UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
Lacking respect? Why, did he take a dump on Churchill's grave?It is those who think that the epitome of respect is belting out a few lines of verse once a decade that are being dishonourable and petty... as are the press who forgo reporting on real news for this kind of fluff.
Michael Cargill wrote: "Lacking respect? Why, did he take a dump on Churchill's grave?"He might as well have done, because he took a dump on the memory of every person who died in the Battle of Britain with his pathetic display.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "Will wrote: "Nice one, Matt.Mind you, G S T Queen it isn't my National anthem any more. And I bet the Scots just love singing the second verse. Not. (I bet JC would have been happy with the prop..."
Sorry Geoff, that's rubbish. Corbyn was clearly respectful, and he wasn't the only one not singing. Just the only one singled out.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/polit..."Oh dear, William Vague... cant get basic facts right which is why he was a total failure.
'In his speech Corbyn complains about attacks by the media' - Corbyn actually said: Attack Public Figures - that's your job. But leave those not involved to their privacy.' ie I'm fair game, but it's wrong to be invasive of my wife and family's privacy. Sounds like a pretty fair and sensible statement to the gutter press to me...
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "He might as well have done, because he took a dump on the memory of every person who died in the Battle of Britain with his pathetic display."You're attempting to reduce the memory of those who fell to nothing more than a few warbled words because it suits your personal political agenda.
That right there is as pathetic as it gets.
This is not North Korea and I wonder how many of those who claim to be upset about this even know all the words to our anthem.
I was reading William Hague's piece and it started me thinking. I have come to suspect that Corbyn's big problem is his past actions.When you've put your conscience ahead of party policy (which in itself can be an entirely admirable thing) and rebelled over 500 times, it's not unlikely that your MPs will be inspired by your example and emulate you.
If in the past Corbyn had been known as a man of strong principle but who was willing to submit to party discipline for 'party unity and the greater good' (Whatever that means, and I'm not claiming it's a good thing) he'd get a more sympathetic hearing from his MPs
But to put it in a bit of perspective Jim, that includes all the Iraq War votes, a rather divisive issue still, covers all the time since 1983 (32 years) and represents less than 15% of his voting record.Perhaps not as rebellious as all that? I'm convinced he's the first principled party leader we've had since the mad Thatcher
Will wrote: "Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "Will wrote: "Nice one, Matt.Mind you, G S T Queen it isn't my National anthem any more. And I bet the Scots just love singing the second verse..."
someone pointed out the behaviour of the Defence Secretary who though singing the anthem, was also constantly searching out the cameras to capture him. Not very respectful I would suggest
think Corbyn can afford simply to ignore the Press and not have his spokespeople rise to the bait & defend him each time because it legitimises the attacks on him in the press. If he just marches on past newspaper reporters and focuses on direct addresses to the public through speeches and social media, the press can still come and report these and broadcast media will relay them so we hear it from his own mouth, but he doesn't have to go court them for coverage. But he has to be consistent, he can't then go and give interviews to the Guardian & Mirror.
Given their vitriolic attacks on him, I can't see corbyn wanting to talk to the Grauniad
Will wrote: "But to put it in a bit of perspective Jim, that includes all the Iraq War votes, a rather divisive issue still, covers all the time since 1983 (32 years) and represents less than 15% of his voting record.Perhaps not as rebellious as all that? I'm convinced he's the first principled party leader we've had since the mad Thatcher ..."
Oh I'm not saying he's not principled,and I'm not saying being principled is a bad thing. Indeed in a democracy his principles are every bit as valuable as the principles held dear by anybody else.
So he can hardly complain if others decide they're going to nail their colours to the mast and make a stand on their principles.
One problem is that under a first past the post electoral system (far more so than in a PR system) political parties tend to be coalitions representing a pretty broad spectrum of views. They need to if they're going to get enough of the vote out in enough constituencies.
So this means that party politics involves the sort of compromise and give & take that we see in inter-party negotiations in countries where they have PR.
With Corbyn as leader, obviously he has a mandate and can expect some concessions from those who he is leading.
