Cambridge University strikes again.

TSSeasider

Well-known member
No it is about his days as a military cadet at Sandhurst and allegations of homosexuality that almost went to court.
Maybe the story is widely known, not sure, but some people want to elevate him to God like status but he was a normal man with faults and weaknesses like every one.
Not that being gay is a fault or weakness but forcing yourself on somebody that doesnt want it obviously is!
Like I say the story is out there but I dont know how credible it is.
So it could just be gossip?
 

Scaramanga

Well-known member
That abuse.

Another two sentences, 5 words. Here’s a challenge for you. Try adding an extra sentence each day to your posts. By the end of a week you might manage a full paragraph. Then we might see some thought processes rather than automatic knee-jerks. You know you can do better. Sorry to patronise you. ✍🏼

By the way, the moddey dhoo is fat.
Dear oh dear my old fruit. If you think that’s abuse them I genuinely fear for your mental health. ❄️
 

Scaramanga

Well-known member
That abuse.

Another two sentences, 5 words. Here’s a challenge for you. Try adding an extra sentence each day to your posts. By the end of a week you might manage a full paragraph. Then we might see some thought processes rather than automatic knee-jerks. You know you can do better. Sorry to patronise you. ✍🏼

By the way, the moddey dhoo is fat.
Oh and what is that last sentience supposed to mean ? From an intellectual and all that.
 

Recidivist3

Well-known member
No it is about his days as a military cadet at Sandhurst and allegations of homosexuality that almost went to court.
Maybe the story is widely known, not sure, but some people want to elevate him to God like status but he was a normal man with faults and weaknesses like every one.
Not that being gay is a fault or weakness but forcing yourself on somebody that doesnt want it obviously is!
Like I say the story is out there but I dont know how credible it is.
Have you really just confused homosexuality with rape 😳
 

gjr69

Well-known member
Have you really just confused homosexuality with rape 😳
No I haven't, the allegation in the article I read was that he forced himself on another cadet. Male or female, if true, I am sure we can agree that's wrong and I'm not really sure why you thought my earlier post was confusing😕 at that time being accused of being gay could land you in court without there being a victim of assault.
Maybe that is where the confusion is!
 
Last edited:

Thelaneends1

Well-known member
Out of interest, what is it that makes you think it was necessary to involve pro-Churchill (presumably white) individuals in this discussion?

I mean arguably the best qualified individuals to talk about the negative aspects of the British Empire etc.. would be those who suffered or whose ancestors and nations suffered at the hands of it in any case...
Wonder what the free world look like now if Churchill hadn't been at the helm and Hitler had succeeded? We might not be having this pointless debate.
 

Curryman

Well-known member
As promised, BFCx3, I said I would listen to the debate, and have managed around an hour of it, but, have other more important things to do in my life, which is one reason I don't spend forever on this board, unlike some appear to do.

Interesting points raised and discussed at length and I can understand how they reached their decisions, however, I still maintain that Churchill was a man of his time, and at the time was what this country needed. His sexuality which is now being discussed means nothing in the general terms of today's values, which is what seems to be the thing to do now, but I am sure there are some who would have rather have seen him treated like the unfortunate Alan Turing.

My summing up, for what it's worth, he was a complex man, not without faults, some of them glaring, but was also a good leader of this country at the time when it was needed. He was certainly not worse than Hitler and to even compare him with that monster is preposterous.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
As promised, BFCx3, I said I would listen to the debate, and have managed around an hour of it, but, have other more important things to do in my life, which is one reason I don't spend forever on this board, unlike some appear to do.

Interesting points raised and discussed at length and I can understand how they reached their decisions, however, I still maintain that Churchill was a man of his time, and at the time was what this country needed. His sexuality which is now being discussed means nothing in the general terms of today's values, which is what seems to be the thing to do now, but I am sure there are some who would have rather have seen him treated like the unfortunate Alan Turing.

