Entertainment For Lively Minds

Word RSS FeedsWord Magazine on YouTubeWord Magazine on Last FMWord Magazine on Share My PlaylistsWord Spotify PlaylistsWord Magazine on FacebookWord Magazine on Twitter

Poppycock

chabsy's picture

Here we go again, it's that time of year.. everyone and his dog wearing poppies. It reminds me of the Hancock sketch where he demands a badge for giving blood, with the inscription "He gave to others, so that others may live!" Don't get me wrong, we should remember the poor bastards who stumbled to their death on other people's orders, my Great-Grandad and Grandad among them: the former blown to fuck on the first day of the Somme. Couldn't be buried 'cause they couldn't find a piece of him. It's just this BBC / ITV thing that EVERYONE is ordered to wear a poppy. Does any other country do this? Does it honour the dead? Or is it a remit from the TV stations?
"I am the enemy you killed, my friend."

14

I don't care if the TV companies make 'em wear them

I think it shows respect for people that thoroughly deserve that respect. I'm all for that.

56
Leedsboy | 2 November 2011 - 11:59pm

Ditto

1
Red Umpire | 3 November 2011 - 12:04am

Splitto

Me too. And they weren't bastards. They were volunteers and fighting bravely for their country. They deserve respect. Wearing a poppy shows you remember the terrible sacrifice and hope it never happens again. If you don't, don't wear one.

19
Twangothan | 3 November 2011 - 12:26am

Couldn`t agree more, we

Couldn`t agree more, we should NEVER forget those who fought and paid the greatest price any human can pay.

0
RichieRichie | 3 November 2011 - 10:51pm

Ditto here.

I'm named after my uncle, who was a para killed at Pegasus Bridge on the night before D Day. My grandad sailed on convoys in both world wars,died in 1943 and is buried in Alexandria in Egypt.

No great respecter of the British state meself, but they - and many many more of my friends and neighbours families - died for it and for that it will always have my respect.

1
BernkastelCues | 4 November 2011 - 1:20am

I DO care if poppies are compulsory,

because their requirement negates everything we supposedly fought for. If something is not given freely, it is without value, and empty, automated, unthinking, unfeeling, comformist or careerist gestures insult the men and women who were killed in battle.

The Legion get my money every year; no question. But the more I feel I have to wear a poppy, the less inclined I am to wear one.

This is where many of us stood last year:

http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/poppy-police

My position, if anything, has hardened, because our servicemen and women are still been transformed into industrial waste on a weekly basis for no visible gain.

38
Pax Romana | 3 November 2011 - 9:07am

Thank you

for that comment. I agree entirely and would up it another ten times if I could. Emotional and moral blackmail can get tae fuck.

6
man.of.soup | 3 November 2011 - 11:36am

it may be different for tv people

(in that your 'emotional blackmail' comment may apply) but whether i get one or not is entirely voluntary ... the 'poppy wars' of the 1980s (disrespect/Michael Foot/donkey jackets/white poppies) were all some time ago ... and the legacy they left in my mind was:

1. the People's Front Of Judea doesn't define the context or consequences of my decision to buy a poppy, or not
2. neither does the Daily [expletive deleted] Mail
3. everything else is piss & wind

0
Glenbervie | 3 November 2011 - 9:48pm

Quite right

Me neither. The key word there is "voluntary".

3
man.of.soup | 3 November 2011 - 11:21pm

which i why i bought one

voluntarily

1
Glenbervie | 4 November 2011 - 12:31am

Annoys me too

There seems to be a race to wear the poppies first on tv - heaven help anyone who doesn't wear them! David Beckham was on the news just now being interviewed in LA wearing one - I guess they must have taken out a supply of the things to pin on him.

Don't get me wrong, it's absolutely right to honour the people who died so that you and I can live the way we do, but I can't abide this poppier than thou attitude. Wasn't there a hoo-ha inthe tabloids a while back about people not wearing the things on tv? I suppose I just resent people expecting me to behave in a certain way and make assumptions about me on very little evidence.

By the way, I have popped some money the tin and picked one up, but I refuse to wear it until Remembrance day.

3
NigelT | 3 November 2011 - 12:29am

they're damned if they do etc.

That keeper of all things proper, The Daily Mail is watching you know.
Not long ago they were tearing into people for not wearing a poppy on the TV and then the following year started on them for wearing them to soon. If Beckham hadn't had his poppy on we''d have got "millionaire footballer not wearing poppy scandal!" You wait, Someone will fall foul of them before Rememberance Sunday!
What I don't like are the designer poppies that are appearing now, the "look how much money I've got you cheap people poppy"

7
Gordon Kerr | 3 November 2011 - 12:51am

Has it occurred to you

Maybe David Beckham actually wanted to wear a poppy? He always seems a thoroughly decent bloke to me. Probably wants to support the cause by wearing one. The level of cynicism about something so fundamentally good and worthwhile amazes me. "More popper than thou" FFS. Maybe people are just trying to do the right thing?

13
Twangothan | 3 November 2011 - 1:32am

yes

I know he would. That wasn't my point. I have no doubt his support it's sincere. My point was towards the press, especially the right wing that attack people who don't conform to their idea of when and where a poppy should be worn.
It's not unlike the BBC and the black tie nonsense when the Queen Mother's death was announced.

2
Gordon Kerr | 3 November 2011 - 1:38am

Yes I realised that

I miss posted. I meant to connect to NigelT rather than your response. Sorry!

I don't understand why wouldn't wear a poppy to maintain awareness and encourage other to support the cause.

Mrs T and I happened to be wandering past the war memorial last year at 11 o'clock on the 11th November, and a small crowd had gathered as two tremendously frail and tremendously proud old chaps in blazers, berets and chests full of ribbons blew the bugle and stood to attention. It was tremendously moving and I think humbles any post-modern shite about not conforming to Daily Mail expectations, does anyone else do this etc. Some things are just the right thing to do.

5
Twangothan | 3 November 2011 - 2:08am

Quite right

In the end this is exactly what is in my head when I am wearing one, which I always do.

When you go through the pit head towns in the NE and see the huge lists of names on the memorials, it seems very important to me to respect that sacrifice, however ambiguous you feel about the conflicts themselves. I don't have a problem with Chabsy's 'poor bastards' comments either because lets face it thousands went from pretty terrible working lives straight into the trenches and that's all they ever knew.

And its very important to realise that the ambiguity we feel about these conflicts was felt at the time, for all the gung-ho myths at this distance about the major conflicts there was always a swirling current of mixed opinions and mixed emotions even when people did believe in 'The Cause'.

They were people like us with the same intelligence as us, but not always the same chances, and its their willingness to die on what they perceived as our behalf that I want to honour.

4
FakeGeordie | 3 November 2011 - 9:22am

Agree totally

I suppose I may be being a bit of a contrarian, and I do take the point about maintaining awareness. I'm really pleased that the 2 minutes silence has been revived 11am on the 11th of the 11th - when I was growing up, my parents used to tell me about that happening when they were young.

0
NigelT | 4 November 2011 - 1:12am

Do other countries do it?

Yes - Australia and New Zealand on April 25th every year. I think it is a good thing to do.

Personally, I think it is right to respect the sacrifice of so many people in the two world wars, because so many of them were so young and, importantly, so many of them were *made* to do it. For as long as the veterans, wives, friends, and the sons and daughters of those that died are still around - I will wear a poppy.

I do wonder tough, if we will get to a time when this will all be scaled down? I may be wrong here but from about 1960, it is fair to say that the British military personnel injured or killed in conflict were there through choice?

It doesn't make their deaths any less tragic, but those in the Falklands, Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan etc joined voluntarily. They knew that they could be called upon to put their lives on the line at any time.

2
Austin | 3 November 2011 - 12:34am

In Australia

poppies are not usually worn on ANZAC Day (April 25) - the poppy belongs to Remembrance Day, 11 November. And even then you don't see too many in Australia, certainly not on TV.

0
mojoworking | 3 November 2011 - 1:30am

Oh, right - sorry

It's poppies everywhere on ANZAC Day here in Kiwiland. Remembrance Day is noted but not poppified (?).

0
Austin | 3 November 2011 - 5:23am

I was surprised

at the lack of poppies on show in Australia in November. You do see some, it's true, but they are not wall-to-wall as they are in Britain.

In fact the entire Remembrance Day thing is very low key compared to ANZAC day which is a much bigger deal (if I can use that expression).

According to one of the offical ANZAC Day websites (which is where I got my earlier quote from):

In Australia, single poppies are not usually worn on ANZAC Day - the poppy belongs to Remembrance Day, 11 November. However, wreaths of poppies are traditionally placed at memorials and honour boards on ANZAC Day.

0
mojoworking | 3 November 2011 - 5:40am

Legacy vs Poppy

It seems that in Australia they sell 'Legacy' badges (slightly different each year) rather than Poppies. These put the emphasis on providing support for the present day survivors of wars, rather than 'remembrance'. I'm sure the British Legion do good work, but my dad, God bless him (Italy 43-45), wouldn't have anything to do with them or any of the remembrance parades/reunions.

1
mutikonka | 3 November 2011 - 9:19am

Can show year round support

by buying and eating Anzac biscuits.

0
Slick | 11 November 2011 - 1:18pm

Tricky one

It's not just the giving of money. For once, it really is the symbolism. 'Remembrance' is the word. And frankly I don't care whether they were volunteers or not. Like so many callings (coppers and teachers spring to mind), they do something we need doing, and something that I wouldn't want to do myself and I respect them for that.

And yet. I can't be doing with the self-serving, prominent MP-wearing poppy thing. Maybe they have learnt their lesson about wearing them too early but I still can't bring myself to wear one. No-one needs to know that I have given. They can just assume it's on my other coat.

2
thecheshirecat | 3 November 2011 - 1:40am

Stop grizzling.

I don't know why people are getting so bent out of shape about this,....there's no holier than thou about it, it's a small gesture to remind us all of people who largely had no choice but to fight for their country, and you, original poster, are getting all upset about it. Some strange psychology at work there I would imagine, what's it really about?

17
jonnyartist | 3 November 2011 - 1:43am

You don't get it:

We DO care about the war dead; we DO care about sacrifice; we DO want to find ways to render the human cost of war real to people. But we also care about the very thing that we're supposed to have fought for, which is the ability to made decisions freely, based on our conscience.

