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.
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.
Except Biden is no Obama....
Even Kerry and Gore won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, if Biden wins all those states and holds all the Hillary states he wins the EC even if Trump wins Florida again.
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
Not this one.
I want him gone
He is unfit for the office
But you wouldn’t have answered don’t know, the proportion of DKs is largest amongst Tory supporters.
Don't be a HYUFD. You can't reassign DK to whomever you want to prove your point. DK is DK, nothing more or less.
In 2016 Barbara Bush I believe wrote in Jeb Bush rather than vote for Trump or Hillary, though I believe Bush Snr actually voted for Hillary, I suspect some Tories might do the same in 2020 and refuse to vote for either of them if they were American
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.
Is there anyone in this country who we've heard of who actually wants any of them banned, or is the wholoe thing a straw man exercise?
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.
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
Not this one.
I want him gone
He is unfit for the office
But you wouldn’t have answered don’t know, the proportion of DKs is largest amongst Tory supporters.
Don't be a HYUFD. You can't reassign DK to whomever you want to prove your point. DK is DK, nothing more or less.
I wasn’t, just suggesting it was a possibility given that the dk category was largest among Tory voters which suggests some ambiguity or uncertainty about the question.
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.
I hesitate to get embroiled in a devolved English issue, but the Welsh national anthem, Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, is patriotic without being jingoistic or bellicose. But if you think that makes us a push-over I can offer you Men Of Harlech as an encore.
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.
Its still pouring down here
It was free money IMO I am in for a 2 grand profit, current cashout profit £687
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
Not this one.
I want him gone
He is unfit for the office
Agreed. He's even more xenophobic and unacceptable than Theresa May. He needs to go.
What have you got against TMay who towers over her successor in so many respects.
She is a nasty xenophobe. I was sat at Conference in 2015 during which every other speech was upbeat and positive (following the GE victory earlier in the year) and was uncomfortable and horrified by Theresa May getting on stage and ranting about immigration and how bad it is for the country for half an hour. I have had no time or respect for her since.
That on top of her sending Go Home vans to areas with immigrants and everything else she's done since. She is a nasty xenophobe and I am ashamed she is in my party and became it's leader. I quit the party when she was elected.
I have principles and xenophobia is not acceptable to me.
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.
Anything that gets the Damart long johns of the gammons in a knot is worth pursuing.
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.
I hesitate to get embroiled in a devolved English issue, but the Welsh national anthem, Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, is patriotic without being jingoistic or bellicose. But if you think that makes us a push-over I can offer you Men Of Harlech as an encore.
Really?
The land of my fathers is dear to me, Old land where the minstrels are honoured and free; Its warring defenders so gallant and brave, For freedom their life's blood they gave.
Sounds pretty bellicose to me. Also if that was a successful defence of Wales I hate to think what an unsuccessful one would look like.
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
Not this one.
I want him gone
He is unfit for the office
Agreed. He's even more xenophobic and unacceptable than Theresa May. He needs to go.
What have you got against TMay who towers over her successor in so many respects.
She is a nasty xenophobe. I was sat at Conference in 2015 during which every other speech was upbeat and positive (following the GE victory earlier in the year) and was uncomfortable and horrified by Theresa May getting on stage and ranting about immigration and how bad it is for the country for half an hour. I have had no time or respect for her since.
That on top of her sending Go Home vans to areas with immigrants and everything else she's done since. She is a nasty xenophobe and I am ashamed she is in my party and became it's leader. I quit the party when she was elected.
I have principles and xenophobia is not acceptable to me.
Is that clear enough?
She was only trying to reflect what her members wanted, and still do
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.
Yes. And it is a call to build a bigger navy, something supremely relevant in an age of defence cuts.
Also it is by far the best tune of any of our patriotic songs.
It has nothing to do with the Atlantic slave trade, but insofar as it does, it would seem to oppose it.
Of course, if we are desperate to analyse it for political correctness violations, we can accuse it of the "male saviour" trope with its talk about "manly hearts to guard the fair".
And that line is heavily cis-normative. It doesn't even acknowledge the existence of the 18th century trans community.
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.
I hesitate to get embroiled in a devolved English issue, but the Welsh national anthem, Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, is patriotic without being jingoistic or bellicose. But if you think that makes us a push-over I can offer you Men Of Harlech as an encore.
Its warriors of wide renown for freedom poured out their life's blood?
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.
I hesitate to get embroiled in a devolved English issue, but the Welsh national anthem, Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, is patriotic without being jingoistic or bellicose. But if you think that makes us a push-over I can offer you Men Of Harlech as an encore.
Really?
The land of my fathers is dear to me, Old land where the minstrels are honoured and free; Its warring defenders so gallant and brave, For freedom their life's blood they gave.
Sounds pretty bellicose to me. Also if that was a successful defence of Wales I hate to think what an unsuccessful one would look like.
That verse doesn't require success to be parsed correctly.
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.
Maybe 20%?
My gut feeling is close to 30% now, but the convention and post-convention period is a window when voting optionions can change a bit. If the polls stay similar then that number will IMO be down to 20% within a few weeks.
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.
