Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by AndyTake2, Apr 18, 2017.
That would explain a good deal, Roger...!
It's actually the Knights Templar.
The minceur one.
I don't see that at all, Nick. If that was the idea then the cartoon has failed to communicate this effectively IMHO. At best it is infantile, lazy, foolish and clumsy. If you are going to satirise such a subject, you need to be up to the job, and in my view, the cartoonist was clearly not.
But obviously each to their own. I still dislike it though.
Well just 'cos you didn't get it is hardly conclusive proof it failed, or else I could say it clearly succeeded purely on the grounds that I did get it - which can't be true either. Infantile, foolish and clumsy I agree wholeheartedly with, that's the CH style, and like you, I'm no great fan of it. Lazy? No. They take the hard option in all fairness, and it's the fearlessness of their approach I admire even though the results are not to my taste.
IMHO (in my post )= in my humble opinion. If you don't mind, I'll stick with it
Apologies, Willie, missed that, my bad.
Thank you for your that, Nick and no worries at all. I really don't generally advocate taking offence at humour and I know it's personal and we all differ so I understand others have different views from me
There were lots of jokes about the photo of the guy running for his life at London Bridge still holding onto his pint irc
I'm not a fan of satire when its target has no privilege - knock those who are lording it over others maybe, not those who are down.
That's finding humour in dark circumstances, none of it was at all mocking in tone that I saw.
Well said. For me, you've addressed the nuances of this (sub)topic pretty well, with these two posts.
Thing about CH is that they are completely lacking in reverence for ANYBODY. That's what I admire in their satire; I don't agree that only those with privilege are legitimate targets of satire (although they may well be the most deserving cases); should we not satirise Trump voters as well as the man himself, for example?
Well, there was that time they fired a cartoonist for making fun of a Jew...
The point is that they decided where their limits lay. Antisemitism is still a hot button in the Republic from what I've been told. The shade of Dreyfus is one that the French left find very hard to ignore if only because Martin Niemöller could just as well have been talking about the Régime de Vichy.
Tempting as that is, most 'satire' I've seen of Trump voters has been tired old redneck hick jokes, patronising them for being stupid, inbred and toothless; dirt-poor turkeys voting for Christmas. In contrast, the electoral stats showed the average Trump voter had an income of over $50,000, and the demographic being mocked actually erred towards Clinton.
Similarly, CH jibes than Aylan Kurdi's untimely death preventing him from growing up into a bottom-pincher just panders to the arrogant and largely ignorant anti-Islam tendency which is enabling the far right all across Europe and beyond. So whilst there might well be some sense of 'black humour' (as described by Andre Breton) in many of the world's sad incidents, a careful balance is required in order to not exacerbate the injustices and tragedies where they are most keenly felt.
Yes, in consultation with lawyers no doubt; the French Jewish community are rather better able to defend themselves than the French Islamic community it seems.
The only Knights Templar I know is the Wetherspoons one in Chancery Lane.
Although I believe there is also one in Bristol.
This is doing the rounds on Facebook from a Swiss magazine, so you'd expect an impartial view:
THE LAUGHING STOCK OF EUROPE
[Translation by Paula Kirby]
If it weren't so serious, the situation in Great Britain would almost be comical. The country is being governed by a talking robot, nicknamed the Maybot, that somehow managed to visit the burned-out tower block in the west of London without speaking to a single survivor or voluntary helper. Negotiations for the country’s exit from the EU are due to begin on Monday, but no one has even a hint of a plan. The government is dependent on a small party that provides a cozy home for climate change deniers and creationists. Boris Johnson is Foreign Secretary. What in the world has happened to this country?
Two years ago David Cameron emerged from the parliamentary election as the shining victor. He had secured an absolute majority, and as a result it looked as if the career of this cheerful lightweight was headed for surprisingly dizzy heights. The economy was growing faster than in any other industrialised country in the world. Scottish independence and, with it, the break-up of the United Kingdom had been averted. For the first time since 1992, there was a Conservative majority in the House of Commons. Great Britain saw itself as a universally respected actor on the international stage. This was the starting point.
In order to get from this comfortable position to the chaos of the present in the shortest possible time, two things were necessary: first, the Conservative right wingers’ obsessive hatred of the EU, and second, Cameron’s irresponsibility in putting the whole future of the country on the line with his referendum, just to satisfy a few fanatics in his party. It is becoming ever clearer just how extraordinarily bad a decision that was. The fact that Great Britain has become the laughing stock of Europe is directly linked to its vote for Brexit.
The ones who will suffer most will be the British people, who were lied to by the Brexit campaign during the referendum and betrayed and treated like idiots by elements of their press. The shamelessness still knows no bounds: the Daily Express has asked in all seriousness whether the inferno in the tower block was due to the cladding having been designed to meet EU standards. It is a simple matter to discover that the answer to this question is No, but by failing to check it, the newspaper has planted the suspicion that the EU might be to blame for this too. As an aside: a country in which parts of the press are so demonstrably uninterested in truth and exploit a disaster like the fire in Grenfell Tower for their own tasteless ends has a very serious problem.
Already prices are rising in the shops, already inflation is on the up. Investors are holding back. Economic growth has slowed. And that’s before the Brexit negotiations have even begun. With her unnecessary general election, Prime Minister Theresa May has already squandered an eighth of the time available for them. How on earth an undertaking as complex as Brexit is supposed to be agreed in the time remaining is a mystery.
Great Britain will end up leaving its most important trading partner and will be left weaker in every respect. It would make economic sense to stay in the single market and the customs union, but that would mean being subject to regulations over which Britain no longer had any say. It would be better to have stayed in the EU in the first place. So the government now needs to develop a plan that is both politically acceptable and brings the fewest possible economic disadvantages. It’s a question of damage limitation, nothing more; yet even now there are still politicians strutting around Westminster smugly trumpeting that it will be the EU that comes off worst if it doesn’t toe the line.
The EU is going to be dealing with a government that has no idea what kind of Brexit it wants, led by an unrealistic politician whose days are numbered; and a party in which old trenches are being opened up again: moderate Tories are currently hoping to be able to bring about a softer exit after all, but the hardliners in the party – among them more than a few pigheadedly obstinate ideologues – are already threatening rebellion. An epic battle lies ahead, and it will paralyse the government.
EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has said that he now expects the Brits to finally set out their position clearly, since he cannot negotiate with himself. The irony of this statement is that it would actually be in Britain’s best interests if he did just that. At least that way they’d have one representative on their side who grasps the scale of the task and is actually capable of securing a deal that will be fair to both sides. The Brits do not have a single negotiator of this stature in their ranks. And quite apart from the Brexit terms, both the debate and the referendum have proven to be toxic in ways that are now making themselves felt.
British society is now more divided than at any time since the English civil war in the 17th century, a fact that was demonstrated anew in the general election, in which a good 80% of the votes were cast for the two largest parties. Neither of these parties was offering a centrist programme: the election was a choice between the hard right and the hard left. The political centre has been abandoned, and that is never a good sign. In a country like Great Britain, that for so long had a reputation for pragmatism and rationality, it is grounds for real concern. The situation is getting decidedly out of hand.
After the loss of its empire, the United Kingdom sought a new place in the world. It finally found it, as a strong, awkward and influential part of a larger union: the EU. Now it has given up this place quite needlessly. The consequence, as is now becoming clear, is a veritable identity crisis from which it will take the country a very long time to recover.
Well spotted RM. Have you a source?
ps never mind, just found one!
That sums it up nicely really.
Separate names with a comma.