Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If you have issues with the Crown, you probably have issues with the ROYAL Navy, the ROYAL Air force, the ROYAL Marines and the ROYAL Tank Regiment.


The only armed force that isn't Royal is the army, thanks to a that business with Oliver Cromwell Lord Protector of England.

 welshhoppo wrote:
If you have issues with the Crown, you probably have issues with the ROYAL Navy, the ROYAL Air force, the ROYAL Marines and the ROYAL Tank Regiment.


The only armed force that isn't Royal is the army, thanks to a that business with Oliver Cromwell Lord Protector of England.

Born in 1599 died in 1658 (Sep-tem-ber)?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
If you have issues with the Crown, you probably have issues with the ROYAL Navy, the ROYAL Air force, the ROYAL Marines and the ROYAL Tank Regiment.


The only armed force that isn't Royal is the army, thanks to a that business with Oliver Cromwell Lord Protector of England.

Born in 1599 died in 1658 (Sep-tem-ber)?

Was at first "Only" MP for Huntingdon ?

Hehe. Yeah you get it.

But does the army swear an oath to the queen or is it parliament?

I would Google, but I'm supposed to be enjoying Christmas with my partner.

Yeah they swear one to the Queens according to google but not sure if they actually say it or they sign up to it when they join kind of thing.

Whirlwind wrote:You've missed two.

4) Remaining in the EU after another referendum
5) Leaving the EU but maintaining free trade and freedom of movement (which is the default position if nothing is agreed).

Four is not happening (A Lib Dem amendment for a second ref was voted away overwhelmingly) and five is not the default position if nothing is agreed. If there is no agreement the default position is the so called "hard brexit".

The issues with NI/Eire is freedom of movement and not giving those that associate themselves with the EIRE the ability to move forward and backwards between them freely.

I tapped up an old friend, more of a facebook friend these days, who was one of the many (many) junior level spin doctors back in the Tony Blair days. Supposedly the fudge that's been agreed so far is to encourage NI citizens to get Irish passports while they can, and after brexit said citizens will be able to cross the border back and forth using whichever passport they prefer, which in practice will mean taking both (one for each direction). The effect should be a relatively seamless passage for those that desire it.

We've had this argument before, not everyone predicted and immediate recession, rather stifled growth compared to the global economy so out economy is contracting relatively. The more rational views have been pretty much spot on. IMF prediction is within 0.1%. UK investment is only 2.1% compared to a 6% investment that should be expected. Phase I only just survived but effectively fudged the issues into Phase II without resolving them. The UK government has done no analysis on the impacts of leaving so is 'guessing'. Number of people employed is decreasing. Food going rotten in fields. Increasing shortage of nurses as people leave the country.

So we're back to the "recession that isn't a recession, but let's pretend there is". Much like how you're bemoaning the employment figure, despite the fact that this year employment hit its highest level since records began (we're talking more than 40 years), but just because it dipped below the peak you're now wailing into the wind that it's the end of the economy as we know it. You'd also do well to go a bit further down that BBC article, where you'll notice we actually outperformed the original IMF prediction (wonder why you didn't mention that eh...?) till they revised it mid-year having realised what a boo boo they'd made. But then this is the IMF we're talking about, who have successfully managed to predict virtually all since their founding. On the plus side, maybe the farmers you mentioned will start dipping into their pockets a little and offering a much better wage, to whomever takes it (local or not).

Whirlwind wrote:My suspicion is that it's blue because that's the Tories colour. If their colour was orange it would have been that colour. It's just convenient for them that the old passports were that colour.

It's blue purely because that's the colour they used to be. You're now reading things into the colour of the passport that aren't there. I can only imagine the level of hatred you have for the Tories. And sympathise frankly. Whatever made you hate them that much must have been pretty bad.

Kilkrazy wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42469901

Some plan to re-brand the Army has been ditched.

Not sure what I think about this. The government has fethed around with the armed services so much that we are now having to pay bonuses to re-recruit soldiers discharged a few years ago to save money, because there aren't enough personnel to cover our commitments.

In such an environment, a re-branding exercise seems a waste of time and effort. OTOH, if the modern generation don't "woke" to slogans like "Be the Best" maybe it would be a good move.

On the third hand, part of the morale of the armed forces is based on tradition.

If you want to understand this, look up an evidence session by Gen. Sir Nick Carter to the defence select committee, or even just one of his speeches. Trust me. You'll read it for a few minutes and everything will make immediate sense. The guy couldn't order a cup of tea without turning it into an exercise in management speak. He's primed for a career after the army full of change management and blue sky thinking. Oh, and then there's Capita who run the army's recruitment system, which has so far been a disaster of a truly epic scale and leaves everyone asking that most intriguing question of our age "How the is Capita still in business?". They make Teflon Tony look like he was made of superglue.

