BS: No poppies for me

Subject: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 03:15 PM

A footballer who plays for the Republic Of Ireland team has been criticised because he won't wear a poppy on his club shirt. The bloke is from Derry, a city with bitter memories of the depredations of British soldiers. Newsreaders and presenters have been vilified, abused even, for refusing to wear a poppy on the telly. We start seeing poppies weeks before Remembrance Day and we see great big ones tastelessly tied to the grilles of cars all the year round. Now Theresa May is having a bash at FIFA for being consistent in enforcing their no-symbols rule. The woman who hasn't a clue what she's going to do about brexit is telling someone else to get their house in order. Jeremy Corbyn is watched like a hawk by the sewer press to see what colour poppy, if any, he'll wear. Poppy-wearing has become politicised, and, as ever, it's the Tory right-wing little-Englander mindset that makes the fiercest noises.

It's been called poppy fascism and it's a good term for it. You WILL wear a poppy, or else. I think it's very sad, and I don't blame the British Legion for it at all. Poppies are being hijacked. I won't wear a poppy because I hate the militarisation of remembrance ceremonies and the overbearing presence of royalty at them. They of all people have plenty to be thankful for to those who sacrificed their lives, that's for sure, but it sometimes looks like a contest to see which prince or duke can drip with the most medals.

I'll put a quid in the poppy-seller's tin and I won't harangue him, but my poppy will go straight in the bin.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Mr Red
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 04:13 PM

say what you will about large poppies on the noses of cars but, and it is a big but.......

when the police can no longer cope with rioters in Croydon, who ya gonna call? Other antagonists have been available. Still are.

it is such a small thing to say "lest we forget", an ultimate call for peace.

they wus saying it before Lennon got his publicity wagon rolling.

lest we forget - because some people have. Yoof hasn't experienced it, doesn't have the lexicon to go with the concept.

You'll be asking them to put their bodies on the line when it matters. Get you thanks in NOW!

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Senoufou
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 04:21 PM

The Royal British legion has six care homes and runs no end of projects for disabled ex-servicemen and women and their families, from psychiatric help, counselling, financial support, rehabilitation for amputees and funding for Remembrance visits by veterans to overseas military cemeteries.
I'm perfectly happy to contribute to this work by buying a poppy, and in fact we both obtained one today in Tesco.
If someone doesn't want to wear a poppy, then they needn't do so. It's a free country (thanks to the brave folk who fought against our enemies during two World Wars)

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 04:40 PM

I had always considered myself pacifist but still recognise the great sacrifice others have made, and of course the suffering incurred by non combatants. Consequently I usually buy a poppy in recognition of this, the help of ex servicemen , and the fact that there are no easy answers.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 04:56 PM

I wear a poppy all year round - I have the small metal ones (buttons, I think they call them). I do it in remembrance of those called to make sacrifices that I've never been called to make, and in grateful thanks that their sacrifices have given me the freedom to do things that I might not otherwise have had.

If others choose not to wear a poppy, that's fine - it's one of the freedoms I mentioned above. But they'd better not get shitty with me because I do choose to wear one.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 05:41 PM

I think the UK suffers from a false patriotism.


I do believe that there have been people giving their life for our country. I further believe that even if I don't always agree with the cause (Iraq would be one big one for me) there are people who served with good faith and came out damaged who need support.

What troubles me is what I perceive as a form of jingoism and a nation looking inwards on itself. I suppose it depends on where one stands but it is another reflection of the Brexit mentality to me.

It's not about giving, sure even I would put a quid in a poppy jar. It's about where I think things are heading.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: bobad
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 05:54 PM

What Backwoodsman said.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 06:08 PM

I put a fiver in the poppy tin today at Tesco's (it's usually whatever random change (however much), but I wasn't carrying any). It was the most astonishingly crisp, new (and I do mean new - the new version of the fiver; first one I've seen) note I've had in recent times. There were two ladies manning (yes, manning; don't get me started on the misuse of English! :p ) the table. Both were elderly; the one standing could certainly have passed for 65, the one sitting must have been 85 at least. "What can we sell you, then", said the sitting one. It wasn't quite a "When shall we three meet again" cackle, bless her, but it wasn't far off. "Nothing", I said, "I don't do display. I always give; I just don't 'do' display". Both laughed delightedly.

Thousands upon thousands of Irish volunteered in WWI, thousands died. At that time, Ireland was wholly under British rule and, it can be argued, until the British government totally buggered up their handling of the Easter Uprising, most Irish probably didn't really care who ruled. Whatever they thought, so many volunteered. A small minority, certainly, avowedly didn't. They actively allied themselves with Imperial Germany on the grounds that that might free them. And many, many Irish, at the time, regarded them as traitors. Doing it in peace was one thing, doing it in time of war...

And no, I'm not making any judgements. I'm just saying. WWII? I really don't know. I know that Eire's position was one of neutrality. Did that stop their nationals volunteering? No, it did not. My thanks to them - they still volunteered in their droves. One estimate is that around 250,000; over 8% of the population; left Eire to work or to serve. For whatever reasons.

If you don't want to wear a poppy, don't wear it. If you do, do. Don't judge because they will or they won't, or because you will or you won't. Different people have different things to remember, and different ways of remembering. I never display, Steve. I never take a poppy. I always give. And I always remember. Not on Remembrance Sunday. I ignore Remembrance Sunday. At the 11th Hour on the 11th Day of the 11th Month.

That is the time for Remembering. Always.

I wouldn't dream of "my poppy [going] straight in the bin". Whatever your quibbles, there you go too far, I think. Remember & honour. Don't quibble.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 06:21 PM

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

I hope that sometime I can write something even a fraction as memorable and evocative.

I put my donation in the tin (plastic?) every year, and take a new poppy if I don't already have one from a previous year.
I'm an inveterate hat wearer, either to keep the sun off, or (more usually)the rain. 50 weeks of the year my hat sports a Welsh daffodil (supporting Wales & Marie Curie cancer care) the other two weeks it sports a poppy.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 06:58 PM

I visit the spot several times a year, on tbe cliffs near Pentire Head in north Cornwall, where those words were composed. There's a little plaque with those words overlooking one of the finest views you could wish to see.

Herewith lies my problem:

"If others choose not to wear a poppy, that's fine - it's one of the freedoms I mentioned above. But they'd better not get shitty with me because I do choose to wear one."

No-one is going to "get shitty" with you for wearing your poppy. I have no idea why you felt you had to express that so aggressively. The whole issue is with just a few poppy-wearers (as well as the gutter press and Theresa May) "getting shitty" with people who exercise the choice you say we have, or, in FIFA's case, being consistent in keeping a long-standing rule. It seems to me that the choice that people in the public eye have got to not to wear a poppy is coming with an awful lot of hawkish flak. Poppy fascism. I gave you examples, and there are plenty more. No-one that I know of ever craps on people who wear poppies.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 07:11 PM

Because they'd better not get shitty with me because I do choose to wear one.

There's a great deal of shittiness around the Internet on the topic of wearing, or not wearing, a poppy. I've dealt with one such on another forum just this evening, who chose to berate me for my choice to wear a poppy. I don't heap shit on people who don't wear a poppy, and I don't take shit from them either.

Alles klaar?

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: ranger1
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 08:45 PM

As an American, I'm generally in the minority because I DO wear a poppy on Veteran's Day, as it's called on this side of the Atlantic. I wear it to honor family members who served, and also to educate those who don't know what it symbolizes. And there are many of them over here. I had to explain to my younger co-workers last year that Veteran's Day is also Armistice Day and that it always falls on the 11th. Then I had to explain what Armistice Day was and why the date and time are significant. I'm not that old, I'm 47, and I had a hard time dealing with the fact that something I think should have been common knowledge wasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: ranger1
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 08:47 PM

But Steve, I get where you're coming from. I feel the same way about all the flag-waving over here at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 09:47 PM

Dunno whether a post of mine got lost or whether it got shot down, just before yours, ranger. Basically, I advised Backwoodsman to avoid the forum that he gets flak from and keep his blood pressure down. Anyone who gets shit BECAUSE they wear a poppy is a rarity, and his aggression on that front is misplaced. Talk about making an issue where there isn't one. The problem is with people abusing non-poppy wearers, not the other way round. It's been called poppy fascism and it's a damn shame. Even some WWII veterans have stopped wearing poppies because of it. Anyway, cheers, ranger. I think there's an implicit link between flag-waving and poppy politicisation and I think it's very disappointing.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 02:57 AM

The problem is with people abusing non-poppy wearers, not the other way round. It's been called poppy fascism and it's a damn shame."

No, that's the biased POV of a non-poppy wearer. The problem is with people of either persuasion abusing those who don't share their practice.

As I said at the beginning, it's personal choice - I choose to wear the poppy but I don't criticise non-wearers for not doing so, they have the right. By the same token I will not, and do not, accept criticism from those to don't wear poppies. This incident was by no means the first time I've been accused of 'celebrating' war simply because I choose to wear an emblem of remembrance.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 04:03 AM

The whole idea of professional footballers embracing the poppy emblem to improve their tarnished profile is a shame.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 04:23 AM

Well, scratching my head, all I can say is that it's a very lop-sided problem.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 04:32 AM

Then we must agree to disagree and let it go.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 04:57 AM

I'll take that as a suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Mr Red
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 06:09 AM


What troubles me is what I perceive as a form of jingoism and a nation looking inwards on itself.

confirmation bias card played there IMNSHO.

Trying (OK as best I can) to be objective and see both viewpoints I still re-iterate:

"lest we forget".
War is brutal. Peace is the reason we should remember. And how ya gonna get a settled public who have no concept of the privations of being occupied, to realise? A poppy is a small price to pay for peace. Not a cure, but give me your sure fire method to ensure peace for our time.

Geeze - just because Trump and Farrage and Assad et al are jingoistic, doesn't mean the humble poppy is. Christ - get real people. Lambaste the leaders that seek to misuse it!

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 06:30 AM

I don't think anyone should be bullied into wearing a poppy. Some people don't seem to realise this choice is the sort of freedom we were supposed to be fighting for. However, there is an alternative to the red poppy if it offends you: the white Peace poppy sold by the Peace Pledge Union.

RtS
(who as a wishywashy liberal, sorta Quaker who lost uncles in both World Wars will be wearing red to remember them and white to wish nobody else should have to die.)

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 07:15 AM

Amen to that. The footballer and the newsreaders do have the freedom to not wear the poppy. They and everyone else now need freedom from the pressure to wear it. It isn't the poppy or the British Legion that's to blame. The poppy fascism is fuelled mainly by the right-wing press.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 07:15 AM

To those who think poppies should be banned. I believe that when your parents die or your children... photographs of them should be banned.... or is that totally different??~?~?

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 07:18 AM

How FIFA who are mainly from European countries other than GB and all of whom we saved from the Nazis in the second world war, have the gall to say our footballers can't wear a poppy in rememberance of the people who sacrificed their lives to save them beggars belief.

We should salute FIFA with another good old British symbol, the two finger salute.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 07:46 AM

FIFA regard the poppy as a political statement. Political statements are not allowed to be displayed in international matches. I'm afraid that it's the poppy fascists who have turned the poor old poppy into a political statement and I agree with FIFA. I don't generally agree with FIFA about anything much, I hasten to add.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 08:50 AM

Fifa was OK for the Irish team to wear a shirt commemorating the 1916 rising.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 10:15 AM

Poppies are only part of the problem, which is a strategy of social control by the right: sacralising the military. Any old ex-thug gets to be a "hero" if they once wore a British Army uniform, and public spaces get taken over by stone and concrete oblongs that we are supposed to treat as temples because they have a list of names on them. There was a new piece of expensive military advertising put up in Glasgow only last week.

The issue is not remembering past wars, it's about remembering what a bunch of murderous arseholes started, profited by, and fought them. Blocks of stone in the street and red paper pasties are about forgetting that, not remembering it. Where are the memorials in Britain to the torture victims of Abu Ghraib? The sailors of the Belgrano? The thousands of Sudanese machinegunned by the British heroes under command at Omdurman? - there could be a separate memorial to mark how much blood Winston Churchill had on his hands for that, but it isn't going to happen, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 10:28 AM

A red poppy with a white feather pinned to it in remembrance of the fallen soldiers & civilian victims of wars,
whilst also commemorating the harsh shameful persecution of conscientious objectors to volunteering or being coerced by conscription...?????

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 11:33 AM

We need to remember the perpetrators more than the victims.

Is there some poppy variant that says "remember Blair, Thatcher, Churchill - greedy psychopathic shitbags the lot of them" or "remember the British torturers who Theresa May won't allow to be put on trial"? I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 12:03 PM

A white poppy spattered with droplets of blood red...

optional £ and $ shaped green leaves...????? 🤔

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 01:16 PM

"The whole idea of professional footballers embracing the poppy emblem to improve their tarnished profile is a shame." Ake, I criticise you from time to time for talking tripe (unlike some 'catters, I know you mean well, even though you frequently express it badly), but just this once, I'm going to call you names. As well as using a word I don't think you'll like. Possibly several times.

Stop being such an almighty fucking idiot. Who are you to say what professional footballers embrace? Who the fuck are you to pronounce on why they are wearing a poppy? Has it occurred to you that they might actually WANT to wear it? Be PROUD to wear it? Let's face it, Ake, footballers are regarded as being as thick as two short planks anyway. That makes them prime material to believe in small-minded jingoistic shit (if that's how anyone wants to regard poppy wearing). And what "tarnished image" are you talking about? In your eyes? You're fucking blind, pal!

I don't believe that the FA, the SFA, and WFA, are asking for this so that they can "force" players to wear a poppy. Not least because they are only asking for the same compromise that happened 5 years ago - armbands. Not poppies on the shirt, armbands. I don't believe that any of the footballers will be wearing it for any reason OTHER THAN that they wish to pay their respects (and also, perhaps, to be seen to do so).

I do think it is thoroughly undecent of you (and out of keeping with your general good nature) to suggest such a thing. Shame on you, Ake. Ya feckin eejit! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 01:33 PM

I couldn't give a monkeys about football...

But at a time when the game is making positive efforts to encourage inclusivity & tolerance,
then at the very least this row between a bunch of too rich ball kickers and their law givers
really should spotlight the of story of Walter Tull....?????? 🙄

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/03/walter-tull-black-football-pioneer-military-cross-tottenham

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 01:52 PM

Who the fuck are you to pronounce on why they are wearing a poppy? Has it occurred to you that they might actually WANT to wear it? Be PROUD to wear it?

There are probably a lot of American athletes who would be proud to wear the Confederate flag. Would that make it okay?

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 02:06 PM

I'd say "Apples and Oranges", false reasoning, a complete red-herring.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 02:16 PM

And I'd agree, Back. Thank you. I couldn't be bothered to reply to your "Condescending bullshit" comment, Jack. And here's a perfect example of why...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 02:43 PM

I couldn't be bothered to reply to your "Condescending bullshit" comment, Jack.

You just did reply - but the comment doesn't exist except in your head. I didn't use those words in this thread and neither did anybody else.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 03:02 PM

No, Jack, I didn't reply to the remark that isn't here. It's in the "Whither Humanity" thread; one of the very few I've ever started. It was a bloody stupid response that showed little understanding of what you were answering and no reason why anyone should want to try. Much like your utterly irrelevant "Confederate Flag" comment above.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 03:41 PM

Let's just agree that all footballers are utterly thick, overpaid ball-kickers except for those who play for Liverpool FC, who are supremely intelligent, gifted and balletic athletes who grace any turf they happen to alight on.

There. A perfectly agreeable compromise, with which I know you'll all concur.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 03:46 PM

Shaw, you remain a Scouse git. A Manky Scouse git apparently, but a Scouse git, nevertheless! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 03:54 PM

..so did you hear about the thick footballer who got taken to court by the RSPCA for pinning a puppy to his coat pocket...????? 😈

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 04:31 PM

Radcliffe is eight miles north of Manchester and my parents still live just half a mile from t'Gigg. Not Manky. I hardly know the place. We still share that visceral hatred, along with tens of thousands of other families, of M*n U. The only way out all this was a dash along the East Lancs Road. I can't expect you to comprehend.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 04:31 PM

Raedwulf, you can call me anything you like and I'll smile 'cos I think I know you're one of the good guys.

I used to play football, and I can tell you that on the park you don't think of the fuckin' Somme.....where my grandfather fought.

You think about winning a stupid game by fair means or foul...sorry nowadays it's chiefly foul, prancing prim donna's diving like salmon pulling jerseys trying to turn deception into an art and being massively overpaid into the bargain.

Keep the money grabbing egomaniacs away from anything which resembles emotion, for surely, they'll shit all over it.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 04:39 PM

Anyway it's "indecent"....who are you callin' a eejit? :0)

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 04:41 PM

You been runnin'around wiv that Steve Shaw???

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 05:36 PM

It was undecent for a reason, Ake. Mostly because undecent isn't indecent, to be truthful! ;-) There are several prolific posters on this forum who would not / do not believe you are capable of being fair-minded. There are several who consider you a bigot. You know this.

You WERE being unfair. You were sticking a great big label on all professional footballers. You have no idea what they believe or why they believe it. Surprising as it may seem, it is possible for people who are privileged to give a shit (whether 'privilege' comes from achievement, money, prestige, family & friends, or whatever). On those grounds alone... Yes. You're an eejit. Of several varieties. Why should anyone shit on anything? Because they're fuckwits? Oh, yes. Now, when was being a fuckwit ever restricted to only the rich & powerful, eh? ;-)

And Steve - "8 miles north of..." Yer talking to a Londoner, mate. 8 Miles is about, oh, Ta'ar 'Amlets. Yer feckin central! (Yes, I exaggerate a bit. Where would be the fun if I didn't? :p ) I do realise that sheep can distinguish one sheep from another sheep. At least, I presume they can. But nevertheless, if it's got four legs, a wooly coat and that sort of face....

It doesn't exactly help that yer fleece remains red! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 05:40 PM

Oh awright! ah'm an eejit.....this time, bit no' ivry time eh?

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 05:50 PM

This chap puts it far better that I can

Afternoon in August

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 06:40 PM

Don't give me your Tower Hamlets bollix. I worked there for seven years, lived there in Robin Hood Gardens, met the missus there who was a teacher in Ben Jonson in Stepney, got married there (cheers, Father Burke), has a rollicking vicious argument with Bishop Victor, Bishop of Stepney there, was an NUT hard leftie there...best years of my life, they were. I saw my mate Blair Peach murdered while I lived there. That wasn't too great, but the one thing that Blair showed me was that racism is the biggest evil on this planet and that decent people never, ever let a racist incident, remark, post or article go without attacking it back. I even went to a West Ham match once. On the way to Upton Park some twat in our tube carriage pulled the cord and we were swamped by less than friendly cops. Bloody miracle that we got to see the game at all. Southern gits.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 07:19 PM

Small world.. my mrs worked in schools in Tower Hamlets and Forest Gate...
.. and I had a shite telephone marketing job just around the corner from the West Ham ground...

Last job I ever wore a suit and tie to work... the boss effed off suddenly and never paid us..

One quiet evening after work my mate got bottled by a schizophrenic in a big pub by the stadium....

That was a good quarter century ago...

A black African girl on our marketing team convinced herself I was a Jew
and thereafter refused to socialise with me...

Another member of the team thought I was Canadian...?????

East London ..eh..???? 😕

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 08:11 PM

Yebbut you could also meet the salt of the earth. Stood on the picket line with the fire brigade blokes at Poplar, the hospital workers at St Andrews and the school caretakers and cleaners in the schools down Commercial Road at six in the morning, and they taught me everything I know about how to be a real human being. The buggers all nicked my fags, of course...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 10:49 AM

Locally, attempts to find a British Legion rep to read In Memoriam at a church service had great difficulty- the three local BL branches had closed as members were falling and remaining ones too old to carry them forward. It seems modern ex-servicemen don't want to be part of it. In a generation the whole Legion movement may be dead, leaving only Help for Heroes to fill the gap.

RtS

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 03:02 PM

Steve - LOL is all I can say. East London - people just like everyone everywhere else, reely! Yer still Manky, though. Be thankful. As a Southern Git, I could just point out that everywhere north of Watford Gap & south of Scotland is Yaaaaarkshuuuure! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 03:07 PM

Don't give me any of that Yorkshire shite!



How does a Yorkshireman make an omelette?

First, he nicks three eggs...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 04:02 PM

Pinch three eggs he might, but he'd only use two. He'd sell the other one to pay for the gas.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: keberoxu
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 04:19 PM

The observation about the Legion reminded me:

"....the forgotten heroes of a forgotten war
And the young people ask me,
What are they marching for?
And I ask myself the same question

And the band plays Waltzing Matilda
And the old men still answer the call
But year after year
Their numbers get fewer
Someday no one will march there at all"

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 06:40 AM

As a Mancy immigrant in Yorkshire I have to say the mantra on rising every day

Hear all, see all, say nowt
Eat all, drink all, pay nowt
And if thi does owt for nowt, do it fur thisen

But as a Manc born and bred I cannot resist a dig at Liverpool

Why did they dig the Mersey tunnel? The Scousers would have nicked a bridge.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 10:45 AM

Typical. Trust a Yorkshireman to fail a spelling test. It's Manky, Dave (not, necessarily, Manky Dave...)! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 11:19 AM

Slight problem there Raedwulf, Dave is as Lancashire as 'otpot.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 11:31 AM

That's two of us he's accused of being bloody tykes. Find out where he drinks, Dave...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 11:53 AM

:D

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 12:48 PM

The Legion may be dwindling, but Remembrance parades are better supported every year, both here and in Australia.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 02:29 PM

Manky is being full of mank
Mancy is being from Manchester

I wish someone would re-instate that Watford Gap...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 02:32 PM

I never realised it had been taken away... :o That's why there's so many of you foreign buggers dahn 'ere then! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 05:35 PM

I once bumped into Jimmy Hill at Watford Gap. Ancient joke:


Little boy: "Miss, does that Jimmy Hill spend a lot of time on ships?"

Teacher: "Well I don't know! Why do you ask?"

Little boy: "Cos every time he comes on telly, my dad shouts 'Jimmy Hill, you anchor!'"




Bought me poppy today by the way. Can't not buy one. Don't ask me why.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 07:47 PM

I once knew a girl called Poppy. Shame that here parents did not foresee the consequences. I think Mr and Mrs Tupper have a lot to answer for...

Been driving around a bit tonight to pick up GnomeDotter #1 on her way back from a do and I saw loads and loads of people wandering about on their way to or from bonfire things. I will be very surprised if anything like that number are attending remembrance services. When the majority of people would rather celebrate the death of a Catholic rebel from 1600 and odd than remember those who died in more recent wars does it not indicate that people are not really that bothered by the poppy?

