This has to be one of the most disgraceful, undemocratic things I've read in years. We are not a banana republic!!
For non-Brits, here's a brief summary of the situation.
Britain has a Conservative government (Republicans)
Jeremy Corbyn is the new leader of the opposition Labour Party (Democrats)
Corbyn's opposition to NATO and Britain's nuclear deterrent is well known. Parliament will vote in the next 1-2 years on the question of Britain's nuclear deterrent being renewed.
I'm no Corbyn fan myself (for other reasons) but if the people of Britain voted him in as Prime Minister, that is the democratic will.
For a serving general to be saying what he said, is an attack on British democracy. If identified, he should, IMO, be stripped of his medals and honours, and kicked out of the army.
In the unlikely event that Corbyn is elected, and the unlikelier event that such a mutiny took place, then the mutineers should be placed in front of a firing squad!!!
For centuries, the penalty for mutiny in the British army was death.
You may think I'm going OTT, but this story has really got my blood boiling!
As a point of confusion for a yank, I thought that in a parliamentary system you guys didn't actually vote on your own PM? I was given to understand that you just voted for your party rep, and then the party appoints its own leader. Is that not how it works?
Jimsolo wrote: As a point of confusion for a yank, I thought that in a parliamentary system you guys didn't actually vote on your own PM? I was given to understand that you just voted for your party rep, and then the party appoints its own leader. Is that not how it works?
That's true. You vote for Members of Parliament, and they vote for the leader of their party. If the party wins a majority, then the leader becomes Prime Minister.
Effectively, the voters will know who they want to be PM before they cast their vote.
Each party has a leader who is selected in different ways depending on the party, normally by paid up party members voting.
After a general election in which the whole electorate has the chance to vote for their local MP, the leader of the party with the most seats is invited by the Queen to form a government.
However it is also possible for a party in power to lose its PM (Blair resigned, for instance, but he might have died of a heart attack) in which case the party selects a new PM without the need for a general election.
This has to be one of the most disgraceful, undemocratic things I've read in years. We are not a banana republic!!
For non-Brits, here's a brief summary of the situation.
Britain has a Conservative government (Republicans)
Jeremy Corbyn is the new leader of the opposition Labour Party (Democrats)
Corbyn's opposition to NATO and Britain's nuclear deterrent is well known. Parliament will vote in the next 1-2 years on the question of Britain's nuclear deterrent being renewed.
I'm no Corbyn fan myself (for other reasons) but if the people of Britain voted him in as Prime Minister, that is the democratic will.
For a serving general to be saying what he said, is an attack on British democracy. If identified, he should, IMO, be stripped of his medals and honours, and kicked out of the army.
In the unlikely event that Corbyn is elected, and the unlikelier event that such a mutiny took place, then the mutineers should be placed in front of a firing squad!!!
For centuries, the penalty for mutiny in the British army was death.
You may think I'm going OTT, but this story has really got my blood boiling!
Speaking as a concerned feren devil, you guys need to nip that in the bud right now. You can enter banaba republic land any time you like, but you can never leave.
This has to be one of the most disgraceful, undemocratic things I've read in years. We are not a banana republic!!
For non-Brits, here's a brief summary of the situation.
Britain has a Conservative government (Republicans)
Jeremy Corbyn is the new leader of the opposition Labour Party (Democrats)
Corbyn's opposition to NATO and Britain's nuclear deterrent is well known. Parliament will vote in the next 1-2 years on the question of Britain's nuclear deterrent being renewed.
I'm no Corbyn fan myself (for other reasons) but if the people of Britain voted him in as Prime Minister, that is the democratic will.
For a serving general to be saying what he said, is an attack on British democracy. If identified, he should, IMO, be stripped of his medals and honours, and kicked out of the army.
In the unlikely event that Corbyn is elected, and the unlikelier event that such a mutiny took place, then the mutineers should be placed in front of a firing squad!!!
For centuries, the penalty for mutiny in the British army was death.
You may think I'm going OTT, but this story has really got my blood boiling!
Speaking as a concerned feren devil, you guys need to nip that in the bud right now. You can enter banaba republic land any time you like, but you can never leave.
For a serving general to be even thinking about mutiny, is a serious matter in my opinion. Frazz, if it were up to me, I'd throw him in the Tower of London for this treasonous talk!
I'm pretty sure that the Queen and Parliament still have this power.
If a high ranking American General talked about mutiny, I'm pretty sure you guys would want him thrown out of the military as well.
In Britain, does the PM have a place in the chain of military command? (Presumably at the top?) Just curious. Also, Corbyn is notePM yet, is that correct?
Sorry, just gathering a little background info before coming to a conclusion.
Jimsolo wrote: In Britain, does the PM have a place in the chain of military command? (Presumably at the top?) Just curious. Also, Corbyn is notePM yet, is that correct?
Sorry, just gathering a little background info before coming to a conclusion.
The Queen is head of the Armed forces in the UK, but obviously, the monarchy, having lost the civil war centuries ago, is a token figurehead. Ultimately, the Prime Minister has the final say, and the monarch will sign it off.
Corbyn is not PM, the next election is 2020, a long time away, and it's unlikely he would win, given the conservative stance that the UK has adopted these days, but none the less, for certain military men to suggest this, is a disgrace. You can't rebel against a Prime Minister just because you disagree with their anti-nuclear or anti-NATO stance.
This has to be one of the most disgraceful, undemocratic things I've read in years. We are not a banana republic!!
For non-Brits, here's a brief summary of the situation.
Britain has a Conservative government (Republicans)
Jeremy Corbyn is the new leader of the opposition Labour Party (Democrats)
Corbyn's opposition to NATO and Britain's nuclear deterrent is well known. Parliament will vote in the next 1-2 years on the question of Britain's nuclear deterrent being renewed.
I'm no Corbyn fan myself (for other reasons) but if the people of Britain voted him in as Prime Minister, that is the democratic will.
For a serving general to be saying what he said, is an attack on British democracy. If identified, he should, IMO, be stripped of his medals and honours, and kicked out of the army.
In the unlikely event that Corbyn is elected, and the unlikelier event that such a mutiny took place, then the mutineers should be placed in front of a firing squad!!!
For centuries, the penalty for mutiny in the British army was death.
You may think I'm going OTT, but this story has really got my blood boiling!
Speaking as a concerned feren devil, you guys need to nip that in the bud right now. You can enter banaba republic land any time you like, but you can never leave.
For a serving general to be even thinking about mutiny, is a serious matter in my opinion. Frazz, if it were up to me, I'd throw him in the Tower of London for this treasonous talk!
I'm pretty sure that the Queen and Parliament still have this power.
If a high ranking American General talked about mutiny, I'm pretty sure you guys would want him thrown out of the military as well.
MacArthur: I'm God I can do what I want.
Truman to MacArthur: You're fired.
MacArthur: er...
Truman: MPs, help him with his bags. Don't let him deel lonely while he's waiting. We wouldn't want him to fade away.
Jimsolo wrote: In Britain, does the PM have a place in the chain of military command? (Presumably at the top?) Just curious. Also, Corbyn is notePM yet, is that correct?
Sorry, just gathering a little background info before coming to a conclusion.
The PM is not the commander in chief.
Corbyn is leader of the opposition and gets his chance to become PM at the next General Election in 2015 (unless the Conservatives lose a vote of confidence before then.)
This general's comments are similar to various comments made in the previous five years when the coalition government was reducing the armed forces.
For centuries, the penalty for mutiny in the British army was death.
We used to be old school like that. Now we aren't for some reason.
And yes, I agree that it was very poor taste to say that. However, the article states that
He told the Sunday Times: “The Army just wouldn’t stand for it. The general staff would not allow a prime minister to jeopardise the security of this country and I think people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul to prevent that. You can’t put a maverick in charge of a country’s security.
“There would be mass resignations at all levels and you would face the very real prospect of an event which would effectively be a mutiny.”
They aren't taking up arms or refusing orders. Its a mass resignation. Hardly the same thing.
Er... if he's talking coup then your military has a duty (a ROYAL duty ) to deal with him. isn't that an offense against the Queen's rule? Don't mess with that chick. She'll bleed you, real quiet like...
For centuries, the penalty for mutiny in the British army was death.
We used to be old school like that. Now we aren't for some reason.
And yes, I agree that it was very poor taste to say that. However, the article states that
He told the Sunday Times: “The Army just wouldn’t stand for it. The general staff would not allow a prime minister to jeopardise the security of this country and I think people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul to prevent that. You can’t put a maverick in charge of a country’s security.
“There would be mass resignations at all levels and you would face the very real prospect of an event which would effectively be a mutiny.”
They aren't taking up arms or refusing orders. Its a mass resignation. Hardly the same thing.
I have no problem whatsoever with senior officers resigning and leaving the army if they don't want to serve under a particular government - that is their right in a democracy.
But when they talk about fair means or FOUL, they've crossed the line
Er... if he's talking coup then your military has a duty (a ROYAL duty ) to deal with him. isn't that an offense against the Queen's rule? Don't mess with that chick. She'll bleed you, real quiet like...
Years ago Frazz, the British army would tie a mutineer to a cannon and open fire...very nasty.
No no, years ago he would be hanged (but not to death), have his privates cut off, be disemboweled with his innards cooked in front of him, then quartered. In that order.
