If you're a patriot you'll sign this.......

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-02-16 7:41 PM

a monarch that in reality wields no political power....is merely a figurehead and one that has served this country unswervingly, and unselfishly for decades.

In ther final analysis whoever controls the Armed Forces has the ultimate power, and they swear their allegiance to her, not to us. The Unelected Queen once kept the elected Harold Wilson out of office for 48 hours (whilst Ted Heath tried and failed to cut a deal with the Liberals to stay in) That is real power. Don't let anyone tell you she hasn't got power - she has. All we seem to have is an unwriten understanding she won't use her power as long as things keep going her way.

 

By the way my 'harping back to William the Conqurer' was an attempt to explain how things that happened hundreds of years ago (like the Peterloo Massacre you said was irrelevant) are relevant because they have got us to where we are today.

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-02-16 7:50 PM

John52 - 2017-02-16 3:18 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-02-16 11:28 AMInteresting thread, this. Its gone way OT, but it is not that which interests, or the arguments deployed (or the apparent male "horn locking" :-)), but the fact that one proponent of somewhat extreme views studiously avoids attacking his opponent - countering his opponent's arguments in measured fashion from a broad knowledge base - while the proponent of equally extreme opposing views more often attacks his opponent instead of the views he holds, and counters in less measured terms based on his personal experiences. Neither "wins", neither is (ever!) going to agree with the other, but one emerges from the fray somehow diminished, the other not. An object lesson to us all in how to conduct a written jousting contest? Draw? I'll get me own coat and hat! :-D

I wonder if its something to do with military training. If one thinks too much about the issues, one either wouldn't fight, or fight in a half hearted manner and therefore lose. Wheras if one sees everything in black and white, either good or bad, one stays focussed on the 'enemy' and has a better chance of winning :-S

Military training?....and would one have it any other way?  Military training is there to turn individuals into a cohesive, supportive, adaptive, effective fighting force.  There is no call for judgement as to cause, that is up to the 'politicians' that employ force of arms (NOT THE MONARCH). One simply does ones duty.  However your post suggests you are implying that there is a lack of intellect in the military......should this be the case you could not be further off the mark.

I did not say there is a lack of intellect in the military. After the incompetent leadership that led to the disasters of WW1 it was realised it was no longer acceptable to have hereditary leaders or those buying their positions in the military because it does not lead to the most competent leadership. The Government sees its first duty as defending the Government so its armed forces needs to have the most competent leadership. Leaders of the Armed forces would be appointed on merit instead. Unfortunately hereditary leadership remains in other areas of Britain, which I feel is holding us back. For society to function well, people generally need to feel that they have a fair chance of success through their ability and efforts. The more entrenched hereditary elites we have, the less likely people are to feel that way Her Unelected Majesty the Queen stands as an example to us all that however clever you are, or however hard you work, you will never get the top job in Britain unless you are born into it. You say 'There is no call for judgement as to cause, that is up to the 'politicians' that employ force of arms (NOT THE MONARCH). It is still the Monarch actually, all we seem to have is an unwritten understanding she won't use her power as long as things keep going her way. But thats beside the point. The number of countries with strong armies and oppressed people show that since the Armed forces take their orders from them and not us, the Armed forces alone did not get us our freedom and they alone do not guarantee our freedom.

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-02-16 7:41 PM

one that has served this country unswervingly, and unselfishly for decades

Served some better than others. You seem to have done alright out of it. But if you were one of the growing number of homeless sleeping rough, being swept away from Oxford Street out of sight of the wealthy the police protect - to sleeping somewhere extremely unsafe where they were not protecting you at all, you might think she had not served you any better than the Monarch of the day served the victims of the Peterloo Massacre etc who won our freedoms.

PS;

You might also wonder how she can keep so many big palaces whilst so many homeless are sleeping rough if she is so unselfish?

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-02-16 10:28 PM

 

RogerC - 2017-02-16 7:41 PM

one that has served this country unswervingly, and unselfishly for decades

Served some better than others. You seem to have done alright out of it. But if you were one of the growing number of homeless sleeping rough, being swept away from Oxford Street out of sight of the wealthy the police protect -

 

So now your trying to blame the rise in Eastern European rough sleepers on the military? :D ..........

 

I beginning to wonder if you're a example of the current thinking in the Labour party?...... if they ever get back into power we'll be in Deep deep DO DO 8-) .........

 

 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-02-17 8:20 AM

So now your trying to blame the rise in Eastern European rough sleepers on the military?

Well I wasn't. But since you mention it the Government is making cuts to housing budgets whilst maintaining the highest military spending in Europe - which is of little use to those being attacked whilst sleeping rough. Its more use to the very wealthy who have got a lot to defend. And the politicians who like to strut their stuff on the world stage.

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-02-17 8:36 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-02-17 8:20 AM

So now your trying to blame the rise in Eastern European rough sleepers on the military?

Well I wasn't. But since you mention it the Government is making cuts to housing budgets whilst maintaining the highest military spending in Europe - which is of little use to those being attacked whilst sleeping rough. Its more use to the very wealthy who have got a lot to defend. And the politicians who like to strut their stuff on the world stage.

 

So you'd rather pay for EU rough sleepers than our nations security? ;-) .........

 

Do you think the majority Labour voters would agree with you? :-| .....

 

 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-02-17 8:47 AM

 

So you'd rather pay for EU rough sleepers than our nations security? ;-) .........