Just asking...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 08:48 PM

Well I didn't start this thread in order to diss the poppy or the sentiment behind wearing it. My great Uncle Jimmy was shot to pieces at Suvla Bay in 1915, aged 19, remembered now just by me and my old mum, even though neither of us knew him, obviously. He's not buried anywhere and, though his name may be carved on some memorial on the Dardanelles and (misspelled for chrissake) in Salford Cathedral, he's lost to the world except in the collective memory of all the people who observe remembrance. Had he grown old and had kids and grandchildren, our family would have been very different and we'd be raising a glass to the memory of an old bugger who, as it turned out, never had the chance to grace us or disgrace us. I can't knock that, though Jack's post chimes with me big time. I find the whole bloody complicated thing very troubling, to be honest. Anyway, my quid went in the tin but my poppy's staying in the drawer. Best I can muster.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Nov 16 - 09:39 PM

I dont think i've worn a poppy since primary school in the 1960s..

it dos'nt seem to have become such a divisive issue until the the last few years...???

My great grandad volunteered for the first world war in his 40s..

He dug shrapnel out of his own body and carried on...

My grandad who was a boy soldier from orphanage to middle age
was amongst the first to serve in france in the 2nd world war and sickened by having to obliterate a line of germans on a bridge as he escaped dunkirk
carrying
a wounded officer on his back


i'm guessing the surviving soldiers from the last 2 world wars might think the nasty militant pro poppy fascists are a bunch of cunts..

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Acorn4
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 05:10 AM

Personally, if I was a footballer, I wouldn't be listening to any lectures on morality from F.I.F.A.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 07:57 AM

They are not lecturing anyone on morality. They are applying a long-standing rule. If you don't like the rule, that's what you should be arguing about. No need to make things up.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 08:40 AM

Well whatever, at 8pm CET on Remembrance Sunday, 13th November, I'll be standing at the Menin Gate in Ypres for the ceremony, and I'll be wearing my poppy-buttons for this year and the previous two years. Wearing them in sadness, and in Remembrance of millions of young men and women who have been called upon to make the sacrifice, and in gladness and gratitude that I, my family and my friends have never had to make the same sacrifice.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 08:02 PM

No they're not, Steve. They're misapplying an otherwise perfectly sensible rule. The poppy isn't political, religious, or commercial. And the mess that they've made of things is indicated by the fact that they jumped on the poppy toot de sweet (sic), but they are only just now, much after the fact, going after Eire for having an Easter '16 commemoration on their shirts some time ago...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: bobad
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 08:12 PM

i'm guessing the surviving soldiers from the last 2 world wars might think the nasty militant pro poppy fascists are a bunch of cunts..

I'm guessing this poster is a cunt.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 09:15 PM

Well I don't like very much about FIFA at all. I do regard the poppy as having been politicised, which is very unfortunate. We may have to disagree about that. FIFA are applying a rule which may well be a bad rule - matter of opinion I suppose. As long as they're consistent in applying their rules, that's fine. I remain to be convinced that they are doing.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 11:28 PM

Bob - I'd rather be a cunt, than a bitter slimy calloused warty crusty twisted prick.... 😣

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 06 Nov 16 - 11:41 PM

Btw..I have utmost respect and sadness for the fallen military personel.. I just don't wear poppies...

I don't wear poppies, not as some kind of active protest.. I just don't wear 'em..

Same as there's loads of other things I never wear... watches, rings, bracelets, necklaces, badges, tattoos.. ties, hats..
any clothing displaying logos or slogans.. etc..

The only form of decorative adornment I have little choice but to wear is my glasses..

simple as that.

There is a proper big word for folks of my strict minimalist persuasion [cunt might be as good as any]
but for the moment I am sleepy and can't remember it...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: mg
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 02:41 AM

I will wear a poppy on Nov 11 and there is no way that date should ever every every be fiddled with. I could care less if people here do or do not wear them. As long as people do not go around abusing veterans on that day of all days, I am pretty OK with everything else. Of course many will abuse veterans, but it is considered declasse these days so that little scourge is dying out.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: keberoxu
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:18 PM

What this reminds me of, actually, is a situation that comes up in the United States in the month of October. Everything goes PINK. As in, raising funds for research to find a cure for breast cancer. The Internet is especially vulnerable to the pink pressure in October. I have seen statements from people who despise the whole paint-October-pink routine, usually people whose families or loved ones have been affected by breast cancer in some direct way.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:25 PM

the way society is going.. it wont be long before individuals are pilloried and attacked for not wearing red noses and pudsey bear merchandise..

.. i feel it in the air.. I'm getting scared.... 😨

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:37 PM

Every July(ish) we have Race For Life all over the UK to raise funds for cancer research. It isn't specifically for breast cancer but it is an all-women event. Mrs Steve has done the 5k race every year for the last ten years at Barnstaple. Everyone wears pink and the event is incredibly well supported, so there's a sea of pink just outside the sports centre as they all warm up. I'm not totally hunkydory when it comes to charities, not because I'm mean but because, though people's good-heartedness in action can only be a good thing, I can't work out why civilised societies should need charities at all. But Race For Life is a lovely sight and a heart-warming, uncontroversial event. And very pink indeed!

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:46 PM

out of curiosity.. I see the non stop parade of smart suit wearing spokespersons on BBC news,
nearly all 'proudly [?]' displaying poppies....

Is the way the single green leaf worn, some kind of coded significant secret meaning.. ?????

All poppies are worn on the left lapel, but the leaf can be either pointing left, right, or upwards...

... not seen one pointing downwards yet... ??? 😕

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:55 PM

So you're worried that you haven't seen a two-lobed red thing with a long dangly bit underneath...? 😜

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 08:25 PM

A personal choice, regardless of whatever the reason for an individual decision.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 09:21 PM

Steve - we can disagree about the poppy. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I do actually think FIFA's rule is a good rule. I just think that you are massively wrong in your 'politicisation' opinion, just the same as I think that FIFA are massively misapplying something that the rule simply does not cover.

As for other comments made to me on other threads... Meh. It's that sort of mindless nonsense that led me to fall out of the Mudcat habit. At least there's one person here I can have have a vaguely sensible natter with, Even if he is Yaaa... *ahem* Norrverrn! ;-)

Punkie - It's called "I don't do display". I don't wear my team's shirt; I don't fly the flag (England or UK); I don't wear a poppy. I give every year, but I never wear a poppy. I know I gave; I don't feel any need to broadcast it. I know that broadcasting it is also a good thing. It's just not me. I think you'll understand... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 09:46 PM

Well, as soon as you start criticising people for not wearing a poppy, or see the tabloids remarking on it, or see the media watching people like Corbyn like a hawk to see whether he'll wear a red one, a white one or none at all, or watch the Graham Norton Show or Question Time or Strictly to discern who is or who isn't wearing one, you've politicised the poppy. The British Legion hate that scrutiny but it's out of their hands. Suppose you decide that you'll let the England team wear poppies after all. What happens then is that you'll scrutinise the pre-match lineup to see who isn't wearing one, and if one player isn't wearing one he'll be all over the tabloids next day. So they'll wear one anyway in order to avoid that. That's the politicised poppy for you. There's the pressure. Of course you don't have to wear one. But if you're in the public eye you'll be noticed, bigtime, if you don't. And criticised. That's politics writ large.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 10:38 PM

There's a difference between scrutiny & comment. I think this was, sort of, where I came in, wasn't it? If you want to wear it, wear it. If you don't want to wear it, it doesn't matter whether you're like me or PFR, who don't do display, or like the Derry footballer who thinks he has reasons why he shouldn't.

Argue the toss all you want. So long as you remember. I suppose even arguing the toss counts as remembrance. So long as you remember why you're arguing the toss... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 06:30 AM

I'm not arguing with you. Just pointing out that not wearing a poppy, or wearing the wrong poppy, will attract attention to you if you happen to be in the public eye. That's a fact borne out by the experiences of yer footballer, the Norton Show guest and by Jeremy Corbyn. You don't HAVE to wear it, but if you don't somebody, somewhere, will highlight you. There's pressure - not much, but pressure - to wear one even if you'd rather not. That's adding a veneer of politics on to what should be entirely non-political. I'm not in the public eye, but when I put my quid in the tin last week I found myself explaining to the rather surprised lady why I wasn't taking a poppy. In the end Mrs Steve just took my poppy and shoved it in her handbag in furtherance of a quiet life. The poppy carries a symbolism that I'd rather not display. I don't want people thinking that my non-wearing is another kind of symbolism. It isn't. I support Liverpool but I don't walk around Bude wearing a replica home shirt, do I? (No, I don't!). The fact that I'm not seen going to Mass on Sunday isn't necessarily to be taken as a sign that I'm anti-religion (I am, as it happens, but I'd far sooner convey that to you by telling you in words or making meself a nuisance with it on Mudcat).

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 08:42 AM

I have just come upon a compromise that works for me. I am pretty ambivalent about the wearing of the poppy and tend not to do it but, like others, I still buy one. I just bought mine at work and have stuck it on a picture of my Grandsons. A real reminder of why we should never let it happen again!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 09:26 AM

Our local British legion used to serve a damn fine cheap pint of rough cider..

I reckon I contributed more than my fair share towards Legion charities every weekend
whilst enjoying a hearty refreshing booze up in good convivial company..

plus my mrs payed to play the bingo with some old dears she got friendly with...

Then sadly our legion was closed down...

Now it's just the poppy collection, and increasingly bullying societal pressure to conform...

I preferred the legion cider and a good night out...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Peter the Squeezer
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 01:54 PM

I don't wear one - because I don't make a show of my charitable giving. However, I will always contribute to the appeal, because of the valuable work the British Legion do for armed forces families. The people in HM armed forces volunteered for their work, their spouses knew what they were taking on, but their children have no choice in the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 03:26 PM

I'm afraid I'm more in Jack Campin's camp on this. Yes the charities in question do a job that needs doing and I would never diss their efforts. My quid went in the tin as it does every year. But even the Germans had God on their side. The bastard Hun who shot my great Uncle Jimmy to pieces at Suvla Bay was only a bastard Hun by accident of birth. Can't think of Uncle Jimmy without thinking of him as well. He doesn't get much of a mention in any of our military parades on Remembrance Day. That's why I'll buy a poppy but won't pin it on.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 07:03 PM

"The bastard Hun who shot my great Uncle Jimmy to pieces at Suvla Bay was only a bastard Hun by accident of birth." - Steve Shaw

Suvla Bay in 1915? Then that would be a "bastard" Turk who was part of their Fifth Army wouldn't it Shaw and while your great Uncle may have reason and cause to refer to him in such terms, you most certainly have not. Your great Uncle Jimmy who you obviously never knew, volunteered to serve and fight for his country was in no way whatsoever different from whoever it was in the Turkish Fifth Army who killed him who was simply fighting for and defending his country.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 07:31 PM

Quite so. Not a Hun, a Turk. It's been a long day and I went to bed disconsolate at half past three this morning. The fact that Uncle Jimmy was killed by a Turk and not a German hardly affects the sentiment of what I was saying. Thank you for the polite correction. .

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 07:33 PM

And actually, Teribus, your final sentence makes my point for me.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Nov 16 - 02:19 AM

Last point Shaw? Well not really, in your case that point was rather negated by the "bastard" appellation that preceded it.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 10 Nov 16 - 09:51 PM

How long are you supposed to wear your poppy for, to get full value for money...???

Only it's very early morning Fri 11 Nov, and as one of today's deals
Amazon have just discounted their stock of Royal British Legion Poppy Jewellry Brooches..

The problem is they wont be delivered until at least Monday.....


Though, I suppose if they dont change the design too much, you can put them in a drawer for next year.... 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 01:59 AM

I wear my metal poppy-button all year, until they begin to sell the next year's buttons. Remembrance shouldn't just be for one day.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 05:32 AM

Steve - I didn't suggest you were arguing with me; that was a more general comment. I did say "vaguely sensible natter", dear boy! ;-)

As for Remembrance, funnily enough I had this conversation with a friend of a friend a couple of days ago... Germany has its own Remembrance Day, as do most nations. For many, it is also 11:00 11/11, though not for Germany. But they, too, remember their own (if they wish). And there's no rule over who you remember. Most people remember only the war dead, and probably of their own side. As a history buff, with, oh, 1880-ish to 1918-ish being a particular interest, I know a great deal about WWI, and a pretty fair amount about WWII. I remember all of the war dead. The only real difference between them was the colour of their uniforms...

Incidentally, there used to be a perception that the Turks were descendants of the Huns (the real Huns; if you want to know the derivation of the pejorative, google it!). It's incorrect, but you weren't entirely wrong. ;-)

And, in 30 mins, it'll be that time again. Eleventh Hour of the Eleventh Day of the Eleventh Month. The only time that really counts...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 05:50 AM

I observe the silence and my annual quid went into the tin. I'll think of great Uncle Jimmy, killed at nineteen a hundred years ago two thousand miles away from Salford and unburied still, and wonder if he ever knew what he was fighting for. Of course I never knew him, Teribus, but I do know that he was a fine young man whose death changed our family line forever in ways we can't know. I can just about cope with human-scale thinking of that kind. Human scale? Read the Teresa Hooley poem I posted on the Armistice Day thread (one of'em anyway). That's the way to think of wars if we we ever want to stop wars. In real life we can grieve over the tragedy of, say, a small child killed in a car crash. In an insane war a hundred people can be blown to kingdom come in a street market and it won't make the front page. Wars dull our thinking. Individual human experiences sharpen it, and we need sharper thinking. We don't stop wars (proven) by using remembrance, even if only in part, as a vehicle for patriotism, militarism and grandstanding by royalty. Those phenomena can have the other 364 days. That's wassup with me.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 06:15 AM

The bloodbath of World War One was never one of defending our country - it was a squabble between Empires.
If Remembrance Day was about the mourning and shame of the sacrificing of a generation so that "Gallant "Little Belgium" could add to its list of ten million slaughtered Congolese in pursuit of rubber, there would be no problem in buying a poppy.
It's this "defence of country" bullshit that makes it so hypocritically sickening.
The country was plunged into mass depression and poverty sandwiched neatly between the two avoidable World Wars - who wants to commemorate that?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 06:19 AM

Well Hello Hans I was passing so I stopped to say Hello
you don't know me, there's no reason why you should ever know
you died here, in some prison camp conditions weren't too bad
was it a wound Hans or did the shellshock send you mad
You were twenty, that's what it says upon the stone
I'm trying to imagine what it must be like to die alone
at twenty, before you've had the chance to be full grown
I was passing so I stopped to say Hello.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 07:01 AM

Jim - Sorry, sir, but you've got no fucking idea what you are talking about. Try picking up a copy of Tigers In The Mud, for example. Otto Carius, one of Germany's top scoring tank aces of WWII, thought he was fighting a war in defence of his country. Even though practically everyone in the modern world, including the Germans, would say that Germany was the aggressor.

If you view history only in terms of your own narrow-minded, limited world view, you understand neither history, nor the people that lived then, nor why they did what they did.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 07:24 AM

Er, actually, Raedwulf, Jim didn't say that about WW2, did he? The only comment about that was that it was avoidable. You rushed in a bit in the quick side there.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: gnu
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 07:57 AM

Uncle Chic

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 08:01 AM

News just in... well about an hour ago actually..

I was enjoying a steak pie.. BBC News channel on permanently as default background sound..

I looked up to see a female presenter finish her item to camera with..

"and.. apologies for not wearing a poppy, I had one, but it fell off as I ran down the stairs in a rush to get on camera...."

so.. yet more example of the climate of fear of narrow minded bullying social media vilification & attacks
that BBC news personalities endure as part of modern day working conditions... 😣



..and on a personal note..

I've already stated I don't do jewellry, ornamentation or tattoos..

but it has occurred how positive it would be if I was ever cornered by a noxious loud mouth poppy bully..

" oi you bolshy lefty weirdo.. why aint you wearing a poppy like all us decent god fearing queen and country loving normal people..!!!???"

to just open my shirt to reveal a tasteful respectful poppy tattooed permanently over my heart.... 😎

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 08:41 AM

"but it has occurred how positive it would be if I was ever cornered by a noxious loud mouth poppy bully..

" oi you bolshy lefty weirdo.. why aint you wearing a poppy like all us decent god fearing queen and country loving normal people..!!!???"

I'm not a 'noxious loud-mouth poppy bully' - I'm none of those things. I wear a poppy because I choose to, I make no comment about others' choices.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:17 AM

Yeah.. I know.. that's why I distinctly distinguish between sound good mates like you
and the noxious daily mail / sun bonehead poppy bullies who think they own and run [oh.. they do..???] society..

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:19 AM

.. because for you and me both.. it's an issue of personal freedom of choice how we express what's important to us...

and bollocks to all the intolerant bullies....

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:30 AM

What intolerant bullies?
What abuse have you suffered for not wearing a poppy?
I put one on for the first time today, buying it at the hospital reception.
Many if not most of the hundreds there were not wearing one.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:44 AM

g'dafternoon Keith... ever heard of social media...???

I'm off to hospital meself now...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:47 AM

Ever heard of infection in a hospital professor, I would suggest the staff are not allowed to wear them.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 10:06 AM

Because we do not encounter something ourselves does not mean it doesn't exist. I never encountered any complaints when I used to black up for our pace egg play but I stopped doing that when I heard it could be offensive to some. Back to the point in question

Poppy bullying.

Trying to ensure that this does not end in an endless tirade of 'my sources are better than yours' I will state now that this is the only link I will post and I will not respond to requests for further information

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 10:10 AM

Sorry - forgot about the limited number of character on the Mudcat link maker.

I'll try again.

Poppy bullying.

Hope that is better.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 10:11 AM

Looks like the poppy bullies removed that page, Dave!

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 10:35 AM

I have accasionally been told I'm 'celebrating', or 'glorifying' war by wearing a poppy, but I've found that, if my explanation as to what the poppy means to me personally doesn't get the critic out of my face, a friendly invitation to 'fuck off and mind your own business' usually does the trick.

It's a rare occurrence though, far less frequent than the exhortations from the 'you're a traitor if you don't' brigade.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 11:53 AM

Dave, that is not a "source" of anything, just someone expressing their opinion as we are doing here.
Do we not have enough between us?

PFR how do they know on social media if you wear a poppy in order to abuse you.
Do you need to heed it?
Sorry, but you speak as if you are being somehow heroic by not wearing one.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 12:04 PM

From the linked article.

Last weekend, Irish footballer James McClean maintained his refusal to wear the poppy. In his eyes, wearing the poppy would disrespect the people who died on Bloody Sunday. Indeed, the 2010 Saville Report itself concluded that British paratroopers shot and killed fleeing unarmed civilians.

So, was McClean respected for his well-reasoned opinion? What do you think? A Twitter-storm soon ensued as the player was branded as "scum of the highest order", "a terrorist sympathiser" and it was recommended that he should be put in a "hole full of rats". Basically, lovely comments from the ever-understanding British public, all good-hearted people who just want to do something nice for our fallen heroes.

No opinions. Just well evidenced fact.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 12:24 PM

"In his eyes, wearing the poppy would disrespect the people who died on Bloody Sunday."

Cannot for the life of me see how. The poppy has got nothing whatsoever to do with any branch of the armed forces of the United Kingdom. The poppy is worn to remember those, both military and civilian, who gave their lives for their country.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 12:28 PM

And it's nothing to do with you or anyone else whether he wears one or not.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 12:38 PM

Quite right Shaw - Not in the least interested in whether he wears one or not. If however he is going to go into print and give reasons then he can expect those reasons to be commented on, which is all I have done. Perhaps you could point out exactly where I make even the remotest effort to tell him that he should wear a poppy?

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 12:40 PM

He was asked to explain. Poppy-wearers are not asked to explain.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 12:44 PM

Irrelevant see Backwoodsman - 11 Nov 16 - 10:35 AM for guidance.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 01:07 PM

Hello keith.. I'm back from the hospital

"How are you punkfollkrocker ?"

"Alright, thanks for asking.. hearing test results are not too bad for a guitar basher of my age...

... and tests for being a 'hero' are negative..
though I may be afflicted by symptoms of humility, anti-heroism, and sarcasm which require further tests...???".... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 01:19 PM

"Sorry, sir, but you've got no fucking idea what you are talking about."
In that case, I'd better change my mind!!
When you address the points I* have made, that is.
Let's try them one by one.
It was a war between Empires - the name it was given at the time and the name of the museum that commemorates it gives it away.
Answers on a postcard will do
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 01:32 PM

By the way,
a "narrow-minded, limited world view" is an oxymoron.
narrow-minded, limited national view maybe
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 01:34 PM

.. another thought for this sombre day.

Poppy wearers of true heart deserve respect,
same goes for poppy unwearers who share the universal sentiment for remembering & honouring war dead...

Sadly the proud symbol of the poppy is becoming corrupted and debased / politicised and weaponised by the intolerance of bonehead reactionary arseholes... 😣

oh.. btw.. I counted one poppy wearer in Hospital ENT dept today,
which considering there were mostly elderly patients in the queue
did come as a bit of a surprise.
I'd have expected more from that senior age group... ???

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 01:45 PM

Steve - The WW2 book was the one that sprang to mind first, particularly given previous comments (not just on the cat, it's happened elsewhere) about not remembering other nations' dead, especially enemy dead. My comment remains equally applicable to WWI. The "bloodbath" of WWI" was never "squabbling between empires" and etcetera, and assuming that people in history thought the same way we do now will mean you never understand why what happened happened. Especially where WWI is concerned!

