|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Thoughts on Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
He didn't sing any of the hymns either.
Ah, now this is of more interest to me. I presume he's not religious?
This is an issue that will become more and more apparent as we increasingly get non-Christian politicians and PMs. Labour's candidate for London Mayor is a Muslim; if he wins will he be expected to attend 'Christian' civic ceremonies and sing Christian hymns?
At some point this reality will have to be addressed. It'll certainly form part of the case against having an established church.
quote:
He did spend quite a lot of time look around, up at the dome, etc: if I had to make a guess I'd say he either hadn't been there before or it was a very long time ago.
There's no particular reason why he should have been there before.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
He didn't sing any of the hymns either.
Nor did he take a selfie.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Labour's candidate for London Mayor is a Muslim; if he wins will he be expected to attend 'Christian' civic ceremonies and sing Christian hymns?
That one is, at least in principle, a done deal. At the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, there were a number of prominent members of other faiths present (some British, some royalty from Muslim countries, ...)
They all stood for hymns, but did not sing, and I don't think anyone expected differently.
I think atheists tend to get less understanding - it's easy for people to understand that a Muslim doesn't want to sing Christian hymns, but Christianity is in some sense still the default religion in the UK; many people don't go to church, but think of themselves as being nominally a bit Christian-ish, and find it harder to grasp a principled atheist opposition to singing hymns.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't understand. You say it's okay for people to turn up to church in whatever they feel smart in, but then you say that Corbyn (who was only at church, after all!) 'missed the mark' in the moderately smart outfit that he felt comfortable in.
The standard dress at a formal public function is a lounge suit (assuming it's not a posh dinner...). This is a formal public function. All the people standing around Corbyn are wearing suits, or some form of dress uniform with medals. Everybody else seems to have understood the dress code.
And you missed my point. I say that it is OK for people to turn up to my church in whatever they feel comfortable, because that is our community standard. When I last went to my mother-in-law's church, I wore a jacket and tie, because her church has different expectations.
If I didn't have any formal clothes (because I was travelling and the church visit was a surprise, for example), and wore the best that I had, I wouldn't be rude. If I deliberately chose to show up in jeans and a t-shirt to make some kind of a point about inclusiveness, I would be rude.
Jeremy Corbyn has been a well-paid public servant for more than thirty years. He can afford a suit. The fact that he chooses not to wear the standard uniform is a choice, presumably to make some kind of point, and is rude.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Can you explain to me why a jacket and trousers is "rude" whilst a suit isn't, when they both consist of exactly the same two items of clothing. Is there something magic about the colours matching rather than complementing each other, or something?
You'd think he'd turned up in a jock-strap and gimp mask the way people are talking. To my mind, he was dressed up.
And what does "rude" even mean in this context? It's not like shouting "get a fucking haircut" whilst driving past someone, as happened to me the other day. That's rude, not wearing a slight variation on a theme. Seems to me that society creates these arbitrary rules just so that it can judge people for failing to adhere to them; they serve no other obvious function. And that really is "rude".
[ 16. September 2015, 15:07: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can you explain to me why a jacket and trousers is "rude" whilst a suit isn't, when they both consist of exactly the same two items of clothing. Is there something magic about the colours matching rather than complementing each other, or something?
You'd think he'd turned up in a jock-strap and gimp mask the way people are talking. To my mind, he was dressed up.
It's the snobbery of the English establishment. They have certain codes, and if you don't follow them, you're not 'one of us'. Mind-boggling really, but some people apparently still revere such codes.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I had a job interview the other week. Knowing how these things work I was all tarted up in suit and tied back hair and uncomfortable shiny shoes and pointless piece of rag around the neck (can't remember if the top button was done up ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) )
When I got there, the bloke interviewing me was in jeans and sweater. Apparently I should have been offended that he had "rudely" "not made the effort". Actually, I wasn't; I just thought "I wish I'd known because then I wouldn't have had to wear this crap myself."
These dress codes, especially the unwritten social convention ones, seem to exist solely to give people reasons to judge one another, to be offended by one another, all based on outward appearance. It seems rather anti-Christian to me; perhaps the church should speak out against conventionally defined dress codes as roots of ill-will and judgement of one's neighbour.
