Last night of the Proms

[dsr]

That’s what living in a modern country is like. I know a lot of people who pay tax and don’t drive. Should their share of taxes that funds roads be refunded? I’m not a fan of Trident, so can I have that back?

Just as we all benefit from roads, whether we have a car or not, we all benefit from the BBC whether we directly use it or not. It expresses Britain’s soft power on the world stage, and is a major player in our domestic economy.

Poor example, I think. People who use the roads pay more tax than is spent on roads. I suppose the BBC could be funded the same way - it comes out of general taxes, but people who use it a lot pay four times as much in tax as it actually costs.

[KateR]

I find myself liking and agreeing with the very people who I disagree with mostly, quite a strange set of circumstances, like everything the BBC is not perfect and can be improved but it is good, I certainly watch it and it is better than most USA programs but that maybe because I am a Brit sat in the US and it is the same with humour, I find 90%+ American humour is not funny.

However taxes etc I pay I pay school fees of which I have no children going to, it's a swings and roundabout thing for me and people moaning about the BBC fee are in my opinion miserly and it does get shared out. However, to contradict this statement I am absolutely opposed to those over a certain age having to pay the fee.

If you really really don't want to pay, surely you can get rid of your TV's, put a screen in, buy a projector/large monitor and pay what you want through apps and watch to your hearts content.

My argument with the proms/songs was I object to groups trying to change/alter anything that really is not the problem they latch on to that spoil it for others, this works all around and not just this instance. I would have had a lot more respect for the conductor had she stood up and said, this is my dream "gig" however, I can not in all consciousness do this and therefore I decline If the Times and following media had been around this and the BBC looking it to it I would have applauded it. Yet whingers that have no courage of their convictions, then I am sorry, but I don't have a lot of time for them.

I know many wont agree and will trot out some counter arguments, all well and good but I ma speaking just about this instance and this thread subject.

[Damo]

Yep, you did say composer, which is an entirely different thing, and that's why I questioned it, since as I said this story was the "work" of Richard Morison in The Times. He referenced the young European conductor, who had raised legitimate issues about the format of this unique - "behind closed doors" concert.
Unlike you, I'm prepared to hold my hand up and admit to making an error. I didn't check her background as I thought I knew it. For some reason I thought she was Ukrainian / Icelandic, but as it turns out (on checking) she was born in Kiev, (which is why I described her as Ukrainian), but is married to the great-grandson of the great Finnish composer - Jan Sibelius, is now a citizen of Finland, and holds a major conducting post there.
The important point I was making though is that she is young, (just 33), not British, and engaged as a Guest conductor for the Last Night. It is not unreasonable to expect her to question the musical programming, (especially in light of the social distancing / no audience etc), nor is it any surprise that the BBC are not for changing, and are sticking pretty closely to the usual format - even though the number of performers is limited, (particularly the absence of a choir).

I'm always happy to hold my hand when I'm wrong pal. I've apologised multiple times on here previously.
In this instance I'm sorry for lowering myself by being as pedantic as some people.
I'm not a big fan of classical music as previously stated, and I've had a manic day at work whilst replying to you

[GodIsADeeJay81]

You might want to try engaging with the points I’m making, if you’re able.

I've engaged with every point made on here and all you lot keep doing is switching tack to something else.

Advertising revenue, NHS, Car insurance and now pensioners.

Still there has yet to be a valid reason why the licence fee should be compulsory

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I find myself liking and agreeing with the very people who I disagree with mostly, quite a strange set of circumstances, like everything the BBC is not perfect and can be improved but it is good, I certainly watch it and it is better than most USA programs but that maybe because I am a Brit sat in the US and it is the same with humour, I find 90%+ American humour is not funny.

However taxes etc I pay I pay school fees of which I have no children going to, it's a swings and roundabout thing for me and people moaning about the BBC fee are in my opinion miserly and it does get shared out. However, to contradict this statement I am absolutely opposed to those over a certain age having to pay the fee.

If you really really don't want to pay, surely you can get rid of your TV's, put a screen in, buy a projector/large monitor and pay what you want through apps and watch to your hearts content.

My argument with the proms/songs was I object to groups trying to change/alter anything that really is not the problem they latch on to that spoil it for others, this works all around and not just this instance. I would have had a lot more respect for the conductor had she stood up and said, this is my dream "gig" however, I can not in all consciousness do this and therefore I decline If the Times and following media had been around this and the BBC looking it to it I would have applauded it. Yet whingers that have no courage of their convictions, then I am sorry, but I don't have a lot of time for them.

I know many wont agree and will trot out some counter arguments, all well and good but I ma speaking just about this instance and this thread subject.

You're meant to declare if you've got a licence for anything that can be used to watch live TV or iplayer on.
It's not as simple as just getting rid of a TV, you'd need to get rid of mobiles, tablets, computers and game consoles.
Or just put up with someone sending letters, which become ever more threatening and when they knock on the door prove you don't watch live TV.

