poppy appeal

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Angry wrote:

again if you want to great if you dont fine i just see the need for debate on the subject really its extremely petty and shallow.

Is this petty or shallow?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/poppy-last-time-remembrance-harry-leslie-smith

its both and anyone who reads the guardian paper with bias opinionated crap and then tries to preach withit is equally shallow and petty.

I have no idea what that rant in the Guardian is about.

I thought it started out on a pacifist v war heroes tangent, then it got embroiled in the class struggle, moved on to the folly of modern war efforts (such as Iraq), and then ended up going on about corporations driving the news agenda.

Why isn't he wearing his poppy next year then?

ejh wrote:

I have no idea what that rant in the Guardian is about.

I thought it started out on a pacifist v war heroes tangent, then it got embroiled in the class struggle, moved on to the folly of modern war efforts (such as Iraq), and then ended up going on about corporations driving the news agenda.

Why isn't he wearing his poppy next year then?

Because war is promulgated by rich, powerful people using ordinary citizens as cannon-fodder. Morally dubious action is attempted to be justified by those in power using what should be a memorial to those who have died.

ejh wrote:

I have no idea what that rant in the Guardian is about.

I thought it started out on a pacifist v war heroes tangent, then it got embroiled in the class struggle, moved on to the folly of modern war efforts (such as Iraq), and then ended up going on about corporations driving the news agenda.

Why isn't he wearing his poppy next year then?

A rant. FFS man get a grip the man was 91 years old and served this country in the second world war. Don't you have any respect?
Hardly a rant and very poignant and Knecht has basically nailed it above.

knecht wrote:

ejh wrote:

I have no idea what that rant in the Guardian is about.

I thought it started out on a pacifist v war heroes tangent, then it got embroiled in the class struggle, moved on to the folly of modern war efforts (such as Iraq), and then ended up going on about corporations driving the news agenda.

Why isn't he wearing his poppy next year then?

Because war is promulgated by rich, powerful people using ordinary citizens as cannon-fodder. Morally dubious action is attempted to be justified by those in power using what should be a memorial to those who have died.

And it's only just after nine in a Monday morning, thanks Knecht, nicely put. The hypocrisy is staggering really. We should invent another type of service to run concurrently with the remembrance day parades where the leaders that instigate the wars APOLOGISE to all the families of the men and women who have died, on another tangent, where was Blair? Probably scoffing Roast Quail at some PEACE (biggest twist of irony I've ever seen there) summit where you can probably pick up some nice armament orders for your mates at the same time.

Have some respect? I am not disrespecting him. But that article discusses four entirely separate ideas and reasons - and none of them occurred overnight.

Or is this the first year we have been involved in a pointless conflict since WW2?

Is the class divide any more of an issue than it was 100 years ago, or any more relevant in modern conflict?

Does big money corporate interests drive geopolitical strategy and run the national news agenda in a way it didn't 5 or 10 years ago? Or 50? Does he not remember the Suez Crisis then?

If this was 10 years ago it would make more sense. But we are not going into Afghanistan & Iraq now. We are war weary and trudging home. And suddenly this person decides they cant bring themselves to wear a poppy any more - but they could all the other years that poor young working class soldiers were getting shot in the Middle East, because the London Stock exchange sent Westminster the instructions?

A poppy to is whatever you conceive it to be. I have a member of family in the armed forces, with three tours of the Middle East inthe past decade. But that never enters my mind on Remembrance Sunday. I remember all those fallen in the historic world wars. Who died in those boggy mudplains in Belgium and on the beaches at Normandy, sacrificing their whole lives and futures for the defence of the nation. I don't see how angst over class divides etc. can get in the way of that. I will wear my poppy and remember those who fell,  and shed a tear over that Blackadder episode, no matter what the latest conflict is, which government sent them in, or whatever division hogs the limelight of the latest parade in front of the Queen. Privately and sombrely, I will choose to wear a poppy and give two minutes silence to the incredible sacrifices those men and women made- and leave all politics to one side for a while. Just because this man is 91 it doesn't make his opinion sacrosanct.