[ 16. September 2015, 15:15: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think that many societies and social groups have codes to define an in-group and an out-group, and clothes are important in this.
In England, this has partly intersected with class and other social metrics, and apparently Corbs is being defined as in the out-group, as not conforming to a certain code.
Not one of us, my dear.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that many societies and social groups have codes to define an in-group and an out-group, and clothes are important in this.
In England, this has partly intersected with class and other social metrics, and apparently Corbs is being defined as in the out-group, as not conforming to a certain code.
Not one of us, my dear.
Yes. Corbyn could probably have got a full house if he'd turned up on his bike wearing cycle clips. That definitely marks you out as an outsider, a weirdo, one of the out-group. Anyone surprised that the New Tricks character with social skills issues and, it turned out, probably Aspergers, rode an old 80s road bike? That's code, that is. As it happens, Brian was my favourite character, the one I identified with. It's his fault that when I decided I needed a specific commuting bike I went out of my way to find an old steel 80s frame and work from there. He made me all nostalgic for the 10 speed (that's 2 x 5, not 10 cogs at the back like on newfangled stuff) "racing" bikes of my youth.
But I digress.
[ 16. September 2015, 15:29: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I'm still sniffing out anxiety here. I think the right-wing are nervous about Corbs, and hence are trying to monster him in the media. Partly to drown out his ideas, and also drown out himself, that is, the rather quiet courteous and intelligent man that we saw in PMQs.
I suppose they are also nervous that his popularity might continue, or it might increase.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Dangerous game. Everyone'll laugh if you go on about the big scary tiger in the cage when they open the door and find Tiddles from next door.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm still sniffing out anxiety here. I think the right-wing are nervous about Corbs
Trust me, we're not. We're really not. My real fear is that if he carries on like this he'll be gone by next week.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Unbelievable that a senior public figure can be bullied into doing something that acts against his conscience.
Is that what you see going on?
Seems more likely to me that he's just been listening to his own advisers - rather than the Press bully boys. Something along the lines of "this really is No Big Deal, unless you decide to make it so. Is it really worth the aggro?"
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Unbelievable that a senior public figure can be bullied into doing something that acts against his conscience.
Is that what you see going on?
Seems more likely to me that he's just been listening to his own advisers - rather than the Press bully boys. Something along the lines of "this really is No Big Deal, unless you decide to make it so. Is it really worth the aggro?"
Yes, I am hearing, 'Pick your battles'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm still sniffing out anxiety here. I think the right-wing are nervous about Corbs
Trust me, we're not. We're really not. My real fear is that if he carries on like this he'll be gone by next week.
At the moment I don't think any further gaffes will make much difference - it is a bit like Tesco, who, knowing they were going to make a massive loss this year, accounted for everything else that could cause a loss in this year's results on the grounds that the public are not much more shocked by £2bn than £1bn.
FWIW I know a few people with military connections who are probably disgusted with Mr Corbyn, not out of snobbery but from an almost sacred regard for our military dead. Now one may feel that this is an irrational fight but it is a fight Mr Corbyn did not need to get into.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm still sniffing out anxiety here. I think the right-wing are nervous about Corbs
Trust me, we're not. We're really not. My real fear is that if he carries on like this he'll be gone by next week.
Ah, but I don't trust you at all. If I did, I would not be involved with Corbyn.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm still sniffing out anxiety here. I think the right-wing are nervous about Corbs
Trust me, we're not. We're really not. My real fear is that if he carries on like this he'll be gone by next week.
Ah, but I don't trust you at all. If I did, I would not be involved with Corbyn.
It all seems very familiar, like the direct opposite of those Tories in the late 90s / early 00s who would say quite sincerely 'we're not credible because we're not talking about the European Union enough'.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Ricardus wrote:
FWIW I know a few people with military connections who are probably disgusted with Mr Corbyn, not out of snobbery but from an almost sacred regard for our military dead. Now one may feel that this is an irrational fight but it is a fight Mr Corbyn did not need to get into.
I agree with that. I think he has to recognize the civil religion, and generally leave it alone.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Cue here Dutschke's 'long march through the institutions', subject of much debate in the German left, and interpreted variously but it can be seen as critical of the radicals, who espoused violence.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
At the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, there were a number of prominent members of other faiths present (some British, some royalty from Muslim countries, ...)
