Jump to content

Jeremy Corbyn: Labour Leader


Len Cnut

Recommended Posts

It is simply awful. I have read many books on the subject and the horrendous thing is the burns, people dragged from cockpits and they no longer possess a face. And the RAF had this strange sort if survival mechanism with their lingo. ''Johnys bought it old chap'' Time for grieving little. All young men also. The pilots who fought that campaign were glorious gladiators, fighting a war for national survival. If you cannot sing the anthem you are an absolute disgrace. I am sorry but I find that behaviour disgraceful.

Cameron, good on you son.

You live too much in history. Brits have died in every war they have fought in, no one expects you to sing their honor except people obsessed with history.
Thats fuckin' bollocks, they gave their lives to get this country where it is today and they deserve respect, its got nothing to do with living in history and everything to do with being warm blooded and having a heart in you, its easy to sit around marginalising the contribution of people who fought for the fuckin' free world and gave their lives, all the while enjoying what they made possible for you, with all due respect Soulie thats a proper lowlife way of looking at it.
I am not marginalising anyone, I am pointing out that it is a neverending line of people going back in history that we all owe our existence, too. It is not only them, it is so many more. The fact that we biasedly honor people from WWII is because we have that war fresher in mind, they are closer to us, and because of all the mythology about that war that is constantly maintained by popular culture.

My point isn't and wasn't that we shouldn't be obliged to what they have done, we really should! just that it now, so many decades later, feels weird to honor them selectivelly.

Well its not weird then is it, its logical and obvious, closer proximity in terms of timeframe etc and anyway its not about 'we' or the greater mass of the public (although theres some value to that too) but rather someone who has potential to be a prime minister of this country should have a better understanding of sensibilities and respect for those that gave their life in pursuit of the principles for which this nation stands.
The context of my reply was to Diesel's over-the-top outrage of people not hailing victims of WWII - it wasn't about Corbyn not singing the anthem. I mean, yeah, we should respect everybody who fights for us and dies as a result, and it is only natural to have those that dies last foremost in mind (that isn't wierd, right), but Diesel's condemnation just became parodical.
Yeah but Dies' was making that point because it was at a memorial for The Battle of Britain that Corbyns percieved disrespect by no singing the anthem occured, he werent just on a random rant.

God Save Our Gracious Queen

Long Live Our Noble Queen

God Save The Queen

Send Her Victorious,

Happy and Glorious

Long to Reign Over Us

God Save the Queen

Len, you are a smart man, point out to me the exact point in those lyrics where reference is made to paying respect to service personnel who lost their lives or otherwise made sacrifices in the aerial skirmish in question. Because, I can't see any. None. I can see archaic religious references and sycophantic fawning over a figurehead who has earned this distinction by, oh, wait... being born into it, well fucking done. There's a definite intellectual disconnect between being not wanting to sing the above through fundamentally disagreeing with it (which is morally commendable, actually) and showing any form of disrespect to the fallen.

There is absolutely zero reference to service personnel who lost their lives but it is the national anthem of Britain, the same Britain that The Battle of Britain was fought over. Now I'm hardly a monarchist at the best of times and if someone wants to make a point against the monarchy they're welcome to do so, I just wouldn't pick a memorial for dead soldiers as the moment to do it for the simple reason of why would you want to drag that into your wanting to make a point about your personal dislike for the monarchy? It's just pointlessly disrespectful.

I can't speak for Corbyn, but I would never sing it regardless of the occasion, and it wouldn't necessarily be about making a point to other people. If I maintain a silence, it's not preventing anyone else from singing it, it's not distracting anyone either. It would be about being true to my beliefs that hereditary succession is wrong and the concept of aristocracy is vile and I fundamentally disagree with the assertion that a song which celebrates these things has any value, let alone being the piece of music which is supposed to represent me on an international stage. Standing in silence is a widely accepted way of showing respect to the dead all around the world, I don't see any disrespect for the people the event was actually supposed to be about in Corbyn's actions at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is simply awful. I have read many books on the subject and the horrendous thing is the burns, people dragged from cockpits and they no longer possess a face. And the RAF had this strange sort if survival mechanism with their lingo. ''Johnys bought it old chap'' Time for grieving little. All young men also. The pilots who fought that campaign were glorious gladiators, fighting a war for national survival. If you cannot sing the anthem you are an absolute disgrace. I am sorry but I find that behaviour disgraceful.

