Scarlet Fever Llanelli Rugby Sport Wales Tickets Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > SOCIAL > CHAT BOARD
  New Posts New Posts
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login


Sir Keir Starmer

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 8910
Author
Message
roy munster View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 30 August 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 13452
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote roy munster Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 August 2020 at 3:05pm
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

We cannot change history - all we can do is accept that some parts of it we would prefer that our ancestors had made different decisions. We can change today & tomorrow by making good sensible decisions for the majority.

However for any organisation in Britain, especially those institutions like the BBC, to take the side of the hand wringing, tree hugging minorities is totally spineless. If we are not careful then the PC brigade will have us questioning the parts played by our brave military personnel in theatres of war around the World. These are the very same personnel who saved this country from being occupied in 1940-1945.

War should always be the last resort & recent campaigns such as the Falklands and Iraq were a total failure of diplomacy first & foremost. Innocent lives on both sides were lost and those responsible for the failures in diplomacy should have been brought to book. 

Yes many or our ancestors died fighting these brave wars , their ultimate sacrifices are being massively disrespected, there no sign of white male privilege on the blood stained beaches of normandy. 
ROYMOND MUNTER MBE (FOR SERVICES TO THE COMBOVER)
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Online
Points: 10260
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 August 2020 at 3:08pm
Originally posted by roy munster roy munster wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by reesytheexile reesytheexile wrote:

Originally posted by roy munster roy munster wrote:

I see the BBC have stopped the singing of the lyrics to rule britannia and land of hope and glory in case it offends or something.
The u-turn on the license fee for pensioners was a killer blow, but their output has been declining for decades.
This could be the beginning of the end of the BBC as we know it, its now seen by the majority of license fee holders as a radical anti british organisation.
Both labour and tories have condemned this decision, be interesting to see what starmer does about this and the license fee

it will for a be year only as no audience obviously with Covid. Much ado about nothing it seems 
I agree Reesy.

I disagree. They are keeping the words in the other songs but not these ones? Doesnt make an ounce of sense either they can sing or they cant. To take out the words of some harmless patriotic ancient hymns just in case they offend someone is pathetic and its is the thin edge of the wedge.

Surely Roy the singing of these songs as a finale to the proms rely on there being an audience to participate. This year there is no audience. I am one of the first to criticise the PC brigade but on this occasion I think its probably harmless. 
Back to Top
Jones2004 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 September 2019
Location: North Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 388
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jones2004 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 August 2020 at 4:32pm
Genuine questions - why do people find stopping the signing of a song that celebrates conquering a significant proportion of the world’s population, and treating the people of those countries as an inferior race of humans disrespectful towards WW2 veterans who fought against an enemy that did just that?
Also to those that think of this as changing history, do you also believe that the Germans did that at the end of WW2 when they stopped singing the first two verses of their national anthem as it was incompatible with the vision of the country they wanted to build.
Don’t mean to offend anyone, just interested in how people with different beliefs to mine see this matter.
Back to Top
BlackwoodScarlet View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 12 March 2008
Location: Blackwood
Status: Offline
Points: 4339
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BlackwoodScarlet Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 August 2020 at 5:46pm
Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

Genuine questions - why do people find stopping the signing of a song that celebrates conquering a significant proportion of the world’s population, and treating the people of those countries as an inferior race of humans disrespectful towards WW2 veterans who fought against an enemy that did just that?
Also to those that think of this as changing history, do you also believe that the Germans did that at the end of WW2 when they stopped singing the first two verses of their national anthem as it was incompatible with the vision of the country they wanted to build.
Don’t mean to offend anyone, just interested in how people with different beliefs to mine see this matter.

Strangely it was the Nazis who were into censorship, it's a slippery slope going down this road for the woke lefties
If it bleeds we can can kill it
Back to Top
roy munster View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 30 August 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 13452
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote roy munster Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 August 2020 at 5:58pm
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by roy munster roy munster wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by reesytheexile reesytheexile wrote:

[QUOTE=roy munster]I see the BBC have stopped the singing of the lyrics to rule britannia and land of hope and glory in case it offends or something.
The u-turn on the license fee for pensioners was a killer blow, but their output has been declining for decades.
This could be the beginning of the end of the BBC as we know it, its now seen by the majority of license fee holders as a radical anti british organisation.
Both labour and tories have condemned this decision, be interesting to see what starmer does about this and the license fee

it will for a be year only as no audience obviously with Covid. Much ado about nothing it seems 
I agree Reesy.