 

 

 

All the other countries in Europe spend less on the military than we do - most seem to manage better. Problem with spending so much on the military seenms to be politicians feel they need to make use of it, sending us on ill fated adventures like Iraq and Afghanisytan which oesn't seem to have done much to improve our security?

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-02-16 7:50 PM

 Military training is there to turn individuals into a cohesive, supportive, adaptive, effective fighting force.  There is no call for judgement as to cause, that is up to the 'politicians' that employ force of arms (NOT THE MONARCH). One simply does ones duty.  

 

Sure. In order to fight 100% both sides have to believe they are 100% right and the other 100% wrong, (although in reality there are invariably rights and wrongs on both sides.)

But how does the militay training affect them when they return to civvy street? Despite having more support than the majority who only have state benefits to fall back on, our heros top the statistics for domestic violence and going to prison. Why is that?

[John52]

PS: I gather you are in Spain now where military spending is about one quarter of what Britain spends. Does it make you feel any less secure?

Switzerland seems to be about the safest, and most prosperous (despite having no coastline and no natural resources) and they spend the least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-02-17 9:03 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-02-17 8:47 AM

 

So you'd rather pay for EU rough sleepers than our nations security? ;-) .........

 

 

 

All the other countries in Europe spend less on the military than we do - most seem to manage better. Problem with spending so much on the military seenms to be politicians feel they need to make use of it, sending us on ill fated adventures like Iraq and Afghanisytan which oesn't seem to have done much to improve our security?

 

Not for much longer ;-) ........Trump has already said he's not prepared to keep picking up the tab :-| ......

 

Looks like Junkers will be in the market for some guided missiles soon, but armed with suffragette warheads of course :D .....

 

The EU's just like the Remoaners they'll think they can bitch and nag their way to victory (lol) ......

 

 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-02-17 9:23 AM

....Trump has already said he's not prepared to keep picking up the tab :-| ......

 

 

Trump is a here today gone tomorrow politician who can say what he likes. Sucking up to him whilst shunning our European neighbours will not help us any more than Blair sucking up to Bush. Much of what he has said so far is falling apart already. The Americans will continue station their missiles nearer to their enemy to give them a head start. And they prefer to fight their battles on someone else's soil. The fact that this may defend Europe is incidental. The Americans always do what they think is best for them. They did not join us in WW1 or WW2 until they were attacked themselves. The greatest celebration in their calendar is the anniversary of the day they broke free from Britain.

[RogerC]

By the way my 'harping back to William the Conqurer' was an attempt to explain how things that happened hundreds of years ago (like the Peterloo Massacre you said was irrelevant) are relevant because they have got us to where we are today.

So just how far back in time to 'justify' your incredibly irrelevant argument do you wish to go?  Maybe blame it on the dinosaurs....or maybe closer would be Homo Erectus......

Her Unelected Majesty the Queen stands as an example to us all that however clever you are, or however hard you work, you will never get the top job in Britain unless you are born into it. 

Top job.....top job!!!  I would consider that in reality no one in their right mind would want her job.  I can think of nothing more unpleasant, trying or indeed imposing on ones private life (what little she really has)than having to almost daily go where and when one is told....who to meet....etc etc.  

You say 'There is no call for judgement as to cause, that is up to the 'politicians' that employ force of arms (NOT THE MONARCH). 
It is still the Monarch actually, all we seem to have is an unwritten understanding she won't use her power as long as things keep going her way. But thats beside the point.

Poppycock......

....in the United Kingdom the royal prerogative is devolved to the head of the government and a special legal procedure allows parliament to challenge the prime ministers claim to use the 'right' of such reserve powers.

You seem to have done alright out of it.......Rather presumptious of you considering you know nothing of me outside of this forum. 

Served some better than others. You seem to have done alright out of it. But if you were one of the growing number of homeless sleeping rough, being swept away from Oxford Street out of sight of the wealthy the police protect - to sleeping somewhere extremely unsafe where they were not protecting you at all, you might think she had not served you any better than the Monarch of the day served the victims of the Peterloo Massacre etc who won our freedoms. 
PS; 
You might also wonder how she can keep so many big palaces whilst so many homeless are sleeping rough if she is so unselfish?

So now it's the Queen's fault that people are living on the streets?.....not personal circumstances, drug addiction, mental health issues or the hundred and one other causes of homelessness?

Despite having more support than the majority who only have state benefits to fall back on, our heros top the statistics for domestic violence and going to prison. Why is that?

So whose fault is it there are those on state benefits?  ....and what is the correlation between state benefits, the support our 'heroes' get, or do not get, in terms of violence and prison?

Does your comment bear any relation to your intense dislike of the monarchy?  Yet another extremely tenuous link?  Another opportunity to 'have a pop'?

Using 'heros' as you do conveys a rather unpleasant view of those who have done their duty.  But hey....you've never stopped your denigrating comments yet so why should one expect it to happen now.

At risk of another comment regarding 'less measured terms' I am done with this communication.......I 'know' where and why my gratitude lies where it does.  It is with those who deserve it, those who selflessly serve and sacrifice as does our monarchy and military.  One can not live in the past pouring blame and scorn on those in the here and now for the actions, honourable or not, of our forebears.

Thankfully those who have gone before have protected 'us all' regardless of their views and opinions of elements of society....and thank goodness for their endeavours.

Unfortunately some can only see blame and recrimination......and I feel sorry for them.

