La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 I don't really agree that they were subversive though. Polari was secretive - a language that straight people couldn't understand. Subversive behaviour is that which challenges norms. But this language wasn't challenging anything. The same with Round the Horne. Often the innuendo has double meaning - that which everyone would pick up and that which straight people wouldn't understand (but gay people generally would). Though this latter meaning was also someting of a secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 LDV you need to listen to them or read the scripts. Julian and Sandy was very subversive and pre 1967 the fact it was on radio was challenging norms more than you seem to understand. Problem is the world has changed so much and you are young and dont seem able to imagine the impact for isolated gay men and on social accetpance that small steps like that had, and the plays of Joe Orton which were actually probably more challenging and subversive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 LDV you need to listen to them or read the scripts. Julian and Sandy was very subversive and pre 1967 the fact it was on radio was challenging norms more than you seem to understand. Problem is the world has changed so much and you are young and dont seem able to imagine the impact for isolated gay men and on social accetpance that small steps like that had, and the plays of Joe Orton which were actually probably more challenging and subversive Orton, yes, i'd forgotten about him. Reading 'A Prick up Your Ears' was an 'eye-opener'.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peelmanx Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Getting back to the original topic, why have we heard nothing from the landlord? Could it be because it was his wife who dealt with the rental and the reason these women were refused tenancy had nothing to do with their sexuality? I have heard from someone who knows the wife in question and they tell a totally different tale. (Good the way the rumour mill works!). Apparently these women gave a bleeding heart story about being short of money and said that they couldn't afford the deposit, the landlords being good 'Christians' agreed to waive the deposit to help them out. Then when it came to signing the tenancy agreement the couple announced that they couldn't pay a months rent up front either. At this point the landlord, quite sensibly, refused them the tenancy. It had nothing to do with their sexuality, that was a sympathy card played by the women possibly in the hope of moving up a housing ladder. Puts a slightly different slant on things. If you don't agree with what I am saying or my right to say it think carefully before you say so. I may well play the racism card because I is Manx! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Getting back to the original topic, why have we heard nothing from the landlord? Could it be because it was his wife who dealt with the rental and the reason these women were refused tenancy had nothing to do with their sexuality? I have heard from someone who knows the wife in question and they tell a totally different tale. (Good the way the rumour mill works!). Apparently these women gave a bleeding heart story about being short of money and said that they couldn't afford the deposit, the landlords being good 'Christians' agreed to waive the deposit to help them out. Then when it came to signing the tenancy agreement the couple announced that they couldn't pay a months rent up front either. At this point the landlord, quite sensibly, refused them the tenancy. It had nothing to do with their sexuality, that was a sympathy card played by the women possibly in the hope of moving up a housing ladder. Puts a slightly different slant on things. If you don't agree with what I am saying or my right to say it think carefully before you say so. I may well play the racism card because I is Manx! Its amazing what retrospective rumours people can think up when 90% of the population have you down as a silly bigoted old c**t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Perhaps the time to advance this "real" reason was when you were interviewed by the radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Getting back to the original topic, why have we heard nothing from the landlord? Could it be because it was his wife who dealt with the rental and the reason these women were refused tenancy had nothing to do with their sexuality? I have heard from someone who knows the wife in question and they tell a totally different tale. (Good the way the rumour mill works!). Apparently these women gave a bleeding heart story about being short of money and said that they couldn't afford the deposit, the landlords being good 'Christians' agreed to waive the deposit to help them out. Then when it came to signing the tenancy agreement the couple announced that they couldn't pay a months rent up front either. At this point the landlord, quite sensibly, refused them the tenancy. It had nothing to do with their sexuality, that was a sympathy card played by the women possibly in the hope of moving up a housing ladder. Puts a slightly different slant on things. If you don't agree with what I am saying or my right to say it think carefully before you say so. I may well play the racism card because I is Manx! Ooh! What a lovely story! Does it have a nice ending? Do they all live