If they don't believe you then it's either pay up or worst case end up in court...

[Damo]

I find myself liking and agreeing with the very people who I disagree with mostly, quite a strange set of circumstances, like everything the BBC is not perfect and can be improved but it is good, I certainly watch it and it is better than most USA programs but that maybe because I am a Brit sat in the US and it is the same with humour, I find 90%+ American humour is not funny.

However taxes etc I pay I pay school fees of which I have no children going to, it's a swings and roundabout thing for me and people moaning about the BBC fee are in my opinion miserly and it does get shared out. However, to contradict this statement I am absolutely opposed to those over a certain age having to pay the fee.

If you really really don't want to pay, surely you can get rid of your TV's, put a screen in, buy a projector/large monitor and pay what you want through apps and watch to your hearts content.

My argument with the proms/songs was I object to groups trying to change/alter anything that really is not the problem they latch on to that spoil it for others, this works all around and not just this instance. I would have had a lot more respect for the conductor had she stood up and said, this is my dream "gig" however, I can not in all consciousness do this and therefore I decline If the Times and following media had been around this and the BBC looking it to it I would have applauded it. Yet whingers that have no courage of their convictions, then I am sorry, but I don't have a lot of time for them.

I know many wont agree and will trot out some counter arguments, all well and good but I ma speaking just about this instance and this thread subject.

Its great that you hold that view, whilst living in the USA and getting to enjoy the BBC,s output for free.
Would love to see your views if you wanted to watch CNN while being forced to pay Fox for the privilege. With jail being the deterrent

[Rileybobs]

I've engaged with every point made on here and all you lot keep doing is switching tack to something else.

Advertising revenue, NHS, Car insurance and now pensioners.

Still there has yet to be a valid reason why the licence fee should be compulsory

I don’t know why you keep mentioning my example of car insurance. Another poster said that he could turn on his tv and watch the BBC without paying - as if this somehow meant that he shouldn’t pay. I used an example of how I can get into my car and drive it without insurance which is also obviously wrong and a criminal offence.

You can see that I’ve debated the merits of the tv license and also the possible flaws in how the fee is charged. Other posters also have, and used valid examples of other ‘taxes’ that we may pay disproportionately. You’re the one failing to engage.

[martin_p]

I've engaged with every point made on here and all you lot keep doing is switching tack to something else.

Advertising revenue, NHS, Car insurance and now pensioners.

Still there has yet to be a valid reason why the licence fee should be compulsory

Because it’s public service broadcasting offering a unique service that millions of people love and the licence fee keeps the cost down for everyone. If the licence fee goes we lose a British institution that represents Britain across the world.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I don’t know why you keep mentioning my example of car insurance. Another poster said that he could turn on his tv and watch the BBC without paying - as if this somehow meant that he shouldn’t pay. I used an example of how I can get into my car and drive it without insurance which is also obviously wrong and a criminal offence.

You can see that I’ve debated the merits of the tv license and also the possible flaws in how the fee is charged. Other posters also have, and used valid examples of other ‘taxes’ that we may pay disproportionately. You’re the one failing to engage.

I've engaged plenty thanks.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Because it’s public service broadcasting offering a unique service that millions of people love and the licence fee keeps the cost down for everyone. If the licence fee goes we lose a British institution that represents Britain across the world.

So out of interest, why is the BBC trying to have its cake and eat it with the licence fee?
They know they've got a product that people want, so why don't they make it all subscription?

Why have they only made their back catalogue available through subscription?
https://www.britbox.co.uk/

They're getting a licence fee that's compulsory and then they've got the nerve to charge people on top of that for their other products, in partnership with ITV, Channel 4 & 5..

[martin_p]

So out of interest, why is the BBC trying to have its cake and eat it with the licence fee?
They know they've got a product that people want, so why don't they make it all subscription?

Why have they only made their back catalogue available through subscription?
https://www.britbox.co.uk/

They're getting a licence fee that's compulsory and then they've got the nerve to charge people on top of that for their other products, in partnership with ITV, Channel 4 & 5..

Were you against the BBC selling their programs on VHS, DVD and Blu-Ray (or even record and tape going back further)? It’s been happening pretty much as long as it’s been possible, it’s just the format that has changed. Besides, allowing the BBC to supplement its income through selling its content to those that want it keeps the licence fee down for us all.

I’ve already explained why the BBC couldn’t move to a subscription model, unless there was 100% uptake then cost would go up and the quality reduce which in turn would lead to less subscribers.

[RingoMcCartney]

You've got to take yourself really seriously if you don't find the irony that you copy and pasted a BBC article whilst complaining how useless the BBC was amusing.