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-02-17 10:37 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-02-17 9:23 AM

....Trump has already said he's not prepared to keep picking up the tab :-| ......

 

 

Trump is a here today gone tomorrow politician who can say what he likes. Sucking up to him whilst shunning our European neighbours will not help us any more than Blair sucking up to Bush. Much of what he has said so far is falling apart already. The Americans will continue station their missiles nearer to their enemy to give them a head start. And they prefer to fight their battles on someone else's soil. The fact that this may defend Europe is incidental. The Americans always do what they think is best for them. They did not join us in WW1 or WW2 until they were attacked themselves. The greatest celebration in their calendar is the anniversary of the day they broke free from Britain.

 

 

Aren't all politicians the same?.......and yes the dear old US of A are happy to leave their missiles in Germany should the new cold war become hot ;-) ........

 

That's a lot different to becoming involved in the EU's expansionist policies in Eastern Europe *-) ......

 

 

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-02-16 7:41 PM......................All I know is one can not change history, much as it seems that the other party wishes one could.  There are things I despair of in this country but one thing is certain....this country is what it is for which I am grateful, grateful to those of whatever persuasion, whether under arms or otherwise who have been instrumental in forming the framework of our society as it stands today. 

Indeed, one cannot just change history to suit one's preferences but, before relying on it, one should first establish whether our understanding of it is correct. If it is not, we are liable to draw the wrong conclusions. The reality is that history does change, as newer information comes to light, and most of us are stuck with the historic landscape we learned at school. Much has changed since.

 

Indeed, there are things about the UK that also lead me to despair. I suspect some of those things will be common to us both, and that others will not. We all, I suspect, see foolishness and knavery where we would prefer to see wisdom and honesty. Problem is, we don't all see the same foolishness and knavery, and we don't all see the same wisdom and honesty. :-)

 

I see a problem with our monarchy, for example, and think they have little relevance, as an institution, to today's society. I do not denigrate them, but neither do I worship in their temple. I have long thought that we need, at least, a fully elected upper house (with far fewer members) in preference to various appointed cronies, and I think we need an elected president (with properly defined powers), because I think that our unelected (in the sense that no one actually votes them into their ministerial positions) governments now assume too much power on their own behalf. The Gina Miller case illustrates this well. The executive sought to exercise unconstitutional power in pursuit of its objective. Had they done so, the legal repercussions at some later date could have been very destructive. Yet, for forcing the executive to adhere to legal procedures, Miller and the Courts were lambasted by many, including the less thoughtful elements of the press. Fools and knaves, you see?

 

In 1976 Quentin Hogg (Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone: no trendy lefty he! :-)) gave a BBC Dimbleby lecture, entitled "The Elective Dictatorship", in which he postulated that government had become such an institution. That Prime Ministers, through patronage, had acquired an unhealthy dominance of cabinets, and governments, through parliamentary majorities and party whips, had usurped the proper role of parliament. It was, coming from him, at that time, quite riveting. An interesting example of what he was talking about could be seen in the recent parliamentary vote on triggering Article 50.

 

There is nothing wrong with informed criticism from whatever source, of whatever institution. It is essential to the proper functioning of a democracy - because it provokes debate and re-appraisal of entrenched attitudes. Once made, the criticisms can be considered and accepted or rejected - so long as it is the criticisms that are so treated, and not the critic (Gina Miller again?). My objection is where the argument turns to attacking the critic and not their criticism, as it too often does, by creating a synthetic image of the critic that is then held up to ridicule on entirely fictitious grounds, in an attempt to bully them into silence, to embarrass them into withdrawal, to rouse prejudice against them (for example that one of the Supreme Court judges was "openly gay" - what possible relevance did that have to constitutional arguments?) so that their criticism is dismissed out of hand as being the work of some dubious pervert.

 

So, yes, I agree with some of what you say, and disagree with other things you say, just as I agree sometimes with John Clark, while disagreeing at other times.

 

Back on topic, I'm uneasy about the proposition of this string that, by implication, one's patriotism can be defined by one's willingness to sign a petition. What true patriot can be blind to the faults and shortcomings of their native state (in reality, its successive governments, who command its actions), and can see only noble, righteous, motivation in all its actions? Is that attitude really the test of a true patriot? I think not, and I somewhat resent that child-like attempt at moral blackmail. My country right or wrong is the refuge of the jingoist, not the true patriot. Succinctly summed up by G K Chesterton as “‘My country, right or wrong,’ is a thing that no patriot would think of saying. It is like saying, ‘My mother, drunk or sober.’”

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-02-17 7:06 PM

RogerC - 2017-02-16 7:41 PM......................All I know is one can not change history, much as it seems that the other party wishes one could.  There are things I despair of in this country but one thing is certain....this country is what it is for which I am grateful, grateful to those of whatever persuasion, whether under arms or otherwise who have been instrumental in forming the framework of our society as it stands today. 

