"Tim Fenton" wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

It's not a case of things being directly attributable to the Tories, or
any
other party: the adventures of Tim Smith, Neil Hamilton, Tim Yeo and
goodness knows how many more could not reasonably be personally
attributed
to John Major, but they played their part in the severity of his defeat
in
1997.

As is often the case after a Govt. has been in office for so long they
often look
tired by comparison with a hungry opposition which also has never had the
opportunity to make mistakes. Or been subject to the vicissitudes of
"Events, dear boy events".

The point I was making was simply that none of this was directly
attributable
to Harold MacMillan.

Did I assert that any of it was?

....

No. But the poster I was intially responding to, did,

....

MacMillan, like any incumbent PM, was
identified with all manner of stuff that was not directly attributable to
him. That's happening right now. It's what happens.

Macmillan's own daft fault for going there and sitting in the
auditorium
where Cook could see him.

Only an unmitigated arsehole such as Peter "comic genius" Cook would
ever
insult
somebody in public who had no means of replying in kind.

He shouldn't have gone there. Same for anyone else in the public gaze.

I see. So that according to you, somebody who suffered three wounds in
defence
of his country in WW1 shoudn't dare venture into a theatre in the Capital
of
that country 40 yrs later, for fear that he'd be directly insulted from
the stage
with no possibilty of reply ?

Are you seriously suggesting that ?

As someone who has paid his taxes and behaved in a generally lawful manner
over the past decades, I know that using this as a merit badge will not make
it appropriate for me to venture into a variety of areas and/or institutions
which would be more suited to folks of different outlooks, ages and so on.

Had I been a former soldier who had been wounded in action, this would not
have changed things. Those on stage frequently take the **** out of audience
members - Barry Humphries as Dame Edna used to be particularly hard on late
arrivals - and at no time do they take the precaution of asking how they
feel about it, or their personal history.

....

Those late arrivals are relative nobodies, not people in the public eye. Dame Edna
quite possibly singled people out on account of their atrocious clothes as well.
However having had their ten seconds in the spotlight these people will then sink
back into welcome obscurity for the rest of their lives.


....

OK Cook knew who he was ridiculing. But MacMillan should not have gone. A
little basic research would have put him straight.


So Cook was in the habit of singling out well known members of the sudience
for ridicule was he ? He had a history of it, did he ? This being at a time
when interviewers still used to call politicians "sir" on radio and TV.




Cook was for many years a major supporter and
shareholder of Private Eye,

It was either that or spend the dosh on booze or drugs I imagine.

Doesn't help being so mean spirited, even though I'd readily agree that
Peter Cook was a flawed individual.

Not quite as mean spirited as humiliating someone in the public eye from
the stage of a public theatre however.

You're never going to get over that, are you?

Other than that, the fact that Peter Cook chose to publicly and knowingly
waste his latter years in a drink filled haze is entirely up to him.

As have many figures in the public eye, not least Churchill, Wilson,
Thatcher and goodness knows who else. Your point is?

....

First up, Churchill, Thatcher, and Wilson were at a relatively advanced age
had lost General Elections and were no longer leading and would never again
their parties. Unlike our Comedy Hero who had a good twenty more years
of writing and performing ahead of him. What's more Churchill Thatcher and
Wilson didn't **** away their remaining vestiges of talent by phoning local
talk radio stations in the middle of the night in the guise of a Swedish
lorry driver called Sven. Again, no comparison.

....






Most if not all the best stuff in the Eye was the work of Paul Foot.

Ingrams and co often simply voiced their middle class prejudice agains
gays
jews and sundry others.

Many individuals did (and still do) contribute to the Eye. It's always
been
a team product. Ingrams himself was the source of the attitude towards
gays
for so many years but of course the mag had contributors who were gay,
notably Tom Driberg, who did so many of the crosswords ("Tiresias"). I'm
not
aware of any anti-semitic leaning:

Maybe not. Its just unfortunate that two of the Eyes biggest
adversaries/betes noir
down the years Maxwell and Goldsmith both happened to be Jewish and also
"pushy outsiders". Not that the latter applies to all Jewish people by any
means
of course.

There were many other figures, such as Wilson,

Same as every other P.M. Bailley Vass, Sailor Heath, Heathco etc etc.

....

Bill Deedes,

Eh ?

Whenever did the Eye get stuck into Bill Deedes ? Shome Mhishtake surely ?



Harold Evans,

Only because he couldn't take a joke. "There is nothing like a Dame".


and of course dear old Rupe,


Only about his latest, oriental wife giving him handjobs. Not much different
to Vere Harmsworth and Peter Cook in that respect as it happens. Otherwise
the Digger got no more stick in the Eye than did any other press baron.
Other than the aformentioned baron and wannabee baron.




who ITYF are not Jewish.

