Poppy Watch

[Milltown Row2]

Well more fool them for wearing it, purely personal choice as legally you don't have to. I could be wrong there but I doubt it very much... obviously if they are wearing against their "stance" then they are numpties

Surely you can imagine, in this day and age of trial by social media, that the issue is more than just being compromised by management or peers into wearing it. The aftermath and 'public' outcry would be much worse.

No, because the same people had the poppies on before social media became a thing, so again they've worn the poppies because they wanted to... if Roy Keane wears a poppy it's not because he feels pressure from social media or income from being on tv. He's wearing it cause a) he doesn't view it like most on here and b) as a charity to help with service men ....

You talk about social media, it's played its part in demonising the poppy also, if you take the reason initially for its introduction then it's not the worst charity, but over the recent years (30) the view has changed and it's role of representing the First World War to all wars... don't tar everyone's view on their reasons for wearing one

It seems to most here that the prods use it to run our noses in it, if you look to be offended you will...

Never worn one bought one or will, but never offended by someone who does either.. it's like getting offended by flags.

[michaelg]

Well more fool them for wearing it, purely personal choice as legally you don't have to. I could be wrong there but I doubt it very much... obviously if they are wearing against their "stance" then they are numpties

Surely you can imagine, in this day and age of trial by social media, that the issue is more than just being compromised by management or peers into wearing it. The aftermath and 'public' outcry would be much worse.

No, because the same people had the poppies on before social media became a thing, so again they've worn the poppies because they wanted to... if Roy Keane wears a poppy it's not because he feels pressure from social media or income from being on tv. He's wearing it cause a) he doesn't view it like most on here and b) as a charity to help with service men ....

You talk about social media, it's played its part in demonising the poppy also, if you take the reason initially for its introduction then it's not the worst charity, but over the recent years (30) the view has changed and it's role of representing the First World War to all wars... don't tar everyone's view on their reasons for wearing one

It seems to most here that the prods use it to run our noses in it, if you look to be offended you will...

Never worn one bought one or will, but never offended by someone who does either.. it's like getting offended by flags.

I think this is unfair.  Most "prods" wear them as an act of remembrance.  As children, many wore and were introduced to the poppy during services of remembrance at church, school etc.  These are are solumn occasions where the idea is not to rub anyone's nose in anything. 

[Orior]

* Resisting the desire to rub your nose in it by teaching you how to spell*

[michaelg]

* Resisting the desire to rub your nose in it by teaching you how to spell*

Thanks for your restraint.

[Orior]

* Resisting the desire to rub your nose in it by teaching you how to spell*

Thanks for your restraint.

My pleasure!

[Applesisapples]

Well more fool them for wearing it, purely personal choice as legally you don't have to. I could be wrong there but I doubt it very much... obviously if they are wearing against their "stance" then they are numpties

Surely you can imagine, in this day and age of trial by social media, that the issue is more than just being compromised by management or peers into wearing it. The aftermath and 'public' outcry would be much worse.

No, because the same people had the poppies on before social media became a thing, so again they've worn the poppies because they wanted to... if Roy Keane wears a poppy it's not because he feels pressure from social media or income from being on tv. He's wearing it cause a) he doesn't view it like most on here and b) as a charity to help with service men ....

You talk about social media, it's played its part in demonising the poppy also, if you take the reason initially for its introduction then it's not the worst charity, but over the recent years (30) the view has changed and it's role of representing the First World War to all wars... don't tar everyone's view on their reasons for wearing one

It seems to most here that the prods use it to run our noses in it, if you look to be offended you will...

Never worn one bought one or will, but never offended by someone who does either.. it's like getting offended by flags.

I think this is unfair.  Most "prods" wear them as an act of remembrance.  As children, many wore and were introduced to the poppy during services of remembrance at church, school etc.  These are are solumn occasions where the idea is not to rub anyone's nose in anything.

I understand that, but we live in a society where the poppy gives offence and is seen by many as a symbol of oppression. The problem in NI is that may Protestant/Unionists use the poppy in the same way a lot of Shinners use Irish. In a divided society people need to be careful as to when and how they display items language which offends. Unfortunately I think pigs will fly.

[Milltown Row2]

Thats a very good response Applesisapples.. I'm away for a lie down

[armaghniac]

never mind Poppy watch, you'll always have coat trailers.

How about premature ejaculations of Christmas.
The Bele Tele reports that the people of Newtownabbey (wierdos up there) area have launched their Christmas displays.
I think it is an insult to the Poppy to have Christmas before Remembrance Sunday.

[Orior]

never mind Poppy watch, you'll always have coat trailers.

How about premature ejaculations of Christmas.
The Bele Tele reports that the people of Newtownabbey (wierdos up there) area have launched their Christmas displays.
I think it is an insult to the Poppy to have Christmas before Remembrance Sunday.

Anything that improves the look of Grimgrimley is worth it.

[red hander]

Wear it with pride...




