Poppy Middle Class Death Cult

Fratton Fred

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Oh right sure that's a much more reasonable reason for getting death threats.
There was me thinking being sent pictures of bullets for not wearing a poppy by someone claiming to be a British service man was unreasonable but sure if he declared for Ireland then that's OK.

Nope, it isn't OK at all. But tweet the stuff he likes to and you're going to wind up people. The not wearing of a poppy is just another excuse for people to give him abuse.

A nationalist from Derry publicly turns his back on the NI team he played for as a school boy, takes the piss out of NI for not going to Euro 2012, tweets pictures of Free Derry Corner and with his arm around Martin McGuinness, slags rangers fans for their club going bust and loves to talk about how great the Wolfe Tones are.

Yep, it's definitely the poppy thing he gets death threats for.

Jayop

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Nope, it isn't OK at all. But tweet the stuff he likes to and you're going to wind up people. The not wearing of a poppy is just another excuse for people to give him abuse.

A nationalist from Derry publicly turns his back on the NI team he played for as a school boy, takes the piss out of NI for not going to Euro 2012, tweets pictures of Free Derry Corner and with his arm around Martin McGuinness, slags rangers fans for their club going bust and loves to talk about how great the Wolfe Tones are.

Yep, it's definitely the poppy thing he gets death threats for.

But it is. To the vast majority of British football fans he wouldn't even be on their radar is it wasn't for the tabloid scandal over his poppy stance. That's what's causing this.

RobbieTheRobber

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Nope, it isn't OK at all. But tweet the stuff he likes to and you're going to wind up people. The not wearing of a poppy is just another excuse for people to give him abuse.

A nationalist from Derry publicly turns his back on the NI team he played for as a school boy, takes the piss out of NI for not going to Euro 2012, tweets pictures of Free Derry Corner and with his arm around Martin McGuinness, slags rangers fans for their club going bust and loves to talk about how great the Wolfe Tones are.

Yep, it's definitely the poppy thing he gets death threats for.

I'm not going to defend everything James McLean has done or will do. However on the poppy matter the death threats James received in 2012 directly referenced the poppy incident. The Uk police made comments about it. It is a matter of record.

I also don't think James needed to do anymore than declare his interest in playing for Ireland to become a target for certain types in Northern ireland. What about the death threats Neil lennon received while a northern ireland player?
I'm sure you will have some justification for those too.

osarusan

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

but I do have a problem with giving money to British ex-servicemen.

For me it depends on the serviceman.

Some ex-servicemen and/or their dependants, no problem. Others, big problem.

As long as the RBL doesn't distinguish between the 'deserving' the 'undeserving' (and I can't see how they ever really could do that) then I fully understand why people don't want to give them any money.

Fratton Fred

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I'm not going to defend everything James McLean has done or will do. However on the poppy matter the death threats James received in 2012 directly referenced the poppy incident. The Uk police made comments about it. It is a matter of record.

I also don't think James needed to do anymore than declare his interest in playing for Ireland to become a target for certain types in Northern ireland. What about the death threats Neil lennon received while a northern ireland player?
I'm sure you will have some justification for those too.

It isn't justification, that's whiny started my post with "no, it isn't OK".

The abuse James McLean gets may have started with the Poppy, but now it is just one factor in many, if he had kept himself away from social media, as several managers advised him to, it would all be forgotten by now.

weldoninhio

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It isn't justification, that's whiny started my post with "no, it isn't OK".

The abuse James McLean gets may have started with the Poppy, but now it is just one factor in many, if he had kept himself away from social media, as several managers advised him to, it would all be forgotten by now.

Fans moan that players are all robots now with boring, one word answers in interviews and all of the personality media trained out of them.

A player acts like himself and he should keep his mouth shut??

Jayop

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It isn't justification, that's whiny started my post with "no, it isn't OK".

The abuse James McLean gets may have started with the Poppy, but now it is just one factor in many, if he had kept himself away from social media, as several managers advised him to, it would all be forgotten by now.

no, it isn't OK, but.....

generally having "BUT" after saying something isn't OK is just a way of justifying it.

Why the f**k are clubs in Britain deciding actually to have poppies on their shirts in the first place? Its a relatively recent phenomenon it seems. Politics should be kept out of sport.

