what no annual poppy bunfight thread?

[Sasaferrato]

So does this mean that you're agreeing that the armed forces are political now? Or are you suggesting that all the other arms of the state are, but the forces are somehow different?

No. Read the post. I was making the point that the forces are apolitical, in that they are not aligned to any political party. cf many other countries.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I don't work in the public sector, but I am saying that the armed forces are political as they go out and kill people on behalf of the state.

Is that not the raison d'etre of armed forces?

 

[toggle]

Even elite troops can lose their nerve, it can happen to the very best.

Anyone who feels that war is never the only option is a clown. Their wreath of white poppies would soon have been red, as the Nazi tanks crushed the bearer.

As for his whining that the MOD obtained an injunction to prevent him from breaking the law, he can consider himself lucky that he wasn't jailed for breach of the Official Secrets Act, which he signed. Signing a document such as the OSA is in effect giving your word, and a man who does not stand by his word isn't much of a man.

If someone feels that they can no longer serve, there is a mechanism whereby they may leave.

The engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan were of dubious legality and morality. If one's conscience dictates that they can no longer serve, then there is a mechanism to do so. Of course, if you are intent on generating the maximum publicity, then you 'refuse to soldier'. Self publicists 'refuse to soldier', everyone else quietly makes their case and leaves.

I sense a thwarted 'Andy McNab' here.

you're attempting to portray him as a coward. an injunction conveniently prevents him challenging that statement.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Here we see the British army oppresing the workers

Yep, to say nothing of those risking their skin in the Ebola clinics. Real bastards, the lot of them.

 

[Sasaferrato]

you're attempting to portray him as a coward. an injunction conveniently prevents him challenging that statement.

 

[DotCommunist]

I don't think Lo Siento. was saying the armed forces are bad, just that they are political.

It wasn't the armed forces that decided to invade the Faulklands, Afghanistan and Iraq, it was our politicians who decided, the armed forces did what they were told.

the sound and the fury

 

[Greebo]

lady on the news just suggested smashing the entire moat of poppies would be an appropriate metaphor for all the crushed and broken bodies of the fallen!

controversial for ITV news. Shiela Hancock, never heard of her.

Actress, writer, and widow of John Thaw.

 

[toggle]

well. i didn't expect a substantive reply.

 

[andysays]

No. Read the post. I was making the point that the forces are apolitical, in that they are not aligned to any political party. cf many other countries.

So you're arguing that

...Virtually every aspect of life is 'political' in one way or another...

and you seem to be accepting that working in the public sector and/or being directed by government are political, but when it comes to the armed forces they are (uniquely?) apolitical because they are not aligned to any political party.

That really is incoherent nonsense.

 

[DotCommunist]

Yep, to say nothing of those risking their skin in the Ebola clinics. Real bastards, the lot of them.

the problem here is that army personnel being involved in civil projects in no way invalidates thier ultimate political role- its simply a failure of civil governance through laziness incompetence and avarice that requires the army to step in when all the civilian contractors who have been fed tax millions fail to deliver. It does not mean the army is a great non political good guy. It means they've been drafted in to cover. Much as when several areas of the UK had been flooded for months but the army only got called in when the flooding hit home counties.

See also: defending olympic site security in London after G4S had proved not up to it.

they'd still be calling them out in green goddeses to cover during fireman strikes if we hadn't sold the ageing relics to an african nation and started training up scab crews to ride normal fire engines during a strike (last time that happened the scab crews stacked two of the engines in london. It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic)

 

[sleaterkinney]

Is that not the raison d'etre of armed forces?

Yes. They are political.

 

[Celyn]

Of course they don't.

They make it very clear exactly who they are commemorating - and why. They do not expect non-republicans to wear Easter Lilies either.

Nor would they ever be so shameless, so delusional as to hijack one of the western world's most well-known anti-war songs for their own militaristic ends like this ...

I *suppose* if Eric Bogle gave his permission, they can do that.

 

[N_igma]

No. Read the post. I was making the point that the forces are apolitical, in that they are not aligned to any political party. cf many other countries.

They swear allegiance to the Monarchy of the UK. Don't be so naive.

 

[equationgirl]

i doubt these days you get anything as retarded as the mutiny in ireland or people playing silly buggers as claimed in the 70s.
Genuine contempt for most politicions and senior officers after a complete failure to tell people the truth during the last two wars.
The aims were impossible.

'Retarded'? Did you mean to use that word?

 

[8ball]

They swear allegiance to the Monarchy of the UK. Don't be so naive.

It wouldn't be much good as indoctrination if it didn't include a blind spot about having been indoctrinated in the first place.

 

[Athos]

I *suppose* if Eric Bogle gave his permission, they can do that.

Apparently Joss Stone’s version of my song “No Man’s Land” has polarised opinions. I usually don’t comment publicly on other people’s versions of my songs, but many of you have e-mailed me about this matter and seem genuinely upset about it, so I am sending you the following in reply to some of the questions I have been asked………please note that I will be entering into no further correspondence regarding this matter, I don’t want to spend the rest of my life e-mailing on my computer, so you will have to accept (or reject ) what I have said below and leave it there…….
The copyright for “No Man’s Land/The Green Fields of France” is held by my UK Publisher, Domino Publishing, who are ultimately responsible for approving applications to record this song. When an artist wishes to record “No Man’s Land” they must apply for a mechanical license to do so from the relevant UK agency, and pay a licensing fee. Permission to record is more or less automatic, especially if, as is the case with this song, it has been recorded before. At no stage in this process am I, the composer, involved. Generally speaking, the first I know of any new recording is when I see any subsequent royalties from the recording appearing on my royalty statements.

