When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
No, an act of a politician.
A scoundrel is dishonest or unscrupulous - he's not been either.
Hardly a liberal politician though? A PM telling artistic producers what songs they must play and whether it can be orchestral or sung is clearly authoritarian.
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.
Indeed. The BBC could have neutralised this easily and said its nothing to do with wokeness - they could have said that the music will be played but due to COVID its going to be different this year without an audience or a singer, but they look forward to it being back to normal next year. They didn't do that, they played into the culture war issue and then are surprised when others jump into it to. The BBC started this not the PM.
It's like Ben and Jerry's, they got into in an argument they had no need to get involved with. The BBC has walked into this and now they will pay the price as are Unilever wrt Ben and Jerry's. As a famous basketballer once said "republicans buy trainers too". Corporates and the BBC should just stay out of these rows and definitely not start them. Nothing is ever enough for the mob and even an inch is too much for majority and in almost all of these cases the majority is not woke.
I've seen claims Ben and Jerry's are suffering but no evidence yet - have you?
I bought their ice cream years ago (I didn't know they were Woke then) and thought it was crap: the "cream" was relatively little and melted quickly leaving you with large chunky and annoying bits you had to chew instead. Yum.
Haagen Dazs is far better. Of course, there's no guarantee they won't beat a path down the same road too.
I wish this Government had some kind of ideology, the problem is it doesn't and since it is staffed by people based on loyalty and not competence, it will run from wall to wall over the next five years, following opinion not setting it.
"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?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
"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?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
You made that hypothetically.
She believes it literally.
Her post is so bats it doesn't even need a response - her own words alone will condemn it.
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.
Indeed. The BBC could have neutralised this easily and said its nothing to do with wokeness - they could have said that the music will be played but due to COVID its going to be different this year without an audience or a singer, but they look forward to it being back to normal next year. They didn't do that, they played into the culture war issue and then are surprised when others jump into it to. The BBC started this not the PM.
Good for them. Wifey very taken with Aberdeenshire, my new contract is very much work anywhere, so a move is now being looked at in more detail. Yes it will involve travel to see retail customers mainly in England. But so what...
It's having a significant effect on job-hunting, qualified by uncertainty about duration. I know people who would be happy top live somewhere cheap and rural and work from home, instead of paying through the nose to live near work.Conversely I know at least one job-hunter who hates Lomdon but is now looking at London jobs on the assumption that he'll not need to actually go in very often.
But what if a vaccine appears and employers want you to come in again? Awkward if they've just bought your dream cottage in Aberdeensire...
Happily I will no longer have an employer, and my client is in Romania and doesn't stipulate where I live in our contract. Once UK sales drive a UK office I can stay away a few nights a week as so many other people do. If we make the move we'll also set up a business up there as a side project...
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
No, an act of a politician.
A scoundrel is dishonest or unscrupulous - he's not been either.
That's the ultimate irony, of course. Even if you accept that this is in the category of "all fair in love, war and democratic politics" (and I doubt we're going to agree on this), Boris aspires to be more than just a politician.
He wants to be more than a statesman. He wants to be the next Churchill, the once a century great leader, he wants to be father of the nation (no, not like that, stop sniggering at the back).
And that requires certain standards, which he really can't embody.
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
No, an act of a politician.
A scoundrel is dishonest or unscrupulous - he's not been either.
Hardly a liberal politician though? A PM telling artistic producers what songs they must play and whether it can be orchestral or sung is clearly authoritarian.
If he'd told them what they must play then yes absolutely that would be authoritarian, but he didn't do that. No law was passed, no vote was taken, no order was made.
It's sad that everyone is going fall for this bullshit, the BBC is a disgrace and they've given Boris the perfect bullshit fluff story to distract from his rubbish leadership and awful decision making.
Beeb certainly seem intent on repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot.
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.
I think there's a constituency of thinking in the BBC that thinks to shed it's old audience and gain a younger (more diverse) one it has to actively signal against the values of the old one in order to get down with da kidz.
It's bats. They'll end up losing the older one (and the consensus for the licence fee) whilst gaining none of the younger one, who'll feel patronised and just laugh at them.
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.
Indeed. The BBC could have neutralised this easily and said its nothing to do with wokeness - they could have said that the music will be played but due to COVID its going to be different this year without an audience or a singer, but they look forward to it being back to normal next year. They didn't do that, they played into the culture war issue and then are surprised when others jump into it to. The BBC started this not the PM.
It's like Ben and Jerry's, they got into in an argument they had no need to get involved with. The BBC has walked into this and now they will pay the price as are Unilever wrt Ben and Jerry's. As a famous basketballer once said "republicans buy trainers too". Corporates and the BBC should just stay out of these rows and definitely not start them. Nothing is ever enough for the mob and even an inch is too much for majority and in almost all of these cases the majority is not woke.
I've seen claims Ben and Jerry's are suffering but no evidence yet - have you?
I bought their ice cream years ago (I didn't know they were Woke then) and thought it was crap: the "cream" was relatively little and melted quickly leaving you with large chunky and annoying bits you had to chew instead. Yum.
Haagen Dazs is far better. Of course, there's no guarantee they won't beat a path down the same road too.
The fact that they completely shut up about it shows they know they shit the bed badly on it. I expect the PR people at Unilever had a word and told them to keep quiet. As a Unilever shareholder I was more than annoyed to see one of their brands getting involved in politics, there is no way to win because you will inevitably piss off at least 50% of the people. In terms of evidence, only anecdotal - lots of people moving to other brands. I just wish we were able to get Mövenpick in the UK, it is god's own ice cream.
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
In that case, the BBC are acting as great sleeper agents for No.10.
Yes, as I said, it feels like the BBC is being run by Tory sleeper agents. No one could be this tone deaf.
The anger in the over 75's over the licence fee and now this totally unnecessary barney over the proms just hastens the move to a subscription service for the BBC
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
No, an act of a politician.
A scoundrel is dishonest or unscrupulous - he's not been either.
Hardly a liberal politician though? A PM telling artistic producers what songs they must play and whether it can be orchestral or sung is clearly authoritarian.
