New Year’s Honours List 2019

[Beef Oven!]

What a lot of ignorant twaddle.

Exactly my point!

Point of information, I was active in opposition to al-Muhajiroun. from early 1986, i.e, in its infancy when it was operating around Wood Green. Chances are you were not even aware to its existance at that time.

Very aware. Don't make assumptions.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Bryn is a fan. Barbirollians doesn't understand Wagner - in his own words he says that he likes the music of Parsifal, but not the story!!!??? They are dividable??!!!

It's not about being a fan, it's about cowards venting on politically correct (acceptable) targets. You won't find any criticism of Anjem Choudary amongst the thousands of Bryn and Barbirollians posts because they are too damned scared to criticise a brown-face or a muslim! Part of the British disease, I'm afraid.

We didn't get through the Blitz with specimens like these two posters!!!

Well, no - neither were alive then. I understood Barb's comment to be a contrast between the lack of "higher" Honour for the (Jewish) Ida Haendel with the knighthood for Goodall - something he mentions every year, admittedly, but not an unreasonable complaint. Making a connection between this and "cowardly politically-correct lack of criticism" of Anjem Choudary (who also didn't feature in the New Year's Honours) is a bit of a stretch, it seems to me.

[Beef Oven!]

Well, no - neither were alive then. I understood Barb's comment to be a contrast between the lack of "higher" Honour for the (Jewish) Ida Haendel with the knighthood for Goodall - something he mentions every year, admittedly, but not an unreasonable complaint. Making a connection between this and "cowardly politically-correct lack of criticism" of Anjem Choudary (who also didn't feature in the New Year's Honours) is a bit of a stretch, it seems to me.

It's about hypocrisy and nauseating virtue-signalling and holier-than the rest of us crap that some forumites expect us to swallow.

I steer clear of the politics of composers and performers, it's a mug's game to indulge. I may think that Robert Simpson's politics were thoroughly misguided, to say nothing of RB's SWP membership. But if I worried about it, I'd lose out on two cherished composers. But for those of you who worry about those things, if the cap fits, wear it. Krauss. A Nazi collaborator. Don't be winging in here and slagging off Reggie for some injudicious remarks about the BBC's 'obsession' with the Holocaust (Reggie never actually denied the Holocaust), when you start threads about Krauss and gush praise all over the place like you got a crush on the bloke.

[french frank]

Since we're continuing with this line: having no opinion (or information) I bought the Lucas biography a couple of years ago (1p on Amazon). I was most struck, not by his political views, but by his very odd personality. I came to the conclusion that he suffered some form of cognitive, spectrum disorder which explained his obsessions, 'tantrums', attention to minute details, easily influenced by others (esp. his wife), credulity. Lucas didn't hero-worship him but neither did he censure him. I think he did explain him pretty well.

[Beef Oven!]

Phew! Good job you took the trouble to tell us that you only paid 1p. Would have been very un-virtuous otherwise! I paid full price, twice, btw.

I agree. Odd bloke. Very Odd. I'm not sure why you think that there was any risk of Lucas hero-worshipping him, more still, censuring him.

I don't agree that he explained him much. I do think he described him, though.

Since we're continuing with this line: having no opinion (or information) I bought the Lucas biography a couple of years ago (1p on Amazon). I was most struck, not by his political views, but by his very odd personality. I came to the conclusion that he suffered some form of cognitive, spectrum disorder which explained his obsessions, 'tantrums', attention to minute details, easily influenced by others (esp. his wife), credulity. Lucas didn't hero-worship him but neither did he censure him. I think he did explain him pretty well.

[french frank]

Phew! Good job you took the trouble to tell us that you only paid 1p. Would have been very un-virtuous otherwise! I paid full price, twice, btw.

I only paid 1p because I wasn't really interested in him as a person, but only in trying to understand the strong reactions expressed here every time his name was mentioned. As if people had all known him personally and liked or loathed him, when i assume they'd only read something about him.

Hero-worshipping/censuring: biographers often do have reasons for choosing their subjects and it's quite hard not to get some inkling about how they felt about them (even if hero-worshipping &c is putting it a bit strongly ). By 'explain', perhaps I mean only that the aspects of the man's character 'explained' him to me. Of course, I could be mistaken. But various details - which you describe as 'odd' - seemed to me to fit a pattern. I find it more difficult to judge such a man than others do.

Unless we can see things as he saw them, it's impossible to assess the degree of 'wickedness'. Most people see what they want to see and I expect we all have a level of obtuseness about issues that it suits us to push under the carpet.

[Bryn]

It's about hypocrisy and nauseating virtue-signalling and holier-than the rest of us crap that some forumites expect us to swallow.

I steer clear of the politics of composers and performers, it's a mug's game to indulge. I may think that Robert Simpson's politics were thoroughly misguided, to say nothing of RB's SWP membership. But if I worried about it, I'd lose out on two cherished composers. But for those of you who worry about those things, if the cap fits, wear it. Krauss. A Nazi collaborator. Don't be winging in here and slagging off Reggie for some injudicious remarks about the BBC's 'obsession' with the Holocaust (Reggie never actually denied the Holocaust), when you start threads about Krauss and gush praise all over the place like you got a crush on the bloke.