When the artist(s) in question records the cover version of the song, they can, and often do, rework the song as to be almost unrecognisable from the original version. This is especially true in Jazz music, and is generally regarded as an acceptable creative exercise by the artist(s). Although the publisher and/or composer could take legal action if they feel that the original essence of the song has been irrevocably altered and very much to the song’s detriment, this very rarely happens. The bottom line is that so long as royalties are paid, any wounded artistic feelings are usually put aside.
So then, to the most asked questions about this affair:
Was my permission sought when they decided to record this song? - No
Did I know what they proposed to do with the song when they decided to record it? - No
Do I approve of what they have done to the song ? (missing verses, rock’n’roll arrangement, etc) No, believe it or not I wrote the song intending for the four verses of the original song to gradually build up to what I hoped would be a climactic and strong anti-war statement. Missing out two and a half verses from the original four verses very much negates that intention. As to the musical arrangement, it’s really about whatever floats your musical boat. I would have thought a strong mostly acoustic version would have done a better job of getting the message across, but that’s just my personal preference, and I’m a bit of an old fart folkie. But then to do an acoustic version and include all four verses and choruses would have made the song nearly 7 minutes long, making it of doubtful commercial appeal in today’s modern music market, given that the average attention span of that market’s consumers is rarely more than three minutes or so. There’s not much doubt that the shortened, up-tempo, bluesy version that Joss does will probably appeal to a much broader cross-section of the listening public, certainly to those who did not know the song existed until they heard Joss’s version.
Is the strong anti-war message in the original song diminished in this recording? Yes, missing some crucial verses does not help. But then this diminishment is only in the eyes (or ears) of people who have heard the original version of the song. Those who have not heard the original cannot make the same comparisons or judgements. They must take Joss’s version on it’s own merits and make their own interpretation.

Does it follow then that this version glorifies war instead of condemning it? - No, in my opinion it certainly doesn’t glorify it, but doesn’t condemn it either, it just sort of starts off promisingly enough and then turns into a sing- along chorus type of song. Sentimentalising perhaps, but not glorifying. Will me or my publisher be suing Joss Stone, Jeff Beck or the British Legion? — No, you have to be joking. I would have wished for a version of my song that could have been more true to my original intention in writing the song, but if Joss’s version touches heart [sic] or two here and there and makes some people reflect, perhaps for the first time, on the true price of war, then her version is as valid as anyone else’s.[/QUOTE}

 

[Athos]

Yep, to say nothing of those risking their skin in the Ebola clinics. Real bastards, the lot of them.

Harold Shipman cured my asthma.

 

[Celyn]

Thanks! I had been looking to learn what Bogle thought, then my damn computer froze. (Hence why trusting myself/computer with only tiny posts).


ETA that was for Athos, re. Eric Bogle.

 

[Celyn]

deleted.

 

[Lo Siento.]

No. Read the post. I was making the point that the forces are apolitical, in that they are not aligned to any political party. cf many other countries.

In no country are the armed forces aligned to any political party. They are always aligned to the state and the present constitutional order. On regular occasions (Spain 1936, Chile 1973, Egypt 2013 being 3 very well-known examples) historically this has led armed forces to overthrow elected governments that they (or a substantial part of their command) thought were a threat to both.

The only real difference between those 3 countries and ours is that we've never chosen a government that the Armed Forces deemed a threat to constitutional order.

 

[Athos]

Surely the question of whether 'the military' is or is not political is a red herring?

To me, the most compelling reason not to wear a poppy is to refuse to perpetuate the mythology upon which the ruling class relies to further its interests by sending working class men and women to their deaths.

 

[friedaweed]

Can this thread and the worse than Hitler be merged yet or is there enough time to mention the pins?

 

[8ball]

To me, the most compelling reason not to wear a poppy is to refuse to perpetuate the mythology upon which the ruling class relies to further its interests by sending working class men and women to their deaths.

To be fair some of them like to send their own children along too.

 

[Athos]

To be fair some of them like to send their own children along too.

They may share a small part of the cost; but they reap the larger part of the benefit.

 

[8ball]

They may share a small part of the cost; but they reap the larger part of the benefit.

True. They also hate their kids.

 

[Athos]

True. They also hate their kids.

So do I.

Hate theirs, that is.

 

[8ball]

So do I.

Hate theirs, that is.

Made me laugh, but that's a bit mean - you don't choose your parents.

 

[Athos]

Made me laugh, but that's a bit mean - you don't choose your parents.

Imagine choosing Clegg. I'd rather take my chances in Haute Le Garenne.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Surely the question of whether 'the military' is or is not political is a red herring?

To me, the most compelling reason not to wear a poppy is to refuse to perpetuate the mythology upon which the ruling class relies to further its interests by sending working class men and women to their deaths.

gotta have an army though, otherwise there'd be no rough men standing ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm and we couldn't sleep safe in our beds. Amiright?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Even elite troops can lose their nerve, it can happen to the very best.

Anyone who feels that war is never the only option is a clown. Their wreath of white poppies would soon have been red, as the Nazi tanks crushed the bearer.

As for his whining that the MOD obtained an injunction to prevent him from breaking the law, he can consider himself lucky that he wasn't jailed for breach of the Official Secrets Act, which he signed. Signing a document such as the OSA is in effect giving your word, and a man who does not stand by his word isn't much of a man.

If someone feels that they can no longer serve, there is a mechanism whereby they may leave.

The engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan were of dubious legality and morality. If one's conscience dictates that they can no longer serve, then there is a mechanism to do so. Of course, if you are intent on generating the maximum publicity, then you 'refuse to soldier'. Self publicists 'refuse to soldier', everyone else quietly makes their case and leaves.

I sense a thwarted 'Andy McNab' here.

That's a disgusting post.