Why no thread on Phil the Greek?

Why no thread on Phil the Greek?

Author
Discussion

CharlesdeGaulle

16,217 posts

144 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Skyrocket21 said:
… and has some questionable gaffs
I entirely agree with your overall point, but I do rather think the gaffes-thing is over-stated. I've made plenty of them myself, and am in no way in the public eye like he is. I think he's made remarkably few errors over 70-odd years and has trod that fine line between in the shadows and in the headlines with real aplomb and dignity.

ddom

3,521 posts

12 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Skyrocket21 said:
He has a pre-existing heart condition, this infection has put a strain on his heart, so they moved him to a heart specialist hosptial "St Bartholomew's to do some tests whilst he also recovers from the infection.

The sentiment running through this thread is similar to that of Sir Captain Tom. Love him or loathe him Prince Philip deserves some respect he fought in these campaigns during WWll,Battle of Crete, Battle of Cape Matapan, Allied invasion of Sicily, Operation Dragoon, Operation Robson, Operation Lentil, Battle of Okinawa.

Then gave up his whole military career to become the Queen's consort for nearly 70 years. Started the Duke of Edinburgh award which has helped 100'000's of younger people. He maybe a fossil and has some questionable gaffs and opinons but nobody can question his service to this country, so he deserves some respect.
It's actually got very little to do with Sir Tom, who was a true hero and lovely gent.

His service is much appreciated, but for me it's not enough to brush away the rest of the things about him and the questionable need for such an outdated family/monarchy. You have just got to see by some of the responses here that there is still a huge issue with how people deal with racism and all the other 'gaffs', mostly it is a genuine mirror of older society as a whole.

randlemarcus

12,684 posts

195 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
ddom said:
It's actually got very little to do with Sir Tom, who was a true hero and lovely gent.

His service is much appreciated, but for me it's not enough to brush away the rest of the things about him and the questionable need for such an outdated family/monarchy. You have just got to see by some of the responses here that there is still a huge issue with how people deal with racism and all the other 'gaffs', mostly it is a genuine mirror of older society as a whole.
I very much look forward to your apologies about the way you treated those toasters in fifty years wink

NRS

17,108 posts

165 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
ddom said:
It's actually got very little to do with Sir Tom, who was a true hero and lovely gent.

His service is much appreciated, but for me it's not enough to brush away the rest of the things about him and the questionable need for such an outdated family/monarchy. You have just got to see by some of the responses here that there is still a huge issue with how people deal with racism and all the other 'gaffs', mostly it is a genuine mirror of older society as a whole.
Don't get me wrong, but how do you know Sir Tom wasn't also typical of his generation with some iffy comments in the past? People are often more complex than we get shown for the (normally) brief time they are in the media.

DeejRC

1,939 posts

46 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Hold on a mo...why was Tom a genuine hero and lovely bloke, but Phil not?

Both chaps served their country with relative distinction during the war, both served society with dignity and done their duty. Both have also done considerable work for and with charities. Both also appear to have families who regard them with love and affection...even amongst the dysfunctional Windsor family, there is relatively little out there which portrays Phil as anything than devoted to his family.

So whilst I can accept not liking him or his family due to ideological persuasions, I don’t follow the other logic. I personally think both chaps served their country rather well and deserve a pint.

ddom

3,521 posts

12 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
DeejRC said:
Hold on a mo...why was Tom a genuine hero and lovely bloke, but Phil not?
Because dear old Phil spouts racist, xenophobic and sexist 'gaffes'. Apart from that 'lovely' bloke rolleyes

Muddle238

2,434 posts

77 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
ddom said:
DeejRC said:
Hold on a mo...why was Tom a genuine hero and lovely bloke, but Phil not?
Because dear old Phil spouts racist, xenophobic and sexist 'gaffes'. Apart from that 'lovely' bloke rolleyes
Well I quite enjoy his gaffes. The old chap has been around for almost a century, he’s done a lot, seen a lot, met a lot of people and lived through a huge amount of change in the world, politically and socially. You can forgive the odd gaffe here and there from someone born into a very different generation.

I think it’s dangerous to pretend that earlier generations had the same cultural and social standards that we do today. In doing so you are erasing history, which is of no benefit to tomorrow’s society. If he really offends people, then they shouldn’t listen to him.

rodericb

3,002 posts

90 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
Muddle238 said:
ddom said:
DeejRC said:
Hold on a mo...why was Tom a genuine hero and lovely bloke, but Phil not?
Because dear old Phil spouts racist, xenophobic and sexist 'gaffes'. Apart from that 'lovely' bloke rolleyes
Well I quite enjoy his gaffes. The old chap has been around for almost a century, he’s done a lot, seen a lot, met a lot of people and lived through a huge amount of change in the world, politically and socially. You can forgive the odd gaffe here and there from someone born into a very different generation.

