That's literally what I (and separately someone else, LostPassword ?) have suggested.
lol. @Philip Thompson slips and admits alignment with QAnon.
You're a frigging numpty. 🤦♂️
Leon and LostPassword would have known the context of that remark, and it was not alignment with QAnon. What we both said was that this would be a very smart way to wean the conspiracy theorists away from the Q bullshit, by giving them alien bullshit to worry about instead.
QAnon-ers have been angry and against all this alien BS, because it distracts from their Q BS. I think the alien BS is BS, but is infinitely better than Q and if people need a "conspiracy detox" then this is infinitely better than Q.
But I'm sure this logic is too complicated for your petty, tiny little mind where anyone who disagrees with you on anything is an extremist in a completely different direction. You are institutionally incapable of literacy, or concepts like nuance etc so it won't surprise me that this all went over your head. Whoosh!
Mr. Boy, slavery was endemic in Africa at the time. And Arabia. And continued elsewhere after we stopped it.
A fetish for self-flagellation is not something I find appealing.
Oh, and, of course, we've got the tens of millions Stalin imprisoned and slaughtered, the Holocaust, Mao's epic death toll, Roman slavery. And the Aztec sacrifices.
Why are you so afraid of addressing bad things we did in the past? It isn't a reflection on us personally. It doesn't affect the pride we can take in the good things we did. It's just a question of being honest. The fact is that Britain built its wealth and power over the course of a couple of hundred years off the back of African Labour in the new world, a trade in human misery that we were active participants in. It's just laughable that people act so defensively whenever anyone brings it up or suggests minor acts of remembrance (like no longer venerating slave traders).
You need to read Tony Blair's article in the New Statesman:
"People are suspicious that behind the agenda of many of the culture warriors on the left lies an ideology they find alien and extreme.'
Mr Blair warned that voters do not like 'their country their flag or their history being disrespected'.
'''Defund the police' may be the left's most damaging political slogan since ''the dictatorship of the proletariat'',' he said.
'People do not like their country, their flag or their history being disrespected. People like common sense, proportion and reason.'"
Common sense: don't venerate slave traders and white supremacists, people who do not represent the values of our great country and are unworthy of our respect. Proportion: remove statues of slave traders and white supremacists from positions of prominence and put them in a museum where they can be placed in their historical context and understood against the prevalent historical currents. Reason: understand our history in full rather than drawing a veil over the parts that make us feel uncomfortable or reacting angrily to those who want to discuss historical wrongs.
Anyone who thinks the answer is iconoclasm is someone either not thinking clearly or someone who has a more ideological agenda.
The Government are quite right to quash this with the general law.
It's a very odd law. Why privilege statues over other structures? Should it be illegal to demolish any building? Is there any statue you would agree to take down if it were currently gracing the High Street of a British town? Jimmy Saville? Joseph Stalin? Fred West? Adolf Hitler? Or are all stone representations of historical figures to be preserved for all time regardless of how the person is now viewed?
By the government’s logic that should have been re-erected at public expense and afforded police protection. I'm surprised we haven't seen any of the PB Agalmatophiles raising a subscription for that very purpose.
Certainly no more unusual than somer of the stuff there - and actually a functional song.
Very much so.
The thing that consoles me as the UK finishes bottom for most of this millenium in Eurovision is that we're competing with the best musical groups/singers the other countries have whilst we send rubbish.
Just imagine if the UK sent one of the better bands/singers to next year's Eurovision, you know The Rolling Stones, Rod Stewart, Depeche Mode, Duran Duran, Steps, The Who, or The Stone Roses.
Mr. Boy, slavery was endemic in Africa at the time. And Arabia. And continued elsewhere after we stopped it.
A fetish for self-flagellation is not something I find appealing.
Oh, and, of course, we've got the tens of millions Stalin imprisoned and slaughtered, the Holocaust, Mao's epic death toll, Roman slavery. And the Aztec sacrifices.
Why are you so afraid of addressing bad things we did in the past? It isn't a reflection on us personally. It doesn't affect the pride we can take in the good things we did. It's just a question of being honest. The fact is that Britain built its wealth and power over the course of a couple of hundred years off the back of African Labour in the new world, a trade in human misery that we were active participants in. It's just laughable that people act so defensively whenever anyone brings it up or suggests minor acts of remembrance (like no longer venerating slave traders).
