Burning the Poppy - A thread.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

This is what you said:



Churchill was a critic of appeasement, something which you are trying (and failing miserably) to disprove.

I never once said he 'wasn't a critic' of appeasement Aegir. Please stop misquoting.


Read the article posted and do further research Aegir.

Churchill was as criticised as the next politician all through the 30's for a variety of reasons and had a track record of mistakes behind him too.

tipptom

Aegir wrote: »

You know a public house isn’t actually public, right?

You do? Good.

Fancy putting on an England jersey and joining me for a pint in the Players Lounge?

No I don't.A public house is a public house.

Now the landlord has the right to refuse in the public house often for someone that he think may be a troublemaker etc.

This landlord has stated that he does not want anyone in his pub not for what they are wearing, but because you will not wear what he wants you to wear, or if you are not wearing the political symbol he wants you to wear you must buy one from behind the bar before you are served.

That exactly goes against what they say what the poppy represents and for the soldiers who fought for freedom,freedom of expression and against fascism.

Katie Hopkins was one of the first to congratulate the bar on their facist policy.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ha ha, I just presented an alternate view of Churchill, and it is I that is making things up.

Again, it is not really an alternate view. You need to actually read and reflect what people write Francie, it may save you thousands of posts in the future due to your inability to properly formulate coherent and full points of debate.

What you did was cherry-pick one fact and correlate it falsely to try and claim another fact.

It's like saying Hitler was a good bloke because he liked dogs and didn't eat meat.
That is your level of presentation right there.

But the shoe fits.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Again, it is not really an alternate view. You need to actually read and reflect what people write Francie, it may save you thousands of posts in the future due to your inability to properly formulate coherent and full points of debate.

What you did was cherry-pick one fact and correlate it falsely to try and claim another fact.

It's like saying Hitler was a good bloke because he liked dogs and didn't eat meat.
That is your level of presentation right there.

But the shoe fits.

Twas you Mark that presented 'Hitler as a nice guy' as an 'alternate view'.

I presented just a tiny bit of the 'facts' around the claim that Churchill was 'the most outstanding' critic of appeasement.

The reality is more nuanced, as seen, if you took the trouble to read about the period.

If you can provide a counter argument to the one presented by the writer of that piece, (one of many honest appraisals of the period and drawing on primary sources) do so. But PLEASE stop trying to shut down the conversation. Why you try to do this on every single thread is really beyond me, because it says more about you than anything you actually manage to contribute.

Letwin_Larry

i think the reason and as we know from the history of the Troubles most republican types hate Churchill, is he stood up to a bully. they hate that.
similarly there are more recent Tories whom they hate. even in our own Dail there are certain hate-figures for republicanism, and guess what they too are people who refused to be cow-towed by their threats and violence.

i dont necessarily agree with everything these brave politicians/leaders stand for, but i do admire their courage, none more so than Churchill.

having failed to threaten people into accepting their backward agenda, they are now engaged in an all-out campaign of revisionism. you only have to read some of the posters on here to realise this.

thankfully most people can see through their nonsense.
just cos you wrap yourself in a Tricolour doesn't make your argument correct,

tipptom

tipptom wrote: »

No I don't.A public house is a public house.

and also a private place. You do not have a right to enter, or be served in a public house.

https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2009/10/27/Pub-licensee-s-right-to-reject-custom

Feisar

Aegir wrote: »

and also a private place. You do not have a right to enter, or be served in a public house.

https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2009/10/27/Pub-licensee-s-right-to-reject-custom

Are the rules the same in England and Ireland? I thought, and stand to be corrected, that a public house was under an onus to serve anyone. A night "club" can refuse based on dress for example as it is a club of sorts, one pays membership into. Whereas a pub does not have this entitlement.

FrancieBrady

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i think the reason and as we know from the history of the Troubles most republican types hate Churchill, is he stood up to a bully. they hate that.
similarly there are more recent Tories whom they hate. even in our own Dail there are certain hate-figures for republicanism, and guess what they too are people who refused to be cow-towed by their threats and violence.

i dont necessarily agree with everything these brave politicians/leaders stand for, but i do admire their courage, none more so than Churchill.

having failed to threaten people into accepting their backward agenda, they are now engaged in an all-out campaign of revisionism. you only have to read some of the posters on here to realise this.

thankfully most people can see through their nonsense.
just cos you wrap yourself in a Tricolour doesn't make your argument correct,

Nice attempt at a wind up and deflection, but there are many who tried that one before you.