I think it’s dangerous to pretend that earlier generations had the same cultural and social standards that we do today. In doing so you are erasing history, which is of no benefit to tomorrow’s society. If he really offends people, then they shouldn’t listen to him.
Folk who come from different eras with different beliefs and upbringings are easy pickings for a sugar hit ego boost for our ten-post-per-day types. Better for them to spew forth here rather than accosting the elderly on the streets I guess.

CourtAgain

2,928 posts

28 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
NikBartlett said:
I have a suspicion that the Forth Bridge is already down and there will be an official announcement Sunday morning.
Not just yet, not so much "in good spirits responding to treatment"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9320035/P...

I think it will be buried (for want of a better word) under the current "Megxit crisis"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9323119/P...
coffee

NRS

17,108 posts

165 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
ddom said:
Because dear old Phil spouts racist, xenophobic and sexist 'gaffes'. Apart from that 'lovely' bloke rolleyes
What were Tom’s opinions on those things?

Pit Pony

4,216 posts

85 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
crofty1984 said:
Yes, that's coming across, dear.
Mother in Law died at 4 am yesterday morning.

red_slr

12,495 posts

153 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
"The Duke of Edinburgh has undergone a successful procedure for a pre-existing heart condition, Buckingham Palace has said."

Ahonen

4,756 posts

243 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
ddom said:
DeejRC said:
Hold on a mo...why was Tom a genuine hero and lovely bloke, but Phil not?
Because dear old Phil spouts racist, xenophobic and sexist 'gaffes'. Apart from that 'lovely' bloke rolleyes
They weren't gaffs, they were very amusing one-liners - what we call 'jokes'.

bigothunter

909 posts

24 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
Ahonen said:
ddom said:
DeejRC said:
Hold on a mo...why was Tom a genuine hero and lovely bloke, but Phil not?
Because dear old Phil spouts racist, xenophobic and sexist 'gaffes'. Apart from that 'lovely' bloke rolleyes
They weren't gaffs, they were very amusing one-liners - what we call 'jokes'.
Phil refuses to conform to the rules of political correctness which annoys those committed to the dogma. He isn't woke.

ClaphamGT3

9,075 posts

207 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
Is it so hard a concept to grasp that he is an elderly man who has led an admirable life dedicating 80 years to public service but who's views have not moved with the times making his outlook on life at best anachronistic and, at times, downright offensive.

We need to judge him on the totality of his life and not seize solely on the negative. We should also consider that many of his more offensive 'gaffes' were made 30/40/50/60 years ago. How many of us could put our hand on our heart and say we stand by everything we said and then believed half a century ago?

Sway

18,260 posts

158 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
ClaphamGT3 said:
Is it so hard a concept to grasp that he is an elderly man who has led an admirable life dedicating 80 years to public service but who's views have not moved with the times making his outlook on life at best anachronistic and, at times, downright offensive.

We need to judge him on the totality of his life and not seize solely on the negative. We should also consider that many of his more offensive 'gaffes' were made 30/40/50/60 years ago. How many of us could put our hand on our heart and say we stand by everything we said and then believed half a century ago?
Completely agree.

There is also of course how the recipients/victims of those 'gaffes/insults/abuses' took them and responded to them - from what I can tell, he's not offended those he was actually speaking to, but others who became offended on their behalf.

piquet

560 posts

221 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
ClaphamGT3 said:
Is it so hard a concept to grasp that he is an elderly man who has led an admirable life dedicating 80 years to public service but who's views have not moved with the times making his outlook on life at best anachronistic and, at times, downright offensive.

We need to judge him on the totality of his life and not seize solely on the negative. We should also consider that many of his more offensive 'gaffes' were made 30/40/50/60 years ago. How many of us could put our hand on our heart and say we stand by everything we said and then believed half a century ago?
80 years of public service and received nothing in exchange, hasn't taken a penny off the public, received no benefits in kind, paid his taxes, lived a life of poverty like he was born into before his uncle got him into the exclusive club

But they are the royal family, chosen by god!

His children are all pillars of the community and shining examples of what the church of Engalnd ( which his wife is head of) preaches along with their chosen partners, as are his grandchildren and their partners

I always find it weird that PH so condescending about people blowing themselves up for the sky fairies can believe we should support a family because they were chosen by a the sky fairies

The queen is the only one i have any respect for, the sooner we can be rid of that whole anachronistic hypocritical establishment the better

I don't believe we need a head of state. Bridges don't need opening, cornerstones don't need laying etc, when the queen dies we mourne and move onto the modern world

If we have to have a head of state an elected head of state then so be it, Charles can stand with the other candidates and politicians should be barred from the role (as well as the house of lords for that matter. The royal family makes as much sense as the role of prime minister going to the Johnson family for the rest of time

oh but think of the loss of tourism, that makes no sense, more people go to Paris then London, none of the royal family are at heathrow welcoming people to the country and thanking them for coming

There was another thread and it mentioned one of the dutch royal family who works as a pilot, it turned out lots of royal like to be pilots, of coarse they do, they're like a head of state, most the time they're not needed, and when they are really needed there is often very little they can do, consider themselves important and most the time won't shut up

he's an old man and i wish him well, yes he's done well to reach his age with the very best medical care that even with an unlimited budget you'd have difficulty buying, which of coarse he doesn't have to pay for as he's NHS

Barts has limited capacity, most people his age would never get there, too old, the fact he's gone and means there are other people who haven't, the royal family have real cost to the people, for example I worked at a hospital one saturday, but there was no emergency theatre until 3 ( this is the list at the weekend where urgent cases are operated on) so the urgent cases were delayed 7 hours, why? Prince Charles was playing Polo just in case he was injured.