I hesitate to get embroiled in a devolved English issue, but the Welsh national anthem, Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, is patriotic without being jingoistic or bellicose. But if you think that makes us a push-over I can offer you Men Of Harlech as an encore.
Its warriors of wide renown for freedom poured out their life's blood?
It's a lament for our losses defending our freedom.
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.
Its still pouring down here
It was free money IMO I am in for a 2 grand profit, current cashout profit £687
It has just stopped raining but it is extremely windy
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.
I hesitate to get embroiled in a devolved English issue, but the Welsh national anthem, Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, is patriotic without being jingoistic or bellicose. But if you think that makes us a push-over I can offer you Men Of Harlech as an encore.
Really?
The land of my fathers is dear to me, Old land where the minstrels are honoured and free; Its warring defenders so gallant and brave, For freedom their life's blood they gave.
Sounds pretty bellicose to me. Also if that was a successful defence of Wales I hate to think what an unsuccessful one would look like.
A translation of the Rhyfelgyrch Gwyr Harlech would actually blow your mind...
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.
Its still pouring down here
It was free money IMO I am in for a 2 grand profit, current cashout profit £687
It has just stopped raining but it is extremely windy
Looks like more showers for a while too. I'd be wary if they get out on the field with around 40 overs available. Probably not going to collapse on this featherbed of a pitch, but stranger things.
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.
Its still pouring down here
It was free money IMO I am in for a 2 grand profit, current cashout profit £687
It has just stopped raining but it is extremely windy
Unless the sun comes out that won't help dry the field.
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
Not this one.
I want him gone
He is unfit for the office
Agreed. He's even more xenophobic and unacceptable than Theresa May. He needs to go.
What have you got against TMay who towers over her successor in so many respects.
She is a nasty xenophobe. I was sat at Conference in 2015 during which every other speech was upbeat and positive (following the GE victory earlier in the year) and was uncomfortable and horrified by Theresa May getting on stage and ranting about immigration and how bad it is for the country for half an hour. I have had no time or respect for her since.
That on top of her sending Go Home vans to areas with immigrants and everything else she's done since. She is a nasty xenophobe and I am ashamed she is in my party and became it's leader. I quit the party when she was elected.
I have principles and xenophobia is not acceptable to me.
Is that clear enough?
She was only trying to reflect what her members wanted, and still do
I don't believe that, I know from speaking to others there afterwards that some at Conference agreed with her and some were as horrified as I was.
But either way, playing to the baser worst instincts of a party isn't something to be admired. If someone were to defend Corbyn being antisemitic suggesting he was only being so because it's popular with his members then that isn't acceptable either.
I can't in good conscience attack Corbyn for being an anti-Semite without also attacking May for being a xenophobe. In fact I find May more annoying to me than Corbyn precisely because she is in what is meant to be my side. I quit the party because of her xenophobia and nothing justifies it to me.
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
Not this one.
I want him gone
He is unfit for the office
Agreed. He's even more xenophobic and unacceptable than Theresa May. He needs to go.
What have you got against TMay who towers over her successor in so many respects.
She is a nasty xenophobe. I was sat at Conference in 2015 during which every other speech was upbeat and positive (following the GE victory earlier in the year) and was uncomfortable and horrified by Theresa May getting on stage and ranting about immigration and how bad it is for the country for half an hour. I have had no time or respect for her since.
That on top of her sending Go Home vans to areas with immigrants and everything else she's done since. She is a nasty xenophobe and I am ashamed she is in my party and became it's leader. I quit the party when she was elected.
I have principles and xenophobia is not acceptable to me.
Is that clear enough?
She was only trying to reflect what her members wanted, and still do
Whereas the other Conservative female PM's approach was to convince her members in what she believed in.
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.
Its still pouring down here
It was free money IMO I am in for a 2 grand profit, current cashout profit £687
It has just stopped raining but it is extremely windy
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
Not this one.
I want him gone
He is unfit for the office
Agreed. He's even more xenophobic and unacceptable than Theresa May. He needs to go.
What have you got against TMay who towers over her successor in so many respects.
She is a nasty xenophobe. I was sat at Conference in 2015 during which every other speech was upbeat and positive (following the GE victory earlier in the year) and was uncomfortable and horrified by Theresa May getting on stage and ranting about immigration and how bad it is for the country for half an hour. I have had no time or respect for her since.
That on top of her sending Go Home vans to areas with immigrants and everything else she's done since. She is a nasty xenophobe and I am ashamed she is in my party and became it's leader. I quit the party when she was elected.
I have principles and xenophobia is not acceptable to me.
Is that clear enough?
She was only trying to reflect what her members wanted, and still do
Whereas the other Conservative female PM's approach was to convince her members in what she believed in.
Margaret Thatcher's greatest one-liner:
'Prime Minister, do you respect those members of the cabinet who have the courage of their convictions?'
'I want them to have the courage of MY convictions.'
Employment fun - service contract for my new gig has arrived. A few minor tweaks and its all good. IR35 checked with HMRC and not applicable. An exciting future beckons!
Is there anyone in this country who we've heard of who actually wants any of them banned, or is the wholoe thing a straw man exercise?
No idea - but it's all grist to PB's mill.
