I can understand why he's been arrested.

I don't know why anyone want to burn anything to offend someone else and I can't believe anybodys really offended.

it's historical.

Burning things that one finds 'offensive' goes back centuries, to witches and heretics and goodness knows what else.

In more recent times, the burning of books and art on Bebelplatz in 1933 was effectively a statement of cutting away the German intelligentsia.

It's been repeated on smaller scales many time since – [iThe Satanic Verses[/i, religious books, even [iHarry Potter[/i – only recently some people decided to burn copies of [i50 Shades of Grey[/i. And then there's flags. Although on a level, I personally feel 'offended' when people burn books, because attacking thoughts and ideas etc in such a way is crass and because they never seem to remember 1933 and what that meant, of care.

And people get offended by flags being burnt, because (presumably) they symbolise something that they hold dear, and they take the burning of such a symbol as indicative of a more meaningful attack.

So I can understand why someone would burn a poppy and I can understand why someone else would be offended by it.

But it all rather boils down to nobody having any right not to be offended – and this arrest seems to be suggesting that some people do have a right not to be offended. Seems utterly bonkers to me.

I buy a poppy in the week before the 11th and I wear it ... I don't see it as a glorification of war, nor does it mean that I support wars in Iraq etc. ... soldiers can't and don't choose which conflicts they are sent to, they do their duty... my poppy is a remembrance and a mark of respect.

Anyone who doesn't do what I do has a perfect right to not do so.
Anyone who wants to burn a poppy has a perfect right to do so.

Aren't these freedoms some of the things that people actually died for?

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

Mine too.



I think you may be confusing having these freedoms, with holding certain views. The irony of this particular situation is that if someone chooses to go up to forces personnel selling poppies, but not be wearing or buy a poppy for himself, it is hardly unexpected that the sellers will have a certain viewpoint.

But because millions died so we can all have these freedoms, they point which somehow has managed to escape so many on this thread is that the soldiers selling the poppies also have freedoms, and those include giving you the benefit of their opinions. What the OP seems to be after, encouraged by some surprising supporters, is a situation where he is free to make whatever statement he is making by declining to wear a poppy, but wishes any criticism or disagreement with him exercising that freedom to be silenced. Well, I've got news for you; the poppy sellers have the same rights and freedoms to express views and opinions, within the law, as anyone else, and I heartily endorse them giving him a piece of their mind. If you can't accept criticism, or are unwilling to debate or to hear contrary viewpoints, don't engage with people who are likely to hold them.

Indeed, a bit like the OP ramming his sanctamonious views of religion, gay marriage etc. down other people's necks, and then refusing point blank to justify why his beliefe in fairy stories is any more or less valid than serving forces personnel believing that we should wear poppies as a mark of respect.

Personally, I wish the squaddie had pistol whipped the resident bigot.

Completely agree.



But that's another ball game, isn't it?

I'm not so sure that I like the idea of sending troops out onto the street to harangue folk for money for their mates in Afghanistan.

Not unless I can take my German Shepherd out onto the streets to bite people if they don't donate to The Dogs Trust.

The Irony is that these troops understanding of Freedoms is inconsistent in terms of the actions they are asked to undertake..

The right to national self determination is a fundamental right but much of the poppy appeal now is about supporting the troops who prevented people having the right to national self determination.

Whether you agree with going into Afghanistan or not the reality now is that the game is up and it is time to go. If that means the afghans end up with the Taliban back that is there choice BUT they also nee dto know that if they let it be used as a base for military actions against other nation states ( ie letting al Queda back) then they will have to face the consequences in the future,

That's only going to happen if you smear all your victims in cake.

Couple of faults;
1/ Al qaeda do not exist. Another American bogeyman, as were the native Americans ( Indians), nn11ggers ( not my word) aliens and communists. 20 years time, there will be something else.

2/ were the tali(e)ban a terrorist organisation in 1979, or were they a politically elected party governed by their beliefs? When did they become terrorists?

Getting back to the OP. I don't wear or buy a poppy. thats my choice, I have a mind of my own, and I certainly don't need to be influenced by everyone on tv wearing 1 because they have been told to do so.

The poppy is fine, and I would wear 1 if it was to remember the great war and ww2, but, not for Irag/ Afghanistan of which has hijacked the whole ideal in the 1st place.

I can't say that I can. It's not like he was caught endangering life by burning a poppy or that the poppy belonged to someone else and so he was guilty of criminal damage. To arrest someone because they posted an image of a burning poppy on a Facebook page is not only ludicrous but also quite sinister.

How about incitement to hatred.

Hardly.

