Last night of the Proms

[claptrappers_union]

It’s amazing how so many people have fallen into the trap.

[Colburn_Claret]

So you think only the left wing are concerned about celebrating Britain’s history of colonialism and slavery? Righto.

As Aggi says, people like you have become so entrenched in picking a side. It’s symptomatic of how divided this country has become when you have people claiming that only the ‘left’ would have concerns over celebrating our colonial past and only ‘leavers’ would be upset about the songs being omitted.

You feel free to think what you like, I'm happy to celebrate our history. It doesn't mean there weren't mistakes, but then there isn't a country in the world , from America, Russia, China, Japan , Saudi Arabia, Germany the list is endless of countries that have made mistakes.
We're not going to get a straw poll on this thread, but I'm confident that most people would rather keep the last night as it is, and that the vast majority of those who would change it are left wingers. Whether you accept that or not, is totally irrelevant to me, I couldn't care less.

[SammyBoy]

Millennial here.

Never watched Last Night At The Proms, and not even sure what "Land of Hope and Glory" even sounds like .... zzzzzzzzzzz

[Colburn_Claret]

Millennial here.

Never watched Last Night At The Proms, and not even sure what "Land of Hope and Glory" even sounds like .... zzzzzzzzzzz

Great tune for a football song if someone could come up with the lyrics

[mikeS]

The TV used to play The national anthem at the end of the evening when the telly shut down at midnight with the Epilogue. The cinemas used to play it at the end of the second house. That all went the way of the dodo.

[Erasmus]

They stopped playing it at the end of films in cinemas because everyone used to just get up and leave. Left wingers, those cinema goers used to be.

[Colburn_Claret]

They stopped playing it because no one was interested, and if no one is interested in the last night of the proms, then they'll probably stop playing the tub thumpers there as well. I'd be fine with that.
As it is the last night of the proms is very popular, and the only people wanting to change it are those tiny minority that dont like the message, they perceive, it sends out. They're sad and should come back and try again when and if, it starts to flop.

[TheFamilyCat]

You feel free to think what you like, I'm happy to celebrate our history. It doesn't mean there weren't mistakes, but then there isn't a country in the world , from America, Russia, China, Japan , Saudi Arabia, Germany the list is endless of countries that have made mistakes.
We're not going to get a straw poll on this thread, but I'm confident that most people would rather keep the last night as it is, and that the vast majority of those who would change it are left wingers. Whether you accept that or not, is totally irrelevant to me, I couldn't care less.

I reckon the most people would just shrug. The Proms must be so far from some people's radars they wouldn't care. Until the Woke Left try to spoil it for them.

[nil_desperandum]

So where does the lyrics "Britons never never never shall be slaves, come from?

"Between the 16th and 18th centuries, pirates operating out of north Africa enslaved thousands of men, women and children from the British Isles. 

"The famous lines from the song ‘Rule Britannia’ proudly proclaim that “Britannia rules the waves. Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.”

First up: I think this song by Thomas Arne is a splendid song, (though obviously the text is "of its time"), and I whilst I have said that there may be reasons that it can't be sung this year, I hope it will be, and expect it to be part of the Proms tradition for years to come.

However, for someone who makes such powerful arguments for the merits of this song and has made such a fuss about it, one might have hoped that at least you would know the words.
You've quoted two lines and got both of them wrong. (I note that dsr also misquoted the 2nd line.)
If it's so important to you and you're going to proudly proclaim it then at least show respect for the author by getting it right:
Rule Britannnia!, Britannia RULE the waves,
Britons never, never, never WILL be slaves.
(Changing "shall" to "will" doesn't really make any difference other than being wrong, but "RULE" the waves as opposed to "rules" has an entirely diffeent nuance.)

[Volvoclaret]

I miss the National Anthem at the cinema, especially the verse where we want to chop up those perfidious Scots.

