Trackday tossers - talking through the two minute silence

[Septic]

It is obviously inconsiderate to interrupt others observing the minute's silence and I know how infuriating it can be because I have come across work colleagues cackling away as I pay my respects.

[stevie_b]

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Chisholm on this one. I know this won't be a popular view, but here we go.

 

Firstly: If you feel strongly about a particular event, keeping quiet at a given time - that you haven't personally chosen - is only one way of showing your feelings. There are lots of other ways. You might feel that you would rather show your solidarity by, say, helping those remaining. With reference to other tragedies (not necessarily Remembrance Day), I know plenty of people who will happily observe a minute's silence - but that's all they will do. Try asking them to stick their hands in their pocket and actually do something, or give up a bit of time, and the empathy evaporates.

 

Secondly, it's an attempt to legislate and enforce grief and remembrance. What proportion of those in the minute's silence are actually thinking about the events in question? What proportion are waiting for it to end so that they can get on with what they're doing? And what proportion are glaring round looking for someone who is not observing the silence, so they can get angry about it? Grief and remembrance are spontaneous personal things that you can't force people into at an arbitrary moment. Nor should you attempt to - it's something that they come to in their own time. And maybe some never do, but that's their business, not anyone else's.

 

Thirdly, we've all been brought up to believe that a moment's silence for X,Y or Z is a mark of respect. Why this particular action, rather than anything else? What's the other collective action that involves keeping very still and quiet? It's prayer. There is an atheist objection to minute's silence that runs like this: separation of church and state, and a secular government, means that no one can force you into a religious observance. However, by calling it a 'moment of reflection,' and just announcing 'there will be a minute's silence', it's prayer sneaked in by the back door.

 

Fourthly, I can't help feeling that it's an exercise in conformity. Regardless of what your personal feelings are, this is the behaviour that's been adopted by the group, and my God, you'd better toe the line. Not doing so marks you out as a deviant, who does not share the in-group values, and therefore a legitimate target for anger and attack. I guess we like to take arbitrary - often nonsensical - behaviours, imbue them with meaning and then vent our wrath against anyone who refuses to do the same. I can imagine a parallel universe where everyone has to put on a top hat to mark some terrible tragedy, and anyone who doesn't is disrepecting the dead with his unspeakable hatlessness.

 

So essentially, my take would be this: if you want to mark someone's passing by standing silently at a pre-designated time: fine. But there is no law that says you have to, and there's no need to form some sort of grief police to make sure everyone else does. The assumption that they care less than everyone else is a dodgy one, for the reasons above. I'm dismayed to see Ian advocating some sort of retribution against people he doesn't know, for no other reason than his moral sensibilities are outraged.

I've only got a bit of time to reply to Tannhauser's points, but reply I will.

 

Point 1: I accept that the Armed Forces' charities that help the injured and widowed need all the money they can get, but I don't think we should underestimate the value of 2 minutes' reflection on the grim realities of warfare. Closely tied in with the 2 minutes' silence is of course the Poppy Appeal, which is a direct way that members of the public contribute to the charities involved. If the silence isn't observed, I fear that the poppies will just become another lapel badge that most people don't bother with. Observing 2 minutes' silence and being more pro-active in helping out are not mutually exclusive.

 

Point 2: A significant number of people don't think about the events in question, I'm certain that's true. That's up to them, and unless they choose to discuss what they were thinking about then no-one else would ever know. For everyone who takes part in the silence, it must cross their mind even just for a half a second what's going on, and that's better than nothing. Without it as a reminder, recent past conflicts might become sterile and only lived through history books, a grisly historical curiosity for schoolchildren to learn about.

 

Point 3: Any collective action would suffice as a mark of respect, or at least anything that most people don't do whilst going about their daily business. I think it needs to be collective to elevate it as a show of unity, otherwise it will be lots of people doing their own thing and it will just appear as random noise. Appearing to show respect is an important part I think, to keep it in the public conscience. Texting on one's Blackberry, for example, wouldn't really work because no-one would know if you're paying respects or doing some work. I make no apology in claiming that the act of showing respect is a public exercise, performed such that those around you know you are doing it.

