I wonder what would have happened if black men with guns had attempted to break into the state house.
Absolutely. The degree of tolerance given to these gun totting lunatics is just bizarre.
No matter the history of the nation and why they have the gun rules they have, I will never understand why so many americans love guns as much as they do, where it genuinely seems to be more important than any other issue and mean that they should be able to take and use their guns absolutlely everywhere. Even with a small number of people having a lot of guns and that skewing the average, the tolerance of the actions of those people just beggars belief.
Bruno Macaes argues that American culture is dominated by 'stories' and individual Americans' attitudes by a perception that they are each starring in the film of their own life. He suggests that the emotional attachment to guns arises not so much from the usually argued 'rights and freedoms' but because, in the back of their mind they have a storyline in which life delivers them the chance to become the movie hero who sees off the terrorist or armed robber. The fact that most of them rarely get the gun out of the drawer is by the by.
Interesting. Although I wonder if American culture is more dominated by stories than any other, maybe it's just the kind of stories that dominate. The difference between Breaking Bad and The Great British Bake Off. "Baking Bad" might make a good TV Show.
I also seem to remember that when the gun is taken out of the drawer it is way more likely to be used on the gun-owner or a member of the same household, than it is on any bad guy or intruder.
His 'History has begun' is a book worth reading, if only as a counter to the often assumed transition away from a world dominated by US values. For balance he's also written about the rise of China.
He describes America as a culture hugely influenced by film and TV, both of which it has had for longer than anywhere else, and because physical size and remoteness reduced the importance of aspects of European culture (against which there was a counter-reaction after independence in any case - see Degler's classic book on American cultural history). Americans draw much of their self image of what it is to be American directly from film and TV in a way that isn't the case in Europe. He draws similar conclusions (as on guns) about religion, noting that despite wider claimed adherance, society isn't noticeably more Christian in its values (arguably less, in some respects) and the nature of religion in the US downplays the ritual and liturgy of its history and replaces it with aspects of performance and celebrity, drawn from (and sometimes hosted by) the visual media. He concludes many Americans are religious simply because it makes their life storyline more interesting.
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
Was there a debate raging over the proms that the BBC reacted to? If so, I certainly missed it.
According to the newspapers there was.
As per @Luckyguy1983 I am sure the BLM lot watch the proms every year without fail...
It’s nothing to do with BLM the words to the songs are just outdated and irrelevant in today’s world.
What?! A historical song is outdated and irrelevant, why I never. I've always said all songs and media must be relevant for today's world, otherwise they should be junked.
And remarkable people only noticed it for the first time now.
CHB is right to not care about this Proms business, but my word it has been entertaining to watch people bitch at it from each side.
I am not at all given to affecting outrage on other people's behalf, but I can see a little difficulty in being ok about a song proclaiming in 1740 that Britons never shall be slaves, when in the same year the (crown colony of) South Carolina Slave Code prohibited slaves from gathering without white supervision, learning to read and write, and growing their own food, and empowered their owners to whip, mutilate and castrate them on grounds of insubordination and general attitude.
And Scottish miners were then slaves in a real sense - bought and sold with the mines,a nd excluded from habeas corpus legislation.
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
Was there a debate raging over the proms that the BBC reacted to? If so, I certainly missed it.
According to the newspapers there was.
As per @Luckyguy1983 I am sure the BLM lot watch the proms every year without fail...
It’s nothing to do with BLM the words to the songs are just outdated and irrelevant in today’s world.
What?! A historical song is outdated and irrelevant, why I never. I've always said all songs and media must be relevant for today's world, otherwise they should be junked.
And remarkable people only noticed it for the first time now.
CHB is right to not care about this Proms business, but my word it has been entertaining to watch people bitch at it from each side.
I am not at all given to affecting outrage on other people's behalf, but I can see a little difficulty in being ok about a song proclaiming in 1740 that Britons never shall be slaves, when in the same year the (crown colony of) South Carolina Slave Code prohibited slaves from gathering without white supervision, learning to read and write, and growing their own food, and empowered their owners to whip, mutilate and castrate them on grounds of insubordination and general attitude.
Since you don't want to affect outrage on other people's behalf, shall I discount your outrage until those people affect it themselves?
Regardless, if people want to get into a debate about the actual contents and context of the specific song that's fine, I was personally just chuckling at the rather broad implication that its being outdated and irrelevant was a reason to junk it. You can probably find a great many less offensive (to you) songs which are outdated and irrelevant.
Um, you are a bit confused. I am not affecting outrage, and if the descendants of the people subject to the provisions of the SC Slave Code stated that they were a bit unhappy about it, I wouldn't describe that as affectation either. There's degrees of irrelevance: A Bicycle Made For Two is outdated, and so is the Horst Wessel song.
What's needed right now is a better understanding of the discrimination faced by many Black people, and for everyone to support bringing them into the fold as equal citizens of a confident proud modern Britain.
You can't really do that while lustily belting out a song that celebrates Britishness as an exclusively white identity. (Rule Britannia).
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
Was there a debate raging over the proms that the BBC reacted to? If so, I certainly missed it.
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
Was there a debate raging over the proms that the BBC reacted to? If so, I certainly missed it.
According to the newspapers there was.
As per @Luckyguy1983 I am sure the BLM lot watch the proms every year without fail...
It’s nothing to do with BLM the words to the songs are just outdated and irrelevant in today’s world.
They've been outdated for 50 years FFS.
Songs, poems, plays and stories that contain words that originally were of their time are regularly re-interpreted for today without taking a poleaxe to them.
In fact, that's already happening in reverse by the detractors because they're assuming "Britons never never never shall be slaves" is a reference to the transatlantic slave trade, whereas in fact it was a defiant call of the distinctiveness of Britain in moving toward constitutional monarchy, in contrast to Royal absolutism in Europe, and an exhortation to fund the navy properly to defend Britain against it.
It gained currency during the War of the Austrian Succession, when Britain was at war with both France and Spain, who are the "tyrants" referred to within it.
Of course it isn't a *reference* to that trade, nobody says that, but it's a bit unfortunate in the context of that trade. Like setting fire to £20 notes in front of beggars.
I think some do say that, but a confident nation contests those who seek to find negative meaning in its cultural heritage and uses it to unify instead.
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
Was there a debate raging over the proms that the BBC reacted to? If so, I certainly missed it.
According to the newspapers there was.
As per @Luckyguy1983 I am sure the BLM lot watch the proms every year without fail...
It’s nothing to do with BLM the words to the songs are just outdated and irrelevant in today’s world.
What?! A historical song is outdated and irrelevant, why I never. I've always said all songs and media must be relevant for today's world, otherwise they should be junked.
And remarkable people only noticed it for the first time now.
CHB is right to not care about this Proms business, but my word it has been entertaining to watch people bitch at it from each side.
I am not at all given to affecting outrage on other people's behalf, but I can see a little difficulty in being ok about a song proclaiming in 1740 that Britons never shall be slaves, when in the same year the (crown colony of) South Carolina Slave Code prohibited slaves from gathering without white supervision, learning to read and write, and growing their own food, and empowered their owners to whip, mutilate and castrate them on grounds of insubordination and general attitude.
Since you don't want to affect outrage on other people's behalf, shall I discount your outrage until those people affect it themselves?
Regardless, if people want to get into a debate about the actual contents and context of the specific song that's fine, I was personally just chuckling at the rather broad implication that its being outdated and irrelevant was a reason to junk it. You can probably find a great many less offensive (to you) songs which are outdated and irrelevant.
Um, you are a bit confused. I am not affecting outrage, and if the descendants of the people subject to the provisions of the SC Slave Code stated that they were a bit unhappy about it, I wouldn't describe that as affectation either. There's degrees of irrelevance: A Bicycle Made For Two is outdated, and so is the Horst Wessel song.
Your protestation that you are not affecting outrage is not very convincing. If I said 'I am not one to complain about X, but here's my difficulty with X', I think it would be pretty clear what I was doing, despite my attempt to claim otherwise. I don't agree the phrase 'ignore everything before the but' applies universally, however it often does.
And I did not suggest 'affecting outrage' would be a false affectation, so I think you should check yourself before accusing others of being confused.
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
The bizarreness to me is that it's the last night of the Proms. One night....
Of course it is the symbolism - bit like the crowd of enthusiastic folk who want the Boat Race cancelled.
Perhaps I should start a campaign to ban all the things I don't like?
The boat race should be the final of an inter university competition in which all universities can take part.
Who are you to demand what “should” be done?
There is already an inter university rowing regatta by the way.
I didn’t demand just suggested that it should be, same with the farcity cricket at Lords and Rugby at Twickenham.
Does the popularity of these events not “suggest” to you that there remains a place for them? What’s with people these days feeling it’s their right to “suggest” to other people how they should and shouldn’t spend their leisure time and money. It’s not like a rowing race or rugby match exploits slaves like at the colosseum. Get over yourself.
Who said anything about slaves? Why should Oxbridge have these privileges over other universities?
They don't, there is nothing to stop any other two universities from challenging each other to an annual rowing match and I imagine the Thames would be made available for the appropriate fee.
Of course the boat race should be allowed to continue, however its members wish to do so. Has anyone suggested differently?
Should the license fee payers promote it is an entirely different question and arguable. On balance enough people watch it that they should do imo, but its a proper question and not clearcut unlike should it be allowed to happen.
I wonder what would have happened if black men with guns had attempted to break into the state house.
Absolutely. The degree of tolerance given to these gun totting lunatics is just bizarre.
No matter the history of the nation and why they have the gun rules they have, I will never understand why so many americans love guns as much as they do, where it genuinely seems to be more important than any other issue and mean that they should be able to take and use their guns absolutlely everywhere. Even with a small number of people having a lot of guns and that skewing the average, the tolerance of the actions of those people just beggars belief.