[RingoMcCartney]

First up: I think this song by Thomas Arne is a splendid song, (though obviously the text is "of its time"), and I whilst I have said that there may be reasons that it can't be sung this year, I hope it will be, and expect it to be part of the Proms tradition for years to come.

However, for someone who makes such powerful arguments for the merits of this song and has made such a fuss about it, one might have hoped that at least you would know the words.
You've quoted two lines and got both of them wrong. (I note that dsr also misquoted the 2nd line.)
If it's so important to you and you're going to proudly proclaim it then at least show respect for the author by getting it right:
Rule Britannnia!, Britannia RULE the waves,
Britons never, never, never WILL be slaves.
(Changing "shall" to "will" doesn't really make any difference other than being wrong, but "RULE" the waves as opposed to "rules" has an entirely diffeent nuance.)

You're correct, like others who've made the same slip up, my getting a single word wrong and slipping up with a letter has given you a wonderful opportunity for pedantry.

The fact remains that the line in the song that references Britons no longer being slaves, celebrates the fact the Royal Navy was strong enough , after hundreds of years , to stop marauding fleets of Barbery ships from north africa coming to these shores and taking men , women and children for slaves.

The Sack of Baltimore took place on 20 June 1631, when the village of Baltimore in West Cork, Ireland, was attacked by the Ottoman Algeria from the Barbary Coast of North Africa –Dutchmen, Algerians and Ottoman Turks. The attack was the largest by Barbary pirates on either Ireland or Great Britain.

Murad's crew, made up of Dutchmen, Algerians and Ottoman Turks, launched their covert attack on the remote village on 20 June 1631. They captured 107 villagers, mostly English settlers along with some local Irish people (some reports put the number as high as 237). The attack was focused on the area of the village known to this day as the Cove. The villagers were put in irons and taken to a life of slavery in North Africa.

Rule Brittania celebrates the ending of slavery for Britons.

[kentonclaret]

Americans are fat because their food is "Finger Lickin' Good"

Oh no, sorry, can't say that any more.

[dsr]

First up: I think this song by Thomas Arne is a splendid song, (though obviously the text is "of its time"), and I whilst I have said that there may be reasons that it can't be sung this year, I hope it will be, and expect it to be part of the Proms tradition for years to come.

However, for someone who makes such powerful arguments for the merits of this song and has made such a fuss about it, one might have hoped that at least you would know the words.
You've quoted two lines and got both of them wrong. (I note that dsr also misquoted the 2nd line.)
If it's so important to you and you're going to proudly proclaim it then at least show respect for the author by getting it right:
Rule Britannnia!, Britannia RULE the waves,
Britons never, never, never WILL be slaves.
(Changing "shall" to "will" doesn't really make any difference other than being wrong, but "RULE" the waves as opposed to "rules" has an entirely diffeent nuance.)

I think the will/shall is one of those editorial "either ways". The original song had only one "never", not three, and "will", but it quickly changed to three nevers and (as I believed, perhaps wrongly) "shall".

You're right about "rule" not "rules". That does matter. "Britannia, rule the waves" is an instruction, not a boast. And in both Napoleon's time and Hitler's time, both post-dating the song, it was a very necessary instruction that would have been disastrous (and led to slavery!) if it hadn't been carried out.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

After reading this thread I am so pleased that I only ever had to play the music rather than know the words!
If they want to get rid of jingoistic stuff then they could gie the conductor a free hand. This year we have a Finnish conductor so let her chose to play Finlandia ---that would certainly give some people cause for complaint which seems to be what people desire these days.

[claptrappers_union]

Ohhhh yeahhh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rblh_0d7Qlw

[wilks_bfc]

There may be some good coming for the "banning" of Rule Britannia after all

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/e ... li=BBoPWjQ

[Brunlea]

Some interesting views on this subject and personally I don’t see any harm in people joining in a noisy rendition of a couple of songs that celebrate our rich history.
My point is though that a couple of posters have highlighted perfectly that the media engineer many situations (this being a perfect example) by basically manipulating the news in a way that they know will inflame some sections of the community. News is big business in the UK and worldwide with saturation coverage that needs to be fed so they actually manufacture news. I think since the Leveson enquiry they have suffered by losing a big chunk of their sources both electronic and human this being evidenced by the likes of the DM offering £250 quid for a story. Personally I find the whole media pretty pathetic running a very close second to our politicians.