That strange psychology at work here is nothing more than a refusal to blindly conform, because that conformity - in itself - does as much to negate the reality of war death than neglecting to remember at all.

If you want to pathologise dissent, fine; but don't kid yourself that you're free if you do.

16
Pax Romana | 3 November 2011 - 9:17am

I do

I do get it thank you. One does have freedom of choice to wear or not wear a poppy, the only people made to wear them as i remember were BBC and ITV employees. We are all obliged to follow decisions set down by our employers, whilst at work, regardless of wider freedoms enjoyed by a country. Don't make it sound like something it isn't.

1
jonnyartist | 3 November 2011 - 6:51pm

No.

"We are all obliged to follow decisions set down by our employers, whilst at work, regardless of wider freedoms enjoyed by a country."

No. This has limits. Forcing someone to wear a poppy just because they work for you and you think they should is flat out wrong. I don't care if you're a newsreader or the bloke who cleans the bogs in Starbucks. The wearing of a poppy is a matter of choice and conscience. It's too important to be anything else.

8
Bob | 3 November 2011 - 7:13pm

Jesus!!

The trouble with this sort of thing is how far do you take it? Take the Christmas holidays for instance. I may or may not be a confirmed atheist or follower of another religion other than Christianity, are you going to still make me mark a Christian festival by closing down the premises during that time?

0
jonnyartist | 3 November 2011 - 7:33pm

That doesn't follow at all.

If you work for a business that closes at Christmas, as most do, then sure. You don't work Christmas. Nobody's holding a gun to your head and making you CELEBRATE Christmas, though.

If you worked in a Christian institution (a school, for example) and they decided - without it being a provision of your contract - that you had to wear a crucifix regardless of your own faith or lack of, would that be fine by you?

0
Bob | 3 November 2011 - 7:45pm

If I was employed by a Christian Institution

and they wanted me to wear a cross at work, then *shrug*, so be it. I worked for a PL football team once and happily cheered them on when they thrashed my team.

If you don't like the flavour of the money going into your account, go find somewhere more to your taste.

Same as BBC and poppies. Don't want to wear one? Stay home and stifle the drive for self-publicity.

3
Helena Handcart | 5 November 2011 - 11:04pm

Respectfully disagree.

Organisations confusing paying someone with owning someone is why we have trades unions. Unless the mandatory wearing of any symbol, religious or otherwise, is stipulated in my contract I'm not wearing it just because a manager thinks I should.

I wear a poppy, but I have a total right not to. So should everyone.

7
Bob | 8 November 2011 - 8:50am

I wear a poppy, but I have a total right not to.

I wear a poppy, but I have a total right not to. So should everyone.

Quite right Bob, nicely summed up.

Well said (As ever)

1
jackthebiscuit | 8 November 2011 - 12:11pm

Arguably

Not if you work for a communications organisation which is funded by the tax payer and which decides that part of your job is communicating that it is poppy time. Which purpose is fundraising for what I think we can all agree is a good cause. They can always go and get a proper job and not wear a poppy.

6
Twangothan | 8 November 2011 - 12:23pm

What do you mean by owning you?

If you supposed to be there at 9:00 and finish at 5:30 is that owning you? If you have to wear a uniform to a set of standards is that owning you? Surely if something is not unreasonable and you're required to do it under your employment contract, then it would be unreasonable to refuse?

I don't know if it is unreasonable to force someone to wear a poppy - I suppose it may be. But I'm still not aware of any employer that has forced anyone to wear a poppy or sacked them for not wearing one.

4
Leedsboy | 8 November 2011 - 9:34pm

I think it's pretty clear cut.

If something's in your contract and/or you're aware of it when you took the job, then fine. If not, not so fine.

I'm not really talking about specific cases, more the principle. No-one should feel compelled to wear a poppy. No-one should feel compelled to wear any symbol that they haven't explicitly signed up to wearing. That's all.

0
Bob | 8 November 2011 - 9:51pm

Bob, if you were offered

a corker of a job, but then found out the contract expressly required you to wear/do something you personally disagreed with, would you turn down the offer?

0
Helena Handcart | 8 November 2011 - 10:04pm

I'm afraid I would.

I mean, clearly it depends on the something. But I once went for a job in a faith school, thinking I could swallow it because the job itself sounded right up my street. On the day, I found it just stuck in my craw too much, and had to withdraw. Politely - I wasn't a twat about it - but I just couldn't quite bring myself to say grace and lead prayers, which I would've had to do. I really wanted that job, too.

I don't mean to be holier than thou, I really don't. I'm pretty lavishly flawed. I just have some things I won't do, and a job's just a job.

2
Bob | 8 November 2011 - 10:11pm

Is it

the poppy, or the wearing of the poppy that bothers you?

I'm trying to understand how a once a year wee bit of red and green symbolism matters so muchm if - as you say - a job is just a job?

0
Helena Handcart | 8 November 2011 - 10:22pm

No no no

You've misunderstood me. I *wear* a poppy. I'm proud to do so. I just support anyone's right not to without being made to feel like they've done something terrible.

2
Bob | 8 November 2011 - 10:30pm

Thanks!

.

0
Helena Handcart | 8 November 2011 - 10:46pm

You didn't really want it though

the prayers and grace part made it something you didn't want. I understand that - having to tell kids something that you do not believe to be true is very difficult and would be hard for many people.

Putting a poppy on, unless you have a specific reason for not wanting to wear one, seems easier to deal with I think.

1
Leedsboy | 8 November 2011 - 10:28pm

To be fair to Bob

I don't think he ever said that he personally had a problem with wearing a poppy. He was making the case that, as it is a powerful symbol, it should be left to the individual to decide, not to their employer.

{and, oh look, as I was typing this, he has just said exactly that}

1
thecheshirecat | 8 November 2011 - 10:34pm

Exactly.

Thanks for putting it better than me!

0
Bob | 8 November 2011 - 10:35pm

I'll take the job then

if Bob doesn't want it. Unless its wearing a Man Yoo shirt. There is a line that I'll never cross.

0
Leedsboy | 8 November 2011 - 10:12pm

Alan Smith...

... said that too.

0
Formbyman | 9 November 2011 - 9:32am

Wow!

I'm not fanatical about football but I'd have to think long and hard about cheering on another team thrashing my ("my"?) team, happily or...is there another way?
I do dither about whether to wear a poppy: my usual reason is that I'd look like one of those test-card screens we got on the telly when it shut down 'til about 4pm, what with a yellow ribbon for this, a pink one for that, something for AIDS, something for a kids' charity. I usually end up getting a poppy tho'. Then I forget to change it over to another suit, usually the closer we get to Remembrance Day itself. Then I get ALMOST glowered at for not wearing one. I don't mind: I know I've put something in the pot.

0
Johnimator | 8 November 2011 - 10:13pm

It's the only charity

I support.

It serves as a reminder that I live in a society that gives me the choice to wear one or not.

1
Helena Handcart | 8 November 2011 - 10:25pm

Charity Donation

If they are pinning them to everyone who walks in front of a TV camera, then hypothetically you might argue that it's disrespectful if someone was wearing one without having put something in the collection box. After all, it's not only about symbolism, it's a fundraising appeal (their goal is to raise £40 million from the Poppy Appeal this year).

As an aside, I can't recall where I saw it but I'm sure in fiction I've seen a character on TV being shown to re-use a poppy year-after-year, to show them as a miser.

It's great that it's represented on television, I'm glad that it is, but it's an interesting question as to whether this is down to individual choice or policy.

0
kidpresentable | 3 November 2011 - 2:01am

I seem to be banging on about this

I agree with your point KP. Frankly I'd be amazed if anyone on telly wearing a poppy wouldn't do so unless told to. Maybe my belief in my fellow man is hopelessly naive.

#sipandblog

0
Twangothan | 3 November 2011 - 2:11am

Asked

I believe that they're asked to wear one. They can refuse but then it's quite clear that they have and nobody without an agenda is likely to do that in this day and age when any small thing on TV is scutinised and jumped on. Personally I think it just looks a bit odd. People wear poppies, that's fine but nowhere, apart from on television would you see everyone wearing poppies.

0
JohnW | 3 November 2011 - 8:13am

You are definitely

..."asked" to put them on if interviewed any time from Halloween onwards. I used to buy a few, so if anyone at work was giving interviews, I could make sure they had one.

I always wear a poppy, but it is undoubtedly not a choice for TV presenters/interviewees/guests and they would have to make a real point of not wearing one.

Every year, Jon Snow who refuses to wear one gets a kicking from Mail/Telegraph/Express and already yesterday, it was noted that Ken Clarke was NOT wearing one at PMQs (he wasn't speaking, just sitting there), but the political journos picked up on it.

Also, every year, the internet is full of the poppy should you/shouldn't you debate. The answer is, of course: Wear one if you want. I do and will.

2
JoLean | 3 November 2011 - 9:36am

a point

regardless of other reasons, isnt the hysterical reaction by the Mail and others part of the reason why the BBC and others insist on it. You can see the headlines -"The BBC should be remained the Disgraceful Broadcasting Company" etc. because one presenter on childrens tv forgot to wear a poppy. It is pandering to the fascists at the Mail, but for pragmatic reasons I can see why they do it. For those idiots not wearing a poppy is (somehow) the same as asking al queda to take over Britain.

Personally, always donate and usually wear the poppy for about a day until I lose it.

0
paulwright | 8 November 2011 - 9:05am

I rather like the poppy....

.....but one advertisement I saw spoke of 'not forgetting our servicemen/women'. I'd argue that we speak of war, and seek to remember it, far too much.

The South-West news programme, Spotlight, regularly does ten minutes on either those returning, those going or those who have died (I'd say needlessly), and I don't feel that my fast-forwarding of this regular ten minutes is disrespectful.

2
ranger | 3 November 2011 - 8:29am

Perspective.

As many of you already know I am a carer. We live on a fixed income. Last year our ancient lavatory gave up the ghost,the only way we could get it replaced was through the kind auspices of The Royal British Legion. Because my late Father had served his country (1940 - 1946) we were able to access the money raised by The Poppy Appeal to get this small job done, without it I really do not know what we would have done.
I agree that the enforced wearing of the Poppy is completely wrong. Brave men and women have made enormous sacrifices so that we remain free to make an informed choice about things both great and small, wearing or not wearing a Poppy is one of those choices.
Personally, I wear one, in memory of those sacrifices and to honour the memory of two great uncles who gave their lives in the trenches of Flanders.