Fratton Fred

The whole poppy thing is becoming a joke now, someone forgets or doesn't wear one, then the people who like to be outraged get outraged, then those that like to be outraged by people being outraged get outraged and on it goes.

RobbieTheRobber

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It isn't justification, that's whiny started my post with "no, it isn't OK".

The abuse James McLean gets may have started with the Poppy, but now it is just one factor in many, if he had kept himself away from social media, as several managers advised him to, it would all be forgotten by now.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the wearing of the poppy not James McLeans social media presence.
The fact the British media needed to have a discussion about his refusal to wear a symbol which had clear political links in the context of where he is from is the reason he entered this discussion.
It is also a clear sign of what is wrong with the poppy when people who have every right to be resident in the UK have to defend the not wearing of it.
It is seen as a symbol of nationalistic pride not a remembrance of all who died in ww1. If it is to truly act as a symbol of remberence then it should fund the victims of wars around the world not ex British servicemen none of whom today likely served in ww1.

Jayop

Deleted User wrote: »

Why the f**k are clubs in Britain deciding actually to have poppies on their shirts in the first place? Its a relatively recent phenomenon it seems. Politics should be kept out of sport.

Bowing to media pressure.

Fratton Fred

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why the f**k are clubs in Britain deciding actually to have poppies on their shirts in the first place? Its a relatively recent phenomenon it seems. Politics should be kept out of sport.

It is a new thing and I'm not sure why it started. It isn't something I particularly agree with.

I will let Celtic fans answer you about keeping politics out of sport.

Jayop

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It is a new thing and I'm not sure why it started. It isn't something I particularly agree with.

I will let Celtic fans answer you about keeping politics out of sport.

lol, even more irrelevant whataboutery.

Fratton Fred

Jayop wrote: »

lol, even more irrelevant whataboutery.

Celtic fans were defending their right to bring politics in to sport, therefore they are in a good position to answer the question. how is that whataboutery?

Fratton Fred

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

It is also a clear sign of what is wrong with the poppy when people who have every right to be resident in the UK have to defend the not wearing of it.
It is seen as a symbol of nationalistic pride not a remembrance of all who died in ww1. If it is to truly act as a symbol of remberence then it should fund the victims of wars around the world not ex British servicemen none of whom today likely served in ww1.

in your opinion.

Jambo

Dont think I could ever wear a poppy as to me it only commemorates British military personnel who have died in war , wars which were unjust empire building exercises to line to pockets of the British Elite at the expense of too many innocent lives and which are the still root of so much civil unrest in the world today.

Crimes of Britain on Facebook offers an excellent insight into exploits of Empire

HellSquirrel

Don't see a point in either shaming people for wearing a poppy or shaming them for not wearing one. No-one else's business.

Jayop

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Celtic fans were defending their right to bring politics in to sport, therefore they are in a good position to answer the question. how is that whataboutery?

It's whataboutery because it's absolutely nothing to do with this subject. You could have as well brought up the Anthem protests in America which would be more relevant but still whataboutery, but for some reason you decided to have a go at Celtic in response to defending James McClean.

FWIW I have no time for Celtic or their fans so I don't really care.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

in your opinion.

In his opinion what? That the Poppy is now seen as a symbol of national pride??

https://www.facebook.com/Im-proud-to-be-British-and-I-wear-a-poppy-with-pride-110610659006468/

It's not an opinion, it's a fact for anyone with any semblance of sense that wearing a Poppy is also now a symbol of national pride for the British. Fair play to them, that's their prerogative.

sondagefaux

Fratton Fred wrote: »

sondagefaux wrote: »

Knuckle draggers like Jon Snow, the English Channel 4 News presenter and journalist, who refuses to wear one on TV because he doesn't like the fact that it's becoming almost compulsory to wear one which, as he argues, undermines the supposed freedom that the people being commemorated are supposed to have fought for.
If veterans of the British army supposedly fought for freedom, then why does exercising that freedom by not wearing a poppy make someone a knuckle dragger?

actually, what he said is this

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/newsreader-jon-snow-rails-against-poppy-fascism-7263001.html

The presenter, who made the comments on a Channel 4 blogsite, said: "I am begged to wear an Aids Ribbon, a breast cancer ribbon, a Marie Curie flower... You name it, from the Red Cross to the RNIB, they send me stuff to wear to raise awareness, and I don't. And in those terms, and those terms alone, I do not and will not wear a poppy.