[nil_desperandum]

[quote=dsr post_id=1351279 time=1598349819 user_id=510

You're right about "rule" not "rules". That does matter. "Britannia, rule the waves" is an instruction, not a boast. And in both Napoleon's time and Hitler's time, both post-dating the song, it was a very necessary instruction that would have been disastrous (and led to slavery!) if it hadn't been carried out.
[/quote]
Well it's either an instruction or an aspiration, and thanks for confirming that this is a relevant point to make. You'll not convince Ringo though, he thinks I'm being pedantic for pointing out the important nuanced difference that adding or subtracting a letter "s" to a verb can make.
(I did incidentally say that the "shall" / "will" wasn't significantly important, but if you're printing it and you're making a point about how important the sung text is, then I think that knowing what the actual words are is somewhat relevant.)

[AndrewJB]

Some interesting views on this subject and personally I don’t see any harm in people joining in a noisy rendition of a couple of songs that celebrate our rich history.
My point is though that a couple of posters have highlighted perfectly that the media engineer many situations (this being a perfect example) by basically manipulating the news in a way that they know will inflame some sections of the community. News is big business in the UK and worldwide with saturation coverage that needs to be fed so they actually manufacture news. I think since the Leveson enquiry they have suffered by losing a big chunk of their sources both electronic and human this being evidenced by the likes of the DM offering £250 quid for a story. Personally I find the whole media pretty pathetic running a very close second to our politicians.

Some great points. And if it needs to be pointed out, it’s always the same section of society that gets inflamed, and rarely with any positive passion. And this is bad, because for every expression of outrage the press provoke, there has to be a guilty party responsible, and they tend to be people who don’t have the wherewithal to fight back.

Such is the power of the outrage button, the media are able to switch the office water cooler conversation from one they find inconvenient (like the PPE procurement corruption) to migrants being driven in air conditioned buses, as happened a few weeks back, when the media decided to focus on Farage’s insane rants (he’d been making these videos all through lockdown, but only got interviewed when the real news demanded a distraction). Never mind the fact the procurement mistakes cost the treasury (and line the pockets of undeserving companies) far more than saving people from drowning in the channel. Press the outrage button, and point at brown people, and the gammonati are off!

Thus these confected distractions show up on here, illustrating that rightwing posters are very much controlled by the media machine they claim they hardly read or listen to.

[dsr]

Well it's either an instruction or an aspiration, and thanks for confirming that this is a relevant point to make. You'll not convince Ringo though, he thinks I'm being pedantic for pointing out the important nuanced difference that adding or subtracting a letter "s" to a verb can make.
(I did incidentally say that the "shall" / "will" wasn't significantly important, but if you're printing it and you're making a point about how important the sung text is, then I think that knowing what the actual words are is somewhat relevant.)

One year BBC subtitles managed to print "Britains never never never ..."

[RingoMcCartney]

There may be some good coming for the "banning" of Rule Britannia after all

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/e ... li=BBoPWjQ

Personally, stopping playing a song, that celebrates the ending of the enslavement of british men , women and children by north African slave traders. Because they want to get the approval of an openly Marxist organisation, openly campaigning to ending capitalism that has taken millions out of poverty, destroying the nuclear family that has the best outcomes for children and defunding the police is anything but "good"

Each to their own .

[wilks_bfc]

Personally, stopping playing a song, that celebrates the ending of the enslavement of british men , women and children by north African slave traders. Because they want to get the approval of an openly Marxist organisation, openly campaigning to ending capitalism that has taken millions out of poverty, destroying the nuclear family that has the best outcomes for children and defunding the police is anything but "good"

Each to their own .