Bruno Macaes argues that American culture is dominated by 'stories' and individual Americans' attitudes by a perception that they are each starring in the film of their own life. He suggests that the emotional attachment to guns arises not so much from the usually argued 'rights and freedoms' but because, in the back of their mind they have a storyline in which life delivers them the chance to become the movie hero who sees off the terrorist or armed robber. The fact that most of them rarely get the gun out of the drawer is by the by.
Interesting. Although I wonder if American culture is more dominated by stories than any other, maybe it's just the kind of stories that dominate. The difference between Breaking Bad and The Great British Bake Off. "Baking Bad" might make a good TV Show.
I also seem to remember that when the gun is taken out of the drawer it is way more likely to be used on the gun-owner or a member of the same household, than it is on any bad guy or intruder.
Indeed, and sometimes it is found by a child and "used" as a toy. In either case the gun owner does get to live out a storyline, just a different one from that which they imagined.
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
Was there a debate raging over the proms that the BBC reacted to? If so, I certainly missed it.
According to the newspapers there was.
As per @Luckyguy1983 I am sure the BLM lot watch the proms every year without fail...
It’s nothing to do with BLM the words to the songs are just outdated and irrelevant in today’s world.
What?! A historical song is outdated and irrelevant, why I never. I've always said all songs and media must be relevant for today's world, otherwise they should be junked.
And remarkable people only noticed it for the first time now.
CHB is right to not care about this Proms business, but my word it has been entertaining to watch people bitch at it from each side.
I am not at all given to affecting outrage on other people's behalf, but I can see a little difficulty in being ok about a song proclaiming in 1740 that Britons never shall be slaves, when in the same year the (crown colony of) South Carolina Slave Code prohibited slaves from gathering without white supervision, learning to read and write, and growing their own food, and empowered their owners to whip, mutilate and castrate them on grounds of insubordination and general attitude.
Since you don't want to affect outrage on other people's behalf, shall I discount your outrage until those people affect it themselves?
Regardless, if people want to get into a debate about the actual contents and context of the specific song that's fine, I was personally just chuckling at the rather broad implication that its being outdated and irrelevant was a reason to junk it. You can probably find a great many less offensive (to you) songs which are outdated and irrelevant.
Um, you are a bit confused. I am not affecting outrage, and if the descendants of the people subject to the provisions of the SC Slave Code stated that they were a bit unhappy about it, I wouldn't describe that as affectation either. There's degrees of irrelevance: A Bicycle Made For Two is outdated, and so is the Horst Wessel song.
Interesting to note that the Panzerlied is still sung. In Namibia.....
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
Was there a debate raging over the proms that the BBC reacted to? If so, I certainly missed it.
According to the newspapers there was.
As per @Luckyguy1983 I am sure the BLM lot watch the proms every year without fail...
They like the forwarded clips with comments on Twitter... doesn’t that count...
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
Was there a debate raging over the proms that the BBC reacted to? If so, I certainly missed it.
According to the newspapers there was.
As per @Luckyguy1983 I am sure the BLM lot watch the proms every year without fail...
It’s nothing to do with BLM the words to the songs are just outdated and irrelevant in today’s world.
What?! A historical song is outdated and irrelevant, why I never. I've always said all songs and media must be relevant for today's world, otherwise they should be junked.
And remarkable people only noticed it for the first time now.
CHB is right to not care about this Proms business, but my word it has been entertaining to watch people bitch at it from each side.
I am not at all given to affecting outrage on other people's behalf, but I can see a little difficulty in being ok about a song proclaiming in 1740 that Britons never shall be slaves, when in the same year the (crown colony of) South Carolina Slave Code prohibited slaves from gathering without white supervision, learning to read and write, and growing their own food, and empowered their owners to whip, mutilate and castrate them on grounds of insubordination and general attitude.
Since you don't want to affect outrage on other people's behalf, shall I discount your outrage until those people affect it themselves?
Regardless, if people want to get into a debate about the actual contents and context of the specific song that's fine, I was personally just chuckling at the rather broad implication that its being outdated and irrelevant was a reason to junk it. You can probably find a great many less offensive (to you) songs which are outdated and irrelevant.
Um, you are a bit confused. I am not affecting outrage, and if the descendants of the people subject to the provisions of the SC Slave Code stated that they were a bit unhappy about it, I wouldn't describe that as affectation either. There's degrees of irrelevance: A Bicycle Made For Two is outdated, and so is the Horst Wessel song.
Your protestation that you are not affecting outrage is not very convincing. If I said 'I am not one to complain about X, but here's my difficulty with X', I think it would be pretty clear what I was doing, despite my attempt to claim otherwise. I don't agree the phrase 'ignore everything before the but' applies universally, however it often does.
And I did not suggest 'affecting outrage' would be a false affectation, so I think you should check yourself before accusing others of being confused.
Pleasant day to all.
Affectation is by definition false; that's what the word means. I am saying what I genuinely think, and when I say that I think something is on balance a bad thing rather than a good one that is not the same as being outraged about it.
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
Was there a debate raging over the proms that the BBC reacted to? If so, I certainly missed it.
According to the newspapers there was.
As per @Luckyguy1983 I am sure the BLM lot watch the proms every year without fail...
It’s nothing to do with BLM the words to the songs are just outdated and irrelevant in today’s world.
What?! A historical song is outdated and irrelevant, why I never. I've always said all songs and media must be relevant for today's world, otherwise they should be junked.
And remarkable people only noticed it for the first time now.
CHB is right to not care about this Proms business, but my word it has been entertaining to watch people bitch at it from each side.
I am not at all given to affecting outrage on other people's behalf, but I can see a little difficulty in being ok about a song proclaiming in 1740 that Britons never shall be slaves, when in the same year the (crown colony of) South Carolina Slave Code prohibited slaves from gathering without white supervision, learning to read and write, and growing their own food, and empowered their owners to whip, mutilate and castrate them on grounds of insubordination and general attitude.
Yes, slavery was awful - and that's why an abolitionist campaign developed in Britain in the late 18th Century (ironically, this song helped as the campaigners were able to point out the inconsistencies) - and then it was ceased, phased out and then stamped out.
The song is a celebration of independent Britishness and freedom that is still relevant today, and I can see it being even more so in future if China becomes ever more powerful in the geopolitical and economic space such that it starts to impinge on our freedoms rather than us supinely surrendering to it.
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
I'm not sure that 'both sides' need to be taken in to account here. The 'other side' doesn't need to watch the concert. Nobody asks UKIP supporters and members of bowls clubs what they would or wouldn't like to see on the programmes of gay pride celebrations, melas, or the Notting Hill Carnival. It doesn't matter what they think, because they won't go or watch.
Frankly, if the Last Night sticks in the craw of the BBC, give it to another broadcaster. I don't see why the people who like it should be denied a single night of unabashed (if silly) patriotic celebration. It's pathetically puritanical and moralistic.
"Give it to another broadcaster." You are joking, right?
The Proms in their current form are a BBC thing. Yes, there's the lineage back to Henry Wood, but without the BBC there's nothing for another broadcaster to broadcast. They're planned by BBC people, and the main performers are BBC orchestras.
There's nothing stopping Sky or Classic FM broadcasting an evening concert of patriotic songs, apart from orchestras being awfully expensive things and live classical music being a bit of a niche market. So bluntly, no BBC, no Proms.
And besides, the pathetic moralism is just as likely on the side of the Beeb bashers. This year, the last night won't have a big raucous audience, so the usual Last Night fun would look and sound a bit pathetic, like wearing a clown suit to choral evensong. There's also a fair question about whether this is a year to have this particular bit of fun, or whether- like in 2001- we need something a bit different.
Artistically, they've probably got it about right.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the changes for this year. But the BBC are giving the impression that the changes are being made because of BLM not COVID-19 (or planes crashing into buildings as in 2001).
They have basically said that the changes are because of COVID. And that it will return to what it was next year (assuming the virus problem is gone).
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
The bizarreness to me is that it's the last night of the Proms. One night....
Of course it is the symbolism - bit like the crowd of enthusiastic folk who want the Boat Race cancelled.
Perhaps I should start a campaign to ban all the things I don't like?
The boat race should be the final of an inter university competition in which all universities can take part.
Who are you to demand what “should” be done?
There is already an inter university rowing regatta by the way.
I didn’t demand just suggested that it should be, same with the farcity cricket at Lords and Rugby at Twickenham.
Does the popularity of these events not “suggest” to you that there remains a place for them? What’s with people these days feeling it’s their right to “suggest” to other people how they should and shouldn’t spend their leisure time and money. It’s not like a rowing race or rugby match exploits slaves like at the colosseum. Get over yourself.
Who said anything about slaves? Why should Oxbridge have these privileges over other universities?
They don't, there is nothing to stop any other two universities from challenging each other to an annual rowing match and I imagine the Thames would be made available for the appropriate fee.
On the boat race -
- due to the unique format of the race, taking place over a long, winding course on a tidal river, there is no interest from other universities for taking part. Modern rowing training (like all athletic training) is finely tuned. Everyone else in rowing is training for 2000m, over a straight course, in flat water.
- it would be quite hard to row with a half dozen competitors - despite the width of the Thames, the "good" line is quite narrow. Unlike other rowing, the idea is to get in front of your opponent and block the "good" line. With multiple competitors, collisions would be almost inevitable.
What's needed right now is a better understanding of the discrimination faced by many Black people, and for everyone to support bringing them into the fold as equal citizens of a confident proud modern Britain.
You can't really do that while lustily belting out a song that celebrates Britishness as an exclusively white identity. (Rule Britannia).
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
Was there a debate raging over the proms that the BBC reacted to? If so, I certainly missed it.
According to the newspapers there was.
As per @Luckyguy1983 I am sure the BLM lot watch the proms every year without fail...
It’s nothing to do with BLM the words to the songs are just outdated and irrelevant in today’s world.