You must have better things to do than , rather than whine about my "right wing" sources , then claim hypocrisy for using left wing sources, instead, at least try to deny the actual point I was making. Which was that Rule Brittania is celebrating the ending of 200 years of men, women and children from Britain being stolen and thrown into slavery. Then again, you haven't got a leg to stand on. It's a fact. Whine on.

[martin_p]

You must have better things to do than , rather than whine about my "right wing" sources , then claim hypocrisy for using left wing sources, instead, at least try to deny the actual point I was making. Which was that Rule Brittania is celebrating the ending of 200 years of men, women and children from Britain being stolen and thrown into slavery. Then again, you haven't got a leg to stand on. It's a fact. Whine on.

It’s not a fact at all, your evidence is made up. And what exactly is left wing about the BBC History magazine? Have you read it?

You still won’t provide your source for the altered quote you reproduced I see.

[KateR]

Its great that you hold that view, whilst living in the USA and getting to enjoy the BBC,s output for free.
Would love to see your views if you wanted to watch CNN while being forced to pay Fox for the privilege. With jail being the deterrent

There are loads of BBC programs on Netflix & Amazon in the US which is paid for by them who in turn I pay them for, most if not all, are very old although did watch a couple of seasons of something that was 2018. This is not just US had the same in the Philippines and I think is same worldwide, except of course UK.

BBC World, is a news program that is free to the world I think yet I have never seen it in the UK, different news from normal BBC International and of course we don't get local BBC news

I pay comcast for the privilege of all the other channels I have in the minimum bundle, some 300 in a bundle and I have no option but to take the minimum, don't think I have watched CNN or Fox but maybe twice in the last 7 years yet I pay for them along with a few other hundred channels I/we never watch. Not sure how you think TV works in the US but it is not that simple as you seem to think in picking and choosing odd channels.

PBS is a free station offering a channel for donations that occasionally has very old BBC programs

I also have the pleasure of paying BBC in the UK for something I don't watch but it goes to a family home of which I have spent one week in this year, I don't pay for the home though.

Finally we lived/worked in the UK from July 2014 until Sept 2019 and paid for a TV license with no complaints (while still paying for comcast in Houston at the same time) so I think I am entitled to hold an opinion.

[RingoMcCartney]

Were you against the BBC selling their programs on VHS, DVD and Blu-Ray (or even record and tape going back further)? It’s been happening pretty much as long as it’s been possible, it’s just the format that has changed. Besides, allowing the BBC to supplement its income through selling its content to those that want it keeps the licence fee down for us all.

I’ve already explained why the BBC couldn’t move to a subscription model, unless there was 100% uptake then cost would go up and the quality reduce which in turn would lead to less subscribers.

Marty. Go and get yourself a couple of overpriced Hobnobs , a glass of milk and get yourself tucked up all snugly?

Do you a world of good.

[KateR]

You're meant to declare if you've got a licence for anything that can be used to watch live TV or iplayer on.
It's not as simple as just getting rid of a TV, you'd need to get rid of mobiles, tablets, computers and game consoles.
Or just put up with someone sending letters, which become ever more threatening and when they knock on the door prove you don't watch live TV.

If they don't believe you then it's either pay up or worst case end up in court...

I certainly wasn't aware of that and believed, seems wrongly, that having Iplayer you needed some form of login so they knew you were watching, I know we can not get Iplayer material here or other countries we have lived and I thought that you could opt out of the TV licence if you advised them of no TV or connection to terrestrial TV channels but you could watch paid platforms, Sky/Amazon etc.

How does this work for the millions of tourist each year who arrive with cell phones/tablets/laptops and computers and never pay for a TV license, just curious.

Do I need a TV Licence to watch subscription services like Netflix, Amazon or Now TV?
You don’t need a TV Licence if you only ever use these services to watch on demand or catch up programmes except if you’re watching BBC programmes on iPlayer.

Remember, if you watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel or TV service, or download or watch any BBC programmes on iPlayer, you need to be covered by a TV Licence.

Live TV means any programme you watch or record as it’s being shown on TV or live on an online TV service. It’s not just live events like sport, news and music. It also covers soaps, series, documentaries and even movies.

Pay for a TV Licence

Or let us know you don't need a TV Licence.

Find out more about when you need a TV Licence.

[martin_p]

Marty. Go and get yourself a couple of overpriced Hobnobs , a glass of milk and get yourself tucked up all snugly?

Do you a world of good.

Ah, you’ve been rumbled and you don’t like it, diddums!

Maybe you should start questioning some of the rubbish your internet sites are feeding you, do you a world of good.

[RingoMcCartney]

Ah, you’ve been rumbled and you don’t like it, diddums!

Maybe you should start questioning some of the rubbish your internet sites are feeding you, do you a world of good.

Raw nerve 2.0

[AndrewJB]

And the problem with any of that history is? Why shouldn’t people be compensated when the Government takes their assets?

I think the problem is that people should never have been assets in the first place.