Should I have put a smiley?

My point was about the England “band” possibly having one less song to play and hopefully them ceasing altogether so that we didn’t have to hear them droning throughout the games, rather than the song itself

[kentonclaret]

The media have been manipulating the news ever since the first papers came off the printing press. Often giving their front page to headline stories to inflame public opinion and to give the impression that what has been reported on is a daily occurrence rather than a rarity.

A few examples being

"Toddler savaged by pet dog"

"Pensioner attacked and robbed in own home"

Situations that happen every day don't make the front page of the paper since they would hardly be newsworthy.

[Murger]

Land of Hope and Glory by Dame Vera Lynn up to number 7 in the charts

[RingoMcCartney]

Should I have put a smiley?

My point was about the England “band” possibly having one less song to play and hopefully them ceasing altogether so that we didn’t have to hear them droning throughout the games, rather than the song itself

Fair enough.

Apologies. Sometimes, words written, like texting, dont convey the spirit of humour they were meant to . Again, sorry about that, genuine misunderstanding.

[BenWickes]

I miss the National Anthem at the cinema, especially the verse where we want to chop up those perfidious Scots.

Anything that involves chopping up Scots gets my vote

[Murger]

177A7524-CE59-43F5-BB32-B1ABB833A8FF.png (737.55 KiB) Viewed 2210 times

[nil_desperandum]

One year BBC subtitles managed to print "Britains never never never ..."

I think that in fairness, a lot of subtitling has been done by a computer generated voice recognition package, and so over the years we've had a lot of bizarre subtitles.
Two of my favourites over the years are:
Presumably the leader of the Labour Party, (and not a 1940s Swing ensemble) - the "Ed Miller Band", and the Head the Church of England - "The Arch Bitch of Canterbury".
But the best ever was at the funeral of the Queen Mother, when the subtitles asked us to observe a "Moment's Violence" .
Maybe it's also worth bearing in mind, for all those who despise the BBC, that it is the only broadcasting company in the world that subtitles its entire schedule, thus providing an invaluable service to the hard of hearing.

[dsr]

I think that in fairness, a lot of subtitling has been done by a computer generated voice recognition package, and so over the years we've had a lot of bizarre subtitles.
Two of my favourites over the years are:
Presumably the leader of the Labour Party, (and not a 1940s Swing ensemble) - the "Ed Miller Band", and the Head the Church of England - "The Arch Bitch of Canterbury".
But the best ever was at the funeral of the Queen Mother, when the subtitles asked us to observe a "Moment's Violence" .
Maybe it's also worth bearing in mind, for all those who despise the BBC, that it is the only broadcasting company in the world that subtitles its entire schedule, thus providing an invaluable service to the hard of hearing.

Live subtitling is often wrong - it makes football commentary subtitles a good deal more interesting than the spoken word - but pre-recorded ones, by which I include live singing from pre-recorded scripts, are usually right.

I agree with your comment about subtitles though. My mother is more or less totally deaf so we have subtitles on all the time. Quite handy in quiz shows because you get a second or two longer to think. And once when they did Countdown with live subtitles because for some reason the pre-recorded ones weren't there, it was a bit disastrous. A valiant effort, but a flop.

In this year's FA Cup Final, Abide With Me had 3 verses and quite clearly the pre-typed subtitles only had two. Someone had got a mixed message. So the live subtitler had to fill in the middle verse live, unprepared, and the difference was very easy to see. Live subtitling is, to say the least, a challenge!

[basil6345789]

Boris just been on News - clearly annoyed with and ashamed of The BBC.

[AndrewJB]

Boris just been on News - clearly annoyed with and ashamed of The BBC.

The BBC have done nothing wrong:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/state ... -the-proms

The speculation around the programme didn’t come from the BBC.

Johnson should feel ashamed of himself and his disgraceful government.

[bobinho]

Or they have seen the annoyance/backlash and are now back-pedalling?

