Trouble at t'Proms

[MrGongGong]

I tend to feel there's never enough evidence to form any conclusion on anything ).

Spoken like a true liberal (that's meant as a compliment !)
does that include Marmite ?

[doversoul1]

Two more points (then I MUST get on)
1. I see ff’s point. Whilst I do not doubt their sincerity, it would have been far more effective if they’d tried to stop people buying the ticket rather than wasting it (along with the train tickets and the hotel reservation), and it would have generated more discussion had they written the letter when the programme was published.

2. People use the term ‘political’ in very different ways and we cannot say that only our tem is right. I am not supporting the LPO by any means (disclaimer) .

[french frank]

There was never any chance of the BBC pulling the concert, though. That's not a reason to keep silent; appealing to them to rescind the invitation close to the concert brought the subject up as a matter of urgency & might have persuaded some people planning to attend the concert to not do so. If the suggestion is the four signatories supported the disruption of the concert that's just innuendo. Something Norman Lebrecht was happy to use in this context.

I don't make innuendos: if I want to say something I'll say it clearly. I did feel that it was further evidence of political naivety on the part of some of the signatories - if I wanted to persuade people not to go, I would simply have reminded them of the facts and urged them not to attend. That seemed to me the purpose of the timing of the letter - why not draw attention to the boycott and demonstration outside the RAH? - or was that too political?

[french frank]

does that include Marmite ?

Of course not!

[vinteuil]

Whether - as you believe - the action was morally wrong would need a bit more information to support (but whether 51% certainty or 100% is needed on that lies with the individual: I tend to feel there's never enough evidence to form any conclusion on anything ).

FF - if you were called to jury service, wd you alert those scrutinising potential jury members to this condition? It might seem to preclude your taking part...

[John Skelton]

I don't make innuendos: if I want to say something I'll say it clearly.

Then clearly you weren't suggesting that "the four signatories supported the disruption of the concert" & my apologies.

I don't really see what the importance of their "motives" is, though .

[french frank]

I don't really see what the importance of their "motives" is, though .

No more than what they hoped to achieve by it right at the last minute. It seems rather self important to be proclaiming that they were members of the LPO - couldn't they just have joined the demo outside?

[aeolium]

Surely a key point is whether any reasonable person, reading that letter and looking at the details of the signatories, would conclude that the musicians from the LPO were speaking on behalf of the whole orchestra. No-one would conclude that because Erik Levi of Goldsmiths College wrote subsequently in support of them that the inference to be drawn was that it was the view of the whole college. If a director or chief executive of a company wrote in and made it clear that s/he was writing on behalf of the organisation, then that would obviously be different.

[Ariosto]

Surely a key point is whether any reasonable person, reading that letter and looking at the details of the signatories, would conclude that the musicians from the LPO were speaking on behalf of the whole orchestra. No-one would conclude that because Erik Levi of Goldsmiths College wrote subsequently in support of them that the inference to be drawn was that it was the view of the whole college. If a director or chief executive of a company wrote in and made it clear that s/he was writing on behalf of the organisation, then that would obviously be different.

Precisely.