[martin_p]

Raw nerve 2.0

Yep, I hit one bang on didn’t I. Caught you lying again (or at least repeating a lie fed to you that you don’t check out because it suits your narrative. You really need to get better at this Wrongo

[RingoMcCartney]

Yep, I hit one bang on didn’t I. Caught you lying again (or at least repeating a lie fed to you that you don’t check out because it suits your narrative. You really need to get better at this Wrongo

Sounds like its overpriced Hobnobs , milk and comfort blanket for you Marty.

Dont let 'em bite soldier.

[martin_p]

Sounds like its overpriced Hobnobs , milk and comfort blanket for you Marty.

Dont let 'em bite soldier.

The comfort of outing you as a liar (again) is enough for me Wrongo

Any luck with that link for your altered article yet by the way? Or did you think the whole ruse up yourself? I’ll be impressed if you did!

[Burnley Ace]

I think the problem is that people should never have been assets in the first place.

But they were and had (have even) been for thousands of years. That is why, 250 years ago, people were compensated and the legislation was passed.

[Devils_Advocate]

Can anybody on here spot themselves?

https://twitter.com/i/status/1299003311048339458

[TheFamilyCat]

Land of Open Glory. It's a songs about Nick Faldo winning at golf isn't it?

[AndrewJB]

So to recap: A person at the Times writes a story in which a conductor wonders aloud about the appropriateness of some pieces of music, and the Gammonati are triggered. “Woke Lefties” are to blame! When the BBC - in order to diffuse the issue - publishes the playlist, showing no songs have been left out, the Gammonati fall upon the fact that songs will be played without being sung, which is in keeping with the governments own Covid guidelines, but the BBC is blamed anyway, because it always is by these people (who wouldn’t deface British history by pulling down a statue - though urinating on a memorial is okay, if you really have to go - but they’re always willing to pull down a solid British cultural institution like the BBC). Our part time PM, who has remained silent through procurement corruption, senior public servants taking the fall for ministers, and the A Levels scandal on which his government has done a costly late u-turn; makes a public statement in which he lazily says he’s ashamed of the BBC, and people who are “wet” - although he hasn’t changed government Covid policy on which the BBC decision was made.

In the interest of balance, is there anything positive Johnson or his government has done recently?

[TheFamilyCat]

So to recap: A person at the Times writes a story in which a conductor wonders aloud about the appropriateness of some pieces of music, and the Gammonati are triggered. “Woke Lefties” are to blame! When the BBC - in order to diffuse the issue - publishes the playlist, showing no songs have been left out, the Gammonati fall upon the fact that songs will be played without being sung, which is in keeping with the governments own Covid guidelines, but the BBC is blamed anyway, because it always is by these people (who wouldn’t deface British history by pulling down a statue - though urinating on a memorial is okay, if you really have to go - but they’re always willing to pull down a solid British cultural institution like the BBC). Our part time PM, who has remained silent through procurement corruption, senior public servants taking the fall for ministers, and the A Levels scandal on which his government has done a costly late u-turn; makes a public statement in which he lazily says he’s ashamed of the BBC, and people who are “wet” - although he hasn’t changed government Covid policy on which the BBC decision was made.

In the interest of balance, is there anything positive Johnson or his government has done recently?

I'll be honest I've not followed this too closely (as there wasn't much to follow) but has anyone from the BBC called Johnson out on his rant at them?

The PM shouldn't be allowed to get away with publicly spouting the same ill-informed claptrap that's been posted on this thread.

[dsr]

So to recap: A person at the Times writes a story in which a conductor wonders aloud about the appropriateness of some pieces of music, and the Gammonati are triggered. “Woke Lefties” are to blame! When the BBC - in order to diffuse the issue - publishes the playlist, showing no songs have been left out, the Gammonati fall upon the fact that songs will be played without being sung, which is in keeping with the governments own Covid guidelines, but the BBC is blamed anyway, because it always is by these people (who wouldn’t deface British history by pulling down a statue - though urinating on a memorial is okay, if you really have to go - but they’re always willing to pull down a solid British cultural institution like the BBC). Our part time PM, who has remained silent through procurement corruption, senior public servants taking the fall for ministers, and the A Levels scandal on which his government has done a costly late u-turn; makes a public statement in which he lazily says he’s ashamed of the BBC, and people who are “wet” - although he hasn’t changed government Covid policy on which the BBC decision was made.

In the interest of balance, is there anything positive Johnson or his government has done recently?

I like the irony of using the insult "gammon" on a diatribe complaining about race and Empire. Just shows that even the self-proclaimed best of us are vulnerable to a bit of casual racism.

[ClaretAndJew]

I like the irony of using the insult "gammon" on a diatribe complaining about race and Empire. Just shows that even the self-proclaimed best of us are vulnerable to a bit of casual racism.

Ah yes, that old, deeply ingrained racist word "gammon".

