Kilroy. Silk or Sow ?

[Dreadful Scathe]

So what did everyone make of the Kilroy Silk article?

I think its a bit out of order to talk of sacking the man.
Why did they see fit to suspend his tv program (terrible
though it is)? The whole idea of a free press is surely that
columnists get to publish their thoughts for
others to read without having to stick to political
correctness. Have you ever read tabloid columnists? Total
drivel most of the time and its almost always offensive to
someone.

The fact that there was no uproar whatsover when
the article was published in April 2003 but there is now that it has
been accidently reprinted, may well be because people can see kudos
in it for themselves to denounce the man at this time. (It was the same
newspaper, its not as if its circulation has changed a great deal).

Perhaps the BBC were thinking: 'oh look, we can increase our own standing with
some minoritys by simply disowning Kilroy'.
In April 2003 there was an invasion of Iraq going on, so they would
have been going against public feeling to say anything then, and Im sure they
realised that. So why does one man take the fall for political correctness?

read more here (http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/comment/0,7493,1120601,00.html)

[CJ]

Whilst it might not be a bad thing to take every ignorant buffoon of our TV's, it would drastically reduce our programming.

That said, if we ARE to do it, let's do it for the right reasons. Do it, cos he's a smarmy, self interested ignoramus with too much attention to aesthetics (doesn't wear Hipsters, does he?!?) and his programme is dross: not because some paper paid him for the preivelage of printing his somewhat misguided thoughts.

(AT this point, I should admit to not actually reading said article, but heard it once on radio. Would like to read it tho...)

[Gus]

Good points. What I'm curios about, and so far all the coverage I've seen has managed to avoid is what exactly did he say?.

If he said that ALL Arabs were terrorists, oppressors etc. .. the he is wrong ... if he said SOME were ... then he is correct. The oppression by some major arab countries is well know, YET IGNORED by the Western Governments because it wants their oil and work contracts. The Saudi ruling family have a value set that would not sit comfortably with the UK public ... but because of how much money they are worth to the UK economy you rarely hear them critisised.

So ... what did he actualy say?

[Chicklet]

Not sure of the details, would like to but haven't had the time to check up .....but I have heard that John Simpson (the one who is slightly less than 100 and won't be dancing in the seniors as far as we know) has been "banned" from publishing any more (of his excellent) books while employed by the BBC.

Anyone else heard this?....is the above then perhaps not an isolated incident but an extension of the same ruling - ie that employees of the BBC will not display their own thoughts to the masses for fear that they are assumed to be those of the BBC?

[xSalsa_Angelx]

If you miss Kilroy, then you have too much time on your hands DS, get out and find yourself a real job and stop whining... :rofl:

personally I thought that the man was an annoying little weasel, (only time I watched him was if i happend to be off work sick and there was nothing else to watch)

[CJ]

Originally posted by xSalsa_Angelx
If you miss Kilroy, then you have too much time on your hands DS, get out and find yourself a real job and stop whining... :rofl:

personally I thought that the man was an annoying little weasel, (only time I watched him was if i happend to be off work sick and there was nothing else to watch)

And so democracy gets thrown, arse first, out the window...

[Stuart M]

I found a copy of the article online here (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1055475/posts). It's typical Express fodder - generalising, ignorant, and rabble-rousing. He constantly refers to "they" when apparently talking about the behaviour of Arab governments, for example. And the line "They should go down on their knees and thank God for the munificence of the United States" is just hilarious. As to claiming "we owe the Arabs nothing", well if Arab civilisation had never existed we'd have to do without mathematics or music as we currently know them...about the level of ignorance of other cultures you'd expect from an MP.