You need to read Tony Blair's article in the New Statesman:
"People are suspicious that behind the agenda of many of the culture warriors on the left lies an ideology they find alien and extreme.'
Mr Blair warned that voters do not like 'their country their flag or their history being disrespected'.
'''Defund the police' may be the left's most damaging political slogan since ''the dictatorship of the proletariat'',' he said.
'People do not like their country, their flag or their history being disrespected. People like common sense, proportion and reason.'"
Common sense: don't venerate slave traders and white supremacists, people who do not represent the values of our great country and are unworthy of our respect. Proportion: remove statues of slave traders and white supremacists from positions of prominence and put them in a museum where they can be placed in their historical context and understood against the prevalent historical currents. Reason: understand our history in full rather than drawing a veil over the parts that make us feel uncomfortable or reacting angrily to those who want to discuss historical wrongs.
Anyone who thinks the answer is iconoclasm is someone either not thinking clearly or someone who has a more ideological agenda.
The Government are quite right to quash this with the general law.
It's a very odd law. Why privilege statues over other structures? Should it be illegal to demolish any building? Is there any statue you would agree to take down if it were currently gracing the High Street of a British town? Jimmy Saville? Joseph Stalin? Fred West? Adolf Hitler? Or are all stone representations of historical figures to be preserved for all time regardless of how the person is now viewed?
By the government’s logic that should have been re-erected at public expense and afforded police protection. I'm surprised we haven't seen any of the PB Agalmatophiles raising a subscription for that very purpose.
'Wrong' government, it would seem.
Interestingly, the one down south don't seem to have defended this one -
Mr. Boy, I'd be interested to know how far back you'd go with that. Living memory would be my instinctive approach to this sort of thing. How would you handle Caesar, who massacred a tribe (NB including women and children) of Thuringii during peace talks in... 53 BC (I think)?
I'm not an especial fan of Caesar, certainly not compared to Mr. Eagles, but I don't think that incident should be the prism through which he is viewed, just one of numerous significant events and decisions that he was involved in.
Although we disagree on some things you do seem reasonable, but many who bang on about this are not. They're iconoclasts, revisionists, and sometimes outright racists. With that in mind, I hope you forgive me if I seemed a little sharp in response.
No forgiveness necessary. It's an interesting question. Personally I would have a very high bar for removing statues. I think it's a question of weighing up the positives and negatives, and you'd need to see the negatives outweighing the positives by a wide margin before acting. Churchill is the obvious kind of figure that would not make the cut for removal. Equally a slave trader doesn't seem to me someone that a society that is knowledgeable about its history would want to see honoured in its Town centres. I see little in Rhodes' history that merits his prominent position on an Oxford college, either. Since Caesar was an aggressive foreign invader I'm not sure we should be having a statue of him anyway (do we have one? I have no idea). I am guessing if I were Italian I wouldn't be calling for his statue to be removed.
Isn't Rhodes' commemoration at Oxford due to him leaving money for Rhodes scholarships?
He also paid for the Rhodes Building, Oriel on which the statue stands.
And did he not pay for Rhodes House? Very striking Cotswoldish between-wars architecture - very different from the University Museum almost opposite.
Almost opposite? It's St Mary's, the University Church, which is opposite, with All Souls and Brasenose to either side. The various museums are much further north.
Certainly no more unusual than somer of the stuff there - and actually a functional song.
Very much so.
The thing that consoles me as the UK finishes bottom for most of this millenium in Eurovision is that we're competing with the best musical groups/singers the other countries have whilst we send rubbish.
Just imagine if the UK sent one of the better bands/singers to next year's Eurovision, you know The Rolling Stones, Rod Stewart, Depeche Mode, Duran Duran, Steps, The Who, or The Stone Roses.
We'd win a landslide.
We need to find an established act that doesn’t take itself so seriously, that can write a catchy tune, come up with a dance or mad stage show.
This was the favourite to win last year, before it was cancelled. It’s the sort of thing we need to emulate.
