This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
So the papers, large and small, are all questioning Corbyn's judgement on his refusal to sing the National Anthem yesterday, his response being that he wanted to quietly respect the people he was remembering.
Im no particular supporter of the chap nor know much about him but as a man of principles, I am quite happy that he stood his ground on his view on the monarchy. Its no secret that he is a republican and so why should convention state that he should be forced to sing something at odds with his views and why should the singing of the NE be the only way one can show respect in such circumstances. Does it make him any less patriotic as some have suggested?
Even as an anti-war supporter, I do believe he respects what the last generations did during the BoB but as a politician, i would want him to stand firm on his perspectives. If all our politicians did this then we know they would be holding true to the reason we elected them, whether local or national.
I, for one, have greater respect for him for doing this.
Im no particular supporter of the chap nor know much about him but as a man of principles, I am quite happy that he stood his ground on his view on the monarchy. Its no secret that he is a republican and so why should convention state that he should be forced to sing something at odds with his views and why should the singing of the NE be the only way one can show respect in such circumstances. Does it make him any less patriotic as some have suggested?
Even as an anti-war supporter, I do believe he respects what the last generations did during the BoB but as a politician, i would want him to stand firm on his perspectives. If all our politicians did this then we know they would be holding true to the reason we elected them, whether local or national.
I, for one, have greater respect for him for doing this.
33
5
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Did he stand his ground when he swore on the privy council oath? (you can read it here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Council_of_the_United_Kingdom) How do you feel about that?
Did he stand his ground when he swore on the privy council oath? (you can read it here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Council_of_the_United_Kingdom) How do you feel about that?
3
6
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
I completely agree.
He isn't a monarchist and as such singing the praises of the queen goes against his principals.
I for one wouldn't sing it.
Singing about something you don not believe in is half hearted and two faced.
Doing it for the media would be particularly pathetic IMO.
A man of principals. He made comments about debt of gratitude that we owe to the people that fought in the war which is enough in my eyes.
Just shows how low our media will sink in trying to villainize people.
OM
I completely agree.
He isn't a monarchist and as such singing the praises of the queen goes against his principals.
I for one wouldn't sing it.
Singing about something you don not believe in is half hearted and two faced.
Doing it for the media would be particularly pathetic IMO.
A man of principals. He made comments about debt of gratitude that we owe to the people that fought in the war which is enough in my eyes.
Just shows how low our media will sink in trying to villainize people.
OM
21
3
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
I do wonder whether this reported outrage exists outside of the newspaper offices. To me it's a non-issue.
Same goes for Skinner's hecklings, ukip's back-turnings at Brussels, or the wearing of white poppies (or none at all) by MPs or other celebrities. Does anyone genuinely get upset?
I do wonder whether this reported outrage exists outside of the newspaper offices. To me it's a non-issue.
Same goes for Skinner's hecklings, ukip's back-turnings at Brussels, or the wearing of white poppies (or none at all) by MPs or other celebrities. Does anyone genuinely get upset?
12
1
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
I've just looked up the lyrics, as I only knew the first couple of lines.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/1571287/God-Save-the-...
As an atheist, republican Scot who isn't a big fan of warfare, there isn't a lot in it for me (or anyone who isn't a fanatical God-botherer and/or monarchist)!
Verses 2 and 3 go quite a long way to explaining the UK's policy in the Middle East, though. And verse 6 pretty much has a direct attack on Corbyn...
There isn't even one single line saying anything positive about Britain - a country even a partially-crushed rebellious Scot such as myself has to admit is one of the best in the world to live in!
It's a really crap anthem. Anyone fancy getting a better one?
I've just looked up the lyrics, as I only knew the first couple of lines.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/1571287/God-Save-the-...
As an atheist, republican Scot who isn't a big fan of warfare, there isn't a lot in it for me (or anyone who isn't a fanatical God-botherer and/or monarchist)!
Verses 2 and 3 go quite a long way to explaining the UK's policy in the Middle East, though. And verse 6 pretty much has a direct attack on Corbyn...
There isn't even one single line saying anything positive about Britain - a country even a partially-crushed rebellious Scot such as myself has to admit is one of the best in the world to live in!
It's a really crap anthem. Anyone fancy getting a better one?
18
1
In reply to skog:
Nominate Jerusalem.
> It's a really crap anthem. Anyone fancy getting a better one?
Nominate Jerusalem.
7
3
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
It is rampant hypocrisy to pretend you need to buy into all the trappings of the establishment, royalty and established religion in order to commemorate the war dead. Plenty of the people who were killed fighting Hitler were working class socialists from places like Glasgow with fairly similar politics to Corbyn.
It seems like Corbyn has taken over from Alex Salmond as the target of the Telegraph's daily hate story.
It is rampant hypocrisy to pretend you need to buy into all the trappings of the establishment, royalty and established religion in order to commemorate the war dead. Plenty of the people who were killed fighting Hitler were working class socialists from places like Glasgow with fairly similar politics to Corbyn.
It seems like Corbyn has taken over from Alex Salmond as the target of the Telegraph's daily hate story.
13
2
In reply to skog:
I think Charles should make it his mission when he gets in to have a competition to get a new National Anthem. A sort of X Factor would do.
At the Olympics and WAAF etc I hang my head at our pathetic 30 sec drone when Jamacia, USA, France and practically everyone else has longer, jollier and more uplifting offerings that actually make you want to put your hand on your heart
I think Charles should make it his mission when he gets in to have a competition to get a new National Anthem. A sort of X Factor would do.
