I see the non-compulsory wearing of Poppies is in full swing

[John52]

Barryd999 - 2017-11-15 9:54 AM

remembering the many who payed the ultimate sacrifice for us?

sounds like an attempt to justify all the wars and ignore the fact they had no choice :-(

Barryd999 - 2017-11-15 9:54 AM spare a thought for those that died in all our wars whatever your political views

Thats Better :-D

[Barryd999]

John52 - 2017-11-15 10:14 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2017-11-15 9:54 AM

remembering the many who payed the ultimate sacrifice for us?

sounds like an attempt to justify all the wars and ignore the fact they had no choice :-(

Barryd999 - 2017-11-15 9:54 AM spare a thought for those that died in all our wars whatever your political views

Thats Better :-D

 

There were some terrible injustices and bad decisions made in World war one. Many of it not justifiable but it was 100 years ago. It doesnt matter if someone was forced to fight, press ganged into the Navy 200 years ago or if the war was a totally pointless and unjustifiable one like arguably some of the more recent ones were. People still died fighting for us whichever way you dress it up. They should be remembered.

 

Most people do not want wars but they are unavoidable sometimes and sadly always will be.

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-11-15 9:46 AM

John52 - 2017-11-14 4:33 PM

Barryd999 - 2017-11-14 8:51 AM those that fought for our freedom and who protect us today. .

This is where it goes beyond 'the simple, uncomplicated act of remembering them' and gets political in that it implies all the wars were justified and necessary. Ignoring the alternative views.It ignores the many who fought because they were conscripted or shot for 'cowadice' if they didn't fight.And it suggests we wouldn't be free if we weren't the only country in the world to be at war ever year for over 100 years.

And it ignores the victims who didn't fight. Like those who had the worst job of the war on the Arctic Convoys, supplying weapons to Stalin who was worse than Hitler. At the end of the war when Churchill wanted us to join the remains of the German Army and fight Stalin, Churchill simply ignored them in his VE Day Speech and denied them medals, because their carrying out his drunken orders had become an embarasement to him. Are we to ignore them as well?

What is it with you that you have to denigrate, decry, do down, besmirch almost everything 'normal' people either simply accept as done and dusted or actually appreciate that which has been done in order to allow us to live as we do today?

As to the comment in bold, and using your penchant for taking comments and wandering off on a very tenuous tangent, ignore them? Maybe if it were not for your objectionable rantings, which as they litter most every thread and are therefore almost unavoidable, we could IGNORE YOU!! 

Now there's a thought.....maybe the Moderators could have the IT guys add an 'ignore' button to the forum because you truly do come across as 'the' most miserable, twisted and bitter person.

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-11-15 3:23 PM

actually appreciate that which has been done in order to allow us to live as we do today?

Indeed I do. And I always show my humble respect to the Preston Martyrs Memorial to the Chartists who were murdered by Her Majesty's Armed forces whilst peacefully campaigning for what Freedoms you and I enjoy today.

[globebuster]

John52 - 2017-11-15 9:06 AM

 

globebuster - 2017-11-15 8:41 AM

..not a poppy in sight but plenty of remembrance going on

Which proves my point :-D

You don't need a poppy to remember the victms of war, like you don't need to go to church to pray to God.

Once you get organised religion, like organised remembrance, people abuse it for their own agenda.

 

Well John, I'm glad you selected that particular line to extract because while I'm looking at the photos in Kristiansand this nice Norwegian guy comes up to me for a chat.

 

He said he knew I was British as he'd noticed my poppy, he then proceeded to show me a whole row of little enamel poppy badges all with different dates on, explaining that he donates the RBL most years.

 

You claim to use this forum to enrich your knowledge, would it be fair to say that you have (as far as thread goes) been taught that your views are not widely considered acceptable or valid?

 

You see, in order to enhance your knowledge there is a necessity to listen to the voice of reason.

 

Trolls seem very popular in Norway, I think you would love it here,,,,,with only a few hours daylight in winter you could spend hours writing your usual crap by candlelight.

The northern lights have been amazing - almost unreal, which is actually a bit like your world??

 

[globebuster]

No comment

Well, apart from the fact that the naive sculpture doesn't really appeal to me.

I'll keep 'feeding' you John or Peter - I don't want my little troll going hungry ??

[thebishbus]

I think John 52 is trying to see how far he can go on before the Moderators ban him again. If you all just ignored his offensive posts in Chatterbox, he would probably get feed up just replying to his own offensive posts,and just fade away.