Cameron, good on you son.

You live too much in history. Brits have died in every war they have fought in, no one expects you to sing their honor except people obsessed with history.
Thats fuckin' bollocks, they gave their lives to get this country where it is today and they deserve respect, its got nothing to do with living in history and everything to do with being warm blooded and having a heart in you, its easy to sit around marginalising the contribution of people who fought for the fuckin' free world and gave their lives, all the while enjoying what they made possible for you, with all due respect Soulie thats a proper lowlife way of looking at it.
I am not marginalising anyone, I am pointing out that it is a neverending line of people going back in history that we all owe our existence, too. It is not only them, it is so many more. The fact that we biasedly honor people from WWII is because we have that war fresher in mind, they are closer to us, and because of all the mythology about that war that is constantly maintained by popular culture.

My point isn't and wasn't that we shouldn't be obliged to what they have done, we really should! just that it now, so many decades later, feels weird to honor them selectivelly.

Well its not weird then is it, its logical and obvious, closer proximity in terms of timeframe etc and anyway its not about 'we' or the greater mass of the public (although theres some value to that too) but rather someone who has potential to be a prime minister of this country should have a better understanding of sensibilities and respect for those that gave their life in pursuit of the principles for which this nation stands.
The context of my reply was to Diesel's over-the-top outrage of people not hailing victims of WWII - it wasn't about Corbyn not singing the anthem. I mean, yeah, we should respect everybody who fights for us and dies as a result, and it is only natural to have those that dies last foremost in mind (that isn't wierd, right), but Diesel's condemnation just became parodical.
Yeah but Dies' was making that point because it was at a memorial for The Battle of Britain that Corbyns percieved disrespect by no singing the anthem occured, he werent just on a random rant.

God Save Our Gracious Queen

Long Live Our Noble Queen

God Save The Queen

Send Her Victorious,

Happy and Glorious

Long to Reign Over Us

God Save the Queen

Len, you are a smart man, point out to me the exact point in those lyrics where reference is made to paying respect to service personnel who lost their lives or otherwise made sacrifices in the aerial skirmish in question. Because, I can't see any. None. I can see archaic religious references and sycophantic fawning over a figurehead who has earned this distinction by, oh, wait... being born into it, well fucking done. There's a definite intellectual disconnect between being not wanting to sing the above through fundamentally disagreeing with it (which is morally commendable, actually) and showing any form of disrespect to the fallen.

There is absolutely zero reference to service personnel who lost their lives but it is the national anthem of Britain, the same Britain that The Battle of Britain was fought over. Now I'm hardly a monarchist at the best of times and if someone wants to make a point against the monarchy they're welcome to do so, I just wouldn't pick a memorial for dead soldiers as the moment to do it for the simple reason of why would you want to drag that into your wanting to make a point about your personal dislike for the monarchy? It's just pointlessly disrespectful.

I can't speak for Corbyn, but I would never sing it regardless of the occasion, and it wouldn't necessarily be about making a point to other people. If I maintain a silence, it's not preventing anyone else from singing it, it's not distracting anyone either. It would be about being true to my beliefs that hereditary succession is wrong and the concept of aristocracy is vile and I fundamentally disagree with the assertion that a song which celebrates these things has any value, let alone being the piece of music which is supposed to represent me on an international stage. Standing in silence is a widely accepted way of showing respect to the dead all around the world, I don't see any disrespect for the people the event was actually supposed to be about in Corbyn's actions at all.

Didnt he say as much too, that he was maintaining a respectful silence and thinking about his folks who died in the war? At any rate its not a very clever move on the part of someone who everybody and his Mum has pegged as doomed from the start for exactly this sort of thing, that he was going to be 'too radical', now i dont think this particular act is radical as such but a great many will and its not gonna do him any favours.

