BS: Jingoism or Commemoration

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:52 AM

I am not playing your game.

You stated " Certainly not, but there is a little gang of them here who do have a problem. They find the existing Festival "objectionable."

I asked you to find one example of me doing that. You have failed to do so because there isn't one example.

I asked for an apology. I am still waiting.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 10:38 AM

Good heavens Raggy there you go demanding this and demanding that of people while you never provide any of the information or detail when requested by others - what is the party line again for the likes of yourself, the Gnome and your GUEST alter egos? - Oh yes that is it, whatever you say is merely your opinion and that you never have to explain or justify it to anybody. So tell me why does Keith have to justify his opinion that he thinks that you, tacitly agree with the gnome and find the festival in its current format "objectionable" - you have had more than ample opportunity to deny it yet you have remained silent - can't really fault Keith A for holding to his opinion, you haven't really done much (in fact nothing at all) to dissuade him.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 10:41 AM

Even you know Teribus the difference between not offering an argument and libel

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 11:15 AM

When Keith says he finds something objectionable that is his view.

When says a comment is objectionable he is elevating his opinion to being the arbiter of taste, which with his track record he most certainly isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 12:17 PM

Keith

Rag, Dave said he finds the existing festival "objectionable."

Nowhere on this thread or any other have I said I find the existing festival objectionable. On the second post in the thread I said "the thing I objected to most was turning it into a CofE thing". I subsequently said "Anyway, I am more than happy to change my statement from being 'turning into a CofE thing' to 'turning into a christian thing'." I stated at the outset and have repeated that it is the inclusion of a Christian service in a remembrance for people of all or no faith that I find objectionable. Never the festival itself. Why do you feel the need to manipulate the truth so much?

I would find it objectionable if someone was to fart loudly and smellily on the bus but it does not mean I object to buses. How on earth do you manage to put a different slant on everything I say?

Teribums - What Guest alter-egos? Can you substantiate the ridiculous claim that I post as anyone other than myself or is it yet another load of bollocks?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 12:33 PM

Dave, can you do me a favour and copy this to your facebook page.

Thanks

Raggytash

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 12:34 PM

Dave I meant to say the whole thread

Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 01:06 PM

Will do, Rag. If anyone wants to find it they can look up the Facebook page of my Spanish friend, Mudcat DelThreads. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 02:59 PM

Dave, the service is a small but integral part of the festival, and you said it was "objectionable."

Rag, anyone reading the thread would conclude that you and Dave are in agreement.

If you agree with Dave that it is objectionable, then I was right.
If you agree with me that it is not, then I do owe you an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:05 PM

I have NOT commented on the festival being objectionable or not.

You HAVE ACCUSED me of saying it was objectionable, I did not.

That deserves an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:10 PM

But I have never said the festival is objectionable so how can anyone agree or disagree with that?

Back to you.

Rag - Just disagree with me that something I did not say is not objectionable. Or maybe it is, I think. Whatever the fuck he is on about. Just disagree. I don't mind at all and it will be worth it to see the Keithy babe either apologise or, more likely, renege on his promise.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:13 PM

I have not accused you of saying anything Rag.
I said, "They find the existing Festival "objectionable."

I believe that to be true.
If I was wrong you would certainly announce it, but you won't because I was right about you.

Prove me wrong and say you do not find the existing festival, with its service, objectionable like Dave says he does.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:14 PM

Actually, Raggy, I have just twigged.

If you agree with Dave that it is objectionable, then I was right.
If you agree with me that it is not, then I do owe you an apology.

Just agree that the festival is not objectionable and Keith will owe you an apology. I also agree that the festival is not objectionable so it is a win/win situation.

I bet he doesn't apologise though ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:21 PM

I'll place my last comment again:

I have NOT commented on the festival being objectionable or not.

You HAVE ACCUSED me of saying it was objectionable, I did not.