happily ever after - in a little brown loaf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curiouser&curiouser Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 To spell it out: We are told that gays are discriminated against. They seek equality. In fact they have a pretty hefty lobby - starting right at the top. All the alphabet soup organisations are seemingly into positive discrimination. However, disabled, families etc suffer exactly the same discrimination in the property rental world yet who helps them? Some are seemingly more equal than others. PS Animal Farm is a comment on communism aka collectivism You seem to be falling for some sort of myth that there is some evil conspiracy around, without actually giving any details. Which "alphabet soup organisations are seemingly into positive discrimination" on the Isle of Man would those be then? Even if it were true of the UK (which I doubt), this sort of paranoid rhetoric that their Press produces and you are repeating may not apply here. More likely failure to tackle such discrimination is due to the usual mixture of laziness, incompetence, favouritism and pettiness that our bureaucracy specialises in. You particularly seem have missed the point here, which is about discrimination in the provision of services[1]. Any laws that would ban discrimination on the grounds of race or sexuality would almost certainly ban it on grounds relating to disability as well. Even if it didn't the "alphabet soup organisations" that represent the disabled on the Island (one of the strengths of life here) should be campaigning for it - you would hope successfully. [1] This means, by the way, that all the talk about allowing people to do what they want with their own 'private' property is nonsense. Once you start taking money for goods and services you are entering into the public world of commerce and all sorts of restrictions will and should apply. The gay issue is backed up right from the top global organisations down to local. We are probably not clever enough to invent things such as gay rights ourselves. Yes, there are disability protection laws but this is going into the area of private landlords - where the whole subject emanated from - where those on benefits eg the disabled and chronically sick are discriminated against on a regular basis - as well as families. I know this to be the case. I make no comment about whether this is right or wrong. It is simply a fact. And if it's wrong to discriminate aganst gays then how is it ok for others? Just saying.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Hypothetically speaking, of course, Imagine a little island and some of the key people had something in common Wichard Wutt editor of newspaper Stavid Xristian head of Council Dingus Dongus head of 10,000 employee firm Mickey Chuffinghouse ex top plod that would be formidable n'est ce pas? And you think they could form part of this lobby? None of those people are part of any group or united 'front' and none of them are involved in LGBT politics over here. There isn't even an LGBT group anymore. Why are you typing like a baby; who is Dingus Dongus and the Mickey Chuffinghouse? Well, it goes without saying that most of the island's priests and vicars are gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Are they? What about the one in Patrick, he is lovely looking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Are they? What about the one in Patrick, he is lovely looking? Some of them aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 The gay issue is backed up right from the top global organisations down to local. We are probably not clever enough to invent things such as gay rights ourselves. Yes, there are disability protection laws but this is going into the area of private landlords - where the whole subject emanated from - where those on benefits eg the disabled and chronically sick are discriminated against on a regular basis - as well as families. I know this to be the case. I make no comment about whether this is right or wrong. It is simply a fact. And if it's wrong to discriminate aganst gays then how is it ok for others? Just saying.... I don't really know what you're getting at. You seem to remarking on something completely banal and keep repeating this thing about families being discriminated. What exactly are you getting at? Who says it is ok for others to be discriminated against? And exactly how are 'families' discriminated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Are they? What about the one in Patrick, he is lovely looking? Some of them aren't. No, I meant Patrick Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Are they? What about the one in Patrick, he is lovely looking? Patrick obviously thinks-so.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 LDV you need to listen to them or read the scripts. Julian and Sandy was very subversive and pre 1967 the fact it was on radio was challenging norms more than you seem to understand. Problem is the world has changed so much and you are young and dont seem able to imagine the impact for isolated gay men and on social accetpance that small steps like that had, and the plays of Joe Orton which were actually probably more challenging and subversive I have listened to Round to Horne. And I imagine it had a big impact for many gay men. But I don't understand why you think it was subversive. Can you please explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.