A Cat May Not Look At A King

[poliphilo]

The near universal condemnation by politicians and journalists of Philip Schofield's act of lese-majeste is a scary reminder of just how monolithic the British establishment is. 

The matter Schofield tried to raise goes to the heart of power. It's not about policy; it's personal. If certain pillars of the state are criminals of the basest, meanest kind and all their colleagues-  politicians, journalists, the judiciary- have conspired to protect them...well- let's just not go there! Sue him, sack him, grind him into the dust- and spare your tears for the powerful men whose reputations he has besmirched!

Challenge the establishment- I mean really challenge it, not just make jokes about it-  and you hit a force field.

Comments

[ooxc.livejournal.com]

I'm doing a complicated mental gymnastic manoeuvre here, because I think that you are both right - but only up to a point.
I'm deeply unhappy about "trial by Internet"- and I don't only mean this incident. Yes, of course, someone had to deal with the discussions on the Net - but handing over a list of names on camera wasn't the way to go about it, even if the names hadn't been momentarily visible.
Yes, it was the act of a concerned citizen - that's exactly why it was inappropriate. A professional journalist should be much more aware (than a concerned citizen) of the dangers of "rumour and finger-pointing".

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I think when a very great crime has been covered-up- and there's a suspicion the establishment would prefer it to stay that way- there's a good case for acting outside the usual parameters.

[ooxc.livejournal.com]

Indeed - but that doesn't excuse naming people that have nothing to do with the case. The whole case is now rendered dubious and ill-founded