If he'd told them what they must play then yes absolutely that would be authoritarian, but he didn't do that. No law was passed, no vote was taken, no order was made.
So the artists arent under threat of losing their funding if they dont follow the PMs wishes? Just read this thread and its very clear they are under threat.
If he was a liberal PM as you believe, he would say its up to the artists and the audience.
The underlying issue is many of the artists want to move on from these songs and the audience doesnt. No need for politicians to get involved in that tension.
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.
Indeed. The BBC could have neutralised this easily and said its nothing to do with wokeness - they could have said that the music will be played but due to COVID its going to be different this year without an audience or a singer, but they look forward to it being back to normal next year. They didn't do that, they played into the culture war issue and then are surprised when others jump into it to. The BBC started this not the PM.
Isn’t that exactly what they said both on R4 and the website this morning ?
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.
I think there's a constituency of thinking in the BBC that thinks to shed it's old audience and gain a younger (more diverse) one it has to actively signal against the values of the old one in order to get down with da kidz.
It's bats. They'll end up losing the older one (and the consensus for the licence fee) whilst gaining none of the younger one, who'll feel patronised and just laugh at them.
And everyone will switch to Netflix and Prime.
We younger ones don't give a s**t as a generation about "wokeness" as a whole - a few high profile people do but they aren't going to change what they watch because of it.
We watch Netflix because its good quality, cheap and on demand. Why bother with the BBC?
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
No, an act of a politician.
A scoundrel is dishonest or unscrupulous - he's not been either.
Hardly a liberal politician though? A PM telling artistic producers what songs they must play and whether it can be orchestral or sung is clearly authoritarian.
If he'd told them what they must play then yes absolutely that would be authoritarian, but he didn't do that. No law was passed, no vote was taken, no order was made.
So the artists arent under threat of losing their funding if they dont follow the PMs wishes? Just read this thread and its very clear they are under threat.
If he was a liberal PM as you believe, he would say its up to the artists and the audience.
The underlying issue is many of the artists want to move on from these songs and the audience doesnt. No need for politicians to get involved in that tension.
Next year they can get Francois and Farsge to Sing these songs.
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.
I think there's a constituency of thinking in the BBC that thinks to shed it's old audience and gain a younger (more diverse) one it has to actively signal against the values of the old one in order to get down with da kidz.
It's bats. They'll end up losing the older one (and the consensus for the licence fee) whilst gaining none of the younger one, who'll feel patronised and just laugh at them.
And everyone will switch to Netflix and Prime.
We younger ones don't give a s**t as a generation about "wokeness" as a whole - a few high profile people do but they aren't going to change what they watch because of it.
We watch Netflix because its good quality, cheap and on demand. Why bother with the BBC?
I think even normal "young ones" as you say the older generation would call overly woke to be honest - but the general crux of your argument I agree with.
Yes, as I said, it feels like the BBC is being run by Tory sleeper agents. No one could be this tone deaf.
The anger in the over 75's over the licence fee and now this totally unnecessary barney over the proms just hastens the move to a subscription service for the BBC
I genuinely couldn't give a toss about this issue, I would be a don't know/don't care on the YouGov poll, The Proms isn't my thing at all
If you're ever in London in Summer, definitely go. Top notch performances, friendly crowd. Mostly totally unlike the Last Night. It's a lovely way to spend a summer evening.
On one evening I went to hear The Vienna Philharmonic play in London at The Proms. I joined an enormous queue about 3 hours before kick off, and was one of the last ten to get in. This was in the days before podcasts and on demand iplayers.
I have been to some wonderful Prom concerts at The Royal Albert Hall. The BBC radio coverage is almost consistently good, though I feel that the TV coverage is hampered by celebrity presenters.
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.
I think there's a constituency of thinking in the BBC that thinks to shed it's old audience and gain a younger (more diverse) one it has to actively signal against the values of the old one in order to get down with da kidz.
It's bats. They'll end up losing the older one (and the consensus for the licence fee) whilst gaining none of the younger one, who'll feel patronised and just laugh at them.
And everyone will switch to Netflix and Prime.
It's yet to be proven that young people will pay for wokeness, the most popular Netflix shows aren't really the woke ones and Netflix seems to have run out of road with their current strategy. The latest woke show seems to have generated a lot of controversy, but more in disgust than anything else.
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.
I think there's a constituency of thinking in the BBC that thinks to shed it's old audience and gain a younger (more diverse) one it has to actively signal against the values of the old one in order to get down with da kidz.
It's bats. They'll end up losing the older one (and the consensus for the licence fee) whilst gaining none of the younger one, who'll feel patronised and just laugh at them.
And everyone will switch to Netflix and Prime.
It's yet to be proven that young people will pay for wokeness, the most popular Netflix shows aren't really the woke ones and Netflix seems to have run out of road with their current strategy. The latest woke show seems to have generated a lot of controversy, but more in disgust than anything else.
What's the latest "woke" show?
I think a lot of what the young do as normal stuff the old would call "woke" but there you go
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.
I think there's a constituency of thinking in the BBC that thinks to shed it's old audience and gain a younger (more diverse) one it has to actively signal against the values of the old one in order to get down with da kidz.
It's bats. They'll end up losing the older one (and the consensus for the licence fee) whilst gaining none of the younger one, who'll feel patronised and just laugh at them.
And everyone will switch to Netflix and Prime.
It's yet to be proven that young people will pay for wokeness, the most popular Netflix shows aren't really the woke ones and Netflix seems to have run out of road with their current strategy. The latest woke show seems to have generated a lot of controversy, but more in disgust than anything else.
What's the latest "woke" show?
I think a lot of what the young do as normal stuff the old would call "woke" but there you go
The one about, err, sexy 11 year olds, for want of a better phrase.
On the general point I'm less sure. Most of my friends are between 25 and 40 years old, the younger among them want the same things in life as the older ones, though I admit that I'm not the most woke person so I probably don't make friends with them easily. It's something that has passed me by, but that in itself is quite telling, that a whole culture can pass me by as someone who lives in woke central and is in the target age group means in real life it's much smaller than they would claim on Twitter etc...
