so heres the list of 100 greatest britons as voted by the British public in a BBC survey. what the hell is princess Diana doing here, or what about guy fawkes... and david beckham wtf??? hes on the 100 worst britons list as well it doesn't make any sense anyway, i dont know much about any of these guys but i was wondering why is sir winston churchill number one. what exactly did he do for us during the war and his life etc... i mean is his contribution greater then the other guys on this list like the guy who invented the rail way or what. like i said i dont know anything about these guys so what do you think of churchill, diana, darwin etc. 1) Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965), Prime Minister during World War II 2) Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806-1859), engineer, creator of Great Western Railway and other significant works 3) Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997), first wife of HRH Charles, Prince of Wales (1981-1996) and mother of Princes William & Harry of Wales. 4) Charles Darwin (1809-1882), naturalist, originator of the theory of evolution through natural selection and author of The Origin of Species. see the whole list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons
I think its more to do with Churchill being more well known as winning a war etc and some of his quotes being quite famous, i recall he made some awful decisions in his lifetime too but we arnt educated on them, also its recent enough to still be on peoples minds. Anyone religious is unlikely to vote for Darwin. Anyone young is likely to be voting for Beckham and people along those lines. Personally despite Churchills occasional mistakes i'd put him top, with Darwin and Brunel second and third. Eejits like Beckham need not be on the list.
I can't believe J. K. Rowling made it and C. S. Lewis, D. Adams and T. Pratchett didn't Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
All these lists are heavily biased by the simple fact that you have to choose to vote, and you bever get a representative sample that way. Plus of course out of the peopel that do vote, half of them are biased nutters anyway. Hence why Beckham et al get on the list. As for Churchill, he was probably the best most suitabel person for the task of leading the UK through WW2. However he was crap at everything else.
the poll is nonsense none of the hundred can be anywhere near great because of one, very simple fact...they are british!
I know very little about Brunel but from what i've heard i think a very good case could be made for Brunel to be top, he seems pivotal in parts of the industrialization of Britain. Unfortunately i'll be the first to admit i had no idea who he even was until a little over a couple years ago. I guess it depends on a persons perspective of whats most important to determine who's greatest, since perhaps a case can be made for Darwin and other scientists(Isaac Newton for example), but it appears mostly leaders are more well known than scientists. One word to describe Great Britain? Clues in the name aint it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
nonsense self proclamations are frequently the province of delusional megalomaniacs top that! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yeah, kinda like America: Land of Free Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anyway, Churchill was probably the best person for the job during the war as he was not afraid to be contraversial. Something that is lacking in todays world. But he did do some very bad things, alot of them forgotten by the general British public. David Beckham isn't worthy of the Top 100. Not sure why Tony Blair is in there either. But I'm glad to see John Peel in there Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Si, kinda como America: la Tierra de Libre De todos modos, Churchill era probablemente la mejor persona para el trabajo durante la guerra como el no estaba atemorizado ser contraversial. Algo que no tiene mundo de hoy. Pero el hizo algunas cosas muy malas, alot de ellos olvidado por el publico ingles general. David Beckham no es digno del Primero 100. No seguro por que Tony Blair esta en alli cualquiera. Pero estoy contento ver a John Peel en alli Ponga que en su tubo y lo fuma Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The main thing that is still relevant today is the fact he ordered the gassing of many Kurds. He has a lot of demons in his closet but he got the job done.
Everyone knew back then that Churchill was keen to use chemical weapons. His cabinet largely disagreed with him. Churchill has been quoted saying: "I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes." Churchill wanted to use various forms of gas to enforce colonial control. At the time just before the second world war, the British Empire took it upon itself to "sort the middle east out". During the time there were various uprisings and such since Ottoman control was replaced by British control. During this time, Churchill (the then British Secretary for Air and War), decided to test weapons on live targets. This started in the form of gas delivered via British mortar fire. Obviously, we've come a long way since then so back then there was no such thing as human rights. But he has quite clearly redeemed himself in the eyes of the British public and we all seem to love the cigar wielding bloke.
It was acceptable behaviour at that time. Much as napalming Vietnamese villages was acceptable in the 1970s. [BACKGROUND: In 1917, following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the British occupied Iraq and established a colonial government. The Arab and Kurdish people of Iraq resisted the British occupation, and by 1920 this had developed into a full scale national revolt, which cost the British dearly. As the Iraqi resistance gained strength, the British resorted to increasingly repressive measures, including the use of posion gas.] All quotes in the excerpt are properly footnoted in the original book, with full references to British archives and papers. Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. *IRAQ: FROM SUMER TO SUDAN*. London: St. Martins Press, 1994: Winston Churchill, as colonial secretary, was sensitive to the cost of policing the Empire; and was in consequence keen to exploit the potential of modern technology. This strategy had particular relevance to operations in Iraq. On 19 February, 1920, before the start of the Arab uprising, Churchill (then Secretary for War and Air) wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of air warfare. Would it be possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This would entail *the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement of some kind but not death...for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes.* Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): *I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.* Henry Wilson shared Churchills enthusiasm for gas as an instrument of colonial control but the British cabinet was reluctant to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused such misery and revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen to argue that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft, would cause *only discomfort or illness, but not death* to dissident tribespeople; but his optimistic view of the effects of gas were mistaken. It was likely that the suggested gas would permanently damage eyesight and *kill children and sickly persons, more especially as the people against whom we intend to use it have no medical knowledge with which to supply antidotes.* Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing that the use of gas, a *scientific expedient,* should not be prevented *by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly*. In the event, gas was used against the Iraqi rebels with excellent moral effect* though gas shells were not dropped from aircraft because of practical difficulties Source: http://www.againstbombing.org/chemical.htm
Diana - not really one of the best. Mr. Darwin is an obvious good-choice, although there are countless other great scientists. Failing that, I'm not too bad.
