I1L2T3 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I thought Ed was going to start blubbering in the TV interview on the news. Unelectable goofball. http://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/ay_108058585-e1366198318619.jpg ---------- Post added 02-10-2013 at 11:17 ---------- Surely the question is what influences did he come under? Ralph was influenced by people like Harold Laski, even Attlee kept him at a distance. It is unfair to completely judge Ed in this way, however as the left regularly take pot shots about Bullingdon boys and the influences the Tory front bench are under surely it appropriate for the Labour leaders to come under scrutiny. The Bullingdon boys are still alive and some of them are in power. They can answer for themselves Ed Miliband doesn't have to answer for his dad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillpig Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 More to the point, he got off the boat and saw British fascists marching about and feared the same thing was about to happen here. The whole "almost wish they'd lose the war" comment was clearly expressing a wish that the British people would really understand what was likely to happen if fascism took hold in this country. It's quite obvious who really wanted Britain to lose the war at that time - Lord Rothermere. Rothermeres comments reflected the views of the majority of the British public at the time. Churchills "wilderness years" were spent warning about fascism and the danger of Hitler. Churchill was in a minority at the time. Rothermere fully financed design and research into, and handed over to the RAF, details of the Blenheim bomber a very useful aircraft. His contribution to the war effort was substantial. He was also a deeply unpleasant man. Nothing in this world is black and white. But he was not a traitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 The Bullingdon boys are still alive and some of them are in power. They can answer for themselves Ed Miliband doesn't have to answer for his dad. It didn't stop the left attacking Thatcher, in fact they actually celebrated her death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 One of the attributes of being a spy is that you leave little or no trace. Your last sentence indicates a level of stupidity seldom equaled, even on this forum, well done. Is this some kind of inquisition or witch trial of a dead man. We don't have confirmation that he was a spy so that proves he's a spy? Dig him up and put him on the ducking stool. ---------- Post added 02-10-2013 at 11:21 ---------- It didn't stop the left attacking Thatcher, in fact they actually celebrated her death. So what? Two wrongs don't make a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterPerfect Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I don't really care about Farage's schoolboy antics. I wouldn't vote for him now, I'm no admirer, and I'm no supporter. If you're calling me an hypocrite then show everyone where I am. In the same way that Britain didn't fight a war, because Britain isn't human. Linguistic tricks don't fool me. ---------- Post added 02-10-2013 at 09:50 ---------- Firstly, he was 17. Fresh off a boat. He wasn't English, by birth or by association. Secondly, he didn't say "I wish Britain would almost lose the war," so you've extrapolated an extra meaning into his sentence. It's quite clear what Ralph Miliband was saying. Thirdly, fighting in a war shows commitment to England for me. Well in relation to what he said, I quoted what the author of the book said Milliband said, it can be seen here in the Guardian... http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/01/daily-mail-distorted-book-ralph-miliband. In relation to the foolishness of youth, I assume that's what you and the article mean when you mention he was only 17? Do you think Tommy Robinson can be forgiven for being in the BNP as a young man? Have you ever mentioned this? If so, you are indeed an hypocrite. As for Farage do you accept that the media was wrong to drag this up? Yes he was committed to England but only to defeat Fascism and the Nazis who invaded his homeland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 The basis of all this is whether the father's views have influenced the son's views. Of course the son will have been influenced in some way, but the fathers views were based on a vastly different world as the sons views will be now. Therefore I do not believe we can criticise the son because of his fathers politics. None of us know what our political outlook would have been if we were living in the late 1940s and had the same experiences the father had. I also find sensational reporting distasteful when the person in question is unable to defend himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Rothermeres comments reflected the views of the majority of the British public at the time. Churchills "wilderness years" were spent warning about fascism and the danger of Hitler. Churchill was in a minority at the time. Churchill was looked at as a war-monger, by most of his Party. He was deeply distrusted well into the early years of the war, and the losses of the Norwegian Campaign didn't help him in any way. Let's not hide from history. Many people in Britain, from different sections of society, were openly supportive or at the least anti-war, when it came to Nazi Germany. It's for this reason that people sat back and watched as Spain got chewed up and spat out by the Nazi war machine, and then Czechoslovakia. Rothermere fully financed design and research into, and handed over to the RAF, details of the Blenheim bomber a very useful aircraft. His contribution to the war effort was substantial. He was also a deeply unpleasant man. Nothing in this world is black and white. But he was not a traitor. In the same way that Ralph Miliband isn't evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillpig Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 http://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/ay_108058585-e1366198318619.jpg ---------- Post added 02-10-2013 at 11:17 ---------- The Bullingdon boys are still alive and some of them are in power. They can answer for themselves Ed Miliband doesn't have to answer for his dad. You miss my point, Tories are challenged because of a perceived advantage they have because of their perceived privileged backgrounds. That they will always defend the privileges they are thought to enjoy. Milliband seeks high office, it is right that enquiries are made into his background, he has made statements that are anti business, is there a danger that he is actually hard left? I think we should know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Two wrongs don't make a right. I agree, but it is hypocritical that some of the people that celebrated her death are now complaining about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterPerfect Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 And all this outrage about attacking a dead man. People had street parties when Thatcher died, did you all attack them? If not you are hypocrites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.