Old school English don't play around.
Sounds like its time for a little of Ye Olde Queen's Justice...
To me its not clear that the person who made these comments is still in active service. Even though it says 'senior serving general' it sounds more like someone whos retired.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Corbyn's opposition to NATO and Britain's nuclear deterrent is well known. Parliament will vote in the next 1-2 years on the question of Britain's nuclear deterrent being renewed.
Wow, so, now Brits will get to choose between a genocidal maniac and a suicidal maniac?
The same people are fine with the current government's cuts to the military then? If they want to pull a hissy fit at every time the government pulls one on them then they're not exactly in the right career.
chaos0xomega wrote: To me its not clear that the person who made these comments is still in active service. Even though it says 'senior serving general' it sounds more like someone whos retired.
If he were retired, nobody would blink an eyelid at these comments - they would dismiss him as going war crazy or something. No, this general is still serving.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: No no, years ago he would be hanged (but not to death), have his privates cut off, be disemboweled with his innards cooked in front of him, then quartered.
In that order.
Old school English don't play around.
Sounds like its time for a little of Ye Olde Queen's Justice...
No such luck I'm afraid, Frazz. Damned Liberals got their way with their human rights act. Mutiny and treason are no longer punishable by death. A cosy jail cell is the punishment.
Mr Morden wrote: There are rumours that this has nearly happened in the past...............
Yeah, there was supposed to be a plot against Harold Wilson when he was Prime Minister. A lot of people thought he was a Soviet spy
Spycatcher and al that - yeah. Difficult to know the truth.
Not always reliable but from Wiki:
On the BBC television programme The Plot Against Harold Wilson, broadcast on 16 March 2006 on BBC2, it was claimed there were threats of a coup d'état against the Wilson government, which was corroborated by leading figures of the time on both the left and the right. Wilson told two BBC journalists, Roger Courtiour and Barrie Penrose, who recorded the meetings on a cassette tape recorder, that he feared he was being undermined by MI5. The first time was in the late 1960s after the Wilson Government devalued the pound sterling but the threat faded after Conservative leader Edward Heath won the election of 1970. However after a coal miners' strike Heath decided to hold an election to renew his mandate to govern in February 1974 but lost narrowly to Wilson. There was again talk of a military coup, with rumours of Lord Mountbatten as head of an interregnal administration after Wilson had been deposed. In 1974 the Army occupied Heathrow Airport on the grounds of training for possible IRA terrorist action at the airport. However Baroness Falkender (a senior aide and close friend of Wilson) asserted that the operation was ordered as a practice-run for a military takeover or as a show of strength, as the government itself was not informed of such an exercise based around a key point in the nation's transport infrastructure
There was an interview with Tony Benn, where he said " he was informed that should he become prime minister he would be assassinated" .
So much for democracy.
Jimsolo wrote: As a point of confusion for a yank, I thought that in a parliamentary system you guys didn't actually vote on your own PM? I was given to understand that you just voted for your party rep, and then the party appoints its own leader. Is that not how it works?
That's true. You vote for Members of Parliament, and they vote for the leader of their party. If the party wins a majority, then the leader becomes Prime Minister.
Effectively, the voters will know who they want to be PM before they cast their vote.
Except that isn't in the slightest bit true.
People vote only for their local MP. Some people might vote for a party and not want a particular PM, in fact this is not uncommon.
Next on to the scare story concerned.
One general said a Corbyn premiership might result in a 'mutiny'. As even the independent placed this in quotes it is likely to be a metaphor.
Generals and senior civil servants do have a method of severe protest at government actions. It is rarely used on any large scale. The last time was in 2008 when Gordon Brown completely mishandled the economic recovery and massively spent the nation into outrageous debt. The protest involved a formal rersport of opposition and disownership of the policies concerned. In the case of the army it would be a metaphorical mutiny.
To quote the unnamed source:
“There would be mass resignations at all levels and you would face the very real prospect of an event which would effectively be a mutiny.”
Effectively a mutiny via massed resignation. Essentially what the general is referring to is a form of industrial action, or downing of tools. One thing we do know as it cant be a direct literal mutiny, it must be a metaphor as a mutiny (noun) involves naval personnel, to mutiny (verb) involves ignoring orders and not a coup as such.
Given that he is threatening to mutiny if the British electorate vote for things that he personally doesn't like he really, really shouldn't be.
David Cameron should be ordering an enquiry into this ASAP. This general should be traced, and kicked out of the army for these disgraceful comments.
So you disagree with industrial action then,.
Nice to have you aboard. You agree to remove the Trade Union strangehold and then we can look at the army.
After all this general has done nothing wrong, if we were to force people out of position for every time they talked about 'direct action' there would be no Trade Union movement left. Which might not be a bad thing, its only good for foundationing extreme left wing agendas and doesnt precious little for workers rights, or they might have opposed Blair more.
Surely you didn't just equate a military coups d'état to industrial action? Surely?
If so that's a new low for Dakka's very own Underhive.
No I equated a hyphesised industrial action to an industrial action.
Even the Independent didn't claim the general was threatening a coup. Really you should actually read what the general wrote rather than the hysteria.
To top it off its an anonymous report, that was leaked, not a formal proposal. Likely some despairing notes that are little more than venting taken way out of consequence.
Any military orders, proposals and policies as such are signed and labeled.
I have read what the general said to the reporter, Orlanth, I've read it about a dozen times and his intentions are crystal clear. He talked of fair means or foul.
If serving officers want to resign en masse then that is their right in a democracy.
Foul means is a completely different ball game. For you to compare military action against a democratically elected government to a 24hr tube strike on the London underground speaks volumes.
That this senior officer even mentioned the use of foul means as a potential threat against Corbyn, is grounds for dismissal in my book.
The Prime minister should launch an urgent inquiry and come down on this general like a ton of wet concrete.
Which still doesnt mean he has done anything wrong.
Yes he did, he talked to the press without authorisation, this is something that the military takes seriously and is regarded as being 'very naughty'. IIRC someone of his rank requires ministerial approval before they can speak to the press.
IIRC someone of his rank requires ministerial approval before they can speak to the press.
The army has its own press office, ministerial permission is required for things being discussed at the MoD.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I have read what the general said to the reporter, Orlanth, I've read it about a dozen times and his intentions are crystal clear. He talked of fair means or foul.
Foul means is a completely different ball game. For you to compare military action against a democratically elected government to a 24hr tube strike on the London underground speaks volumes.
Ordering soldiers to barracks would be foul means. Soldiers and police are not allowed to down tools, so an effective industrial action would be foul means.
Foul means doesnt necessary mean a coup or military action. It would be very unlikely if it did.
That this senior officer even mentioned the use of foul means as a potential threat against Corbyn, is grounds for dismissal in my book.
This general who wrote anonymous notes leaked to the press (by foul means) has no obligation of loyalty to Corbyn. He can state his opinions.
We do not live in a police state, he is entirtled to say he is opposed to Corbyn and beleives Corbyn to be a threat to national security. After all Cameron has already claimed as such.
You are also missing one thing, if Corbyn IS a danger to national security, and if he betrays the UK to our enemies. Then it will be this general's duty to disobey him. Service personnel are servants of the monarch and the state (civil service) in that order. They are never servants of the Prime Minister.
You are also missing one thing, if Corbyn IS a danger to national security, and if he betrays the UK to our enemies. Then it will be this general's duty to disobey him. Service personnel are servants of the monarch and the state (civil service) in that order. They are never servants of the Prime Minister.
If Corbyn went before the British public and said if you vote for me, I'll scrap trident and pull us out of NATO, and the British public said yeah, we like that, and voted him in...
Are you seriously saying that is justification for the British army to launch a military coup against Corbyn?
Are you blaming the unknown general for leaking his own notes to the press and also leaking drone strikes to the press?
Yes, and technically, yes, although there is no guarantee that this 'General' exists and its even less likely that these leaks originate from the same source.
Good old Orlanth and your toothless personal attacks, ironically coupled with a habit of posting flying rodent gak crazy things.
Why the hell is 'bat' filtered by the idiotic profanity filter?
You are also missing one thing, if Corbyn IS a danger to national security, and if he betrays the UK to our enemies. Then it will be this general's duty to disobey him. Service personnel are servants of the monarch and the state (civil service) in that order. They are never servants of the Prime Minister.
If Corbyn went before the British public and said if you vote for me, I'll scrap trident and pull us out of NATO, and the British public said yeah, we like that, and voted him in...
Are you seriously saying that is justification for the British army to launch a military coup against Corbyn?
God help us...
1. As stated earlier there is noone calling for a coup. Yet you and you alone keep on claiming there is. You cannot honestly critique something if you so blatantly dishonest about how what you oppose represents itself.
2. The public can decide to vote for a party thats promises to take the UK out of NATO and ban Trident. Its the other things Labour governments might do which cross the line. Like what Blair tried over Gibraltar.
and its even less likely that these leaks originate from the same source.
I wouldn't say that. We don't know who the leaks are but someone with access to MoD or army documents is giving them to the press in order to stir up trouble.
It could be the same person. The civil service was heavily New Labourised (it is supposed to be apolitical) and it is no stretch to imaging that a serviceman or civil servant who hates the fact we have a Tory government is trying to make mischief.
