I know that they developed out of pirate stations like Radio Caroline and international stations like Radio Luxemburg. But they whole commercial sector was set back when the bbc started Radio 1. I think it remained the biggest source of pop music on the radio for a long time.
So is the general view that if only this song had been broadcast on the BBC, it would have led to a popular uprising/mutiny in the armed forces, the overthrow of Mrs Thatcher, a change in the course of history, and the immediate ushering-in of the Golden Age?
So is the general view that if only this song had been broadcast on the BBC, it would have led to a popular uprising/mutiny in the armed forces, the overthrow of Mrs Thatcher, a change in the course of history, and the immediate ushering-in of the Golden Age?
I think the idea was more that it could help contribute to a sense of defeatism in the armed forces and maybe certain military-connected sections of the home front, which might have a negative impact on the troops' fighting ability.
Not defending the censorship, just saying that was probably the logic.
So 'banned' (and, if so, by whom? Thatcher?) is perhaps not quite the correct word to use. Semantics, I guess, but it does look more like a bit of self-purging (albeit possibly under pressure from She Who Was To Be Obeyed).
I think it operates on a slightly more subtle level, in that those who don't purge by instinct are unlikely to be fit in to start with. Staff getting vetted by MI5 well into the 90s is just another aspect of this.
Having played that clip, I can confidently say that I've no recollection of having ever heard Six Months In A Leaky Boat before. Mind, it's not very memorable. ...
No; the instrumental introduction is interminable, and unmemorable. The lyrics are mostly incomprehensible, but I looked them up, and they don't seem to have anything remotely Falklandesque about them. I wouldn't have played it on the grounds that it's dull and not particularly original.
I looked them up, and they don't seem to have anything remotely Falklandesque about them.
But, for a lot of people, the refrain is the only part of the song that really registers, and in this case, it was about some guy spending "six months in a leaky boat." Which might sound a little suggestive during a war in which the Royal Navy was playing the major role.
According to some accounts, the censors thought that it was directly ABOUT the conflict, ie. written with the war in mind. Given that it came out before the war started, that seems like an impluaible account of what they believed. Unless, of course, they were really stupid.
Having played that clip, I can confidently say that I've no recollection of having ever heard Six Months In A Leaky Boat before. Mind, it's not very memorable. ...
No; the instrumental introduction is interminable, and unmemorable. The lyrics are mostly incomprehensible, but I looked them up, and they don't seem to have anything remotely Falklandesque about them. I wouldn't have played it on the grounds that it's dull and not particularly original.
But, for a lot of people, the refrain is the only part of the song that really registers, and in this case, it was about some guy spending "six months in a leaky boat." Which might sound a little suggestive during a war in which the Royal Navy was playing the major role.
According to some accounts, the censors thought that it was directly ABOUT the conflict, ie. written with the war in mind. Given that it came out before the war started, that seems like an impluaible account of what they believed. Unless, of course, they were really stupid.
I know that they developed out of pirate stations like Radio Caroline and international stations like Radio Luxemburg. But they whole commercial sector was set back when the bbc started Radio 1. I think it remained the biggest source of pop music on the radio for a long time.
All this brings to mind the Goodies, which I watched as a child after school. There was one episode where the Goodies ran a pirate radio station. My favourite though will remain ecky-thump, when they went around assaulting each other with black puddings.
Right then you lot. Stop buggering about and get back to the subject of how Auntie Beeb has become a mouthpiece for the fascists/wokerati, or I'll get to flex my new banhammer powers1.
DT
HH
1Not really, but let's just pretend that I might for a moment, eh?
I know that they developed out of pirate stations like Radio Caroline and international stations like Radio Luxemburg. But they whole commercial sector was set back when the bbc started Radio 1. I think it remained the biggest source of pop music on the radio for a long time.
All this brings to mind the Goodies, which I watched as a child after school. There was one episode where the Goodies ran a pirate radio station. My favourite though will remain ecky-thump, when they went around assaulting each other with black puddings.
Kitten Kong...
I used to think that the fact that left and right think the BBC is biased was evidence it wasn't. Then came Corbyn made to look like he was wearing a Russian hat...
I do worry about people who think the BBC is far left. What in the name of God do they think would be Right-wing?
I used to think that the fact that left and right think the BBC is biased was evidence it wasn't. Then came Corbyn made to look like he was wearing a Russian hat...
