Major Rant

[JJ Sefton]

If the Argentinian's invaded the Falklands tomorrow we would be screwed as we don't have the same Naval firepower as we did in 1982.

I think people forget just how threadbare our resources were back then, we had to borrow a cruiseliner to get soldiers down there.

 

[pommpey]

... what he said ...

Total admiration of your family, Brownie. The son of a matelot and a wren with relatives in and around the mob and a Blade to boot. Knew there was summat right about you mate!

No, to expand about firemen. Your old feller did his time, saved lives and ate smoke. All firemen do and without reservation, they deserve respect. What my objection is that people will compare AF personnel with firemen. Firemen have a totally different deal in life. This was bourne out with Operation Fresco in 2002-03 when we maned the emergency tenders once agin, but this time we were slightly more unsupportive as we were in 1977 as Gilchrist has them out on the braziers for a stupidly high pay deal. The average wage of the the average fireman would have ballooned to nearly £30k, and with this was renegotiation on overtime, shift bonuses and allowances to take second ... and in some cases third jobs. One fireman my mate served alongside said candidly if it went ahead and he carried on with his taxi driving, he'd be clearing £55k The then average wage of the average Leading Hand/Corporal was £16.5k. And this was before any conflict zone bonus, tax allowances and any special leave packages arranged hastily since, because Fresco highlighted a long known about ambivalence to AF personnel incentives. Sure, not one AF person objected to going out on the streets, nor did they when MAFF fucked up the foot and mouth crisis in 2001 with Operation Peninsula and we had to asssist with the clearing up and burying/burning of cattle carcasses. Of course, we'd never ask civilan-based organisations to endeavour to do such things (total staffing of M&S = approx 220,000, the Armed Forces = less than that) so someone has to do it. See also the lorry drivers strike blockade breaking to supply hospitals and schools with heating oil the year before.

But yes, your assessment of the decline of the Royal Navy is correct. the dockyard I work in now as a contractor is bereft of ships, whatever is there is there because it is being fixed and as soon as it is, its off back to sea and no fun at all people. Im glad I left in the end. It held nothing I wanted to acquire or achieve.

pommey

 

[JJ Sefton]

I think the biggest shame is the extent to which the top level of Government take advantage of the armed forces. It's not a direct dig at the Tory party before anyone accuses me of using it to have a swipe at the Tories, because Labour did it to the same extent. What disgust's me is the fact that successive Government's have utilised the armed forces extensively, whilst trying to cutback, penny pinch at the same time, leaving them overstretched for the task's they have to perform.

Alot of that is because we dont think any of it through properly. Weve got all these tanks and planes and nuclear weapons when what we really need are flak jackets and armoured jeeps. We seem to build our armed forces more ny momentum, by what weve been doing, rather than starting with a blank sheet of paper and thinking 1) what exactly our interests are 2) what the threats to them are and 3) what we need to cope with them. All the money were spending on Trident for example, and there are blokes bopping about in Afghanistan without Kevlar vests.

 

[SheepdipBlade]

They were supplying us and supporting us long before Pearl Harbour. Not neccesarily militarily at first. But it wasn't as though they suddenly woke up one day with Zeroes buzzing past and their Pacific Fleet on fire and think 'Shit! We'd better wise up and join the Limeys in their war in Europe!'

pommpey

And actively prepared to attack the British Empire in the 1930s to the extent of building forts and airfields along the Canadian border - and negotiated to sell arms to Nazi Germany as late as 1943 - ie after their entry into the war etc etc. The US have only ever acted in their own interest - its just that sometimes that happens to coincide with ours - but I struggle to view them as genuine friends of the UK. The French approach has merits IMO.

 

[pommpey]

If the Argentinian's invaded the Falklands tomorrow we would be screwed as we don't have the same Naval firepower as we did in 1982.

It will be the price that successive governments will pay for overstretching a world class fighting force on the cheap.

I've been down there several times and been to Argentina. Fantastic place with some fanstastic people, much of whom don't want another dust up with us. The Falklands are not the next big threat.

pommpey

 

[JJ Sefton]

And actively prepared to attack the British Empire in the 1930s to the extent of building forts and airfields along the Canadian border...

There was lots of silly building going on in the United States in the 1930s, it was called the New Deal. Theres an entire city just north west of St Paul Minnesota which was built by the WPA in 1935 and only gets used for a month a year to host the state fair. The idea that Roosevelt planned to invade Canada is mad.