That deserves an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 05:35 PM

for the purpose of clarifying any doubt can i just say that i find the service objectionable?
i could add that it is objectionable and depressing and pathetic that several aging/aged blokes on here think it is ok to squabble away about inconsequential nonsense.
it is objectionable, depressing, pathetic and sick that while there is so much shite going on around the world that we think it is still worthwhile to attempt to score cheap points off each other.
mo, it is not acceptable to be racist, aggressive , tory or rude about each other or anyone else. fuckin pack it in.
ever wonder why why there are no woman or younger people on this site? it could well be because we are all just objectionable .....and stupid....and blinkered.

but to return to the british legion - yes, i do object . it's all about men who died because they were fighting to do what their governments told them to. more than that, it is currently about a bunch of macho/racist aggressive blokes who think that supporting our hired army makes them more hard or patriotic or something.
to be honest, i'm an old hippy and into peace and these guys have too much body weight and not enough brain.

imagine if everyone just stopped fighting or idolising the warriors among us-it isn't hard to do .

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raffles
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 06:31 PM

Drank like a fire-engine, but only got drunk enough to make us a speech that I wouldn't have missed for ten pounds.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 06:54 PM

"to return to the british legion - yes, i do object . it's all about men who died because they were fighting to do what their governments told them to"

Wrong GUEST,achmelvich - They died in order that you could be born and brought up and live in peace, security and liberty, free to spout your ill-informed cliche-riddled drivel to your hearts content without fear of let or hindrance.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 07:31 PM

"They died in order that you could be born and brought up and live in peace"
No they didn't - they died for a whole number of reasons whicch we have discussed ad-nauseum
You have already described soldiers like Harry Patch as liars because they disagreed with your jingoistic claptrap - there were many who shared his view
Even those who may have fallen for your line were sold out by depression, hunger marches mass unemployment, appeasement to fascism and yet another World War where "We started all over again" as the song says.
"Land fit for heroes to live in" my arseum!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 02:58 AM

They died for what they were told to believe.

I suppose in a warped way, that makes them martyrs. Some weren't martyrs though. They put in a uniform because society expected it, or to get away from boring or awful jobs. Read Spike Milligan's war memoirs.

Their latter day comrades also died to make the world safer according to Bliar & Bush.

That worked......

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:31 AM

"You have already described soldiers like Harry Patch as liars"

Did I Jim? Where? When? I certainly have no recollection of ever having stated that Harry Patch was a liar. Ah but you write "soldiers like" which leads me to recall your belief in a tale told to you by someone called Tommy Kenny about British Military policemen forcing British soldiers out of trenches and shooting them if they refused to go. I remember at the time I asked you what regiment Tommy Kenny served in - you couldn't tell me (I on the other hand did the research and found that in the entire First World War only six men with the name Thomas Kenny served in the British Army, the most likely candidate won the Military Medal - I also did the research and found that in the course of that war there was not one instance of anything even remotely resembling your Tommy Kenny's story ever having occurred). You on the other hand were so eager to believe this fairytale that you checked and confirmed nothing related to what he had told you (I at least know with 100% certainty that Harry Patch did serve on the Western Front as a soldier - as far as YOUR Tommy Kenny you haven't a clue one way or another) - you might swallow any line and take it at face value I do not. This will prove to be another case of Jim Carroll "Made Up Shit" similar to your accusation that "I once stated that your long dead mother had been on the game" which as I recall was an accusation that was proven to have been totally groundless i.e. another example of Jim Carroll "Made Up Shit". No wonder I have long since ceased to pay any attention to your poorly presented, ranting, multi-coloured, ramblings, your interminable cut 'n ' pastes and your idiotic insistence that newspaper articles are proof of anything when they suit your biased and bigoted view and baseless right-wing lies and propaganda when they don't. Who did you model yourself on Jim - Citizen "Wolfie" Smith??

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:44 AM

"They died for what they were told to believe."

