Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Is Sir Michael Parkinson within his rights?

732 replies

flaviaritt · 07/11/2020 14:51

Says men are funnier than women. He says, ‘It's a very contentious statement, but they're much better'.

My view is that, by the age of 85, if you think men are funnier than women, it’s just your opinion based on your experience and nobody should be getting riled up about it.

Reasonable?

OP posts:
HannaYeah · 16/11/2020 21:29

Well, it’s at least consistent with the general tone here of avoiding any self-reflection or personal responsibility.

user1471565182 · 17/11/2020 05:52

CENSORED!!!!! (by being printed in a national newspaper)

Warpdrive · 17/11/2020 06:06

His daughter in law is a comedian, she was in a show on Hanney 4. Bet she loves him now. Lol

Warpdrive · 17/11/2020 06:07

*channel

Original poster
flaviaritt · 17/11/2020 06:59

CENSORED!!!!! (by being printed in a national newspaper)

But I have not said he has been censored. I have used the word censored, but if I said “I did not get shat on by a pigeon” I would not be saying I had been shat on by a pigeon.

I am using the word censored because that is what some people imply should happen when someone expresses an opinion they do not like.

OP posts:
Pumperthepumper · 17/11/2020 07:33

@flaviaritt

CENSORED!!!!! (by being printed in a national newspaper)

But I have not said he has been censored. I have used the word censored, but if I said “I did not get shat on by a pigeon” I would not be saying I had been shat on by a pigeon.

I am using the word censored because that is what some people imply should happen when someone expresses an opinion they do not like.

How will they hear that opinion if the person has been censored? You’re still not making any sense.

Have you looked up freedom of speech yet? You’ll find it very informative.

SueEllenMishke · 17/11/2020 08:22

I’m not confused. I am interested in people’s reactions in terms of his right to free speech. This shouldn’t be confusing at all (it is obvious from all my posts). But if it is confusing you then we can leave it.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean what you think it means.

Original poster
flaviaritt · 17/11/2020 08:53

It means exactly what I think it means.

OP posts:
Pumperthepumper · 17/11/2020 08:56

@flaviaritt

It means exactly what I think it means.
It really doesn’t, if you think MP has the right to say whatever he likes without people getting riled up. From your OP:

My view is that, by the age of 85, if you think men are funnier than women, it’s just your opinion based on your experience and nobody should be getting riled up about it.

And that’s without all the talk of censorship being heaped on top of it.

SueEllenMishke · 17/11/2020 09:09

@flaviaritt

It means exactly what I think it means.
So you think people are free to make sexist comments without consequences? How about racist comments? Comments about people with disabilities?

I mean if we all have freedom of speech there would be no issue would there? Oh, wait ......

Original poster
flaviaritt · 17/11/2020 09:13

So you think people are free to make sexist comments without consequences?

In some contexts (like this one) he is free to make statements that you consider sexist (although as discussed, I don’t). As has already been discussed, he has broken no laws. There are laws against hate speech - this isn’t hate speech. He just finds men funnier than women. There are no legal consequences to that - thank God - as we don’t live in an authoritarian state where people (generally) get to tell other people what they are allowed to think and say.

And with regards to the other examples you raise, well, it would depend very much on what he said and the context for what he said.

OP posts:
Pumperthepumper · 17/11/2020 09:18

@flaviaritt

So you think people are free to make sexist comments without consequences?

In some contexts (like this one) he is free to make statements that you consider sexist (although as discussed, I don’t). As has already been discussed, he has broken no laws. There are laws against hate speech - this isn’t hate speech. He just finds men funnier than women. There are no legal consequences to that - thank God - as we don’t live in an authoritarian state where people (generally) get to tell other people what they are allowed to think and say.

And with regards to the other examples you raise, well, it would depend very much on what he said and the context for what he said.

You didn’t discuss it, you just said it’s not sexist, which isn’t true. That’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a fact.

Your Op, and absolutely none of your subsequent posts, suggest your problem is with legal consequences of free speech. Your OP is saying people shouldn’t get ‘riled up’ by his sexist opinion. That has absolutely nothing to do with his right to free speech. Nothing.

Here’s an example - black people are less funny than white people. Racist or not?

ImNotMeImSomeoneElse · 17/11/2020 09:20

So you think people are free to make sexist comments without consequences?

I think it's a great thing that people are free to make sexist comments.

Otherwise how do you know how much of a twat they really are? The consequences are that people see the real them, and can choose to have nothing more to do with them.

What consequences do you think would be acceptable for speaking their own truth just because some people don't like it?

Pumperthepumper · 17/11/2020 09:22

There are no legal consequences to that - thank God - as we don’t live in an authoritarian state where people (generally) get to tell other people what they are allowed to think and say.