So can you present a FACTUAL history that shows that Churchill was anything other than a racist, bigoted, sometimes profoundly bungling, sometimes good and ultimately lucky politician, or not?

*Please present examples that are not written by the man himself.
Because there is actually FACTUAL evidence to present under the headings above.

Like any politician Churchill's career was a mixture of the good, the bad and the downright inexcusable.

Feisar

Feisar wrote: »

Are the rules the same in England and Ireland? I thought, and stand to be corrected, that a public house was under an onus to serve anyone. A night "club" can refuse based on dress for example as it is a club of sorts, one pays membership into. Whereas a pub does not have this entitlement.

it must be different then. A pub in England can refuse anyone, as long as that refusal isn't based on race, religion, gender etc.

tipptom

Aegir wrote: »

and also a private place. You do not have a right to enter, or be served in a public house.

https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2009/10/27/Pub-licensee-s-right-to-reject-custom

Did you read your own article you posted?

It is a public house,"what happens is when someone enters they are given a form of licence to be there,which can effectively be brought to an end at any time if the conduct justifies exclusion".

You are dealing in technicality's to avoid why you are supporting this facist bully who wants to make you buy and wear his political symbol or else you will be told to leave and probably leave yourself open to getting a beating from his "patriotic" like minde customers because you will not pay and wear what they tell you to,all because you went in for a pint?

Katie Hopkins was one of the first to tweet her support to this idiot.

tipptom

tipptom wrote: »

Did you read your own article you posted?

It is a public house,"what happens is when someone enters they are given a form of licence to be there,which can effectively be brought to an end at any time if the conduct justifies exclusion".

You are dealing in technicality's to avoid why you are supporting this facist bully who wants to make you buy and wear his political symbol or else you will be told to leave and probably leave yourself open to getting a beating from his "patriotic" like minde customers because you will not pay and wear what they tell you to,all because you went in for a pint?

Katie Hopkins was one of the first to tweet her support to this idiot.

Are you always looking for ways of finding offence?

Just because i acknowledge his right to do it, it doesn't mean i agree with him. I'm not defending him, I just can't understand why you would want to go to his pub in the first place.

If someone walked in to a republican bar in some **** hole border town, sporting a bright shiny poppy, how would they be received?

Feisar

Aegir wrote: »

it must be different then. A pub in England can refuse anyone, as long as that refusal isn't based on race, religion, gender etc.

I don't know and our laws come from the English system so maybe the whole "public" house thing is bar stool knowledge.

Dublin Spur

we have more in common with British people than any other, genetically and historically

lets just all get along, yeah?

tipptom

Aegir wrote: »

Are you always looking for ways of finding offence?

Just because i acknowledge his right to do it, it doesn't mean i agree with him. I'm not defending him, I just can't understand why you would want to go to his pub in the first place.

If someone walked in to a republican bar in some **** hole border town, sporting a bright shiny poppy, how would they be received?

I wouldn't want to go to this pub in the first place.

You know if I'm in an area say for work and I want to go to a pub for a sandwich or a pint, I don't go on tripadvisor to find out if they have facist leanings or not,i just pop in to the nearest one expecting to be served in reasonable time and not be told I wont get my sandwich unless I pay for and wear a political symbol.

Everyone knows you wouldn't go in to certain areas wearing an Irish shirt or an English shirt but its a whole different type of normalisation to be forced to wear political regalia to get service in a pub.

Next year it will be the bakery or the chemist.This is a point of principle and something that seems to be acceptable fascism that emboldens other jingoistic idiots to ramp it up next year

Could imagine your outrage here if you lived in a village and the local shop would only serve you if you wore an Easter Lilly or if you didn't wear it that you buy one from them and then wear it before you get served.

tipptom

Dublin Spur wrote: »

we have more in common with British people than any other, genetically and historically

lets just all get along, yeah?

I get on fine with all my British friends, I don't tell them what to wear and they don't tell me what to wear.
This was never even a conversation when I lived in England and that was at the height of the troubles. There seemed to be more respect for your freedom back then.

