Broon makes a boo boo
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I can't understand is why the Opposition parties haven't made more capital from this. Brown either lied to Chilcot (highly probable) or didn't know what the facts were (inexcusable for a PM). Either way he should have been hauled over the coals by Cameron, but all he got was 'that's the first time I've heard him retract or apologise' - he LIED for goodness sake, the 
Last edited by Grumpy106; 18th Mar 2010 at 11:24. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bury St Edmunds.
Age: 60
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grrr...
Apologise?
Take your pick, liar or incompetant......for my money he's both.
I don't understand why the other parties aren't slaughtering McCyclops. Of course it could be that they don't want to highlight the defence budget too much because they've got plans to plunder it also.
No official apology to the Chilcott enquiry though is beyond the pale. The man's not fit to govern.
Take your pick, liar or incompetant......for my money he's both.
I don't understand why the other parties aren't slaughtering McCyclops. Of course it could be that they don't want to highlight the defence budget too much because they've got plans to plunder it also.
No official apology to the Chilcott enquiry though is beyond the pale. The man's not fit to govern.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is very likely that the reluctance to attack the PM is due to the Conservative party plans to cut defence. George Osborne has been often quoted saying that the Typhoon / CVS and A400M projects will all be on the Tory hit list. The Tory party are not in a position to criticise the governments spending on defence.
However, GB should go back to the Chilcott enquiry and explain what happened and why he was "confused" with the figures.... If not for our sake but for the sake of those who didn't come home.
However, GB should go back to the Chilcott enquiry and explain what happened and why he was "confused" with the figures.... If not for our sake but for the sake of those who didn't come home.
Last edited by vecvechookattack; 18th Mar 2010 at 13:18.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Completely agree with vecvechookattack.
Sadly this is not the first time Mr Brown has made a "boo boo", and it does beg the question as to who should govern next if defence spending alone is the criteria.
Personally I would have anyone in preference to the present bunch of muppets and would just hope that "they" would save a lot of money by withdrawing immediately from the stupidity that is Afghanistan. Even if they don't I believe life in UK would be better than that provided by the failed socialist dreamers of the labour party.
Meanwhile I'll go back to my fence to sit down.
Sadly this is not the first time Mr Brown has made a "boo boo", and it does beg the question as to who should govern next if defence spending alone is the criteria.
Personally I would have anyone in preference to the present bunch of muppets and would just hope that "they" would save a lot of money by withdrawing immediately from the stupidity that is Afghanistan. Even if they don't I believe life in UK would be better than that provided by the failed socialist dreamers of the labour party.
Meanwhile I'll go back to my fence to sit down.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may prove that the Party Line may be strong but the truth will always come out.
We all know that whilst UORs have been met the core programme is in shambles and has been for years. The key question is do we need an air superiority fighter, a carier battle group and land vehicles that can survive a conflict. Of course we do. Forget the inter service squabbles. We've been under funded during two concurrent crises.
We all know that whilst UORs have been met the core programme is in shambles and has been for years. The key question is do we need an air superiority fighter, a carier battle group and land vehicles that can survive a conflict. Of course we do. Forget the inter service squabbles. We've been under funded during two concurrent crises.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: SunnySouthWest
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally understood but my point was that UOR's are good things. They don't come out of the MOD budget and they are a cheap and quick method of obtaining equipment that is needed in a particular theatre. We cannot afford to equip ourselves with all the kit we need for every theatre and every eventuality and so UOR's provide a very useful tool for getting us the right kit quickly.