Mr. Boy, I'd be interested to know how far back you'd go with that. Living memory would be my instinctive approach to this sort of thing. How would you handle Caesar, who massacred a tribe (NB including women and children) of Thuringii during peace talks in... 53 BC (I think)?
I'm not an especial fan of Caesar, certainly not compared to Mr. Eagles, but I don't think that incident should be the prism through which he is viewed, just one of numerous significant events and decisions that he was involved in.
Although we disagree on some things you do seem reasonable, but many who bang on about this are not. They're iconoclasts, revisionists, and sometimes outright racists. With that in mind, I hope you forgive me if I seemed a little sharp in response.
No forgiveness necessary. It's an interesting question. Personally I would have a very high bar for removing statues. I think it's a question of weighing up the positives and negatives, and you'd need to see the negatives outweighing the positives by a wide margin before acting. Churchill is the obvious kind of figure that would not make the cut for removal. Equally a slave trader doesn't seem to me someone that a society that is knowledgeable about its history would want to see honoured in its Town centres. I see little in Rhodes' history that merits his prominent position on an Oxford college, either. Since Caesar was an aggressive foreign invader I'm not sure we should be having a statue of him anyway (do we have one? I have no idea). I am guessing if I were Italian I wouldn't be calling for his statue to be removed.
Isn't Rhodes' commemoration at Oxford due to him leaving money for Rhodes scholarships?
He also paid for the Rhodes Building, Oriel on which the statue stands.
And did he not pay for Rhodes House? Very striking Cotswoldish between-wars architecture - very different from the University Museum almost opposite.
Almost opposite? It's St Mary's, the University Church, which is opposite, with All Souls and Brasenose to either side. The various museums are much further north.
A misunderstanding, evidently. The one I mean is additional: this one
Let them. It would give the English somebody not to vote for....
They can't, they are part of the sovereign UK and no non sovereign country competes in Eurovision
So Scotland competes in the Euros, World Cup, Rugby World Cup, Cricket World Cup yet is not allowed to compete in effing Eurovision??
That is pathetic and ridiculous.
If they did it would set a precedent, soon you would have Catalonia, Wales even Bavaria and Venice demanding to do the same
I don't think Eurovision really cares about setting a geopolitical precedent. They just want to see drag queens singing.
Tough, Scotland is part of the UK and that is where it is staying. If there is a UK team or contestant already that UK team or contestant stays. Football and rugby are different as the UK does not compete as one entity (although Scotland did compete as part of the UK football team in the 2012 Olympics)
It has its own team in most major sports, sports which are played by millions and followed by billions...
Football Cricket Rugby Union Rugby League Golf Hockey Netball
Yet it cannot be allowed to enter a drag act from Falkirk into a naff singing competition – as to do so would cause some sort of diplomatic incident?
I'm going to enjoy hearing your reasoning on this one...
As there is already a UK entry, there is no UK team in any of the sports you listed above apart from the UK football team and Hockey teams at the Olympics (plus there is the British Lions too of course in rugby union).
So a logical solution would to bring Eurovision into line. I see what you are saying. I look forward to the Home Nations' singing in years to come. Maybe Wales would win??
The Welsh national anthem is magnificent
My dear late Scottish father in law said it is the best beyond compare
Nonsense, the greatest national anthem is La Marseillaise.
It pains me to say that, especially England & The UK has a bloody dirge.
"Guide me oh, thou Great Redeemer" would be a stirring national anthem, or perhaps The Naval Hymn.
Mr. Boy, slavery was endemic in Africa at the time. And Arabia. And continued elsewhere after we stopped it.
A fetish for self-flagellation is not something I find appealing.
Oh, and, of course, we've got the tens of millions Stalin imprisoned and slaughtered, the Holocaust, Mao's epic death toll, Roman slavery. And the Aztec sacrifices.
Why are you so afraid of addressing bad things we did in the past? It isn't a reflection on us personally. It doesn't affect the pride we can take in the good things we did. It's just a question of being honest. The fact is that Britain built its wealth and power over the course of a couple of hundred years off the back of African Labour in the new world, a trade in human misery that we were active participants in. It's just laughable that people act so defensively whenever anyone brings it up or suggests minor acts of remembrance (like no longer venerating slave traders).