I disagree. They are keeping the words in the other songs but not these ones? Doesnt make an ounce of sense either they can sing or they cant. To take out the words of some harmless patriotic ancient hymns just in case they offend someone is pathetic and its is the thin edge of the wedge.

Surely Roy the singing of these songs as a finale to the proms rely on there being an audience to participate. This year there is no audience. I am one of the first to criticise the PC brigade but on this occasion I think its probably harmless. 
[/QUOTE

With respect I 100% disagree
ROYMOND MUNTER MBE (FOR SERVICES TO THE COMBOVER)
Back to Top
roy munster View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 30 August 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 13452
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote roy munster Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 August 2020 at 5:59pm
Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

Genuine questions - why do people find stopping the signing of a song that celebrates conquering a significant proportion of the world’s population, and treating the people of those countries as an inferior race of humans disrespectful towards WW2 veterans who fought against an enemy that did just that?
Also to those that think of this as changing history, do you also believe that the Germans did that at the end of WW2 when they stopped singing the first two verses of their national anthem as it was incompatible with the vision of the country they wanted to build.
Don’t mean to offend anyone, just interested in how people with different beliefs to mine see this matter.

Following that argument do we now police the whole world for any and all lyrics that offend anyone anywhere?
ROYMOND MUNTER MBE (FOR SERVICES TO THE COMBOVER)
Back to Top
Dai Guevara View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 12 August 2020
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Online
Points: 31
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dai Guevara Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 August 2020 at 6:21pm
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

We cannot change history - all we can do is accept that some parts of it we would prefer that our ancestors had made different decisions. We can change today & tomorrow by making good sensible decisions for the majority.

However for any organisation in Britain, especially those institutions like the BBC, to take the side of the hand wringing, tree hugging minorities is totally spineless. If we are not careful then the PC brigade will have us questioning the parts played by our brave military personnel in theatres of war around the World. These are the very same personnel who saved this country from being occupied in 1940-1945.

War should always be the last resort & recent campaigns such as the Falklands and Iraq were a total failure of diplomacy first & foremost. Innocent lives on both sides were lost and those responsible for the failures in diplomacy should have been brought to book. 


GPR do you really think that these two wars were failures of diplomacy?
Thatcher was very unpopular when she saw an opportunity to resurrect her fortunes by providing the millionaire media with what they like most - winning a war against an inferior opponent. That's why she ordered a nuclear submarine to torpedo a world war 2 vintage battleship, the Belgrano, sailing away from the navy fleet, knowing quite well that this act of killing hundreds of Argentine sailors would ensure that the war would give her the route to glory.
As for the Iraq war, based on a complete set of lies about weapons of mass destruction. The coalition just wanted to totally destroy Iraq as an example to any other country who defied western domination, any excuse would have done, as it had shown earlier when it atom bombed a Japan that was seeking surrender terms.
Back to Top
Jones2004 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 September 2019
Location: North Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 388
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jones2004 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 August 2020 at 6:25pm
Originally posted by BlackwoodScarlet BlackwoodScarlet wrote:

Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

Genuine questions - why do people find stopping the signing of a song that celebrates conquering a significant proportion of the world’s population, and treating the people of those countries as an inferior race of humans disrespectful towards WW2 veterans who fought against an enemy that did just that?
Also to those that think of this as changing history, do you also believe that the Germans did that at the end of WW2 when they stopped singing the first two verses of their national anthem as it was incompatible with the vision of the country they wanted to build.
Don’t mean to offend anyone, just interested in how people with different beliefs to mine see this matter.

Strangely it was the Nazis who were into censorship, it's a slippery slope going down this road for the woke lefties
Stopping two songs from being sung at a particular event is hardly censorship. There’d be nothing stopping people from signing those songs anywhere else.
Back to Top
roy munster View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 30 August 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 13452
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote roy munster Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 August 2020 at 7:55pm
Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

Originally posted by BlackwoodScarlet BlackwoodScarlet wrote:

Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

Genuine questions - why do people find stopping the signing of a song that celebrates conquering a significant proportion of the world’s population, and treating the people of those countries as an inferior race of humans disrespectful towards WW2 veterans who fought against an enemy that did just that?
Also to those that think of this as changing history, do you also believe that the Germans did that at the end of WW2 when they stopped singing the first two verses of their national anthem as it was incompatible with the vision of the country they wanted to build.
Don’t mean to offend anyone, just interested in how people with different beliefs to mine see this matter.

