Talk:Royal British Legion

Untitled

All thoese edits just added were copy and pasted from http://www.ppu.org.uk/poppy/new/tx_11_bl.html - I'm not quite sure if that's allowed... but just noting it here Chuck F 19:37, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just going to say that as well. Rhodile you aren't allowed to copy text from copyrighted sites. There's no indication that that site [1] releases their article into the public domain. Rhobite 15:33, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be mentioned that the RBL is a religious organisation? -88.109.253.243 22:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Appearence in Doctor Who

Should it be noted that in the Doctor Who episode, The Family of Blood the Doctor goes to a Royal British Legion rememberance wearing a poppy? --MahaPanta (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I really don't think that should be noted. --Lquilter (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate photo?

I do not want to make a political point. However, I'm sure that a vast majority would be astonished to find a photo of former Prime Minister Tony Blair wearing a red poppy the least appropriate person to appear on the this page.

Comments please.

My suggestion is one of the elderly WWI veterans or a Chelsea Pensioner wearing a poppy. I don't yet know how to go about this and if anyone would like to take it over, please do so, otherwise I will attempt a change - if this permittedSegilla (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree that he's the least appropriate person to appear on this page regarding the poppies. Actually, I would say he's one of the most appropriate people. As the article says "The charity organises a fund-raising drive each year during which artificial poppies, meant to be worn on clothing, are offered to the public in return for a charitable donation" and "The Poppy Appeal has without doubt a higher profile than any other charity appeal in the UK, with the poppies ubiquitous from late October until mid-November every year and worn by the general public, politicians and other public figures and television presenters." The image conveys the success of the campaign, the fact that the PM himself, whatever people may think of him and his relationship with and support of the military, usually wears one (and while in the US). Indeed, a elderly WWI or Chelsea pensioner would in fact be one of the least appropriate people to illustrate the concept. If the only people who wear poppies are those who the charity is supposed to be helping, then the campaign would be an abject failure. It may make sense to use other images to illustrate other parts of the article, e.g. people making the poppies, the festival of rememberance, the bands; but for someone wearing the poppies the current image is a good one. Another alternative is for a more generic image showing several more generic people (people in the street sort of thing) wearing poppies or perhaps several politicians or whatever. But definitely not Chelsea pensioners or WWI veterans. The other issue of course is that it's all very well talking about photos of elderly WWI veterans or Chelsea pensioners, but getting a free image of one is a very different story. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your point about Chelsea pensioners and WW1 veterans is readily accepted. I raised my query with the RBL and was astonished to receive a flippant response. They don't take the matter seriously so why should I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Segilla (talk • contribs) 22:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Disabled people (exclusively) make poppies?

Statement "During the year disabled people make poppies". Surely people other than the disabled also make poppies-- members of the Legion generally. Is this overly simplistic? SimonTrew (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is, here is the comment from the cite, A team of 50 people – most of them disabled and ex-Service connected – work all year round. . I 'll change it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Image

Image I added the image to the left to the article but it was removed as apparently having a picture of a typical Legion Club in is not allowed, I think the image should be reinstated unless someone can come up with a more typical image. Apparently according to the editor who removed it the Legion Clubs are not the most high profile part of the Legion but as I see at least 2 clubs a day and think that I am not unique in that, think they deserve a bigger right up they IMHO the most conspicuous part of the legion. The editor has admitted a tenuous link to the Legion, I wonder whether or not this counts as a Conflict of Interest. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

How does the picture improve the article? I know of a number of Legion clubs, none of which look anything like the one you show (which wasn't even originally built for this purpose, unlike many), besides, every one is unique, so there isn't a "typical" club in terms of building, and the key is actually the people that frequent them, rather than the buildings they use. Apart from the signage, the image doesn't show any specific features which instantly identify the building as a legion club. Personally, I'd leave it out. Hope that helps, Lynbarn (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Membership

Your summary box at top RH corner indicates that membership is for ex-service personnel. In fact membership is open to all, whether ex-service or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.152.81 (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is true - the official website states: "Legion membership is open to everyone" so I've changed the infobox entry. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

