Emma Barnett (Women’s Editor for the Daily Telegraph) is by all accounts a privileged and educated person ("She writes news, comment and features across the channel and the newspaper. An award-winning radio presenter, from October 2014 she will present a weekly Sunday show on BBC Radio 5Live. Emma also makes Radio 4 documentaries, guest presents Woman's Hour and sometimes appears on the telly.").
Therefore is seems unusual that she should write such a wilfully ignorant article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11307743/I-took-on-a-racist-and-he-threw-his-hot-chocolate-at-me.html
For all her obvious education Ms Barnett does not seem to have received any instruction in the Classics, otherwise she would be familiar with the phrase In vino veritas.
The drunken young man whose "racist" views she found so offensive was simply telling her what he really thinks. Loosened by alcohol from usual constraints and inhibitions he voices what is in his mind. Freed by drink from fear of repercussions he acts in the way he wants to act - which includes verbal and physical violence towards the classes of people he sees as tormenting him.
If Emma Barnett knew more white working class men she would know that what this young person said was remarkably mild and absolutely representative of their views towards immigrants and privileged media toffs (for in his eyes Daily Telegraph Women's Editor Emma Barnett is a privileged media toff).
Of course, all violence must be regretted. The violence of the thrown hot chocolate must be condemned. But equally the passive-aggressive violence of the toffee-nosed media do-gooder (as Ms Barnett must have presented herself) should also be condemned.
That Emma Barnett was thinking violent thoughts is revealed to us in her phrase: "My temples throbbed as I felt unable to suppress the urge to silence him."
Thank goodness Emma Barnett does not have dictatorial powers otherwise the young man might have been silenced for good.
And do these words not sum up for us the immense disconnect in this country over immigration? We have the words of the majority (crudely but sincerely expressed by the young man) contrasted with the media elite represented by Emma Barnett whose one urge was to silence him. One can be appalled by this exchange on public transport, but one cannot deny the claim that the majority of working class people are not allowed to talk about immigration.
Of course it is possible that the working class majority in the United Kingdom will remain silenced on a permanent basis.
But it is equally possible that their anger will explode, in which case Emma Barnett might have worse things thrown at her than hot chocolate.
Therefore is seems unusual that she should write such a wilfully ignorant article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11307743/I-took-on-a-racist-and-he-threw-his-hot-chocolate-at-me.html
For all her obvious education Ms Barnett does not seem to have received any instruction in the Classics, otherwise she would be familiar with the phrase In vino veritas.
The drunken young man whose "racist" views she found so offensive was simply telling her what he really thinks. Loosened by alcohol from usual constraints and inhibitions he voices what is in his mind. Freed by drink from fear of repercussions he acts in the way he wants to act - which includes verbal and physical violence towards the classes of people he sees as tormenting him.
If Emma Barnett knew more white working class men she would know that what this young person said was remarkably mild and absolutely representative of their views towards immigrants and privileged media toffs (for in his eyes Daily Telegraph Women's Editor Emma Barnett is a privileged media toff).
Of course, all violence must be regretted. The violence of the thrown hot chocolate must be condemned. But equally the passive-aggressive violence of the toffee-nosed media do-gooder (as Ms Barnett must have presented herself) should also be condemned.
That Emma Barnett was thinking violent thoughts is revealed to us in her phrase: "My temples throbbed as I felt unable to suppress the urge to silence him."
Thank goodness Emma Barnett does not have dictatorial powers otherwise the young man might have been silenced for good.
And do these words not sum up for us the immense disconnect in this country over immigration? We have the words of the majority (crudely but sincerely expressed by the young man) contrasted with the media elite represented by Emma Barnett whose one urge was to silence him. One can be appalled by this exchange on public transport, but one cannot deny the claim that the majority of working class people are not allowed to talk about immigration.
Of course it is possible that the working class majority in the United Kingdom will remain silenced on a permanent basis.
But it is equally possible that their anger will explode, in which case Emma Barnett might have worse things thrown at her than hot chocolate.
No comments:
Post a Comment