Sadly MoD has had to use the UOR option just to try and get kit which would should have been normally procured but would not have been signed off.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: England
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UORs
Not forgetting that if the capability procerured via the UOR process was in the EP but not yet obtained the Treasury will argue that the UOR is simply a planned capability brought forward and therefore they will not fund it out of the CPF/Reserve
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancing, Sussex
Age: 92
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Broon makes a boo boo
In far off days the standard used to be that "misleading parliament" was invariably a resigning matter . Not a word in the press or from Cameron on this.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't the problem go deeper than this really? We have a leadership who has become used to not asking for anything that might harm the flagship programmes (which were mostly procured to fight big state-on-state wars) and then relying on the UOR process to get them out of the dwang. If you then mix in a Government that has been on the whole uninterested by the dedicated bunch they know as the Armed Forces who have had little voice until now. There have been some success stories in the procurement process, but these pages are full of stories of the turkeys. Our procurement process has never been that agile due to the perceived need to safeguard British Industry, often at the cost of capability. We have criticised our US bretheren, but, for instance, they have re-capitalised their helicopters (buying 500+ UH60Ms for the cost of our Wildcat programme) and rushed in lots of MRAPs whilst we were still driving round in LR Snatches and wondering why so many of our troops were being killed and injured. So the Government is guilty, but guilty of ignorance and niaivety whilst the military has been complacent and afraid to ask for fear of losing bigger programmes. We have some really great people (shown by the latest operational honours awards), but how well are we serving these men and women at all levels?
Gordo has had enough, but before the election decides to do a morale boosting tour of Yorkshire,of all places,`Ee ,yup,lad t`PM`s cummin a see us`.
A suitably suited `Sir Humphrey` is sent North to York,to gee up the locals,and go to the NRM(National Rail Museum),to get some local down-to-earth help,visible encouragement to the local populus. To this end the Cabinet would like a `steam-engine` named after the `Glorious Leader` in honour of his multifarious accomplishments (tax,no defence money, giveaways to all the scumbags etc,etc).
The NRM Chief Engineer says,`Well,yes ,we can name an engine after the PM,but they are only freight /tank/shunters,not really apporopriate for a PM.`
` What about that big green one,number 4472,can we name it? ` says the Suit..
` Well, `says the chief of the NRM,it has been known that engines have been re-named after famous Chief Engineers/,Company Directors,and even Dwight D Eisenhower,so I think we can possibly accede to your request`.
` I hope it will not cost a lot,as this will be tax-payer funded,out of the Public Purse,and ,as you know,Labour spends wisely`,says The Suit..
`In that case ` says the boss of NRM,we will be as `cheap as chips` as t`saying goes in t` es parts, we`ll just paint out `t`F`, and job`s done,Lad``..
For those who don`t geddit .4472 `Flying Scotsman` LNER..
A suitably suited `Sir Humphrey` is sent North to York,to gee up the locals,and go to the NRM(National Rail Museum),to get some local down-to-earth help,visible encouragement to the local populus. To this end the Cabinet would like a `steam-engine` named after the `Glorious Leader` in honour of his multifarious accomplishments (tax,no defence money, giveaways to all the scumbags etc,etc).
The NRM Chief Engineer says,`Well,yes ,we can name an engine after the PM,but they are only freight /tank/shunters,not really apporopriate for a PM.`
` What about that big green one,number 4472,can we name it? ` says the Suit..
` Well, `says the chief of the NRM,it has been known that engines have been re-named after famous Chief Engineers/,Company Directors,and even Dwight D Eisenhower,so I think we can possibly accede to your request`.
` I hope it will not cost a lot,as this will be tax-payer funded,out of the Public Purse,and ,as you know,Labour spends wisely`,says The Suit..
`In that case ` says the boss of NRM,we will be as `cheap as chips` as t`saying goes in t` es parts, we`ll just paint out `t`F`, and job`s done,Lad``..
For those who don`t geddit .4472 `Flying Scotsman` LNER..
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How could you even joke about the possibility of renaming one of the most glorious (and honest!) of Gresley's (and the nation's) engineering achievements.... our present prime minister isn't fit to walk in such men's shadows never mind understand the rationale that created them, or help graffiti their masterpieces....on second thoughts if it would encourage him to hurtle back to Edinburgh at over 100mph forever and leave a vacancy tomorrow I could cope with it for a few days s'pose! Problem is the vacancy ain't gonna be filled by anyone better as far as I can see.....
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 59
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Chippy63 said
So he couldn't even be straight in his appology...that's twice he has "misled" over the same item
Plus, he said that "in one or two years blah blah". The Beeb showed that 4 years had below inflation spending growth.