 

Point 4: I think others have already made the following point but I think some level of conformity is good for society. There's too many people in the world to have a lack of rules. I don't think 2 minutes' silence is an arbitrary act though; it's designed to promote reflection about conflicts past and present, to think about how those who suffered (injured or widowed) can be helped (the Poppy Appeal goes some way to achieving this), and in the small hope that similar conflicts might be avoided in the future.

 

I also think that the verbally active trackday participants wouldn't have shown respect in their own way or done anything else to help the cause. We'd need to ask them to be sure of that though, and as that's highly unlikely to happen we'll just have to speculate. My main thinking for this is that being quiet for 2 minutes doesn't preclude other ways of showing grief, whereas not being quiet does show a certain contempt for what others are trying to achieve. Maybe they are afraid to be left alone to their own thoughts for longer than 5 seconds, or however long it takes them to shuffle to a different track on their iPods.

[Thorin]

I've aired my thoughts on remembrance day and the poppy appeal before. Lets just say my thoughts are unpopular to some, and current squaddie types have threatened to give me a kicking, which only goes to enforce my opinion.

 

I have enormous respect and gratitude for those who had no choice and fought for us in the world wars, and to me remembrance day is about them. I do not agree with the poppy fund evolving to support current troops who chose their career path to go off and shoot people for a living. That's not to say that I don't respect your decision to do that.

 

The help for heroes charity is a very commendable one to support those injured troops and their families, but the poppy fund in my opinion should be used to help those innocent victims of war (landmines etc.) and campaigns to prevent war. I remember years ago the white poppy being much more prevalent (supporting the no-more-war movement) but, and I expect as a result of the mentality of people like those squaddie types I mentioned earlier, they're not something you see these days.

[Tricky-Ricky]

You seem to be implying that the group of people having a laugh and giggle were acting that way as some sort of moral demonstration. I think you give their actions and thought process more credit than is due.

 

Irrespective of views re minute silences, I think the 'goons' have a lack of respect. You may not agree with other people's choice of action/view but you need not spoil their experience or appreciation of the moment. I.e. the goons could go off to another area and play with each other should they not be able to stand for a few minutes silence with the rest of the group. Their actions negatively impacted the moment for the rest of the group that wanted to take part in it.

 

You wouldn't light up next to a group of your work colleagues when you know they don't smoke and hate smoke... one would presume that you would show a degree of due consideration. Those goons appear not to have any.

 

People seem to like this 'lets have free will' idea however it seems to me that someone's 'free will' always comes to the detriment of others. I would much prefer to have a degree of fixed social and moral obligations to minimise the chance of others minipulating the situation for their own benefit. We are greedy and selfish, if we don't have social and moral standards and obligations then in my opinion society will just degrade into a free for all. I personally hate the ECHR and European Convention (and blame it for a lot) but we won't go there....

 

I make no comment re destroying someone else's property save as to say that I don't advocate it and it could being the person down to the level of the goons.

 

As for standing for minutes silences, I prefer the option of a minutes applause. I choose to appreciate the heroic actions of people of my past and present, its an important part of our history. My view on 'anti' minute silence/applause people is that if you don't want to join in then fine, but please don't try impose your views on me... just go off and stand with the goons.

 

 

 

I am inclined to agree, its not about peoples right to be, or express their individuality, it just being willing to show a little respect for the general consensus's of desires/opinions, if those people didn't agree with the silence, then just F off out the room, its only two minuets for Christs sake, i go along with the opinion that they where ignorant knuckle dragger's.

[Tannhauser]

I've only got a bit of time to reply to Tannhauser's points, but reply I will.

 

Point 1: I accept that the Armed Forces' charities that help the injured and widowed need all the money they can get, but I don't think we should underestimate the value of 2 minutes' reflection on the grim realities of warfare. Closely tied in with the 2 minutes' silence is of course the Poppy Appeal, which is a direct way that members of the public contribute to the charities involved. If the silence isn't observed, I fear that the poppies will just become another lapel badge that most people don't bother with. Observing 2 minutes' silence and being more pro-active in helping out are not mutually exclusive.

