"Stand ye calm and resolute,
Like a forest close and mute,
With folded arms and looks which are
Weapons of unvanquished war.
And if then the tyrants dare,
Let them ride among you there;
Slash, and stab, and maim and hew;
What they like, that let them do.
With folded arms and steady eyes,
And little fear, and less surprise,
Look upon them as they slay,
Till their rage has died away:
Then they will return with shame,
To the place from which they came,
And the blood thus shed will speak
In hot blushes on their cheek:
Rise, like lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number!
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you:
Ye are many—they are few!"
Shelley

Not sure what to make of that!
Is it a call to arms to overthrow the government "rise like lions" or a pacifist saying you can kill us all and we will just take it? 😮

Been on the old mushrooms, pretentious ****.

The real irony is that the poor could never afford to go to Glasto..

Sell out.

Yeah, he's gone 'mainstream', liked some of his early stuff but just too populist to be cool now. Old news.

It's neither TDH. Shelley wrote this after the Peterloo massacre and it supports non-violent resistence to injustice.

Yep. Run us over. Blow us up. And we'll ask you to please stop...

I think it's a very powerful poem. Thanks for sharing.

Certainly there is a subtlety to nonviolent civil disobedience, but the alternatives are either to accept tyrrany or take up arms, and I have the deepest admiration for people brave enough to take a stand without adopting violence - it's always the tyrants that get bronze statues in the high street while the martyrs get forgotten, but the justice and dignity of their protest can't be ignored.

Interesting how we "adopt" a piece of literature to fit our present environment. No one can argue for the heavy-handed response to what was basically a voicing for a political change in a time that pen and paper were still the preserve of the privileged, but as the reform act ( 1832) was not presented for a further 13 years and not implemented till 1867 one needs to question the wisdom of putting one's life in jeopardy for the sake of a principal . Unfortunately, we do not know how much of the demonstration was orchestrated by outside influence or just a part of society who were at the bottom of the heap.
The Masque of Anarchy was not published for another 30 years so very doubtful that any of those who suffered in Manchester ever got to hear the work. Shelley himself was ostracised for being an atheist as opposed to a mouthpiece for the masses.
To be fair to Corbyn he is not the first politician to use other's works to hammer home their point of view, but I very much doubt he would stand at the front of his supporters if a sabre waving cavalry approached with malice intent.

Our armed forces are used for disaster relief and anti drug, anti slavery, anti people smuggling and anti pirate operations as well. Helping the poorest and the most vulnerable around the world.
Idealism meets reality.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.”
― John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy

Violence is a very base response to something we object too. It is an intrinsic trait in all animals to fight when faced with an adversary that poses a threat to our lives or those close to us. The debate centres around should we stand against the tyrant or allow them free reign to impose upon our lives? Do we take up arms and fight in the knowledge that the outcome may not be in our favour or accept our lot?

The real problem is the rise of those who would do us harm. Nationalism breeds a collective voice that feeds upon our fears which in turn throws up leaders that exploit the rhetoric. J C, ( the present one ) may well have pacifist views but this does not mean he is weak as a leader, but neither does it send a positive message to those that would do us harm.

With a global population explosion, the pressure on maintaining the peace is a precarious balancing act and only history will show at what point in time the wrong decision was made.

Or awarded a commemorative plaque outside a former school building.

'First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.' Ghandi seems to be predicting that Jeremy doesn't have too far to go.

And they shot Ghandi.

Yes, fear of violent response didn't ever worry Ghandi, and on his past record, like it or not Corbyn is certainly no coward when push comes to shove. One thing I do hope je suis, is that your Tory friends and colleagues don't resort to physical force just because they start to lose.

You mean take a leaf out of the lefty activists book of thuggery?

I'm sure I can get a few busloads of activists with badly spelt placards together, you know, give as ye so shall receive. I've already got a job lot of pickaxe handles coming in for my other 'arbitration' project.

Just following our peers dearest. History was never a strong point at 'selective' grammars was it!

And that is just the point. Dead heroes may well be ideal role models for others but I would rather be alive under a dictator than be cannon fodder for a cause. Ok cowards hardly make their mark in the grand scheme of things but death eventually visits us all and I would like to get my 3 score years and 10................Actually, come to think about it I am on borrowed time so please comment quickly.

But, I have no peer 🤗

Thank God!

Didn't mix well.

Been using Anusol to brush your teeth again ?

You are indeed sir, without peer 😍

Love Is In The Air

Says Billy (calls people racist) no mates

That s right; I find playground ignorance tiresome.

Take heart, 'If they attack you personally, it means they have not a single political argument left' as Mrs Thatcher once said. It was her supporters who pulled her down; Tories don't ever seem to learn!

Which is why he resorted to flinging the racist jibe around. The last resort of the inept and morally bankrupt is to simply call everyone you disagree with either racist or Nazi.

Surely the whole point of any forum is either to argue your cause or disagree with the views of others. Once it degenerates into personal attacks, ( however justified ), the impetus is lost.
Only a complete bigot would consider himself to hold views beyond question or be man enough to accept that the other party may just be right.

Not many politicians signing up to this philosophy.

The irony....

In an ideal world that might be true, but I think a lot of forums and social networking sites are full of egotist with not much to share other than ignorance or bigotry and these people seek out like minded people to help support their views. If true the chances of a meaningful debate are small.

Unless you like calling people racist.

That, isnt irony. get a grip.

There is more than one type of irony, but it is ironic that you should appear to be so offended by a behaviour that underpins many if not most of the things you post here.

While I believe a number of board members are racist (not necessarily always above the national average), is there any particular incidence you have in mind?

Irony. The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
Or, A state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.

To which 'type' were you alluding to?

One wouldn't expect someone who complains about someone else being a certain way, is themselves a model example of that they complain of.

But, that's not irony, is it?

I believe it is because you would expect someone that complains of people who are quick to throw abuse at another when they are at a loss of things to say, not to be guilty of doing the same thing themselves.

PS - I corrected a typo in my last post.

So correct Sir!!
Good luck with that on here, although it is considerably better than many other forums and streets ahead of the "social media" rabble!

I would not know about other forums and know even less about the social media thingy that seems to rule the lives of so many.
Even the President of the most powerful country, ( supposedly ), on earth seems to consider that social media is a more adept means of relaying his message than actually standing in front of an audience.

What is very apparent is that the written word can not only be miss-construed but actually miss-read in order to fit the reader's criteria. Perhaps we should just revert to talking face to face?

The later won't necessarily fix the former.

Agreed.

https://youtu.be/i4_WuFTX-5E

It looks like the left/rightists have ran-out of bickering!

Even the ambidextrous are quite.

Britain’s wealth problem – we don’t create enough of it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40506570

As even the BBC have woken up and spotted the reason why, under its present regime, we are well and truly stuffed. In effect, what's been happening since 1979 has reached its logical conclusion.

So, it may well be that those threatening to go have done the decent thing and actually done so. Meaning we still have a chance to clear up the mess once the next election is out of the way.

It says to me that we need a new economics. The one that has been served up hitherto is not sustainable. The global economy, cheap/subsidised fuel and fast Internet mean low wages. Low wages = low tax yields.