But they also have mandates, electorates who have voted for them, perhaps because they made a feature of their known pro-EU view or in the case of our MP, their determination to keep Trident. So Corbyn has to accept that these people too have a right to see concessions made in some areas.
personally I'm delighted after the Blair years and then Cameron's term to see a leader with some principles.Incidentally I see that there was an incident outside Corbyn's home in which a cameraman seem to have been assaulted.
The Tory press are yelling it was a Corbyn aide, when actually it is being reported to have been a Government Car Pool staffer. Are we about to see a new low in Journalism. with the Torygraph leading a race to the bottom?
Marc wrote: "think Corbyn can afford simply to ignore the Press and not have his spokespeople rise to the bait & defend him each time because it legitimises the attacks on him in the press. If he just marches on past newspaper reporters and focuses on direct addresses to the public through speeches and social media, the press can still come and report these and broadcast media will relay them so we hear it from his own mouth, but he doesn't have to go court them for coverage. But he has to be consistent, he can't then go and give interviews to the Guardian & Mirror. ..."I agree with that, but I suspect he'll have problems because previously he's used the Guardian and Mirror to get his points across. He has a relationship with them and their journalists. It's not unique to him,it's just what you have to do when you're a campaigning politician who cannot rely on party channels.
Another problem is has is that he doesn't come across as a good speaker to those who don't instinctively share his beliefs. From what I've seen he's better on the 'recorded highlights' than just watching 'the full game' so he really needs somebody sympathetic to ensure the right recorded highlights go out. Again it's not unusual, if Prescott had been reliant on people being swept along by the magic of his speeches, he'd have been screwed.
And I'm beginning to suspect that social media is not all it's cracked up to be as a way of reaching the electorate. People are getting fed up of their facebook feeds being swamped by party political memes. I've really noticed this with the current American stuff sloshing about.
Papers full of Corbyn disrespecting war dead headlines. But those people died for our freedoms, which, surely, includes the freedom not to sing the national anthem?
Or am I just being daft?
He was there, he stood for the anthem, with hands clasped and a sombre expression. I'm sorry but I'm not seeing "disrespect" from that.And by the way, as a "national" anthem it sucks, anyway. Time for something better.
Rosemary (The Nosemanny) wrote: "And by the way, as a "national" anthem it sucks, anyway. Time for something better"Oooh now there's a challenge
The Clash's "This Is England" (once the Scots have upped and left of course. The Welsh can keep their charming little teapot anthem) :-)
And beside, the petty small minded attitudes to a stupid song are more interesting and important than Tories cynically breaking a major election promise and commitment, aren't they?'I'll not reduce child tax credits' swore Cameron, to try and win the election. No, he let Osborne do it instead.
How can anyone continue to support them?
Will, know thine enemy. To even ask that question is the problem Labour fails to grasp what it is exactly they're fighting against in order to gain power in the future. It's a simple answer really, this country (England) is at heart small c conservative. They don't like sudden movements that might startle the horses in the street. They like small tradesman market economies. They like the freedom to consume and one up each other. They don't like state interference all that much. Except abroad, they do like Britain on the world stage acting as though it is still great. For Corbyn to overturn most of those sensibilities is I reckon an impossible ask, without an economic collapse.
I suspect an economic collapse would more likely bring a 'right wing' reaction than left (although at the extremes it's difficult to tell them apart.)I think Marc is right with his 'small c' conservatism. Indeed in much of England the liberals might be the natural alternative government.
yes a right wing reaction to economic collapse is definitely possible. The only thing against that is that the (anti-)austerity concept has been prevalent in the air for 5 years now
Marc wrote: "Will, know thine enemy. To even ask that question is the problem Labour fails to grasp what it is exactly they're fighting against in order to gain power in the future. It's a simple answer really..."This is the reason why Scottish independence will happen. We know what we're campaigning for. It's a clear goal.
In contrast, Labour and Tories have lost their way - they don't know who they are any more, and neither does Britain, for that matter.
