We seem to be getting a lot of them nowadays
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/03/what-merits-minutes-silence-remembrance
The first and second world wars.
9/11
Tunisia
What should we hold them for? and how many years should we keep it up ?
Are we getting too many?
Should it only be for wars? Or killings? What about people killed on planes/disasters?
How do you feel about it?
I feel the qualification for it has widened now to include different things, I usually notice them if I happen to be working.
For me, it's starting to get too much, not that I want to be disrepectful
I think it should very rare, and certainly so for a kind of national event.
So we often see 'local' one minute silences, e.g. at a football ground for a player who has died. I don't see an issue with this are there clearly isn't any attention to take it beyond the footballing community and is a 'one off' event for that particular person, although there may be another for another player at some future time. Increasingly (for various reasons), particularly where the player who has died lived to a good age, there is one minutes applause rather than silence and I rather like this.
So this leaves the kind of regular national events, and I think this really should be restricted only to those commemorations that are so major they dwarf others. So I can really only think of 2 - commemoration of the dead in the two world wars and in the holocaust (which links anyhow).
I am actually not comfortable with the gradual evolution of remembrance Sunday/day to be less about the world wars and more about our 'current' boys (i.e. service personnel). I think this is wrong on many grounds, but here are three.
First the shear magnitude - in the 14 years of British involvement in Afghanistan there have been about 430 deaths of service personnel. In just the first day of the battle of the Somme there were about 20,000 british deaths and probably similar numbers of French and German. There is no comparison, and there shouldn't be.
Second point - well some people might say that the number of deaths is irrelevant, each one is just as important whether there are 400 or 20,000. And to an extent I understand, but commemoration and remembrance is about personalising those deaths and it is easy to do it with 400 today than 20,000 from 100 years ago. So there are plenty of ways in which the deaths of those 400 have been and continue to be marked that are (and have never been) possible for the industrial scale deaths in the world wars. So just about every one of the Afghan deaths would have individually received new publicity and you can see details here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10629358Every one has a link for the 'full story'. They are remembered individually, because there are so few and because of the power of media today. Collective commemoration/remembrance isn't necessary in the way the WW deaths are, in my opinion.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, today's soldiers are all professional, career military men and women. They have chosen that career in full knowledge that the most important aspect of that role is to put your life on the line in conflict - that's what military personnel do (or at least front line ones do). That is entirely different from the conscripts of the world wars, who did not chose this, had no choice and without choosing to be in the military ended up fighting and dying. How we considerate deaths in a conscripted army has to be different to that in a fully professional army.
Final point (perhaps there are four points) - this is about the poppy appeal and money raised for injured personnel and for the families of those who died. In our current professional army, with relatively few deaths and injuries, surely the state should do this and they are capable of doing it. They are the 'employer' - they should take care of the injured and provide compensation for the families of those that died in the course of duty to a suitable degree, not rely on charity. In the world war situation the numbers were overwhelming and there simply wasn't the scope for government to support all the injured and families of the dead - hence the need for charity. That isn't the case now, or rather it shouldn't be.