Apologies to Jim if he finds my assertion a bit on the strong side, but that is how I found his remark that I was replying to. Jim, I've read your contribution on the Open thread, and I thank you for sharing it. By the time I started taking an interest in WWI, there weren't many veterans left, and I've never spoken to someone that was there (and never will, given that they've all gone now). I have read an awful lot of eyewitness accounts of one sort or another, though. If I started naming names, I'd be here for a while! But what you wrote... Nah, sorry. Your opinion is your opinion. And perhaps it's influenced by your Grandad's (I hope those tapes make it into the IWM collection!). But they're still only one man's opinion, just as the modern view that poppies & Remembrance are glorifying war are not shared by everyone. If you see what I mean...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 02:07 PM

I don't accuse the poor old poppy of glorifying war. It was never meant to be that, and still isn't, quite. If the poppy is truly and purely to be a symbol for remembrance of all war dead, civilian and military, the world over, recognising that all the dead couldn't help being born where they were or, in very large part, what side they were on, then we need to strip away the "our boys," the "died for king and country," the proud cascading of medals on the breasts of generals and princes, the military parades, the fly-pasts, the cannon salutes, the marching in step and all the rest of the ceremonial stuff that's supposed to make us think that being shot to pieces then being left to rot in a field of mud is "noble." It's a rotten failure, and the people who lead the parades and make the fine speeches, the dukes, the politicians and the generals are the people who best represent those who perpetrated that failure. Lest we forget.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 02:07 PM

Whether anyone's opinion is right or wrong is irrelevant to the point I was making. It is a simple matter of fact that the footballer in question was abused for not wearing a poppy. The whole point of the thread is that some people feel that the poppy symbol has become politicised and there is, in the words of the article I linked, a 'poppy facism' that is a genuine concern for some people. To dismiss that as not being factual is wrong as is proven by the link I provided.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 02:30 PM

Raed
As you say - opinions are opinions.
I am no expert of WW1 - I approach it as a humanitarian rather than someone with a deep knowledge of history.
However, I am fascinated by the social history of the latter half of the 19th and first half of the twentieth century.
The book that knocked my socks off is entitled 'The Kings Depart', by Richard M Watt, basically a history of the period from the end of the war to the rise of Nazism in Germany - by a non-historian journalist, and probably because of that, highly readable (still available from the Book Depository, last time I looked).
What I came to believe after reading it was how easy it would have been for British and German soldiers to say, "Look lads, this has **** all to do with us and whoever wins, none of us are going to gat anything out of it".
This was the line taken by the radical socialist parties and if it had been followed, go count how many lives could have been saved.
Russia kicked out the leaders who sent them to war - Germany came within a hairs-breadth of doing the same.
Whatever happened or might have happened later in both is beside the point - at least we wouldn't be 'celebrating the deaths of so many young men today.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 03:48 PM

Dave, no-one has argued in favour of bullying non wearers.
I would deplore it.
I suppose that people in the public eye are expected to wear one, but it is only social pressure.
Like wearing a tie used to be.
Peston gets a lot of criticism over his appearance on TV.
Just social pressure to conform. Why should your socks match?

I thought you meant your link to support the non-wearing argument, because that what it was mostly about.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 04:06 PM

Steve, is the footballer you refer to in your opening post the one that is discussed in the article I linked? If so, can we assume that the discussion is mostly about the so called 'poppy facism' that you mention and the article confirms? That being the case I understand your POV that you will not wear a poppy as a protest against both the politicisation of the poppy symbol and as a protest against the undure pressure put on those in the public eye? I am more than happy to be told I am wrong on any of the counts and, if so, sorry for misunderstanding the sentiments.

There are many reasons to wear or not wear the poppy. If I understand Steve correctly his reason is as I just described. The footballers reason whether some consider it valid or not, is a different one. My reason is the ambivalence I have about it. It is easier just to buy one and, as I have this year, stick it on a picture of my Grandsons as a stark reminder of why it must never happen again. Whatever the reason though, to stoop to the lengths that some do on social media and, even worse, in real life, to bring pressure to bear on someone to wear one is something we must not put up with. To say that pressure is 'just social' trivialises the trauma felt by those who have been subjected to this type of bullying that has, on occasion, cost people their lives.

I am sure none of the brave men who paid the ultimate sacrifice would want this type of politicisation or bullying in their name. But that is only my opinion of course.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 05:32 PM

Jim - well I'm glad I didn't upset you too much! :-) The fascination with that period of history, for me, is precisely because of... Well. Once you've got to 1900, you've got something that looks like the modern world. The infernal combustion has been invented. The aeroplane will turn up shortly. Electric lighting, telephone, and "wireless" are all starting to have an impact...

Yet the social structure remains a monolith. Yes, there is agitation for change; not just Marx, Engels, et al, but organised labour starting to flex muscles. And don't necessarily think unions here - the striking London matchgirls (pun pretty much unavoidable!) in 1888, who worked for Bryant & May, springs to mind. It's WWI that actually is the mortal wound to the old social system.

Partly because of the (slightly mythical) lost generation. A lot of people who sneer about the upper classes, the generals, etc, don't seem to realise that it was the "gentlemen" who suffered most. Officers led from the front, and died in disproportionate numbers. Because "the done thing" was more ingrained into them than anyone else. The "public schoolboys" of whom we now speak contemptuously were already in the army as officers, or joined up, became officers, and... died... There went the "assumed / presumed" leadership of the next 20, 30, 40, 50 years.

Partly, of course, it's because WWI was an enormous leveller. So many of the "underclasses" came back from the war knowing that, actually, they were just as good as those they had always thought of, automatically, as their superiors. And that's the mistake that so many "moderns" make, hence my "especially WWI!" earlier.

"How could they..." "Why did they..." WWI was the break point, the fault line. There, the old social system suddenly fractures, and therein lies the problem. From the 50's onwards, people have viewed it as a modern world. From outside the head, it is; from inside the head it isn't. If you see what I mean. And a whole generation of bad history, the 50's to 70's, has created a huge amount of myth around WWI that is difficult to shift. I'm no John Terraine (apologist for the generals), but Alan Clark MP did admit that the "Lions led by Donkeys" thing was something he simply made up. Yet it's taken as gospel!

Anyway, thank you for the book recommendation. Available cheaply through A Certain e-vendor, 'tis added to the wish list. Three from me that all deal with the lead up to WWI. Dreadnought, by Robert Massie, which isn't simply about the Naval arms race; far from it. The Proud Tower, by Barbara Tuchman. She is a bit journalistic & her scholarship has been called into question. And Royal Sunset by Gordon Brook-Shepherd is definitely journalistic - he was one for the Torygraph, if memory serves. The last is out of print (try getting it from the library) but all offer a somewhat sideways view of the run-up to the war and, therefore, offer a different perspective, in different ways.

For eyewitness (what? You thought three meant "only three"? ;-) ) Overtones of War by Edmund Blunden, one of the less well known war poets. And anything by Richard van Emden. He is less an author than an editor - he speaks sparingly & lets his eyewitness speak. I can only wonder what he might have done with your Grandad's tapes...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 06:01 PM

"Steve, is the footballer you refer to in your opening post the one that is discussed in the article I linked? If so, can we assume that the discussion is mostly about the so called 'poppy facism' that you mention and the article confirms? That being the case I understand your POV that you will not wear a poppy as a protest against both the politicisation of the poppy symbol and as a protest against the undure pressure put on those in the public eye? I am more than happy to be told I am wrong on any of the counts and, if so, sorry for misunderstanding the sentiments."

Yep, that's the man. Poppy fascism is indeed what prompted me to start the thread. But I'm not refusing to wear a poppy because I'm protesting. I'm fine with people wearing poppies. But I'm personally not in sync with the sentiments behind the kind of "remembrance" we indulge in in this country, for the reasons I've outlined in other posts in this thread. I'm not even THAT bothered about the tabloidistic idiots who question why somebody has been seen without a poppy, or who get all hoity-toity with FIFA about it just because FIFA sucks anyway, which of course it does (though even a stopped clock is dead right twice a day). If you go around observing and vilifying non-poppy-wearers, you have a mental problem as far as I'm concerned. You probably voted brexit, still mourn Thatcher, regard Prince Philip as your guru and love Trump too, you poor sausage. It's a free country. Nobody bothers you if you wear a poppy. It would be nice if nobody bothered people who don't.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 06:23 PM

On the plus side, Steve, no-one has ever bothered me for not wearing a poppy. Mind you, I probably look about how I argue... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 06:26 PM

But then you've never played footie for Ireland, been on the Graham Norton Show nor been Jeremy Corbyn.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 07:25 PM

"no-one has ever bothered me for not wearing a poppy"
Steve has the right of it Raed - if you are a public figure and don't wear a poppy you are castigated by the media and the refusal to wear one becomes a political weapon
The fact that this has now become an issue is proof enough of the pressure to wear one.
I most certainly do not agree with you that officers suffered most, nor do I agree with you that WW1 was a leveller - again, on the contrary, the conditions the survivors (that words speaks volumes) returned to for a short period, but by the end of the 20s, conditions had plummeted below what they were at the beginning of the century.
Class division accelerated during WW2 - those workers that weren't fighting suffered wartime conditions and slept in shelters while the better off dodged the worse effects and, when things got too hot, moved out of the danger areas or sailed to America:

"The rich men's families sailed away
While the refugees slept in Berkeley Square"

as the song says.   
At the end of WW"2 the new Labour Government improved the conditions immensely despite vehement opposition and at the first opportunity, those improvements were dismantled.
What were we fighting and suffering for?
The establishment appeased fascism right up to the point they were given no alternative and anybody who attempted to oppose its rise were treated as criminals
Again a repetition - but you seem to have not been around for previous argument.
My family took to the streets to oppose Mosely - they fought the police who protected him and his scum as well as the Blackshirts.
My grandmother was arrested for throwing a stone and hitting Mosely in Liverpool - still a matter of pride in my family.
My father saw what was happening in Germany and volunteered to fight in Spain to stop the rise of fascism.
He was wounded and imprisoned and when he returned home in 1939 he found he had an MI5 record as a "premature anti-fascist", he was blacklisted from work and forced to take to the road as a navvy - my sister and I didn't see him for longer than a week-end until I was about 10.
He was excommunicated from his religion as well - but that was a favour rather than a punishment.
If we were fighting for something in these wars, you'll have to tell us what.
At least the German and the Russian People attempted to do something about it.
Our history is one of fighting wars for the benefit of others - it really is time we stopped doing so.
It certainly is time that remembrance ceremonies became more than the lip-service to the dead that they are now.
We live in Ireland now - I've been staggered this year at the 100th anniversary of Easter Week, which has lasted nearly a year and so far has been the most inspiring and educational period of my life since I left school - no glorification, no self-congratulatory back-patting, no outpourings of hate - but an in-depth self-critical look at Ireland's most important achievement - warts and all.
That's the way these things should be treated - not the gathering of the great and the good around the cenotaph - then back to business as usual in Syria and Afghanistan and arms sales and throwing out Johnny Foreigner....
What did we win as "ordinary people" through sacrificing our loved ones (I lost a grandfather in WW1 - so did my wife - we seem as deep in the sit as our partents and grandparents were?
Sorry to hear you can't get Watt's book - try the libray - it really is a unique study.
Amazon UK have a couple of used copies at nonsensically low prices
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 07:40 AM

So the school that lost the highest percentage of its pupils in the First World War wasn't Eton College then Carroll? Perhaps you should write and tell them that.

As for fatality rates in combat units.

Officers 1 in 17 died
NCOs & Other Ranks 1 in 33 died.

As far as your ability to read and understand history goes Raedwulf has got you weighed off perfectly.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 07:47 AM

Now give us the overall numbers. Lies, damned lies and...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 08:37 AM

"So the school that lost the highest percentage of its pupils in the First World War wasn't Eton College then Carroll
What the **** has that gotto do twith the fact that the ast majority who died were of the rank and file, who were always the first to go over the top.
"Now give us the overall numbers. Lies, damned lies and..."
Wouldn't work for this jingoist
For the record 666,000 thousand other ranks died compared to 44,000 officers
"Raedwulf has got you weighed off perfectly."
Yeah - course he has -
Nice feller as he seems to be, if you examine what he has to say, he is using arguments that you were putting forward a year ago which were long blown out of the water.
You failed to convince then - I doubt if he will now, but no harm in your attempting to use him as a grasped straw - entertainment makes the world go round, as they say.
"Carroll"
Feeling a little insecure today, are we?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 10:46 AM

Teribus - please don't quote me when all you want to do is be nasty. Jim & Steve & I are having a perfectly civil discussion. We don't need you weighing in with typical invective, thank you. Especially, I don't need you using me to validate your narrow-minded authority. Yes, you are often right (not always, despite what you think). But the one thing you've never managed to fucking understand is that it is better to get your point across than to be abrasively right. If the other side doesn't agree, it is still better that they understand your point of view, than that you can sit there in smug isolated righteousness. For an intelligent & knowledgeable man, you are, all too often, remarkably stupid & blind.

Jim (& Steve) - reply (ies) noted. I will get back to you. For various reasons (alcohol may be involved) not today! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 05:29 PM

Raedwulf - Right is right and wrong is wrong.

As someone who declares that you are a specialist in the particular period of history covering the First World War you were strangely silent while Carroll and the rest of the "usual suspects" were mangling history right, left and centre.

Across a massive swathe of history Carroll has shown that he hasn't got the foggiest notion of what happened or why what happened did happen. He has proven beyond a doubt that he is a complete and utter ignoramus whose thinking process is restricted and bound by his own warped politics.

If you do not wish to be quoted then I would advise you not to post you overly precious prick.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 06:47 PM

Funny how often you manage to make right sound wrong, though. And that's when you are right. I never "declared" that I was a "specialist", shit for brains. I said it was a particular interest. I'm merely a history buff, not a professional, not a historian, no degrees to my name. What are your qualifications, Mr "I'm Always Right, How Dare You Argue With Me!"? Oh, and whilst you're busy sneering & name-calling (yes, I'm joining in, childish isn't it? But I recognise that. Do you?), permit me to remind you that I have not only agreed with you in the past, I've actually spoken up for you as well, cos you are, at times, put upon unfairly. On the other hand, you're also an abrasive, antagonistic, smug, self-righteous **** who never admits he is wrong about anything.

As for Jim (hello Jim!), I can have a civil discussion with Jim. We can agree to disagree. And I'm not usually here very much. I never knew it was compulsory. So my "silence" is hardly "strange". Oh. Wait. It must be, because Teribus is never, ever wrong. About anything.

You have frequently proven that you can't see fog, and as for "restricted and bound by his own warped"... I really am just ROFLMFAO. You have often brought light into Mudcat threads. But you have never learnt, are never going to learn, that you can do that with a candle. Or a lantern. Nah. You have to throw a flash grenade. Or napalm. You'd rather sit there in your smug, isolated, not always right righteousness, than actually get your point across.

More fool you. How many people have advised you not to post down the years, I wonder? Quite obviously you've never listened to their advice, so why should anyone listen to yours?

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 07:24 PM

He certainly seems to have been advised not to post in the music section.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 05:01 AM

"who never admits he is wrong about anything." Raedwulf??

Perhaps you should ask Akenaton, Raggytash and Joe Offer about that - Anytime where it has been pointed out that I am in error I have admitted it and apologised for that error (If memory serves me correctly the last occasion had something to do with the term Field General Court Martial - a term not used or applicable in the Royal Navy).

Generally however in debate on historical matters with Carroll and the "usual suspects" more often than not I am in the right - something bourn out by the fact that they never seem to be able to counter anything I have stated with facts of their own.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 05:06 AM

By the bye, the only people who have ever suggested that I do not post have been the likes of Carroll and the "usual suspects" normally when they have made complete and utter fools of themselves - certainly no Moderator on this forum has ever made the request.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 05:32 AM

With regard to a Field General Court Martial I recall you told me I was talking through my anal orifice. I also seem to recall that it was only with the intervention of a moderator that you accepted they did actually exist. This of course was after several days and numerous bad tempered, belligerent and aggressive posts.

You have still to admit that Cork is on the South and not the East coast of Ireland despite being presented with a map complete with compass bearing nicely displayed on it.

So much for admitting your mistakes.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 06:15 AM

"more often than not I am in the right"
Sure you are Terri - that's why you disappear into isolation when you are faced with awkward questions
Your "rightness" usually includes your denying proof and expert statements and refusing to provide any of your own.
There's a medical term for people who always behave like that.
You have never ever won over a thread to your side and you basically have three supporters - all of them strange and dishonest people - and all of the extremely to the right, - racist, fascist, Islamophobic and jingoistic
Then perhaps I am misuderstand your use of the term RIGHT
Hi Raed - how's the head?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 09:01 AM

Your recollection as usual is wrong Raggy.

Joe Offer posting as a forum member - Not as a moderator - pointed out my error on the 09 May 16 at 03:19 AM. I apologised to both him and you on the same day within hours if not minutes.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 09:15 AM

So the fact that I said such a thing as the Field General Court Martial did exist managed to creep past you did it.

I seem to recall your utter belligerence over an extended period before Joe popped up in support, then and only then, when a known moderator was involved did you finally concede that you were mistaken.

To me it was a fine example of you kow-towing to "authority"...... No surprise there really.

Still no mention of the position of Cork on the coast of Ireland I see.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 05:35 PM

That your way of saying that you did not have to wait days after the error had been pointed out to me Raggy.

Now give us the context of the "Cork" thing Raggy. A port serving the east coast of Ireland - think we were talking about transport links in the mid 1800s - the question you and your pals could not answer was how food could be distributed without the transport, roads, storage facilities. You were given maps showing the areas served by the port of Cork - they supported my argument and made a nonsense of yours.

Same thing happened when you tried to claim that conscription was introduced before March 1916.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 06:05 PM

Utter lies from start to finish.

You know it, I know it and anyone who read the threads knows it.

It's a poor thing when a poster has the resort to complete fabrications to save face.

I actually thought you had more about you, I was obvously mistaken.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 07:00 PM

Carry on mates...

The poppy 'debate' was entertaining enough.. but this teribus-centric thread drift is hilarious...

..well until it starts getting too tedious...

.. or just too cruel laughing at a pompous egotistical belligerent buffoon... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 02:11 AM

Ah Raggy what lies?

Bet that you cannot come with any - you never do.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 04:27 AM

Well, lets start with the fact you did not apologise to me as you claim.

You apologised to Joe, true but if you look back at the thread I was the one who first mentioned a Field General Court Martial I got not but a kiss my arse.

Another fine example of you kow-towing to perceived authority with Joe though.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 04:29 AM

"Ah Raggy what lies?"
You distort what those who disagree with you say all the time - you always have done
Lying by another name.
You constantly present your opinions as "facts" yet refuse to qualify them with evidence
Ditto
You claim the last time you were wrong about anything was way back in the WW1 argument - utter nonsense
Your technique is to dismiss evidence as "made-up-shit"
Then, when proof is provided, you accuse those who provided it as "ready to believe anything" (no matter were it came from)
Then you slink back under your bridge and refuse to qualify your arguments - it happens over and over again.
Your refusal to provide factual backup to anything you say is enough evidence of your dishonesty.
You want proof - try your refusal to answer the facts on the Irish Famine.
You may not be as stupid as Keith who blatantly denies things he has said (sometimes a few postings before), but your behaviour is every bit as dishonest, and usually delivered in a bullying and arrogant manner - diff'rent strokes for diff'rent blokes.
Dishonesty is the watchword of your little platoon.
Oh - and then there is your claim that you are seldom wrong - that is both a lie and megalomaniac.
Take your pick of any of these.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 05:06 AM

Oh dear Raggy - WRONG AGAIN - So this cannot be found in the Mudcat archives then:

Teribus
BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916 (1327* d)
RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
09 May 16

________________________________________

My apologies Raggy I stand corrected

In short old son - you lie like a pig in shit - as a barefaced liar you are beneath contempt.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 05:26 AM

So you did ................ eventually.......... after I had been forced to raised the subject yet again.

My apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 06:37 AM

"In short old son - you lie like a pig in shit - as a barefaced liar you are beneath contempt."
Coming from someone who totally ignores list of all the ways you lie consistently - takes one to know one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 06:48 AM

Big on baseless accusations Jim - you've never been able to give one single example of me lying yet.

"Well, lets start with the fact you did not apologise to me as you claim." - Raggytash - Blatant fuckin' lie Raggy that you knew full well to be a lie when you typed it.

"I also seem to recall that it was only with the intervention of a moderator that you accepted they did actually exist. This of course was after several days and numerous bad tempered, belligerent and aggressive posts." - Raggytash - Yet another gross misrepresentation Joe Offer was not posting as a forum moderator and you damn well know that - after several days?? Another blatant lie - I responded almost immediately once my error had been pointed out to me

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 06:58 AM

Bluff and nonsense, the only reason you issued an apology was because Joe had become involved. When I first mentioned The Field General Court Martial I was told there was no such thing in your aggressive manner.

Only after Joe had done a little reading and it became apparently that your usual bluster had not worked was an apology forthcoming and that only to Joe in the first instance.



Anyway I'm off to pack for Ireland. Yippeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 07:25 AM

"Big on baseless accusations Jim"
I've just given you a detailed list of how you lie.
If you want some specifics - try the list you were given of the Famine that totally disproved your case, yet you simply refused to answer.
Or:
You might try your defence of the ammunition sold by Britain to Assad and the at least half-dozen, sometimes totally contradictory excuses you gave for the sale.
It never happened - it happened but the sale was never licensed - the sale was licensed but the licence was withdrawn -
Did Britain have a "crystal ball to tell them what kind of a despot Assad was?"
then back to
The sale wasn't for the snipers because they were the wrong size
The sale took place long before the killing began
I think last time the issue came up we were back to "wrong size" again.
None of these came with any documented proof - but they were all presented as "facts" - which is a glorious lie in itself.
All your protestations of innocent doesn't alter the fact that these are examples of your lying on Speed.
These ate just two examples of your use of this ducking and diving tactic - WW1 was an entertainment in itself - you propound knowledge you simply don't posess - yo make it up as you go along and hope it will be accepted without question - when it isn't, you turn nasty (or nastier).
It is no accident that you make virtually all your postings in a bullying and blustering manner - you seem to think that it will cover up your ignorance.
All bullies turn out to be hollow men on closer examination.
"Anyway I'm off to pack for Ireland. "
Meet you in Friel's in Miltown if you can afford the bus fare - whoops - we don't have buses
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 07:27 AM

Bluff and nonsense Raggy?? No just the truth - something that is completely foreign to your nature to such an extent that it is apparently unknown to you.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 07:37 AM

Jim Carroll - 14 Nov 16 - 04:29 AM

What list Carroll? There isn't one.

Jim Carroll - 14 Nov 16 - 07:25 AM

I've just given you a detailed list of how you lie.

No you haven't.

If what you say is true you don't need lists all you have to do is quote verbatim from any of my posts where I have told a lie. I am not interested in "Xxxxxxx in other words", If you are going to accuse me of lying then cut'n'paste the lie I was supposed to have told directly in my own words for all to see.

