REMEMBRANCE SUNDAY.....

[Nearly Sane]

That's right and same with the BBC.

What I find most disquieting about all this is that the recent development that not wearing a poppy seems tantamount to treason has happened at exactly the same time as the focus of the poppy has shifted from remembrance of the dead of the world wars towards getting behind our troops in ongoing conflicts. No coincidence I feel.

I think as already stated this is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument but I am conscious that as we get close to the time of remembrance that the argument feels academic in the pejorative sense. The dead march endlessly past.

[ProfessorDavey]

But surely, as we have already coveted, the poppy has 'clear political overtones'? I don't agree withDalmond's approach but were one of my friends from the Outer Hebrides to wear something similar to mark the sheet numbers of dead from there, I would struggle to see what was wrong. Again with Varadkar's shamrock poppy, it doesn't feel 'as bad' as the Saltire.

Firstly I'm not sure that remembering the dead has overt political overtones, although I fully accept that there are many political overlays. However the point isn't about whether the poppy in itself is political, but whether others 'hijack' it (as it is seen overwhelmingly as a 'virtuous' brand) with an entirely different political campaign - and one that is far, far more controversial.

And yes, as already posted the story of the Hearts team seems to create a justification for the symbol but I'm not sure then what standard you need to justify such a badge.

I'd struggle to go beyond Hearts - they were the trailblazers of volunteering en masse - other might have followed, but it is really Hearts alone who stand out in this respect.

Actually I do wonder whether the British legion are in all this - they are custodians of the poppy 'brand' - presumably they have to give permission for the poppy to be used alongside any other symbol.

[Nearly Sane]

Lovely post, Anchorman.

[Nearly Sane]

Firstly I'm not sure that remembering the dead has overt political overtones, although I fully accept that there are many political overlays. However the point isn't about whether the poppy in itself is political, but whether others 'hijack' it (as it is seen overwhelmingly as a 'virtuous' brand) with an entirely different political campaign - and one that is far, far more controversial.
I'd struggle to go beyond Hearts - they were the trailblazers of volunteering en masse - other might have followed, but it is really Hearts alone who stand out in this respect.

Actually I do wonder whether the British legion are in all this - they are custodians of the poppy 'brand' - presumably they have to give permission for the poppy to be used alongside any other symbol.

It's always had political overtones to me. From the idea that it was about just 'our' dead to the justification of the slaughter in the first WW as a good war. I agree that Hearts stand out as an example but I don't see that a prime example equates to others being OK to ignore. If you allow one, it seems to me the idea is validated.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think as already stated this is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument but I am conscious that as we get close to the time of remembrance that the argument feels academic in the pejorative sense. The dead march endlessly past.

I ask you to reflect on the fact that (probably) in 2001 we were asked, for the very first time ever to include service personnel in an ongoing major conflict in the Remembrance day commemorations. Remembering those who died in conflicts that had ended is not the same as being asked to stand in support of service personnel currently engaged in an ongoing conflict.

[Nearly Sane]

I ask you to reflect on the fact that (probably) in 2001 we were asked, for the very first time ever to include service personnel in an ongoing major conflict in the Remembrance day commemorations. Remembering those who died in conflicts that had ended is not the same as being asked to stand in support of service personnel currently engaged in an ongoing conflict.

Thank you, I will indeed reflect. I think that reflection is all we are left with.

[ProfessorDavey]

Absolutely the question of what are you raising money for is relevant, but to me if you agree with the cause the method is  secondary.

I don't agree - I think the two are related. If your manner of raising funds does not align with your fundamental aims then you have a problem.

So lets use an analogue (and somewhat extreme) example. Imagine a charity whose mission was to campaign against exploitative child labour in the developing world, and they need to raise to raise money. Imagine further that they raise funds by selling items of clothing that are produced in developing world countries using exploitative child labour. Would you really claim that the method for fund raising is secondary and that were you to agree with the cause you wouldn't think it inappropriate for the method to use exploitative child labour. I suspect not.

So in this case the methods of fund raising, and crucially the use of the poppy which is the most potent symbol of remembrance we have, has to be considered. Now the British legion indicate that their primary mission is:

'As Custodian of Remembrance we ensure the memories of those who have fought and sacrificed in the British Armed Forces live on through the generations.'

