BBC Censors Judy Garland Song

[Guest scottishguy]

Friends of Dorothy will no doubt be interested to learn that following the recent death of Margaret Thatcher, UK record sales of the 1939 song "Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead" have rocketed.

The song featured in the Wizard of Oz movie starring Judy Garland.

 

The prediction is that the track will reach at least #3 in this Sunday's new chart, and possibly #1.

 

With this in mind, the publicly-funded State Broadcaster has decreed that they shall not play the track in their weekly, top-rated chart countdown programme on Radio 1, where each track in the Top 40 is played in its entirety.

Instead the BBC shall present the song as a "news-item" piece featuring a very short "clip" of the song.

 

Concern is mounting that whilst the song may be seen to be in bad taste given the circumstances, a section of the public have freely and deliberately purchased a rather obscure 75yo song in order to make their feelings known and it is not for the BBC to censor the feelings of the public.

 

However, the BBC has a long history of arbitrarily deciding what music the public ought to be allowed to listen to on their Radio stations.

 

Artists who have previously had tracks banned include Frankie Laine, Frank Sinatra, The Beatles, Alice Cooper, Ella Fitzgerald, The Sex Pistols, Frankie goes to Hollywood, The Beverley Sisters, and the Tom Robinson Band's 1978 hit "Glad To Be Gay"

 

Pride of place must surely go to the BBC banning of the Noel Coward song "Don't Let's Be Beastly to the Germans" - at the height of the War in 1943.

 

Presumably, shooting the Germans was fine -  but "being beastly" to them was regarded by the BBC as being "the height of bad manners, dear boy".

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22126940

 

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/in-brief/7169-fury-over-bbc-ding-dong-the-witch-is-dead-ban

[Guest fountainhall]

It's more important, I think, to look at the reasons for the song's recent popularity. As has been said on another thread, Thatcher was a deeply divisive Prime Minister. In addition to all the good things she achieved, she polarised the country, destroyed communities and, in many cases, livelihoods. Many felt she ushered in an era when greed assumed a new importance. 

 

The government has chosen to give her a funeral on an 'epic' scale of the type not seen for any deceased Prime Minister since Churchill. This was a foolhardy - if not downright ridiculous - decision. Those who suffered under her administration now feel doubly betrayed. Were the government and its advisers so ignorant that they failed to realise those feelings would resurface, the more so when parliament was recalled just a few days early with the only order of business being to pay tributes to her?

 

Had they opted for a more low-key funeral, perhaps things would have been different. As it stands, Wednesday is going to see mass protests which will certainly disrupt what should be a solemn occasion.

[ceejay]

"don't speak ill of the dead".

Usually, I would subscribe to that, but there is a problem with it in this case, because it amounts to an attempt to distort history. If Thatcher's supporters (and I concede that there are many) restricted themselves to "RIP Margaret Thatcher, mother and grandmother" then I would go along with it. But, the BBC has has no problem publishing eulogies of her as the Saviour of Britain etc. etc. and to deny, on grounds of "taste" the many whose lives and communities were ruined by her policies a voice is, to say the least, unbalanced. I think it's important for the historical record to show that there was not a universal outpouring of grief when this woman died and that, 20-30 years after the events many individuals and communities were still scarred by the effects of her policies.

[Guest fountainhall]

the BBC has has no problem publishing eulogies of her as the Saviour of Britain etc. etc. and to deny, on grounds of "taste" the many whose lives and communities were ruined by her policies a voice is, to say the least, unbalanced.

 

I really don't think that's entirely true, certainly not on the BBC's website, nor on their one-hour TV programme about her life. This is from one of the BBC's on-line articles - 

 

Yet what was that legacy? Even now, more than 20 years after her tearful exit from No 10, Britain cannot agree. It is often said that she was the most divisive leader of the last century, which is almost certainly true.

 

Yet her impact was much more complicated, even contradictory, than we often think. Margaret Thatcher called herself a conservative, but she led the most radical government in living memory.