And with the whole singing the anthem thing, I aint a royalist or anything as I've said but i dont think I'd choose a memorial for dead soldiers as the time to make this point about my distaste for engendered privelige, simply because that moment aint about me, i could not sing it, get pulled up about it, explain myself and be off and away but i dont think I'd want to appear to be making that moment about me...cuz it aint, weighing the two sides up I'll sing the words if not doing so could possibly be interpreted by someone as disrespecting the soldiers, to the point where someone might have to pull me up on it to clarify my position on the matter.

Edited by Len B'stard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how standing in silence was making the moment about him, just being true to his values regardless of the situation (as one should if they are deeply held convictions about right and wrong, they don't change because people might disagree with you). If anything was making it about other people then it was those singing about a (potentially fictional) metaphysical entity rescuing a monarch...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how standing in silence was making the moment about him

Well because it's led to all this, this big discussion point about Jeremy Corbyn that everyones talking about.

just being true to his values regardless of the situation (as one should if they are deeply held convictions about right and wrong, they don't change because people might disagree with you)

Right but the point of contention isn't his anti-monarchist views in this instance, it's disrespect for the dead soldiers so no ones being prompted or urged to change a view cuz they might be being disagreed with, it's to do with tact and prudence.

If anything was making it about other people then it was those singing about a (potentially fictional) metaphysical entity rescuing a monarch...

Well not really because regardless of the content in the lyrics it is the national anthem of the country that those people died for, what else are they going to sing? I get what you are saying and on paper it makes a kind of sense but only because I'm trying to see your point just as I know you see mine, it's just a point of disagreement so the crux of the matter becomes is every point worth making all the time when bearing in mind the relevant surrounding sensibilities and the goals you (i.e. Corbyn) hope to achieve and the bearing those sensibilities might have on your ability to achieve those goals? In other words 'use your fuckin' loaf Jezza' :D

It's one thing being bloody minded in your views and beliefs but if you wanna make it as a politician in this country it might be worth having some semblence of an understanding of how the population thinks.

Edited by Len B'stard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well because it's led to all this, this big discussion point about Jeremy Corbyn that everyones talking about.

I think that says a lot more about the British press and establishment than it does about Corbyn.

Right but the point of contention isn't his anti-monarchist views in this instance, it's disrespect for the dead soldiers so no ones being prompted or urged to change a view cuz they might be being disagreed with, it's to do with tact and prudence.

And I contest that not singing God Save The Queen is in no way an act of disrespect to those who gave their lives. You can choose not to sing God Save The Queen because you disagree with the lyrics and be incredibly respectful of the bravery and skill in battle shown by those who fought. I have tremendous respect for that sacrifice and I don't even want the United Kingdom to continue existing! If I can hold those views at the same time, then surely this man is perfectly capable of not singing a song and still honouring the dead appropriately.

Edited by Graeme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that says a lot more about the British press and establishment than it does about Corbyn.

I agree. But his lack of foresight in not being able to see that coming says a little about his chances of success at this job too. Unless he just didn't see it coming, which again shows a degree of lacking in suitability for the job.
And I contest that not singing God Save The Queen is in no way an act of disrespect to those who gave their lives. You can choose not to sing God Save The Queen because you disagree with the lyrics and be incredibly respectful of the bravery and skill in battle shown by those who fought. I have tremendous respect that sacrifice and I don't even want the United Kingdom to continue existing! If I can hold those views at the same time, then surely this man is perfectly capable of not singing a song and still honouring the dead appropriately.

Sometimes it's not about where you are coming from and more about how a certain thing is going to be perceived or received and the sign of a savvy politician is knowing when how and where to take each shot, now I'm not for one moment suggesting that one should compromise ones principles as and when it appears that the opinion of the masses might run contrary to them but this was hardly a life or death situation was it, it's not like this was Churchill convincing the government that they must never make friends with Hitler, all it's resulted in is making him look a bit of a cunt in the eyes of some folks.