12
Pencilsqueezer | 3 November 2011 - 8:30am

I think there are circumstances that make the UK

situation unique, particularly as we have a monarch who is a living link to WW2 and there remain a few veterans and quite a few people whose parents and grandparents served. In time, as these links fade away, I suspect the tradition will become less prominent.

As well, because the day is now pitched as a remembrance for all the servicemen who have fallen in all conflicts, it persists. We are still angry about what is happening in places like Afghanistan, and the shoddy treatment of so many injured servicemen, and we can cast our minds back to Suez and The Falklands. So the military and their sacrifices are still vivid in our collective memory.

I think it is entirely right to remember and thank those who served and died but I also agree there shouldn't be pressure on people to wear a poppy. Wouldn't it be lovely, though, if in 100 years time Remembrance Day was more about taking some time to be thankful for a long period of peace and to remember the need never to get dragged into war again.

2
Mark JF | 3 November 2011 - 9:40am

Is there any compulsion on most of us to wear one?

I usually pop a few quid in the tin but never wear a poppy, and I can't say that I have ever felt any disapproval as a result. There does seem to be a clear difference for people in the media as mentioned above.

Can anyone not in the public eyer give an example of a situation where they were made to feel uncomfortable or under any pressure because they did not wear a poppy?

0
Gatz | 3 November 2011 - 9:48am

Yes.

Witnessed something which effectively amounted to bullying in a former workplace. On reflection don't want to give details, but it was disgusting. Peer pressure which was escalated to a matter of so-called "professionalism" before - thankfully - the colleague in question won the day.

0
Bob | 3 November 2011 - 10:33am

Peer pressure

is colleagues though I would have thought. If it was compulsory, it would be a management directive or similar. I'd be surprised if someone was actually compelled by their employers to wear a poppy. Unless they worked for the British Legion I suppose.

0
Leedsboy | 3 November 2011 - 11:07am

The peer pressure...

...turned into a complaint being made to a member of the senior team. "A word" was had. Fortunately, colleague pointed out in no uncertain terms that compulsion from on high was unacceptable and hinted at screaming to high heaven if compelled. As I say, colleague won.

0
Bob | 3 November 2011 - 1:08pm

Also

at the end of the day, the management made the right decision (albeit, after making the wrong one in the first instance).

0
Leedsboy | 3 November 2011 - 9:57pm

I agree with Gatz

and all those who choose to wear or not wear a poppy. It's the giving, isn't it?
I don't wear any of those ribbons that they try to foist on you when you bung money in various cancer, kid, AIDS etc charities, otherwise I'd look like some walking paint-colour chart.
I give enough/the right amount/not enough/too much (delete as applicable) annually to various charities each year and don't expect anything in return.

4
Johnimator | 3 November 2011 - 11:00am

Yeah, it's easy really

If you want to, wear one. I will, and do, but not for weeks beforehand.

But I absolutely agree with Pax that any idea of compulsion is awful and is far more worthy of condemnation than anyone personally choosing not to wear a poppy. There are valid reasons not to. I don't personally subscribe to them, but there are valid reasons.

1
Bob | 3 November 2011 - 10:27am

There's a path to tread

remembering that huge number of people were led to slaughter and simply being sorry that these awful, lamentable, criminal things happened, and the path for some veers off into national or military pride.

Kurt Vonnegut says it better:
"So this book is a sidewalk strewn with junk, trash which I throw over my shoulders as I travel in time back to November eleventh, nineteen hundred and twenty-two.
I will come to a time in my backwards trip when November eleventh, accidentally my birthday, was a sacred day called Armistice Day. When I was a boy... all the people of all the nations which had fought in the First World War were silent during the eleventh minute of the eleventh hour of Armistice Day, which was the eleventh day of the eleventh month.
It was during that minute in nineteen hundred and eighteen, that millions upon millions of human beings stopped butchering one another. I have talked to old men who were on battlefields during that minute. They have told me in one way or another that the sudden silence was the Voice of God. So we still have among us some men who can remember when God spoke clearly to mankind.
Armistice Day has become Veterans' Day. Armistice Day was sacred. Veterans' Day is not.
So I will throw Veterans' Day over my shoulder. Armistice Day I will keep. I don't want to throw away any sacred things."

0
murrance | 3 November 2011 - 10:31am

Poppies.

I think the media compunction to wear a poppy is exactly that - a compunction. I suspect no one is really "made" to wear one and no one will be sacked if they don't wear one. I think some of the wearers may be doing so because of their concern for what the public think of them.

At work, we have poppies for sale on reception and in our coffee area. Lots of people contribute and wear poppies. The majority, I would say. No one is forced but I think they is a strong moral feeling that it is a good thing to contribute and wear one out of respect.

0
Leedsboy | 3 November 2011 - 10:40am

Wearing one

If we all rejoiced in our hard won freedom and didn't wear a poppy the result would be that the funds raised would tail off to nothing. I think the mass populace see poppies and think, I'll buy one/donate/wear one. Without the visual prompt they wouldn't. Fact. It would become just another person rattling a tin in the High Street. Mrs T has done more than her share of tin rattles for fund raising and assures me you don't get much. The poppies are part of the marketing and if the Beeb etc have decided to put their weight behind it, good for them. It is admirable if people give without wearing a poppy, and that is their choice, but wearing the poppy not only makes a public statement about remembrance but also keeps the momentum in others giving too.

4
Twangothan | 3 November 2011 - 10:48am
dai | 3 November 2011 - 10:57am

It's that time of year

Look out for the Jo Whiley wears a poppy but doesn't know what it's all about thread next week.

10
Leedsboy | 3 November 2011 - 11:13am

I remain

Happy and proud to wear one in the two weeks or so up until 11-11.

Just about everybody in my professional and social circles are happy to wear them, and none of us are likely to be on the tele.

Sure, it's symbolic. (Can't think of a more appropriate symbol).

The men and women who fell on all sides of all conflicts during the last century had little opportunity to contribute to the debate about the rights and wrongs of what they were engaged with.

It's a time of year where we simply take a moment to reflect on their sacrifice in the knowledge that in other circumstances, instead of my grandfathers and great uncles, it could easily have been me or my children.

As I say, I’m very happy to wear one.

2
Martin Simmonds | 3 November 2011 - 11:09am

Ambivalence

perfectly expressed in song.

0
Barry Vaughan | 3 November 2011 - 11:20am

For The Fallen

With proud thanksgiving, a mother for her children,
England mourns for her dead across the sea.
Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit,
Fallen in the cause of the free.

Solemn the drums thrill; Death august and royal
Sings sorrow up into immortal spheres,
There is music in the midst of desolation
And a glory that shines upon our tears.

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted;
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

They mingle not with their laughing comrades again;
They sit no more at familiar tables of home;
They have no lot in our labour of the day-time;
They sleep beyond England's foam.

But where our desires are and our hopes profound,
Felt as a well-spring that is hidden from sight,
To the innermost heart of their own land they are known
As the stars are known to the Night;

As the stars that shall be bright when we are dust,
Moving in marches upon the heavenly plain;
As the stars that are starry in the time of our darkness,
To the end, to the end, they remain.

Laurence Binyon (1914)

1
Red Umpire | 3 November 2011 - 11:30am

It's interesting how

that poem is so resonant, especially when one considers that it was written in 1914, before the full horrors of the War were revealed to the wider public. Even this rather poignant verse romanticises things a little. Later work, like Wilfred Owen, does this far less; poems likke Dulce et Decorum Est are far more bitter and splenetic about the waste and horror:

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime.—
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams before my helpless sight
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin,
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

This is what wars are really like. If anyone wants to wear a poppy to remember this, then feel free. I will probably join them. If not, that's fine too. Just as long as one remembers.

1
illuminatus | 3 November 2011 - 12:49pm

My favourite poem

devastating and tragic and so lucid. It takes me there and glad I wasn't actually there and that's how it triumphs.

0
jimmyshoes01 | 3 November 2011 - 8:07pm

Paul Nash...

...the British war artist wrote to his wife from the front in 1917:

"I am no longer an artist. I am a messenger who will bring back word from the men who are fighting to those who want the war to go on for ever. Feeble, inarticulate will be my message, but it will have a bitter truth and may it burn their lousy souls."

It's worth Googling other poets of the period such T.E. Hulme and also to look at Nash's paintings like We Are Making a New World (here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/wars_conflict/art/art_frontline_03.sh...) and others like Sargent's Gassed (here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/wars_conflict/art/art_frontline_gal_0...) to get some sense of the full horror and why most of continue to wear poppies

0
Toffee the Cat | 3 November 2011 - 11:55am

I think the poppy is special

because it is a symbol that raises my awareness in a way that no end of celebrity endorsements or paid advertising can do. Every year around now I see the poppies start to appear on TV and the street and it reminds me how unbelievably lucky we are to have been born in such a stable period of history.

I always try to take a minute at 11:00 on the 11th to try and imagine how mind-distortingly horrendous it must have been for my grandparents generation in that truly diabolical war, curiously these days I tend to run through the scene at the end of Black Adder 4 during the minutes silence. I know that November 11th is about all wars but I find the 1st WW a convenient peg to hang my hat on, it must never get that bad again.

It doesn’t take long, of course, before I am back pondering the Apple vs PC conundrum and other weighty issues of the day but for a while every year, and especially the period running up to November 11th, the futility of war is at the front of my mind, largely thanks to the appearance of poppies. There will be a time when we will let it go but I hope it won’t be for a while yet, I certainly make sure my children are aware and I hope they will do the same.

I agree with the posters above that it should, of course, not be compulsory to wear a poppy but I do think it should be encouraged.

6
Sid Williams | 3 November 2011 - 11:58am

Everyone knows why this ends with poppies.

Which is why it's important to refresh our familiarity with the poppy image each year. I can't watch this without experiencing an emotional response that makes me both angry and aware of the waste in the past, and angry and aware that it continues today. How much more powerful can something so simple be?

There should be no compulsion attached, but at the same time we should all realise that it's our individual visible continuation of this tradition that maintains the vitality of the act of wearing one.

4
Vulpes Vulpes | 3 November 2011 - 12:00pm

The anger is real and thats admirable

But the generals died with their men in the trenches in WW1, contrary to the myths, and my own fervent leftie misconceptions while I was growing up.