At the Olympics and WAAF etc I hang my head at our pathetic 30 sec drone when Jamacia, USA, France and practically everyone else has longer, jollier and more uplifting offerings that actually make you want to put your hand on your heart
8
In reply to skog:
I quite like "Oben am Jungen Rhein" Lichtenstein's national anthem, obviously we would have to find some alternative words for it, something working in the population's Christian beliefs, loyalty to our head of state, and delight in pissing off Scotch people.
> It's a really crap anthem. Anyone fancy getting a better one?
I quite like "Oben am Jungen Rhein" Lichtenstein's national anthem, obviously we would have to find some alternative words for it, something working in the population's Christian beliefs, loyalty to our head of state, and delight in pissing off Scotch people.
7
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
It doesn't matter what he did, he would have been pilloried. If he had sung he would have been denounced as a hypocrit, going against his principles in order to appease the press.
Of course the press were going to make a big deal of it. There was some actual news yesterday that required burying.
Good luck to him.
EDIT- He should have put out the line that he believes the national anthem to be massively disrespectful to the Scottish servicemen who have fought and died in British wars.
It doesn't matter what he did, he would have been pilloried. If he had sung he would have been denounced as a hypocrit, going against his principles in order to appease the press.
Of course the press were going to make a big deal of it. There was some actual news yesterday that required burying.
Good luck to him.
EDIT- He should have put out the line that he believes the national anthem to be massively disrespectful to the Scottish servicemen who have fought and died in British wars.
Post edited at 10:39
11
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Great song, bit anglo-centric for a UK national anthem though!
> Nominate Jerusalem.
Great song, bit anglo-centric for a UK national anthem though!
1
In reply to EddInaBox:
Good call - it works in mountains, meadows, eagles and goats alongside the fawning to princes and deitites. I'd hope we could include some stuff about mythical and non-native animals, too - dragons, unicorns and lions, maybe?
Nice touch!
> I quite like "Oben am Jungen Rhein" Lichtenstein's national anthem
Good call - it works in mountains, meadows, eagles and goats alongside the fawning to princes and deitites. I'd hope we could include some stuff about mythical and non-native animals, too - dragons, unicorns and lions, maybe?
> Scotch
Nice touch!
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Why should anyone have to plead with a imaginary being to protect the most privileged person in the country? A national anthem should be about the whole nation, this dirge is the opposite.
Swearing an oath for the privy council is different - that's respecting the constitution of the country (until you get chance to get rids of the anachronisms).
Will be interesting to see if it is possible for party leader to ignore the hostility of the right wing media and resist the calls to use spin doctors. One last chance for genuine democratic politics ?
Why should anyone have to plead with a imaginary being to protect the most privileged person in the country? A national anthem should be about the whole nation, this dirge is the opposite.
Swearing an oath for the privy council is different - that's respecting the constitution of the country (until you get chance to get rids of the anachronisms).
Will be interesting to see if it is possible for party leader to ignore the hostility of the right wing media and resist the calls to use spin doctors. One last chance for genuine democratic politics ?
8
1
In reply to skog:
Didn't Billy Connolly once suggest we use the Archers theme tune?
> It's a really crap anthem. Anyone fancy getting a better one?
Didn't Billy Connolly once suggest we use the Archers theme tune?
6
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
I'm not a particular fan of the Monarchy and I hate the tune and lyrics but it is what the tune represents that is important and it represents us, the UK. He should have sung along or stuck to his principles and not accepted the position of "Her Majesties Leader of the Opposition".
Al
I'm not a particular fan of the Monarchy and I hate the tune and lyrics but it is what the tune represents that is important and it represents us, the UK. He should have sung along or stuck to his principles and not accepted the position of "Her Majesties Leader of the Opposition".
Al
5
15
In reply to skog:
Only verse 1 is recognised at official 'do's so all the historical verbiage about marshall wade etc is pretty irrelevant. From a unionist standpoint verse 1 is pretty uncontroversial.
To me the biggest anachronism isn't the fact that there used to be a verse 6 added at some point or that its about the monarchy - its the "God save" bit.
But then most national anthems are a bit like that when you deconstruct them.
Only verse 1 is recognised at official 'do's so all the historical verbiage about marshall wade etc is pretty irrelevant. From a unionist standpoint verse 1 is pretty uncontroversial.
To me the biggest anachronism isn't the fact that there used to be a verse 6 added at some point or that its about the monarchy - its the "God save" bit.
But then most national anthems are a bit like that when you deconstruct them.
2
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Lovely song, but I'm not keen on building a new city in England's green belt, particularly not one which is likely to cause problems with all manner of religious and ethnic groups.
How about Land of Hope and Glory ?
> Nominate Jerusalem.
Lovely song, but I'm not keen on building a new city in England's green belt, particularly not one which is likely to cause problems with all manner of religious and ethnic groups.
How about Land of Hope and Glory ?
2
2
6
2
In reply to Onion magnet:
I completely agree. It's a clear statement of his beliefs and completely consistent with his known position of several decades, why shouldn't he stick it to the monarchist lickspittles?
Unless he wants to remain leader of his party and have Labour win any kind of election, of course.
The problem is that quite a lot of of perfectly decent people will find his behaviour offensive or, at least, a bit juvenile. If he hasn't figured out that undergraduate posturing isn't clever then there really isn't any hope for him. I suppose it shouldn't be such a surprise given his failure to achieve or even aspire to any sort of political office previously but there's a world of difference in playing to his usual gallery and achieving any broader appeal.