 

I think you're misrepresenting my point here. I'm by no means saying Armed Forces charities already get help - why do we need a silence too? By no means. And I agree that giving and silence aren't too mutually exclusive options. What I'm saying is that there are other ways of registering your feelings. As an analogy, I haven't celebrated Christmas since I was 16, but it doesn't mean that I don't give presents. I just give them when I want to. I also wouldn't argue that the two minute's silence has no function, but I don't agree that it does anything to make us think about war and the fallen. It makes us think about them for literally two minutes - assuming that's what people are doing. I'd prefer to see something more lasting and meaningful.

 

Point 2: A significant number of people don't think about the events in question, I'm certain that's true. That's up to them, and unless they choose to discuss what they were thinking about then no-one else would ever know. For everyone who takes part in the silence, it must cross their mind even just for a half a second what's going on, and that's better than nothing. Without it as a reminder, recent past conflicts might become sterile and only lived through history books, a grisly historical curiosity for schoolchildren to learn about.

 

What evidence do you have that without the two minute's silence, the scenario you mention will materialise? Did people fail to remember past conflicts before it was commonly observed? As to how many people are thinking about it at all - well, we'll have to differ on that one. Maybe I'm too cynical. And I think half a second's reflection is about as superficial as it sounds and not really better than nothing. But all this sounds like I'm in favour of abolishing the two minute's silence, which isn;t what I'm arguing at all.

 

 

Point 3: Any collective action would suffice as a mark of respect, or at least anything that most people don't do whilst going about their daily business. I think it needs to be collective to elevate it as a show of unity, otherwise it will be lots of people doing their own thing and it will just appear as random noise. Appearing to show respect is an important part I think, to keep it in the public conscience. Texting on one's Blackberry, for example, wouldn't really work because no-one would know if you're paying respects or doing some work. I make no apology in claiming that the act of showing respect is a public exercise, performed such that those around you know you are doing it.

 

I can see what you mean. I think there's certainly an aesthetic power in everyone collectively doing nothing at the same time. But saying 'our tradition won't work unless you take part in it' seems back to front to me. I think your last sentence is revealing, in that it's all about showing your credentials as a card-carrying compassionate human. It's a gesture that says 'I care', whether you actually do or not. Or maybe it only says 'I'm afraid', because if you dare to challenge it, you'll get the reaction which this thread is all about. It's all about appearances, and nothing about substance.

 

Point 4: I think others have already made the following point but I think some level of conformity is good for society. There's too many people in the world to have a lack of rules. I don't think 2 minutes' silence is an arbitrary act though; it's designed to promote reflection about conflicts past and present, to think about how those who suffered (injured or widowed) can be helped (the Poppy Appeal goes some way to achieving this), and in the small hope that similar conflicts might be avoided in the future.

 

First point is a truism - without some level of conformity, society falls apart. But it does not need to dictate when and howwe reflect on death, heroism, war, suffering and so on. Those are personal things that we all have to come to terms with on our own, and in our own time.

 

I also think that the verbally active trackday participants wouldn't have shown respect in their own way or done anything else to help the cause. We'd need to ask them to be sure of that though, and as that's highly unlikely to happen we'll just have to speculate. My main thinking for this is that being quiet for 2 minutes doesn't preclude other ways of showing grief, whereas not being quiet does show a certain contempt for what others are trying to achieve. Maybe they are afraid to be left alone to their own thoughts for longer than 5 seconds, or however long it takes them to shuffle to a different track on their iPods.

 

Oh, I'm sure your intuition (and MarbleApple's earlier) about these guys is right. Maybe they never think about this stuff, as you say. You may call it contempt - another word might be indifference. And what of that? People are indifferent to what I'm trying to achieve too, and what you are, all day every day. But you can't legislate to make someone feel something. If they don't, then they don't - their loss perhaps, but nothing to do with you or me.

[Tannhauser]

You seem to be implying that the group of people having a laugh and giggle were acting that way as some sort of moral demonstration. I think you give their actions and thought process more credit than is due.

