Sky Live Debate the Need For An Independent Air Force
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HS,
I think you will find (almost 100%) that if the Army do want to 'bewilder' they pay for it them selves. Apparently adds to the feeling of belonging, not an amorphous mass - not a bad way to evoke loyalty (you want to belong - invoke personal choice and pay), maybe thats what is needed in war and stops constant schizophrenia and bickering?
If thats the case why not just simplify the bewildering array of uniforms the various regiments of the British Army has
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A Gaelic Country
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the time has now come for an in-depth Defence Review?
Suggested scope?
1. Do we (the UK) want to remain members of the Security Council?
2. Do we want to continue to "punch above our weight"?
3. Should we concentrate on Homeland Defence only - perhaps retaining only the ability to deploy "token teeth arms" in support of UN/EU/NATO operations a la Belgium/Netherlands/Norway/Germany etc?
4. To what extent would/should each Service be affected?
5. If widescale redundancies of the Armed Forces is the way forward, how would HMG fund the resettlement training, redundancy packages and immediate pensions?
6. If we want to continue being a "mini-Uncle Sam" then how do we fund our Peacetime AND OOA committments properly?
Suggested scope?
1. Do we (the UK) want to remain members of the Security Council?
2. Do we want to continue to "punch above our weight"?
3. Should we concentrate on Homeland Defence only - perhaps retaining only the ability to deploy "token teeth arms" in support of UN/EU/NATO operations a la Belgium/Netherlands/Norway/Germany etc?
4. To what extent would/should each Service be affected?
5. If widescale redundancies of the Armed Forces is the way forward, how would HMG fund the resettlement training, redundancy packages and immediate pensions?
6. If we want to continue being a "mini-Uncle Sam" then how do we fund our Peacetime AND OOA committments properly?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: glasgow
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncle Peter,
No, you are wrong. The big picture is that defence spending is not relative to the armed forces output or expected role. Unfortunately I cant see this changing so we need to change and adapt accordingly. In recent years the RAF has spent billions on Eurofighter (a lame duck if ever there was one, though I admit it will look great at air shows) whilst we lack battlefield helos and UAVs. And amongst all this no-one is still sure as to whether we are going to procure two extremely useful aircraft carriers.
The big picture is that defence spending is a highly politicised issue. The less big players divvying up scant resources means that money cant be better allocated (well until the DLO get hold of it).
The big picture is that dinosaurs like you fail to realise that we are in all but name UK Defence Force Plc. Understanding that to be the case we need to work towards the best organisational models that serve our operations. Where the RAF fits into this is a fair question to ask given that the army and RN COULD operate our assets. Sorry to rain on your battle of britain cocktail parade but that is reality. UK armed forces is now a collective entity and it is down to our senior officers (of whatever persuasion) to see that it is run as such.
PS - You were never my favourite uncle
No, you are wrong. The big picture is that defence spending is not relative to the armed forces output or expected role. Unfortunately I cant see this changing so we need to change and adapt accordingly. In recent years the RAF has spent billions on Eurofighter (a lame duck if ever there was one, though I admit it will look great at air shows) whilst we lack battlefield helos and UAVs. And amongst all this no-one is still sure as to whether we are going to procure two extremely useful aircraft carriers.
The big picture is that defence spending is a highly politicised issue. The less big players divvying up scant resources means that money cant be better allocated (well until the DLO get hold of it).
The big picture is that dinosaurs like you fail to realise that we are in all but name UK Defence Force Plc. Understanding that to be the case we need to work towards the best organisational models that serve our operations. Where the RAF fits into this is a fair question to ask given that the army and RN COULD operate our assets. Sorry to rain on your battle of britain cocktail parade but that is reality. UK armed forces is now a collective entity and it is down to our senior officers (of whatever persuasion) to see that it is run as such.
PS - You were never my favourite uncle
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Where the RAF fits into this is a fair question to ask given that the army and RN COULD operate our assets.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not convinced, the RAF manning is possibly the worst of all 3. As above, the likelihood (apart from totally mercenary reasons) of pilots/techs/ground crew wishing to join the RAF would be far far to low for the one force option. According to the law of FRI, the AAC are best placed to take all - not an option they would want at all.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: glasgow
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
except for the fact that CAS/ Helos assets are best left with the fighting army and maritime assets are best left with the RN. This is logical and sensible, but will never be effected becasue the only loser is the RAF.