Indeed, one cannot just change history to suit one's preferences but, before relying on it, one should first establish whether our understanding of it is correct. If it is not, we are liable to draw the wrong conclusions. The reality is that history does change, as newer information comes to light, and most of us are stuck with the historic landscape we learned at school. Much has changed since.Indeed, there are things about the UK that also lead me to despair. I suspect some of those things will be common to us both, and that others will not. We all, I suspect, see foolishness and knavery where we would prefer to see wisdom and honesty. Problem is, we don't all see the same foolishness and knavery, and we don't all see the same wisdom and honesty. :-)I see a problem with our monarchy, for example, and think they have little relevance, as an institution, to today's society. I do not denigrate them, but neither do I worship in their temple. I have long thought that we need, at least, a fully elected upper house (with far fewer members) in preference to various appointed cronies, and I think we need an elected president (with properly defined powers), because I think that our unelected (in the sense that no one actually votes them into their ministerial positions) governments now assume too much power on their own behalf. The Gina Miller case illustrates this well. The executive sought to exercise unconstitutional power in pursuit of its objective. Had they done so, the legal repercussions at some later date could have been very destructive. Yet, for forcing the executive to adhere to legal procedures, Miller and the Courts were lambasted by many, including the less thoughtful elements of the press. Fools and knaves, you see?In 1976 Quentin Hogg (Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone: no trendy lefty he! :-)) gave a BBC Dimbleby lecture, entitled "The Elective Dictatorship", in which he postulated that government had become such an institution. That Prime Ministers, through patronage, had acquired an unhealthy dominance of cabinets, and governments, through parliamentary majorities and party whips, had usurped the proper role of parliament. It was, coming from him, at that time, quite riveting. An interesting example of what he was talking about could be seen in the recent parliamentary vote on triggering Article 50.There is nothing wrong with informed criticism from whatever source, of whatever institution. It is essential to the proper functioning of a democracy - because it provokes debate and re-appraisal of entrenched attitudes. Once made, the criticisms can be considered and accepted or rejected - so long as it is the criticisms that are so treated, and not the critic (Gina Miller again?). My objection is where the argument turns to attacking the critic and not their criticism, as it too often does, by creating a synthetic image of the critic that is then held up to ridicule on entirely fictitious grounds, in an attempt to bully them into silence, to embarrass them into withdrawal, to rouse prejudice against them (for example that one of the Supreme Court judges was "openly gay" - what possible relevance did that have to constitutional arguments?) so that their criticism is dismissed out of hand as being the work of some dubious pervert.So, yes, I agree with some of what you say, and disagree with other things you say, just as I agree sometimes with John Clark, while disagreeing at other times.Back on topic, I'm uneasy about the proposition of this string that, by implication, one's patriotism can be defined by one's willingness to sign a petition. What true patriot can be blind to the faults and shortcomings of their native state (in reality, its successive governments, who command its actions), and can see only noble, righteous, motivation in all its actions? Is that attitude really the test of a true patriot? I think not, and I somewhat resent that child-like attempt at moral blackmail. My country right or wrong is the refuge of the jingoist, not the true patriot. Succinctly summed up by G K Chesterton as “‘My country, right or wrong,’ is a thing that no patriot would think of saying. It is like saying, ‘My mother, drunk or sober.’”

We agree on one thing....the Upper House is something in dire need of reform.. It is nothing other than a 'club' populated by political cronies who are there in an attempt to add support to one party and obstruction to another.  There appears to be no truly independent oversight delivered by that 'House'.  

However given that you appear to be in favour of a republic...(implication that you would prefer to see an end to the monarchy?)Informed criticism is all well and good 'if it is relevant'.  What is relevant today regarding the military intervention in the case of the Chartists?  No one is denying what they helped bring about.  What one is maintaining is that there is no relationship or relevance between the military and monarchy of 'then' to the 'here and now' as equally there is no relevance whatsoever in the fatuous inclusion of the reference to the Duke of Westminster, the homeless, parallels with N Korea, holding the idea that the monarch is responsible for the homeless and unbelievably harking back to 1066 etc etc.  I can not envisage that having a President would have altered the outcome or conduct of events all those long years ago.

One is always in favour of a good soundly based debate, nay even argument, but when the poster uses each and every minuscule opportunity, each and every tenuous link to criticise, disabuse and denigrate that which 'most of us hold dear'....when one comes across as a supremely entrenched ingrate, a continual critic coming from obscure directions, I fear one's response is not always as 'measured' as one would otherwise wish.

Lastly to quote the previous poster:

My country right or wrong is the refuge of the jingoist, not the true patriot.

What a despicable thing to say!!!!

On that we will for now and always disagree.  It seems to me that these days it has become fashionable to knock most everything one was in decades past proud to be.....proud of being British, proud to fly the flag etc etc.....

Read on and note the last few lines after which on that note I will excuse myself for fear of posting something that will offend or get me banned.....

A recent survey of teachers by London University's Institute of Education found that some three-quarters of them believed it was their duty to warn their pupils about the dangers of patriotism.

Once upon a time, loving your country enough that you were prepared to die for it was held to be the highest virtue. 

Indeed, without patriotism there would be no one serving in the Armed Forces. 

For the past 1,000 years, it has given the people of these islands the strength and courage to repel invaders and defeat the enemies of liberty. 

Is it not extraordinary that such affection for your country should now be considered so objectionable that children should be told it is positively dangerous? 

One teacher said that praising patriotism excluded non-British pupils.

What this teacher seemed to be saying was that children from immigrant backgrounds can't have that shared sense of belonging because they are not really British. Is that not itself a racist attitude? 

And if such children really are merely foreign visitors, it is even more extraordinary that teachers should tailor the education of children who are British to suit the few who are not. 

But then, some of these teachers seemed unwilling to acknowledge the concept of citizenship at all, spouting idiotic nonsense instead about promoting 'universal brotherhood' or the need to 'identify as humans'. 

With no awareness of any irony (they probably don't understand what that means either) some said promoting patriotism was a form of 'brainwashing'.

