Originally posted by Ariosto
View Post
Trouble at t'Proms
Collapse
X
-
-
-
Ariosto
Originally posted by Pabmusic View PostI'm a little puzzled. After the war, Britain was refusing to allow mass Jewish immigration to Israel; Britain was distinctly pro-Arab (despite the Balfour declaration). After the British attempt to turn back Exodus (a ship with hundreds of holocaust survivors) the USA threatened to withhold loans to Britain, so Britain referred the whole 'Palestine problem' to the UN, which voted to establish the sate of Israel. Britain abstained in the vote. So Israel was 'imposed' on Palestine by an overwhelming UN vote - significantly not supported by Britain.
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." Balfour.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Anna View PostThat's exactly how I felt and I do hope, at The Last Night, when traditionally there are lots of flags of different countries that the Israeli flag will appear in great numbers.
(Now duck with me behind the sofa as the flak begins to fly!)
Any time, Anna
"...the isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
Will hum about mine ears, and sometime voices..."
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Ariosto View PostOK, that may be so, but Britain did give up on Palestine when the terrorists attacked and killed British soldiers. Yes, I could quite believe that we were blackmailed by the yanks.
Comment
-
-
tsuji-giri
One thing that puzzled me was the reticence of the BBC to tell anyone what was happening; seems a bit perverse when presumably there was an announcer in the hall who could have said a few words.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tsuji-giri View PostOne thing that puzzled me was the reticence of the BBC to tell anyone what was happening; seems a bit perverse when presumably there was an announcer in the hall who could have said a few words.
Comment
-
-
Indeed
its outrageous that they think that its ok to behave like they have
so much for "freedom of speech"
(as i've probably said too many times !)
it seems to be OK to cite politics when you are talking about Shostakovitch or the Quartet for The End of Time or "saint" Daniel (who is a great musician) etc
surely it can't be legal to 'suspend' someone for writing to the newspaper ????
Comment
-
-
Mahlerei
The LPO's stance seems hypocritical in the extreme; they - and every other orchestra in the land -were quite happy to let music and politics mix by refusing to play in apartheid South Africa.
Comment
-
Originally posted by waldhorn View PostQuoting MrGongGong:
"surely it can't be legal to 'suspend' someone for writing to the newspaper???"
perhaps one of our lawyer MBs could opine on this question...?"...the isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
Will hum about mine ears, and sometime voices..."
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Caliban View PostBut if you use the name of your organisation without permission to add weight to your opinion on a highly controversial subject, and thereby drag all your colleagues and the organsation into your public expression of opinion without their say-so, that is a disciplinary matter. It's nothing to do with freedom of speech. If anything, it's about the four individuals' invasion of their colleagues' and organisation's right to remain silent on an issue.
So you are suggesting that it's somehow wrong to disclose who you work for ?
Surely you don't think that by saying which orchestra you play for you are implying that they are endorsing everything you say or think ?
Having read the letter it seemed clear to me that they were simply saying that they were Orchestral musicians in the same way that they would say where they worked if they were academics , only a paranoid misreading would imply that EVERYONE in the Orchestra agreed with them ?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Mahlerei View PostThe LPO's stance seems hypocritical in the extreme; they - and every other orchestra in the land -were quite happy to let music and politics mix by refusing to play in apartheid South Africa.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Chris Newman View PostIt seems to be OK if you work in academia as it is regarded as thinking for yourself whilst stating where you work (common sense to most people) but not in the LPO.
I'd be surprised if this one doesn't go to Employment Tribunal. In the meantime I'll be giving the LPO a wide berth, and won't be listening to any concerts of theirs on R3.
Comment
-
Comment