Ariana Grande

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Trangia 31 Dec 2018

 

She has turned down a Damehood for her actions and support for victims  following the Manchester bombing on the grounds that it's too soon after the tragedy and the victim's families are suffering. 

She is a true Lady.

Respect.

1
 Tyler 31 Dec 2018
In reply to Trangia:

A lesson in decorum for the Honours Committee from a 25 year old American. Such a contrast to the rest of them with their snouts in the trough. 

2
 Blue Straggler 01 Jan 2019
In reply to Trangia:

Thanks, I hadn't heard about this. 
I was actually, somehow, deeply moved by just her Twitter response on the night of the tragedy, and then when the concert was arranged so swiftly and with no tacky razzmatazz, there was a lump in my throat. 
As the other respondee said, some could learn a lesson from her. 

 The New NickB 02 Jan 2019
In reply to Trangia:

I’m a fan. Not so much of her music, but generally how she has behaved since the attack.

 summo 02 Jan 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> I’m a fan. Not so much of her music, but generally how she has behaved since the attack.

She was quick to flee initially. But that could be a sign of her youth or poor decision making on her management's side. Since though there has been a more thoughtful and reflective approach. Plus turning down the honour puts her in a different class to the likes of Beckham practically demanding one. 

Post edited at 12:42
29
 The Lemming 02 Jan 2019
In reply to summo:

> She was quick to flee initially. But that could be a sign of her youth or poor decision making on her management's side.

I'm a bit confused by this. May I ask was Ariana was quick to flee from?

 The New NickB 02 Jan 2019
In reply to summo:

Thanks for that Piers!

1
 summo 02 Jan 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

> I'm a bit confused by this. May I ask was Ariana was quick to flee from?

The UK

 

8
 summo 02 Jan 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> Thanks for that Piers!

Hardly. Leaving Manchester is totally understandable, who wouldnt. Fleeing to the USA, an over reaction. As I said, I think she has made up for it since. 

24
 felt 02 Jan 2019
In reply to Summo:

There's fleeing, and there's M&S Captain Francesco Schettino fleeing.

 deepsoup 02 Jan 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

> I'm a bit confused by this. May I ask was Ariana was quick to flee from?

Immediately after the attack, and utterly traumatised, she went home to Florida to be with her family for a short time.  "Quick to flee" hardly seems fair, would hardly have been fair even if she had decided to remain there.

If Summo means this critically, it's basically just him and Piers Morgan.  Though even Morgan was just carping about her on Twitter at the time without the benefit of hindsight, being the bellend of the moment as he does, and was subsequently forced to eat his words when it became clear just how badly he'd misjudged this extraordinary young woman.

 The Lemming 02 Jan 2019
In reply to summo:

> Hardly. Leaving Manchester is totally understandable, who wouldnt. Fleeing to the USA, an over reaction. As I said, I think she has made up for it since. 

Thanks for clearing that up. After being involved in an horrendous terror attack, who would not want to return home to the safety of their friends and family?

Just because Ariana lives in the USA and wanted to go back home does not mean that she fled the scene.

Some of  my friends and work mates were there that night picking up the pieces metaphorically and physically. By all accounts it was horrific and they are struggling to this very day.

You really want to belittled one young woman who was terrified?

Post edited at 15:30
1
 elsewhere 02 Jan 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

Never heard of her before Manchester. Big admirer since.

Very impressive that she was visiting fans in hospital and performing at the huge benefit gig. Nor is she a young woman who lets terrorists decide when to end her career. That in particular I admire. 

Post edited at 16:15
 Yanis Nayu 02 Jan 2019
In reply to Trangia:

I think she’s a very impressive young woman, and she was entirely right to turn it down, for the reasons she stated. 

Quite like her music too if I’m honest; her voice is quite powerful but conveys a certain vulnerability. 

OP Trangia 02 Jan 2019
In reply to summo:

> Hardly. Leaving Manchester is totally understandable, who wouldnt. Fleeing to the USA, an over reaction. As I said, I think she has made up for it since. 

I think you are being harsh here. "Home" for her is the USA, wanting to go home after such a shocking experience is a perfectly natural reaction.