 

Irrespective of views re minute silences, I think the 'goons' have a lack of respect. You may not agree with other people's choice of action/view but you need not spoil their experience or appreciation of the moment. I.e. the goons could go off to another area and play with each other should they not be able to stand for a few minutes silence with the rest of the group. Their actions negatively impacted the moment for the rest of the group that wanted to take part in it.

 

You wouldn't light up next to a group of your work colleagues when you know they don't smoke and hate smoke... one would presume that you would show a degree of due consideration. Those goons appear not to have any.

 

As for standing for minutes silences, I prefer the option of a minutes applause. I choose to appreciate the heroic actions of people of my past and present, its an important part of our history. My view on 'anti' minute silence/applause people is that if you don't want to join in then fine, but please don't try impose your views on me... just go off and stand with the goons.

 

I do agree with some of your points here, and I think the smoking analogy is a good one. If you have 98 people who want to observe a silence and two who don't, then a democratic arrangement might be that the majority takes precedence.

 

However, I don't think that's the full story. Let's say you're trying to observe the two minute's silence and you can see ten people partyng in a soundproof room across the street. Or maybe someone quietly texting standing next to you. In both cases, that is in no way disturbing your own observance. All you have to do is turn away. Now to me, in this case I can't see anything wrong with that. If it's not disturbing me, then it's none of my damn business. But if I read Ian's first post correctly (and I may not have done), the objection seemed to be not that it was disturbing his own reflection, just that he thought everyone ought to be taking part. And there's a lot of people on here would agree with that view. So I suspect that many would disagree with your last line of 'if you don't want to join in then fine', it's more like "if you don't do it it's disrepectful. End of."

[Graham1984]

At times I wonder if that is why the applause over silence works so well as it masks and drowns out those that don't take part so well with cheering and clapping which is a far better than having silence ruined by a minority talking. It works well at events like football games ect and that's good if you can get 60,000 people to mostly take a moment as a group, the only downside is the applause does not have the same effect when the numbers are small.

[tkddav3]

is 2 mins really that long to keep quiet..no it isnt. scum is the word that comes to mind! oh and they must be thick as shhh..eep to drive a piss vomit coloured m3

[Septic]

I do agree with some of your points here, and I think the smoking analogy is a good one. If you have 98 people who want to observe a silence and two who don't, then a democratic arrangement might be that the majority takes precedence.

 

However, I don't think that's the full story. Let's say you're trying to observe the two minute's silence and you can see ten people partyng in a soundproof room across the street. Or maybe someone quietly texting standing next to you. In both cases, that is in no way disturbing your own observance. All you have to do is turn away. Now to me, in this case I can't see anything wrong with that. If it's not disturbing me, then it's none of my damn business. But if I read Ian's first post correctly (and I may not have done), the objection seemed to be not that it was disturbing his own reflection, just that he thought everyone ought to be taking part. And there's a lot of people on here would agree with that view. So I suspect that many would disagree with your last line of 'if you don't want to join in then fine', it's more like "if you don't do it it's disrepectful. End of."

 

I agree with everything you have said and I also get the impression that Ian was taking an issue with the 'non-compliance' of the people over the two minute silence as opposed to them disturbing him and others (I may be wrong).

 

"But you can't legislate to make someone feel something. If they don't, then they don't - their loss perhaps, but nothing to do with you or me. '

 

Precisely.

[j_jza80]

I'm one of those who is disgusted when I learn someone hasn't observed the silence. It's a natural reaction, and I'm sorry if that makes me a bad person.

 

How can someone show no respect for those (and the friends and families of those) who have sacrificed their lives to protect their nation? I just can't understand any reason to not observe the silence.

[Scooter]

I just can't understand any reason to not observe the silence.

 

me too, i'm all liberal and freedom of choice etc but I don't read into the remembrance 'event' some sort of forced conformity or backdoor to religion/prayer?