The problem isn't what he believes, it's that he doesn't seem to understand that, in order to be elected, you do have to go out of your way not to antagonise unnecessarily. No doubt there will be big issues of principle and substance where he will need to stick to his guns and seek to persuade people he is right. But that takes real persuasive argument, with both logic and passion, not just sulky schoolboy rebellion... and anyway, this wasn't one of those issues.
> He isn't a monarchist and as such singing the praises of the queen goes against his principals.
> I for one wouldn't sing it.
> Singing about something you don not believe in is half hearted and two faced.
> Doing it for the media would be particularly pathetic IMO.
I completely agree. It's a clear statement of his beliefs and completely consistent with his known position of several decades, why shouldn't he stick it to the monarchist lickspittles?
Unless he wants to remain leader of his party and have Labour win any kind of election, of course.
The problem is that quite a lot of of perfectly decent people will find his behaviour offensive or, at least, a bit juvenile. If he hasn't figured out that undergraduate posturing isn't clever then there really isn't any hope for him. I suppose it shouldn't be such a surprise given his failure to achieve or even aspire to any sort of political office previously but there's a world of difference in playing to his usual gallery and achieving any broader appeal.
The problem isn't what he believes, it's that he doesn't seem to understand that, in order to be elected, you do have to go out of your way not to antagonise unnecessarily. No doubt there will be big issues of principle and substance where he will need to stick to his guns and seek to persuade people he is right. But that takes real persuasive argument, with both logic and passion, not just sulky schoolboy rebellion... and anyway, this wasn't one of those issues.
Post edited at 11:14
9
9
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
But you don't have to be staunchly religious (or religious at all) to sing a hymn or carol.
But you don't have to be staunchly religious (or religious at all) to sing a hymn or carol.
2
4
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Unlike most national anthems, ours is recognisable and the words (at least of the first verse) are known by virtually everyone. You might not like it, but it's better than most of the alternatives, and is easily singable by anyone - unlike The Star-Spangled Banner.
Corbyn should have sung it. He'd have faced less criticism for doing so (abolition of the monarchy not being one of his leading principles), and not have offended anyone for whom it represents more than the monarchy. Did he show respect? Did he hell. He looked like a slovenly geography teacher at a school assembly, not the leader of one of the two principal political parties with aspirations to be prime minister of one of the richest and most powerful countries on earth at a major national event.
Unlike most national anthems, ours is recognisable and the words (at least of the first verse) are known by virtually everyone. You might not like it, but it's better than most of the alternatives, and is easily singable by anyone - unlike The Star-Spangled Banner.
Corbyn should have sung it. He'd have faced less criticism for doing so (abolition of the monarchy not being one of his leading principles), and not have offended anyone for whom it represents more than the monarchy. Did he show respect? Did he hell. He looked like a slovenly geography teacher at a school assembly, not the leader of one of the two principal political parties with aspirations to be prime minister of one of the richest and most powerful countries on earth at a major national event.
8
12
In reply to rogerwebb:
Good point, and it'd be a hard call to mess with Blake's poetry in the name of inclusivity.
Shame, because it works in all other respects:
* stonking tune
* unites cricket fans, socialists, the WI etc
* references swords, bows etc without being militaristic
* general vibe is less "we're awesome" and more "we suck a bit but we could be awesome if we all did our best" which is a nice national sentiment to sign up to.
> Great song, bit anglo-centric for a UK national anthem though!
Good point, and it'd be a hard call to mess with Blake's poetry in the name of inclusivity.
Shame, because it works in all other respects:
* stonking tune
* unites cricket fans, socialists, the WI etc
* references swords, bows etc without being militaristic
* general vibe is less "we're awesome" and more "we suck a bit but we could be awesome if we all did our best" which is a nice national sentiment to sign up to.
6
In reply to Dave Garnett:
The more the days go on (and I disagree with JC on many issues, and think he is a disaster for Labour) the more I find myself siding with him as he is in some ways inadvertently exposing the rank hypocrisy of establishment/elite/mainstream media.
he can't win either way, as the issue about taking the privy seal showed.
Quite apart from the monarchy issue though (which everyone seems to be focusing on), as an atheist I would NEVER compromise my principle that I don't sing anything that invokes a god I don't believe in.
Agree there is no hope for him winning around the electorate over though.
The more the days go on (and I disagree with JC on many issues, and think he is a disaster for Labour) the more I find myself siding with him as he is in some ways inadvertently exposing the rank hypocrisy of establishment/elite/mainstream media.
he can't win either way, as the issue about taking the privy seal showed.
Quite apart from the monarchy issue though (which everyone seems to be focusing on), as an atheist I would NEVER compromise my principle that I don't sing anything that invokes a god I don't believe in.
Agree there is no hope for him winning around the electorate over though.
4
1
In reply to Dave Garnett:
I would argue that their moaning and villanizing of him for not singing is equally just as juvenile IMO.
A lot of my friends and colleagues agree with me and you know what ? their equally decent people ! Who's feelings come first then ?
So we come to a stand off about it
Oh you can antagonise people by not singing ? especially after making statements about sacrifice and gratitude to war dead
Oh well bit touchy aren't they then . I can't help them with that feeling of outrage stirred up by the media.
OM
> Unless he wants to remain leader of his party and have Labour win any kind of election, of course. If, after the amount of time he's been in politics, he hasn't learnt that undergraduate posturing isn't clever and that, actually, quite a lot of of perfectly decent people will find his behaviour offensive or, at least, a bit juvenile, then there really isn't any hope for him.
