In the news

We found out a while ago that my wife's maternal grandmother smuggled people out of the Warsaw Ghetto.

Not relevant and a bit of a family brag but just wanted to share because fuck yeah, humans can be great.

If a Pole helped jews the Pole's entire family had a death sentence, the only Europeans this was applied to by the nazis. Still loads did.

relcima

I know it's only in the URL, but even by the Grauniad's standards this is bad.

On a more substantive point, I haven't seen 'The World at War' and didn't realise that there was this omission. I was personally very surprised when soon after the referendum there were hate crimes committed against Poles, e.g. the murder of Arkadiusz Jóźwik in Harlow or the attack on the Polish community centre in Hammersmith. Both Poles who came to the UK during wartime and those who came in the 00s clearly made a great contribution, as immigrants will, so perhaps the sort of disregard that is manifested in the documentary is a historical debt to British Poles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Arkadiusz_J%C3%B3%C5%BAwik

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/27/brexit-polish-centre-london-reeling-after-graffiti-attack

Oh I get that. I just wanted to make the point as I think for a certain age group it is probably their main source of knowledge of WW2.

It’s flawed but as I don’t know that later generations got better knowledge at school or on tv. My secondary education (80s to early 90s) had nothing I didn’t already know. That said, my grandparents and their siblings were adults during ww2 and between them had experience of the “home front”, occupied France, war in theatreS from Europe to the Far East and even as PoWs in Germany so I listened a lot to them.

The LB Hillingdon, home to the Polish War Memorial
at the eponymous roundabout of the A40,
has a Polish Trail to honour the Polish 303 squadron that was
based at the adjacent Northolt Aerodrome.

It's also worth remembering that no one involved in BLM has asked, or is really bothered by the TV shows being taken down, it's a distraction if anything, their goals are much broader. Most of this is being done because white people in charge feel it could be a bit dodgy and they feel uncomfortable about it and it shows them to be doing something, even if that something isn't really helpful. There's also the position that it winds up people who are in support of BLMs actual goals but distracting them with their beloved Fawlty towers being removed gives the right wing press something to dig in to, and changes the conversation from what's important, to stuff that really isn't.

Yep, agree.

My great uncle fought for Franco in the Spanish Civil War.

Swings and roundabouts learning about your family history

I wanted to say the same thing. We'll have headlines saying "ANGRY Protestors want to BAN Fawlty Towers for NON-PC language". Hooray, the issue of systematic racism boiled down to a trivial culture war non-issue that turns popular opinion against you. I wish people had learned from the backfiring XR train stunt.

Fucking Earth is a big ball of shite covered in dickheads

My Grandad was an arsehole English soldier in Ireland, although he never seemed like an arsehole. Burying him on Wednesday so I should really try and find out what he actually did, have a much better idea of what the other side of my family got up to in WW2.

So we (white people) should only do what the BLM movement is asking and not be proactive in taking stock of all the fucked up things we've put out over the years?

I get your point but I've heard a lot of white people over the last few weeks saying "I don't think we should do that" rather than "I'd like to understand why this is problematic and how/why it can offend people" before making there stance.

Not arguing, trying to discuss.

Not at all, but maybe try and concentrate on what is important first so that the action that is taken isn't just futile posturing that distracts from the important stuff, maybe do it later when it won't take up a load of headline space from what matters, unless, that's the whole point of doing it now.

Fair point. I suppose from my perspective I've seen a lot of questionable shit come out of John Cleese's mouth over recent years form his UK Trump appearance on Newsnight to easily perceived as racist comments on Twitter and in a local paper (London's no longer English...).

I loved Faulty Towers when I was a kid but it should off been addressed a while ago IMO.

I saw some headline today that said "PETITION TO CHANGE NAME OF WHITE CLIFFS OF DOVER" or something equally hollowly outrage-inducing. Didn't click on it, obvs.

*heard not seen...

Totally, but it's not as important right now as the systematic problems that need addressing, pulling a TV show isn't going to fix those, but it will annoy the PC gone mad crowd.

WHERE WILL IT END!!!!
etc

Is this perhaps being slightly misreported?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/12/distancing-rules-meant-crosscountry-rail-staff-didnt-spot-dead-man-for-five-hours

While I don't know how severe the heart attack was, it seems to me that it should rather be reported as 'because of social distancing rules, nobody (including fellow passengers) noticed that the man had had a heart attack and didn't come to his assistance'. It's quite conceivable that he might have benefited from immediate help.

Just smells of spin from the train company. Or is this nonsense, medically speaking, and I'm barking completely up the wrong tree?

It's also worth remembering that no one involved in BLM has asked, or is really bothered by the TV shows being taken down, it's a distraction if anything, their goals are much broader. Most of this is being done because white people in charge feel it could be a bit dodgy and they feel uncomfortable about it and it shows them to be doing something, even if that something isn't really helpful. There's also the position that it winds up people who are in support of BLMs actual goals but distracting them with their beloved Fawlty towers being removed gives the right wing press something to dig in to, and changes the conversation from what's important, to stuff that really isn't.

I agree that things like TV series are marginal, should be addressed in some way at some point (although with satirical comedy it's often a bit of a problem that to be hard-hitting it will be partly tasteless and it will be prone to being misunderstood where the writer's sympathies lie; just look at the way in which the 'don't mention the war' sketch has often been misunderstood as being a joke on the Germans and not on Basil Fawlty), but are currently a distraction and not at all a priority if the campaign(s) want(s) to keep momentum.

I read the other day that people had drawn up a list of about 80 statues that need to have something done with them. I'd say forget statues at the moment; the Bristol action was a good, mould-breaking moment, but the worst thing that can happen now is if it's endlessly repeated and made routine. It is important symbolism that it happened, but it's been done and now it's time for something else. I don't know what this will be (proper institutional change, e.g. the Metropolitan Police perhaps), but if they just try to fight battles about statues it'll all run into the sand quickly. I'm sure there are already people doing other, better things, so hopefully they will get heard in the press, and the image- and sensation-minded press (including the section of the press that is probably already thinking of ways of killing it all off again) won't get the chance to spin it all off into distractions.

I agree with the statues thing too, the Bristol thing was great, the fact that it's led to change already with others getting looked at is great in the way it shows that protest does achieve things, but getting bogged down in arguments about which should removed and consentrating on that rather than the bigger reasons for pulling down the Colston one in the first place is just shifting focus.

The Fawlty Towers thing is so fucking depressing on every level.

It's such a bullshit spin piece. And will probably only have negative outcomes. If it were accompanied by an announcement about how they were going to tackle current issues in their organisation it might be meaningful.

Reading this I do wonder if there is an element of sweeping it under the carpet from the creators in a way. To keep something available to people but opening out with an explanation would be very much standing up and accepting you were wrong. However, if they remove the program completely they have a small amount of 'that program has a lot of issues' but then it is quickly gone and they can move on with their lives and effectively ignore it themselves. In the example of Little Britain say, if the BBC were to remove it from everything then it's just gone, and in a weeks time that's it. The creators, those involved elsewhere and the people who were in charge of commissioning it never really stand up and accept that they have done something wrong, and don't have to cringe every time they see a clip they created or were involved with have such a note at the start. They just sit back and continue tweeting about their new children's book.

and don't have to cringe every time they see a clip they created or were involved with have such a note at the start.

That combined with editing out the canned laughter is very appealing.

It won't just be gone, almost everything is kept forever now.