This was part of my first post:

I guess we will divide completely on this.

One side is descibed by Martin Carthy, in another context, to the effect - you can't do any permanent damage to a song - you sing it - it goes out of someones mouth and into someones ear - you either enjoy it you don't - that's what it's all about.

Another side is challenged by lots of people singing Rule Brittania etc. Britons never...... will be slaves, when Britons enslaved millions of people and became immensly rich and powerful as a consequence.

I was embarrassed to see David Blunkett in the Observer today.

People have misrepresented me and gone off on all kinds of tacks. I was a bit prickled by this from Malcolm because I always value and respect what he posts:

In the face of all that, Les' objections to the last night of the Proms really do look very small and rather petty;

My comments were not about 'The last Night of the Proms'. They were about the singing of a number of songs at the end. For what my opinion on this matter is worth, and I guess not much, most of the music is probably the best of its kind. That's more reason to be confused about those songs at the end.

Music and Art in general can never be free of ethical considerations. Where did the money come from to build the Tate (and Lyle) Gallery?

And, in only a slighty connected way, one of the richest sources of traditional songs from the oral tradition are sea songs and shanties. Are we, in our English Folk Clubs, aware of how what proportion of sailors on English/British ships were black?