Am I right in thinking FIFA was on its knees financially after one of the world wars and was kept afloat by a charity match between England and Scotland ?
Am I right in thinking FIFA was on its knees financially after one of the world wars and was kept afloat by a charity match between England and Scotland ?
If government can find the money to cover the cost of war, they should find a way to cover the cost of what is the result of war.
I really don't see what this has got to do with remembering 16 year olds getting mown down by machine guns 100 years ago.
This idea that everyone who wears a poppy or believes in wearing a poppy somehow agrees with government foreign policies over the years is unique to say the least.
I think it was more a comment on the fact that if our government paid fully for all treatment and care of armed forces personnel injured in the line of duty, then the RBL would have no reason to sell poppies, at least from a fund-raising perspective, unless the RBL decided to instead transfer to supporting another cause (such as those injured or killed due to British military action).
The poppy does not just mean remembering the waste of life that was the First World War to most people, for some people it is commemorating all those injured or killed in warfare, past and present.
That's exactly how I read it. And agree entirely.
FIFA don't seem to see using virtual slave labour to build stadia in the desert as a "political" act though?
As for the argument about it not being the choice of individual players; I see it as the choice of their (part-time) employers to adorn their uniform to show support for a cause, they are representing the FA and the SFA who in turn want to remember the war dead and support the British Legion. I am fairly sure most players would be happy with it anyway, if any of them felt so anti the cause, it's fairly easy to quietly claim injury.
If government can find the money to cover the cost of war, they should find a way to cover the cost of what is the result of war.
I really don't see what this has got to do with remembering 16 year olds getting mown down by machine guns 100 years ago.
This idea that everyone who wears a poppy or believes in wearing a poppy somehow agrees with government foreign policies over the years is unique to say the least.
I think it was more a comment on the fact that if our government paid fully for all treatment and care of armed forces personnel injured in the line of duty, then the RBL would have no reason to sell poppies, at least from a fund-raising perspective, unless the RBL decided to instead transfer to supporting another cause (such as those injured or killed due to British military action).
The poppy does not just mean remembering the waste of life that was the First World War to most people, for some people it is commemorating all those injured or killed in warfare, past and present.
That's exactly how I read it. And agree entirely.
FIFA don't seem to see using virtual slave labour to build stadia in the desert as a "political" act though?
As for the argument about it not being the choice of individual players; I see it as the choice of their (part-time) employers to adorn their uniform to show support for a cause, they are representing the FA and the SFA who in turn want to remember the war dead and support the British Legion. I am fairly sure most players would be happy with it anyway, if any of them felt so anti the cause, it's fairly easy to quietly claim injury.
Re: FIFA - well no argument, FIFA are a bunch of odious shits filled with duplicitous toadies who have a massive chip on their shoulder against the British. You only have to look at their vindictive attitude towards our journalists, as well as their anti-British propaganda film that attempted to portray Brits as backwards, elitist racists. I imagine their decision to ban the poppy is almost entirely based on their hatred for the UK for than anything else.
Re: forcing players to wear it, I disagree. Whilst it is not a political symbol, some players mistakenly believe it is one. The RBL themselves insist no one should be forced to wear a poppy.
If government can find the money to cover the cost of war, they should find a way to cover the cost of what is the result of war.
I really don't see what this has got to do with remembering 16 year olds getting mown down by machine guns 100 years ago.
This idea that everyone who wears a poppy or believes in wearing a poppy somehow agrees with government foreign policies over the years is unique to say the least.
I think it was more a comment on the fact that if our government paid fully for all treatment and care of armed forces personnel injured in the line of duty, then the RBL would have no reason to sell poppies, at least from a fund-raising perspective, unless the RBL decided to instead transfer to supporting another cause (such as those injured or killed due to British military action).
The poppy does not just mean remembering the waste of life that was the First World War to most people, for some people it is commemorating all those injured or killed in warfare, past and present.
That's exactly how I read it. And agree entirely.
FIFA don't seem to see using virtual slave labour to build stadia in the desert as a "political" act though?
As for the argument about it not being the choice of individual players; I see it as the choice of their (part-time) employers to adorn their uniform to show support for a cause, they are representing the FA and the SFA who in turn want to remember the war dead and support the British Legion. I am fairly sure most players would be happy with it anyway, if any of them felt so anti the cause, it's fairly easy to quietly claim injury.
Re: FIFA - well no argument, FIFA are a bunch of odious shits filled with duplicitous toadies who have a massive chip on their shoulder against the British. You only have to look at their vindictive attitude towards our journalists, as well as their anti-British propaganda film that attempted to portray Brits as backwards, elitist racists. I imagine their decision to ban the poppy is almost entirely based on their hatred for the UK for than anything else.
Re: forcing players to wear it, I disagree. Whilst it is not a political symbol, some players mistakenly believe it is one. The RBL themselves insist no one should be forced to wear a poppy.
FIFA deciding that the poppy is a political symbol is in and of itself a political act. Thought they were meant to be politically neutral?