---------- Post added at 10:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 PM ----------

...and negotiated to sell arms to Nazi Germany as late as 1943...

Do you have any more info on that? Never heard of it and would be interested to know more.

---------- Post added at 10:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 PM ----------

The US have only ever acted in their own interest...

Which is exactly who's interests youd expect the US to act in.

 

[MunXy]

A lot of history is written by the victors, many underhand and indeed dirty deals have been made with many despots, dictators and just general murdering, evil bastards, its politics and goes on every day.
around 1937 british govt held secret meetings with hitler and other nazi leaders with the hope of signing a treaty.
almost all of the dictators in recent history have had diplomatic ties to either UK or USA or both, there are still "conflicts" going on around the world, almost invisible to the world that are either "funded" or covertly backed by you guessed it UK and USA, covert ops going on in these places that most people will never know about, it is the nature of politicians to act in their/countries best intrests always sometimes to the dismay of the people they represent.

MunXy

 

[JJ Sefton]

around 1937 british govt held secret meetings with hitler and other nazi leaders with the hope of signing a treaty.

Not to mention that top secret conflab in Munich in 1938 that no ever found about.

 

[SheepdipBlade]

If I remember correctly - and its too late to start looking stuff up - the US plans and prep for war on the British Empire was Plan Red - and included the building of Fort Drum near the Canadian border and a number of airfields. The US (correctly) viewed the British as their main economic rival and were looking to weaken us - and were considering using the slowed repayments of Great War debts as the spark - even the though the UK was financially struggling - not least because other (equally skint European states) had not repaid their war debts to us. There was a recent TV documentary that explored some of this.

The arms deal was discussed between representatives of the SS and the US govt in Madrid in 1943. It forms part of the backdrop to Operation Mincemeat - the sending ashore by British Intel of a corpse with papers aimed as misleading the German defence of Sicily (as I'm sure you know). It's also been used by some authors when discussing the power differential between corporations and government - especially (though not exclusively) in the US - Govts come and go - but corporate interests remain forever! The deal was mostly for artillery ammunition - some of which was used against US troops in the Ardennes - which caused a bit of stink as you can imagine - but was swiftly hushed up - - once again - as you can imagine.

And I wouldn't expect the US to act in any other interest than their own - but that has meant that at times they have acted deliberately and forcefully against the interests of the UK. They are friends to us by coincidence not design IMO.

---------- Post added at 10:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 PM ----------

Re Munxi

More recently there was the dubious role played by the US and UK in the Rwandan massacres - where the anglophone nations backed the Tutsis (I think!) whilst the French backed the more francophone Hutus. The scramble for africa lives on!!

 

[JJ Sefton]

More recently there was the dubious role played by the US and UK in the Rwandan massacres

Our dubious role in that was not doing anything about it though the French were certainly shit stirring.

---------- Post added at 12:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 AM ----------

If I remember correctly - and its too late to start looking stuff up - the US plans and prep for war on the British Empire was Plan Red - and included the building of Fort Drum near the Canadian border and a number of airfields. The US (correctly) viewed the British as their main economic rival and were looking to weaken us - and were considering using the slowed repayments of Great War debts as the spark - even the though the UK was financially struggling - not least because other (equally skint European states) had not repaid their war debts to us. There was a recent TV documentary that explored some of this.

This was the first link that popped up when I googled...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...TAIN-1930-bombing-raids-chemical-weapons.html

The telling quote for me is this; "The plans, revealed in a Channel 5 documentary, were one of a number of military contingency plans drawn up against a number of potential enemies, including the Caribbean islands and China. There was even one to combat an internal uprising within the United States...In the end there was no question of President Franklin D. Roosevelt subscribing to what was known as War Plan Red"

Frankly Id be amazed if the US hadnt drawn up a plan for that, drawing up war plans is what general staffs do between wars after all. And as you see above, it was just one plan of many.

---------- Post added at 12:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 AM ----------

The arms deal was discussed between representatives of the SS and the US govt in Madrid in 1943. It forms part of the backdrop to Operation Mincemeat - the sending ashore by British Intel of a corpse with papers aimed as misleading the German defence of Sicily (as I'm sure you know). It's also been used by some authors when discussing the power differential between corporations and government - especially (though not exclusively) in the US - Govts come and go - but corporate interests remain forever! The deal was mostly for artillery ammunition - some of which was used against US troops in the Ardennes - which caused a bit of stink as you can imagine - but was swiftly hushed up - - once again - as you can imagine.

