The Orwell Prize

[The Real PapaBear 0]

The phrase first entered my head whilst standing in the pouring rain in Cologne watching Jim Denny man-mark Pierre Littbarski. We lost 5-1.

 

LOL! I'll just wipe the coffee off my laptop then, shall I?

[forlanssister 3,114]

The Orwell Prize hasn't had much luck of late, first the farce that is Johann Hari now the farce that is the Rangers(non)taxcase.

[Kenzie1 0]

Excellent piece, TBH. Usual standards maintained.

[EDGE 0]

Superb OP, great read!!

[amms 0]

Brilliant stuff, well done.

 

I don't believe 26th of Foot and Andy Steel are the same person but great minds clearly think alike. Andy's take on the Orwell Prize.

[ian1964 10,724]

Shaming Orwell

 

When I was at night school some years ago I got access to the library at Glasgow Uni. Having already read a book of George Orwell's fantastic essays, the first shelves I headed for were the ones (there are several) with his work on them. Homage to Catalonia, The Road to Wigan Pier, plus all the essays and criticism you could hope to read: fantastic stuff.

 

I will admit to finding his novels a little bit of a let down, coming after mind expanding critiques of Charles Dickens or Salvador Dali. Animal Farm at least has the benefit of brevity, but the sense of immediate impact has inevitably faded after some 70 years; while Coming Up For Air is locked in a struggle between a timeless criticism of capitalism and the small mindedness of the bourgeois and the dating of a story written in the 30's and set around the end of the century.

 

All of the man's writing, though, shines out with passion, vigour, clarity and a sense of injustice. What a loss to the Socialist movement Orwell was! Impossible though it is to say with any certainty 'what might have been', he could surely only have been an asset.

 

At least he has not suffered the inevitable fate of all writers, the gradual fading away of work and reputation until all that is left is a few die hard academic types, vainly arguing to have this or that writer's work be included on this years reading list, and pressing dog eared copies upon barely interested undergraduates with all the enthusiasm of the unfulfilled fanatic.

 

Far from this ignominious outcome, Orwell lives on not just through his work but also through the fairly high profile (in the world of letters, at least) Orwell Prize, awarded each year to the writer or writers whose work has best lived up to the principles Orwell ferociously fought for and believed in. Most collections of Orwell's work open with his essay 'Why I Write' (1946), in which he sets out these principles. They are 'sheer egoism', enthusiasm, a desire to provide the truth for posterity, and the desire to change the world in the direction you would wish it to go. So far, so uncontroversial.

 

But in a more or less contemporaneous essay, 'Politics & The English Language' (also 1946), Orwell sets out the ways in which these lofty ideals are bastardised and corrupted for narrow political ends. Amongst others, he picks out 'meaningless words' as one of the ways untruths, half-truths and even truth itself can be kicked out of its senses by unscrupulous writers. Marxist jargon, things like hyenas, jackals and so on, which is applied regardless of context, ends up by constant use and misuse as being utterly meaningless; likewise super-technical invented words, something the English language excels at, but which are generally used to cover a degree of ignorance.

 

If you consider Orwell's lofty disdain for such grubby attempts at writing, add to it his contempt for people who allow expediency to outweigh principle (see, for example, the second half of The Road to Wigan Pier), you are left wondering what version of George Orwell it was that the judges of last year's Orwell prize to the contemptible 'RangersTaxCase' blog.

 

Taking the opinion that Rangers FC were guilty of tax evasion, continually repeating this, ensuring this message was disseminated throughout like-minded newspapers, broadcasters and fellow bloggers, RangersTaxCase was left looking a bit daft earlier this week when some kind of court found Rangers FC not guilty of said charge. Not the only ones left looking silly...The Orwell Prize is devalued horribly by this pitiful piece of low football rivalry. I assume rivalry was the motivation behind the judges decision, for if it was based on an objective assessment of the facts they have no business being anywhere near anything associated with the great Englishman's name.

 

The continual repetition of words like 'cheating', 'financial doping', and 'corruption' now have about as much meaning in a Scottish football context as 'outstanding', 'skillful', and 'not utterly mediocre'; a person or persons the judges considered fit to be the recipient of the Orwell Prize practices many of the things the man himself found repugnant. What an insult to the man!

 

I doubt very much if a tawdry bit of tax avoidance being reported in a cretinous manner will do anything to harm Orwell's reputation. But the prize that bears his name, and which I had previously thought top notch for honouring the almost-equally-as-brilliant-as-Orwell Clive James, can award itself a prize this week. The first and hopefully last 'Bringing Shame on Orwell' rosette goes to these judges; may they never sit on the panel again.

 

http://andypendek.blogspot.co.uk/201...ng-orwell.html

[26th of foot 6,082]

Stripping the RTC blog of it's Prize.

 

Seriously, how would this work?