You need to read Tony Blair's article in the New Statesman:
"People are suspicious that behind the agenda of many of the culture warriors on the left lies an ideology they find alien and extreme.'
Mr Blair warned that voters do not like 'their country their flag or their history being disrespected'.
'''Defund the police' may be the left's most damaging political slogan since ''the dictatorship of the proletariat'',' he said.
'People do not like their country, their flag or their history being disrespected. People like common sense, proportion and reason.'"
Common sense: don't venerate slave traders and white supremacists, people who do not represent the values of our great country and are unworthy of our respect. Proportion: remove statues of slave traders and white supremacists from positions of prominence and put them in a museum where they can be placed in their historical context and understood against the prevalent historical currents. Reason: understand our history in full rather than drawing a veil over the parts that make us feel uncomfortable or reacting angrily to those who want to discuss historical wrongs.
A white supremacist or a slave trader may still have achieved great deeds. Historical figures have to be judged in the round.
Mr. Boy, slavery was endemic in Africa at the time. And Arabia. And continued elsewhere after we stopped it.
A fetish for self-flagellation is not something I find appealing.
Oh, and, of course, we've got the tens of millions Stalin imprisoned and slaughtered, the Holocaust, Mao's epic death toll, Roman slavery. And the Aztec sacrifices.
Why are you so afraid of addressing bad things we did in the past? It isn't a reflection on us personally. It doesn't affect the pride we can take in the good things we did. It's just a question of being honest. The fact is that Britain built its wealth and power over the course of a couple of hundred years off the back of African Labour in the new world, a trade in human misery that we were active participants in. It's just laughable that people act so defensively whenever anyone brings it up or suggests minor acts of remembrance (like no longer venerating slave traders).
Mr. Boy, I'd be interested to know how far back you'd go with that. Living memory would be my instinctive approach to this sort of thing. How would you handle Caesar, who massacred a tribe (NB including women and children) of Thuringii during peace talks in... 53 BC (I think)?
I'm not an especial fan of Caesar, certainly not compared to Mr. Eagles, but I don't think that incident should be the prism through which he is viewed, just one of numerous significant events and decisions that he was involved in.
Although we disagree on some things you do seem reasonable, but many who bang on about this are not. They're iconoclasts, revisionists, and sometimes outright racists. With that in mind, I hope you forgive me if I seemed a little sharp in response.
No forgiveness necessary. It's an interesting question. Personally I would have a very high bar for removing statues. I think it's a question of weighing up the positives and negatives, and you'd need to see the negatives outweighing the positives by a wide margin before acting. Churchill is the obvious kind of figure that would not make the cut for removal. Equally a slave trader doesn't seem to me someone that a society that is knowledgeable about its history would want to see honoured in its Town centres. I see little in Rhodes' history that merits his prominent position on an Oxford college, either. Since Caesar was an aggressive foreign invader I'm not sure we should be having a statue of him anyway (do we have one? I have no idea). I am guessing if I were Italian I wouldn't be calling for his statue to be removed.
Isn't Rhodes' commemoration at Oxford due to him leaving money for Rhodes scholarships?
He also paid for the Rhodes Building, Oriel on which the statue stands.
And did he not pay for Rhodes House? Very striking Cotswoldish between-wars architecture - very different from the University Museum almost opposite.
Almost opposite? It's St Mary's, the University Church, which is opposite, with All Souls and Brasenose to either side. The various museums are much further north.
A misunderstanding, evidently. The one I mean is additional: this one
Let them. It would give the English somebody not to vote for....
They can't, they are part of the sovereign UK and no non sovereign country competes in Eurovision
So Scotland competes in the Euros, World Cup, Rugby World Cup, Cricket World Cup yet is not allowed to compete in effing Eurovision??
That is pathetic and ridiculous.
If they did it would set a precedent, soon you would have Catalonia, Wales even Bavaria and Venice demanding to do the same
I don't think Eurovision really cares about setting a geopolitical precedent. They just want to see drag queens singing.
Tough, Scotland is part of the UK and that is where it is staying. If there is a UK team or contestant already that UK team or contestant stays. Football and rugby are different as the UK does not compete as one entity (although Scotland did compete as part of the UK football team in the 2012 Olympics)
It has its own team in most major sports, sports which are played by millions and followed by billions...