Attestation in the UK military (what you would call an oath) is made either to a god or to the monarch, usually on the first day of basic training.

Makes for an awkward introduction when you are an atheist republican.

I had my attestation before I arrived at basic training - I did it in the recruiting centre as I recall. In year's past, it used to be known as taking the king's shilling. If you didn't want to swear to God you could make it non-denominational but I don't recall an option to not swear allegiance to the crown. Mind you, my attestation was 15 years ago now.

I do remember having to explain to my training CO the difference between atheism and agnosticism. He wanted to be sure I had specified the right option.

 filbert wrote:
Mind you, my attestation was 15 years ago now.

Young 'un. I believe it is traditional at this point for me to say "get some time in."

 Henry wrote:

 filbert wrote:
Mind you, my attestation was 15 years ago now.

Young 'un. I believe it is traditional at this point for me to say "get some time in."

Yep. I only did my 5 years then buggered off.

 welshhoppo wrote:
If you have issues with the Crown, you probably have issues with the ROYAL Navy, the ROYAL Air force, the ROYAL Marines and the ROYAL Tank Regiment.


The only armed force that isn't Royal is the army, thanks to a that business with Oliver Cromwell Lord Protector of England.

That's not strictly correct because you can still have 'Royal' in front of a name as it can be used to reference that it was chartered by a king or queen. Hence you can call something 'Royal' without having to be directly linked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bouncingboredom wrote:


Four is not happening (A Lib Dem amendment for a second ref was voted away overwhelmingly) and five is not the default position if nothing is agreed. If there is no agreement the default position is the so called "hard brexit".

Never say never, a year is a long time in politics and both sides seem to be gearing up for a new referendum and there's increasing arguments for and against. That would imply an undercurrent argument, even if the neither the Tories or Labour (yet) are willing to back the idea.

I tapped up an old friend, more of a facebook friend these days, who was one of the many (many) junior level spin doctors back in the Tony Blair days. Supposedly the fudge that's been agreed so far is to encourage NI citizens to get Irish passports while they can, and after brexit said citizens will be able to cross the border back and forth using whichever passport they prefer, which in practice will mean taking both (one for each direction). The effect should be a relatively seamless passage for those that desire it.

I think again you are missing the point. Humans are emotional creatures and a fudge will be seen as that. You can't just wave a wand and say "but you've all got Irish passports now" if that still requires checks at the borders. That creates a divide that is explicitly to be avoided in GFA.

So we're back to the "recession that isn't a recession, but let's pretend there is". Much like how you're bemoaning the employment figure, despite the fact that this year employment hit its highest level since records began (we're talking more than 40 years), but just because it dipped below the peak you're now wailing into the wind that it's the end of the economy as we know it. You'd also do well to go a bit further down that BBC article, where you'll notice we actually outperformed the original IMF prediction (wonder why you didn't mention that eh...?) till they revised it mid-year having realised what a boo boo they'd made. But then this is the IMF we're talking about, who have successfully managed to predict virtually all since their founding. On the plus side, maybe the farmers you mentioned will start dipping into their pockets a little and offering a much better wage, to whomever takes it (local or not).

Except you are wrong the IMF did predict the outcomes. They were within 0.1%, of the actual effects, yes they revised it but that's what they do, however the 0.1% references their prediction at the time of the referendum 18 months ago (did you read the article? - underlined for word blindness).

"The numbers that we are seeing the economy deliver today are actually proving the point we made a year and a half ago when people said, you are too gloomy," she said.
"We were not too gloomy, we were pretty much on the mark, I mean within 0.1% or so - our forecast actually turned out to be the reality of the economy.
"Sterling has depreciated, inflation has gone up, wages have been squeezed as a result, and investments have been slowed down and are certainly lower than where we would expect them to be."

That was the point of the article... And yes I'm not going over the same old ground. If you want to live in a fairy tale land where only a recession means our economy is weakening then that's up to you. You are cherry picking the figures to suit. For example overall unemployment is down which is correct, but employment levels are also falling. That means less income and growth overall. There are effectively less jobs. Unemployment is going down because people are leaving and retiring faster than we are replacing them. Long term that will mean lower growth barring a robotic revolution that the rest of the world forget about.

I can only imagine the level of hatred you have for the Tories. And sympathise frankly. Whatever made you hate them that much must have been pretty bad.

I don't think there is much reason not to given how badly they are screwing over the country now and for future generations.

 Whirlwind wrote:
Except you are wrong the IMF did predict the outcomes. They were within 0.1%, of the actual effects, yes they revised it but that's what they do, however the 0.1% references their prediction at the time of the referendum 18 months ago (did you read the article? - underlined for word blindness).