The ruling classes are different people now and won't make that mistake again

I work in Belfast a lot and people talk about how IRA men used to get beaten up if they interrupted the Remembrance Day parades across the South right up to the Troubles - is this really true?- an extraordinary mixed set of emotions if it is true reflecting how it was a massive shared trauma across any number of boundaries. An empty armchair in every front room.

0
FakeGeordie | 3 November 2011 - 10:34pm

Poppies

The decision to wear a poppy is a personal one. I don't like the "I've got a poppy, where's yours?" attitude you see nowadays.

It's like when you have a minute's silence at the football. Instead of silently paying their respects, some folk spend the time looking round for somebody making a noise so they can get all indignant.

2
Spartacus Mills | 3 November 2011 - 7:49pm

I haven't worn one

since we were *made* to wear them at the naval boarding school I attended. But that has nothing to do with why I don't wear one.
I don't wear a poppy in the same way I don't do anything special on Valentine's Day or Mother's Day or Father's Day, etc, etc.
I tell my wife I love her about a trillion times a day and am in constant contact with the folks who are no strangers to my proclamations of love either.
All three of them receive gifts at irregular times of the year but often. i do it because I am showing them how much I care and that is my choice.

Every time I walk past any kind of war memorial I will stop for a couple of seconds or a few minutes. Every time I walk past the roll call on the wall of Waterloo station I catch the name of one or more of those etched on the granite. I will never forget to remember those that did something I honestly can't imagine doing, laying down their lives for their country.
I don't need a poppy to do it, so I give them a donation and walk on by and if anyone thinks less of me for not wearing a totem of this compassion, fuck them. And thank you to those that died for allowing me to be able to say that.

9
jimmyshoes01 | 3 November 2011 - 8:14pm

Naval boarding school??

I cannot seen to be able to privately E mail you Jimmy Shoes.

Which boarding school did you go to? (Ex Arethusa boy myself)

happy for you to E mail me privately.

0
jackthebiscuit | 3 November 2011 - 8:56pm

In regards to Valentine's Day, Father's Day etc...

You've got it exactly right, IMHO. Let the people you love know that you love them all year round, rather than purely when the greetings cards manufacturers or florists decree it.

1
Hannah | 8 November 2011 - 12:15am

I personally would wear a

I personally would wear a white poppy

http://www.ppu.org.uk/whitepoppy/index.html

1
Gramsci | 3 November 2011 - 9:28pm

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious

the British Legion continue to do sterling work today.

There's a lad who drinks in my local who lost both his legs last year in Afghanistan. Apparently the Legion have helped him get set up with a flat and 'held his hand' whilst he acclimatised to his new condition, both on a practical level - ensuring he gets all the benefits to which he's entitled - and by providing counselling and a chance to talk to other guys who know what he's been through.

In any given town, the Legion has the best snooker table and the cheapest beer as well :-)

4
stimpy | 3 November 2011 - 9:41pm

Stories of the Legion

Yes, when my Grandad was at the end of his life, he was blind, had very limited mobility and was in a home nowhere near he had lived (my Mum was very ill herself, so he had to go to my Aunt's 200 miles away). Once or twice a week, someone from the Legion would take him to the local pub (luckily opposite the home) and just blether with him over a pint or two (or three) of bitter.

This was, literally, the highlight of the week for him. He had only daughters and granddaughters and the home (as they often are) were full of women. Just getting out and talking to blokes was invaluable.

Doesn't sound much compared to other stories, like Stimpy's above, but we'll be forever grateful that for a few hours a week, he felt like a 'bloke', not a very ill old man.

6
JoLean | 3 November 2011 - 10:43pm

The older generation

My wife's grandmother is the one remaining person I know who experienced wartime, as a nurse on the Wirral.

Her husband, who fought in the war, died a couple of years ago.

One thing that always struck me about them were how happy they were with their lot in life. Having experienced what they did, to be free and living in peace was a wonderful thing. It makes our modern day concerns about money and status seem rather trivial and pathetic.

It's very sad that the war generation will soon have passed on. We've a lot to learn from them.

3
Spartacus Mills | 3 November 2011 - 11:11pm

There is a danger

that as the veterans of two world wars become fewer, the perception becomes more widespread that all the Legion does is provide cheap beer, a good snooker table and Sky sports - and why should we subsidise that? I'm not suggesting I subscribe to this view, merely that I am aware of it.

1
skirky | 7 November 2011 - 7:34pm

Misdirected Anger

I think the whole do/don't wear the Poppy arguement is actually a waste of time. What gets my goat is why members of the armed forces are having to rely on charity. Our "beloved leaders" send them off to some corner of a foreign field to lay down their lives for Queen & country and this is how they are repaid? How about given them a decent pension?

6
Riccardo Gargiulo | 3 November 2011 - 11:33pm

My Very Personal View

I'm not fussed whether or when people wear (or don't wear) remembrance poppies, and I don't care whether they wear an ordinary one from a street collector or a "posh" one. I'm not fussed if they wear white "peace" poppies either.

It's their own business.

Since last year, when my nephew Chris was killed, I have a personal interest in the matter, but it's still only my particular view and shouldn't affect yours.

A link:
(There are hundreds of these and more keep appearing, unfortunately.)

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/Corpora...

I would like to add this, however.

How Very Bloody Dare the Daily Mail make moral judgements about anyone, anywhere, given their propensity for lying, twisting and even completely faking stories to get their vile opinions over to the unthinking.

The Daily Mail, pre-WWII were great supporters of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. It doesn't seem to me that their views have really changed that much in the intervening years.

14
Mike_H | 4 November 2011 - 11:50am

That is such a sad and humbling

thing to read Mike, and I'm just sorry that you and your family have lost Chris.

2
Pax Romana | 4 November 2011 - 1:38pm

So sorry to hear this, Mike.

Chris sounds like he was a terrific guy, and I'm really sorry for your and your family's loss.

1
Hannah | 8 November 2011 - 12:16am

A reactionary writes

After the Gilmour defence at trial (broadly: I didn't really realize what the Cenotaph is and represents even though I'm doing History at a Major University) I think the wearing of poppies and mandatory lectures on what previous generations sacrificed is very much in order.

After taking a deep breath, I then calm down. No, the wearing of poppies shouldn't be compulsory. Nor should any kind of support or remembrance for those who have sacrificed. I don't understand it, and it wouldn't sit well with me, but everyone gets to make their own judgments on these things. But I do think I'm allowed to pass some kind of judgement on those who don't, in any kind of way, offer some kind of remembrance.

3
sitheref2409 | 4 November 2011 - 2:00pm

Ironic, isn't it?

Gilmour Jr's dad collaborated on a fine piece of contemporary music which railed against That Sort of Thing.
As for a university course in History: ha! People should at least understand the events that shaped how we are today, just so that they can appreciate why they can have an opinion on why Thatch & Co. should have/shouldn't have taken on the miners/whoever. If we didn't have a good look at ourselves from time to time, we wouldn't have stopped at various points in time:
"Hang on. Is this right - shipping loads of black people off to America as cheap labour and a commodity to trade?" or "Wait! Should we stop taking the food from countries who we've just settled so that the idignant natives will have something other than rebellion to beef about?"

0
Johnimator | 8 November 2011 - 10:30pm

To succinctly sum up...

If you feel you want to for any reason, then buy and wear a poppy. But don't make a song and dance about it . Cos that is "unBritish", in a way the folk we are respecting would understand.

If you feel you don't want to wear a poppy, for whatever reason. Then don't. Cos no-one is really going to upbraid you you for it publicly, are they?.

However, if you are one of the latter, and resent that some unspoken judgement may be passed on you cos you aren't wearing one, then perhaps you should just man up and get on with it. Thats what happe3ns in a free society. And - by the way - everyone is making judgements on you (and me, and themselves) constantly. Every minute of the day.

Think that covers it.

3
BernkastelCues | 4 November 2011 - 4:08pm
renkadima | 5 November 2011 - 9:39pm
stimpy | 5 November 2011 - 10:15pm

That article

was up to Fisk's usual standards - bracing and brilliant.

2
man.of.soup | 6 November 2011 - 8:42pm

He's a man deeply in love with his own myth though

Then again - He spent a long long time in the Middle East (is he still there?) and saw some really terrible things. The idea of a sad dignified remembrance isn't how these things might look to him, having covered areas where decades of sectarian and national hatred have been fueled by grievances that are centuries or even millennia old.

Still wrong though - to my mind.

1
FakeGeordie | 11 November 2011 - 6:56pm

Fisky's a legend.

Agree that an amount of it is of his own making, but it's hard to argue with his man-on-the-ground credentials and ballsiness. The Great War for Civilisation is an absorbing, harrowing work, despite being physically hard to read... that's one big-ass book.

0
Dadwardo | 14 November 2011 - 4:13am

I understand why he doesn't want to

but I don't understand why I shouldn't. My Grandad fought in WW2. He thought poppies were a good thing so I'll stick with his view.

4
Leedsboy | 8 November 2011 - 12:20am

Your Grandads point of view...

It works for me.

Well said him.

0
jackthebiscuit | 8 November 2011 - 2:02pm

And this is how it should be...

...neatly summed up in these few articles saying that I will or I will not wear a poppy.
What Robert Fisk's article helps to remember is how crappy politicians can rush to war just to make themselves feel pleased or look big. They've ruined the solemnity of the whole thing and trashed a nation's image internationally, in a time when we should be helping to show calm leadership.
Nice one, Tony, Campbell, Dubya...

1
Johnimator | 8 November 2011 - 10:41pm

I like to think that on Remembrance Day

Lots of politicians have a sleepless night thinking about the lives they have wasted. Thats another reason for wearing a poppy - to remind them the impact of some of their decisions.

1
Leedsboy | 8 November 2011 - 11:06pm

A nation's image

I think you'll find all sorts of people, including - to pick out just three from four hundred years or more of history - Drake, Palmerston and Thatcher, got that image-trashing job done quite thoroughly long before Blair and Campbell got to have a go too.

0
Archie Valparaiso | 9 November 2011 - 9:10am

Out of interest

Which war did Thatcher start?

0
Twangothan | 9 November 2011 - 9:36am

Weeellll...

Her Foreign Secretary resigned because he accepted that it was his governments cost-cutting on the Falklands ship lifeline that had sent out the signals that we were in Imperial Retreat (as in many other places over that ten years or so...).

But no she didn't start the conflict.

I know people who fought who I greatly admire but its a good example of brave soldiers/sailors/airmen digging crap politicians out of a hole of their own devising.