1 person singing or 1000.... it’s irrelevant. They’ve tried to be a bit sneaky and it’s failed.

BBC are an utter disgrace, less and less relevant as the years go by. Shame.... once trusted totally and now just there to be laughed at.

[AndrewJB]

Or they have seen the annoyance/backlash and are now back-pedalling?

1 person singing or 1000.... it’s irrelevant. They’ve tried to be a bit sneaky and it’s failed.

BBC are an utter disgrace, less and less relevant as the years go by. Shame.... once trusted totally and now just there to be laughed at.

You could of course just show me the announcement by the BBC that they were no longer playing those pieces of music, and then we could agree they’ve back-pedalled. Without that you have nothing to base your assumptions on other than blind hatred.

I find the dislike of the BBC by conservative people quite odd. It’s a lot more British than SKY (and costs far less). It’s the only wholly British owned major media organisation in the world, and gives Britain a huge voice on the international stage, where it is highly respected. What kind of pride are people showing toward our country by attacking such a British institution?

I know it’s fashionable among conservatives to sell off anything they can to foreign people (which is hardly in keeping with “conserving”), but getting rid of the BBC would just be a huge blow to British culture, and only benefit foreign cultural industries. In a world full of mostly poor quality commercial media, do we really need another? It would make our television and radio blander than even now.

The current rightwing cancel culture of “defund the BBC” is really an attack on our country, history, and culture - which the BBC embodies. At best probably just foreign interference that the people will utterly reject, but at worst it’s British citizens who look to their own self interest before that of the country. For further reading look up “brexiters” and “people who want to privatise the NHS”

[Damo]

Screenshot_20200825-211543_Twitter.jpg (713.54 KiB) Viewed 2082 times

Most of the country are ashamed of the BBC and the permanently offended wokies

[GodIsADeeJay81]

You could of course just show me the announcement by the BBC that they were no longer playing those pieces of music, and then we could agree they’ve back-pedalled. Without that you have nothing to base your assumptions on other than blind hatred.

I find the dislike of the BBC by conservative people quite odd. It’s a lot more British than SKY (and costs far less). It’s the only wholly British owned major media organisation in the world, and gives Britain a huge voice on the international stage, where it is highly respected. What kind of pride are people showing toward our country by attacking such a British institution?

I know it’s fashionable among conservatives to sell off anything they can to foreign people (which is hardly in keeping with “conserving”), but getting rid of the BBC would just be a huge blow to British culture, and only benefit foreign cultural industries. In a world full of mostly poor quality commercial media, do we really need another? It would make our television and radio blander than even now.

The current rightwing cancel culture of “defund the BBC” is really an attack on our country, history, and culture - which the BBC embodies. At best probably just foreign interference that the people will utterly reject, but at worst it’s British citizens who look to their own self interest before that of the country. For further reading look up “brexiters” and “people who want to privatise the NHS”

I have a choice about whether or not I want to pay for Sky, I don't have the same choice about the TV licence which helps fund the BBC, hope that helps.

As for the comment about the NHS, I'm not sure what the relevance is.

[Rileybobs]

Screenshot_20200825-211543_Twitter.jpg

Most of the country are ashamed of the BBC and the permanently offended wokies

Is buying a copy of Land of Hope and Glory in this context not classed as virtue signalling?

[LeadBelly]

I think that in fairness, a lot of subtitling has been done by a computer generated voice recognition package, and so over the years we've had a lot of bizarre subtitles.
Two of my favourites over the years are:
Presumably the leader of the Labour Party, (and not a 1940s Swing ensemble) - the "Ed Miller Band", and the Head the Church of England - "The Arch Bitch of Canterbury".
But the best ever was at the funeral of the Queen Mother, when the subtitles asked us to observe a "Moment's Violence" .
Maybe it's also worth bearing in mind, for all those who despise the BBC, that it is the only broadcasting company in the world that subtitles its entire schedule, thus providing an invaluable service to the hard of hearing.