 

I take it that the prize will be in three parts : something on a plinth, a certificate, and possibly a cheque. Who was/were the recipient/recipients? We know the site has been vanished into the blue nowhere, is the Orwell Prize awarded for an ephemeral notion?

 

On the theme of notional ephemera, I note BBC Scotland announcing the arrest of a 37 year old from Glasgow in relation to the RTC blog. I suspect this will be a Rangers supporter sounding off on a disappeared site, moderated by the anonymous. The PF's rationale to proceed in protecting the sensitivities of an anonymous ephemeral notion marks the arrival of the Thought Police.

[Zappa 0]

Superb piece yet again 26th.

 

I'm sure they'll get to keep their prize and gleefully show it to their freckled grandchildren, telling them "we tried to destroy Rangers and got a prize for it".

Edited November 24, 2012 by Zappa

[26th of foot 6,082]

I listened to both BBC Radio Scotland and Radio Snyde over the weekend.

 

Stuart Cosgrove is almost THE voice of BBC Radio Scotland these days, he appears on the airwaves on at least five seperate shows. He hosts/co-hosts four of them. He has several hours each and every weekend to advance his particular polemic. He brought up the FTT on four of these shows, the well rehearsed presentation did not waver. He emphasised the majority verdict, lionised Dr Heidi Poon's contribution, utilised some examples of her judgement, and placed the verdict's year long delay squarely at the door of Mr Red(SDM).

 

Further, the RTC blog was then discussed on each show in lieu of the FTT. He continues to lionise it, it remains seminal in the new journalism of social media superceding the older broadcast and print means. He claims the veracity of the information on the blog was unquestionable, that Rangers supporters regularly participated on it's pages, thus could claim neutrality and objectivity, and reminded those listening that the blog was a worthy winner of the Orwell Prize. At no point did Stuart mention the accurate information had been achieved through access to information that should never have reached the public domain ie it was deliberately leaked to the specific source. Surprisingly, Stuart also forgot to mention the blog disappeared within an hour or so of the verdict.

 

Now, Stuart did apologise, .............. for a specific. He said sorry for previously saying Rangers had gone under with debts of £135million. He accepts the figure is almost a £100million lower in light of the verdict. This 'apology' allowed him to go on and deliver a most subjective appreciation. I propose Cosgrove be appointed the Orwellian Minister for Truth, do I have a seconder?

 

As for Snyde, Jim(ra Tim)Delahunt uncannily mirrored Cosgrove's performance. Right down to the same examples of Dr Heidi Poon's contribution. The usual suspects continue to sing from the same hymn sheet, it's just a different hymn sheet since the demise of the RTC blog.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

. I propose Cosgrove be appointed the Orwellian Minister for Truth, do I have a seconder?

 

 

Seconded.

 

I think we also have to ask the question whether Stuart Cosgrove's position on football shows has become untenable.

 

'Off the Ball' is supposed to be a comedy show but when one of the presenters has slandered, libled and defamed the most supported club in the country, and thus alienated the many, many thousands of license-fee paying listeners who tune(d) into that show, it can be argued that he is no longer able to do the job. The show, with Cowan and AN Other could possibly still survive, but with Cosgrove as part of it, the show is dead.

 

I was, until the start of this tax/EBT thing, an avid listener to the show and I never bought into the supposed anti-Rangers agenda of Cowan and Cosgrove - and with regard to Tam Cowan, I still don't. Cowan regards us with the healthy contempt that the supporter of a small club *should* regard the country's biggest club. That's fair enough and perfectly reasonable.

 

Cosgrove, however, is a different issue altogether. His vitriol and barely disguised bigotry is clear to every Rangers fan and his protestations to the contrary ring hollow.

 

Further, his position on Your Call is equally untenable. Jim Traynor, at least, has shown himself to be an independent voice (albeit a 4th rate radio presenter). Irrespective of whether you agree with him, he has an integrity which means he is at least worth listening to. Cosgrove, otoh, has shown himself to be biased, eager to jump to mistaken conclusions and has lost all credibility as a result of his behaviour over the events at Rangers.

 

The problem with Cosgrove is that he just doesn't understand his own bigotry. He has apologised for making a mistake only because the FTTT decision was delivered in our favour. He should be apologising for the mind-set and value system he holds, which made his behaviour such as it was.

 

The EBT issue was only ever a question of interpretation of tax law. There was never any question of illegality, cheating or fraud - simply whether it was a legitimate tax vehicle. Cosgrove's hatred of Rangers, however, meant that a supposedly intelligent man who should have been able to see the EBT issue for what it was, couldn't wait to jump on the bandwagon and put the boot in as often and as unfairly as he could.

 

Up until now, his contempt for Rangers was, if not acceptable then at least bearable masked as it was in the guise of 'baiting the Old Firm' - despite the fact that 90% of his vitriol was reserved for one half of it. Now however, he stands exposed in his true colours - and it's not a pretty sight.