It's odd what does and doesn't provoke a response. I thought putting Prince George in military camouflage for a 7th birthday photoshoot was about as eeeuw as it gets (google child soldiers to see why) but nobody else seemed fussed. Praps its as close as you can get to wearing a poppy without actually wearing a poppy, in mid july.
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.
Maybe 20%?
My gut feeling is close to 30% now, but the convention and post-convention period is a window when voting optionions can change a bit. If the polls stay similar then that number will IMO be down to 20% within a few weeks.
Generally the convention changes things, but: 1) Opinion seems very fixed, there are very few undecideds. 2) The conference is where the opposition party introduces their nominee to the voters, and governing party switches from "governing mode" to "campaign mode". But the voters already know Biden, and Trump never switched from campaign mode to governing mode in the first place.
So I'm predicting that the conventions will do nothing. The nice thing about this prediction is that it can be proven wrong in a fortnight.
Employment fun - service contract for my new gig has arrived. A few minor tweaks and its all good. IR35 checked with HMRC and not applicable. An exciting future beckons!
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.
Except Biden is no Obama....
Even Kerry and Gore won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, if Biden wins all those states and holds all the Hillary states he wins the EC even if Trump wins Florida again.
I had Pennsylvania and Michigan pencilled in for Trump in 2016. The Dems losing Wisconsin was the pinnacle of their utterly disastrous campaign management.
I don't see how Trump can have a chance of holding on there in 2020.
Employment fun - service contract for my new gig has arrived. A few minor tweaks and its all good. IR35 checked with HMRC and not applicable. An exciting future beckons!
Yep IR35 wouldn't be an issue in your case - set yourself up with a limited company and enjoy the tax benefits...
Ping me if you want advice - the main one is that you've probably paid enough PAYE this year so don't rush to pay yourself any more.
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.
I hesitate to get embroiled in a devolved English issue, but the Welsh national anthem, Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, is patriotic without being jingoistic or bellicose. But if you think that makes us a push-over I can offer you Men Of Harlech as an encore.
Really?
The land of my fathers is dear to me, Old land where the minstrels are honoured and free; Its warring defenders so gallant and brave, For freedom their life's blood they gave.
Sounds pretty bellicose to me. Also if that was a successful defence of Wales I hate to think what an unsuccessful one would look like.
A translation of the Rhyfelgyrch Gwyr Harlech would actually blow your mind...
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.
I hesitate to get embroiled in a devolved English issue, but the Welsh national anthem, Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, is patriotic without being jingoistic or bellicose. But if you think that makes us a push-over I can offer you Men Of Harlech as an encore.
Really?
The land of my fathers is dear to me, Old land where the minstrels are honoured and free; Its warring defenders so gallant and brave, For freedom their life's blood they gave.
Sounds pretty bellicose to me. Also if that was a successful defence of Wales I hate to think what an unsuccessful one would look like.
A translation of the Rhyfelgyrch Gwyr Harlech would actually blow your mind...
'Tis a mere flesh wound.
Can't see that in it. Roughly speaking the first verse comes out as:
'The beacon flares with white flame, tongues of fire shouting The brave men come back to fight once again to avenge the wrongs done to our princes We hear our enemies approaching, their voices and the noise of their armour The martial sound echoes from crag to crag.'
For cricket fans not already listening to TMS, they are replaying THAT game from the Ashes at Headingly 2019. Only one wicket left, too many runs needed, so it's not looking good...
For cricket fans not already listening to TMS, they are replaying THAT game from the Ashes at Headingly 2019. Only one wicket left, too many runs needed, so it's not looking good...
Although the faint ray of hope is that our best batsman is at the crease.
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.
Its still pouring down here
It was free money IMO I am in for a 2 grand profit, current cashout profit £687
It has just stopped raining but it is extremely windy
Are you in Southampton?
Further west (Guernsey) the rain has passed - bright, sunny, windy weather, no rain showing in Southampton:
Employment fun - service contract for my new gig has arrived. A few minor tweaks and its all good. IR35 checked with HMRC and not applicable. An exciting future beckons!
Employment fun - service contract for my new gig has arrived. A few minor tweaks and its all good. IR35 checked with HMRC and not applicable. An exciting future beckons!
Good luck RP.
what's a gig?
A light, two wheeled sprung cart pulled by a horse.
Is there anyone in this country who we've heard of who actually wants any of them banned, or is the wholoe thing a straw man exercise?
No idea - but it's all grist to PB's mill.
It's odd what does and doesn't provoke a response. I thought putting Prince George in military camouflage for a 7th birthday photoshoot was about as eeeuw as it gets (google child soldiers to see why) but nobody else seemed fussed. Praps its as close as you can get to wearing a poppy without actually wearing a poppy, in mid july.
I didn't see the photo although it's a good example of what we're talking about.
Plenty of (usually rugger bugger) folk put their children into DPM for goodness knows what reason. I am left cold and slightly bemused by it aside from noting as you do that it might in some way pay homage to the armed forces.
But that is a million miles away from Emmanuel Jal, Ishmael Beah or indeed Matthew Green or Romeo Dallaire's experiences and I struggle to connect the two concepts.
