Comments on: A few thoughts on the poppy fuss

By: The Sweeper: The Politics of Poppy Populism | Pitch Invasion

The Sweeper: The Politics of Poppy Populism | Pitch Invasion — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:31:56 +0000

[...] LCD readership is a bit like complaining about water being wet, but that didn’t stop the more rational voices in England from taking the bait, including WSC and the Guardian’s Marina Hyde. Both [...]

By: Grognard

Grognard — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:04:03 +0000

@Red Ranter: Respect the individual but organizations do not get away with that. United as an organization must agree to wear the poppy. If certain individuals within the organization feel like not wearing it, I totally agree, they have that right although I must seriously ask the question, why wouldn't they wear it? Man City fans have the right to heckle and scream obscenities during a moment of silence commemorating the Munich Air Disaster. The majority don't because the majority have been brought up to know better, but there is no law that forces them to do so. Society expects certain sacrifices from us mate. They do not force us as a community to pay respects tot he fallen but they still expect us to show that respect out of common respect and human decency. Anything short of that is up for scrutiny, ridicule and criticism.

By: Grognard

Grognard — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:58:59 +0000

@Red Ranter: Why not wear the universal symbol for respect of those who died, the poppy. Pay respects in their own way? That's not for them to decide. There is a universal symbol for that mate, the poppy. It's what we all recognize and so when someone decides to ignore that symbol, I for one take great exception to it. For me it's a Hell of a lot more important than wearing a bloody ribbon to make a statement about Aids. United are dead wrong on this. Like I said earlier, where is the harm in wearing a bloody poppy? Why refuse to wear one? It's not bulky, it's not tacky and it's not dangerous as one can easily be sewn on. It's just sad and insulting and sometimes a team has to conform to society's demands.

By: RoM Reads

RoM Reads — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:56:30 +0000

[...] Red Rants takes a look at the poppy fuss. [...]

By: Traverse

Traverse — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:48:37 +0000

@Grognard: Manchester United was the first club to give free match tickets to the armed forces, and give/do the most for charity out of any club in England.

The argument seems to be that United are disrespecting the dead. So has every every football team in the world been respecting the dead for the last 70 years for not having a poppy on their shirt? It’s a new thing (started in 2002 I think) and hardly a slap in the face… the players will be wearing them on their suits too and from the game, every member of our staff will be wearing them, and the players will not.

Remembrance day isn’t just about the sacrifice of WWI/WWII, it’s about every war, every lost life (on both sides) and those currently serving. If the poppy appeal is about raising awareness, and getting people to ask questions then the players will be holding a minutes silence on the field that the whole world will see. I believe that is far more relevant.

This whole ‘campaign’ is another nonsense from the Daily Racism, who presumably couldn’t think of a new Asylum seekers eating our swans/Madeleine Mccann/Princess Diana story to lead with.

By: Laos Red

Laos Red — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:06:11 +0000

RR – Exactly…. Afghanistan is one of the biggest producers of opium. Would love to heard the logic behind the poppygate…..

By: Red Ranter

Red Ranter — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:50:19 +0000

Call me ignorant — and I’d like people to educate me on this if they are in the know — but I find this tradition of the poppy flower (which has started only since 2002) a little ironic considering it’s the business of the poppy plant (opium) in Afghanistan that has actually funded the terrorists.

By: Red Ranter

Red Ranter — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:46:43 +0000

@Grognard: Whilst it would be disrespectful of said person if he refused to wear the poppy flower, I would still not deny him the right to do as he pleases. Bullying someone or giving a tongue lashing to someone — into forcing him to wear the poppy flower — is precisely the sort of thing our soldiers are dying to protect us from. That is, the freedom to choose to be the person we want to be without having to be told by someone else on how to behave. Freedom to be a good person, or an asshole — as long as we don’t hurt someone else.

In this case, our club are being that person (although they’ve had their entire staff wear the flower) but nothing justifies this ideological bullying from the media.

By: Red Ranter

Red Ranter — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:39:25 +0000

@Grognard: @Redrich: The mec has a point, although I wouldn't go as far as the roots of Daily Mail ownership. Look, I'm not a great fan of the Glazers. But it's not like United haven't honoured the forces. Every member of the staff and manager have been wearing the poppy flowers. What everyone is crying about is they are not honouring the soldiers in the way they want them to be honoured. The soldiers who've fought this war have fought for our freedom, and that includes being able to have the freedom to decide for oneself whether we want to wear the poppy flower or not -- without being bullied by someone else. United, Liverpool and Bolton have all said that they are honouring it in their own way -- who are the Daily Mail to tell us how to honour something or someone? The issue I've tried to highlight is about the Mail bullying us into honouring something in the way they want to be. I am not buying that self-righteous bullshit from the Mail. And that's all I want to say on this subject. I wish United would have worn it on their players, but it doesn't make the noises coming from the Daily Mail right.

By: Grognard

Grognard — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:21:56 +0000

@Redrich: I agree. Goodnight Red and hope we are both wrong about tomorrow's outcome.