Brian B.

[antony1969]

Don't think these guys were wearing Poppies ... https://twitter.com/JaydaBF/status/930792668682244096

[John52]

Its just a photograph of a public street in Preston.

And a factual account of what happened there.

This shows the plaque where we lay our wreaths.

But you would like it banned because it doesn't suit your prejudice?

[John52]

globebuster - 2017-11-15 4:28 PM

doesn't really appeal to me.

Well of course it hasn't had anything like the money spent on it that is spent on monuments to Royalty or Military leaders. Concrete instead of marble etc

Its a people's monument, rather than a 'money no object' Royal or Military one.

[John52]

The presence of the Royal Family shows this 'Remembrance' is organised by their Establishment.

Perhaps a clearer example of what that means is we got hundreds of lavish monuments to remember Victoria and Albert, but nothing to remember the Suffragettes *-)

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-11-15 7:22 PMThe presence of the Royal Family shows this 'Remembrance' is organised by their Establishment.Perhaps a clearer example of what that means is we got hundreds of lavish monuments to remember Victoria and Albert, but nothing to remember the Suffragettes *-)

You really are one weird, deluded, misguided, bitter, sad, twisted individual if you truly believe that load of complete and utter idiocy.

As interesting as differing opinions are and fortunately most, if not all others, are nowhere near as 'differing' as yours, there comes a point where lax moderation of a forum provides trolls and weirdos an uncontrolled platform for their obsessive insanity.

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-11-15 8:04 PM

John52 - 2017-11-15 7:22 PMThe presence of the Royal Family shows this 'Remembrance' is organised by their Establishment.Perhaps a clearer example of what that means is we got hundreds of lavish monuments to remember Victoria and Albert, but nothing to remember the Suffragettes *-)

You really are one weird, deluded, misguided, bitter, sad, twisted individual if you truly believe that load of complete and utter idiocy.

As interesting as differing opinions are and fortunately most, if not all others, are nowhere near as 'differing' as yours, there comes a point where lax moderation of a forum provides trolls and weirdos an uncontrolled platform for their obsessive insanity.

So swearing an oath to serve her doesn't make you part of her Establishment then *-)

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-11-15 8:11 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-15 8:04 PM

John52 - 2017-11-15 7:22 PMThe presence of the Royal Family shows this 'Remembrance' is organised by their Establishment.Perhaps a clearer example of what that means is we got hundreds of lavish monuments to remember Victoria and Albert, but nothing to remember the Suffragettes *-)

You really are one weird, deluded, misguided, bitter, sad, twisted individual if you truly believe that load of complete and utter idiocy.

As interesting as differing opinions are and fortunately most, if not all others, are nowhere near as 'differing' as yours, there comes a point where lax moderation of a forum provides trolls and weirdos an uncontrolled platform for their obsessive insanity.

So swearing an oath to serve her doesn't make you part of her Establishment then *-)

No it does not and if you could just control your vitriolic wanderings for a minute and do a little research you would better understand that the Oath of Allegiance exemplifies loyalty or commitment.  Whilst the Queen is a titular head of the British Armed Forces she does not own them therefore one can not be a part of 'her establishment' as it is clearly 'not' hers.  One merely swears to allegiance and not to 'ownership'.

However I suspect you will respond with some of your usual mindless, inane, tangential garbage because that clearly doesn't fit your seemingly warped view of the world around you.  

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-11-15 8:30 PM

John52 - 2017-11-15 8:11 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-15 8:04 PM

John52 - 2017-11-15 7:22 PMThe presence of the Royal Family shows this 'Remembrance' is organised by their Establishment.Perhaps a clearer example of what that means is we got hundreds of lavish monuments to remember Victoria and Albert, but nothing to remember the Suffragettes *-)

You really are one weird, deluded, misguided, bitter, sad, twisted individual if you truly believe that load of complete and utter idiocy.

As interesting as differing opinions are and fortunately most, if not all others, are nowhere near as 'differing' as yours, there comes a point where lax moderation of a forum provides trolls and weirdos an uncontrolled platform for their obsessive insanity.

So swearing an oath to serve her doesn't make you part of her Establishment then *-)

No it does not and if you could just control your vitriolic wanderings for a minute and do a little research you would better understand that the Oath of Allegiance exemplifies loyalty or commitment.  Whilst the Queen is a titular head of the British Armed Forces she does not own them therefore one can not be a part of 'her establishment' as it is clearly 'not' hers.  One merely swears to allegiance and not to 'ownership'.

