Queen and country
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Working Hard-
You stay in your little (real?) world - I'm happy working in mine. And remember it's because of the majority of military people on this MILITARY forum that your world exists and allows you to express your opinions.
Out.
(PS Am on holiday so don't p*ss me off)
You stay in your little (real?) world - I'm happy working in mine. And remember it's because of the majority of military people on this MILITARY forum that your world exists and allows you to express your opinions.
Out.
(PS Am on holiday so don't p*ss me off)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Covec -Right on the money.........
Mates first, platoon>company>Battalion>Regiment.
Underlying all this, pride in serving in the most proffesional armed services in the world.
Everyone thinks of their mates first in action, be it an oppo or a wingman. Because everyone has this mindset, it all comes together, in a very cohesive "melt" as everyone looks out for each other, and THAT is what makes the system work so well. Yes we bang on and whinge and moan about postings, tasks or the sheer "F-about factor" sometimes, but that's our right.
Pride in serving the Queen or the UK? For me, that happens everytime there's a big parade, and the band strike up with "The Grand March", and everyone throws their chests out,and grows another inch (oeeeer missus)
. Pride also comes, when you end up talking to the old boys at a reunion, or a rememberance parade, and you can equate their actions, with those long-ago names sewn on the Regimental colours.
Personally, the one experience, that really imbued me with pride and awe, was looking up into the rafters of the Regimental church, and seeing the many different colours , that had been laid up there, since Wellington was in short pants. Moth-eaten, faded, in some cases, the still discernable tears and rips from musketry and shrapnel, and realising, that they had been held by some young ensign or colour sergeant, terrified, but afraid to let his MATES down and by default, the Regiment and his country.
That may be a slightly blimpish view, but hey, it matters to me
Tony
Mates first, platoon>company>Battalion>Regiment.
Underlying all this, pride in serving in the most proffesional armed services in the world.
Everyone thinks of their mates first in action, be it an oppo or a wingman. Because everyone has this mindset, it all comes together, in a very cohesive "melt" as everyone looks out for each other, and THAT is what makes the system work so well. Yes we bang on and whinge and moan about postings, tasks or the sheer "F-about factor" sometimes, but that's our right.
Pride in serving the Queen or the UK? For me, that happens everytime there's a big parade, and the band strike up with "The Grand March", and everyone throws their chests out,and grows another inch (oeeeer missus)
. Pride also comes, when you end up talking to the old boys at a reunion, or a rememberance parade, and you can equate their actions, with those long-ago names sewn on the Regimental colours.Personally, the one experience, that really imbued me with pride and awe, was looking up into the rafters of the Regimental church, and seeing the many different colours , that had been laid up there, since Wellington was in short pants. Moth-eaten, faded, in some cases, the still discernable tears and rips from musketry and shrapnel, and realising, that they had been held by some young ensign or colour sergeant, terrified, but afraid to let his MATES down and by default, the Regiment and his country.
That may be a slightly blimpish view, but hey, it matters to me
Tony
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
opso
While the PM has a constitutional obligation to inform and consult The Queen, he does not require her permission to deploy the British armed forces.
Mystic Greg
Do you remember the character Derek Fowlds played in 'Yes Minister' ? He was the pedantic private secretary who incessantly corrected Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey on terminological niceties. He was a mine of information, but rarely contributed anything useful to the proceedings.
The distinction between terms such as 'leader' and 'head' and the more abstract concepts of The Queen's 'power' (see paragraphs 1-5) are purely academic. 'A Civilian' may not have the benefit of a degree in political history (or be a spelling ace), but I find his/her arguments more persuasive than yours.
While the PM has a constitutional obligation to inform and consult The Queen, he does not require her permission to deploy the British armed forces.
Mystic Greg
Do you remember the character Derek Fowlds played in 'Yes Minister' ? He was the pedantic private secretary who incessantly corrected Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey on terminological niceties. He was a mine of information, but rarely contributed anything useful to the proceedings.
The distinction between terms such as 'leader' and 'head' and the more abstract concepts of The Queen's 'power' (see paragraphs 1-5) are purely academic. 'A Civilian' may not have the benefit of a degree in political history (or be a spelling ace), but I find his/her arguments more persuasive than yours.
