Posted on

Vote for York City

Still flushed with excitement at York City’s decisive won over Luton Town in a cup, in the Collings & Herrin Election Week Podcast Debate Special [now available at the usual place] we provide balanced, fair and impartial coverage of the Gillian Duffy affair (which one of us missed because he was up the Spanish Steps in Rome), the potential outcome of a Labour or Lib Dem victory on the terrifying future without Page 3 and with Gary Glitter, the theological ins and outs of Deep Throat (was it in black and white, or were we?), the Amazon Hunting and Fishing Humour chart, the efficiency of letting Mr Bean deliver the nation’s polling cards, and the proximity of the failed car bomb in Times Square to ITV. Richard gets out of his system all the adult material he can’t use on our family show on 6 Music, and Andrew tries to use up all the jokes he thought up for 7 Day Sunday but couldn’t squeeze in. Buy Jim Bob’s novel. And thanks for the Cava and Mini-Eggs, Rose.

WARNING: This podcast is one hour, six minutes and 40 seconds long, as we had it on manual again.


About collinsandherring

We are.

19 responses to “Vote for York City

  1. Disappointing that you got the Frankie Boyle thing wrong, difficult to see how that was fair and balanced as you claim in the blog.He is obviously free to make jokes about Israel but given the rise in anti-semitism it's vital to not fall into the trap of Jew = Israeli, it is not a small difference people are being subjected to discrimination and violence because people don't know or don't care about the difference. That was the subject of the complaint and why the BBC upheld the ruling.His response on Chortle was not well argued and was essentially wrong. Israel is not an apartheid state it has equal rights for all citizens. Clearly the settlements outside the borders are wrong and depend on segregation but this is not the same thing it isn't based on racial supremacy as in South Africa. Also talking about 'well drilled lobbying' in this context is a lazy attempt to confuse the issue – the ruling was based on one complaint in 2008 so why mention the Gaza appeal in 2009?The intro on Chortle is particularly poor, what has the ethnicity of the host got to do with anything? Change it to a comment about black people with a black host and it sounds quite different?There are plenty of things Israel does that are wrong and I don't agree with but I didn't hear any attempt to acknowledge that there are two, or more, actors in this conflict. We should all support a better life for Palestinians but Israelis and Jews are not the same and do not have the same interests.

  2. Where did you get the "fair and balanced" bit from? To be honest, you're better off not expecting a thorough political debate from our podcast. It's not really what we do. The issue is vast and complex, and not really suited to the nonsense we record here. I personally felt that Boyle's response was surprisingly well argued in terms of the BBC and his own personal feelings. He certainly didn't try to score cheap points, or indeed, shy away from commenting at all, as he has with the Down Syndrome complaint. We cannot be held responsible for the way the Chortle article is written either. Take that up with them. I think, listening back, we understood the problem with Frankie's original joke, which was the clouding of the Israeli/Jew issue, so give us a bit of credit, and remember we are just talking shit for an hour a week.

  3. Incidentally ,the "fair and balanced" line was joke. Also, we write the blurb for our blog in the space of seconds. You seem to be picking a fight with the wrong two people here.

  4. 2 replies for the price of one! Comments were about the podcast not the blog and I kind of knew fair and balanced was a joke……Not picking a fight just a big fan of the podcast and the rest of what you both do and was disappointed on the side of the argument that you came down on in the podcast. On second listen what RH was arguing was basically right. Although it's not pedantic to insist that a distinction is made between Jew and Israeli – not when Jews are held responsible for the acts of a country they have no control over. However as he refuses to listen to the podcast and hardly ever posts here this point maybe somewhat lost.I was only commenting about your view of the letter and you are right the Chortle comments are nothing to do with you.Off to read my brand new copy of How Not to Grow Up now so will leave it there.

  5. I was absolutely arguing that Jew does not equal Israeli. That's pretty much all I said on the subject as far as I recall. Though to be fair I forget what I've said the minute it's come out of my mouth on these things.

  6. Anonymous

    What was the swearing that was snuck into the music show? I didn't get it.Pete Fletcher

  7. I didn't get it either, Peter. But Richard said "come" twice, which is rude if you spell it "cum", which he had done, legitimately, in Scrabble, GEDDIT?!

  8. Anonymous

    Ah, thanks! I heard him say "coming", and wondered whether that was it, but it seemed a bit tame from the master who brought us "there's only one king, wan king" and "fu fu fu fu fu king".Pete Fletcher

  9. Richard – agreed that was the main point you made and certainly the blog you mentioned was a very balanced piece of writing.

  10. can we have the old laptop recording back?

  11. joyfeed

    Just to say, other Peter Fletchers are available. This one is me, the one above is not me. Cheers!

