The LPO Four

[MrGongGong]

That's not really comparing like with like at all.
The LPO were completely out of order and they know it, and its completely unethical of them to treat their musicians like this , and they know it !
Sometimes one needs to stand up against injustice even if it costs you personally.

[Nick Armstrong]

The LPO were completely out of order and they know it, and it's completely unethical of them to treat their musicians like this, and they know it !

Amazing how you phrase your opinions and speculations as unarguable facts! That's why I found the debate last time so unrewarding, I recall...

[MrGongGong]

Amazing how you phrase your opinions and speculations as unarguable facts! That's why I found the debate last time so unrewarding, I recall...

humm
well they are based on knowledge NOT supposition
and I can't really say much more

[Nick Armstrong]

One swallow doesn't make a summer, Panny! Karajan's Shostakovich 10?!

[doversoul1]

Mr GG

...... they simply stated who they played for

Would you name one of the universities or the schools you work for if you were to state your political opinion in public? Especially if you happen to have a big name amongst your clients? Without their permission?

John

Sarah Streatfield is taking legal action against the orchestra
Ah, here it is. http://orpheuscomplex.blogspot.com/2...-tribunal.html

Does this not look as if someone/ group is using her for their own political end?

[MrGongGong]

Would you name one of the universities or the schools you work for if you were to state your political opinion in public? Especially if you happen to have a big name amongst your clients? Without their permission?

yes
"permission" is not theirs to give or withhold

do you think Richard Dawkins asks "permission" from Oxford before going on the radio ?

[doversoul1]

yes
"permission" is not theirs to give or withhold

do you think Richard Dawkins asks "permission" from Oxford before going on the radio ?

The four players are no Daniel Barenboim. It is sad reality of our would, and if you really are prepared to use your client’s name in the way they did, I can only say you are extremely brave.

[MrGongGong]

The four players are no Daniel Barenboim. It is sad reality of our would, and if you really are prepared to use your client’s name in the way they did, I can only say you are extremely brave.

One reason why the orchestra is totally out of order is that if it was St Daniel expressing support for Palestinian musicians they would be more than happy to work with him. These musicians were prepared to put their name to a simple request in a letter (which wasn't asking for anyone to be lined up and shot !) which was published in the newspaper, we really should support them. When one is freelance one is not owned by the people employing you but you should be able to say who those people are ! Why is it OK for academics and not musicians ? there are some very dodgy views amongst some of the employees of our leading Universities !

[doversoul1]

Mr GG

• Anyone can put their names to whatever they like, but I’d have thought it is a basic code of conduct for any freelance not to use his/her client’s name in any way without permission. Perhaps your job is an exception.
• If they had been playing for Dover Operatic Society, would they have bothered to mention it?
• I think academics are more careful when not to use their employers’ names. We only see when they do use them.

One reason why the orchestra is totally out of order is that if it was St Daniel expressing support for Palestinian musicians they would be more than happy to work with him.

I agree with you on this point but that does not make the act of the four freelance musicians any less inappropriate, and if they didn’t realise that St. Daniel stood in a different place, they were simply very naïve.

[John Skelton]

Mr GGI think academics are more careful when not to use their employers’ names. We only see when they do use them.

That may increasingly be the case as universities are privatised; then this - from the LPO's Chief Executive Timothy Walker - becomes potentially determining:

"This all became an issue when we started to receive emails and letters from supporters, a lot of whom are Jewish and felt that the players were taking an anti-Jewish position. Some said they weren't going to come to the concerts or give us any money."

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/55459/lpo-jewish-pressure-led-suspensions

In my correspondence with Timothy Walker I asked him if the LPO would have suspended the 4 had they signed a letter @ LPO praising the BBC for inviting the IPO to the Proms. He didn't respond to that, so I asked him if in his view the signatories to this letter http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...ereducation.uk should have been suspended by their universities if they had signed without the explicit agreement of those universities to name them. If he had a view he didn't share it.

Before his remark about losing 'supporters' he made great play of the LPO being 'non-political'. So I wondered how he explained this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rZH0eeyTl8 At which point he unilaterally terminated our correspondence.

My response - my personal response - given that the LPO have 'reduced' the 'suspensions' but not revoked them, given that the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment chose simply to have a conversation with Roy Mowatt who also signed the letter and to then make it clear that his views were not those of the orchestra's but were those of him as an individual, and that was all - will be to not ever attend an LPO concert again, not to buy a CD or a DVD involving the LPO, and not to listen to a broadcast of the orchestra. Big deal, I suppose, but if others do the same it might become a bigger deal for them. People will disagree with this, of course, and that's fine.