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.
Its still pouring down here
It was free money IMO I am in for a 2 grand profit, current cashout profit £687
It has just stopped raining but it is extremely windy
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.
Its still pouring down here
It was free money IMO I am in for a 2 grand profit, current cashout profit £687
It has just stopped raining but it is extremely windy
Are you in Southampton?
Further west (Guernsey) the rain has passed - bright, sunny, windy weather, no rain showing in Southampton:
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.
I hesitate to get embroiled in a devolved English issue, but the Welsh national anthem, Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, is patriotic without being jingoistic or bellicose. But if you think that makes us a push-over I can offer you Men Of Harlech as an encore.
Really?
The land of my fathers is dear to me, Old land where the minstrels are honoured and free; Its warring defenders so gallant and brave, For freedom their life's blood they gave.
Sounds pretty bellicose to me. Also if that was a successful defence of Wales I hate to think what an unsuccessful one would look like.
A translation of the Rhyfelgyrch Gwyr Harlech would actually blow your mind...
'Tis a mere flesh wound.
Can't see that in it. Roughly speaking the first verse comes out as:
'The beacon flares with white flame, tongues of fire shouting The brave men come back to fight once again to avenge the wrongs done to our princes We hear our enemies approaching, their voices and the noise of their armour The martial sound echoes from crag to crag.'
The irony, of course, is that if it really was inspired by the Great Siege of Harlech (1461-68) then the enemy in question was Sir William Herbert, who was Welsh, while the constable of Harlech, Sir Richard Tunstall, was English...
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.
Its still pouring down here
It was free money IMO I am in for a 2 grand profit, current cashout profit £687
It has just stopped raining but it is extremely windy
Are you in Southampton?
Yes, within 2 miles of the Cricket
I don't think they're within 20 miles of having cricket at the Ageas Bowl, mate.
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.
Its still pouring down here
It was free money IMO I am in for a 2 grand profit, current cashout profit £687
It has just stopped raining but it is extremely windy
Are you in Southampton?
Further west (Guernsey) the rain has passed - bright, sunny, windy weather, no rain showing in Southampton:
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.
I hesitate to get embroiled in a devolved English issue, but the Welsh national anthem, Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, is patriotic without being jingoistic or bellicose. But if you think that makes us a push-over I can offer you Men Of Harlech as an encore.
Really?
The land of my fathers is dear to me, Old land where the minstrels are honoured and free; Its warring defenders so gallant and brave, For freedom their life's blood they gave.
Sounds pretty bellicose to me. Also if that was a successful defence of Wales I hate to think what an unsuccessful one would look like.
A translation of the Rhyfelgyrch Gwyr Harlech would actually blow your mind...
'Tis a mere flesh wound.
Can't see that in it. Roughly speaking the first verse comes out as:
'The beacon flares with white flame, tongues of fire shouting The brave men come back to fight once again to avenge the wrongs done to our princes We hear our enemies approaching, their voices and the noise of their armour The martial sound echoes from crag to crag.'
"Cambria ne'er can yield!"
(...except under the Treaty of Aberconwy but we left that out cos it doesn't scan).
George Macdonald Fraser said that D'ye ken John Peel, sung by the Border Regiment, makes the Horst Wessel sound like a lullaby.
Is there anyone in this country who we've heard of who actually wants any of them banned, or is the wholoe thing a straw man exercise?
From the original article: "Wasfi Kani, 64, chief executive of Grange Park Opera in Surrey, whose parents sought refuge in the UK after the partition of India in 1947, is among those who would cheer the removal of the songs. 'I don’t listen to Land of Hope and Glory and say "thank God I’m British" – it actually makes me feel more alienated. Britain raped India and that is what that song is celebrating,' she said." However, Kehinde Andrews (Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University) doesn't think it's a ban because its' "a disgrace" that anybody might want this "racist propaganda" played in the current era
Employment fun - service contract for my new gig has arrived. A few minor tweaks and its all good. IR35 checked with HMRC and not applicable. An exciting future beckons!
Good luck RP.
what's a gig?
All I could find was... a job, especially one that is temporary or that has an uncertain future
That can't be right, surely ?
(And, as per @ydoethur , all the best to RP in his new... gig.)
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.
Its still pouring down here
It was free money IMO I am in for a 2 grand profit, current cashout profit £687
It has just stopped raining but it is extremely windy
Are you in Southampton?
Further west (Guernsey) the rain has passed - bright, sunny, windy weather, no rain showing in Southampton:
Is there anyone in this country who we've heard of who actually wants any of them banned, or is the wholoe thing a straw man exercise?
No idea - but it's all grist to PB's mill.
It's odd what does and doesn't provoke a response. I thought putting Prince George in military camouflage for a 7th birthday photoshoot was about as eeeuw as it gets (google child soldiers to see why) but nobody else seemed fussed. Praps its as close as you can get to wearing a poppy without actually wearing a poppy, in mid july.
I fear I must report that you can more or less do that in August.
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.
Its still pouring down here
It was free money IMO I am in for a 2 grand profit, current cashout profit £687
It has just stopped raining but it is extremely windy
Are you in Southampton?
