Comments by "iggle" (@iggle6448) on "The New Culture Forum" channel.

  1. 78
  2. 61
  3. 43
  4. 39
  5. 35
  6. 34
  7. 33
  8. 33
  9. 31
  10. 30
  11. 28
  12. 27
  13. 26
  14. 25
  15. 24
  16. 23
  17. 23
  18. 22
  19. 22
  20. 21
  21. 20
  22. 20
  23. 19
  24. 18
  25. 18
  26. 18
  27. 17
  28. 17
  29. 16
  30. 16
  31. 16
  32. 16
  33. 15
  34. 15
  35. 14
  36. 14
  37. 14
  38. 14
  39. 13
  40. 13
  41. 13
  42. 13
  43. 12
  44. 12
  45. 12
  46. 12
  47. 12
  48. 12
  49. 11
  50. 11
  51. 11
  52. 11
  53. 11
  54. 11
  55. 11
  56. 10
  57. 10
  58. 10
  59. 10
  60. 10
  61. 9
  62. 9
  63. 9
  64. 9
  65. 9
  66. 9
  67. 9
  68. 9
  69. 9
  70. 9
  71. 9
  72. 8
  73. 8
  74. 8
  75. 8
  76. 8
  77. 7
  78. 7
  79. 7
  80. 7
  81. 7
  82. 7
  83. 7
  84. 7
  85. 7
  86. 7
  87. 7
  88. 7
  89. 7
  90. 7
  91. 7
  92. 7
  93. 7
  94. 7
  95. 7
  96. 7
  97. 7
  98. 7
  99. 7
  100. 6
  101. ​ @telephassarose3501  Quite. I have to hope that the original concept was good and beautiful. Though the execution was utterly abominable. IMHO, it's not about romanticising Diana but simply about presenting her as she actually was. Queen Victoria's statues, without variance as far as I'm aware, look just like her photos. How did the Victorian sculptors manage that? And, as you say, how did this present sculptor, with myriad forms of technology available to him, go so badly wrong? I can think of three deliberate reasons: 1. The RF didn't want such a beautiful, alluring statue that would become a Diana shrine, which I think is still a possibility, given her enduring popularity. 2. Diana's sons, remembering her with childish memories only saw Diana as 'mumsie' and not the extraordinarily attractive, feminine, elegant and captivating woman that she was. Thus, they approved all the sculptor's drawings and photos as he progressed his work, and perhaps made suggestions for tweaks to make it more mumsie according to their memories of her. 3. The sculptor is simply not into women. His male forms are striking and beautiful. Maybe he's gay and Diana's beauty and allure simply didn't touch him - this is, after all, a depiction of her that reduces her to that of an almost comedic weekend M>F crossdresser with bad wigs and a penchant for Primark end of line bargains. Perhaps he's had more practice at creating male art forms. Perhaps he's not all that good at sculpture.And perhaps those who were in charge of selecting sculptors deliberately bore all this in mind. Whatever, this piece is a total travesty and nothing like it could very easily have been if done by a sympathetic sculptor. (What also bothers me is all the many people trying to turn themselves inside out and upside down, trying to wipe the evidence of their own eyes and cognition, to find something good, something of Diana in this leaden scowling, lumpen hausfrau.)
    6
  102. 6
  103. 6
  104. 6
  105. 6
  106. 6
  107. 6
  108. 6
  109. 6
  110. 6
  111. 6
  112. 6
  113. 6
  114. 6
  115. 6
  116. 6
  117. 6
  118. 5
  119. 5
  120. 5
  121. 5
  122. 5
  123. 5
  124. 5
  125. 5
  126. 5
  127. 5
  128. 5
  129. 5
  130. 5
  131.  @rogerwoodhouse7945  Yes, I can see that's one layer of joining the dots though it looks to me that there are other layers. Like very limited voting choices - now it's very clear that we have a uniparty which means no choice at all. They've been converging for decades and leaving behind their original bases. Not being contentious, I just don't remember the last 4 decades anyone in Westminster seriously saying that we deserve more. My recollections are more like 'the country needs austerity', 'we need to reduce welfare spending', 'we need to get people back to work'.... Another layer is that wages have been declining in real terms since the early 70s. We never had food banks until Osborne's austerity and now they've exploded so many working people live in poverty, 1 child in 3 lives in a poor family. This are all direct results of gov fiscal strategy. Such poverty isn't just about money - it brings a shedload of other problems with it. What are people to do if their wages are low and taxes are rising? We know that now the tax burden is the highest it's been in 60-70 years! So it's fuelled a need for all sorts of 'helping agencies' that are a huge draw on the public purse with little to benefit to people. A couple of years back I was doing a piece of research that brought me into contact with some of these agencies. One manager told me, in a head-in-his-hands sort of way 'I don't know why the government just doesn't give money direct to low income people instead of contracting organisations like ours to try and help....mostly all the problems start from too little income. People need money to sort out their problems, we're the middleman that top slices most of the available funding...and there's not much that we can really do under our contract for a lot of people that need help.'
