Gordon Brown's letter

[????]

Well put - I think most posts on here agree with you on that V

[Michael Palaeologus]

I fear that a relatively junior Civil Servant is probably getting a good kicking for not briefing Gordo properly or for not proof reading the letter before it went. Probably been transferred to a signing box at Brixton JobcentrePlus.

[Keef]

Mind you, people do sign up it's true, but GB as chancellor is very much responsible for making them do it on a shoestring withou the equipment they need to do it right and with the highest margins of safety you can expect.

Fair point, but if he'd spent more on that, he'd have had to cut health care, or education, or something else that everyone would be going mental about.

[mockney piers]

True, but if we can borrow hudreds of billions to simply keep banks afloat then a few huncdred million for the equipment for the duty of care we owe to those we put in harms way is not unthinkable. Especially as his crazy PPP policies will waste further tens of billions off balance sheet for the next twenty odd years.

But I take your point, it's always a lose lose situation in politics, someone fights are best avoided.

[Michael Palaeologus]

The kit that they are crying out for is of the cheaper kind. Helicopters cost the fraction of a jet fighter yet the RAF is busy arming itself with the Typhoon fighter which, lovely though it is, isnt needed.

They could even buy second hand helicopters, there are Pumas available in France, Germany and South Africa, in store, ready to fly. Australia and Belgium has Sea Kings that are soon to be replaced.

The Chinook is in production for the US Army and getting our hands on some new ones would take little time, the yanks would let us have some of their slots to show support.

This Government has shown a disturbing willingness to use the military but an unpleasent unwillingness to invest in the kit that will keep people alive, let alone "win the war", even if that was possible, which it isnt.

We have a Government that for the first time in generations, is made up of people who have never served in the Military and so do not understand the logistics of war or the grim, awful reality of fighting. They are far too keen to send young people off to do something that they themselves have no conception of.

[Santerme]

Probably the greatest general of the Second World War was William Slim.

His Forgotten 14th Army was at the tail end of the supply chain in every respect, they even considered making parachutes from plaiting leaves to airdrop supplies to the Chindits.

His situation reminds me ( somewhat tongue in cheek) of modern day events.

But his words when London asked him to, once more mount an major operation with wholely inadequate resources, I think sum up the British military mentality.

He replied to London, 'The impossible I can achieve in a few days, however miracles might take me a week longer'.

I ought to add in the spirit of the thread title, whilst Bruin is no friend to the military, I abhor the Sun's preying on a grief filled mother to score points, it is truely the gutter press.

[Belle]

Absolutely agree - the Sun is exploiting and manipulating her grief in my view, it's pretty abhorrent. Also - though it's beside the bigger point, that what he did was well-intentioned - lots of the so called spelling mistakes were just his handwriting? I don't think there were nearly as many as they tried to make out...

[tog_in_sox]

There are no Saints, heroes or champions except dead ones in this tawdry affair.

The Sun really has pinned it's true colours to the mast and with luck the millions of its readers will begin to see sense and seek their truth elsewhere. For once we may gain an electorate with some personal investment in the country's future.

The mother is grieving and as much as some might say that GB can sympathise, he lost a child hardly known, she raised a man with years of self-determined actions that may well have made her and others repeatedly proud, so I think she is wholly entitled to grieve and demand answers. The warped tone that has been reported I trust has come in the telling by others with a different paymaster.

Both MPs points about the procurement and PPP are very valid. The fiasco of Metronet (and Tubelines to come) has been quietly subsumed, where is the PPP there now that LU have been granted responsibility of what was once meant to be out to private tender? The money wasted and imbezzeled at all levels has been astonishing. And all under the watch of the one failing-eyed man whom others would have us believe has been our financial guardian. Look to the reports of the huge wastage within the Procurement executive for the Armed Forces and they before many should be ashamed of the lethal quandaries they have bequeathed to the fighting men.

Brown may be handicapped but there are many handicapped persons (returned soldiers included) out there who day by day can demonstrate skill in writing and judgement. I don't doubt his sincere intent BUT as a national leader who stands by proclamations of education for all, that we are amongst the best and we shall always support our troops, what little extra effort was needed for him to get his letter proof-read? There are those that give him credit for being human and fallible BUT are we seeing stubborn pride or mania that he will not acknowledge his own handicap and ensure that what difficulties it may cause him are countered by a pragmatic process that delivers his message correctly? I give him no credit for taking the time to write because it is his duty to acknowledge the fallen and express the sorrow and gratitude of the Nation to their kin. The Queen as figurehead may be rolled out to add pomp to the parliamentarians grandstanding but she is not the one who sent the men and women into harm's way though they pledge their allegiance to her. I'd confidently wager that she or another Royal closely associated with the man's regiment will have conveyed their condolences privately, with dignity, humility and correct spelling.