In fairness, though, I'm wondering if this might be some of the lazier forms of anti-Trumpism crossing the Atlantic, rather than a throwback to Cold War anti-Soviet politics.
For the record, I'm someone who believes that Putin wanted Trump to win(he had admitted as much himself), and that state-backed entitites in Russia assisted(to whatever degree) in making that happen, and that the Russians may have had illegal collaboration from some Republicans in doing this. But I've also seen allegations of Russian influence over Trump hauled out in situations where it really doesn't fit.
And I think there might be a tendency now to link any sort of politician with non-mainstream origins and a populist style to Russia. Granted, in Corbyn's case, it probably doesn't hurt that "useful idiots" was the slur of choice against Labour politicians going back at least to Ramsey MacDonald.
I do worry about people who think the BBC is far left. What in the name of God do they think would be Right-wing?
I assume that they are very socially conservative (therefore seeing even Cameronism as dangerously louche) or have a very fixed idea of 'the natural order of things' (political/economic etc) and see any deviation as left wing.
Having defended the BBC, I am annoyed with them today. Yesterday their website had an article about the PM asking people to give money for Big Ben to ring to mark Brexit. Today the Guardian reports that no such plan exists, and it was another random comment. Why doesn't the BBC mention this?
I do worry about people who think the BBC is far left. What in the name of God do they think would be Right-wing?
As far as I see, the Beeb tends to be largely pro-corporate, mostly pro-current-government on international affairs, and almost entirely Guardian-reader on domestic social issues. So it depends what topics get you fired up. To a socialist, the Beeb is irredeemably pro-capitalist. To a reactionary conservative, it unaccountably thinks that gay people and black people have some kind of right to be gay and/or black.
I do worry about people who think the BBC is far left. What in the name of God do they think would be Right-wing?
As far as I see, the Beeb tends to be largely pro-corporate, mostly pro-current-government on international affairs, and almost entirely Guardian-reader on domestic social issues. So it depends what topics get you fired up. To a socialist, the Beeb is irredeemably pro-capitalist. To a reactionary conservative, it unaccountably thinks that gay people and black people have some kind of right to be gay and/or black.
That almost word-for-word describes attitudes toward the CBC in Canada. Though I think a lot of the social conservatives who hate their stance on gays and feminism probably DON'T acknowledge their generally pro-corporate stance, and perceive the network to be economically socialist as well.
I can't imagine the leftists think the CBC is radically right on social issues, though they don't usually go out of their way to praise them for being socially progressive.
So, in a nutshell, partisans hate the CBC for the things on which they disagree with the network, and either don't recognize or shrug off the issues on which they do agree.
See if you can guess what the whole of the lunchtime news on Radio 4 - supposedly the serious station - was devoted to today.
That's right. Half an hour's worth devoted to Mardell on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, complete with interviews with a collection of not very interesting hired commentators and correspondents. Presumably they get paid so much a word or minute..
True. It's an item of news. It should have been reported. In a half hour programme, 3-4 minutes would have been reasonable enough. But is nothing else happening in the world? What's happening in other countries? Has the Prime Minister done anything this weekend? If he's that idle that he hasn't, that would have been more important news than what letters the Duke and Duchess are or are not entitled to put after their names.
And, as I've said before, I'm not a republican. These are the news decisions made by Mardell and his editor/producer, not HMQ.
No doubt some functionary will have decided that it is what the youthful audience the Beeb wants to attract is interested in. No like what the future will hold for them after Brexit, for example.
No doubt some functionary will have decided that it is what the youthful audience the Beeb wants to attract is interested in. No like what the future will hold for them after Brexit, for example.
In fairness I don't think the BBC could make "youse are all reet fucked" last a full half hour.
And if they're after the 'yoof' audience then Radio 4 is completely the wrong place. I suspect that most <30/40 year old listeners are either politics nuts, or people like myself who grew up with that as the perma-tuned station at home.
And if they're after the 'yoof' audience then Radio 4 is completely the wrong place. I suspect that most <30/40 year old listeners are either politics nuts, or people like myself who grew up with that as the perma-tuned station at home.
Gosh, I remember Freddie Grisewood. And Franklin Englemann. And Billy Cotton. And "Two-way Family Favourites". And John Snagge commentating on the Boat Race.
That makes me old.
At least I don't remember Stuart Hibberd and Alvar Liddell. Or "This is 2LO calling".
