Right, that's it. I'm angry.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

A student's union is a collection of self-aggrandising wannabe politicians with the power to do little more than send a few emails. They are pretty much universally ignored by the rest of the student body at all universities I've been to or have spoken to people from.

[Smudger]

Can't really put it much better than Lanky123 did other than add it was a nothing story published to garner outrage from the 'they're taking away our wawer' brigade. Tabloid-level reporting from what is supposed to be a high-brow paper...

Edit - not taking anything away from people who actually did fight and die in conflicts, but the people with the most outrage tend to be those that have been nowhere near the armed forces in their lives.

[scaryjim]

Storm tea-cup much?

Nothing about this story suggests that anyone is trying to prevent remembrance, or is disparaging veterans. Nothing here prevents Cambridge students, or indeed the individual college SUs who actually organise events in Cambridge colleges from actively support Remembrance day celebrations or activities.

Frankly, my experience is that Remembrance day isn't something people respond to encouragement about - you're either the kind of person who will celebrate it, or the kind who won't. There are a lot of people who have concerns about Remembrance Sunday, or more particularly about the way it's often observed. So the question to be asked is whether it's appropriate for an umbrella organisation, that's meant to represent a diverse student body numbering tens of thousands, to actively encourage the celebration of a particular holiday - and in particular, as per the story CAT linked/posted, to explicitly encourage the commemoration of British veterans, as per the original motion.

Personally, I'd find it hard to vote in favour of that motion in its original form. It adds nothing to the celebration itself. It's not going to have any positive impact, and it would (IMNSHO) be a rallying cry for the worst kind of jingoistic nationalism. And (again, based on CAT's story) I think the defeat of a more inclusive version of the motion which wasn't focused on British veterans tells you a lot about the reasons behind the motion being introduced in the first place - i.e. it was about promoting national pride over remembering a horrific world event.

I'm sorry, but Britain has no reason to be proud about its actions in either war. Remember the horror, commemorate those who died, but PLEASE don't be proud of it...

[Ttaskmaster]

You can't force that though.

Cannot force them to understand what something actually is or isn't, before they start rallying against it and making false claims to support their rallying?
Yeah, right - Watch me force them!!

And should a say, chinese, student be forced to celebrate the british forces?

I didn't see anything about celebrations.
But then, the linked article wants me to sign up and log in to know the full story, so it can jog on... I don't care enough about the latest thing to drop out of some clueless Uni student's backside to sign up somewhere.

No, I disagree quite badly here. That's not what universities are or should be for. If you want mandatory learning then sort it out by secondary school.

If you're gonna rant and demonstrate about something, especially something like this, it's usually regarded by society as mandatory that you learn what you're talking about first, really.....

[peterb]

I'm sorry, but Britain has no reason to be proud about its actions in either war. Remember the horror, commemorate those who died, but PLEASE don't be proud of it...

I think as a nation we have every reason to be proud of opposing a genocidal maniac responsible for the deaths of over 6 million non-combatants - even if our leadership prior to the war was lily livered prior to the outbreak.

But wars are created by politicians - and the point of remembrance is not to honour them - it is to remember the lives of those lost in defending their country.

"We will remember them"

[badass]

FFS in this country the only thing to garner more outrage than criticising our great religion, the NHS is anything about not observing remembrance Sunday. If we really gave a stuff about the lives lost we would stop constantly sending our armed forces to conflicts.

Why does help for heroes even exist? Because as a country we don't actually care enough to make sure that soldiers are properly looked after by the MOD in the first place. The way injured armed forces personnel are treated by the MOD is utterly disgusting but voters don't care enough to actually let it affect their vote. 2 minutes of silence takes far less effort than actually doing anything that will help injured soldiers.

Food for thought: If remembrance Sunday actually worked, perhaps there wouldn't have been constant war in the world every single day since WW2.

Misty eyed rubbish. I only war a poppy because it's expected.

[Saracen]

FFS in this country the only thing to garner more outrage than criticising our great religion, the NHS is anything about not observing remembrance Sunday. If we really gave a stuff about the lives lost we would stop constantly sending our armed forces to conflicts.

Why does help for heroes even exist? Because as a country we don't actually care enough to make sure that soldiers are properly looked after by the MOD in the first place. The way injured armed forces personnel are treated by the MOD is utterly disgusting but voters don't care enough to actually let it affect their vote. 2 minutes of silence takes far less effort than actually doing anything that will help injured soldiers.