It is indeed not unlikely more than one person fits this description and we could have multiple independent leaks. But without a crystal ball or a peek into MI5 secret files we wont know for sure unless there is a public prosecution of the whistleblower.
That is unlikely any action is possible over the memos, but if they catch the traitor sending info about drone strikes to the press (in other words leaking military secrets) then I hope they get a trial and a long stay in prison if convicted.
Jimsolo wrote: In Britain, does the PM have a place in the chain of military command? (Presumably at the top?) Just curious. Also, Corbyn is notePM yet, is that correct?
Sorry, just gathering a little background info before coming to a conclusion.
The PM is not the commander in chief.
Corbyn is leader of the opposition and gets his chance to become PM at the next General Election in 2015 (unless the Conservatives lose a vote of confidence before then.)
This general's comments are similar to various comments made in the previous five years when the coalition government was reducing the armed forces.
K. I could be wrong, but it doesn't sound like he can be prosecuted at this point. He hasn't done anything but make a boast of his intent, which is to oppose a figure who is not at this point his superior.
Pretty low-brow, but it doesn't sound treasonous at this point.
Actually doing it, on the other hand, now that would be bad.
So its 'crazy' to suggest that a general isnt leaking his own controversial memos?
Its crazy to equate industrial action to a coup. Utterly mental.
Ok, ok.
I will repeat NOONE IS CALLING FOR A COUP.
People like you and Do_I_Not_Like_That are twisting wording to make the claim. Your coup claims are BASELESS. Got it? Lets move on then.
Now I would suggest you refrain from making the same blatantly daft assumptions even when their falseness is repeatedly logically explained to you, calling me 'mental', and flagging the mods for me claiming your comments are stupid. Two out of three is bad enough.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No such luck I'm afraid, Frazz. Damned Liberals got their way with their human rights act. Mutiny and treason are no longer punishable by death. A cosy jail cell is the punishment.
Really?
Article 2 – Right to life
1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No such luck I'm afraid, Frazz. Damned Liberals got their way with their human rights act. Mutiny and treason are no longer punishable by death. A cosy jail cell is the punishment.
Really?
Article 2 – Right to life
1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
Which sums up why using drones on scum who join ISIS fighting in Syria is legal.
Though this is US law relating to US citizens who are targeted.
However our principles are very similar except that we don't have a death penalty as a result of a legal conviction.
Though Dreadclaw in context Do_I_Not_Like_That is discussing what he would see done to a general who dares not love comrade Corbyn rather than anyone NATO countries are actually targeting.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No such luck I'm afraid, Frazz. Damned Liberals got their way with their human rights act. Mutiny and treason are no longer punishable by death. A cosy jail cell is the punishment.
Really?
Article 2 – Right to life
1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
Which sums up why using drones on scum who join ISIS fighting in Syria is legal.
Though this is US law relating to US citizens who are targeted.
However our principles are very similar except that we don't have a death penalty as a result of a legal conviction.
Though Dreadclaw in context Do_I_Not_Like_That is discussing what he would see done to a general who dares not love comrade Corbyn rather than anyone NATO countries are actually targeting.
I thought it was more, what'd they'd see done to stupid military officials making stupid comments about democratically elected individuals?
I thought it was more, what'd they'd see done to stupid military officials making stupid comments about democratically elected individuals?
Who aren't yet elected to a relevant office.
And yet we thought that because we lived in a democracy we were entitled to free speech.
Corbyn isnt even our Great Leader yet, and there is a very good chance Labour could disappear onto the fringe in the 2020 election, or they will hold their own rebellion against Corbyn.
Nevertheless the Stalinism is starting early. I wonder if the forum Corbynistas are practicing for when they are rounding up dissidents who dare critique the regime. - That by the way was a joke.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No such luck I'm afraid, Frazz. Damned Liberals got their way with their human rights act. Mutiny and treason are no longer punishable by death. A cosy jail cell is the punishment.
Really?
Article 2 – Right to life
1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
Which sums up why using drones on scum who join ISIS fighting in Syria is legal.
Though this is US law relating to US citizens who are targeted.
However our principles are very similar except that we don't have a death penalty as a result of a legal conviction.
Though Dreadclaw in context Do_I_Not_Like_That is discussing what he would see done to a general who dares not love comrade Corbyn rather than anyone NATO countries are actually targeting.
I thought it was more, what'd they'd see done to stupid military officials making stupid comments about democratically elected individuals?
Individuals who are not their military superiors? Nothing, probably. Possibly a dressing-down from their direct superior an an admonition not to act like a bell end, but that seems like it'd be the end of it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No such luck I'm afraid, Frazz. Damned Liberals got their way with their human rights act. Mutiny and treason are no longer punishable by death. A cosy jail cell is the punishment.
Really?
Article 2 – Right to life
1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
Which sums up why using drones on scum who join ISIS fighting in Syria is legal.
Though this is US law relating to US citizens who are targeted.
However our principles are very similar except that we don't have a death penalty as a result of a legal conviction.
Though Dreadclaw in context Do_I_Not_Like_That is discussing what he would see done to a general who dares not love comrade Corbyn rather than anyone NATO countries are actually targeting.
I thought it was more, what'd they'd see done to stupid military officials making stupid comments about democratically elected individuals?
Individuals who are not their military superiors? Nothing, probably. Possibly a dressing-down from their direct superior an an admonition not to act like a bell end, but that seems like it'd be the end of it.
In our society of 'tolerance' and 'sensitivity' military personnel who critique Corbyn could justifiably claim that they were provoked by his inappropriate and inflammatory behaviour. That is an excuse that has worked often enough in New Britain in less clear circumstances.
Corbyn is a diehard international leftist (IE bolshevik, marxist, etc) who has openly blamed NATO for the actions of Russia and seems to hate Western society. I don't blame a general for having those feelings at all.
Its not appropriate to broadcast them to the media though.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Corbyn's opposition to NATO and Britain's nuclear deterrent is well known. Parliament will vote in the next 1-2 years on the question of Britain's nuclear deterrent being renewed.
Given his "whataboutism" regarding Russian imperialism, his opposition to the UK's nuclear arsenal makes perfect sense. Its pretty easy to engage in a hybrid war against an opponent who has let their deterant systems go into decay.
See: Donbas.
Has he made similar statements regarding Russia's 8000 warheads?
I might have some (occasionally severe) issues with certain western nations, but this guy sounds like a real donkey-cave. How the hell did the labor MPs think that this guy was kosher? Or is it like the US where the left can't be liberal enough and the right can't be conservative enough?
I might have some (occasionally severe) issues with certain western nations, but this guy sounds like a real donkey-cave. How the hell did the labor MPs think that this guy was kosher? Or is it like the US where the left can't be liberal enough and the right can't be conservative enough?
Is he kosher, or is he halal? Would he put his penis into a pig's mouth?
Or is he just another nasty looking communist with a terrible beard? IDK.
Peter Wiggin wrote: Corbyn is a diehard international leftist (IE bolshevik, marxist, etc) who has openly blamed NATO for the actions of Russia and seems to hate Western society. I don't blame a general for having those feelings at all.
It is logical to do so. Corbyn will end austerity and bring back loony left squandering which will very quickly feth our economy.
Corbyn will get rid of Trident ASAP and make mischief in NATO both of which will weaken the organisation and bolster Putin's adventurism.
Has he made similar statements regarding Russia's 8000 warheads?
Of course not. He isnt concerned about the Crimea either, or pressure on the Baltic states.
For that matter the fether wants to sell out the Falkland islanders and Gibraltarians both of whom have made their feelings very clear about how they want to be governed.
But every true loony lefty knows, equal rights are not for everyone.
No, they are merely hinting at one. Besides it is yourself who equated industrial action to a coup and that is the comment that is so absurd its funny (in a tragic way).
Or is he just another nasty looking communist with a terrible beard? IDK.
He isn't a communist and his beard is...a beard?
Orlanth wrote: Corbyn will end austerity and bring back loony left squandering which will very quickly feth our economy.
While Dave the pig man and his chums will continue on his road of ideologically driven austerity and me firstism; widening the social and economic gulf that had been closing since the war and enriching themselves and their cronies in the process like all good career politicians. Oh look I can also make inflammatory statements!
Orlanth wrote: and flagging the mods for me claiming your comments are stupid.
I have never flagged anything to the mods (well once but that was something about kitchens) for the simple reason that I detest censorship.
Peter Wiggin wrote: Corbyn is a diehard international leftist (IE bolshevik, marxist, etc) who has openly blamed NATO for the actions of Russia and seems to hate Western society. I don't blame a general for having those feelings at all.
Its not appropriate to broadcast them to the media though.
Especially when politician in question might be his boss one day.
And before Orlanth or anybody else chips in about the Queen being head of the army, if PM Corbyn wanted this guy sacked, the Queen would sign it off no problem.
I thought it was more, what'd they'd see done to stupid military officials making stupid comments about democratically elected individuals?
Who aren't yet elected to a relevant office.
And yet we thought that because we lived in a democracy we were entitled to free speech.
Corbyn isnt even our Great Leader yet, and there is a very good chance Labour could disappear onto the fringe in the 2020 election, or they will hold their own rebellion against Corbyn.
Nevertheless the Stalinism is starting early. I wonder if the forum Corbynistas are practicing for when they are rounding up dissidents who dare critique the regime. - That by the way was a joke.