    5
  132. 5
  133. 5
  134. 5
  135. 5
  136. 5
  137. 5
  138. 5
  139. 5
  140. 5
  141. 5
  142. 5
  143. 5
  144. 5
  145. 5
  146. 5
  147. 5
  148. 5
  149. 5
  150. 4
  151. 4
  152. 4
  153. 4
  154. 4
  155. 4
  156. 4
  157. 4
  158. 4
  159. 4
  160. 4
  161. 4
  162. 4
  163. I entirely agree. I went to a grammar school. Except for picking up a smattering of useful Latin and enjoying a great music teacher who kindled my love of classical music, It didn't benefit me at all. All my substantive learning was had at private schools from age 3 and then at university. The reason that grammar schooling failed me and likely a huge cohort of pupils for several years? Before I went to grammar school, the gvt had a year or so previously declared the demise of such 'elitism'. Looking back, my grammar school at least was in disarray and trying to work out its new identity, its new curricula to meet the new one-size-fits-all diktats, amidst a slump in staff morale and alacrity. I imagine that this 'anti-elitist' edict had the same effect on state grammar schools all over the country. With that experience and having taught age16+ students at college (young people who'd been brutalised and diminished by their comprehensive experience - their fear and loathing of education and teachers was palpable and I recall it very clearly even now), I made sure to send my own children to public schools where they each flourished. (Thankfully, they all earned scholarships!) I became a comprehensive school governor in my own little bid to do what I could to raise horizons and standards. Of course, it was a forlorn project: the rot was well-entrenched by then, the 2000-odd pupils were largely commodities being processed through the machine . And that school was officially classed as a 'good' comprehensive. Come hell or high water, my grandchildren will be going to public schools, even if I have to sell everything I own.
    4
  164. 4
  165. 4
  166. 4
  167. 4
  168. 4
  169. 4
  170. 4
  171. 4
  172. 4
  173. 4
  174. 4
  175. 4
  176. 4
  177. 4
  178. 4
  179. 4
  180. 4
  181. 4
  182. 3
  183. 3
  184. 3
  185. 3
  186. 3
  187. 3
  188. 3
  189. 3
  190. 3
  191. 3
  192. 3
  193. 3
  194. 3
  195. 3
  196. 3
  197. 3
  198. 3
  199. 3
  200. 3
  201. 3
  202. 3
  203. 3
  204. 3
  205. 3
  206. 3
  207. 3
  208. 3
  209. 3
  210. 3
  211. 3
  212. 3
  213. 3
  214. 3
  215. 3
  216. 3
  217. 3
  218. 3
  219. 3
  220. 3
  221. 3
  222. 3
  223. 3
  224. 3
  225. 3
  226. 3
  227. 3
  228. 3
  229. 3
  230. 3
  231. 3
  232. 3
  233. 3
  234. 2
  235. 2
  236. 2
  237. 2
  238. 2
  239. 2
  240. 2
  241. 2
  242. 2
  243. 2
  244. 2
  245. 2
  246. 2
  247. 2
  248. 2
  249. 2
  250. 2
  251. 2
  252. 2
  253. 2
  254. 2
  255. 2
  256. 2
  257. 2
  258. 2
  259. 2
  260. 2
  261. 2
  262. 2
  263. 2
  264. 2
  265. 2
  266. 2
  267. 2
  268. 2
  269. 2
  270. 2
  271. 2
  272. 2
  273. 2
  274. 2
  275. 2
  276. 2
  277. 2
  278. 2
  279. 2
  280. 2
  281. 2
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. 2
  292. 2
  293. 2
  294. 2
  295. 2
  296. 2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300. 2
  301. 2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. ​ @Andy Jarman A few thoughts, if I may. Generally, loathing for another tribe becomes ossified when at a distance. Up close it becomes diluted by reality, familiarity, it's less likely to become part of the loather's self-identity. Having said that, it's not hundreds and hundreds of years since atrocities and rank, inhumane discrimination have been committed against the smaller UK nations. It's just over a hundred years since the Irish Easter Rising and the attendant atrocities committed by those acting for the British government - and so it continued throughout the 20th century in some form or other. The Welsh have been variously colonised then dropped on from a great height throughout latter day history depending on the nation's utility in Westminster's economic schemes - Thatcher's treatment of miners and their families was nothing short of atrocious. Similarly, Scotland's been a bag of goodies for the English elites to dip into and then cast aside (I would be writing this from the Highlands and not England if Scotland had been on a par with England and not been treated as an afterthought, starved of the support and services enjoyed by the English. My great-grandparents' village did not have electricity until the late 1960s ). Note that throughout I attribute these abuses entirely to Westminster and English elites. IMHO, successive UK governments have not served the Union well. For hundreds of years, they and not the English people have abused the smaller constituent nations of the UK in just the same way as they've latterly covertly trashed 'Britishness' in their avaricious gallop towards Europe and globalism (as well as, against the sensible qualms of ordinary citizens, having imported - yes, as commodities - millions of immigrants, cheap, tax-paying labour to keep British wages down). Sadly, loathing for 'the English' is very misplaced. 