1
FakeGeordie | 9 November 2011 - 4:23pm

Sort of.

It's just that, by now, you'd have thought we (they)'d've grown out of it. Haven't these recent lot learnt any lessons from mistakes made by - or found a different way of doing things from - Drake, Palmerston and Thatch?

0
Johnimator | 9 November 2011 - 11:27pm

Who the hell is Robert Fisk

and does he think he is the only one qualified to make a judgement because he remembers someone from the Great War? I remember both my grandfathers and the man over the road who were in the trenches. One bore a gunshot wound, one was sectioned for shell-shock and the bloke over the road spoke with a high voice as a result of being gassed.

I remember all of them wearing poppies with pride and I'm sure they would be thrilled to hear themselves being referred to as "pathetic creatures with their little sand-pit poppies", as am I for that matter.

Maybe the symbol of the poppy is tainted but nobody would buy a Ford if they worried about what an asshole Henry was, I'm sure there are many better examples which I don't have time to research.

The point is that, for at least a couple of weeks every year people *remember* and that is solely due to the appearance of the poppies. Maybe they shouldn't need reminding but there you are.

What is so wrong with that?

3
Sid Williams | 9 November 2011 - 7:42am

Find someone who has a point of view you agree with

and everything's simple. The closest intermediary I have between me and the last world war was a Major in the commandos, spent a couple of years as a POW at Mussolini's pleasure and regards any veteran's parade featuring ranks of poppy wearers as "a bunch of sentimental old fools". As it happens I choose to disagree with this point of view, but I appreciate that he has more than earned the right to hold it.

2
skirky | 9 November 2011 - 10:30am

exactly!

which is why it pisses me off that everyone who has earned the right to hold views to the contrary are ridiculed by some self-important blowhard in a "serious" national newspaper.

1
Sid Williams | 9 November 2011 - 4:07pm

Who the hell is

Robert Fisk? Well, apparently he 'holds more British and International Journalism awards than any other foreign correspondent.', meaning presumably that he has won the respect of his colleagues across the spectrum of journalism, nationally and internationally. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk)

If you read his article again, you'll see it's quite clear that he is not ridiculing war veterans, as you suggest. I doubt he would question whether they have a right to hold their views. The theme of the article is that his Father had earned the right to see things a different way. It's the presenters he's having a pop at, or rather those in charge, who insist that the presenters conform. And I'll guarantee that, like many of us, he doesn't just remember the fallen for a couple of weeks of the year. His journalism is written through with compassion for those who have given their lives in conflict.

And I, for one, will continue to get my news from 'serious' newspapers. What is so wrong with that?

7
thecheshirecat | 13 November 2011 - 11:54pm

speaking if who does what?

what do the german and japanese population do around these remembrance days? just out of interest, wondered if anything or nothing? the wars were as hard on many of thier families i can imagine also...

0
über-über | 5 November 2011 - 10:08pm

At this time of year

the Germans and Japanese are probably still saying "we wuz robbed!"

The French are saying "Look, can we just forget about all this collaboration nonsense?"

And the Americans are saying "That reminds us, we really must start trying to arrive on time at these important events"

1
mojoworking | 7 November 2011 - 3:18am

In Japan at least

there is no specific national war remembrance day, although Hiroshima Memorial day is an annual ceremony. There is a national war dead memorial shrine in Tokyo that could be like a Cenotaph, but this is controversial for various awkward reasons, so the emperor and most current politicians won't go there.

I would never criticise or stop anyone from wearing a poppy (in fact, lets give more money to the Royal British Legion), but it is, I think, a very British and Anglophone Commonwealth ritual that a lot of the wider world does not comprehend. (In fact, poppies have another historical association around China, but never mind...). I have been teaching the war poets to my students recently and none of them had heard about Remembrance Day.

0
pessoa | 7 November 2011 - 3:56pm

Not a sausage..

here in Germany on the Great War, completely overshadoed by WW2. Massive interest in the latter now from the younger generation, many critical documentaries being made in this new century, mainly because, probably, the grandparents aren't around any more to object. They didn't choose to be open about the Reich years at all in the latter half of the 20th century, the idea being Nestbeschmutzung, or soiling your own nest.

At least Germany's moving on, which is more than can be said of the EUSSR-style rants that keep appearing in the British newspaper websites, unfortunately including the Guardian's, fortunately not the majority view.

2
Declan | 8 November 2011 - 1:44am

its a gesture of respect

So what if some people trivialise it or make it compulsory or over commercialise it or even choose not to participate.

Its a way of donating to a worthwhile cause - the British Legion's work - and remembering all those brave young men and women shot and blown to bits at the Somme, Ypres, Gallipoli, El Alamein, Normandy, Arnhem, Burma, the Atlantic Ocean and everyhere else.

So that we could all sit here in a free and democratic society debating it.

4
rocker43 | 5 November 2011 - 10:39pm

You don't have to buy a poppy to give

to the British Legion. This is the Internet age (baby) and you can donate online, as I did today. Google "Poppy Appeal".
On the Saturday of last weekend there was a poppy-seller outside Sainsbury's as I went in. All I had about my person was my bank cards so, resolving to get a poppy later sometime, I passed by. Haven't seen any poppy sellers since (Spent most of last week either behind the wheel or on my own in unoccupied houses. I was too badly hungover on Saturday to venture out at all). I went out looking for poppy sellers today and didn't see any around town.
That Robert Fisk article above is certainly food for thought. Maybe I won't get one this year.

2
Mike_H | 7 November 2011 - 12:29am

okay

Fair enough. You don't have to buy one and you can donate on the internet instead. I choose to wear one for the reasons I stated above. And I couldn't give a flying f**k what Robert Fisk thinks. Sorry, but whats the point of this debate?

1
rocker43 | 8 November 2011 - 12:04am

Interesting thread - here's a poem I wrote a few years ago...

Red Poppies

Lapels stained with red poppies,
Not blood, but tears and flashbacks,
The faces as fresh as on the day they died.
Vivid memory and regret, if only
They had slept another hour,
Perhaps they would not now all rest in peace,
Away from tortured conscience.
Nurtured guilt, and photographs
Gathering dust in empty houses,
Gnawing at the souls of the survivors,
Like rats in trenches at the front.
The pain has passed from the dead
To the living, who were spared,
Only to live for years in agony,
Haunted by dreams and faces,
Voices, pleas and places.
Glory in survival, glory for the dead,
March in honour and regret,
Feeling left out, but alive.
Rain cools tear-stained faces,
Remembrance cleanses guilty souls,
Red poppies glistening in the grey morning.

1
Baskerville Old Face | 7 November 2011 - 3:19pm

And what's all this with sparkly, glittery and even crocheted

poppies on TV? A normal 'Haig Fund' poppy not good enough? I remember the days when having a poppy with a leaf was considered a bit racy and the mark of a cad.

...and it were all fields round here in them days.

3
stimpy | 8 November 2011 - 12:24pm

There is a whole load of them

on the British Legion website, so presumably they bought them there.

0
Georgedivided | 11 November 2011 - 3:48pm

Expenses scandal - ATM

My memory is a bit befuddled these days, so if what I am about to have a little rant about is wrong, then its apologies in advance.

During the expenses scandal a couple of years ago, am I right in rembering that an MP (more than one?)claimed the cost of his
poppy/ wreath on expenses?

IF that is the case, I think it is/ was disgusting behaviour.

0
jackthebiscuit | 8 November 2011 - 9:56pm

ATM..

what on earth does it mean?

Thanks Buddy.

0
Declan | 8 November 2011 - 10:38pm

Ask the massive

i.e. ask us lot for an opinion.

0
Red Umpire | 9 November 2011 - 12:01am

FIFA

clearly don't share the British love affair with the poppy. They've refused a request from the England team to wear an embroidered poppy on their shirts for the upcoming friendly football match against Spain as it would 'open the door to similar initiatives from all over the world, jeopardising the neutrality of football'.

It may seem like a trivial, bureaucratic ruling to us, but I kind of see FIFA’s point. If they allow England to wear their poppies, you never know what kind of other quasi political symbols may pop up on the shirts of other countries.

But you know what's going to happen next, don't you? The Mail, Express and the other tub-thumping press will puff out their chests and call for the England team to defy the FIFA ruling and risk a fine or even cancellation of the game.

0
mojoworking | 9 November 2011 - 8:30am

Neutrality?

Surely advertising on shirts has long compromised any 'neutrality' in the game.

0
jonnyartist | 9 November 2011 - 8:16am

Idiotic

Although I don't agree with the FIFA decision (although I wonder how the British FA would feel if tables were turned and Spain/Germany were commemorating their war dead), it really doesn't matter. It is for 90 minutes during a friendly.

Will the English football team not being able to wear poppies for 1.5 hours really mean that the war dead are left forgotten? No.

The tub-thumping going on by the "pro-poppy" lobby accusing FIFA of all sorts is utterly ridiculous. And actually, I think it is reactions like this that make some people reluctant to wear a poppy.

5
JoLean | 9 November 2011 - 9:49am

It's becoming

a national obsession.

2
mojoworking | 9 November 2011 - 10:04am

And note....

.....that all this holier-than-thou hogwash appears to have been completely avoided by the Welsh and Scottish FAs whose teams, I presume, are also playing this weekend.

1
ranger | 9 November 2011 - 4:16pm

Wrongity wrong

Sorry ranger, but the Welsh FA backed the English FA and all three teams will be wearing poppies on their trackuits/warm up gear:

Wales, who play Norway in Cardiff on Saturday, are set to wear a poppy on their training shirts for the warm-up and tracksuits for the national anthem, with the words "Cymru'n Cofio" ("Wales remembers") underneath the poppy.

The Football Association of Wales supported the FA's request to Fifa for permission to wear a poppy on their kit.

Scotland, who face Cyprus in a friendly on Friday, will also wear poppy-emblazoned training tops.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15643295.stm

0
Red Umpire | 9 November 2011 - 4:34pm

The Scottish Football Association

Are just confused as to why England want to wear money on their shirts.

1
Spartacus Mills | 9 November 2011 - 5:06pm

I'm wearing my poppy.

I was silent in the office at 11 a.m. I was happy to do both.

