BE BRITISH FIRST
- Thread starter rederech
- Start date
Sponsored Links
If you want a private dialogue, use email or some other form of private messaging.rederech said:
If you post your views here, for all to read, then all who read them are entitled to comment/reply/discuss/argue. That's the way that fora work.
I repeat - I was not being snide or nit-picking, unless you define nit-picking as someone pointing out to you that things are not always as simple as your somewhat black-and-white view indicates, or that your position contains contradictions.
I was not rude. I was not offensive. I was not abusive. I was not derogatory. I was not sarcastic. All I did was to raise other points of views, or highlight other facets of your opinions that should give you pause for thought.
Unless you are going to object to the basic idea of anybody commenting on what you write here, there is no reason to object to me writing what I did. Disagreeing with what I wrote is fine, saying that I should not have written anything at all is another matter.
In summary, if you believe that you should be allowed to write what you like, and that all the rest of us are allowed to do is just to read it, then maybe you should implement this:
rederech said:
permanently.
Like I said - this is a public discussion forum, not a private communications channel.
Discussion by whom?
Sponsored Links
BAS
I bow to your articulate words of wisdom and you have raised very valid
points which in some I agree on and others I don't. However, may I
opologise if I have offended you.
I will gladly carry on dialogue with you in the subject matter.
I gave my opinion as to Britishness going back to the original post.
Let me ask you some questions that you may choice to answer or not.
a) We should be British first and British last, while staunchly adhering to our respective faiths. Do you agree with these comments.
b)We had to face the terrible truth of being the first western country to have suffered terrorist attacks perpetrated by 'home-grown' suicide bombers," Mr Howard said. Is this correct ?
c) "To be British means that we respect the laws, the parliamentary and democratic political structures, traditional values of mutual tolerance, respect for equal rights..." Is this right ?
If you disagree with any of these comments I would be interested in
your opinions.
I bow to your articulate words of wisdom and you have raised very valid
points which in some I agree on and others I don't. However, may I
opologise if I have offended you.
I will gladly carry on dialogue with you in the subject matter.
I gave my opinion as to Britishness going back to the original post.
Let me ask you some questions that you may choice to answer or not.
a) We should be British first and British last, while staunchly adhering to our respective faiths. Do you agree with these comments.
b)We had to face the terrible truth of being the first western country to have suffered terrorist attacks perpetrated by 'home-grown' suicide bombers," Mr Howard said. Is this correct ?
c) "To be British means that we respect the laws, the parliamentary and democratic political structures, traditional values of mutual tolerance, respect for equal rights..." Is this right ?
If you disagree with any of these comments I would be interested in
your opinions.
Nope - not offended.rederech said:
Largely. It is still a somewhat circular argument, that begs the question 'What is "being British"?' There isn't some simple litmus test. There are different aspects of it, not all of which can be universally applied, and there will be differences of opinion over what is important.
Issues of allegiance can get complicated, particularly when there are people living here on a medium, or even long-term basis who are not, do not intend, and do not wish to become UK citizens.
Once you've covered the basics of obeying the law and not offending reasonable opinion, there isn't much more that you can demand. The same really applies to anywhere in the world - obey the laws, try not to offend, and try to strike a balance between differences of culture and opinion where what defines you, and what you hold dear conflicts with the popular norm.
I've certainly got no time for that facile opinion from (IIRC Norman Tebbit) about which cricket team someone supports.
I have absolutely no idea. Mr. Howard is an intelligent and well-informed man, so he is probably right, but given that the history of suicide attacks goes back 1000 years or more, I wouldn't be surprised to find out he was wrong. Given that the IRA set bombs, and also had people who committed suicide for their cause, maybe it's just an accident that they never joined the dots?
Whoever lives here should probably obey the laws, and should respect our customs and mores and not offend against them. There will be areas of conflict when people take offence at "foreign" customs out of fear, ignorance, superstition etc. For example, whilst we may not see the need for Halal methods of animal slaughter, should we object? If done properly, is it any less humane than other methods? That was just an example picked at random, I'm sure there are others. Part of our tolerance means that people who would not question, or be questioned, whether they were British should tolerate the behaviour of those from different cultural backgrounds, as long as they do no harm.