'The English', the ordinary people, have certainly been subject to Westminster's whims and inhumanities too! An initial remedy might begin with a genuinely representative British Parliament for all of Great Britain's constituent nations and governments that are not commandeered by the sons of empire (in this 21st century, how can it possibly be right that most of our current Cabinet members are drawn from public schools and privileged families?? Note that I'm not a socialist! But there is little authentic equality of opportunity and just plain fairness when such Parliaments and Cabinets still hold the reins.)
    2
  311. 2
  312. 2
  313. 2
  314. 2
  315. 2
  316. 2
  317. 2
  318. 2
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333.  @RedroomStudios  I had to think a bit about your response. It could sound like you have a philosophical or religious basis for your stance against 'subverting the will of nature'. Isn't this a Jehovah's Witness' type of argument against health care? I support the right to chose such a stance, though there are very robust arguments about the nature of living things to autonomically strive for good health and, indeed, just about every creature is ordinarily well equipped to fight off physical injuries and to heal. Would it be complying with the will of nature to leave a stabbing victim to die in the street because it's just nature that some random psychopath stabbed him?! I think there are gradations of what's 'natural' and what aren't. Given that we do have statutory rights to healthcare I don't see any reason to completely eschew the health system. However, it desperately needs to deliver human-centred, patient-centred care - and I do mean care . This appalling bullying that is rife in the NHS has to stop - it's the last thing a poorly patient needs and cannot possibly help them to maintain decent health, nor does it engender or maintain trust in health care providers. The NHS is NOT a Victorian charity, dispensing largesse or not depending on its own arbitrary judgements of the character and intent of those who seek its aid. About time it brought itself into the 21st century and started courteously offering its paying customers Waitrose quality service. Although I dislike the idea of a wholly private healthcare system, at this rate it's going to happen as more and more people are disgusted by the NHS's high-handed approach.
    1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. I thought a bit more about your excellent point. It's probably not as clear cut as the misleading and disingenuous figure they put out. Here's the thing: I recall being told something like there are separate categories for claimants, one is the shorter term 'Sickness Benefits' list where people are expected to recover and resume their normal day jobs. Another is the long term disabled list (those expected to be incapacitated for longer than 1yr) and where few are expected to recover - the 'write-offs' in other words. The people on the long term list are paid more and are more numerous than the people on the short term list. Here's a quick figure from the UK Office of National Statistics: 24.8 million households contain 1 or more disabled people. (out of 28million households in 2020). Not all will be on long term benefits but the majority will be receiving some sort of state aid. It's really difficult to find clear, up to date figures but these give a flavour of the numbers involved. From the DWP site: - 2020 : the total number of people claiming DWP benefits was 22.8 million in the year to August 2020 12.5 million were Pension Age, 9.5 million were Working Age, and the remainder children claiming Disability Living Allowance. - June 2023: More than 6 million disabled people across the UK are set to receive a £150 Disability Cost of Living Payment from today. (These 6 million comprise a large contingent of those on long term disabled benefits, there are more in other categories. Many of whom will be in the 7 million NHS wait list) . So, there's upwards of maybe 10-12 million people who are on sickness and longer term benefits) To my mind, a great many of all these sick and disabled people represent the chronic ineptitude of the NHS over decades to treat and support people to recover and get back to some sort of paid work. The NHS has always had a very low bar for categorising people as disabled and thus minimising treatment and support. Let's not blame sick and disabled people - many of whom want to work and could be back in work with better treatment/support. Bottom line, I guess paying millions of people benefits is cheaper than providing better healthcare.
    1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1