On the subject, my Instagram test applies, if politics makes it to Instagram then it has cut through to our generation, if not then it hasn't. Wokeness just doesn't seem to be a thing on Instagram other than the big stuff like BLM. The transgender wars don't and have never made an impression whereas judging by Twitter one might think it's all anyone aged under 40 thinks or talks about.
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
No, an act of a politician.
A scoundrel is dishonest or unscrupulous - he's not been either.
Hardly a liberal politician though? A PM telling artistic producers what songs they must play and whether it can be orchestral or sung is clearly authoritarian.
If he'd told them what they must play then yes absolutely that would be authoritarian, but he didn't do that. No law was passed, no vote was taken, no order was made.
So the artists arent under threat of losing their funding if they dont follow the PMs wishes? Just read this thread and its very clear they are under threat.
If he was a liberal PM as you believe, he would say its up to the artists and the audience.
The underlying issue is many of the artists want to move on from these songs and the audience doesnt. No need for politicians to get involved in that tension.
No I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest that Boris was saying he was threatening artists funding. I've seen no threats whatsoever.
I've seen discussions about the future of the BBC here but those occur on an almost weekly basis and Johnson said nothing about that.
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.
I think there's a constituency of thinking in the BBC that thinks to shed it's old audience and gain a younger (more diverse) one it has to actively signal against the values of the old one in order to get down with da kidz.
It's bats. They'll end up losing the older one (and the consensus for the licence fee) whilst gaining none of the younger one, who'll feel patronised and just laugh at them.
And everyone will switch to Netflix and Prime.
It's yet to be proven that young people will pay for wokeness, the most popular Netflix shows aren't really the woke ones and Netflix seems to have run out of road with their current strategy. The latest woke show seems to have generated a lot of controversy, but more in disgust than anything else.
What's the latest "woke" show?
I think a lot of what the young do as normal stuff the old would call "woke" but there you go
The one about, err, sexy 11 year olds, for want of a better phrase.
So the nation is divided between those of us who couldn’t give a flying fuck either way (which seems to include the BBC), and a strange assortment of folk determined to prove that everyone is trying to steal Rule Britannia from them, and get very angry about it ?
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.
I think there's a constituency of thinking in the BBC that thinks to shed it's old audience and gain a younger (more diverse) one it has to actively signal against the values of the old one in order to get down with da kidz.
It's bats. They'll end up losing the older one (and the consensus for the licence fee) whilst gaining none of the younger one, who'll feel patronised and just laugh at them.
And everyone will switch to Netflix and Prime.
It's yet to be proven that young people will pay for wokeness, the most popular Netflix shows aren't really the woke ones and Netflix seems to have run out of road with their current strategy. The latest woke show seems to have generated a lot of controversy, but more in disgust than anything else.
What's the latest "woke" show?
I think a lot of what the young do as normal stuff the old would call "woke" but there you go
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.
I think there's a constituency of thinking in the BBC that thinks to shed it's old audience and gain a younger (more diverse) one it has to actively signal against the values of the old one in order to get down with da kidz.
It's bats. They'll end up losing the older one (and the consensus for the licence fee) whilst gaining none of the younger one, who'll feel patronised and just laugh at them.
And everyone will switch to Netflix and Prime.
It's yet to be proven that young people will pay for wokeness, the most popular Netflix shows aren't really the woke ones and Netflix seems to have run out of road with their current strategy. The latest woke show seems to have generated a lot of controversy, but more in disgust than anything else.
Netflix did a very popular show - Sex Education - that was laced with the stuff that's usually the subject of wokeness but somehow that didn't piss anyone off.
Why? They didn't push the Wokeness in your face as the central element of the "story", like you're being lectured. They just made a very very good show, with the diversity built around it in casting and to enhance the interest of storytelling.
The BBC would have done, just like they do with Doctor Who, and that's the problem with the BBC.
"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?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.
I think there's a constituency of thinking in the BBC that thinks to shed it's old audience and gain a younger (more diverse) one it has to actively signal against the values of the old one in order to get down with da kidz.
It's bats. They'll end up losing the older one (and the consensus for the licence fee) whilst gaining none of the younger one, who'll feel patronised and just laugh at them.
And everyone will switch to Netflix and Prime.
It's yet to be proven that young people will pay for wokeness, the most popular Netflix shows aren't really the woke ones and Netflix seems to have run out of road with their current strategy. The latest woke show seems to have generated a lot of controversy, but more in disgust than anything else.
Netflix did a very popular show - Sex Education - that was laced with the stuff that's usually the subject of wokeness but somehow that didn't piss anyone off.
Why? They didn't push the Wokeness in your face as the central element of the "story", like you're being lectured. They just made a very very good show, with the diversity built around it in casting and to enhance the interest of storytelling.
The BBC would have done, just like they do with Doctor Who, and that's the problem with the BBC.
Yes, as I said, it feels like the BBC is being run by Tory sleeper agents. No one could be this tone deaf.
The anger in the over 75's over the licence fee and now this totally unnecessary barney over the proms just hastens the move to a subscription service for the BBC
Indeed, totally unnecessary. This appears to be just cynical bollocks from Boris et al, which you’ve fallen for, Big_G.
"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?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.
I think there's a constituency of thinking in the BBC that thinks to shed it's old audience and gain a younger (more diverse) one it has to actively signal against the values of the old one in order to get down with da kidz.
It's bats. They'll end up losing the older one (and the consensus for the licence fee) whilst gaining none of the younger one, who'll feel patronised and just laugh at them.
And everyone will switch to Netflix and Prime.
It's yet to be proven that young people will pay for wokeness, the most popular Netflix shows aren't really the woke ones and Netflix seems to have run out of road with their current strategy. The latest woke show seems to have generated a lot of controversy, but more in disgust than anything else.
Netflix did a very popular show - Sex Education - that was laced with the stuff that's usually the subject of wokeness but somehow that didn't piss anyone off.
Why? They didn't push the Wokeness in your face as the central element of the "story", like you're being lectured. They just made a very very good show, with the diversity built around it in casting and to enhance the interest of storytelling.
The BBC would have done, just like they do with Doctor Who, and that's the problem with the BBC.