We as a society are partly measured by how we honour those who sacrifice something or everything of themselves in the service of our nation's interests and thanks to the most vocal media we do not do ourselves proud this week. Why is it that one tiny hamlet is the only acknowledged exemplar of our best behaviour? There is much that needs to be changed in this Albion Isle but we will not achieve it without demanding better of ourselves and those that govern at all levels and in all organisations, public or private.

Sorry to sway so much around topic but this touches on so many things.

[Huguenot]

Okay, I can't be reasonable for ever...

"The money wasted and imbezzeled at all levels has been astonishing. And all under the watch of the one failing-eyed man whom others would have us believe has been our financial guardian."

What?

"the one failing-eyed man"

What?

That's effing outrageous, you paint his handicap as a character flaw. I'm shocked. Is that the Tories for you? Maybe we should put that up on Central Office.... "Vote tory, we hate disabled people but we can't spell". That's the problem with conservatism isn't it? Not particularly clever, and deeply unpleasant.

As for embezzelment, are you really, really trying to suggest that the Labour government is Idi Amin? Sir Peter Viggers was conservative.

[HAL9000]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Okay, I can't be reasonable for ever...

Clearly.

> "the one failing-eyed man"

>

> What?

>

> That's effing outrageous, you paint his handicap

> as a character flaw.

It's an ironic word play that cleverly weaves GB's feeble excuse into the prose.

> "Vote tory, we hate disabled people but we can't spell".

Or better still, "Vote Tory, we hate disabled people but we can spell." Eh?

> Not particularly clever, and deeply unpleasant.

?Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursel's as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, And foolish notion? --Robert Burns

 

[mockney piers]

I think he may have been referring to imbezzled (sic)

[tog_in_sox]

Huguenot I obviously don't write the same English as you do nor take the same meaning from it. At no time do I imply that his handicap is a character flaw. I imply that how he caters for it at least on this occasion was suspect.

Don't know what spirits you've been imbibing but have no idea how you associated my words with some anti-Tory rant. And then you stumble on about Idi Amin! Whatever you're on mate, quit.

I strongly suggest you read up on what's happened around the PFIs and PPPs. I know about the LU matter and the embezzlement was by the participating private companies. I said nothing about government, Labour or otherwise.

Thanks all for the spell check.

[Huguenot]

I merely pointed out that amongst the failures you laid at Gordon's door were his disability, and that the accusations of embezzlement were hypocritical.

If you didn't intend it to come across as a more comprehensive attack on the Labour government the I don't know why you pursued issues relating to financial misconduct at PPP suppliers (nothing to do with letters or casualties).

I strongly [sic] suggest you consider Cash for Questions, Neil Hamilton, Jonathan Aitken, Jeffrey Archer and Michael Ashcroft when you discuss financial misconduct. The conservative party didn't even have the excuse that they were suppliers. They were up there at the top.

If you don't want to talk about macro financial issues such as PPP because you only want to refer to military spending you'll remember that 20% of British casualties in the first gulf war (under the tories) were blue-on-blue: the government was comprehensively trashed for not paying for electronic IFF (friend or foe) systems in British kit. This time it's helicopters and next time it'll be something else. It really makes no difference what the government is.

But then after John Major combining Back to Basics with Edwina's charms, hypocrisy amongst the Tory supporters should come as no surprise.

[HAL9000]

Typical Huguenot: you assert some unwarranted but controversial meaning within another poster's contribution then attack them on the basis of your manufactured Strawman.

You've been busted. Haven't you learnt anything from your recent self-exposure on here? It not even been a week and you're back to your old tricks.

Spare a thought for your friend mockney who faithfully scurries after you trying to cover up your droppings: at least he still has a reputation worth preserving.

[Huguenot]

HAL9000, I haven't addressed you, and I'm not discussing your comments. I've asked you politely before to stop making personal comments about me but that's two on the trot. What possesses you to be nasty about Mockney, who has only a good word for everyone, only you can know.

