Inigo Wilson reinstated

Inigo Wilson - of Lefty Lexicon fame - has been reinstated by Orange.  I received an email from Orange earlier today after I emailed them yesterday.

I understand that emails from supporters of Inigo outnumbered emails against him by more than five-to-one... a real victory for the conservative blogopsphere and a real defeat for those Muslim extremists who want to close down debate.

Comments

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

That is excellent news.

[Afleitch]

Rejoice! That's all I have to say.

[Mark Wallace]

Congratulations to Inigo- a real victory for free expression in the face of censorious religious activism.

[Sean Fear]

That is good news, and shows just what defenders of free speech can do.

[TomTom]

He must remember in future not to use his own name for satirical comments

[Hannibal]

Heh! How long before one of those freedom hating types off MPACUK's boards find out and show up here with a rant? Any money on anonmouse of A Murphy coming in first?

[tapestry]

Do Moslems have jokes? What kind of humour appeals to them - if not political satire?

[George Hinton]

A small victory for free expression against those hateful and radical fundamentalists at MPAC, who would impose their dictat on the whole country if given the chance.

Re: Tapestry at 14:45; the odds are nil given their dour and repressive nature. Like the Nihilists, Marxists, Trotskyites, followers of Juche and Kropotkinists, life and revolutuion is far too serious for a joke or a sense of humour....that's for the decadent and dilletante west!!!!.

[Jeremy Brier]

Excellent. Clearly the thought of losing so many hacks' not inconsiderable mobile phone accounts really swung it ... (!)

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Wonderful news!

[Anthony Brodders]

He must remember in future not to use his own name for satirical comments

If that becomes the lesson to learn from this sorry episode it will be a great shame.

[Richard Weatherill]

I'm sure the last time we went round this particular buoy (when the row over Inigo first broke) someone - it might have been on Guido's site - posted a link to a site that contained Islamic humour. As well as having some jokes, it also contained advice about the kinds of humour that Muslims find offensive. Unfortunately, I've lost the link.

[Right wingery]

Splendid news, I have now purchased an Orange pay monthly deal in celebration

[Adrian Owens]

"Just rejoice" as Maggie would have said.

[dizzy]

brillaint news.

[Denis Cooper]

I'm very glad for Inigo Wilson. A defeat for the enemies of freedom, albeit just one skirmish in a conflict which will stretch out into the future.

[Londoner]

I still wouldn't use Orange as their customer service is such crap...

[Cllr. Robert-John Tasker]

Here, here!

that's excellent news. The fact that he was suspended in the first place stinks quite frankily.

well done to CH for its work.

[David Walsh]

Fantastic news! Shame it had to come to this though...

[John O]

I'm sure Christina Speight will find some reason to blame David Cameron even on this.

[Paul Kennedy]

Excellent news, commonsense, (maybe with the help of a little pressure) prevailed. :D

[David Walker]

Good news, Nigel Farage is rarely right but when he called for a "common sense" agenda he was spot on.

[James Maskell]

This is great news. This was blown way out of proportions and its good to see common sense has prevailed. Suck on that MPACUK!

Anonymouse disappeared when we collectively asked him for definitions for the terms Islamophobia and racism and an explanation for why he was accusing some of us posters of racism and Islamophobia. The guy was certifiable... A victory for freedom of speech!

[eugene]

So I can take out an Internet contract with Orange at last. Good!

[Richard]

A victory for sanity against the PC and Islamic zealots.

[christina speight]

John O - You silly rude man - enough to get you banned. - ("I'm sure Christina Speight will find some reason to blame David Cameron even on this") It shows just how shallow and vindictive and personal Cameroons are! But I forgot,, Cameroons don't get banned/

As it happens this whole incident has passed me by and I have no idea what happened in the first place. I was about to ask politely if someone would tell me but with such a rude snide sneering posting I'll ask someone other - OTHER THAN the rude John O - if they'd be good enough to fill me in OFF-BLOG using the link. I'd be much obliged .

[christina speight]

John O - You silly rude man - enough to get you banned. - ("I'm sure Christina Speight will find some reason to blame David Cameron even on this") It shows just how shallow and vindictive and personal Cameroons are! But I forgot,, Cameroons don't get banned/

As it happens this whole incident has passed me by and I have no idea what happened in the first place. I was about to ask politely if someone would tell me but with such a rude snide sneering posting I'll ask someone other - OTHER THAN the rude John O - if they'd be good enough to fill me in OFF-BLOG using the link. I'd be much obliged .