But let us not forget the long view. Many of the laws and freedoms that we have today, and that you say should be respected by anybody who wants to claim they are British were only won by violent struggle against what were, at the time, legal institutions. Let us particularly not forget that the very foundation of our parliamentary democracy came about via armed rebellion, civil war and the killing of the monarch.
We should all consider whether being British now means meekly accepting whatever our so-called democratic government imposes on us, or whether we should, indeed must, retain the right to cease respecting the laws. Does there not come a point when laws passed by a lying and undemocratic government that undermine our traditional systems of democracy and freedom from oppression should be resisted? Consider Nazi Germany. Not that I'm suggesting we are heading that way, I hasten to add, but because it does highlight he fact that there can come a point, not only where it is right to oppose and disobey laws, but also, eventually, a point where it is wrong to obey them.
It's not that I disagree, but that I believe that may of the questions and issues do not have simple answers.
B
Big_Spark
Saucer of milk anyone? 
BAS
Although I still believe that you were ‘Nit Picking’ I have answered your other comments.
rederech wrote:
To be proud of your country, its traditions, history, values.
Your comments :
I hope it's also OK to be ashamed of terrible things your country has done in the past, and in the present, and to criticise and demonstrate against them?
My Answer :
Britain has not got a lot to be ashamed of in the past compared to many oppressive regimes who kill and have killed their own people for disagreeing with their governments party line.
One could go on and detail the countries involved in these odious crimes but I think that most Britons who are 99% educated , literate and well read (unlike some) do not need a supercilious lecture on this subject.
But you may not know that ordinary people have had a thousand years of fighting, sacrifice and struggle for the democracy that we enjoy in Britain.
Quote:
To be able to unite against a common enemy and to act as one
against danger. In the forty's the threat of invasion of the Germans
and in todays life the threat of terrorist attack.
Your comments :
Maybe not in the 40's but in the 30's there were many people who you would think were the epitome of "Britishness" - members of the aristocracy, and even the Royal Family who did not want to fight the Germans. Moseley's movement attracted large numbers of people who saw themselves as patriotic, defending their country against dangerous incomers and influences.
Ignoring the easy 20:20 of hindsight, at the time how far should a democracy have gone to suppress those dissenting views? Or declare them "non-British"?
My answer :
There were very few aristocrats and members of the royal family who sided with Fascist Germany during the last world war and you would need to be very ignorant and uninformed not to know that the late Queen mother and all of her present family stayed in Britain with their subjects to face the Nazi threat. There were also many aristocrats who died for their country in the tradition of noblesse oblige which had endured for centuries in this country.
Moseley was imprisoned on 23 may 1940 along with other prominent members of his BUF. This was done under the Defence of the Realm Regulation Act 18b which gave the Home Secretary the right to imprison without trial anybody he believed was likely to ‘ENDANGER THE SAFETY OF THE REALM’. On 30 May the same year the BUF was dissolved and its publications were banned. Note: in the traditions of this country they were not summarily killed as enemies of the regime.
You state that ‘ Moseley’s movement attracted large numbers of people who saw themselves as patriotic, defending their country against dangerous incomers and influences’.
You may not realize this but large numbers of British people i.e millions, were being sent all over the world to defend Britain and Europe against a totalitarian government who if they had succeeded would have incinerated all those who did not agree with their fascist beliefs. Please go and visit the Mennin Gate in Belgium and if that doesn’t move you then you have truly a heart of stone.
Quote:
To respect the decisions of a democratic government and not use the bomb to kill those who disagree with you.
Your Comments :
Sounds reasonable. If we could take the bombs out of the picture for a minute though, what should we do when the decisions of a "democratic government" are taken on the basis of lies? How much should we respect them?
And if we put bombs in all their forms back into the picture, shouldn't the respect that you mention also include respecting the United Nations and not using bombs to kill people in other countries?
My answer :
You state in your comment responding to my observation that ‘ we should not bomb those who disagree with us thus:-
‘ if we could take the bombs out of picture for a minute’
If only we could then we may not be having to defend our British way of life against Fundamentalist thugs.