FIFA haven't decided the poppy is a political symbol. They just recognised that it is. And applied their rules. That's all.
Well it's not. Look up the definition of 'political' and it is pretty obvious that wearing a poppy does not fall under that category.
Now it could be considered a cultural symbol, which is something else entirely.
If it isn't political why the vapours about wearing it? For some it is a way of showing support for UK military adventurism over the years.
What a load of tosh!! How we mock what we don't understand!
And for others it represents respect for those who fought against tyranny and died to give others freedom! In particular WW1, where the poppy concept was born 'In Flanders Fields'. Have a read of Lt Col John McCrae's poem and maybe even get yourself over to the Ypres Salient for a visit. You may even find it educational and humbling!
PS: Yes, I am ex-military and yes, you got my back up! Good work.
You have made the rather absurd assumption that anybody who disagrees with you can't have read McCrae's poem or have visited the Ypres Salient. I disagree with your point of view. I have read the poem and I cannot even begin to count the number of days I have spent on the Ypres Salient, but it is certainly in excess of 250 days. You also imply that all ex-military personel would by insulted by anybody who didn't share your point of view. I am not ex-forces but I read your post out to my oldest mate, ex 40 Commando RM, 4 tours of Ireland and Falklands veteran, cue gales of derisive laughter.
There have been instances where players who have chosen not wear poppies have been vilified both here and in the press. I don't want to see that extended to anyone picked for their national side who may choose not to wear one. I don't think that it's too great a leap of imagination to see that for some people, wearing a poppy could become an essential test of fitness to play; a bit like the Charlton Life height test only not as comedic.
For eighty years poppies were a matter of personal choice. For the past decade or so it's become more corporate and less personal. In that sense it does start to become political even though there's no hint of politics in the charitable and memorial aims of the Poppy Fund. I also see that as something as a loss. As someone who is a proud poppy wearer, and who for many years was a poppy seller, I don't want remembrance or giving to be something that's thrust upon people. I want it to come from within. It is far more powerful that way.
The problem being when a generation who fought in world wars finally dies out those who never lived through the hardship fail to recognise the sacrifices made
The wars since ww1 and ww2 do not to many feel like wars because of the way it's fed via the media and a like
Every service man or woman who falls every animal in service who fall
Every single person or animal who live with the aftermath of the war or service they have given should be recognised by those they gave their duty and service for ,
You don't have to wear one you don't have to contribute I don't pas judgment on those that don't wear them unless they make public statements about why they choose not to
However people making these decisions and trying to make the poppy a statement of political point scoring all that will end up happening is reducing the funding that is there to assist those who are impacted by the service they gave
Wear your poppy with pride pay your respects and thanks to those who served and never forget the sacrifices given
Is that too much to ask that people just pay respect to the families that suffer daily and those no longer here
FIFA deciding that the poppy is a political symbol is in and of itself a political act. Thought they were meant to be politically neutral?
FIFA haven't decided the poppy is a political symbol. They just recognised that it is. And applied their rules. That's all.
Well it's not. Look up the definition of 'political' and it is pretty obvious that wearing a poppy does not fall under that category.
Now it could be considered a cultural symbol, which is something else entirely.
If it isn't political why the vapours about wearing it? For some it is a way of showing support for UK military adventurism over the years.
What a load of tosh!! How we mock what we don't understand!
And for others it represents respect for those who fought against tyranny and died to give others freedom! In particular WW1, where the poppy concept was born 'In Flanders Fields'. Have a read of Lt Col John McCrae's poem and maybe even get yourself over to the Ypres Salient for a visit. You may even find it educational and humbling!
PS: Yes, I am ex-military and yes, you got my back up! Good work.
You have made the rather absurd assumption that anybody who disagrees with you can't have read McCrae's poem or have visited the Ypres Salient. I disagree with your point of view. I have read the poem and I cannot exactly calculate the number of days I have spent on the Ypres Salient, but it is certainly in excess of 200 days. You also imply that all ex-military personel would by insulted by anybody who didn't share your point of view. I am not ex-forces but I read your post out to my oldest mate, ex 40 Commando RM, 4 tours of Ireland and Falklands veteran, cue gales of derisive laughter.
You are perfectly entitled to your personal point on this or any other subject and use your own knowledge and experience inform that view. However, please don't assume that people who disagree with you do not have knowledge and experiences of their own and have used these to come to different conclusions.
The problem being when a generation who fought in world wars finally dies out those who never lived through the hardship fail to recognise the sacrifices made
The wars since ww1 and ww2 do not to many feel like wars because of the way it's fed via the media and a like
Every service man or woman who falls every animal in service who fall
Every single person or animal who live with the aftermath of the war or service they have given should be recognised by those they gave their duty and service for ,
You don't have to wear one you don't have to contribute I don't pas judgment on those that don't wear them unless they make public statements about why they choose not to
However people making these decisions and trying to make the poppy a statement of political point scoring all that will end up happening is reducing the funding that is there to assist those who are impacted by the service they gave
Wear your poppy with pride pay your respects and thanks to those who served and never forget the sacrifices given
Is that too much to ask that people just pay respect to the families that suffer daily and those no longer here
Well put. Should make it unnecessary for anything more to be said on the subject.