That said he should be at liberty to say it - as long as most people are reasonably well educated, it simply shows him for the idiot he is. Censoring him would leave us one step closer to the resurrection of ludicrous laws like blasphemy, which is exactly what some of those criticising him would like. :mad:

[Dreadful Scathe]

Originally posted by xSalsa_Angelx
If you miss Kilroy, then you have too much time on your hands DS,

"If I miss Kilroy" ? I make a point of missing Kilroy ? Not that I ever watch daytime TV anyway :)


Can't find the entire article but heres a good summary.
The piece was entitled "We Owe the Arabs Nothing"

Mr Kilroy-Silk's piece started: "We are told by some of the more hysterical critics of the war on terror that 'it is destroying the Arab world'. So? Should we be worried about that?"
Mr Kilroy-Silk went on to say that the toppling of despotic regimes in the Middle East should be a war aim, and questioned the contribution of the Arab nations to world welfare and civilisation.
"Apart from oil - which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the West - what do they contribute? Can you think of anything? Anything really useful?... No, nor can I...
"We're told the the Arabs loathe us. Really?... What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on 11 September and then danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders?"
He said Arab nations should be grateful for the aid and technology the West had provided.
"They should go down on their kness and thank God for the munificence of the United States."
He also branded Arabs "suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors".

No different to the usual drivel you got in tabloid columns and on par with the Daily Mails asylum seekers campaign
from a while back and the many Sun and Mirror campaigns. It just seems that him being 'hung out to dry' is entirely down to politics and nothing else.

Apparently the police are going to investigate him for inciting racial hatred. However people like Abu Hamza (the muslim cleric who collects almost £1000 a WEEK plus free housing in benefits despite being openly anti British,american, christian, hindu and a supporter of Al Qaida ) can make comments like (9/11 was a "gift from god") and
(The space shuttle crash was punishment from allah) with no one batting an eyelid. Just to show up the BBC's hypocrisy, they paid Hamza £1000 to appear on a radio show to preach his hate, yet Kilroy is sacked for something which didnt even appear on the bbc.

Im quoting a lot of this from elsewhere, but it presents an interesting picture. He is saying what a lot of people are thinking, and usually in that case it is also your newspapers offical line. It clearly WAS the offical line when it was published it was just mistakenly republished when it was NOT.

Of course his article is tarring all Arabs with the same brush (again though no different from the many 'asylum seekers are spongers' compaigns) and the "dancing in the streets [celebrating] the murders" bit is highly dubious. The footage at the time of palastine kids dancing was the reaction they ALWAYS give when faced with a TV crew and can you blame a few adult palastinians with guns (6 or 7 were caught on CNN camera i think) for being happy about 'getting one over' on a country that supports Israel with apparantly no thought for them? Harsh, but how can they have a concept of what a big deal it would to America when they see people die in their streets every day? "Lots of people died" , "yeah, so, i see that all the time"

I dont like the article or its tone in the same way I dont like the vast majority of tabloid columns and what they have to say, this one does particularly stand out from the crowd.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Originally posted by Stuart M
It's typical Express fodder - generalising, ignorant, and rabble-rousing. He constantly refers to "they" when apparently talking about the behaviour of Arab governments, for example.

Yup. Typical nonsense. Well found Stuart. :)


Originally posted by Stuart M

And the line "They should go down on their knees and thank God for the munificence of the United States" is just hilarious.

Indeed :D The Daily Mail used pretty much the same line before the invasion of Iraq, they had a front cover of American Soldiers running up the beaches in France in WW2. All Europe should bow before America :).


Originally posted by Stuart M
That said he should be at liberty to say it - as long as most people are reasonably well educated, it simply shows him for the idiot he is. Censoring him would leave us one step closer to the resurrection of ludicrous laws like blasphemy, which is exactly what some of those criticising him would like. :mad:

Exactly my point, it would be nice to think we could get such a thing as a "Free Media". Its something we should at least strive for !

[Jive Brummie]

I've a feeling that political correctness is on the verge of becoming suppression of free speech.
I'm not suggesting that I agree nor disagree (sitting on the fence), with Kilroy Silk. But I do feel he has as much right to express his views as the next man. If you don't like his TV programme...switch it off. If you don't like what he's written in a newspaper...don't read it. To me it really is as simple as that.

I've not read the article or seen the interviews so I s'pose I can't really comment. But rather than flame the bloke for saying something that the entire world doesn't agree with shouldn't we actively encourage this sort of thing. Here's this man who's not afraid to speak his mind and people are all too willing to have a go.....maybe because they all think that that's the right thing to do....or are they all being led by pier pressure......????