Again on their site the poppy is described as 'A symbol of Remembrance and hope'.

I'm sorry but I cannot see how that is consistent with using that symbol on a dog poo bag, alongside the slogan 'I'm a poppy pet' and described as 'A handy gift for pet lovers'. The method for raising money devalues the very mission of the organisation and its most potent symbol.

[Nearly Sane]

Secondary doesn't mean irrelevant.

[ProfessorDavey]

Secondary doesn't mean irrelevant.

But if it works counter to your primary purpose then you should rethink.

How do you respond to my analogy about the charity that campaigns against exploitative child labour in the developing world?

[Nearly Sane]

But if it works counter to your primary purpose then you should rethink.

How do you respond to my analogy about the charity that campaigns against exploitative child labour in the developing world?

Sorry, again I said secondary not irrelevant. You analogy seems to me to address it being irrelevant.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sorry, again I said secondary not irrelevant. You analogy seems to me to address it being irrelevant.

All I am asking you to do is to indicate your view on my analogous example. Do you think that the charity is justified in selling clothing produced using exploitative child labour as it helps raise funds in to support their primary purpose, which is campaigning against exploitative child labour in the developing world?

It isn't a hard question - nor is it a trick question.

[Nearly Sane]

All I am asking you to do is to indicate your view no my analogous example. Do you think that the charity is justified in selling clothing produced using exploitative child labour as it helps raise funds in to support their primary purpose, which is campaigning against exploitative child labour in the developing world?

It isn't a hard question - nor is it a trick question.

and I didn't say it was either of those. Just irrelevant since I haven't said that marketing is irrelevant just secondary here. So I am at a loss as stated now three times why arguing against something not said is relevant.

[ProfessorDavey]

and I didn't say it was either of those. Just irrelevant since I haven't said that marketing is irrelevant just secondary here. So I am at a loss as stated now three times why arguing against something not said is relevant.

So why are you still failing to answer the question. I am trying to ascertain how you balance primary and secondary considerations - earlier in the thread as far as I could see you were implying that the type of product being marketing was irrelevant if you supported a cause - see reply130:

'I find the products odd (golf balls?) but if people buy them and it contributes to supporting ex service people, I'm not sure I can object. ... It's either a good cause to you or it isn't and I am not sure there is a 'right' way to remember the dead.'

And reply137

'Which is irrelevant to the poppy raising money for that cause and the dog poop bag being for the same cause. Either you think it's a good cause or you don't.'

You then shift somewhat to implying that it is relevant, but secondary (reply142):

'Absolutely the question of what are you raising money for is relevant, but to me if you agree with the cause the method is  secondary. If you want serviceman to be better provided for then contribute - if not don't. If you want a dog poop bad as part of it, it isn't my choice but I'm not going to object if it is someone else's'

But still suggesting it isn't going to be determinative.

So the reason for raising my example is to ask you at what point it does become determinative - in other words that the method of raising funds (including the type of product sold) is so maligned with the primary purpose of the charity that it really should have any part in their fundraising.

[Nearly Sane]

Because it is an irrelevant question to what I stated was my position.  As explained  three times. So if you want to talk about what you have in your head but not on my posts, off you go. I won't be

[ProfessorDavey]

Because it is an irrelevant question to what I stated was my position.  As explained  three times. So if you want to talk about what you have in your head but not on my posts, off you go. I won't be

I am talking about what is in your posts - hence the reason I quoted directly from your posts. If the method of raising money is always secondary to the importance of the cause then all methods are fair game. I don't think that is the case and I think there are cases where a method is so misaligned with the primary purpose of the charity that the method becomes determinative - in other words it cannot be accepted regardless of its success in raising funds for the primary purpose.

[Gordon]

Odd thing happened today on the poppy-day front that I don't recall ever happening before.

Kids attending primary schools (in East Dunbartonshire) were asked to wear something red and bring a £1 donation. Of course my grand-daughter (10), wanting to both comply and not be the odd one out, had nothing red to wear so something red was bought which ironically cost more (Tesco being the beneficiary) than the £1 donation. Seems somehow incongruous to me

[Owlswing]

The men who make the poppies are disabled ex-servicemen who have all been incapacitated by injuries suffered on active service.