Ive not been able to find any verfication of this.

---------- Post added at 12:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 AM ----------

And I wouldn't expect the US to act in any other interest than their own - but that has meant that at times they have acted deliberately and forcefully against the interests of the UK. They are friends to us by coincidence not design IMO.

Alot of truth in that. I think the Yanks have always had a more realistic view of our relationship than we have.

 

[cahill]

Prof. Andrew Gamble from Sheff. University wrote a book a few years ago about the Uk "Losing an Empire Finding a Role", using that paradigm it's useful to look at the French in the same way. Currently cosying up to the Germans in Economic policy doing the same with us in terms of Military matters. Back in the NATO fold 2 years ago, Sarkozy, unloved by the French professional diplomatic class, made mistakes in respect of backing a losing horse in Egypt and Tunisia whilst losing ground electorally. He saw his opportunity in Libya to gain credibility domestically and pushed/persuaded Cameron and NATO to join the attack. France relies heavily on Maghrebian oil and sort of sees it as it's backyard and sphere of influence and this was the rationale to attack Libya not some wishy washy liberal human rights hogwash but realpolitik, you're either for that or against it. Libya had the best standard of living in Africa plus free healthcare, social housing, education. When Libyans married they were given a stash of money to buy their first home. Gaddaffi was far from perfect and looked after his family/clan, how massively different is that to what happens in the UK ? He was however no friend of the West and massively invested in Africa where he was muched loved. The western media was mobilised to manufacture consent and support the war effort. Just a pity Russia, China, Germany etc didn't object a little more convincingly. Welcome France to the New World Order

 

[JJ Sefton]

Gaddaffi was far from perfect and looked after his family/clan, how massively different is that to what happens in the UK ?

Because politicians in the UK dont generally have their opponents arrested and raped. Gaddafi was a bastard. Whether hell be followed by a bigger bastard remains to be seen.

 

[SheepdipBlade]

Re the US sale of artillery shells to Germany in 1943 - I think I first came across it in a book called Liberation which explored the experiences of civilians in the weeks and months either side of liberation - It focused up Caen, Antwerp, Amsterdam and a number of German communities in the US sector - and this arms deal was discussed in the last section which looked at the role of corporations in the denazification and rebuilding of post war Germany.

Can't remember who wrote it, and the book is back in the library - but I'll ask the missus to look it up.

 

[super_pig]

>They were supplying us and supporting us long before Pearl Harbour
heh.. hooray for hollywood eh?. yeah they 'sold' us a bunch of mothballed WW1 destroyers and everything else we had to pay for..in fact we didn't finish paying for it until 2002 by which time we'd also given them the A bomb detonator mechanism, computer technology, radar, the jet engine design and diego garcia and a bunch of other places on a 'free' 100 year lease.. the main thing was that we had to give them access to Commonwealth markets which they promptly took over.. did you know that the US actually made a profit on WW2?.. The US cabinet were so worried that Roosevelt wasn't going to enter that Stimson chaired a special meeting of the JCS just in case.. the US isn't our friend .. it is our 'frenemy'..
there was a really good series on Discovery about it called 'warlords of WW2'

 

[SheepdipBlade]

>They were supplying us and supporting us long before Pearl Harbour
heh.. hooray for hollywood eh?. yeah they 'sold' us a bunch of mothballed WW1 destroyers and everything else we had to pay for..in fact we didn't finish paying for it until 2002 by which time we'd also given them the A bomb detonator mechanism, computer technology, radar, the jet engine design and diego garcia and a bunch of other places on a 'free' 100 year lease.. the main thing was that we had to give them access to Commonwealth markets which they promptly took over.. did you know that the US actually made a profit on WW2?.. The US cabinet were so worried that Roosevelt wasn't going to enter that Stimson chaired a special meeting of the JCS just in case.. the US isn't our friend .. it is our 'frenemy'..
there was a really good series on Discovery about it called 'warlords of WW2'

Are you sure about that - I thought it was WW1 debt we finally paid off in 2002. Re your other point - I remember the last episode of the World at War series looked back at the long term winners and losers (from the 1970s perspective). The losers were the French and British for whom the US ensured both lost their empires - the Italians started with little and ended up with a bit less, the Germans and Japanese ended up with huge reconstruction which gave them two of the most powerful economies in the world - the Russians ended up with an empire that stretched to the foothills of the Alps (at the time) - and the US was the main winner as it wiped out all possible economic challenges for a generation and secured itself as the dominant economy in the world - - primarily at the expence of the British Empire. - And that was the view of US academics, not embittered Brits.