But today, the Metropolitan Police effectively tried to criminalise dissent. Here are some of their tweets from today:

There is a policing operation in place to preserve the dignity of the 2 minute silence #Armistice Day #remember

Individuals seeking to disrupt the 2 minute silence will be dealt with robustly #Armistice Day #remember

If the memory of dead soldiers is insulted where people have gathered to honour those soldiers there is clearly a threat to public order.

So they've taken it upon themselves to judge what constitutes:

1) dignity
2) disruption
3) insult
4) a robust response

And they have effectively threatened anything up to and including the use of force/arrest against anyone who oversteps these arbitrary and vaguely-defined lines in the exercise of the right to free speech which our soldiers died to guarantee. Miss the point, much?

Jesus Christ. I don't often get on board with howls of "police state", but this is really sinister. I hope they apologise in short order for this Maoist bullshit.

Yours,

Simmering, London.

7
Bob | 11 November 2011 - 12:19pm

The whole thing has been

shameful this year and it's going to get worse every year I predict.

In my office I told my team that we were turning the phones off for a couple of minutes knowing one of the team has very strong views about such things. I told her she was welcome to leave the office if she wanted for a while but she said it wasn't necessary. She said she respects the decision of others and there are times to impose alternative views and this wasn't one of them. I knew this would be her response but it is important to recognise the needs of others at all times.

All any of this needs is a degree of level-headedness.

1
jimmyshoes01 | 11 November 2011 - 12:40pm

"All any of this needs is a degree of level-headedness."

Couldn't agree more, Jim.

Incidentally, it's worth noting that the Met appear to have used a very selective quote from the Public Order Act in another one of their tweets this morning.

They said:

Deliberately using abusive or insulting words or behaviour is an offence under Section 4 of the Public Order Act

Section 4 of the Act says:

4.–(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he–

(a) uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

(b) distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

Even if the Met meant Section 4(a) of the Act (which they should've said, if that's what they meant) which does allow for the prosecution of anyone doing any of a) or b) above

"within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby"

a legal defence for that is

"(c) The conduct was reasonable."

Political protest or simple failure to acknowledge the silence is nothing if not reasonable. The Met (and posters on here) might not LIKE that, but it is reasonable, because observance of the poppy and the silence is fully optional.

The Met either chose to misrepresent the law, or they don't know the law. Not sure which is worse. Whoever tweeted from their account this morning needs busting down to the lowest rank possible and posting to Sandford, Gloucestershire.

0
Bob | 11 November 2011 - 1:05pm

Not reasonable

Sorry Bob, it's not reasonable to stand in the middle of a two minute silence in front of a war memorial and burn poppies. With rights come responsibilities, and deliberately upsetting and disrupting someone else's moment like that is not reasonable not is it responsible. However should someone chose to do so and some ex para chose to exert his right to punch them very hard on the nose I would find that entirely reasonable.

We quite often get onto "rights" here, but the underlying principle is that ones "rights" do not immediately entitle you to behave like a selfish cunt wherever and whenever you chose. That's where the responsibility side of the equation comes in, and you can't have one without the other. And it's not a matter of law, it's a matter of culture as much as anything.

5
Twangothan | 11 November 2011 - 1:18pm

So...

...political protest, if it offends people, is beyond the pale? Sorry, I can't agree. I'd be really, really offended if a poppy-burning took place at the Cenotaph, but I wouldn't want it banned.

1
Bob | 11 November 2011 - 1:24pm

Banned

When does protest become a public order offence, or even a hate crime? If I were to rock up outside a mosque on the night of Eid and set fire to a burqa, something tells me I'd be nicked.

3
Spartacus Mills | 11 November 2011 - 1:34pm

I was just in the process of an edit.

It's an interesting point. Here's what I was about to add to my post.

I realise this is likely to be an unpopular view. I'm just really uncomfortable with our desire to forcibly silence people saying nasty things. And, sorry Twang, but people have the inalienable right to say whatever they like. Free speech is more important than any responsibility not to offend.

I don't always like the results of that. It does mean that people can be arseholes with almost complete impunity - look at Ricky Gervais. But I really do think that the right to free speech is the cornerstone of so many of our other rights, and the more authoritarian we get about what constitutes "reasonable" protest - even when non-violent - the more we chip away at what makes us us.

You can't do this stuff on a case by case basis. Either there's a principle - people can say what they like - or there isn't. But we can't ban stuff just because it angers or offends us.

YMMV. OOAA.

(For that reason, I'm afraid I'm also opposed to a lot of hate crime and hate speech legislation, because I think legislating for what's in a person's head when they commit a crime is really ethically shaky. Either they've committed a crime or they haven't. But criminalising the actual thought processes behind a crime worries the hell out of me. But that's a whole different discussion.)

If you did that, Spartacus, I'd be pretty disgusted at you (obviously you wouldn't, I know you're just illustrating). But I don't think you should be criminalised for it. If you lobbed a brick through a mosque window, I'd want you done for criminal damage and anything else - reckless endangerment or whatever. But I wouldn't want the "hate" motive to affect that sentence.

As I say, YMMV. OOAA. I don't expect this to be a popular standpoint.

1
Bob | 11 November 2011 - 1:48pm

If you apply that logic

don't you get rid of race crimes? Or sexism? If someone threw a brick through an immigrants window because he doesn't like them because of their race, your happy for that to be treated the same as if someone a bit drunk on the way home from the pub broke a window for a laugh?

It isn't the same. The thinking behind an act is as relevant to the level of revulsion as the act itself.

0
Leedsboy | 11 November 2011 - 2:02pm

Again, disagree.

Issues of sex or race discrimination can be dealt with by equal opportunities law.

And yes, I want two people lobbing a brick through a window to be treated the same regardless of motive. It's criminal damage.

Again, I know this is unlikely to be popular.

0
Bob | 11 November 2011 - 2:05pm

So is breaking a window

in a house that's being lived in in order to scare the occupant no worse than breaking a window in an empty house in which no one lives?

1
Leedsboy | 11 November 2011 - 4:00pm

Of course it's worse.

But the latter is also two separate offences: part criminal damage, part intimidation.

But it's not really analogous, because the intimidation isn't the motive. Why does the aggressor want to intimidate the target? That's the motive. And no, that shouldn't be an aggravating factor.

0
Bob | 11 November 2011 - 4:08pm

That is a very fine line to tread

where one may be prosecuted (at least in part) for one one thinks, as opposed to what one does.

If a racist scumbag throws a brick through the window, the issue is that the brick has come through the window, not what the person was thinking when they lobbed it, however disgusting that be.

4
illuminatus | 11 November 2011 - 3:09pm

Can't up this enough.

Precisely. Precisely precisely.

1
Bob | 11 November 2011 - 3:15pm

The main issue

is that the brick has come through the windown. But any racist element would be considered an aggravating factor and could lead to a bigger sentence.

0
Spartacus Mills | 11 November 2011 - 3:18pm

Yes, it would, under the law as it stands.

But I'm saying it shouldn't.

0
Bob | 11 November 2011 - 3:19pm

Just to clarify

Do you think that no aggravating / mitigating factors should be applied to sentencing, or just not those consisting of racial, homophobic...etc elements?

0
Spartacus Mills | 11 November 2011 - 3:26pm

It's an interesting question.

Broadly, I'd say that the only aggravating circumstances I'm comfortable with relate to the severity of the crime, not its motive.

So torturing someone to death is worse than shooting them in the head in cold blood.

But shooting someone in the head in cold blood because you hate who they are is not worse than shooting them in the head in cold blood because you want their iPod. IMO, obviously.

In terms of mitigation, self-defence is a reasonable claim in cases of murder/manslaughter, because the defendant has to prove that he had cause to fear for his own safety. But beyond that, I struggle to think of any, or at least any that are to do with motive.

0
Bob | 11 November 2011 - 3:42pm

Just to clarify

Do you think that no aggravating / mitigating factors should be applied to sentencing, or just not those consisting of racial, homophobic...etc elements?

0
Spartacus Mills | 11 November 2011 - 3:26pm

Sorry

Double post

0
Spartacus Mills | 11 November 2011 - 3:18pm

I'll finsh what I was saying...

...but this goes a bit further.

In fact, if we're pushing the envelope here, I don't think I even agree with the concept of a "hate crime" at all. What other kind is there? Crime born of deep-seated love and respect? In the end, the law allows for the prosecution of others who act or express in a tangible and public way that is threatening or dangerous to others. The act is the thing that should be punished.

For a beardy-weidy liberal such as myself, this causes me no little internal conflict, as I wish to see the most vulnerable in society protected in an appropriate way, but at the same time I prize the hard-fought freedom to express one's opinion. As has been said elsewhere, this boils down to responsibility and, for want of a better word, courtesy. There seems to be little of this around in wider society, really; we get a braying, hysterical whine most of the time.

3
illuminatus | 11 November 2011 - 3:18pm

Yes yes.

Man, it should cause any thinking person inner conflict. I think anyone who's not conflicted about this stuff probably isn't thinking about it very hard!

But I have to ask myself: what's more important? Consistent principle, or my feelings? Well, there's no contest.

So the calculus is this: am I disgusted by racism? Yes. Should mine and others' disgust override the sacrosanct right of everyone to think their own thoughts? No. So it follows that you punish the act, not the thought.

Because once you accept that the punishment of certain thoughts is acceptable, you're on the road to hell.

3
Bob | 11 November 2011 - 3:25pm

The difference between

murder and manslaughter is precisely that of thought. Murder is causing death with malice aforethought whereas manslaughter is without.

I don't see how you can apply sentencing either correctly or sensibly without taking into account the thinking behind the act. It removes self defence, insanity, provocation and diminished responsibility as defences to murder as well.

And your not punishing thoughts alone. There has to be an act. But the thinking behind the act is certainly worth considering when the punishment is being set surely?

1
Leedsboy | 11 November 2011 - 3:57pm

There's a massive difference.

In cases of self-defence, the defendant had cause to fear material harm.

In cases of insanity/diminished responsibility, the defendant cannot be held responsible, because their condition removes or lessens their ability to exercise free will.

Yes, it removes provocation. I'm OK with that. What do you mean by provocation? That it's less bad to twat someone in the face because they've annoyed you, or slept with your wife? Nah. Twatting someone in the face is twatting someone in the face. I don't care how wound up you are.

Murder and manslaughter are different offences. One's not a mitigated version of the other, and yes, it hangs on intention. But it doesn't hang on the reasons behind the intention, which hate crime legislation does.

Did you mean to kill him? Yes? Then you're a murderer. The reason, the motive, for meaning to kill him isn't relevant.