If you want to discuss Gordon's letter, or it's links to financial mismanagement in the Labour party them I'm quite happy to.

[HAL9000]

Huguenot - I apologise if you thought my comment was personal.

It's your rather unusually posting style that I was commenting on - just in case you'd forgotten the somewhat embarrassing situation you got yourself into quite recently - that's all. Just a friendly heads up.

There's nothing nasty intended about mockney, either. On the contrary, I think it would be an awful shame if that prince amongst men were tarnished by his immediate appearance whenever a clanger is dropped.

Have a nice day.

[mockney piers]

Firstly the Burns poem asking Huguenot to see himself as others see him, by which you mean you of course.

Now you're hoping that others don't view my reputation as tarnished as a shit-eating lackey, which you would obviously never think, oh no, but others might of course, far be it from you to suggest.

Pretty fucking insulting posts if you ask me.

But Huguenot doesn't need my help, he's perfectly capable of looking after himself; if I ever step in it's because I find your rhetorical techniques disingenuous and distasteful, and hey, you're at it again.

[HAL9000]

Mockney - you have earned a great deal of respect on this forum. I think everyone would agree that you are an intelligent, fair-minded and reasonable contributor. And you are obviously very loyal to your friends.

But it does you no credit to actively support what appears to be a systematic policy of misrepresentation and attack that we have seen here time after time. It's on a par with bullying, in my view. Especially when the target may not have sufficient online experience to recognise that they are being set up: they rise to the bait and end up looking foolish trying to defend positions that were foisted upon them by a self-confessed "vicious little snipe".

A snipe hunt, a form of wild-goose chase that is also known as a fool's errand, is a type of practical joke that involves experienced people making fun of credulous newcomers by giving them an impossible or imaginary task.

Perhaps you think scoring points like that is funny? I don't think it is. Hapless victims end up getting frustrated, humiliated and upset - perhaps even banned.

You are intelligent enough to realise what is going on unless you have been blinded by loyalty or gain some vicarious pleasure from such antics?

But the most important point is that you are a sometime moderator ? that job requires you to uphold the interests of everyone on the forum, not just your personal friends.

[????]

Hal - I think that's an unfair and a disingenous comment on several levels. Where had Mockney done this? If he hasn't, which I i'm pretty sure he wouldn't and hasn't, then surely he is allowed to post his opinion as a poster without the suggestion that it's bias or less valid becuase he's a mod? shit, we'll end up with no moderators.

[HAL9000]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hal - I think that's an unfair and a disingenous

> comment on several levels. Where had Mockney done

> this? If he hasn't, which I i'm pretty sure he

> wouldn't and hasn't, then surely he is allowed to

> post his opinion as a poster without the

> suggestion that it's bias or less valid becuase

> he's a mod? shit, we'll end up with no moderators.

Almost without exception, whenever Huguenot's attempted snipes back fire, mockney pops up to obfuscate the matter or defend him. Here's an example from this thread a few post up:

> Re: Gordon Brown's letter

> Posted by: mockney piers Yesterday, 02:13PM

>

> I think he may have been referring to imbezzled (sic)

Mockney is not stupid - he must be aware that Huguenot had just made another false accusation and that I had caught him in the act.

[mockney piers]

If you have issues with my moderator activities I suggest you take them up with admin, if I've failed in my duties I shall take the criicism happily on board. When I speak as mockeny then that's my voice only, as per BBC style disclaimers, I do not necessarily reflect the views of the forum.

I also appreciated the apology.

Cheers quids, ver much appreciate the kind words.

[HAL9000]

The fact is, we don't know who is moderating at any particular time. All we know is that you are sometimes a moderator. We can only judge you on your words and deeds as mockney. If you condone and defend vicious sniping then you?re skating on thin ice, in my view. I don?t think one can have it both ways and maintain a credible claim of impartiality?

[SeanMacGabhann]

nope, still haven't seen that one, but you're sticking with it...

[mockney piers]

No you're right, I can see how a clearing up of a minor misundertanding is skating on thin ice.

Consider my resignation tendered.

[HAL9000]

> If you condone and defend vicious sniping

I don't know if mockney does or doesn't - that's why I'm asking. His response so far doesn?t inspire confidence.

Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if both of you were to disclaim any knowledge of our resident little snipe's favourite pastime - despite his own admission.

Anyway - two moderators - one of me - time to bow out gracefully methinks. C'est la vie.