 

[cahill]

Walthamstow Blade. No our political leaders order planes to drop bombs from 30,000 feet or ships to launch missiles from miles out to sea, brave that, on civilian targets such as Afghan weddings, schools or hospitals and then call it "collateral damage" or issue a half hearted apology, but it doesn't matter really 'cos they're only what Pommpey refers to as "ragheads" During the Libyan conflict we were variously told that Gadaffi had supplied his troops with tons of viagra the better to commit mass rapes , even that was too much for our compliant media to swallow and was much ridiculed, and latterly it was reported that there were 50,000 prisoners hidden in tunnels under Tripoli, it all goes quiet afterwards but the seed is planted for gullible people to swallow. I remember watching BBC reporter Jon Simpson being interviewed telling the world that all the "revolutionaries" had were rifles whilst behind him they were firing an anti aircraft gun, you couldn't make it up. Noem Chomski referred to it as "manufacturing consent". Stories abounded about hundereds of bodies being discovered in areas liberated by rebel fighters, usually black Libyans who mainly fought on the loyalist side, but even that was blamed on Gadaffi. You should try looking beyond the BBC, CNN and British popular press for information such as independant reporters at the scene such as Lizzie Phelan. Incidentally where did you hear/read about the rape story ?

 

[Darren]

Nasser wasn't. He had no legal right at all. All he was doing was retaliating against the UK for their withdrawal of support for the Aswan Dam, triggered by Egyptian proclamations of recognition of China and their cosying up to Krushchev. The Yanks wanted more, had no commercial or strategic interest in the Canal and used leverage to get between the French and us.

I'm just going to comment on this bit.

How on earth did Nasser have no legal right to nationalise an enterprise on Egyptian territory? Governments did and do nationalise enterprises all the time (less than 10 years earlier the British government had nationalised some 20% of British industry and there were waves of nationalisation through western Europe at around the same time). As long as compensation is paid there is and was nothing in international or any domestic law that I am aware of to render that unlawful. As I say, compensation negotiations were ongoing at the time of the invasion and the proper route would have been to continue with those negotiations.

You are right about the motive for the nationalisation (excpet it was US support that was withdrawan for the Aswan dam), but so what? The Egyptian government lost one form or funding for a major project, so looked for another. What's wrong with that?

 

[JJ Sefton]

Walthamstow Blade. No our political leaders order planes to drop bombs from 30,000 feet or ships to launch missiles from miles out to sea, brave that, on civilian targets such as Afghan weddings, schools or hospitals and then call it "collateral damage" or issue a half hearted apology, but it doesn't matter really 'cos they're only what Pommpey refers to as "ragheads" During the Libyan conflict we were variously told that Gadaffi had supplied his troops with tons of viagra the better to commit mass rapes , even that was too much for our compliant media to swallow and was much ridiculed, and latterly it was reported that there were 50,000 prisoners hidden in tunnels under Tripoli, it all goes quiet afterwards but the seed is planted for gullible people to swallow. I remember watching BBC reporter Jon Simpson being interviewed telling the world that all the "revolutionaries" had were rifles whilst behind him they were firing an anti aircraft gun, you couldn't make it up. Noem Chomski referred to it as "manufacturing consent". Stories abounded about hundereds of bodies being discovered in areas liberated by rebel fighters, usually black Libyans who mainly fought on the loyalist side, but even that was blamed on Gadaffi. You should try looking beyond the BBC, CNN and British popular press for information such as independant reporters at the scene such as Lizzie Phelan. Incidentally where did you hear/read about the rape story ?

Sorry, but if you really think that living in Blair/Brown/Cameron's Britain is like living in Libya under Gaddafi then you have your head planted firmly up your arse. And I say that having spoken to people who were tortured under his regime that I met through a friend of mine who lectures in mad bastards at a London uni.