They all stood for hymns, but did not sing, and I don't think anyone expected differently.
I think atheists tend to get less understanding - it's easy for people to understand that a Muslim doesn't want to sing Christian hymns, but Christianity is in some sense still the default religion in the UK; many people don't go to church, but think of themselves as being nominally a bit Christian-ish, and find it harder to grasp a principled atheist opposition to singing hymns.
Yet the average British person doesn't seem to be all that proficient at singing hymns anyway. Fewer and fewer of them know the words or tunes. Church weddings and funerals are in decline as people choose secular, hymn-free alternatives.
I suppose there's a vicarious pleasure in seeing a cathedral full of well-brought up people singing in unison, but how many viewers would want to be there themselves, singing? We seem to want for our 'betters' what we don't particularly want for ourselves....
We're still evolving as a society, that's clear.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can you explain to me why a jacket and trousers is "rude" whilst a suit isn't, when they both consist of exactly the same two items of clothing. Is there something magic about the colours matching rather than complementing each other, or something?
Yes. A suit (especially with tie) looks like you've made an effort to dress smartly instead of putting on whatever came to hand first when you opened the wardrobe. It shows you're taking the occasion seriously instead of treating it as a casual, everyday event.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FWIW I know a few people with military connections who are probably disgusted with Mr Corbyn, not out of snobbery but from an almost sacred regard for our military dead. Now one may feel that this is an irrational fight but it is a fight Mr Corbyn did not need to get into.
I expect they are people who left the military years ago; those in the armed forces and those who recently left, especially the "Heroes" who left injured in body or mind don't have many good words for the current government. We're good at remembering our dead, but not so good at looking after those still with us.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can you explain to me why a jacket and trousers is "rude" whilst a suit isn't, when they both consist of exactly the same two items of clothing. Is there something magic about the colours matching rather than complementing each other, or something?
Yes. A suit (especially with tie) looks like you've made an effort to dress smartly instead of putting on whatever came to hand first when you opened the wardrobe. It shows you're taking the occasion seriously instead of treating it as a casual, everyday event.
Oh what absolute bollocks.
Putting on a suit involves no effort or thought whatsoever. You open the wardrobe, pick the suit up, and put it on. That's it.
Choosing a complementing jacket and trousers requires you to select trousers, put them on, then consider which jacket would work with them, taking into account the colour of the shirt you intend to wear.
I'd be more impressed if people just admitted it's an arbitrary convention.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
But why put people off over nothing? If you're just talking about arbitrary conventions which some folks treat more seriously than you do, what point are you really making by "doing different"? It's hardly a "sell your soul" issue, is it?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Keir Hardie famously refused to conform to the "appropriate" dress code expected for parliamentarians and turned up in a tweed jacket. I suspect he thought that what was good enough for the common man - who could not afford frock coats, top hats and starch collars - was good enough to wear in the Houses of fecking Parliament.
I suspect Corbyn thinks the same. Why should he dress as others insist, wear the "right" colour of poppy, sing the fecking monarchist dirge we mistake for an anthem and conform to all the other shit.
The stupidest part of this is that there are a whole heap of people in St Pauls (as in any other Cathedral) who are not wearing military uniform or suits. Those include the virgers, the priests, the organists, choirboys and so on.
I dare say that there were a lot of other people in the pews who were not wearing this kind of unofficial clothing (but, oops, suddenly it is a kind of official dictat) line either.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But why put people off over nothing? If you're just talking about arbitrary conventions which some folks treat more seriously than you do, what point are you really making by "doing different"? It's hardly a "sell your soul" issue, is it?
Why should you get to decide what someone wears in a church service? What actually did he do wrong, other than refuse to follow an unwritten dress code?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Personally I don't care. So far as I am concerned personally, people can wear whatever they feel comfortable in on any occasion. Sometimes I might think what they do is a bit of a social gaffe, but I'm not going to think any the less of them just for that reason. There are more important things in life.
But I'm not a party leader interested in inclusivity and wanting to win a general election. Those things make a difference. If you're in that position, it isn't just about your own personal preferences any more.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'd be more impressed if people just admitted it's an arbitrary convention.
That would be a bit like pointing out that it's an arbitrary convention that the sound group /'nobhed/* is interpreted as insulting, rather than (say) as an exclamation of delight that the moon shines softly on the lotus blossom.