Raggy has not come out of our little exchange too well. In fact he's managed to make a complete and utter arse of himself - seems to me that you are following him down the same road.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 08:40 AM

"What list Carroll? There isn't one."
Yes there was - I put it up over and over again and you refused to respond.
I really can't be arsed reopening a thread that is long done and dusted, but my requests for you to respond are there.
"No you haven't."
What the **** are all your different excuses about sniper ammunition sales if they aren't on-the-spot made up lies
THere, that's another couple you can add to the list.
Would you like to claim those responses I listed weren't yours and add yet another to the list
"If what you say is true you don't need lists all you have to do is quote verbatim from any of my posts where I have told a lie"
Why bother - they are all there and searchable on the Homs Horror thread?
I have detailed every excuse you made that I can remember - I'm sure there are a couple more I've missed, but that'll do to make the point.
Hoist.... petard. I think
"In fact he's managed to make a complete and utter arse of himself"
"Carroll?"
And there you go again with your bullying, blustering bullshit.
You really aren't the brightest button on the steward's uniform, are you.
You fall into your own idiocy every single time.
I bet you behave like this dahn the pub - on second thoughts, people like you prefer a keyboard and a few hundred miles between their victims before they strut their stuff.
You have adequate examples to disprove - without the bulldozer works a treat
Jim Carroll (don't forget the "Jim" now - helps keep things calm!)

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 11:35 AM

Ah the Homs thread:

Let us quickly have a quick reprise of that.

1: You bleat about something you read in the Daily Mail about an export licence being granted in 2009 to a private individual covering the export of £30,000 worth of ammunition to Syria, which you broadcast as the British Government selling arms to Syria and that these bullets were responsible for killing civilians in Homs in 2012 - all pure invention all Jom "Made Up Shit".

2: While the export licence was granted there was no follow up information that cast any light on or proof that any ammunition had ever actually been sold to Syria. Jom in full flight did not need such proof because he was totally convinced and it suited his rabid bigotry and Anglophobic outlook. Now then Jim if you do have proof that that private individual did indeed export ammunition to Syria please provide it.

3: Now what sort of ammunition would be covered by a British export licence? Common sense would rather indicate that it would cover ammunition made in the UK that was somehow no longer required. So what do we make? NATO 9mm Ball; NATO 7.62x51mm; NATO 5.56x45mm. What ammunition would we have an over abundance of that we might want to ditch? NATO 7.62x51mm as our standard infantry weapon since 1987 has been the SA80 A2 L85, so all the ammunition for it's predecessor the 7.62mm L1 A1 is surplus to requirement, therefore available for sale very cheaply (I know because I buy it and use it as training rounds).

4: Russia supplies Assad and his Syrian Army with weapons monthly by the shipload. It has been Russian supplied weapons and munitions that have been killing Syrian civilians in their hundreds of thousands since 2011. So why would Assad have to have £30,000 worth of UK NATO 7.62x51mm ammunition? Russian weapons do fire 7.62mm ammunition but the 7.62mm ammo that they use is about 12mm shorter in length than the stuff made in the UK (I think at the time I even provided you with photographs demonstrating this, that you just ignored). So you see Jim NATO 7.62x51mm is simply totally useless if your Assad regime snipers are armed with Russian weapons that fire 7.62x39mm ammunition, the bullets will simply not fit into the gun. There you are does that clear up the "wrong size" thing? Or do you require a simpler explanation of it?

So was British ammunition used by snipers in Homs - on balance of probability I would say no it was not and you Jim lad cannot prove that so much as one single round was purchased or dispatched. So your "fairy tale" about Syrian civilians being killed by ammunition supplied by the British Government is simply Jom "Made up shit".

Now if you have anything of a factual nature to dispute with any of that please reopen the thread and put those points to me, if all you can do is launch yet another of your multi-coloured, spittle-flecked rants then save us all a great deal of grief and tedium and remain silent.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 12:09 PM

It must be so reassuring to the families of folk who've had their heads suddenly blown apart
that borish military history & hardware anorak pedants in the UK
absolutely know the exact mm dimensions of the bullets used to kill their loved ones...... 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 12:12 PM

oh.. I do apologise.. how can you ever forgive me..

there should be 2 "o"s in "boorish"...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 01:51 PM

"You bleat about something you read in the Daily Mail a
Really not going to go throuugh a battle you lost
You asked for an example of your lying - I gave you a classic and a couple more thrown in for good measure
End of story
You are as big an eejit as your two mates
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 03:04 AM

punkfolkrocker - 14 Nov 16 - 12:09 PM

Well no pfr, had the ammunition that Carroll assumes and claims, without any proof whatsoever, been sent to Syria then the only way it could have killed anybody would be if the pallet carrying it dropped and hit someone on the head. Standard NATO ammo is too long to fit in Russian made weapons or, like Jim are you also too thick to recognise that fact?

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 03:11 AM

Jim Carroll - 14 Nov 16 - 01:51 PM

So where in what I have stated have I lied?

You on the other hand have:

You claimed that British weapons exported by the British Government were being used to kill civilians in Homs - That is a blatant lie as Britain has exported no weapons to Syria.

You stated without one shred of evidence or proof that ammunition had been sent to Syria when only a licence to export a minute quantity of ammunition had been granted to a private individual in 2009. You then omitted to mention THAT ALL EXPORT LICENCES WERE REVOKED IN 2010.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 03:48 AM

"So where in what I have stated have I lied?"
I've given you a list of your lying behaviour - incomplete as it was, which is what you requested - you want to confirm it by reopening one of your half dozen conflicting excuses for selling ammunition and riot control equipment to a mass murderer.
Another try bites the dust, I'm afraid - you'll have to re-open the thread and think up another half-dozen excuses
You really are not very bright, for all your bullying bluster and "I hardly am ever wrong" (saying of the decade).
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 04:20 AM

No Jim you accused me of lying. I asked you to quote verbatim one such example of me lying - so far you have been unable to do that.

Please point out where there is any conflict in anything I have said

In 2009 an export licence was granted - No proof whatsoever that anything was actually sold, despatched or delivered.

In 2010 ALL export licences related to Syria were revoked.

Ammunition manufactured in the UK cannot be used in Russian weapons.

I "may not be very bright"? Well I do know that I am a damned sight brighter than you when it comes to this particular subject, stick to the meaning of Folk Music, Walter Pardon and Ewan MacColl you seem to know what you are talking about there.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 06:33 AM

"No Jim you accused me of lying. "
AND YOU HAVE LIED -
You might like to semantically claim that your stupidly dishonest method of argument ws not lying - but it is.
" Well I do know that I am a damned sight brighter than you"
Yeah - so you seem to think with your "I seldom make mistakes"
You are an arrogant bullying moron who refuses to produce proof of his claims and attempts to talk to anybody who oversteps themselves to disagree with you.
You are a loutish oaf, without either knowledge or social graces - that's why you have only the support of a couple of similar hangers-on.
Your continuing to cling yo a sunken raft is pathetic - you produced nothing substantial and refused to link to anything - and you changed your story consistently - I count six times - may be more.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 08:02 AM

Back on the subject of poppies - and the wearing of same - I spent the weekend in Flanders visiting, amongst other places, Ypres for the Menin Gate ceremony on Remembrance Sunday, the 'In Flanders Fields' museum in Ypres, Tyne Cot Cemetery, where there are 12,000 allied servicemen buried, and Vladslo German Cemetery, where lie 25,000 German servicemen (buried 20 to each grave-space). Everywhere where people of all nationalities, many wearing Remembrance poppies.

My emotions were exactly the same at Vladslo German Cemetery as everywhere else I visited - immense sadness and regret at the futile waste of so many young lives by leaders and politicians in pursuit of nationalistic goals, and deep rage at the futility and, unfortunately, the future inevitability of war.

I wore my poppy with deep sadness, and I'll do the same next year, and the year after, and.......

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 08:04 AM

Where people? Were people! 👍

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 08:19 AM

"deep rage at the futility and, unfortunately, the future inevitability of war."
If that's what Remembrance Day was about BW - I'd wear one 52 weeks of the year - with pride.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 08:37 AM

No Teribus, it seems I'm not quite as thick as you...

For such an articulate and presumably reasonably educated old bloke, you have completely missed the essential point....

Which I will now spell out for you..

It's about your total lack of compassion and sensitivity, and any sense of irony, that on or about the 11th of November
you did occupy and commence to wage senseless petty warfare of attrition in a thread dedicated to the poppy,
the symbol of sombre remembrance for all those poor souls fallen in war....

..an inconsiderate act of epic vainglorious buffoonery... 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 09:37 AM

"Vladslo German Cemetery as everywhere else I visited"
I'd foirgotten this until your posting, but last year Sky Arts (before it was dumbed down) presented a series of brilliant programmes under the general title of 'My Shakespeare' where they got an actor to discuss his or her favourite Play by the Bard.
Jeremy Irons chose 'Richard III (not my favourite play) and made an excellent job of it.
After all the violence and murder of the depiction of Richard's reign, the closing shot was of Irons strolling through a field talking about the evils of warfare.
Gradually, the camera panned up to reveal that he was walking through thousands of war graves....
A tearful and anger-making moment for both of us - it is how all wars should be commemorated.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 09:58 AM

<>"deep rage at the futility and, unfortunately, the future inevitability of war."
If that's what Remembrance Day was about BW - I'd wear one 52 weeks of the year - with pride."


For me, Jim, it is. And I do.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 11:47 AM

Jim Carroll - 15 Nov 16 - 06:33 AM

Well then Jim I see you still cannot find one single example of me lying. And typically as you cannot do that you resort to insult - well done Jom, no matter is doesn't bother me in the least.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 11:58 AM

A Thread entitled "No poppies for me" is "a thread dedicated to the poppy, the symbol of sombre remembrance for all those poor souls fallen in war..... Hell as like it is opening post from Steve Shaw is an annual trolling exercise - in which he stated that he'd put his pound in the tin and throw the poppy straight into the bin - so much respect for the symbol of sombre remembrance for all those poor souls fallen in war..... about whom you could not give a toss.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 12:21 PM

"Well then Jim I see you still cannot find one single example of me lying. "
No - course not, as long as you ignore your dishonest behavour
"And typically as you cannot do that you resort to insult "
Describing that behaviour is not "insult" and to be accused of it by somewone who cant reply to opposition without sneering and bullying is... well, work it out for yourself you sad man
Would you like me to put together some examples of how you respond to people so you can deny that?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 12:32 PM

Steve, whatever his intent, merely opened the thread, as challenging stimulation for debate.....

YOU have seized hold of it for your own malevolent purposes...

I maintain a semi detached amused view of your petty bickering,
up until the point you state:

""so much respect for the symbol of sombre remembrance for all those poor souls fallen in war..... about whom you could not give a toss"

That is a vile accusation !!!

You go too far.. you despicable old war mongering shit.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 12:52 PM

Annual trolling? This is a discussion section and I raised a topical issue that has been in the news on account of some high-profile people being commented on for not wearing a poppy. I could have chosen my words better than "in the bin," I admit, but, if you read down the thread, you'll see that my poppy ended up not in the bin but in Mrs Steve's handbag. I think it's probably still in there. Perhaps Teribus would like to apprise us of any other annual events that it would be trolling to bring up. Christmas, perhaps? Pancake Tuesday? As for the poppy's symbolism, that's a personal matter and several people have expressed different views as to what it means to them. That is thoroughly respectable, but at least two of us reject symbolism for ourselves. That does not mean we don't respect the war dead. As I do every single year, I observed the silences both on the 11th and on Remembrance Sunday. And I bought a poppy. And it's not in the bin. Some troll.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 01:17 PM

"about whom you could not give a toss""
This is the feller who call veterans whose reminiscences don't tie up with his jingoism "liars" - even to the point of denying their war records - so don't take it personal PFR - you are in the very best of company when he smears you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 16 - 02:38 AM

Yes Shaw annual trolling, by you and the "usual suspects", wasn't last years topical troll something about the RBL Festival of Remembrance, and the year before that the display at the Tower of London and no doubt next year you will come up with another.

Ah yes Jom your pal Tommy Kenny who you and three others tape recorded for three days wasn't it? So interested were you in the story the man told that:

1: You checked nothing pertaining to that story at all.

2: You couldn't tell me which branch of the Army he served in.

3: You couldn't tell me where he served and when.

4: Tommy Kenny's story was introduced to back up the "fairy tale" that British Soldiers were subject to summary execution in the field, yet not one instance of such has ever been detailed, not one single name of one single soldier who suffered such a fate has been recorded, not even by their "mates", peculiarly by their "mate" Tommy Kenny.

5: The myth about special execution squads of Military Police who shot soldiers who did not get out of the trenches quick enough (In all the film footage covering the First World War on our screens at the moment it can plainly be seen that that would have been impossible as there is simply not the room).

6: Tommy's yarn about men all ready convicted and sentenced to death being put in the front line and ordered over the top and if they did manage to come back being executed - Impossible - Why? - Because according to the Army Act if you are under punishment you cannot bear arms - For fairly bloody obvious reasons I would have thought. Why do I know that it is a "fairy tale"? Because again not a single name can be produced.

Carroll bangs on about dishonest behaviour ( Now that he has more or less admitted that he cannot find a single example of me ever having lied on this forum) but how dishonest is this:

This is the feller who call veterans whose reminiscences don't tie up with his jingoism "liars"

One story about one veteran, a story introduced by Jim Carroll, that has holes all over it and which is riddled with errors and inconsistencies. So I must call all veterans "liars" whose reminiscences don't tally with "FACT" - jingoism doesn't enter into it - That Jim is dishonest behaviour if ever I encountered it, an argument based entirely on false assumptions.

Now to get back to that story, the one that continually changed as the glaring faults in it were pointed out, until we get the snippet that Tommy Kenny may have served with the Artillery because of a wound he received (Lost bits of his ear IIRC). Then all went deadly quiet when it was explained to Carroll that artillery was never placed in the front line it is always positioned behind the lines and in that position how on earth could Tommy Kenny have seen what was going on in the front lines. Truth was of course he couldn't and didn't. No longer interested in what the latest duly altered version of the tale is, it has changed too many times now to be credible.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 16 - 03:38 AM

"Yes Shaw annual trolling, by you and the "usual suspects", "
You've just complained about being insulted but you seem totally incapable of posting to those who disagree with you without prefixing it with insults.
What is the matter with you Teribus, do you really believe your arguments to be so without substance that you have to bully them through?
You have also adopted the habit of highlighting your rare apologies and referring to them later - you really don't need to - we recognise a rare Eastern Black Redstart (one of the rarest birds in Britain) when we see one.
And now you launch once more in denigrating the war record af one of the veterans of 'W.W.1.
"Tommy Kenny's story was introduced to back up the "fairy tale" that British Soldiers were subject to summary execution in the field"
Now you are lying again - read what I say.
Tommy's story was never connected with executions in the field - that was a separate story put up on the internet by a poster describing his grandfather's experiences - another old veteran you chose to call a liar.
You have been told this umpteen times and still you repeat your distortion - and you claim you don't tell lies!!!
I put Tommy's story, as he told it to us, on the 'unregulated Remembrence Day' thread - that is how he told it, that is how I first posted it and that is how it remains.
How dare you accuse anybody on this forum of denigrating British veterans when you peppered your defence of the bloodbath that was World War One with insults of some of those who fought - you called veterans liars.
Tommy's recordings were not of his war record - they were reminiscences of his life at war and on the Liverpool docks, made at the request of his family - they have his service details, as you have also been told.
You even claimed that you were able to find that there was no record of him having served - yet when I tested your ability to find such information by asking you to produce details of my uncle, who was a medal winner in WW2, you couldn't even begin to produce such information.
You say above "Well then Jim I see you still cannot find one single example of me lying."
Here are a few more examples to join the many I have given you.
You are a bluffer, bullshitter and ruthless porky-vendor when it comes to peddling you obnoxious jingoist bullshit.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 16 - 04:28 AM

Where have I complained about being insulted, pray tell? Has your dog just died or something? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 16 - 04:32 AM

Oops, apologies for that. I was reading one post with one eye and another with the other. 😳

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 16 - 04:40 AM

"You've just complained about being insulted but you seem totally incapable of posting to those who disagree with you without prefixing it with insults."

Complained Jim? No long ago gave up on that, I merely commented on it. I tend to deal in the coin paid to me and besides what insults?

I highlight my apologies because inhabiting this forum we have lying bastards who say I never apologise or own up to making mistakes (Just recently blown that myth/downright lie clear out of the water - Ask Raggy). So it seems as if you may be able to recognise rare breeds of bird but your command of the English language is so damn poor that you cannot recognise and take note of an apology when it is made.

"I put Tommy's story, as he told it to us, on the 'unregulated Remembrence Day' thread - that is how he told it, that is how I first posted it and that is how it remains."

I know, I read it, and that was a very modified version of the story you first told. Think it was one of the Muskets who first brought up summary executions and you introduced us to Tommy Kenny to support the lie - It was you who wittered on about there being special squads of Military police engaged in the summary execution of British soldiers and various people were introduced out of the woodwork who were supposedly veterans who had witnessed this that and the other but nobody could find any details, nobody could give the name of any dear innocent comrade who had been executed in this manner. Obviously the much valued commodity of common sense does not exist in your universe Carroll, but ask any serviceman who has ever been on active service and he will tell you the names of those who were there alongside him, the names of his Sergeants and the names of his Officers - and you are really trying to tell us that such a servicemen would not be able to tell the name of a friend summarily executed by a British Military Policeman standing within a few feet of him - utterly preposterous and totally unbelievable.

Here is another of your lies Jim:

"You even claimed that you were able to find that there was no record of him having served - yet when I tested your ability to find such information by asking you to produce details of my uncle, who was a medal winner in WW2, you couldn't even begin to produce such information."

1: I stated that you hadn't checked that he had served. In talking to my grandfathers and their friends what service, branch or regiment they had been in was always the first things they told you. Where they served was the second. Those bits of information were vital to frame the stories they then told - Yet Tommy Kenny mentioned none of those things otherwise that information would have been on your tape recording, and so disinterested an interviewer were you that you didn't see fit to ask or check. As far as research methodology goes that is appallingly slack and slapdash.

2: Contacting various sites I came up with not one but six Tommy or Thomas Kenny's who served. I managed to do that for a very modest outlay and I managed to do that easily within the course of one morning.

3: As for you testing my ability - I see no reason to dance to any tune you want to play - especially not if it involves personal expense in doing something I am not in the least interested in.

You have still not managed to provide verbatim any lie I have told on this forum, and guess what Carroll - you never will.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 16 - 04:47 AM

It is arguments like those put forward by Teribus that will probably deter me from wearing a poppy for the rest of my life
Teribus is an extreme jingoist - the war he depicts was one of a just war, good leadership and obedient men - Remembrance Sunday is still a watered down version of this.
In fact, WW1 was a war between Empires for control and expansion of their territories - a war for power and profit.
The jingoist claim of a well- conducted war is a lie - it was a war of attrition where the only 'tactic' was to acquire the greatest number of men possible and send them over the top until the other side caved in.
The leaders couldn't even get that right - the military couldn't agree with the Government and constantly fell out, recruitment was put in the hands of Arthur Bottomley, who became a millionaire by his profiteering, military leaders were constantly falling out among themselves and fiascoes like 'the wrong shells' incident and Gallipoli were causing many thousands of avoidable deaths.
Loos was a shambles of misjudgment, The Somme and Passchendaele were acts of simple and prolonged butchery.
I have little doubt that if flag-waggers like Teribus were given access to the soldiers' diaries housed in The Imperial War Museum, he would happily blue-pencil out any adverse comment on the war and its leadership.
We've just come through a year of celebration of the Easter Uprising (typically denigrated by Teribus and Keith in distinctive flag-wagging fashion)
It has been a year of self-examination and analysis for the Irish - one where the Rising was put under the microscope and re-examines - warts and all.
It produced a mass of fresh information and evidence, and has given rise to a landslide of books on the subject - an open and healthy examination of a great achievement, largely without jingoistic nationalism.
Sure - there has been national pride of a great achievement - why wouldn't there be - that's what it was?
When WW1 and other such conflicts are treated in this way, maybe I'll wear a poppy - but I doubt if it will ever happen in my lifetime.
This does not in any way diminish my respect for those who fought and died - far from it.
I feel it is time for a proper examination of how they died and for what.
Denigrating soldiers, as jingoists like Teribus do, in order to protect the reputations of the Military and the politicians, is one of the barriers to be surmounted before they can come anywhere near what was achieved in Ireland this year.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 16 - 04:51 AM

"I see no reason to dance to any tune you want to play -"
Dancing to my tune is providing evidence - which you refuse to do, but demand from others - a sign of your meglomanis
The rest of your posting adds yet more lies to your growing list.
Prove them with evidence - silly question - you don't do that sort of thing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 16 - 05:15 AM

Jim Carroll - You are a bluffer, bullshitter and ruthless porky-vendor when it comes to peddling you obnoxious inaccurate, misrepresentative and at times totally fictitious bullshit.

By the way Carroll according to the President and the Taoiseach the 1916 Risings were commemorated this year, they were not celebrated as you put it.

1916 Easter Week COMMEMORATIONS

We will now get a spittle-flecked rant from Carroll saying that I just made all of that up. But note that not once in the document from the Taoiseach's Office does the word celebration appear.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 16 - 05:44 AM

Sticks and stones Teribus
Never a replacement for honest argument
"We will now get a spittle-flecked rant from Carroll"
What we won't get is an honest response backed by real evidence
I take it that this is the level we can continue to expect from you?
Rule Britannia - eh what!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 16 - 05:56 AM

"Sticks and stones" indeed Carroll - so why do you so tediously instigate and indulge in it - Jim Carroll - 16 Nov 16 - 03:38 AM

Anyone who disagrees or contradicts the Carroll party line is automatically subjected to a stream of abuse and branded every form of ".....ist" in existence and guilty of every form of "....ism" that one can be - boring, and pathetically predictable signs that JOM has run out of the means to argue yet again.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 16 - 06:24 AM

More sticks and stones - no evidence
Anybody who describees requests for evidence as "dancing to any tune you want to play" can only be considered a megalomaniac head-case in anybody's book
You have no case and it is you who are reduced to " spittle-flecked ranting"
Where is your argument - your insults have long been taken as standard behaviour on your part.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 16 - 07:27 AM

Incidentaly
Your crass attempts to use semantics backfires when you actually examine how the Eater Rising was handled py the media, the establishment and the population as a whole   
Apart from the fact that the Taoiseach does not speak for the people here or represent their views as a whole, there in no reason why a historical event cannot be commemorated and celebrated - both happened here - they are not contradictory terms.
Ireland celebrated the Rising as marking the first steps in breaking free of eight centuries of foreign influence.
The fact that it did so with dignity and without recrimination says much for the Irish people and gives the lie to your and Keith's description of them as a brainwashed, hate filled and gullible bunch of morons, incapable of knowing what is best for their own country.
Your primeval attitude to ours and others history is not just confined to a jingoism that has long been an object of ridicule, even in Britain, but it also reflects your Xenophobic attitude towards foreigners, (particularly those who were unfortunate enough to be part of the predatory Empire).
Such attitudes gave us Brexit and have just foisted an openly Fascist American President onto the world
You keep the best of company.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 02:24 AM

" the Taoiseach does not speak for the people here or represent their views as a whole"

As an elected representative and as the leader of the elected Government of the Republic of Ireland he does more so than you do Carroll, as you are unelected and representative of no-one bar yourself you can speak for no-one but yourself.