Last edited by Scud-U-Like; 9th Jun 2002 at 14:56.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATD - most of us do live in the real world and a world far bigger and far less priviledged than the one you seem to inhabit (as many of you will dicover when leaving). I am sorry if it ***** on holiday but just for the record how long is your holiday? Why does not the Queen pay you since you profess to work for her and not the people? And whilst we are mentioning cost etc. when are we going to see more aircraft than air rank officers. We dont need more aircraft of course but we need far fewer retiring after 16 years and then costing the good old tax payer (not HMTQ note). Yes they were the terms of service when you enlisted and you have an absolute right to that BUT is it not time the armed forces were properly sorted in terms of manpower, equipment and contracts. How many men and women does it take to keep 1 aircraft in the air? I dont have the numbers but by golly the ratio is no doubt quite extraordinary.
Enjoy your leave!
Enjoy your leave!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Class D airspace
Age: 67
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very bald use of numbers but 902 a/c on strength [from RAF web site] inc all training aircraft, and ignoring contractorisation matter.
RAF manpower stated on same site as 53203
If for a moment you assume that there are 50000 non aircrew and 900 aircraft, that equates to 55 men to keep one aircraft in the air.
Maybe the question one asks is how many of those men [and women] actaually could say how their role helps keep an aeroplane in the air.
C'mon blanket stackers - here is your chance
RAF manpower stated on same site as 53203
If for a moment you assume that there are 50000 non aircrew and 900 aircraft, that equates to 55 men to keep one aircraft in the air.
Maybe the question one asks is how many of those men [and women] actaually could say how their role helps keep an aeroplane in the air.
C'mon blanket stackers - here is your chance
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: This week Reading, next week Barcelona ... and repeat
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am an ex-erk and can quite easily justify my previous position at the bottom of the flying food chain.....
Ever used any navigation aids?
Ever been comforted by that controller's voice on the other end of the radio?
Ever worried about whether that ILS has been serviced correctly as you descend through the murk?
Without me and my ex-colleagues you wouldn't have.......
The RAF manpower may be down to 50,000 ish but bear in mind that several of my previous posts are now covered by civilians on less money........ Comforting I'm sure....
Just to cut back to the thread again, we are all British CITIZENS as well as subjects (check your passport) and CITIZENS of the European Union.... So you can take your pick these days.....
Ever used any navigation aids?
Ever been comforted by that controller's voice on the other end of the radio?
Ever worried about whether that ILS has been serviced correctly as you descend through the murk?
Without me and my ex-colleagues you wouldn't have.......
The RAF manpower may be down to 50,000 ish but bear in mind that several of my previous posts are now covered by civilians on less money........ Comforting I'm sure....
Just to cut back to the thread again, we are all British CITIZENS as well as subjects (check your passport) and CITIZENS of the European Union.... So you can take your pick these days.....
During a seminar group discussion on a recent JOCC, 2 members said that they were anti monarchists. When asked how they reconcilled their views with being in the RAF, they said that it was only a job and they wouldn't have to fight! Guess their Branches? Admin (Sec) and Admin (Trg).
Another thought - if we sign on to defend Queen and Country, what are we doing in Afghanistan etc?
Another thought - if we sign on to defend Queen and Country, what are we doing in Afghanistan etc?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WorkingHard-
Oh dear, who didn't pass 11+/get O levels/A levels/pass OASC/wings etc? Do I detect some bitterness?
Holiday not spoilt - just off to spend more of my well-earned wedge before toddling back to the Mess to make sure my man has turned out my kit for the next cockers-p.
Keep working
Oh dear, who didn't pass 11+/get O levels/A levels/pass OASC/wings etc? Do I detect some bitterness?
Holiday not spoilt - just off to spend more of my well-earned wedge before toddling back to the Mess to make sure my man has turned out my kit for the next cockers-p.
Keep working
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATD - Actually I did all of those including continuing to fly for a living. So who is the pathetic specimen now who suggests needs wet nursing to get anything done? I could not possibly support my life style on your pay and conditions so I went where the grass is very much greener and where excellence has its rewards regardless of being a jolly good chap to have in the mess!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pantsville
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WORKING HARD- Congratulations on sustaining an expensive lifestyle. Mine is but a meagre wage in comparison, but my lifestyle is great, one to which I signed up for, and thorougly enjoy.
