You're right there Stainesy. Was a time when Brits were well respected on the continent... As a regular visitor to Paris I used to frequent a certain breakfast cafe near Gare du Nord. Year in and out I was always well received and catered for by the staff. Then the place, along with many other local establishments, was trashed to oblivion by hoards of Liverpool fans c.1980/81. Needless to say, the minute the staff caught my English accent therafter, the word 'chill' reverted to it's original meaning. Sometime around that time England played Switzerland away. True to type there was an off on the terraces and a Swiss fan got stabbed up. A Swiss fan ffs. Sure didn't do us any favours in Europe the fans in them days. Cheers for the memory English football thugs!
Glad we have a monarchy and proud of this great country. Over the years many historical things, traditions have been ‘watered down’ or stopped because of a load of ’lefty new age pc loving muppets’. We should all be proud of our culture and for the sacrifices of millions of brave soldiers who gave their lives to protect our small island.
With great respect Ellers, being proud of our culture and the sacrifice of our soldiers is a completely different thing from having a love for the Monarchy. My Grandad (RIP) fought all over the world during WWII, but didn't have a lot of time for the Royals (and especially Churchill).I'm very proud of him, my country and my culture but not proud of our Royal family. We're never gonna agree on this methinks but glad we can discuss it without abusing each other (except in jest of course )
There's good and bad on both sides of the argument. The Queen's 'children' are not a great advert for the Royal Family, fortunately William looks to have inherited his mother's attributes in connecting with people and Kate is also of a similar type which suggests the monarchy will adapt to more modern influences in time and we may see a less dysfunctional family in future. The 'lesser' Royals should be left to fend for themselves...
Now I see! He was an imperialist old timer true enough. But he was the best man to have in charge in War Time to be fair to him.
Swords, my gramps was on the Lancastria.....and he never forgave Churchill for what he did in the aftermath. I guess i'm just following the family tradition.
Yes mate, when you get a chance look up the story of the sinking of the Lancastria. It's very sad to think the lives of at least 3000 British servicemen(probably a hell of a lot more) that were lost that day were covered up because 'the British people shouldn't be given anymore bad news today'. My gramps even spent 2 weeks in gaol when he got back 'cos he was dressed incorrectly and couldn't tell the MP's what had happened to him (My nan thought he was dead throughout that time). So you see, my distain of Churchill is pretty personal.
I can understand and sympathise with people having such feelings when they directly experienced the events. If memory serves, the Lancastria's sinking by the enemy is still this country's biggest maritime loss of life, bigger than the Titanic. I think Churchill and his Government tried to cover it up because it happened at a time in the war (1940?) when morale was at its lowest ebb. You might perhaps sympathise with both sides of this argument, but I believe that there still remains today a reluctance on the part of the Government to release certain documents relating to the event. Churchill was undoubtedly a great man, but for every 3 great things attributable to him, there's probably at least one error that cost lives. Gallipoli in WW1 is a good example of this.
Checked up on it there. 5,000 killed! Christ, that's a colossal casualty rate. More than the Titanic and Lusitania combined.