 

She promised to restore law and order, yet she presided over the worst urban riots Britain had ever seen. She talked of bringing back Victorian values, yet her decade in office saw divorce, abortion, illegitimacy and drug-taking reach unprecedented heights.

 

She extolled thrift, hated profligacy and even paid for her own Downing Street ironing board, yet she presided over a gigantic credit boom and unleashed the power of casino capitalism. And although she talked of rolling back the frontiers of the state, the stark fact is that, in real terms, public spending rose in all but two of her years in office . . . 

 

If she had fallen under a bus in 1978, would Britain today be so different? Her champions and her critics would answer with a firm yes. But I doubt it. In the end, you are left with the woman herself. Indeed, the very fact that she was a woman may well have been the most remarkable thing about her.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22076886

[Guest scottishguy]

Surely the issue is whether the BBC is there to an impartial reporter or to be an establishment filter ?

 

With Savile, Hillsborough at other assorted scandals and cover-ups coming to light, it's becoming clear that the BBC is more of the latter than the former.

 

To think that the population need to be "protected" from an musical number albeit played in an irreverent setting, beggars belief.

[Guest]

Britain was a total mess in 1979 & Mrs Thatcher made necessary reforms, introducing democracy to trade unions and son on.

As a result, Britain was able to attract inward investment in the 1980s, such as to the Japanese car plants.

The state finances were also left in a sustainable position.

Some considerable respect is due.

 

Compare and contrast with the more recent Labour government, which patched over a continuing decline in manufacturing by unleashing an unsustainable borrowing binge.  Even at the height of the bubble, Gordon was borrowing about 3% of the budget, therefore when the bubble inevitably burst, our national finances were already starting from a poor position.

 

Considering even the current level of government borrowing is highly irresponsible, the country could benefit from some Thatcher style fiscal responsibility right now.

 

As for BBC censorship, which is I suppose the main topic of this thread, well the BBC frequently favour certain policies in their news items.  For example, they give frequent airtime to the "reformers" who generally argue that prison doesn't work & advocate not sending people to jail. They hardly ever allow anyone to present the opposite view, promoting long jail terms to keep offenders off the streets.

[Guest scottishguy]

Respect should be given where it is due, I agree.

 

However, it seems to me that it is not due-  but rather it is being demanded - and I reserve my right to refuse to give it to someone who famously declared "there is no such thing as society"

 

We would not have required Japanese car factories had Thatcher not overseen the death of the British car industry (can anybody imagine Germany shutting down BMW or Audi? France shutting down Citroen or Renault? Spain shutting down Seat?)  - together with the Mining industry, the Steel industry, and the Shipbuilding industry.

As a result the UK economy is now based on selling each other insurance policies and burgers, whilst the disabled lose benefits to finance tax cuts for millionaires.

 

Whilst I accept there were problems with Trade Unions in the 1970s/80s, it was and still is the same in many other countries who seemed to manage them without resorting to closing down the industries. Thatcher's problem was that she was determined to "get" the Miners for bringing down the Heath Govt in 1974 and I well remember she even referred to Union members as "the Enemy" - her whole ethos was confrontation

 

The trouble with Thatcher was that her economic policies were hard enough to stomach (don't forget the  worse-than-useless Nigel Lawson as Chancellor) but her social policies were utterly disastrous.

 

Moving on to prisons - it is not solely about keeping offenders off the street. Most people are in prison for relatively short terms (perhaps for not paying their BBC licence fee!).

It is supposed to rehabilitate where possible and it is this aspect that reformers point to.

I do not know off the top of my head the re-offending rate but it is high, so clearly it does not work as it should - especially these short in-and-out- sentences.

 

Incidentally, you do not mention that crime is actually at a record low.

 

Now, if you'll all excuse me I have to nip over to itunes to download a song!!

 

[Guest scottishguy]

'Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead' has just been announced as this week's  #2 best selling track in the UK.

 

[KhorTose]

'Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead' has just been announced as this week's  #2 best selling track in the UK. 