I would argue that their moaning and villanizing of him for not singing is equally just as juvenile IMO.
A lot of my friends and colleagues agree with me and you know what ? their equally decent people ! Who's feelings come first then ?
So we come to a stand off about it
> The problem isn't what he believes, it's that he doesn't seem to understand that, in order to be elected, you do have to go out of your way not to antagonise unnecessarily. No doubt there will be big issues of principle and substance where he will need to stick to his guns and seek to persuade people he is right. But that takes real persuasive argument, with both logic and passion, not just sulky schoolboy rebellion... and anyway, this wasn't one of those issues.
Oh you can antagonise people by not singing ? especially after making statements about sacrifice and gratitude to war dead
Oh well bit touchy aren't they then . I can't help them with that feeling of outrage stirred up by the media.
OM
2
1
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Perhaps he should have used an old choral singing trick and sang "Cod save the Queen". No one would have been any the wiser and it would have actually sounded better, yet he would have kept his little political point intact.
Perhaps he should have used an old choral singing trick and sang "Cod save the Queen". No one would have been any the wiser and it would have actually sounded better, yet he would have kept his little political point intact.
1
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
We'll just have to wait 'till the break up of the UK then.
> Good point, and it'd be a hard call to mess with Blake's poetry in the name of inclusivity.
> Shame, because it works in all other respects:
> * stonking tune
> * unites cricket fans, socialists, the WI etc
> * references swords, bows etc without being militaristic
> * general vibe is less "we're awesome" and more "we suck a bit but we could be awesome if we all did our best" which is a nice national sentiment to sign up to.
We'll just have to wait 'till the break up of the UK then.
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
Indeed, and some atheists may be happy to do so. But some of us do find it difficult to sing songs with lyrics we don't agree with. Particularly all this "Oh God you are so wonderful, thank you for everything, all we have to do is believe and then our life is complete" nonsense. I mean, if I was God I'd be reaching for the bucket, or sending down the odd thunderbolt to drive people out of the churches and go and do something useful with their lives instead of all this pathetic flattery. (yes, I sung a few hymns in my time)
> But you don't have to be staunchly religious (or religious at all) to sing a hymn or carol.
Indeed, and some atheists may be happy to do so. But some of us do find it difficult to sing songs with lyrics we don't agree with. Particularly all this "Oh God you are so wonderful, thank you for everything, all we have to do is believe and then our life is complete" nonsense. I mean, if I was God I'd be reaching for the bucket, or sending down the odd thunderbolt to drive people out of the churches and go and do something useful with their lives instead of all this pathetic flattery. (yes, I sung a few hymns in my time)
3
In reply to Onion magnet:
> I would argue that their moaning and villanizing of him for not singing is equally just as juvenile IMO.
> A lot of my friends and colleagues agree with me and you know what ? their equally decent people ! Who's feelings come first then ?
>
He shouldn't expect to be able to have it both ways. By not singing the anthem he is using a small symbolic act to make some sort of point (it's no quite clear what the "point" is) . Some people may agree with the point but some may not. If he thinks it is "tittle tattle" and not worth commenting on then why is it worth doing?>
Post edited at 11:33
6
In reply to whenry:
This is the core of my problem with this and similar circumstances. Those people *chose* to take offence. Their problem, their loss. Their taking offence publicly is potentially an underhanded and unpleasant attempt to manipulate and control.
As much as I disagree with many off Corbyn's policies and views at least he's got principles.
> and not have offended anyone for whom it represents more than the monarchy.
This is the core of my problem with this and similar circumstances. Those people *chose* to take offence. Their problem, their loss. Their taking offence publicly is potentially an underhanded and unpleasant attempt to manipulate and control.
As much as I disagree with many off Corbyn's policies and views at least he's got principles.
Post edited at 11:39
3
1
In reply to GridNorth:
And also not part of "us"? Yup, great anthem for uniting the nation!
> but it is what the tune represents that is important and it represents us, the UK
> This may come as a bit of a shock to your ego but you are not the UK.
And also not part of "us"? Yup, great anthem for uniting the nation!
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
and "dark satanic mills"....awesome!
> Good point, and it'd be a hard call to mess with Blake's poetry in the name of inclusivity.
> Shame, because it works in all other respects:
> * stonking tune
> * unites cricket fans, socialists, the WI etc
> * references swords, bows etc without being militaristic
and "dark satanic mills"....awesome!
1
In reply to wintertree:
Well said !
OM
> This is the core of my problem with this and similar circumstances. Those people *chose* to take offence. Their problem, their loss. Anything else is an underhanded and unpleasant attempt to manipulate and control.
> As much as I disagree with many off Corbyn's policies and views at least he's got principles.
Well said !
OM
2
1
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
I thought the scruffy nature of his attire was more offensive. He needs to smarten his appearance if he wants to keep up the illusion he's around for the long term.
I thought the scruffy nature of his attire was more offensive. He needs to smarten his appearance if he wants to keep up the illusion he's around for the long term.
1
6
In reply to Stig:
Well, you're missing out on a lot of good songs then. Presumably that would include Highway to Hell and Lake of Fire, as well as Hallelujah and God Only Knows? Get over yourself.
> Quite apart from the monarchy issue though (which everyone seems to be focusing on), as an atheist I would NEVER compromise my principle that I don't sing anything that invokes a god I don't believe in.