No, it's not a case of making enemies: Macmillan was inherently enough of
a
snob to not want Butler, who he didn't regard as sufficiently upper
crust,
succeed him.

Butler didn't have the killer instinct and cunning which necessary for all
politicians to claw their way to the very top.

So MacMillan, by inference, posessed the killer instinct and cunning, but it
was off limits to take the **** out of him.


Singling out public figures from the stage in a public theatre and subjecting
them to ridicule is always off limits. Yes.


michael adams

....








--
Tim
http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/
http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

The point I was making was simply that none of this was directly
attributable
to Harold MacMillan.

Did I assert that any of it was?

No. But the poster I was intially responding to, did,

At last a small concession.


OK Cook knew who he was ridiculing. But MacMillan should not have gone. A
little basic research would have put him straight.

So Cook was in the habit of singling out well known members of the
sudience
for ridicule was he ? He had a history of it, did he ? This being at a
time
when interviewers still used to call politicians "sir" on radio and TV.

Let me put you straight on one thing, Michael.

I'm not a naughty schoolboy, and if you persist in treating me like one, it
won't do you any good. Got that?

Cook's attitude to authority in general, and to Mac in particular, was well
known. Fact.

Other than that, the fact that Peter Cook chose to publicly and
knowingly
waste his latter years in a drink filled haze is entirely up to him.

As have many figures in the public eye, not least Churchill, Wilson,
Thatcher and goodness knows who else. Your point is?

First up, Churchill, Thatcher, and Wilson were at a relatively advanced
age
had lost General Elections and were no longer leading and would never
again
their parties.

Churchill spent much of WW2 in an alcoholic haze, and so he was indeed
"leading". Wilson had to have his fix to get through PMQs, and so he too was
leading. Thatcher's increasing use of the bottle, especially during the
difficult times domestically or when locked in negotiations with other
European and World leaders, has been aired many times. It was during the
period that she, too, was leading.

Unlike our Comedy Hero who had a good twenty more years
of writing and performing ahead of him.

You've got a problem with Cook. I realise that. I have no problem with you
calling him whatever you like. But I also am entitled to put a counter view
if I wish.

Singling out public figures from the stage in a public theatre and
subjecting
them to ridicule is always off limits. Yes.

It happened. He should not have gone. Get over it.

--
Tim
http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/
http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, michael adams wrote:

Singling out public figures from the stage in a public theatre and
subjecting them to ridicule is always off limits. Yes.

No, singling out public figures and subjecting them to ridicule is always
fine. In any context. That's part of what being a public figure means.

You really do have some very strange ideas.

tom

--
If a scientist were to cut his ear off, no one would take it as evidence
of heightened sensibility -- Peter Medawar

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
th.li...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, michael adams wrote:

Singling out public figures from the stage in a public theatre and
subjecting them to ridicule is always off limits. Yes.

No, singling out public figures and subjecting them to ridicule is always
fine. In any context. That's part of what being a public figure means.

You really do have some very strange ideas.


So that anyone who believes they can make a positive contribution to society
and may become a public figure as a result, is a fair target for public
humilation and ridicule are they ?

Presumably they should instead do nothing except stay at home in front of
their computers in their pyjamas or underpants if they so choose where
while stuffing themselves with pizza or jaffa cakes they can safely type any
old rubbish they like, about anyone, even under an assumed name if they so
choose.

Isn't Usenet wonderful!



michael adams

....





tom

--
If a scientist were to cut his ear off, no one would take it as evidence
of heightened sensibility -- Peter Medawar

On 2009-09-28 18:58:23 +0100, Tom Anderson said:

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, michael adams wrote:

Singling out public figures from the stage in a public theatre and
subjecting them to ridicule is always off limits. Yes.

No, singling out public figures and subjecting them to ridicule is
always fine. In any context. That's part of what being a public figure
means.

You really do have some very strange ideas.

tom

Being insulting to the person is childish, boorish and ill-mannered.
One may well have differences of opinion about policies, these can be
debated, but being rude is not acceptable. It was not as if Macmillan
had been found with his nose in the trough as some of our current crop
of MPs and peers are allegedly wont to do.
I remember the 'Establishment' incident as I was a 21 year old student
in London at the time - even then I found the incident left a bad taste
in the mouth.
--
Robert

On Sep 28, 10:58*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, michael adams wrote:
Singling out public figures from the stage in a public theatre and
subjecting them to ridicule is always off limits. Yes.

No, singling out public figures and subjecting them to ridicule is always
fine. In any context. That's part of what being a public figure means.

You really do have some very strange ideas.

Until Michael pointed it out, I had been unaware of Harold MacMillan's
WWI record. That alone commands respect. It makes him a better man
than me. He is certainly superior cook. But, why in the world put
himself in the firing line of cook's abuse.