A Curious Search Result

[threegee]

Isn't it strange that when I just did a Google search on UK celebrity "Elton John" to find the title of his latest album Google says "Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe."?

Now how could Google consider that something as mundane as an album title could be a sensitive legal matter, or maybe I've got this all wrong?  Maybe there's something that Europeans aren't even allowed to speculate about; if so of course we mustn't go there, so I won't, and you shouldn't either.

Ah for the "gay" old days, when everyone had a right to know what an record was called; when words meant what words had always meant; when marriage meant what it had meant for countless thousands of years; when a militant homosexual couldn't contrive to force you to write words you found offensive, and when there was never any need to talk around issues.

[mercuryg]

I doubt it has anything to do with the title, 3G, and is far less sinister than you believe. The online world is becoming ever more carefully policed - as much as it can be - thanks to it being used by some to intimidate and abuse; this will become even more evident to all in time. The rules surrounding what I am allowed to write in my commercial articles, used by others for promotion and SEO purposes, are far, far more stringent than even three, four years ago now; I would suggest that someone has been posting material contrary to the regulations on personal information with regard to Mr Elton John, which his people have asked to be removed. 

[Canny lass]

10 hours ago, threegee said:

Ah for the "gay" old days, when everyone had a right to know what an record was called; when words meant what words had always meant;

If it's the meaning of "gay" you are referring to then you'd have to go back to long before your lifetime to find it with the meaning 'mirthful or merry' - to the 13th century in fact. Later, in the 14th century it came to mean 'bright coloured or showy' and  in the 17th century it took on yet another meaning - 'dissipated'. At that time, 'dissipated meant 'to distract the mind' or 'to divert frivolously'. Need I say more?

[threegee]

1 hour ago, Canny lass said:

If it's the meaning of "gay" you are referring to then you'd have to go back to long before your lifetime...

That could depend on how old I am.  Though I fear that this is one of those myths of popular culture that becomes true because of repetition and because there are lots of "progressive" people out there who simply wish it were true.  In fact it's entirely untrue!

I'm an avid consumer of 1950's and 1960's popular culture brought to me by the wonders of "podcasts".  I'm particularly enamoured of Round The Horne and Beyond Our Ken, and have listened to (you could say even studied) countless episodes in recent years.  Every bit of innuendo imaginable was employed by the brilliant Kenneth Williams, and on the very rare occasions gay was used in those series it was with entirely the traditional meaning. The first use I encountered of gay in connection with homosexuality was the phrase "what a gay day" used by Larry Grayson well after that date. That was surely what popularised the usage in the UK, and that would have been early 1970's.

[threegee]

1 hour ago, mercuryg said:

...The rules surrounding what I am allowed to write in my commercial articles, used by others for promotion and SEO purposes, are far, far more stringent than even three, four years ago now;...

Can I suggest that this has its roots in EU law, which is entirely inappropriate to our own culture.  This suggestion is derived from reading a piece by a prominent UK lawyer.  He claims that the roots of the present absurdities can be firmly placed in European privacy laws, and that they simply wouldn't have occurred without EU meddling in our long established legal system.

[Canny lass]

I think you may just have missed the point of Williams' humour. He was a master of the 'double entendre'. Williams played with the word in several of its meanings - including - often - the meaning of homosexuality, 

Already in the 17th century the Oxford Dictionary gives a secondary meaning with sexual connotations "licentious and wanton". In the 19th century it was the term of preference for female prostitutes and by 1935 the English language had the term 'gay cat' for a homosexual boy. Around 1950, 'gay' starts to turn up with the meaning homosexual male although long before that it was being widely used by the gay community when referring to themselves.

 

[threegee]

What I did miss was your full context when I came back to it after an interruption; the perils of ultra small screen computing. So my eventual reply took you slightly out of context, and I apologise.

I'd accept that homosexual gay would likely have started to turn up in the 1950's, but it wasn't anything an average person would have related to until the early 1970's, which was my point.

The Paddick-Williams use of Palari though was an eye-opener for many in the early 1960's, though it had been in use for literally hundreds of years amongst "theatricals". I think it's clear though that most people who went along with the RTH humour and easily got to "level two" never really appreciated the historical background,  Homosexuality was referred to by the indirect "so" - which implied certitude.

But, there was far more than simple double entendre at work in RTH.  That wouldn't have got past the Mary Whitehouses of the day - especially at the time it went out on a Sunday. There was a degree of complicity of top BBC management in covering up - totally obvious to many in the know - which only added to the merriment. So, the really rollicking humour didn't actually come from Williams/Paddick/Horne; it came from the fact that ostensibly Reithian BBC management was indirectly taking the proverbial out of the huge crop of censorious listeners - those who couldn't even approach getting a handle on what was actually being broadcast. There was always the wonder of how far this extended up the then long chain of authority, and - from now-available evidence - the answer must surely be: pretty much all the way.

[mercuryg]

20 hours ago, threegee said:

Can I suggest that this has its roots in EU law, which is entirely inappropriate to our own culture.  This suggestion is derived from reading a piece by a prominent UK lawyer.  He claims that the roots of the present absurdities can be firmly placed in European privacy laws, and that they simply wouldn't have occurred without EU meddling in our long established legal system.

You can, of course, but I think you're a little wide of the mark. Whilst I also disagree with the EU meddling with our legal system, I am referring to things that are far more widespread, worldwide indeed. As we both know, the internet crosses many boundaries, and is open to abuse in many ways; I've watched with interest as the goalpoasts are being gradually moved closer; whereas five years ago I could write as I wished, nowadays (thankfully) I work to certain rules and within given parameters. It's not to do with law, as such, but with the intention to streamline content and increase relevance. Or, in other words, to satisfy the Great God Google...

 

[Canny lass]

No apology needed 3g. My own theory on the use of palari by the likes of Williams in the 60's was that it was a testing of the waters, a guaging of reactions. Let's not forget that palari was the language not only of actors but also of other sub cultures, mostly prostitutes and homosexuals, as a 'secret' language was necessary to avoid being 'found out.'

 At the beginning of the 60's discussion of a bill to decriminalize homosexuality was in full swing in parliament. It was a hot topic but homosexuality was still very much illegal and under cover. That lasted until 1967 when  it became legal - to a degree. 'Coming out of the closet'  was a big step for many who had been born with a condition which was deemed  not to adhere to  the 'norm'. Missing toes and big noses didn't either adhere to the norm. The difference, however,  was that missing toes and big noses were, for some reason, never made illegal.

Williams et al went a long way in allowing homosexuals to judge the reactions of those around them before making the decision to step out of the closet.  Williams et al did this in a way that was humorous and using the now famous double entendre.This made talking about a taboo subject much easier. It also gave them a 'way out' when the opposition was screaming abuse. It was, after all, up to each and everyone to read into the word 'gay' exactly what they wished.  

Edited April 11, 2016 by Canny lass

[threegee]

Sir Elton John loses bid to block reporting of sexual harassment claim

Well... there still might be an odd few people in the UK who still don't know who the famous person accused of sexual harassment was.  That's the one who (mis)used the law to buy off the publicity, and then used more of his riches to buy off the alleged victim.

 

Note to self: Add EJ to list of people who fame and fortune has turned into arrogant little sh**s - right under the most recent addition of Bob Geldof.