The usual pie in the sky nonsense. Of course generals are entitled to free speech, but there's always been an understanding that they would not become politicised for obvious reasons.
Surely you didn't just equate a military coups d'état to industrial action? Surely?
If so that's a new low for Dakka's very own Underhive.
No I equated a hyphesised industrial action to an industrial action.
Even the Independent didn't claim the general was threatening a coup. Really you should actually read what the general wrote rather than the hysteria.
To top it off its an anonymous report, that was leaked, not a formal proposal. Likely some despairing notes that are little more than venting taken way out of consequence.
Any military orders, proposals and policies as such are signed and labeled.
If his name is ever revealed, assuming that this individual exists and actually is serving, just watch how quickly the 'retires'.
Which still doesnt mean he has done anything wrong.
He wouldn't be the first victim of press hysteria in British political history.
Perhaps you should follow your advice and read what was actually said. When he talks about foul means, I don't he was intending to blank Corbyn at Armistice day or refuse to salute him if Corbyn became PM. You forget that the Army has form for this whenever a left-wing government takes office.
Ramsey McDonald and Harold Wilson were subject to plots and whispering campaigns from the army.
And for the record, I'm not a Labour party member or a Corbyn fan. I'm a campaigner for Scottish independence. Corbyn is just another obstacle to that.
Also for the record, it was me, and not Silent Puffin who flagged your comment to a MOD on the grounds it was rude and disrespectful. Telling somebody to stick to car and football threads because they disagree with you, is not good form.
I doubt if I've ever agreed with you on anything, but I would never suggest that you should leave this thread...
Orlanth wrote: Corbyn will end austerity and bring back loony left squandering which will very quickly feth our economy.
While Dave the pig man and his chums will continue on his road of ideologically driven austerity and me firstism; widening the social and economic gulf that had been closing since the war and enriching themselves and their cronies in the process like all good career politicians. Oh look I can also make inflammatory statements!
Too bad Camerons austerity involves starving disabled and other vulnerable people instead of getting rid of degenerate druggies like him. That whole so called elite of druggies, degenerates, manipulators. Engaging in drug-networking, secret cliques with degenerate rituals and mass manipulation. They should be the first to die, not the ones to be enriched.
No, they are merely hinting at one. Besides it is yourself who equated industrial action to a coup and that is the comment that is so absurd its funny (in a tragic way).
I will reexplain because you are insistant on missing a simple plainly explained point.
LOGIC CHAIN 1.
1. The army is not allowed to strike, neither is the police.
2. So doing so anyway would be a fair definition of extreme action.
3. A coup on the other hand would be exceptionally unlikely under all circumstances.
4. Therefore a logical interpretation of an extreme reaction to Corbyns policies, should he be elected and propogate them to the detriment of national security, is to down tools.
5. No source has actually mentioned a coup, howeever it was hinted at by the general that a response could go beyond resignations.
LOGIC CHAIN 2.
This was not discussed in the article but I thought I should throw it in here.
1. Corbyn is not unlikely if elected as part of a 2020 Labour government to sell out the Falklanders and Gibraltarians.
2. Blair already sold out the Gibraltarians in a deal from circa 2005 but had to resign due to the Gulf War before the plans to hand over the territory were complete. Evidence of the sell out was around in 2005, it was later double sourced and confirmed in 2011 in an ex-minister memoires.
3. Even if we have a Labour government elected by the people, they do not have a mandate to remove land belonging to British citizens, who have made their own wishes very clear in a democratic process and sell them and their territory out to a foreign state.
4. The military garrison may resist a secret handover of Gibraltar or the Falkands on behalf of the inhabitants as they are duty bound to protect those lands on behalf of Her Majesty and the lawful inhabitants.
5. There are circumstances which could arise where the military is duty bound to disobey the Prime Minister if said Prime Minister sells out the British people. The Army's first loyalty is the the Monarch, then to the state - which means the civil service and the people, not Westminster.
Orlanth wrote: Corbyn will end austerity and bring back loony left squandering which will very quickly feth our economy.
While Dave the pig man and his chums will continue on his road of ideologically driven austerity and me firstism; widening the social and economic gulf that had been closing since the war and enriching themselves and their cronies in the process like all good career politicians.
Actually Blair widened the economic gulf by claiming to speak for Scoailism
Brown, who did speak for socialism fethed the economy with his squandering, and deferred the debt until 2011, (at extra interest). Brown borrowed enough in two years to place the country in debt for sixty. Austerity is necessary now or our grandkids will be paying because some people in the 2000's were stupid enough to vote Labour.
Austerity is a Labour policy, not a Tory one. Labour made it necessary and yet wants to ignore the need to balance the books and instead squander more and more.
Cameron has already survived the 'piggate' problem, it died as a story after 48 hours due to lack of evidence, even in the foreign press. Which is quite refreshing as allegations of that nature tend to stick around a long time.
Currently the only people still spouting it are those who have a vested interest in ignoring the truth.
You have been throughout the thread by willfully misreading the logically explained threat of industrial action by the military (in fact one general unsupported by the others) as a coup warning.
The usual pie in the sky nonsense. Of course generals are entitled to free speech, but there's always been an understanding that they would not become politicised for obvious reasons.
However Labour has already attempted to politicise the military directly. A lot of senior military staff were passed over or forced to resign due to not being New Labour. Blair was dangerous, Corbyn doubly so.
Perhaps you should follow your advice and read what was actually said. When he talks about foul means, I don't he was intending to blank Corbyn at Armistice day or refuse to salute him if Corbyn became PM.
Evidence please.
I gave logical evidence, and applied occams razor too:
A coup is very unlikely in an established western democracy. Simplest answer would be that 'fair means or foul' means doing actions the army is not normally allowed to do. The simplest of these and most logical is industrial action.
Ramsey McDonald and Harold Wilson were subject to plots and whispering campaigns from the army.
I cant find anything and whispering campaigns against either case, and is likely left wing hysteria; and claims the army was plotting against either man as Prime Minister is just scaremongering.
However there were justifiable concerns at the time that Harold Wilson was on the KGB payroll.
At the time complaints at the military sounded reasonable as if the army was inherently opposed to Labour. This however was not the case, hard facts revealed a long time after indicate that the security services and military had very good reason to be cold to Wilson. He could not be trusted. Also the army had a reasonable relationship with Attlee and Blair (though Blair's relationship back was less healthy).
Orlanth wrote: Corbyn will end austerity and bring back loony left squandering which will very quickly feth our economy.
While Dave the pig man and his chums will continue on his road of ideologically driven austerity and me firstism; widening the social and economic gulf that had been closing since the war and enriching themselves and their cronies in the process like all good career politicians. Oh look I can also make inflammatory statements!
Too bad Camerons austerity involves starving disabled and other vulnerable people instead of getting rid of degenerate druggies like him. That whole so called elite of druggies, degenerates, manipulators. Engaging in drug-networking, secret cliques with degenerate rituals and mass manipulation. They should be the first to die, not the ones to be enriched.
Orlanth wrote: Corbyn will end austerity and bring back loony left squandering which will very quickly feth our economy.
While Dave the pig man and his chums will continue on his road of ideologically driven austerity and me firstism; widening the social and economic gulf that had been closing since the war and enriching themselves and their cronies in the process like all good career politicians. Oh look I can also make inflammatory statements!
Too bad Camerons austerity involves starving disabled and other vulnerable people instead of getting rid of degenerate druggies like him. That whole so called elite of druggies, degenerates, manipulators. Engaging in drug-networking, secret cliques with degenerate rituals and mass manipulation. They should be the first to die, not the ones to be enriched.
:Blink:
Ah, sorry, forgot about cultural differences. You're right, keeping vulnerable people alive is squandering money and we all shall aspire to be degenerate fratboys and engage in drug-fuelled crony-ism and manipulation to earn wealth and power just like business magazines nowadays openly advice.
I will reexplain because you are insistant on missing a simple plainly explained point.
Directly from the article
“The Army just wouldn’t stand for it. The general staff would not allow a prime minister to jeopardise the security of this country and I think people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul to prevent that.
Whatever means possible eh? Of course that means taking all of Friday off rather than knocking off after CO's PT like normal, that will show that filthy pinko.
Your "clearly explained point" isn't particularly valid for one very good reason. If the army goes on strike who would actually notice? The Armed forces do very little actual work in the usual meaning of the word; it makes nothing (aside from the occasional footbridge and the like) generates no income, provides no services (aside from specific national emergencies) and basically does nothing but train for deployments, deployments that will be extremely thin on the ground if Labour win the next election. A strike by the armed forces would absolutely cripple the country. If there was a genuine threat to national security (and I mean genuine) then there is simply no chance that the Armed Forces would stand by and let the country be bombed/invaded.
Your claim that a Labour government would "sell out Gibraltarians and Falkland Islanders" is farcical. It would be a massive blow to the governments credibility for no gain whatsoever; it would never, ever (ever) happen. The Ascension islanders on the other hand are a different story but their situation is completely different..
I will reexplain because you are insistant on missing a simple plainly explained point.
Directly from the article
“The Army just wouldn’t stand for it. The general staff would not allow a prime minister to jeopardise the security of this country and I think people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul to prevent that.
