Showing posts with label John Bercow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Bercow. Show all posts

Sunday, 9 February 2020

Book plug?


Hmm. What to make of this morning's Broadcasting House devoting a full twenty minutes to an interview with John Bercow? 

It was certainly a nice book plug for the anti-Brexit former Speaker. His book got several mentions.

But Paddy did well in challenging him on the bullying allegations and on picking up on his ad hominem mode of defence, deployed with no little malice against two alleged victims and other former colleagues during the interview, and pursued the bullying question further. 

Mr. Bercow is more Marmite than Marmite (calamari?), it seems. Twitter Remainers thought he came across brilliantly. I thought he came across as a thoroughly nasty piece of work. 

Monday, 4 November 2019

Short and Sweet

Justice for shorties. I’m framing this as an “Asa” post. 

Asa member of the vertically challenged community  - actually there’s nothing communal about it, I resorted to ‘grouping’ terminology through laziness - anyway, “Asa Kylie-sized / all the best things come in small packages” and representative of short-arses everywhere, I would like to make the case for making size-ism a hate-crime. 

They say Randy Newman was making a subtle point (about prejudice) but many people took those mean lyrics at face value. 

If you’re short you are disadvantaged. Fact. Through no fault of your own. You can’t change it - well you can have an operation to get your legs lengthened (you don’t hear so much about that op these days. I wonder how it panned out? ) whereas physically down-sizing ourselves is neither an option nor an aspiration.  You could wear elevating shoes, which only makes people laugh at you even more than (absolutely) necessary.

Some people don’t reveal their lack of stature until they stand up. And the opposite. Who’d have thought Huw Edwards was a giant before they saw him towering over Mary Berry. Sitting at the newsdesk he looks distinctly average.

Being short makes people disrespect you. To assume one’s childlike height means one *is* a child shouldn’t. be. allowed.

Standing next to a tall person is humiliating for a little'un as well. For both of you, true, but more so for the shorty. Think of Hammond and Clarkson.  The differential between Hammond and giant Clarkson is literally the elephant in the studio.

Oddly, when I was at school I never acquired a shortist nickname, though I was the same size as the class  ‘titch’. The only nicknames I acquired were derivatives of my surname.  I like to think that was because my personality was tall. 

If you apply bog-standard logic to the definition of racism, eg., by reducing it to the simple matter of hard-wired (“hardware”) meaning inherent characteristic that you’re lumbered with (racial and  genetic) as opposed to ‘software’ -  add-ons - religious, cultural or ideological,  then shortism certainly qualifies as racism.

This is not fair. Take John Bercow. A large part of the vitriol aimed at Bercow includes derogatory and demeaning references to his diminutive stature. But he isn’t freakishly small. Below average, perhaps. So, was this about the impertinence of a jumped-up, not-tall-enough individual assuming he had the authority of 'we giants' ? Or merely because the haters thought that such a huge amount of pomposity had no business coming from someone under six foot? Let’s face it, some of our political bigwigs are huge. With massive feet too, I shouldn’t wonder. Boats for shoes.

Shortist remarks abound. Remember Sarkozy? I suppose the fact that Mrs Sarcozy and Mrs Bercow tower above their 'old men' adds to the humiliation, though some short man/tall wife combos seem to think it’s something to show off about.

making a virtue out of necessity

If you’re genuinely handicapped size-wise, certain types of jokes are off-limits. Only ‘laughing with you, not at you” jokes are allowed. I wonder what would happen if Warwick Davis reinvented himself as a politician? Cue jokes about standing for office. Warwick Davis for Speaker! No quips about high-chairs then, I’ll wager.

Anyway, I demand protected status. 

Monday, 21 October 2019

Ordure, ordure


As soon as I heard, yesterday, that John Bercow had it within his powers to rule against a new Meaningful Vote today I knew tit was all over for MV3. There was no way on earth Speaker Bercow would ever do anything to help Brexit, so rule against it he inevitably would. And, lo and behold, this afternoon he has. 

A similar thought must have crossed Nick Robinson's mind because this is what he tweeted an hour or so ago:
Breaking news - The Speaker rules that it would be “repetitive & disorderly” for the government to put Johnson’s Brexit Deal to a Meaningful Vote today. In other news Pope is Catholic.  
After a complex & verbose statement John Bercow finally says what he means “The House should not be continually bombarded with requests to consider the same matter over & over & over again” or be “brow-beaten, harrassed or intimidated”.
Mr Bercow is so impartial he should seriously consider becoming a BBC journalist.

Thursday, 10 October 2019

Silence


The news which broke yesterday that John Bercow has discussed Brexit with David Sassoli, president of the European parliament, in private has struck many people as being a story of potentially huge importance. 

According to The Times, Mr Sassoli told MEPs yesterday that “Speaker Bercow and I were very much on the same wavelength regarding the importance of the roles of our respective parliaments in managing Brexit. We share an awareness that a chaotic exit of the United Kingdom . . . would work to the detriment of citizens on both sides.”

So has the EU been bypassing the UK government and talking directly to John Bercow about how to delay Brexit? 

I think we should be told (including by Mr Speaker).

Now, back on blog-related matters, some are saying that the BBC has ignored the story.

Using TV Eyes, I've checked yesterday's UK TV coverage and found that the story was discussed on Kay Burley and Mark Austin's programmes on Sky (twice on Kay Burley's show) and on ITV's Peston programme (an interview with Andrea Leadsom) but that Mr Sassoli and Mr Bercow's conversation didn't get any mention on BBC TV. 


As for UK radio, TV Eyes shows lots of talk about it on LBC and Talk Radio but there's been nothing about it on BBC radio.

So, yes, it does look as if the BBC is ignoring the story.

If anyone hears or sees the BBC mentioning it (as TV Eyes isn't infallible) please let us know.