LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
On a lighter note, James Wild MP has generously volunteered to make an idiot of himself by literally complaining to the DG of the BBC about the number of Union Flags printed in the BBC annual financial report. He's so proud of his stupidity that he's posted the video of his complaint on Twitter.
If someone had written this into an episode of The Thick of It, they'd be accused of going for the cheap stereotype.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
It's so ludicrous it's probably a big dead cat.rjsterry said:On a lighter note, James Wild MP has generously volunteered to make an idiot of himself by literally complaining to the DG of the BBC about the number of Union Flags printed in the BBC annual financial report. He's so proud of his stupidity that he's posted the video of his complaint on Twitter.
If someone had written this into an episode of The Thick of It, they'd be accused of going for the cheap stereotype.0 -
prediction: his actions will be applauded by the mob, the bbc will continue it's decline into obeisance to the hard right, the uk will slide further into repressionrjsterry said:On a lighter note, James Wild MP has generously volunteered to make an idiot of himself by literally complaining to the DG of the BBC about the number of Union Flags printed in the BBC annual financial report. He's so proud of his stupidity that he's posted the video of his complaint on Twitter.
If someone had written this into an episode of The Thick of It, they'd be accused of going for the cheap stereotype.my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
One for the Flag Nonces
Count the flags. All of them. 😊
0 -
Anton Newcombe, the maverick genius behind the Brian Jones Town Massacre sums things up pretty succinctly with his replyorraloon said:One for the Flag Nonces
Count the flags. All of them. 😊
0 -
Hoist on his own...orraloon said:One for the Flag Nonces
Count the flags. All of them. 😊
erm...
Flagpole.0 -
What's the forum view on the new defence strategy?
Specifically, the smaller army (but proportionally, more spending per soldier)?0 -
I actually sort of understand it, but on the other hand, more spending on nukes?!?!?!!?? The ultimate blunt weapon? Don't understand how the two can go together.rick_chasey said:What's the forum view on the new defence strategy?
Specifically, the smaller army (but proportionally, more spending per soldier)?
It's just a hill. Get over it.0 -
I actually thought it was quite clever, cuts today but with promises of jam tomorrow which I am asuming will never happen.rick_chasey said:What's the forum view on the new defence strategy?
Specifically, the smaller army (but proportionally, more spending per soldier)?
I still think they should scrap the three services and have one integrated one based on the USMC model0 -
USMC? US marine corp?
I know brits are snobby about the US military but judging from the performance of the last 10 years there was a lot of Americans bailing out Brits.0 -
did you miss a "0" off your 10?rick_chasey said:USMC? US marine corp?
I know brits are snobby about the US military but judging from the performance of the last 10 years there was a lot of Americans bailing out Brits.
yes, US Marines as you have all of your assets under one chain of command0 -
Ha, possibly.surrey_commuter said:
did you miss a "0" off your 10?rick_chasey said:USMC? US marine corp?
I know brits are snobby about the US military but judging from the performance of the last 10 years there was a lot of Americans bailing out Brits.
yes, US Marines as you have all of your assets under one chain of command
I think the brits did have a lead on counter-terrorism and dealing with those kinds of special forces situations, but I imagine that difference has been eroding over time and lack of practice in NI.0 -
Except when they were bombing them accidentally right?rick_chasey said:USMC? US marine corp?
I know brits are snobby about the US military but judging from the performance of the last 10 years there was a lot of Americans bailing out Brits.
From my memory, I think the Brits were mainly being bailed out due to the lack of numbers deployed and/or adequate equipment they had been given when in the field.
0 -
you can't argue that we were great apart from the lack of helicopters and armoured vehicles, and boots so sh1te that squaddies bought their own or rations so bad that on a deployment they suffered significant weight losselbowloh said:
Except when they were bombing them accidentally right?rick_chasey said:USMC? US marine corp?
I know brits are snobby about the US military but judging from the performance of the last 10 years there was a lot of Americans bailing out Brits.
From my memory, I think the Brits were mainly being bailed out due to the lack of numbers deployed and/or adequate equipment they had been given when in the field.0 -
It doesn't matter why, though fwiw I think it's a bit more fundamental than that.elbowloh said:
Except when they were bombing them accidentally right?rick_chasey said:USMC? US marine corp?
I know brits are snobby about the US military but judging from the performance of the last 10 years there was a lot of Americans bailing out Brits.
From my memory, I think the Brits were mainly being bailed out due to the lack of numbers deployed and/or adequate equipment they had been given when in the field.
I read that there were plenty of other challenges, such as the short tours soldiers did, particularly officers, so as soon as they gained some understanding of the region they would leave and have a novice turn up, for one example. Yanks did much longer tours.
I also read about arrogance going into dealing with the locals with a view they could be won over with their experience from NI, which turned out to be massively erroneous.0 -
Having no or poor equipment is pretty fundamental.rick_chasey said:
It doesn't matter why, though fwiw I think it's a bit more fundamental than that.elbowloh said:
Except when they were bombing them accidentally right?rick_chasey said:USMC? US marine corp?
I know brits are snobby about the US military but judging from the performance of the last 10 years there was a lot of Americans bailing out Brits.
From my memory, I think the Brits were mainly being bailed out due to the lack of numbers deployed and/or adequate equipment they had been given when in the field.
I read that there were plenty of other challenges, such as the short tours soldiers did, particularly officers, so as soon as they gained some understanding of the region they would leave and have a novice turn up, for one example.
I also read about arrogance going into dealing with the locals with a view they could be won over with their experience from NI, which turned out to be massively erroneous.
Also, to be fair, our troops wouldn't even be there in the first place, but at the behest of the Americans.