It seems that the idea of patriotism is OK for Scotland, Wales, N Ireland etc etc but heaven forbid one displays patriotism for England.......one is named a jingoist, a bigot, a racist etc etc. One is not blind to it's faults and goodness knows of late there have been many BUT one still remains proud of those who serve and do their duty, of ones country and what it stands for (warts and all) and does not take each and every pathetic opportunity to do them down.

Patriotism it appears to some is a dirty word.......to those who are so uneducated or themselves bigoted or blind to the truth, their thinking so warped by extreme liberalist ideas of how society should be.....I feel sorry for you.  However as before one remains grateful to those gone before, in whatever walk of life to give you the freedom to exhibit such leanings without fear or favour.  Now that is 'understanding'.........maybe something the more uber Liberals of the land would do well to consider.

[StuartO]

Brian Kirby - 2017-02-17 7:06 PM....... I'm uneasy about the proposition of this string that, by implication, one's patriotism can be defined by one's willingness to sign a petition. What true patriot can be blind to the faults and shortcomings of their native state (in reality, its successive governments, who command its actions), and can see only noble, righteous, motivation in all its actions? Is that attitude really the test of a true patriot? I think not, and I somewhat resent that child-like attempt at moral blackmail.

 

My country right or wrong is the refuge of the jingoist, not the true patriot. Succinctly summed up by G K Chesterton as “‘My country, right or wrong,’ is a thing that no patriot would think of saying. It is like saying, ‘My mother, drunk or sober.’”

 

Hopefully you wouldn't abandon or disown or speak shamefully of your mother simply because she was drunk - even if she was a habitual drunk; she would still be your mother and you would still support her in the best way you could.  Same, surely, with your Country.

 

As an individual you cannot always reserve the right to challenge every every issue and disagree with every decision, whether it be at the strategic or tactical level.  You might well disagree with whoever is currently in charge of the Country or is your boss in the chain of command (who might indeed be far from infallible) but if your Country (as distinct from the fallible leader) really needs your personal support in some way you should give it, simple as that, otherwise you have no right to call yourself an Englishman. There is, after all, no guarantee that you are infallible in your judgements either.

 

Good analogy, wrong interpretation.  (And I don't think whether you sign a petition like this is a good test of patriotism either.)

 

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-02-17 1:28 PM

 I would consider that in reality no one in their right mind would want her job.

 

All the more reason to have an elected Head of State and hangers on. So not only are we not forced to have them all but they need not do the job if they don't want to. We can do without miners, steelworkers, etc but York will Always need a Duke *-)

 

RogerC - 2017-02-17 1:28 PM

So now it's the Queen's fault that people are living on the streets?.

That is not what I said is it. Its not my fault we have people living on the street but I still give them a few quid and I have got a lot less than her. If she is so unselfish why does she keep so many big palaces?

 

If you think the source of Duke of Westminster's wealth is irrelevant as an example of how things that happened hundrreds of years ago are relevant today, let me try another example - a piece of deception that occurred 500 years or so ago..

 

If Lady Cecily Nevile had not sh*gged Blaybourne and conned her husband Richard into believing the offspring was his son and therefore next in line to the throne, you would be fawning to a different head of the Armed Forces and Monarch now (lol) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9373273/Rightful-king-of-England-dies-in-Australia.html

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-02-18 1:46 PM

RogerC - 2017-02-17 1:28 PM I would consider that in reality no one in their right mind would want her job.

All the more reason to have an elected Head of State and hangers on. So not only are we not forced to have them all but they need not do the job if they don't want to. We can do without miners, steelworkers, etc but York will Always need a Duke *-)

RogerC - 2017-02-17 1:28 PMSo now it's the Queen's fault that people are living on the streets?.

That is not what I said is it. Its not my fault we have people living on the street but I still give them a few quid and I have got a lot less than her. If she is so unselfish why does she keep so many big palaces? If you think the source of Duke of Westminster's wealth is irrelevant as an example of how things that happened hundrreds of years ago are relevant today, let me try another example - a piece of deception that occurred 500 years or so ago..If Lady Cecily Nevile had not sh*gged Blaybourne and conned her husband Richard into believing the offspring was his son and therefore next in line to the throne, you would be fawning to a different head of the Armed Forces and Monarch now (lol) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9373273/Rightful-king-of-England-dies-in-Australia.html

You really are beneath contempt.....I fawn to, or over, no one.

I, unlike you who keeps on harking back into the depths of history in an attempt to add substance to a pathetic argument, live in the here and now and chose to appreciate those who have given of themselves in public service.  It is called gratitude something that you only seem to offer to those who protested/demonstrated decades...even centuries ago.

.....and as for who, as you put it, s*agged who you deliver yet another irrelevance.   History is full of what if's........it is done, gone, 'in the past' and can not be undone.  You are extremely selective with your offerings of historical relevance so maybe you will appreciate this one:

If Fawkes and Catesby had been successful back in 1605 things would undoubtedly be different today.....but they were not so we are where we are.  Maybe because of their failure you could pour some of your scorn on them for being so ineffective and getting caught.  After all success might have delivered your idea of utopia!!  Then latterly had Cromwell and his cohorts been more effective we might still be living in the commonwealth they created under his leadership and then under his son.....nepotism?  Surely not!!......then

After the execution of Charles I, the House of Commons abolished the monarchy and the House of Lords. It declared the people of England "and of all the Dominions and Territories thereunto belonging" to be henceforth under the governance of a "Commonwealth", effectively a republic.