Yes, His Dark Materials on the BBC did the same as you describe, tellingly it is a co-production with HBO who would have no part of any wokeness.
Yes, as I said, it feels like the BBC is being run by Tory sleeper agents. No one could be this tone deaf.
The anger in the over 75's over the licence fee and now this totally unnecessary barney over the proms just hastens the move to a subscription service for the BBC
Indeed, totally unnecessary. This appears to be just cynical bollocks from Boris et al, which you’ve fallen for, Big_G.
I did not fall for it, I agree with him and it's time the BBC licence fee was abolished
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.
I think there's a constituency of thinking in the BBC that thinks to shed it's old audience and gain a younger (more diverse) one it has to actively signal against the values of the old one in order to get down with da kidz.
It's bats. They'll end up losing the older one (and the consensus for the licence fee) whilst gaining none of the younger one, who'll feel patronised and just laugh at them.
And everyone will switch to Netflix and Prime.
It's yet to be proven that young people will pay for wokeness, the most popular Netflix shows aren't really the woke ones and Netflix seems to have run out of road with their current strategy. The latest woke show seems to have generated a lot of controversy, but more in disgust than anything else.
What's the latest "woke" show?
I think a lot of what the young do as normal stuff the old would call "woke" but there you go
The one about, err, sexy 11 year olds, for want of a better phrase.
On the general point I'm less sure. Most of my friends are between 25 and 40 years old, the younger among them want the same things in life as the older ones, though I admit that I'm not the most woke person so I probably don't make friends with them easily. It's something that has passed me by, but that in itself is quite telling, that a whole culture can pass me by as someone who lives in woke central and is in the target age group means in real life it's much smaller than they would claim on Twitter etc...
On the subject, my Instagram test applies, if politics makes it to Instagram then it has cut through to our generation, if not then it hasn't. Wokeness just doesn't seem to be a thing on Instagram other than the big stuff like BLM. The transgender wars don't and have never made an impression whereas judging by Twitter one might think it's all anyone aged under 40 thinks or talks about.
My general thought is that Twitter is for Tw@ts. On pretty much any subject.
Wokedom/Snowflakes/*yawn*/whatever is generally for the confines of Tw@tter - normally people don't care about that.
Housing, healthcare, jobs, education, taxes, football . . . these are things real people care about.
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.
I think there's a constituency of thinking in the BBC that thinks to shed it's old audience and gain a younger (more diverse) one it has to actively signal against the values of the old one in order to get down with da kidz.
It's bats. They'll end up losing the older one (and the consensus for the licence fee) whilst gaining none of the younger one, who'll feel patronised and just laugh at them.
And everyone will switch to Netflix and Prime.
It's yet to be proven that young people will pay for wokeness, the most popular Netflix shows aren't really the woke ones and Netflix seems to have run out of road with their current strategy. The latest woke show seems to have generated a lot of controversy, but more in disgust than anything else.
What's the latest "woke" show?
I think a lot of what the young do as normal stuff the old would call "woke" but there you go
The one about, err, sexy 11 year olds, for want of a better phrase.
Okay that's not woke, that's just vile
From what I understand the intent was to show how awful it all is, but Netflix edited it and turned it into a standard Netflix show to try and go viral like Tiger King.
"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?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
What a disgusting post
What, minding about what happens to black people? I'm sure the moderators will be along in a moment to sort that out.
When they say no lyrics I wonder how they expect to stop the audience singing it?
Is there going to be an audience?
I don't think so, which goes back to the main point. The normal Last Night jollities are off the agenda this year, and Rule Britannia, if it works at all, needs a big raucous crowd. Same as the British Sea Songs number; without an audience mucking around, it's not a great piece.
(Rule Britannia is fairly lazy patriotism at that. "I vow to thee my country" is much better, given it's implication that, you know, we might have to contribute something rather than just saying we're going to be brilliant.)
But yes. The bright sparks at No 10 have realised that this is a great wedge issue. Get their core vote wound up about the singing of a song that virtually nobody knows the words to, which is likely to sound rubbish if it is sung in this context. (Though my "sing it in the style of the John Lewis Christmas Ad" proposal is still on the table, for my usual fee.)
Very smart politics, very stupid government, excellent illustration of the aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels.
I don't see how its stupid government or being a scoundrel to be playing some smart politics during Silly Season.
There isn't really any other news happening that's being ignored. Parliament is in recess, not much is going on even for an action packed year. The Prime Minister spoke about kids going back to school which is far more important but nobody wants to talk about that. Its the media and Twitter as much as the PM driving this issue being discussed.
And, as a hack, BoJo blooming well knows that. He chose to inflate the story, because he could. But since you ask, there are various non-scoundrel ways of dealing with this.
One is for Johnson to actually be liberal. "You know, it's important that the BBC serves the public without fear or favour, and as Prime Minister I mustn't be the one telling them what to do."
Another is to be supportive and avuncular. "We will all miss the singing, as we have missed so many things this year. But the important thing is to defeat the virus, and look forward to gathering again in the future."
He did neither of those things, because he saw a political opportunity to get one over on the libs. Act of a scoundrel.
Tbf, it's politics. The BBC handed him an opportunity, he took it. The stupidity lies with the BBC for pushing the woke agenda for a show that appeals to an older crowd that have no love for wokeism. It feels like the BBC has got Tory sleeper agents running it. The PM is in trouble over schools, virus and has got a popular chancellor breathing down his neck and the BBC chooses this exact moment to inflate a nothing row over some music that is ultimately meaningless.
I think there's a constituency of thinking in the BBC that thinks to shed it's old audience and gain a younger (more diverse) one it has to actively signal against the values of the old one in order to get down with da kidz.
It's bats. They'll end up losing the older one (and the consensus for the licence fee) whilst gaining none of the younger one, who'll feel patronised and just laugh at them.
And everyone will switch to Netflix and Prime.
It's yet to be proven that young people will pay for wokeness, the most popular Netflix shows aren't really the woke ones and Netflix seems to have run out of road with their current strategy. The latest woke show seems to have generated a lot of controversy, but more in disgust than anything else.