England has no real sense of who it is. Scotland, Wales & N.Ireland do in part because it is defined against the English.I'm not sure the Tories have to work as hard as Labour to define their identity. They can set themselves as the party of the middle class English, home ownership, freeish market, leader on the world stage (complete joke, but there you go). They only hit trouble when the market isn't so beneficent, when there are falling prices or negative equity in houses, or when they look morally corrupt as in the last days of John Major
The English are the ones who don't particularly care what the others do :-)
yes but as a race we're lazy Jim don't you think. It used to be we could just point to a globe and all the pink on it and go that's who we are mate, that's all you need to know. But since we gave all that back, we've not really moved to redefine ourselves. And we still reckon we're a significant player on that globe. That is something I agree with Corbyn on. However, it is only a vote loser as it seems to degrade our own sense of status and self
R.M.F wrote: "Papers full of Corbyn disrespecting war dead headlines. But those people died for our freedoms, which, surely, includes the freedom not to sing the national anthem?
Or am I just being daft?"
Yes you are. If those people hadn't fought for our freedoms, there would be no parliament, just a puppet government.
Are you saying that they are not worthy of being treated respectfully and in the manner accepted for 75 years?
It's time Corbyn stopped acting like a spoiled brat and started behaving like the statesman he needs to become.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that last sentiment Geoff. If Corbyn wants to portray himself as a different sort of politician, an integrity sort (much like Farage appeared in the early days), then as part of that he doesn't have to appear statesmanlike because he doesn't want Britain to play a role on the world stage anymore. The only people he has to impress is the British electorate, who of course may very much hold it against him if he doesn't act statesmanlike. But presumably he is banking on a swathe of opinion to back up his particular vision and stance.Farage of course came a cropper when given the same election podium as other statesmen on the live debates and his little unstatesmanlike rants and snarls didn't play too well,except to the already converted.
Spoiled brat, Geoff?As opposed to Fallon, who at the service spent his time mugging for the cameras? Respectful silence shows more decency than that!
Corbyn was perfectly respectful and paid homage to the role that his own mother played during WWII.That he remained silent during the singing of the national anthem is immaterial.
The irony here is that it's the national anthem fascists who are being disrespectful towards the freedoms that they claim to hold so dear.
Marc wrote: "yes but as a race we're lazy Jim don't you think. It used to be we could just point to a globe and all the pink on it and go that's who we are mate, that's all you need to know. But since we gave a..."There's been quite a few Scots, Welsh, and Irish over the years, as part of Britain, who could also put a pin in a map and say this is who we are.
I know you're not deliberately equating England with Britain, as though they were one and the same :)
Although even I recognise that England is obviously a big part of the UK.
Michael Cargill wrote: "Corbyn was perfectly respectful and paid homage to the role that his own mother played during WWII.That he remained silent during the singing of the national anthem is immaterial.
The irony here..."
What I wanted to say.
Will wrote: "Spoiled brat, Geoff?As opposed to Fallon, who at the service spent his time mugging for the cameras? Respectful silence shows more decency than that!"
It's very difficult to deliberately not look at something. It could be that there is a light on the top of the camera that comes on when it is live, that are going on and off all the time, especially when they are trained to look at the illuminated camera all the time.
And I don't know, but presumably the silent ( as in not actually singing) lady beside Mr Fallon is Mrs Fallon?Defence secretary's wife doesn't sing the Anthem?
Michael Cargill wrote: "Corbyn was perfectly respectful and paid homage to the role that his own mother played during WWII.That he remained silent during the singing of the national anthem is immaterial.
The irony here is that it's the national anthem fascists who are being disrespectful towards the freedoms that they claim to hold so dear."
Be very, very, very careful where you go, accusing people who are patriotic, who have probably fought, lost relatives and friends in the war and the battle of Britain of being fascists. That sort of talk is nothing short of disgusting and you should retract it immediately.
As a non-English person who lived in England for a number of years, it always surprised me why Englishness was never more to the fore. England is a great nation, with great people, a great heritage, and much to be proud of.
I think the problem with a lack of English identity is two fold:
1) England has completely wrapped itself up in a British identity, to to the detriment of Englishness.
