Never admit to anything personal, codify & render general

[alexsarll]

Over the course of my life I have seen a few things which would shatter frailer minds. But I still never thought I'd see Sir Ian McKellen dressed as Britannia, still less that this would be deemed suitable entertainment for children. His other outfits were all fairly disturbing too, to be frank. If the Brotherhood or the Fellowship saw their boss looking like that, it would all have fallen apart. It's strange seeing a pantomime again once one has reached adulthood - I remember a vague awareness that certain jokes were Rude, and laughing because when you're a kid Rude = Funny, but now I understood them I realised they're actually filthy. I'm still not sure about Angela Carter's more extravagant theories of pantomime but it was great fun. Well, except for the songs, which were mostly bobbins. stephens described them as "sub Pop Idol" which was fair, and also gave us the idea for hot new talent show Sub Pop Idol.
I'd been sold on attending simply to see Serena as Widow Twankey, but we also got Maureen Lipman as Dim Sum ("37 years in the business and it's come to this"), the wee fresh-faced lad from The Crow Road as Aladdin, 'Allo 'Allo's Sam Kelly as the Emperor, and some bloke called Roger Allam of whom I've never heard as Abanazar. Whom, incidentally, I could barely bring myself to boo since his desire to take over the world seemed so sensible.
Also - panto when you're losing your voice? Bad idea, kids.


I know a mixed-race gay who wore a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party. This is a non-issue. Should anyone who wears a Viking costume apologise to Anglo-Saxons? Should anyone who wears a cat costume apologise to mice? Should William, who apparently went as a lion, apologise to survivors of lion attacks? It is a fancy dress party. If he'd worn it on a state occasion, then yes, that would have been inappropriate. Though still fairly funny.

Meanwhile, as Harry is pilloried for dressing up, the Burglar's Charter is renewed.

Irrelevantly to any of which, Oxford is to take a scientific approach to martyrdom. "Oxford University scientists will carry out experiments on hundreds of people in a bid to understand how the brain works during states of consciousness.
One aspect of the two-year study will involve followers of both religious and secular beliefs being burnt to see if they can handle more pain than others.
Some volunteers will be shown religious symbols such as crucifixes and images of the Virgin Mary during the tests."
Latimer & Ridley, thou shouldst be living at this hour.

Comments

[rentaghost31.livejournal.com]

so did you end up signing "he's behind you" instead of shouting, then?

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

I gave shouting a go, but largely used those bits to cover coughing. TBH my signing is pretty much limited to 'over there', 'up yours', 'I have not been maimed by the French' and 'w@nker'.

[wardytron.livejournal.com]

Sarllo, I don't care what you say - wearing a Nazi uniform is not appropriate when the theme of the party is "colonials and natives".

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

The Afrika Korps were colonial! If he'd been in a domestic SS outfit then yes, that's out of line.

[london-imp.livejournal.com]

He should have blacked himself up and had a spear with him, shouldn't he?


I read on the Beeb, that a Jewish Human Rights Group want the Prince to go to Auschwitz for the 60th anniversary of the liberation. Frankly, I don't see what good that's going to do.

[perfectlyvague.livejournal.com]

If I went to a party as my great-Uncle it wouldn't cause this sort of a hoo-hah.

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

It's not Parliament that needs to change the law, it's judges that need to stop lying to juries. The law allows 'reasonable force'. As far as I'm concerned, any amount of force up to and including a bullet to the back of the head is reasonable, if someone is in your house with ill intent, and I believe most juries, if they weren't bamboozled by lawyers, would agree.

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Well yes, the Met have been talking about 'clarification' more than changes in the law, but sadly this seemed like the simplest way we were going to get it clarified.

[perfectlyvague.livejournal.com]

Most juries don't understand the legal sense of 'reasonable'. Both my Dad and I spent most of our jury services shouting 'IT DOESN'T MEAN NO DOUBT AT ALL, IT MEANS YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE A BIT OF DOUBT AND TO USE YOUR COMMON BLOODY SENSE, CRETINS'. I made them send both our guys dahn.

[ultraruby.livejournal.com]

That wee fresh faced lad is lovely. I used to fancy him when he was in Take the High Road.

