Has David Starkey gone mad?
Discussion
bhstewie said:
With the caveat I haven't heard the entire interview this seems like crazytown taken at face value
Darren Grimes under police investigation after David Starkey interview
Why crazytown. This is just the natural progression from the crap you have been posting for years. Welcome to your brave new world. Darren Grimes under police investigation after David Starkey interview
Vanden Saab said:
Why crazytown. This is just the natural progression from the crap you have been posting for years. Welcome to your brave new world.
I know you live in a world where everything is about leftists and woke and the MSM and all the usual cliches but I don't think you'll find anywhere where I've advocated for this sort of thing.It's the equivalent of Andrew Neil interviewing Gerard Batten and being held responsible for his views if taken at face value.
Not so long ago New Statesman journalist interviewed Roger Scruton and quoted him as saying 'every Chinese person is a replica of the next one and that's a very frightening thing'. Causing Scruton to receive the same kind of opprobrium as Starkey received. Will that journalist be questioned under caution? If not why not?
i4got said:
Surely every newspaper that covered the Starkey/Grimes interview is equally culpable?
I suggest you read up on the law.Why do you think Pistonheads doesn’t let racist/sexist/homophobic comments stand? Primarily it’s because, as a publisher, you can be prosecuted if you’ve not made every effort to remove, refute or, at the very least, contextualise those comments.
Darren Grimes didn’t exactly challenge Starkey, did he, or the other right-wingers he’s had on his podcast. It may be a fine line, but it’s there.
CPS said:
Racial hatred is defined in section 17 of the Act. The prosecution must prove that hatred was intended to be stirred up or that it was likely to be stirred up. "Likely" does not mean that racial hatred was simply possible. We therefore have to examine the context of any behaviour very carefully, in particular the likely audience, as this will be highly relevant.
Ultimately, it comes down to Grimes’ behaviours. If he’s seen as facilitating the broadcasting of views with the intention to cause offence, he’s in trouble. This is why all journalists are extremely careful to demonstrate, where racist language is used, that they are challenging it and that it’s only there to demonstrate how far the interviewee’s opinions vary from what’s considered acceptable.People can huff and puff about this, but it’s the law, and has been since the 1980s. Strangely, journalists don’t seem to being prosecuted for this, so either they’re all doing it right and poor ickle Darren’s being picked on or, and I say this purely as a hypothetical, Mr Grimes went over the line on this on an attempt to be a right-wing free-speech martyr. Perhaps it’s Occam’s Razor - he’s not half as bright as he thinks he is and simply didn’t do his job properly.
Whether there’s grounds for him to be charged is entirely another matter. But behaviour matters, and Grimes didn’t seem to show much regret, saying only that he was a bit inexperienced which is why he didn’t challenge Starkey. Fair enough, but he had another highly controversial right-wing historian on the following week, and although he put up a video disassociating himself from Starkey’s view, he didn’t take down the Starkey video.
Given his fondness for certain topics, his seeming inability to deal with them as virtually every other journalist does, and his unwillingness to take down the offensive video, it’s hardly surprising that someone’s complained. The police have to take this seriously, and they’ve carried out their part entirely correctly.
longblackcoat said:
i4got said:
Surely every newspaper that covered the Starkey/Grimes interview is equally culpable?
I suggest you read up on the law.Why do you think Pistonheads doesn’t let racist/sexist/homophobic comments stand? Primarily it’s because, as a publisher, you can be prosecuted if you’ve not made every effort to remove, refute or, at the very least, contextualise those comments.
Darren Grimes didn’t exactly challenge Starkey, did he, or the other right-wingers he’s had on his podcast. It may be a fine line, but it’s there.
i4got said:
longblackcoat said:
i4got said:
Surely every newspaper that covered the Starkey/Grimes interview is equally culpable?
I suggest you read up on the law.Why do you think Pistonheads doesn’t let racist/sexist/homophobic comments stand? Primarily it’s because, as a publisher, you can be prosecuted if you’ve not made every effort to remove, refute or, at the very least, contextualise those comments.
Darren Grimes didn’t exactly challenge Starkey, did he, or the other right-wingers he’s had on his podcast. It may be a fine line, but it’s there.
The allegation seems to be that Grimes published the interview with the intention of causing offence; those commenting on it could not, reasonably, be accused of the same thing.