I don't think anybody is asking you not to wear a Poppy E'ers, more pointing out the hypocrisy with the politicians and business men getting involved. Sometimes other events will be hi jacked because someone needs to highlight a cause that's important to them, like the Poppy it is up to the individual whether they get involved or not. Personally I am glad that some of the population have had enough of all the bullshit and then maybe, just maybe we could celebrate rememberance day as the day when we remember the dead and pledge that no more young men and women will be sent to their deaths. Mind you a good war is a great way to get rid of all the scroungers.

ejh wrote:

Have some respect? I am not disrespecting him. But that article discusses four entirely separate ideas and reasons - and none of them occurred overnight.

Or is this the first year we have been involved in a pointless conflict since WW2?

Is the class divide any more of an issue than it was 100 years ago, or any more relevant in modern conflict?

Does big money corporate interests drive geopolitical strategy and run the national news agenda in a way it didn't 5 or 10 years ago? Or 50? Does he not remember the Suez Crisis then?

If this was 10 years ago it would make more sense. But we are not going into Afghanistan & Iraq now. We are war weary and trudging home. And suddenly this person decides they cant bring themselves to wear a poppy any more - but they could all the other years that poor young working class soldiers were getting shot in the Middle East, because the London Stock exchange sent Westminster the instructions?

A poppy to is whatever you conceive it to be. I have a member of family in the armed forces, with three tours of the Middle East inthe past decade. But that never enters my mind on Remembrance Sunday. I remember all those fallen in the historic world wars. Who died in those boggy mudplains in Belgium and on the beaches at Normandy, sacrificing their whole lives and futures for the defence of the nation. I don't see how angst over class divides etc. can get in the way of that. I will wear my poppy and remember those who fell,  and shed a tear over that Blackadder episode, no matter what the latest conflict is, which government sent them in, or whatever division hogs the limelight of the latest parade in front of the Queen. Privately and sombrely, I will choose to wear a poppy and give two minutes silence to the incredible sacrifices those men and women made- and leave all politics to one side for a while. Just because this man is 91 it doesn't make his opinion sacrosanct.

Define "rant".  

As for yours - there is little I would disagree with there. What I do disagree with is the symbolism of the poppy wearing. I stopped wearing one when I decided that it was being used for political ends rather than remembrance. I wanted no association with that. I toyed for a year with wearing a white poppy until I realised that wearing of the red actually didn't mean you supported war and it was insulting for me to think in that way. I stopped wearing one when "hero" became a synonym for "member of the armed forces". Like you, I am making a choice. Like you, I don't believe that age is any protector of opinion. Maybe it just takes some people longer to make their minds up.

I found Harry Patch's take on it (and Andrew Motion's poems about him) inspirational.

the hijacking by politicos and business is akin to them claiming to be fans of andy murray, the great BRITISH (!, not scottish, when he wins) tennis ace.

all show and no thought

I'm all for remembering those who have died in service of this country. Without such sacrifice we wouldn't be able to debate the choice about whether to wear a poppy or not because it would be either compulsory or forbidden and the same goes for the wearing of a poppy.

I also think there is an important distinction to be drawn between those killed, for example, in the two World Wars and those in modern times. Nobody is actually forced to sign up anymore and the risk they accept when doing so is obvious for all to see. Conscription created a different situation altogether. Which, again, is not intended to belittle the sacrifices made in any war at all and I am bloody glad that I've not been placed in their shoes that's for sure.

There is always likely to be active service for serving servicemen in any era and with that service there will be casualties. The medical, psychological and logistical support and treatment for those who need it should be of the very highest quality by right and if the government cannot afford to supply that medical, psychological and logistical after care then it should not be sending our troops into conflict to start with. The real absurdity here is that the damaged survivors of the various conflicts have to rely on the charity provided by, undeniably worthy, institutions such as the British Legion.