On the other hand, only (according to the liberal Gaurdian) 3000 people turned out to protest her legacy at Trafalgar square. Hardly an overwhelming show of hate. As I said in another post, I did not always agree with this lady, but I admired that she was a decisive leader. Something we seem to lack in the USA. However, like her or not, BBC is wrong. This is a public paid organization, and it should represent all of the public. Freedom of speech means even allowing things that may be in bad taste. This would not stand in the USA and shame on BBC.

As an aside I do get a kick out of what her funeral is costing the English Public. There is little doubt in my mind that if Thatcher was ruling England she would not have allowed this expense.

[Guest scottishguy]

Au contraire KT - Margaret Thatcher was fully involved in planning the funeral several years ago before she lost her mind - and knew exactly the burden it would place on the public purse.

 

It was herself who requested the same "level" of funeral as Princess Diana and the Queen Mother. Having said that, it is rumoured Blair/Brown offered her the same level of funeral as the Queen!!!

 

As for the English paying for it - if only that were true.

It would be highly fitting though as only the English voted for her - the rest of the UK had her foisted on us.

By a mile she lost every election she fought in Scotland and in Wales - and in N.Ireland her party did not stand for election.

One of her boasts was to be an "English Nationalist" - which was fine because we at least knew where she was coming from.

[ceejay]

before she lost her mind

Don't you mean "before she completely lost her mind"

Actually, I can think of one good reason for the Scots to pay a proportion of her funeral costs. She did more in her lifetime to secure a Yes vote in next years referendum than Alex Salmond ever will.

[Guest scottishguy]

Well, she certainly highlighted the democratic deficit (18yrs of highly unpopular Government by a party utterly rejected by the electorate) - 

 

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/7182-thatchers-positive-legacy-an-independent-scotland

[Guest]

Well, she certainly highlighted the democratic deficit (18yrs of highly unpopular Government by a party utterly rejected by the electorate)

While we are on the subject of democratic deficits:

 

1 In the 2005 general election, the Conservatives got more votes in England than the Labour party, yet the Labour party won something in excess of 70 more seats than the Conservatives in England.

 

2 Then MPs from Scotland & Wales get to vote on Westminster issues which do not affect their own constituencies, as such matters are decided by their respective parliaments.

 

3 Not all constituencies are the same size. The largest has an electorate of 110,000 and the smallest is just under 22,000. This tends to work against the Conservatives.

 

4 In 2005, Labour got 403 seats & a majority with 35% of the vote & a huge majority.

In 2010, the Conservatives got 306 seats with 36% of the vote & had to sign up to a coalition.

 

5 Amendments to make every seat the same size (roughly) were rejected by Labour & the Liberals recently.

 

So the Conservatives also lose out due to a "democratic deficit".

 

We could argue the merits of PR v first past the post.

I prefer the latter, as it's somewhat preferable to have a strong government, rather than Italian style coalitions.

However, SECOND past the post is not fair at all.

[Bob]

I had a discussion last night with a English gentleman who, although somewhat classy, basically frothed at the mouth when the name Thatcher came up.  He had nothing nice to say about her which, frankly, I chalk down in part to some rather intense bias. An opinion or two in this thread seems to be tinged with the same.  What peaked my interest were his comments - polite though pointed - that he couldn't seem to understand how outside nations (including the US) saw her more favorably than those in the UK. Unfortunately, while his language was polite, his message boiled down to "how is it that the dumb fuck Americans can have any respect for this bitch?!?"

 

Unless you dug for the articles in the back pages of a few major newspapers, we in the US didn't see or pay attention to the domestic troubles she was involved in (a miner's strike in England generates almost no interest on our side of the pond); as such, what we Americans basically became aware of were her foreign policies and international statements. 