[AndrewJB]

I'll be honest I've not followed this too closely (as there wasn't much to follow) but has anyone from the BBC called Johnson out on his rant at them?

The PM shouldn't be allowed to get away with publicly spouting the same ill-informed claptrap that's been posted on this thread.

Can you imagine the outrage if they did? The Mail and, well, all of them would be all over it: “BBC in breach of charter over political attack on poor Boris...” And the story would move seamlessly from a Johnson hit job answered, to the BBC being out of control politically, like an axe murderer loose in a shopping centre. Someone with a double barrelled name would write a stern editorial saying: “this time they’ve gone too far!” And he’d call it the “biggest constitutional crisis since remainers took over parliament and nearly stopped Brexit.” You saw what they did to those judges - tried to cancel them when they were just doing their jobs. And you can just imagine what this place would turn into. Already they seem to have forgotten that the first B stands for British, and the BBC is a war veteran, having served on every front.

So I think it’s better if the BBC just let the matter fade.

[AndrewJB]

I like the irony of using the insult "gammon" on a diatribe complaining about race and Empire. Just shows that even the self-proclaimed best of us are vulnerable to a bit of casual racism.

My diatribe didn’t complain about race or empire. And when I, a middle aged white man, use the word Gammonati, it is shorn of racial context.

I thought you someone might take up the challenge and put forward some positives for the government, but i suppose that might be too much to ask, even for the most dedicated of Johnson’s faithful believers.

[dsr]

My diatribe didn’t complain about race or empire. And when I, a middle aged white man, use the word Gammonati, it is shorn of racial context.

I thought you someone might take up the challenge and put forward some positives for the government, but i suppose that might be too much to ask, even for the most dedicated of Johnson’s faithful believers.

So what you're saying is that insults based on skin colour are acceptable if the person making the insult is of the same skin colour? I'm still surprised. I would have thought such a committed anti-racist as yourself would have avoided all skin colour insults, not just some of them.

But if you really want an answer about positive things the government have done, they have announced the abolition of PHE and sacked the head of the semi-autonomous body Ofqual, both of which are positive steps. I don't think it was ever the right thing to allow PHE and Ofqual to act independently of their ministries, but given that they were allowed to act independently, it would be nonsense to say everything they do is the fault of the minister to whom they don't report.

Incidentally, I'm not sure you're right that the BBC is following government guidelines about singing at the Proms when they choose not to sing Rule Britannia but they decide they will sing Jerusalem. Are you sure that the rules are quite so specific? I think if you look more closely you'll find that they could have chosen to sing both songs if they had wanted to.

[aggi]

So what you're saying is that insults based on skin colour are acceptable if the person making the insult is of the same skin colour? I'm still surprised. I would have thought such a committed anti-racist as yourself would have avoided all skin colour insults, not just some of them.

But if you really want an answer about positive things the government have done, they have announced the abolition of PHE and sacked the head of the semi-autonomous body Ofqual, both of which are positive steps. I don't think it was ever the right thing to allow PHE and Ofqual to act independently of their ministries, but given that they were allowed to act independently, it would be nonsense to say everything they do is the fault of the minister to whom they don't report.

Incidentally, I'm not sure you're right that the BBC is following government guidelines about singing at the Proms when they choose not to sing Rule Britannia but they decide they will sing Jerusalem. Are you sure that the rules are quite so specific? I think if you look more closely you'll find that they could have chosen to sing both songs if they had wanted to.

I'm pretty sure PHE didn't operate independently of the ministry. They may act somewhat autonomously but their targets are set by the Department of Health and they are accountable to the minister in charge. They're not off happily doing their own thing with no direction or oversight.

Is it just those two bodies you have issues with or would you like the many other agencies (DVLA or Prison Service for instance) to be scrapped?

[AndrewJB]

https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2020/0 ... t.html?m=1

https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2020/0 ... l.html?m=1

The first link explores the way Dan Wooten from the Sun is trying to stir things up, and twisting the truth to do so. The conductor has since had threats to herself and her family, despite having nothing to do with the choice of music for the programme. Let’s not forget this started off with the suggestion that the BBC might leave the songs off this year, when they obviously haven’t.

The second link illustrates the depths the Mail is willing to sink, to push their anti BBC agenda.

Few people reading Leeming’s article over breakfast would know that what she wrote was edited to no longer resemble the original, nor that quotes were ascribed to her that came from other people.

[martin_p]

Ah yes, that old, deeply ingrained racist word "gammon".

What about those born with a permanently flushed red face (I suspect it applies to a few on here)?

[clarethomer]

Not a very nice man - maybe gammon should have been a word someone taught him?

Screenshot 2020-08-28 at 19.53.31.png (392.07 KiB) Viewed 2012 times

[nil_desperandum]

Incidentally, I'm not sure you're right that the BBC is following government guidelines about singing at the Proms when they choose not to sing Rule Britannia but they decide they will sing Jerusalem. Are you sure that the rules are quite so specific? I think if you look more closely you'll find that they could have chosen to sing both songs if they had wanted to.