[John O]

Two screechings and a bonus upper case for the price of one - I am honoured.

[Sandbagger]

A real victory for common sense. It shows that being allowed to express one's own point of view is not a crime and I am glad that Mr Wilson has been reinstated. He should never been suspended in the first place. Let's hope that anyone who comments in this site does not fall foul of the thought police in CCHQ as I have no doubt that they monitor these posts.It appears that anyone who disagrees with the latest statements by DC is subjected to a wave of posts all condeming them as traitors! Wonder where these posts come from!

[James Maskell]

I cant really imagine Cameron hunched over a laptop frantically cutting and pasting peoples comments and keeping them in a special database for use at appropriate moments. Without conspiracy theorising but being more serious, I would expect CCHQ to be aware of the regular critics, the "ringleaders" as it were...

[malcolm]

Very good news indeed. Orange were fairly pathetic in my opinion 'though. They won't be getting my teams' business back in a hurry .

[David Banks]

Great!

[John Hustings]

This is a pleasant surprise. I didn't expect this to be the end result of the fiasco, and I still wonder whether it will be left here.

[Matt Davis]

Very pleased indeed to hear it, what is right has, for once in NuLabour's Britain, actually triumphed. However as one of the many people who emailed Orange to complain in the first place about their appalling treatment of Inigo I received an emolient email from them promising to keep me updated. So where's my email then Orange since you have now finally done the decent thing?

[Sandbagger]

So James, then 'the cat is out of the bag' to coin a phrase. You are saying that there is no free speech allowed and it follows that one is likely to be excommunicated if they express a comment likely to be against the stance taken by DC. Is that what you are saying? We are and always have been a broad church,where people are allowed to express their views without being carted off to the political wilderness.If however that is the case then we are in deeper trouble than I thought.

[James Maskell]

Im not saying you'll be excommunicated. Im saing they'll be aware of who the key critics are on sites like these. I dont think the Party leadership would want heavy Party critics turning up and heckling at events.

[Mary]

I heard that Wilson had to apologise in order to get reinstated so lets hope he's also learnt his lesson. And I'm not surprised that Orange received more emails in support of him - from a quick look on the web it would seem only right-wing sites picked up on this story. No one else seems to have been very aware of it at all. The main thing is that Inigo will think twice before being so offensive in future - maybe his workplace will send him on some diversity training or something. ;-D

[Sean Fear]

What was "offensive" about Inigo Wilson, Mary?

[Jon White]

Mary, the only offensiveness was was from narrow minded bigots who couldn't take a joke. This is excellent news. A small triumph for common sense in a world of political correctness gone mad.

I hope that Inigo didn't have to apologise. He had nothing to apologise for.

I wonder if we'll get any apologies from the zealots and bigots who called for his head. I somewhat doubt it.

[Annabel Herriott]

Mary, Inigo was not in the least "offensive". He was utterly HILARIOUS. Perhaps you have had a humour bypass done at some point.

[Mary]

Hmmm, maybe if you were Muslim you'd see how offensive it is to continually equate Islam with terrorism, same goes for Wilson's 'definition' of the word Palestinian. The piece was crude and definitely NOT funny. Proof that Tories haven't a clue about humour, satire or empathy for those who are today's 'bogeymen'. But then the Nasty Party isn't exactly renowned for sensitivity, is it now? Moreover, it was very ironic for a supposed PR man to come on a very well read website and make fun of his colleagues and his company's policies. Not the world's greatest PR man I'm guessing!

[Barry W]

I just hope he got a publishing deal lined up - the Lefty Lexicon would be the perfect Crissy pres for the lefties in your life

[James Maskell]

At the height of this, I asked people what they thought about the jokes, especially the Palestinian line. Every single person I asked thought there was a point and some of them laughed. They certainly didnt think it was grounds for suspension.

Mary, it was satire and it was made pretty clear throughout the article that that was the case. A lot of us regulars joined in with our own lefty language contributions. We saw the funny side. Jack Straw, the Pope, Inigo Wilson, do you see the connection? If you didnt here it is. When they said their controversial words, there was uproar by the so called moderate Muslims, even though if you actually read it properly you will see there wasnt really that much controversial about it. It was manipulated by the radical Muslims who dont care what the reality is. They will make it up if it doesnt look damning enough.

[Sean Fear]

A humourless left winger would naturally take exception to Lefty Lexicon, I guess.