Must have been another ineffective lot back then though.......they had effectively created a republic (bet you would have loved that) but then the Convention Parliament met and restored the monarchy under Charles II in May 1660.  Shame for you your republican idols couldn't keep control .......maybe you should direct some of your displeasure towards their failure??

So looking back over the history you so like to offer as support for your outpourings against anything remotely related to the monarchy or military there are quite a number of opportunities wasted by those gone before to have delivered that which you so clearly desire.  Shame they were so bad at retaining the upper hand then isn't it ......still I expect you'll find some way to defend them for their failures.

[Brian Kirby]

StuartO - 2017-02-18 9:06 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-02-17 7:06 PM....... I'm uneasy about the proposition of this string that, by implication, one's patriotism can be defined by one's willingness to sign a petition. What true patriot can be blind to the faults and shortcomings of their native state (in reality, its successive governments, who command its actions), and can see only noble, righteous, motivation in all its actions? Is that attitude really the test of a true patriot? I think not, and I somewhat resent that child-like attempt at moral blackmail. My country right or wrong is the refuge of the jingoist, not the true patriot. Succinctly summed up by G K Chesterton as “‘My country, right or wrong,’ is a thing that no patriot would think of saying. It is like saying, ‘My mother, drunk or sober.’”

 

Hopefully you wouldn't abandon or disown or speak shamefully of your mother simply because she was drunk - even if she was a habitual drunk; she would still be your mother and you would still support her in the best way you could.  Same, surely, with your Country.

 

As an individual you cannot always reserve the right to challenge every every issue and disagree with every decision, whether it be at the strategic or tactical level.  .............................. There is, after all, no guarantee that you are infallible in your judgements either. Good analogy, wrong interpretation.  (And I don't think whether you sign a petition like this is a good test of patriotism either.)

There is, however, a considerable difference between the concept of "my country right or wrong" (or "my Mother drunk or sober", as in G K Chesterton's analogy) and abandonment on the one hand, and clear eyed criticism on the other. I did not take the same interpretation of these comments as you appear to have done, in that my interpretation is that when the country is wrong (or the Mother drunk) one should not refrain from telling either that they are wrong (or drunk!). I don't see that that honesty means one wouldn't offer support, but I would draw a clear distinction between, for example, our re-taking of the Falklands after the Argentinian invasion, and the invasion of Iraq. One was highly justified (though hugely risky), the other based on trumped-up scare stories and disastrously ill judged. So, do I qualify as the patriot over the Falklands, but fail over Iraq. If so, where does that leave me? Patriot, or traitor? If only the world were so simple! :-D

 

I claim no right to challenge every issue and disagree with every decision: there are issues and decisions on which I hold no opinion (because I have no interest in them and see no threat from them) and there are those on which my knowledge is far too sketchy to profess an opinion. However, with those exceptions, I'll be damned if I'm going to defer to someone else's opinions, or endorse their decisions, where I have an interest and see a threat, and/or have sufficient knowledge to hold an opinion.

 

Expressing an opinion enables a debate. The debate enables learning. One may thereby find one's self ill informed, which allows one opportunity to correct that, or correctly informed, in which case one may contribute to a correction by someone else.

 

Infallible, are we not all fallible? Even those whose issues and decisions one criticises? What I intensely dislike are those politicians (and others) whose adherence to some political (or other) persuasion blinds them to the extent that they counter any questioning with "I don't accept that" or "I don't believe that". I don't care what that individual accepts or believes, acceptance and belief is not why they are there: they are paid to make the best decision they can in the interests of their country irrespective of party, not to act on blind beliefs. That attitude alone, surely, is worthy of question and criticism?

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-02-18 7:27 PM

StuartO - 2017-02-18 9:06 AM

Brian Kirby - 2017-02-17 7:06 PM....... I'm uneasy about the proposition of this string that, by implication, one's patriotism can be defined by one's willingness to sign a petition. What true patriot can be blind to the faults and shortcomings of their native state (in reality, its successive governments, who command its actions), and can see only noble, righteous, motivation in all its actions? Is that attitude really the test of a true patriot? I think not, and I somewhat resent that child-like attempt at moral blackmail. My country right or wrong is the refuge of the jingoist, not the true patriot. Succinctly summed up by G K Chesterton as “‘My country, right or wrong,’ is a thing that no patriot would think of saying. It is like saying, ‘My mother, drunk or sober.’”

Hopefully you wouldn't abandon or disown or speak shamefully of your mother simply because she was drunk - even if she was a habitual drunk; she would still be your mother and you would still support her in the best way you could.  Same, surely, with your Country.As an individual you cannot always reserve the right to challenge every every issue and disagree with every decision, whether it be at the strategic or tactical level.  .............................. There is, after all, no guarantee that you are infallible in your judgements either. Good analogy, wrong interpretation.  (And I don't think whether you sign a petition like this is a good test of patriotism either.)