I'm hard of hearing and use subtitles wherever possible (rather than annoy my neighbours or afix headphnes with a long lead). It can be quite hilarious trying to decipher what was actually said from some of the generated output. It's especially funny on the cricket where the "translator" has great difficulty with things such as "nurdled down to fine leg" or "slashed through the covers".
The one (not cricket) instant that made me really guffaw was in a news show where an expert was wheeled in on camera to give a view on something and the lady presenter evidently signed him off with "Thank you vagina". Obviously it's a nice sentiment but I guessed it was "thank you for joining us".

[martin_p]

It’s a Times journalist that started this isn’t it?

[nil_desperandum]

Or they have seen the annoyance/backlash and are now back-pedalling?

1 person singing or 1000.... it’s irrelevant. They’ve tried to be a bit sneaky and it’s failed.

BBC are an utter disgrace, less and less relevant as the years go by. Shame.... once trusted totally and now just there to be laughed at.

You've absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever.
Quite correctly it's a music "committee" who draw up the annual programme of Proms concerts in collaboration with conductors / artists, taking into account the specific events / anniversaries of each particular year - not the BBC. This year has obviously been particularly challenging.
It would be correct to say that the executive at the BBC COULD then exercise some "editorial" control, but this would be extremely unusual.
For well over 30 years now there has been "chattering" from some quarters about the Last Night programme, and I have no doubt that many conductors / musicians will have proposed changes, but the BBC will have exercised their editorial control to ensure that generally they have been performed, (As much on commercial grounds as anything else I suspect).
It was a very big issue at the time of the Gulf War (1990) and the BBC went so far as to replace the highly esteemed conductor because he questioned the appropriateness of their inclusion, and then from 2000 - 2004 when the American Leonard Slatkin was chief conductor Rule Britannia was omitted, (though included as part of the "Sea Songs Suite")
Within this period, in 2001, in light of 9 / 11 it was decided that none of the patriotic songs should be included in the programme. This year again throws up a different challenge.
Critics of the BBC may choose to level all sorts of criticism at the BBC, but one thing that the BBC is outstanding at is marking Royal occasions and patriotic events, and its choice of music is always superbly judged. I have absolutely no doubt that the BBC has come under quite a bit of pressure over the past 40 years or so to drop the "patriotic finale" to the Proms, but since the mid-1950s, (when Sir Malcolm Sargent had the idea of a "flag waving patriotic finale") there have only been those 5 years at the beginning of this Millennium that we have not had the full programme of "patriotic" songs. (Presumably because the BBC have said that they are "non-negotiable"
It's ironic really that Johnson should fail to comment on so many really important things recently, but chooses to comment on this.
Organisers of the Proms have had to cancel their entire planned season in order to comply with the guidelines / laws set by Johnson and Cummings.
They could so easily have scrapped the entire season, but they've managed to put on a full season of online and archived performances, and are now doing a fortnight of behind closed doors live concerts, no doubt at great expense and with no paying customers. Keeping within Johnson's rules it is impossible to have the banners and flag waving at the "Last Night", and singing is currently forbidden, (by Johnson's decree) except by small groups distanced at 3 metres.
This clearly means that there can't be the usual finale, indeed to try to perform such stirring music with a small group of singers and reduced orchestra in that vast auditorium might even come across as half-hearted or a bit pathetic.
The BBC has resisted moves to cut these songs for the past 4 decades, and if the BBC orchestras actually survive both Covid and the impending huge cuts at the corporation, (which I doubt) then I've no doubt that they will remain part of the programme for years to come.
Perilous times for the BBC orchestras, all their employees and indeed the Proms.

[TheFamilyCat]

No, it was definitely the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation who 100% decided that they were going to cut the songs. Then backtracked.