The British soldiers in Iraq are not there through choice. The bombers who blow innocent British citizens up are there by choice and incidentally think they will sit on the right hand of God and be given x amount of virgins in Paradise.
What do they think this makes God into?
Quote:
Britishness I will go on further is to show tolerance to others as long as the others beliefs and traditions do not harm you or your way of living.
Your comments :
But you don't want to tolerate forced marriages and genital mutilation. And rightly so, but I assume that those practices don't harm you or your way of life, so there's obviously more to it than your simple equation, isn't there.
So there are beliefs and traditions that don't harm you, that you will nevertheless not tolerate. But when it comes to ones which do, how much harm do you think should be allowed? Are you only talking about physical harm? There are people whose beliefs certainly include harm to the way of life of "fat cat" industrialists - is there a point, short of physical harm, where you think the FCIs should not tolerate those beliefs?
My Answer :
As for the evil of forced marriages, genital mutilations and so called Honour killings, which are un-British sic. traditions you say that Britishness does not want to tolerate. You state facetiously - quote ‘and rightly so’. Then you go on to say that these practices do not harm me or my way of life. I beg to differ.
They may not offend you with your meek and patronizing ‘and rightly so’ but by God they offend me.
They may not harm me and my family personally – being a man and not being being used to treating women as no more that domestic chattels.
You may not be familiar with the saying that in a situation of evil that all it takes is for ‘a few good men to do nothing’ for that evil to triumph. If you could have asked all those poor women who have been burned alive, stoned to death and stabbed for minor infringement of so called religious ‘law’ what they thought and felt then you might not treat the subject so lightly.
As for the rest of your unbalanced reply are you suggesting that Fat Cat Industrialist's excesses should excuse the mutilation of women.
Quote:
Britishness is to be prepared to take up 'arms' to defend freedoms of
others who are not so fortunate as ourselves. As in Iraq where we support
our troops . Government figures estimate that there are at least 75
British born males in Iraq attacking coalision forces .
Your comments:
Given their track record, those Government figures could be a complete lie. And also there is the minor matter that we did not invade Iraq to defend the freedoms of people less fortunate than ourselves. If we did then I'd like to see how we can justify the killing of tens of thousands of those less fortunate people as somehow defending them.
But that's all incidental - the point you raise is interesting. What if those British born males are in Iraq, fighting coalition forces, precisely because they believe that they are defending the freedoms of people less fortunate than themselves? It fits one of your definitions of "Britishness"...
My Answer :
You say that Government figures could be a complete lie in that British born citizens are in Iraq fighting coalition forces. Weasel words – Put your money where your mouth is.
As for The war in Iraq – Britain is a democracy and our troops are doing what they have been ordered to do – and in a manner which is far more civilized and disciplined than any other army in the world would be capable of doing.
I repeat – they have no choice in where they are sent.
They are not an ill disciplined rabble who behead and degrade their captives and then broadcast these scenes and sell videos of these inhuman acts.
I hope this has given you a small flavour of Britishness or Decency. Call it what you will.
If you still don’t get it, then all I can say is that I feel sorry for you.
Back to top
Although I still believe that you were ‘Nit Picking’ I have answered your other comments.
rederech wrote:
To be proud of your country, its traditions, history, values.
Your comments :
I hope it's also OK to be ashamed of terrible things your country has done in the past, and in the present, and to criticise and demonstrate against them?
My Answer :
Britain has not got a lot to be ashamed of in the past compared to many oppressive regimes who kill and have killed their own people for disagreeing with their governments party line.
One could go on and detail the countries involved in these odious crimes but I think that most Britons who are 99% educated , literate and well read (unlike some) do not need a supercilious lecture on this subject.
But you may not know that ordinary people have had a thousand years of fighting, sacrifice and struggle for the democracy that we enjoy in Britain.
Quote:
To be able to unite against a common enemy and to act as one
against danger. In the forty's the threat of invasion of the Germans
and in todays life the threat of terrorist attack.
