P45 for Steve Bell

[Ridgemont]

Haven’t spotted this.

Steve Bell, Guardian cartoonist for almost 40 years, has not had his contract renewed.

https://www.dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2020/07/...

Looks like the blowback from various sources re some of his stuff of recent months has been a little too much for the Guardian.

Shame: not my politics but he’s genuinely brilliant and has been a key influence on British politics for decades shaping how politicians of all stripes (Thatcher, Major et al) have been viewed.

[bitchstewie]

This is really odd where are all the replies from people outraged at this diabolical restriction of free speech like they were David Starkey and the white lives matter guy?!

Oh he's the cartoonist for the Guardian.

Just co-incidence I'm sure

[BobToc]

Suspect it’s as much due to cost cutting and headcount reductions at the Guardian.

[Slagathore]

bhstewie said:

This is really odd where are all the replies from people outraged at this diabolical restriction of free speech like they were David Starkey and the white lives matter guy?!

Oh he's the cartoonist for the Guardian.

Just co-incidence I'm sure

It's not a restriction of free speech, is it? He can still publish his comics wherever he likes.

His contract hasn't been renewed with Guardian, so they won't be published there. Nothing stopping someone else publishing them.

Quite a difference to the silly point you are trying to make.

[PeteinSQ]

Starkey is still free to stand on a box at speakers corner?

[bitchstewie]

Slagathore said:

It's not a restriction of free speech, is it? He can still publish his comics wherever he likes.

His contract hasn't been renewed with Guardian, so they won't be published there. Nothing stopping someone else publishing them.

Quite a difference to the silly point you are trying to make.

Starkey is free to work anywhere with any employer who wants to be associated with him.

Nothing stopping someone else hiring him.

Hmm..

[Slagathore]

bhstewie said:

Starkey is free to work anywhere with any employer who wants to be associated with him.

Nothing stopping someone else hiring him.

Hmm..

Yes, I'd imagine so.

Perhaps your point trying to suggest this was a restriction of free speech is as silly as the point others were making about Starkey and WLM guy? The truth is you called it a restriction of free speech when it wasn't just so it would fit in with the silly comparison.

[Astacus]

yes biting comment as cartoon. Ive followed him on and off for maybe almost 40 years, since his cartoons of Maggie and Ronnie Ray Gun

[Troubleatmill]

bhstewie said:

This is really odd where are all the replies from people outraged at this diabolical restriction of free speech like they were David Starkey and the white lives matter guy?!

Oh he's the cartoonist for the Guardian.

Just co-incidence I'm sure

Never read the Guardian - so no clue who he is.

[AnotherClarkey]

I went to a very interesting talk by him about 30 years ago <gulp>. It was a really fascinating insight into the subtleties of cartoons - I remember that he was very against the excessive use of text labels, saying that if you had to rely on them you had failed to do the job properly.

[Johnnytheboy]

If he is so great, someone will pay him to draw cartoons, or he can self publish on the Internet.

I don't see censorship here.

[williamp]

Hes the one who drew pritti patel as a pig. Insulting and racist, if she was a labour MP and heca right wing cartoonist.

[Astacus]

I thought he drew her as a bull? with horns and a ring through her nose?

[glazbagun]

Astacus said:

I thought he drew her as a bull? with horns and a ring through her nose?

And Boris with the same.

[Ridgemont]

bhstewie said:

This is really odd where are all the replies from people outraged at this diabolical restriction of free speech like they were David Starkey and the white lives matter guy?!

Oh he's the cartoonist for the Guardian.

Just co-incidence I'm sure

Well to be fair I am Gammon and the rest of it and I don’t think this is a good thing.

[Esceptico]

Perhaps because he hasn’t changed but the Guardian has (not for the better).

[bitchstewie]

Ridgemont said:

Well to be fair I am Gammon and the rest of it and I don’t think this is a good thing.

It doesn't bother me tbh as they're free to choose what tone and content they want for that kind of thing and "can you draw the stuff we want you to" probably doesn't work too well for a cartoonist?

I think my point was clumsily made and misinterpreted but I think it stands that it is odd how people seem to be very supportive of free speech but perhaps dependent on whether they agree with the person making it.

I'm never sure if Gammon should be capitalised

[Pit Pony]

Does he get a P45, or is he freelance, and if so will the HMRC decide to investigate if he's interpreted IR35 correctly???

[Johnnytheboy]

bhstewie said:

I think my point was clumsily made and misinterpreted but I think it stands that it is odd how people seem to be very supportive of free speech but perhaps dependent on whether they agree with the person making it.

This isn't an issue of free speech.

He got sacked because they are running out of cash. He is no way prevented from plying his trade for himself or others.

[Slagathore]

bhstewie said:

It doesn't bother me tbh as they're free to choose what tone and content they want for that kind of thing and "can you draw the stuff we want you to" probably doesn't work too well for a cartoonist?

I think my point was clumsily made and misinterpreted but I think it stands that it is odd how people seem to be very supportive of free speech but perhaps dependent on whether they agree with the person making it.

I'm never sure if Gammon should be capitalised

the only person misinterpreting things is you.

You've used the same tactic as the people you were trying to slag off. I know you wanted to go on and make the point that they were only outraged with the Starkey and WLM thing so you could make out the forum had some far-right or racist element.

You wanted to try and point out the hypocrisy of the forum, as a few are desperate to make out it has some sort of far-right or right wing bias and no one cares about this particular case because it's seen as a lefty newspaper. The reality is - no one has even heard of this guy.

Then you've done exactly the same - taken a situation that doesn't represent a restriction of free speech to use to try and make that point. Exactly what the others were doing. Whether or not you believe it truly was a restriction of free speech is irrelevant, you were happy to misinterpret the situation and call it that to try and make a comparison to the other situation.

I guess when you do it, it's fine and was clumsy and misinterpreted, but when the others do it, it's some sort of terrible far-right action and shows how desperate people are to make a point.