The vast majority people still in (both ground and air) are focused, dedicated, hard-working and Loyal.
We're not just here for the money.
It's not "just a job".
Family, friends, Sqn, service and country all mean a lot.
Is there a problem with this?
Just a thought, but did you PVR?
The vast majority people still in (both ground and air) are focused, dedicated, hard-working and Loyal.
We're not just here for the money.
It's not "just a job".
Family, friends, Sqn, service and country all mean a lot.
Is there a problem with this?
Just a thought, but did you PVR?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Working hard
you have just destroyed any cred you might have attempted to gain in your previous posts by 'my lifestyle is better than your wage' type comments.
I believe we were discussing Queen and Country.....
PS I bet my Dad could beat your Dad in a fight!
you have just destroyed any cred you might have attempted to gain in your previous posts by 'my lifestyle is better than your wage' type comments.
I believe we were discussing Queen and Country.....
PS I bet my Dad could beat your Dad in a fight!
Gentleman Aviator
No, but the Defence of the Realm (glad you admit we do that WH) is in the hands of those who can:
a. Take a joke against themselves, however poorly expressed.
b. Indulge in a bit of (usually) good-hearted banter. (you have to really like a bloke to call him an old t*ss*r to his face)
c. Care more (mostly) about the value of their job rather than its wages (I'm sure my lovely daughters could earn more money and "support a better lifestyle" as tarts - but I don't want them to).
d. Can actually cut the mustard in operations and put their lives on the line (and some lose those lives) to defend your (and my) realm.
"It's Tommy this and Tommy that, and Tommy go away,
But it's 'Thin Red Line of 'Eroes' when the band begins to play"
a. Take a joke against themselves, however poorly expressed.
b. Indulge in a bit of (usually) good-hearted banter. (you have to really like a bloke to call him an old t*ss*r to his face)
c. Care more (mostly) about the value of their job rather than its wages (I'm sure my lovely daughters could earn more money and "support a better lifestyle" as tarts - but I don't want them to).
d. Can actually cut the mustard in operations and put their lives on the line (and some lose those lives) to defend your (and my) realm.
"It's Tommy this and Tommy that, and Tommy go away,
But it's 'Thin Red Line of 'Eroes' when the band begins to play"
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TH - well said, I do agree. I have no problems with what you say none at all. The basis of this thread was that the armed forces owe allegiance to HMTQ and no one else. That is neither true nor realistic. We tended to lose the thread some what and that was a mistake. No one in the world should ever question the professionalism (by and large) of any member of the British armed services or indeed the comittment to do the job in hand. But please let us have no illusion about to whom you are responsible. We, the electorate, of which you are also included, decide who is to run our State for the next Parliamentary period. We do not ( and never have had the chance) to elect the Windsors to be our Head of State. Were such an election to ever take place (God forbid) then I should certainly vote to retain our monarchy with QEII at the head but it would be a very much slimmed down monarchy with no constitutional powers at all.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: This week Reading, next week Barcelona ... and repeat
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
afraid not, reheat. I am merely an ex-RAF eng who is going 'through adversity (RAF ground career/jar atpl's/CPL/IR) to the stars (flying job)'
Used to work with an ex flight checker though, who once told me that they could pick up 'useable' signals from a localizer at 125NM......... Not too sure about that......
Used to work with an ex flight checker though, who once told me that they could pick up 'useable' signals from a localizer at 125NM......... Not too sure about that......
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Irvine, California, USA
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Foreigner's Perspective
I have watched this thread follow the usual tired pattern of starting off as a sensible debate only to be hijacked by the usual meatheads and sinking, inevitably, into an exchange of abuse. Some of you have got your facts wrong, particularly those expressing extremist and/or forthright views. The following paragraphs are extracts from www.royal.gov.uk:
"Until the end of the 17th century, British monarchs were executive monarchs - that is, they had the right to make and pass legislation. Since the beginning of the eighteenth century, the monarch has become a constitutional monarch, which means that he or she is bound by rules and conventions and remains politically impartial.
In the earliest times the Sovereign was a key figure in the enforcement of law and the establishment of a system of justice.
