It seems that loyalty is not a 2 way street.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sandhurst
Age: 50
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that loyalty is not a 2 way street.
Fury at Labour peer’s attack on ‘disloyal’ Dannatt | News
A senior Labour peer sparked outrage today by accusing Britain's military chiefs of giving “succour” to the Taliban.
Former defence minister Lord Foulkes of Cumnock accused the head of the Armed Forces and the Army's chief of making comments that “threaten to undermine” the UK's effort in Afghanistan.
Speaking in the Lords, he called for defence minister Baroness Taylor of Bolton to remind Army head General Sir Richard Dannatt and Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup of the “importance of loyalty”.
Last Friday Sir Jock went to Downing Street with a list of requirements for British troops drawn up by Gen Dannatt.
Lord Foulkes, an Intelligence and Security Committee member, told Lady Taylor: “In this media dominated age it is even more important than ever to maintain a united front in dealing with ruthless and cunning enemies like the Taliban and al-Qaeda...the public comments of Sir Richard Dannatt and Sir Jock Stirrup threaten to undermine our effort in Afghanistan and give succour to the enemy.”
Shadow defence minister Gerald Howarth said: “It is outrageous for Lord Foulkes to accuse an outstanding general of helping to undermine the mission in Afghanistan General Dannatt has not only inspired his men through his military leadership, but has done more than anyone else to generate tremendous public support.”
A senior Labour peer sparked outrage today by accusing Britain's military chiefs of giving “succour” to the Taliban.
Former defence minister Lord Foulkes of Cumnock accused the head of the Armed Forces and the Army's chief of making comments that “threaten to undermine” the UK's effort in Afghanistan.
Speaking in the Lords, he called for defence minister Baroness Taylor of Bolton to remind Army head General Sir Richard Dannatt and Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup of the “importance of loyalty”.
Last Friday Sir Jock went to Downing Street with a list of requirements for British troops drawn up by Gen Dannatt.
Lord Foulkes, an Intelligence and Security Committee member, told Lady Taylor: “In this media dominated age it is even more important than ever to maintain a united front in dealing with ruthless and cunning enemies like the Taliban and al-Qaeda...the public comments of Sir Richard Dannatt and Sir Jock Stirrup threaten to undermine our effort in Afghanistan and give succour to the enemy.”
Shadow defence minister Gerald Howarth said: “It is outrageous for Lord Foulkes to accuse an outstanding general of helping to undermine the mission in Afghanistan General Dannatt has not only inspired his men through his military leadership, but has done more than anyone else to generate tremendous public support.”
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this media dominated age it is even more important than ever to maintain a united front in dealing ....
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this media dominated age it is even more important than ever to maintain a united front in dealing with ruthless and cunning enemies
Lord Foulkes
Lord Foulkes
The Lord F may also wish to contemplate that is also important that our Servicemen and Servicewomen are properly equipped and supported - something that this Labour Government with which Lord F is aligned, has on numerous occasions, failed to finnance; only doing so after public outcries and protestations.
I know that many are encouraged by the actions of CGS and CDS - for once standing up their political masters - it is a pity that others since 2001, did not think to do the same.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I thought everyone knew loyalty only goes UPWARDS.
There's no need for it to come downwards, what would front-line troops need the loyalty of the government for? Seriously.
There's no need for it to come downwards, what would front-line troops need the loyalty of the government for? Seriously.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think CDS and CGS need to readliy exploit the unique weak suituation the ruling government find themselves in.
Once the conservatives get in, that opportunity will have gone.
We should be asking for our pound of flesh right now, at every level. Screw the Status Quo.
Once the conservatives get in, that opportunity will have gone.
We should be asking for our pound of flesh right now, at every level. Screw the Status Quo.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I am suggesting that CDS and CGS go one further and reveal the extent to which our armed forces are ill equipped. Labour will try anything at the mo to get re-elected and I reckon they are goijng one further - slash and burn economic policies that are unaffordable by the next government and will cause huge public outcry once the scale of the cutbacks required are revealed. All I am saying, rather than sit back and hope for minimal cuts down the line, why not benefit whilst the government are literally printing money? (Actually, the BOE are printing the money, 98% of that money is getting spent on government gilts).
Once the cons get in, the spending cuts we can expect are going to pare ourselves as well as the civil service to the bone. Anyone thinking "we have already had our cuts" are quite frankly delluding themselves.
Once the cons get in, the spending cuts we can expect are going to pare ourselves as well as the civil service to the bone. Anyone thinking "we have already had our cuts" are quite frankly delluding themselves.
Reason Armed Forces are ill equipped is that spending £XXXX Billion on a carrier is a lot more sexy that providing the grunts on the ground with proper equipment.