What's the latest "woke" show?
I think a lot of what the young do as normal stuff the old would call "woke" but there you go
The one about, err, sexy 11 year olds, for want of a better phrase.
Okay that's not woke, that's just vile
From what I understand the intent was to show how awful it all is, but Netflix edited it and turned it into a standard Netflix show to try and go viral like Tiger King.
On topic, the problem with Last Night of the Proms is not the lyrics of Rule Britannia, but that the whole event is utter, utter shite.
The Proms as a whole is a brilliant festival of classical music, with lots of reasonably priced tickets and so on. But the vast majority of people see it only as the Last Night, and thus picture people who like classical music as a bunch of crass, vulgar, braying bellends. So what should be a good thing for classical music becomes an appalling advert for it.
Same when any "royalist" is interviewed at a state event. It's always the most horrendous, attention-craving arsehole who has camped out overnight in a grubby union jack sleeping bag hoping for a glimpse of Princess Eugenie. Which isn't that representative and gives a bad impression.
"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?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
"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?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
What a disgusting post
What, minding about what happens to black people? I'm sure the moderators will be along in a moment to sort that out.
Yeah sure what could possibly be disgusting about "Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head"?
Even without getting into your ignorance of history.
"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?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
What a disgusting post
Imperialism is disgusting, I think you'll find.
I am not arguing that I am arguing about the language to another poster
I genuinely couldn't give a toss about this issue, I would be a don't know/don't care on the YouGov poll, The Proms isn't my thing at all
If you're ever in London in Summer, definitely go. Top notch performances, friendly crowd. Mostly totally unlike the Last Night. It's a lovely way to spend a summer evening.
On one evening I went to hear The Vienna Philharmonic play in London at The Proms. I joined an enormous queue about 3 hours before kick off, and was one of the last ten to get in. This was in the days before podcasts and on demand iplayers.
I have been to some wonderful Prom concerts at The Royal Albert Hall. The BBC radio coverage is almost consistently good, though I feel that the TV coverage is hampered by celebrity presenters.
It is a great way to discover classical music.
Tomorrow evening Radio 3 is repeating the 1987 Bernstein Mahler 5 with the VPO. I remember hearing that on the radio first time round. Justly regarded as one of the greatest proms of all time.
Yes, as I said, it feels like the BBC is being run by Tory sleeper agents. No one could be this tone deaf.
The anger in the over 75's over the licence fee and now this totally unnecessary barney over the proms just hastens the move to a subscription service for the BBC
Indeed, totally unnecessary. This appears to be just cynical bollocks from Boris et al, which you’ve fallen for, Big_G.
I did not fall for it, I agree with him and it's time the BBC licence fee was abolished
Its long since time.
Every time this comes up the defence of the licence fee becomes more and more half-hearted it seems. It does feel like an argument being won.
The thing nobody has even attempted to justify to me is if you watch live TV on a different channel (eg a live football or cricket match) then why should you pay the BBC for the privilege of watching a different channel live?
"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?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
What a disgusting post
What, minding about what happens to black people? I'm sure the moderators will be along in a moment to sort that out.
Yeah sure what could possibly be disgusting about "Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head"?
Even without getting into your ignorance of history.
You have led a sheltered life, and Paul Heaton said it first, sir.
Leaving that aside, details of the ignorance of history, please. Now.
"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?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
What a disgusting post
What, minding about what happens to black people? I'm sure the moderators will be along in a moment to sort that out.
Yeah sure what could possibly be disgusting about "Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head"?
Even without getting into your ignorance of history.
You have led a sheltered life, and Paul Heaton said it first, sir.
Leaving that aside, details of the ignorance of history, please. Now.
"Now"
Yeah no thanks. You did OK with the please, before you became rude again. Get some manners and just because an artist said something rude to shock people doesn't mean its big or clever to repeat it. Get over yourself.
I think there's a constituency of thinking in the BBC that thinks to shed it's old audience and gain a younger (more diverse) one it has to actively signal against the values of the old one in order to get down with da kidz.
It's bats. They'll end up losing the older one (and the consensus for the licence fee) whilst gaining none of the younger one, who'll feel patronised and just laugh at them.
And everyone will switch to Netflix and Prime.
I suspect that the BBC's share of young peoples viewing is absolutely dire. Even a year or two ago Netflix had overtaken ALL BBC output combined for the young. YouTube can't be far behind, and I wouldn't even be surprised if Disney+ is beating the BBC amongst child viewers right now. A telly tax for something that has essentially already died for the next generation of viewers is simply not going to work.
Completely off topic, it is time for me to get a new gas/electricity contract.
2 questions for the PB Brains Trust: is it worth getting a Smart Meter? I have heard bad reports bout them.
Are Octopus Energy any good? They seem to offer the best 2 year fixed price deal.
Any others I should consider?
If like many you cant be bothered to change regularly and therefore end up on standard tariffs for six months or longer at a time then going to one of the ones who switch for you automatically is likely to be best.
If you are willing to change regularly you can probably do a bit better.
"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?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
What a disgusting post
Imperialism is disgusting, I think you'll find.
I am not arguing that I am arguing about the language to another poster
Also disgusting was the claim that the Napoleonic Wars lasted until 1865!
@Cyclefree I use Octopus Energy and have had no problems whatsoever. They have a very easy to use website for submitting meter readings and managing the account also.
"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?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
What a disgusting post
What, minding about what happens to black people? I'm sure the moderators will be along in a moment to sort that out.
Yeah sure what could possibly be disgusting about "Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head"?
Even without getting into your ignorance of history.
You have led a sheltered life, and Paul Heaton said it first, sir.
Leaving that aside, details of the ignorance of history, please. Now.
"Now"
Yeah no thanks. You did OK with the please, before you became rude again. Get some manners and just because an artist said something rude to shock people doesn't mean its big or clever to repeat it. Get over yourself.
For those who still think this whole Proms row was confected a BBC producer writes..
Yes, as I said, it feels like the BBC is being run by Tory sleeper agents. No one could be this tone deaf.