* Knobhead, for those unfamiliar with IPA.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think we should take a moment to enjoy this headline writer's gem from the torygraph:
quote:
Jeremy Corbyn's first PMQs wasn't a disaster, which is why it will destroy him
Overeaction, what overeaction ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...Yet the average British person doesn't seem to be all that proficient at singing hymns anyway. Fewer and fewer of them know the words or tunes. Church weddings and funerals are in decline as people choose secular, hymn-free alternatives.
I suppose there's a vicarious pleasure in seeing a cathedral full of well-brought up people singing in unison, but how many viewers would want to be there themselves, singing? We seem to want for our 'betters' what we don't particularly want for ourselves....
We're still evolving as a society, that's clear.
Declining, I think is the verb I'd use. Not that I think Mr Corbyn's perfectly courteous behaviour was part of that decline, by the way.
[ 16. September 2015, 20:54: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FWIW I know a few people with military connections who are probably disgusted with Mr Corbyn, not out of snobbery but from an almost sacred regard for our military dead.
If only they had a sacred regard for our military live, there might be more of the latter, and fewer of the former.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Keir Hardie famously refused to conform to the "appropriate" dress code expected for parliamentarians and turned up in a tweed jacket. I suspect he thought that what was good enough for the common man - who could not afford frock coats, top hats and starch collars - was good enough to wear in the Houses of fecking Parliament.
I suspect Corbyn thinks the same. Why should he dress as others insist, wear the "right" colour of poppy, sing the fecking monarchist dirge we mistake for an anthem and conform to all the other shit.
Remember all that fuss about what Mr. Gandhi wore (or didn't wear) when he went to see the King ...
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I wonder if Corbyn could have got a worse reaction had he actually challenged the morbid fetishisation of dead military personnel. I presume there must be some limit to the tabloids' faux outrage.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
But oppressing Scots is good. It justifes another referendum, and will make the right result more likely.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FWIW I know a few people with military connections who are probably disgusted with Mr Corbyn, not out of snobbery but from an almost sacred regard for our military dead.
If only they had a sacred regard for our military live, there might be more of the latter, and fewer of the former.
Who are 'they'? I am talking about people who do indeed care very much that their friends and family come back alive.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'd be more impressed if people just admitted it's an arbitrary convention.
That would be a bit like pointing out that it's an arbitrary convention that the sound group /'nobhed/* is interpreted as insulting, rather than (say) as an exclamation of delight that the moon shines softly on the lotus blossom.
* Knobhead, for those unfamiliar with IPA.
I think the insult value of "knobhead" is a bit more widely understood than unwritten dress codes. I certainly wouldn't "know" that a jacket and trousers was verboten and a suit mandatory. I've always assumed they're equivalent; no-one until now has told me otherwise. If you've got a jacket and tie on, you've passed the "smart" requirement to my mind.
I would tend to wear a suit in formal situations simply because, as I said to Ariel, it's easy and requires no effort or thought whatsoever. I'm bemused that it apparently signals the very opposite.
[ 17. September 2015, 09:35: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FWIW I know a few people with military connections who are probably disgusted with Mr Corbyn, not out of snobbery but from an almost sacred regard for our military dead.
If only they had a sacred regard for our military live, there might be more of the latter, and fewer of the former.
Who are 'they'? I am talking about people who do indeed care very much that their friends and family come back alive.
Well, me and my very right-wing mum were talking about this the other day, in regards to the refugee crisis. "Why," she opined, "don't the men stay and fight?"
I pointed out that her beloved grandsons (both 16) are at the perfect age to become cannon-fodder in an irregular war, and that as the father of one of them and the uncle of the other, I'd move heaven and earth to get them out of the situation where they'd be handed a gun and told to fight.
That's what I mean by 'they'. The ones who enable and support the decision of their loved ones to sign up in the first place. After that, it's literally too fucking late to worry in any meaningful way.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But why put people off over nothing? If you're just talking about arbitrary conventions which some folks treat more seriously than you do, what point are you really making by "doing different"? It's hardly a "sell your soul" issue, is it?
Why should you get to decide what someone wears in a church service? What actually did he do wrong, other than refuse to follow an unwritten dress code?