Further west (Guernsey) the rain has passed - bright, sunny, windy weather, no rain showing in Southampton:
I think he's right Boris (and Cummings) will be gone some time in January.
I bloody well hope so. For many reasons, of course, but mainly I'm green on him fucking off any time before October 2021 and have just topped up (at 60 bf) Jul - Sep this year.
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.
Its still pouring down here
It was free money IMO I am in for a 2 grand profit, current cashout profit £687
It has just stopped raining but it is extremely windy
Are you in Southampton?
Further west (Guernsey) the rain has passed - bright, sunny, windy weather, no rain showing in Southampton:
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.
"Is there anyone in this country who we've heard of who actually wants any of them banned, or is the wholoe thing a straw man exercise?"
Blockquotes above not working. -------------
Rule Britannia has been dropped from the last night of the proms before in 2001-2007 so yes its a real thing, not driven solely by BLM or current culture wars. Eventually it will be dropped permanently but not something likely to happen for a few years yet. When the performers and enough of the crowd have had enough of it, it will be replaced and life will go on.
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?
So on the Rule Britannia thing I haven't been paying much attention to this one until this thread but I assume the BBC angle was never a realistic prospect and the whole thing was made up to excite excitable people, am I close?
Is there anyone in this country who we've heard of who actually wants any of them banned, or is the wholoe thing a straw man exercise?
No idea - but it's all grist to PB's mill.
It's odd what does and doesn't provoke a response. I thought putting Prince George in military camouflage for a 7th birthday photoshoot was about as eeeuw as it gets (google child soldiers to see why) but nobody else seemed fussed. Praps its as close as you can get to wearing a poppy without actually wearing a poppy, in mid july.
I didn't see the photo although it's a good example of what we're talking about.
Plenty of (usually rugger bugger) folk put their children into DPM for goodness knows what reason. I am left cold and slightly bemused by it aside from noting as you do that it might in some way pay homage to the armed forces.
But that is a million miles away from Emmanuel Jal, Ishmael Beah or indeed Matthew Green or Romeo Dallaire's experiences and I struggle to connect the two concepts.
Of course it is, but I bet all of those would agree with me that they'd much rather see a 7 year old dressed in something else.
This is perhaps an African thing - you really don't want to wear any dpm garment anywhere there without good reason.
Abstruse fact of the day - it is illegal to wear camouflage on St Lucia.
'He's going to be unleashed': Republican DOJ appointees urge against Trump second term https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/25/justice-department-against-trump-401279 ...A group of onetime Republican presidential appointees who served as senior ethics or Justice Department aides are endorsing Joe Biden for president, warning that Donald Trump has “weaponized” the executive branch and is putting in peril the legitimacy of the U.S. Justice Department.
“I think a lot of us are extremely alarmed, frankly, at the threat of autocracy,” Donald B. Ayer, former deputy attorney general during the George H.W. Bush administration, said in an interview with POLITICO. “He’s going to be unleashed if he gets a second term. I don’t know what’s going to stop him.”...
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 know it was, as was mine. However it is just a crappy old song and the amount of outrage about dropping it from the even crapper last night of the proms is horrific in my eyes.
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 know it was, as was mine. However it is just a crappy old song and the amount of outrage about dropping it from the even crapper last night of the proms is horrific in my eyes.
Surely the SNP would just add Boris instead of Prince Edward to the lyrics of Flower of Scotland and otherwise leave as is?
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.
Its still pouring down here
It was free money IMO I am in for a 2 grand profit, current cashout profit £687
It has just stopped raining but it is extremely windy
Are you in Southampton?
Further west (Guernsey) the rain has passed - bright, sunny, windy weather, no rain showing in Southampton:
So on the Rule Britannia thing I haven't been paying much attention to this one until this thread but I assume the BBC angle was never a realistic prospect and the whole thing was made up to excite excitable people, am I close?
That said, end the license fee.
Just the BBC desperately trying to create publicity for a tarnished bauble that they pathetically regard as a jewel in their crown. The Proms are a patronising anachronism - popular with shouty, beardy beer boors - but avoided by serious music lovers.
(Hurriedly dons noise-reducing headphones and ducks...)
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.
Except Biden is no Obama....
Even Kerry and Gore won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, if Biden wins all those states and holds all the Hillary states he wins the EC even if Trump wins Florida again.
I had Pennsylvania and Michigan pencilled in for Trump in 2016. The Dems losing Wisconsin was the pinnacle of their utterly disastrous campaign management.
I don't see how Trump can have a chance of holding on there in 2020.
Indeed even Dukakis won Wisconsin, Hillary was the first Democrat to lose it since Mondale but in 2016 Trump actually won Wisconsin by fractionally more than Michigan and Pennsylvania
Is there anyone in this country who we've heard of who actually wants any of them banned, or is the wholoe thing a straw man exercise?
No idea - but it's all grist to PB's mill.
It's odd what does and doesn't provoke a response. I thought putting Prince George in military camouflage for a 7th birthday photoshoot was about as eeeuw as it gets (google child soldiers to see why) but nobody else seemed fussed. Praps its as close as you can get to wearing a poppy without actually wearing a poppy, in mid july.