The anger in the over 75's over the licence fee and now this totally unnecessary barney over the proms just hastens the move to a subscription service for the BBC
Indeed, totally unnecessary. This appears to be just cynical bollocks from Boris et al, which you’ve fallen for, Big_G.
I did not fall for it, I agree with him and it's time the BBC licence fee was abolished
This garbage ? Responding to the news of this year's changes, Mr Johnson told reporters: "I cannot believe... that the BBC is saying that they will not sing the words of Land Of Hope And Glory or Rule Britannia! as they traditionally do at the end of The Last Night of The Proms. "I think it's time we stopped our cringing embarrassment about our history, about our traditions, and about our culture, and we stopped this general fight of self-recrimination and wetness. "I wanted to get that off my chest," he added.
The BBC does not, and never has “sung the lyrics”. That would be the audience. Which is not going to be there this year.
As per the BBC - "For the avoidance of any doubt, these songs will be sung next year. We obviously share the disappointment of everyone that the Proms will have to be different but believe this is the best solution in the circumstances and look forward to their traditional return next year."
Can you clarify just what it is that you agree with the bluffing bullshitter about ?
"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?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
Our relationship with slavery was more complex than contrarian suggests after 1808. We did after all not free the slaves for a further quarter century, and even after that used indentured Asian labourers, trafficked across the world to Trinidad, Guyana, Mauritius and Fiji. A cynic may even suggest that the British policy was to prevent competition to British plantations from rivals with slave imports. The Lancashire cotton industry was also heavily dependent on slave produced cotton from the Southern USA.
I genuinely think a decent bulk of Labour members are not "woke" in the capacity some here would think, left wing and high on social issues but not woke.
For those who still think this whole Proms row was confected a BBC producer writes..
Yes, as I said, it feels like the BBC is being run by Tory sleeper agents. No one could be this tone deaf.
The anger in the over 75's over the licence fee and now this totally unnecessary barney over the proms just hastens the move to a subscription service for the BBC
Indeed, totally unnecessary. This appears to be just cynical bollocks from Boris et al, which you’ve fallen for, Big_G.
I did not fall for it, I agree with him and it's time the BBC licence fee was abolished
This garbage ? Responding to the news of this year's changes, Mr Johnson told reporters: "I cannot believe... that the BBC is saying that they will not sing the words of Land Of Hope And Glory or Rule Britannia! as they traditionally do at the end of The Last Night of The Proms. "I think it's time we stopped our cringing embarrassment about our history, about our traditions, and about our culture, and we stopped this general fight of self-recrimination and wetness. "I wanted to get that off my chest," he added.
The BBC does not, and never has “sung the lyrics”. That would be the audience. Which is not going to be there this year.
As per the BBC - "For the avoidance of any doubt, these songs will be sung next year. We obviously share the disappointment of everyone that the Proms will have to be different but believe this is the best solution in the circumstances and look forward to their traditional return next year."
Can you clarify just what it is that you agree with the bluffing bullshitter about ?
I am not answerable to you and no clarification is necessary
I think there's a constituency of thinking in the BBC that thinks to shed it's old audience and gain a younger (more diverse) one it has to actively signal against the values of the old one in order to get down with da kidz.
It's bats. They'll end up losing the older one (and the consensus for the licence fee) whilst gaining none of the younger one, who'll feel patronised and just laugh at them.
And everyone will switch to Netflix and Prime.
I suspect that the BBC's share of young peoples viewing is absolutely dire. Even a year or two ago Netflix had overtaken ALL BBC output combined for the young. YouTube can't be far behind, and I wouldn't even be surprised if Disney+ is beating the BBC amongst child viewers right now. A telly tax for something that has essentially already died for the next generation of viewers is simply not going to work.
Indeed.
It wouldn't surprise me if YouTube is well ahead of BBC amongst the young already as well as Netflix.
I think there's a constituency of thinking in the BBC that thinks to shed it's old audience and gain a younger (more diverse) one it has to actively signal against the values of the old one in order to get down with da kidz.
It's bats. They'll end up losing the older one (and the consensus for the licence fee) whilst gaining none of the younger one, who'll feel patronised and just laugh at them.
And everyone will switch to Netflix and Prime.
I suspect that the BBC's share of young peoples viewing is absolutely dire. Even a year or two ago Netflix had overtaken ALL BBC output combined for the young. YouTube can't be far behind, and I wouldn't even be surprised if Disney+ is beating the BBC amongst child viewers right now. A telly tax for something that has essentially already died for the next generation of viewers is simply not going to work.
Yeah, we just dumped live TV after realising we don't watch it at all and getting the cheap NowTV sports subscription deal. Now we don't pay the licence fee. I don't care to pay BT for sports just for Champions League matches, I'll just catch the goals/highlights on Reddit. Netflix, Prime (which I have for deliveries rather than content), D+ and NowTV sports pretty much covers everything we watch. If Britbox becomes any good it might also be worth a fiver a month, but so far I'm not convinced.
On topic, the problem with Last Night of the Proms is not the lyrics of Rule Britannia, but that the whole event is utter, utter shite.
The Proms as a whole is a brilliant festival of classical music, with lots of reasonably priced tickets and so on. But the vast majority of people see it only as the Last Night, and thus picture people who like classical music as a bunch of crass, vulgar, braying bellends. So what should be a good thing for classical music becomes an appalling advert for it.
Same when any "royalist" is interviewed at a state event. It's always the most horrendous, attention-craving arsehole who has camped out overnight in a grubby union jack sleeping bag hoping for a glimpse of Princess Eugenie. Which isn't that representative and gives a bad impression.
Forgetting Rule Britannia, I'm constantly surprised that the Proms is actually a thing. It's always seemed to me as one of those things that are somehow both perennial but entirely ephemeral and hard to believe, like Narnia, or Tim Henman's chances of winning Wimbledon, or something.
I genuinely think a decent bulk of Labour members are not "woke" in the capacity some here would think, left wing and high on social issues but not woke.
It's the loud minority who make us all look bad
It's like politics on Twitter. If an alien came to planet earth and only had access to twitter they would think the human race is 90% crazy.
"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?"
Looks a cracking point to me.