Strangely it was the Nazis who were into censorship, it's a slippery slope going down this road for the woke lefties
Stopping two songs from being sung at a particular event is hardly censorship. There’d be nothing stopping people from signing those songs anywhere else.

It is censorship. Its added to the ever growing list of things that are censored or are now off limits for discussion.
ROYMOND MUNTER MBE (FOR SERVICES TO THE COMBOVER)
Back to Top
roy munster View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 30 August 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 13452
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote roy munster Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 August 2020 at 7:56pm
Originally posted by Dai Guevara Dai Guevara wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

We cannot change history - all we can do is accept that some parts of it we would prefer that our ancestors had made different decisions. We can change today & tomorrow by making good sensible decisions for the majority.

However for any organisation in Britain, especially those institutions like the BBC, to take the side of the hand wringing, tree hugging minorities is totally spineless. If we are not careful then the PC brigade will have us questioning the parts played by our brave military personnel in theatres of war around the World. These are the very same personnel who saved this country from being occupied in 1940-1945.

War should always be the last resort & recent campaigns such as the Falklands and Iraq were a total failure of diplomacy first & foremost. Innocent lives on both sides were lost and those responsible for the failures in diplomacy should have been brought to book. 


GPR do you really think that these two wars were failures of diplomacy?
Thatcher was very unpopular when she saw an opportunity to resurrect her fortunes by providing the millionaire media with what they like most - winning a war against an inferior opponent. That's why she ordered a nuclear submarine to torpedo a world war 2 vintage battleship, the Belgrano, sailing away from the navy fleet, knowing quite well that this act of killing hundreds of Argentine sailors would ensure that the war would give her the route to glory.
As for the Iraq war, based on a complete set of lies about weapons of mass destruction. The coalition just wanted to totally destroy Iraq as an example to any other country who defied western domination, any excuse would have done, as it had shown earlier when it atom bombed a Japan that was seeking surrender terms.

Dangerously over-simplistic analysis
ROYMOND MUNTER MBE (FOR SERVICES TO THE COMBOVER)
Back to Top
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Online
Points: 10260
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2020 at 8:19am
Originally posted by Dai Guevara Dai Guevara wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

We cannot change history - all we can do is accept that some parts of it we would prefer that our ancestors had made different decisions. We can change today & tomorrow by making good sensible decisions for the majority.

However for any organisation in Britain, especially those institutions like the BBC, to take the side of the hand wringing, tree hugging minorities is totally spineless. If we are not careful then the PC brigade will have us questioning the parts played by our brave military personnel in theatres of war around the World. These are the very same personnel who saved this country from being occupied in 1940-1945.

War should always be the last resort & recent campaigns such as the Falklands and Iraq were a total failure of diplomacy first & foremost. Innocent lives on both sides were lost and those responsible for the failures in diplomacy should have been brought to book. 


GPR do you really think that these two wars were failures of diplomacy?
Thatcher was very unpopular when she saw an opportunity to resurrect her fortunes by providing the millionaire media with what they like most - winning a war against an inferior opponent. That's why she ordered a nuclear submarine to torpedo a world war 2 vintage battleship, the Belgrano, sailing away from the navy fleet, knowing quite well that this act of killing hundreds of Argentine sailors would ensure that the war would give her the route to glory.
As for the Iraq war, based on a complete set of lies about weapons of mass destruction. The coalition just wanted to totally destroy Iraq as an example to any other country who defied western domination, any excuse would have done, as it had shown earlier when it atom bombed a Japan that was seeking surrender terms.

Well Dai that is one way of looking at it. I think most wars are failures in diplomacy. Sometimes the opposing personnel make a diplomatic solution well nigh impossible - Adolf Hitler being an example and Bush being another. Now I an in no way trying to equate the two but in the circumstances Bush found himself in pre the Iraq invasion - 9/11 memories fresh & a population desperate for revenge all legitimate diplomatic solutions to the Iraq crisis were not examined.