So that leaves the RAF with.... an ageing AT fleet and a flight of VIP aircraft. Oh and that white elephant which looks great at RIAT. Given that we have to outsource most of our AT needs, I doubt this option would leave the RAF with any viable grounds to exist!
My overall point is that the armed forces is highly politicised within itself. This is a very bad thing. Inter-service rivalry for funds and influence is extremely counter-productive and if the RAF is going to continue to play this game, then it needs to understand that it is on shaky ground.
So that leaves the RAF with.... an ageing AT fleet and a flight of VIP aircraft. Oh and that white elephant which looks great at RIAT. Given that we have to outsource most of our AT needs, I doubt this option would leave the RAF with any viable grounds to exist!
My overall point is that the armed forces is highly politicised within itself. This is a very bad thing. Inter-service rivalry for funds and influence is extremely counter-productive and if the RAF is going to continue to play this game, then it needs to understand that it is on shaky ground.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Right,
Despite being a member of the light blue, Ill take an unbiased look at this issue. Here on the Rotary fleet (All 3 Services) we are working our proverbials off, and have been for about ten years.
The AT fleet are slowly dipping digits into the real world, with reduced capability coinciding with vastly increased need.
The FJ fraternity are hit and miss. The Harriers have done a good job, as I am sure the GR4's will do.
AD - Falklands and Eurofighter Q workup....don't make me laugh. Thats almost insulting when people are risking their lives day in day out.
The fact remains that a lot of the RAF are doing very little except screwdrivering those that are busy.
So, could the RN and British Army absorb the duties of the RAF? NO!
Why?
Transfer all the rotary to the AAC. Given a 5-10 year break from Ops, this could be a goer, but they would need to absorb 3 extra types and all the engineering/aircrew experience this entails, as 80% of the techies/aircrew would PVR overnight. When the RAAF handed the rotary to the Australian Army, it took a number of years and involved an initial loss of capability (Initial!!!!).
Transfer all the Strike Aircraft to the RN. At present, the RN is set up to support a handful of Harriers (Fast Air wise!). How are they going to absorb Air Command?. The RN are, and always will be maritime- centric. How long before they and the Army start to fall out?. Again, there will be a loss in capability. More aircrew may stay, but as the RN likes to bob about on boats, and treats anyone under the rank of Lt like a peice of crap, again the techies will be flooding to the JPA PVR button.
What about AT? Will the RN take control or the Army? I can already see the bunfight as the Army want to fly every soldier it has to BATUS for an exercise, and the RN want to fly wives out to the Bahamas at the same time.
What we have is not ideal, but it is better than the alternatives. This is divide and conquer by the bean counters and does us no good as people of all 3 services are heavily deployed in difficult situations.
WOTSIT - If it wasn't for the RAF Battle of Britain performance, you would not have the opportunity to be gobbing off. Bear that in mind!
WM
Despite being a member of the light blue, Ill take an unbiased look at this issue. Here on the Rotary fleet (All 3 Services) we are working our proverbials off, and have been for about ten years.
The AT fleet are slowly dipping digits into the real world, with reduced capability coinciding with vastly increased need.
The FJ fraternity are hit and miss. The Harriers have done a good job, as I am sure the GR4's will do.
AD - Falklands and Eurofighter Q workup....don't make me laugh. Thats almost insulting when people are risking their lives day in day out.
The fact remains that a lot of the RAF are doing very little except screwdrivering those that are busy.
So, could the RN and British Army absorb the duties of the RAF? NO!
Why?
Transfer all the rotary to the AAC. Given a 5-10 year break from Ops, this could be a goer, but they would need to absorb 3 extra types and all the engineering/aircrew experience this entails, as 80% of the techies/aircrew would PVR overnight. When the RAAF handed the rotary to the Australian Army, it took a number of years and involved an initial loss of capability (Initial!!!!).