I don't know, but I'd be willing to stick my neck out here and say that I'm in what I expect is a minority on these boards in that I have been involved in organising a State memorial service in St Paul's...
I'd like to see an invitation for the Battle of Britain shindig, because I'd be astounded if was anything other than a clearly written dress-code in the bottom right hand corner.* I'd take a wild stab in the dark that it said "Service dress with medals/lounge suit."
For some reason no one ever specifies what the women are supposed to wear, and there is an exemption for "national dress."
*well, potentially not, this is the RAF we're talking about, maybe it just said "Man at C&A" - the Navy has traditions, the Army customs, the RAF merely habits
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FWIW I know a few people with military connections who are probably disgusted with Mr Corbyn, not out of snobbery but from an almost sacred regard for our military dead.
If only they had a sacred regard for our military live, there might be more of the latter, and fewer of the former.
Who are 'they'? I am talking about people who do indeed care very much that their friends and family come back alive.
Well, me and my very right-wing mum were talking about this the other day, in regards to the refugee crisis. "Why," she opined, "don't the men stay and fight?"
I pointed out that her beloved grandsons (both 16) are at the perfect age to become cannon-fodder in an irregular war, and that as the father of one of them and the uncle of the other, I'd move heaven and earth to get them out of the situation where they'd be handed a gun and told to fight.
That's what I mean by 'they'. The ones who enable and support the decision of their loved ones to sign up in the first place. After that, it's literally too fucking late to worry in any meaningful way.
My late mother never allowed my brother or I toy soldiers, water pistols, or camouflage clothes. She often remarked somewhat ruefully that the fact that we *both* joined up might have been a reaction to that. Does that make her very pacifism an "enabler"?
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FWIW I know a few people with military connections who are probably disgusted with Mr Corbyn, not out of snobbery but from an almost sacred regard for our military dead.
If only they had a sacred regard for our military live, there might be more of the latter, and fewer of the former.
Who are 'they'? I am talking about people who do indeed care very much that their friends and family come back alive.
Well, me and my very right-wing mum were talking about this the other day, in regards to the refugee crisis. "Why," she opined, "don't the men stay and fight?"
I pointed out that her beloved grandsons (both 16) are at the perfect age to become cannon-fodder in an irregular war, and that as the father of one of them and the uncle of the other, I'd move heaven and earth to get them out of the situation where they'd be handed a gun and told to fight.
That's what I mean by 'they'. The ones who enable and support the decision of their loved ones to sign up in the first place. After that, it's literally too fucking late to worry in any meaningful way.
Yes, I was flabbergasted when I first saw right-wingers saying, 'why don't the men stay and fight (in Syria)?' I wondered who they should fight for - presumably, not Assad. So then it would be one of the more salubrious rebel groups. Would anyone really want their son/grandson fighting in that hell-hole, with the likelihood that your group might morph into an Islamist group, or have to fight IS? I suspect it's a question asked of other people's sons.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, me and my very right-wing mum were talking about this the other day, in regards to the refugee crisis. "Why," she opined, "don't the men stay and fight?"
I pointed out that her beloved grandsons (both 16) are at the perfect age to become cannon-fodder in an irregular war, and that as the father of one of them and the uncle of the other, I'd move heaven and earth to get them out of the situation where they'd be handed a gun and told to fight.
That's what I mean by 'they'. The ones who enable and support the decision of their loved ones to sign up in the first place. After that, it's literally too fucking late to worry in any meaningful way.
There's also nothing about any side in that conflict that would make anybody want to fight for them or want to see them win.
That's part of the problem the rest of the world has with it, and why a lot of us are so alarmed at talk of intervening in it. It's all very well people wringing their hands and saying 'something must be done', and ijjit politicians saying 'drop more bombs', or 'send in troops', but unless someone can say what must be done and explain convincingly how to do it, sadly, as far as we are concerned, the answer is that anything we do will only make things even worse than how appalling they are at the moment.
Not enough people are pointing our this obvious truth at the moment.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
In a civil war it is not always obvious which side is the 'right' one to choose. It's been over 400 years since we had a civil war in the UK*, so most of us have forgotten this...
If your own government is trying to kill you and your only hope of survival if you stay where you are is to join a group of rebels and learn to fight (and if you're Christian they'd probably want to behead you instead of recruiting you), and your family needs your help to stand a chance of escaping the conflict, what would you do?