 Blue Straggler 02 Jan 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

> Just because Ariana lives in the USA and wanted to go back home does not mean that she fled the scene.

Exactly this. Of course the remaining dates on the tour were cancelled. If I were Grande’s management I’d have done the same. And of course then why not simply “go home” (note: not “flee”). I think summo is being disingenuous here, and trolling somewhat.

Grande when home was almost instantly on the case, heavily involved with the rapid assembly of the benefit concert. She didn’t exactly go into hiding for months.

 

And 2019 was to be my year of being nicer on UKC but of course nobhead comments still need to be questioned....

 

Post edited at 17:11
 deepsoup 02 Jan 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

> ...one young woman who was terrified?

I don't doubt she must have been terrified, and I suppose that was the thrust of what Morgan said then (and Summo says now) hinting that it was fear (or rather cowardice) that led her to head for home. 

But I think it must have been much more complicated than that.  It's become pretty clear since then (if it wasn't already, I wouldn't know) that she feels a strong emotional connection to her fans.  Much more so than your average pop star perhaps.  She may have been frightened, but must also have been absolutely grief-stricken, and while it wouldn't have been rational I'd be surprised if she didn't also have to deal with powerful feelings of guilt that she was the reason the victims were there.  She was the one they had come to see, her name on the posters.  It's a pretty mind-boggling thing to process for anyone, let alone at the tender age of 23.

And then there's just the practicality of where else she was supposed to go.  There were plenty of paparazzi photos in the press of her arrival back in the USA, she could have holed-up in a London hotel room but jeez who knows if she'd have been allowed much privacy there, she probably would have felt like she was under siege.  Why on earth would you not go home if you could?

 Rampikino 02 Jan 2019
In reply to Tyler:

Surely the actions/situation with Ms Grande should be separated from the rest of the honours system. It’s a case-by-case thing, right?

To say “the rest of them” have their snouts in the trough is cheap, nasty and thoroughly ignorant of you and I would imagine that you have spent precisely no time whatever looking at other recipients.

For example, how about Professor Greaves who has been awarded a knighthood.  His snout in the trough activities?   “Director, Centre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research. For services to Childhood Leukaemia Research.”

Jeez, what a tw*t, eh?

There’s 116 pages of honours on the list. I bet you have not heard of 99% of them.

 

On the Ariana Grande inclusion, I feel it shows the system works. The country acknowledged her and her efforts very publicly - showing that the country cares about what she does. She took a noble option to decline which is not a snub but a point of sensitivity. Nobody loses here.

Post edited at 18:41
1
 Blue Straggler 02 Jan 2019
In reply to Rampikino:

 

> To say “the rest of them” have their snouts in the trough is cheap, nasty and thoroughly ignorant of you and I would imagine that you have spent precisely no time whatever looking at other recipients.

For the record my first comment on this thread was not agreeing with “snouts in the trough” but just a more general “people could learn from Ms Grande’s general comportment”

 Rampikino 02 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Sure - not aimed at you.

 

 Tom Valentine 02 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Your later contribution aimed the word "nobhead" (sic) at someone's comment so if that's Day 1 disposed of it looks like business as usual.

 Blue Straggler 02 Jan 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

nobhead and knobhead have both become accepted spellings in vernacular form.

 

Funnily enough it was you that taught me the term “knobhead word” when you described “whataboutery” (and were subsequently quickly shot down by others for it). So thanks for corrupting me

3
In reply to Trangia:

There are lots of undeserving recipients of the honours but there are a huge number who genuinely do deserve them. One such example is my friend and running associate Peter Davis. A more unassuming and professional person you will likely meet. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361311108001131

And he still beats me on the roads, despite being 30 years my senior. Inspired stuff from all angles.

 Blue Straggler 02 Jan 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Describing a comment as a “(k)nobhead comment” isn’t strictly an attack on an individual. It’s just a different way of saying “I respectfully disagree”.

3
 Tyler 02 Jan 2019
In reply to Rampikino:

> Surely the actions/situation with Ms Grande should be separated from the rest of the honours system. It’s a case-by-case thing, right?

Possibly but my point was about the honours system, how the fact that it is so corruptible means that its tainted.