Transfer all the Strike Aircraft to the RN. At present, the RN is set up to support a handful of Harriers (Fast Air wise!). How are they going to absorb Air Command?. The RN are, and always will be maritime- centric. How long before they and the Army start to fall out?. Again, there will be a loss in capability. More aircrew may stay, but as the RN likes to bob about on boats, and treats anyone under the rank of Lt like a peice of crap, again the techies will be flooding to the JPA PVR button.
What about AT? Will the RN take control or the Army? I can already see the bunfight as the Army want to fly every soldier it has to BATUS for an exercise, and the RN want to fly wives out to the Bahamas at the same time.
What we have is not ideal, but it is better than the alternatives. This is divide and conquer by the bean counters and does us no good as people of all 3 services are heavily deployed in difficult situations.
WOTSIT - If it wasn't for the RAF Battle of Britain performance, you would not have the opportunity to be gobbing off. Bear that in mind!
WM
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, big guns, big arguments - great.
can we now give this up and put down some real solutions?
Navy - long look and maritime in all elements e.g. sea, beach air (mainly vital force protection)
Army Fight the air-battle below 10, ensure SH is managed to suite the need (flying them - who cares?)
RAF -fast air above 10, AT (just give them the assets to do the job) ATC, SH with multi force/exchange/making up the numbers troop (who cares) responsibility for putting our feet on the ground.
Govt - well just stop putting money into leaking (and slightly more radical/wingeing (yes it is possible)) public services and fund at the required (not perceived) level.
If this happens we might all be happy and just do our job?
can we now give this up and put down some real solutions?
Navy - long look and maritime in all elements e.g. sea, beach air (mainly vital force protection)
Army Fight the air-battle below 10, ensure SH is managed to suite the need (flying them - who cares?)
RAF -fast air above 10, AT (just give them the assets to do the job) ATC, SH with multi force/exchange/making up the numbers troop (who cares) responsibility for putting our feet on the ground.
Govt - well just stop putting money into leaking (and slightly more radical/wingeing (yes it is possible)) public services and fund at the required (not perceived) level.
If this happens we might all be happy and just do our job?
The Romans, who knew rather more about these things than we seem to have forgotten, had a phrase for it (which our more erudite members will know doubt post in the original): "If you want peace then prepare for war". Our present incumbents disregard that with the same contempt that they do all lessons learned before their year zero. That is no excuse for us to do the same. The infant RAF itself clung to life by not only conducting expeditionary operations, as now, but by also replacing the land forces that had been doing the job. The kit it had between the wars was in retrospect laughable, but with no enemy air force to defeat it sufficed. The carnage of course happened when that situation changed. Thanks to enormous courage and sacrifice in those desperate days the RAF and the nation prevailed...just! We then had a national and service leadership with the moral stamina up to the task of turning the situation around from near defeat to ultimate victory. That was done in part with an Independent Air Force. If anyone doubt that, then search the posts on this forum, especially from those apologists for the other two services still trying to rubbish the contribution to victory made by the RAF, and in particular the Strategic Bombing Offensive. It is an important argument, for we may ourselves be very much between wars again (as it were). It is one thing to re-equip an existing force to meet a sudden and overwhelming threat once more. No doubt if past experience is anything to go by we will suffer many reverses before hopefully turning the tide. If we do not have an Independent Air Force to start with, then we will face the same fate as others who did not, like for instance the Third Reich. Their Luftwaffe was equipped and trained for one purpose, to support the army (and to a much lessor extent the navy). They had (to all intents and purposes) no Strategic Bomber Force. Other than Herr Hitlers own interventions, I would say that cost them the war. They were never going to win the war by bombing Coventry, they might have had they been able to reach Stalin's factories which he had moved far to the east. Which all brings us to the next tag: "Nations that do not learn from their own history are doomed to repeat it".
I believe Oliver Cromwell (whose statue is in a local Huntingdonshire Market Town) said it all with "Trust in God but keep your powder dry", or words to that effect?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North West
Age: 73
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are there any Canadians out there who could add to the debate with practical experience?