"Additionally there is a rather unpleasant breed of poppy fascism out there - 'he damned well must wear a poppy!' Well I do, in my private life, but I am not going to wear it or any other symbol on air."

fair play to him, its his choice and it should be respected (which generally it is)

This bit here is pretty much what I summarised him as saying:
"Additionally there is a rather unpleasant breed of poppy fascism out there - 'he damned well must wear a poppy!' Well I do, in my private life, but I am not going to wear it or any other symbol on air."

dresden8

orubiru wrote: »

"all you do is show the world that you are a cnut"

That's a bit harsh. I thought the whole poppy thing was about remembrance and raising money for charity?

It raised money to help those who had their legs blown off but once they served their usefulness their employer won't look after them properly.

shaunr68

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

At the time of world war 1 all the great european powers had vast colonial realms and not a single one of them could use this period of time to stake a claim for moral superiority on their treatment of people around the world.

Far away places in Africa and Asia. It's a different matter when just across the Channel you have the Prussian jackboot ravaging its neighbours, carrying out widespread atrocities, burning towns, raping nuns and massacring entire villages as a deliberate policy to terrorise the populace into submission.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The English did not participate in world war one out of some sense of obligation to the human rights of people in Belgium or anywhere else around the world.

I think you'll find that Britain declared war for precisely that reason: because of the violation of Belgian neutrality. Now of course national interests come into play and it had suited the British to have the Channel ports under the control of a small, non-threatening country. But it is an indisputable fact that the British participation in the war was because the Germans had violated Belgian neutrality.

Here six historians, all of whom specialise in the period, all reach similar conclusions:

http://www.historyextra.com/feature/first-world-war/why-britain-was-right-go-war-1914

Fratton Fred

Jayop wrote: »

It's whataboutery because it's absolutely nothing to do with this subject. You could have as well brought up the Anthem protests in America which would be more relevant but still whataboutery, but for some reason you decided to have a go at Celtic in response to defending James McClean.

FWIW I have no time for Celtic or their fans so I don't really care.

you obviously do care. I'm not having a go at Celtic, but their fans seem ti link football with politics and are proud of the fact. They are therefore in a good position to respond to the comment regarding politics and sport

Jayop wrote: »

In his opinion what? That the Poppy is now seen as a symbol of national pride??

https://www.facebook.com/Im-proud-to-be-British-and-I-wear-a-poppy-with-pride-110610659006468/

It's not an opinion, it's a fact for anyone with any semblance of sense that wearing a Poppy is also now a symbol of national pride for the British. Fair play to them, that's their prerogative.

are you seriously posting a facebook page to prove a point?
jesus, you're desperate :rolleyes:

on other news, Elvis Lives

dresden8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enRvJvtIUIY

Charlie Flanagan Minister for Foreign Affairs goes ape**** in the Dail about the Easter Lily.

Charlie Flanagan Minister for Foreign Affairs wears his poppy to support his imperial masters.....

https://twitter.com/charlieflanagan/status/399495637185863680

My 24th consecutive year to wear the poppy at the cenotaph, Millview, Portlaoise.

tipptom

Jayop wrote: »

It's whataboutery because it's absolutely nothing to do with this subject. You could have as well brought up the Anthem protests in America which would be more relevant but still whataboutery, but for some reason you decided to have a go at Celtic in response to defending James McClean.

FWIW I have no time for Celtic or their fans so I don't really care.



In his opinion what? That the Poppy is now seen as a symbol of national pride??

https://www.facebook.com/Im-proud-to-be-British-and-I-wear-a-poppy-with-pride-110610659006468/

It's not an opinion, it's a fact for anyone with any semblance of sense that wearing a Poppy is also now a symbol of national pride for the British. Fair play to them, that's their prerogative.

+1.
They have turned something that was a nice dignified yearly commerarative day in to months of a type of rule Britannia "with us or against us" jingoistic fest hijacked by EDL and C18 types who ironically hate preach about lack of freedoms.

weldoninhio

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Celtic fans were defending their right to bring politics in to sport, therefore they are in a good position to answer the question. how is that whataboutery?