Really GUEST 16 Nov 15 - 02:58 AM? And what was it they were told to believe? And who was it that told them to believe it? Do you believe what you are told to believe? I know that I certainly wouldn't. Your rather idiotic statement tends to indicate that you have never served in any of the armed forces and have never spoken to veterans who have actually seen and experienced combat, if you had you would have noted and found as a common denominator the fact that in combat soldiers do not fight for "King and Country", they do not fight for "the honour and glory of the regiment or the colours" - they fight for each other, they fight for their mates, they fight to get through it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 04:14 AM

"I certainly have no recollection of ever having stated that Harry Patch was a liar. "
Your response to my accounts of the WW1 veteran we spent three days recording was "soldiers tell lies" - dismissing what had to say in three words - so much for your respect for war heroes!
You and your fellow jingoists have done this with every statement by veterans critical of the war raised in discussion - you prefer the offiucial establishment version rather than the words of those whoo actually fought.
You now appear to be calling me or Tommy Kenny a liar (again) in support of the official version.
You have ignored and continue to do so, the lies, distortions, the pressure, the blackmail and the open threats of imprisonment and death that caused people to join up.
Tommy Kenny joined up a couple of years after leaving school - like his contemporaries, he couldn't get work in poverty-stricken Liverpool, he was offered a wage, a uniform and the romance of foreign places and told the war was a forgone conclusion that would soon be over, so he lied about his age and joined up - that was the case with many thousands of young lads who risked and gave their lives to join the bloodbath.
The fact thay you couldn't find Tommy Kenny in your "researches" is immaterial - his interviews (carried out by me, two well-known singers and the folk scene and Tommy's grandson) is archived along with the rest of our collection in three national archives.   
Jeremy Paxman's programmes devoted a great deal of time to the machinations of recruiting - one of the high-spots was the master-recruiter. Horatio Bottomley, who presented jingoistic pantomimes downplaying and distorting the horrors of what was actually happening.         
Bottomley not only became a millionaire on his sending many thousands of young men to their deaths, but he was later jailed as a crook - too late to save the lives he helped take.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 04:24 AM

Rag,
You HAVE ACCUSED me of saying it was objectionable,

No I have not.

Dave,
I also agree that the festival is not objectionable

You stated, "I still find it objectionable either way and will not bother with it again."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM

About time Keith, you've convinced yourself overnight that you were right, that you've done nothing wrong. What a sad, gutless little man you are. We should feel sorry for you really. Just one thing I hope you are going to confess before you go to church on Sunday. You go on about people losing. Well you have lost. You have courage, you have lost all credibility, you have lost all honesty, you have lost integrity, you have lost trustworthiness, you have lost legitimacy. You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 04:44 AM

"Dave used the word and you always agree with him Rag"

Just to jog your poor memory.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:07 AM

I accused you of agreeing with Dave, not of saying anything Rag.
Whatever Dave says now, he said earlier that it was "objectionable."
I am not wasting another post on this nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:09 AM

You stated, "I still find it objectionable either way and will not bother with it again."

I did indeed Keith, and I still find the inclusion of a christian service in remembrance of non-christian fallen objectionable. I do not and have never found the remembrance objectionable. Which is what you are implying. Why don't you just admit that you misinterpreted my comment? I have no idea if it was accidental or malicious but I shall give you the benefit of the doubt. I will even help you by saying that I could have phrased it better. I don't mind. I have already clarified what I meant but assume you did not read that.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:13 AM

You couldn't apply that logic to the whole forum could you professor.


Not that it matters one way or the other. Once again you have clearly demonstrated your true colours.













A sort of shitty yellow.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:14 AM

What was the "it" you will not bother with again?
The Festival.
The service is an integral part of the Festival and always has been.
I said "They find the existing Festival "objectionable." "
The existing Festival includes the service.

Now I have wasted another post on your nonsense!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:16 AM

But I, Raggytash, did not type that did I?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:23 AM

I said "They find the existing Festival "objectionable."

You did indeed, Keith. No one else said it but you. I do not know how I can make it any more clear. I do not find the festival objectionable. I do find the inclusion of christian prayers for non-christians objectionable. I do not find you objectionable. I do find your abuse of the English language objectionable. I do not find buses objectionable. I do find people farting on them is. What is there to not understand?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:30 AM

"The fact thay you couldn't find Tommy Kenny in your "researches" is immaterial"

WTF!!!! - Can you actually READ Mr Carroll??? What part of this do you NOT UNDERSTAND???