There is, however, a considerable difference between the concept of "my country right or wrong" (or "my Mother drunk or sober", as in G K Chesterton's analogy) and abandonment on the one hand, and clear eyed criticism on the other. I did not take the same interpretation of these comments as you appear to have done, in that my interpretation is that when the country is wrong (or the Mother drunk) one should not refrain from telling either that they are wrong (or drunk!). I don't see that that honesty means one wouldn't offer support, but I would draw a clear distinction between, for example, our re-taking of the Falklands after the Argentinian invasion, and the invasion of Iraq. One was highly justified (though hugely risky), the other based on trumped-up scare stories and disastrously ill judged. So, do I qualify as the patriot over the Falklands, but fail over Iraq. If so, where does that leave me? Patriot, or traitor? If only the world were so simple! :-DI claim no right to challenge every issue and disagree with every decision: there are issues and decisions on which I hold no opinion (because I have no interest in them and see no threat from them) and there are those on which my knowledge is far too sketchy to profess an opinion. However, with those exceptions, I'll be damned if I'm going to defer to someone else's opinions, or endorse their decisions, where I have an interest and see a threat, and/or have sufficient knowledge to hold an opinion.Expressing an opinion enables a debate. The debate enables learning. One may thereby find one's self ill informed, which allows one opportunity to correct that, or correctly informed, in which case one may contribute to a correction by someone else. Infallible, are we not all fallible? Even those whose issues and decisions one criticises? What I intensely dislike are those politicians (and others) whose adherence to some political (or other) persuasion blinds them to the extent that they counter any questioning with "I don't accept that" or "I don't believe that". I don't care what that individual accepts or believes, acceptance and belief is not why they are there: they are paid to make the best decision they can in the interests of their country irrespective of party, not to act on blind beliefs. That attitude alone, surely, is worthy of question and criticism?

Please excuse me if I am wrong but the comment made was:

 .........My country right or wrong is the refuge of the jingoist, not the true patriot.

is that which causes one to interpret the intent as being that as taken by StuartO.....to me it is insulting, inflammatory and what one would expect from a rabid (citizen of the world) liberal who feels that patriotism holds no place in the 'global world' of today.  However I agree yes there is occasion when ones 'country' get's it wrong.  This then is the opportunity to voice ones displeasure.....for example Blair taking us into an illegal war, lying to Parliament in order to justify going to war etc etc.  One can criticise and disagree most heartily but to call it the 'refuge of the jingoist' is in my opinion not just a step too far but a leap and is a sad indictment of the posters attitude towards ones own country.

[StuartO]

There was a revelation recently that some warships had nuclear weapons on board as they sailed for the Falklands, so some transfers of these weapons were necessary to put them out of harms way - notably they were removed from HMS Coventry and HMS Sheffield which were destined for the dangerous air defence role which put them out in front of the fleet.  And of course both of these ships were lost doing this job so it was sensible to remove potentially troublesome weapons which they would not need.

 

One of the commentators reviewing the newspapers on Sky News this morning took this story as a revelation that nuclear weapons were being taken into a war zone improperly and she clearly expected that in future there would be public consultation about which ships and where any such weapons might be deployed.

 

According to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WE.177) the UK no longer deploys nuclear weapons at all other than in the Trident submarines but prior to 1990 we did have a verstile nuclear weapon which could be used by fixed wing aircraft as a strike weapon or by ships as an anti-submarine weapon.  A nuclear weapon used as a depth charge would more or less guarantee a submarine kill and presumably, in deep ocean waters, would not leave too much mess.

 

But the Treaty of Tlatelolco prohibited nuclear weapons from Latin America altogether and UK was a signatory, so maybe these weapons couldn't be taken anywhere near the Falklands conflict and it's not known whether any of them were.  They certainly were not used and a top level political decision would clearly be needed before they were used - remember that Mrs Thatcher had to order the firing of the old fashioned Torpedo Mk 8 which sank the Belgrano.

 

This journalist's view, that she, an unelected and self appointed commentator, should have a say in the deployment of any weapons in terms of which ships and where they could go, strikes me as precisely the sort of interference our military and our government need to do without and precisiely what turns reasonable questionning of public policy into unpatriotic interfering.

 

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-02-18 4:08 PM

 

unlike you who keeps on harking back into the depths of history in an attempt to add substance to a pathetic argument, live in the here and now and chose to appreciate those who have given of themselves in public service.  It is called gratitude something that you only seem to offer to those who protested/demonstrated decades...even centuries ago.

 

Generall those who have worked in Her Majesty's forces have been rewarded, wheras those who won our freedoms were not. As well as being unpaid they had HM forces against them, instead of with them. Lets face it that must have taken more courage. Since they were unpaid as well you might at least show them some respect for getting you the freedoms you enjoy.

 

WW1 was a salutory lesson for the British Establishment. Having far superior forces they assumed it would be over by Christmas. But they didn't account for the incompetence of the British Generals. They had assumed the upper classes were the best to lead and were proven wrong. In future military leaders would be chosen on merit instead of parentage. But to ensure the aristocracy retained control the one at the top would be hereditary instead of chosen by the people or chosen by merit.

So having Europe's most expensive armed forces does not guarantee our freedom. Because the armed forces still swear their allegiance to an unelected head of state instead of the people. There is just an assumption that whoever inherits the job will always be on the same side as the people. Its brushed over with no discussion - you obey orders and thats that. Although there are many examples of where an unelected head of state is not on the same side as the people. And we have no way of knowing what future heads of state forced on to us by their armed forces will be like.

[Violet1956]

RogerC - 2017-02-18 8:11 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-02-18 7:27 PM

StuartO - 2017-02-18 9:06 AM

Brian Kirby - 2017-02-17 7:06 PM......