I didn't see the photo although it's a good example of what we're talking about.
Plenty of (usually rugger bugger) folk put their children into DPM for goodness knows what reason. I am left cold and slightly bemused by it aside from noting as you do that it might in some way pay homage to the armed forces.
But that is a million miles away from Emmanuel Jal, Ishmael Beah or indeed Matthew Green or Romeo Dallaire's experiences and I struggle to connect the two concepts.
Of course it is, but I bet all of those would agree with me that they'd much rather see a 7 year old dressed in something else.
This is perhaps an African thing - you really don't want to wear any dpm garment anywhere there without good reason.
Abstruse fact of the day - it is illegal to wear camouflage on St Lucia.
And Barbados. And (googling now) Jamaica and St. Vincent.
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 know it was, as was mine. However it is just a crappy old song and the amount of outrage about dropping it from the even crapper last night of the proms is horrific in my eyes.
Surely the SNP would just add Boris instead of Prince Edward to the lyrics of Flower of Scotland and otherwise leave as is?
It's actually far more strongly associated with the Edinburgh middle-upper class rugger b*gg*rs at Murrayfield, in further information for you about Scotland.
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 know it was, as was mine. However it is just a crappy old song and the amount of outrage about dropping it from the even crapper last night of the proms is horrific in my eyes.
Surely the SNP would just add Boris instead of Prince Edward to the lyrics of Flower of Scotland and otherwise leave as is?
Edward was a real King and a bonnie fechter, Boris is just a balloon, for sure he will never warrant being in a song.
So on the Rule Britannia thing I haven't been paying much attention to this one until this thread but I assume the BBC angle was never a realistic prospect and the whole thing was made up to excite excitable people, am I close?
That said, end the license fee.
Just the BBC desperately trying to create publicity for a tarnished bauble that they pathetically regard as a jewel in their crown. The Proms are a patronising anachronism - popular with shouty, beardy beer boors - but avoided by serious music lovers.
(Hurriedly dons noise-reducing headphones and ducks...)
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 know it was, as was mine. However it is just a crappy old song and the amount of outrage about dropping it from the even crapper last night of the proms is horrific in my eyes.
Surely the SNP would just add Boris instead of Prince Edward to the lyrics of Flower of Scotland and otherwise leave as is?
Edward was a real King and a bonnie fechter, Boris is just a balloon, for sure he will never warrant being in a song.
Doesn't the song refer to Bannockburn? Longshanks was the dangerous psychopath - his son Edward lost Bannockburn (or more technically his generals did).
Employment fun - service contract for my new gig has arrived. A few minor tweaks and its all good. IR35 checked with HMRC and not applicable. An exciting future beckons!
Good luck RP.
what's a gig?
All I could find was... a job, especially one that is temporary or that has an uncertain future
That can't be right, surely ?
(And, as per @ydoethur , all the best to RP in his new... gig.)
Gig, As in rock n roll. As in "do you want the gig then". I called my current job "the new gig". Less so now they are trying to make me redundant and do an Arcadia with CJRS...
New gig is a fixed contract being paid an entertaining amount of money to provide my experience and experience to a new entrant into the UK market. I am about to experience first hand what fun importers will have bringing stuff in from the EU to the UK. Good job I didn't vote for Brexit or anything
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 know it was, as was mine. However it is just a crappy old song and the amount of outrage about dropping it from the even crapper last night of the proms is horrific in my eyes.
Surely the SNP would just add Boris instead of Prince Edward to the lyrics of Flower of Scotland and otherwise leave as is?
Edward was a real King and a bonnie fechter, Boris is just a balloon, for sure he will never warrant being in a song.
I can think of a few lyrics which would be entirely fitting.
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?
I find flag-waving patriotic songs uncomfortable and a bit cultish, but I think there are a number of clear differences with the scenario you have created.
Firstly, the fact that slavery was not legal in Britain was important for the anti-slave trade campaign. There were famous court cases where slaves brought to Britain from the colonies were freed by the courts on that basis. This seems very different to the death camp situation.
Secondly, Britain abolished the slave trade, and later slavery in the colonies, following public debate and campaigning, whereas the death camps were closed only after military defeat. In the later scenario there's a clear before and after distinction between the two periods of time, following which you can justifiably also reject culture from the before period, but this is not the case when the culture of society is freer and reflects the debate that exists.
Thirdly, "Britons" has at various times encompassed everyone in the Empire - which is one reason why the behaviour of the Home Office over the Windrush generation has been so despicable. Those people were British, illegally and in terms of their identity, before they set foot in Britain, so the retrospective interpretation of the song based on a restrictive racial Britishness is erroneous, as the concept of Britishness has changed over the centuries - the same could not be said for your death camp song, I think.
Updated BTEC A Level equivalent grades "starting" to get released from today. A disgraceful additional barrier for those students to get university places. As per usual no publicity once the more middle class A level results problem was sorted last week.
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.
Its still pouring down here
It was free money IMO I am in for a 2 grand profit, current cashout profit £687
It has just stopped raining but it is extremely windy
Are you in Southampton?