Isn't it a shame that more politicians and people in power are not more alike the silver fox that is kilroy....:confused:

James......:cheers:

[Dance Demon]

Thats one of the great things about living in a democracy that allows people to air their point of view. i agree with JBs comment about political correctness. I read the daily Mirror on a Monday and a thursday, because I like reading Tony Parsons, and Brian Reade. Here are two guys who are not afraid to air their views, and sometimes their views are controversial. Sometimes they say exactly the opposite of the main Editorials in the paper, however the Mirror does not threaten to sack them, or remove their column from print because of this. I happen to agree with some of the remarks that Kilroy made....( I wont say which ones )
The BBC have no right to take action against Kilroy for remarks made in a newspaper that they have no jurisdiction over.....If the remarks were made on his TV show, that would be different.

[Chris]

The article struck me as incredibly uninformed - which I find far more irritating that the somewhat misconstrued offence we are told it has caused some people. I was invited onto his show once and almost regretted accepting - he is a man of considerable skill IMO who insults his own intelligence almost as much as Michael Moore (who gets some crucial things right, like his comments on Iraq and Bush, and other crucial things totally wrong, like his comments on N.Ireland.)

There is nothing wrong in calling a spade a spade, but in this instance I hardly think it will get the result he hoped for (that the suicide bombers would present their arguments). Most of the Arabs seem pretty weak at putting their arguments on such issues clearly in Western terms, or lose credibility by overinflating their rhetoric. For some balanced and informed comment, try Salman Rushdie or even The Economist. For an understanding of the Israel-Palestine question and why it is so central to east-west relations, just switch off from Geo Bush and do some homework on google.

[Lynn]

Originally posted by Chris
The article struck me as incredibly uninformed...
I also feel that the article seemed to be written out of ignorance – as if the writer had got all their information from newspapers (not always know for their clarity of facts!), which surprised me from Kilroy Silk (not that I have ever read anything else he has written). There seemed little knowledge or understanding of the culture it was describing and the statements were too broad and sweeping. It did seem to be a piece written not just to give a personal opinion, but to stir up others.

Coming from a country where both sides ‘demonise’ and dehumanise’ the other side, I have found that such an approach is rarely useful comment. An informed, balanced critique, is a much more helpful way of expressing any feelings of injustice.

I do feel though that the BBC has over-reacted, especially as this was the second time the article has been published.

There are cultures and countries that are oppressing people and things do need to be said, a voice raised on behalf of those who do not have the freedom of speech we enjoy, but perhaps that voice should come from within the culture?

[Chris]

Originally posted by Lynn
There are cultures and countries that are oppressing people and things do need to be said, a voice raised on behalf of those who do not have the freedom of speech we enjoy, but perhaps that voice should come from within the culture?

It does happen sometimes I think but it does require a knowledge of both cultures to express the concerns of one in the context of the other. In the present conflict, both sides see the other as totalitarian (not accepting of the other side's culture) and to a great extent this is probably true. Both sides represent their cases in absolute terms - the U.S. tells many lies told about oil and arms and puts democracy on a pedastal that can be disproportionate and inappropriate for developing countries: on the other hand, the greatest tolerance for cultural differences cannot easily excuse atrocities against women and mass murder. The Iranian lawyer Shirin Ebadi (current Nobel Peace Prize Winner) is an 'inside' voice, but even though she exposes, quite objectively, many injustices in the Middle East, these things cannot easily justify the massive supply of arms to Israel, the ignoring of UN mandates concerning Israel, the self-serving interference in middle-east politics by the U.S. and the further demonising of Arab states as 'terrorists in the axis of evil.'

Kilroy's job is to engineer studio arguments. It's not Newsnight Review, it's a 9am show aimed at people who like to see a 'bun fight'. What he does he does quite well, and there was little reason (as far as I can see so far) for the BBC to suspend him; but on popular issues he's little more than the hand that stirs a little wooden spoon.

[Chris]

Originally posted by Lynn
Coming from a country where both sides ‘demonise’ and dehumanise’ the other side, I have found that such an approach is rarely useful comment. An informed, balanced critique, is a much more helpful way of expressing any feelings of injustice.