 

Even if I don't agree with a politician, I tend to at least grudgingly admire them if they voice a strong opinion and stand their ground (versus the many politicians these days who stick their finger up in the air to figure out what they ought to say).  Thatcher seemed to me to be the master of this and, rather than call her the Iron Lady, I think more of her as the lady with iron balls.  She may not have been right on all international issues (let's say, the Falklands for one) but you didn't have to guess where she stood and she was not going to bend or yield to anyone.  We on the western side of the big pond got a kick out of her various pronouncements with my favorite being:  “When I'm out of politics I'm going to run a business, it'll be called rent-a-spine” 

[KhorTose]

Au contraire KT - Margaret Thatcher was fully involved in planning the funeral several years ago before she lost her mind - and knew exactly the burden it would place on the public purse.

I can find where she picked the hymns and took up the offer to have it at Saint Pauls. An offer that was made by the clerics there. I can find where she asked the present PM to speak, but I cannot find where she asked for the elaborate State funeral that her funeral has become. ^Therefore, can you give me a good citation for the below quote.

 

It was herself who requested the same "level" of funeral as Princess Diana and the Queen Mother. Having said that, it is rumoured Blair/Brown offered her the same level of funeral as the Queen!!!

[Guest fountainhall]

Even if I don't agree with a politician, I tend to at least grudgingly admire them if they voice a strong opinion and stand their ground (versus the many politicians these days who stick their finger up in the air to figure out what they ought to say)

 

Politicians who stand their ground do tend to gain admiration if the policies they espouse match those of like mind. Politics, though, as Bismark said, is the art of the possible, and many times an astute politician will compromise, if only to win the bigger battle further down the line. 

 

Thatcher did not compromise. That was the cause of the many major backlashes against her, that was the cause of the rioting in the streets as a result of her monetary policy early in her premiership, that was the cause of the extensive violence re the year-long miner's strike (and I fully accept that battle she had to win), that was the cause of widespread rioting and street violence over her hated poll tax - a tax virtually all her cabinet ministers were against, and that ultimately was her undoing. She was not defeated in a General Election. She was thrown out because her own party members of parliament were convinced she had become a virtual dictator - and enough was enough.

 

She polarised Britain in a way no other politician has in my lifetime. I fully agree that when she took office, Britain was on a very slippery slope. Something had to be done about out-of-control government spending, about the sad state of industry and the power of unelected unions which too often were holding the country to ransom. Yes, it needed a firm hand and was never going to be easy. To a large extent, her policies and her conviction did bring about the country's revival. At the same time, though, as stated earlier she destroyed livelihoods, communities and part of the very fabric of the country. She was also a hypocrite. For a politician who said government over-spending was at the root of many of the problems, it actually rose in all but two of her 11 years in power!

 

I know many people rather like your 'classy Englishman' who loathed Mrs. Thatcher. Whatever good she did in foreign affairs, she left a bitterly divided county. She should not be given the pomp and ceremony of a funeral that is a state funeral in all but name. She was a Prime Minister. She should have a relatively simple funeral like Edward Heath, James Callaghan, Harold Macmillan, Clement Atlee and the other post World War II PMs. The latest nonsense is that the Speaker of the House of Commons has stated the bell in Big Ben will be silenced, something not done for a deceased PM since the funeral of Winston Churchill. 

[Guest scottishguy]

While we are on the subject of democratic deficits:

 

1 In the 2005 general election, the Conservatives got more votes in England than the Labour party, yet the Labour party won something in excess of 70 more seats than the Conservatives in England. Perfect argument for PR which you later go on to dismiss.

 

2 Then MPs from Scotland & Wales get to vote on Westminster issues which do not affect their own constituencies, as such matters are decided by their respective parliaments. The Scottish National Party have long had a policy that they do NOT vote on purely English affairs. The Labour & Lib Dems do not have such a policy - but, having said that,  what you have to apreciate is that "purely English" legislation can have knock-on effects elsewhere - such as Tuition Fees where an enormous hike in fees imposed by English Universities has a direct effect on Universities in the rest of the UK.

 

3 Not all constituencies are the same size. The largest has an electorate of 110,000 and the smallest is just under 22,000. This tends to work against the Conservatives. Again, a perfect argument for PR which you go on to dismiss.