I seem to remember a recent large study to reduce the number of RAF stations by only having a few big stations thus introducing economies of scale. (The DART study I believe, but this name may have changed to protect the authors. However, I left before I saw any results.) All was well until someone did the sums and it all went quiet. I would hazard a guess that any amalgamation would seem fine on paper until someone did the sums and then realised it wasn't that practical.
Unless, of course, we have a need for a new 6 star to run the whole show!
I seem to remember a recent large study to reduce the number of RAF stations by only having a few big stations thus introducing economies of scale. (The DART study I believe, but this name may have changed to protect the authors. However, I left before I saw any results.) All was well until someone did the sums and it all went quiet. I would hazard a guess that any amalgamation would seem fine on paper until someone did the sums and then realised it wasn't that practical.
Unless, of course, we have a need for a new 6 star to run the whole show!
Wotsit.....
The thinking that you demonstrate is the very reason why assets should NOT be given to the other two services! Example:
Maritime assets given to the Navy: Thus, Nimrod gets handed over. Fantastic idea on the face of it, as it's purely a maritime asset and will never be developed to do another role.... or at least it probably wouldn't have been if the RN had their mits on it as they have other things to spend their money on!
CAS assets: Last time I looked, we don't have a "dedicated" 100% full time CAS aircraft like the A-10. The Harrier mates do a lot of it at the moment for sure, but what happens come the day when they need to do something different: They'll all be tied to CAS by the army and not released.
These are the reasons why an "Independant" air force was created in the first place. So that flexible assets would remain flexible, and not just be screwed into one role that their parent service demands of them!
OK so the RAF at the present could do with dragging SH and AT into the 21st century, but bear in mind that the requirement for all of this stuff has only surged since Afg and Iraq kicked off (only the last 5-6 years! a miniscule amount of time in procurement terms) not helped by the fact the residents Downing St have their heads firmly stuck in the sand when it comes to the fiscal contribution required to fight 2 wars.
Food for thought...
The thinking that you demonstrate is the very reason why assets should NOT be given to the other two services! Example:
Maritime assets given to the Navy: Thus, Nimrod gets handed over. Fantastic idea on the face of it, as it's purely a maritime asset and will never be developed to do another role.... or at least it probably wouldn't have been if the RN had their mits on it as they have other things to spend their money on!
CAS assets: Last time I looked, we don't have a "dedicated" 100% full time CAS aircraft like the A-10. The Harrier mates do a lot of it at the moment for sure, but what happens come the day when they need to do something different: They'll all be tied to CAS by the army and not released.
These are the reasons why an "Independant" air force was created in the first place. So that flexible assets would remain flexible, and not just be screwed into one role that their parent service demands of them!
OK so the RAF at the present could do with dragging SH and AT into the 21st century, but bear in mind that the requirement for all of this stuff has only surged since Afg and Iraq kicked off (only the last 5-6 years! a miniscule amount of time in procurement terms) not helped by the fact the residents Downing St have their heads firmly stuck in the sand when it comes to the fiscal contribution required to fight 2 wars.
Food for thought...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
pba, indeed the parallel would be how the Army divides its own assets with organic, brigade, divisional etc. The Royal Air provides Force level assets.
However although the Army, in theory, can swap units from one theatre to another - Herrick to Telic - the decision is taken at a higher level. In other words at Ministry level.
The RAF is thus another level with Ministry level 'assets' or at least political command above full command and operational command.
However although the Army, in theory, can swap units from one theatre to another - Herrick to Telic - the decision is taken at a higher level. In other words at Ministry level.
The RAF is thus another level with Ministry level 'assets' or at least political command above full command and operational command.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At last, this thread has developed into an interesting and informed debate, rather than infantile partisan willy waving (Jesus, I sound like my dad!).
I don't believe that the RAF will ever be disbanded if for no other reason, it would be politically unacceptable; we carry a disproportionate amount of clout amongst the corridors of power and for that reason, I don't think it will ever be seriously considered.