Football Cricket Rugby Union Rugby League Golf Hockey Netball
Yet it cannot be allowed to enter a drag act from Falkirk into a naff singing competition – as to do so would cause some sort of diplomatic incident?
I'm going to enjoy hearing your reasoning on this one...
As there is already a UK entry, there is no UK team in any of the sports you listed above apart from the UK football team and Hockey teams at the Olympics (plus there is the British Lions too of course in rugby union).
So a logical solution would to bring Eurovision into line. I see what you are saying. I look forward to the Home Nations' singing in years to come. Maybe Wales would win??
The Welsh national anthem is magnificent
My dear late Scottish father in law said it is the best beyond compare
Nonsense, the greatest national anthem is La Marseillaise.
It pains me to say that, especially England & The UK has a bloody dirge.
La Marseillaise really isn’t a great anthem. It’s a fine, jaunty, uplifting melody, but an anthem needs specific characteristics: it needs to be a strong, distinct tune that is easy to remember and sing, and it needs simple direct words that fit well to the music
I’ve had numerous French people tell me, over the years, that La Marseillaise does neither. The tune jumps around too much to be easily singable, and the words just don’t fit. You can see this if you watch French sport teams ‘try’ to sing it lustily
There is also the problem that the French language, liquid and effete, simply isn’t meant for belting out anthems. Sad love songs, perfect
It is still better than GSTQ (tho GSTQ is nice and simple).
Mr. Boy, slavery was endemic in Africa at the time. And Arabia. And continued elsewhere after we stopped it.
A fetish for self-flagellation is not something I find appealing.
Oh, and, of course, we've got the tens of millions Stalin imprisoned and slaughtered, the Holocaust, Mao's epic death toll, Roman slavery. And the Aztec sacrifices.
Why are you so afraid of addressing bad things we did in the past? It isn't a reflection on us personally. It doesn't affect the pride we can take in the good things we did. It's just a question of being honest. The fact is that Britain built its wealth and power over the course of a couple of hundred years off the back of African Labour in the new world, a trade in human misery that we were active participants in. It's just laughable that people act so defensively whenever anyone brings it up or suggests minor acts of remembrance (like no longer venerating slave traders).
You need to read Tony Blair's article in the New Statesman:
"People are suspicious that behind the agenda of many of the culture warriors on the left lies an ideology they find alien and extreme.'
Mr Blair warned that voters do not like 'their country their flag or their history being disrespected'.
'''Defund the police' may be the left's most damaging political slogan since ''the dictatorship of the proletariat'',' he said.
'People do not like their country, their flag or their history being disrespected. People like common sense, proportion and reason.'"
Common sense: don't venerate slave traders and white supremacists, people who do not represent the values of our great country and are unworthy of our respect. Proportion: remove statues of slave traders and white supremacists from positions of prominence and put them in a museum where they can be placed in their historical context and understood against the prevalent historical currents. Reason: understand our history in full rather than drawing a veil over the parts that make us feel uncomfortable or reacting angrily to those who want to discuss historical wrongs.
A white supremacist or a slave trader may still have achieved great deeds. Historical figures have to be judged in the round.
I agree with you and said precisely this down-thread. The government's position is that historical figures shouldn't be judged at all, and that is what I am objecting to.
Mr. Boy, I'd be interested to know how far back you'd go with that. Living memory would be my instinctive approach to this sort of thing. How would you handle Caesar, who massacred a tribe (NB including women and children) of Thuringii during peace talks in... 53 BC (I think)?
I'm not an especial fan of Caesar, certainly not compared to Mr. Eagles, but I don't think that incident should be the prism through which he is viewed, just one of numerous significant events and decisions that he was involved in.
Although we disagree on some things you do seem reasonable, but many who bang on about this are not. They're iconoclasts, revisionists, and sometimes outright racists. With that in mind, I hope you forgive me if I seemed a little sharp in response.