Whatever means possible eh? Of course that means taking all of Friday off rather than knocking off after CO's PT like normal, that will show that filthy pinko.
Your claim that a Labour government would "sell out Gibraltarians and Falkland Islanders" is farcical. It would be a massive blow to the governments credibility for no gain whatsoever; it would never, ever (ever) happen. The Ascension islanders on the other hand are a different story but their situation is completely different..
Sa 'farcical' that Blair was halfway through doing exactly that, and believed he could have got away with it.
So farsical Corbyn has claimed to want to betray them, and the Argentine Government have made doplomatic noises praising his appointment for exactly that reason.
As far as blows to credibility is concerned, Corbyn is already that. If he gets in betraying the Gibraltarians and Falkland Islanders is not any great step beyond the nightmare he will already generate. Corbyn will only get in if he sufficiently mobilises the politically correct set that couldnt give a flying feth about Gibraltarians rights because they aren't ethnic or known to them.
AFAIK no foreign government is trying to claim the Ascension islands.
And your nation elected this guy to a position of power? Christ, does he also carry around a book by Chomsky that he quotes on occasion?
Dont blame us! So far 250,000 loony left supporters made him leader of the Labour party out of an actual electorate of forty million.
I wouldn't worry the chances of the actual nation voting him into office is very low, most people including many in the Labour party believe Corbyn's party leadership will result in the loss of the 2020 and 2025 elections.
Think of it as if the Republicans placed all their hopes for the presidency on Sarah Palin (except Palin is sane compared to this guy). The entire threat resolves around a big IF, Corbyn likely will not get into power. Though he might, you can never write off Labour and there are plenty of idiots who will vote Labour regardless of circumstances, sort of flip side to those who say they would vote Republican if a 'dawg' was standing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The idea that Labour Party leaders take their orders from Moscow is an old myth that has endured since the 1920s, but is just that: a myth.
It wasn't even a myth, it wasn't an allegation at all with one exception, a hoax letter supposedly written to Ramsey McDonald, and that didnt lose him the election, he lost because the Liberals (who he was partnered with) lost seats to the Conservatives in the 1935 election.
Now there may have been a left wing hysteria that they assumed everyone thopught they were taking orders from Moscow, but it was not true.
What was true was that Wilson was on the KGB payroll, it's a matter of historical record, and the Soviets also funded the CND and NUM. CND became a spend force after the fall of the Soviet Union, despite that fact that since then many unstable countries now have the bomb and we are in a worse position in terms of nuclear threat than any time since the 1960's. CND are has beens because they aren't getting the financial backing they used to.
Your Crobyn reminds me of my national "Jean Luc Melanchon" and all the left party.
It seems that everywhere in the world left means: stop to look oustside of the nation, let everything happens and the rest of the world will be better, no enemy, no terrorsit will ever come. They seem so noddy and so hateful of their own homeland...
I mean, why to stop you nuclear program ??? What can it get for UK to do that, in his mind ?
What are his argument to abandon some parts of his country ?
A little history of France:
During the 20th century, algeria was part of France (since 1830). But the algerian wanted to be independant.
So, there was a long war (1954-1962).
But in the end, president De Gaulle decided to put an end to the war, which was really expensive, and let the algerians vote for their independance.
However, part of the army didn't want to obey, and tried a putsch. But only a few followed their orders, and they were quickly arrested.
If it happens in UK, I think it will be the same: just a few guys who try a putsch, but the majority will remains loyal.
Have to stop you there, the comment was ridiculous enough.
Its 100% factually accurate actually. As a serving solider I am well aware of just how much quantifiable work the average soldier does when ops and training are removed from the equation. If you were to then remove the pointless and repetitive tasks designed to fill time the Army could come into work at 0800 on a Monday and knock off for the week at 0830.
Orlanth wrote: [
What was true was that Wilson was on the KGB payroll, it's a matter of historical record,
Not according to MI5.
MI5 repeatedly investigated Wilson over the course of several years before conclusively deciding that he had no relationship with the KGB
Corbyn has been friends with terrorists for years, his shadow chancellor has praised their bravery and has just in the last few days been forced into giving one of the worst and most unbelievable apologies your could ever ask to hear. If I was a military commander I wouldn't be too happy with corbyn becoming PM. But yes I agree the military are there to serve and should respect election results. Even if Mr Corbyn and his cronies are nasty characters. I just hope the British public never give him a chance.
Peter Wiggin wrote: Christ, does he also carry around a book by Chomsky that he quotes on occasion?
I would regard that as a plus.
Really? Chomsky?
Lets be honest here, there are far better self avowed "leftist" and "materialist" theorists out there. I mean you can't really get more Marxist than Slavoj Zizek (in this case distinguishing Marxism from Bolshevism, which is "problematic" as they say...) and he's not exactly a fan. Foucault also had a few things to say about Chomsky.
Chomsky's only dedication is to "anti-imperialism" as an ideology. Everything else is secondary to that, and as such any analysis he offers is inherently flawed. I mean the guy openly supported the Khmer Rouge and then retconned his statements. Basically, Noam shoulda been named Ivan.
A single unnamed military person has mentioned that if Corbyn came in, and tried to do much of what he's pledged, there'd be mass resignations.
Okay. Not quite a mutiny/coup really, is it? I mean, I suppose we could all jump around and say, 'But he said "whatever means, fair or foul!" What else could he mean but the military rising up to dethrone the monarch/impose martial law?!' But that would be a bit daft.
The answer is, he's referring to the Armed Forces attempting to pressure the Government through various somewhat underhanded political methods that they normally eschew. AKA, mass public resignations (usually joined with public statements as to why), and leaking of Government defence reformation proposals to the press to generate outrage ahead of enactment. That sort of thing.
It's also happened several times in the past, historically speaking, where the armed forces have done the above, and influenced changes in policy as a result. See the 'We want eight and we won't wait!' pre-WW1 for a good example, or Fisher's leaking of documents to W.T. Stead in 1884 for publication in the Pall Mall Gazette. There are far more than just those, though.
So yes. Pointless story, nothing to froth about. Everyone can move on.
The answer is, he's referring to the Armed Forces attempting to pressure the Government through various somewhat underhanded political methods that they normally eschew. AKA, mass public resignations (usually joined with public statements as to why), and leaking of Government defence reformation proposals to the press to generate outrage ahead of enactment. That sort of thing.
Which is exactly the problem. The Armed Forces are meant to be resolutely apolitical, quite apart from the ramifications of this 'leak' the individual responsible should face disciplinary action if he is ever discovered, or indeed exists.
If there is a collective chucking of teddys should Labour win in 2020 I wonder just how effective it would be? I suspect not very.
Which is exactly the problem. The Armed Forces are meant to be resolutely apolitical, quite apart from the ramifications of this 'leak' the individual responsible should face disciplinary action if he is ever discovered, or indeed exists.
What on earth gave you the idea the Armed Forces are apolitical? Besides, the individual responsible hasn't actually done anything except give an interview in which he's said what he feels, and that in his (empirical) experience, having chatted about things around the (metaphorical) office, he's found some other chaps feel the same way as him.
And quite frankly, I agree with them. If the senior officers feel that political decisions being taken threaten the nation's security to the point that they're willing to resign rather than continue to serve under them, then of course they should have that right. Nobody else gets stood against the wall and shot when they leave because they dislike the actions taken by the new boss, or forced to sign gagging orders, why should the military be any different? Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell haven't exactly been subtle about their time in power, have they? And they had considerably more involvement/authority in top level decisions!
Plus, let's face it, every politician leaks everything they can get their hands on to their political advantage. As do senior civil servants, the Judiciary, and the Royal family. Whatever makes you think that the Armed Forces don't? It's been a grand old tradition of anyone who's in any kind of power to leak documents relating to things they disagree with that they reckon are unpopular for as long as our system has existed. It's not exactly a new thing.
If public pressure forces a bad policy to change, then quite frankly, it probably wasn't a policy anyone wanted to begin with. Likewise, if it's something that embarasses the Government, it probably wasn't something they should have been saying/doing anyway.
What on earth gave you the idea the Armed Forces are apolitical?
Because that's what the Queen's regulations say. A politicised armed forces in very much in Banana Republic territory and no one wants that.
Ketara wrote: If the senior officers feel that political decisions being taken threaten the nation's security to the point that they're willing to resign rather than continue to serve under them, then of course they should have that right.
Of course. Threating to take " whatever means possible" in a national newspaper goes way, way beyond that.
Ketara wrote: If public pressure forces a bad policy to change, then quite frankly, it probably wasn't a policy anyone wanted to begin with.
Even if it was in the winning Party's manifesto?
I'm not suggesting that there will be a coup, even if one was attempted it would almost certainly fail, and the rest of the rabblerousing would probably have little to no effect in the real world. 'Leaking' such a document is unprofessional behaviour of the highest order however.
Because that's what the Queen's regulations say. A politicised armed forces in very much in Banana Republic territory and no one wants that.
No it doesn't. It says that they can't take an active part in the affairs of a party, no military bases or equipment are to be used to further any political goals/interests, and they're generally not allowed to be appointed to any sort of political position.
There is nothing in there saying they are banned from having their own political opinions, playing a passive part in the affairs of a party, or using their positions to express their own political opinions in what way they feel is best for the nation. Which they do quite frequently (see the current First Lord of the Admiralty's piece in the Telegraph on Scottish Independence recently http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10766384/Scottish-independence-would-damage-Britains-defence.html).