Your "brainwashed, hate filled and gullible" is a perfect thumbnail sketch of yourself, as clearly demonstrated in practically everything you contribute.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 03:11 AM

"As an elected representative and as the leader of the elected Government of the Republic of Ireland he does more so than you do Carroll, "
And the people's voice speaks louer than anybodys - maybe not to fascist, but it takes all kinds.
Immaterial anyway - your point is pointless and has nothing to do with anything here.
Ireland showed dignity and respect for the event - whatever you care to call it.
Both this, and the anniversary of the Famine was used to learn from what happened.
" is a perfect thumbnail sketch of yourself"
It is how oyou regard the Irish, the poor.... and old soldiers whose "lies" burst your jingoist bubble - not to mention members of this forum who you persist in talking down to whenever they deem to disagree with you
"Carroll"

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 04:00 AM

Jim Carroll - now declares himself as being - "The People's Voice" - you are a truly deluded prat who has probably never worn a poppy in your life so so much for your:

"It is arguments like those put forward by Teribus that will probably deter me from wearing a poppy for the rest of my life"

Empty words and empty gestures Carroll.

200 Up

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 04:08 AM

"Jim Carroll - now declares himself as being - "The People's Voice" "
Where - another one to the growing list?
Leave it out Teribus and let this thread run its natural course.
Your flailing around has got you just about as far as all your other jingoistic endevours and hate-fests.
Go and find some other old soldiers to denigrate - you seem to do that best.
THat seems to be the sum total of the respect you have for those who died.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 05:55 AM

A final post from me on this thread. The Peace Pledge Union report record sales of white poppies this year (over 100,000). I must say I haven't seen anyone else wearing them though.
RtS

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 06:05 AM

You will see a lot on this clip showing the Veterans for Peace remembrance parade 2016, Roger.

Anyone know if that is Jim Radford singing about a minute and a half in? Looks like him and sounds like one of his songs.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 09:52 AM

Jim, On yesterdays BBC News website there was an article about voices from WW1. In it one soldier recalled going back to his own lines after being shot. There he found two young men who he thought had been shot for not going "over the top" a summary execution. I'm a bit limited here so maybe you could find the article and post it. I have no illusions that he too will be named as a liar by some.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 10:05 AM

I'll do my best Raggy - it's little more than a reference to a diary entry by the posters grandfather, who described special squads of men who were given the job of carrying out executions.
It's on one of the interminable "I Love World War One" threads
Get back to you
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 10:38 AM

Here it is Rag.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37975358

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 11:30 AM

"On yesterdays BBC News website there was an article about voices from WW1. In it one soldier recalled going back to his own lines after being shot. There he found two young men who he thought had been shot for not going "over the top" a summary execution." - Raggytash

How dashed convenient for your side of the argument Raggy.

Do you believe it? Or is that a daft question?

Talking about questions relating to this tale I will take at face value. Have you asked yourself any? No of course you haven't.

"one soldier recalled going back to his own lines after being shot. There he found two young men who he THOUGHT had been shot for not going "over the top" a summary execution"

1: So as in every other example of these supposed "summary executions", nobody ever saw one actually being carried out, and nobody can give any names of anybody subjected to such executions. This example is no different.

2: What on earth could possibly have caused this wounded soldier to THINK that these men had been summarily executed for not going "over the top". He wasn't there, did they have signs on their chests proclaiming their "crime"? Were those who shot them standing beside them boasting about it?

3: Under the circumstances this soldier describes there is no possible way at all that he could possibly know how the two men lying on the ground died.

Raggy were you really born that gullible that you believe everything you hear? See? Read?

Just to clear these discussions from unconnected threads and remove the tedium for others on this forum I think I will put up a thread solely dealing with Summary Executions carried out by the British Army in World War One - you can only post to it if you have substantive proof that such executions took place giving name, date and place. My prediction will be that it will be the shortest and least posted to thread on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 12:00 PM

Another mouthful of insults - nothing new
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 03:28 PM

No of course you don't give any credit Terry. It doesn't fit with your blinkered version of the Bwitish Army.

The Bwitish Army would never do anything like that ............................ would they. Yours is jingoism of the worst kind, one that seeks to denigrate the very soldiers who fought a brutal, bloody war.

I am prepared to listen to a soldier with first hand experience of life the trenches during WW1 who decades after the event and I would suggest with the knowledge that the likes of you would not believe him still felt he had to tell the story.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 09:22 PM

Ehmmm No Raggy - when someone stands up and accuses people of doing something wrong I happen to be one of those rare individuals who actually want the accusers to come up with some solid substantive evidence to back up their allegations - Right - you twats start coming up with substantive evidence or shut the fuck up.

By the way substantive evidence does not mean:

I heard that ........

Some bloke said to me that ...........

So and so was convinced that ...........

Substantive evidence means names, dates and places if you cannot give those then put yourself in the place of the accused - would you be prepared to be executed on the evidence that you currently bring to the table? If not then I humbly submit and request that you stop talking a complete and utter load of bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 10:59 PM

ok... so if in the heat of battle an officer or nco cracked under stress and started summarily executing soldiers for cowardice
to make an example to motivate the others to fight on..

He'd have on the spot or asap afterwards made proper formal written records and filed and archived them for posterity...???

Where exactly in the mud and blood, and explosions atomizing all around, might those papers have been stored for safe keeping
until they were taken back to command...???

Even in the near certain event of his own death during that battle....

How deep was the water and mud... ???

oh yeah right... evidence...

and witnesses... when lines of men were dropping like flies or being vapourized unaware what might be happening mere yards behind...???


Teribus - you might be absolutely right.. and there is no evidence or witnesses because such war crimes never happened...

Though on balance of probabilities, can you produce convincing evidence it definitely never ever happened..

not even once or twice... or often... in all that utter fucked up traumatizing chaos and carnage


Armies might have been very good at turning blind eyes and keeping dirty secrets to protect their own...

Come on Teribus.. this is a folk music site... use your imagination and empathy to think a little more like a creative artist for a change...

Break out of your straight jacket and blinkers... it could be liberating... 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Nov 16 - 11:16 PM

..after all reputations were at stake.. can't have that nasty business turning up one day to embarrass the regiment
and the families of any officers involved... 😶 🙈 🙉 🙊

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 05:01 AM

"who actually want the accusers to come up with some solid substantive evidence to back up their allegations "
While at the same time never producing a shred of evidence for any of your own claims
Rare indeed
You have never proiduced proof of what you say and have described being asked to do so as "dancing to any tune you want to play -"
Meglomania rules OK
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 05:20 AM

Brigadier-General Frank Percy Crozier admitted he ordered the shooting of sentries who fell asleep while on duty. He also described the execution of Private James Crozier of the Royal Irish Rifles: "There are hooks on the post; we always do things thoroughly in the Rifles. He is hooked on like dead meat in a butcher's shop. His eyes are bandaged - not that it really matters, for he is already blind... A volley rings out - a nervous volley it is true, yet a volley. Before the fatal shots are fired I had called the battalion to attention. There is a pause, I wait. I see the medical officer examining the victim. He makes a sign, the subaltern strides forward, a single shot rings out. Life is now extinct... We march back to breakfast while the men of a certain company pay the last tribute at the graveside of an unfortunate comrade. This is war."
EXECUTIONS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 05:42 AM

"By the way substantive evidence does not mean:

I heard that ........

Some bloke said to me that ...........

So and so was convinced that ..........."

...Which rules out everything ever written in history books. All second-hand information.   

In other words, come off it.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 05:51 AM

"By the way substantive evidence does not mean..."
And it rules out any reminiscence by every soldier who ever risked his life.
Lie down harry Patch - you made it all up"
The crassness of this is underlined by the fact that it comes from someone who never provides proof to his claims - not ever.
Bloody insane arrogance.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 06:42 AM

"so if in the heat of battle an officer or nco cracked under stress and started summarily executing soldiers for cowardice
to make an example to motivate the others to fight on.."

In such an instance pfr I would very much doubt if that Officer or NCO would outlive his first victim, surrounded as he would be by that man's friends all armed to the teeth. In a war, in a battle, getting shot at and killed by the enemy is one thing and totally to be expected, getting shot at at close quarters by your own side just would not be sanctioned, or condoned, or tolerated - individual self preservation clutches in.

During and after the First World War literally hundreds of thousands of letters and diaries were gifted to the Imperial War Museum. Soldiers, sailors and airmen of every rank imaginable wrote books about their experiences and even more were interviewed at length in the United Kingdom, in Canada and in Australia by those making documentaries on the conflict. Guess what pfr, out of all of that lot there is not one single mention of any summary executions ever having taken place. We know for certain that it happened in the French Army and also in the Italian Army there is documented evidence of that and names can be put to those executed in such a fashion - Now if it happened in the British, Commonwealth or Empire Armies how come nobody knows about it?

You say come on Teribus "Break out of your straight jacket and blinkers" - and do what pfr - invent history to suit contemporary fashion? - take part in inventing lies and give them credence while in the process blacken and besmirch the names and reputations of those long dead who can no longer defend themselves.

Now I will ask you again - on the "evidence" given so far if it was you who were about to die condemned by it do you think it sufficient? I most certainly do not.

"Brigadier-General Frank Percy Crozier admitted he ordered the shooting of sentries who fell asleep while on duty." - Jim Carroll

I would not put too much credence in whatever Frank Percy Crozier said, besides Jim it is on record that Frank Percy Crozier did request permission to order that and was told immediately by his Divisional Assistant Provost Martial that permission was denied and separate orders were sent to the APMs staff with Croziers Brigade that any such order given by Crozier was to be ignored. This has all been dragged up before by Carroll so it is nothing new.

All that having been said - a question for you Jim - How many sentries under Brigadier-General Frank Percy Crozier WERE ACTUALLY SHOT? Don't strain yourself too hard Jom - The answer to that question is - NONE

Crozier's books were controversial for their claims of doubtful factual accuracy. He was largely discredited and considered a nuisance by the contemporaries. - Source - Walker, Stephen (2007). Forgotten Soldiers: The Story of the Irishmen Executed by the British Army during the First World War. Gill & Macmillan Ltd. pp. 21–34. ISBN 9780717162215.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 06:50 AM

"I would not put too much credence in whatever Frank Percy Crozier said, "
Once again you refuse to provide as scrap of backup to your own claims and dismiss out of hand documented evidence put up
You're mad as a hatter - what are you on?
And once again the lack of conviction in what you claim is underlined by your insulting manner
Evidence drives arguments - not arrogant bullying
Try tranquilisers
DO YOU EVER INTEND PROVIDING EVIDENCE TO WHAT YOU SAY OR WILL THET FOREVER REMAIN "DANCING TO WHATEVER TUNE YOU WANT TO PLAY?
It's little wonder you are regarded the figure of ridicule you are
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 06:55 AM

"Which rules out everything ever written in history books. All second-hand information."

Good heavens Shaw, what mighty disdain you must have for your former colleagues who studied and taught History in the many schools you taught in.

Are you really that much of a prat that you think all history is based upon hearsay?

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:02 AM

Any moron can talk down to people, dismiss evidence out of hand and refuse to provide your own - which is about the only thing you have ever proved
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:07 AM

Brigadier-General Frank Percy Crozier admitted he ordered the shooting of sentries who fell asleep while on duty.

Neither a General nor any higher rank can order an execution. Only a Court Martial.

He also described the execution of Private James Crozier of the Royal Irish Rifles:

The description sounds perfectly authentic, but the execution could only have been ordered by a court martial.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:10 AM

"Are you really that much of a prat that you think all history is based upon hearsay?"
Are you really that much of a prat as to have never heard of Social history which combined documented evidence alongside that of people who were actually there?
All history is based on human experience - dismiss humanity and you have no basis for history.
Oral history is no more open to dispute and contradiction as is documented history, which, more often than not, is subject to current bias and is often agenda driven.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:22 AM

"Once again you refuse to provide as scrap of backup to your own claims and dismiss out of hand documented evidence put up" - Jim Carroll

What the fuck do you think this is you gormless Prat:

Crozier's books were controversial for their claims of doubtful factual accuracy. He was largely discredited and considered a nuisance by the contemporaries. - SOURCE - Walker, Stephen (2007). Forgotten Soldiers: The Story of the Irishmen Executed by the British Army during the First World War. Gill & Macmillan Ltd. pp. 21–34. ISBN 9780717162215.

By the way glad you brought up Harry Patch who by his own admission in the interview he gave the BBC said that he had never encountered anyone suffering from shell shock so could therefore have never seen any summary execution by any officer of anyone suffering from it - could he?

As to Officers turning guns on or threatening their own troops, the following iis cut'n'pasted from Harry Patch's interview:

Mutiny

'E' company were about a thousand strong. We had an officer we didn't like. He used to take us out route marches. We didn't like it. That afternoon he wanted the 'E' company on parade for bayonet practice. The war had been over for months. The sergeant major opened the door. Somebody threw a boot at him. He went back, reported it.

The officer came and they told him flat that they weren't going out on parade. Well, he went back to the company office and about thirty of the men followed him and they asked for him. He came out, he pulled his revolver out and he clicked the hammer back. Nobody said anything. We had all been on the range. I was on fatigue that morning so I wasn't on parade. Nobody said anything.

They all went back to their huts and they rounded up what ammunition they could and went back and they asked for the officer again. He was a captain, risen from the ranks. He came out and he clicked the hammer back on his revolver. He said, 'The first man who says he is not going on parade, I'll shoot him.' No sooner had he said that, when thirty bolts went back and somebody shouted, 'Now shoot you bugger if you like.' He threw the revolver down, disappeared. We were all run up for a mutiny.

We had a brigadier come over from the mainland to hear the officer's side of it. Then he said, 'I want to hear the men.' Twenty or thirty of the men went behind a screen and they told him. They said, 'We don't want bayonet practice. We've had the real bloody thing. Some of us are wounded by bayonets.' The outcome was that there were no parades except just to clear the camp, just fatigues. The officer was moved to a different command. We never saw him again. It's a damn good job we didn't.

Now those were men out of the line and in no danger. Do you honestly think that under fire they would meekly allow any Officer or NCO to shoot them without a murmur and then keep quiet about it? Utterly preposterous and totally unbelievable.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:36 AM

Jim Carroll - 18 Nov 16 - 07:10 AM

Now then Jim where and when did I deny the importance of "Social History" - Or is this just another of your baseless assumptions?

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:54 AM

Balance of probabilities....

It is entirely plausible that such minor localized coercive threats and mutines could have happened in the heat, mud, blood, entrails and excrement of combat..
within a small section of a trench or no man's land as men were pushed on into raging carnage of battle..

Who knows, who will ever know, what bad things happened at the heart of darkness of warfare if all participants and witnesses
in that condensed area were killed within a very short time of each other...????

Yes this is the stuff of dramatists, fiction, song and poetry writers..

but also just as likely as could be true lost undocumented human psychology and tragedy of war..

For example, how could there possibly exist accurate statistics of hated officers and ncos murdered by their own men under the smokescreen of combat...???

..or bitter personal rivalries and vendettas amongst individual troops themselves, settled in a similar quick brutish manner...?????

Some things, none of us will ever know.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 08:03 AM

PFR, yes but we are discussing whether summary executions were ever legal or permitted in the British Army.
They were not.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 08:35 AM

Keith - Yes.. I'd assumed we'd agreed on that fairly obvious technicality..

But.. it's so more interesting considering the traumatic terrifying chaotic scenarios were rule books are no longer foremost in the active participants' blood stained war crazed minds...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 08:36 AM

No we are not - we are discussing whether they were carried out - the eye-witness evidence suggests they did - as does the Crozier autobiography.
"What the fuck do you think this is you gormless Prat:"
Don't to talk down to me, you arrogant moron
Unqualified dismissal by his contemporaries who considered him an embarrassment is not reliable evidence - he epitomised the arrogance of the "Great Leaders" of the time and this particular boast about his own attitude is more than borne out by eye-witness statements that you have dismissed as "soldiers lies".
His grasp on history may be shoddy, but unless he was a raving liar, we have to accept that this was his own experience and view
Do you have any real evidence that this was the case - and if you have, are you prepared to share it with us?
This is only the second time you have ever offered "evidence" - hastily gathered from Wiki - lazy, at the very least.
The last time you brought up something I had already provided which contradicted your case anyway
You are an arrogant strutting moron pedaling jingoistic nonsense.
You said you were going to open a new thread - instead you have hi-jacked an existing one in order to resurrect arguments that were sunk two years ago - and uyou have bow been joined by your obsessive extremist mate.
A total waste of everybody's time
Jim Carroll
.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 09:54 AM

punkfolkrocker - 18 Nov 16 - 07:54 AM

"Some things, none of us will ever know."

EXACTLY pfr - so have a word with your mates and pass on to them not to state that things definitely happened when we haven't got any evidence to support their scurrilous and totally unproven claims.

By the way lack of evidence indicates that the event never happened.

Unfortunately your pals and possibly yourself tend to believe fiction rather than fact.

Jim Carroll - 18 Nov 16 - 08:36 AM

"No we are not - we are discussing whether they were carried out - the eye-witness evidence suggests they did - as does the Crozier autobiography."

What eye-witness evidence? (I take it that you do know what an "eye-witness" is? Someone who actually was present and saw the act or event with their own eyes) You have provided no such evidence. Not one single instance that you have referred to has anyone ever claimed to have been an eye-witness to any such summary execution.

Where in the Crozier autobiography is the subject of summary execution during WWI covered?

Names of those who were subject to summary execution.
Names of those who were supposed to have carried out the alleged executions.
Names of those who must have witnessed these alleged summary executions.
Dates times and places these alleged summary executions.

You have provided none of the above Carroll - the primary reason for that is that no such evidence exists.

Frank Percy Crozier was a proven raving liar according to his fellow Officers, Stephen Walker and Charles Messenger.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 10:09 AM

"What eye-witness evidence?"
As I said - old ground which you have dismissed as soldiers' lies.
You are trying to talk down to people from your mental hole in the ground again - highly entertaining, but not helpful
And you are demanding confirmation that you are not willing to provide yourself
Do not be stupid - we do not need details of names and dates to know that millions of Jews were exterminated - why should we need them here
It is enough to know that an officer confessed to having carried out summary executions - have you any evidence to show he was lying?
No - of course you haven't - you seem to believe that you only have to say something to make it true
"according to his fellow Officers"
They would say that about someone who has blown their cover, wouldn't they, after having been party to sending a generation of young men to their deaths, wouldn't they?
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR ANY OF THIS UTTER BULLSHIT?
You arrogant, arrogant little man.
You might as well try to take yourself seriously, even if nobody else does - are you really unaware of the image of the streutting bully you project?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 10:39 AM

Jim, summary execution was not permitted.
Your general could not have done what he claimed.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 10:40 AM

"we were all run up for mutiny" ............................................

I'm positive you told us that mutiny never happened in the British Army.

You must have meant that such occurances were hushed up, didn't pass into the history books and therefore never happened.

Quelle surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 10:49 AM

"By the way lack of evidence indicates that the event never happened."

errrrmmm.. I vaguely remember passing a Law A level in 1977,
so even I know the blatant fallacy of your stated presumption....

You rightly fairly rest your case on the existing war diaries and letter of verifiable provenance;
but again, to state the obvious, what about all the personal written accounts that did not survive intact or become available for scrutiny...???

I'd say as a fair guess there were far more of them....

And on a more basic human level, let's consider the squalid dark guilty secrets of combat,
that battle weary and hardened loyal comrades swore pacts of secrecy never to reveal to their dying day....?????

Far more that happens exceeds that which is written down or openly confided in other friends and family,
let alone strangers, researchers and historians, or legal enquires...

I bet every one of us indulging in this thread harbours transgressive secrets we will never tell, and have pushed far into the recesses of our memories.....

All nothing compared to the understandably concealed memories of warriors...

My grandads never told me a word of their war experiences.. and the family respected that.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 10:54 AM

Seems like a new picture is emerging here
On the one hand we are told about a well led army on the other we have the raving madman liar like Brigadier-General Frank Percy Crozier and cold-blooded killers like Captain Bowen-Colthurst (the murderer of Skeffington Sheehy in Dublin in 1916) - not to mention an army made up of lying soldiers.
What exactly are we supposed to commemorate - it seems to be officers who are not fit to lead cattle, never mind a generation of young men to their deaths – and men who are incapable of distinguishing truth from fiction.
It seems that officers are not immune to being called liars if their stories don't measure up to Colonel Blimp's jingoism.
"Jim, summary execution was not permitted. Your general could not have done what he claimed."
Oh dear, Village idiot school out – is it that time already?
Thjis is what this argument is about - can't you work the answer to that one yourself Keith?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 10:56 AM

Incidentally no-one was named by the soldier on the BBC website so there could be no cause for evidence of names etc. No-one was in court before a judge and jury.

Why should someone with first hand experience of life in the trenches make up such a story. He fought alongside other men, many of whom were killed maimed and simply told of one of his recollections before he too passed on.

Whether he was correct or not I would suggest he had far more experience of gunshot wounds and could possibly tell whether a shot had come from close quarters for from across no-mans land.

So my dilemma is do:- I trust his words or those of a rabid jingoist.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 12:36 PM

"old ground which you have dismissed as soldiers' lies."

Old soldiers who by their own admission never actually witnessed anything that even remotely resembled a summary execution.

If you are attempting to sell us a tale about a soldier "who was there" and saw one of his "mates" summarily executed, yet could not put a name to the victim, could not name the person who carried out the execution, could not tell where and when this execution took place and then after seeing one of his "mates" gunned down did not mention it to anyone - As I said utterly preposterous and totally unbelievable.

"we do not need details of names and dates to know that millions of Jews were exterminated - why should we need them here"

The names and details and dates of execution or death of those millions of Jews are known to exist, they are a matter of record and it is a totally unassailable fact that those Jews were murdered by the Nazis. You claiming that British soldiers were subject to summary execution is a completely different kettle of fish, there are no details, your "so-called witnesses" actually did not witness anything, there are no records of any kind that supports your assertion - and sorry old son your word on it does not guarantee it as fact.