Well, you're missing out on a lot of good songs then. Presumably that would include Highway to Hell and Lake of Fire, as well as Hallelujah and God Only Knows? Get over yourself.
1
4
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Just heard on the radio that a labour spokesman has just said that JC will sing the national anthem at future events.
Just heard on the radio that a labour spokesman has just said that JC will sing the national anthem at future events.
In reply to skog:
I don't disagree with you but it's all we have for the time being. I also think me, or you, not singing it and him not singing it are two completely different things and does not bear comparison with singing hymns.
Al
I don't disagree with you but it's all we have for the time being. I also think me, or you, not singing it and him not singing it are two completely different things and does not bear comparison with singing hymns.
Al
1
1
In reply to Onion magnet:
Maybe you are right. That's not the point, which is that it was perfectly obvious that this would happen. That doesn't make him brave, it makes him smug.
As long as there are more people like you and your mates than there are people who'd rather not have Citizen Smith running the country when the election comes round, it will all be fine then, won't it?
> I would argue that their moaning and villanizing of him for not singing is equally just as juvenile IMO.
Maybe you are right. That's not the point, which is that it was perfectly obvious that this would happen. That doesn't make him brave, it makes him smug.
> A lot of my friends and colleagues agree with me and you know what ? their equally decent people ! Who's feelings come first then ?
As long as there are more people like you and your mates than there are people who'd rather not have Citizen Smith running the country when the election comes round, it will all be fine then, won't it?
1
6
In reply to wintertree:
No, either he *chose* to piss them off, or he really doesn't care, which amounts to the same thing if you are an elected politician. And it's not their problem, it's your problem assuming you'd like a socialist government with the power to actually change anything.
> This is the core of my problem with this and similar circumstances. Those people *chose* to take offence. Their problem, their loss.
No, either he *chose* to piss them off, or he really doesn't care, which amounts to the same thing if you are an elected politician. And it's not their problem, it's your problem assuming you'd like a socialist government with the power to actually change anything.
Post edited at 11:47
1
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
No we can have the media panning him for having a crap singing voice
> Just heard on the radio that a labour spokesman has just said that JC will sing the national anthem at future events.
No we can have the media panning him for having a crap singing voice
1
1
In reply to Trevers:
but it was adopted in 1745 (unlike Flower of Scotland adopted relatively recently) and Scottish regiments were initially formed to quell “rebellious” Scots !
> EDIT- He should have put out the line that he believes the national anthem to be massively disrespectful to the Scottish servicemen who have fought and died in British wars.
but it was adopted in 1745 (unlike Flower of Scotland adopted relatively recently) and Scottish regiments were initially formed to quell “rebellious” Scots !
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Corbyn himself said this morning "I am going to be at many events and I will take part fully in those events. I don't see a problem about this. I was there and I will show my respect in the proper way at all future events. The proper way is to take a full part in it and I will take a full part.".
> Just heard on the radio that a labour spokesman has just said that JC will sing the national anthem at future events.
Corbyn himself said this morning "I am going to be at many events and I will take part fully in those events. I don't see a problem about this. I was there and I will show my respect in the proper way at all future events. The proper way is to take a full part in it and I will take a full part.".
In reply to wintertree:
I'm not convinced that a 95 year old veteran is trying to manipulate and control him - I am sure that I'd be somewhat hacked off if I was a WW2 veteran and Corbyn turned up, stood at the front row and looked like he'd rather be somewhere else.
> Those people *chose* to take offence. Their problem, their loss. Their taking offence publicly is potentially an underhanded and unpleasant attempt to manipulate and control.
I'm not convinced that a 95 year old veteran is trying to manipulate and control him - I am sure that I'd be somewhat hacked off if I was a WW2 veteran and Corbyn turned up, stood at the front row and looked like he'd rather be somewhere else.
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Perhaps everyone on this thread who admired the man for sticking to his principles can tell us what they think now
Al
Perhaps everyone on this thread who admired the man for sticking to his principles can tell us what they think now
Al
3
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Haha. I don't sing much anyway. I meant more hymns etc. I go to church for weddings, funerals etc but don't sing or mouth the prayers. I don't see why (like PMP) this is interpreted as 'making a point' or as a conscious attempt to offend. My family, some of whom are quite religious, know I do this and don't seem to be offended. Why should people interpret it as a sign of disrespect?
Glad I'm not in his position though.
Haha. I don't sing much anyway. I meant more hymns etc. I go to church for weddings, funerals etc but don't sing or mouth the prayers. I don't see why (like PMP) this is interpreted as 'making a point' or as a conscious attempt to offend. My family, some of whom are quite religious, know I do this and don't seem to be offended. Why should people interpret it as a sign of disrespect?
Glad I'm not in his position though.
1
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Maybe we need a new national anthem that has nothing to do with the Monarchy so that everyone can join in.
(something a bit more upbeat would be good)
Maybe we need a new national anthem that has nothing to do with the Monarchy so that everyone can join in.
(something a bit more upbeat would be good)
1
In reply to GridNorth:
Be depressing if true. Its going to be problematic if he bows to every whim of the rabid right press.
> Perhaps everyone on this thread who admired the man for sticking to his principles can tell us what they think now
Be depressing if true. Its going to be problematic if he bows to every whim of the rabid right press.
1
In reply to whenry:
I said those who take offence public (their offence or that of others), not those who take offence.
People can take offence all they want that some other people are republican and/or atheist and do not wish to be utter hypocrites. Seems like a worthless thing to take offence over in my view.