What?! A historical song is outdated and irrelevant, why I never. I've always said all songs and media must be relevant for today's world, otherwise they should be junked.
And remarkable people only noticed it for the first time now.
CHB is right to not care about this Proms business, but my word it has been entertaining to watch people bitch at it from each side.
I am not at all given to affecting outrage on other people's behalf, but I can see a little difficulty in being ok about a song proclaiming in 1740 that Britons never shall be slaves, when in the same year the (crown colony of) South Carolina Slave Code prohibited slaves from gathering without white supervision, learning to read and write, and growing their own food, and empowered their owners to whip, mutilate and castrate them on grounds of insubordination and general attitude.
Since you don't want to affect outrage on other people's behalf, shall I discount your outrage until those people affect it themselves?
Regardless, if people want to get into a debate about the actual contents and context of the specific song that's fine, I was personally just chuckling at the rather broad implication that its being outdated and irrelevant was a reason to junk it. You can probably find a great many less offensive (to you) songs which are outdated and irrelevant.
Um, you are a bit confused. I am not affecting outrage, and if the descendants of the people subject to the provisions of the SC Slave Code stated that they were a bit unhappy about it, I wouldn't describe that as affectation either. There's degrees of irrelevance: A Bicycle Made For Two is outdated, and so is the Horst Wessel song.
Interesting to note that the Panzerlied is still sung. In Namibia.....
In German South West Africa from the POV of those who sing it, presumably.
As was posted on the previous thread, the issue of riots and concern over law and order is now starting to seep into US voters' minds as to which way to vote.
This is going to be the issue that will kill the Democrats. I'm sure we will have the usual "but it's not in the polls" argument but gun sales going through the roof tells you how scared many Americans are by what is happened at the moment. It is unlikely they will think Joe Biden is the person to fix the mess.
I also suspect an expression of that fear is not admitting in public - even to pollsters - that they put their faith in Trump to be the guy to best look after them. Sure, Trump is an idiot. But he's their idiot....
It's just not something you admit to.
I mean people were shy about voting for John Major. He's got nothing on Trump
Boris is the British Trump, both in terms of charisma and casual disregard for rules and norms. I imagine Labour and Conservative Party workers will be closely examining this campaign for that reason (and not just because they always do).
Not even close. True there are some parallels, but while Johnson shares the narcissism, it’s not combined with the same raging egomania or megalomania.
Johnson has limits; Trump has none.
In terms of drawing parallels with Trump, you have to go back to 20th century politicians before you get even close. Mussolini seems to me to represent the closest parallel. Trump has absolutely no respect for democratic norms, and would clearly stop at absolutely nothing to remain in power given the opportunity. Economic nationalism, contempt for democracy, disrespect even for human life, creation of a parallel universe of political untruths, cult of the individual, it's all there. You're seeing 21st century Fascism unfold before your eyes in all but name.
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
The bizarreness to me is that it's the last night of the Proms. One night....
Of course it is the symbolism - bit like the crowd of enthusiastic folk who want the Boat Race cancelled.
Perhaps I should start a campaign to ban all the things I don't like?
The boat race should be the final of an inter university competition in which all universities can take part.
Who are you to demand what “should” be done?
There is already an inter university rowing regatta by the way.
I didn’t demand just suggested that it should be, same with the farcity cricket at Lords and Rugby at Twickenham.
Does the popularity of these events not “suggest” to you that there remains a place for them? What’s with people these days feeling it’s their right to “suggest” to other people how they should and shouldn’t spend their leisure time and money. It’s not like a rowing race or rugby match exploits slaves like at the colosseum. Get over yourself.
Who said anything about slaves? Why should Oxbridge have these privileges over other universities?
They don't, there is nothing to stop any other two universities from challenging each other to an annual rowing match and I imagine the Thames would be made available for the appropriate fee.
On the boat race -
- due to the unique format of the race, taking place over a long, winding course on a tidal river, there is no interest from other universities for taking part. Modern rowing training (like all athletic training) is finely tuned. Everyone else in rowing is training for 2000m, over a straight course, in flat water.
- it would be quite hard to row with a half dozen competitors - despite the width of the Thames, the "good" line is quite narrow. Unlike other rowing, the idea is to get in front of your opponent and block the "good" line. With multiple competitors, collisions would be almost inevitable.
Cambridge itself, with a very narrow river, solves the problem with “the bumps”, whereby all the competing boats start off in line, and you advance position by catching or bumping the boat in front.
Extrapolating, a gaggle of other universities could be allowed to compete by starting off some yards back from Oxford and Cambridge, and if any of them manage to catch the boat in second place, they get to be one of the top two the year following?
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
Was there a debate raging over the proms that the BBC reacted to? If so, I certainly missed it.
According to the newspapers there was.
As per @Luckyguy1983 I am sure the BLM lot watch the proms every year without fail...
It’s nothing to do with BLM the words to the songs are just outdated and irrelevant in today’s world.
What?! A historical song is outdated and irrelevant, why I never. I've always said all songs and media must be relevant for today's world, otherwise they should be junked.
And remarkable people only noticed it for the first time now.
CHB is right to not care about this Proms business, but my word it has been entertaining to watch people bitch at it from each side.
I am not at all given to affecting outrage on other people's behalf, but I can see a little difficulty in being ok about a song proclaiming in 1740 that Britons never shall be slaves, when in the same year the (crown colony of) South Carolina Slave Code prohibited slaves from gathering without white supervision, learning to read and write, and growing their own food, and empowered their owners to whip, mutilate and castrate them on grounds of insubordination and general attitude.
Since you don't want to affect outrage on other people's behalf, shall I discount your outrage until those people affect it themselves?
Regardless, if people want to get into a debate about the actual contents and context of the specific song that's fine, I was personally just chuckling at the rather broad implication that its being outdated and irrelevant was a reason to junk it. You can probably find a great many less offensive (to you) songs which are outdated and irrelevant.
Um, you are a bit confused. I am not affecting outrage, and if the descendants of the people subject to the provisions of the SC Slave Code stated that they were a bit unhappy about it, I wouldn't describe that as affectation either. There's degrees of irrelevance: A Bicycle Made For Two is outdated, and so is the Horst Wessel song.
Your protestation that you are not affecting outrage is not very convincing. If I said 'I am not one to complain about X, but here's my difficulty with X', I think it would be pretty clear what I was doing, despite my attempt to claim otherwise. I don't agree the phrase 'ignore everything before the but' applies universally, however it often does.
And I did not suggest 'affecting outrage' would be a false affectation, so I think you should check yourself before accusing others of being confused.
Pleasant day to all.
Affectation is by definition false; that's what the word means. I am saying what I genuinely think, and when I say that I think something is on balance a bad thing rather than a good one that is not the same as being outraged about it.
It is an important distinction. Why cant people question something without being assumed of being outraged by it, told to not watch it and accused of wanting to ban it.
I think eventually those songs will be replaced but its probably 20 years away or so, when there is broader support for the change amongst those who go.
Whilst traditions obviously are based on keeping a lot of things similar, they also change and adapt as everything else does. Xmas in 2020 is very different to that in 1970 which is in turn different to that in 1920, but they are all stall Xmas.
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
I'm not sure that 'both sides' need to be taken in to account here. The 'other side' doesn't need to watch the concert. Nobody asks UKIP supporters and members of bowls clubs what they would or wouldn't like to see on the programmes of gay pride celebrations, melas, or the Notting Hill Carnival. It doesn't matter what they think, because they won't go or watch.
Frankly, if the Last Night sticks in the craw of the BBC, give it to another broadcaster. I don't see why the people who like it should be denied a single night of unabashed (if silly) patriotic celebration. It's pathetically puritanical and moralistic.
I don't think the defence of "people not watching wont be offended" works, though, does it? I wont insult you by suggesting other examples. The test is simply whether the content is offensive or not. Given that public money is involved (via the BBC) raises the bar IMO.
*DISCLAIMER FOR THE PURPOSES OF BEING AN ARGUMENTATIVE SOD ON PB*
Thing is, let's imagine you were a fundamental Christian whose flavour of belief held that homosexuality was a sin. You are deeply offended by all things which reference or "promote" homosexuality. The BBC features its usual Pride celebrations which offends you. So you don't watch it. All is good, right?
What's needed right now is a better understanding of the discrimination faced by many Black people, and for everyone to support bringing them into the fold as equal citizens of a confident proud modern Britain.
You can't really do that while lustily belting out a song that celebrates Britishness as an exclusively white identity. (Rule Britannia).
Rule Britannia does no such thing.
It gets pretty close, actually.
I'm a great one for compromise, and I think we can resolve this to the satisfaction of everyone by tacitly dropping RB and introducing John Peel in its place.
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
Was there a debate raging over the proms that the BBC reacted to? If so, I certainly missed it.
According to the newspapers there was.
As per @Luckyguy1983 I am sure the BLM lot watch the proms every year without fail...
It’s nothing to do with BLM the words to the songs are just outdated and irrelevant in today’s world.
What?! A historical song is outdated and irrelevant, why I never. I've always said all songs and media must be relevant for today's world, otherwise they should be junked.
And remarkable people only noticed it for the first time now.
CHB is right to not care about this Proms business, but my word it has been entertaining to watch people bitch at it from each side.
I am not at all given to affecting outrage on other people's behalf, but I can see a little difficulty in being ok about a song proclaiming in 1740 that Britons never shall be slaves, when in the same year the (crown colony of) South Carolina Slave Code prohibited slaves from gathering without white supervision, learning to read and write, and growing their own food, and empowered their owners to whip, mutilate and castrate them on grounds of insubordination and general attitude.
Yes, slavery was awful - and that's why an abolitionist campaign developed in Britain in the late 18th Century (ironically, this song helped as the campaigners were able to point out the inconsistencies) - and then it was ceased, phased out and then stamped out.