 

For me its about the poor sods that had to retreat from Dunkirk, run up some beach in Normandy, dog fight over the channel, dodge u-boats in the atlantic etc etc etc. If you can't think of a military event where you were grateful to the men who lived and died to secure the country you ended up being born into, then to me it's a shame.

 

I've observed minute silences before football matches for people I neither know of, or what they may have done for someone to have us all observe a minutes silence on their passing, but I just assume that the jesture means a lot to someone left behind that they would say 'X' would have liked it etc. What's to gain from not conforming, it smacks of not conforming for not conformings sake, almost petulant and gauranteed to upset?

 

May be i'm just soft and too willingly to conform and all these minute silences are slowly making me a non thinking drone.......

[Graham1984]

"For me its about the poor sods that had to retreat from Dunkirk, run up some beach in Normandy, dog fight over the channel, dodge u-boats in the atlantic etc etc etc. If you can't think of a military event where you were grateful to the men who lived and died to secure the country you ended up being born into, then to me it's a shame"

 

Summed it up well as when war was really war and not a technological battle which makes the losses even worse. Everyone agrees war is not nice but now compared to then is nothing in some regards which makes me even more grateful that things have somewhat improved.

[stevie_b]

Point 3: Any collective action would suffice as a mark of respect, or at least anything that most people don't do whilst going about their daily business. I think it needs to be collective to elevate it as a show of unity, otherwise it will be lots of people doing their own thing and it will just appear as random noise. Appearing to show respect is an important part I think, to keep it in the public conscience. Texting on one's Blackberry, for example, wouldn't really work because no-one would know if you're paying respects or doing some work. I make no apology in claiming that the act of showing respect is a public exercise, performed such that those around you know you are doing it.

 

I can see what you mean. I think there's certainly an aesthetic power in everyone collectively doing nothing at the same time. But saying 'our tradition won't work unless you take part in it' seems back to front to me. I think your last sentence is revealing, in that it's all about showing your credentials as a card-carrying compassionate human. It's a gesture that says 'I care', whether you actually do or not. Or maybe it only says 'I'm afraid', because if you dare to challenge it, you'll get the reaction which this thread is all about. It's all about appearances, and nothing about substance.

A quick reply to this point in particular.

 

I'm not sure if I got it across in my first reply, but I don't mean that the silence is about being seen by others to care (whether you actually do or not). I mean that part of the silence's function is to keep these conflicts in people's minds (even if it's just for 2 minutes per year), and that can be achieved by a public display of unity (whether it's 2 minutes' silence, or 2 minutes of wearing a top-hat to use your example; the silence was the one that happened to be chosen, maybe arbitrarily).

 

I'll try to find examples for my other points, but that will involve trawling around on the internet so may take some time, if I find any credible ones at all.

[Tannhauser]

I'm one of those who is disgusted when I learn someone hasn't observed the silence. It's a natural reaction, and I'm sorry if that makes me a bad person.

 

How can someone show no respect for those (and the friends and families of those) who have sacrificed their lives to protect their nation? I just can't understand any reason to not observe the silence.

 

One last go at this.

 

Personally, I keep quiet on minute silences if I'm in company and other people are doing it. This isn't so that I can reflect on anything at all - I'll do that in my own time, thanks - but just to avoid upsetting them. Anything for an easy life. My own feeling is that it's a tradition that I don't understand, dreamed up by someone long before I was born. To my mind, despite what Steve says, it doesn't do what it's intended to, because thinking 'on command' for two minutes about a subject in the middle of a particular day doesn't work. My strong feeling is that most people aren't remembering the dead, they're waiting for the two minutes to end.

 

Here are some other ways to respect the fallen. You could read and learn about British conflicts and the reasons that led to them. You could visit Auschwitz, or Berlin, or a war grave, or somewhere like the JEATH museum at the River Kwai. You could educate youngsters about the things that you've seen and learned. You could question the motives behind possible conflicts and ask loudly and continually exactly what British troops are fighting for and if it is necessary. And you could offer time and money and support to veterans and families of those who have died. You could write to the government demanding proper and fair treatment of war veterans. To me, every single one of those is something that involves reflection and respect. A two minute silence makes as much sense as everyone clapping at the same time or throwing a piece of cheese in the air. It doesn't actually achieve anything - it's just someone, somewhere decided it was a good idea and it caught on.