> To say “the rest of them” have their snouts in the trough is cheap, nasty and thoroughly ignorant of you

Or alternatively it was a bit of sloppy language obliquely referring to the politicians who are currently collecting their baubles in exchange for selling their principles to PM May, I'm sure you realised that, everyone else seemed to.

> and I would imagine that you have spent precisely no time whatever looking at other recipients.

True, and yet believing that you still chose to interpret my comment as referring to these others, who I knew nothing about, rather than the well publicised cases of Redwood et al?

> For example, how about Professor Greaves who has been awarded a knighthood.  His snout in the trough activities?   “Director, Centre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research. For services to Childhood Leukaemia Research.”

How about him? Are we supposed to now look at him or his work differently because he has come to the notice of the honours committee? Are we supposed to think less of those working in the same or similar field doing work just as good in a lesser way because they don't have knighthoods?

> Jeez, what a tw*t, eh?

No, but we know that because he has professorship, he has a Royal Medal from the Royal Society not because he was knighted alongside John Redwood

> There’s 116 pages of honours on the list. I bet you have heard of 99% of them.

> On the Ariana Grande inclusion, I feel it shows the system works. The country acknowledged her and her efforts very publicly - showing that the country cares about what she does.

How does it? It shows that if you throw in the odd celeb or long serving lollypop lady you can legitimise a whole load of dubious appointments. It shows that the govt of the day are always keen to attach themselves to popular figures  in the hope that some of that rubs off, its why Blair cozied up to Brit pop artists.

> She took a noble option to decline which is not a snub but a point of sensitivity. Nobody loses here.

And the fact that she was the one to point out the insensitivity crassly cynical the whole thing is.

 

Post edited at 19:14
4
 deepsoup 02 Jan 2019
In reply to Rampikino:

> On the Ariana Grande inclusion, I feel it shows the system works. The country acknowledged her and her efforts very publicly - showing that the country cares about what she does.

I'm not so sure about that.  At least there wasn't anything public or official about it.  People being offered an honour are contacted privately first to see if they want it, it's only made public after they have agreed that they'll accept it.  If they don't want it, it doesn't get into the public domain unless the person declining the honour lets it be known themselves that they turned it down or someone leaks it.

As far as I can tell, the root of this story is an "it has been claimed" gossip column piece from an anonymous source in the Sun.  Call me cynical but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they just made it up, it's not as if they don't have form for that sort of thing.

Oh, and nit-picking a bit possibly, but one thing that is clear is that as a non-commonwealth citizen she would not in any case have been offered a damehood as such.  Assuming the story is true it would have been an honorary damehood making her a 'DBE' rather than a Dame.

Anyhow, she's touring the UK later in the year (assuming we still have running water and electricity by then).  I don't think the reception she gets will leave any room for doubt that her efforts are appreciated.

 

 bouldery bits 02 Jan 2019
In reply to summo:

> She was quick to flee initially. But that could be a sign of her youth or poor decision making on her management's side. 

Yeah.

She should've hung around and fought the terrorists bare handed. 

1
 Rampikino 02 Jan 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> Possibly but my point was about the honours system, how the fact that it is so corruptible means that its tainted.

So go on, how many of the 116 pages of honours have been awarded through corruption?

> Or alternatively it was a bit of sloppy language obliquely referring to the politicians who are currently collecting their baubles in exchange for selling their principles to PM May, I'm sure you realised that, everyone else seemed to.

It’s an old forum classic - use a crass generalisation and then say “oh that’s not what I was saying”. A handy excuse for ignorant and lazy attitudes. As for what other people thought - neither of us can claim to know that.

> And the fact that she was the one to point out the insensitivity crassly cynical the whole thing is.

Did she say that? Is that her reason? You know this how? Sounds like your confirmation bias to me.

 

2
 Tom Valentine 03 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I don't mind if people reacted negatively to my comment regarding "whataboutery".

I expected nothing less.

It has its adherents on UKC but I am far from being the only person who dislikes the word and the way in which it is used.

A bit like the Knobheads who say "end of".

