George Floyd Protests in Hyde Park

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

grandad
Great post at 13.46
growstuff
I’m afraid I have to disagree. All of my reading and my many visits to museums, including Auschwitz, show that Hitler clearly wished to invade Britain, as there were approximately 11 million Jewish people across Europe, including those in Britain, and Hitler’s stated aim, clearly expressed at the Wannsee Conference on 20th January 1942 was too annihilate all Jewish people via his disgusting Final Solution. That included Jewish people in Britain.
And indeed, why would he have fought The Battle of Britain if there was no desire to invade Britain. After the invasion of Eastern Poland on 22nd June 1941, the Nazis would have been fighting on two European fronts, they poured massive numbers of men and materials into the front on the east and were no longer able to consider waging war on two fronts in Europe, particularly in view of the fact that the Battle of Britain was already won by the British.

EllanVannin

The boat will have to go, Callistemon I'm afraid. Let it loose.

I've had a lightbulb moment (or whatever it's called) EllanVannin!!

It could become the new Royal Yacht.
Waste not, want not.

trisher

It is interesting who we choose to immortalise in statues. Nelson for instance didn't win the battle of Trafalgar, he died quite early on. As every Geordie knows it was Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood who led the fleet to victory. No National only a local statue for him

However, HMS Collingwood is named after him, the largest Naval training establishment in Europe.

Not forgetting many public houses.

Actually Nelson was aware before he died that the battle had been won. He was a brilliant strategist in every battle culminating in Trafalgar.

But it was by ignoring Nelson's orders that Collingwood saved the fleet.
As Nelson headed towards the vanguard of the Franco-Spanish Fleet, Collingwood raced towards its rear. The Franco-Spanish Fleet attempted to turn back for Cadiz, but the attempt caused only confusion. Collingwood was the first to break through the Franco-Spanish line and raked the bows of the Fougueux, which had previously fired the first shots of the day.

Watching this, Nelson cried out, “See how that noble fellow Collingwood takes his ship into action! How I envy him!” Abroad the Royal Sovereign, Collingwood asked what Nelson would give to be with them at that moment.

When Nelson succumbed to his injuries at around 5 o’clock, command of the British Fleet fell to Collingwood. Although victory was all but won, this was not the end of the British Fleet’s struggle. Before his death, Nelson had left orders for Collingwood to go to anchor once the battle had ended, in order to ride out the coming storm. Following the surrender of the Franco-Spanish Fleet, Collingwood went against this order. Perhaps wanting to get away from the dangerous shoreline, and aware that many of the heavily damaged ships did not have the ability to go to anchor regardless of what orders he gave, Collingwood instead led the fleet to safety through a violent storm which lasted a week.

The statue of Robert Milligan East India Dock Quay has been removed, he was a slave trader amongst other things.

The comedy program Little Britain has been removed from all viewing platforms apparently it is not appropriate in 2020. If they go after Fawlty Towers, Only Fools and Horses and Open All Hours I am emigrating ???

The UK is sleep walking into Orwell’s 1984!!!!

Little Britain was monumentally awful.

So it was Galaxy but retrospective censorship of the arts is decidedly worrying.

Little Britain was simply awful, good to know it's been removed.

Grandad1943 - thanks so much for your contributions to this contentious thread. Your historical and personal knowledge (based on your family history) of Churchill's contribution to the fight against the Nazi's gives a real positive dimension to what has been a rather ill tempered and at times ill informed discussion.
I know, we often disagree but I'm thanking you most sincerely.

Also for your contribution to the criticism that the Grenfell Fire is based in racism. DC and health and safety, the biggest problem there. Of course, I recognise that poverty of wealth and life chances results in poor housing but diminishing fire regs and h & S wasn't based in racism.

So why dont we have the black and white minstrels on anymore, is that censorship. If people want to access little britain they can buy the DVDs and watch people blacking up and all the other joys that little britain brought us.

So what! Had Nelson lived he might well have altered those orders. Both of them were superb seamen and both deserve recognition not threats of dismantling!

Iam64, many thanks to you and others for your stating your appreciation to my contributions to this thread. I have not been able to participate as I would like to have done in this debate, but being engaged in workplace safety at this unprecedented time, I believe anyone can easily comprehend how we are simply"snowed under" with employer enquiries, safety audits and the setting up of new safety regimes in workplaces at this time.

However, I will if time allows tomorrow recount my employment as a young bus driver with the Bristol Bus Company in nineteen sixty-six which was just following the Bristol Bus Boycott which many cite as the action that brought forward the first Race relations Act in the United Kingdom.

Bristol seems to have taken quite an amount of criticism in recent days both nationally and on this forum. However, in the years I was brought up and educated there it was an affluent city as compared to many with more jobs on offer than there were people to fill them.