Seeing a procession of our politicians and royalty put a wreath on a monument doesn't cut it for me. It's just about the very least they should be doing.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I'm all for remembering those who have died in service of this country. Without such sacrifice we wouldn't be able to debate the choice about whether to wear a poppy or not because it would be either compulsory or forbidden and the same goes for the wearing of a poppy.

I also think there is an important distinction to be drawn between those killed, for example, in the two World Wars and those in modern times. Nobody is actually forced to sign up anymore and the risk they accept when doing so is obvious for all to see. Conscription created a different situation altogether. Which, again, is not intended to belittle the sacrifices made in any war at all and I am bloody glad that I've not been placed in their shoes that's for sure.

There is always likely to be active service for serving servicemen in any era and with that service there will be casualties. The medical, psychological and logistical support and treatment for those who need it should be of the very highest quality by right and if the government cannot afford to supply that medical, psychological and logistical after care then it should not be sending our troops into conflict to start with. The real absurdity here is that the damaged survivors of the various conflicts have to rely on the charity provided by, undeniably worthy, institutions such as the British Legion.

Seeing a procession of our politicians and royalty put a wreath on a monument doesn't cut it for me. It's just about the very least they should be doing.

if i had a pint i would be throwing it over you myself. Never have i read such a diatribe of crap.

Lets just nail something on the head now as its not really up for debate its a fact. Poppies are sold to raise money to ex servicemen/women and their families who are affected by conflicts, they are not sold to promote war or anything like that.

Its very sad that a know wannabe george galloway like yourself cant help himself but try and debate wearing of poppies simply to speak a conversation on a forum.

Extremely shallow and a little more than pathetic.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I'm all for remembering those who have died in service of this country. Without such sacrifice we wouldn't be able to debate the choice about whether to wear a poppy or not because it would be either compulsory or forbidden and the same goes for the wearing of a poppy.

I also think there is an important distinction to be drawn between those killed, for example, in the two World Wars and those in modern times. Nobody is actually forced to sign up anymore and the risk they accept when doing so is obvious for all to see. Conscription created a different situation altogether. Which, again, is not intended to belittle the sacrifices made in any war at all and I am bloody glad that I've not been placed in their shoes that's for sure.

There is always likely to be active service for serving servicemen in any era and with that service there will be casualties. The medical, psychological and logistical support and treatment for those who need it should be of the very highest quality by right and if the government cannot afford to supply that medical, psychological and logistical after care then it should not be sending our troops into conflict to start with. The real absurdity here is that the damaged survivors of the various conflicts have to rely on the charity provided by, undeniably worthy, institutions such as the British Legion.

Seeing a procession of our politicians and royalty put a wreath on a monument doesn't cut it for me. It's just about the very least they should be doing.

What "distinction" should be made? Are you seriously implying those conscripted are more worthy of remembrance because they didn't volunteer?

Have a word with yourself.  

Many kids these days are pretty much forced in to opting for a services career due to the dire jobs situation. I know of two myself who are currently in training. Believe me, joining the Army and Navy wasn't something they dreamed of, but they're good kids, and just want some sort of future rather than a potential season-ticket at the dole office.

And let's not forget it's kids like that who DO volunteer to take the risks, so that WE don't have to.

I always wear a poppy on rememberence day, its about the dead who gave their life's, its not about any sort of politician, thanks to them we live in a free society, people should remember that.

I don't denigrate any individual donating &/or wearing a poppy.  It's down to individual conscience & belief. It's good that people like you choose to do what you do.
I do object to something like this ...... http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/UKIP-accused-hijacking-Plymouth-Remembrance-Day/story-20063146-detail/story.html

knecht wrote:

I don't denigrate any individual donating &/or wearing a poppy.  It's down to individual conscience & belief. It's good that people like you choose to do what you do.
I do object to something like this ...... http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/UKIP-accused-hijacking-Plymouth-Remembrance-Day/story-20063146-detail/story.html

It is a personel decision, it does not bother me if people choose not to buy one, its just something i like to do.

I wonder sometimes if some people actually bothered to read what I posted at all. Just to reiterate:

"I'm all for remembering those who have died in service of this country..."

"Without such sacrifice..."