My summing up, for what it's worth, he was a complex man, not without faults, some of them glaring, but was also a good leader of this country at the time when it was needed. He was certainly not worse than Hitler and to even compare him with that monster is preposterous.
Firstly, I’m glad you have more important things in your life. Though this was still your O/P and you did choose to react to a biased newspaper and criticise the college and the academics without actually hearing them for yourself.

It’s good though that you have since bothered to listen and I can confirm that the other half hour was just as interesting, if not moreso, as questions were raised.

As I’m sure you found, this was a rather innocuous discussion between four individuals concerning less published aspects of British history in regard to Churchill. I wonder, now whether you feel the participants should have been arrested or simply banned from engaging in the discussion?

I’m sure Churchill was a man of his time, but that is an excuse / reason to explain some of his less savoury aspects. It doesn’t mean they didn’t happen and it doesn’t change the racial impact. If someone pokes your eye out with a stick (their reason for doing it wouldn’t make you less blind).

I’m not interested in his sexuality or in him particularly (as far as this discussion is concerned). I was more interested in the fact that people believe they have the right to silence or invalidate a discussion between people who hold a different, but perfectly reasonable viewpoint.

Beyond the media headline, I’m not sure anybody suggested Churchill was worse than Hitler. In fact the discussion steered clear of any real reference to Churchill the man.

In the context it as made, the reference to the empire causing more harm and lasting longer than Nazi Germany is not unreasonable. Arguably the lasting damage on many Countries is still evident to this day. To my mind, the fact that heckles are raised at that comment is just an emotional response, rather than a rational one.

I’m sure Churchill was a complex character (as most people are). However, the complexity of his character is not really what was up for discussion. What was up for discussion was his racial impact.... So as I said above, that is something that occurred as a result of him (and whilst the complexity of the character might explain why it occurred, it doesn’t change the fact that it did occur)..... And that is why the discussion did not require any input from pro-Churchill people.
 

Curryman

Well-known member
My three comments were at the start and end of the OP as follows:

'The home of the 1960's spies seems to have struck again.'

'I wonder, sometimes, what young fertile minds learn at these great academies of learning,'
and,

'so there it is it's up for discussion.'

Take out the comment on spies, which is beyond dispute, the second part is a question and the third part invites participants to discuss the matter.

So, my question has been answered and the subject has certainly been well discussed.

At this point, I think this 'silly old fool' will go for his morning shower before starting on his more mundane tasks of the day followed by the Match at 3 pm. 👍
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
My three comments were at the start and end of the OP as follows:

'The home of the 1960's spies seems to have struck again.'

'I wonder, sometimes, what young fertile minds learn at these great academies of learning,'
and,

'so there it is it's up for discussion.'

Take out the comment on spies, which is beyond dispute, the second part is a question and the third part invites participants to discuss the matter.

So, my question has been answered and the subject has certainly been well discussed.

At this point, I think this 'silly old fool' will go for his morning shower before starting on his more mundane tasks of the day followed by the Match at 3 pm. 👍
You also said ...

Freedoms of speech, it could be argued, was curtailed by convention and not by law. The same principle appears to apply today, although the law has, quite rightly, stamped down on free speech where hatred is concerned, which makes some of the comments made, by those mentioned in the Telegraph, as being rather on the cusp of breaking those laws.

Which is pretty ridiculous when you consider that they were nowhere near the cusp and you made that comment have not even listened to them in the first place.

Of course you then went on to suggest that British Miners might have a contribution to make to the discussion.. ! Perhaps they might if the discussion concerned the ‘social’ impact of Churchill. Maybe silly old fool was harsh, but given how you had managed to spectacularly miss the point of the whole discussion, due to being blinded by a media headline, I was expressing my exasperation at what appeared to me to be a stereotypical response in the absence of proper understanding.
 
Last edited:

Curryman

Well-known member
BFCx3, My last words on this subject.

You accuse me of not reading or understanding what was said in the 'discussion' at CU, yet fail to read correctly what I have said in my posts.

In your last post, I have allegedly said that British Miners might have a contribution to make to the discussion.