But then you are completely ignorant of the facts and are believing the lies of the marxist black lives matter movement.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
Do bugger off, you silly little man. cuntrarian by name, ...
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
Our relationship with slavery was more complex than contrarian suggests after 1808. We did after all not free the slaves for a further quarter century, and even after that used indentured Asian labourers, trafficked across the world to Trinidad, Guyana, Mauritius and Fiji. A cynic may even suggest that the British policy was to prevent competition to British plantations from rivals with slave imports. The Lancashire cotton industry was also heavily dependent on slave produced cotton from the Southern USA.
That's right, but even if it wasn't the sheer numbers speak for themselves. It feels like being in an episode of Father Ted when you find yourself floundering for a way of explaining that 3,000,000 is a larger number than 150,000.
On topic, the problem with Last Night of the Proms is not the lyrics of Rule Britannia, but that the whole event is utter, utter shite.
The Proms as a whole is a brilliant festival of classical music, with lots of reasonably priced tickets and so on. But the vast majority of people see it only as the Last Night, and thus picture people who like classical music as a bunch of crass, vulgar, braying bellends. So what should be a good thing for classical music becomes an appalling advert for it.
Same when any "royalist" is interviewed at a state event. It's always the most horrendous, attention-craving arsehole who has camped out overnight in a grubby union jack sleeping bag hoping for a glimpse of Princess Eugenie. Which isn't that representative and gives a bad impression.
Forgetting Rule Britannia, I'm constantly surprised that the Proms is actually a thing. It's always seemed to me as one of those things that are somehow both perennial but entirely ephemeral and hard to believe, like Narnia, or Tim Henman's chances of winning Wimbledon, or something.
Perhaps they could replace Rule Britannia with a group rendition of C'mon Tim!
For those who still think this whole Proms row was confected a BBC producer writes..
Yes, as I said, it feels like the BBC is being run by Tory sleeper agents. No one could be this tone deaf.
The anger in the over 75's over the licence fee and now this totally unnecessary barney over the proms just hastens the move to a subscription service for the BBC
Indeed, totally unnecessary. This appears to be just cynical bollocks from Boris et al, which you’ve fallen for, Big_G.
I did not fall for it, I agree with him and it's time the BBC licence fee was abolished
This garbage ? Responding to the news of this year's changes, Mr Johnson told reporters: "I cannot believe... that the BBC is saying that they will not sing the words of Land Of Hope And Glory or Rule Britannia! as they traditionally do at the end of The Last Night of The Proms. "I think it's time we stopped our cringing embarrassment about our history, about our traditions, and about our culture, and we stopped this general fight of self-recrimination and wetness. "I wanted to get that off my chest," he added.
The BBC does not, and never has “sung the lyrics”. That would be the audience. Which is not going to be there this year.
As per the BBC - "For the avoidance of any doubt, these songs will be sung next year. We obviously share the disappointment of everyone that the Proms will have to be different but believe this is the best solution in the circumstances and look forward to their traditional return next year."
Can you clarify just what it is that you agree with the bluffing bullshitter about ?
I am not answerable to you and no clarification is necessary
No problem, Big_G. If you wish to stick with the unjustified knee jerk reaction, that is, as you say, your prerogative.
For those who still think this whole Proms row was confected a BBC producer writes..
Yes, as I said, it feels like the BBC is being run by Tory sleeper agents. No one could be this tone deaf.
The anger in the over 75's over the licence fee and now this totally unnecessary barney over the proms just hastens the move to a subscription service for the BBC
Indeed, totally unnecessary. This appears to be just cynical bollocks from Boris et al, which you’ve fallen for, Big_G.
I did not fall for it, I agree with him and it's time the BBC licence fee was abolished
This garbage ? Responding to the news of this year's changes, Mr Johnson told reporters: "I cannot believe... that the BBC is saying that they will not sing the words of Land Of Hope And Glory or Rule Britannia! as they traditionally do at the end of The Last Night of The Proms. "I think it's time we stopped our cringing embarrassment about our history, about our traditions, and about our culture, and we stopped this general fight of self-recrimination and wetness. "I wanted to get that off my chest," he added.
The BBC does not, and never has “sung the lyrics”. That would be the audience. Which is not going to be there this year.
As per the BBC - "For the avoidance of any doubt, these songs will be sung next year. We obviously share the disappointment of everyone that the Proms will have to be different but believe this is the best solution in the circumstances and look forward to their traditional return next year."
Can you clarify just what it is that you agree with the bluffing bullshitter about ?
Its not just the audience, they normally have a soprano there singing it.
This was last year, a mezzo-soprano singing on the stage while waving a flag. Very fun.
The idea there's no singers on the stage . . . have you ever even watched the Proms? Maybe you should familiarise yourself with what is being discussed before joining the conversation.
Comments
https://order-order.com/2020/08/25/labour-calls-for-school-facemask-usage-two-hours-after-government-signs-off-school-facemask-u-turn/
I bought their ice cream years ago (I didn't know they were Woke then) and thought it was crap: the "cream" was relatively little and melted quickly leaving you with large chunky and annoying bits you had to chew instead. Yum.
Haagen Dazs is far better. Of course, there's no guarantee they won't beat a path down the same road too.
I wish this Government had some kind of ideology, the problem is it doesn't and since it is staffed by people based on loyalty and not competence, it will run from wall to wall over the next five years, following opinion not setting it.
Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron intercepted more than 1,000 slave boats and freed 150,000 West Africans bound for slavery.
In 1915 at the Battle of Jutland ensured German expansionism never took control in Europe
And in 1939-1942 the Royal Navy played its part to ensure that one of the most noxious regimes ever to inhabit the planet could not strangle the life out of the last remaining democracy to oppose it in the Atlantic
None of these amazingly good and anti-racist things would have been possible had not Britannia Ruled the Waves.
All in all your point one of the most spectacularly ignorant, most prejudiced and and least considered points ever made on here.
She believes it literally.
Her post is so bats it doesn't even need a response - her own words alone will condemn it.
It won't be the last time.
This is going to go down badly but I think it is the right thing to do, nobody is immune from prosecution
He wants to be more than a statesman.