Your comments :
Maybe not in the 40's but in the 30's there were many people who you would think were the epitome of "Britishness" - members of the aristocracy, and even the Royal Family who did not want to fight the Germans. Moseley's movement attracted large numbers of people who saw themselves as patriotic, defending their country against dangerous incomers and influences.
Ignoring the easy 20:20 of hindsight, at the time how far should a democracy have gone to suppress those dissenting views? Or declare them "non-British"?
My answer :
There were very few aristocrats and members of the royal family who sided with Fascist Germany during the last world war and you would need to be very ignorant and uninformed not to know that the late Queen mother and all of her present family stayed in Britain with their subjects to face the Nazi threat. There were also many aristocrats who died for their country in the tradition of noblesse oblige which had endured for centuries in this country.
Moseley was imprisoned on 23 may 1940 along with other prominent members of his BUF. This was done under the Defence of the Realm Regulation Act 18b which gave the Home Secretary the right to imprison without trial anybody he believed was likely to ‘ENDANGER THE SAFETY OF THE REALM’. On 30 May the same year the BUF was dissolved and its publications were banned. Note: in the traditions of this country they were not summarily killed as enemies of the regime.
You state that ‘ Moseley’s movement attracted large numbers of people who saw themselves as patriotic, defending their country against dangerous incomers and influences’.
You may not realize this but large numbers of British people i.e millions, were being sent all over the world to defend Britain and Europe against a totalitarian government who if they had succeeded would have incinerated all those who did not agree with their fascist beliefs. Please go and visit the Mennin Gate in Belgium and if that doesn’t move you then you have truly a heart of stone.
Quote:
To respect the decisions of a democratic government and not use the bomb to kill those who disagree with you.
Your Comments :
Sounds reasonable. If we could take the bombs out of the picture for a minute though, what should we do when the decisions of a "democratic government" are taken on the basis of lies? How much should we respect them?
And if we put bombs in all their forms back into the picture, shouldn't the respect that you mention also include respecting the United Nations and not using bombs to kill people in other countries?
My answer :
You state in your comment responding to my observation that ‘ we should not bomb those who disagree with us thus:-
‘ if we could take the bombs out of picture for a minute’
If only we could then we may not be having to defend our British way of life against Fundamentalist thugs.
The British soldiers in Iraq are not there through choice. The bombers who blow innocent British citizens up are there by choice and incidentally think they will sit on the right hand of God and be given x amount of virgins in Paradise.
What do they think this makes God into?
Quote:
Britishness I will go on further is to show tolerance to others as long as the others beliefs and traditions do not harm you or your way of living.
Your comments :
But you don't want to tolerate forced marriages and genital mutilation. And rightly so, but I assume that those practices don't harm you or your way of life, so there's obviously more to it than your simple equation, isn't there.
So there are beliefs and traditions that don't harm you, that you will nevertheless not tolerate. But when it comes to ones which do, how much harm do you think should be allowed? Are you only talking about physical harm? There are people whose beliefs certainly include harm to the way of life of "fat cat" industrialists - is there a point, short of physical harm, where you think the FCIs should not tolerate those beliefs?
My Answer :
As for the evil of forced marriages, genital mutilations and so called Honour killings, which are un-British sic. traditions you say that Britishness does not want to tolerate. You state facetiously - quote ‘and rightly so’. Then you go on to say that these practices do not harm me or my way of life. I beg to differ.
They may not offend you with your meek and patronizing ‘and rightly so’ but by God they offend me.
They may not harm me and my family personally – being a man and not being being used to treating women as no more that domestic chattels.
You may not be familiar with the saying that in a situation of evil that all it takes is for ‘a few good men to do nothing’ for that evil to triumph. If you could have asked all those poor women who have been burned alive, stoned to death and stabbed for minor infringement of so called religious ‘law’ what they thought and felt then you might not treat the subject so lightly.
As for the rest of your unbalanced reply are you suggesting that Fat Cat Industrialist's excesses should excuse the mutilation of women.
Quote:
Britishness is to be prepared to take up 'arms' to defend freedoms of
others who are not so fortunate as ourselves. As in Iraq where we support
our troops . Government figures estimate that there are at least 75
British born males in Iraq attacking coalision forces .