Wotsit and Wokka make some interesting points. I believe their could be some econmies of scale. Yes, the same number of aircraft would have to be operated and maintained, but we currently have more personnel to aircraft than any other Air Force in the world. This is not because we don't work hard, it's because we don't work efficiently. Too many people in too many trades and in too many examples a union state of mind where we are more concerned in maintaining our out of date working practices. But as Wokka says, just giving it away will not resolve that; not straight away anyway.
The AAC has its own problems; lack of support from the top echelons being the obvious one. Where as I believe the disbanding of the RAF unrealistic, I do believe that real Jointery within something like the JHC is far more likely. I'm not saying that the JHC has been a complete success, I'm saying that it hasn't simply because it hasn't done the joint thing properly. If you're going to do it, do it properly; same regulations, same trades, same ethos, dare I say it, same cap badge/uniform even.
As for the Navy, I agree that the new carriers are absolutely essential as is the strike capability that they will bring to the RN.
For us, I think that we should concentrate on Strike and AT. I know that that will mean an even smaller Air Force and the SH chaps won't like it, but as wotsit says, the current status quo is unsustainable and this would allow us to do what the other two services are unable to do.
I don't believe that the RAF will ever be disbanded if for no other reason, it would be politically unacceptable; we carry a disproportionate amount of clout amongst the corridors of power and for that reason, I don't think it will ever be seriously considered.
Wotsit and Wokka make some interesting points. I believe their could be some econmies of scale. Yes, the same number of aircraft would have to be operated and maintained, but we currently have more personnel to aircraft than any other Air Force in the world. This is not because we don't work hard, it's because we don't work efficiently. Too many people in too many trades and in too many examples a union state of mind where we are more concerned in maintaining our out of date working practices. But as Wokka says, just giving it away will not resolve that; not straight away anyway.
The AAC has its own problems; lack of support from the top echelons being the obvious one. Where as I believe the disbanding of the RAF unrealistic, I do believe that real Jointery within something like the JHC is far more likely. I'm not saying that the JHC has been a complete success, I'm saying that it hasn't simply because it hasn't done the joint thing properly. If you're going to do it, do it properly; same regulations, same trades, same ethos, dare I say it, same cap badge/uniform even.
As for the Navy, I agree that the new carriers are absolutely essential as is the strike capability that they will bring to the RN.
For us, I think that we should concentrate on Strike and AT. I know that that will mean an even smaller Air Force and the SH chaps won't like it, but as wotsit says, the current status quo is unsustainable and this would allow us to do what the other two services are unable to do.
Last edited by Hachet Harry; 17th Jun 2007 at 16:31.
PN, yes and no. At the "tactical" short term level that is effectively what we do. I'm suggesting more on a developmental, strategic long term level. In the example I gave, MR2 in the hands of the navy might never have been developed into the multi-role asset it is today. Not through lack of initiative on the part of any hypothetical dark blue operators, but just because at command level their budget wouldn't cover it, much like the development of MRA4 at the moment. (OK yes that whole thing shoots down my argument entirely! We're just as bad!)
As far as AAC assets go, I'm glad they've got ownership of Apache as it's one of those items that really doesn't need to be operated by us, and is best flown by guys with a greater understanding of troops on the ground. Same goes for the pinger fleets in the FAA etc.
As far as AAC assets go, I'm glad they've got ownership of Apache as it's one of those items that really doesn't need to be operated by us, and is best flown by guys with a greater understanding of troops on the ground. Same goes for the pinger fleets in the FAA etc.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: glasgow
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wokka et al,
I appreciate that the RAF has a proud history and I am not trying to put a dampner on that!
I speak from my experiences as a ground branch officer who has deployed (excepting the falklands) to all our current operations. I agree that disbanding the RAF would never be politically realistic, but I do feel that we have a two-tier air force at the moment. We have the air force of the sit at main base playing golf on a wednesday afternoon and we have the air force of the always away soon to be divorced by wife. We need more assets and people in the war-fighting RAF, but I do think that a lot of our 'hangers on' can still be thinned out a bit. Dont get me wrong this has been happening (reduced admin and engineers - we had too many though i dont single these trades out as a waste of space necessarily) but the RAF is very good at needing lots of people to achieve a simple objective. This does not in my experience impress the other services.