Examples of this amongst many: Queen Elizabeth is titled Queen Elizabeth II of Britain, when she is no such thing, and only the other day, a TV programme was talking about the Battle of Agincourt as a great British victory...Great Britain in 1415... Yeah right.
2) The elites have deliberately tried to supress an English identity over the years. The idea of England sovereign again, and out of the EU, probably scares the hell out of Westminster.
R.M.F wrote: "As a non-English person who lived in England for a number of years, it always surprised me why Englishness was never more to the fore. England is a great nation, with great people, a great herita..."
To be precise, the Queen's title, by virtue of the Royal Titles Act of 1953, is: "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."
See the bit about "Great Britain". And James VI of Scotland became James I of Great Britain in 1603.
Retract what? I had relatives who served during WWII, as does Jeremy Corbyn.They fought to defend the country from fascism and there is nothing disgusting about highlighting examples of borderline fascist attitudes being displayed in 2015.
who are the English? The Angles, Jutes & Saxons who replaced the ancient Britons. The came the Normans who frenchified and dandified everything, including the language. Ever since then we've welcomed migrants from all over the globe, many of whom have embraced the nation to their heart. But who are we beyond that and what it means to us that we are English? Haven't a clue. About as well defined as Cameron's notions of British values being upheld in the face of terrorist enemies within
Who are the English? Only the greatest race to have ever existed in the history of mankind.Especially the Surrey English.
R.M.F wrote: "Marc wrote: "yes but as a race we're lazy Jim don't you think. It used to be we could just point to a globe and all the pink on it and go that's who we are mate, that's all you need to know. But si..."yes when we had a large empire, the Celts were very happy to be part of the pink swathe on the globe, administering many of our colonial outposts. Now it's gone, they've lost their jobs and what, got all uppity about rights & identity?
Michael Cargill wrote: "Who are the English? Only the greatest race to have ever existed in the history of mankind.Especially the Surrey English."
I thought Yorkshire men were the greatest inhabitants of England :)
Marc wrote: "who are the English? The Angles, Jutes & Saxons who replaced the ancient Britons. The came the Normans who frenchified and dandified everything, including the language. Ever since then we've welcom..."What about John Major's definition of England? Long shadows, warm beer, cricket pitches, et al. Or was that total guff? :)
R.M.F wrote: "Marc wrote: "who are the English? The Angles, Jutes & Saxons who replaced the ancient Britons. The came the Normans who frenchified and dandified everything, including the language. Ever since thenWhat about John Major's definition of England? Long shadows, warm beer, cricket pitches, et al. Or was that total guff? :)
"
what do you think?
I gave one in my novel about homegrown extremist terrorists, but you'd have to buy it & read it!
Michael Cargill wrote: "Retract what? I had relatives who served during WWII, as does Jeremy Corbyn.They fought to defend the country from fascism and there is nothing disgusting about highlighting examples of borderli..."
So did I. You disgust me.
Can't paste the link but a twitter post from Harold leslie Smith:As an RAF Veteran of WW2 I am not offended by Corbyn not singing the national anthem. But I am offended by politicians who sell guns to tyrants.
Will wrote: "Can't paste the link but a twitter post from Harold leslie Smith:As an RAF Veteran of WW2 I am not offended by Corbyn not singing the national anthem. But I am offended by politicians who sell guns to tyrants.
..."
And traditionally British politicians have shaken hands with terrorists
we welcomed terrorist/freedom fighters long before that - Lajos Kossuth from Hungary and others from the wars of 1848
Marc wrote: "we welcomed terrorist/freedom fighters long before that - Lajos Kossuth from Hungary and others from the wars of 1848"The Protestants of La Rochelle might even fall into that category
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
Mind you, G S T Queen it isn't my National anthem any more. And I bet the Scots just love singing the second verse. Not. (I bet JC would have been happy with the proposed english National Anthem of Jerusalem though, don't you?)
Where's the criticism on how divisive that dreadful song is?"
The point is that the head of Her Majesties opposition is lacking respect for those who gave their lives in the defence of our country during its darkest hour. It was expected of all those present to sing the National Anthem. To not do so is considered a snub, particularly to The Few.
His stance is both dishonourable and petty,