Food for thought: If remembrance Sunday actually worked, perhaps there wouldn't have been constant war in the world every single day since WW2.

Misty eyed rubbish. I only war a poppy because it's expected.

While I don't entirely disagree with some of that, especially the first bit, I feel you are conflating two different and entirely disparate themes.

Remembrance day is not about celebrating wars or the politicians that, whether morally right or wrong, cause them. It's about renembering the sacrifice of those that died. And it's held on the day it is for a reason - to commemorate the end of the war (WW1, to be specific) not the war itself.

I, for one, would be delighted if this entire planet never saw another war, and nations neither had nor considered they needed arned forces. But sadly, that way leads to something like the third Reich, ISIS or many other examples of tyranical bullies, running our country and however much of a total cods recent, and current, politicians have made of things, it's oodles better than that.

The whole point of remembrance is to hold the loss of those that sacrificed their lives close to us, specifically to remind ourselves why it's a good idea to never do it again.

If we don't remind ourselves of the cost, we run the risk of forgetting the lessons of history, and thus repeating it.


Remembrance is not some celebration of the 'glories' of war, but rather, the horrors of it.

[TeePee]

Th real result of the current attitudes toward warfare is that wars aren't fought by the Armed Forces, but by corporations. Governments cannot risk the publicity surrounding casualties, and spend billions on private military in order to avoid it. Afghanistan, for example, has twice as many contractors as actual forces. The media doesn't care about contractors, and the kickbacks to the politicians guarantee we'll be at war forever. And that's before the arms manufacturers pay their dues.

[Corky34]

Cannot force them to understand what something actually is or isn't, before they start rallying against it and making false claims to support their rallying?
Yeah, right - Watch me force them!!

I'm unsure if that was meant to be ironic or not.

[philehidiot]

From the link CAT-THE-FIFTH posted it doesn't sound like anyone on either side felt that remembrance day wasn't worth observing, just a petty spat over wording that the Conservative Association lost and decided to go full tabloid over. I'm not entirely sure which party is more in the wrong, probably both to a large degree and I would imagine playing politics was the main objective for both rather than any real concern for remembrance day. That's just student politics, avoid at all costs if you can help it.

A student's union is a collection of self-aggrandising wannabe politicians with the power to do little more than send a few emails. They are pretty much universally ignored by the rest of the student body at all universities I've been to or have spoken to people from.

I HATED the stupid student union morons shouting "vote for me, I'm amazing!" outside the union constantly. My response was usually "Oh so you're so amazing? When did you last soil a sock out of loneliness? Still feel amazing? Get away from me, parasite". These are the IDIOTS who banned the sale of the Daily Mail on campus. All they ever did was get under my feet with their self righteousness. If I'd been at university these days I'd be walking around with a Make America Great Again hat on just to watch them burst into tears and run into their "safe space" after you calmly place a hand on their shoulder and say "don't worry poppet, there's gonna be peace in Korea". (I'm no fan of Trump, but I do LOVE using him to annoy people).

The whole point of remembrance is to hold the loss of those that sacrificed their lives close to us, specifically to remind ourselves why it's a good idea to never do it again.

Yep, which is why if we have people misunderstanding what it's about, it's our responsibility as a society to ensure they do understand. If they want to sod it off after that, fine. I'd say universitry is just as good a place to learn about the culture of your society as anywhere else. If you don't understand it by then, there's something failed you in your early education. I had mandatory lectures at uni, some going into the history of the place and other course unrelated stuff.

Storm tea-cup much?

Yeh, I'm seeing that.


EDIT: Also, cheers people for replying to my rampant keyboard warrior rage in a constructive, civil and sane manner. Even those who totally disagree with me do so on here in a plain yet civil way which is rare to get anywhere online these days.

[peterb]

EDIT: Also, cheers people for replying to my rampant keyboard warrior rage in a constructive, civil and sane manner. Even those who totally disagree with me do so on here in a plain yet civil way which is rare to get anywhere online these days.

Civil debate is what we encourage - and I hope by and large - achieve.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I have never seen anyone so upset about not being able to read the Daily Mail. I am sure the local Budgens would have sold it,LOL.