He could've just said the sodding words, ticked his box and cracked on and avoided all this but he didn't, either because he was too thick to see the impending backlash, which suggests incompetence, or that he didn't care because he thought that that point was worth making at that particular time, which again makes him a little thick, when framing the equation in the context of a man who presumably wants to be a successful leader of the Labour Party and perhaps Prime Minister some day.

Nothing that the modern politician does in the public eye in incidental, it is all carefully planned and orchestrated to cater to someone/something and/or to project a certain image and with that in mind Corbyns either ill-advised or just not a very good politician. Or rather he's making some very poor choices that are making him appear that way. I REALLY agree with the principles he stands for, as per his victory speech and i feel there is an honesty in the man but i also feel that there is a naivety in his approach, just as there appears to be in your argument, that will condemn him to failure.

Edited by Len B'stard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that says a lot more about the British press and establishment than it does about Corbyn.

I agree. But his lack of foresight in not being able to see that coming says a little about his chances of success at this job too. Unless he just didn't see it coming, which again shows a degree of lacking in suitability for the job.
And I contest that not singing God Save The Queen is in no way an act of disrespect to those who gave their lives. You can choose not to sing God Save The Queen because you disagree with the lyrics and be incredibly respectful of the bravery and skill in battle shown by those who fought. I have tremendous respect that sacrifice and I don't even want the United Kingdom to continue existing! If I can hold those views at the same time, then surely this man is perfectly capable of not singing a song and still honouring the dead appropriately.

Sometimes it's not about where you are coming from and more about how a certain thing is going to be perceived or received and the sign of a savvy politician is knowing when how and where to take each shot, now I'm not for one moment suggesting that one should compromise ones principles as and when it appears that the opinion of the masses might run contrary to them but this was hardly a life or death situation was it, it's not like this was Churchill convincing the government that they must never make friends with Hitler, all it's resulted in is making him look a bit of a cunt in the eyes of some folks.

He could've just said the sodding words, ticked his box and cracked on and avoided all this but he didn't, either because he was too thick to see the impending backlash, which suggests incompetence, or that he didn't care because he thought that that point was worth making at that particular time, which again makes him a little thick, when framing the equation in the context of a man who presumably wants to be a successful leader of the Labour Party and perhaps Prime Minister some day.

Nothing that the modern politician does in the public eye in incidental, it is all carefully planned and orchestrated to cater to someone/something and/or to project a certain image and with that in mind Corbyns either ill-advised or just not a very good politician. Or rather he's making some very poor choices that are making him appear that way. I REALLY agree with the principles he stands for, as per his victory speech and i feel there is an honesty in the man but i also feel that there is a naivety in his approach, just as there appears to be in your argument, that will condemn him to failure.

I'm not even a Corbyn supporter, but is it not refreshing to have a politician who appears to adhere to what's important to them regardless of how other people might perceive it, rather than the airbrushed, spin-doctored, 'thick-of-it' rejects that seem to have come to dominate in the PR age?

I mean, public perception is obviously hugely important in politics, but someone who's not afraid to tell it like it is (and I don't mean tell it like it isn't, like fucking Nigel Farage...), isn't that more worthwhile? I mean, my main criticism of Labour over the time I've been interested in politics is that they didn't seem to know what to stand for, when Blair chose the "middle path", they gutted themselves of purpose and they were punished for it in this general election. At least now you have a left and a right again, challenging the bland face of neo-liberalism (which actually continues to perpetuate grave social injustices on a global scale, people are just too busy getting annoyed at monarchs not being praised musically to care).

Edited by Graeme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not even a Corbyn supporter, but is it not refreshing to have a politician who appears to adhere to what's important to them regardless of how other people might perceive it, rather than the airbrushed, spin-doctored, 'thick-of-it' rejects that seem to have come to dominate in the PR age?

I mean, public perception is obviously hugely important in politics, but someone who's not afraid to tell it like it is (and I don't mean tell it like it isn't, like fucking Nigel Farage...), isn't that more worthwhile? I mean, my main criticism of Labour over the time I've been interested in politics is that they didn't seem to know what to stand for, when Blair chose the "middle path", they gutted themselves of purpose and they were punished for it in this general election. At least now you have a left and a right again, challenging the bland face of neo-liberalism (which actually continues to perpetuate grave social injustices on a global scale, people are just too busy getting annoyed at monarchs not being praised musically to care).