"(I on the other hand did the research and found that in the entire First World War only six men with the name Thomas Kenny served in the British Army, the most likely candidate won the Military Medal - I also did the research and found that in the course of that war there was not one instance of anything even remotely resembling your Tommy Kenny's story ever having occurred)

Just in case you still don't understand that Mr Carroll - couldn't find Tommy Kenny - I FOUND ALL SIX OF THEM AND READ THEIR RECORDED WAR RECORDS - YOU PRAT

You on the other hand talked to a man in interview for three days and you checked and corroborated absolutely nothing. Of course you could prove me wrong by going back to your notes and interview tapes and tell us all:

1: What year your man joined the army
2: What regiment he served in
3: What theatre of war he served in
4: What action in fought in where members of the MFP or MMP lined up behind British soldiers to force them "over the top"
5: What action he fought in where he saw MFP or MMP shooting British soldiers for refusing to advance or for returning to their trenches

I can say with absolute certainty that you will provide none of those details because so eager were you to get all this "working class hero" bullshit down you forgot the one most important thing about researching and recording history - you forgot to check up and get corroboration and supporting background and information to validate what you had been told.

"You and your fellow jingoists have done this with every statement by veterans critical of the war raised in discussion - you prefer the offiucial establishment version rather than the words of those whoo actually fought."

Care to offer me any explanation as to how and why it was that the Tommy Kenny that you and your little group interviewed over a period of three days was the only person to have witnessed these things? Care to even examine how such acts could be carried out using reason and logic? You have never studied military history or battlefield archaeology, you simply have no grasp about what you are prattling on about.

A: How many Military Policemen would you need to force a regiment of infantry men over the top at gunpoint- let alone an entire Division? Reasonably and logically you as the military policemen would have to be better armed than the soldiers of that infantry regiment and you would have to have parity in numbers or superiority in numbers otherwise once you started shooting soldiers the soldiers would turn their guns on you. Tell me Jim, how many men served in the war as military policemen (IIRC they started in 1914 with a few hundred and finished in 1918 with around 25,000 covering an army that was 440,000 strong in 1914 and around 5,300,000 strong in 1918). You are completely hopeless when it comes to detail, perspective, logic or reason - you start out with your view and your preconceptions then go hell for leather to prove them irrespective of what substantive evidence tells you, if it doesn't fit your theory you ignore it.

B: The battlefield archaeology bit comes in here Jim - any idea how a system of trenches is laid out? How many different sorts of trenches there were and what their functions were - or do you think that Captain Blackadder's cosy little dug-out was what frontline trench warfare was all about? THE frontline trench if you look at all the pictures form the first world war just simply would not be big enough to allow space for those about to mount the attack and a line of men behind them ready to shoot them if they didn't go - that is just simple physical fact.

Your old man's tale never happened I say that because I have examined the allegation that it did, I have looked at it logically, I have applied reason to it, I have looked for anything at all that could even be remotely considered by way of corroboration and have found absolutely nothing to support this "Urban Myth" that you seem so sold on.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:49 AM

"What was the "it" you will not bother with again?
The Festival.
The service is an integral part of the Festival and always has been.
I said "They find the existing Festival "objectionable." "
The existing Festival includes the service." - Keith A

Game, Set & Match Gnome stop wriggling and trying to move the goalposts.

As far as the likes of you and Raggy go the "I never said that" line is a bit irritating and unnecessary really - neither of you ever say anything germane to any subject under discussion anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:52 AM

Part Two of the triple alliance boldly puts his foot forward. Is there no start to the bravery of these three illustrious gentlemen.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:52 AM