Your comments:
Given their track record, those Government figures could be a complete lie. And also there is the minor matter that we did not invade Iraq to defend the freedoms of people less fortunate than ourselves. If we did then I'd like to see how we can justify the killing of tens of thousands of those less fortunate people as somehow defending them.
But that's all incidental - the point you raise is interesting. What if those British born males are in Iraq, fighting coalition forces, precisely because they believe that they are defending the freedoms of people less fortunate than themselves? It fits one of your definitions of "Britishness"...
My Answer :
You say that Government figures could be a complete lie in that British born citizens are in Iraq fighting coalition forces. Weasel words – Put your money where your mouth is.
As for The war in Iraq – Britain is a democracy and our troops are doing what they have been ordered to do – and in a manner which is far more civilized and disciplined than any other army in the world would be capable of doing.
I repeat – they have no choice in where they are sent.
They are not an ill disciplined rabble who behead and degrade their captives and then broadcast these scenes and sell videos of these inhuman acts.
I hope this has given you a small flavour of Britishness or Decency. Call it what you will.
If you still don’t get it, then all I can say is that I feel sorry for you.
Back to top
Reading all this by your own answers and views i am afraid BAS you dont understand what it is to be or to belong to anything.
Your view is to basically gather a load of people and let them please theirselves as long as they dont bother to many people regardless of what the democratic majority want.
Strange how you cant do this anywhere in the world but BAS land.
You forget one thing in your points and that is the immigrants wanted to come here as they had a vague to good understanding of our way of life which wasnt what you say it should be. Of course there are always those who want more or who want change but i am afraid in a democracy the others should be asked if they want it not have it forced on them as is your view just to accomadate a small minority.
Your view is to basically gather a load of people and let them please theirselves as long as they dont bother to many people regardless of what the democratic majority want.
Strange how you cant do this anywhere in the world but BAS land.
You forget one thing in your points and that is the immigrants wanted to come here as they had a vague to good understanding of our way of life which wasnt what you say it should be. Of course there are always those who want more or who want change but i am afraid in a democracy the others should be asked if they want it not have it forced on them as is your view just to accomadate a small minority.
oilman said:
Oh yes Oilman but what i refer to is we have to have a set agenda as to whats aimed for and supposed to happen in a democracy and only change or rules or whatever can come about after a set supposed to be democratic process has been followed otherwise any group of people can just cherry pick what they want and the law becomes helpless to act on enforcing things-----an example in the early 70s Sikh's didnt want to wear crash helmets on motorbikes ( quite a few rode them in those days ) as they would have had to remove their turban
Now in BAS land they would have just done what they wanted as it was a traditional religious thing and before long every snotty nose kid as i was one of them would have been riding their Yamaha 50cc moped without a crash helmet.
What happened is the ruling went through parliment in a democratic process that is set down and was passed in favour of Sikh's and only Sikh's for that particular reason
Rederech - what a fascinating post.
You said "you have raised very valid points which in some I agree on and others I don't" and yet now you don't seem to agree with any of them, or think any of them are valid. What what you said a genuine mistake on your part, or were you lying?.
You said "I will gladly carry on dialogue with you in the subject matter.", and asked me to respond to three questions. I did so, and yet here you are ignoring everything I wrote, replying to an older post.
Are you able to explain how those words were contemptuous, or showed haughty indifference?
Do you remember reading this?:
But let us not forget the long view. Many of the laws and freedoms that we have today, and that you say should be respected by anybody who wants to claim they are British were only won by violent struggle against what were, at the time, legal institutions. Let us particularly not forget that the very foundation of our parliamentary democracy came about via armed rebellion, civil war and the killing of the monarch.
It seems to me that we are in perfect agreement here. All I am trying to do is to say that we should be alert to the possibility that the fighting, sacrifice and struggle are not necessarily over.
The British Ambassador to Germany 1937-39 was friendly with the Nazi regime, empathised with Hitler's territorial claims, and supported the Munich Agreement and Chamberlain's policy of appeasement.
