Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I'd agree about WW vets. Velvet, for having been in the war, but not for raising a bit of money for charity. In this day and age we shouldn't NEED to be relying on charities.

I agree about charities. They're money spinners for the big wigs. Look up the National Trust of Scotland's board. It an A-Z of Scottish aristocracy. It'll be the same down South.

VD

I'd agree about WW vets. Velvet, for having been in the war, but not for raising a bit of money for charity. In this day and age we shouldn't NEED to be relying on charities.

Whether there should be a need for Charity is a separate issue.

Captain Tom raised an exceptional amount of money, not “a bit of money”.

My family consider his spirit and determination an inspiration and, to quote my sons, “he’s a legend”.

He absolutely deserves his knighthood, imo.

 

Yogi19
Last edited by Yogi19

 

Generally, I am not in favour of any of these types of awards, because those that truly do outstandings things rarely get anything, it's usually something like Victoria Beckham for services to fashion FFS 

 

But in the case of Captain Tom, he has become the focal point for a fundraising event that is quite magnificent, and for a very worthy cause. So why not, he's served his country, walked using a frame having had an op and had to endure an interview with Michael Ball.

 

Enthusiastic Contrafibularities

And your aversion to the British Army is shining through.

Don't know where your getting that from. What's the army got to do with raising  funds for charity? Yes. he was once in the army, but I think that what he set out to do had very little to do with the army,

 

I believe it was more to do with a thank you for the great treatment he received when he, himself, was in hospital.

Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing
Last edited by Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×