> I'm not convinced that a 95 year old veteran is trying to manipulate and control him - I am sure that I'd be somewhat hacked off if I was a WW2 veteran and Corbyn turned up, stood at the front row and looked like he'd rather be somewhere else.
I said those who take offence public (their offence or that of others), not those who take offence.
People can take offence all they want that some other people are republican and/or atheist and do not wish to be utter hypocrites. Seems like a worthless thing to take offence over in my view.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
No replies to questions directed to you regarding contentious topic?
Troll called.
No replies to questions directed to you regarding contentious topic?
Troll called.
1
1
In reply to Dave Garnett:
I am right I'm afraid
However I never said anything about being brave ! principled and of little concern to my sensibility that he didn't sing.
I honestly have no idea what the future holds for him or the country.
I was just pointing out that there's not just one side to peoples opinion of not singing something you don't believe in.
OM
> Maybe you are right. That's not the point, which is that it was perfectly obvious that this would happen. That doesn't make him brave, it makes him smug.
I am right I'm afraid
However I never said anything about being brave ! principled and of little concern to my sensibility that he didn't sing.
> As long as there are more people like you and your mates than there are people who'd rather not have Citizen Smith running the country when the election comes round, it will all be fine then, won't it?
I honestly have no idea what the future holds for him or the country.
I was just pointing out that there's not just one side to peoples opinion of not singing something you don't believe in.
OM
Post edited at 12:48
In reply to Dave Garnett:
The reason I don't like this argument is that by taking offence at change, it makes it very hard for someone to bring about change as an elected politician. We have strong traditions that some - not all - people support, but we also have a future and it's pretty clear to me that the future has change in it. Big change.
> No, either he *chose* to piss them off, or he really doesn't care, which amounts to the same thing if you are an elected politician
The reason I don't like this argument is that by taking offence at change, it makes it very hard for someone to bring about change as an elected politician. We have strong traditions that some - not all - people support, but we also have a future and it's pretty clear to me that the future has change in it. Big change.
1
In reply to GridNorth:
I do appreciate that! I was just hoping to point out that some people don't think the anthem does represent 'us'. I don't feel it represents me and I think a lot of other people feel likewise.
I don't think the national anthem is all that important to us as a country and I am quite relaxed about people singing/not-singing as they wish. If the purpose of the national anthem is to represent us or unite us then maybe we ought to find one that is better at doing that.
I do appreciate that! I was just hoping to point out that some people don't think the anthem does represent 'us'. I don't feel it represents me and I think a lot of other people feel likewise.
I don't think the national anthem is all that important to us as a country and I am quite relaxed about people singing/not-singing as they wish. If the purpose of the national anthem is to represent us or unite us then maybe we ought to find one that is better at doing that.
2
In reply to KevinD:
He didn't say he was going to sing the NA - "I am going to be at many events and I will take part fully in those events. I don't see a problem about this. I was there and I will show my respect in the proper way at all future events. The proper way is to take a full part in it and I will take a full part.". He's going to show his respect "in the proper way", we'll have to wait and see what that means (it's very important, obviously).
He didn't say he was going to sing the NA - "I am going to be at many events and I will take part fully in those events. I don't see a problem about this. I was there and I will show my respect in the proper way at all future events. The proper way is to take a full part in it and I will take a full part.". He's going to show his respect "in the proper way", we'll have to wait and see what that means (it's very important, obviously).
2
In reply to KevinD:
I'll raise your 'rabid right' and say I would think it more likely it was his 'loony left' men in the dark shadows offering words of advice about how to act given it his first job in office.
He is but a puppet and figurehead, like it or not.
> Be depressing if true. Its going to be problematic if he bows to every whim of the rabid right press.
I'll raise your 'rabid right' and say I would think it more likely it was his 'loony left' men in the dark shadows offering words of advice about how to act given it his first job in office.
He is but a puppet and figurehead, like it or not.
In reply to Onion magnet:
I know, and I have some respect for him too, as a fully paid-up member of Labour's backbench awkward squad. I Like Diane Abbott and Dennis Skinner too; principled, honest and sometimes brave all of them. Unfortunately, they can also be unrealistic, blinkered, undiplomatic, inflexible and, on occasion, a little self-righteous. As well as being completely unsuitable lead their party, let alone the country.
To be a bit Wolf Hall about it, he's too much Thomas More and not enough Thomas Cromwell!
> I was just pointing out that there's not just one side to peoples opinion of not singing something you don't believe in.
I know, and I have some respect for him too, as a fully paid-up member of Labour's backbench awkward squad. I Like Diane Abbott and Dennis Skinner too; principled, honest and sometimes brave all of them. Unfortunately, they can also be unrealistic, blinkered, undiplomatic, inflexible and, on occasion, a little self-righteous. As well as being completely unsuitable lead their party, let alone the country.
To be a bit Wolf Hall about it, he's too much Thomas More and not enough Thomas Cromwell!
In reply to Sir Chasm:
With some anonymous source saying that means he will. So could just be a Blairite stirring up shit.
Of course it is. There is nothing more important than this. Well until the next media frenzy which gets stirred up. Perhaps they will find out he has three sugars in his tea which obviously means a national threat.
> He's going to show his respect "in the proper way", we'll have to wait and see what that means
With some anonymous source saying that means he will. So could just be a Blairite stirring up shit.
> (it's very important, obviously).