BY ALAN ERWIN

Self-defence claims raised by a soldier who shot an innocent teenager at point-blank range in Derry 45 years ago have been stripped of all credibility, the High Court has heard.
Judges were told Daniel Hegarty (15) was a member of a prayer group who posed no threat and would have stopped in his tracks.
Relatives of the schoolboy are challenging a decision not to prosecute the member of the army unit who fired the fatal shots. Their lawyers claim the conclusion is perverse and irrational.
Reserving judgment, Mr Justice Treacy pledged to give a decision as soon as possible.
Daniel was unarmed when he was shot twice in the head during an army operation in the Creggan area of the city in July 1972. His cousin Christopher (16) also sustained a bullet wound to the head but survived.
The shootings occurred at the height of the Troubles as troops were deployed in Derry in an bid to clear so-called no-go areas.
In 2011 an inquest jury unanimously found Daniel posed no risk and had been shot without warning, prompting the coroner to refer the case back to the Public Prosecution Service.
But in March last year it was decided not to pursue charges against Soldier B, who fired the fatal rounds, on the basis of no reasonable prospect of a conviction.
According to the PPS, forensic experts were unable to state that ballistics evidence is inconsistent with Soldier B's account of the circumstances in which he fired.
Daniel's sister, Margaret Brady, is now seeking to judicially review the Director of Public Prosecutions over that decision.
Her senior counsel, Michael Mansfield QC, argued that expert evidence completely refutes assertions that the bullets were fired in self-defence.
Instead, he contended, scientific opinion backed the family's belief that it was an unlawful killing carried out at a range of less than 10 feet.
In a statement B claimed to have pulled the trigger on the machine gun while it was on the ground — an account Daniel's family allege was contrived to suggest fear of a non-existent threat.
Referring to expert evidence, Mr Mansfield submitted: "The pretence of self-defence basically falls away altogether... there's no credibility left."
Although he accepted a conviction could not be guaranteed, the barrister nevertheless claimed a jury may establish proof beyond reasonable doubt.
"There's credible evidence from the cousin, from the man in the house next door and from the ballistics," he told the court.
"There's no support for B's account coming from the rest of his platoon."
Despite recognising the tensions facing soldiers trying to perform a policing operation at the time, Mr Mansfield was withering in his assessment of Soldier B's actions.
"He saw young men at a time of night when he thought they shouldn't have been out and he shot them," the barrister said.
"He plainly has shot at people who would have stopped absolutely in their tracks if they had been warned. Two of them were members of the Rosary Crusaders — a prayer group.
"These were not remotely terrorists of any kind, they wouldn't have posed a threat and that's what makes the decision even more unacceptable and perverse."
Counsel for the Director Tony McGleenan QC stressed the high threshold required to rebut the soldier's claims, and to establish perversity in the decision-making process.
"Given self-defence is in play the question we are asking is whether or not the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the actions of Soldier B were not taken in self-defence," he said.

[Milltown Row2]

Wear it with pride...




BY ALAN ERWIN

Self-defence claims raised by a soldier who shot an innocent teenager at point-blank range in Derry 45 years ago have been stripped of all credibility, the High Court has heard.
Judges were told Daniel Hegarty (15) was a member of a prayer group who posed no threat and would have stopped in his tracks.
Relatives of the schoolboy are challenging a decision not to prosecute the member of the army unit who fired the fatal shots. Their lawyers claim the conclusion is perverse and irrational.
Reserving judgment, Mr Justice Treacy pledged to give a decision as soon as possible.
Daniel was unarmed when he was shot twice in the head during an army operation in the Creggan area of the city in July 1972. His cousin Christopher (16) also sustained a bullet wound to the head but survived.
The shootings occurred at the height of the Troubles as troops were deployed in Derry in an bid to clear so-called no-go areas.
In 2011 an inquest jury unanimously found Daniel posed no risk and had been shot without warning, prompting the coroner to refer the case back to the Public Prosecution Service.
But in March last year it was decided not to pursue charges against Soldier B, who fired the fatal rounds, on the basis of no reasonable prospect of a conviction.
According to the PPS, forensic experts were unable to state that ballistics evidence is inconsistent with Soldier B's account of the circumstances in which he fired.
Daniel's sister, Margaret Brady, is now seeking to judicially review the Director of Public Prosecutions over that decision.
Her senior counsel, Michael Mansfield QC, argued that expert evidence completely refutes assertions that the bullets were fired in self-defence.
Instead, he contended, scientific opinion backed the family's belief that it was an unlawful killing carried out at a range of less than 10 feet.
In a statement B claimed to have pulled the trigger on the machine gun while it was on the ground — an account Daniel's family allege was contrived to suggest fear of a non-existent threat.
Referring to expert evidence, Mr Mansfield submitted: "The pretence of self-defence basically falls away altogether... there's no credibility left."
Although he accepted a conviction could not be guaranteed, the barrister nevertheless claimed a jury may establish proof beyond reasonable doubt.
"There's credible evidence from the cousin, from the man in the house next door and from the ballistics," he told the court.
"There's no support for B's account coming from the rest of his platoon."
Despite recognising the tensions facing soldiers trying to perform a policing operation at the time, Mr Mansfield was withering in his assessment of Soldier B's actions.
"He saw young men at a time of night when he thought they shouldn't have been out and he shot them," the barrister said.
"He plainly has shot at people who would have stopped absolutely in their tracks if they had been warned. Two of them were members of the Rosary Crusaders — a prayer group.
"These were not remotely terrorists of any kind, they wouldn't have posed a threat and that's what makes the decision even more unacceptable and perverse."
Counsel for the Director Tony McGleenan QC stressed the high threshold required to rebut the soldier's claims, and to establish perversity in the decision-making process.
"Given self-defence is in play the question we are asking is whether or not the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the actions of Soldier B were not taken in self-defence," he said.