The song is a celebration of independent Britishness and freedom that is still relevant today, and I can see it being even more so in future if China becomes ever more powerful in the geopolitical and economic space such that it starts to impinge on our freedoms rather than us supinely surrendering to it.
God help us , now we are going to sing Land of Hope and Glory to the Chinese as they buy up what will be left of the UK or generally tweak our noses and laugh at us. Great idea.
What's needed right now is a better understanding of the discrimination faced by many Black people, and for everyone to support bringing them into the fold as equal citizens of a confident proud modern Britain.
You can't really do that while lustily belting out a song that celebrates Britishness as an exclusively white identity. (Rule Britannia).
Rule Britannia does no such thing.
Some of your fellow Britons think it does and find it offensive. Are their concerns meaningless to you?
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
Was there a debate raging over the proms that the BBC reacted to? If so, I certainly missed it.
According to the newspapers there was.
As per @Luckyguy1983 I am sure the BLM lot watch the proms every year without fail...
It’s nothing to do with BLM the words to the songs are just outdated and irrelevant in today’s world.
What?! A historical song is outdated and irrelevant, why I never. I've always said all songs and media must be relevant for today's world, otherwise they should be junked.
And remarkable people only noticed it for the first time now.
CHB is right to not care about this Proms business, but my word it has been entertaining to watch people bitch at it from each side.
I am not at all given to affecting outrage on other people's behalf, but I can see a little difficulty in being ok about a song proclaiming in 1740 that Britons never shall be slaves, when in the same year the (crown colony of) South Carolina Slave Code prohibited slaves from gathering without white supervision, learning to read and write, and growing their own food, and empowered their owners to whip, mutilate and castrate them on grounds of insubordination and general attitude.
Since you don't want to affect outrage on other people's behalf, shall I discount your outrage until those people affect it themselves?
Regardless, if people want to get into a debate about the actual contents and context of the specific song that's fine, I was personally just chuckling at the rather broad implication that its being outdated and irrelevant was a reason to junk it. You can probably find a great many less offensive (to you) songs which are outdated and irrelevant.
Um, you are a bit confused. I am not affecting outrage, and if the descendants of the people subject to the provisions of the SC Slave Code stated that they were a bit unhappy about it, I wouldn't describe that as affectation either. There's degrees of irrelevance: A Bicycle Made For Two is outdated, and so is the Horst Wessel song.
Interesting to note that the Panzerlied is still sung. In Namibia.....
In German South West Africa from the POV of those who sing it, presumably.
Quite. However, it is also sung (or used to be) in the French army. Translated and modified a bit..
They had to drop a bridge on a few people to stop it in the German army, IIRC
What's needed right now is a better understanding of the discrimination faced by many Black people, and for everyone to support bringing them into the fold as equal citizens of a confident proud modern Britain.
You can't really do that while lustily belting out a song that celebrates Britishness as an exclusively white identity. (Rule Britannia).
Rule Britannia does no such thing.
It gets pretty close, actually.
I'm a great one for compromise, and I think we can resolve this to the satisfaction of everyone by tacitly dropping RB and introducing John Peel in its place.
It doesn't because "Briton" wasn't racially defined then - it was geographic. Later that definition changed and Briton became broader to encompass the whole Empire and co-terminus with the fact slavery had been abolished throughout.
We're retrospectively ascribing negative sentiments to it.
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
Was there a debate raging over the proms that the BBC reacted to? If so, I certainly missed it.
According to the newspapers there was.
As per @Luckyguy1983 I am sure the BLM lot watch the proms every year without fail...
It’s nothing to do with BLM the words to the songs are just outdated and irrelevant in today’s world.
What?! A historical song is outdated and irrelevant, why I never. I've always said all songs and media must be relevant for today's world, otherwise they should be junked.
And remarkable people only noticed it for the first time now.
CHB is right to not care about this Proms business, but my word it has been entertaining to watch people bitch at it from each side.
I am not at all given to affecting outrage on other people's behalf, but I can see a little difficulty in being ok about a song proclaiming in 1740 that Britons never shall be slaves, when in the same year the (crown colony of) South Carolina Slave Code prohibited slaves from gathering without white supervision, learning to read and write, and growing their own food, and empowered their owners to whip, mutilate and castrate them on grounds of insubordination and general attitude.
Yes, slavery was awful - and that's why an abolitionist campaign developed in Britain in the late 18th Century (ironically, this song helped as the campaigners were able to point out the inconsistencies) - and then it was ceased, phased out and then stamped out.
The song is a celebration of independent Britishness and freedom that is still relevant today, and I can see it being even more so in future if China becomes ever more powerful in the geopolitical and economic space such that it starts to impinge on our freedoms rather than us supinely surrendering to it.
God help us , now we are going to sing Land of Hope and Glory to the Chinese as they buy up what will be left of the UK or generally tweak our noses and laugh at us. Great idea.
Is that an admission that independence ain't happening Malc?
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
I'm not sure that 'both sides' need to be taken in to account here. The 'other side' doesn't need to watch the concert. Nobody asks UKIP supporters and members of bowls clubs what they would or wouldn't like to see on the programmes of gay pride celebrations, melas, or the Notting Hill Carnival. It doesn't matter what they think, because they won't go or watch.
Frankly, if the Last Night sticks in the craw of the BBC, give it to another broadcaster. I don't see why the people who like it should be denied a single night of unabashed (if silly) patriotic celebration. It's pathetically puritanical and moralistic.
"Give it to another broadcaster." You are joking, right?
The Proms in their current form are a BBC thing. Yes, there's the lineage back to Henry Wood, but without the BBC there's nothing for another broadcaster to broadcast. They're planned by BBC people, and the main performers are BBC orchestras.
There's nothing stopping Sky or Classic FM broadcasting an evening concert of patriotic songs, apart from orchestras being awfully expensive things and live classical music being a bit of a niche market. So bluntly, no BBC, no Proms.
And besides, the pathetic moralism is just as likely on the side of the Beeb bashers. This year, the last night won't have a big raucous audience, so the usual Last Night fun would look and sound a bit pathetic, like wearing a clown suit to choral evensong. There's also a fair question about whether this is a year to have this particular bit of fun, or whether- like in 2001- we need something a bit different.
Artistically, they've probably got it about right.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the changes for this year. But the BBC are giving the impression that the changes are being made because of BLM not COVID-19 (or planes crashing into buildings as in 2001).
They have basically said that the changes are because of COVID. And that it will return to what it was next year (assuming the virus problem is gone).
Okay, good to know. That said, I'm not quite as positive about the situation regarding COVID as some on here are.
What's needed right now is a better understanding of the discrimination faced by many Black people, and for everyone to support bringing them into the fold as equal citizens of a confident proud modern Britain.
You can't really do that while lustily belting out a song that celebrates Britishness as an exclusively white identity. (Rule Britannia).
Rule Britannia does no such thing.
I always thought it was rules the waves apparently not
It is strongly associated with the Royal Navy – yet at the time, the song was not a celebration of the success of naval affairs, but a cry for help.
Written in 1740 Britain did not yet ‘rule the waves’, and the Royal Navy didn’t yet have the dominant power on the oceans
"Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves! Britons never, never, never will be slaves."
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
The bizarreness to me is that it's the last night of the Proms. One night....
Of course it is the symbolism - bit like the crowd of enthusiastic folk who want the Boat Race cancelled.
Perhaps I should start a campaign to ban all the things I don't like?
The boat race should be the final of an inter university competition in which all universities can take part.
Who are you to demand what “should” be done?
There is already an inter university rowing regatta by the way.
I didn’t demand just suggested that it should be, same with the farcity cricket at Lords and Rugby at Twickenham.
Does the popularity of these events not “suggest” to you that there remains a place for them? What’s with people these days feeling it’s their right to “suggest” to other people how they should and shouldn’t spend their leisure time and money. It’s not like a rowing race or rugby match exploits slaves like at the colosseum. Get over yourself.
Who said anything about slaves? Why should Oxbridge have these privileges over other universities?
They don't, there is nothing to stop any other two universities from challenging each other to an annual rowing match and I imagine the Thames would be made available for the appropriate fee.
On the boat race -
- due to the unique format of the race, taking place over a long, winding course on a tidal river, there is no interest from other universities for taking part. Modern rowing training (like all athletic training) is finely tuned. Everyone else in rowing is training for 2000m, over a straight course, in flat water.
- it would be quite hard to row with a half dozen competitors - despite the width of the Thames, the "good" line is quite narrow. Unlike other rowing, the idea is to get in front of your opponent and block the "good" line. With multiple competitors, collisions would be almost inevitable.
Cambridge itself, with a very narrow river, solves the problem with “the bumps”, whereby all the competing boats start off in line, and you advance position by catching or bumping the boat in front.
Extrapolating, a gaggle of other universities could be allowed to compete by starting off some yards back from Oxford and Cambridge, and if any of them manage to catch the boat in second place, they get to be one of the top two the year following?
There are bump races at Oxford as well - similar issue.
Have you rowed on the tidal bit of the Thames? Doing bumps would be... interesting. In the cave-diving-for-lols category of fun....
No one else has shown interest in taking part, as far as I know.
Anyway if your willing to live with quarantine on your return I suggest Benidorm as one of the safest places on the planet to go. There will be bugger all to do except lie on the beach, which is almost deserted but you’ll be safe apart from the travel.
Received some sad news tonight that a friend's brother has been killed in a climbing accident in Scotland, only met him once or twice but taken too soon and shows the natural world can be both beautiful and dangerous
Sorry to hear that. Condolences to you and your friend.
And, a bit late in the day, congratulations to you on your engagement.
What's needed right now is a better understanding of the discrimination faced by many Black people, and for everyone to support bringing them into the fold as equal citizens of a confident proud modern Britain.
You can't really do that while lustily belting out a song that celebrates Britishness as an exclusively white identity. (Rule Britannia).