The "Cliveden Set", a group of prominent people were in favour of appeasement. They included Viscountess Astor, Lord Lothian (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and British Ambassador to the US), Lord Halifax, (Viceroy of India, Secretary of State for War, Lord Privy Seal, Lord President of the Council, and Foreign Secretary) and Geoffrey Dawson, editor of The Times. Another significant appeaser was Viscount Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror (he actually went as far as to write to Hitler congratulating him on annexing Czechoslovakia and encouraging him to take Romania).
One of the reasons that Edward VIII was forced to abdicate was his sympathy for Hitler. As recently as 1970 he said that he "never thought Hitler was such a bad chap", and the Nazis planned to re-instate him as King when they won the war. George VI’s diaries and letters from the 1930s show that he was not concerned with the atrocities being committed by Hitler and was doing everything he could to support appeasement. Wallis Simpson was very friendly with one of the founders of The Right Club, a secret (at the time) organisation of retired military officers and aristocracy who were willing to campaign for a negotiated peace with Germany in 1939 and 1940, and to provide Germany with official secrets.
Members included Lord Redesdale, father of the Mitford sisters and therefore Oswald Mosley's father in law, the Duke of Wellington, the Duke of Westminster, the Marquess of Graham (later the Duke of Montrose, who served in Ian Smith's Rhodesian Front government), Lord Sempill and the Earl of Galloway.
I will concede that I may have exaggerated when I said "many people", but there was a strong current of Nazi sympathism running through the aristocracy, some of the Royal Family and other prominent people. Ambassadors, Foreign Secretaries, the Dukes of Westminster and Wellington, editors and owners of newspapers - these are not insignificant people. As misguided as they were, and to be fair some of them did come to realise their mistakes, you cannot deny that at the time they believed that anything from appeasement to outright support for the Nazis was the right thing to do. They did it whilst proclaiming their Britishness and saying how it was the best policy for this country.
The moral, if you care to actually think about things, is that you cannot always rely on "the establishment", or those in power, to be truthful and correct about where this country's interests really lie.
What I want is for the concept of Britishness to not be tied to the current problems of Islamic fundamentalist inspired bombers. Our society has endured and evolved over hundreds of years to the position of multi-cultural tolerance that it has, and it is not going to be derailed (I hope) by suicide bombers on the Tube. I also hope that it is not going to be derailed by illiberal laws and the unquestioning acceptance by the population of this country of whatever our government, elected by a minority and shown to be run by liars, say is the right thing to do.
Are you able to explain why it is meek and patronising of me to say that it is right for you to find them intolerable?
In terms of the post you made 19th August 2005, 09:16, that was more-or-less a mention in passing, as my agreement that it should not be tolerated was more-or-less in passing. Neither of us diverted into a detailed discussion or condemnation of them, but that does not mean that either of us treated it lightly.
I pointed out that maybe the people fighting against the coalition forces in Iraq are doing so because they want to defend the freedoms of those less fortunate than themselves...
You said "you have raised very valid points which in some I agree on and others I don't" and yet now you don't seem to agree with any of them, or think any of them are valid. What what you said a genuine mistake on your part, or were you lying?.
You said "I will gladly carry on dialogue with you in the subject matter.", and asked me to respond to three questions. I did so, and yet here you are ignoring everything I wrote, replying to an older post.
You've not addressed a single one of the points I made in response to your three questions.rederech said:
29 words hardly constitutes a lecture. And whilst there are indeed worse "offenders" than us, a reminder that our past is not squeaky clean is hardly supercilious. My exact words were:
Are you able to explain how those words were contemptuous, or showed haughty indifference?
Excuse me?
Do you remember reading this?:
But let us not forget the long view. Many of the laws and freedoms that we have today, and that you say should be respected by anybody who wants to claim they are British were only won by violent struggle against what were, at the time, legal institutions. Let us particularly not forget that the very foundation of our parliamentary democracy came about via armed rebellion, civil war and the killing of the monarch.
It seems to me that we are in perfect agreement here. All I am trying to do is to say that we should be alert to the possibility that the fighting, sacrifice and struggle are not necessarily over.
The British Ambassador to Germany 1937-39 was friendly with the Nazi regime, empathised with Hitler's territorial claims, and supported the Munich Agreement and Chamberlain's policy of appeasement.