Indeed he had made his mind up that Saddam had to go. That Tony Blair followed him like a poodle is a huge tragedy for British history and using a fake dossier of proven lies to justify it an even bigger stain. I still maintain that Bush & Blair should have been brought before the War Crimes Commission. Getting back to the Falklands the first step to war is attempting to take something by force - attempting to occupy the Falklands against the wishes of the people and in contravention of International law is not a great diplomatic move by an inferior force. Thatcher could hardly be blamed for responding with force. 
Back to Top
dr_martinov View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 06 August 2005
Location: Swansea
Status: Offline
Points: 11600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dr_martinov Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2020 at 9:44am
Originally posted by roy munster roy munster wrote:

Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

Originally posted by BlackwoodScarlet BlackwoodScarlet wrote:

Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

Genuine questions - why do people find stopping the signing of a song that celebrates conquering a significant proportion of the world’s population, and treating the people of those countries as an inferior race of humans disrespectful towards WW2 veterans who fought against an enemy that did just that?
Also to those that think of this as changing history, do you also believe that the Germans did that at the end of WW2 when they stopped singing the first two verses of their national anthem as it was incompatible with the vision of the country they wanted to build.
Don’t mean to offend anyone, just interested in how people with different beliefs to mine see this matter.

Strangely it was the Nazis who were into censorship, it's a slippery slope going down this road for the woke lefties
Stopping two songs from being sung at a particular event is hardly censorship. There’d be nothing stopping people from signing those songs anywhere else.

It is censorship. Its added to the ever growing list of things that are censored or are now off limits for discussion.

Cutting to the chase: is our colonial past something to be proud about or to be ashamed of? And who decides this? I think these are the real two questions we're actually discussing, with fairly trivial examples such as a song catching the public's attention. If the example is relatively minor then it's quite easy to describe it as PC correctness gone mad.

I think also people have to consider how inclusive, or not, certain aspects of British history are. So it can mean something very different to someone Caucasian compared to British Asian, for example (yes, I know an exceptionally loose term). Yet, in my view, both groups are equally British. That is the third question which rarely gets brought up due to the obvious sensitivity: how do people view each other in terms of Britishness? Does it even matter? (Forth question)

Britain has changed and perhaps things need to change to reflect that and make it more inclusive and modern. Things have changed before, inclusion of verses about traitorous Scots and so on. 

I'm pro discourse on these topics - our history, good and bad, and from different points of view - and do completely accept the twitter waves of criticism are just as bad. In fact, it's an irony that those groups would end up whitewashing British history if they did indeed cancel all the bad bits!

Basically, I think part of the problem is that due to these things rapidly becoming very dangerous ground for politicians and well, everyone, due to racial issues and the fact the press would annihilate them you rarely get the actual issues discussed; more just soft stories about songs. Over-sensitivity and the rise of the "illiberal liberal" is part of the problem at the moment for sure, feeds into the prejudice and fear of the nationalistic right and entrenches both in their viewpoints.

On the other hand, I've seen those of the Spiked! variety basically write severely prejudiced hate speech and then defend it as "free speech" or "just an opinion". I think we need to sort out our laws on free speech and make it clearer what is/isn't legal personally (and where comedy fits into this) as our current law is too confusing because it is a mix of several acts. Sweden I think sets it out clearer (I read one of the Millennium series recently, I don't actually know much).
Back to Top
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Online
Points: 10260
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2020 at 10:05am
Dr M - we are in danger of trying to over simplify a very complicated subject. Our history is our history good & bad. It in no way defines me or my family but it cannot be changed. What can be changed is the way people communicate with others and what may be their wider audiences. 

All of us, bar none, should stop and think about what we say, how we say it & the possible effect it may have intended or not. 
Back to Top
RR1972 View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 27 April 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12535
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RR1972 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2020 at 3:52pm
Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

Originally posted by BlackwoodScarlet BlackwoodScarlet wrote:

Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

Genuine questions - why do people find stopping the signing of a song that celebrates conquering a significant proportion of the world’s population, and treating the people of those countries as an inferior race of humans disrespectful towards WW2 veterans who fought against an enemy that did just that?
Also to those that think of this as changing history, do you also believe that the Germans did that at the end of WW2 when they stopped singing the first two verses of their national anthem as it was incompatible with the vision of the country they wanted to build.
Don’t mean to offend anyone, just interested in how people with different beliefs to mine see this matter.

Strangely it was the Nazis who were into censorship, it's a slippery slope going down this road for the woke lefties
Stopping two songs from being sung at a particular event is hardly censorship. There’d be nothing stopping people from signing those songs anywhere else.
 
The easy answer is if people get offended by those songs being sung at this event, simply don't watch the event
 
No one is forced to watch the proms, I know I won't be LOLLOL
 
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 8910
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.