Except at the time of the referendum, the report they produced was actually just an averaging of other peoples scenario papers. If they hadn't included a prominent leave paper "their" limited prediction would have been miles off. More to the point, the second scenario included was the adverse scenario, which is the one Christine LaGarde et al supported at the time. That one predicted a significant recession and came nowhere near the actual figures. So in a word, no, they didn't come close. They had a two horse race going and they backed the wrong one.

If you want to live in a fairy tale land where only a recession means our economy is weakening then that's up to you. You are cherry picking the figures to suit.

A more ironic comment could not have been made. I get it, you hate the Tories, you hate Brexit (or Wrexit as you call it) and you're oddly upset that the country hasn't disappeared in a fire ball, but the fact is things are going well and they're going to keep going well, and screaming to the hills about faux recessions is not going to change that.

Things aren't going well.

It's good that the country hasn't exploded in a fireball, but big economies take time to wind down.

The effects of investment in infrastructure, education and so on take [probably 1 to 10] years to feed through. British investment has been lagging for 10 years, and while we've maintained job levels, it is at the expense of wages and productivity.

The situation now is that most of the world has turned the corner on the financial crisis, and the UK hasn't. We are at the moment suffering the continued effect of uncertainty caused by Brexit.

If Brexit actually happens, we will also start to suffer the effects of the trade and skills slowdown caused by whatever settlement is arrived at. Because all of the available options are worse than what we have now.

Now, to look at the bright side, it is possible that after Brexit, the UK's trade negotiators will come up with a series of deals to replace the ones we are dropping out of, and (except for the EU deal) it is possible they may be better than what we've got now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
, and (except for the EU deal) it is possible they may be better than what we've got now.

You're negotiating when everyone knows your desperate for any kind of deal. I wouldn't expect anything good out of this.

bouncingboredom wrote:
More to the point, the second scenario included was the adverse scenario, which is the one Christine LaGarde et al supported at the time. That one predicted a significant recession and came nowhere near the actual figures. So in a word, no, they didn't come close. They had a two horse race going and they backed the wrong one.

All those scenarios were contingent on art50 being invoked immediately, which didn't happen despite that being what Cameron said he would do.

Everyone keep in mind that Brexit hasn't even happened yet.

bouncingboredom wrote:
but the fact is things are going well and they're going to keep going well, and screaming to the hills about faux recessions is not going to change that.

You ignore thefact brexit isn't done yet. You still are #n single market. You still have banking passport. Both of those are going to be GONE. Especially banking. Banks have already started moving staff out of uk and once passports gone more follows. You have no chance to keep that passport. Too many workplaces and money for eu to not take them and many countries are already aiming to get them and effect to uk is irrelevant for eu. Eu wants those and uk has nothing to offer that's worth more than those.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
, and (except for the EU deal) it is possible they may be better than what we've got now.

You're negotiating when everyone knows your desperate for any kind of deal. I wouldn't expect anything good out of this.

Indeed, I don't expect it to end well.

However, this is the true potential of Brexit -- the big vision held by pro-Leave people.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Indeed, I don't expect it to end well.

However, this is the true potential of Brexit -- the big vision held by pro-Leave people.

I don't think that is quite correct. It will end well for the multi-millionaires and billionaires that manipulated the media etc as they will be in a position to exploit the circumstances and manipulate the government. These people are likely laughing all the way to the (Panama) banks.

It's highly unlikely to end well for everyone else. Still we'll get our blue passports whilst being forced to work 60 hours a week with no mandatory holiday so that's a plus right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bouncingboredom wrote:
Except at the time of the referendum, the report they produced was actually just an averaging of other peoples scenario papers. If they hadn't included a prominent leave paper "their" limited prediction would have been miles off. More to the point, the second scenario included was the adverse scenario, which is the one Christine LaGarde et al supported at the time. That one predicted a significant recession and came nowhere near the actual figures. So in a word, no, they didn't come close. They had a two horse race going and they backed the wrong one.

I'm not quite sure how that makes any sense? They produced multiple reports calling information from different sources. That's not a particular issues as it happens all the time. Climate change reports aren't all from one group, they amalgamate all the different models and identify what they think is most likely. By producing the reports you provide information on the different possibilities. Nevertheless as you've now admitted the IMF were in fact correct with their predictions from 18 months ago.

 Whirlwind wrote:

It's highly unlikely to end well for everyone else. Still we'll get our blue passports whilst being forced to work 60 hours a week with no mandatory holiday so that's a plus right?

I take it we'll see a "Whirlwind for Parliament" next go round, whenever that will be, then?

 Compel wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

It's highly unlikely to end well for everyone else. Still we'll get our blue passports whilst being forced to work 60 hours a week with no mandatory holiday so that's a plus right?

I take it we'll see a "Whirlwind for Parliament" next go round, whenever that will be, then?

Not sure whether being serious?? But I'll take it as a compliment...