However I suspect you will respond with some of your usual mindless, inane, tangential garbage because that clearly doesn't fit your seemingly warped view of the world around you.  

OK, So you swear all this; swear by Almighty God (do solemnly, and truly declare and affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the (admirals / generals/ air officers) and officers set over me.Without becoming part of her Establishment. *-) Does this mean I have Libelled you again *-)

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-11-15 8:58 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-15 8:30 PM

John52 - 2017-11-15 8:11 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-15 8:04 PM

John52 - 2017-11-15 7:22 PMThe presence of the Royal Family shows this 'Remembrance' is organised by their Establishment.Perhaps a clearer example of what that means is we got hundreds of lavish monuments to remember Victoria and Albert, but nothing to remember the Suffragettes *-)

You really are one weird, deluded, misguided, bitter, sad, twisted individual if you truly believe that load of complete and utter idiocy.

As interesting as differing opinions are and fortunately most, if not all others, are nowhere near as 'differing' as yours, there comes a point where lax moderation of a forum provides trolls and weirdos an uncontrolled platform for their obsessive insanity.

So swearing an oath to serve her doesn't make you part of her Establishment then *-)

No it does not and if you could just control your vitriolic wanderings for a minute and do a little research you would better understand that the Oath of Allegiance exemplifies loyalty or commitment.  Whilst the Queen is a titular head of the British Armed Forces she does not own them therefore one can not be a part of 'her establishment' as it is clearly 'not' hers.  One merely swears to allegiance and not to 'ownership'.

However I suspect you will respond with some of your usual mindless, inane, tangential garbage because that clearly doesn't fit your seemingly warped view of the world around you.  

OK, So you swear all this; swear by Almighty God (do solemnly, and truly declare and affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the (admirals / generals/ air officers) and officers set over me.Without becoming part of her Establishment. *-) Does this mean I have Libelled you again *-)

So you admit to spouting garbage then John......and to misrepresenting the truth once more.  

Regarding libellous comment.  Is there any need to introduce that issue again or does it simply add fuel to your nasty minded ways?  Still it is clearly an admission of guilt on your part.

I would have hoped that what went on in private with the moderators was sufficient to tell you to rein in your abuse and provocation but clearly it has had no effect.  Nothing appears to curtail your antagonism and troll like behaviour so why should a moderators warning make any difference to you.  So please continue to spout your bile John because it actually reinforces just how content my life is compared to the sad miserable existence you must lead with all your 'crosses' to bear.

 

[globebuster]

John52 - 2017-11-15 5:08 PM

 

globebuster - 2017-11-15 4:28 PM

doesn't really appeal to me.

Well of course it hasn't had anything like the money spent on it that is spent on monuments to Royalty or Military leaders. Concrete instead of marble etc

Its a people's monument, rather than a 'money no object' Royal or Military one.

 

What's money got to do with it?

As far as I'm concerned all monuments are for the people and anyway we're talking about the wearing of a poppy as a symbol of respect, not some lump of concrete that looks like half a dozen lego figures......

 

I think it's time you changed the subject, surely you've got some other issues you need to get off your chest, because these days you're becoming a bit of a 'one trick' troll - sorry pony.

Please enrich our lives with some more outrageous poorly researched stuff - come on, you know you want to.....

 

..

 

[John52]

globebuster - 2017-11-15 4:28 PM

I'll keep 'feeding' you John

Which means you are the Troll

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-11-15 9:34 PM

clearly an admission of guilt on your part.

 

What is?

Do you mean this?

 

John52 - 2017-11-15 8:58 PM

 

Does this mean I have Libelled you again *-)

 

So the icon *-) was a bit to subtle for you ?

 

May I point out this is a general forum where people have a wide range of views.

If you only want to talk to people who share your views you might be happier on a military forum ?

 

[John52]

globebuster - 2017-11-16 12:17 AM

What's money got to do with it?

 

Well actually you have answered your owen question but don't appear to have realised it, so I will see if I can explain it more simply

 

With limited money you get

 

globebuster - 2017-11-16 12:17 AM

some lump of concrete that looks like half a dozen lego figures.......

 

Wheras if its one of the hundreds of money np object Royal or Military monumens you can gave marble instead of concrete, a wider choice of sculptors with more time to spend on it etc.