He wants to be the next Churchill, the once a century great leader, he wants to be father of the nation (no, not like that, stop sniggering at the back).
And that requires certain standards, which he really can't embody.
It's bats. They'll end up losing the older one (and the consensus for the licence fee) whilst gaining none of the younger one, who'll feel patronised and just laugh at them.
And everyone will switch to Netflix and Prime.
We talk about the political gap between vicars and their congregations.
The gap between her views here and viewers of Songs of Praise will be off the scale.
If he was a liberal PM as you believe, he would say its up to the artists and the audience.
The underlying issue is many of the artists want to move on from these songs and the audience doesnt. No need for politicians to get involved in that tension.
We watch Netflix because its good quality, cheap and on demand. Why bother with the BBC?
I quite like the BBC myself
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2020/08/the-next-bbc-chairman-send-for-charles-moore.html
I think it doesn't look good publicly but I can't say I disagree with their position on this
I have been to some wonderful Prom concerts at The Royal Albert Hall. The BBC radio coverage is almost consistently good, though I feel that the TV coverage is hampered by celebrity presenters.
It is a great way to discover classical music.
I think a lot of what the young do as normal stuff the old would call "woke" but there you go
On the general point I'm less sure. Most of my friends are between 25 and 40 years old, the younger among them want the same things in life as the older ones, though I admit that I'm not the most woke person so I probably don't make friends with them easily. It's something that has passed me by, but that in itself is quite telling, that a whole culture can pass me by as someone who lives in woke central and is in the target age group means in real life it's much smaller than they would claim on Twitter etc...
On the subject, my Instagram test applies, if politics makes it to Instagram then it has cut through to our generation, if not then it hasn't. Wokeness just doesn't seem to be a thing on Instagram other than the big stuff like BLM. The transgender wars don't and have never made an impression whereas judging by Twitter one might think it's all anyone aged under 40 thinks or talks about.
I've seen discussions about the future of the BBC here but those occur on an almost weekly basis and Johnson said nothing about that.
Why? They didn't push the Wokeness in your face as the central element of the "story", like you're being lectured. They just made a very very good show, with the diversity built around it in casting and to enhance the interest of storytelling.
The BBC would have done, just like they do with Doctor Who, and that's the problem with the BBC.
You can't accuse people of historical ignorance and then start a sentence "Between 1809 and 1865, in the teeth of the Napoleonic wars..." Long old wars, those, and of course the French navy was very much a force to be reckoned with after the events of 1805 (look it up).
And don't be a fucking wazzock about the West Africa squadron, look at the numbers. We shipped over 3 million slaves across the Atlantic. When you add in the conditions under which their descendants lived and died in our colonies, the atrocity is probably worse than the holocaust. Saying we thought better of it and rescued 150,000 is on a par with contending that Adolf Eichmann was a lovely bloke who used to send his mother flowers, and that.
Not sure what your underlying problem is, and the best advice I can give is from the Beautiful South: Crap inside your union jack and wrap it round your head.
I believe in justice.
But in general the government should be held to account for the actions of soldiers.
But why is this a priority for engagement at this time?
This appears to be just cynical bollocks from Boris et al, which you’ve fallen for, Big_G.
Wokedom/Snowflakes/*yawn*/whatever is generally for the confines of Tw@tter - normally people don't care about that.
Housing, healthcare, jobs, education, taxes, football . . . these are things real people care about.
The Proms as a whole is a brilliant festival of classical music, with lots of reasonably priced tickets and so on. But the vast majority of people see it only as the Last Night, and thus picture people who like classical music as a bunch of crass, vulgar, braying bellends. So what should be a good thing for classical music becomes an appalling advert for it.
Same when any "royalist" is interviewed at a state event. It's always the most horrendous, attention-craving arsehole who has camped out overnight in a grubby union jack sleeping bag hoping for a glimpse of Princess Eugenie. Which isn't that representative and gives a bad impression.
He is the turnaround specialist.
Even without getting into your ignorance of history.
2 questions for the PB Brains Trust: is it worth getting a Smart Meter? I have heard bad reports bout them.
Are Octopus Energy any good? They seem to offer the best 2 year fixed price deal.
Any others I should consider?
Every time this comes up the defence of the licence fee becomes more and more half-hearted it seems. It does feel like an argument being won.
The thing nobody has even attempted to justify to me is if you watch live TV on a different channel (eg a live football or cricket match) then why should you pay the BBC for the privilege of watching a different channel live?
Leaving that aside, details of the ignorance of history, please. Now.
Yeah no thanks. You did OK with the please, before you became rude again. Get some manners and just because an artist said something rude to shock people doesn't mean its big or clever to repeat it. Get over yourself.
I do not have a meter as I have solar panels, and some say it is more difficult to switch if you have a meter, but I am not an expert on that
If you are willing to change regularly you can probably do a bit better.
Responding to the news of this year's changes, Mr Johnson told reporters: "I cannot believe... that the BBC is saying that they will not sing the words of Land Of Hope And Glory or Rule Britannia! as they traditionally do at the end of The Last Night of The Proms.
"I think it's time we stopped our cringing embarrassment about our history, about our traditions, and about our culture, and we stopped this general fight of self-recrimination and wetness.
"I wanted to get that off my chest," he added.
The BBC does not, and never has “sung the lyrics”. That would be the audience. Which is not going to be there this year.
As per the BBC - "For the avoidance of any doubt, these songs will be sung next year. We obviously share the disappointment of everyone that the Proms will have to be different but believe this is the best solution in the circumstances and look forward to their traditional return next year."
Can you clarify just what it is that you agree with the bluffing bullshitter about ?
It's the loud minority who make us all look bad
ROFL
It wouldn't surprise me if YouTube is well ahead of BBC amongst the young already as well as Netflix.
If you wish to stick with the unjustified knee jerk reaction, that is, as you say, your prerogative.
https://twitter.com/bbcproms/status/1172981971279958016
This was last year, a mezzo-soprano singing on the stage while waving a flag. Very fun.
The idea there's no singers on the stage . . . have you ever even watched the Proms? Maybe you should familiarise yourself with what is being discussed before joining the conversation.