Over the last decade or so, a new tradition has been introduced that takes place every November. Before Armistice Day itself, there will be an outcry about some aspect of the remembrance proceedings.
In 2006 (and again in 2010) Channel Four News presenter Jon Snow became the subject of ire after he explained why he wouldn't wear a poppy on air. He even introduced the phrase 'poppy fascism' to describe the insistence that public figures must comply, wear a poppy, and conform to the narrow idea that remembrance equals pinning a small paper flower to yourself.
Footballer James McClean has repeatedly refused to wear a poppy on his shirt, explaining that the events of Bloody Sunday in Derry, where he is from, means he can't support it.
In 2011, journalist Robert Fisk wrote about how his father – a veteran of the First World War – had stopped wearing a poppy. "I asked him why," wrote Fisk "and he said that he didn't want to see "so many damn fools" wearing it... What he meant was that all kinds of people who had no idea of the suffering of the Great War – or the Second, for that matter – were now ostentatiously wearing a poppy for social or work-related reasons, to look patriotic and British when it suited them, to keep in with their friends and betters and employers."
Actor Barbara Windsor became the story in 2015, when she declared that anyone who didn't want to wear a poppy could "sod off".
And so we come to 2016's controversy. The England v Scotland football match which is taking place on November 11 has become the battleground. FIFA, the world governing body of the sport, says that no religious or political slogans are allowed on shirts. The English and Scottish football associations argue that the poppy is neither, and is simply a mark of respect and remembrance. They say they will defy FIFA's ban.
A huge tabloid storm has now been whipped up, with familiar themes that certain sections of the British press love to engage in. They have manufactured this controversy – no footballers wore poppies on their shirts 15 years ago. Let's leave aside the lack of FA or tabloid outrage over FIFA's cronyism, its awarding of the next two World Cups to human rights-denying Russia and Qatar, and its myriad other problems. Let's instead focus on whether the outrage is necessary.
Alongside the constant stream of controversy, the poppy has become an almost ubiquitous symbol in October and November (and in some cases, year round). As the Economist reports, "New varieties of poppy have bloomed in recent years, including a pin made from British shell fuses fired during the battle of the Somme (£39.99) and cufflinks incorporating earth from various first world war battlefields (£79.99 a pair). Municipal displays are increasingly elaborate, too. This year Glasgow has a statue surrounded by hundreds of "floating" poppies blown around by fans; 4,000 knitted poppies pour from a church in Warminster.
This is a time of remembrance, coming as it does, just after All Saints day and All Souls day. In the midst of the controversies and the blanket poppy memorabilia, those we are supposed to be remembering are at risk of slipping down our priority list.
I choose to wear a poppy. I remember the pride when I was a young cub scout, of taking part in the remembrance activities in my home town. I have led and participated in many acts of remembrance at church and elsewhere. A hundred years ago, young men of my age were being slaughtered on the Western Front. Seventy-five years ago, Europe was ablaze again, and it was men of my age fighting and dying to prevent the whole continent being captured by fascists.
I choose to remember their bravery and sacrifice, the years of toil they gave so we could have our flawed but precious freedom and democracy.
However, just because I choose to wear a red poppy, doesn't mean I've fully bought into the 'project'. The British Army and Empire was responsible for horrific crimes in many parts of the world. Our history is cruel and selfish as well as honourable. If you don't know the story of the Mau Mau, it is heartbreaking, but essential to come to terms with. Not all British soldiers died for 'freedom'.
More recently, I have been appalled by the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. The ongoing chaos in Libya was a direct result of British (and American) military intervention.
I despise my government's continued military support for Saudi Arabia and its despicable actions both at home and in Yemen. The way in which British Armed forces have been used in recent generations has done much good (Sierra Leone, for example). We have also done much harm and it is impossible to look at the Middle East today, in flames, and not feel a heavy sense of responsibility both for the recent Iraq War and our older, colonial meddling.
Even the Second World War, necessary and honourable though it was, contained catastrophic abuses, such as the bombing of Dresden. Despite this, I wear a poppy and I remember those men and women who fought fascism from 1939-45. In the same way as wearing a cross doesn't indicate support for the Crusades, the Inquisition or any of the Church's other crimes, wearing a poppy needn't signify support for the military industrial complex.
Some wear a white poppy. I respect that decision, though I choose not to do the same. Some choose to wear no poppy –I respect that decision, though I choose to do so. The choice is ours and ours alone and no-one should tell us we should or shouldn't wear a poppy – either screaming tabloid headline writers, or officious busybodies like FIFA. It may be a cliché, but it remains true: the freedom to wear or not to wear a poppy is the very essence of what it means to live in a democracy.
Follow Andy Walton on Twitter @waltonandy