I said no such thing. Here is the actual quote for your perusal.

'Oh, and what about relatives of the poor on the mainland in England, Wales and Scotland, where a lot of the poorer ones not forced up chimneys, were made to work punishing hours in Mills and Mines and then to top it off with the loss of what little work they had due to the dreaded machine? Isn't that what the Luddites, the proposed march of the Blanketeers, Peterloo etc was about? I can think of nothing more negative than not having a voice and being subservient to those who don't care, and the poor of The UK suffered in their thousands.'

For your information, My ancestors include miners and cotton mill workers and I had two who were present at Peterloo.

With that now said and the record put straight I bid you farewell.
 

Mexboroseasider

Well-known member
BFCx3, My last words on this subject.

You accuse me of not reading or understanding what was said in the 'discussion' at CU, yet fail to read correctly what I have said in my posts.

In your last post, I have allegedly said that British Miners might have a contribution to make to the discussion.

I said no such thing. Here is the actual quote for your perusal.

'Oh, and what about relatives of the poor on the mainland in England, Wales and Scotland, where a lot of the poorer ones not forced up chimneys, were made to work punishing hours in Mills and Mines and then to top it off with the loss of what little work they had due to the dreaded machine? Isn't that what the Luddites, the proposed march of the Blanketeers, Peterloo etc was about? I can think of nothing more negative than not having a voice and being subservient to those who don't care, and the poor of The UK suffered in their thousands.'

For your information, My ancestors include miners and cotton mill workers and I had two who were present at Peterloo.

With that now said and the record put straight I bid you farewell.
I think the point x3 was making (and I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong!) was that the discussion was headed something like “The Racial Consequences of Mr Churchill”. So whilst perfectly true and valid points to make in another context, the impact of his policies on the “lower classes” in the U.K. weren’t actually that relevant to the discussion in hand.

It’s a bit like having a discussion titled “Charlie Adam’s time at Blackpool” and then talking about his time at Rangers, Liverpool, Stoke and Reading. All very interesting in their own right I suppose, but not actually what the discussion was about.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
I think the point x3 was making (and I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong!) was that the discussion was headed something like “The Racial Consequences of Mr Churchill”. So whilst perfectly true and valid points to make in another context, the impact of his policies on the “lower classes” in the U.K. weren’t actually that relevant to the discussion in hand.

It’s a bit like having a discussion titled “Charlie Adam’s time at Blackpool” and then talking about his time at Rangers, Liverpool, Stoke and Reading. All very interesting in their own right I suppose, but not actually what the discussion was about.
Exactly right...

Let’s face it, it would be totally unrealistic and all
a bit pointless to have a meaningful academic discussion simply entitled “Churchill” when each of the 4 speakers is expected to maybe have 10-15 minutes input.... I mean people have written books about him and only scratched the surface.

So what happens is they elect to engage in more specific discussion and define the parameters in order that it can be more meaningful and worthwhile.

TBH I think the news article just set the wrong tone by completely missing the point in the first place. All to create a reaction.
 

bleach51

Well-known member
Wonder what the free world look like now if Churchill hadn't been at the helm and Hitler had succeeded? We might not be having this pointless debate.
We’d be Schwarzer Pool or Hafenstadt u.Seebad F.C. and would be playing in red and white with an Iron Cross as the Club badge and a Large Nazi Flag on the Adolf Hitler Memorial Stand....and given Hitlers apparent love of our very own Blackpool we would be like Real Madrid were when Franco was in charge.
Wonder what the free world look like now if Churchill hadn't been at the helm and Hitler had succeeded? We might not be having this pointless debate.
 

Archibald Knox

Well-known member
The unexpurgated diaries of Sir Henry ‘Chips’ Channon, covering the period 1918 to 1967, are going to give a lot of gossip about our past masters, including Churchill. Only about a sixth of the content has been published before, and due to libel laws they left out all the juicy bits. Now all those talked about are dead, the full and frank opinions can come out. I have to say Heffer is not a favourite columnist but if he does his job we will all learn a lot about that crucial era in the 20th C with the habits and opinions of royalty, nobility, politicians, the appeasers, crypto-fascists and other establishment figures.
 

bleach51

Well-known member
🙄 you been drinking bleach again
🙄 you been drinking bleach again
Definition of Recidivist..a convicted criminal who reoffends, especially repeatedly.

