in the url of the piece they have derry/londonderry
We should copy the road signs and write Londonderry
google often displays politically sensitive place names or borders differently depending on where you view it from, it’s possible this says Derry if you’re in the Republic (haven’t checked)
Nope looks the same here
I think I was about 15 when I realised derry and londonderry weren’t two different places
In New Hampshire there’s a Derry and a Londonderry very near each other
I hope they deface all the road signs too
What’s the difference between a full English breakfast and a full Irish breakfast?
An Irish breakfast has dairy, while an English breakfast has londondairy
This joke would work better with a meal that was more dairy based.
The First World War: not that bad, actually
(maybe this should have gone in the ‘Fuck the BBC’ thread)
Fucking hell… That really is just tubthumping spin. I’ve never heard of half of those ‘myths’?
? I’m not sure how you’re getting that read on it.
These are all pretty standard facts about that war and it’s pretty even handed. What’s innacurate?
Really? Blimey. I’ve heard most of them, although the Gallipoli a variant.
Which bit is tub thumping also? Without looking again my automatic assumption is that whoever wrote that article has a new book out or something to that effect.
I mean obviously fuck the BBC. But you have to work pretty hard to turn ‘facts about WW1’ during the ongoing lookbacks due to the centenary as an evil ploy
Edit: it’s kind of even suggesting that getting teary eyed about rememberance of this one war is a pretty convenient way of ignoring modern day casualties, no?
It’s a matter of tone and timing. And what facts and myths you seek to hoist and to challenge.
The fact that pretty much every item starts with a variation of, “yes some people had it bad and died, but…” is an insult to those involved and a dereliction of what remembrance should mean.
I’m not convinced, sorry. After a bit more of a look back, it’s linked to an article on trenches, which itself advertises snow’s full series on World War One, as expected. It’s an article built around a series but literally just disproving a lot of innacuracies that get wheeled out in a digestible format is something bizarre to scrutinise. Would it bother you if it was about the English Civil War? Nope.
It uses the word but a lot, yes: the article is literally about debunking what a lot of people think about that war. So the word ‘but’ absolutely has to come up on each point. That’s the point of the article.
those ARE regularly repeated myths. What’s the point in rememberance if you’re remembering things innacurately?
The centenary feels like a pretty good time to review the four years of slaughter that had gone before and begin to debunk some of those myths - all of which, I might add, were largely things that I was taught at GCSE. I expect many people won’t have read any more about the subject and with that in mind, I think it’s not a bad piece if it resets some people’s preconceptions about the conflict.
I certainly think it’s a long way from tubthumping anything and I can’t really see what the problem with the tone of the piece is quite honestly.
Anyway, that’s my thinking, not going to get into a prolonged and ultimately pointless debate.
Yes. In February 2014 Dan Snow should have anticpated that four and a half years later on the eve of the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day someone would wave his article around, and he should have had a good hard think about his timing.
Tone and timing from the BBC, who have been pushing it into feeds again.