The general key is that they are not generally permitted to combine into official political organisation, but personal political acts are permitted.
Then no-one would get upset by it, and it would be common knowledge (as opposed to 'leaked'). Leaking documents isn't generally necessary if what's occurring is already in the public eye. I mean, you can't really 'leak' a budget the day after it's been announced, can you?
I'm not suggesting that there will be a coup, even if one was attempted it would almost certainly fail, and the rest of the rabblerousing would probably have little to no effect in the real world. 'Leaking' such a document is unprofessional behaviour of the highest order however.
I contest that this is regular behaviour used by practically every military historically (including all the professional ones), and this is simply the first time it's come to your attention. But because it's shattered your illusions on the matter, you regard it as 'unprofessional'. Even though every other agency in the land does it.
Ketara, you're overlooking the fact that not every government agency in the land has 100,000 heavily armed men and women backing it up!
I also think you're overlooking the seriousness of these comments. This is not some junior minister in the culture and sport department leaking news about council football pitches being sold to a housing developer. This is a high ranking army officer talking about unconstitutional methods, simply because he doesn't like the idea of a Labour government being elected!
Alarm bells should be ringing, regardless of political affiliation.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ketara, you're overlooking the fact that not every government agency in the land has 100,000 heavily armed men and women backing it up!
They alternatively have the law courts, the House of Commons, and various alternative bases of power. That's the whole purpose of separation of powers. The Army would find it quite difficult to rule this country in a coup, and what's being suggested here is far from that.
I also think you're overlooking the seriousness of these comments. This is not some junior minister in the culture and sport department leaking news about council football pitches being sold to a housing developer. This is a high ranking army officer talking about unconstitutional methods, simply because he doesn't like the idea of a Labour government being elected!
Not quite.
Firstly, the British constitution is unwritten, and mostly based off of historical events, individual court judgements, current laws, etc. As I've already demonstrated (with three examples now, old and new), this happens quite frequently, it's not an unheard of event.
Secondly, it's nothing to do with Corbyn personally or his party affiliation, it's more to do with his intentions. Namely, to abolish Trident, eliminate the defence industry, and leave NATO. Also known as removing every single military strength/defence we possess as a nation. Considering it's their job to consider these things, I'm not at all surprised they're horrified by such extreme ideas. I know they make me personally raise more of an eyebrow than the prospect of a few press leaks.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ketara, you're overlooking the fact that not every government agency in the land has 100,000 heavily armed men and women backing it up!
They alternatively have the law courts, the House of Commons, and various alternative bases of power. That's the whole purpose of separation of powers. The Army would find it quite difficult to rule this country in a coup, and what's being suggested here is far from that.
I also think you're overlooking the seriousness of these comments. This is not some junior minister in the culture and sport department leaking news about council football pitches being sold to a housing developer. This is a high ranking army officer talking about unconstitutional methods, simply because he doesn't like the idea of a Labour government being elected!
Not quite.
Firstly, the British constitution is unwritten, and mostly based off of historical events, individual court judgements, current laws, etc. As I've already demonstrated (with three examples now, old and new), this happens quite frequently, it's not an unheard of event.
Secondly, it's nothing to do with Corbyn personally or his party affiliation, it's more to do with his intentions. Namely, to abolish Trident, eliminate the defence industry, and leave NATO. Also known as removing every single military strength/defence we possess as a nation. Considering it's their job to consider these things, I'm not at all surprised they're horrified by such extreme ideas. I know they make me personally raise more of an eyebrow than the prospect of a few press leaks.
And if Corbyn goes before the nation in 2020 and says vote for Labour and I'll scrap Trident and pull us out of NATO, and the nation votes him in...
Then that's what will happen. We'll probably see most of the upper echelon of the military resign en-masse though, and Corbyn will take a heavy black political eye. It's come close to happening once or twice before, where cuts have been so extreme in nature that not only have the men at the top have threatened to resign, but their immediate subordinates, and their immediate subordinates as well. With such extreme measures, I would expect to see it again.
And quite frankly, if every senior man in the military considers your military vision a bloody stupid idea, it probably is.
Ketara wrote: Then that's what will happen. We'll probably see most of the upper echelon of the military resign en-masse though, and Corbyn will take a heavy black political eye. It's come close to happening once or twice before, where cuts have been so extreme in nature that not only have the men at the top have threatened to resign, but their immediate subordinates, and their immediate subordinates as well. With such extreme measures, I would expect to see it again.
And quite frankly, if every senior man in the military considers your military vision a bloody stupid idea, it probably is.
The voting public might see that as throwing your toys out of the pram on an epic scale. Corbyn's support might actually grow in such a situation.
But that's all hypothetical. I'd be surprised if Corbyn lasts until next summer, the Blairites will probably have stabbed him in the back by then.
Still, I'm no Corbyn fan, or Labour voter these days, but I'm left feeling uncomfortable by these comments from senior military personnel.
I've despised every Tory government I've ever had the misfortune to live under, but I've never felt the need to march on 10 Downing street and start a revolution whenever Thatcher, Major, Or Cameron, got elected.
If we take the perspective that the primary role of the military is to defend our nation from threats, both external and internal, then opposing a virtual destruction of our military capabilities is actually the logical move for them to make. Silent Puffin might regard it as unprofessional, but I'm of the opinion that doing nothing in such a circumstance would be the unprofessional thing to do (assuming that doing something 'professional' is doing something in line with your job role).
If it's the will of the country, than yes, you are correct, their resignations will seem petulant, and will affect nothing. Therefore no harm will be done, so it isn't an issue. But if it is not? Then they're actually safeguarding the country, and handing tools to the public with which to pressure Corbyn into following the democratic will. In which case, it still isn't an issue, because they're doing the right thing.
And frankly, when all is said and done, I trust their opinions on military affairs far more than I do an ideologist such as Corbyn.
It's also worth considering the hypothetical situation in which Corbyn is voted in. The Conservative manifesto could be a steaming pile of gak, in which they promise to slaughter the weak and give money to the rich. The Labour manifesto may be a wonderful vision for the country, apart from removing the military, and would result in them being voted into power. However, just because overall Labour were more popular, they don't necessarily have public support for scrapping the military.
It's actually true of almost every political victory here, such as the SNP in the last election, simply being more popular than the other (often poor) choices doesn't necessarily mean you have overwhelming public support for every single one of your policies.
-Shrike- wrote: It's also worth considering the hypothetical situation in which Corbyn is voted in. The Conservative manifesto could be a steaming pile of gak, in which they promise to slaughter the weak and give money to the rich. The Labour manifesto may be a wonderful vision for the country, apart from removing the military, and would result in them being voted into power. However, just because overall Labour were more popular, they don't necessarily have public support for scrapping the military.
It's actually true of almost every political victory here, such as the SNP in the last election, simply being more popular than the other (often poor) choices doesn't necessarily mean you have overwhelming public support for every single one of your policies.
It's what we're left with on both sides of the pond, voting for whichever we perceive to be the lesser of two evils.
Personally, given the choice between Trident dismantling or the NHS being strip-mined, it's bye bye subs...
Ketara wrote: If we take the perspective that the primary role of the military is to defend our nation from threats, both external and internal, then opposing a virtual destruction of our military capabilities is actually the logical move for them to make. Silent Puffin might regard it as unprofessional, but I'm of the opinion that doing nothing in such a circumstance would be the unprofessional thing to do (assuming that doing something 'professional' is doing something in line with your job role).
If it's the will of the country, than yes, you are correct, their resignations will seem petulant, and will affect nothing. Therefore no harm will be done, so it isn't an issue. But if it is not? Then they're actually safeguarding the country, and handing tools to the public with which to pressure Corbyn into following the democratic will. In which case, it still isn't an issue, because they're doing the right thing.
And frankly, when all is said and done, I trust their opinions on military affairs far more than I do an ideologist such as Corbyn.
If Corbyn were elected with a small majority, say anything up too 20 seats, then yes, scrapping Trident or pulling us out of NATO could be a contentious decision, given the level of opposition.
But if Corbyn does a Blair and wins with a 3 figure majority, say 150+ seats, then that's as clear a democratic mandate as you're likely to see.
Personally, I think that such a momentous decision on the nation's security, if ever it arose, should be put before the British public as a referendum. If Corbyn did that, he would pull the rug from underneath his opponents' feet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Shrike- wrote: It's also worth considering the hypothetical situation in which Corbyn is voted in. The Conservative manifesto could be a steaming pile of gak, in which they promise to slaughter the weak and give money to the rich. The Labour manifesto may be a wonderful vision for the country, apart from removing the military, and would result in them being voted into power. However, just because overall Labour were more popular, they don't necessarily have public support for scrapping the military.
It's actually true of almost every political victory here, such as the SNP in the last election, simply being more popular than the other (often poor) choices doesn't necessarily mean you have overwhelming public support for every single one of your policies.
The Tories are already implementing that manifesto
-Shrike- wrote: It's also worth considering the hypothetical situation in which Corbyn is voted in. The Conservative manifesto could be a steaming pile of gak, in which they promise to slaughter the weak and give money to the rich. The Labour manifesto may be a wonderful vision for the country, apart from removing the military, and would result in them being voted into power. However, just because overall Labour were more popular, they don't necessarily have public support for scrapping the military.