Did you mean to hoy that brick through that window? Yes? Then you're guilty of criminal damage. Did you do it because you wanted the person inside the building to be afraid? Well, you're guilty of an additional offence related to that AS WELL. Conflating the two just leads to an ethical muddle. And as to why you wanted to make the person afraid in the first place, well, I don't think that's a matter for the law.

0
Bob | 11 November 2011 - 4:26pm

Broadly agree with you on this one Bob...

... but I'm not sure about saying that "Murder and manslaughter are different offences. One's not a mitigated version of the other".

A successful plea of self-defence/diminished responsibility to a murder charge leaves you with manslaughter. The defendant is still held responsible, albeit to a reduced level.

Obviously there's a bit more to it than that, but in essence manslaughter is directly equivalent to murder (it has the same actus reus, if I recall correctly), absent mens rea.

As for the rest of your post, I agree entirely. There's a clear difference between, for instance, "intention to kill/cause ABH" (from memory, the pre-requisite mens rea for murder) and "intention to kill/cause ABH for reasons of race".

It's "did you mean to throw the brick through the window?", not "why did you throw the brick through the window?".

1
eminentdan1978 | 11 November 2011 - 5:20pm

Appreciate the correction, Dan.

As should be abundantly clear, I'm no lawyer! Just trying to work things through logically from principle. Your post helped a lot.

0
Bob | 11 November 2011 - 5:39pm

Pleasure

Just glad I can recall something, anything, from two years of grinding intellectual torpor at law school.

0
eminentdan1978 | 11 November 2011 - 7:33pm

Interesting post

Why is it that people sometimes receive a lesser sentence for a 'crime of passion' than they would otherwise? Or do they not?

Bob says punching someone is punching someone, whether it's for no reason or because they've slept with your wife. I don't think a sentencing judge would agree.

0
Spartacus Mills | 11 November 2011 - 5:46pm

I think I'm right in saying...

...that provocation is no defence in cases of murder or manslaughter, in English law. Happy to be corrected. Not sure about lesser crimes, but regardless, I don't think the law should make your distinction, Spartacus, no. It might do, I honesty don't know. I just can't think of a principled justification for that.

0
Bob | 11 November 2011 - 6:10pm

See below

Its a very specific defence and it only relates to murder not manslaughter (which is logical as provocation means there was an intention to do harm). Don't know how widely it is used as I stopped law at A level in 1989 in order to buy computers for a living.

Edit - and you may be right - it may no longer be valid

0
Leedsboy | 11 November 2011 - 6:26pm

Thanks to you and Leedsboy for the info

Fascinating stuff. On a personal, moral level, if a friend of mine had his nose broken by a racist for being Asian, I'd have a lot more sympathy than if he had his nose broken by the cuckolded husband of a woman he'd been having an affair with.

Whether the law should make this sort of distinction is another matter I guess.

0
Spartacus Mills | 11 November 2011 - 7:28pm

Provocation as defined by The Homicide Act 1957

"Where on a charge of murder there is evidence on which the jury can find that the person charged was provoked (whether by things done or by things said or by both together) to lose his self-control, the question whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did shall be left to be determined by the jury; and in determining that question the jury shall take into account everything both done and said according to the effect which, in their opinion, it would have on a reasonable man."

I think most of this stuff actually plays out in the sentencing in reality. You and I have a different view - I think nuances are important and can be fundamental. I would be happier (relatively) with mindless violence leaving me with a broken nose than it being broken because someone didn't like my skin colour. And I'm happy with the law reflecting that in its sentencing.

0
Leedsboy | 11 November 2011 - 6:16pm

I may be wrong

But isn't this old law? Wiki seemed to think provocation in murder or manslaughter was removed as a defence by statute. Maybe I misread.

Edit. I didn't.

In English law, provocation was a mitigatory defence alleging a total loss of control as a response to another's provocative conduct sufficient to convert what would otherwise have been murder into manslaughter. It does not apply to any other offence. It was abolished on 4 October 2010[1] by section 56(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.[1] but replaced by a very similar defence of "loss of control".

0
Bob | 11 November 2011 - 6:23pm

You're right

Wiki says:

Provocation.

The old defence of provocation contained in s 3 of the Homicide Act 1957 has been abolished and replaced with the new partial defence to murder – loss of self control by s 55 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. There are a few similiarities between the old and new law and of course some stark differences. The old law contained in 3 of the Homicide Act 1957 was largely based on Devlin J’s famous dicta in R v Duffy

“Provocation is some act, or series of acts, done by the dead man to the accused, which would cause in any reasonable man, and actually causes in the accused, a sudden and temporary loss of self control, rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make him or her for the mement not master of his mind”

The Homicide Act revised the common law rule, as to when the provocation defence would arise. The loss of self control must have been sudden and temporary, therefore excluding the opportunity for defendant’s suffering from domestic violence the chance to raise their defence if their retaliation resulted in the death of their abuser and the loss of self control was not sudden and temporary.

The Act further imposed two conditions on raising the defence; the first requirement was subjective, was the defendant provoked to lose his self control and secondly the objective requirement – was the provocation enough to make a reasonable man do as he did. The objective requirement caused controversy in the Courts as to what characteristics the ‘reasonable man’ should have, in particular the decision of the House of Lords in R v Morgan Smith and of the Privy Council in Holley were at odds with each other, between a stringent and more flexible approach, the stringent test in Holley however prevailed.

Under the new partial defence of loss of self control s54 CJA 2009 resembles the old law of provocation with a few differences. In order to raise the defence the loss of self control must have a qualifying trigger (a subjective test) and a person of the defendant’s sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the same circumstances might have reacted in the same or similar way to the defendant (an objective test akin to Camplin). A main requirement from the previous law has however been removed, the loss of self control no longer needs to be sudden, this may make it easier for those who suffer from domestic violence to raise a defence of ‘loss of self control’ instead of being stigmatised with having to raise a defence of “diminished responsibility”. Yet the nexus between the loss of self control and the killing is somewhat retained, as the defence cannot be raised if it is considered that the defendant acted in revenge. Moreover the trial judge is given an important role in deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to raise the defence on which a jury properly directed could reasonably conclude that the defence applies.

The Qualifying Trigger

Defined in s55 the qualifying trigger amends the subjective test under the old law. Within this section as prescribed conditions as to when a defendant may have a loss of self control. The can be achieved by a number of ways; the defendant’s loss of self control was due to a serious fear of violence, was attributable to a thing done or said which constituted either circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wrong. Both of these requirements are however negated should the defendant incite the actions to be caused and then seek to rely on them as an excuse. Additionally sexual infidelity (previously considered to be the grossest form of provocation) is no longer to be regarded as an adequate reason.

The addition of a qualifying trigger is desirable as it prescribes what is likely to give rise to a defence of loss of self control. However upon close analysis these changes could seem little more than a glossy exterior. The exclusion of sexual infidelity seems to ignore that possibilities of other acts of gross provocation that may occur, such as honour killings when a defendant may feel they have been ashamed by the act of a member of their family. Should this have also not been said to not give rise to the defence?

0
Leedsboy | 11 November 2011 - 6:33pm

I can't remember

why we were talking about this. :-D

0
Bob | 11 November 2011 - 6:41pm

I think it was a combination of

your guardian based logic, my old bastard string 'em up principles and the fact it was Friday afternoon. All we needed was a pint.

3
Leedsboy | 11 November 2011 - 8:11pm

:-D

Sounds about right!

0
Bob | 11 November 2011 - 8:35pm

Bob

I read this article this morning:

http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/002081.php

And it called to mind this discussion. I think the author's argument is very persuasive, and chimes with your own views.

0
Spartacus Mills | 24 November 2011 - 10:48am

Thanks, Spartacus.

That's a very interesting read, and as you say, reflects my view perfectly and puts it about a billion times more eloquently than I could ever hope to. Thanks a lot!

0
Bob | 24 November 2011 - 10:55am

What about political protest

timed to be deliberately provocative and timed to cause the maximum emotional response? Why can't they wait a day and do it? Because it will not give them the coverage that threatening to something that will probably end in violence and therefore be stopped will give them.

This stuff happens all the time at football - away fans are segregated because of a fear of violence. Civil liberties are affected but the overall result is that more civil liberties are protected by doing this than are adversely affected.

And when does a political act become unacceptable violence or, at the minimum, an incitement to cause violence? Its a tough call but if your or my kids where caught up in violent demonstrations when they had gone to he Cenotaph to pay respects to people who did serving their country, I suspect you would not be supportive of allowing 2 opposing groups to do something at the same time.

0
Leedsboy | 11 November 2011 - 1:55pm

Well, here the police's duty...

...is to balance the right to say whatever you want - which is, or should be, absolute - with the right to go somewhere which might be dangerous for you or others.

It's not the law's job to decide what's acceptable to say, and it's not the police's job to silence dissent, but there's no good reason why they can't keep two blocs of people away from each other for their own physical safety.

The one is a matter of principle. The other is a matter of pragmatism.

0
Bob | 11 November 2011 - 2:01pm

Update.

The Met have apologised for getting the law wrong.

0
Bob | 11 November 2011 - 5:54pm

The cynic in me

Says that it seems to have been convenient to do so after the fact, where they had the opportunity to apply the law in an incorrect fashion at a time when it was "helpful" for them to do so

0
illuminatus | 12 November 2011 - 1:46am

I may be wrong

...but was this not a response to those people threatening to hold poppy-burning ceremonies?

This whole invasion of the two-minute silence is a relatively new and almost childlishly inflammatory thing to do, clearly designed to cause maximum offence. I'm not certain how they go about quoshing that without seeming draconian.

I agree that there is a sinister undercurrent to those tweets, but I'm unconvinced that it's anything more than a new Met commissioner letting everyone know he won't stand for the bullying tactics of a few.

0
Uncle Monty | 11 November 2011 - 12:59pm

That may well be, Monty.

But see above. The right to protest absolutely takes precedence over the right not to be offended. And yeah, I'd say that about the EDL too, or the BNP. You can't stop people saying things or doing things - even burning poppies, or lying about immigration - just because we don't like what they say or do. I very much doubt whether the Public Order Act is a valid thing to threaten people with here, because the defence of "reasonable conduct" must surely include non-violent protest, mustn't it?