0 -
I know but there is a bit of "our troops are great, they're just dealt a bad hand by penny pinching civil servants" and I think in this current era they may not be in terms of how they are trained and operate.elbowloh said:
Having no or poor equipment is pretty fundamental.rick_chasey said:
It doesn't matter why, though fwiw I think it's a bit more fundamental than that.elbowloh said:
Except when they were bombing them accidentally right?rick_chasey said:USMC? US marine corp?
I know brits are snobby about the US military but judging from the performance of the last 10 years there was a lot of Americans bailing out Brits.
From my memory, I think the Brits were mainly being bailed out due to the lack of numbers deployed and/or adequate equipment they had been given when in the field.
I read that there were plenty of other challenges, such as the short tours soldiers did, particularly officers, so as soon as they gained some understanding of the region they would leave and have a novice turn up, for one example.
I also read about arrogance going into dealing with the locals with a view they could be won over with their experience from NI, which turned out to be massively erroneous.
Also, to be fair, our troops wouldn't even be there in the first place, but at the behest of the Americans.0 -
No, but it speaks to the whole funding issue.surrey_commuter said:
you can't argue that we were great apart from the lack of helicopters and armoured vehicles, and boots so sh1te that squaddies bought their own or rations so bad that on a deployment they suffered significant weight losselbowloh said:
Except when they were bombing them accidentally right?rick_chasey said:USMC? US marine corp?
I know brits are snobby about the US military but judging from the performance of the last 10 years there was a lot of Americans bailing out Brits.
From my memory, I think the Brits were mainly being bailed out due to the lack of numbers deployed and/or adequate equipment they had been given when in the field.
I think it's also worth thinking about whether we are ever going to mobilise unilaterally again (i.e. Falklands) without support from other nations.0 -
The English and Scots can stay put and have a war over their common border not too far into the future.elbowloh said:
No, but it speaks to the whole funding issue.surrey_commuter said:
you can't argue that we were great apart from the lack of helicopters and armoured vehicles, and boots so sh1te that squaddies bought their own or rations so bad that on a deployment they suffered significant weight losselbowloh said:
Except when they were bombing them accidentally right?rick_chasey said:USMC? US marine corp?
I know brits are snobby about the US military but judging from the performance of the last 10 years there was a lot of Americans bailing out Brits.
From my memory, I think the Brits were mainly being bailed out due to the lack of numbers deployed and/or adequate equipment they had been given when in the field.
I think it's also worth thinking about whether we are ever going to mobilise unilaterally again (i.e. Falklands) without support from other nations.0 -
Wouldn't expect so. I don't think that is a bad thing.elbowloh said:
No, but it speaks to the whole funding issue.surrey_commuter said:
you can't argue that we were great apart from the lack of helicopters and armoured vehicles, and boots so sh1te that squaddies bought their own or rations so bad that on a deployment they suffered significant weight losselbowloh said:
Except when they were bombing them accidentally right?rick_chasey said:USMC? US marine corp?
I know brits are snobby about the US military but judging from the performance of the last 10 years there was a lot of Americans bailing out Brits.
From my memory, I think the Brits were mainly being bailed out due to the lack of numbers deployed and/or adequate equipment they had been given when in the field.
I think it's also worth thinking about whether we are ever going to mobilise unilaterally again (i.e. Falklands) without support from other nations.
The world has changed and the UK is no longer a large power, but a middle power, and so with that comes a different strategy with respect to the military.
Absolutely nothing wrong with a network of alliances and co-operation if done correctly.0 -
we should design our armed forces to defend the UK, that would still allow us to kiss arse with the Yanks of need berick_chasey said:
Wouldn't expect so. I don't think that is a bad thing.elbowloh said:
No, but it speaks to the whole funding issue.surrey_commuter said:
you can't argue that we were great apart from the lack of helicopters and armoured vehicles, and boots so sh1te that squaddies bought their own or rations so bad that on a deployment they suffered significant weight losselbowloh said:
Except when they were bombing them accidentally right?rick_chasey said:USMC? US marine corp?
I know brits are snobby about the US military but judging from the performance of the last 10 years there was a lot of Americans bailing out Brits.
From my memory, I think the Brits were mainly being bailed out due to the lack of numbers deployed and/or adequate equipment they had been given when in the field.
I think it's also worth thinking about whether we are ever going to mobilise unilaterally again (i.e. Falklands) without support from other nations.
The world has changed and the UK is no longer a large power, but a middle power, and so with that comes a different strategy with respect to the military.
Absolutely nothing wrong with a network of alliances and co-operation if done correctly.0 -
Today's 'complete lack of self-awareness' winner....
For those who don't know, Tom Harwood is a hard right commentator who is joining GB News shortly.
0 -
What's the issue with what he's said? Are rents and house prices compared to earnings not the highest for 100 years?0
-
You can also earn well and save well (not applicable to everyone but I ‘own’ my property if you ignore the enormous mortgage)0
-
Or you can get an OK paying job somewhere other than SE England.
0 -
0
-
Mandated by the culture department.orraloon said:Flagshaggers get a hard on.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56514501
Enforced by the group think department.
Lapped up by the under 75yo blitz spirit brigade.1 -
Oh god, I saw that earlier, what a load of jingoistic nonsense.orraloon said:Flagshaggers get a hard on.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56514501
If you want to show pride in your country go and do something useful to help the country and its people rather than fly a flag.
That's like, I dunno, clapping for NHS and care workers and then not supporting paying them a fair wage/not giving them the already agreed pay increase.1 -
Keep the proles divided and bickering on multiple fronts while we line our pockets, repeatedly.
Look, look over there..... Happy days.1 -
Glad to see the guy we kicked out earning his money.0