It's actually true of almost every political victory here, such as the SNP in the last election, simply being more popular than the other (often poor) choices doesn't necessarily mean you have overwhelming public support for every single one of your policies.
It's what we're left with on both sides of the pond, voting for whichever we perceive to be the lesser of two evils.
Personally, given the choice between Trident dismantling or the NHS being strip-mined, it's bye bye subs...
You and me both. Leaving aside the moral issue of nuclear weapons, the price tag is obscene and would be better spent on conventional weapons.
Britain has no maritime patrol craft to watch over the North Sea/Atlantic coastlines
-Shrike- wrote: It's also worth considering the hypothetical situation in which Corbyn is voted in. The Conservative manifesto could be a steaming pile of gak, in which they promise to slaughter the weak and give money to the rich. The Labour manifesto may be a wonderful vision for the country, apart from removing the military, and would result in them being voted into power. However, just because overall Labour were more popular, they don't necessarily have public support for scrapping the military.
It's actually true of almost every political victory here, such as the SNP in the last election, simply being more popular than the other (often poor) choices doesn't necessarily mean you have overwhelming public support for every single one of your policies.
It's what we're left with on both sides of the pond, voting for whichever we perceive to be the lesser of two evils.
Personally, given the choice between Trident dismantling or the NHS being strip-mined, it's bye bye subs...
But if Corbyn does a Blair and wins with a 3 figure majority, say 150+ seats, then that's as clear a democratic mandate as you're likely to see.
Thats a big if.
.....If Robert Mugabe suddens discovers the mathematical formula for fiscal success and turns Zimbabwe into the cornerstone of the world economy.
.....If Kim Jong-Un convinces South Korea to deman a referendum and flock to vote to unite under his Glorious Leadership and live in peaceful utopian united Korea.
Personally, I think that such a momentous decision on the nation's security, if ever it arose, should be put before the British public as a referendum. If Corbyn did that, he would pull the rug from underneath his opponents' feet.
Because left wing demagogues are always about the will of the people. Yeah, right.
Personally, given the choice between Trident dismantling or the NHS being strip-mined, it's bye bye subs...
Actually money doesn't exist purely as a binary choice. Why look at the price of a nuclear sub in terms of number of nurses you could buy, why not in number of footballers, or MP's salaries.
There is so much squandering going on that it is hard to say that must go so this must stay. The big trouble is that no one is looking at the real issues with regards to fiscal balance, tax avoidance, accrued interest from short termist decisions and above all the gross inefficiency in the civil service. The UK armed forces have been cut and cut again yet there are the same number of pen pushers in protected jobs in the MoD. The NHS uis similarly overstaffed with middle management bureaucrats who don't do any real work.
Trident is affordable, so is the NHS, but no one of any party including the SNP are willing to cross the civil service. It isn't one or other.
You and me both. Leaving aside the moral issue of nuclear weapons, the price tag is obscene and would be better spent on conventional weapons.
Nuclear weapons have their value by remaining unused, the benefit is indirect political and hard to see from a bar stool. Its very very big in international politics, which translates into economic and political clout worldwide.
Ask yourself why so many nations envy the UK's official nuclear status as part of one of the five declared powers. And how only a small number of nations have managed to get away with being unofficial nuclear powers.
Ketara wrote: but personal political acts are permitted.
Not when the individual associates the Armed Forces with their personal political views. The Armed Forces as a body is apolitical, at least in theory.
I am well aware that this sort of thing has happened in the past, and it will doubtless happen in the future, that does not mean that it is professional in anyway, shape or form.
Ketara wrote: but personal political acts are permitted.
Not when the individual associates the Armed Forces with their personal political views. The Armed Forces as a body is apolitical, at least in theory.
As far as I'm aware, the relevant extract says that current members of the Forces are not permitted to bring the Services into 'disrepute'. That's about the only limit in place with regards to expressing their personal/professional opinions in public.
I believe I also already pointed out an extract by the current First Sea Lord on Scottish independence. I could go on with more links, but I won't.
I am well aware that this sort of thing has happened in the past, and it will doubtless happen in the future, that does not mean that it is professional in anyway, shape or form.
I am surprised to find that you believe the actions of every current service head, and many others before that in every service over the last two centuries to be unprofessional. Perhaps you should write them all a letter telling them that.
Britain has no maritime patrol craft to watch over the North Sea/Atlantic coastlines
Out of curiosity, why do we need them?
That should have been aircraft for watching over valuable oil fields/oil rigs, Russian incursions, and of course, the fact that we're an island nation. An island nation needs a navy. Trident money would be better spent on Royal Navy and RAF.
Soldiers, and that includes generals, need to shut up and take orders, whether they like it or not. If they refuse to take orders they should be punished.
Soldiers should not concern themselves with politics, it is not their job. If they don't like the way things going they are free to leave. If they had wanted to express their political concerns, they should have gone into politics, not the army.
This Corbyn guy, like most Western socialists, has me pretty divided. On one hand, I consider myself a socialist and I like his economic ideas, but on the other hand, his social/cultural ideas are way too progressive. What the West needs is some good conservative socialists.
If only they'd let me vote...
Britain has no maritime patrol craft to watch over the North Sea/Atlantic coastlines
Out of curiosity, why do we need them?
That should have been aircraft for watching over valuable oil fields/oil rigs, Russian incursions, and of course, the fact that we're an island nation. An island nation needs a navy. Trident money would be better spent on Royal Navy and RAF.
I certainly agree we need a navy, you'll never have an argument from me there! But I think that 'patrol craft' are somewhat a relic of a bygone age to a large extent, coastguard aside. It hearkens back to the days when we were terrified of French/Spanish invasion, and had to keep a fleet scouring up and down the coast to intercept any raiders or invading armies.
These days, with aircraft, submarines, modern detection equipment, and the lack of a particularly maritime enemy, we don't really have a huge amount to worry about in that department.
I suppose the Russians could land a few battalions on the coast (they don't have enough landing craft in the North Sea to do much more than that), but any further reinforcements would be cut off by submarine interception very shortly afterwards. The subsequent lack of resupply and vulnerability to airstrike would let us polish them off in relatively short order.
Collectively in the North, the Russians can muster a blue water fleet consisting of a thirty year old Carrier, a pair of fifty year old battle-cruisers, four thirty five year old anti-ship Sovremennyy destroyers, five thirty five year old Udaloy anti-submarine destroyers, two Neustrashimyy Frigates (one is of questionable quality), a single Slava class Cruiser from the 1970's, and (more importantly) four newer Steregushchy anti-ship/sub corvettes.
Frankly, half of the older stuff is barely seaworthy, and the other half not equipped with up date detection, ASW weaponry or anti-air missiles. The new Corvettes are quite pretty, but a single Type 45 Destroyer displaces more tonnage than all four combined, and we have six of those. We also have thirteen 'Duke' class Frigates built over the last two decades which are reasonably well kitted out, and each displace more than double what those shiny Russian corvettes do.
So yeah, Russian invasion isn't happening anytime soon. Quite honestly, the only power currently capable of smashing our Navy is America. So I wouldn't worry about needing patrol craft too much.
Britain has no maritime patrol craft to watch over the North Sea/Atlantic coastlines
Out of curiosity, why do we need them?
That should have been aircraft for watching over valuable oil fields/oil rigs, Russian incursions, and of course, the fact that we're an island nation. An island nation needs a navy. Trident money would be better spent on Royal Navy and RAF.
I certainly agree we need a navy, you'll never have an argument from me there! But I think that 'patrol craft' are somewhat a relic of a bygone age to a large extent, coastguard aside. It hearkens back to the days when we were terrified of French/Spanish invasion, and had to keep a fleet scouring up and down the coast to intercept any raiders or invading armies.
These days, with aircraft, submarines, modern detection equipment, and the lack of a particularly maritime enemy, we don't really have a huge amount to worry about in that department.
I suppose the Russians could land a few battalions on the coast (they don't have enough landing craft in the North Sea to do much more than that), but any further reinforcements would be cut off by submarine interception very shortly afterwards. The subsequent lack of resupply and vulnerability to airstrike would let us polish them off in relatively short order.
Collectively in the North, the Russians can muster a blue water fleet consisting of a thirty year old Carrier, a pair of fifty year old battle-cruisers, four thirty five year old anti-ship Sovremennyy destroyers, five thirty five year old Udaloy anti-submarine destroyers, two Neustrashimyy Frigates (one is of questionable quality), a single Slava class Cruiser from the 1970's, and (more importantly) four newer Steregushchy anti-ship/sub corvettes.
Frankly, half of the older stuff is barely seaworthy, and the other half not equipped with up date detection, ASW weaponry or anti-air missiles. The new Corvettes are quite pretty, but a single Type 45 Destroyer displaces more tonnage than all four combined, and we have six of those. We also have thirteen 'Duke' class Frigates built over the last two decades which are reasonably well kitted out, and each displace more than double what those shiny Russian corvettes do.
So yeah, Russian invasion isn't happening anytime soon. Quite honestly, the only power currently capable of smashing our Navy is America. So I wouldn't worry about needing patrol craft too much.
Why the feth would Russia be interested in invading the UK in the first place? Way too much rain. Crimea is much nicer.