1
Bob | 11 November 2011 - 1:06pm

I'm unconvinced

'Reasonable' is a subjective word. Burning a symbol of something during the two minutes that people are honouring that thing is not reasonable. It could also be construed as an action designed 'to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another'.

I'm not a holier than thou poppy-enforcer. I firmly believe it's up to the individual. But I see nothing reasonable in those threats, and I also see a provocation of violence. That said, these idiots are out to press buttons, and they're doing it well. I agree that the right to protest takes precedence, and I have no interest in people seeking sanctions just because they're offended. But is this about offence, or lack of responsibility, social grace, caring for others?

EDIT (BEFORE I'VE EVEN POSTED)...You know what? I'm rambling above. There are no easy answers. Do I want to live in a world where prevention of offence drives enforcement? Absolutely not. Do I want to live in a world where people think it's OK to upset others just because they can? Not at all. Will those who use their free speech to cause upset be happy to let others do the same against them? Of course not. The only way to beat the 'one rule for us, another for you' crowd is to change the rules for them too. If you don't, they get away with it, society becomes a less pleasant place. If you do, you legislate for offence, society becomes a scarier place.

2
Uncle Monty | 11 November 2011 - 1:46pm

Harm Principle

As Adam Smith stated in On Liberty:

[T]he only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

I'm of the view that giving offence is not harmful and therefore trying to prevent the burning of poppies is not a rightful exercise of power. In these situations social or moral disapprobation by the community is a far more potent weapon than any police baton or indignant politician.

4
Ahh_Bisto | 11 November 2011 - 3:37pm

I've read that Wiki too

Wasn't it John Stuart Mill? Anyway was a pretty extreme thinker, interesting, but his view that the right action is the one which makes the majority happiest is a bit at odds with our modern view isn't it?

All the historic thinking about freedom of speech also recognise that it is not an absolute right, and is constrained by law, by the harm principle you quote, and much more recently by the offence principle, which I think summarises my view

In 1985 Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the "offence principle", arguing that Mill's harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviours of others. Feinberg wrote "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end." Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. But, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm. In contrast Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle. Because the degree to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large.

0
Twangothan | 11 November 2011 - 5:28pm

A fine distinction

I'd say there's a difference between exercising a right to protest where that is reasonable, and acting in a deliberately provocative way to get a reaction, thereby intentionally inciting violence. It's a fine judgement but there is a distinction to be made nevertheless. If I went up to someone, winding them up, mocking them about losing their daughter in horrific circumstances, say, and end up being hit, I am really responsible to a significant degree and know what I am doing, and this should be judged differently to me being hit because I was perceived to have looked at someone the wrong way, for example. So circumstances, intentions, thoughts, all play a part and have been considered and taken into account by those making a judgement on a situation, for a very long time, I believe, and rightly. Surely then it is also right that police seek to prevent such planned conflict incitement when they learn about it, rather than wait for it to break out - best for all parties and uninvolved bystanders. This does not prevent free speech - you can still argue and make your point where the time, place and manner are 'reasonable'.

0
Sven Garlic | 11 November 2011 - 5:56pm

Indeed

Completely agree.

0
Twangothan | 11 November 2011 - 6:00pm

Of course

I should say that if charges were pressed in my examples the police would be obliged to take action and treat both cases the same in the first instance, investigating the assault, and that is right too.

0
Sven Garlic | 11 November 2011 - 6:46pm

Did I say Adam Smith?

I did indeed. Not wiki, I studied Jurisprudence for my law degree but from a legal perspective I don't hold with Feinberg's looser approach because that actually risks giving the State more power in my view to control freedom of speech and action.

It's like this blog. Some people on here have given offence - myself included - but not necessarily to all posters and not necessarily intentionally (though some have deliberately caused offence). Some have shrugged it off while others have called for Fraser to take some direct action. No one is harmed but the act of giving offence is highly subjective in interpretation.

I find the idea of burning poppies on Remembrance Sunday offensive but I believe the offence I take is of lesser importance to the person's right to actually burn those poppies. I'm of the view that it is better that it is seen to happen because ultimately it is better that society witnesses those who cause offence rather than not because it is in many ways a better reminder to us all of what freedoms we have, not just from those intent on giving offence but also those intent on controlling our lives in some way. I actually believe bringing the police into the equation is counter-productive; perversely in the minds of the people giving offence it "legitimises" their actions whereas if they were merely left to perform their deed - and assuming they are just there to burn the poppies and not to harm anyone - a lack of sanctioned response by the state to their actions actually undermines them.

It is better for us all that these things are out in the open and not just swept under a carpet of supposed consensus because, in my view and experience, unchallenged consensus is a more dangerous influence on freedom of speech and action.

This is where I think the US Constitution gets it so right in relation to the Tyranny of the Majority.

0
Ahh_Bisto | 11 November 2011 - 6:50pm

There are some good points on liberty of thought here

But if you want an idea why so much anti-discrimination or anti-hate legislation has been introduced over the years its instructive to read a red-top from thirty or forty years ago, when I am guessing most of us were kids.

Ignorant and inflammatory rubbish isn't the start of it - and that legitimised that sort of thinking and talking and behaving.

Politicians are not all crooks and legislators have to strike a balance between freedom and managing 70 million people on a small island.

You can educate people so far - thou shalt not kill/steal etc. though has been around a long time and people still do it.

That said, what kicked off the thread was the Met clearly over stepping the mark and it is a very very worrying development given what is happening to the elected governments in countries that owe a lot of money to the big banks...

0
FakeGeordie | 11 November 2011 - 7:07pm

Balance

It is striking the balance between maintaining freedom to and ensuring freedom from when managing 70M people on a small island.

The concept of causing harm is easier to define than causing offence and consequently the chances of creating a good law governing "harm", based on objective standards of what constitutes "harm", are higher. The idea of causing offence is so subjective and subject to such a variety of opinions on an individual by individual basis, that writing a good law is more difficult to achieve. This is often what politicians end up doing, passing bad laws to reflect their perception of what they believe to be the governing opinion of the majority; such laws are often based significantly on emotive and highly subjective responses, rather than considered and rational responses to a given situation.

0
Ahh_Bisto | 11 November 2011 - 8:14pm

That would be an ecumenical matter

You're right of course. What is interesting is that because we don't have a written constitution we are dependent on judge-made law to a remarkable extent. But I do think it important that you can't expect to run a complex modern state on pure Platonic principles.

0
FakeGeordie | 11 November 2011 - 8:17pm

Texas vs Johnson

The US Supreme Court decided on a similar issue with regard to flag burning, which is a somewhat emotive subject over here.

It's protected free speech. I'm not a huge of Someone In Authority
deciding what I can or cannot do in case it causes offence.

Next thing you know, Steven Berkoff plays will get banned. Or something. But I'm sure you get my general point.

1
sitheref2409 | 14 November 2011 - 2:40am

I love this stuff.

FWIW, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a great entry on freedom of speech and the Harm Principle vs. the Offence Principle.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

I really recommend this article. It's a great read, and really made me think.

Like Bisto, my instinctive reaction to the Offence Principle is to reject it. In the case of a political protest, it's just flat out wrong, to me, to limit speech just because someone might be upset by it. There are other reasons to limit where and when that speech can be exercised, but those should be made explicitly for public safety reasons, not "offence" reasons, even if the offence might be the cause of the public safety threat. And I think police should be very, explicitly clear about that in the event that groups have to be kept apart. They absolutely shouldn't privilege one group's speech above another's - which, IMO, is precisely what the Met have done in a few cases recently, especially in suggesting that the Remembrance ceremony is objectively "better" speech than that of anyone who might seek to protest it.

For me, that's pretty clear-cut. No, what gave me pause in the Stanford article was stuff like public indecency. Clearly, two people fucking in the street doesn't contravene the Harm Principle. But it's also - I think most of us would agree - not OK, and I'm fine with public indecency laws being on the books. And I can't think of any reason other than "offence" to ban it.

As I say, bloody interesting stuff. I wish I'd done a law degree, really I do.

1
Bob | 11 November 2011 - 8:02pm

Question Time

Did anybody see the Tory gobshite on last night's QT wearing a poppy the size of babies head? And all the other fashion statements (the stupid leaf poking out from all compass points?)

I chose not to be in that club.

2
Jorrox | 11 November 2011 - 12:55pm

Given the utter shitness

of the panel on last night's QT, I think the poppies were the least of our worries.

However, Colin Blakemore and the audience did attempt not to be morons. Which was a relief.

0
illuminatus | 11 November 2011 - 3:27pm

Yes

Shite panel. Sec State for Scotland, hah! He comes across as a half decent member of a local authority. Never as a Scottish Secretary.

But, poppies are the topic and the thing that yon tory woman was wearing was a joke. If the beeb are going to be poppy policemen then get rid of all the green bits that have no place on a poppy. That's just a weird fashion statement.

0
Jorrox | 11 November 2011 - 5:03pm

A poignant story

Was listening to Radio 5 this am and Nicky Campbell asked for people to phone in with stories of people they were remembering.This one moved me to tears:-

'My next door neighbour used to fly Spitfires. He kept his garden tended with military precision.When his wife died he was no longer well enough himself to look after his garden. My mum asked me to go and do his garden every week. I didn't want to but it was an order. We became very close friends and he told me stories of his time as an RAF pilot. When he died there were 3 people at his funeral - a man from the British Legion, his meals on wheels lady and me. I just thought it was sad really. He was my best mate'.
Nicky Campbell had a moment and so did I.

Of course we should remember them and a Poppy is an apt way of doing so.

2
Steve Turner | 11 November 2011 - 7:10pm

Blimey.

I just had a weird dream. I was dozing off at the back of the hall during a Student's Union debate about "No Platform for Fascists", and the next thing I know, all my mates have grown beer guts and grey hairs and are STILL having the same debate 35 years later. Fucking hell. I'm never touching that scrumpy again, especially after a Ginsters and a pickled onion.

1
Vulpes Vulpes | 11 November 2011 - 8:48pm

So how did it all go?

My partner is German, and her mother is staying here (South Australia) for a while...she rang on the weekend and remarked that she'd been at the produce market on Friday when someone came on the PA and asked for a minute's silence for someone who'd been killed in the war.

My partner looked at the calendar, and said, "Uh huh, was that at about eleven o'clock?"

Her mother gasped, "You heard about it too?"

(She is from another dimension about most things)

1
B Smith | 14 November 2011 - 5:51am
Privacy Statement    ©  2006 - 2012 Development Hell Ltd