 

[SheepdipBlade]

I remember watching BBC reporter Jon Simpson being interviewed telling the world that all the "revolutionaries" had were rifles whilst behind him they were firing an anti aircraft gun, you couldn't make it up. Noem Chomski referred to it as "manufacturing consent". Stories abounded about hundereds of bodies being discovered in areas liberated by rebel fighters, usually black Libyans who mainly fought on the loyalist side, but even that was blamed on Gadaffi. You should try looking beyond the BBC, CNN and British popular press for information

Many years ago I appeared on the (then) 9'o'clock news. My youth group had undertaken a relay run to a youth festival in Moscow (I was a lot fitter then!!) where the opening event was in the Olympic Stadium and attended by Gorbachev. As we'd run to the event our group was asked to carry the Union Flag around the track as the UK reps in the Olympic style parade of nations. The BBC covered this and stated that the UK delegation was "made of young communists and trade unionists". In reality the delegation was made up of a youth group from Derbyshire with an interest in athletics, the Young Liberals and about a dozen assorted oddments - none of which were communist or trade union based!

That was my defining experience of the "impartiality of the BBC" - though I suppose other national news broadcasters are equally as biased!

 

[JJ Sefton]

Many years ago I appeared on the (then) 9'o'clock news. My youth group had undertaken a relay run to a youth festival in Moscow (I was a lot fitter then!!) where the opening event was in the Olympic Stadium and attended by Gorbachev. As we'd run to the event our group was asked to carry the Union Flag around the track as the UK reps in the Olympic style parade of nations. The BBC covered this and stated that the UK delegation was "made of young communists and trade unionists". In reality the delegation was made up of a youth group from Derbyshire with an interest in athletics, the Young Liberals and about a dozen assorted oddments - none of which were communist or trade union based!

That was my defining experience of the "impartiality of the BBC" - though I suppose other national news broadcasters are equally as biased!

Theres an element of laziness too. And sensationalism. I was in the Shelbourne Hotel in Dublin once and I overheard some BBC journalists who had been up to the north complaining that an Orange march had gone off peacefully because it meant their trip had been wasted.

 

[pommpey]

Walthamstow Blade. No our political leaders order planes to drop bombs from 30,000 feet or ships to launch missiles from miles out to sea, brave that, on civilian targets such as Afghan weddings, schools or hospitals and then call it "collateral damage" or issue a half hearted apology, but it doesn't matter really 'cos they're only what Pommpey refers to as "ragheads"

Firstly, in context, I used the term 'ragheads' and illustrated my emphasis on it to highlight the percieved belief that all servicement regard arabs or asians as contemptible. If you want contempt, try G and H Block every other Saturday and listen to the sexist, racist and homophobic wonder of the average 'football fan' (my emphasis, once again). Secondly, modern warfare is based upon inflicting targeted damage on specific targets. You'll thanks me if beleiev that the safer way of getting through any conflict without incurring losses to your own side (by which you may make more political capital) is to use current technology. If that means predator aircraft, naval ordnance, exploding fish, invisible Scotch Arrers, stealth ants or ESP then so be it. I'd rather we didn't drop paratroop forces into areas of conflict because that smacks of 'invasion', rather than 'tactical and strategic denial' which is entirely within the auspices of UN directives. We don't need bravery to launch these weapons, just moral fortitude that we are achievning our mission. And before you bleat about Afghan Weddings et al, consider the accompanying tale of said 'wedding' (which it wasn't, near Khandahar, 2003 according to a buddy of mine who was out in Baghram at the time)) and the fact that the celebrants, in their joy of witnessing this momentous occasion, started firing their weapons (one such an RPG) at a watching AH64 Apache gunship. An easy mistake to make, I'm sure you'll agree.

During the Libyan conflict we were variously told that Gadaffi had supplied his troops with tons of viagra the better to commit mass rapes , even that was too much for our compliant media to swallow and was much ridiculed, and latterly it was reported that there were 50,000 prisoners hidden in tunnels under Tripoli, it all goes quiet afterwards but the seed is planted for gullible people to swallow. I remember watching BBC reporter Jon Simpson being interviewed telling the world that all the "revolutionaries" had were rifles whilst behind him they were firing an anti aircraft gun, you couldn't make it up. Noem Chomski referred to it as "manufacturing consent". Stories abounded about hundereds of bodies being discovered in areas liberated by rebel fighters, usually black Libyans who mainly fought on the loyalist side, but even that was blamed on Gadaffi. You should try looking beyond the BBC, CNN and British popular press for information such as independant reporters at the scene such as Lizzie Phelan. Incidentally where did you hear/read about the rape story ?