And what a fascinating country it is. I occasionally read 'Fortnight' magazine which sometimes gives some balanced critiques I think.

[Chris]

Originally posted by Dance Demon
The BBC have no right to take action against Kilroy for remarks made in a newspaper that they have no jurisdiction over.....If the remarks were made on his TV show, that would be different.

I'm afraid I would agree with your sentiments I think but not your reasons.

The BBC have every right to take action for something he did outside of the programme if they think it affects his ability to host the programme effectively - as they did with the 'Have I Got News For You' compere or various other personalities.

They might make the wrong decision (and I think in this case they made the wrong one) but they clearly have the right IMO, morally and legally.

[stewart38]

The hypocrisy is so alarming here

If Kilroy had said the same about the Jews no one would have butted an eyelid

Its interesting on the radio show they had on this the presenter going off on a tangent mentioned the Pop idol winner and said

"if you want to see a fat women sing" go to the opera

What he had said that about a 'black person'

[Stuart M]

The BBC's internet magazine has a decent article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3398887.stm) today about the Kilroy Silk stramash, by a Julian Baggini.

[Jayne]

Sorry but IMHO the posts made in this thread have missed the point.

The basic thing underlying all of this is that the BBC is a public service provider. It is supported by monies raised from the TV licence. The TV licence is required by anyone who has a terrestrial receiving TV. The BBC is therefore supported by the public. The BBC therefore has to be an unbiased (or equally biased) broadcaster. Therefore its programmes and presenters must either be unbiased or have "an equal an opposite force". Through his comments published in the paper RKS was anti-Arab without compromise or a balancing argument. The BBC cannot be seen to be employing (and therefore supporting) such a biased view/individual. RKS's programme was therefore suspended.

It's not about freedom of speach. He is perfectly entitled to free speach - but as a prominant BBC presenter he cannot be seen to be impartial. If he was a newspaper journalist alone then there would be no problem with making the comments he made - but he's also part of the BBC. Now he's not part of the BBC he can be as anti-Arab as he wants to be.

J

PS I'm not making any comment at all on the validity of his comments and I'm not supporting him - just trying to explain the reasoning as I understand it as to why he can't make such comments and still work for the BBC.

[Lynn]

Originally posted by Jayne
Sorry but IMHO the posts made in this thread have missed the point.

The basic thing underlying all of this is that the BBC is a public service provider. It is supported by monies raised from the TV licence. The TV licence is required by anyone who has a terrestrial receiving TV. The BBC is therefore supported by the public. The BBC therefore has to be an unbiased (or equally biased) broadcaster. Therefore its programmes and presenters must either be unbiased or have "an equal an opposite force". Through his comments published in the paper RKS was anti-Arab without compromise or a balancing argument. The BBC cannot be seen to be employing (and therefore supporting) such a biased view/individual. RKS's programme was therefore suspended.


But what does that then say about the fact that the BBC took no action against him the first time this article was published, last year. That they did support him then over those same comments?

Is any broadcasting channel or newspaper unbiased?

[Jayne]

I believe that the original article was published as part of a "debate" over the validity of going to war in Iraq. As such, a "balancing" opinion was published alongside RKS's. This second publication was not published with an equal and opposite, which was the basis of the problem. (This is what I gather, although I'll stand corrected).

The non-BBC channels can be as opinionated as they want to be. ITV (Independent television) is funded independtly from public funding ie it receives private funding and therefore will broadcast the views of however pays. If RKS has sufficient money he can pay for a half hour slot on a non-BBC channel and present his views, no problem. (again this is to the best of my knowledge and I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong).

J

[Lynn]

Originally posted by Jayne
I believe that the original article was published as part of a "debate" over the validity of going to war in Iraq. As such, a "balancing" opinion was published alongside RKS's. This second publication was not published with an equal and opposite, which was the basis of the problem.
Not aware of the original setting of the first publication, thanks for pointing that out. It would be interesting to know if there were any complaints the first time it was published and if these were ignored? Do you think it was the fact of this opposite view also being expressed that was the reason the BBC took no action at that time, or the timing in relation to the Iraq war?