We need better and more timely personnel management. The problem the RAF has it that it COULD be absorbed. The same cannot be said of the other services who fulfill rather more specialised and general functions. I do think that giving maritime and army orientated airframes away would be the best course of action because then they are where they are needed!
I appreciate that the RAF has a proud history and I am not trying to put a dampner on that!
I speak from my experiences as a ground branch officer who has deployed (excepting the falklands) to all our current operations. I agree that disbanding the RAF would never be politically realistic, but I do feel that we have a two-tier air force at the moment. We have the air force of the sit at main base playing golf on a wednesday afternoon and we have the air force of the always away soon to be divorced by wife. We need more assets and people in the war-fighting RAF, but I do think that a lot of our 'hangers on' can still be thinned out a bit. Dont get me wrong this has been happening (reduced admin and engineers - we had too many though i dont single these trades out as a waste of space necessarily) but the RAF is very good at needing lots of people to achieve a simple objective. This does not in my experience impress the other services.
We need better and more timely personnel management. The problem the RAF has it that it COULD be absorbed. The same cannot be said of the other services who fulfill rather more specialised and general functions. I do think that giving maritime and army orientated airframes away would be the best course of action because then they are where they are needed!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree whole heartedly with the last few posts. Another thing that could be called the glue in the mix is partly causing the 'willy waving'. Ethos, kinship or core values by any name is so important. Once we are convinced we can do our own job then it is just a matter of supporting those that are working at the time.
I believe that there is a greater unionist element in the light blue but it is infecting all of us, LEAN - but not to far.
I believe that there was a meeting recently where some one actually said that people need to work harder, not true, they must be more efficient in the work they do so increasing the output or be culled.
More planes with efficient support - no one will be able to touch us! (And as long as the best person is flying it, I don’t care what colour they ware!!!)
I believe that there is a greater unionist element in the light blue but it is infecting all of us, LEAN - but not to far.
I believe that there was a meeting recently where some one actually said that people need to work harder, not true, they must be more efficient in the work they do so increasing the output or be culled.
More planes with efficient support - no one will be able to touch us! (And as long as the best person is flying it, I don’t care what colour they ware!!!)
but I do feel that we have a two-tier air force at the moment
I do think that giving maritime
Those arguing that the army and RN could take over the RAF are missing 2 vital points. In neither of our sister services are there any real career aviatiors. With a few exceptions in the RN you have to go back to sea command if you want to progress and (with all due respect to the SNCO pilots) in the AAC there is no real officer career aviator stream. The AAC would have to change completely if they were to take over all fast air. Otherwise you get some cavalry officer coming up with the lastest barking mad idea just before he pops off back to his Regiment.
Secondly the FAA cannot recruit enough pilots to man its own element of the FJ force let alone manning all the other elements that they would need to take on. And the AAC are haemorrhaging aircrew to the RAF. Why? Better career prospects, better pay and better pensions.
And if Col Tim thinks Virgin are going to provide his AT he is living in cloud cuckoo land. At present we fly our personnel into theatre in, Oh yes Tac AT. Why? Because unlike a Virgin A340 or a BA 747 they have......defensive aids. They are flown by pilots who know the risks and are prepared to do the job in support of the Army, the RN and the RAF.
The solution to all of this stupidity is for the RAF to absorb the FAA and the AAC. Get rid of these "small independent wings" and then concentrate on delivering what is needed where it is needed. Be that fast air deep behind enemy lines, CAS from fast air or AH in support of TIC, or ASW from ships or land. Or everything else that goes to making up an Air Force.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, it was all getting so grown up and productive until Mr Pulfrew started the very old and boring takeover speech again.
Never mind, I'm off to wind people up and let this forum descend into sh1t again, well done big man!
PS are you still keen on military stewards - is that a real asset to you?
Get your own tea.
(is that small minded and pathetic enough for you?)
Never mind, I'm off to wind people up and let this forum descend into sh1t again, well done big man!
PS are you still keen on military stewards - is that a real asset to you?
Get your own tea.
(is that small minded and pathetic enough for you?)