Britain has no maritime patrol craft to watch over the North Sea/Atlantic coastlines
Out of curiosity, why do we need them?
That should have been aircraft for watching over valuable oil fields/oil rigs, Russian incursions, and of course, the fact that we're an island nation. An island nation needs a navy. Trident money would be better spent on Royal Navy and RAF.
I certainly agree we need a navy, you'll never have an argument from me there! But I think that 'patrol craft' are somewhat a relic of a bygone age to a large extent, coastguard aside. It hearkens back to the days when we were terrified of French/Spanish invasion, and had to keep a fleet scouring up and down the coast to intercept any raiders or invading armies.
These days, with aircraft, submarines, modern detection equipment, and the lack of a particularly maritime enemy, we don't really have a huge amount to worry about in that department.
I suppose the Russians could land a few battalions on the coast (they don't have enough landing craft in the North Sea to do much more than that), but any further reinforcements would be cut off by submarine interception very shortly afterwards. The subsequent lack of resupply and vulnerability to airstrike would let us polish them off in relatively short order.
Do_I_Not_Like_That is right in thinking we need a coastal patrol force, is wrong in thinking that we dont have one and is also wrong in thinking we need to exchange Trident for one.
Take a good look at our non existant Naval patrol boats:
Admitedly the RNLI is a charity, but effectively the government outsourced coastal rescue to the organisation, is government funded and it is in effect the coastal emergency rescue service and pretty much always had been.
Though official rescue support from the RAF and RN is provided, mostly via helicopter.
As for Russian incursions this is mostly handled by the RAF. Russian naval vessels entering British waters do so in international shipping lanes and there isnt much one can do about that short of a blockade. Any major movements are shadowed by the surface fleet of several NATO countries.
Why the feth would Russia be interested in invading the UK in the first place? Way too much rain. Crimea is much nicer.
Why is Russia interested in invading Crimea? Why is Russia interested in invading Donbas? Why is Russia interested in invading the Baltics? Why is Russia interested in invading Syria?
Why the feth would Russia be interested in invading the UK in the first place? Way too much rain. Crimea is much nicer.
Why is Russia interested in invading Crimea? Why is Russia interested in invading Donbas? Why is Russia interested in invading the Baltics? Why is Russia interested in invading Syria?
Why don't we try not to completely derail the thread? There's already a Russian invasion thread, IIRC.
FWIW, I agree with Iron Captain. Nobody in their right mind would want to invade the UK these days. You'd have to deal with the weather and the people always talking (moaning) about it.
Never trust any political party that has a "manifesto."
Err... how much do you know about British politics?
Err... how much do you know about British politics?
Eh, touche. But my statement stands.
And Corbyn CERTAINLY seems more dedicated to international leftist ideology than to the concept of national pride, patriotism, or British identity. I judge him about 30% on his googleable political track record and 70% on his awful communist/jihadi beard.
Now if you'll pardon me, I have 15 Big Macs to eat in my SUV. #murica
Err... how much do you know about British politics?
Eh, touche. But my statement stands.
"I said something that was actually really stupid in context, but meh, it still stands because reasons"
The statement doesn't stand. Saying "something something manifesto" when every British party has a manifesto is ridiculous.
[/b]And Corbyn CERTAINLY seems more dedicated to international leftist ideology than to the concept of national pride, patriotism, or British identity. I judge him about 30% on his googleable political track record and 70% on his awful communist/jihadi beard.
For one, seriously? The guy has a beard therefore he must obviously be untrustworthy because, again, "reasons". I'm seriously hoping that you were joking about that.
For another; you keep on making these comments about "leftist ideology" and then not actually backing them up with any evidence. If you're gonna insist that something is dangerous can you provide actual reasons please?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: Because left wing demagogues are always about the will of the people. Yeah, right.
Yeah, his track record has shown him to really just foist his own views on other people, what with him reading his constituents' questions at the PMQs; that reeks of ignoring the will of the people.
And Corbyn CERTAINLY seems more dedicated to international leftist ideology than to the concept of national pride, patriotism, or British identity. I judge him about 30% on his googleable political track record and 70% on his awful communist/jihadi beard.
Now if you'll pardon me, I have 15 Big Macs to eat in my SUV. #murica
If he had a jihadi beard, wouldn't that mark him as a religious extremist and belonging to an ideology totally opposed, at a basic level, to communism? How can his beard exist in two opposing states of being?!?
Are you one of those quaint yanks who simultaneously accuses Obama of being a communist, fascist and islamist? The 'Fascislammunist'? 'History's Greatest Monster!'...
Err... how much do you know about British politics?
Eh, touche. But my statement stands.
Not really, I'm afraid. Every political party creates a manifesto before the election, like a non-binding set of pledges that they offer to enact if they get into power. Of course, I say non-binding, but the Liberal Deomcrats are an excellent example of what happens when you go back on your manifesto.
And Corbyn CERTAINLY seems more dedicated to international leftist ideology than to the concept of national pride, patriotism, or British identity.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. UKIP are a patriotic party who take pride in their national British identity.
I judge him about 30% on his googleable political track record
Fair enough, I wouldn't expect you to know too much about British politics.
and 70% on his awful communist/jihadi beard.
Not so fair enough. Communist beards are very different to what Corbyn wears, and I'm not quite sure what a Jihadi beard is, or indeed why having a beard is such a reprehensible part of his character.
Now if you'll pardon me, I have 15 Big Macs to eat in my SUV. #murica
I'm not going to stop you. Judging you, on the other hand...
-Shrike- wrote: ...and I'm not quite sure what a Jihadi beard is..
Usually one of those one without an attached moustache; also known as a "Malcolm Galazer" beard or Peadobeard depending on where you are, it's length and whose' wearing it.
Orlanth wrote: Because left wing demagogues are always about the will of the people. Yeah, right.
Yeah, his track record has shown him to really just foist his own views on other people, what with him reading his constituents' questions at the PMQs; that reeks of ignoring the will of the people.
As he wants to actually sell out our own citizens to another country, yeah I defend my statement.
Also you should learn the lessons of Labour. Remember "caring", "honest", "anti-sleaze" Tony Blair. The propaganda is coming full circle, Labour is praising Corbyn's "honesty" and want the press and public to buy the spin. Its the only selling point they have, and frankly it's not a genuine one either.
Corbyn was so 'honest' he remained quiet from 1997 to 2010 while New Labour went against all his 'principles'. I guess if it didn't matter then, why believe him now.
We can on the other hand take him at face value when he says he wants to sell out our people, re-nationalize and squander.
Also there is this story, exposed by insiders of his own party, amongst others :
Orlanth wrote: Because left wing demagogues are always about the will of the people. Yeah, right.
Yeah, his track record has shown him to really just foist his own views on other people, what with him reading his constituents' questions at the PMQs; that reeks of ignoring the will of the people.
Labour is praising Corbyn's "honesty" and want the press and public to buy the spin. Its the only selling point they have, and frankly it's not a genuine one either.
Erm, did you miss the part where almost the entirety of Labour band a fair chunk of the press were attempting to smear him? 'Labour' for the past month or two have wanted almost nothing to do with Corbyn.
Corbyn was so 'honest' he remained quiet from 1997 to 2010 while New Labour went against all his 'principles'. I guess if it didn't matter then, why believe him now.
You realise that he's consistently voted along the same lines, right? Even during that period, he was voting against the majority of Labour. It's okay to not like the guy's politic, but making stuff up about him is a bit cheap. (Voting record available here)
Also, would you be able to actually explain what you mean by 'sell out our people'? You keep on saying it as this big proof that he's completely evil and corrupt, but haven't actually explained what you mean; at this point it's little more than a buzzword.
Goliath wrote: Erm, did you miss the part where almost the entirety of Labour band a fair chunk of the press were attempting to smear him? 'Labour' for the past month or two have wanted almost nothing to do with Corbyn.
I most certainly did not, however it is no surprise that Labour is that dishonest. Still its vain to write it off as a smear, the accusations are multi sourced.
Also the Rotherham sex abuses were no lie, this is very similar in many ways.
You realise that he's consistently voted along the same lines, right?
Corbyn shares that feature with a number of other Labour MPs and Conservative MPs alike. He would vote against, but do so quietly, he raised no voice of dissent that anyone would hear. Unlike serval other MPs of those both parties.
Also, would you be able to actually explain what you mean by 'sell out our people'? You keep on saying it as this big proof that he's completely evil and corrupt, but haven't actually explained what you mean; at this point it's little more than a buzzword.
I have actually explained. He wants to sell out Gibraltar and the Falklands in spite of the vast majority of the wishes of the lawful citizens residing there.
His reason for selling out the Falklands is wholly evil, they remind him of Thatcher's victory, they remind him that Labour lost the '83 election. he victory is an ill memory for him, so the rights of the people living there are of no consequence.
There is something seriously wrong when someone calls for unity this and equality that, while intending to sell out entire populations of their land and citizenship to forward left wing doggerel. Where is their 'equal rights'?
'Jobless men' signing up for the armed services, and many did after the Argentine invasion, were still in basic training and took no part of the Falklands campaign, they were also no longer jobless.
We are not a banana republic!!
) to deal with him. isn't that an offense against the Queen's rule? Don't mess with that chick. She'll bleed you, real quiet like...