Grunts on the ground have always been poor relations when it comes to getting right equipment as no prestige in ensuring 19 year old working class lad with few job prospects gets right equipment as better PR opportunities in looking at pictures of sexy new carrier / jet.
Grunts on the ground have always been poor relations when it comes to getting right equipment as no prestige in ensuring 19 year old working class lad with few job prospects gets right equipment as better PR opportunities in looking at pictures of sexy new carrier / jet.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sandhurst
Age: 50
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Racedo,
I actually believe that there is a hell of a lot of PR and prestige to be had from the slightly more specialised groups within the land forces. The Royal Marines and Parachute Regiment are world famous and rather popular at home and the Special Forces are feared and copied (attempted) the world over and are rather famous (so much so that every serving and ex member has a publishing deal in progress).
The British Army and other land forces have a very high PR value at the moment, mostly thanks to a former cast member of Eastenders and hats off to him good effort.
I would say that the current focus of the public is upon the land forces and those sad processions through Wooton Basset (shame that the same exposure isn't given to the men who visit Headley Court and other centres for rehabilitation), the focus is definitely not with the Navy and not so much with the RAF (a handful of Tornados and recently Harriers does not make it very 'Topgunish' for the Media, and unfortunately Air bridges just ain't sexy).
But that current focus should not detract from what could be a possible threat in 10-20 years time.
Arming the armed forces on the ground in our real and present war is a definite must do and the govt is criminally not doing so (shame there are no gold reserves left to fund this situation, eh Gordon?)
If in 10 years time HMS Ocean and the men of 40 Cdo get sunk off the coast of North Korea due to a lack of carrier support and not enough CAP, it would not be good enough to say, 'Oh well, at least the troops back in 2010 had enough kit'.
Of course, we should not be sending troop carriers into action without adequate air support, but hey, with our governments it is highly likely.
I actually believe that there is a hell of a lot of PR and prestige to be had from the slightly more specialised groups within the land forces. The Royal Marines and Parachute Regiment are world famous and rather popular at home and the Special Forces are feared and copied (attempted) the world over and are rather famous (so much so that every serving and ex member has a publishing deal in progress).
The British Army and other land forces have a very high PR value at the moment, mostly thanks to a former cast member of Eastenders and hats off to him good effort.
I would say that the current focus of the public is upon the land forces and those sad processions through Wooton Basset (shame that the same exposure isn't given to the men who visit Headley Court and other centres for rehabilitation), the focus is definitely not with the Navy and not so much with the RAF (a handful of Tornados and recently Harriers does not make it very 'Topgunish' for the Media, and unfortunately Air bridges just ain't sexy).
But that current focus should not detract from what could be a possible threat in 10-20 years time.
Arming the armed forces on the ground in our real and present war is a definite must do and the govt is criminally not doing so (shame there are no gold reserves left to fund this situation, eh Gordon?)
If in 10 years time HMS Ocean and the men of 40 Cdo get sunk off the coast of North Korea due to a lack of carrier support and not enough CAP, it would not be good enough to say, 'Oh well, at least the troops back in 2010 had enough kit'.
Of course, we should not be sending troop carriers into action without adequate air support, but hey, with our governments it is highly likely.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Trap 3
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horses Arse
I was surfing t'internet, looking at the 'achievements' and military connections of Lord Malloch-Brown and came across this page.........
They Work For You - Lord Malloch-Brown
It would seem that they don't have a photograph of Our Most Loyal Lord, but I found a few without too much difficulty........
Lord Malloch-Brown
A horses-arse (laughing-at-forces-variant)
Simples!
They Work For You - Lord Malloch-Brown
It would seem that they don't have a photograph of Our Most Loyal Lord, but I found a few without too much difficulty........
Lord Malloch-Brown
A horses-arse (laughing-at-forces-variant)
Simples!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly who is the CGS / CDS supposed to be loyal to anyway? The county, queen and forces, or some two bit here today gone tomorrow politician who knows shag all about anything?
Equally, how can some two bit here today gone tomorrow Prime Minister completely disregard his military experts and claim we have enough helicopters in Afghanistan?? Does he suddenly have a greater understanding of the strategic and tactical situation that those on the ground, in the air, and on scene don't have?? Os is he just talking absolute cock and making himself look like a vindictive tosser who doesn't listen or understand what his party have got this country into??
Own goal by Liebour methinks....
Equally, how can some two bit here today gone tomorrow Prime Minister completely disregard his military experts and claim we have enough helicopters in Afghanistan?? Does he suddenly have a greater understanding of the strategic and tactical situation that those on the ground, in the air, and on scene don't have?? Os is he just talking absolute cock and making himself look like a vindictive tosser who doesn't listen or understand what his party have got this country into??