Please excuse me if I am wrong but the comment made was: .........My country right or wrong is the refuge of the jingoist, not the true patriot....is that causes one to interpret the intent as being that as taken by StuartO.....to me it is insulting, inflammatory and what one would expect from a rabid (citizen of the world) liberal who feels that patriotism holds no place in the 'global world' of today.  However I agree yes there is occasion when ones 'country' get's it wrong.  This then is the opportunity to voice ones displeasure.....for example Blair taking us into an illegal war, lying to Parliament in order to justify going to war etc etc.  One can criticise and disagree most heartily but to call it the 'refuge of the jingoist' is in my opinion not just a step too far but a leap and is a sad indictment of the posters attitude towards ones own country.

 

The dictionary definition of “Jingoism” is “The extreme belief that your own country is always best.” The term as used by Brian seems to have been interpreted as sleight on those who are patriotic. I don’t see it that way at all. A patriot is someone who gives vigorous support to his or her country not someone who believes his or her country is always the best. Our armed forces enjoy a high reputation worldwide because they are highly trained and disciplined. Are we really saying that patriotism dictates that their actions whether as peacekeepers or combatants should always be beyond scrutiny?

Showing support for those few soldiers who may be under investigation for their actions in Northern Ireland during the troubles is both laudable and understandable. I don’t think they have been denied that support although they have been done a great disservice in the past. As I read the history in the links I posted a while back, the reason why these investigations are ongoing is that there were previous attempts to stifle and frustrate any investigations closer to the events in question. That is the real scandal here. Some or all of those under investigation may be innocent of any wrong doing and to have these investigations hanging over them for so long now is a punishment that is of itself unacceptable. I don’t believe however that it would serve the interests of the country if the investigations were abandoned. That said, all those serving in our armed forces deserve better treatment than these soldiers have had to suffer due to some misplaced skulduggery that was a stain on the part of the establishment at the time of these events

 

Veronica

 

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-02-19 11:46 AM

RogerC - 2017-02-18 4:08 PMunlike you who keeps on harking back into the depths of history in an attempt to add substance to a pathetic argument, live in the here and now and chose to appreciate those who have given of themselves in public service.  It is called gratitude something that you only seem to offer to those who protested/demonstrated decades...even centuries ago.

Generall those who have worked in Her Majesty's forces have been rewarded, wheras those who won our freedoms were not. As well as being unpaid they had HM forces against them, instead of with them. Lets face it that must have taken more courage. Since they were unpaid as well you might at least show them some respect for getting you the freedoms you enjoy.WW1 was a salutory lesson for the British Establishment. Having far superior forces they assumed it would be over by Christmas. But they didn't account for the incompetence of the British Generals. They had assumed the upper classes were the best to lead and were proven wrong. In future military leaders would be chosen on merit instead of parentage. But to ensure the aristocracy retained control the one at the top would be hereditary instead of chosen by the people or chosen by merit. So having Europe's most expensive armed forces does not guarantee our freedom. Because the armed forces still swear their allegiance to an unelected head of state instead of the people. There is just an assumption that whoever inherits the job will always be on the same side as the people. Its brushed over with no discussion - you obey orders and thats that. Although there are many examples of where an unelected head of state is not on the same side as the people. And we have no way of knowing what future heads of state forced on to us by their armed forces will be like.

Heads of State forced on us?  Clarification would help one understand if you are referring to the United Kingdom or some foreign field?

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-02-18 8:11 PM................Please excuse me if I am wrong but the comment made was:

My country right or wrong is the refuge of the jingoist, not the true patriot.

is that which causes one to interpret the intent as being that as taken by StuartO.....to me it is insulting, inflammatory and what one would expect from a rabid (citizen of the world) liberal who feels that patriotism holds no place in the 'global world' of today.  However I agree yes there is occasion when ones 'country' get's it wrong.  This then is the opportunity to voice ones displeasure.....for example Blair taking us into an illegal war, lying to Parliament in order to justify going to war etc etc.  One can criticise and disagree most heartily but to call it the 'refuge of the jingoist' is in my opinion not just a step too far but a leap and is a sad indictment of the posters attitude towards ones own country.

No need to seek excuse, Roger, though I'm a bit unsure why the liberal (surely the most mild mannered of all politicos) should also be rabid!

 

But, there lies the rub. "My country, right or wrong", implies, as Violet suggests, that those having such a mindset will always meekly fall into line behind whatever venture one's country embarks upon. To me, that would be an insult, because it implies that when the conduct of one's country falls below the standard one expects, one should merely stay quiet - presumably in the belief that those in power know best. To that idea, I simply say "phooey"! To risk arrogance, I was born with a brain, and I'll use it!

 

You illustrate this well with your reference to Iraq (which you describe as the "illegal" war). It was, of course, at the time, dressed up as legal by a legally elected government. That, surely, is the point. "My country right or wrong" would demand that one supported that war, whether or not one regarded it as legal. If that idea is unacceptable, then criticism of government is legitimate and, as governments dictate what one's country will do, criticism of one's country must, also, be legitimised. (Fortunately for democracy, it is, so we need not worry too much on that score. :-))

 

To me, one cannot have "my country right or wrong" and, in the next breath, as it were, declare Iraq as an illegal war. Either one's country is always right (which I hold to be jingoism), or one retains the right to criticise when it does wrong (i.e. entering an illegal war). Otherwise, one falls into declaring all criticisms with which one does not, one's self, agree with, as "unpatriotic", while reserving "patriotic" for those supportive comments that coincide with one's own point of view. So, with my apologies, I simply cannot reconcile these two conflicting ideas.