Further west (Guernsey) the rain has passed - bright, sunny, windy weather, no rain showing in Southampton:
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?
I find flag-waving patriotic songs uncomfortable and a bit cultish, but I think there are a number of clear differences with the scenario you have created.
Firstly, the fact that slavery was not legal in Britain was important for the anti-slave trade campaign. There were famous court cases where slaves brought to Britain from the colonies were freed by the courts on that basis. This seems very different to the death camp situation.
Secondly, Britain abolished the slave trade, and later slavery in the colonies, following public debate and campaigning, whereas the death camps were closed only after military defeat. In the later scenario there's a clear before and after distinction between the two periods of time, following which you can justifiably also reject culture from the before period, but this is not the case when the culture of society is freer and reflects the debate that exists.
Thirdly, "Britons" has at various times encompassed everyone in the Empire - which is one reason why the behaviour of the Home Office over the Windrush generation has been so despicable. Those people were British, illegally and in terms of their identity, before they set foot in Britain, so the retrospective interpretation of the song based on a restrictive racial Britishness is erroneous, as the concept of Britishness has changed over the centuries - the same could not be said for your death camp song, I think.
On point 1 - slavery was most certainly legal for 'Britons' in Britain, in the case of coal miners and salters in Scotland, till 1799. They were explicitly excluded from Habeas Corpus. See my post earlier.
Doesn't affect your other two points which are fair ones.
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.
Its still pouring down here
It was free money IMO I am in for a 2 grand profit, current cashout profit £687
It has just stopped raining but it is extremely windy
Are you in Southampton?
Further west (Guernsey) the rain has passed - bright, sunny, windy weather, no rain showing in Southampton:
If Boris does step down in 2021, it must really annoy his detractors that he’d be likely judged by history as one of the more consequential and successful PMs of the post war period.
Conservative Mayor of London twice in a heavily Labour City, oversaw perhaps the most successful Olympic Games of modern times. Won an unwinnable Brexit referendum, the issue he made his name with over two decades as a journalist. Went on to implement the UK’s exit against what seemed impossible odds. Won a famous and unexpectedly large majority that shook the Labour Party out of its dangerous slide towards the hard left. Was then “the covid prime minister”, survived the virus himself before overseeing a v-shaped economic recovery that segued into the post vaccine world.
Most of what excites his detractors on here is chip paper as far as historians will be concerned. Sure, there will be close examination of the Supreme Court fandango but he won the argument at the ballot box. I suspect the inquiry into the covid lockdown will largely exonerate him from blame, and historians will just describe it as a global pandemic where at the end of it, the Uk did little better or worse than anyone else.
He’ll know all this of course and is a politician with an unusual focus on his historical legacy.
Comments
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.
Is there anyone in this country who we've heard of who actually wants any of them banned, or is the wholoe thing a straw man exercise?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/06/theresa-may-speech-new-low-politics-migration
That on top of her sending Go Home vans to areas with immigrants and everything else she's done since. She is a nasty xenophobe and I am ashamed she is in my party and became it's leader. I quit the party when she was elected.
I have principles and xenophobia is not acceptable to me.
Is that clear enough?
The land of my fathers is dear to me,
Old land where the minstrels are honoured and free;
Its warring defenders so gallant and brave,
For freedom their life's blood they gave.
Sounds pretty bellicose to me. Also if that was a successful defence of Wales I hate to think what an unsuccessful one would look like.
Also it is by far the best tune of any of our patriotic songs.
It has nothing to do with the Atlantic slave trade, but insofar as it does, it would seem to oppose it.
Of course, if we are desperate to analyse it for political correctness violations, we can accuse it of the "male saviour" trope with its talk about "manly hearts to guard the fair".
And that line is heavily cis-normative. It doesn't even acknowledge the existence of the 18th century trans community.
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/covid-19-rapid-risk-assessment-20200810.pdf
But either way, playing to the baser worst instincts of a party isn't something to be admired. If someone were to defend Corbyn being antisemitic suggesting he was only being so because it's popular with his members then that isn't acceptable either.
I can't in good conscience attack Corbyn for being an anti-Semite without also attacking May for being a xenophobe. In fact I find May more annoying to me than Corbyn precisely because she is in what is meant to be my side. I quit the party because of her xenophobia and nothing justifies it to me.
'Prime Minister, do you respect those members of the cabinet who have the courage of their convictions?'
'I want them to have the courage of MY convictions.'
1) Opinion seems very fixed, there are very few undecideds.
2) The conference is where the opposition party introduces their nominee to the voters, and governing party switches from "governing mode" to "campaign mode". But the voters already know Biden, and Trump never switched from campaign mode to governing mode in the first place.
So I'm predicting that the conventions will do nothing. The nice thing about this prediction is that it can be proven wrong in a fortnight.
I don't see how Trump can have a chance of holding on there in 2020.
Ping me if you want advice - the main one is that you've probably paid enough PAYE this year so don't rush to pay yourself any more.
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/cases-2019-ncov-eueea
Edit: I'm surprised that they use the term COVID-19 case, when they almost certainly mean SARS-COV2 positive cases, symptomatic or unsymptomatic.
