Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Poppy Fascism?


Guest TheGayTent

Recommended Posts

So 77 year old socialist Roy Hattersley has attacked Jon Snow for not wearing a poppy on TV and for labelling his critics 'poppy fascists'.

Snow has previously stated "...they died that we might be free to wear a poppy whenever we wish. I wish to wear mine on Remembrance Sunday"

More here and here

What do we think?

I feel like many things the wearing of the poppy starts too soon. I do choose to wear a poppy. Usually I buy one approx a week before Armistice Day and take it off the monday after Remembrance Sunday. A bit like christmas, i'm not a fan of wearing a poppy in the last week of October, though just my personal preferance.

I haven't an issue with Jon Snow's position, but I do find it surprising he feels that strongly about not wearing one as seems to be the protocol for TV presenters.

Thoughts anyone? Do you choose to wear one or not? How long do you wear yours for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The truth was, in 1914, Germany doesn't want war. Yeah, there's an arms race, but it's Britain who's leading it. So, why does no one admit this?

That's why. The dead. The body count. We don't like to admit the war was even partly our fault 'cause so many of our people died. And all the mourning's veiled the truth. It's not "lest we forget," it's "lest we remember." That's what all this is about — the memorials, the Cenotaph, the two minutes' silence. Because there is no better way of forgetting something than by commemorating it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was on 5 Live this morning.. i was f**kin livid. As usuual yer get the ends of the spectrum but towards the end there was a Jockulation on of Irish descent who came out with an absolute pile of shite about it all should be scrapped and all the wars were "our" fault (the english).

Poppy Day.. I think it should stay as poppy week... not poppy month as it seems to be becoming.

You always know its appraoching when you see football pundits, newsreaders,and bastards collarin yer in Tesco doorways in mid October.

I hate it.

But, for me buying a Poppy is simply a sign of respect.. resect for all those who`ve sacrificed which ultimately has given us the chance to live a "free" life.

I`ve touched upon this in The Frogs thread... but as the years go by..people start to question this and argue about that.. but the fact is.. life would be very different if it wasn`t for the sacrifice of all those men and women.

I think the politicising of it lately is on the back of Iraq and Afghanistan.. and i can understand that... but I think Snow is wrong.

I assume his Dad is dead... cos if not he would have expected a good lashin..and rightly so.

AND... what the f**k are these celeb poppys I`ve heard about?

All dolled up and fancy? What bollocks.

Me Dad hated Bruce Forsyth (cos he buried his dog in his garden)...what the hell he`d make of Cheyrl Cole and Co ---Lord knows.

den

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you should feel obliged to give money to any charity, it should be personal choice. If I chose not to wear a poppy I wouldn't expect to be asked why not. It's my business. Personally i probably will buy a poppy, not because I feel like I have to but because i have alot of respect for the work The British Legion does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you should feel obliged to give money to any charity, it should be personal choice. If I chose not to wear a poppy I wouldn't expect to be asked why not. It's my business. Personally i probably will buy a poppy, not because I feel like I have to but because i have alot of respect for the work The British Legion does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One pound minimum? Really??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very happy to put a donation in a poppy box as you know/hope that nearly all the pennies go directly to the charity compared to crossing the road to avoid the totally fake happy smily £8+ an hour (plus commission) young chuggers working for Red Flag (and NOT the actual charity directly) with their clipboards and harassing tactics. It takes over 18 months worth of hefty donations from an individual for a charity to recoup the cost of these types of fundraising tactics. APPARENTLY this is still cost effective... <_< My mind boggles and I've seen the tv news features and read the papers explaining this approach.

A word of warning too...watch what you sign at Glastonbury as I have spent my entire summer fending off endless calls from various charities asking for my commitment with a donation (when all I did was sign a petition each time). The phone calls are not as bad as having to dodge someone in the street as even though I have to politely tell them I have had no proper job and consistent earnings since nearly 2 years ago and cannot commit to a thing right now, you can have a pretty decent chat about the charity and its work with the thankful person at the end of the phone grateful they havent just had the phone slammed down on them. Following one phone conversation I am going to seek out Dogs Trust to volunteer at a city kennel when I finally move. The street chuggers on the other hand, I just really dislike the feeling of insincerity you get most of the time, let alone the pleading look and the chasing down the street! I know they are representing the charity the same as the phone chuggers but its just such an unpleasant experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Oz, a nice way of asking for that little extra in the way of loose change for charity is to consider a 'gold coin donation'. This relates to $1 and $2 coins (roughly equivalent to 50p and a £1). I have seen this in practise where on at least 2 different occasions the collectors made up a picture with the gold coins in the logo of the charity on a very busy plaza in Sydney. The people walking past can then immediately see how well the collection is going and usually people actually reach in their pockets without hesitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Ah, well. Never mind, hey.
    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...