They let the ROI wear shirts/emblems commemorating The Easter uprising, if that's not political I don't know what is. They don't know their arse from their elbow
that's a news article on it, the only thing i can say is the matches were friendly matches where as this is a world cup qualifier admittedly i dont know what that makes a difference.
They let the ROI wear shirts/emblems commemorating The Easter uprising, if that's not political I don't know what is. They don't know their arse from their elbow
I think Ireland used these shirts in friendly matches, they didn't used them in the Euros as it was run by UFEA, and haven't worn them in any FIFA WC games.
They let the ROI wear shirts/emblems commemorating The Easter uprising, if that's not political I don't know what is. They don't know their arse from their elbow
arent the same rulings freindlies and world cup qaulifiers are they?, so possibly could be why, really dont get who would be offended by a poppy and cant imagine anyone in the england, wales, Scotland squad wouldn't wear one, even celtic have them on there shirts which are the most one of the most irish supported clubs outside of ireland
35,000 irish died in the wars and 200,000 went to war.
FIFA have refused to back down on their decision to ban England from wearing poppy emblems on their shirts for their friendly against Spain on Saturday - the day before Remembrance Sunday. Despite an outcry from war veterans and charities after they refused a request from the Football Association, the world game's governing body insisted they could make no exceptions to their kit rules.
Ireland took on the Swiss at Aviva Stadium on Friday night with a shirt featuring a special crest that commemorated the 100th anniversary of the 1916 Rising. Uefa had given Ireland the all-clear to wear the one-off badge but it seems some Swiss officials at the game raised the matter with Uefa in recent days as they felt it broke the regulations regarding ‘political messages’ in the game.
Article 14, sub section 7 of Uefa’s Disciplinary Regulations states that ‘All forms of ideological, political and religious propaganda are forbidden’.
Comments
FIFA don't seem to see using virtual slave labour to build stadia in the desert as a "political" act though?
As for the argument about it not being the choice of individual players; I see it as the choice of their (part-time) employers to adorn their uniform to show support for a cause, they are representing the FA and the SFA who in turn want to remember the war dead and support the British Legion. I am fairly sure most players would be happy with it anyway, if any of them felt so anti the cause, it's fairly easy to quietly claim injury.
Re: forcing players to wear it, I disagree. Whilst it is not a political symbol, some players mistakenly believe it is one. The RBL themselves insist no one should be forced to wear a poppy.
For eighty years poppies were a matter of personal choice. For the past decade or so it's become more corporate and less personal. In that sense it does start to become political even though there's no hint of politics in the charitable and memorial aims of the Poppy Fund. I also see that as something as a loss. As someone who is a proud poppy wearer, and who for many years was a poppy seller, I don't want remembrance or giving to be something that's thrust upon people. I want it to come from within. It is far more powerful that way.
The wars since ww1 and ww2 do not to many feel like wars because of the way it's fed via the media and a like
Every service man or woman who falls every animal in service who fall
Every single person or animal who live with the aftermath of the war or service they have given should be recognised by those they gave their duty and service for ,
You don't have to wear one you don't have to contribute I don't pas judgment on those that don't wear them unless they make public statements about why they choose not to
However people making these decisions and trying to make the poppy a statement of political point scoring all that will end up happening is reducing the funding that is there to assist those who are impacted by the service they gave
Wear your poppy with pride pay your respects and thanks to those who served and never forget the sacrifices given
Is that too much to ask that people just pay respect to the families that suffer daily and those no longer here
You are perfectly entitled to your personal point on this or any other subject and use your own knowledge and experience inform that view. However, please don't assume that people who disagree with you do not have knowledge and experiences of their own and have used these to come to different conclusions.
They don't know their arse from their elbow
that's a news article on it, the only thing i can say is the matches were friendly matches where as this is a world cup qualifier admittedly i dont know what that makes a difference.
35,000 irish died in the wars and 200,000 went to war.
FIFA have refused to back down on their decision to ban England from wearing poppy emblems on their shirts for their friendly against Spain on Saturday - the day before Remembrance Sunday.
Despite an outcry from war veterans and charities after they refused a request from the Football Association, the world game's governing body insisted they could make no exceptions to their kit rules.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2058089/Outrage-FIFA-reject-England-poppy-plea-face-war-veterans-complaints.html#ixzz4OrGLcTVP
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Uefa had given Ireland the all-clear to wear the one-off badge but it seems some Swiss officials at the game raised the matter with Uefa in recent days as they felt it broke the regulations regarding ‘political messages’ in the game.
Article 14, sub section 7 of Uefa’s Disciplinary Regulations states that ‘All forms of ideological, political and religious propaganda are forbidden’.
Why has this now changed?
The local FA's should just do what they want and say bollocks to FIFA.
Surely the precident has already been set re the small fine handed to Argentina re the Falklands banner?!?