 

The photo is also not taken in the best light. thats because it was taken at a time when there were no people about. Taking a photo of people on the street and posting it online without their consent is not illegal. But I wouldn't like to do it in this case. Because I wouldn't want them abused for sincerely paying their respects and remembrances to it, like I have been on here.

[John52]

I thought this was obvious, but in view of previous replies perhaps it isn't to everybody?

If you make the characters look too life like there is the possibility they could resemble a real person.

Then they might be insulted by it.

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-11-16 7:47 AM

RogerC - 2017-11-15 9:34 PM clearly an admission of guilt on your part.

What is?Do you mean this?

John52 - 2017-11-15 8:58 PMDoes this mean I have Libelled you again *-)

So the icon *-) was a bit to subtle for you ?May I point out this is a general forum where people have a wide range of views.If you only want to talk to people who share your views you might be happier on a military forum ?

Icon?  What icon John?  For your edification that which you posted is an emoticon, so once again you are WRONG......WRONG....WRONG.

As for your admission then yes it was that comment and the emoticon did nothing to alter the fact that you said 'again' which by definition means something has been done previously.  Therefore you clearly are admitting guilt.  Unfortunately I suspect you are so far up the warped creek of bitterness looking for some more inane irrelevances that I doubt you will understand the simplicity of the explanation.

Yes the forum permits a broad spread of topics, expression of idea, thought and considered opinion. Unfortunately yours appears to be neither thought, considered or a spread of topics.  You simply spout the same boring garbage day after day.  However thanks for making my day better because it sure as hell must be infinitely better than living in your world of obsessive bitterness.

As for being on a military forum your comment assumes too much.  I appreciate discussions over the broader church of what one considers to be rational thought and diverse opinion.  However regardless of what forum I belong to, or indeed prefer one thing is certain:  Constant diversion of topics, antagonistic behaviour and posting outright lies regarding other forum members such as your postings contain would not be tolerated and you would be banned.  

But as I said before thanks for your continued brightening of my day.........because I sure as hell wouldn't want to be living yours.

PS.  Victor Meldrew also says thanks.  :-)

[globebuster]

John52 - 2017-11-16 8:00 AM

 

globebuster - 2017-11-16 12:17 AM

What's money got to do with it?

 

Well actually you have answered your owen question but don't appear to have realised it, so I will see if I can explain it more simply

 

With limited money you get

 

globebuster - 2017-11-16 12:17 AM

some lump of concrete that looks like half a dozen lego figures.......

 

Wheras if its one of the hundreds of money np object Royal or Military monumens you can gave marble instead of concrete, a wider choice of sculptors with more time to spend on it etc.

 

The photo is also not taken in the best light. thats because it was taken at a time when there were no people about. Taking a photo of people on the street and posting it online without their consent is not illegal. But I wouldn't like to do it in this case. Because I wouldn't want them abused for sincerely paying their respects and remembrances to it, like I have been on here.

 

Thanks for helping me out with your explanation regarding the costs and relative value to quality ratio.

Still look like lego figures though......they're not made with Plumbers Mait by any chance?

 

Your claims of abuse are so ironic - I would say your previous thread on poppy wearing insulted, abused and besmirched the name of every newsreader, actor and public figure with that sweeping 'compulsory' assumption.

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-11-16 12:33 PM

What icon John?  For your edification that which you posted is an emoticon, so once again you are WRONG......WRONG....WRONG.

 

Actually it is RIGHT... RIGHT.... RIGHT... because "emoticon" is a portmanteau word of the English words "emotion" and "icon"

In other words emoticon is a type of icon, so its still an icon.

I could have used the word "emoticon" but I try to keep the words as short and simple as I can for you.

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-11-16 12:56 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-16 12:33 PMWhat icon John?  For your edification that which you posted is an emoticon, so once again you are WRONG......WRONG....WRONG.

Actually it is RIGHT... RIGHT.... RIGHT... because "emoticon" is a portmanteau word of the English words "emotion" and "icon"In other words emoticon is a type of icon, so its still an icon.I could have used the word "emoticon" but I try to keep the words as short and simple as I can for you.

'Emoticon'.....Portmanteau it maybe but it is not an icon.

 In computer terms an icon is:

  'a symbol or graphic representation on a screen of a program, option, or window'.

As your 'emoticon' is none of those things it is not an icon...wrong again John.