Of course it is. There is nothing more important than this. Well until the next media frenzy which gets stirred up. Perhaps they will find out he has three sugars in his tea which obviously means a national threat.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
"
I Like Diane Abbott ..........; principled, honest and sometimes brave ......"
really? I suppose you could say she was brave considering what she said about others..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1445244/Labour-hypocrisy-row-as-MP-p...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/diane-abbott-i-sent-my-son-to-private-...
It's a West Indian thing apparently lol
"
I Like Diane Abbott ..........; principled, honest and sometimes brave ......"
really? I suppose you could say she was brave considering what she said about others..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1445244/Labour-hypocrisy-row-as-MP-p...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/diane-abbott-i-sent-my-son-to-private-...
It's a West Indian thing apparently lol
4
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Remind me which state / local comprehensive Diane Abbott sends her kids to?
(Sorry, couldn't resist).....
Edited after realising someone else got there first.
> I know, and I have some respect for him too, as a fully paid-up member of Labour's backbench awkward squad. I Like Diane Abbott and Dennis Skinner too - principled, honest and sometimes brave
Remind me which state / local comprehensive Diane Abbott sends her kids to?
(Sorry, couldn't resist).....
Edited after realising someone else got there first.
Post edited at 13:45
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't with these sorts of things. IMO his reputation would take a lot more damage if he didn't stick to his principles, since that's partly what it's built on.
> He shouldn't expect to be able to have it both ways. By not singing the anthem he is using a small symbolic act to make some sort of point (it's no quite clear what the "point" is) . Some people may agree with the point but some may not. If he thinks it is "tittle tattle" and not worth commenting on then why is it worth doing?
He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't with these sorts of things. IMO his reputation would take a lot more damage if he didn't stick to his principles, since that's partly what it's built on.
2
In reply to Dave Garnett:
I think that criticism can be levelled at most politicians and people in general to be honest.
As for leading the country , I have no idea how his leadership will work if at all.
I could guess, but they would be just that guesses and probably unhelpful in the long run.
I'm interested as to how it will all unfold.
I by the way am not sold on all of his ideas at all or the man himself yet.
It's just refreshing to see a different approach being taken for a change , one that will be judged on its own merit and success uncoloured by the negativity of the press and media in general , if that can happen.
OM
> I know, and I have some respect for him too, as a fully paid-up member of Labour's backbench awkward squad. I Like Diane Abbott and Dennis Skinner too; principled, honest and sometimes brave all of them. Unfortunately, they can also be unrealistic, blinkered, undiplomatic, inflexible and, on occasion, a little self-righteous. As well as being completely unsuitable lead their party, let alone the country.
I think that criticism can be levelled at most politicians and people in general to be honest.
As for leading the country , I have no idea how his leadership will work if at all.
I could guess, but they would be just that guesses and probably unhelpful in the long run.
I'm interested as to how it will all unfold.
I by the way am not sold on all of his ideas at all or the man himself yet.
It's just refreshing to see a different approach being taken for a change , one that will be judged on its own merit and success uncoloured by the negativity of the press and media in general , if that can happen.
OM
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Same here but have tended to view them with an observers interest and in the same spirit as one might participate in a May pole dance or something. Some things are just done out of tradition (Xmas decorations pretending Father Xmas exists for the kids etc)
> Indeed, and some atheists may be happy to do so. But some of us do find it difficult to sing songs with lyrics we don't agree with. Particularly all this "Oh God you are so wonderful, thank you for everything, all we have to do is believe and then our life is complete" nonsense. I mean, if I was God I'd be reaching for the bucket, or sending down the odd thunderbolt to drive people out of the churches and go and do something useful with their lives instead of all this pathetic flattery. (yes, I sung a few hymns in my time)
Same here but have tended to view them with an observers interest and in the same spirit as one might participate in a May pole dance or something. Some things are just done out of tradition (Xmas decorations pretending Father Xmas exists for the kids etc)
In reply to skog:
That verse is not actually part of the national anthem at all, and never has been. The anthem itself has 3 or (arguably) 4 verses. The General Wade verse was one of several "in the style of" that were concocted between 1745 and about 1820 by various interest groups. There's even a Jacobite version that disses "King George and His Feckie".
So whilst I might agree that the anthem itself is actually pretty crap, it's annoying that so many Scots (and indeed other Brits) appear to accept this straw man of an anti-Scots verse. I suppose it suits the "chip on both shoulders" brigade to propagate it though!
> There isn't even one single line saying anything positive about Britain - a country even a partially-crushed rebellious Scot such as myself has to admit is one of the best in the world to live in!
That verse is not actually part of the national anthem at all, and never has been. The anthem itself has 3 or (arguably) 4 verses. The General Wade verse was one of several "in the style of" that were concocted between 1745 and about 1820 by various interest groups. There's even a Jacobite version that disses "King George and His Feckie".
So whilst I might agree that the anthem itself is actually pretty crap, it's annoying that so many Scots (and indeed other Brits) appear to accept this straw man of an anti-Scots verse. I suppose it suits the "chip on both shoulders" brigade to propagate it though!
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
Not quite. The "rebellious Scots" verse was first put into print in 1822, though known to have been around for a while before then. Never a part of the official anthem, but ione of a number of both pro and anti-Jacobite doggerel verses that were kicking around in the late 18th and early 19th century. Including this one:
God bless the prince, I pray,
God bless the prince, I pray,
Charlie I mean;
That Scotland we may see
Freed from vile Presbyt'ry,
Both George and his Feckie,
Ever so, Amen.