BlackLabel said:
How do the police find the resources to investigate what someone said on a podcast or what some so called transphobic person said on Twitter given many forces have even stopped routinely attending the homes of people who have been burgled etc?
Because they have become politicised Ayahuasca said:
The UN definition of genocide is:
...acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
_____-
The purpose of American / Caribbean slavery was to work the tobacco, cotton and sugar plantations. A totally different sort of evil.
Starkey must have had a senior moment if the best argument he could come up with to make that point - especially in the current situation where eggshells are being trodden on - is that so many damn blacks survived.
Ok, the way he put it was unpleasant but it from that definition slavery in the US was not genocide. ...acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
_____-
The purpose of American / Caribbean slavery was to work the tobacco, cotton and sugar plantations. A totally different sort of evil.
Starkey must have had a senior moment if the best argument he could come up with to make that point - especially in the current situation where eggshells are being trodden on - is that so many damn blacks survived.
longblackcoat said:
Crucial difference is that they’re reporting Grimes and Starkey as the subject(s) and are not the publishers of the original material.
The allegation seems to be that Grimes published the interview with the intention of causing offence; those commenting on it could not, reasonably, be accused of the same thing.
How is that different from the New Statesman publishing Roger Scrutons remarks about the Chinese?The allegation seems to be that Grimes published the interview with the intention of causing offence; those commenting on it could not, reasonably, be accused of the same thing.
Dr Jekyll said:
longblackcoat said:
Crucial difference is that they’re reporting Grimes and Starkey as the subject(s) and are not the publishers of the original material.
The allegation seems to be that Grimes published the interview with the intention of causing offence; those commenting on it could not, reasonably, be accused of the same thing.
How is that different from the New Statesman publishing Roger Scrutons remarks about the Chinese?The allegation seems to be that Grimes published the interview with the intention of causing offence; those commenting on it could not, reasonably, be accused of the same thing.
All I can reiterate - having reproduced the law verbatim - is that this is about the intent to offend. Did Grimes do this? Possibly. Was this the intent of the New Statesman? Almost certainly not.
longblackcoat said:
Why ask me? I haven’t read the New Statesman article and really can’t be bothered.
All I can reiterate - having reproduced the law verbatim - is that this is about the intent to offend. Did Grimes do this? Possibly. Was this the intent of the New Statesman? Almost certainly not.
Oh I see, because Grimes supported Brexit he must be racist and because and the New Statesman is the house paper for fashionable lefties they can't possibly have meant any harm.All I can reiterate - having reproduced the law verbatim - is that this is about the intent to offend. Did Grimes do this? Possibly. Was this the intent of the New Statesman? Almost certainly not.
Dr Jekyll said:
longblackcoat said:
Why ask me? I haven’t read the New Statesman article and really can’t be bothered.
All I can reiterate - having reproduced the law verbatim - is that this is about the intent to offend. Did Grimes do this? Possibly. Was this the intent of the New Statesman? Almost certainly not.
Oh I see, because Grimes supported Brexit he must be racist and because and the New Statesman is the house paper for fashionable lefties they can't possibly have meant any harm.All I can reiterate - having reproduced the law verbatim - is that this is about the intent to offend. Did Grimes do this? Possibly. Was this the intent of the New Statesman? Almost certainly not.
One thought, if the complaint has originated with Durham Police, why have the Met now taken it up. Never had any respect for Met since miner's strike days.
Just one further thought, presumably Chris Harris will now be prosecuted for tittering with his motoring journalist mates over some of the highly illegal speed road trips and exploits they got up to during the back in the day times at Autocar and Evo?
Agree with Stewie, crazy day times.
Agree with Stewie, crazy day times.
FiF said:
Just one further thought, presumably Chris Harris will now be prosecuted for tittering with his motoring journalist mates over some of the highly illegal speed road trips and exploits they got up to during the back in the day times at Autocar and Evo?
Agree with Stewie, crazy day times.
Not sure where Harris incited racial hatred, but I’m sure you know what you’re talking about. Agree with Stewie, crazy day times.
longblackcoat said:
i4got said:
Surely every newspaper that covered the Starkey/Grimes interview is equally culpable?
I suggest you read up on the law.Why do you think Pistonheads doesn’t let racist/sexist/homophobic comments stand? Primarily it’s because, as a publisher, you can be prosecuted if you’ve not made every effort to remove, refute or, at the very least, contextualise those comments.