TBH I used to drink in a Royal British Legion back then and a few of the other Irish boys would wear a poppy and we all assumed the money went to the old soldiers from WW1 and 2 to take them on day outs and trips to France etc,i probably wore one myself at some point but

FrancieBrady

tipptom wrote: »

I get on fine with all my British friends, I don't tell them what to wear and they don't tell me what to wear.
This was never even a conversation when I lived in England and that was at the height of the troubles. There seemed to be more respect for your freedom back then.

TBH I used to drink in a Royal British Legion back then and a few of the other Irish boys would wear a poppy and we all assumed the money went to the old soldiers from WW1 and 2 to take them on day outs and trips to France etc,i probably wore one myself at some point but

There was never a problem with it in those days, it was a respectful and dignified expression of regard for what those men and women contributed.
It is a different thing today, with many seeing as a statement of support for anything their military and navy does.

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

To be honest, the over the top poppy haters in Ireland sound like the same people giving out about Gay Pride marches

Impressive linkages there, Mark. As some truly amazing person on this thread has already claimed that those who died for the peace-loving, selfless British Empire throughout the centuries "died for democracy", it is probably only a matter of time before somebody of the same vintage claims those who died for the British Empire "died for gay rights" - and you're very, very close to that amazing claim right here. Well done.

high_king

Aegir wrote: »

Churchill was probably the most outstanding critic of appeasement.

Only when it suited him politically. He totally caved into appeasing Stalin and Roosevelt at Yalta.

high_king

markodaly wrote: »

To be honest, the over the top poppy haters in Ireland sound like the same people giving out about Gay Pride marches and stuff like that. It doesn't take long to see through their 'concerns'.

Birds of a feather flock together.

If PRIDE had any strategy, they should do something similar to the poppy in Ireland for all the victims and veterans of homophobia. The Irish media and employers could make people here wear them, and exclude anyone that doesn't. Good money spinner for LGBGT+ Equality and Rights funding.

Letwin_Larry

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nice attempt at a wind up and deflection, but there are many who tried that one before you.

So can you present a FACTUAL history that shows that Churchill was anything other than a racist, bigoted, sometimes profoundly bungling, sometimes good and ultimately lucky politician, or not?

*Please present examples that are not written by the man himself.
Because there is actually FACTUAL evidence to present under the headings above.

Like any politician Churchill's career was a mixture of the good, the bad and the downright inexcusable.

the problem with your type of revisionism, especially when applied to a figure like Churchill, is that you are seeking to pass judgement on a great historical figure using today's standards.
Churchill's career spanning as it did the latter 19th Century to the mid 20th cannot reasonably be judged by current day PC liberal standards.
try judging Napolean or even Washington by today's PC standards. the former was a philandering mysoginist, & the latter was a penny pinching, slave owner.

tbh a revision of practically every historical figure through the prism of today's PC agenda will likewise reveal "unpleasant" characteristics. (Pssst! Ghandi liked little girls, but don't tell anybody. Shhhh!)

yes he was foe to be feared. yes he made mistakes (who hasn't?), yes he had issues like depression/alcoholism (us Irish aren't exactly immune to such problems), but none of these foibles overshadow his "finest hour".

i like the way you are selective when referring to luck. ie bad luck must be his bungling incompetence, good luck is just that. i could easily do the same in reverse, but unlike you i am prepared to be balanced, and concede that the great man was not perfect. far from it.

but cometh the hour, cometh the man.

FrancieBrady

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

the problem with your type of revisionism, especially when applied to a figure like Churchill, is that you are seeking to pass judgement on a great historical figure using today's standards.
Churchill's career spanning as it did the latter 19th Century to the mid 20th cannot reasonably be judged by current day PC liberal standards.
try judging Napolean or even Lincoln by today's PC standards. the former was a philandering mysoginist, & the latter was a penny pinching, slave owner.

tbh a revision of practically every historical figure through the prism of today's PC agenda will likewise reveal "unpleasant" characteristics. (Pssst! Ghandi liked little girls, but don't tell anybody. Shhhh!)

yes he was foe to be feared. yes he made mistakes (who hasn't?), yes he had issues like depression/alcoholism (us Irish aren't exactly immune to such problems), but none of these foibles overshadow his "finest hour".

i like the way you are selective when referring to luck. ie bad luck must be his bungling incompetence, good luck is just that. i could easily do the same in reverse, but unlike you i am prepared to be balanced, and concede that the great man was not perfect. far from it.

but cometh the hour, cometh the man.