Post edited at 01:04
 Blue Straggler 03 Jan 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

I think this is straying far from the OP now

 summo 03 Jan 2019
In reply to bouldery bits:

> Yeah.

> She should've hung around and fought the terrorists bare handed. 

It's good you edited my comment and ignored my other post to try and score a point. Very mature. New year, same ukc. 

As well you know, I've never suggested she should have stayed in Manchester. Only the country. 

 

11
 The Lemming 03 Jan 2019
In reply to summo:

 

> As well you know, I've never suggested she should have stayed in Manchester. Only the country.

Why?

If I was involved in something so horrific, I'd want to go home to my family asap, wouldn't you?

 

 The New NickB 03 Jan 2019
In reply to summo:

> As well you know, I've never suggested she should have stayed in Manchester. Only the country. 

Why? What would be the point, she needed to be home for a few days to deal with it. Interestingly, she went to her family home in Florida, not her actual home in New York. A traumatised 23 year old needed to spend a few days with family. To suggest spending that time in say London would be acceptable , but not Florida is utterly bizzare.

 deepsoup 03 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> Exactly this. Of course the remaining dates on the tour were cancelled. If I were Grande’s management I’d have done the same.

Actually they weren't.  Seven concerts were cancelled, then after the Old Trafford 'One Love' benefit on June 4th the tour resumed, starting again in Paris on June 7th and going on to complete the remaining European dates before moving on to South America, Asia and Australia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Woman_Tour

Of course it was the right decision to cancel the concerts scheduled immediately after Manchester, but it would not have been possible to go ahead with those anyway for purely logistical reasons. 

As the crime scene at the centre of such a serious investigation, once the arena had been evacuated nobody was allowed back in again right away.*  The stage, set, lighting rig, costumes, everything - two dozen or so lorry loads of very specialised kit was effectively impounded for a week or so. 

Once they were able to leave the scene the management and crew moved on to London (where the hotels were already booked, as the next gig on the tour would have been the O2).  Some of the crew were able to go home for a few days (particularly the Brits among them), her manager and the remainder of the crew stayed in London waiting to be given the go-ahead by the police to go back to the arena and load out the show.

By the time that had happened, preparations for the 'One Love' concert were already underway.  I hadn't realised before looking at those dates on Wiki, but actually they cancelled the absolute minimum part of the tour that would have been possible.  It's very impressive really.

* Edit to add:
This was also part of the reason so many people were stranded in Manchester that night.  There's a large multi-storey car park that's effectively part of the same huge building as Victoria Station and the arena.  It was several days before the police were able to allow people back in to the car park to retrieve their vehicles, so the best part of a thousand cars were also effectively impounded on the night.

Post edited at 10:54
 Blue Straggler 03 Jan 2019
In reply to deepsoup:

Thanks, sorry I did mean just whatever was left of the UK tour but as you say, they were not so much cancelled at the behest of management but, rather, simply couldn’t go ahead for logistical reasons (possibly a bit of both but I won’t split hairs with speculation )

 jkarran 03 Jan 2019
In reply to Sir summo runstowardbombsalot:

> She was quick to flee initially. But that could be a sign of her youth or poor decision making on her management's side.

What the actual f***!

jk

 deepsoup 03 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Not at all, no criticism implied. 

> (possibly a bit of both but I won’t split hairs with speculation)

I don't think any speculation is required really, both were compelling reasons to cancel the London shows and there would have been others besides.  With the heightened state of alert at the time I very much doubt the Met Police would have wanted those shows to go ahead either.

Like I said, I hadn't realised they'd resumed so soon until I looked at those dates just now.  I don't think anyone, even Piers who is so much braver than the rest of us, would have blamed her if the rest of the European leg had been postponed or cancelled.  It must have been extremely difficult for her picking up where she left off in Paris, remarkable fortitude.

Post edited at 11:17
 bouldery bits 03 Jan 2019
In reply to summo:

> It's good you edited my comment and ignored my other post to try and score a point. Very mature. New year, same ukc. 

> As well you know, I've never suggested she should have stayed in Manchester. Only the country. 

So as to be able to launch a tactical assault on ISIS from the safety of Chorley! 

Good thinking. 


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...