I was feeling quite down about one thing and another. Then I turned on the TV and learned that a protester had thrown a pot of paint at Charles and Camilla's Bentley and it cheered me up no end.
I've now managed to track down some pictures, thanks, and yes I can see that there was a rather ineffective attempt to set fire to the tree. (Clearly the protestor concerned hadn't been in the Scouts.) I suppose it wasn't as photogenic as Charles and Camilla, hence its being tucked away rather.
As you can see, my pre-convictions, as you call them, are quite easily swayed in the face of evidence, with or without scare quotes. If you can cite any to substantiate the claims that you made earlier and which I questioned, I will read it with interest.
Thank you - and congratulations, by the way, on the draw. I appreciate your taking the time.
I have also, as it turns out, misjudged you, not having realised until now that "G. M. W. Wemyss" is a richly comic persona, rather than a human being. (I hope those scare quotes meet your exacting standards.) I feel rather foolish, in fact, and unable to say how much of what you have written in the Telegraph you would wish to stand by in real life. Given the place of publication, however, I think it's safe to say that many of your readers take you as being "on the level," so I will answer on that basis.
You actually crept under my guard, in places. I entirely agree about the outburst of sentimentality post-Diana. It bemused me at the time, and made me wonder whether I was living in a more emotional and, frankly, Mediterranean clime. On the other hand, I don't see any real connection between that and the justified anger that occasioned the recent demonstrations in London and elsewhere. The poll tax riots would be a more appropriate comparison, surely. Margery Kempe, I'm afraid to say, strikes me as a red herring. There are too many other factors involved in her particular brand of lachrymose mysticism to make the analogy enlightening - although there is of course a long tradition of civil disobedience within England that is too often smothered beneath the 15-tog duvet of post-Enlightenment rationality. Thus far, no doubt we agree.
However, you rather shifted the terms of the argument in suggesting that those who took part in acts of vandalism were largely public school pupils. That kind of Bullingdon/Woosterism is clearly something you'd know more about than I would, and I wish you joy of them, but what I asked about was the make up of the protesters as a whole. Your suggestion that other students might not be sufficiently mobile ignores a) the existence of public transport, including National Express, and b) the fact that London is not the only city in England, and that protests were also taking place in Leeds, Bristol, Sheffield, etc.
Having said that, I must record my admiration of the two arguments by which you did try to address the question more... well, 'directly' would be overstating it, but at least you gave it a go. They were wonderfully complementary.
The first was an act of erasure. As an opening move, you reduced the number of universities to Oxbridge (plus, oddly, one foreign university, Trinity College Dublin), noting that their students are largely taken from independent schools. Reluctantly, you then extended the same observation to a selection of Russell Group unis. The thousands of students who took part from other institutions were thus rendered "beneath your notice", and cut from the account. I, however, knowing many of them, can assure you that they exist and are real human beings (much like the dustmen and charwomen you so much admire), and considerably more so than your Beachcomberesque alter-ego.
The second strategy was the opposite of the first. Where the first was top-down (or haut en bas) the other was bottom-up. It asserted that everyone who took part in these (perfectly legal) protests was as guilty as the worst vandal, because they knew that this was an event where vandalism, etc., was likely to take place. That's an interesting argument, which would imply, for example, that any poor Tommy who enlists in the army is as guilty as the people who order and commit atrocities, because - let's face it - atrocities and war go together like soft-boiled egg and Marmite soldiers. I'm sure Tony Blair will be grateful to you for spreading the blame so thin.
Anyway, it's been real, wemyss. I'm sure your article will go down a storm, amongst those with ears to hear and eyes to read.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: Come, come.
Date: 2010-12-11 06:57 pm (UTC)As you can see, my pre-convictions, as you call them, are quite easily swayed in the face of evidence, with or without scare quotes. If you can cite any to substantiate the claims that you made earlier and which I questioned, I will read it with interest.
As you requested.
Date: 2010-12-12 05:26 pm (UTC)I can now watch the rest of the Spurs match against the Rent Boys with a clear conscience.
Re: As you requested.
Date: 2010-12-12 07:25 pm (UTC)I have also, as it turns out, misjudged you, not having realised until now that "G. M. W. Wemyss" is a richly comic persona, rather than a human being. (I hope those scare quotes meet your exacting standards.) I feel rather foolish, in fact, and unable to say how much of what you have written in the Telegraph you would wish to stand by in real life. Given the place of publication, however, I think it's safe to say that many of your readers take you as being "on the level," so I will answer on that basis.
You actually crept under my guard, in places. I entirely agree about the outburst of sentimentality post-Diana. It bemused me at the time, and made me wonder whether I was living in a more emotional and, frankly, Mediterranean clime. On the other hand, I don't see any real connection between that and the justified anger that occasioned the recent demonstrations in London and elsewhere. The poll tax riots would be a more appropriate comparison, surely. Margery Kempe, I'm afraid to say, strikes me as a red herring. There are too many other factors involved in her particular brand of lachrymose mysticism to make the analogy enlightening - although there is of course a long tradition of civil disobedience within England that is too often smothered beneath the 15-tog duvet of post-Enlightenment rationality. Thus far, no doubt we agree.
However, you rather shifted the terms of the argument in suggesting that those who took part in acts of vandalism were largely public school pupils. That kind of Bullingdon/Woosterism is clearly something you'd know more about than I would, and I wish you joy of them, but what I asked about was the make up of the protesters as a whole. Your suggestion that other students might not be sufficiently mobile ignores a) the existence of public transport, including National Express, and b) the fact that London is not the only city in England, and that protests were also taking place in Leeds, Bristol, Sheffield, etc.
Having said that, I must record my admiration of the two arguments by which you did try to address the question more... well, 'directly' would be overstating it, but at least you gave it a go. They were wonderfully complementary.
The first was an act of erasure. As an opening move, you reduced the number of universities to Oxbridge (plus, oddly, one foreign university, Trinity College Dublin), noting that their students are largely taken from independent schools. Reluctantly, you then extended the same observation to a selection of Russell Group unis. The thousands of students who took part from other institutions were thus rendered "beneath your notice", and cut from the account. I, however, knowing many of them, can assure you that they exist and are real human beings (much like the dustmen and charwomen you so much admire), and considerably more so than your Beachcomberesque alter-ego.
The second strategy was the opposite of the first. Where the first was top-down (or haut en bas) the other was bottom-up. It asserted that everyone who took part in these (perfectly legal) protests was as guilty as the worst vandal, because they knew that this was an event where vandalism, etc., was likely to take place. That's an interesting argument, which would imply, for example, that any poor Tommy who enlists in the army is as guilty as the people who order and commit atrocities, because - let's face it - atrocities and war go together like soft-boiled egg and Marmite soldiers. I'm sure Tony Blair will be grateful to you for spreading the blame so thin.
Anyway, it's been real,
Dear me.
Date: 2010-12-12 08:37 pm (UTC)And, as you note, if not perhaps as fully as you might, we agree on rather more than you might think. We'll leave it at that, I think.