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

The weird thing is, he actually seems to have got younger.

[myfirstkitchen.livejournal.com]

me too. and sex, chips&rock'n'roll. mmm.

[alfirin-kirinki.livejournal.com]

"Her front porch needs a lick" is just WRONG!

That panto was hysterical.

As for Prince William, from the sound of it he didn't go as a Lion he went as a Big Gayer. Hed wore leggins and leopard print!

.a.

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Yes, that one did get the longest appalled pause, but the stuff about being ready for a heavy load came fairly close.

And clearly that means Wills should apologise to anyone who's ever been injured by over-vigorous gayness.

[exmoor-cat.livejournal.com]

It's not even a proper uniform! Looks more like five minutes with a biro, where's the standards gone? Where's the Palm Tree insignia FFS? / spitting feathers

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Fair point. If he were being asked to apologise by the Fancy Dress Partygoers Association of Great Britain, I might have some sympathy.

[oneofthose.livejournal.com]

I think it is unsuitable as fancy dress and it is unsuitable as fetish wear. In 500 years it probably won't be. That's how just how our relationship with history works. Right now there are still people alive for whom that symbol represents great personal suffering. When it's used for comedic purposes then fine - because comedy needs to confront the unconfrontable and play with unacceptable concepts in order to be of use. But as an outfit for personal 'fun'? No way. It shouldn't be against the law but it should'nt be considered acceptable behaviour either - from anyone who should know better. Nazi sympathising is in the family though. If his dad is his dad, of course.
But, it could just have been a rare Vivien Westwood number that he'd bought on ebay and was keen to show it off. Very big fan of the Bromley Contingent is our Harry.

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

"I think it is unsuitable as fancy dress and it is unsuitable as fetish wear. In 500 years it probably won't be. That's how just how our relationship with history works. Right now there are still people alive for whom that symbol represents great personal suffering. When it's used for comedic purposes then fine - because comedy needs to confront the unconfrontable and play with unacceptable concepts in order to be of use. But as an outfit for personal 'fun'? No way."

Fetishism is often about confronting the unacceptable too, though. For some people those Nazi costumes are serving as a form of psychoanalysis or catharsis. Now, I'm not saying that applies in Harry's case but it certainly calls for a widening of your proposed exemption. And what about the use of Nazi iconography by some of the early punks, as you mention later? Was that OK?

[j4.livejournal.com]

This is a non-issue.

This statement is up there with "You can't miss it", "It could never happen over here", and "What could possibly go wrong?" ...

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

I think it would have been before you were reading this journal that I did the huge rant about how many front pages had items on them that were Not Actually News. 'Non-issue' is intended in that spirit; I'm fully aware of the depressing variety of non-issues (by my standards) which can become issues on this ghastly parallel.

[darkmarcpi.livejournal.com]

The manipulation of existing law in burglars' favour is enough to make you want to vote Conservative at the next election. Almost.

Did you see the John Harris article 'Who Do We Vote For Now? in Saturday's Guardian magazine? It really annoyed me.

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Yes. Why so? I particularly liked the ex-New Labour minister's thoughts on Howard.
"
And why don't we like Michael Howard? Partly because of his rightwing record when he was home secretary. But we're more rightwing than Michael Howard was: detail-for-detail, that was the case under Straw, and even more so with Blunkett. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1384389,00.html)"

[my-name-is-anna.livejournal.com]

i think the monarchy is just offensive, full stop. they syphon off huge amounts of money which could be spent doing much better things. i can't understand why britain persists in being stuck in the past and paying idiots to do nothing. and prince harry has shown that the new generation of royalty is shaping up to be just as idiotic as the last.
i wouldn't wear that uniform.

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Nor would I (I have totemistic issues when it comes to fancy dress) but I know a few people who'd have been targets for Nazi ire and yet do. I can see their point, as it's a great 'fvck you!' to the memory of the oppressors.

[okborednow.livejournal.com]

If there's anything more offensive than dressing as a Nnazi, it has to be dressing half-heartedly as a Nazi. Surely he could have got a hat or something?
xx

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

C'mon, I think that picture was from late in the evening, by which time people's costumes often have a tendency to lapse.