No forgiveness necessary. It's an interesting question. Personally I would have a very high bar for removing statues. I think it's a question of weighing up the positives and negatives, and you'd need to see the negatives outweighing the positives by a wide margin before acting. Churchill is the obvious kind of figure that would not make the cut for removal. Equally a slave trader doesn't seem to me someone that a society that is knowledgeable about its history would want to see honoured in its Town centres. I see little in Rhodes' history that merits his prominent position on an Oxford college, either. Since Caesar was an aggressive foreign invader I'm not sure we should be having a statue of him anyway (do we have one? I have no idea). I am guessing if I were Italian I wouldn't be calling for his statue to be removed.
Isn't Rhodes' commemoration at Oxford due to him leaving money for Rhodes scholarships?
He also paid for the Rhodes Building, Oriel on which the statue stands.
And did he not pay for Rhodes House? Very striking Cotswoldish between-wars architecture - very different from the University Museum almost opposite.
Almost opposite? It's St Mary's, the University Church, which is opposite, with All Souls and Brasenose to either side. The various museums are much further north.
A misunderstanding, evidently. The one I mean is additional: this one
Let them. It would give the English somebody not to vote for....
They can't, they are part of the sovereign UK and no non sovereign country competes in Eurovision
So Scotland competes in the Euros, World Cup, Rugby World Cup, Cricket World Cup yet is not allowed to compete in effing Eurovision??
That is pathetic and ridiculous.
If they did it would set a precedent, soon you would have Catalonia, Wales even Bavaria and Venice demanding to do the same
I don't think Eurovision really cares about setting a geopolitical precedent. They just want to see drag queens singing.
Tough, Scotland is part of the UK and that is where it is staying. If there is a UK team or contestant already that UK team or contestant stays. Football and rugby are different as the UK does not compete as one entity (although Scotland did compete as part of the UK football team in the 2012 Olympics)
It has its own team in most major sports, sports which are played by millions and followed by billions...
Football Cricket Rugby Union Rugby League Golf Hockey Netball
Yet it cannot be allowed to enter a drag act from Falkirk into a naff singing competition – as to do so would cause some sort of diplomatic incident?
I'm going to enjoy hearing your reasoning on this one...
As there is already a UK entry, there is no UK team in any of the sports you listed above apart from the UK football team and Hockey teams at the Olympics (plus there is the British Lions too of course in rugby union).
So a logical solution would to bring Eurovision into line. I see what you are saying. I look forward to the Home Nations' singing in years to come. Maybe Wales would win??
The Welsh national anthem is magnificent
My dear late Scottish father in law said it is the best beyond compare
Nonsense, the greatest national anthem is La Marseillaise.
It pains me to say that, especially England & The UK has a bloody dirge.
"Guide me oh, thou Great Redeemer" would be a stirring national anthem, or perhaps The Naval Hymn.
Incidentally the UK could surely do worse than having a Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish entries over the next three years. Show some home nation flair.
And at least Wales, Scotland and NI might get some votes
Comments
Leon and LostPassword would have known the context of that remark, and it was not alignment with QAnon. What we both said was that this would be a very smart way to wean the conspiracy theorists away from the Q bullshit, by giving them alien bullshit to worry about instead.
QAnon-ers have been angry and against all this alien BS, because it distracts from their Q BS. I think the alien BS is BS, but is infinitely better than Q and if people need a "conspiracy detox" then this is infinitely better than Q.
But I'm sure this logic is too complicated for your petty, tiny little mind where anyone who disagrees with you on anything is an extremist in a completely different direction. You are institutionally incapable of literacy, or concepts like nuance etc so it won't surprise me that this all went over your head. Whoosh!
The second verse is the good one.
Half a million people in Hyde Park singing all of Bohemian Rhapsody - word-perfect - just like that.
The greatest example of spontaneous communal singing I’ve ever seen. Spine tingling
https://youtu.be/cZnBNuqqz5g
They even sing the guitar chords, and do the Spinal Tap head-bang
Edit: now I’m not sure if you mean the lyric or the pub quiz. Yes, real life pub quiz, live entertainment allowed from last week.
Interestingly, the one down south don't seem to have defended this one -
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/mannequin-jimmy-savile-placed-edward-4318348
https://youtu.be/8iEB8bfP7wE
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Rhodes+House/@51.7577078,-1.2554712,18.38z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x20878642aafb6de4!8m2!3d51.7576894!4d-1.2550257
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=ltla&areaName=Bolton
NEW THREAD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrI28-4Zi_E