"WTF!!!! - Can you actually READ Mr Carroll??? What part of this do you NOT UNDERSTAND???"
Will you stop talking down to people, you bullying moron - you really aren't bright enough to do that to anybody.
It doesn't matter who Tommy Kenny was unless you are calling him a liar or claiming he is a figment of my imagination - his story exists as recorded as archived and was witness by John Faulkner and Sandra Kerr - so which is it to be - was Tommy lying or am I?
As for Tommy's story not existing elsewhere - probably the stupidest thing you have said to date
Tommy's story is identical to many accounts of World War One - young ben not able to find work, dissatisfied with their lives tricked into joining up by the promise of a regular job and the romance of travel and a unifirm to attract the girls - as old as warfare itself - utterly crass.
The army didn't need military policemen to force men to fight against their will - what king of stupid argument is that.
They had laws and the threat of imprisonment and the firing squad if, once enlisted or recruited, they refused to fight.
Please don't try to throw dust in my eyes with your supposed military knowledge (gained no doubt in the galley of your cross-channel ferry while you were washing the pots)
THe lads who fought and died were, by and largely r#tricked into doing so with false promises of a better world and other enticements - there are enough examples of ex-soldiers saying so - Harry Patch being one of them.
Their sacrifice deserved far more than your jingoistic establishment bollocks.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:56 AM

WTF are you on about Teribums? I said I do not find the festival objectionable but I do find the inclusion of christian prayers for non-christians objectionable. I have never said anything else. Just who is moving what goalposts?

neither of you ever say anything germane to any subject under discussion anyway.

If you believe that we are not worth talking to, who are the idiots that keep responding to us?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 06:02 AM

The only person moving goalposts is the professor as well you know.

Trying the defend the undefendable really doesn't suit you Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:03 AM

Talking down to people??

You said I had failed to find any record of a soldier named Tommy Kenny in answer to a post of mine where I had quite clearly stated that I had found not only one soldier named Tommy Kenny but six - clear example of Jim Carroll's inability to read and understand the English language and complete and utter lack of any powers of reasoning or logic.

"The army didn't need military policemen to force men to fight against their will - what king of stupid argument is that.
They had laws and the threat of imprisonment and the firing squad if, once enlisted or recruited, they refused to fight."

OK then Jim, when you first introduced us all to Tommy Kenny you did tell us all about Tommy telling you about MPs forcing British soldiers over the top at gunpoint? Did Tommy Kenny regale you with stories of MPs shooting British soldiers who refused to go over the top and for returning to their trenches? If he did he was lying because no such incidents EVER HAPPENED during the entire course of the First World War - if you think what I have said there is incorrect then please provide us with evidence that refutes what I have said - Please note: The word of one single man who YOU have not even been able to establish whether or not he even ever served as a soldier does not count. At the time of all the WWI threads none of your fellow travelers were able to come up with any other examples of this practice so how come YOUR Tommy was the only one to witness it? That sort of thing would have been impossible to keep quiet. Oh and here is another piece of information for you to consider, during the course of WWI the Military Foot Police and the Military Mounted Police never once shot a British soldier - not even those condemned to die by firing squad - soldiers from the condemned man's regiment had to form the firing squad. Standard and uniform issue of arms for the Military Police? A side arm, a service revolver.

"Tommy's story is identical to many accounts of World War One

Yet none of you who believe the myth about men being forced over the top at gunpoint can verify Tommy's story

" - young men not able to find work, dissatisfied with their lives tricked into joining up by the promise of a regular job and the romance of travel and a uniform to attract the girls - as old as warfare itself - utterly crass."

What on earth are you wittering on about? Is that seriously your argument? A bunch of tired old stereotypical cliches? Rather runs against the facts doesn't it with regard to the first two years of the First World War. Such as over 1,200,000 men rushing to join the British Army between August 1914 and December 1914 in overwhelming droves of VOLUNTEERS so great that the British Army of the day couldn't cope with the rush. By the time the War was over 2.6 million British men who had volunteered to join the armed forces and a further 2.7 million had been conscripted. EVERY other soldier who participated from Ireland, from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Newfoundland, India, South Africa, etc, etc - where conscription did not exist were ALL VOLUNTEERS.

"Please don't try to throw dust in my eyes with your supposed military knowledge"

For the purposes of this exchange Carroll it can clearly be seen who knows what they are talking about and who does not - you old son are absolutely clueless when it comes to this subject.

"THe lads who fought and died were, by and largely tricked into doing so with false promises of a better world and other enticements - there are enough examples of ex-soldiers saying so - Harry Patch being one of them."