Celtic fans were copying UEFA in bringing politics into sport. An organisation that allows Israeli teams play in Europe for political reasons. An organisation that keeps Russian and Ukrainian clubs apart in cup draws for political reasons, and also an organisation that allows member countries like England and Scotland wear poppy on their jerseys and certain clubs have howitzers and paratroopers repelling down from their roofs on Army day.

Jayop

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you obviously do care.

Just another stupid assumption despite being told the opposite I guess.

Why would I care about Celtic is I have no affiliation with them at all?

RobbieTheRobber

shaunr68 wrote: »

Far away places in Africa and Asia. It's a different matter when just across the Channel you have the Prussian jackboot ravaging its neighbours, carrying out widespread atrocities, burning towns, raping nuns and massacring entire villages as a deliberate policy to terrorise the populace into submission.
I think you'll find that Britain declared war for precisely that reason: because of the violation of Belgian neutrality. Now of course national interests come into play and it had suited the British to have the Channel ports under the control of a small, non-threatening country. But it is an indisputable fact that the British participation in the war was because the Germans had violated Belgian neutrality.

Here six historians, all of whom specialise in the period, all reach similar conclusions:

http://www.historyextra.com/feature/first-world-war/why-britain-was-right-go-war-1914

Did you even read the link you added?

Let me quote some pieces for you.


Think, as British statesmen did at the time, about what a German victory might have meant. German demands would have been drastic: France would lose part of its northern coast, and Belgium and Luxembourg would have been gobbled up.

Yet the invasion of Belgium, the possibility of outright defeat for France and the threat to the Channel ports were challenges that, given the sensibilities of the age, could only be answered by war

and the prospect that such a barbarous militarist power could dominate Europe and threaten Britain’s vital sea links concentrated British minds wonderfully
Even more importantly, a fundamental tenet of British security had, for centuries, been to keep the Low Countries out of the hands of a hostile power. In this respect, Britain went to war against Germany in 1914 for the same basic reason that it had fought against expansionist Revolutionary France in 1793


If Britain had stayed out in 1914 it is all too likely it would have found itself at war with Germany in the not-too-distant future, except – having betrayed its friends in their moment of deepest need – without allies.

The Germans had invaded Belgium and were threatening France, and historically Britain has never felt comfortable with a hostile power occupying the ports just across the English Channel. So although there was no immediate threat to British territory, it seems to me that, in terms of Britain’s historical tradition, this choice made sense


End of quotes.

I have quoted each of the authors in that article and from each piece it is clear that what motivated Britain to enter the war was self preservation or protection of its domain not the the Belgian deaths. Cling all you want to your misguided belief that Britain acted out of some moral obligation if you wish but please use some better evidence if you want to sway me.

RobbieTheRobber

Fratton Fred wrote: »

in your opinion.

Well that's a well thought out reply, I'll make sure to put as much thought into any counter arguments I offer to your posts from now on.

Fratton Fred

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I have quoted each of the authors in that article and from each piece it is clear that what motivated Britain to enter the war was self preservation or protection of its domain not the the Belgian deaths. Cling all you want to your misguided belief that Britain acted out of some moral obligation if you wish but please use some better evidence if you want to sway me.

I don't think any one mentioned moral obligations, it was self preservation. Not only would Germany have controlled the northern sea ports, if it had conquered France and controlled her navy, it's naval power would have been far superior to Britain's.

The race to build Dreadnoughts in the preceding years was a big factor in the heightened tensions across Europe that lead to one American observer describing it as a "tinderbox".

RobbieTheRobber

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't think any one mentioned moral obligations, it was self preservation. Not only would Germany have controlled the northern sea ports, if it had conquered France and controlled her navy, it's naval power would have been far superior to Britain's.

The race to build Dreadnoughts in the preceding years was a big factor in the heightened tensions across Europe that lead to one American observer describing it as a "tinderbox".

Fred I think you should reread the comment chain I replied to. That poster is trying to make exactly the point I am refuting.

Edit: for ease here is the relevant part of their post.
"I think you'll find that Britain declared war for precisely that reason: because of the violation of Belgian neutrality"