 

(On a side note, how are minute silences decided? It doesn't seem to be a democratic process. It's just suddenly announced that it will happen; no one seems to know where it comes from. I seem to remember silences for - say - 9/11, Boxing Day Tsunami and Princess Di (?). But I can't remember anything for Rwanda, Mother Theresa, or Kosovo).

 

As you said yourself, the freedoms that we enjoy in this country are hard won. And like it or not, part of those freedoms is the choice whether to take part in a particular tradition or not. It's a tradition, not a law, and as distasteful as many find it, no one is obliged take part in it if they don't choose to.

[Tannhauser]

 

I've observed minute silences before football matches for people I neither know of, or what they may have done for someone to have us all observe a minutes silence on their passing, but I just assume that the jesture means a lot to someone left behind that they would say 'X' would have liked it etc. What's to gain from not conforming, it smacks of not conforming for not conformings sake, almost petulant and gauranteed to upset?

 

 

In practice, that's the stance I would take for myself on these sort of things. However, I do defend someone else's right to withdraw without being subject to mob rule. Though I can see what you're saying about being deliberately provocative.

[Tannhauser]

A quick reply to this point in particular.

 

I'm not sure if I got it across in my first reply, but I don't mean that the silence is about being seen by others to care (whether you actually do or not). I mean that part of the silence's function is to keep these conflicts in people's minds (even if it's just for 2 minutes per year), and that can be achieved by a public display of unity (whether it's 2 minutes' silence, or 2 minutes of wearing a top-hat to use your example; the silence was the one that happened to be chosen, maybe arbitrarily).

.

 

Yeah, but Steve, that's my issue with it. It replaces action with gesture. It's a general trend in human interactions:

 

A Mother's Day Card rather than a year long patient and forgiving attitude

A bout of Christmas spirit rather than a persistent willingness to be forgiving

A whip-round for Children in Need instead of understanding, debating and persuading others about the causes of poverty

 

Every time we have an option, we replace genuine action with empty, publicly approved gesture.

[Ian C]

Crikey I've caused a ruckus. Sorry. I was just so annoyed. The reason I got annoyed, to clarify, is that we were all stood around in the paddock area, and the chimpanzees quite cheerfully carried on talking, audibly, to all those around. Sound carries a long way out in the open when there is otherwise silence. You can't make out the words but the sound is there.

 

There isn't much in life I get worked up about but I have been to the war memorials, I have been to the gravesites, I have been to the museums, and this stuff affects me. I've seen the distant afterechoes of what these millions of people went through just so I can sit on my fat arse and enjoy life. I know goddamn well I'd never be a soldier, so I thank those who do it for me.

 

When I was out looking at the German bunkers at one of the D-Day landing sites, I looked at the concrete walls and steps, the firing holes, the size of the doors, the narrowness and length of the corridors, and I turned and said to my friend, referring to the D-Day landings and the Allied forces, "How the hell did they ever take these things?"

 

Later that day we were looking out across the rows and rows of crosses at one of the many, many gravesites. My friend turned to me and said "That's how."

 

So yes, I'd like to see a little respect. If you don't "believe" in it, then daydream or read a book, or stare into the middle distance. I didn't think about the war either, I just considered it giving up two minutes of my time to try and pay back those that gave up the rest of theirs. Well, that and I couldn't really get into any sort of thinking state because all I could hear was the nobjockey yapping on and having a laugh.

 

What really grinds my gears is that Snetterton was a WW2 airfield. What a place to flagrantly disrespect the war dead.

 

Anyway, I'll leave this alone now and try to stop being angry over it.

 

-Ian

 

PS Cliff, your interjections are always welcome, thank you for keeping the balance.

[j_jza80]

One last go at this.

