Has David Starkey gone mad?

[272BHP]

Dr Jekyll said:

He was making a point about the distinction between slavery and genocide, not negative about the black race but frustrated by what he saw as sloppy use of language. He could and should have avoided the word 'damn', nobody disputes that. but it was a badly chosen (or deliberately provocative) intensifier. If I was arguing with a Trump supporter who claimed that a certain British town was a no go area for whites, I could well show him a picture of the high street and say 'if that's true why are there so many bloody white people there?'.

I think this is a very fair summation.

[DeejRC]

We could always just say he is entitled to his opinion? You do not have to agree with it.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but it appears I roughly agree with Eric about something for once.

[Derek Smith]

s2art said:

Eric Mc said:

s2art said:

I agree that he has a nasty streak, but he is entertaining. So I wouldnt avoid him if there was a chance I would be amused/entertained.

Nasty people with dark little hearts do not amuse me, I'm afraid. I would avoid him like the plague.

Maybe in real life he is a lovely man and this evil little jibing he indulges in is all an act. Even if it is, then the fact that he might have a nice side would be negated by his lack of honesty.

No redeeming features as far as I'm concerned.

Never watched any history programs he made? Or serious interviews? Nice isnt necessary, he is not a friend.

I'd suggest he's not entertaining but he is informative. His books, at least those I've read, are well worth reading. Him being really nasty is easy to ignore in a book, but on TV his character, such as it is, comes over and I find it difficult to remove that from my mind. It ruins his programmes for me.

In all history books worth reading, there will be some conclusions that you will disagree with. With Starkey, you have the benefit of having a number of other historians on your side. They seem able to put over their rejections politely. It's a shame this seems impossible with Starkey.

[PeteinSQ]

DeejRC said:

We could always just say he is entitled to his opinion? You do not have to agree with it.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but it appears I roughly agree with Eric about something for once.

He is entitled to his opinion and so are other people who would maybe boycott his publishers etc. It’s almost like the only people entitled to an opinion or to take action are racists sometimes. Not in real life of course but on this forum.

[bitchstewie]

PeteinSQ said:

He is entitled to his opinion and so are other people who would maybe boycott his publishers etc. It’s almost like the only people entitled to an opinion or to take action are racists sometimes. Not in real life of course but on this forum.

I think the interesting thing is that I don't think anyone has said he isn't entitled to his opinion have they?

He can say whatever he likes within the law and people including employers and sponsors are free to take a view on it.

That seems like basic "actions have consequences" to me.

[Wills2]

Derek Smith said:

I'd suggest he's not entertaining but he is informative. His books, at least those I've read, are well worth reading. Him being really nasty is easy to ignore in a book, but on TV his character, such as it is, comes over and I find it difficult to remove that from my mind. It ruins his programmes for me.

In all history books worth reading, there will be some conclusions that you will disagree with. With Starkey, you have the benefit of having a number of other historians on your side. They seem able to put over their rejections politely. It's a shame this seems impossible with Starkey.

Yeah he's always been very pompous and dismissive of others, its clearly got worse as he has aged.

[A Winner Is You]

PeteinSQ said:

DeejRC said:

We could always just say he is entitled to his opinion? You do not have to agree with it.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but it appears I roughly agree with Eric about something for once.

He is entitled to his opinion and so are other people who would maybe boycott his publishers etc. It’s almost like the only people entitled to an opinion or to take action are racists sometimes. Not in real life of course but on this forum.

Except that when another Cambridge lecturer stated white lives don't matter, and she had to resist the urge to kneecap them, they not only defended her right to free speech and start debates, but promoted her.

[DeejRC]

bhstewie said:

PeteinSQ said:

He is entitled to his opinion and so are other people who would maybe boycott his publishers etc. It’s almost like the only people entitled to an opinion or to take action are racists sometimes. Not in real life of course but on this forum.

I think the interesting thing is that I don't think anyone has said he isn't entitled to his opinion have they?

