Poppy fascism?

[dave.woodhall]

At first it looks like a simple case of one more reason to knock the World's Biggest..... Then look at the panel underneath, and the 'verdict' on us. And you wonder. Is this a genuine complaint or just the Daily Mail using poppy fascism as an excuse to launch another populist campaign?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1324698/A-simple-message-Manchester-United-Why-wont-wear-poppy-pride.html

[cdbearsfan]

So they asked us if we would where them and we said "not sure yet" then we did wear them and that equates to "bowed to pressure from Daily Heil"?

Twats.

Perhaps they're just bitter at us as O'Neill, who is as scared of foreigners as they are, is no longer at Villa Park.

It's ironic the Mail championing the memory of British Second World War veterans, when most of their readers would have been supporting the opposition.

[KevinGage]

It's ironic the Mail championing the memory of British Second World War veterans, when most of their readers would have been supporting the opposition.

Nice tag.

And it will be used.

[Can Gana Be Bettered!?!?]

Load of bollocks.

Does anyone elses parents or family members read this tripe? My Mom does and I've no idea why. I'm always questioning her on why she reads it because her views bare no resemblance to that of the papers.

[Dave Cooper please]

Don't like that 'bowed to the pressure' bollocks. At the time Villa, like most other clubs I reckon, had their own commitments with Acorns and were probably just thinking of ways to reconcile this with supporting the Poppy Appeal.

It's a superb cause, one which I support wholeheartedly, but it's up to individuals and companies how they wish to support it, nice to see we are again this season but I wouldn't have condemned them if we hadn't.

[Nev]

The usual sack of absolute shit from the Mail.

The wearing of a Poppy should be done through personal choice and with dignity.

This sort of thing just cheapens the whole campaign, drags it through the gutter, and seeks to gain kudos on the back of the commemoration of the dead.

One can only have pity for the vile, bitter people behind such nonsense.

[wif]

One can only have pity for the vile, bitter people behind such nonsense.

If you read back to cdvillafan's post earlier in this thread, you can accuse them of being Nazis as well.  I think he may have been joking.  It's hard to tell.

[curiousorange]

I hate enforced charity, no matter what the cause. I happen to agree wholeheartedly with the Poppy Appeal but like a lot of things in this country, if it's done for longer than five minutes it becomes an unassailable tradition. How long before some scalping club starts selling the 'poppy' version of their shirt in their club shop?

Just for the record, I'll be buying a poppy as normal.

[Ger Regan]

If you read back to cdvillafan's post earlier in this thread, you can accuse them of being Nazis as well.  I think he may have been joking.  It's hard to tell.

Correction, he was stating that the paper (and therefore, by extension, its readers) were nazi sympathisers in the mid-to-late 30's

[darren woolley]

I will buy a poppy and wear it the Mail can go and feck itself.

[kipeye]

I never buy one or wear one. I do not need to be told what I should do or not do. I have worked for charities for the last 2 decades and have never gone round with a tin or attempted to make people feel guilty.
I automatically bin all unwanted appeals and absolutely hate the ones that exploit peoples emotions or try to force them into conforming.
If we raise money-we send it direct to the cause - as in the Tsunami and Haiti disasters we sent money directly to families or people working on the ground.
Lately, we have had a lot of 'support the disabled troops' as if they have just invented disability after Afghanistan and Iraq.
For every soldier -there are thousands more disabled people with no compensation, no pension, etc and not many people give a shit.
My question to the Army is -how many disabled people do you employ? The answer given to a local survey at the recruitment centre was 'what a stupid question'!
This is not meant to be disrespectful to the individuals but a criticism of the institution.

[atomicjam]

Lifted from Wiki;

Support for fascism under Rothermere
Lord Rothermere was a friend and supporter of both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, which influenced the Mail's political stance towards them up to 1939.

On 10 July 1933, Rothermere wrote an editorial titled "Youth Triumphant" in support of Adolf Hitler, which was subsequently used as propaganda by the Nazis. In early 1934, ceasing after a meeting at Kensington Olympia in June, Rothermere and the Mail were editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Rothermere wrote an article entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts", in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine"

I would rather tie myself to a chair and push myself down a staircase than buy that rag.

[Dave Cooper please]

Kipeye, I'm not quite sure I understand where you are coming from. You say you work for charities yet you don't like charities that do appeals? Most charities wouldn't get any money at all if they didn't appeal would they? Making people feel just a little bit guilty about being better off than the people (or cause) they are giving to is surely the raison d'etre (have I got that right?) of a charity.

Why, as a devoted charity worker, have you such a downer on disabled servicemen and the charities devoted to raising money for them? Surely any help given to a disabled person is good whether he served in the armed forces or not?
By the way, the armed forces do employ disabled people, but obviously not so many on the front line!

[pauliewalnuts]

I always buy a Poppy (well, at the appropriate time of year, I mean), and think it is the least we can do to remember the tremendous sacrifices others have made for us, and still are making (even if I don't agree with the wars we're fighting in nowadays).

However, one thing that pisses me off a bit is that the BBC is so rigidly "poppyist" this time of year - every single person, without fail, who appears on any of its shows around October / November - not just presenters, guests included - wears a poppy.

I'd like to think they were all doing it off their own back, but they're not, they're clearly following some BBC edict, and in its own way, it actually devalues it.

I know that's probably twisted logic, but I can't help feel that way.

[dave.woodhall]

The BBC (and every other TV station) do it because they know they'd get an avalanche of complaints if just one presenter didn't wear a poppy.