 

4 In 2005, Labour got 403 seats & a majority with 35% of the vote & a huge majority.

In 2010, the Conservatives got 306 seats with 36% of the vote & had to sign up to a coalition. They did not have to sign up to  coalition - this was bad judgement on Cameron's part. Don't know where you get your information from - In 2005 Labour got 356 seats (not 403) with 35.2% of the vote - but you might equally say that in 2005 the Tories got 32.4% of the vote but only 198 seats whereas by increasing their vote by les than 4% (to 36.1%) in 2010 in 2010 they increased their seats by more than 50%. There are the vagaries of a FPTP system and  a perfect argument for PR which (guess what) you then go on to dismiss.

 

5 Amendments to make every seat the same size (roughly) were rejected by Labour & the Liberals recently. Hardly surprising - "BBC political correspondent Chris Mason said: "Had there been a review of the boundaries, and a reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600, many analysts suggest that this could have helped the Conservatives secure an additional 20 seats at the next election." BBC Online. 

 

 

 I can all see exactly where you're coming from z909 - but that's your privilege.

 

[Guest scottishguy]

I can find where she picked the hymns and took up the offer to have it at Saint Pauls. An offer that was made by the clerics there. I can find where she asked the present PM to speak, but I cannot find where she asked for the elaborate State funeral that her funeral has become. ^Therefore, can you give me a good citation for the below quote.

 

 

 

Certainly - I'm on my way out to work so I don't have time (spent too long on the response above) to give you several references but here's one I found within 30 seconds - see Paragraph 6 or 7 -  http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/margaret-thatcher-s-funeral-a-state-occasion-in-all-but-name-354629

 

If you don't like that one, let me know and I'll find some more - it's fairly well-known. As the above article makes clear, a State funeral requires a vote in Parliament which would never have been won, and Thatcher well knew that therefore she opted for one step down. 

[Guest]

[Don't know where you get your information from - In 2005 Labour got 356 seats (not 403) with 35.2% of the vote - but you might equally say that in 2005 the Tories got 32.4% of the vote but only 198 seats whereas by increasing their vote by les than 4% (to 36.1%) in 2010 in 2010 they increased their seats by more than 50%. There are the vagaries of a FPTP system and  a perfect argument for PR which (guess what) you then go on to dismiss.

Whoops, picked up 2001 figures, thanks for your correction. Using the correct figures, key point is Labour got a very good majority with 35.2% of the vote in 2005 and the Conservatives could not even get a majority with 36.1% of the vote.

 

You can make a case for PR, but I think that tends to give small parties disproportionate power in the decision making process. If two parties have 45% of the seats and the centre party has the remaining 10%, the centre party decides who is in government. Or the BNP, or whoever holds the balance of power.

[Guest scottishguy]

But isn't that exactly what happened in 2010 under FPTP?

 

The party which came third (Liberals with less than 10% of the seats) decided who formed the Govt.

 

True, it was an aberration - but it still happened.

 

And I'm sorry but I don't see why ANY party with only around a third of the vote deserves to get an overall majority!!  After all, getting 1/3 of the vote means that 2/3 of the electorate has rejected you - so why should you be in charge? It may make for "strong govt" - but that's a really perverse system.

[Guest fountainhall]

In my earlier post. I had not meant in any way to demean those in other countries who saw the statesman side of Thatcher and were impressed. Her achievements in persuading Reagan that Gorbachev was a man "we can do business with" unquestionably helped in the ending of the Cold War.

 

Yet in other overseas issues, she was far from forward-looking. It is now claimed that she hated apartheid. That is not borne out at all by the facts. Indeed, she acted virtually alone amongst the Commonwealth Prime Minsters (and world opinion) in adamantly  opposing the widening and tightening of sanctions against South Africa. This became obvious at the Commonwealth heads of governments meeting in Ottawa in 1987. 3 years earlier, she had inexplicably invited the Prime Minster of South Africa to the UK, the first such visit in 23 years when South Africa was kicked out of the Commonwealth.

