Narcissism breeds intolerance.

  63. Philip Scott Thomas

    @Thornavis

    The past may be a different country but it’s not another planet.

    Genius, that is. I am so stealing that line. 🙂

  64. @ Thornavis
    Quite!
    My Great-aunt worked in the Admiralty during WWI, 50-odd years before 1970.
    Of course women worked, mostly working-class women, but middle-class ladies did so as well in “respectable” occupations: teaching, medicine, civil service etc.

  65. PST

    Blimey that’s the first time anyone has said that about a comment of mine, by all means feel free.

    john 77

    Yes I think it was WW1 that broke the dam although there were plenty of working women before that of course. It wasn’t the suffragettes that won the vote but women doing vital jobs, from the Admiralty through to tram counducting.

Leave a Reply

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