Really?? Any documented examples of this? I don't think I will get any from you or your fellow travelers.

Your "Home before Christmas" was shown and clearly demonstrated as being a myth as far as the British Government and the British people were concerned.

The "country fit for heroes to live in"?? Never stated at any time during the war - so hardly a false promise - the line came from a speech delivered by David Lloyd George at Wolverhampton, Nov. 23, 1918 and subsequently quoted in The Times, Nov. 25, 1918. (Source: The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations" by Tony Augarde.)

Oh and Jim, and apologies to Eric Bogle, but not one single man who joined the British Armed Forces during the First World War, not one single General and not one single politician ever seriously believed for one single second that they were "fighting the war to end all war". Again here is David Lloyd George using the phrase:

"This war, like the next war, is a war to end war."

Harry Patch was one of the ones who said all that was he Carroll??

Well here is what Harry Patch did say about all that Jim:

Background - Harry Patch grew up in Coombe Down, near Bath. He left school at 15 and trained as a plumber. He was 16 when war broke out and reached 18 just as conscription was being introduced. Unlike many of the young men who smilingly signed up for death and dismemberment, he had no illusions.

What Harry DID say - "I knew what to expect. My mother had three sons. My oldest brother suffered from asthma. He didn't pass. My middle brother was a regular soldier. Royal Engineers. Serving in Africa. He was called home and wounded at Mons. I knew what it was going to be like: dirty, filthy, insanitary."

Those the words a man being told lies and coaxed with false promises and inducements?? Don't think so Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:15 AM

Harry Patch

Teribus please read paragraph 5 and then come back and tell me that Harry Patch was lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:47 AM

"Did Tommy Kenny regale you with stories of MPs shooting British soldiers who refused to go over the top and for returning to their trenches"
Nope - that was somebody else altogether in recollections of his grandfather - look the ***** thing up - you were given a link that was taken from the net.
The fact that it is inconvenient to your case does not make it a lie - it was told to the writer by his grandfather - another veteran who you choose to call a liar - you are adding to your score here by leaps and bounds - were there any World War One soldiers who told the truth, other the the ones who back your jingoism.
"A war to end all wars" was one of the ploys to get lads to joint up - it doesn't matter a toss which General believed it - certainly some of that lads did - you said so yourself, though not in so many words
"They died in order that you could be born and brought up and live in peace, security and liberty"
Another ploy was "a land fit for heroes to live in"
"The election was fought not so much on the peace issue and what to do with Germany, although those themes played a role. More important was the voters' evaluation of Lloyd George in terms of what he had accomplished so far and what he promised for the future. His supporters emphasised that he had won the Great War. Against his strong record in social legislation, he himself called for making "a country fit for heroes to live in""
SOME OF THE OTHER LIES
"Your "Home before Christmas" was shown and clearly demonstrated as being a myth"
No it wasn't - it was what many of the men went to the trenches believing - covered adequately in Paxman's programmes.
Doesn't matter a toss that those who spread it didn't believe it - that was the message circulated.
" The word of one single man who YOU have not even been able to establish whether or not he even ever served as a soldier does not count."
Again - not true - I attended his funeral and met some of those who knew him - he was the grandfather of a close friend - are you claiming that his family and friends invented his war-record?
Your jingoism gets more and more squalid
Harry Patch went on to say he had been conned and the war was not worth the sacrifice - you conveniently missed out the important bit.
Jim Carroll


.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:51 AM

Now boys, I think Colonel Blimp established his rather- err- idiosyncratic? and specious view of the First World War and war in general a long time ago, ably aided by The Professor.

What's the point of beating your heads against a brick wall?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:54 AM

"Another ploy was "a land fit for heroes to live in"
That should have been "a war to end all wars" of course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:56 AM

Ah Raggy another poor soul who cannot read:

Fifth Paragraph you say - is this:
"You got tots of rum.There were many a man who didn't like rum, didn't drink it. It used to warm you up. Life in the trenches, well…can you imagine now, going out from this room along the corridor and there is a trench dug across the lawn. Six feet deep and three feet wide. There is water and mud in the bottom. You sit on a trench at the side to sleep, don't matter whether it is wet, fine, hot or cold. Four days you are there and you got to stick it. That was the conditions."