Strangely enough, it was that shortage of labour that led Bristol Bus Company to refuse to employ what were then called "coloured people" as bus crew.

They were extraordinary times indeed on the Bristol buses.

If they go after Fawlty Towers, Only Fools and Horses and Open All Hours I am emigrating

Then Cpl Jones in Dad's Army must be on shaky ground.

'Allo,'allo will have to go. Fully of espionage and " booby " traps.

fully ? that's full of course.

maddyone We will have to agree to differ. I have posted links with evidence that Hitler wasn't serious about invading Britain. If you haven't read them, there's not much more I can do. I could post hundreds of others. Churchill, himself, wrote that he didn't believe the Germans were serious and that was a bluff to get Britain to agree to a truce. His aim always was to invade Russia and he didn't want Britain attacking from the west, so he wanted to neutralise it. Remember that the US hadn't entered the war at that stage. He had an ideological hatred of Slavs and Communists, as well as Jews, but never felt that kind of emotional hatred towards Britain. He also wanted "Lebensraum" to the east. Britain was never part of that plan.

The Battle of Britain was fought because Hitler wanted to weaken the RAF, so that it couldn't bomb Northern Europe. There was an overlap with the Blitz in late 1940. Hitler wanted to destroy air bases and radar stations and frighten the British public, so that the government was forced by public opinion to sign a truce.

In 1940 there was still shipping in the Channel and along the East Coast. Hitler wanted to starve the country into submission rather than defeat it militarily. The Royal Navy was vastly superior to the German Navy. When the US entered the war in late 1941, Britain had an efficient supplier and most trans-Atlantic convoys succeeded in teaching Britain. Hitler finally rejected any pressure from his advisers to invade Britain and turned to the eastern front, where he failed dismally.

The government was split between those who still wanted to appease Hitler and those supporting Churchill, who wanted to fight on. He became Prime Minister in May 1940. There is some evidence that he exaggerated the dangers of imminent invasion to gain support for his wish to become Prime Minister.

As we now know, Churchill was right to continue the war and, by being PM when the allies (don't forget them!), he became a national hero. However, he wasn't enough of a hero to win the 1945 election, which Labour won with a landslide.

All of this is a matter of factual historical record, in addition to what I was told as a child by my father and grandfather, who were very much involved in fighting.

Just because I see Churchill from a historical, rather than a hero worship, perspective doesn't mean I don't understand the contribution he made to British history nor that I don't understand the contribution made by anybody caught up in a war nor that I am not patriotic. (Thank goodness we had Chuchill rather than the present shower.)

For the record, I don't agree with vandalising his statue. However, we need to stop seeing him as a godlike figure. Despite all the things he did which turned out to be the right decisions, he did have racist views and he was a very mediocre politician before the outbreak of war.

PS. Roy Jenkins wrote a very detailed biography of Churchill.

PS. I seriously object to being mansplained.

I think nothing but good has come from removing the statue and depositing it into the dock.

Most people , including myself had never heard of this particular individual and I think that the removal has brought about a real debate about these controversial and historical figures.

Many people, will for the first time have taken the time to listen to or read why it was removed and the debate surrounding the whole shameful period in our history.

In my opinion the removal will be recorded in our history, not as a major incident but a footnote that showed after nearly 300 years the U.K. beginning to come to terms with our past, rejecting some parts, in order to try to move forward into a better future.

Many people as evidenced on here are findzing it a difficult thing to understand, but undoubtedly in the end this will be an incident accepted as something that needed to be done.

I have been reading the debate on here concerning Churchill.

I think it is quite easy to understand Churchill (as with so many other leaders) as both flawed and brilliant.

He was a brilliant and intelligent orator, and his contribution to the war effort cannot be underestimated.

However, would I agree with his ideology, most certainly not!!

That explains why the intelligent voter rejected him at the end of the war, they knew what kind of Britain they wanted, and Churchill would never have provided that.

growstuff

PS. I seriously object to being mansplained.

So growstuff, after posting a long but in my view totally misguided view of Hitler's military intentions towards Britain in 1440 and beyond, you then state the above in regard to any male posting a response on this forum.

In that action, you openly demonstrate to all an attitude sexist discrimination.

It put it simply, you are stating that no man should post on this forum simply because he is male and for no other reason.

Merlotgran they don't like it up 'em.

Well Dads Army can be banned! My son gave me the complete collection of CD's for my 70th birthday some years ago! Corporal Jones is safe in this house and will continue to make us laugh till we laugh no more!

How is it misguided Grandad? Provide some evidence. I can provide plenty.

I suggest you look up the definition of mansplaining while you're doing some research about Churchill in 1940. Have fun!

PS. And don't call me "misguided" when I'm not .