There is plenty of contemporary criticism of Churchill if you can bring yourself to read it.


Churchill's career is there in fact, in all it's bloody, racist, vicious, bungling, lucky glory...you want to block the light getting to everything but the lucky bit. Fair enough, that is many things, but 'balanced' it ain't.

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

Impressive linkages there, Mark. As some truly amazing person on this thread has already claimed that those who died for the peace-loving, selfless British Empire throughout the centuries "died for democracy", it is probably only a matter of time before somebody of the same vintage claims those who died for the British Empire "died for gay rights" - and you're very, very close to that amazing claim right here. Well done.

No, I am drawing a fair linkage to the people who jump up and down and foam at the mouth to remind us all of the 'correct' version of history and see themselves as the truth seekers to remind us all daily/weekly/monthly about what da Brits did :pac:

We hear the same thing about Gay Pride marches. The whole, "I have no problems with gays, but they should keep their lifestyle private as their behavior might upset the kids" or something of the sort.
We have a self-proclaimed Irish supremacist loudly claiming that the poppy can be worn in an offensive way, whatever that means.

But thanks for chiming in and reminding us all, again of the 'correct' version of history.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

No, I am drawing a fair linkage to the people who jump up and down and foam at the mouth to remind us all of the 'correct' version of history and see themselves as the truth seekers to remind us all daily/weekly/monthly about what da Brits did :pac:

You might be happier on a British forum with a conservative bent there Mark. Just saying. You seem to have a major problem with discussion if something you don't like is said. Worrying.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You might be happier on a British forum with a conservative bent there Mark. Just saying. You seem to have a major problem with discussion if something you don't like is said. Worrying.

Oh, no problem with a discussion but this is not what this thread turns into or any thread about anything British. It turns into an excuse to rant and rave, to 're-examine' truths of Britain and to have an opportunity to 'correct' the narrative.

Kinda like threads about those on the dole, immigrants, or travelers. The first few posts might be about a certain incident, but then in true AH style, they just turn into a rant about a set of people. This is no different.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Oh, no problem with a discussion but this is not what this thread turns into or any thread about anything British. It turns into an excuse to rant and rave, to 're-examine' truths of Britain and to have an opportunity to 'correct' the narrative.

Kinda like threads about those on the dole, immigrants, or travelers. The first few posts might be about a certain incident, but then in true AH style, they just turn into a rant about a set of people. This is no different.

Maybe it is time you contributed your 'version of the truth' in counter argument and stop trying the limp censorship angle.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is plenty of contemporary criticism of Churchill if you can bring yourself to read it.


Churchill's career is there in fact, in all it's bloody, racist, vicious, bungling, lucky glory...you want to block the light getting to everything but the lucky bit. Fair enough, that is many things, but 'balanced' it ain't.

Thank the lord we have your clear, unbiased view of history o educate us Francis.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

Thank the lord we have your clear, unbiased view of history o educate us Francis.

I'm not the one with a blindspot on Churchill Aegir.

I think the exalted position some British people have increasingly placed him on is another symptom (the rise of poppy fascism being another )of the disease that is breaking up the UK. You might as a nation want to have a heart to heart about that before it is too late.
I hasten to add that not all British people exalt him so, and there are many fine and balanced pieces on him. Funny, but they are probably written by people who are also alarmed at the poppy stuff.

Edgware

high_king wrote: »

Only when it suited him politically. He totally caved into appeasing Stalin and Roosevelt at Yalta.

History isn't exactly your strong point

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Maybe it is time you contributed your 'version of the truth' in counter argument and stop trying the limp censorship angle.

Tell you what, PM me or start a thread in the history forum about it. I will give you my word that I will contribute and debate in an open and honest fashion. If you are really here to 'debate' then have at it or you could just post in AH for the next 3 days....

The ball is in your court...

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Tell you what, PM me or start a thread in the history forum about it. I will give you my word that I will contribute and debate in an open and honest fashion. If you are really here to 'debate' then have at it or you could just post in AH for the next 3 days....

The ball is in your court...

I have nothing to debate with you.

I responded to a post with my view, based on reading balanced accounts of Churchill. You don't seem to be able to deal with that and attempt to mock and deride in whatever vain hope you have that people will stop giving their opinions.