I take it you are familiar with the ontent of page 100 of Lucas's book on RG, where he is quoted as desribing Belsen as "British fiction manufactured in a leading movie studio."

[Beef Oven!]

I take it you are familiar with the ontent of page 100 of Lucas's book on RG, where he is quoted as desribing Belsen as "British fiction manufactured in a leading movie studio."

C'mon Bryn! You know the difference between disputing the details and denying whether the Holocaust happened.

[Beef Oven!]

I only paid 1p because I wasn't really interested in him as a person, but only in trying to understand the strong reactions expressed here every time his name was mentioned. As if people had all known him personally and liked or loathed him, when i assume they'd only read something about him.

Hero-worshipping/censuring: biographers often do have reasons for choosing their subjects and it's quite hard not to get some inkling about how they felt about them (even if hero-worshipping &c is putting it a bit strongly ). By 'explain', perhaps I mean only that the aspects of the man's character 'explained' him to me. Of course, I could be mistaken. But various details - which you describe as 'odd' - seemed to me to fit a pattern. I find it more difficult to judge such a man than others do.

Unless we can see things as he saw them, it's impossible to assess the degree of 'wickedness'. Most people see what they want to see and I expect we all have a level of obtuseness about issues that it suits us to push under the carpet.

I'm very pleased that you read the book. If other people did as you have, it might contribute to a more balanced understanding.

Strong reactions expressed? Well we have a forum 'Private Pike' type boy who is obsessed with Goodall (but hero-worships a Nazi collaborator - I kid you not!) and some hangers on like Bryn and MrGinger.

There were a few threads and posts initiated by opera lovers who among others, appreciated Sir Reginald, but those people got scared off by the fuss created by the afore-mentioned Barbirollians boy (a fact confirmed to me in private messages - not everyone is as thick-skinned as me). It's a shame that it's not possible to talk about the world's greatest Wagner conductor without silly-bollocks hi-jacking it.

Thanks for your diminution of explained, what threw me was your original bold-typing of it.

I agree with you in part about assessing the wickedness or otherwise, but I think it's clearly obvious that Reggie was wrong-headed about a very small aspect of his Germanophilia.

[french frank]

I agree with you in part about assessing the wickedness or otherwise, but I think it's clearly obvious that Reggie was wrong-headed about a very small aspect of his Germanophilia.

The reason I don't get too excited about this is that I do genuinely feel there is a clinical aspect to his 'wrongheadedness'. The comment about Belsen, which is brought up as part of the evidence for the prosection, is interesting. I can genuinely understand that he was presented with facts - or rather 'information' - that he could not handle, could not process. The only way to do so is to explain it away. That would be psychological, not criminal. I think a self-deluding 'inability to believe' is a better way of describing it.

[Beef Oven!]

The reason I don't get too excited about this is that I do genuinely feel there is a clinical aspect to his 'wrongheadedness'. The comment about Belsen, which is brought up as part of the evidence for the prosection, is interesting. I can genuinely understand that he was presented with facts - or rather 'information' - that he could not handle, could not process. The only way to do so is to explain it away. That would be psychological, not criminal. I think a self-deluding 'inability to believe' is a better way of describing it.

Clinical as in somewhere on the autism spectrum? Then more about 'could not process' rather than 'could not handle' (taking you a bit too literally, perhaps).

[french frank]

Clinical as in somewhere on the autism spectrum? Then more about 'could not process' rather than 'could not handle' (taking you a bit too literally, perhaps).

Well (somewhat to the purpose ),I may have been unduly influenced by having just read the biography of the quantum physicist Paul Dirac, The Strangest Man. To me, his personality absolutely screamed out 'autism' although the author didn't suggest it until the end, when there was a whole Appendix discussing the possibility of autism. More relevantly, Dirac declined a knighthood! In Goodall's case, autistic spectrum or not, I would distinguish between the man and the words he spoke. He can't, after all, be compared with men who carried out unspeakable deeds themselves. The 1930s/40s were strange times. People who were living them must have seen and experienced things very differently from how we do now. (A bit like 18thc philanthropist slave traders: only a total inability to empathise treats them exactly as if they were men alive now). What was it that Goodall admired, exactly, and what did he simply not know? It's a key question to which I don't know the answer: I'm a little surprised that others do.

[Barbirollians]

The problem with that benevolent approach to Goodall is that he joined the BUF after the war started and after Kristallnacht .

As for Clemens Krauss whilst indubitably having an eye for the main chance he also was closely involved in and facilitated the smuggling out of the Reich a considerable number of Jewish people through his association with the Cook sisters .

Furthermore, he was not British nor was he given a knighthood which is the point under discussion.

As for Choudary and Hamza and their ilk I raised the failure to prosecute them for incitement with my Labour MP before the 2005 underground atrocity as a matter of law it seemed they were clearly guilty of the offence.