The guidelines have only relatively recently changed to allow "small" socially distanced groups to sing, (subject to several restrictions), but this concession doesn't really help address the flag-waving "Rule Britannia" issue.
I watched the first of the "live" Prom concerts last night and the BBC singers performed a piece. There were 18 of them socially distanced standing in the stalls of an auditorium that holds well over 5,000. It was a reflective, atmospheric piece, and worked ok, but still felt totally "empty" and somehow "detached". It would be impossible to give a spirited and uplifting rendition of Land of Hope and Glory in these circumstances. Apart from anything else I doubt that the singers would be heard over the orchestra.
On the topic of the orchestra. They played the "Eroica" (amongst other things), but with reduced forces, and with everyone sat well apart on an enlarged platform. It didn't look or feel right to me.
Full credit to the BBC and the performers for getting this concert on - an emotional occasion for all who regularly follow the Proms and / or attend "live" classical concerts, but it highlighted that the Last Night will have to be very different to normal. The only really effective performance last night was "A Quiet Place" by Aaron Copland. It's a very sparse reflective piece, all about emptiness, and was perfect for the situation. Noisy, vibrant uplifting music is unlikely to be effective.
The Last Night celebrations are essentially more about the audience than the performers themselves, and I just don't see how it would be possible to generate any sort of party atmosphere in these circumstances - which is the raison d'etre of the Last Night programme.
I'm not sure how Jerusalem will work performed (and sung) by a small chamber group but we'll have to wait and see. It doesn't present quite the same challenges as Land of hope and glory IMO, because its text is rather reflective and it doesn't have to be "bashed out", so it might work in the new arrangement.
The Last Night of the Proms without its main ingredient the "Prommers" really won't be like the Last Night at all, but the decision to have the orchestra play adapted reduced versions of these songs should have been sufficient to ward off criticism from PM Johnson, - whose guidance the BBC are following by not having singing by more than a "small" group, by socially distancing the orchestra, and by not admitting the public.
Incidentally even if the Albert Hall were to admit a reduced socially distanced audience, current rules would not permit them to join in. Land of Hope and Glory with a socially distance audience sat in silence would be a very dispiriting prospect (IMO), but it appears to be what PM Johnson wanted to happen - unless he intended for the BBC to ignore all the rules.

[ClaretAndJew]

What about those born with a permanently flushed red face (I suspect it applies to a few on here)?

I mean, a medical affliction isn't really related to your race.

[MrTopTier]

Good post that nil.
Good to hear people having an appreciation of what is trying to be done and the successes and pitfalls of such a venture.

[AndrewJB]

So what you're saying is that insults based on skin colour are acceptable if the person making the insult is of the same skin colour? I'm still surprised. I would have thought such a committed anti-racist as yourself would have avoided all skin colour insults, not just some of them.

But if you really want an answer about positive things the government have done, they have announced the abolition of PHE and sacked the head of the semi-autonomous body Ofqual, both of which are positive steps. I don't think it was ever the right thing to allow PHE and Ofqual to act independently of their ministries, but given that they were allowed to act independently, it would be nonsense to say everything they do is the fault of the minister to whom they don't report.

Incidentally, I'm not sure you're right that the BBC is following government guidelines about singing at the Proms when they choose not to sing Rule Britannia but they decide they will sing Jerusalem. Are you sure that the rules are quite so specific? I think if you look more closely you'll find that they could have chosen to sing both songs if they had wanted to.

Why are you describing me as a “committed anti-racist”? I’m against racism, as I suspect a great majority are, including you I’m sure, but I’ve never belonged to an organisation that is specifically and primarily against racism (although anti-racism is part of any group you might join these days, but as with a creative writing group, or fitness class, or local history club; anti racism isn’t the main reason people join). I ask because “committed” suggests I’ve done work around the subject matter, which I haven’t. The way I see it is we are all anti racists, except racists.

Gammon: I’ve loved this term because to me it describes not a physical person, but a mindset. I think; “meathead.” It describes a person generally unconcerned with large scale tax avoidance by the rich, who also thinks the navy should be involved with repelling the “invasion” of dinghies crossing the channel. A person who is now retired, but thinks that those working from home are letting the country down. A person who claims a kind of veteran status to tout a brexit their own parents would have balked at; when they were only born during WW2. The term nearly encapsulates a group in one word.

The term leans heavily toward a skin tone, a generation, and a socio economic group; but it’s not specific to those. BAME people could be (and some are) gammon. Young people can be too, though most aren’t at all.

It’s taken as an insulting term by you, but to me it simply describes a group of people.