WHICH "officer confessed to having carried out summary executions" - Please don't say Frank Percy Crozier - he may have given an illegal instruction that sentries found to be sleeping on duty are to be shot - THAT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN THAT ANYBODY WAS SHOT - In fact none were

Raggytash - 18 Nov 16 - 10:40 AM

I'm positive you told us that mutiny never happened in the British Army.

You really are a glutton for punishment Raggy. Do you want me to embarrass you again? Throughout the course of the First World War the British, Commonwealth & Empire Armies never mutinied in the field or refused to attack the enemy. In Harry Patch's story:

"We had an officer we didn't like. He used to take us out route marches. We didn't like it. That afternoon he wanted the 'E' company on parade for bayonet practice. The war had been over for months."

Oh Raggy the soldier you heard on BBC:

""John Kirkham, who had had his arm shattered by a bullet and returned to his own lines, reported seeing "two unfortunate boys" who had been "terrified" and who he was convinced had been summarily shot for cowardice."

Tell me what John Kirkham had seen? The "two unfortunate boys" were already dead, he did not see them shot, which begs the rather obvious question, "How the fuck could he tell whether they were "terrified" or not prior to a death that he did not witness". Are you prats so gullible that you believe absolutely everything that you see, hear or read? Are you incapable of any critical thought process, or does it all just melt away when you hear something that panders to your idiotic beliefs.

"Whether he was correct or not I would suggest he had far more experience of gunshot wounds and could possibly tell whether a shot had come from close quarters for from across no-mans land."

Now let me get this right Raggy, you are now trying to tell us that a soldier undoubtedly in some quite considerable pain whose arm has been shattered by an enemy bullet walks back to get treatment but stops off to examine two dead bodies. You might be stupid enough to put that forward by way of explanation, I on the other hand am not stupid enough to swallow it.

pfr - "what about all the personal written accounts that did not survive intact or become available for scrutiny...???

I'd say as a fair guess there were far more of them...."

I dare say that there were - and neither you, nor I, nor anyone else has the knowledge or the right to state what they contained. So for you to then launch into secret pacts and sworn cover-ups is ludicrous, but there again you could be a compulsive conspiracy theorist.

"My grandads never told me a word of their war experiences.. and the family respected that."

But had either kept a diary or letters, when they died, that material would have been read before it was either kept or destroyed.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 01:01 PM

"Old soldiers who by their own admission never actually witnessed anything"
So they are liars - do we have that right?
Talk of summary executions were commonplace - the fact that they happened were confirmed by your Brigadeer General who boasted about it when there was no reason on earth for him to lie about it.
Tommy Kenny never witnessed an execution of any form, but he was around when they took place and reported on the aftermath.
He referred to them having happened.
Phillip Donnellans interviewees spoke of them and brought a roar of outrage from the establishment.
The extract from the diary I provided describes special squads that were sent out to arrest and execute deserters while the action was taking place.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest they happened - you have produced only outraged Colonel Blimpish denials
You want to call these people liars - where's your evidence?
How fucking dare you call old soldiers liars without proof - you establishment suck-hole.
I am not trying to "sell anything" - certainly not to you - your role here is to keep us entertained, not informed
Jim Carroll

"But had either kept a diary or letters,"
Letters were censored and diaries were forbidden - not without reason
Who wanted to know what was going on at the front.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 01:07 PM

And by the way
The names of the Jews who died certainly were not recorded - they were gathered together after the war by relatives - many of them were unknown because entire families were wiped out - not even the actual numbers are known
The only reason we have as many details as we do is because Germany lost the war - don't you know that winners are never guilty of committing atrocities?
What a stupid thing to claim - even for you!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 02:14 PM

No I'm not a conspiracy theorist.. but naturally a bit of a cynic...

You seriously believe that in a war of that magnitude, and length of time, with so many young men never knowing how long they might live...

That mates at the front never agreed to keep quiet about questionable combat action and deaths...

Come on, it's human nature... if not institutionalised military response

.. and allegedly still happening...


Of course, if only they'd had helmet cams and youtube 100 years ago...... 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 02:17 PM

Finished with this stupidity
There's s.f.a. here that hasn't been discussed over and over again - you failed to convince anybody then and you are making a greater bollocks of it now.
Tell you what.
You said you were going to open a new thread - you don't even have the imagination or the nouse to do even that - you've just slithered into a working thread and taken over - and I was stupid enough to fall for it.
Why don't you just go and do what you said you were going to do - head between knees, deep breath, and try to come to terms with the fact that you are not in the position to talk down to anybody - you have neither the intelligence nor the experience - you are just a jingoistic dimmo.
Go and open your thread, try to think of something new to say, be prepared to back it with some documented facts or maybe some reported experiences.
Then set them down in a respectful and articulate way - I'm a bit tired of trying to deal with someone who behaves like a spoiled a child with learning difficulties
Come up with something that isn't ripped out to The Hotspur or the racist 'Blackhawk Comics nad I might be prepared to discuss with you.
Failing that - go screw your fanatcal jingoistic self - I can get any of this shite by opening up the B.N.P. site.
Don't forget - head between knees - deep breaths....!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 06:53 PM

"the fact that they happened were confirmed by your Brigadeer General who boasted about it" - Jim Carroll

Confirmed where and when by Brigadier-General Frank Percy Crozier? The only execution he was involved in during the Great War was that of Pte James Crozier who was arrested, charged with desertion, tried by Court Martial, found guilty and sentenced to death, the warrant for his execution being signed by Haig - Hate to burst your bubble Carroll but there was damn all "Summary" about any of that.

"where's your evidence?" - more of a lack of evidence really, no bodies, no graves, no names, no dates, no places, no witnesses, in fact nothing at all to convince anybody that any such "Summary Executions" ever happened.

Your "special squads" nonsense is just that, such squads would have been massively outnumbered by men armed to the teeth - had they existed and acted as you seem to think they did they would not have lasted one minute - you simply do not just stand idly by while your friends are being murdered.

"There is plenty of evidence to suggest they happened"

Really? Then why can't you produce verified evidence of a single Summary Execution ever having taken place?

On the other matter:

1: The names of those to be delivered to the extermination camps were detailed for the transports. Those records exist

2: The names became numbers when they reached their destinations

3: The numbers were detailed prior to entry into the chambers

If nothing else in implementing their "Final Solution" the Germans were meticulous book-keepers, the information was used at the trials in Nuremberg.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 18 Nov 16 - 07:13 PM

I'd be content enough to settle for there's no convincing evidence it ever happened,
but on balance of probability it might have:
so cant be ruled out entirely so far through lack of definitive proof....


verdict.. sufficiently on the margin of plausibility..



There... done... one more hefty glass of rum.. then bedtime...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 03:04 AM

No bodies, no graves, no names, no dates, no places, no witnesses, in fact nothing at all to convince anybody that any such "Summary Executions" ever happened, basically means pfr that the balance of probability falls on the side that no such "Summary Executions" were ever carried out, especially by "special squads of military policemen" roaming about during a battle killing British soldiers out of hand purely on the basis of what they saw fit on the spur of the moment.

Of the 3,080 men sentenced to death, 346 men were actually executed - of those 266 were shot for desertion and 18 for cowardice.

Of the men shot, 91 were already under a previous suspended sentence, and nine under two sentences. Of the 91, 40 were already under a suspended death sentence, 38 of them for desertion, and one man had already been "sentenced to death" twice for desertion.

Of 393 men sentenced to death for falling asleep on sentry duty in all theatres in World War I, only two were executed (sentries were usually posted in pairs to keep one another awake; these two, who served in Mesopotamia - Take Note Jim and Raggy (before you put your foot in it again trying to catch me out), Brigadier-General Frank Percy Crozier never served in Mesopotamia during the First World War.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 04:00 AM

I really do not have an axe to grind here as I do not know enough about the issue but, from a logical point of view, PFR's suggestions seems reasonable to me. Yes, I know full well it was not allowed and I know full well there are no records of it. As to there being no bodies, dates etc. I can only say that there were too many remains that were unidentified to make that a categorical statement.

I must agree with Teribus' facts and figures as those are verifiable. However I do not think that anyone can categorically say it never happened. It is probable, under the scenario that PFR describes, that it may have happened but it would be very isolated. I should think that it also happened that someone from the ranks was likely to kill an officer and, in the full flight of battle, get away with it. I am certain that there were no 'special squads' but I also doubt very much that it never happened in the heat of the moment and was covered up later. It happens in life, it is known as murder and undoubtedly some get away with it. I am sure the same happened occasionally on the battlefield when tempers were up. And just as the numbers are insignificant today they are even more so in the midst of all that death.

Can we not agree that it may have happened illegally on occasion but rather than being endemic it was simply a handful amongst the millions of dead? Just for peace sake?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 06:38 AM

Number of points DtG

1: This whole thing started because it was claimed by some on this forum in WWI threads going back over two years now that Summary executions were carried out - Note that WERE carried out, no maybe, might have, could possibly have - definite statement summary executions WERE carried out.

2: In response to that Keith A, myself and others requested some sort of substantiation to back the accusation up - which I think is perfectly reasonable. I know I spent some considerable time checking through material and inquiring at the RMP Museum if there had ever been any such executions. My searches and inquiries resulted in no such instance of any summary executions being found.

3: By way of substantiation we got second-hand, hearsay accounts by people who we later found had actually witnessed nothing at all. We got stories of special squads of Military Police, Battlefield Police, none of whom, according to the RMP Museum ever executed anybody in the manner described on this forum. Isn't it odd that not one single name of any victim of such an act can be produced.

4: "As to there being no bodies, dates etc. I can only say that there were too many remains that were unidentified to make that a categorical statement." - WHAT? The claim is that these men were shot on the firing step of a trench in front of their comrades. The other claim is that they were shot as they wandered about BEHIND the British Lines. The remains that were unidentified and unidentifiable would be mainly in "No Mans Land", behind our lines in areas subjected to German artillery fire (Where cause of death and damage to the surrounding area would be unmistakable), or in enemy positions themselves killed in German counterattacks.

5: I find it rather strange and demonstrative of a particular bias that you say that it is wrong of me make a definite statement that it never happened, yet it would appear to be perfectly in order for your pals to state that it definitely did without one whit of evidence to substantiate the charge. What they are doing in laying these accusations and portraying them as being indisputable facts is blackening the reputations of people who are now no longer in a position to defend themselves. The funny thing is if those coming out with these statements about summary executions were charged with something and convicted on the strength of the scant and unreliable "evidence" they've produced to support the accusation that summary executions took place, they'd all be squealing like stuck pigs at the injustice of it all.

6: Could it possibly happen? It most certainly did in the French, Russian and Italian Armies and there is evidence to support that it did. The same cannot be said for the British, Commonwealth & Empire Armies, so the balance of probability is that it did not happen and to state categorically that it did is a barefaced lie. But there again those levelling the accusation and alleging that summary executions were common practice are people who have a track record of making idiotic and baseless, unsubstantiated accusations on this forum.

7: For "the sake of peace" I am not prepared to countenance or lend any sort of tacit credence to their outrageous lies.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 07:56 AM

No probs. It was a suggestion. No one has to take it on board. FWIW I agree that summary executions could not have been common practice as there would have been far more of an outcry. Maybe you can agree that it may have happened in the heat of the moment on very rare occasions. Or not. It doesn't really matter to me. It would explain why there are a couple of accounts of it happening without making lies out of anyone's first hand experience though.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 11:46 AM

"It would explain why there are a couple of accounts of it happening without making lies out of anyone's first hand experience though."

Only thing is DtG on examination those accounts turned out to be hearsay and supposition, stories heard from others, as explained in those accounts, they weren't actually anyone's first hand experiences at all, and by the tellers own admission they never actually saw anything.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 12:01 PM

Strange that you missed out the pertinent line in your response Tery.

The line that stated "we were all run up for mutiny"

I wonder why.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 12:11 PM

There were mutinies, notably the one at Etaples, and these have been acknowledged in previous discussions here.
No-one has ever claimed there were none, but as Teribus correctly stated, "Throughout the course of the First World War the British, Commonwealth & Empire Armies never mutinied in the field or refused to attack the enemy. "

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 12:23 PM

Fairy nuff.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 01:00 PM

Realms of plausibility...

.. and we've yet not even touched on the possibilities of undocumented isolated cases of mercy killings of our own soldiers;
and desperate measures under extreme duress to silence loud hysterical panicking young soldiers...???

.. might never have happened... then again, might have....?????

..and it's such gaps of hard evidence, allowing room for plausible speculative scenarios that arouse interest from creative artists
fascinated by human nature and psychology under the worst nightmare conditions..

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 01:39 PM

.. and we've yet not even touched on the possibilities of undocumented isolated cases of mercy killings of our own soldiers;
and desperate measures under extreme duress to silence loud hysterical panicking young soldiers...???

You will find such incidents referred to in many accounts including the memoirs of Sassoon and Graves who were both very critical of the war.
Graves also speaks of prisoners being murdered and it being treated as a joke.

Summary executions I have never come across in any accounts.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 02:53 AM

Raggytash - 19 Nov 16 - 12:01 PM

Strange that you missed out the pertinent line in your response Tery.

The line that stated "we were all run up for mutiny"

Why strange Raggy? How or why was that line either relevant or important with regard to the point being made? I take it that you do know the meaning of the phrase "being run up" for something Raggy? It means being marched in at the double {Hence the "run" part of it} and charged with something as a defaulter. And as you no doubt know it is one thing to be charged with something, and something completely different to be found guilty as charged. Tell me Raggy did Harry Patch say that he was found guilty or did he say that the investigating Officer found in favour of the men and that the Officer who had drawn and cocked his weapon was moved out of the unit?

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 03:11 AM

punkfolkrocker - 19 Nov 16 - 01:00 PM

This discussion is all about a very specific accusation made by members of this forum that it was common practice, sanctioned by those commanding the British, Commonwealth & Empire forces during the First World War, that summary executions were carried out. Again pfr please note that the contention was that these executions WERE carried out, no "maybe", no "might have been", no "could possibly have happened". Keth A of Hertford, myself and others in previous threads on the subject of the First World War challenged that definite statement that any such summary executions occurred in the British Army with result that to date not one single example of such an execution has been put forward by those levelling the accusation that they did.

We are dealing with the actual history of the period and of the events. I am not interested in wild speculation, which under no circumstance can ever replace hard fact. Historians are NOT creative artists and if I were studying a period in history and wanted to know the reality of that period the works I would go to would be those written by Historians who specialised in the various aspects of that period {Social, Political, Economic, Military} I would not refer to a speculative creative artist for any information upon which to base any argument about the period in question.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 12:02 PM

"This discussion is all about a very specific accusation made by members of this forum.. no "maybe", no "might have been", no "could possibly have happened"...
I am not interested in wild speculation, which under no circumstance can ever replace hard fact.. etc...etc.."

As a 'creative artist' I tend to try to avoid dead end dogma and certainty..

But in this instance I can confidently pronounce that you are absolutely wrong...

This thread is actually about 'POPPIES' !!!

The discussion that you refer to is the one that resides festering inside your egotistical obsessive head...

The FACT is that you have taken over this thread to rehash your old obsessions and boring fights with Jim and others.. yet again...


So by the same informal 'rules' of thread drift..
if I want to speculate and salvage some interest from this dreary thread takeover,
I and anyone else can try to introduce what ever new elements of questioning to kick start this exhausted debate we feel like...


YOU did not start this thread.. YOU do not OWN it..

and YOU certainly do not get to DICTATE what other mudcatters want to talk about..

Fair enough really if you occasionally stop to consider other people's views and ideas... 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 12:55 PM

If you look back, you will see that it was not Teribus who rehashed the old arguments with provocative, argumentative statements and coat trailing that had no place in the original discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 01:01 PM

btw.. one of my best mates of over 40 years is a serious respected historian and an imaginative creative artist...
now he is a genuinely interesting and engaging writer....

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 01:08 PM

yeah Kieth... who started what gets a bit silly from one thread to another as time drags trudging to the same old petty thread hopping arguments...

.. and the folks Teribus refers to as my 'pals' are not blameless...

At least Jim is aware enough to eventually realise when he has lapsed and mired in endless tit for tat.. and he is man enough to openly apologise..

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 01:22 PM

Trust you to deliberately seek to misunderstand yet again.

I was referring to the discussion WITHIN THIS THREAD that has arisen about the claim that summary executions were ordered, permitted and carried out by the British Army during the First World War - if it is wrong for me to discuss that then it was equally wrong for you to witter on about "undocumented isolated cases of mercy killings" as far of the realms of probability go. Others on this forum who you obviously side with on this issue made deliberate and definite statements that summary executions DID TAKE PLACE - that was the point that was challenged and to date after over two years they have been unable to provide any substantive evidence that backs their accusations.

"As a 'creative artist' {I'll take your word for that} I tend to try to avoid dead end dogma and certainty

In which case steer clear of any factual historical debate or discussion because fictional flights of fancy and dramatic, creative speculation will not overcome or supplant proven and documented historical fact.

NO-ONE OWNS the thread pfr, and no-one can direct what is posted to it, not even you. "Poppies" by the way are inexorably linked to the First World War, the Royal British Legion and Earl Haig. Originally the idea of an American University Professor Moina Michael, adopted, taken up and brought to London by a Frenchwoman Anna E. Guerin then adopted by Field Marshal Haig who was founder of the Royal British Legion.

"In England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, the poppies typically have two red paper petals mounted on a green plastic stem with a single green paper leaf and a prominent black plastic central boss. The stem has an additional branch used to anchor the poppy via a pin in the lapel or buttonhole.

In Scotland, the poppies are curled and have four petals with no leaf. The yearly selling of poppies is a major source of income for the RBL in the UK. The poppy has no fixed price; it is sold for a donation or the price may be suggested by the seller. The black plastic center of the poppy was marked "Haig Fund" until 1994 but is now marked "Poppy Appeal".

A team of about 50 people—most of them disabled former British military personnel—work all year round to make millions of poppies at the Poppy Factory in Richmond. Scottish poppies are made in the Lady Haig's Poppy Factory in Edinburgh.

Now I could not care less whether or not you or your pals wear "poppies" or not, I am not in the least bit interested. But if for one second you, or your pals think that scurrilous accusations can be levelled against those who can no longer defend their names and reputations without challenge then I'd advise you to think again.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 01:27 PM

Humph. Well I started this thread but I cheerfully confess to not owning it. Hope you're listening, Keith, to your mate Teribus. When things get tough for you in "your" threads, Keith, you try to force us away from thread drift. What yuh gotta say, now, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 01:43 PM

"Others on this forum who you obviously side with.....

nope.. I've never been much of a team player.

Taking 'sides' is an over simplistic concept I've never felt particularly shackled by....


Teribus - as I've commented on a previous thread.. god knows which or when....
If you were not such a hostile aggressively insulting egotist,
you would be a significant asset to the mudcat community.
However you persistently undermine all respect that might otherwise be accorded your expertise & knowledge...

You might be one of my favourite mudcatters, but not necessarily for all he right reasons..

I'm not a particularly 'nice' person either..
and your gratuitous nastiness , I must confess, does from time to time amuse the inner cruel bastard in me... 😈

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 03:47 PM

What nastiness pfr? In what way have I been nasty to you?

I tend to deal with others as they deal with me.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 05:08 PM

"I tend to deal with others as they deal with me."

Well would it be ok if we buried you six feet under, then you could do the same to us?


Silly bugger...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 05:15 PM

QED pfr - does that explain my approach to Shaw?

By the way pfr ask Shaw who is the "we" he refers to - you might find that, as far as he is concerned, you are included.

On the subject of the summary execution MYTH that they have tried to perpetuate as in previous threads Shaw and the usual subjects have been comprehensively routed, they'll slink away until the next time and it will start all over again.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 07:12 PM

"Shaw" has never been routed on the matter of summary executions because "Shaw" has never commented on summary executions, nor does "Shaw" either know about or take interest in summary executions, you clown. You're getting old, Woodcock, and your distemper is getting the better of you. There are wiser heads than yours hereabouts and they're hinting that you should just cool down a bit and embrace humanity. Take heed, old son!

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 02:06 AM

"There are wiser heads than yours hereabouts and they're hinting that you should just cool down a bit and embrace humanity. Take heed, old son!

Perhaps, as Iains says "In some rose tinted, treehugging, everyone is a sandal wearing teacher type world" of yours there is, but not so far on this forum. They most definitely have warned you and your pals about your conduct but so far they have never so much as whispered any such-like hint in my direction. It must infuriate you that the old "Let's get the thread closed down because we're getting hammered here" tactic no longer works Shaw.

Take heed, old son! Threats now Shaw? - every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 03:43 AM

Another live thread fucked up by an arrogant mental midget and his monkey - still talking down to people.
This really has been covered and sunk a dozen times elsewhere and is a couple of jingoists clinging onto a long-sunk life-raft.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 04:05 AM

But I haven't ever rattled on about "summary executions" as you alleged, have I, Bill old son?! 😂 You've lost it, mate!

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 04:21 AM

"every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled."
You really do totally lack imagination, don't you.
You've taken a description of your own arrogant behavior virtually word-for-word.
"I am seldom ever wrong" really tells you as you are
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 05:51 AM

Not specifically on this thread Shaw but you have on others in support of your pals more ludicrous claims.

"Another live thread fucked up by an arrogant mental midget and his monkey" - Oh Jom you shouldn't be that hard on yourself and Raggy.

"- still talking down to people." - I know you are Jom but don't worry over the years that you've been doing it we've all just sort of got used to it along with all your other tedious and wildly inaccurate, incoherent and incomprehensible rants on the many hobbie-horses you seem to gallop about on.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 06:45 AM

Lying Insults are not answers, Teribus -
Yoyu have not made your case, you have not provided any documented evidence to back up your claims
You have no case other than a rule book that proves nothing
Where did the Croake Park Massacre feature in your "army regulations, or Derry's Bloody Sunday, or the murder of Sheehy Skeffington.   
Were trials of 1916 carried out by the British Military, where the defendants were neither allowed to plead their case nor have legal representation, leading to the Easter Week leaders being executed, covered by the manual.
The fact the, a century after the event, the details of those trials are still secret, contrary to British laws of disclosure, in proof positive that all the rules and laws in the world mean sweet-fuck-all to an establishment which wants to cover up inconvenient facts.
The only reliable accounts of what actually happened-come from those who were there - you can't have a more reliable source than the boasting confession of an officer who carried out those some of those summary executions      
Stop being a braindead - you have not made a shred of a case to your jingoistic crap
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 06:47 AM

By the way
""every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled."
"Oh Jom "
Haven't even got the nouse to see a contradiction when you make one within a couple of postings
Sheeeesh!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 09:43 AM

Not on any thread, Teribus. I seem to remember you crowing about how you instantly apologise when you make a mistake. Not so, sadly, it seems. You're indulging in pig-headed Keithery again.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 10:16 AM

You're indulging in pig-headed Keithery again.