"Conscription created a different situation altogether. Which, again, is not intended to belittle the sacrifices made in any war at all..."

"I am bloody glad that I've not been placed in their shoes..."

"The medical, psychological and logistical support and treatment for those who need it should be of the very highest quality by right..."

"If the government cannot afford to supply that medical, psychological and logistical after care then it should not be sending our troops into conflict..."

"The real absurdity here is that the damaged survivors of the various conflicts have to rely on the charity..."

"Undeniably worthy institutions, such as the British Legion..."

I can't see anything disrespectful, controversial or in bad taste regarding our servicemen.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I wonder sometimes if some people actually bothered to read what I posted at all. Just to reiterate:

"I'm all for remembering those who have died in service of this country..."

"Without such sacrifice..."

"Conscription created a different situation altogether. Which, again, is not intended to belittle the sacrifices made in any war at all..."

"I am bloody glad that I've not been placed in their shoes..."

"The medical, psychological and logistical support and treatment for those who need it should be of the very highest quality by right..."

"If the government cannot afford to supply that medical, psychological and logistical after care then it should not be sending our troops into conflict..."

"The real absurdity here is that the damaged survivors of the various conflicts have to rely on the charity..."

"Undeniably worthy institutions, such as the British Legion..."

I can't see anything disrespectful, controversial or in bad taste regarding our servicemen.

still  for comments on the pros and cons of raising money for charity still? poor taste

I support two charities. I have my reservations about both of them.

Of course there are pros & cons. Aren't there?

Angry wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I wonder sometimes if some people actually bothered to read what I posted at all. Just to reiterate:

"I'm all for remembering those who have died in service of this country..."

"Without such sacrifice..."

"Conscription created a different situation altogether. Which, again, is not intended to belittle the sacrifices made in any war at all..."

"I am bloody glad that I've not been placed in their shoes..."

"The medical, psychological and logistical support and treatment for those who need it should be of the very highest quality by right..."

"If the government cannot afford to supply that medical, psychological and logistical after care then it should not be sending our troops into conflict..."

"The real absurdity here is that the damaged survivors of the various conflicts have to rely on the charity..."

"Undeniably worthy institutions, such as the British Legion..."

I can't see anything disrespectful, controversial or in bad taste regarding our servicemen.

still  for comments on the pros and cons of raising money for charity still? poor taste

For pity's sake...

Full credit is due to the British Legion for providing the support they do.

Just as the government should be ashamed of itself for not providing that support in the first place.

Which is what I said to start with.

I stopped my monthly donation to Amnesty as I was followed by one of their chuggers in town from beside Dingles all the way up to Drake Circus. I called them to do this and their actual response was that this method of collecting donations was very successful. I'd donated to Amnesty for about five years.

Nothing in this thread is "disgraceful" and nothing posted by SFD is that contentious. The Government shouldn't allow these people to rely upon charity - they should be looked after. Not because they're "heroes" or because they're protecting me (I've often found that kind of phrase rather strange) but because they're human beings.

Things haven't moved on much since this was written.
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/disabled/

Just thought I'd pop this link here for any one who's interested.
http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/get-involved/how-to-give/where-your-money-goes
£43m from last years' poppy appeal.
That's not very much for the Government to find is it?

Hey Angry, read this
http://libcom.org/history/churchill-cenotaph-may-day-2000-practical-history
It's pretty interesting stuff but it might just make you explode indignantly.

can i just say how much i love the ignore function on this site

It's a sad statistic that such a high percentage of homeless people are ex servicemen and many of them with mental health issues which only surfaced after they had joined the forces. Same in the States where Vietnam veterans were treated appallingly, to the point that their plight was only really brought to the vast majority's attention with Tom Cruise playing the lead role in a Hollywood blockbuster.

I never contemplated joining the armed forces, not my thing at all. I couldn't think of a worse profession in all honesty yet my family has a long tradition of service. The discipline side of it would've been bad enough without even thinking of "going to war".