[Devils_Advocate]

Its striking that some of the people on here are the first to scoff at the accusation their thinking is influenced by the lies and propaganda of the right wing media and yet here they are quite clearly being played like the proverbial fiddle and looking ever so foolish and gullible at the same time

[Devils_Advocate]

If this thread gets past 5 pages I might start a list (Heathclaret can show it to his friend)

[bobinho]

You could of course just show me the announcement by the BBC that they were no longer playing those pieces of music, and then we could agree they’ve back-pedalled. Without that you have nothing to base your assumptions on other than blind hatred.

I find the dislike of the BBC by conservative people quite odd. It’s a lot more British than SKY (and costs far less). It’s the only wholly British owned major media organisation in the world, and gives Britain a huge voice on the international stage, where it is highly respected. What kind of pride are people showing toward our country by attacking such a British institution?

I know it’s fashionable among conservatives to sell off anything they can to foreign people (which is hardly in keeping with “conserving”), but getting rid of the BBC would just be a huge blow to British culture, and only benefit foreign cultural industries. In a world full of mostly poor quality commercial media, do we really need another? It would make our television and radio blander than even now.

The current rightwing cancel culture of “defund the BBC” is really an attack on our country, history, and culture - which the BBC embodies. At best probably just foreign interference that the people will utterly reject, but at worst it’s British citizens who look to their own self interest before that of the country. For further reading look up “brexiters” and “people who want to privatise the NHS”

Yet another party political broadcast by the absolutely out of touch “my-politics-have-been spectacularly-rejected-at-the-ballot-box-but-I-can’t-accept-it-and-still-think-Britain-needs-Tony Benn” party.

Bore off.... it’s extremely biased towards anything left of centre so hardly surprising you’re supporting it so vehemently.

It’s become so predictable.... constantly telling us all its neutrality is what makes it so trustworthy has become soooo tiresome. No one believes it anymore, unless you are the same side of the political divide as the corporation. You clearly are.

Attacking the bbc is like attacking our country and it’s history? Wake up to yourself... it’s the crazy minded un-silent minority that want to attack our history by rewriting it, abolishing it, ignoring it and generally abusing it.

Shame on them.

[TheFamilyCat]

Its striking that some of the people on here are the first to scoff at the accusation their thinking is influenced by the lies and propaganda of the right wing media and yet here they are quite clearly being played like the proverbial fiddle and looking ever so foolish and gullible at the same time

So so typical of the politically correct woke, biased broadcasting corporation

Threatening to erase part of British heritage, tradition and culture.

And doing it when the Albert Hall will be empty. Doing it when there will be no ticket buying audience who could simply decide not to buy a ticket when they find out the proms are going down the PC toilet. No audience to stand up and walk out in a display of what the silent majority think.

No doubt there'll be lots of patting each other on the back at middle class dinner parties in putney, Islington and Chiswick or any other places where they believe they're morally superior to those who still pay the TV poll tax , otherwise known as the Licence Fee.

Tony Hall director general of the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation ( salary £400,000 per year) is off to the Edinburgh to tell his gushing lefty audience that the BBC is the voice of Britain!!

By the age 40, if you still believe what the newspapers say, you have no brain.

[AndrewJB]

I have a choice about whether or not I want to pay for Sky, I don't have the same choice about the TV licence which helps fund the BBC, hope that helps.

As for the comment about the NHS, I'm not sure what the relevance is.

Actually you don’t have a choice. Every time you buy products that are advertised on SKY, you’re funding them whether or not you want to. Upwards of 20% of the cost of a product pays for marketing.

By comparison the license fee is a lot more honest, gives you a wider choice of content for a lot less, and even if you hate everything on the BBC (I don’t know anyone in that category), you can think of it as chipping into an organisation you part own.

[martin_p]

So where does the lyrics "Britons never never never shall be slaves, come from?

"Between the 16th and 18th centuries, pirates operating out of north Africa enslaved thousands of men, women and children from the British Isles. 