Most are, through these injuries, incapable of working outside their sheltered environment.

The charities that reciewvbe a share of the income are NOT like Help for Heroes which has been shown to be a business which has, on occasion, if I remember rightly, acted in what was very close to an illegal manner.

The money also help to provide prosthetics and other material aids.

So far as I am aware the money collected pay no-one a wage/salary.

If these guys waited for fhe Goverments, of whatever political stripe, in power since WWI to provide the services that the proceeds of the sale of poppies provides 90% of those needing those services would probably get no more than their funeral expenses paid.

Buy a poppy, even if you don't wear it - haven't these casualties of war suffered enough to give everyone the freedom to bitch about what or who is remembered on November 11!     

I'll shut up now before I say something that I will well and truly regret!

[Gordon]

The men who make the poppies are disabled ex-servicemen who have all been incapacitated by injuries suffered on active service.

Most are, through these injuries, incapable of working outside their sheltered environment.

The charities that reciewvbe a share of the income are NOT like Help for Heroes which has been shown to be a business which has, on occasion, if I remember rightly, acted in what was very close to an illegal manner.

The money also help to provide prosthetics and other material aids.

So far as I am aware the money collected pay no-one a wage/salary.

If these guys waited for fhe Goverments, of whatever political stripe, in power since WWI to provide the services that the proceeds of the sale of poppies provides 90% of those needing those services would probably get no more than their funeral expenses paid.

Buy a poppy, even if you don't wear it - haven't these casualties of war suffered enough to give everyone the freedom to bitch about what or who is remembered on November 11!     

I'll shut up now before I say something that I will well and truly regret!

Good advice Owly - that is exactly what I have done.

[Owlswing]

Good advice Owly - that is exactly what I have done.

Thanks mate!

[Harrowby Hall]

Now for my own personal gripe.

At the Cenotaph ceremony the military band will play Nimrod. Elgar wrote Nimrod as an expression of friendship - one of the Enigma Variations which celebrated the friendships of those close to him. Nimrod celebrated his publisher, August Jaeger, with whom he had long walks discussing other music. It is music of love and fellowship, not solemnity and tragedy. The meaning and message of Nimrod have been distorted

Fifteen years or so later, with WW1, Jaeger's family were forced to change their German name to Hunter.

[Rhiannon]

Now for my own personal gripe.

At the Cenotaph ceremony the military band will play Nimrod. Elgar wrote Nimrod as an expression of friendship - one of the Enigma Variations which celebrated the friendships of those close to him. Nimrod celebrated his publisher, August Jaeger, with whom he had long walks discussing other music. It is music of love and fellowship, not solemnity and tragedy. The meaning and message of Nimrod have been distorted

Fifteen years or so later, with WW1, Jaeger's family were forced to change their German name to Hunter.

It’s interesting because I always find Nimrod an uplifting and calming piece. What I object to is its co-option as a military, patriotic piece in the first place.

It’s also cheapened by those bloody military coin adverts.

[floo]

Odd thing happened today on the poppy-day front that I don't recall ever happening before.

Kids attending primary schools (in East Dunbartonshire) were asked to wear something red and bring a £1 donation. Of course my grand-daughter (10), wanting to both comply and not be the odd one out, had nothing red to wear so something red was bought which ironically cost more (Tesco being the beneficiary) than the £1 donation. Seems somehow incongruous to me

That seems very wrong to me.

[floo]

Who will be observing the 2 minute silence both today and tomorrow? My husband and I will.

[SteveH]

Yes, I get that not wearing a poppy can be seen as a form of virtue signalling but I've been doing it for so long that if I were to wear one it would seem a form of double reverse virtue signalling. (How complex things can be).

This "virtue signalling" bollocks that we hear of so much these days is a right-wing sneer against anyone with any principles at all. It should be ignored.

[Nearly Sane]

This "virtue signalling" bollocks that we hear of so much these days is a right-wing sneer against anyone with any principles at all. It should be ignored.

In general, I don't disagree but then there is this


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-41930507