  12. Anonymous

    Please do not discuss the election at all in your next podcast as it will be:a) out of date by the time Orange Dave posts itb) have been covered endlessly elsewhere (like Newsnight just now)c) a podcast with no clear outcome as it will be wooly Labourite Collins vs Tory Boy Herring with no third party to represent the views of your metropolitan middle-class audience.Instead please do a non-topical podcast looking back at 13 years of labour rule from the Iraq war to the destruction of civil society/liberties.ThanksMr Tony Gilpatrick

  13. Anonymous

    Thanks for repeatedly saying "cocks" in the latest 6music show, Richard! Made my weekend!Kevin Eldon (as the real Rod Hull) once managed to say "you pesky meddling TWATS" in TMWRNJ. Was that scripted and permitted? You and Stew both looked genuinely anxious at that moment, and when he then went on to say: "I'll do whatever I ffff…lipping well like!"I'd love for you to discuss some of these things (and the kinds of boundaries you were / weren't staying within) in one of the future Collings and Herrin podcasts, if possible! Thanks if you do, but no worries if you don't because I'm loving your podcasts anyway.Pete Fletcher (not the same person as joyfeed, above)

  14. Anonymous

    I am Jewish, and I have to say that I felt a little shudder when I heard Andrew talk about how it was a well considered piece of writing.I found it unambiguously antisemitic, especially when it started lying about secretive "lobbies" and so on. The original joke was one thing. Provocative. Multi-layered. Fine.But the prose "justification" frightened me. More so that people of the left seemed to give it credence. Andrew, you genuinely did seem to think it was a "well thought out" piece of writing. Shudder.

  15. Since I am not anti-semitic you have no need to shudder, Anonymous. (Be nice if you actually posted under a name, rather than hid behind anonymity, but I'll afford you the respect of an answer even though you haven't afforded me the respect of giving even a made up name.) I thought it was "well thought out" in terms of kicking against the overreaction of the BBC in backing down. Surely we're over the idea that you can be dubious of Israel's behaviour – and he was talking about the Israeli army, specifically – without being accused of anti-semitism. I know prejudice can come in subtle forms, but my view of Boyle's open letter was that it was a much more thoughtful and honest defence of the joke – which was taken out of context anyway – than I expected from him, as he chose to remain silent about the Down Syndrome joke and the reaction to it. (Not that any of us have seen that, so it's hard for us to comment.)Richard and I identified the obvious problem: that Frankie had used the word "Jew" not "Israeli" or "Israeli soldier", but I don't think he was being antisemitic in this instance, and I certainly wasn't being either. If anything, I think it's good that we're discussing it.I'm not sure you have this is perspective, but I respect the fact that your position is a much more sensitive and loaded one than mine, as I am not Jewish. There are "lobbies", both secret and explicit, on both sides of any political situation. It is perhaps a weakness of the kneejerk left, of which I am a fairly upfront member, to take the side of the invaded over the invader, of the less powerful over the more powerful. I accept this as a fault. But it's certainly not a position arrived at through prejudice of any ethnic or religious group. Take that as read.

  16. Anonymous

    Thanks for responding, Andrew. Genuinely.I prefer to post anonymously at the moment, but if you want a made up name you can call me Shylock :-)As ever, nobody would suggest that criticism of Israel is antisemitism. That would be silly. HOWEVER:1) Focusing on Israel as if it were a unique nexus of evil – particularism – is suspicious. People who go on about it, passionately, but seem not to care about similar or worse conflicts elsewhere are suspicious. People who have a strong appetite to boycott everything associated with Israel, but don't care about boycotting places like China or Saudi Arabia are suspicious. People of the left who "mistakenly" link to people like David Duke, and basically use the word "Zionist" to mean "Nazi" are suspicious. And, indeed, people who basically constantly evoke the Holocaust and suggest that Israel is inflicting a Holocaust on the Palestinians (so, that's "1 all" then and European guilt is wiped out!) are suspicious.2) You are not an antisemite. I quite agree and accept that. But please be careful to ensure that the simple rhetoric of "invader" vs "invaded". Part of the problem is seeing Jews as being weird foreigners in the Middle East, who invaded some sort of Republic of Palestine from Europe. In fact, Jews have been present in the Middle East for thousands of years. A huge proportion of the Jews in Israel today are basically Arab Jews who fled there from Arab countries in which they were no longer welcome, for example!Everything is much, much more complicated and nuanced than the "goodies" vs "baddies" narrative to which both the left and the right cling. You are a thoughtful, shades of grey man, and I trust you'll extend your perspicacity there :-)Thanks, again, for not just deleting my comments but in taking the time to respond. And sorry for the anonymity.

  17. Shylock, despite appearances (and let's not stray too far from the fact that this is a pretty stupid comedy podcast), I am well informed on the history of Israel, having read Martin Gilbert's Israel. It is, though, a complex issue, and a land with a complex and fraught history, so you're right that there are no clear goodies and baddies in the region, except when one with military might and the backing of the United States uses it against the one without those luxuries. By the way, I don't have a magic solution to the problem, and let's not forget this country's decisive role in the problems there: we declared Palestine a national home for Jewish people in 1917 (albeit with the clear caveat that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"), leading to partition and the declaration of independence in 1948, at which point pretty much everybody invaded, Israel fought them off, joined the UN with a lot more territory than it started out with; this cycle has pretty much continued ever since. I don't think we should be frightened to criticise Israel out of some spurious holocaust guilt. And I don't think you're suggesting that we should be. Shades of grey indeed. Now, back to the stupidity and swearing.

  18. Anonymous

    Andrew. I'm certainly not suggesting we should be. I'm suggesting that people who enjoy pretending that Israel = Nazis are suspicious. It would be as if people constantly spoke of Obama's healthcare policies as "a re-introduction of slavery" through some convoluted process just to get a dig in.Whatever else is the case, most rational thinkers would agree that going to anti-Israel protests and the like combining the Star of David with a Swastika (as I saw carried by perfectly ordinary UCU members at a recent ralley) is … agenda filled ;-)Anyway, yes, back to the swearing and thanks once again for the talk.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s