French snub, or Gordon Brown's doing?

[PM-Junkie]

The whole "Queen not going to the D-Day commemorations" saga has been mildly amusing, and I had put it down to Brown's incompetance or the hatred that labourites have for the monarchy...until this morning.

Now I read that "French officials said the Queen was welcome and the UK government was responsible for deciding who should attend what was "primarily a Franco-American ceremony". linky

Am I the only one who finds that extremely insulting?? I believe the British, along with quite a few other countries, had a little to do with D-Day too?

But then of course, the USA won WW2 single handed I suppose.

[VectraMan]

Erm, it's 65 years. Why is 65 years such a big deal? There was a big event for 50 years; another for 60. Maybe there will be for 70 and maybe for 100, but why 65?

This is just about The Daily Mail getting fed up with The Telegraph making all the news and trying to make some of its own. Nobody's been snubbed by anybody. The whole thing is a waste of time and money, and if New Labour were involved then they've got something right for once.

[PM-Junkie]

Clearly you have no family who were involved. 65 years is a "big deal" because if they wait until the 70th anniversary to do it, there will be even less vets alive and kicking.

[OwlHoot]

Erm, it's 65 years. Why is 65 years such a big deal? There was a big event for 50 years; another for 60. Maybe there will be for 70 and maybe for 100, but why 65?

This is just about The Daily Mail getting fed up with The Telegraph making all the news and trying to make some of its own. Nobody's been snubbed by anybody. The whole thing is a waste of time and money, and if New Labour were involved then they've got something right for once.

Gordon Brown wasn't the least bit interested in turning up either to start with, until Obaba announced he would attend...

edit: When asked about this a few months ago, a Foreign Office spokesman declared that the UK only did military anniverseries that were at least multiples of 10, which seems reasonable.

[minestrone]

Erm, it's 65 years. Why is 65 years such a big deal? There was a big event for 50 years; another for 60. Maybe there will be for 70 and maybe for 100, but why 65?

This is just about The Daily Mail getting fed up with The Telegraph making all the news and trying to make some of its own. Nobody's been snubbed by anybody. The whole thing is a waste of time and money, and if New Labour were involved then they've got something right for once.

Staggering, we sent 16 year old kids to charge up these sand dunes straight into machine gun fire to die. I cannot even comprehend your opinion. 65 years, 70 years, 100 years. The nation should not forget what people did that day.

[Fred Bloggs]

Staggering, we sent 16 year old kids to charge up these sand dunes straight into machine gun fire to die. I cannot even comprehend your opinion. 65 years, 70 years, 100 years. The nation should not forget what people did that day.

Absolutely correct. When I read books about Pegasus bridge, the early beach landings etc.... I am left totally in awe of these "ordinary blokes" who had the guts to this. I'm afraid that I'd never have the balls to do even 5% of what these people did. Never, ever, let it be forgotten.

[VectraMan]

Staggering, we sent 16 year old kids to charge up these sand dunes straight into machine gun fire to die. I cannot even comprehend your opinion. 65 years, 70 years, 100 years. The nation should not forget what people did that day.

And this is exactly what The Daily Mail are playing on. People get all emotional about sacrafice, and heroes (leaving aside that most were forced to do it), meaning any common sense gets lost in the noise. Does anybody really believe it's disrespectful to only commemerate the significant anniversaries?

[PM-Junkie]

And this is exactly what The Daily Mail are playing on. People get all emotional about sacrafice, and heroes (leaving aside that most were forced to do it), meaning any common sense gets lost in the noise. Does anybody really believe it's disrespectful to only commemerate the significant anniversaries?

If I hadn't read this I wouldn't have believed it possible to miss the point so completely.

A word of advice - when someone discusses an article it might be an idea to actually read it before going off on one? Might not make such a prat of yourself that way. This is referring a BBC article after the interview with Brown this morning. It has nothing to do with the Daily Mail. It has nothing to do with the Daily Telegraph.

[malvolio]

It's because this is the last time the verterans' associations will be going. that's why it was so important that we were there. Sadly Gay Gordon and his advisers have no idea of history, nor of any events they are not in charge of, nor that Her Maj and Phil the Greek actually served in that war (and in his case, he did rather well, by all accounts).

[minestrone]

And this is exactly what The Daily Mail are playing on. People get all emotional about sacrafice, and heroes (leaving aside that most were forced to do it), meaning any common sense gets lost in the noise. Does anybody really believe it's disrespectful to only commemerate the significant anniversaries?

If you keep this up your liver will pack in chap.