Jesus will we bring up IRA men that shot dead people leaving church? Or tying a man to his lorry and blowing him up?? Plenty kids killed in the name of freedom (which as you can see they are part of the British government in Stormont)

Stupid post

[red hander]

Wear it with pride...




BY ALAN ERWIN

Self-defence claims raised by a soldier who shot an innocent teenager at point-blank range in Derry 45 years ago have been stripped of all credibility, the High Court has heard.
Judges were told Daniel Hegarty (15) was a member of a prayer group who posed no threat and would have stopped in his tracks.
Relatives of the schoolboy are challenging a decision not to prosecute the member of the army unit who fired the fatal shots. Their lawyers claim the conclusion is perverse and irrational.
Reserving judgment, Mr Justice Treacy pledged to give a decision as soon as possible.
Daniel was unarmed when he was shot twice in the head during an army operation in the Creggan area of the city in July 1972. His cousin Christopher (16) also sustained a bullet wound to the head but survived.
The shootings occurred at the height of the Troubles as troops were deployed in Derry in an bid to clear so-called no-go areas.
In 2011 an inquest jury unanimously found Daniel posed no risk and had been shot without warning, prompting the coroner to refer the case back to the Public Prosecution Service.
But in March last year it was decided not to pursue charges against Soldier B, who fired the fatal rounds, on the basis of no reasonable prospect of a conviction.
According to the PPS, forensic experts were unable to state that ballistics evidence is inconsistent with Soldier B's account of the circumstances in which he fired.
Daniel's sister, Margaret Brady, is now seeking to judicially review the Director of Public Prosecutions over that decision.
Her senior counsel, Michael Mansfield QC, argued that expert evidence completely refutes assertions that the bullets were fired in self-defence.
Instead, he contended, scientific opinion backed the family's belief that it was an unlawful killing carried out at a range of less than 10 feet.
In a statement B claimed to have pulled the trigger on the machine gun while it was on the ground — an account Daniel's family allege was contrived to suggest fear of a non-existent threat.
Referring to expert evidence, Mr Mansfield submitted: "The pretence of self-defence basically falls away altogether... there's no credibility left."
Although he accepted a conviction could not be guaranteed, the barrister nevertheless claimed a jury may establish proof beyond reasonable doubt.
"There's credible evidence from the cousin, from the man in the house next door and from the ballistics," he told the court.
"There's no support for B's account coming from the rest of his platoon."
Despite recognising the tensions facing soldiers trying to perform a policing operation at the time, Mr Mansfield was withering in his assessment of Soldier B's actions.
"He saw young men at a time of night when he thought they shouldn't have been out and he shot them," the barrister said.
"He plainly has shot at people who would have stopped absolutely in their tracks if they had been warned. Two of them were members of the Rosary Crusaders — a prayer group.
"These were not remotely terrorists of any kind, they wouldn't have posed a threat and that's what makes the decision even more unacceptable and perverse."
Counsel for the Director Tony McGleenan QC stressed the high threshold required to rebut the soldier's claims, and to establish perversity in the decision-making process.
"Given self-defence is in play the question we are asking is whether or not the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the actions of Soldier B were not taken in self-defence," he said.

Jesus will we bring up IRA men that shot dead people leaving church? Or tying a man to his lorry and blowing him up?? Plenty kids killed in the name of freedom (which as you can see they are part of the British government in Stormont)

Stupid post

Yeah, and they were actively pursued by the 'authorities', many being prosecuted and jailed for years ... this **** and many of his ilk weren't. And need I mention the few Brits who were done for murder - Ian Thain, Lee Clegg? Served derisory sentences, were still being paid by the MoD while in jail, and readmitted to the army on release... Wear it with pride

[Milltown Row2]

Actively pursued and then given amnesty but sure you knew that.. not sure how the poppy charity itself is being blamed on the murders getting off with killing innocent people .. but if you look hard enough to be offended you will

[seafoid]

The poppy is a symbol of a martial society . The British war machine still sends young men to die in pointless wars. The ones who don't die are often maimed either physically or mentally. The Sun salutes their bravery but isn't there when the marriage breaks down or at the moment of suicide. Solemnity doesn't come into it.

[BennyCake]

Relative of mine lived in England for a few years. One housemate who was pro-Iraq/Afghanistan etc , asked why he didn't buy a Poppy one year. He took out a video of Bloody Sunday, and they watched it. Afterwards, he couldn't believe what he'd seen, and said he said he was disgusted at his own governments forces actions, and said he'd never buy a Poppy again.