By the by, I'm reading an excellent book on the history of radio in the UK called "The Last Train to Hilversum".
Comments
But TPTB probably thought otherwise...insofar as they thought/think at all.
I think the idea was more that it could help contribute to a sense of defeatism in the armed forces and maybe certain military-connected sections of the home front, which might have a negative impact on the troops' fighting ability.
Not defending the censorship, just saying that was probably the logic.
I think it operates on a slightly more subtle level, in that those who don't purge by instinct are unlikely to be fit in to start with. Staff getting vetted by MI5 well into the 90s is just another aspect of this.
But, for a lot of people, the refrain is the only part of the song that really registers, and in this case, it was about some guy spending "six months in a leaky boat." Which might sound a little suggestive during a war in which the Royal Navy was playing the major role.
According to some accounts, the censors thought that it was directly ABOUT the conflict, ie. written with the war in mind. Given that it came out before the war started, that seems like an impluaible account of what they believed. Unless, of course, they were really stupid.
All this brings to mind the Goodies, which I watched as a child after school. There was one episode where the Goodies ran a pirate radio station. My favourite though will remain ecky-thump, when they went around assaulting each other with black puddings.
DT
HH
1Not really, but let's just pretend that I might for a moment, eh?
Kitten Kong...
I used to think that the fact that left and right think the BBC is biased was evidence it wasn't. Then came Corbyn made to look like he was wearing a Russian hat...
I do worry about people who think the BBC is far left. What in the name of God do they think would be Right-wing?
In fairness, though, I'm wondering if this might be some of the lazier forms of anti-Trumpism crossing the Atlantic, rather than a throwback to Cold War anti-Soviet politics.
For the record, I'm someone who believes that Putin wanted Trump to win(he had admitted as much himself), and that state-backed entitites in Russia assisted(to whatever degree) in making that happen, and that the Russians may have had illegal collaboration from some Republicans in doing this. But I've also seen allegations of Russian influence over Trump hauled out in situations where it really doesn't fit.
And I think there might be a tendency now to link any sort of politician with non-mainstream origins and a populist style to Russia. Granted, in Corbyn's case, it probably doesn't hurt that "useful idiots" was the slur of choice against Labour politicians going back at least to Ramsey MacDonald.
I assume that they are very socially conservative (therefore seeing even Cameronism as dangerously louche) or have a very fixed idea of 'the natural order of things' (political/economic etc) and see any deviation as left wing.
....such as 'For This Life ONLY'...
As far as I see, the Beeb tends to be largely pro-corporate, mostly pro-current-government on international affairs, and almost entirely Guardian-reader on domestic social issues. So it depends what topics get you fired up. To a socialist, the Beeb is irredeemably pro-capitalist. To a reactionary conservative, it unaccountably thinks that gay people and black people have some kind of right to be gay and/or black.
That almost word-for-word describes attitudes toward the CBC in Canada. Though I think a lot of the social conservatives who hate their stance on gays and feminism probably DON'T acknowledge their generally pro-corporate stance, and perceive the network to be economically socialist as well.
I can't imagine the leftists think the CBC is radically right on social issues, though they don't usually go out of their way to praise them for being socially progressive.
So, in a nutshell, partisans hate the CBC for the things on which they disagree with the network, and either don't recognize or shrug off the issues on which they do agree.
That's right. Half an hour's worth devoted to Mardell on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, complete with interviews with a collection of not very interesting hired commentators and correspondents. Presumably they get paid so much a word or minute..
True. It's an item of news. It should have been reported. In a half hour programme, 3-4 minutes would have been reasonable enough. But is nothing else happening in the world? What's happening in other countries? Has the Prime Minister done anything this weekend? If he's that idle that he hasn't, that would have been more important news than what letters the Duke and Duchess are or are not entitled to put after their names.
And, as I've said before, I'm not a republican. These are the news decisions made by Mardell and his editor/producer, not HMQ.
In fairness I don't think the BBC could make "youse are all reet fucked" last a full half hour.
Or *glances at the mirror* both.
That makes me old.
At least I don't remember Stuart Hibberd and Alvar Liddell. Or "This is 2LO calling".
By the by, I'm reading an excellent book on the history of radio in the UK called "The Last Train to Hilversum".
Except when it comes to lining their own pockets on the outcomes of referenda.