St. Joanna of Lumley

[Deleted]

Stupid caaaaaah!

news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=154542356

As predicted, her onanistic grandstanding looks like it has led to the demise of the Gurkhas in the British Army.

Hmmmmmmm ......... Guards or Gurkhas ....... Guards or Gurkhas? What to do.

[oldmanofthesea]

How you can put this down to Joanna Lumley beggars belief. More down to this bunch of unelected eejits masquerading as a government and their completely haywire economics.

[Deleted]

Nah, you will have seen how the whole of the Establishment, including the military and former GR officers all stayed well away from this as Baroness Lumley of Nepal blindly cut the few tendons that held Gurkhas in the British Army. We've had no real use for them since Malaya or possibly the Falklands and the writing's been on the wall since Hong Kong was given back.

[Deleted]

No disrespect intended of course, but their time is gone. If we can get rid of the Black Watch, the Argyl & Sutherland Highlanders, The Green Howards and The Sherwood Foresters, then GR can certainly go, especially now they cost as much to operate and their are social responsibilities to them and their families.

[mids]

It's a fair point I suppose, now that our sailors will be forced to join that gayest of gays, the French Navy.

[Deleted]

it's a shame not to keep these regiments.
I don't know about anyone else, but when I make adjustments for things like this in life, something else seems to crop up, nature abhorring a vacuum I suppose.
Shame we have to make such drastic cuts, still I did vote for the Tories, just hope they don't do away with the whole country.

[Woolf]

If we do loose the Gurkhas, it will be a great loss to the nation.
They have shown loyalty both personally and as a regiment, above and beyond what is called for by any member of the armed forces.
"If a man says he is not afraid of dying, he is either lying or is a Gurkha." Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw.
"Bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you.", Professor Sir Ralph Turner, MC.

Pity all of this was caused by the previous government acting like a p1ssed chav with a stolen credit card.

[moggyonspeed]

What baloo said in #3.

Sad though it would be to axe the Gurkhas, it's entirely consistent with the policy of gummints of all stripes going back thirty years.

Our quaint fixation with the old geographically-based regiments harks back to a time when local nobility were responsilbe for the raising of a local militia in response to the country's calling. In the era of t'interweb and instant worldwide communication, such a method of recruiting is arcane and irrelevant, steeped in history though it may be.

[Deleted]

Point taken speed cat.
We all sit here and realise that we are not that different in our basic makeup?
However I should think that the military is slightly different.
Men and women have to go to fight and sometimes lay down their lives in the army etc.
How do you find it within yourself to do that?
training helps I suppose, but what value can you put on belonging to a proud regiment with a long history?
A very large value I would say.

[Nebula]

Keep the Ghurkas and f*** some Sweaty regiments off. they're going to need their own army soon anyway, hopefully.

[mids]

f**k**g hell! Mind yer hubcaps, lads!

[mids]

Errr, or alternatively, how's it going Nebs? Long time no see.

[Nebula]

I'm OK thanks Mids. Hope you're well. Just got a day off so I thought I'd have a look in here and see what was happening.

[Nebula]

Just going to nip round the offie for some booze...

[Deleted]

Aug 31, 2010 15:43:08 GMT Nebula said:

Keep the Ghurkas and f*** some Sweaty regiments off. they're going to need their own army soon anyway, hopefully.

Errrrr ..... some? I don't think that's an option any more. Even the units they have seem to be manned by McFijians, McSamoans and McZimbabweans.

[Nebula]

Furry muff, Baloo. I read something a while back - can't remember where, about an idea to axe the Royal Air Force altogether, and place it under army command, thus doing away with the expensive command structure of the RAF. Can't see that happening though. All those air commodores and whatnot having to sign on? Nah!
Apparently we've got more colonels than we've got batalions too. Seems like the whole structure is top heavy, but as usual, it's the PBI and the lower ranks that take the cuts, while Horse Guards will still be stuffed with expensive brass.
Makes you proud to be British eh?

[hammerhead]

Aug 31, 2010 17:06:04 GMT Nebula said:

I read something a while back - can't remember where, about an idea to axe the Royal Air Force altogether, and place it under army command, thus doing away with the expensive command structure of the RAF.

They'd need fewer bands too.

[Deleted]

Yeah, but funnily enough, I have spoken to a number of ex-RAF officers who don't realy give a toss whether the RAF carries on. It's made its name and done its job. It was a highly technical service born to serve a particular requirement, which is now largely gone. The World moves on doesn't it?

[oldmanofthesea]

Who was that silly cow who wanted to sell the navy to give rich people tax breaks? then we had the Falklands invasion. Oh yes Thatcher, now we are still governed by the same eejits. life dont change.

[Woolf]

A opposed to the last bunch of idiots who were going to build 2 aircraft carriers at a cost of billions, for which we currently have no aircraft.
The Harrier is due for retirement after its 40 years service.