Rule Britannia does no such thing.
Some of your fellow Britons think it does and find it offensive. Are their concerns meaningless to you?
No-one's concerns are meaningless to me. But this is limited to 10-20% of the population, at best, and opinion polling shows heavy majorities across all political opinions and races in favour of keeping it.
Instead, I'd argue with them that their reasons for taking offence are baseless. If they still insisted on doing so then that'd be unfortunate but their decision.
You're on a hiding to nothing if you think the object of public policy should be to ensure everyone is unoffended.
I'm a great one for compromise, and I think we can resolve this to the satisfaction of everyone by tacitly dropping RB and introducing John Peel in its place.
Are British dreams so hard to beat? A Union Jack on every street Another flag in the neighbourhood Wish it was mine, it looks so good
I wanna quit Europe, wanna quit it right Get British kicks right through the night
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
Was there a debate raging over the proms that the BBC reacted to? If so, I certainly missed it.
According to the newspapers there was.
As per @Luckyguy1983 I am sure the BLM lot watch the proms every year without fail...
It’s nothing to do with BLM the words to the songs are just outdated and irrelevant in today’s world.
What?! A historical song is outdated and irrelevant, why I never. I've always said all songs and media must be relevant for today's world, otherwise they should be junked.
And remarkable people only noticed it for the first time now.
CHB is right to not care about this Proms business, but my word it has been entertaining to watch people bitch at it from each side.
I am not at all given to affecting outrage on other people's behalf, but I can see a little difficulty in being ok about a song proclaiming in 1740 that Britons never shall be slaves, when in the same year the (crown colony of) South Carolina Slave Code prohibited slaves from gathering without white supervision, learning to read and write, and growing their own food, and empowered their owners to whip, mutilate and castrate them on grounds of insubordination and general attitude.
Yes, slavery was awful - and that's why an abolitionist campaign developed in Britain in the late 18th Century (ironically, this song helped as the campaigners were able to point out the inconsistencies) - and then it was ceased, phased out and then stamped out.
The song is a celebration of independent Britishness and freedom that is still relevant today, and I can see it being even more so in future if China becomes ever more powerful in the geopolitical and economic space such that it starts to impinge on our freedoms rather than us supinely surrendering to it.
God help us , now we are going to sing Land of Hope and Glory to the Chinese as they buy up what will be left of the UK or generally tweak our noses and laugh at us. Great idea.
My point was slightly tongue in cheek but also to show how it can be (and could be) a rallying cry for freedom too. Things can go out of fashion (this hasn't by the way) and can also come back into fashion.
Flower of Scotland talks about sending King Edward's army home "tae think again" - do you think that should be stripped out?
I'll tell you something else that's outdated: 5 November. But we still do it as it's good fun.
Yes, although I think it’s right that it’s now “bonfire night” not “guy fawkes night”.
Also Lewes may have passed its sell by date
But, we still burn a "Guy".
Today we celebrate the thwarting of an effort to blow-up parliament (and our democratic traditions) rather than the lingering threat of papacy.
I had an interesting moment - trying to explain to my Catholic wife and her Polish friend (also Catholic) why it was a bit interesting celebrating Guy Fawkes night.
I'm a great one for compromise, and I think we can resolve this to the satisfaction of everyone by tacitly dropping RB and introducing John Peel in its place.
Are British dreams so hard to beat? A Union Jack on every street Another flag in the neighbourhood Wish it was mine, it looks so good
I wanna quit Europe, wanna quit it right Get British kicks right through the night
Hasn't JP been cancelled for marrying a 14 year old or something of the sort?
Interesting, particularly when pre 2000 Hague went to the US for a meeting with George W Bush who he strongly supported, though Hague was a Remainer in 2016 and any support Trump does have in the UK tends to come very much from the most hardcore of the Leave side.
I think a Biden administration would prioritise the EU for a US trade deal first over the UK though unlike Trump, though of course Trump is very much focused on 'America First' rather than giving any other nations favours, including us
9.40am: Morning all. Unfortunately the weather has been as advertised in Southampton - the match officials were probably right not to bother with the 10.30am start option today - and the ground looks pretty waterlogged. That said, some of the forecasts for this afternoon are looking brighter, so there's every chance we'll get on at some stage.
You takes your choice draw 1.41
England 3.4
I think it should be 1.1 and 8 myself but maybe thats just me.
Received some sad news tonight that a friend's brother has been killed in a climbing accident in Scotland, only met him once or twice but taken too soon and shows the natural world can be both beautiful and dangerous
Sorry to hear that. Condolences to you and your friend.
And, a bit late in the day, congratulations to you on your engagement.
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
I'm not sure that 'both sides' need to be taken in to account here. The 'other side' doesn't need to watch the concert. Nobody asks UKIP supporters and members of bowls clubs what they would or wouldn't like to see on the programmes of gay pride celebrations, melas, or the Notting Hill Carnival. It doesn't matter what they think, because they won't go or watch.
Frankly, if the Last Night sticks in the craw of the BBC, give it to another broadcaster. I don't see why the people who like it should be denied a single night of unabashed (if silly) patriotic celebration. It's pathetically puritanical and moralistic.
I don't think the defence of "people not watching wont be offended" works, though, does it? I wont insult you by suggesting other examples. The test is simply whether the content is offensive or not. Given that public money is involved (via the BBC) raises the bar IMO.
*DISCLAIMER FOR THE PURPOSES OF BEING AN ARGUMENTATIVE SOD ON PB*
Thing is, let's imagine you were a fundamental Christian whose flavour of belief held that homosexuality was a sin. You are deeply offended by all things which reference or "promote" homosexuality. The BBC features its usual Pride celebrations which offends you. So you don't watch it. All is good, right?
Take Land of Hope and Glory. The actual *words* are inoffensive - the argument has to be on the implied sentiments, which seems challenging
Yes I did exactly the same thing and googled the actual lyrics which do not seem the slightest bit controversial.
Rule Britannia, meanwhile, I can just about see issues, albeit they are tenuous, but then for heaven's sake I hope no one actually takes the time to read the bible.
Received some sad news tonight that a friend's brother has been killed in a climbing accident in Scotland, only met him once or twice but taken too soon and shows the natural world can be both beautiful and dangerous
Sorry to hear that. Condolences to you and your friend.
And, a bit late in the day, congratulations to you on your engagement.
Interesting, particularly when pre 2000 Hague went to the US for a meeting with George W Bush who he strongly supported, though Hague was a Remainer in 2016 and any support Trump does have in the UK tends to come very much from the most hardcore of the Leave side.
I think a Biden administration would prioritise the EU for a US trade deal first over the UK though unlike Trump, though of course Trump is very much focused on 'America First' rather than giving any other nations favours, including us
Trump is focused on "Trump First". He's not fit to hold any office. He's literally one of the most dishonest people in history, as well as a racist, sexist, moron. Any Tory who supports Trump is a chump.
I'm a great one for compromise, and I think we can resolve this to the satisfaction of everyone by tacitly dropping RB and introducing John Peel in its place.
Are British dreams so hard to beat? A Union Jack on every street Another flag in the neighbourhood Wish it was mine, it looks so good
I wanna quit Europe, wanna quit it right Get British kicks right through the night
Hasn't JP been cancelled for marrying a 14 year old or something of the sort?
The clue was there when he continuously trumpeted Teenage Kicks as his favourite song. He was also very fond of Are You Experienced? which is another hymn to ephebophilia.
I'm a great one for compromise, and I think we can resolve this to the satisfaction of everyone by tacitly dropping RB and introducing John Peel in its place.
Are British dreams so hard to beat? A Union Jack on every street Another flag in the neighbourhood Wish it was mine, it looks so good
I wanna quit Europe, wanna quit it right Get British kicks right through the night
Hasn't JP been cancelled for marrying a 14 year old or something of the sort?
Different JP, and mine did something *much* worse.
What's needed right now is a better understanding of the discrimination faced by many Black people, and for everyone to support bringing them into the fold as equal citizens of a confident proud modern Britain.
You can't really do that while lustily belting out a song that celebrates Britishness as an exclusively white identity. (Rule Britannia).
Rule Britannia does no such thing.
Some of your fellow Britons think it does and find it offensive. Are their concerns meaningless to you?
Is this a real argument? Some of my fellow Britons have all sorts of ridiculous opinions, like wanting a commie crank to be Prime Minister (spoiler: there's about a 99% overlap between them and those who wish to wokeify the Proms). Their 'concerns' should be treated with the loftiest of disdain.
What's needed right now is a better understanding of the discrimination faced by many Black people, and for everyone to support bringing them into the fold as equal citizens of a confident proud modern Britain.
You can't really do that while lustily belting out a song that celebrates Britishness as an exclusively white identity. (Rule Britannia).
To be fair it wasn’t the British saying that about themselves - it was the observations of a mermaid at the bottom of the deep blue sea.
What's needed right now is a better understanding of the discrimination faced by many Black people, and for everyone to support bringing them into the fold as equal citizens of a confident proud modern Britain.
You can't really do that while lustily belting out a song that celebrates Britishness as an exclusively white identity. (Rule Britannia).
Rule Britannia does no such thing.
Some of your fellow Britons think it does and find it offensive. Are their concerns meaningless to you?
Is this a real argument? Some of my fellow Britons have all sorts of ridiculous opinions, like wanting a commie crank to be Prime Minister (spoiler: there's about a 99% overlap between them and those who wish to wokeify the Proms). Their 'concerns' should be treated with the loftiest of disdain.
Typical crap from you prove that modernizing and bringing the proms into the 21c has anything to do with electing (not that there has been the option recently) a commie crank as PM, You treat any affront to your privileged position with disdain.
Interesting, particularly when pre 2000 Hague went to the US for a meeting with George W Bush who he strongly supported, though Hague was a Remainer in 2016 and any support Trump does have in the UK tends to come very much from the most hardcore of the Leave side.