"The famous lines from the song ‘Rule Britannia’ proudly proclaim that “Britannia rules the waves. Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.” Dating from the 1740s, ‘Rule Britannia’ expressed Britons’ pride in the Royal Navy and not only, its role in cementing Britain’s position as an imperial superpower, but ensuring that Britain was militarily strong enough to prevent Britons being taken from the British isles and used as slaves.

Between the beginning of the 16th century and the end of the 18th, thousands of Britons were slaves, seized by Barbary corsairs, those infamous privateers and pirates that operated out of north Africa. These men, women and children endured miserable conditions – invariably with little prospect of ever seeing their homes again. The Royal Navy’s inability to protect British citizens indicates its weakness at the time.

The Barbary corsair enterprise, which included not only taking European ships, goods and captives at sea but also raiding coastal settlements, was far larger than many people imagine. Estimates are that, across three centuries, corsairs operating out of Barbary coast ports (in north Africa) captured and enslaved more than a million Europeans. 

Armed with their new technology and maritime know-how, the corsairs burst out of the Mediterranean and began raiding the British Isles coast – often led by the British renegades. By the 1620s and 1630s, fleets of corsairs were taking local fishermen from their boats and attacking the coasts of Devon and Cornwall. In 1631 – in arguably their most infamous raid – they sacked the Irish town of Baltimore and abducted more than 100 men, women and children.

during the second half of the 17th century the Royal Navy was transformed into a formidable weapon of war – growing in size, becoming increasingly professional and now bristling with cutting-edge maritime technology. By the end of the century, it was more than capable of dealing effectively with the corsairs. 

In 1665, a British naval force set fire to the corsair fleet in the harbour at Tunis and then attacked Algiers and liberated British captives there. In 1671, a British force burned the Algerian fleet anchored at Bougie, and in 1676 another destroyed the corsair fleet in the harbour at Tripoli.

Eventually, the various Barbary States were compelled to sign nonaggression treaties, enforceable now thanks to a strong British naval presence. The Barbary corsairs were not entirely eliminated until the 19th century, but by the middle of the 18th century, when ‘Rule Britannia’ was thrilling British audiences, the threat they posed to Britain was all but over. Britons could at last really feel that they never again would be slaves."

Ironic that you got this piece of history from a BBC History Magazine article. You’d never have known about it if it hadn’t been for Aunty Beeb.

However, the article that is reproduced here https://www.historyextra.com/period/st ... in-africa/ isn’t exactly the same as what you’ve posted. Significantly the lines that specifically link ‘Rule Britannia’ to Britons being taken slaves by Barbary corsairs has been added by you or the right wing website you slavishly (pun intended) believe and copied off. It gives the article a meaning the original never had. Rule Britannia is about growing British naval power and nothing to do with Barbary corsairs. To use one of your idols quotes ‘Fake News!’

[martin_p]

Actually you don’t have a choice. Every time you buy products that are advertised on SKY, you’re funding them whether or not you want to. Upwards of 20% of the cost of a product pays for marketing.

By comparison the license fee is a lot more honest, gives you a wider choice of content for a lot less, and even if you hate everything on the BBC (I don’t know anyone in that category), you can think of it as chipping into an organisation you part own.

I can never understand why people don’t get this. How do they think ITV is funded for example.

[Damo]

Is buying a copy of Land of Hope and Glory in this context not classed as virtue signalling?

Probably not if you understand what virtue signalling means.
Personally I'd say its a token gesture by a large group of people to troll the small minority of folk who feel ashamed to wake up English every day.
Similar to the referendum result and the last general election

[martin_p]

Probably not if you understand what virtue signalling means.
Personally I'd say its a token gesture by a large group of people to troll the small minority of folk who feel ashamed to wake up English every day.
Similar to the referendum result and the last general election

Damo has inadvertently hit the nail on the head. There’s enough cringingly embarrassing about how the country is being run in 2020 to be bothering about a song with 300 year old lyrics.

[ClaretMoffitt]

ffs, now all the racists have sent this racist song to no1 in the itunes chart.

literally ashamed to be British right now