Definitely and it's for precisely this reason that I'm saying what I'm saying, I'd like to see this followed through to some kind of important point whereby he gets to make a stand on the behalf of people who don't have no one to make a stand for them, to make a difference and not fuck himself up at the first hurdle by falling prey to these sorts of trifling issues and shooting himself in the foot before he gets a chance to do some good.

Look, everyone wants this cunt to fail, the media, the opposition, half his own party, everybody has him pegged as this sort of gung ho unreasonable Bennite socialist whoose gonna shag himself before he even gets to any sort of point where he might be a concern for the opposition and by pulling a stroke like this he's effectively proving them right and thats alls I'm saying, just pick your shots...was this really worth it? Was this anti-royalist thing really worth causing this bullshit hullabaloo about? If you REALLY care about the working classes of this country then you'd wait until such time as there is an important principle on the line worth standing for a little further on down the line when we get to the business end, instead of this bullshit little thing and basically setting the ball rolling for the naysayers yourself...whats been fuckin' achieved?

He will never get to a point where he with actually be able to effect change on the grave social injustices that exist on a global scale if he's not careful and doesn't pick his battles carefully. I know on the scale of things this is only a minor thing but it's early yet and he's already trodding on turds.

Edited by Len B'stard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UK politics is basically keeping the conservative masses undisturbed, then kind of secretly arming terrorists in foreign lands. Get a bit of back chat, drone strike a school. Then show up at Wimbledon with Brinkley looking wife and shake hands with the Queen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to say, that people like John McDonnell are a fucking disgrace.

In the interest of stimulating discussion may I ask why you think so?

I don't think anyone who praises terrorists, calls for them honored, suggests that people who blew up women/children and carried out killings based upon religion and pretended it was for freedom that brought about peace should be in government.

Obviously I'm sure there's an Australian or an American who's never been here will jump in now and suggest that it was some romantic struggle and think Northern Ireland was Gazza without Muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to say, that people like John McDonnell are a fucking disgrace.

In the interest of stimulating discussion may I ask why you think so?

I don't think anyone who praises terrorists, calls for them honored, suggests that people who blew up women/children and carried out killings based upon religion and pretended it was for freedom that brought about peace should be in government.

Obviously I'm sure there's an Australian or an American who's never been here will jump in now and suggest that it was some romantic struggle and think Northern Ireland was Gazza without Muslims.

If only he'd shown up with a fishing rod and some fried chicken eh? :lol:
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you generalize God Save the Queen it actually makes perfect sense as a paean for victory in a war for national survival since that is its precise historical context, a Drury Lane rally behind George II following The Battle of Prestonpans.

On a complete tangent been watching The Likely Lads for the first time in ages, this was all filmed round your way yknow, might be worth a watch if you fancy having a look at what your manor looked like back in the day :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not seen it all but It is a good show that I often try and catch whenever it is repeated. From my understanding most of the original 1960s show was lost like a lot of Dr Who from that era. They brought it back in the 1970s and also did a tv film. British shows look really gritty from that era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that look is appealing to you you should check out some of the neo realist stuff from the early 60s, most of it is set up North too.

The Likely Lads film is filmed a fair bit in Whitley Bay apparently. But yeah 8 out of 20 episodes survive of the original. Sheila Fearn is fit as fuck too.

Edited by Len B'stard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched Cathy Come Home a few years ago. It reminded me of a certain Mizoguchi film.

Japanese director Kenji Mizoguchi. It reminded me of Life of Oharu from 1952, the way successive burden's of society (society's mores, biases and expectations) are placed upon a female protagonist to the point where it becomes excruciatingly painful for the viewer. Although perhaps Mizoguchi is being more feminist (i.e. the sexual exploitation of concubines by feudal Daimyos) whereas Ken Loach is being more social - and certainly contemporary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...