This also isn’t true. Again, google free speech and you’ll save yourself so much embarrassment - Tesco can absolutely tell people what they’re allowed to say if that person is shouting racist statements at the top of their voice in one of their shops. They can force them to leave. Twitter can refuse to host people like Katie Hopkins for being offensive. Your neighbours can stop you saying whatever you like in their house by asking you to leave.

Honesty, please please google this before you try to have a conversation in real life about free speech. I’m mortified for you, and you’re just a stranger on the Internet.

Original poster
flaviaritt · 17/11/2020 09:23

What consequences do you think would be acceptable for speaking their own truth just because some people don't like it?

Well, indeed.

OP posts:
SueEllenMishke · 17/11/2020 09:23

In some contexts (like this one) he is free to make statements that you consider sexist (although as discussed, I don’t). As has already been discussed, he has broken no laws. There are laws against hate speech - this isn’t hate speech. He just finds men funnier than women. There are no legal consequences to that - thank God - as we don’t live in an authoritarian state where people (generally) get to tell other people what they are allowed to think and say.

What he says was sexist though. It's just that you don't understand sexism. Just because there are no legal consequences doesn't make that any less true.

And with regards to the other examples you raise, well, it would depend very much on what he said and the context for what he said.

Ah I get it now. You're a troll. Nobody in their right mind would actually say this.

Pumperthepumper · 17/11/2020 09:24

@ImNotMeImSomeoneElse

So you think people are free to make sexist comments without consequences?

I think it's a great thing that people are free to make sexist comments.

Otherwise how do you know how much of a twat they really are? The consequences are that people see the real them, and can choose to have nothing more to do with them.

What consequences do you think would be acceptable for speaking their own truth just because some people don't like it?

Exactly! The OP thinks people should be able to make sexist statements without people ‘getting riled up’ because of ‘free speech’. That’s not true, and has never been true. The consequence is - people get riled up. As is their right to free speech 😂
Original poster
flaviaritt · 17/11/2020 09:28

What he says was sexist though. It's just that you don't understand sexism.

This is a simple difference of opinion. As (we are agreed) he is perfectly at liberty to say it, this is a good example of the legal right to say something that others disagree with or even resent.

And no, I am not a troll. Being told I am not in my right mind is the moment I stop replying to you, though.

OP posts:
goldenharvest · 17/11/2020 09:32

Gets on my fucking tits. Professional Yorkshireman living in the South. Sexist too

SueEllenMishke · 17/11/2020 09:35

@flaviaritt

What he says was sexist though. It's just that you don't understand sexism.

This is a simple difference of opinion. As (we are agreed) he is perfectly at liberty to say it, this is a good example of the legal right to say something that others disagree with or even resent.

And no, I am not a troll. Being told I am not in my right mind is the moment I stop replying to you, though.

It's the very definition of sexism. It's just that you don't agree with the widely used definition. That's not how it works.

You've also essentially said you think racist comments and comments about disability are acceptable 'depending on the context'.
Again, that's very much not the case and,quite frankly, is the time I stop replying to you as I don't engage with people who hold those disgusting views.

SaskiaRembrandt · 17/11/2020 09:41

Is Sir Michael Parkinson within his rights?

Surely a more pertinent question is why would anyone care what Michael Parkinson thinks?

Original poster
flaviaritt · 17/11/2020 09:42

Surely a more pertinent question is why would anyone care what Michael Parkinson thinks?

No, my question was pertinent to what I wanted to discuss.

OP posts:
Pumperthepumper · 17/11/2020 09:46

@flaviaritt

What he says was sexist though. It's just that you don't understand sexism.

This is a simple difference of opinion. As (we are agreed) he is perfectly at liberty to say it, this is a good example of the legal right to say something that others disagree with or even resent.

And no, I am not a troll. Being told I am not in my right mind is the moment I stop replying to you, though.

When you’re googling free speech, google the difference between fact and opinion.

His sexist statement isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s an absolute fact that what he said was sexist. But you know that.

Pumperthepumper · 17/11/2020 09:46

@flaviaritt

Surely a more pertinent question is why would anyone care what Michael Parkinson thinks?

No, my question was pertinent to what I wanted to discuss.

Which is what? It’s not sexism, it’s not free speech, it’s not bias, it’s not racism - so what is it?
SaskiaRembrandt · 17/11/2020 09:49

@flaviaritt

Surely a more pertinent question is why would anyone care what Michael Parkinson thinks?

No, my question was pertinent to what I wanted to discuss.

Fair enough. You care about the opinions of celebrities, other people don't.