Then there is a real tax cost, in reality closer to 1/3 of a billion a year

I wish him well, but when it comes to the royal family like burning old ladies with cats, neutering homosexuals, limiting voting to landowners, they are a thing of the past

Muddle238

2,434 posts

77 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
Sway said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Is it so hard a concept to grasp that he is an elderly man who has led an admirable life dedicating 80 years to public service but who's views have not moved with the times making his outlook on life at best anachronistic and, at times, downright offensive.

We need to judge him on the totality of his life and not seize solely on the negative. We should also consider that many of his more offensive 'gaffes' were made 30/40/50/60 years ago. How many of us could put our hand on our heart and say we stand by everything we said and then believed half a century ago?
Completely agree.

There is also of course how the recipients/victims of those 'gaffes/insults/abuses' took them and responded to them - from what I can tell, he's not offended those he was actually speaking to, but others who became offended on their behalf.
Indeed.

You cannot judge someone for saying something off the cuff in say, the 1960’s and then retrospectively judging that person in 2021 when times have changed and people have moved on.

In a similar vein, the BLM lot defacing the statue of Churchill last year because his views (70 years ago!) don’t align perfectly with the WOKE bunch today, it’s just ridiculous.

Sway

18,260 posts

158 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
piquet said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Is it so hard a concept to grasp that he is an elderly man who has led an admirable life dedicating 80 years to public service but who's views have not moved with the times making his outlook on life at best anachronistic and, at times, downright offensive.

We need to judge him on the totality of his life and not seize solely on the negative. We should also consider that many of his more offensive 'gaffes' were made 30/40/50/60 years ago. How many of us could put our hand on our heart and say we stand by everything we said and then believed half a century ago?
80 years of public service and received nothing in exchange, hasn't taken a penny off the public, received no benefits in kind, paid his taxes, lived a life of poverty like he was born into before his uncle got him into the exclusive club

But they are the royal family, chosen by god!

His children are all pillars of the community and shining examples of what the church of Engalnd ( which his wife is head of) preaches along with their chosen partners, as are his grandchildren and their partners

I always find it weird that PH so condescending about people blowing themselves up for the sky fairies can believe we should support a family because they were chosen by a the sky fairies

The queen is the only one i have any respect for, the sooner we can be rid of that whole anachronistic hypocritical establishment the better

I don't believe we need a head of state. Bridges don't need opening, cornerstones don't need laying etc, when the queen dies we mourne and move onto the modern world

If we have to have a head of state an elected head of state then so be it, Charles can stand with the other candidates and politicians should be barred from the role (as well as the house of lords for that matter. The royal family makes as much sense as the role of prime minister going to the Johnson family for the rest of time

oh but think of the loss of tourism, that makes no sense, more people go to Paris then London, none of the royal family are at heathrow welcoming people to the country and thanking them for coming

There was another thread and it mentioned one of the dutch royal family who works as a pilot, it turned out lots of royal like to be pilots, of coarse they do, they're like a head of state, most the time they're not needed, and when they are really needed there is often very little they can do, consider themselves important and most the time won't shut up

he's an old man and i wish him well, yes he's done well to reach his age with the very best medical care that even with an unlimited budget you'd have difficulty buying, which of coarse he doesn't have to pay for as he's NHS

Barts has limited capacity, most people his age would never get there, too old, the fact he's gone and means there are other people who haven't, the royal family have real cost to the people, for example I worked at a hospital one saturday, but there was no emergency theatre until 3 ( this is the list at the weekend where urgent cases are operated on) so the urgent cases were delayed 7 hours, why? Prince Charles was playing Polo just in case he was injured.

Then there is a real tax cost, in reality closer to 1/3 of a billion a year

I wish him well, but when it comes to the royal family like burning old ladies with cats, neutering homosexuals, limiting voting to landowners, they are a thing of the past
You're suggesting a hospital's entire emergency theatre unit was shut down to sit on standby in case of Charles getting injured?

bks.

Fundoreen

2,210 posts

47 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
Dunno about this . He seemed due for another transfusion of new born baby blood. They scheduled it at the same time as damaging stories about the royals intervening in laws to benefit themself financially were out. Also all the markle stuff they knew was coming.
They seemed to have saved andrew by maxwell being locked up and getting the spotlight.
He will be bouncing around like a teenager in the summer.