I have several friends who have been or still in one of the armed forces and they have changed incredibly since joining and to be honest I'd say in every case it isn't for the better. That's possibly due to the job itself and what is required to put your life on the line, sometimes time after time after time.

Where I live now there is a huge military presence all around. I can hear the excercises from Salisbury Plains sometimes even though it's over 25 miles away, and there are squaddies based in towns all around here and on the whole they're not generally well liked and in fact banned from going to some towns and establishments because of the numerous incidents of violence and damage caused when they descend on somewhere in a group.

I was once told that it's just their way of letting off steam but whatever it is it has made their presence unpopular with local businesses and the local residents, other than the young women I expect who apparently love someone in uniform.

The reason I bring this up about being local to so many is because despite their reputation and how they are generally perceived normally that all changes when you see something like the murder of Lee Rigby or Remembrance Parades where all of a sudden the perception of soldiers or whatever becomes something entirely different. Nothing but respect and admiration for them then from the exact same people, and I would guess that it is different because these civilians are grateful for the services who do protect us. Not everyone agrees with the causes of conflicts, especially when it really has no obvious business of ours and is taking place in some godforsaken desert thousands of miles away.

They too didn't choose a career in the armed forces for much the same reason as I have given. It's something you either really want to do or is a last resort because there is nothing else available. I am eternally grateful that National Service was abolished long before I was of the right age because I'm probably partly coward and partly lazy. I don't want to be hiking on Snowdon in temperatures ranging from -10 to 32 degrees carrying the equivalent of another person on your back and I certainly don't want to be stuck in some foreign land where every person you encounter is a possible enemy soldier in disguise and the sound of explosions means without any doubt that someone who know has been either injured or killed by a crude device made specifically to kill as many of you and your colleagues as possible.

Damned right I don't want any of that, but despite feeling that half of the one's that do choose this path become dickheads overnight and are also on the look out for a fight, I'm also incredibly proud of the one's who do and am mightily relieved that they bother to do what I couldn't.

That's why I always wear a poppy. The donation is probably secondary to the symbolism of it. I have also been donating at supermarket checkouts where in late October and November you can have your shopping bill rounded up and the extra goes to the Royal British Legion. It's not missed one bit, it's just the right thing to do.

I don't even think about the politics of the situation. Don't care that the Government who send these youngsters into these situations should be providing for them during and after their service, or in most cases shouldn't be sending them there in the first place. None of that registers in my decision to donate and wear a poppy, it is in memory of the people who have given their lives or been injured in uniform, some of which who have been family members and friends, who have made me able to have the choice of signing up or not.

I can't see any reason why politics should come it to this at all now. I sort of get why some people don't want to wear a poppy but then again I don't. To me this is the one thing that people should do irrespective of their political or religious views on the rights and wrongs of any war or conflict. It's just out of respect to brave people and young men and women who were not that brave but it was just something they had to do.

When November approaches I get sick of the statuses on Facebook that go something like "I wear my poppy with pride and if you don't like it you can get the feck out of my country" etc etc etc because I don't think there's any doubt that the vast, vast majority of people of whichever nationality or religion know that anyone burning a poppy or a similar disrespectful act is just scum and you are looking for a reaction, which I'm all too eager to supply I'm sorry to say.

Just buy your poppy and observe the silences on the relevant days is not much to ask of anyone. No argument, no reticence about it. Just do it every year without fail and during those silences think about how lucky we are to have had people sacrifice their lives for us in Britain and maybe reflect on some of the horrors those involved have endured. If you don't agree with Britain's involvement in Syria or in Iraq and Afghanistan, then do it for the memory of the people in wars previously and just for this short time forget about the politics of what you may disagree with nowadays.

I really don't think it's asking too much at all.

I haven't bought one this year. I usually do. I've got a sibling in the forces (is this the equivalent of having a black friend in an "I'm not racist" debate?) and it isn't really a political statement, I just don't think I've been in a shop since they came out with any change to chuck down.

Serious question though, will we be remembering the 1st World War every year forever? It's 100 years now. To the next generation that's about as relevant as the Napoleanic War. Is anyone who fought even still alive any more?