He can say whatever he likes within the law and people including employers and sponsors are free to take a view on it.

That seems like basic "actions have consequences" to me.

Really? I would say 70% of those posts on this thread are very much stating he isn’t or shouldn’t be allowed to have the opinion they think he is. Explicitly stating that.

I fully agree with you on the actions have consequences. He is allowed to express any such opinion that he has, others are allowed to express counter views and his commercial partners will take their own view.

I personally regard it as sacrosanct that different views are and should always be allowed. They can then be argued over in public.

[rjg48]

He has the right to an opinion. People have the right to drop him if they don't like his opinions.

It's only worms...

[JuniorD]

carinaman said:

Darren Grimes, who seems to go by the title 'British Commentator'

To me he seemed to come across like Tory Boy, the Harry Enfield Character.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul1vCdzNIoI&t=...


Here's Grimes interviewing Starkey:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tVjZ9hA4SQ

That's Heather Mills in disguise.

[bitchstewie]

DeejRC said:

Really? I would say 70% of those posts on this thread are very much stating he isn’t or shouldn’t be allowed to have the opinion they think he is. Explicitly stating that.

I fully agree with you on the actions have consequences. He is allowed to express any such opinion that he has, others are allowed to express counter views and his commercial partners will take their own view.

I personally regard it as sacrosanct that different views are and should always be allowed. They can then be argued over in public.

Are you sure you aren't conflating "isn't allowed to have it and shouldn't be allowed to express it" with "is allowed to have it and is allowed to express it but people and employers will form a judgement based on what it is"?

Now I sound like I'm getting into semantics which is ironic given the earlier direction of the thread but I do think this distinction is actually relevant.

[rscott]

ash73 said:

I think part of the problem is the interviewer, they should have challenged him on what he said, pointed out it was unacceptable and asked him to clarify what he meant or apologise.

Quite a contrast to the skilled Paxman/Neil grillings of days gone by.

The interviewer who tweeted that he'd met one of his heroes and it was as good as he'd hoped.. and that he'd watched the video twice before publishing it ...

Poor Grimes is basically just a front for Turning Point UK and other Tufton Street connected groups

[gregs656]

s2art said:

Except I dont believe Starkey is particularly racist. Seen enough of him, eccentric he is.

Particularly racist. Ok then.

Being eccentric (or not) has nothing to do anything.

[irc]

Double standards here though. It's only white racists that are bad.


Gopal: "White lives don't matter"

Cambridge: Promoted

Starkey: "No black genocide"

Cambridge: Sacked

[Vanden Saab]

irc said:

Double standards here though. It's only white racists that are bad.


Gopal: "White lives don't matter"

Cambridge: Promoted

Starkey: "No black genocide"

Cambridge: Sacked

You worry too much. Once they run out of white 'racists' they will start on all the others...

[Dont Panic]

bhstewie said:

I think the interesting thing is that I don't think anyone has said he isn't entitled to his opinion have they?

But we all know thats not true because speaking his opinion has now brought down a ststorm of condemnation and the usual displays of fake angst from the Wokezillas who judge and then sentence someone far beyond the 4 walls of a court.
So no, hes not entiled to an opinion or to espouse it thanks to petty, small minded muppets who only want to hear the same echo chamber repsonses from those like themselves.

bhstewie said:

He can say whatever he likes within the law and people including employers and sponsors are free to take a view on it.

That seems like basic "actions have consequences" to me.

How very reasonable, since hes said nothing unlawful whys he being targeted for destruction?
Because so called liberal tolerants refuse to live up to their own ideals.
Nasty little instigators laughing in the gloom, hi five-ing each other that theyve broken another person down that they take issue with.

A protracted Operation Hummingbird of sorts is underway.

[bitchstewie]

Honestly this isn't a difficult concept.

People bleat on about "free speech".

So far as I know you don't have a constitutional right to free speech in the UK but you can usually say whatever you like within the confines of the law.

That's what Starkey has done.