Fifth Sub-section which is what I think you were referring so smugly to is this:

"Shell shock
You were in that trench. That was your front line. You had to keep an eye on the German front line. You daren't leave. No. I suppose if you left, and some of them did, they were shot as cowards. That is another thing with shell shock – I never saw anyone with it, never experienced it – but it seemed you stood at the bottom of the ladder and you just could not move. Shellshock took all the nervous power out of you.

An officer would come down and very often shoot them as a coward. That man was no more a coward than you or I. He just could not move. That's shell shock. Towards the end of war they recognised it as an illness. The early part of the war – they didn't. If you were there you were shot. And that was it. And there's a good many men who were shot for cowardice and they are asking now … that verdict be taken away. They were not cowards.

So Harry Patch, who, by his own admission never saw anyone with shellshock how on earth could he have possibly seen anyone shot because they suffered from it? A simple question I know Raggy but one I just thought I had to ask as what Harry seems to be doing is contradicting himself.

Now Jim Carroll's Tommy Kenny and the Musktwats when they were posting were very specific they alleged that British soldiers were shot by the Military Police or "REDTOPS" as Musktwat called them – here Harry Patch states British Officers shot shellshock victims that he himself never saw. Amounts somewhat to a great deal less than overwhelming proof doesn't it.

Nice try – carry on digging.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 09:20 AM

So is Harry Patch lying when he said "An officer would come down and very often shoot them as a coward"

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 09:59 AM

He was certainly wrong about it, but he never claimed to have witnessed such a thing.
There were no summary executions in the British Army.
There were in the Italian and French armies.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 10:11 AM

So he was lying. funny a lot of people do that in your book don't they.


Still waiting for an apology by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 10:17 AM

There were no summary executions in the British Army of WW1.
That is why you will find no account of one.
Why did Harry believe in them when he never saw one? Who knows?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 10:27 AM

So old Harry was lying. We'll have to rewrite that bit of his story. Sad really that the last survivor of WW1 was such a liar.

Still not had an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 11:17 AM

"There were no summary executions in the British Army of WW1."
There were no recorded accounts of summary executions - don't you mean.
There are numerous eye witness accounts of them taking place and the link I provided last time tells of a special group of military policemen there to carry them out when soldiers were reckoned not to have responded quickly enough to orders to go over the top - the writer describes it having been witnessed by to his grandfather (more "lies" I suppose - you fellers seem to get your kicks calling soldiers "liars" when they don't come up with the right answer.
The account that Tommy Kenny gave us was of soldiers being sentenced to death, locked away awaiting execution, then, if there was a push on, being taken out and put in the front line.
If they survived they were then placed back in prison and eventually executed.
Tommy burst into tears (all on tape) when he described how he got to know people in the trenches, fought beside them, then later read the notice that they had been executed - sheer ****** barbarism which sums up that obscene war perfectly.
Lets face it - we have virtually no information of how the ordinary Tommy felt about the war and his experiences.
The officers were the only ones allowed to keep diaries, and the men who defied orders and wrote things down would have been insane to the point of being suicidal had they wrote about how they felt.
It took nearly a century to make available some of those forbidden writingsand those few that are, obviously, censored.
We only have the word of people like tabloid journalist Max Hastings, who cut out his career in Hitler supporter's Daily Mail to tell us that the soldiers knew why they were fighting and that they supported the cause - hardly a reliable source!
Hurrah for the Blackshirts

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 12:00 PM

No summary executions?

Pedantic to say the least. A British court martial is still to this day of concern due to the inbuilt presumption of guilt and often biased military mindset in the judgement phase.

(Source - Amnesty International.)

Considering executions in WW1 were set up as a deterrent, the word summary is rather appropriate. Not that officers make good judgement over the lies of soldiers. If they did, they wouldn't try to win by sending waves of men over the top once they found it didn't fucking work...