Recidivism....is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behaviour after they have either experienced negative consequences of that behaviour or have been trained to extinguish that behaviour.It is also used to refer to the percentage of former prisoners who are rearrested for a similar offence.


This surely can’t be you 🤔.

....only Trump recommends drinking bleach....I prefer a glass or two of wine or maybe a good “ale” myself.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
BFCx3, My last words on this subject.

You accuse me of not reading or understanding what was said in the 'discussion' at CU, yet fail to read correctly what I have said in my posts.

In your last post, I have allegedly said that British Miners might have a contribution to make to the discussion.

I said no such thing. Here is the actual quote for your perusal.

'Oh, and what about relatives of the poor on the mainland in England, Wales and Scotland, where a lot of the poorer ones not forced up chimneys, were made to work punishing hours in Mills and Mines and then to top it off with the loss of what little work they had due to the dreaded machine? Isn't that what the Luddites, the proposed march of the Blanketeers, Peterloo etc was about? I can think of nothing more negative than not having a voice and being subservient to those who don't care, and the poor of The UK suffered in their thousands.'

For your information, My ancestors include miners and cotton mill workers and I had two who were present at Peterloo.

With that now said and the record put straight I bid you farewell.
TBH CM, I think you’re just getting into semantics there really and I’m not sure what you think is to be gained by it really.

Perhaps it was another poster who mentioned miners specifically, but the point remains the same whether it be British Miners or the so called ‘lower classes’.

I suspect that many of us have ancestors that fall into those categories, I certainly do. However quite what that has to do with the racial consequences of Churchill, I have absolutely no idea.

Out of interest, now that you have listened to the discussion do you think it should have been prevented from taking place or that the hullabaloo surrounding it was necessary?
 

EagleDay

Well-known member
BFCx3 said - I mean arguably the best-qualified individuals to talk about the negative aspects of the British Empire etc.. would be those who suffered or whose ancestors and nations suffered at the hands of it in any case...

So would you include Irish in the debate?

Oh, and what about relatives of the poor on the mainland in England, Wales and Scotland, where a lot of the poorer ones not forced up chimneys, were made to work punishing hours in Mills and Mines and then to top it off with the loss of what little work they had due to the dreaded machine? Isn't that what the Luddites, the proposed march of the Blanketeers, Peterloo etc was about? I can think of nothing more negative than not having a voice and being subservient to those who don't care, and the poor of The UK suffered in their thousands.
And that is the thing that seriously irritates me, these debates always seem to assume that the working classes of the UK had it easy and fed off of other peoples, not so, we were treated with the same contempt and parasitised in the same way. That said, that is what it was like in those times and should not be judged by today's standards. Good or bad a lot of those people also achieved great things, and are we any more guilty of bad than most nations, shouldn't we all learn from the past and improve the future? When I look around it seems to me we are regressing rather than progressing.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
And that is the thing that seriously irritates me, these debates always seem to assume that the working classes of the UK had it easy and fed off of other peoples, not so, we were treated with the same contempt and parasitised in the same way. That said, that is what it was like in those times and should not be judged by today's standards. Good or bad a lot of those people also achieved great things, and are we any more guilty of bad than most nations, shouldn't we all learn from the past and improve the future? When I look around it seems to me we are regressing rather than progressing.
a) "These debates"... It wasn't a debate it was a discussion.
b) The discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with the working classes and therefore didn't assume anything of the sort.
c) Of course we should judge those times by todays standards, otherwise we learn nothing and fail to acknowledge the issues of the past and put them right in the future.
d) Whether people achieved Great things and whether or not we are any more guilty than other nations is also not relevant... This discussion wasn't about any of that.
 
Top
X