It's a disappointment to miss out on 'Video Game Heroes' http://www.destructoid.com/the-lpo-c...t-210653.phtml but I shall just have to fill the void as best I can .

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

My response - my personal response - given that the LPO have 'reduced' the 'suspensions' but not revoked them, given that the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment chose simply to have a conversation with Roy Mowatt who also signed the letter and to then make it clear that his views were not those of the orchestra's but were those of him as an individual, and that was all - will be to not ever attend an LPO concert again, not to buy a CD or a DVD involving the LPO, and not to listen to a broadcast of the orchestra. Big deal, I suppose, but if others do the same it might become a bigger deal for them. People will disagree with this, of course, and that's fine.

I do not disagree with this stance, John; indeed, I feel it is important to share it, and I shall be writing to Mr Walker to let him know that I too shall not be giving my money to the LPO until this decision is reversed. (Something that Chaz at the LSO might find worthy of a wry smile!)

As Cali suggested, strong views on both "sides" of this argument can be looped endlessly, so it is for each of us to act - or not! -as our conscience impels us. A salient feature for me is the fact that the LPO management openly states that it only (over)reacted to the matter once "supporters" threatened to withdraw financial support for the orchestra. The only way I can respond to such submission to blackmail is to resort with my own (tiny, even insignificant) financial "embargo".

Best Wishes.

[aeolium]

The key question is, as JS has suggested, that of freedom of expression whether or not people are in agreement with the views of the four LPO musicians. If it was acceptable for numerous academics and artists who signed this letter in support of the musicians to name the organisations they worked for, why was it not acceptable for the LPO musicians in their letter? I'm sure this will be an argument employed by Geoffrey Bindman in his Employment Tribunal defence of Sarah Streatfield.

I too will be boycotting LPO concerts, CDs, DVDs and broadcasts for the foreseeable future unless/until the LPO management reverse their decision and compensate the musicians.

[MrGongGong]

so it is for each of us to act - or not! -as our conscience impels us. A salient feature for me is the fact that the LPO management openly states that it only (over)reacted to the matter once "supporters" threatened to withdraw financial support for the orchestra. The only way I can respond to such submission to blackmail is to resort with my own (tiny, even insignificant) financial "embargo".

Well said
we shouldn't give in to bullying
nor should we allow the conflation of opposition to Israeli policy with anti-semitism !

The ignorance of musical and cultural history displayed by the LPO Chief Executive is staggering IMV

[LHC]

The key question is, as JS has suggested, that of freedom of expression whether or not people are in agreement with the views of the four LPO musicians. If it was acceptable for numerous academics and artists who signed this letter in support of the musicians to name the organisations they worked for, why was it not acceptable for the LPO musicians in their letter? I'm sure this will be an argument employed by Geoffrey Bindman in his Employment Tribunal defence of Sarah Streatfield.

I too will be boycotting LPO concerts, CDs, DVDs and broadcasts for the foreseeable future unless/until the LPO management reverse their decision and compensate the musicians.

The comparison with academics is not an especially good one. Academics are afforded additional employment rights under the concept of 'academic freedom'. These rights are usually enshrined in universities' charters or governing documents. Essentially this gives academics the right, within the law, to express controversial opinions and not to suffer any detriment for having done so. A university that tried to discipline an academic for signing such a letter might well find that it had breached the terms and conditions under which an academic is employed.

Employees in other professions (and indeed, non-academics in universities) do not have the same protection and can be disciplined for bringing their employer into disrepute.

[Serial_Apologist]

The comparison with academics is not an especially good one. Academics are afforded additional employment rights under the concept of 'academic freedom'. These rights are usually enshrined in universities' charters or governing documents. Essentially this gives academics the right, within the law, to express controversial opinions and not to suffer any detriment for having done so. A university that tried to discipline an academic for signing such a letter might well find that it had breached the terms and conditions under which an academic is employed.

Employees in other professions (and indeed, non-academics in universities) do not have the same protection and can be disciplined for bringing their employer into disrepute.

Then in the name of freedom of speech academic rights should be accorded any employee of any organisation, excluding breaking the Official Secrets Act if where as employees they are contractually obligated.