This might invoke more anger:

https://m.slashdot.org/story/325209

"Bravely runs away" accompanied by the lovely sound of flutes.

[philehidiot]

I have never seen anyone so upset about not being able to read the Daily Mail. I am sure the local Budgens would have sold it,LOL.

This might invoke more anger:

https://m.slashdot.org/story/325209

"Bravely runs away" accompanied by the lovely sound of flutes.

EDIT: The student union banned the sale of the Daily Mail at Leeds University when I was there.

I'd have never have bought it. My point is that it's a generation of "we don't like it, ban it" rather than wanting to put the effort into arguing the opposite opinion. It's also massively disrespectful to students who might want to read it and do hold opposing views as they're being told that to hold right wing opinions like those expressed in the Mail is so wrong and dangerous that it should be banned.

It's also utterly stupid as once you completely ban something then by definition you're not going to be making an argument against it. Which means that your opponents (who don't just disappear when you censor them) are the only ones making the arguments and the implication is that there must be something to them which is so profound it can't be countered, hence why the establishment needs to ban them. You lend your enemy credibility when you take these kinds of actions.

I hate the Daily Mail. Their health section is a pain in my.... neck. But I'd never seek to ban it. I think banning denial of the holocaust is one of the stupidist things you can do. It just says to those who want to deny it that their arguments have legitimacy because they can't be challenged and so they had to make it illegal. Open debate crushes their arguments in minutes. I have taken great pleasure in doing this on Farcebook and watching as their arguments just fall in the presence of facts. Thousands of people saw this, likely including some of his denial friends and I hope it opened their eyes or at least made them question what they had been told. Banning one side of the argument just stops this happening.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I am getting a hint that you have a "slight" issue with modern youngsters...I could be wrong..but then I am still in the process of running way....doppler effects and all that.

[Dareos]

Until recently, I had barely given the whole remembrance day thing any thought at all. It was simply one day a year when we recognised the sacrifice of everyone involved in the wars, and in particular the soldiers.
When I was school age history was perceived as boring, to be avoided at all costs, and was pretty much a series of unfathomable decisions and relentless dates.

Pretty sure the vast majority of these students feel the same way now as I did then.

4 years ago my best friend asked me to join her (a history teacher), her husband and her parents on a trip to Belgium for 4 days over Christmas. I walked among the headstones in the graveyards, listened to stories of the young men stationed in the area told at a candlelight vigil on Christmas Eve, recreated the football match of the great Christmas Truce, and stood for the last post at the Menin Gate.

Out of all of that though, walking through the trenches that still exist there, seeing the mortar craters and the cramped bunkers that men lived and died in for 4 years, wondering how many died from illness brought on by conditions and gangrenous wounds rather than being shot and killed. That hit home the hardest.

Of course we can't force anyone to visit these areas and get a feel for it, and teenagers etc are out to stamp their mark on the world, as loudly as they can, usually without thought as to the further consequences, lets just be glad that currently they get to live that life, and aren't in those trenches themselves.

[Saracen]

Can't really put it much better than Lanky123 did other than add it was a nothing story published to garner outrage from the 'they're taking away our wawer' brigade. Tabloid-level reporting from what is supposed to be a high-brow paper...

Edit - not taking anything away from people who actually did fight and die in conflicts, but the people with the most outrage tend to be those that have been nowhere near the armed forces in their lives.

I wouldn't class myself as outraged. More .... sighingly amused.

Nor would I pretend for a nanosecond to have served in uniform. Further, I don't necessarily agree, politically, with all occasions troops have been sent to war, but I will never, ever do less than give my support and admiration to those that risk, or sadly way too often lose their lives serving our country.

I am painfully aware that they serve, and sacrifice (be it lives or life-changing injury) to protect us all, and I honour them for that.

It's worth also bearing in mind that I had friends that went to the Falklands and didn't cone back, and having done family genealogy, am aware of a disturbingly high number of uncles and cousins that we lost in WW2 and even WW1.

We don't need to have been in the milltary to honour snd respect those that were, and indeed, we'd be better as a country if we did a lot more respecting.


EDIT - Rereading that, I think I need to clarify. I quoted you, Smudger, but comments about doing more respecting are emphatically not aimed at you. Something nags at my memory that you're ex-forces, and if so, you're among those deserving of respect from those of us, like me, that aren't. But either way, it wasn't a pop at you.