 

Personally, I keep quiet on minute silences if I'm in company and other people are doing it. This isn't so that I can reflect on anything at all - I'll do that in my own time, thanks - but just to avoid upsetting them. Anything for an easy life. My own feeling is that it's a tradition that I don't understand, dreamed up by someone long before I was born. To my mind, despite what Steve says, it doesn't do what it's intended to, because thinking 'on command' for two minutes about a subject in the middle of a particular day doesn't work. My strong feeling is that most people aren't remembering the dead, they're waiting for the two minutes to end.

 

Here are some other ways to respect the fallen. You could read and learn about British conflicts and the reasons that led to them. You could visit Auschwitz, or Berlin, or a war grave, or somewhere like the JEATH museum at the River Kwai. You could educate youngsters about the things that you've seen and learned. You could question the motives behind possible conflicts and ask loudly and continually exactly what British troops are fighting for and if it is necessary. And you could offer time and money and support to veterans and families of those who have died. You could write to the government demanding proper and fair treatment of war veterans. To me, every single one of those is something that involves reflection and respect. A two minute silence makes as much sense as everyone clapping at the same time or throwing a piece of cheese in the air. It doesn't actually achieve anything - it's just someone, somewhere decided it was a good idea and it caught on.

 

(On a side note, how are minute silences decided? It doesn't seem to be a democratic process. It's just suddenly announced that it will happen; no one seems to know where it comes from. I seem to remember silences for - say - 9/11, Boxing Day Tsunami and Princess Di (?). But I can't remember anything for Rwanda, Mother Theresa, or Kosovo).

 

As you said yourself, the freedoms that we enjoy in this country are hard won. And like it or not, part of those freedoms is the choice whether to take part in a particular tradition or not. It's a tradition, not a law, and as distasteful as many find it, no one is obliged take part in it if they don't choose to.

 

I see what you're saying. However, I suspect I'm different from the vast majority of my generation in that I do think about our losses on a very regular basis.

 

I actually feel like I'm fighting thier corner on my own actually much of the time. Even on a day to day basis, I always get odd looks if I tell a friend or colleague about donating to a memorial fund (people seem to be brainwashed into thinking that the NSPCC and Cancer charities are the only worthwhile causes these days - NOT that they're not worthwhile) and people think its odd that I'm interested in our nations history.

 

The impression I get from many is that 'The only way is Essex' and 'Im a celebrity' are more interesting and relevant to their lives than the last 100 years, which I find very sad indeed

[marbleapple]

The impression I get from many is that 'The only way is Essex' and 'Im a celebrity' are more interesting and relevant to their lives than the last 100 years, which I find very sad indeed

 

It makes me feel like there is a degeneration of society although I suspect generations of people have often thought the same thing.

[marbleapple]

I do agree with some of your points here, and I think the smoking analogy is a good one. If you have 98 people who want to observe a silence and two who don't, then a democratic arrangement might be that the majority takes precedence. ."

 

I do like analogies...

 

 

But if I read Ian's first post correctly (and I may not have done), the objection seemed to be not that it was disturbing his own reflection, just that he thought everyone ought to be taking part. And there's a lot of people on here would agree with that view. So I suspect that many would disagree with your last line of 'if you don't want to join in then fine', it's more like "if you don't do it it's disrepectful. End of."

 

To be honest I didn't appreciate this interpretation of Ian's original post, I simply presumed he was 'writing in anger' and complaining of the lack of respect element rather than people not following. I therefore agree with you on this point (to an extent). I don't think everyone can be expected to do the same thing and follow blindly what the majority are doing. We all know that there are some who actively seek to do the opposite just because they can or to be a pain, others do it because they think they are (and may well be) right. People have have ability to do as they believe and we should allow that, albeit my original comments still stand, the minorities freedom should not be at the detriment of the majority's freedom.

 

I do think it is a shame that people are not able to stop and appreciate for 2 minutes the significance of the moment.

 

On another point... I actually have a distaste of the fact that such silences are advertising for charities. I would prefer the silence to be there for reflection as opposed to being a money raiser. I appreciate though that reflection won't help in the same way that the chjarities do but perhaps it might inject a greater moral sense of pride of our past into society at large. It would also be nice for people to believe that Britian (and even the world) is a 'good' place.