I do not believe that an entire criticism section is required for one line about a single incident involving this organisation which is mostly focused on the donor rather than the Royal British Legion itself. By having such a section it encourages more single issue crap to be added to attack the RBL. For example, will mentions of Tony blairs intention to donate his book revenue to them have to be included as it got some attention in the media? Before long this section could be full of minor incidents that do not need to be on this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and nowhere in the present BBC source as far as i can see is the RBL actually criticised. So at present the statement is unsourced. If there is any criticism it will probably only be in opinionated newspapers and they rant about things every day of the week, it does not mean their opinion should be given undue weight. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your point but it could perhaps merit a mention under, controversial donations or some such section, along with the Blair book donation acceptance which I would have also expected to see a mention if this minor donation is to be included, Blair's millions clearly deserves a mention. Off2riorob (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A "controversial donations" section would be far more appropriate and accurate, if some form of section like this is needed yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit, this does not reflect any desire to keep it in the article, it is a minor issue and really a chip wrapper piece of political propaganda. As I understand through its core policies the Legion is almost obliged to accept donations that assist its goals of supporting venerable servicemen and women. Off2riorob (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think its needed at all, it is a minor issue but its certainly less problematic by describing the section as Controversial donations thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If anyone else wants to remove, I am fine with that, I am really neural as to its inclusion or removal. Off2riorob (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The order of sections may also need changing, it looks as so criticism was just added under "support" but that section title may also need changing as it sounds like its about support for the organisation rather than support services provided which it seems to be about. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If the details are added about the Blair donation and the legions acceptance of that with their comments about it, that would reduce the undue weight this recent addition appears to have in the article. If you don't add it I will add something later today google for blairs book donation and what the legion said they intended to use Blair's donation to fund. Off2riorob (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning any of these incidents? Veterans criticing the Poppy Appeal: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/05/poppy-appeal-subverted-veterans-complain http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/05/poppies-and-heroes-remembrance-day

and football supporters criticizing the Poppy Appeal:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3216433/Celtic-fans-blasted-for-raising-anti-poppy-banner-at-Aberdeen-game.html http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Celtic-Park-Anti-Poppy-Banner-Protest-Football-Club-Promises-Life-Bans-For-Fans-Involved/Article/201011215797452?f=rss

and Jon Snow criticizing the Poppy Appeal: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326063/Jon-Snow-poppy-fascism-row-C4-News-host-refuses-surrender.html?ITO=1490 http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/guywalters/100062145/jon-snow-is-right-%E2%80%93%C2%A0poppy-fascism-is-getting-out-of-hand/ --Omar418 (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

British Legion's support for Hitler: why the silence?

Unsurprisingly given the sort of jingoistic John Bull poppy-fascist types who support this organisation, there's not a single word about this most interesting aspect of the British Legion's history. Why? For the uninitiated, not only did the leaders of the British Legion go over to meet Hitler in 1935 to see what help they could offer him but they also established the British Legion Volunteer Police Force in 1938 to go and fight for the Nazis in the Sudetenland. Despite parades and training for this expedition, it was Hitler and the Nazis who decided they did not need them after all. Can. Worms. Everywhere. 109.77.49.209 (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If you care to read the British Legion Volunteer Police Force article, that is as far from the truth as you can get. You obviously have a chip on your shoulder with regards to the RBL. --Panzer71 (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Though a delegation did visit Hitler from the RBL and was cordial on both sides. see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325204/Royal-British-Legions-shameful-Hitler-visit-revealed-75-years.html

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Royal British Legion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100409080208/http://rblr1000.co.uk/index.php?page=history to http://rblr1000.co.uk/index.php?page=history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

RBL homophobia

For many years the RBL excluded gay veterans and their partners from parades and refused to allow commemoration of gay soldiers who died in battle. This caused some controversy so I am planning to add it to the article.

• Seel, Pierre (2011). I, Pierre Seel, Deported Homosexual: A Memoir of Nazi Terror. Basic Books. ISBN 9780465023837. Retrieved 11 January 2018.

The Queer Remembrance Day was held between 1997 and 1999 by OutRage!, a gay rights organization. Media coverage:

• "BBC News: Gay leaders defend Cenotaph ceremony". news.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 11 January 2018.
• Bourne, Stephen (2017). Fighting Proud: The Untold Story of the Gay Men Who Served in Two World Wars. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 9781786722157. Retrieved 11 January 2018.
• Hartley-Brewer, Julia (13 November 1999). "Gays plan 'queer' Cenotaph tribute". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 January 2018.
• Tatchell, Peter (31 May 1999). "Obituary: Dudley Cave". The Independent. Retrieved 11 January 2018.

I gather that the RBL has changed course in the interim and is now more welcoming towards gay veterans, but I couldn't find details on this shift on their part.

Regards — Catrìona (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It may be difficult to write what you have suggested from a neutral point of view and with due balance. A quick look at the potential sources does not show support for there being a RBL policy of exclusion or refusal of commemoration.SovalValtos (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)