[Mary]

'Humourless' because I don't take to the idea of using a particular, already much vilified, group of people to take the piss out of? Not me who has had a humour bypass mister, in fact I wonder what in your lives have made you so vicious and bitter towards others you find 'different'? Yours is the politics of the gutter, no doubt about it.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Mary, instead of lashing out, why don't you explain calmly and rationally why you were so offended by Inigo's article?

I genuinely want to understand why people like yourself were so offended, but every time somebody asks, they are greeted with vitriol and spite.

Here's your chance to change that.

[Mary]

Perhaps you can explain to me what was funny about it? Seriously, where was the 'humour'? To say that 'Islamophobia' is anyone that is worried about being blown up - where is the humour? It is based on more of the same lazy and crude stereotypes about Muslims. To take the mickey out of Palestinians - a group of people who are probably one of the most mistreated on earth - where is the humour? More to the point, how is this 'satire'? Satire is supposed to at least show some intelligence. Why can't you just be honest with yourselves and recognise that you found it so hysterical because it was based on all the familiar prejudices and bigotry that sit so well with you? That is the real humour for the Tories here, isn't it? And it is certainly not me dishing out the vitriol and spite. Seems that you are never more happy than when you're dishing out hatred towards those you perceive as different to you. You call this 'free speech' when it is just deeply-ingrained prejudice.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Mary, please.

The reason people probably find it hard to engage with you or understand your viewpoint is that you keep lashing out and/or going on the defensive.

Even when I patiently invited you to explain your frustration so that we could discuss this calmly and rationally, you responded by going on the attack.

It's not my place to defend the article, however I will say that it is clearly intended as a satirical take on the sort of politically-correct consultant-speak that is increasingly commonplace in business.

The humour (or otherwise) of the article has been discussed at length elsewhere so I'm not really interested in rehashing that debate here, but I've yet to see one cogent, calm and reasoned explanation of why people have been so offended.

[James Maskell]

Hahahahaha. Mary, thats hardly a case is it? Your entire post is emotional. Its like the infamous radio interview where the MPACUK rep went nuts and started hurling abuse at the representative speaking about freedom of speech.

Two questions Mary, do you believe in freedom of speech and do you believe in freedom of belief?

[Mary]

So, no one is able to explain to me where the humour lies. Quelle surprise! And maybe my post is emotional because I'm not a cold souless Tory? Let me try to explain it to you this way: When it's prejudice against black people it's - rightly - racism. When it's prejudice towards Jewish people it's - rightly - anti-Semitism. When it's prejudice towards Muslims it's 'free speech'. Is it becoming any clearer to you now or are you still drawing a blank as to what this hoo-ha was all about?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Mary, as requested, I explained the satirical nature of the piece for you.

Now, please could you do me the courtesy of calmly explaining why you are so offended instead of launching into another tirade against perceived sleights that I haven't made against you?

I long to understand your viewpoint, but you make it so difficult when you refuse to engage in a constructive manner - it's not a lot to ask.

[James Maskell]

I wouldnt say thats why it was emotional. Getting emotional in debating is a sure sign that theyve lost the argument. Ignoring simple questions is another.

Do you believe in freedom of speech? Do you believe in freedom of belief?

The humour comes from the fact that there is truth in it.

[James Hellyer]

To say that 'Islamophobia' is anyone that is worried about being blown up - where is the humour?

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" - where is the humour?

To take the mickey out of Palestinians - a group of people who are probably one of the most mistreated on earth - where is the humour? More to the point, how is this 'satire'?

Four legs good, two legs bad.

Why can't you just be honest with yourselves and recognise that you found it so hysterical because it was based on all the familiar prejudices and bigotry that sit so well with you?

Wht can't *you* admit that people with legitimate concerns about public security are dismissed as Islamophobes by many in Britain today? Or that Palestinians are often portrayed as victims, pure and simple, no matter what they do?

Could it be because you are an islamofascist fellow traveller?

[Mary]

Daniel you did not explain how the piece was satirical - at all. Or how it was funny. You say that I am not explaining my point and yet you are failing to answer questions put to you. My position is pretty self-explanatory. The piece was offensive and not funny because it relied on bigotry and lazy stereotyping, as well as poking fun at an oppressed group of people. Again - where is the satire or humour? I believe in freedom of speech but I also believe that just because you *can* say something, it is not always *right* to. At one time Jewish people were the butt of crude cartoons and stereotyping - we all agree that this is not acceptable today. Sure, people *could* still make disgusting comments about Jewish people if they wanted to, but the majority of rational people would quite rightly be horrified by this. Why can't you afford Muslims the same respect? I suppose I could argue with you until I was blue in the face but the fact remains that our politics and morals are a world apart - you simply can't accept that minorities have a right to be treated with respect and, as has been the case throughout the decades, your politics relies on scapegoating and fearmongering. Excuse me for failing to see the funny side but then racism and bigotry has never sat well with me. I will *never* be thinking what you are thinking.

