Oh god that was insufferable wasn’t it?

Michael Heseltine (who should have known better) making a lame joke about the fact that the line originated with Ed Balls: “So, it’s not Brown’s, it’s Balls!”

How we laughed.

I remember the final sketch - propping plates up with breadsticks and so on.

Also remember seeing an absolutely glowing review of it in one of the broadsheets - probably The Independent as that was what my parents were getting at the time.

We did have our Archive Accreditation ceremony there, but sadly it happened to be a day where T34 (the revolving restaurant floor) was in the middle of low cloud.

Oh jolly good - hope you get clear views. I was up on Monday after giving a talk on its history. Say hi to the wonderful Dee, who is likely to be buzzing around organising.

You might like this, including its 1960s electronica soundtrack:

(In any case, as far as I’ve been able to determine, Archive Fever doesn’t have much to say about the theory or practice of archives)

I thought likely not, but it did strike me as soon as Rutger Bregman said what the excised language was that it was strikingly similar (albeit more justified) to statements/insults that Trump makes on a daily basis.

Our of interest, in this situation, would it be any kind of defence that the plaintiff is constantly making these kind of statements himself?

i.e. DJT is always asserting (with zero evidence) that x is the most corrupt/evil/sick/whatever person ever.

I'm glad we both did! And I'm sorry for sounding tetchy.

I guess my message is that some of us are enthusiastic about HTR because we know it will help us improve what we're able to offer to researchers.

But we do absolutely get the concerns that you express, and recognise their legitimacy.

I take that point, and the views expressed in the original thead, but...

bsky.app/profile/jame...

And I do think we also need to be tolerant and understanding of the fact that we don't all do history in the same way (nor should we).

I had to swallow my anger at the tone of some of that original thread (i.e. not yours, the one you're commenting on) before posting a quote-post response to it.

His assertions are reasonable up to a point, but (in my view) they're quite blinkered and expressed in an unfair way.

I think we should be doing all of these things, which make the documents available and useful to different types of historians (amateur and professional, popular and academic), using different methodologies to try to answer different questions.

To not do so is to limit the value of archives.

It isn't, or shouldn't be, an either/or thing.

There will always be situations where a researcher will great value from engaging with the actual, physical document.

But does that mean that we shouldn't digitise?
Shouldn't put documents online?
Shouldn't seek to identify the people/places/subjects?

I feel sorry for the great Clare Malone getting dragged into this.

Could well be. That’s very close to us.

I suppose it *could* be all the news channels off to Westminster to track the Chancellor's exciting journey from No 11 or HMT to Parliament.

Just a word to say that a lot of white collar/professional jobs don’t have the prospect of a partnership or similar highly-paid end point.

I am an archivist where that doesn’t apply at all.

It’s not a regulated profession, but it is one where a postgraduate qualification is generally expected.