Nobody tried to stop him saying it (that I know of).

Nobody has said he should be silenced or forbidden from saying it (that I know of).

He could go on Twitter or any media outlet that would let him on and say the exact same thing again right now.

Some people and some organisations he was associated with have taken a view on that.

Interesting that none (that I know of) seem to have decided to associate themselves with him more as a result of his comments.

Why do you think that might be?

You can bang on about "woke" and "liberals" as much as you like but to expect people to simply shrug and go "meh free speech init" isn't going to happen.

[anonymous-user]

272BHP said:

Dr Jekyll said:

He was making a point about the distinction between slavery and genocide, not negative about the black race but frustrated by what he saw as sloppy use of language. He could and should have avoided the word 'damn', nobody disputes that. but it was a badly chosen (or deliberately provocative) intensifier. If I was arguing with a Trump supporter who claimed that a certain British town was a no go area for whites, I could well show him a picture of the high street and say 'if that's true why are there so many bloody white people there?'.

I think this is a very fair summation.

It is always good to look at both sides of an argument, and other interpretations, before jumping to a conclusion (like ericmc and others have done here calling him a "nasty st" etc). Your alternative interpretation is interesting to read and perhaps possible (albeit I don't believe so based on the very little I have seen). These PH boards have far too many people name slinging/condemning as their first line of action instead of listening to all views/possibilities and taking a balanced view. Hope if I'm ever on the wrong side of a court room those types are not on the jury ! With my ethnic background I'd be immediately guilty!

[Dont Panic]

bhstewie said:

Honestly this isn't a difficult concept.

Its a very simple concept, the right to say whatever within the confines of the law without fear of reprisal.

bhstewie said:

People bleat on about "free speech".

You seem to value only prescribed speech.

bhstewie said:

So far as I know you don't have a constitutional right to free speech in the UK but you can usually say whatever you like within the confines of the law.

No you cant. Twitter facebook etc are now the moral guardians of acceptable speech and what they say goes, without a single vote to pass the motion.

bhstewie said:

That's what Starkey has done.

Nobody tried to stop him saying it (that I know of).

Nobody has said he should be silenced or forbidden from saying it (that I know of).

He could go on Twitter or any media outlet that would let him on and say the exact same thing again right now.

Some people and some organisations he was associated with have taken a view on that.

Interesting that none (that I know of) seem to have decided to associate themselves with him more as a result of his comments.

Why do you think that might be?

It all boils down to sending a message to others: You will not say what we dont agree with or else.

bhstewie said:

You can bang on about "woke" and "liberals" as much as you like but to expect people to simply shrug and go "meh free speech init" isn't going to happen.

Oh it isnt eh? Thats the issue. youve nailed it in one.
People who arent elected, groups with a similar narrative, organisations with an angle and business run by the like minded are applying the pressure of their numbers to squash individuals they see as not fitting their perfect utopia.
Each time the likes of starkey is dominated and destroyed it sends the same message out to everyone else- We own your rights to say what you want, because as you say there are "consequences" imposed entirely by these lot purely down to their common purpose.
They all drink from the same Wokeaid bottle.

If youre not free to speak within the law without fear of consequences imposed by some braindead crybabies then youre not free.
If you cant understand and value that concept then you deserve the eventual imposition of even stricter controls on what you can say, places you can go and those you can associate with.

[PeteinSQ]

You can't find Gopal's tweet any more but what she tweet was: White lives don't matter. As white lives.

You can take it to mean that white people's lives don't matter but that would be to ignore the second sentence and its implications for what is meant by the first sentence.

She's saying that a white person's life doesn't matter because they are white, it matters because they are a person.

This goes to the heart of the blm movement and what that means. People take it to mean that white people's lives don't matter, but actually what they're saying is white lives already matter and we want our lives to matter too.

Gopal has a history of decrying racism and I'm sure this makes certain people uncomfortable. But she isn't a racist.

And as for consequences she has received many death threats from mugs who failed at English comprehension.