[James Maskell]

Thats one answer. You believe in freedom of speech. If thats true, then why are you implying that Inigo Wilson was wrong to say that? You believe he has the right to say it and yet you contradict yourself by saying he shouldnt have said it. Its a flat our contradiction Mary...

Now the second part please. Do you believe in freedom of belief?

[The jabberwock]

Source URL:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1487

Obituary
By The Brussels Journal
Created 2006-10-12 12:30
(source unknown to us - tbj)

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, life isn’t always fair, and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they themselves failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer Panadol, sun lotion or a Band Aid to a student – but could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, churches became businesses, and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar can sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason.

He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I’m A Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Daniel you did not explain how the piece was satirical - at all."

Sorry for not replying before Mary, been a bit busy today.

I did explain before that the article is clearly intended as a satirical take (or caricature) on the politically-correct consultant-speak increasingly commonplace in business.

Satire is the use of ridicule or irony to expose folly or vice, and it is clear that the article was intended to do such with regards the oversensitivity and political-correctness of some left-wingers.

"Or how it was funny."

As with the previous point, I repeat that the humour (or otherwise) of the article has been discussed at length elsewhere so I'm not really interested in rehashing that debate here.

In any case, it's not relevant to the original question I asked you, which was to explain calmly why you were so offended by the article?

"You say that I am not explaining my point and yet you are failing to answer questions put to you."

I did actually address the questions you raised, but I was concerned that you sought to deflect attention from my original question, which I put to you so you could put your side of the argument across calmly and rationally so that people might have a better chance of engaging with you and understanding your position.

"My position is pretty self-explanatory. The piece was offensive and not funny because it relied on bigotry and lazy stereotyping, as well as poking fun at an oppressed group of people."

I'm probably being a little stupid here, but would you mind indulging me by pointing out which particular parts of the piece relied on bigotry and lazy stereotyping and poked fun at an oppressed group of people?

"I believe in freedom of speech but I also believe that just because you *can* say something, it is not always *right* to."

I quite agree, Mary.

"At one time Jewish people were the butt of crude cartoons and stereotyping - we all agree that this is not acceptable today. Sure, people *could* still make disgusting comments about Jewish people if they wanted to, but the majority of rational people would quite rightly be horrified by this. Why can't you afford Muslims the same respect?"

I do afford Moslems a great deal of respect, and if I thought a disgusting comment about Moslems had been made, I would probably take exception to it. I don't see that this article has done that, but perhaps you could prove me wrong by pointing out where it did?

"I suppose I could argue with you until I was blue in the face but the fact remains that our politics and morals are a world apart - you simply can't accept that minorities have a right to be treated with respect and, as has been the case throughout the decades, your politics relies on scapegoating and fearmongering."

Why are you lashing out again?

I'm trying to be reasonable with you and engage with you in a calm, civil manner and all you seem to be able to respond with is an attack based on the same sort of lazy stereotyping that you have criticised others for - you know nothing about me and yet you claim that I 'simply can't accept that minorities have a right to be treated with respect'.

What about my right to be treated with respect, Mary? Or anybody that disagrees with you?

"Excuse me for failing to see the funny side but then racism and bigotry has never sat well with me."

I'm glad to hear that you're opposed to racism and bigotry, so in the spirit of tolerance, perhaps you'll eschew the aggressive tone in your response and point out which parts of the article were racist and/or bigoted?

"I will *never* be thinking what you are thinking."

Possibly not, but a difference of opinion makes a mature political debate all the more interesting, don't you feel?

[James Maskell]

Wheres Mary...wheres Mary....wheres Mary? Wow, theres an echo! Its so empty on this thread since Mary left...

[anonmouse]

I received an email from Orange Head of PR stating that Inigo Wilson apologised for the offence that he caused. As I have stated previously, an apology was good enough for me.

However for this blog to label those muslims who complained as extremist was ignorant as are the views of some of those that are saying MPACUK are extremists when in fact at their core they are fervently in favour of promoting democracy, integration and social cohesion.