*counting from the Restoration; if you take the Jacobite rebellions as the last gasp of civil war it would be 350 years. Quite a long time, anyway.
[ 17. September 2015, 10:54: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But why put people off over nothing? If you're just talking about arbitrary conventions which some folks treat more seriously than you do, what point are you really making by "doing different"? It's hardly a "sell your soul" issue, is it?
Why should you get to decide what someone wears in a church service? What actually did he do wrong, other than refuse to follow an unwritten dress code?
I don't know, but I'd be willing to stick my neck out here and say that I'm in what I expect is a minority on these boards in that I have been involved in organising a State memorial service in St Paul's...
I'd like to see an invitation for the Battle of Britain shindig, because I'd be astounded if was anything other than a clearly written dress-code in the bottom right hand corner.* I'd take a wild stab in the dark that it said "Service dress with medals/lounge suit."
For some reason no one ever specifies what the women are supposed to wear, and there is an exemption for "national dress."
*well, potentially not, this is the RAF we're talking about, maybe it just said "Man at C&A" - the Navy has traditions, the Army customs, the RAF merely habits
Anyway, he was in a lounge suit at St Paul's, wasn't he? Sports jacket and tie in HoC but for better or for worse that's been acceptable dress, or at least not objected to, there for some years.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But why put people off over nothing? If you're just talking about arbitrary conventions which some folks treat more seriously than you do, what point are you really making by "doing different"? It's hardly a "sell your soul" issue, is it?
Why should you get to decide what someone wears in a church service? What actually did he do wrong, other than refuse to follow an unwritten dress code?
I don't know, but I'd be willing to stick my neck out here and say that I'm in what I expect is a minority on these boards in that I have been involved in organising a State memorial service in St Paul's...
I'd like to see an invitation for the Battle of Britain shindig, because I'd be astounded if was anything other than a clearly written dress-code in the bottom right hand corner.* I'd take a wild stab in the dark that it said "Service dress with medals/lounge suit."
For some reason no one ever specifies what the women are supposed to wear, and there is an exemption for "national dress."
*well, potentially not, this is the RAF we're talking about, maybe it just said "Man at C&A" - the Navy has traditions, the Army customs, the RAF merely habits
Anyway, he was in a lounge suit at St Paul's, wasn't he? Sports jacket and tie in HoC but for better or for worse that's been acceptable dress, or at least not objected to, there for some years.
I think, if we're going to be really pedantic, that strictly speaking at St Paul's he was in *two* lounge suits... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I keep on trying to imagine a universe where someone's going to get to the ballot box having read the manifestos and say "well, I agree with all Labour's policies but since that Mr Corbyn didn't do his top button up and his trousers were blue* five years ago I'm going to vote Tory".
And then I realise with horror it's this one.
Depressing, innit?
*Or whatever it was, like it matters, like I give a shit.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Almost as depressing as people making so much effort to ensure they're impeccably dressed so that the media can't criticise them for it that they seem to have insufficient time to think about the implications of their policies and drag the country to Hell - but, a well dressed Hell.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ricardus:
[qb]
That's what I mean by 'they'. The ones who enable and support the decision of their loved ones to sign up in the first place. After that, it's literally too fucking late to worry in any meaningful way.
Ok, I can see where you are coming from.
On the other hand, ISTM that if it is right for us to have an army, it is also right that at least some people should join that army, and consequently that the rest of us should allow them to join.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
On the other hand, ISTM that if it is right for us to have an army, it is also right that at least some people should join that army, and consequently that the rest of us should allow them to join.
I married a serving officer in the British Army. I'm not unaware of the arguments on the other side... ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ricardus:
[qb]
That's what I mean by 'they'. The ones who enable and support the decision of their loved ones to sign up in the first place. After that, it's literally too fucking late to worry in any meaningful way.
Ok, I can see where you are coming from.
On the other hand, ISTM that if it is right for us to have an army, it is also right that at least some people should join that army, and consequently that the rest of us should allow them to join.
Yes, we should do more than simply allow them to join and remember them when they are dead. Support for those leaving the armed forces, and those injured while serving however, is utterly inadequate and flypasts and two-minute silences are no more than window dressing.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