Own goal by Liebour methinks....
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In his CV I only see this pinko member of the executive committee of Socialist International as an opposition spokesman for defence, not as a defence minister.
But as Under-Secretary for International Development, he was a member of the government that sent our troops off to Iraq and Afghanistan insufficiently equipped for the job.
But as Under-Secretary for International Development, he was a member of the government that sent our troops off to Iraq and Afghanistan insufficiently equipped for the job.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 62
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm, I'm just going to be a little unpopular and suggest maybe another line on this. CGS/CDS have just gained a deal of kudos and popular appeal... and dare I say it probably a Tory peerage... by giving Gordon's government an opportunity to slap them down. Sure, helicopters are essential and would prevent deaths... essential... but so is the rest of the equipment programme if, as has been pointed out earlier, we are to stay capable out into the future Also, from the public's perspective, so is health, education, blahdy blahdy blah.
imho it would have been far better to say:
1. we haven't got enough to protect our troops in this war
2. Defence is bankrupt... so is the country
3. either give us more , which may save the short term or, better still, seriously look at our committment, revist our strategy etc
4. if not, I resign!(For all their folk hero status they have suffered no personal damage at all... still have a pension way in excess of any salary most of us dream of... and Gordon can, and has, say no. He can also demonstrate just how cr*p the MoD is at spending money by bringing up JPA, Nimrod, Carriers etc etc).
Ultimately it is the poltician's responsibility to send this country to war and they must be made to face up to that... Generals playing politics is bloody dangerous... ask the yanks in the 1960s
imho it would have been far better to say:
1. we haven't got enough to protect our troops in this war
2. Defence is bankrupt... so is the country
3. either give us more , which may save the short term or, better still, seriously look at our committment, revist our strategy etc
4. if not, I resign!(For all their folk hero status they have suffered no personal damage at all... still have a pension way in excess of any salary most of us dream of... and Gordon can, and has, say no. He can also demonstrate just how cr*p the MoD is at spending money by bringing up JPA, Nimrod, Carriers etc etc).
Ultimately it is the poltician's responsibility to send this country to war and they must be made to face up to that... Generals playing politics is bloody dangerous... ask the yanks in the 1960s
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK/Philippines/Italy
Age: 73
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Former defence minister Lord Foulkes of Cumnock accused the head of the Armed Forces and the Army's chief of making comments that “threaten to undermine” the UK's effort in Afghanistan.
Speaking in the Lords,
Speaking in the Lords,
give succour to the enemy.”
GPMG
I agree BUT its senior military who decide what programs they wish to invest in and tell the Govt what they want for the future.
Generals / Admirals / Wing Commanders etc want to be remembered for new ships, planes, tanks etc rather than ensuring guy in the trench has right kit.
How much of equipment requirements are decided by relationship with supplier than need on the ground.
I agree BUT its senior military who decide what programs they wish to invest in and tell the Govt what they want for the future.
Generals / Admirals / Wing Commanders etc want to be remembered for new ships, planes, tanks etc rather than ensuring guy in the trench has right kit.
How much of equipment requirements are decided by relationship with supplier than need on the ground.
Ultimately it is the poltician's responsibility to send this country to war and they must be made to face up to that... Generals playing politics is bloody dangerous... ask the yanks in the 1960s
50's McArthur etc etc
They have a long history of it.
There is one big difference between myself and the person who has now removed the previous post.
Whether you agree with what I post or not, you know who I am, what I do and where I do it.
I see no reason to hide behind a corrupted title. I wonder what kind of person does......
Oh thats right, a sad insecure tosser.
Whether you agree with what I post or not, you know who I am, what I do and where I do it.
I see no reason to hide behind a corrupted title. I wonder what kind of person does......
Oh thats right, a sad insecure tosser.
Last edited by minigundiplomat; 29th Jul 2009 at 13:20.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sandhurst
Age: 50
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MGD, I doubt that you are the type of bloke to hide in any way, shape or form.
The imposter has done it with several other posters names and all of his posts have been complete twaddle and crap .
I would also expect that you would know how to post a proper link (that does not go to your C:drive). this Moron does not.
Unfortunatley the Mods are more interested in wrongly moving threads about military aviators who have recently died, than deleting posts by idiots and fools.
I wonder if this person recently failed and was kicked out of training?
The imposter has done it with several other posters names and all of his posts have been complete twaddle and crap .
I would also expect that you would know how to post a proper link (that does not go to your C:drive). this Moron does not.
Unfortunatley the Mods are more interested in wrongly moving threads about military aviators who have recently died, than deleting posts by idiots and fools.
I wonder if this person recently failed and was kicked out of training?