 

Despite the fact that she always took pride in following through with her policies, arguing that they were the right ones for Britain, she had shown she could indeed compromise when it suited her. When the US wanted to launch air strikes against Libya, France and Spain refused overflight rights to US aircraft. Thatcher had aggressively voiced her opposition to the very idea of "retaliatory strikes that are against international law." Yet, she "turned", and then permitted the US to use air bases in the UK on their way to strike at Libya.

 

With domestic politics, despite her own selected cabinet's near unanimous opposition to the hated Poll Tax, she would not "turn". She was a stubborn lady who just would not listen.

[Guest scottishguy]

Well, on apartheid - let's not forget she referred to Nelson Mandela as "a common criminal" and a "terrorist".

 

She was also a strong supporter of General Pinochet and the Khmer Rouge.

 

But of course these matters have all been swept under the carpet lest they sully today's beatification.

 

[Guest fountainhall]

A lot of interesting comment in the media today about Thatcher's memorial service. I did not watch it. But I feel two comments particularly noteworthy.
 
The Guardian - admittedly more left of centre - talks about how it was an imperial state funeral in all but name, and should not have been.
 

Three things gave me a frisson in St Paul's yesterday . . . the third was the unmissable symbolism of the Queen taking a subordinate place to a dead prime minister for the first time since the funeral of Churchill, which yesterday's events so deliberately aped.

This was a bad precedent. Thatcher was neither a second Churchill nor a monarch, though she sometimes behaved like both. We should have a better way of closing the book on our political leaders. It would be wrong to overstate the harm or the wrong that has been done to civil society in this country by the Thatcher funeral, but a smart prime minister would now get some modest and appropriate ground rules agreed and in place for such events in the future – and publish them. That way, some useful civic good might yet emerge from this week's excesses.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/17/thatcher-funeral-downton-abbey-politics-bluff

The actor, Sir Ian McKellan, also writes about yesterday's events in his blog.
 

"The official obituaries have been, as often happens, partial in both senses: sympathetic and incomplete," McKellen wrote, joining a substantial chorus of British voices indifferent over the leader's passing.

McKellen references a piece of legislation called Section 28, which he felt Thatcher pursued to quiet a growing movement for gay rights in the U.K.

"Lest we forget, this nasty, brutish and short measure of the third Thatcher administration, was designed to slander homosexuality, by prohibiting state schools from discussing positively gay people and our 'pretended family relations,'" he continued.

McKellen reflects on how she voted against the measurement's repeal, calling it "her final contribution to U.K. politics. She dies too early to oppose Parliament's inevitable acceptance of same-gender marriage."

http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/celeb-news/ian-mckellen-don-t-cry-margaret-thatcher-230455444.html

[Guest]

Well, IMHO Mrs Thatcher has been by some margin the finest prime minister the UK has seen during my lifetime.

 

However, that's just an opinion.

 

Now for some fact. She has been widely criticised for damaging British Industry, including on this forum (I believe).

Well, according to the FT, under her leadership manufacturing decreased from 26%of GDP to about 22%.

Under the last Labour government, it declined from 18.4% to 10.6%.

The latter is a much bigger decline, however you choose to look at it. These numbers match up with my perceptions.

 

Also, some of the mere 4% lost under Mrs Thatcher would have included basket case businesses only kept alive by taxpayers. De Lorean and some of the worst BL plants are fine examples. Back in the Thatcher era, the country was able to attract some inward investment in large new factories.

 

Under Labour, we lost some formerly profitable businesses such as LDV which just couldn't keep up as boom turned to sudden bust.

[Bob]

Governments take the credit for good economic times and the blame for bad economic times.  Neither the credit or blame are all that often truly due.

 

If we go by reduction in manufacturing activity, then I'd guess we'd have to say that all the western governments (the US included) for the last 50 years have been lousy.  In reality, we can't afford to make a widget when our Asian brethren can manufacture, ship, and sell it to us for far less than it costs us to make.  Loss of agricultural or manufacturing jobs might only be a sign of a mature economy and/or our own long-term successes in raising our own living standards.