Seems only fair, as The Professor regularly indulges in pig-headed Teribussery.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 10:19 AM

"Not so, sadly, it seems."
Fair's fair - he was forced into apologising once and had has drawn attention to that lone apology several times 'Lest We Forget" - as they say.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 12:20 PM

Jim, Steve, Greg - for fuck's sake, don't feed the troll(s)!.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 01:52 PM

Point taken BW - think they've been fully tranquilised
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 02:01 PM

👍😎

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 06:43 PM

Jim Carroll - 21 Nov 16 - 06:45 AM

Yet another standard Carroll tactic demonstrated - deflection - he'll be on about the "Famine" next.

Not biting - As far as Summary Executions go, you know full well that on this thread you have been hammered just as you were on all the other previous threads where it has been brought up - Come up with the name of just one victim, when and where he was summarily executed and by whom. If you cannot do that then FFS desist from saying that it happened. Or maybe we'll have Musket wittering on about REDTOPS again.

So far we have Jim Carroll saying that Tommy Kenny knew absolutely nothing about any such summary executions.

The transcription of Harry Patch's wartime experiences clearly stating that he never witnessed any such summary execution.

The memoirs of Brigadier-General Frank Percy Crozier detailing in great detail that the one and only execution that he was involved with during the entire course of the First World War was as far as possible from being a summary execution as one could get.

Quiz Carroll on any source he gives and on examination it normally shows the opposite of the point Carroll is trying to make.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 07:47 PM

"So far we have Jim Carroll saying that Tommy Kenny knew absolutely nothing about any such summary executions."

Never mind Tommy Kenny. Steve Shaw knows absolutely nothing about summary executions either, despite your scurrilous allegations against me to that effect in two posts so far in this thread. Jim's right about you, isn't he, Bill. You say stuff that you can't corroborate, then, when confronted, you just try to walk away from it. Well I'm not having that if you don't mind. I wasn't having it with Keith and his crass stupidity over Wheatcroft and I'm not having it with you with regard to that remark. Either you do the honourable thing or you'll never hear the end of it.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 02:19 AM

You say stuff that you can't corroborate, then, when confronted, you just try to walk away from it.

Coming from someone who has thrown out baseless accusations like confetti and who has then proudly stated that you have no need or intention to substantiate them that is a bit rich.

In ALL threads where the subject of the First World War has been raised you have slavishly supported everything your "pals" have trotted out, irrespective of how idiotic, untrue and misrepresentative their claims have been - all part of the "piss take" if memory serves correctly.

"Either you do the honourable thing or you'll never hear the end of it."

So what else would be new? Again coming from someone who hasn't done an honourable thing in their life and who wouldn't recognise an "honourable thing" if it jumped up and bit them on the arse - that is a bit rich.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 04:35 AM

"Yet another standard Carroll tactic demonstrate"
Yet another display of non-informative, arrogant bad manners
"on this thread you have been hammered"
Yep - you've certainly taken the crowd with you on this one - totally outnumbered!!
The old soldiers are liars, the officer who boasted about carrying out executions was raving mad and we have your cross-my-heart word that they didn't happen - what else can a girl do but surrender to such forceful arguments!!!
I GIVE IN
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 04:45 AM

Well that's your uninformed opinion and I'm more then happy to let you fester in your bile and bitterness. However, you made a specific allegation about what I've said about "summary executions" which is patently untrue.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 05:10 AM

"The old soldiers are liars" - Ehmmm No Jom they just don't say what you say they said.

"the officer who boasted about carrying out executions was raving mad" - Mad? that's a new invention of yours Jom - more made up shit - his fellow officers and Historians Stephen Walker and Charles Messenger accused him {Brigadier-General Frank Percy Crozier} of being a raving LIAR. And you were asked to provide an example or a reference to where and when this officer boasted about carrying out executions and - oddly enough you fell remarkably silent - well not that remarkably really as your claim that he boasted about executions that he had carried out was a complete and utter fabrication - BECAUSE - By his own admission Brigadier-General Frank Percy Crozier was only ever involved in one execution during the entire course of the First World War - OWN ADMISSION Carroll, well documented fact which you can read for yourself, the Court Martial papers relating to the case against Private James Crozier exist and are available - There was nothing summary about his execution at all the link that you yourself provided supports all I have said on this instance.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 05:52 AM

"Ehmmm No Jom they just don't say what you say they said."
Then the documentors are liars?
"of being a raving LIAR."
Been there - done that
Nowhere have they said that his claims of executions were not true - nor, as far as I can find, has anybody else.
The winners of wars never ever commit atrocities, they just write the history books - didn't you know that?
"well documented fact"#Then why the fuck to you never ever produce documented fat instead of strutting around like a bullying little Napoleon.
I don't ever beileve a worrd you clame -0 you are a jingoistic propagandist whio refuses to provide back up to wat you claim
I cannot recall one single point you have ever won anybody on this forum over to
You are a running joke - and your continuing bad mannered arrogance will continue to underline what you are - please keep it up, it saves the rest of us a job.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 07:35 AM

By the way
"The Court Martial papers relating to the case against Private James Crozier exist and are available"
Another prime example of your lying behaviour on this forum
Crozier was never court martialed - he was forced to resign over "dishonoured cheques"
You are as insane as your mad mate in lying about something that is easily provable with a little effort (that you obviously are not prepared to put in)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 08:57 AM

Sorry Jim, you've got your Crozierrs mixed up there.

Perhaps Terri would provide a link to his source though, not something he likes to do.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 09:16 AM

Sorry Raggy - thanks for the heads up.
I got the name wrong but the facts (or distortion of them) remain unchanged
As I should have said, Brigadeer - General Frank Percy Crozier was never court martialed - or if he was, there is no record of him having been.
However, perhaps it's worth putting up the information on the feller I was confusing him with
Jim Carroll

Few soldiers wanted to be in a firing squad. Many were soldiers at a base camp recovering from wounds that still stopped them from fighting at the front but did not preclude them from firing a Lee Enfield rifle. Some of those in firing squads were under the age of sixteen, as were some of those who were shot for 'cowardice'. James Crozier from Belfast was shot at dawn for desertion – he was just sixteen. Before his execution, Crozier was given so much rum that he passed out. He had to be carried, semi-conscious, to the place of execution. Officers at the execution later claimed that there was a very real fear that the men in the firing squad would disobey the order to shoot. Private Abe Bevistein, aged sixteen, was also shot by firing squad at Labourse, near Calais. As with so many others cases, he had been found guilty of deserting his post. Just before his court martial, Bevistein wrote home to his mother:
"We were in the trenches. I was so cold I went out (and took shelter in a farm house). They took me to prison so I will have to go in front of the court. I will try my best to get out of it, so don't worry."
......
Immediately after the war, there were claims that the executions of soldiers was a class issue. James Crozier was found guilty of deserting his post and was shot. Two weeks earlier, 2nd Lieutenant Annandale was found guilty of the same but was not sentenced to death due to "technicalities". In the duration of the war, fifteen officers, sentenced to death, received a royal pardon. In the summer of 1916, all officers of the rank of captain and above were given an order that all cases of cowardice should be punished by death and that a medical excuse should not be tolerated. However, this was not the case if officers were found to be suffering from neurasthenia.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 09:21 AM

Should have said it was Brigadier - General Frank Percy Crozier who was forced to resign for dishonouring cheques
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 09:30 AM

In the summer of 1916, an order was issued that, in the cases of cowardice, medical excuses should not be taken into account; however, an exception was allowed for officers suffering from neurasthenia (an ill-defined condition which includes
symptoms similar to shell shock).

Wiki
Controversy[edit]
In 1895, Sigmund Freud reviewed electrotherapy and declared it a "pretense treatment." He emphasized the example of Elizabeth von R's note that "the stronger these were the more they seemed to push her own pains into the background."
Nevertheless, neurasthenia was a common diagnosis during World War I for "shell shock",[9] but its use declined a decade later.[citation needed] Soldiers who deserted their post could be executed even if they had a medical excuse, but officers who had neurasthenia were not executed.[10]
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 11:03 AM

WHAT claims of summary executions Jom?

Claims of summary executions made by whom?

Any names of those executed? - No of course there aren't any names

Any inkling as to where and when these people were executed? - Not the slightest whisper on that score either is there Jom?

Any information as to who had carried out those executions? - None whatsoever.

Any actual eye-witnesses? - Nary a single one

By the way Raggy I do not have to provide a link regarding the Court Martial of Private James Crozier and the involvement in those proceedings of Frank Percy Crozier who was young Private Crozier's Commanding Officer as - GUESS WHAT? - Your pal Jim Carroll had already posted the link and not one single word in it contradicts a single thing I have said.

Frank Percy Crozier was only ever involved in three executions in his entire military career, one in Northern Nigeria just after the Boer War, that of Private James Crozier during the First World War, and finally that of Kevin Barry during the Irish War of Independence.

Much as Jim Carroll would like to infer otherwise, Frank Percy Crozier did not carry out any summary executions during the First World War, and no sentries serving in units under his command were ever shot out of hand for falling asleep at their posts.

And while Jom loves to broadcast incredibly misleading statements that he thinks he understands but doesn't. Over 38,000 soldiers were charges with desertion during the First World War the vast majority of those offences took place in Britain prior to deployment overseas. Of that number only 3,080 of then were sentenced to death - only 1 in 10 cases was the sentence ever carried out.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 11:08 AM

Beeen here done this dozens of times Teribus
All these questions have been responded to
You are just wasting our time asking them again
"Frank Percy Crozier did not carry out any summary executions "
Prove it
He wasn't court martialled you lied.
""The Court Martial papers relating to the case against Private James Crozier exist and are available""
Why should we waste time responding to a liar who hasn't teh decency to acknowledge his lies when he has been found out?
Save it for closing time dahn the pub - you don't impress anybody here with your jingoistic bullshit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 03:08 PM

"Claims of summary executions made by whom?"

Certainly not by me, that's for sure, despite what you alleged.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 01:55 AM

"He wasn't court martialled you lied."

Ehmmm Jom, I have never claimed that Frank Percy Crozier was ever Court Martialled - the fact that you apparently think I did is merely another demonstration of your appallingly poor comprehension of the English language.

Private James Crozier - you know the guy you would like to have us believe Frank Percy Crozier has summarily executed - James Crozier was arrested some twenty miles behind the British lines, charged with desertion, Court Martialled, found GUILTY as charged and sentenced to death. The death sentence was signed and confirmed by Sir Douglas Haig some five days later. Frank Percy Crozier was involved in this process due to the fact that he was Private James Crozier's Commanding Officer - there you have it Jom, is that clear enough for you? Do you understand that? Are you clear that I have not changed a thing and that this is what I stated before? That the above is all clear from the link that you yourself provided.

By the way there is absolutely nothing "Jingoistic" about writing down the truth to counter the complete and utter load of biased, Anglophobic, bigoted, lying bullshit that you constantly come out with.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 03:57 AM

" I have never claimed that Frank Percy Crozier was ever Court Martialled "
I know that now - it was pointed out to me by someone far more polite and knowledgeable than you
Took a bit of time to get my head around my mistake, but I finally got there
It was a red-herring anyway - nobody ever disputed that the official murder of James Crozier wasn't done 'by the book'.
You lied by claiming that the details of James Crozier's court martial was available - it isn't - none of these MURDERS are available in detail - they are referred to as having happened - that's all.
Truth ?
A century later we still don't know the truth.
Vast numbers of the unnoficial diaries and journals (only officers were officially allowed to keep them) that were kept are still unavailable and many of those available are censored.
You talk about "names of those summarily executed" - you know damn well that it is impossible to provide them because we have no proof of how many who went 'missing in action' actually did
Crozier boasted of summary executions and wrote at length justifying the killing of British soldiers who had had enough or who had been driven insane by what was happening to them
There is evidence of an attempt to cover up some of his executions by passing them off as 'missing in action'.
You say Crozier was 'mad' and a 'liar' - maybe he was, but he was a high ranking officer, extensively decorated (yes - I know he lied about some of his medals), and nobody hads ever contradidicted his claim to have summerally executed men who fell asleep on duty - only you have done that.
There is every reason to believe, from the oral evidence of soldiers - whoops sorry "liars" that this happened with Crozier and elsewhere.
Of course you are a jingoist - an extremist right-wing one.
You have defended every single aspect of the shitty war - the 'good leaders' who sent the wrong shells, who sacrificed men like so many cattle, Sebastapol, The Somme, Passchendaele, the Loos cock-up..... all "well-led glorious" fights for 'freedom.
Your world is of heroic, skillful officers and lying soldiers - your own archaic establishment arse-licking stupidity mirrors the stupidity that decimated a generation - how archaically jingoistic is that?
I used to put your refusal to provide a scrap of back-up evidence to anything you claim down to laziness and lack of imagination - I've come to realise that it is because there is no evidence to back up anything you say so you make it up as you go along - your little effort into linking to prove a handful of looters set fire to Sackville Street, rather than the British artillery that actually did the major damage, proves that beyond a shred of doubt.
Even Keith, who isn't the brightest button in the sewing box, used to provide 'evidence' of his outrageous claims, misinterpreted and distorted as it usually was.
You are either too lazy or too stupid to even do that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 11:16 AM

Actually.. what's all the fuss about...???

when you think about it...
is there really that much difference between summary executions and ordering men into no man's land towards certain death...???

The end result for the hapless low rank soldier would be exactly the same.... 😬


... and you may also wonder, if teribus had been an officer in command in the trenches..
how long he'd have lasted before being shot by his own men.....??????? 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 11:16 AM

Steve,
You say stuff that you can't corroborate, then, when confronted, you just try to walk away from it

You do that all the time Steve!!
Most recently you claimed that the "pro-Israel lobby" controls our governments, especially the US government, but when asked how you just walked away.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 11:21 AM

"being shot by his own men"
What a pleasant thought to finish the day on.
On second thoughts - would they do that - who would cook their greasy fry-ups?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 11:27 AM

No Keith. I never walk away. I just ignore your stupid games. And I'm ignoring them again now. As a matter of fact, you've been resoundingly answered already by Jim. Now move along, please.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 01:03 PM

""pro-Israel lobby" controls our governments"
The facts implicate the lobby - you've had a list of the actions of the Pro Israel group - you've dismissed them as propaganda
These are some of the propagandists you have accused of lying
Can't be arsed blue-clickying them - you won't respond to theh manyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald    Glen Greenwald
ISRAELI SOLDIERS' TESTIMONIES of WAR CRIMINALITY

CRIMINALISING CRITICISM of ISRAEL in CANADA   Michael Keefer

Michael Keefer is Professor Emeritus in the School of English and Theatre Studies of the University of Guelph. A graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada, the University of Toronto, and Sussex University, he is a former president of the Association of Canadian College and University Teachers of English, a member of the Seriously Free Speech Committee, and an associate member of Independent Jewish Voices Canada.

UPDATE on SETTLER VIOLENCE U.N.
United Nations Human Rights

SETTLER VIOLENCE - LACK of ACCOUNTABILITY   B'Tselmem

http://www.btselem.org/topic/settler_violence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_for_Children_International Defense for Children (Palestine)
SETTLER VIOLENCE - LACK of ACCOUNTABILITY


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Monitor Media Monitor Network
ISRAEL'S CRIMES AGAINST PALESTINIANS

ISRAEL'S CRIMES AGAINST PALESTINIANS
REPORT BY ANTISEMITIC AMNESTY

Department of Politics and International Studies (POLIS)
ZIONISM, RACISM and the PALESTINIAN PEOPLE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 01:13 PM

Yesteray I asked if Teri would provide a link to his information regarding the court martial of Private Crozier, needless to say it has not materialised.

Par for the course with statements made by this poster.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 03:15 AM

"You lied by claiming that the details of James Crozier's court martial was available - it isn't - none of these MURDERS are available in detail - they are referred to as having happened - that's all." - Jim Carroll {aka: The Voice of the People}

Here is a link for you Jom:

Something Jim Says Doesn't Exist

ALL records and Court Martial documents of those executed during the First World War are held in the National Archives/Public Records Office. The records relating to Rifleman 14218 James Crozier, 9th Bn. Royal Irish Rifles can be found under the reference WO71/450 {That specific enough for you Raggy?}.

"Crozier boasted of summary executions and wrote at length justifying the killing of British soldiers who had had enough or who had been driven insane by what was happening to them" - The Voice of the People

Here is an example of Brigadier- General Frank Percy Crozier boasting about Private James Crozier, the only man he saw, or had dealings with an execution during the First World War -

"Death, despite all the precautions, was not instantaneous owing to nervousness, the firing party fired wide."  The officer commanding the firing party had to use his revolver and shoot James Crozier in the head.

He was no rotter deserving to die like that. He was merely fragile.  He had volunteered to fight for his country ... at the dictates of his own young heart. He failed. And for that failure he was condemned to die - and he did at the hands of his friends, his brothers, with the approval of his church'.

The above shows you just how boastful a man can get doesn't it JOM?

Some Court Martial Records are sealed covering periods of 30 to 100 years.

Back to Brigadier-General Frank Percy Crozier:

"nobody hads ever contradidicted his claim to have summerally executed men who fell asleep on duty - only you have done that." - yet another pearl from the Voice of the People

Yet another appallingly crafted ill-informed and totally untrue statement Jom. Consult Army records only two men were ever executed for falling asleep on duty, according to those records this occurred in 1917 in Mesopotamia so could therefore have had nothing whatsoever to do with Frank Percy Crozier who never served there.

"You have defended every single aspect of the shitty war - the 'good leaders' who sent the wrong shells, who sacrificed men like so many cattle, Sebastapol, The Somme, Passchendaele, the Loos cock-up"

SEBASTAPOL??? Do tell what fighting was done at Sebastopol during the First World War? Wasn't that fought over during the Crimean War 1854? - Don't worry JOM keep spluttering, your boundless ignorance can be quite entertaining.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 03:18 AM

of course more civilians than soldiers were killed in WW2.

i don't really do anti war songs, unless i'm requested to do it. though tobe honest - my way into folk music was The Kingston Trio singing Where have all the flowers gone.

the only spontaneous anti war statement i make is to do the isle of capri/love is the sweetest thing. i do this in remembrance of al bowlly who copped one of Goerings bombs - after doing a gig one night. i can sort of relate to another guitarist.

never buy poppies - but i always put something in the can - more out of respect for the people who give up their time to collect money for a good cause.
sport has always been a political sort of thing - Hitlers Berlin Olympics, Black September in Munich, the black power salutes by American sprinters in '68....
nationalism...puts you off a bit, doesn't it ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOVbB_rEar8

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 03:23 AM

By the way JOM, to put it in terms you might understand. When I refer to your boundless ignorance, yours is of such a scale that it would be like me starting a thread above the line banging on endlessly about how great Walter Pardon, or Ewan MacColl, were as lead singers for the Rolling Stones then point blank refusing to accept any evidence at all that they were never part of the group.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 04:00 AM

"Something Jim Says Doesn't Exist"
That is not the "proceedings of a court martial" -it is, as I said, an acknowledgement of what happened.
The proceedings would be what actually went on, what the charges where, what the defence was - if that is what happened it was, as I belive all of these 'mock trials' to be, a kangaroo court.
I came across these when I checked your claim - that is all any of these "proceedings" consist of - not a detail of the trial among any of them - a confirmation that these executions were little more than institutional murder.
Nothing you put up about Crozierr alters his statement that he boasted about executiing sentries or the fact that nobody has contradicted that boast other than you.
Sebastopol - I meant Gallipoli, of course, a point I have made in the past - but I'm sure it is a slip you will use as a lifeline for your total failure to make a point here.
Your War was one of Gallant Generals and lying, subservient soldiers - a long exploded myth, even in the works of patriots like Max Hastings, who was scathingly critical of how the war was conducted.
You and your dim mate are a pair of dinosaurs.
If you were in anyway justified in your support of this bloodbath, surely somebody else here would have come to your defence - or are wel all subservient, ignorant liars?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 04:34 AM

A reminder
"Here is a link for you Jom:"
"By the way JOM"
"how boastful a man can get doesn't it JOM?"
"Don't worry JOM"
"every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled."
You really should read our own posts sometime - it would help avoid the foot-in-mouths - the "Rattle of an Simple Man", as the screenplay writer described it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 06:00 AM

"The proceedings would be what actually went on, what the charges where, what the defence was - if that is what happened it was, as I belive all of these 'mock trials' to be, a kangaroo court.
I came across these when I checked your claim - that is all any of these "proceedings" consist of - not a detail of the trial among any of them - a confirmation that these executions were little more than institutional murder."

You said that none of these papers exist didn't you? - yer tis - "none of these MURDERS are available in detail" - yelled the indignant JOM - pity you didn't actually open the link as on the first page (actually page 2 of the proceedings) the First Column gives the name and Regiment of the accused, the Second Column details the Charge. On average these bundles normally consist of between 20 and 25 pages mostly forms but in the example I supplied these were omitted but one page giving the witness testimony was given. But there again Carroll anything supplied would never be enough would it? Walter Pardon and the Rolling Stones. Still you have been told where to look the rest is up to you.

"Sebastopol - I meant Gallipoli, of course, a point I have made in the past - but I'm sure it is a slip you will use as a lifeline for your total failure to make a point here."

Ah you mean much the same as you and your pals have done to Keith A with regard to a certain article that appeared in the Guardian written by Geoffrey Wheatcroft something to do with the use of the words "Vulgar" and "Fraudulent". Mind you in his case he did quote the passage referring to Wheatcroft's opinions of both AJP Taylor's work and Alan Clark's work accurately enough initially he only slipped up by omitting the word "vulgar" once and admitted that error about six times immediately after - yet Shaw is still dredging it up two years later - is that the sort of thing you expect JOM - by the way JOM is a word that you invented and that I have adopted. It means a clueless ignoramus of truly astounding degree - in other words Carroll - you in a nutshell.