Proms: We now know the conductor was only giving her considered opinion after a Times journalist interviewed / ambushed her. We know the BBC didn’t cancel any of the songs claimed to be under threat. With the singing, Jerusalem is an easier song to sing in a more subdued fashion - with fewer voices. Rule Britannia needs more. The whole point about it being rousing is with lots of voices. I think that in a live performance this would be very difficult even with modern technology. We could say the BBC has spared the blushes of the nation by ensuring Rule Britannia won’t be crappily performed.

I live in Newham, east London, and our council has always put on an end of summer concert series that concluded with a proms night. Not this year of course. It’s always had a wide cultural appeal over different nights, but the last one was always a proms programme, and got the biggest draw from a borough that is mostly not white.

I’ve seen plenty of non-white British people enjoy the last night of the proms as a social / cultural event. Why do extreme rightwing people claim the proms are under threat, when they remain popular?

As for your claims of the government doing well, they’ve sacked civil servants and not government ministers. They’re ducking the real blame.

[dsr]

Why are you describing me as a “committed anti-racist”? I’m against racism, as I suspect a great majority are, including you I’m sure, but I’ve never belonged to an organisation that is specifically and primarily against racism (although anti-racism is part of any group you might join these days, but as with a creative writing group, or fitness class, or local history club; anti racism isn’t the main reason people join). I ask because “committed” suggests I’ve done work around the subject matter, which I haven’t. The way I see it is we are all anti racists, except racists.

Gammon: I’ve loved this term because to me it describes not a physical person, but a mindset. I think; “meathead.” It describes a person generally unconcerned with large scale tax avoidance by the rich, who also thinks the navy should be involved with repelling the “invasion” of dinghies crossing the channel. A person who is now retired, but thinks that those working from home are letting the country down. A person who claims a kind of veteran status to tout a brexit their own parents would have balked at; when they were only born during WW2. The term nearly encapsulates a group in one word.

The term leans heavily toward a skin tone, a generation, and a socio economic group; but it’s not specific to those. BAME people could be (and some are) gammon. Young people can be too, though most aren’t at all.

It’s taken as an insulting term by you, but to me it simply describes a group of people.

Proms: We now know the conductor was only giving her considered opinion after a Times journalist interviewed / ambushed her. We know the BBC didn’t cancel any of the songs claimed to be under threat. With the singing, Jerusalem is an easier song to sing in a more subdued fashion - with fewer voices. Rule Britannia needs more. The whole point about it being rousing is with lots of voices. I think that in a live performance this would be very difficult even with modern technology. We could say the BBC has spared the blushes of the nation by ensuring Rule Britannia won’t be crappily performed.

I live in Newham, east London, and our council has always put on an end of summer concert series that concluded with a proms night. Not this year of course. It’s always had a wide cultural appeal over different nights, but the last one was always a proms programme, and got the biggest draw from a borough that is mostly not white.

I’ve seen plenty of non-white British people enjoy the last night of the proms as a social / cultural event. Why do extreme rightwing people claim the proms are under threat, when they remain popular?

As for your claims of the government doing well, they’ve sacked civil servants and not government ministers. They’re ducking the real blame.

"Committed anti-racist" meaning you normally take it to a greater degree than other people. For example, many people (not me) see telling Irish jokes as racist and immoral, and I believe you are one of them. Apologies if I read you wrong. It's not about whether or not either of us are in favour of racism, because we both are not; it's about how widely we define racism.

Gammon described someone who gets so angry that his or her face turns the colour of gammon. By definition it can't apply to a black man because his face doesn't turn red. It is an insult based on skin colour. It doesn't bother me, but I was surprised that it doesn't bother you. I thought that you thought insults based on skin colour were always wrong; again, apologies if that isn't true.

As for the Proms, I haven't seen anything but rumour attributed to the conductor. I don't see her as an issue. But Rule Britannia is usually sung solo apart from the chorus and there's no reason why they couldn't do that again if they wanted to; however, it's a better excuse than your previous one about them not being allowed to sing it, so let it rest.

[martin_p]

"Committed anti-racist" meaning you normally take it to a greater degree than other people. For example, many people (not me) see telling Irish jokes as racist and immoral, and I believe you are one of them. Apologies if I read you wrong. It's not about whether or not either of us are in favour of racism, because we both are not; it's about how widely we define racism.

Gammon described someone who gets so angry that his or her face turns the colour of gammon. By definition it can't apply to a black man because his face doesn't turn red. It is an insult based on skin colour. It doesn't bother me, but I was surprised that it doesn't bother you. I thought that you thought insults based on skin colour were always wrong; again, apologies if that isn't true.

As for the Proms, I haven't seen anything but rumour attributed to the conductor. I don't see her as an issue. But Rule Britannia is usually sung solo apart from the chorus and there's no reason why they couldn't do that again if they wanted to; however, it's a better excuse than your previous one about them not being allowed to sing it, so let it rest.