Yes, and we nce were told by Saddam's trusty head of communications, Comical Ali, that his forces were fighting the technologically advance US and UK forces out of Baghdad. Ghadaffi even went on the radio to rally his depleting troops, telling them that the fightback had begun and Tripoli was now back in his hands. Who do you believe? Well, I tell you who I prefer to believe ... given that the 24 hour news system we employ soon weeds out the untruths and bullshit better than Ghadaffi's pile of shit propaganda.

pommpey

 

[grafikhaus]

So here I am, thinking I'd check on any news from United and it seems I've walked into Question Time...

 

[SheepdipBlade]

So here I am, thinking I'd check on any news from United and it seems I've walked into Question Time...

Aye - this kind of stuff only usually happens on the General Chat section - but on here I seem to be having a civilised and constructive discussion with WB despite our different world views - so I'll take this for as long as its on offer!!

Re the OP - has Poppy Day become more than a simple day to remember the fallen and developed more into a day when Britain reconfirms its national identity? WWII was the last occassion when GB flexed our muscles as a world leader - and we did it for all the right reasons - - since then we have been in a (initially US driven) decline.

Is Poppy Day nowadays as much about how we see ourselves, our role in (20thC) history, our national identity and the national myth - and is this (in part) why we have emphasised Poppy Day more in recent years - and react more strogly when we feel it hasn't been observed as we'd wish? Is it because the slight isn't simply about our fallen - its also a slight about "us", "our nation" and "who we are"?

 

[cahill]

Might upset you a bit here Pommpey but do you think possibly that all that time spent in the forces may have interfered with your ability to think independently, conditioning and all that, and a willingness to accept whatever your "betters" tell you ?

 

[pommpey]

Might upset you a bit here Pommpey but do you think possibly that all that time spent in the forces may have interfered with your ability to think independently, conditioning and all that, and a willingness to accept whatever your "betters" tell you ?

I love this. It's the old, "You're just a robot/thicky/can't think for yourself because you were in the forces" sctick, isn't it? If your argument don't work, get personal, eh?

FYI, I spent 32 years in the navy, left as a Warrant Officer and in honesty, my 'limited intelligence' managed to get me through a shedload of scenarios which required me to show exemplary leadership and mangement skills (it's in my docs, check em out, eh?) and employ engineering departments of fifty or so personnel on ships ranging from Aircraft Carriers to the nations only Ice Patrol Vessel. Okay, I was never head of Virgin or Microsoft, never cracked the Grand Unified Theory or didn't quite mange to bankroll China's economic rise. But I'm pleased with my lot, and satisfied that there will always be people who will try their hardest to use recieved knowledge (usually from discredited sources) to denigrate your position. I'm used to it now. Usually it comes from people whose assumptions on how the armed forces functions is pretty laser-beam thin. They've seen a few films, watched a few documentaries, read a few articles and find the mere thought of a structured, disciplined organisation wholly abhorrent, save when the shitty jobs need doing when a structured, disciplined organisation is just what the doctor ordered, thank-you-very-much. It might shock you to know that there are many people in the forces allowed to think for themselves, hold differing opinions and ... knock yourself out here ... actually disagree with the government. But there is rationale in defence policy, whichever way you wish to look at it. We do what the government wants us to do, regardless of our beliefs. And I'd rather be one of us, than one of them, or even one who regards us in the rather sad manner you do. Of course, you know what I do and what my line is. I won't cheapen this discussion to bring your employment or beliefs to bear on the subject. For all I know, you might be the graveyard shift manger in City Road Texaco petrol garage. Usually people who find it in themselves to be so outspoken without a scintilla of credible evidence to reinforce their misgivings are just that.

pommpey

 

[dingledog]

Pommpey, you'll do for me mate, good on you and thank you for serving our country.

 

[pommpey]

Pommpey, you'll do for me mate, good on you and thank you for serving our country.

Thanks mate.

Listen guys, this is done to death now so I'm out.

Blades now, eh?

pommpey

 

[dkc Blade]

Has Beattie signed yet?

 

[beightonblade]

who owns the freehold ?

 

[JJ Sefton]

Is Michael Palin a Blade or a Pig?