I think a Biden administration would prioritise the EU for a US trade deal first over the UK though unlike Trump, though of course Trump is very much focused on 'America First' rather than giving any other nations favours, including us
Trump is focused on "Trump First". He's not fit to hold any office. He's literally one of the most dishonest people in history, as well as a racist, sexist, moron. Any Tory who supports Trump is a chump.
Maybe but if Obama's VP becomes President we would, in the words of Obama himself go to 'the back of the queue' for any US trade deal.
Tory voters overall narrowly prefer Biden, 36% of Tories would vote for Biden, 26% of Tories would vote for Trump so Hague is close to his party's mainstream on this.
I'll tell you something else that's outdated: 5 November. But we still do it as it's good fun.
Yes, although I think it’s right that it’s now “bonfire night” not “guy fawkes night”.
Also Lewes may have passed its sell by date
But, we still burn a "Guy".
Today we celebrate the thwarting of an effort to blow-up parliament (and our democratic traditions) rather than the lingering threat of papacy.
Or to look at it from another perspective, why no outrage at still celebrating the crushing of an attempt to fight back against the denial of rights to and persecution of a religious minority in Britain, one which went on for the best part of three centuries.
If some self-inquiry is needed into Britain’s attitudes to and treatment of black people, the same could be said of its attitudes to and treatment of Catholics and the Irish over the centuries.
Or we could simply accept that we have a history, good and bad, enjoy traditions and understand that watching fireworks or singing songs does not mean we're going to go out and beat up the next black/Catholic/Irish/fill in your minority of choice we see.
What's needed right now is a better understanding of the discrimination faced by many Black people, and for everyone to support bringing them into the fold as equal citizens of a confident proud modern Britain.
You can't really do that while lustily belting out a song that celebrates Britishness as an exclusively white identity. (Rule Britannia).
Rule Britannia does no such thing.
Some of your fellow Britons think it does and find it offensive. Are their concerns meaningless to you?
Is this a real argument? Some of my fellow Britons have all sorts of ridiculous opinions, like wanting a commie crank to be Prime Minister (spoiler: there's about a 99% overlap between them and those who wish to wokeify the Proms). Their 'concerns' should be treated with the loftiest of disdain.
Your overall position would be stronger if you admitted the existence of exceptions and edge cases. Consider, hypothetically, a patriotic German song written in the early 40s with a chorus which said that "True born Germans shall never ever ever be sent to death camps," and there's a valid historical claim that the song is really about, oooh, the fighting on the Russian front, not about Jews at all. Is that song OK? I know it's different, but what are the *relevant* differences?
Received some sad news tonight that a friend's brother has been killed in a climbing accident in Scotland, only met him once or twice but taken too soon and shows the natural world can be both beautiful and dangerous
Sorry to hear that. Condolences to you and your friend.
And, a bit late in the day, congratulations to you on your engagement.
Interesting, particularly when pre 2000 Hague went to the US for a meeting with George W Bush who he strongly supported, though Hague was a Remainer in 2016 and any support Trump does have in the UK tends to come very much from the most hardcore of the Leave side.
I think a Biden administration would prioritise the EU for a US trade deal first over the UK though unlike Trump, though of course Trump is very much focused on 'America First' rather than giving any other nations favours, including us
Trump is focused on "Trump First". He's not fit to hold any office. He's literally one of the most dishonest people in history, as well as a racist, sexist, moron. Any Tory who supports Trump is a chump.
Maybe but if Obama's VP becomes President we would, in the words of Obama himself go to 'the back of the queue' for any US trade deal.
Tory voters overall narrowly prefer Biden, 36% of Tories would vote for Biden, 26% of Tories would vote for Trump so Hague is close to his party's mainstream on this.
Biden has overnight ticked up to 51.4% in 538's rolling average of national polls for the presidential election. That's the highest he's been at any point to date. The net lead over Trump is back up to 9.2%.
I wonder what would have happened if black men with guns had attempted to break into the state house.
Absolutely. The degree of tolerance given to these gun totting lunatics is just bizarre.
No matter the history of the nation and why they have the gun rules they have, I will never understand why so many americans love guns as much as they do, where it genuinely seems to be more important than any other issue and mean that they should be able to take and use their guns absolutlely everywhere. Even with a small number of people having a lot of guns and that skewing the average, the tolerance of the actions of those people just beggars belief.
Looking at the longer-term history of this it is in some ways more surprising that England has become so anti-gun (an opinion I share).
There was a time that the gun on the wall was seen as an essential guarantor of English liberty. Tyrannical kings were the sort of people who limited who could possess weapons. When and how did that change?
It reminds me of some of the arguments over spelling, when someone's it turns out that the American form preserves an older British standard, that was later changed in Britain, rather than the other way round.
Interesting, particularly when pre 2000 Hague went to the US for a meeting with George W Bush who he strongly supported, though Hague was a Remainer in 2016 and any support Trump does have in the UK tends to come very much from the most hardcore of the Leave side.
I think a Biden administration would prioritise the EU for a US trade deal first over the UK though unlike Trump, though of course Trump is very much focused on 'America First' rather than giving any other nations favours, including us
Trump is focused on "Trump First". He's not fit to hold any office. He's literally one of the most dishonest people in history, as well as a racist, sexist, moron. Any Tory who supports Trump is a chump.
Maybe but if Obama's VP becomes President we would, in the words of Obama himself go to 'the back of the queue' for any US trade deal.
Tory voters overall narrowly prefer Biden, 36% of Tories would vote for Biden, 26% of Tories would vote for Trump so Hague is close to his party's mainstream on this.
Interesting, particularly when pre 2000 Hague went to the US for a meeting with George W Bush who he strongly supported, though Hague was a Remainer in 2016 and any support Trump does have in the UK tends to come very much from the most hardcore of the Leave side.
I think a Biden administration would prioritise the EU for a US trade deal first over the UK though unlike Trump, though of course Trump is very much focused on 'America First' rather than giving any other nations favours, including us
Trump is focused on "Trump First". He's not fit to hold any office. He's literally one of the most dishonest people in history, as well as a racist, sexist, moron. Any Tory who supports Trump is a chump.
Maybe but if Obama's VP becomes President we would, in the words of Obama himself go to 'the back of the queue' for any US trade deal.
Tory voters overall narrowly prefer Biden, 36% of Tories would vote for Biden, 26% of Tories would vote for Trump so Hague is close to his party's mainstream on this.
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
I'm not sure that 'both sides' need to be taken in to account here. The 'other side' doesn't need to watch the concert. Nobody asks UKIP supporters and members of bowls clubs what they would or wouldn't like to see on the programmes of gay pride celebrations, melas, or the Notting Hill Carnival. It doesn't matter what they think, because they won't go or watch.
Frankly, if the Last Night sticks in the craw of the BBC, give it to another broadcaster. I don't see why the people who like it should be denied a single night of unabashed (if silly) patriotic celebration. It's pathetically puritanical and moralistic.
I don't think the defence of "people not watching wont be offended" works, though, does it? I wont insult you by suggesting other examples. The test is simply whether the content is offensive or not. Given that public money is involved (via the BBC) raises the bar IMO.
*DISCLAIMER FOR THE PURPOSES OF BEING AN ARGUMENTATIVE SOD ON PB*
Thing is, let's imagine you were a fundamental Christian whose flavour of belief held that homosexuality was a sin. You are deeply offended by all things which reference or "promote" homosexuality. The BBC features its usual Pride celebrations which offends you. So you don't watch it. All is good, right?
Take Land of Hope and Glory. The actual *words* are inoffensive - the argument has to be on the implied sentiments, which seems challenging
Yes I did exactly the same thing and googled the actual lyrics which do not seem the slightest bit controversial.
Rule Britannia, meanwhile, I can just about see issues, albeit they are tenuous, but then for heaven's sake I hope no one actually takes the time to read the bible.
Although I can see that atheists might have grounds to complain about “God who make you mighty” while others might argue that “make you mightier yet” is a call for Empire 2.0.
Interesting, particularly when pre 2000 Hague went to the US for a meeting with George W Bush who he strongly supported, though Hague was a Remainer in 2016 and any support Trump does have in the UK tends to come very much from the most hardcore of the Leave side.
I think a Biden administration would prioritise the EU for a US trade deal first over the UK though unlike Trump, though of course Trump is very much focused on 'America First' rather than giving any other nations favours, including us
Trump is focused on "Trump First". He's not fit to hold any office. He's literally one of the most dishonest people in history, as well as a racist, sexist, moron. Any Tory who supports Trump is a chump.
Maybe but if Obama's VP becomes President we would, in the words of Obama himself go to 'the back of the queue' for any US trade deal.
Tory voters overall narrowly prefer Biden, 36% of Tories would vote for Biden, 26% of Tories would vote for Trump so Hague is close to his party's mainstream on this.
Interesting, particularly when pre 2000 Hague went to the US for a meeting with George W Bush who he strongly supported, though Hague was a Remainer in 2016 and any support Trump does have in the UK tends to come very much from the most hardcore of the Leave side.
I think a Biden administration would prioritise the EU for a US trade deal first over the UK though unlike Trump, though of course Trump is very much focused on 'America First' rather than giving any other nations favours, including us
Trump is focused on "Trump First". He's not fit to hold any office. He's literally one of the most dishonest people in history, as well as a racist, sexist, moron. Any Tory who supports Trump is a chump.
Maybe but if Obama's VP becomes President we would, in the words of Obama himself go to 'the back of the queue' for any US trade deal.
Tory voters overall narrowly prefer Biden, 36% of Tories would vote for Biden, 26% of Tories would vote for Trump so Hague is close to his party's mainstream on this.
I suspect only Brexit Party and UKIP supporters would give Trump the majority of their votes
A lot of shy trump supporters hidden in the Tory don’t knows I bet
It's a shame don't know isn't split out into don't know and don't care.