Although no longer administering justice, the Sovereign today still retains an important symbolic role as the figure in whose name justice is carried out, and law and order is maintained.
On almost all matters he or she acts on the advice of ministers. While acting constitutionally, the Sovereign retains an important political role as Head of State, formally appointing prime ministers, approving certain legislation and bestowing honours.
As constitutional monarch, the Sovereign is required, on the advice of Ministers, to assent to all Bills. The Royal Assent (that is, consenting to a measure becoming law) has not been refused since 1707. The role of the Sovereign in the enactment of legislation is today purely formal, although The Queen has the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn.
The Queen retains certain residual powers, notably to appoint a prime minister, and to decide whether or not to grant a dissolution of Parliament. The prime minister is normally the leader of the party which has a majority in Parliament, but there could still be exceptional circumstances when The Queen might need to exercise the discretion she still retains to ensure that her Government is carried on.
The monarch is Head of the Armed Forces and it is the monarch alone who can declare war and peace. (This dates from the times when the monarch was responsible for raising, maintaining and equipping the Army and Navy, and often leading them into battle.) These powers, however, cannot now be exercised on the monarch's own initiative. The Bill of Rights (1689) declared that 'the raising or keeping of a standing army within the Kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against the law'. The monarch's powers today cannot be exercised except upon the advice of responsible Ministers.
The Queen is the United Kingdom's Head of State. As well as carrying out significant constitutional functions, The Queen also acts as a focus for national unity, presiding at ceremonial occasions, visiting local communities and representing Britain around the world."
The last paragraph is the important bit. Having an apolitical focus for national unity is something you Brits should all value. It gives you a foundation most countries lack. I know we kicked out a previous iteration of the monarchy but it wasn't anything like as good as the one you have today.
Make no mistake, the millions of my countrymen who come over as tourists and gawp at all things royal are not primarily wandering around saying,"Gee, that's how old?".
That's the end of my rant.
Fay
"Until the end of the 17th century, British monarchs were executive monarchs - that is, they had the right to make and pass legislation. Since the beginning of the eighteenth century, the monarch has become a constitutional monarch, which means that he or she is bound by rules and conventions and remains politically impartial.
In the earliest times the Sovereign was a key figure in the enforcement of law and the establishment of a system of justice.
Although no longer administering justice, the Sovereign today still retains an important symbolic role as the figure in whose name justice is carried out, and law and order is maintained.
On almost all matters he or she acts on the advice of ministers. While acting constitutionally, the Sovereign retains an important political role as Head of State, formally appointing prime ministers, approving certain legislation and bestowing honours.
As constitutional monarch, the Sovereign is required, on the advice of Ministers, to assent to all Bills. The Royal Assent (that is, consenting to a measure becoming law) has not been refused since 1707. The role of the Sovereign in the enactment of legislation is today purely formal, although The Queen has the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn.
The Queen retains certain residual powers, notably to appoint a prime minister, and to decide whether or not to grant a dissolution of Parliament. The prime minister is normally the leader of the party which has a majority in Parliament, but there could still be exceptional circumstances when The Queen might need to exercise the discretion she still retains to ensure that her Government is carried on.
The monarch is Head of the Armed Forces and it is the monarch alone who can declare war and peace. (This dates from the times when the monarch was responsible for raising, maintaining and equipping the Army and Navy, and often leading them into battle.) These powers, however, cannot now be exercised on the monarch's own initiative. The Bill of Rights (1689) declared that 'the raising or keeping of a standing army within the Kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against the law'. The monarch's powers today cannot be exercised except upon the advice of responsible Ministers.
The Queen is the United Kingdom's Head of State. As well as carrying out significant constitutional functions, The Queen also acts as a focus for national unity, presiding at ceremonial occasions, visiting local communities and representing Britain around the world."
The last paragraph is the important bit. Having an apolitical focus for national unity is something you Brits should all value. It gives you a foundation most countries lack. I know we kicked out a previous iteration of the monarchy but it wasn't anything like as good as the one you have today.
Make no mistake, the millions of my countrymen who come over as tourists and gawp at all things royal are not primarily wandering around saying,"Gee, that's how old?".
That's the end of my rant.
Fay
