BTW: Tell May to get a haircut.

You tell him; thankfully Hollywood’s obsession with “prettiness” hasn’t completely taken over, here, and we concentrate more on the content of what presenters say, rather than how they look.

Perhaps he doesn’t want to risk getting poked in the eye with that agitated forefinger.

I trust you don’t fall into this category.

I don’t.

If voting made any difference, they’d ban it. How many MPs are voted in by a minority of constituency voters? How often has the party which wins power, actually received the majority of votes?

There’s a photo of pink Spitfires in front of a “farmhouse.”

“Caught out“, Edgar? Get off your high horse and try being a bit less pompous for once.

And so, when all else fails, you go to the usual refuge of the personal insult; you’ve used the usual tactic of those with an interest in forwarding their own agenda, rather than seeking out the whole truth, and, when challenged, all we get is bluster and name-calling.

It’s regrettable that you and the other Daily Mail types

Wrong again, I don’t read “news”papers, nor do I vote Tory.

have to keep attempting to personalise this debate rather than just refuting points in a reasonable manner, such as the way others like Creaking Door manage to do. See Beermat’s post #187 for some excellent advice which I’d recommend you read and inwardly digest.

If you check, you started it.

Some of us do indeed prefer to know the whole story but I generally find that referring to multiple sources rather than zealously taking one to be the holy grail is the best way of doing this.

But you haven’t referred to “multiple sources,” in fact, when asked for details so that others of us can read them if we wish, you remain utterly silent. Of course, some of us do research to find answers, not “facts” to fit our own agenda, while ignoring what we don’t like.

Regarding the shelters, I am not sure what your point is or why you think the provision of special shelters for the upper echelon is either a) surprising or b) particularly pertinent in regard to the rights or wrongs of the attack

My point is that, once again, the Nazi hierarchy put their own safety before that of the populace, so trying to lay the “blame” for the (falsified) figures of the dead against the men of Bomber Command is specious and deliberately provocative. There are no “rights or wrongs” about the attack, except for those who want there to be; Dresden was seen as a wartime target, with the information available at the time, and it was attacked (just like dozens of other sites on both sides of the North Sea.)
Destruction of old (very old) buildings is sad, but just as many fall victim to the bulldozer, and I suggest you walk into some of Hull’s “ancient” buildings, where you’ll find they’re just a façade, with a brand-new building constructed on a bomb-site and added onto the front; there’s also a memorial garden, with the remnants of totally-destroyed buildings arranged round it, like Henry Moore sculptures.
Cities and towns, everywhere, suffered during the war, and the inhabitants have spent the intervening years rebuilding, and getting on with their lives; continually singling out Dresden, while ignoring Amsterdam, Warsaw, Hamburg, Berlin, London, Coventry and all the other places, is muck-raking of the worst “Torygraph”/Daily Mail type.

Something of a hair splitting there Edgar. The survey was 1941 and the comment was in regards of people in the “northernmost” counties of England which would exclude most of those cities.

Northern England was considered to consist of Northumberland, Durham, Cumberland, Westmoreland, Yorkshire and Lancashire, so (apart from the obvious exception of Glasgow,) I’d be interested to know how many of those towns and cities did not fall within those boundaries, then we can discuss hair-splitting.
It really is quite extraordinary how you use 1941 figures to justify your stand against a 1945 raid; in 1939 the authorities didn’t want Germany to be bombed because it was private property, and that attitude didn’t last long. I happen to know that, after nearly five years of being on the receiving end of German bombs, the population was heartily sick of it, and a 1945 poll would have made interesting reading.
Do tell us, please, in your famous poll, how many were surveyed, did they live in areas that had been bombed, and how many had had their homes destroyed by bombing?