I don't believe that we should ever have gone into Afghanistan (again), but this is somewhat disingenuous, in that (approximately) 50% of the Afghan population would have no such choice in meaningful way.

This is, in essence, the same Taliban that thought it appropriate to get on a school bus with the sole intention of assassinating a 14-year-old girl who wanted nothing more than an education.

It may well be distasteful and the action of a fanatic etc, but I'm struggling to see how it incites.

So, you are now the spokesman for the entire armed forces. Great. Also, there is no irony in the role of a soldier, it's a simple role, obey the chain of command. You can't have every soldier debating every decision, for reasons rather obvious.


You say so, but in reality in many places in the world for many centuries, the determination has been done not by democratic wish but by imposition from those with the strongest force and the biggest appetite for blood and killing. Unless of course you consider that wiping out whole sections of your society with whose views you fundamentally disagree is a legitimate form of self-determination.


... so whatever the troops may or may not have done, to say they have "prevented people having the right to national self-determination" is plainly not it. more to the point, Remembrance Sunday, of which the Poppy Appeal is a part, is plainly not any such thing, it is about remembering the fallen and the wounded and helping them or their families.


I disagreed with it then, and disagree with it now, but the game is less "up" now than it was when the escapade started. If you actually want to read and digest the hard facts of what has been done to the Taliban's operational structure, as opposed to ignoring it. Was the game worth the candle? In my opinion, absolutely not, for several reasons but that ultimately it isn't a fight that we could ever have "won" in terms of a military victory and leaving behind a stable and strong unified country, or any other sort of "victory" remotely along those lines.


For those who are faced with that, the choice is though basically between not opposing the Taliban, when it arrives, or a bullet in the head. Which would you choose, and do you think it would be any sort of a "choice" in the sense you just implied?


Er, [iwhat[/i consequences? You want us to pull out, but issue a blunt threat that if they "let al Qaeda back" then we will invade? You wouldn't consider that as preventing these people having the right to national self determination a tad at all?

I struggle to see how burning a book or flag incites, but we know it does.

Burning of things often incites others to violent actions, as seen on many occasions.

But I’m not though, am I?

I did not seek to restrict the soldier’s freedom of speech, rather, I sought to criticise their behaviour and tell others about it. Most on here agree with me that they were out of order but not one single poster has said that the soldiers should be deprived of their right to express their own views.

So that’s one big pile of BS, isn’t it?



I agree, see above.



You are free to hold that view, however it may be advisable, given the trending opinions on this thread, for you to justify why you think they were right to act in such an aggressive manner.



My son wanted to buy a poppy and wear it on his coat.

I’m sorry for expecting a less hostile response from them.

I recently donated to the [iHelp For[/i Iraqi civilian [iHeroes[/i charity.

No, you don't have news for me because I had already realised all by myself that the poppy seller is entitled to a point of view and the same freedom of expression.... where did I say or even hint otherwise?

The poppy seller, however, needs to learn a bit better sales technique.

Ah, so you were perfectly cool with it. When you said you “certainly don't think it is appropriate to judge or criticise people who choose not to wear a poppy” you in fact meant the opposite. OK.


… Look, either they were “out of order” – ergo should not have done it, or else you disagree with them but respect their right to voice their views so they are NOT out of order.


Either they’re NOT out of order, or they’re out of order. You think they are out of order. Your post isn’t about them having a “right to express” what they expressed, your post is about “they jolly well shouldn’t have done that”, but you fail to see it.


Seemingly, not.



At least you concede you were wrong, even if rather quaintly you won’t admit it and pretend that when you said the sellers were “out of order”, you meant that what they did was fine, even if you disagree with them.


It’s not “for me” to do anything at all, and as long as the soldiers acted within the law (and you do not allege – so far – they didn’t) then that is its own answer.

Having said which, if there is an issue with saying "and where is your poppy, Sir?" then you are probably too sensitive to be allowed contact with other humans, and should avoid it.


They seem to have simply strongly tried to convince you that you should be wearing a poppy. Which is presumably their conviction, and one they are free to express. Forcefuly, if they feel strongly, as long as they remain within the law.

You complained that they expressed the following:


Either they broke the law, which I would deprecate, or they exercised their freedom to hold and express views in a legal manner. You have not even hinted that any law was broken, and so they could not have been more “in order”, now could they?

People being gay or black in a built-up area can 'incite' some people.

That doesn't mean we ban gay or black people or view them as the problem.

My understanding of incitement would be someone calling for a jihad against X, Y or Z, for instance.

There's a reason that Nick Griffin has (thus far) stayed out of prison – because he's been careful to avoid obvious incitement. Although he may have fallen foul of this for his recent tweets calling for a 'demonstration' at a gay couple's home, and providing the address.