By the way Carroll where is your apology for calling me a liar for saying that Frank Percy Crozier had been Court Martialled? Waz a matter Carroll too big to apologise? Too big to admit you were in the wrong to the person you called a liar? You are fairly unique though - you are the only person that I know who could with ease walk under an earthworm wearing a top hat.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 06:25 AM

"You said that none of these papers exist didn't you?"
I said that an account of the Court Martial wasn't accessible.
I know nothing whatever about "Wheatcroft and have never posted on it.
Take your smokescreens elsewhere and answer the points - with documented evidence.
"Too big to admit you were in the wrong to the person you called a liar?"#
You are forever calling me a liar
you deny telling lies and when you were presented with a list of your lying statements and dishonest behaviour yo denied them outright.
And you think I should apologise to you!!!!
You are out of your mind.
You have apologised one and drawn attention to that apology several times
You are one of the most ill-mannered and arrogant individuals I have ever come across
With yourt behaviour, it is a mystery to me that you are allowed to continue on this forum
"Carroll"
As promised
"A reminder
"Here is a link for you Jom:"
"By the way JOM"
"how boastful a man can get doesn't it JOM?"
"Don't worry JOM"
"every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled."
You really should read our own posts sometime - it would help avoid the foot-in-mouths - the "Rattle of an Simple Man", as the screenplay writer described it."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 06:26 AM

"James Crozier from Belfast was shot at dawn for desertion – he was just sixteen."

Ehmmm No JOM - "When researching James Crozier's age I found conflicting records. The West Belfast Volunteers website states eighteen and his War Graves Commission grave states unknown.  However, I found his birth record which gives his date of birth to be: 6 August 1894.  This made him just twenty when he joined-up and twenty-one when he died." - Karen Ette

The noise of exploding myths is deafening ain't it.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 06:54 AM

Keith has never admitted to that error, Teribus, and your description of it here is inaccurate. At our age, old chap, we really ought to stop relying on memory alone. Go back to where it first popped up and take another look. Though I really wouldn't bother if I were you. Have you decided yet that I've never taken you on over "summary executions," by the way?

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 06:58 AM

"The noise of exploding myths is deafening ain't it."
Nothing to do with me - that was a quote from HISTORY LEARNING SITE
No harm done, another opporuninty to put this up again with the appropriate addition:
Jim Carroll

"A reminder
"Ehmmm No JOM"
"Carroll"
"Here is a link for you Jom:"
"By the way JOM"
"how boastful a man can get doesn't it JOM?"
"Don't worry JOM"
"every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled."
You really should read our own posts sometime - it would help avoid the foot-in-mouths - the "Rattle of an Simple Man", as the screenplay writer described it.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 10:02 AM

Yet another mention of Mutiny in the papers relating to Jesse Short, of course muting NEVER occured in the Bwitish forces eh.

As to Crozier that will have to wait until I return to the UK and am not distracted by the rather good Guinness here.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 12:45 PM

I will repeat IT YET AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE AMONG US WHO ARE TOO BLOODY THICK TO UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH (i.e. YOU RAGGY)

The only Army of any of the 1914 combatant powers that did not mutiny in the field was that of the British, Commonwealth & Empire.

That by the way THICKO does not mean that there were no mutinies out of the line in various small units in fact in the entire course of the First World War some 2,000 British, Commonwealth & Empire soldiers mutinied - that is 2,000 out of a force of some 5,300,000 {That represents less than 0.04% over the entire course of a war that lasted 4 years, 3 months 1 week} At great risk, and against my better judgement, I will leave you to work out whether or not that represented a significant number and in no situation whatsoever did any of those troops mutiny when facing any enemy threat, neither did they ever refuse to attack the enemy at any time.

Hells teeth Raggy yet another attempt to try and catch ol' Teribus out where you end up looking like a complete and utter buffoon - don't you ever get tired of it? Or have you always wandered through life making a complete and utter JOM-like CUNT of yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 12:48 PM

Have you found an echo JOM? (JOM is a word that you invented and that I have adopted. It means a clueless ignoramus of truly astounding degree - in other words Carroll - you in a nutshell.)

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 02:49 PM

"Have you found an echo JOM? (JOM is a word that you invented and that I have adopted."
You are the one who has forgotten - I made a typo,, I pointed it out, you with your feeble minded lack of imagination, decided you adopt it as you were unable to think of one of your own.
No matter - another opportunity to add another two and fulfill my intention with the appropriate additions
Can see myself running out of room by the end of the week if you keep this up.
Schoolyard insulting taunting without responding to what is being said
"yet another attempt to try and catch ol' Teribus out"
Jaysus - You really are up your own arse a long way, aren't you - threw you out ofthe pub early, did they?
Jim Carroll

"every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled.""
A reminder
I will repeat IT YET AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE AMONG US WHO ARE TOO BLOODY THICK TO UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH (i.e. YOU RAGGY)
"complete and utter buffoon"
"That by the way THICKO "
"clueless ignoramus of truly astounding degree"
"Carroll"
"Have you found an echo JOM?"
Or have you always wandered through life making a complete and utter JOM-like CUNT of yourself?
Carroll
"Here is a link for you Jom:"
"By the way JOM"
"how boastful a man can get doesn't it JOM?"
"Don't worry JOM"

You really should read our own posts sometime - it would help avoid the foot-in-mouths - the "Rattle of an Simple Man", as the screenplay writer described it.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 03:13 PM

Oh dear Mr Woodcock, are the tablets not working again.

The difference is that in order to claim that mutiny never happened "in the field" the Bwitish army were force to make nebulous statements like "attempted mutiny" and occurances of actual mutiny were "down graded".

The FACT is it was still mutiny but the Bwitish army would never accept,like you,that such a thing could happen.

It is you who are living in cloud cuckcoo land, the mere fact that you are resorting to abusive language (something you wouldn't have done a year or to back) tells me you have lost the plot.

Perhaps it's time to make another appointment.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 04:14 PM

For Raggy.

The German Navy refused to put to sea and fight the Royal Navy - THAT you TC is a mutiny in time of war

After the Chemins Des Dames fiasco in 1917 the French Army refused to mount any offensive actions against the German Army - That you TC is a mutiny in time of war

Since the end of the First World War and the present day the two commonest factors for mutiny aboard HM Ships have evolved around lack of chips in the galley and painting the ship's side, i.e. inconsequential irritations signifying S.F.A.

Now then TC tell me where and when during the course of the First World War that British troops ever refused to engage the enemy, for the actual figures 0.04% of your troops over 1561 days spitting the dummy out doesn't really amount to much.

Now then TC go and arm yourself with a dictionary and acquaint yourself with the meaning of perspective.

For JOM:

No need for reminders JOM I have nothing but the utmost contempt for you and everything you stand for. Not many humans wander this planet without one single redeeming feature - you seem to have managed that without even trying.

By all means keep posting the rubbish that you come out with and I will keeping knocking all your dearly held myths flat.

Jim Carroll - 22 Nov 16 - 07:35 AM

"Another prime example of your lying behaviour on this forum
Crozier was never court martialed - he was forced to resign over "dishonoured cheques""

The Truth according to JOM - thick as shit and proud of it

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 05:18 PM

Not addressed to any one person or group of people - Honest!

Does anyone else see the irony of using a thread started about a remembrance symbol to propagate a war of words? No? Must just be me then :-)

Come on, chaps. Give it a rest. All this rancour is unhealthy and, as I am sure you are all aware, will only end up getting the thread closed. Remember that it is not the one who started it that matters but the one sensible enough to finish it.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 05:26 PM

"No need for reminders JOM I have nothing but the utmost contempt for you and everything you stand for. Not many humans wander this planet without one single redeeming feature - you seem to have managed that without even trying."

You know, we have our share of virtual fisticuffs here and we may not all be innocent (to say the least), but this is bloody ridiculous. Take a step back, Teribus. This forum is not the real world, you don't know Jim any more than he knows you. Your temper and mode of address to other posters is getting worse by the day. You may well know a lot of stuff but you need to stop demonstrating that knowledge does not equate to intellect. Over and out.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 05:36 PM

Perspective be buggered.

Either troops mutiny or troops do not mutiny.

I put foward that troops DID mutiny, however the hieracy chose not to call it mutiny.

Various attempts have been made to suggest that the attempts were "not in the field of battle" I would suggest that in the "field of battle" its nigh on impossible to organise anything.

You Teri and your flag waving companions do not want to believe anything that the Bwitish hieracy could be aanything less than perfect.

Over the course of the last few years many instances showing the hieracy in a less than favourable light have been discussed. Not once have you or your compatriot conceded that perhaps the leadeership has been at fault.

It is this atitude, more than any other, that has led to the ridicule which you and you cohorts suffer.

A stage has now been reached where people expect to laugh at everything you post and sadly you don't realise it.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 08:23 PM

"The Truth according to JOM - thick as shit and proud of it"
"Crozier was never court martialed - he was forced to resign over "dishonoured cheques"
DISHONOURED CHEQUES
"However, in 1908, he was forced to resign due to repeated dishonored cheques[2] and became bankrupt.[1]"
Wiki
Jim Carroll

Your "frothing-at-the-mouth behaviour is a little beyond a joke now, are you an alcoholic?

A reminder

"every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled.""
For JOM:
No need for reminders JOM I have nothing but the utmost contempt for you and everything you stand for. Not many humans wander this planet without one single redeeming feature - you seem to have managed that without even trying.
The Truth according to JOM - thick as shit and proud of it
I will repeat IT YET AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE AMONG US WHO ARE TOO BLOODY THICK TO UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH (i.e. YOU RAGGY)
"complete and utter buffoon"
"That by the way THICKO "
"clueless ignoramus of truly astounding degree"
"Carroll"
"Have you found an echo JOM?"
Or have you always wandered through life making a complete and utter JOM-like CUNT of yourself?
Carroll
"Here is a link for you Jom:"
"By the way JOM"
"how boastful a man can get doesn't it JOM?"
"Don't worry JOM"

You really should read our own posts sometime - it would help avoid the foot-in-mouths - the "Rattle of an Simple Man", as the screenplay writer described it.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 02:14 AM

"Your temper and mode of address to other posters is getting worse by the day" - Steve Shaw

Not too other posters as such Shaw, it is reserved solely for the likes of Jim Carroll and Raggy.

Raggytash - 24 Nov 16 - 05:36 PM

"Perspective be buggered."

Precisely why discussing anything with you or your equally gormless mate is pointless.

By the way where and when did I ever say that soldiers in the British Army never mutinied? I do believe that if you search back I did make a qualified statement about the British Army and mutiny during the First World War.

By the way here is a bit of Jim Carroll classic misrepresentation.

What was posted by Carroll:

Jim Carroll - 22 Nov 16 - 07:35 AM

"Another prime example of your lying behaviour on this forum
Crozier was never court martialed - he was forced to resign over "dishonoured cheques"

He blurted this out when he thought I had stated that Lt-Col Frank Percy Crozier had been court martialled, when in fact I had been referring to Private James Crozier. Needless to say Jim Carroll as usual was in error - his error was pointed out to him by myself and by his pal Raggy. No admission of error, or apology from Carroll though as such an admission would require honesty, integrity and decency characteristics that are totally alien to our little biased, racist, bigoted resident Anglophobe.

His original then as we see above becomes:

Jim Carroll - 24 Nov 16 - 08:23 PM

"The Truth according to JOM - thick as shit and proud of it"
"Crozier was never court martialed - he was forced to resign over "dishonoured cheques"
DISHONOURED CHEQUES
"However, in 1908, he was forced to resign due to repeated dishonored cheques[2] and became bankrupt.[1]"
Wiki
Jim Carroll

As though the dispute was about "dishonoured cheques". Here is Carroll's post where I am accused of lying about the Court Martial:

Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 07:35 AM

By the way
"The Court Martial papers relating to the case against Private James Crozier exist and are available"

Another prime example of your lying behaviour on this forum
Crozier was never court martialed - he was forced to resign over "dishonoured cheques"
You are as insane as your mad mate in lying about something that is easily provable with a little effort (that you obviously are not prepared to put in)
Jim Carroll

Things instantly and patently evident from that:

1: "The Court Martial papers relating to the case against Private James Crozier exist and are available" as a statement made by me is true and factually correct.

2: Jim Carroll then having mistaken Lt-Col Frank Percy Crozier for Private James Crozier goes off into a rant about lying.

You and your pal Raggy deserve nothing but contempt Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 04:30 AM

"Here is Carroll's post where I am accused of lying about the Court Martial:"
A mistake on my part - fully explained but milked for all it is worth.
That's how snall mindede you are

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 04:33 AM

Still no apology for calling me a liar then Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 06:20 AM

"Still no apology for calling me a liar then Carroll"
You first
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 06:42 AM

I've pointed out that you are a liar and that has been proven.

Your accusation was groundless.

But have no fear Jim - I don't expect any sort of decent, or honest behaviour from the likes of you. Just live with the fact that you will be reminded of it every time you throw out your usual ill-informed groundless accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 06:43 AM

You are a joke - you really are!
There are two people who I regularly refer tto as liars - you and Keith - because you both lie and you are both evasively dishonest.
You were presented with a list of your lies - you denied them rather than apologising - where is your apology
Yo have introduced a level of boorish thuggery to these discussion which is more typical to the jackboot ed kicking in of doors rather than decent argument.
This is a sample of yesterday's offering:

No need for reminders JOM I have nothing but the utmost contempt for you and everything you stand for. Not many humans wander this planet without one single redeeming feature - you seem to have managed that without even trying.
The Truth according to JOM - thick as shit and proud of it
I will repeat IT YET AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE AMONG US WHO ARE TOO BLOODY THICK TO UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH (i.e. YOU RAGGY)
"complete and utter buffoon"
"That by the way THICKO "
"clueless ignoramus of truly astounding degree"
"Carroll"
"Have you found an echo JOM?"
Or have you always wandered through life making a complete and utter JOM-like CUNT of yourself?
Carroll
"Here is a link for you Jom:"
"By the way JOM"
"how boastful a man can get doesn't it JOM?"
"Don't worry JOM"

What mindless moron behaves like that unless there is something wrong with them
I suggest you go away, read a few books and come back when you can control yourself
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 11:26 AM

"You were presented with a list of your lies" - Jim Carroll

Certainly not by you or any of your pals Jim.

But we'll be polite and give you one last shot at it shall we?

C'mon Jim you're good at cut'n'pastes so give us a direct example of either one of my lies or one of Keith A's lies verbatim from one of our own posts. Betcha you cannot do it and all we'll get will be a load of more bluster and waffle.

Your last post demonstrates clearly that you and your pals are bloody good at dishing it out but squeal like stuck pigs when you get a dose of your own medicine.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 12:17 PM

"C'mon Jim you're good at cut'n'pastes so give us a direct example of either one of my lies or one of Keith A's lies verbatim"
You ignored them last time, you'll ignore tham again.
Want a good example of yours - take a look at your Syrian offering - your multiple contradictory claims of licences for ammunition sales will do for starters.
Keith's are too legendary to bother with - he distorts historians he hasn't read (or used to) - nowadays he just calls evidence "lies" and provides nothing but uncorroborated denials - that is lying.
You want him at his best - try the "What is antisemitism" thread that has recently crumbled to dust in both your hands.
We really have been here before
Whilie your behaviour remains as it is, neither of you are worth taking seriously - long may that be the case.
" but squeal like stuck pigs when you get a dose of your own medicine."
The nature and extent of your abusive behaviour is, as far as I am concerned, is a sign of mental deficiency
The only other poster to have ever come near it is Muskett - and he comes a very poor second.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 12:35 PM

Ah the Syrian thread - you'd better pop over and take a look at that - your attempted lies from four years ago on the Homs thread have been laid bare. Can't be bothered reposting the same thing here.

Still cannot provide a reference to any of my posts where I have lied Jim? What on earth is taking you so long if what you say is true.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 02:49 PM

"Can't be bothered reposting the same thing here."
Now - there's a surprise!!
"Still cannot provide a reference to any of my posts where I have lied Jim?"
Just have - regarding your denying having claimed that no licence was issued for Syrian sniper ammunition - accompanied by the posting where you denied that a licence was issued for Syrian sniper ammunition.
You are still ignoring the list of your lies on the antisemitism thread.
You're a joke, albeit a sick one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 02:04 AM

Where is the post of mine where I deny that an export licence was issued Jim - so far you haven't posted anything of the sort, on this thread or on any other.

Here's the sort of thing I would expect to see Jim, in the example below of course it proves conclusively that I have NEVER denied the existence of an export licence:

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: GUEST,Teribus - PM
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 04:10 AM

Your contention was that British supplied weapons were slaughtering civilians in Homs - The inference you were hoping to get across was that the British Government had supplied weapons that the Assad regime was using on its own people and that the British Government were fully aware of this.

After digging around it has been shown quite conclusively that:

1: The British Government has sold no weapons to Syria
2: That the 154 export licences issued by the British Government for anything being exported to Syria were all revoked in line with EU rules
3: There are no records of sale or delivery of the ammunition mentioned in your Daily Mail article

So all in all Christmas your deliberate falsehood was examined and found wanting on just about every level going. Rather than admitting to making a mistake, an act which appears to be beyond your integrity, and clarifying your position, you dug your heels in attempted to defend the impossible (in which exercise you failed) and started throwing insults about and then complained when they were hurled back at you.

That was posted over 4 years ago Jim and guess what not a thing has changed particularly with regard to your lack of integrity or honesty.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 07:59 AM

"Where is the post of mine where I deny that an export licence was issued Jim - "
You are now making this a cross-thread personal battle - this is not what this forum is about.

"Christmas"
"every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled.""
For JOM:
No need for reminders JOM I have nothing but the utmost contempt for you and everything you stand for. Not many humans wander this planet without one single redeeming feature - you seem to have managed that without even trying.
The Truth according to JOM - thick as shit and proud of it
I will repeat IT YET AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE AMONG US WHO ARE TOO BLOODY THICK TO UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH (i.e. YOU RAGGY)
"complete and utter buffoon"
"That by the way THICKO "
"clueless ignoramus of truly astounding degree"
"Carroll"
"Have you found an echo JOM?"
Or have you always wandered through life making a complete and utter JOM-like CUNT of yourself?
Carroll
"Here is a link for you Jom:"
"By the way JOM"
"how boastful a man can get doesn't it JOM?"
"Don't worry JOM"

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 03:14 AM

Oh Jim!!! It is very much what this forum is about when it suits you. You are only complaining about it here because you have been proved a liar in this thread and you have been proved a liar in the "Syria the new nightmare" thread. So the common links between the two threads are your baseless accusations and your lies.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 04:56 AM

" because you have been proved a liar"
Where - I made a mistake and acknowledged it - as predicted, you are now milking that for all it is worth
It is you who have been proved a liar - i put your lies in front of you and you continue to lie.
"It is very much what this forum is about when it suits you."
Poppies are the name of the game - Syria is an attempt for you to attempt to save face.
Co away and clean up your act before you come back
I am truely appalled that the overseers of this site allow the level of abuse that you seem incapable of suppressing.
You must have a guadian demon out there lookin after you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 06:07 AM

"i put your lies in front of you and you continue to lie."

DID you? Where?

Over on the Syrian thread you have so tied yourself up that you now no longer have the foggiest notion what you are rambling on about.

IF I have lied then cut and paste the post in which I lied.

In this thread you called me a liar for stating that Brigadier-General Frank Percy Crozier had been court martialled - something of course that I had never claimed at all - Jim Carroll "made-up-shit" - that is the mistake you acknowledged, but were too coy to retract your accusation that I had lied about it and certainly too proud, arrogant and ignorant to offer an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 06:30 AM

"In this thread you called me a liar for stating that Brigadier-General Frank Percy Crozier had been court martialled "
And then I withdrew it, explaining that I was mixing the two Croziers up - it's a long-dead issue, just as your arguments are.
I will not discuss Syria here, and as there is a perfectly serviceable thread on that subject, it is mindlessly stupid for you continuing to attempt to.
Where are the adjudicators when you need them?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 09:43 AM

"I withdrew it, explaining that I was mixing the two Croziers up"

You withdrew what Jim? That nobody had stated that Brigadier-General Frank Percy Crozier had been court martialled? In which case if you did that then I could not possibly have been a liar for stating that he had been court martialled. In which case you owe me an apology for falsely accusing me of lying. Any decent, honest human being with a shred of integrity would do that - That being so it is hardly surprising then that there has not been so much as a hint of an apology from you.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 09:59 AM

"That being so it is hardly surprising then that there has not been so much as a hint of an apology from you."
Do yuou really believe that anybody who behave as manically arrogant and insulting as you is due an apology for anything - let alone going to get one.
Dream on!!
You seem totally oblivious to your own manic behaviour on this forum.
You lie consistently - you have been given a list of your lies
You have been given examples of your lies, which you eithr ignore or deny, even when they are put in front of you.
While you continue to behave like this and you continue to add to your personal abuse of anybody who disagrees with you, you w=ill certainly never get an apology from me for anything and you are totally insane to expect one.
When have you ever offered an apology when you have accused me of "made up Carroll shit" - both before and after I have accompanied my opinion with linked evidence?
NEVER!!
As far as I am concerned, you need to be treated as a social pariah to force you to behave like a rational human being
Please go away
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 11:35 AM

"You lie consistently" - So you claim but somehow, when challenged, you seem unable to produce a single post of mine demonstrating that.

"you have been given a list of your lies" - Not by you or anyone else on this forum.

"You have been given examples of your lies," - Really? Where and when?

"When have you ever offered an apology when you have accused me of "made up Carroll shit" - both before and after I have accompanied my opinion with linked evidence?
NEVER!!"

Probably because Carroll it WAS all "made up Carroll shit" and because what you think of as linked "evidence" is nothing of the sort.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 01:01 PM

Probably because Carroll
A reminder
"every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled.""
Probably because Carroll
Really Carroll
Keep floundering about Carroll
So all in all Christmas
For JOM:
Christmas
No need for reminders JOM I have nothing but the utmost contempt for you and everything you stand for. Not many humans wander this planet without one single redeeming feature - you seem to have managed that without even trying.
The Truth according to JOM - thick as shit and proud of it
I will repeat IT YET AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE AMONG US WHO ARE TOO BLOODY THICK TO UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH (i.e. YOU RAGGY)
"complete and utter buffoon"
"That by the way THICKO "
"clueless ignoramus of truly astounding degree"
"Carroll"
"Have you found an echo JOM?"
Or have you always wandered through life making a complete and utter JOM-like CUNT of yourself?
Carroll
"Here is a link for you Jom:"
"By the way JOM"
"how boastful a man can get doesn't it JOM?"
"Don't worry JOM"
You really should read our own posts sometime - it would help avoid the foot-in-mouths - the "Rattle of an Simple Man", as the screenplay writer described it.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 01:13 PM

So -

No example of me forthcoming then.

No list of lies.

Thank you for proving everything I have said about you.