Darren Grimes didn’t exactly challenge Starkey, did he, or the other right-wingers he’s had on his podcast. It may be a fine line, but it’s there.
CPS said:
Racial hatred is defined in section 17 of the Act. The prosecution must prove that hatred was intended to be stirred up or that it was likely to be stirred up. "Likely" does not mean that racial hatred was simply possible. We therefore have to examine the context of any behaviour very carefully, in particular the likely audience, as this will be highly relevant.
Ultimately, it comes down to Grimes’ behaviours. If he’s seen as facilitating the broadcasting of views with the intention to cause offence, he’s in trouble. This is why all journalists are extremely careful to demonstrate, where racist language is used, that they are challenging it and that it’s only there to demonstrate how far the interviewee’s opinions vary from what’s considered acceptable.People can huff and puff about this, but it’s the law, and has been since the 1980s. Strangely, journalists don’t seem to being prosecuted for this, so either they’re all doing it right and poor ickle Darren’s being picked on or, and I say this purely as a hypothetical, Mr Grimes went over the line on this on an attempt to be a right-wing free-speech martyr. Perhaps it’s Occam’s Razor - he’s not half as bright as he thinks he is and simply didn’t do his job properly.
Whether there’s grounds for him to be charged is entirely another matter. But behaviour matters, and Grimes didn’t seem to show much regret, saying only that he was a bit inexperienced which is why he didn’t challenge Starkey. Fair enough, but he had another highly controversial right-wing historian on the following week, and although he put up a video disassociating himself from Starkey’s view, he didn’t take down the Starkey video.
Given his fondness for certain topics, his seeming inability to deal with them as virtually every other journalist does, and his unwillingness to take down the offensive video, it’s hardly surprising that someone’s complained. The police have to take this seriously, and they’ve carried out their part entirely correctly.
The police have been given information by way of complaint. If they fail to act on it, they will be criticised. If they act on it, they are criticised, at least on here. We've got mentions of imprisonment when all we have is a request for him to attend a police station for interview.
I have every sympathy for journalists trying to help us make decisions on what's happening around the world. We seen them regularly on the front line, in war zones, or areas where there is risk from disease or violence. Bloggers/vloggers/podcasters are essentially commentators, a form of journalism that is normally criticised on PH, and one that lives off the work of those journos who go out to show us what's going on.
What Grimes did was interview. While the law is quite clear on the matter, journalistic exemptions are not. The police are empowered to make decisions to sleeve cases, and quite rightly. In certain cases they might prefer the CPS to make decisions of public interest, that sort of thing. However, either way, they need some form of evidence. An interview seems to me to be the intelligent option. If Grimes fails to attend, and therefore not take advantage of journalistic exemptions, they can make a decision on the facts as presented to them on the podcast. No one can criticise them for that. If Grimes does give reasons for his, what appears to be, on first sight, crass behaviour, then these will be probably pushed to the CPS for a decision. No one can criticise the police for that.
On the other hand, if they do nothing, despite a complaint coming to them, then they can be criticised by the complainant, and anyone affronted. In the old days, the police may well have assumed that the government might have supported a decision not to act, but those days, of help from above, have long gone. It's a case of covering their backs as if there's blame, they are vulnerable unless they, figuratively, gird their loins.
It’s a response to the current situation. It is not of the police’s making. All they can do is respond.
On the other hand, Starkey is an intelligent bloke and, one must assume, knew the likely outcome of his outburst. He normally chooses his words with care, although he does get flustered when confronted by intelligent people, especially intelligent women, who challenge his opinions. An interview is something that he normally controls, with his wonderful consideration for the feelings of others that he is renowned for.
It's a shame about his books not being published. I'm surprised by the move of his publishers. I've read a few of his books, although I've only bought one, and they do give one pause for thought. It's akin to burning them.
That apart, he got what he must have known was coming to him.
I hope this doesn't turn him bitter.
longblackcoat said:
FiF said:
Just one further thought, presumably Chris Harris will now be prosecuted for tittering with his motoring journalist mates over some of the highly illegal speed road trips and exploits they got up to during the back in the day times at Autocar and Evo?
Agree with Stewie, crazy day times.
Not sure where Harris incited racial hatred, but I’m sure you know what you’re talking about. Agree with Stewie, crazy day times.
But then you knew that but just wanted to be an argumentative deflecting prat. Jog on, you're better than that.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff