Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I think buying either of them is idiotic.

    But buying one because you wish to prompt an extremely public show of hatred of anyone on national television (the rationale being by having that song played in the charts) is cretinous behavour in the extreme.
    I agree I just think its stupid, I mean why waste your money on something that people will just forget about it in a few months

    I think this whole thing just shows what the some of the British public are like and to be honest I'm not really liking what I'm seeing.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I think buying either of them is idiotic.

    But buying one because you wish to prompt an extremely public show of hatred of anyone on national television (the rationale being by having that song played in the charts) is cretinous behavour in the extreme.
    It's a reflex way of showing protest - it may appear stupid, but it's an interesting sign that a significant number of younger people don't think all that highly of Mrs T.

    It's all very silly though as it obscures the real issue, the policies of her governments, as does at least some of the adulatory claptrap being touted by the right wing press and Tory MPs.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It's a reflex way of showing protest - it may appear stupid, but it's an interesting sign that a significant number of younger people don't think all that highly of Mrs T.

    It's all very silly though as it obscures the real issue, the policies of her governments, as does at least some of the adulatory claptrap being touted by the right wing press and Tory MPs.
    It doesn't show anything in the slightest.

    Consider this.

    You will no doubt say that TSR is a bunch of raving rightards, particularly when it suits their political aim to do so, as others have tried to do in this very thread, when a nationwide poll shows that surprise surprise, people do generally support Thatcher...

    Already dealt with the lunacy of lefties claiming that it is a valid analysis to state that the majority of people hated Thatcher based on the extreme minority of people who buy a song, so I won't bother again.

    Yet again another case of your views not stacking up with reality.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    It doesn't show anything in the slightest.

    Consider this.

    Yet again another case of your views not stacking up with reality.
    And it's another sign that you just play with semantics to suit your agenda. I said "significant" - that's entirely borne out by the almost-30% in the poll you just highlighted who have an unfavourable opinion. Perhaps you don't find nearly 1/3 "significant" - I do. So be it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    What has been prevented is its use for a purpose that the BBC never considered, by silly and / or unpleasant people who, as a result, are being denied their way. It is imperative that such people are always denied their own way and are seen to be being denied their own way.
    Why should they be denied their own way, and how far should the government/society go to ensure they are?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    it's an interesting sign that a significant number of younger people don't think all that highly of Mrs T.
    Hardly suprising. Did you see Sky News' coverage of the protest? Some guy brought his four year old son along and was making him chant 'Thatcher's dead'. I hate to sound like, well, you, but indoctrination or what?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    And it's another sign that you just play with semantics to suit your agenda. I said "significant" - that's entirely borne out by the almost-30% in the poll you just highlighted who have an unfavourable opinion. Perhaps you don't find nearly 1/3 "significant" - I do. So be it.
    No, that's not my problem at all. I agree a significant number don't.

    My problem is how you can make this assessment from the numbers of people how buy a song, numbering in the few tens of thousands as opposed to a properly conducted poll.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Troll Toll)
    Why should they be denied their own way, and how far should the government/society go to ensure they are?
    Because we live in a civilised society.

    Otherwise we are getting into the realms of trying to argue for the rights of those who disagree with the war in Iraq/Afghanistan to be permitted to chant "British soldiers burn in hell" at their funerals, and later dance on and /or deface war memorials and the graves of dead soldiers.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snowyowl)
    I think it's terrible that the BBC AREN'T playing it. The BBC are supposed to be impartial and by refusing to play it they place themselves on one side of the debate.
    I think you're misunderstanding impartiality. If there was a dead left-wing Prime Minister who was the subject of a disgusting campaign in the period between his death and funeral, I should expect they'd behave in precisely the same way.

    Indeed, I think it's part of the BBC's duties to uphold a certain moral standard. Whilst it is not their place to condemn others, I for one am not at all happy they are playing any part of the song, for any amount of time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Because we live in a civilised society.

    Otherwise we are getting into the realms of trying to argue for the rights of those who disagree with the war in Iraq/Afghanistan to be permitted to chant "British soldiers burn in hell" at their funerals, and later dance on and /or deface war memorials and the graves of dead soldiers.
    I asked you to draw a specific line. So you think getting a mean song on the radio should be banned, you think disrespecting funerals and war memorials should be banned. What is the worst thing you can think of that shouldn't be banned?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snowyowl)
    I completely disagree.

    Anyway, I'm listening to the chart show now and they just played the pro-Thatcher song, "I'm in Love With Margaret Thatcher". Why play one and not the other?
    Proof if ever needed that there is such a thing as a stupid question...

    Anyway, I think it's rather obvious. One is being used to celebrate the life of someone. The other is being used, sickeningly, to revel in a person's death. It's the difference between Elton John releasing a remake of Candle in the Wind to mark Princess Diana's death or writing a new song called "Ha Ha Ha, Princess Diana is Dead".
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Because we live in a civilised society.

    Otherwise we are getting into the realms of trying to argue for the rights of those who disagree with the war in Iraq/Afghanistan to be permitted to chant "British soldiers burn in hell" at their funerals, and later dance on and /or deface war memorials and the graves of dead soldiers.
    Hear hear. And we're not talking about "banning" the song anyway, we're talking about our national broadcaster - which is supposed to consider the good of the nation in its deliberations - opting not to play it in full.

    I wonder how people will feel when the Queen dies and inevitably the same band of far-left nutters, IRA sympathisers, Twitter trolls and assorted ********s try to get the Sex Pistols or something equally inappropriate to Number 1. Because it will happen.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Troll Toll)
    I asked you to draw a specific line. So you think getting a mean song on the radio should be banned, you think disrespecting funerals and war memorials should be banned. What is the worst thing you can think of that shouldn't be banned?
    As already stated, it hasn't been banned by the BBC, nor anyone else. It will be played again and again for many years to come.

    What has been prevented is its use for a purpose that the BBC never considered, by silly and / or unpleasant people who, as a result, are being denied their way. It is imperative that such people are always denied their own way and are seen to be being denied their own way.

    That being silly and unpleasant people who think it is OK to prompt an extremely public show of hatred on national television of someone who has just died.

    Society usually bans things that it deems unacceptable, by passing laws against, or ostracising people from society.

    I was merely asking whether it the case where snowyowl disagrees that such people be denied their own way and should always be denied their own way and are seen to be being denied their own way, or is it only the case when that unpleasantness is something snowyowl agrees with?

    Or was it the case that snowyowl believes such people should be allowed to show as much unpleasantness as they choose in the manner that they choose?

    Why should I have to draw the line at something that I think should be banned, so you can argue for reasons why it should not be? I don't draw the line, society does.

    And the reasons in this case are quite clear.

    Convention demands that we do not make exhibitions of ourselves upon the passing of another, or in the vicinity of funerals and this is what this is really all about.

    We are not too far from the day when if one were passed by a funeral cortege in the street, you were expected to stop and gentlemen remove headgear, even if the deceased were a total stranger. It is called respect for the feelings of others and such rituals bring solidarity to society, as do good manners.

    You can hardly condemn, as some of you have, fundamental Muslims showing disrespect to fallen British soldiers if you are going to behave in exactly the same way. It's double standards...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    So you don't agree?

    Is it the case where you disagree that such people be denied their own way and should always be denied their own way and are seen to be being denied their own way, or is it only the case when that unpleasantness is something you agree with?

    Or do you say that such people should be allowed to show as much unpleasantness as they choose in the manner that they choose?
    I disagree that these people should be denied the right to have their opinion aired. It is not in the BBC's place to decide which group should be allowed to have their views broadcast and who shouldn't - if the song made it into the charts then it should be played.

    Remember back in 2009 when Killing in the Name reached Christmas number one? People were only buying the song as part of a campaign to prevent X Factor from gaining a Christmas number one for the fifth year in a row. I realise that this isn't quite on the same scale of Ding Dong, but people were downloading it to spite Simon Cowell and the X Factor - which could be described as unpleasant behaviour. Should the BBC have refused to play that song? Or should it only refuse to play songs that are downloaded as part of unpleasantness towards people you support?



    You mean, why should something that shows support for someone be allowed, yet something which shows hatred for them not be, particularly at the time of their death? I would have thought that was obvious...
    The BBC should play both or neither.

    (Original post by L i b)
    I think you're misunderstanding impartiality. If there was a dead left-wing Prime Minister who was the subject of a disgusting campaign in the period between his death and funeral, I should expect they'd behave in precisely the same way.

    Indeed, I think it's part of the BBC's duties to uphold a certain moral standard. Whilst it is not their place to condemn others, I for one am not at all happy they are playing any part of the song, for any amount of time.
    I am not happy that they are not playing the entire song. As it happens, I don't know enough about Thatcher's rule to form an opinion - and that's perhaps why I feel as I do. I don't feel particularly strongly for either side; I just see one side being allowed to have their opinion broadcast, and the other not.

    (Original post by L i b)
    Proof if ever needed that there is such a thing as a stupid question...

    Anyway, I think it's rather obvious. One is being used to celebrate the life of someone. The other is being used, sickeningly, to revel in a person's death. It's the difference between Elton John releasing a remake of Candle in the Wind to mark Princess Diana's death or writing a new song called "Ha Ha Ha, Princess Diana is Dead".
    Your example isn't entirely relevant though, as "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" was not originally written for Thatcher, and has been hijacked for the campaign. If "Ha Ha Ha, Princess Diana is Dead" had existed and made it into the charts, why shouldn't the BBC play it?

    Once the BBC start deciding who's allowed to have their opinions aired and who's not, then I think we're heading into dangerous territory and they can no longer call themselves impartial.

    EDIT:


    (Original post by L i b)
    Hear hear. And we're not talking about "banning" the song anyway, we're talking about our national broadcaster - which is supposed to consider the good of the nation in its deliberations - opting not to play it in full.

    I wonder how people will feel when the Queen dies and inevitably the same band of far-left nutters, IRA sympathisers, Twitter trolls and assorted ********s try to get the Sex Pistols or something equally inappropriate to Number 1. Because it will happen.
    For the record, I would have no problem with the song (I presume you mean "God Save the Queen") being played.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snowyowl)
    I am not happy that they are not playing the entire song. As it happens, I don't know enough about Thatcher's rule to form an opinion - and that's perhaps why I feel as I do. I don't feel particularly strongly for either side; I just see one side being allowed to have their opinion broadcast, and the other not.
    That's because one side is sick. There's a difference between holding an opinion on something, and expressing morally repugnant view.

    Your example isn't entirely relevant though, as "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" was not originally written for Thatcher, and has been hijacked for the campaign. If "Ha Ha Ha, Princess Diana is Dead" had existed and made it into the charts, why shouldn't the BBC play it?
    Because that would be disgusting. This isn't even about people assuming they have a right not to be offended - although to be honest, in some cases, I think they ought to - but rather a clear decision not to have this behaviour given any credit by our state broadcaster.

    Once the BBC start deciding who's allowed to have their opinions aired and who's not, then I think we're heading into dangerous territory and they can no longer call themselves impartial.
    No we're not. It's perfectly easy to distinguish between a sick mockery of a person's death and straightforward political comment. I think the BBC not preventing the broadcast of this would have run entirely counter to its civic role. I'm not saying that doesn't put the BBC in a difficult position, it certainly does, but that's the sort of crap you have to deal with when you're paid a fortune from the public purpose to be Director-General.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snowyowl)
    I disagree that these people should be denied the right to have their opinion aired. It is not in the BBC's place to decide which group should be allowed to have their views broadcast and who shouldn't - if the song made it into the charts then it should be played.
    Their opinion has been aired. Everyone now knows that there is a sick minority in this country sad enough to buy a song, not because they appreciate the song for its tonal qualities, the artiste's skill and the song's melody, but simply because it contains the words 'dead and 'witch' and has been chosen to represent the celebration of the death of Thatcher by a vile and very vocal minority.

    It is just like those in the 70s choosing to buy a song because it contains profanity or language indecent to society at the time, hoping to get it to No.1 so you would hear the f-word on television, and the childish hilarity that went with that, and guess what, the BBC didn't play those either.

    Every single one of them was hoping that there would be loads of childish indignation when the song was played at that particular event, watching people say "It's not fair, because I liked her".

    Well, that is exactly what you are doing - because they won't play the song and you didn't like her.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Their opinion has been aired. Everyone now knows that there is a sick minority in this country sad enough to buy a song, not because they appreciate the song for its tonal qualities, the artiste's skill and the song's melody, but simply because it contains the words 'dead and 'witch' and has been chosen to represent the celebration of the death of Thatcher by a vile and very vocal minority.

    It is just like those in the 70s choosing to buy a song because it contains profanity or language indecent to society at the time, hoping to get it to No.1 so you would hear the word **** on television, and the childish hilarity that went with that, and guess what, the BBC didn't play those either.

    Every single one of them was hoping that there would be loads of childish indignation when the song was played at that particular event, watching people say "It's not fair, because I liked her".

    Well, that is exactly what you are doing - because they won't play the song and you didn't like her.
    I will repeat what I said in my previous post:

    I am not happy that they are not playing the entire song. As it happens, I don't know enough about Thatcher's rule to form an opinion - and that's perhaps why I feel as I do. I don't feel particularly strongly for either side; I just see one side being allowed to have their opinion broadcast, and the other not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    As already stated, it hasn't been banned by the BBC, nor anyone else. It will be played again and again for many years to come.
    I know the song hasn't been banned. You're misunderstanding my point. Under these particular conditions the song/protest has been censored. I'm not arguing that this is a bad thing. You think some other things should be censored as well, and that's fine. All I'm asking you is, as a thought exercise, to tell me what you think is the worst and most offensive thing that shouldn't be censored.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    This song is SO annoying -_-
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snowyowl)
    I will repeat what I said in my previous post:
    Then you should go back and read what I wrote to you then because my opinion hasn't changed. I already explained why playing one was fine but not the other.

    Someone else has already gone and told you exactly the same thing.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.