I don’t think you get this racist thing do you. It’s not racist to mock someone because they get so angry their skin goes red. Getting so angry they turn red isn’t something they were born with, it isn’t their natural state of being. Using your logic it would be racist to laugh when you made someone blush!

Besides, even it you could argue that it was you’d have to be taking the meaning of ‘gammon’ very literally, people very rarely turn a shade of pink/red when they’re angry, it’s more a way of being as Andrew describes.

[dsr]

I don’t think you get this racist thing do you. It’s not racist to mock someone because they get so angry their skin goes red. Getting so angry they turn red isn’t something they were born with, it isn’t their natural state of being. Using your logic it would be racist to laugh when you made someone blush!

Besides, even it you could argue that it was you’d have to be taking the meaning of ‘gammon’ very literally, people very rarely turn a shade of pink/red when they’re angry, it’s more a way of being as Andrew describes.

Please don't try and use my logic. You're hopeless at it. Your logic and my logic bear very little resemblance. You can choose to believe that your form of logic is actually logical in the real world; I don't.

Andrew has already pointed out that an insult based on skin colour isn't racist if you extend it to people of a different skin colour as well. I'm OK with that, and its logical extensions.

[dsr]

[duplicate post]

[nil_desperandum]

As for the Proms, I haven't seen anything but rumour attributed to the conductor. I don't see her as an issue. But Rule Britannia is usually sung solo apart from the chorus and there's no reason why they couldn't do that again if they wanted to; however, it's a better excuse than your previous one about them not being allowed to sing it, so let it rest.

Not sure whether Andrew has made much - if any - comment about not being able to sing (in general terms) but I've made several posts about this at length, and no one until now has engaged to contradict me on the topic.
You are correct that one solo singer, or - as from a couple of weeks ago - a small group of socially distanced singers can now sing indoors. So it would now be possible to have Rule B sung either live in the RAH, or indeed with a solo singer from their own front room with some form of video link. The point is though, as several people have pointed out, the Last Night of the Proms isn't for the performers it's for the audience, and having one singer in an empty hall with no one joining in or flag waving would - arguably - be a dispiriting affair and contrary to the concept that the Past Night is the "people's Prom" and a celebratory occasion.
Were this country's rules rather more flexible, then we could have had a proper Last Night all over the country in Parks or other large arenas. In France for example, you can have a socially distanced gathering of up to 5,000 in an outdoor space, so as in previous years we could have had Rule Britannia performed at the Hyde Park, Belfast, Liverpool, Glasgow Proms which are usually held simultaneously with the indoor event.
PM Johnson won't allow such gatherings, so basically it has to be a Last Night without community singing or flag-waving.
The Proms organisers delayed cancelling / re-planning the Proms until quite late in the day. It was into July that they effectively accepted the inevitable that there could be no Prom season, but they did schedule an imaginative programme with 4 weeks of archive performances, followed by 2 weeks - which have just started - of "behind closed doors" Proms operating within the strict guidelines. This schedule and its programme (including some details about the "Last Night") were released in early July. I've watched both the televised Proms so far, and actually feel quite sorry for the musicians. they are obviously getting some pleasure from playing, and obviously we get the pleasure of hearing them, but there is no atmosphere at all, and seeing all the empty seats and "hearing" the eery silence at the end of each piece does not make for a very rewarding experience for the viewer, and must be very dispiriting for the musicians. I just don't understand why people would want the "patriotic" songs performed by one voice in these conditions.
This - I guess - left the BBC in a predicament. Logically you would say that as the Last Night is for the people, but the people can't be there, just scrap it. Imagine the outcry from the usual sources if they had done that. Instead they announced back in July that it would go ahead but with a slightly different format. (It's not as though the changes to the programme were suddenly announced about a week ago.)
FWIW I think an archived performance from previous years may have been a better solution, but there is a commitment from the BBC to promote "live" events and so the Last Night goes ahead and we will just have to see how it goes.

[martin_p]

Please don't try and use my logic. You're hopeless at it. Your logic and my logic bear very little resemblance. You can choose to believe that your form of logic is actually logical in the real world; I don't.

Andrew has already pointed out that an insult based on skin colour isn't racist if you extend it to people of a different skin colour as well. I'm OK with that, and its logical extensions.

You need to look up the word ‘logic’.

[AndrewJB]

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 98521.html

Some more cancel culture. The new Tory head of the BBC looking at cancelling comedians who satirise the government. Nothing there about bringing in more left wing political show hosts and news editors to provide balance in that respect.

[Devils_Advocate]

Trouble is if we start to enforce positive discrimination for right wing comedians then they'll all be morally compelled to turn the gigs down. What a pickle we are in with all this cancel culture and positive discrimination

[HahaYeah]

Left Wing BBC "Comedy" Shows About To Be Nuked?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj6ehNbeLO4

[RingoMcCartney]

Left Wing BBC "Comedy" Shows About To Be Nuked?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj6ehNbeLO4

Now that's genuinely funny.!