Strange how those with an axe to grind have "morphed" the General Wade verse into being "part of the national anthem" while ignoring the many other doggerel verses around at the time, including the one above, that were also never part of the official version!
Though overall I agree that it's a crap anthem.
> but it was adopted in 1745 (unlike Flower of Scotland adopted relatively recently) and Scottish regiments were initially formed to quell “rebellious” Scots !
Not quite. The "rebellious Scots" verse was first put into print in 1822, though known to have been around for a while before then. Never a part of the official anthem, but ione of a number of both pro and anti-Jacobite doggerel verses that were kicking around in the late 18th and early 19th century. Including this one:
God bless the prince, I pray,
God bless the prince, I pray,
Charlie I mean;
That Scotland we may see
Freed from vile Presbyt'ry,
Both George and his Feckie,
Ever so, Amen.
Strange how those with an axe to grind have "morphed" the General Wade verse into being "part of the national anthem" while ignoring the many other doggerel verses around at the time, including the one above, that were also never part of the official version!
Though overall I agree that it's a crap anthem.
In reply to Rob Naylor:
Whilst I'm sure you're right, there probably aren't many people who are going to bother researching it - so if that's the one people hear and see, it's the one they'll know.
The Telegraph? Probably.
Whilst I'm sure you're right, there probably aren't many people who are going to bother researching it - so if that's the one people hear and see, it's the one they'll know.
> I suppose it suits the "chip on both shoulders" brigade to propagate it though!
The Telegraph? Probably.
1
In reply to Rob Naylor:
I didnt think there was an official anthem as such? Just verses normally used.
> Not quite. The "rebellious Scots" verse was first put into print in 1822, though known to have been around for a while before then. Never a part of the official anthem
I didnt think there was an official anthem as such? Just verses normally used.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that not some magical fantasy based on what would have happened if some non existent person had walked on England's "Green and pleasant.... ". So yet more ethnocentric god bothering.
> Nominate Jerusalem.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that not some magical fantasy based on what would have happened if some non existent person had walked on England's "Green and pleasant.... ". So yet more ethnocentric god bothering.
In reply to Babika:
when Jamacia, USA, France and practically everyone else has longer, jollier and more uplifting offerings
I'm guessing you don't know the meaning of the words in the French anthem. A less jolly, uplifting song you'd be hard pushed to find. All about killing your enemies and chopping them up. It is so unrelevant to today and modern society, it is untrue. However, you won't find many "traditional" Frenchman queuing up to change it. Does it unite the large sector of society who come from the old colonial background? Probably not, they tended to be the enemy that were being killed and chopped up.
Maybe Joe Le Taxi would be a better choice or a bright cheery Edith Piaf chanson if there is such a thing.
when Jamacia, USA, France and practically everyone else has longer, jollier and more uplifting offerings
I'm guessing you don't know the meaning of the words in the French anthem. A less jolly, uplifting song you'd be hard pushed to find. All about killing your enemies and chopping them up. It is so unrelevant to today and modern society, it is untrue. However, you won't find many "traditional" Frenchman queuing up to change it. Does it unite the large sector of society who come from the old colonial background? Probably not, they tended to be the enemy that were being killed and chopped up.
Maybe Joe Le Taxi would be a better choice or a bright cheery Edith Piaf chanson if there is such a thing.
In reply to JJL:
Not at all, just been in a meeting all day.
> No replies to questions directed to you regarding contentious topic?
> Troll called.
Not at all, just been in a meeting all day.
In reply to Trevers:
Remember it is only *rebellious* Scots that get the full General Wade treatment. (and that is about the only thing going for it - it name checks the great road builder).
This non story has shown up that we have a national anthem which is divisive and offensive to some, and the fact that it is offensive to some is offensive to others. Dump the Dirge! Or better still make it a sort of Hail to the Chief type thing for when the head of state is around.
Why does England get lumbered with it, and not have one of her own. I second Jerusalem.
Remember it is only *rebellious* Scots that get the full General Wade treatment. (and that is about the only thing going for it - it name checks the great road builder).
This non story has shown up that we have a national anthem which is divisive and offensive to some, and the fact that it is offensive to some is offensive to others. Dump the Dirge! Or better still make it a sort of Hail to the Chief type thing for when the head of state is around.
Why does England get lumbered with it, and not have one of her own. I second Jerusalem.
Post edited at 22:41
In reply to Bingers:
Its a decent tune though. Nothing wrong with promising a bit of mayhem and havoc so long as it is done with some style. Whereas the UK anthem doesnt succeed at the tune or at promising mayhem. Just sort of meanders about beating people up.
> A less jolly, uplifting song you'd be hard pushed to find.
Its a decent tune though. Nothing wrong with promising a bit of mayhem and havoc so long as it is done with some style. Whereas the UK anthem doesnt succeed at the tune or at promising mayhem. Just sort of meanders about beating people up.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
40 years ago I knew someone, a stalwart of the Battersea Labour party, who was invited to a posh do at the Park Lane Hilton. At the end of the event she was flabbergasted when everyone stood up, preparing to sing "God Save the Queen". So she launched into "The Red Flag" before anyone else could start singing. I don't think she was invited again...
40 years ago I knew someone, a stalwart of the Battersea Labour party, who was invited to a posh do at the Park Lane Hilton. At the end of the event she was flabbergasted when everyone stood up, preparing to sing "God Save the Queen". So she launched into "The Red Flag" before anyone else could start singing. I don't think she was invited again...
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...