I think he's right Boris (and Cummings) will be gone some time in January.
'The beacon flares with white flame, tongues of fire shouting
The brave men come back to fight once again to avenge the wrongs done to our princes
We hear our enemies approaching, their voices and the noise of their armour
The martial sound echoes from crag to crag.'
Along with Ben Stokes.
https://www.gov.je/weather/Pages/Radar.aspx
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1298204995490373632?s=20
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gig_(carriage)
Plenty of (usually rugger bugger) folk put their children into DPM for goodness knows what reason. I am left cold and slightly bemused by it aside from noting as you do that it might in some way pay homage to the armed forces.
But that is a million miles away from Emmanuel Jal, Ishmael Beah or indeed Matthew Green or Romeo Dallaire's experiences and I struggle to connect the two concepts.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2637487
I think this might be the "victim ideology" they were talking about at the Trump convention ?
(...except under the Treaty of Aberconwy but we left that out cos it doesn't scan).
George Macdonald Fraser said that D'ye ken John Peel, sung by the Border Regiment, makes the Horst Wessel sound like a lullaby.
Candy from a baby stuff
a job, especially one that is temporary or that has an uncertain future
That can't be right, surely ?
(And, as per @ydoethur , all the best to RP in his new... gig.)
https://www.poppyscotlandstore.com/products/personalised-large-poppy-face-mask
https://www.netweather.tv/live-weather/radar
Blockquotes above not working.
-------------
Rule Britannia has been dropped from the last night of the proms before in 2001-2007 so yes its a real thing, not driven solely by BLM or current culture wars. Eventually it will be dropped permanently but not something likely to happen for a few years yet. When the performers and enough of the crowd have had enough of it, it will be replaced and life will go on.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2078500.stm
That said, end the license fee.
2 of us normally £25 (£12.5 each)
was £4.75 each due to the fact it was plated rather than help yourself and the generous Tory Chancellor.
This is perhaps an African thing - you really don't want to wear any dpm garment anywhere there without good reason.
Abstruse fact of the day - it is illegal to wear camouflage on St Lucia.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/25/justice-department-against-trump-401279
...A group of onetime Republican presidential appointees who served as senior ethics or Justice Department aides are endorsing Joe Biden for president, warning that Donald Trump has “weaponized” the executive branch and is putting in peril the legitimacy of the U.S. Justice Department.
“I think a lot of us are extremely alarmed, frankly, at the threat of autocracy,” Donald B. Ayer, former deputy attorney general during the George H.W. Bush administration, said in an interview with POLITICO. “He’s going to be unleashed if he gets a second term. I don’t know what’s going to stop him.”...
https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/1298211204637372416
(Hurriedly dons noise-reducing headphones and ducks...)
Covid was mentioned on death certificates for 1.5% of deaths
Flu/Influenza was mentioned on death certificates for 9% of deaths
Apparently its "very, very, very wet" - Aggers and Vaughan
"Groundsman wants 4 hrs at least" according to CricBuzz
I reckon its effectively stumps already can Betfair pay me now please
New gig is a fixed contract being paid an entertaining amount of money to provide my experience and experience to a new entrant into the UK market. I am about to experience first hand what fun importers will have bringing stuff in from the EU to the UK. Good job I didn't vote for Brexit or anything
Firstly, the fact that slavery was not legal in Britain was important for the anti-slave trade campaign. There were famous court cases where slaves brought to Britain from the colonies were freed by the courts on that basis. This seems very different to the death camp situation.
Secondly, Britain abolished the slave trade, and later slavery in the colonies, following public debate and campaigning, whereas the death camps were closed only after military defeat. In the later scenario there's a clear before and after distinction between the two periods of time, following which you can justifiably also reject culture from the before period, but this is not the case when the culture of society is freer and reflects the debate that exists.
Thirdly, "Britons" has at various times encompassed everyone in the Empire - which is one reason why the behaviour of the Home Office over the Windrush generation has been so despicable. Those people were British, illegally and in terms of their identity, before they set foot in Britain, so the retrospective interpretation of the song based on a restrictive racial Britishness is erroneous, as the concept of Britishness has changed over the centuries - the same could not be said for your death camp song, I think.
Or, then again.......
Seems like that's what happened here.
Doesn't affect your other two points which are fair ones.
Conservative Mayor of London twice in a heavily Labour City, oversaw perhaps the most successful Olympic Games of modern times. Won an unwinnable Brexit referendum, the issue he made his name with over two decades as a journalist. Went on to implement the UK’s exit against what seemed impossible odds. Won a famous and unexpectedly large majority that shook the Labour Party out of its dangerous slide towards the hard left. Was then “the covid prime minister”, survived the virus himself before overseeing a v-shaped economic recovery that segued into the post vaccine world.
Most of what excites his detractors on here is chip paper as far as historians will be concerned. Sure, there will be close examination of the Supreme Court fandango but he won the argument at the ballot box. I suspect the inquiry into the covid lockdown will largely exonerate him from blame, and historians will just describe it as a global pandemic where at the end of it, the Uk did little better or worse than anyone else.
He’ll know all this of course and is a politician with an unusual focus on his historical legacy.