The trouble is that being a Trump supporter has been made such an anathema by the media and twitter, they have no idea of the size of their opposition.
Looks like parts of Spain are not expecting the return to school to go universally well and are formulating a Plan B
The Community of Madrid plans to install 6,100 cameras in classrooms to teach online classes to a large part of the students and will also buy 70,000 computers so that teachers and students can connect by videoconference during this school year. This has been indicated to Efe, sources of the regional government, who have advanced part of the plan for going back to school that will be presented at 1:00 p.m. by the president of the Community of Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, together with the Minister of Education, Enrique Ossorio, and that of Health, Enrique Ruiz Escudero
As was posted on the previous thread, the issue of riots and concern over law and order is now starting to seep into US voters' minds as to which way to vote.
This is going to be the issue that will kill the Democrats. I'm sure we will have the usual "but it's not in the polls" argument but gun sales going through the roof tells you how scared many Americans are by what is happened at the moment. It is unlikely they will think Joe Biden is the person to fix the mess.
72 days.
That's how long is left.
And Biden continues to average over 50% in the polls. Which Clinton never did.
Now. It's entirely possible the polls are wrong. And it's possible that this issue of law and order will completely dominate the election. And I totally buy that Trump voters are more enthused.
The problem is that Trump should be closing the gap. He's not. Indeed, the polls seem to be worsening for him. And the economic news is not good. New unemployment claims were back at almost a million last week, that's a sharp reversal of previous progress.
Can I see Trump winning? Of course I can.
But while I thought he was value at 30% a month ago, he's now above 40%, when his polling position has worsened.
Law and order may be his way back. But it's a stretch. It's a lot easier to run on a "all is anarchy, you need me to get order" when you're the challenger than when you're the incumbent.
I think that this is the key difference. Biden doesn't have many more positives than Clinton but he has a hell of a lot fewer negatives.
The mood on here seems to be that, while best not to be complacent, the odds very much lie with Biden (@DavidL, that is not aimed at you BTW). I wouldn't be too confident in that. The Republicans are pretty good on their ground game and, if it was the pattern that some were outlining on here of consistent Biden leads that are unlikely to be pulled back by Trump, you would expect to see more panic in the GOP's action. There isn't. They seem quite comfortable with where they are and reasonably confident, especially given the macro situation.
Now, I am sure some will put that down to the industrial-style cheating the GOP is planning for November, including decapitating the USPS etc etc but it might be worth stepping back and thinking why Trump and the Republicans are not running around like headless chickens, especially given the personal issues involved for Trump.
The Dems had an excellent "ground game" in 2008. Hopefully in the last 3 years they have taken a hard look at how they lost it in 2016 (that means not just lazily blaming it on the candidate), and work out how to do better this time round.
Do they have an excellent ground game in the states (and counties within states) that actually matter, though? It's hardly as if activists can be sent from California or New York to go knocking up in Florida or wherever.
The Democrats won Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin in 2012. It#s not as if the party can't get their acts together in those states.
An excellent response from Starmer. Refuses to be drawn into a contrived debate set as a trap by his political opponents, while using the issue to simultaneously emphasise once again his patriotic credentials while emphathising with the need to reexamine our past.
A dialog "you are all too stupid and enmeshed in your liberal elite views to understamnd why Trump is so phenomenally popular which is why he won the election over the hugely unpopular Hilary Clinton" "Trump got 3 million less votes than Clinton" "Ah, I'm talking about his appeal to the White Working Classes which you would never understand with your Liberal elite views. His huge popularity with the WWC is why he won rust belt states like Wisconsin the like of which Romney could never reach" "Trump got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin" "You'll never understand Trump"
Another way that Trump and Johnson rhyme.
Both their election wins were substantially down to the failings of their opponents, but they took their wins as signs of their brilliance and a mandate to do whatever the hell they liked.
That's not true at all. Trump got fewer votes than Romney in key swing states. Johnson got more votes than anyone has received in decades, millions more than Cameron ever achieved.
Dismiss Johnson's own popularity at your own peril.
Interesting, particularly when pre 2000 Hague went to the US for a meeting with George W Bush who he strongly supported, though Hague was a Remainer in 2016 and any support Trump does have in the UK tends to come very much from the most hardcore of the Leave side.
I think a Biden administration would prioritise the EU for a US trade deal first over the UK though unlike Trump, though of course Trump is very much focused on 'America First' rather than giving any other nations favours, including us
Trump is focused on "Trump First". He's not fit to hold any office. He's literally one of the most dishonest people in history, as well as a racist, sexist, moron. Any Tory who supports Trump is a chump.
Maybe but if Obama's VP becomes President we would, in the words of Obama himself go to 'the back of the queue' for any US trade deal.
Tory voters overall narrowly prefer Biden, 36% of Tories would vote for Biden, 26% of Tories would vote for Trump so Hague is close to his party's mainstream on this.
Interesting, particularly when pre 2000 Hague went to the US for a meeting with George W Bush who he strongly supported, though Hague was a Remainer in 2016 and any support Trump does have in the UK tends to come very much from the most hardcore of the Leave side.
I think a Biden administration would prioritise the EU for a US trade deal first over the UK though unlike Trump, though of course Trump is very much focused on 'America First' rather than giving any other nations favours, including us
Trump is focused on "Trump First". He's not fit to hold any office. He's literally one of the most dishonest people in history, as well as a racist, sexist, moron. Any Tory who supports Trump is a chump.
Maybe but if Obama's VP becomes President we would, in the words of Obama himself go to 'the back of the queue' for any US trade deal.
Tory voters overall narrowly prefer Biden, 36% of Tories would vote for Biden, 26% of Tories would vote for Trump so Hague is close to his party's mainstream on this.
Interesting, particularly when pre 2000 Hague went to the US for a meeting with George W Bush who he strongly supported, though Hague was a Remainer in 2016 and any support Trump does have in the UK tends to come very much from the most hardcore of the Leave side.
I think a Biden administration would prioritise the EU for a US trade deal first over the UK though unlike Trump, though of course Trump is very much focused on 'America First' rather than giving any other nations favours, including us
Trump is focused on "Trump First". He's not fit to hold any office. He's literally one of the most dishonest people in history, as well as a racist, sexist, moron. Any Tory who supports Trump is a chump.
Maybe but if Obama's VP becomes President we would, in the words of Obama himself go to 'the back of the queue' for any US trade deal.
Tory voters overall narrowly prefer Biden, 36% of Tories would vote for Biden, 26% of Tories would vote for Trump so Hague is close to his party's mainstream on this.
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
I'm not sure that 'both sides' need to be taken in to account here. The 'other side' doesn't need to watch the concert. Nobody asks UKIP supporters and members of bowls clubs what they would or wouldn't like to see on the programmes of gay pride celebrations, melas, or the Notting Hill Carnival. It doesn't matter what they think, because they won't go or watch.
Frankly, if the Last Night sticks in the craw of the BBC, give it to another broadcaster. I don't see why the people who like it should be denied a single night of unabashed (if silly) patriotic celebration. It's pathetically puritanical and moralistic.
I don't think the defence of "people not watching wont be offended" works, though, does it? I wont insult you by suggesting other examples. The test is simply whether the content is offensive or not. Given that public money is involved (via the BBC) raises the bar IMO.
*DISCLAIMER FOR THE PURPOSES OF BEING AN ARGUMENTATIVE SOD ON PB*
Thing is, let's imagine you were a fundamental Christian whose flavour of belief held that homosexuality was a sin. You are deeply offended by all things which reference or "promote" homosexuality. The BBC features its usual Pride celebrations which offends you. So you don't watch it. All is good, right?
Take Land of Hope and Glory. The actual *words* are inoffensive - the argument has to be on the implied sentiments, which seems challenging
Yes I did exactly the same thing and googled the actual lyrics which do not seem the slightest bit controversial.
Rule Britannia, meanwhile, I can just about see issues, albeit they are tenuous, but then for heaven's sake I hope no one actually takes the time to read the bible.
Although I can see that atheists might have grounds to complain about “God who make you mighty” while others might argue that “make you mightier yet” is a call for Empire 2.0.
Which it isn’t
Speaking as an atheist if we objected to every old song like that that refers to God there wouldn't be many old songs left. I don't object to it.
On topic, there's all kinds of uncertainty and weirdness and the chance of Trump somehow turning it around isn't trivial, but it's also not 42%.
The voters are very clear that they don't want him. The polling is totally consistent. And to date, the GOP haven't been able to come up with anything against Biden that shows any sign of sticking, unlike with Hillary where at this point in the cycle they had multiple lines of attack that she was weak at defending.
Interesting, particularly when pre 2000 Hague went to the US for a meeting with George W Bush who he strongly supported, though Hague was a Remainer in 2016 and any support Trump does have in the UK tends to come very much from the most hardcore of the Leave side.
I think a Biden administration would prioritise the EU for a US trade deal first over the UK though unlike Trump, though of course Trump is very much focused on 'America First' rather than giving any other nations favours, including us
Trump is focused on "Trump First". He's not fit to hold any office. He's literally one of the most dishonest people in history, as well as a racist, sexist, moron. Any Tory who supports Trump is a chump.
Maybe but if Obama's VP becomes President we would, in the words of Obama himself go to 'the back of the queue' for any US trade deal.
Tory voters overall narrowly prefer Biden, 36% of Tories would vote for Biden, 26% of Tories would vote for Trump so Hague is close to his party's mainstream on this.
On the proms, what’s a little odd is the BBC apparently choosing to take sides on the brewing culture wars. Regardless of what people might claim, hardly anyone takes any notice of the proms. But once the spotlight of public attention was shone on this, why didnt the Beeb just say they’d always had plans for a soloist this year? It’s actually extraordinary that the Beeb have not backed down because it’s a trigger issue for the most important chunk of their customer base.