The "Cliveden Set", a group of prominent people were in favour of appeasement. They included Viscountess Astor, Lord Lothian (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and British Ambassador to the US), Lord Halifax, (Viceroy of India, Secretary of State for War, Lord Privy Seal, Lord President of the Council, and Foreign Secretary) and Geoffrey Dawson, editor of The Times. Another significant appeaser was Viscount Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror (he actually went as far as to write to Hitler congratulating him on annexing Czechoslovakia and encouraging him to take Romania).
One of the reasons that Edward VIII was forced to abdicate was his sympathy for Hitler. As recently as 1970 he said that he "never thought Hitler was such a bad chap", and the Nazis planned to re-instate him as King when they won the war. George VI’s diaries and letters from the 1930s show that he was not concerned with the atrocities being committed by Hitler and was doing everything he could to support appeasement. Wallis Simpson was very friendly with one of the founders of The Right Club, a secret (at the time) organisation of retired military officers and aristocracy who were willing to campaign for a negotiated peace with Germany in 1939 and 1940, and to provide Germany with official secrets.
Members included Lord Redesdale, father of the Mitford sisters and therefore Oswald Mosley's father in law, the Duke of Wellington, the Duke of Westminster, the Marquess of Graham (later the Duke of Montrose, who served in Ian Smith's Rhodesian Front government), Lord Sempill and the Earl of Galloway.
I will concede that I may have exaggerated when I said "many people", but there was a strong current of Nazi sympathism running through the aristocracy, some of the Royal Family and other prominent people. Ambassadors, Foreign Secretaries, the Dukes of Westminster and Wellington, editors and owners of newspapers - these are not insignificant people. As misguided as they were, and to be fair some of them did come to realise their mistakes, you cannot deny that at the time they believed that anything from appeasement to outright support for the Nazis was the right thing to do. They did it whilst proclaiming their Britishness and saying how it was the best policy for this country.
The moral, if you care to actually think about things, is that you cannot always rely on "the establishment", or those in power, to be truthful and correct about where this country's interests really lie.
What you said about what happened to Mosley is true, but also true is that the BUF had up to 50,000 members, and was supported by the Daily Mail.
Of course I realise that, but what does it have to do with my point that at times there can be tens of thousands of people, some of them in government, some of them publishing newspapers, who believe that they have this country's best interests at heart when actually they don't?
Your statement in full was "To respect the decisions of a democratic government and not use the bomb to kill those who disagree with you". I said what I did about forgetting the bombs for a minute in order to focus on the first half, and ask what should we do when the decisions of a "democratic government" are taken on the basis of lies, and how much should we respect them?
What I want is for the concept of Britishness to not be tied to the current problems of Islamic fundamentalist inspired bombers. Our society has endured and evolved over hundreds of years to the position of multi-cultural tolerance that it has, and it is not going to be derailed (I hope) by suicide bombers on the Tube. I also hope that it is not going to be derailed by illiberal laws and the unquestioning acceptance by the population of this country of whatever our government, elected by a minority and shown to be run by liars, say is the right thing to do.
If you don't mind I'll take this up separately, as it has nothing to do with a discussion of what it means to be British.
That was not a facetious comment! This is another instance where we are in agreement, and another instance where you ignore my words, or claim that I don't mean them in order to deny that I'm agreeing with you.
They offend me too.
Are you able to explain why it is meek and patronising of me to say that it is right for you to find them intolerable?
I'm not treating it lightly. You did not expound on the terrible nature of these things - you just said
In terms of the post you made 19th August 2005, 09:16, that was more-or-less a mention in passing, as my agreement that it should not be tolerated was more-or-less in passing. Neither of us diverted into a detailed discussion or condemnation of them, but that does not mean that either of us treated it lightly.
That is just so ridiculous.
Weasel words? Do you know what that term means?
None of that has anything to do with what I said. You said that part of being British was to be prepared to take up 'arms' to defend freedoms of others who are not so fortunate as ourselves.
I pointed out that maybe the people fighting against the coalition forces in Iraq are doing so because they want to defend the freedoms of those less fortunate than themselves...
Sponsored Links