Brexit: German minister sees model for Turkey and Ukraine

The basics of this article are that the German Foreign Minister thinks a special trade deal for the UK could be a way to get countries like Turkey and Ukraine closer to the EU without letting them in (due to human rights abuses, etc.)

This seems a positive sign.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42481329]Universities could face fines over 'no-platforming.'

This is an odd one.

On the one hand, I completely agree that universities should be places where people are intellectually challenged with ideas they don't agree with.

On the other hand, I don't think it's the government's place to go around trying to achieve "free speech" by force. Similar to my opiniion that you can't achieve liberal democracy at the point of a bayonet.

It feels complicated to me. I mean, yeah, in theory, sure.

On the other hand, it does need to be looked at objectively and with an impartial sense of justice, with an idea of all those equal before the law.

In other words, the same laws applying equally to Abu Hamza as Richard Spencer.

Free speech laws, hate speech laws, whatever.


On the other hand, I have read various things along the lines of normalisation of extremist behaviour that's something to consider.

Some of the people being ‘no platformed’ is getting ridiculous. It’s painted as though the left wing are shutting out the right wing, but it’s much more cynical than that, it’s censorship within left wing groups, part of some ideological one upmanship. There is a growing attitude that if you don’t enthusiastically support all the progressive movements, you’re the wrong sort of left wing and are prime for attack. When people like Germaine Greer and Peter Tatchell are being turned away from events, it’s not right. They’ve done a great deal for different causes and a lot of people are keen to hear them, but because they don’t unquestioningly support certain other progressive movements they become the targets for those with some authority, say NUS leaders at universities, trying to make a name for themselves.

It’s not like turning away the Ku Klux Klan, when you turn away gay rights and feminist activists on absurd excuses like ‘transphobia’, which likely have no relevance to the debate/lecture topic anyway, it’s because you are either using it as a publicity stunt or you actually fear people listening to viewpoints that differ even slightly to your own.

For my money, there’s good sense in no platform.

You can spout and vomit forth any old opinion or bile you want. Doesn’t mean I have to provide you with a platform so it patters down upon the masses.

There’s an awful lot of bullshitters out there who say one thing, but do another. And that on all ends of the political spectrum. Sad little losers like Farage and Galloway who both need their heads kicked in to illustrate that their brand of politics is in fact bollocks based on lies and obfuscation of facts.

Nobody. And I mean nobody, should feel obliged to give such mindless, media hungry, cretins the oxygen of publicity.

I agree that no one should be forced to provide a platform, however, who decides who should be heard or not? That's a slippery slope. I'd rather Katie Hopkins was heard, and challenged than provided with the media fuel of being "banned" from speaking.
Actually I'd rather she was ejected into a huge pile of burning garbage, but you can't have everything.

The students.

They’re the target audience. The decision should lie solely with them.

I mean, consider all the ‘moral panics’ the gutter press continually push - but we’re meant to simply listen and not debate or silence such hatred?

Mr Johnson is about to get himself in to a big mess, because he is doing what all Tory MPs do and listening to the right wing press rather than the experts.

These are the issues with what he wants as I see them:

Much no platforming is down to student unions not universities. Totally separate, and for university management to interfere in student lead organisations would be totally wrong.

Another large batch of claims is down to internal politics. Researchers blaming it for their research being refused, when there are many other reasons, but this is being used by them to push their research and their profiles

This could run counter to universities obligations under the 2015 Counter Terrorism and Security Act. What happens if someone wants to speak in favour of a Middle East caliphate? Or a far right group wants to speak?

Much of this is driven by right wing anger. Sometimes safe spaces are needed. Some times it is used to shut down opposing views, but sometimes people need space to talk. Do you allow someone from Diageo to speak at an AA meeting?

This is a blunt hammer used to do something that, frankly, is driven by the right wing press, from a point of ignorance, and ignoring the fact that universities may get some public funding but are private institutions. The one I work for only gets about 1/5th if it’s funding in student fees, and only about 1/3rd from the government when you included other grants.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The students.

They’re the target audience. The decision should lie solely with them.

I mean, consider all the ‘moral panics’ the gutter press continually push - but we’re meant to simply listen and not debate or silence such hatred?

My understanding is that they can debate them, they don't have to just sit and listen to them spout bollocks.

 r_squared wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The students.

They’re the target audience. The decision should lie solely with them.

I mean, consider all the ‘moral panics’ the gutter press continually push - but we’re meant to simply listen and not debate or silence such hatred?

My understanding is that they can debate them, they don't have to just sit and listen to them spout bollocks.

There's an issue in many fringe groups, however, where disagreement with them and debate against them is seen as attempts to silence them.

This is all down to universities being largely anti-brexit and the right wing fear that their side of the story is being banned rather than just ignored? That if they can force students to listen to pro brexit propoganda they'll get behind it?

I wonder if it's related to that guy who was asking about brexit related material and lectures?