Jeremy Corbyn Won’t Attend 100th Anniversary Of Battle Of Jutland

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

A Sajid

LOL its actually amusing seeing right wing people on here.

Reply 21

Observatory

Original post by BasicMistake

Are we remembering the deaths of over 6000 servicemen or celebrating a tactical f*ck-up that still managed to scare the Germans away?

That's a little unfair; the tactics at Jutland were actually pretty good, with the German fleet being baited into a battle it didn't want and then repeatedly manoeuvred into terrible positions. In the final engagement the German fleet couldn't even see the British line and failed to score a single hit while receiving heavy fire. If night hadn't fallen or the Grand Fleet had caught the Germans again the following morning - as it very nearly did - it is quite likely that the German navy would have been substantially destroyed at Jutland.

In fact that might have happened anyway if the British shells had worked properly and not fallen apart on striking enemy armour (there was a general problem with British shell quality that also contributed to the 1st day of the Somme disaster).

A lot of the problems at Jutland were down to little flaws that had not been noticed in the rapid advance of technology since the last time the British fleet had been used. Basically everything was new and almost untested. On the whole the system worked very well which is why the Germans ran away and did not return. That was a vital contribution to winning the war and I think that is something worth celebrating.

As to whether Corbyn should be there or not, I couldn't care less. I would not have him turned away but certainly wouldn't miss a man who would almost certainly have been trying to sabotage our war effort and then gone on to support the Soviet Union, a state worse for humanity than either side in WWI. He has no interest in celebrating his country's victories because he sympathises more with our enemies.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 22

SMEGGGY

He's a ****. Why he's been chosen leader shows how ******* his supporters are.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 23

SakuraCayla

Original post by KimKallstrom

Yet he finds the time to turn up to support the idiots of the stop the war coalition.....

Face it, if it was a memorial for some IRA car bombers or an event to brown nose Hamas terrorists he'd be the first one to arrive and the last to leave. At least if the entirely of his career is anything to go by.....

Yet he was the only leader of a political party to not go attend the the tax payer funded lunch and talk to actual veterans on remembrance day?

Corbyn has shown time and again how much he respects those who died, he may disagree with why they died, but there is a difference between disagreeing with the reason a war is fought and paying respect to those who died, and infact I would say Corbyn shows more respect than Cameron in this matter. As for Stop the War, there is nothing wrong with opposing war, and given they organised the largest single protest march in British history I would hardly call them idiots.

As for Hamas and the IRA, last I checked one had been democratically elected, and the other was a serious threat born from the results of British foreign policy **** ups and colonialism, more policy and army people with guns wasn't going to help, just happens that unlike the Government Corbyn decided not to ridicule them in public and talk to them in secret but to just open dialogue in public so everyone knew what was happening, and try to work to a position of peace.

Original post by Jammy Duel

Have you seen the diary of PM, makes leader of the opposition appear a holiday?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Difference is one is the defacto head of state, the other is not. Neither is a walk in the park however I am sure we can agree.

Reply 24

Jammy Duel

Original post by Kay_Winters

Neither is de facto head of state, nor de jura.

Reply 25

Observatory

Original post by Kay_Winters

Corbyn has shown time and again how much he respects those who died, he may disagree with why they died, but there is a difference between disagreeing with the reason a war is fought and paying respect to those who died,

It is far worse to disagree with why they died than to not pay respect to those who died. I am not sure this is a fair characterisation of Corbyn given his 0.1 degree head inclination at the Cenotaph where everyone else bowed. But assuming it is, because of people who agreed with why they died we are living in a free country today. I don't want someone who cries over the tombs of soldiers in a Britain that has surrendered to Hitler in 1940 or joined the Warsaw Pact in 1985.

Reply 26

SakuraCayla

Original post by Observatory

How is it far worse to disagree with why they died than to not pay respect? If anyone thinks the first world war was agreeable I have yet to meet them. They served, some of them because they had to due to conscription, some of them not even 18, and a lot of them died or came home with physical and mental injuries that would never heal. We can pay respect to them all, and remember what they did without agreeing with the war they thought in.

As for your comment on Corbyn's bow, I bow pretty much the same, as do some others I know, and Corbyn has always bowed like that if you look at older images and photos of him at smaller local events. I would also say Corbyn's message was the most respectful.

Reply 27

Serine Soul

Original post by A Sajid

LOL its actually amusing seeing right wing people on here.

It's really good entertainment isn't it?

Obviously no one gives a hoot about their views in real life so they vent their frustrations on a forum online (or they just troll because they're bored)

Never heard of it.

Original post by Kay_Winters

How is it far worse to disagree with why they died than to not pay respect?
Because the causes for which they died are what we inherit. If you just want to honour bravery and suffering you can go to Berlin and lay a wreath to the Waffen SS or Moscow and lay a wreath to the Red Army; they fought as hard and suffered as much as anyone. I honour British soldiers because they have sacrificed for the cause of my country, not merely because they have sacrificed. And that is what I expect from a prime minister of this country.

Reply 30

Miss Maddie

He's probably too busy sharing a stage with a terrorist supporter and shaking hands with an extremist

Reply 31

SakuraCayla

Original post by Observatory

Because the causes for which they died are what we inherit. If you just want to honour bravery and suffering you can go to Berlin and lay a wreath to the Waffen SS or Moscow and lay a wreath to the Red Army; they fought as hard and suffered as much as anyone. I honour British soldiers because they have sacrificed for the cause of my country, not merely because they have sacrificed. And that is what I expect from a prime minister of this country.

I would happily go to those places and lay a wreath to those who died fighting. To disregard the loss of life and the injury to those on all sides in a war which should never have happened, and was started with no regard or thought to those who would be fighting is just, imo, immoral and insensitive. Working people have through out history died in Wars that had nothing to do with them, and they had no involvement in starting, and to forget this is just horrific and shows we have failed to move on, and failed in our goals to be an internationalist Country.

Reply 32

Jammy Duel

If what I read in the paper earlier is correct and it is for a holiday rather than some form of official engagement then it really is a saddening thing.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 33

Observatory

Original post by Kay_Winters

I would happily go to those places and lay a wreath to those who died fighting.

OK, that's all I need to know.

Reply 34

A Sajid

Original post by Serine Soul

It's really good entertainment isn't it?

Obviously no one gives a hoot about their views in real life so they vent their frustrations on a forum online (or they just troll because they're bored)