It reminds me a bit of how the over 50s have been trained by covid into ditching complacent businesses for online shopping instead. Same is likely to happen with the bbc. They’re taking their audience for granted, because they think the over 50s will never get themselves over the line to cancel their license and rely on Prime/Netflix/ITV Player/Youtube etc... I wouldn’t be so sure.
The media coverage of the next uk election should be quite tasty, the way the beeb is going it will be an existential one for them.
They haven’t taken sides they have done what they always do, try and reflect both sides of opinion thereby upsetting both. It’s daft that people are arguing about tunes that either started life with No words or different words and who’s meaning were different then as to now, best to play the tunes and let people put their own words to them. I was in a crowd one night in our local town when the Spanish national anthem, which has no (official) words with the people on one side of me singing one version, pro Franco, and on the other singing another.
Was there a debate raging over the proms that the BBC reacted to? If so, I certainly missed it.
According to the newspapers there was.
As per @Luckyguy1983 I am sure the BLM lot watch the proms every year without fail...
It’s nothing to do with BLM the words to the songs are just outdated and irrelevant in today’s world.
What?! A historical song is outdated and irrelevant, why I never. I've always said all songs and media must be relevant for today's world, otherwise they should be junked.
And remarkable people only noticed it for the first time now.
CHB is right to not care about this Proms business, but my word it has been entertaining to watch people bitch at it from each side.
I am not at all given to affecting outrage on other people's behalf, but I can see a little difficulty in being ok about a song proclaiming in 1740 that Britons never shall be slaves, when in the same year the (crown colony of) South Carolina Slave Code prohibited slaves from gathering without white supervision, learning to read and write, and growing their own food, and empowered their owners to whip, mutilate and castrate them on grounds of insubordination and general attitude.
Yes, slavery was awful - and that's why an abolitionist campaign developed in Britain in the late 18th Century (ironically, this song helped as the campaigners were able to point out the inconsistencies) - and then it was ceased, phased out and then stamped out.
The song is a celebration of independent Britishness and freedom that is still relevant today, and I can see it being even more so in future if China becomes ever more powerful in the geopolitical and economic space such that it starts to impinge on our freedoms rather than us supinely surrendering to it.
God help us , now we are going to sing Land of Hope and Glory to the Chinese as they buy up what will be left of the UK or generally tweak our noses and laugh at us. Great idea.
My point was slightly tongue in cheek but also to show how it can be (and could be) a rallying cry for freedom too. Things can go out of fashion (this hasn't by the way) and can also come back into fashion.
Flower of Scotland talks about sending King Edward's army home "tae think again" - do you think that should be stripped out?
In the modern climate I should report a 'hate' crime - Scottish nurse belting out flower of Scotland into my face in New Zealand bar (1998, Eng had just lost 40-15 against the All Blacks). I let her off as she was cute (and drunk). As always, good intentions lead to stupidity in the long run...
Comments
He describes America as a culture hugely influenced by film and TV, both of which it has had for longer than anywhere else, and because physical size and remoteness reduced the importance of aspects of European culture (against which there was a counter-reaction after independence in any case - see Degler's classic book on American cultural history). Americans draw much of their self image of what it is to be American directly from film and TV in a way that isn't the case in Europe. He draws similar conclusions (as on guns) about religion, noting that despite wider claimed adherance, society isn't noticeably more Christian in its values (arguably less, in some respects) and the nature of religion in the US downplays the ritual and liturgy of its history and replaces it with aspects of performance and celebrity, drawn from (and sometimes hosted by) the visual media. He concludes many Americans are religious simply because it makes their life storyline more interesting.
http://www.scottishmining.co.uk/8.html
Edit: Here's a serf's collar - |""property of so and so, given by the magistrates".
http://nms.scran.ac.uk/database/record.php?usi=000-100-001-337-C
https://twitter.com/DomWalsh13/status/1298181038317940737?s=20
...
https://twitter.com/DomWalsh13/status/1298181043846033410?s=20
And I did not suggest 'affecting outrage' would be a false affectation, so I think you should check yourself before accusing others of being confused.
Pleasant day to all.
Should the license fee payers promote it is an entirely different question and arguable. On balance enough people watch it that they should do imo, but its a proper question and not clearcut unlike should it be allowed to happen.
The song is a celebration of independent Britishness and freedom that is still relevant today, and I can see it being even more so in future if China becomes ever more powerful in the geopolitical and economic space such that it starts to impinge on our freedoms rather than us supinely surrendering to it.
And that it will return to what it was next year (assuming the virus problem is gone).
- due to the unique format of the race, taking place over a long, winding course on a tidal river, there is no interest from other universities for taking part. Modern rowing training (like all athletic training) is finely tuned. Everyone else in rowing is training for 2000m, over a straight course, in flat water.
- it would be quite hard to row with a half dozen competitors - despite the width of the Thames, the "good" line is quite narrow. Unlike other rowing, the idea is to get in front of your opponent and block the "good" line. With multiple competitors, collisions would be almost inevitable.
potential profit£1,255.67
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2637487
Extrapolating, a gaggle of other universities could be allowed to compete by starting off some yards back from Oxford and Cambridge, and if any of them manage to catch the boat in second place, they get to be one of the top two the year following?
I think eventually those songs will be replaced but its probably 20 years away or so, when there is broader support for the change amongst those who go.
Whilst traditions obviously are based on keeping a lot of things similar, they also change and adapt as everything else does. Xmas in 2020 is very different to that in 1970 which is in turn different to that in 1920, but they are all stall Xmas.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Hope_and_Glory
Take Land of Hope and Glory. The actual *words* are inoffensive - the argument has to be on the implied sentiments, which seems challenging
I'm a great one for compromise, and I think we can resolve this to the satisfaction of everyone by tacitly dropping RB and introducing John Peel in its place.
Also Lewes may have passed its sell by date
They had to drop a bridge on a few people to stop it in the German army, IIRC
We're retrospectively ascribing negative sentiments to it.
It is strongly associated with the Royal Navy – yet at the time, the song was not a celebration of the success of naval affairs, but a cry for help.
Written in 1740 Britain did not yet ‘rule the waves’, and the Royal Navy didn’t yet have the dominant power on the oceans
"Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never will be slaves."
Have you rowed on the tidal bit of the Thames? Doing bumps would be... interesting. In the cave-diving-for-lols category of fun....
No one else has shown interest in taking part, as far as I know.
And, a bit late in the day, congratulations to you on your engagement.
Instead, I'd argue with them that their reasons for taking offence are baseless. If they still insisted on doing so then that'd be unfortunate but their decision.
You're on a hiding to nothing if you think the object of public policy should be to ensure everyone is unoffended.
A Union Jack on every street
Another flag in the neighbourhood
Wish it was mine, it looks so good
I wanna quit Europe, wanna quit it right
Get British kicks right through the night
Today we celebrate the thwarting of an effort to blow-up parliament (and our democratic traditions) rather than the lingering threat of papacy.
Flower of Scotland talks about sending King Edward's army home "tae think again" - do you think that should be stripped out?
I was told to stop spoiling the fun....
Doesn't sound totally implausible to me
I think a Biden administration would prioritise the EU for a US trade deal first over the UK though unlike Trump, though of course Trump is very much focused on 'America First' rather than giving any other nations favours, including us
9.40am: Morning all. Unfortunately the weather has been as advertised in Southampton - the match officials were probably right not to bother with the 10.30am start option today - and the ground looks pretty waterlogged. That said, some of the forecasts for this afternoon are looking brighter, so there's every chance we'll get on at some stage.
You takes your choice draw 1.41
England 3.4
I think it should be 1.1 and 8 myself but maybe thats just me.
Play nicely everyone.
It could be produced by Martian statisticians for all it matters.
Rule Britannia, meanwhile, I can just about see issues, albeit they are tenuous, but then for heaven's sake I hope no one actually takes the time to read the bible.
Missed that apols - many congratulations.
https://www.cunard.com/en-gb/contact-us/travel-health-advisories
Tory voters overall narrowly prefer Biden, 36% of Tories would vote for Biden, 26% of Tories would vote for Trump so Hague is close to his party's mainstream on this.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1283804957897109504?s=20
I suspect only Brexit Party and UKIP supporters would give Trump the majority of their votes
If some self-inquiry is needed into Britain’s attitudes to and treatment of black people, the same could be said of its attitudes to and treatment of Catholics and the Irish over the centuries.
Or we could simply accept that we have a history, good and bad, enjoy traditions and understand that watching fireworks or singing songs does not mean we're going to go out and beat up the next black/Catholic/Irish/fill in your minority of choice we see.
There was a time that the gun on the wall was seen as an essential guarantor of English liberty. Tyrannical kings were the sort of people who limited who could possess weapons. When and how did that change?
It reminds me of some of the arguments over spelling, when someone's it turns out that the American form preserves an older British standard, that was later changed in Britain, rather than the other way round.
How deep is the shy trump iceberg here and in the states?
Nobody knows.
Which it isn’t
I want him gone
He is unfit for the office
Its just a guesstimate.
The Community of Madrid plans to install 6,100 cameras in classrooms to teach online classes to a large part of the students and will also buy 70,000 computers so that teachers and students can connect by videoconference during this school year. This has been indicated to Efe, sources of the regional government, who have advanced part of the plan for going back to school that will be presented at 1:00 p.m. by the president of the Community of Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, together with the Minister of Education, Enrique Ossorio, and that of Health, Enrique Ruiz Escudero
Dismiss Johnson's own popularity at your own peril.
Oh wait....
The voters are very clear that they don't want him. The polling is totally consistent. And to date, the GOP haven't been able to come up with anything against Biden that shows any sign of sticking, unlike with Hillary where at this point in the cycle they had multiple lines of attack that she was weak at defending.
Maybe 20%?
As always, good intentions lead to stupidity in the long run...
UK 22 what?