Battleing Banjo or Ailing Admiral??

Sparrowhawk01

Lantern Swinger
#1
Found this in the Mail on Sunday, what do you all think??

THE ADMIRAL WHO SANK OF SHAME


A word to Admiral Lord West, a genuinely brave fighting sea officer whose ship was sunk in the Falklands.

What did you think you were defending when you held the Queen's commission in Her Majesty's Navy? British freedom, that's what, including habeas corpus, which you now seek to abolish.

How come you could face Argentine air attacks with cool courage but ran away like a frightened toddler when Gordon Brown shouted at you, and then sat like a nodding dummy in the House of Lords, like a defendant at a show trial?

Please rediscover your guts and quit as Security Minister. If not, you shame the Navy, as well as yourself.
 
A

angrydoc

Guest
#2
On the other hand, it's quite funny that Gordon Brown's "power to the people" cabinet has backfired quite gloriously on him!

Why is the press focussing on Adm West's climb down and not on the fact that No 10 quite clearly pushed him? What's that - the media are just taking the line of the Government press office - oh, that's all fine then ;)
 
#3
Sparrowhawk01 said:
Found this in the Mail on Sunday, what do you all think??

THE ADMIRAL WHO SANK OF SHAME


A word to Admiral Lord West, a genuinely brave fighting sea officer whose ship was sunk in the Falklands.

What did you think you were defending when you held the Queen's commission in Her Majesty's Navy? British freedom, that's what, including habeas corpus, which you now seek to abolish.

How come you could face Argentine air attacks with cool courage but ran away like a frightened toddler when Gordon Brown shouted at you, and then sat like a nodding dummy in the House of Lords, like a defendant at a show trial?

Please rediscover your guts and quit as Security Minister. If not, you shame the Navy, as well as yourself.
But losing ones ship and official documents are both court martial offences. Are they not?
 

Ninja_Stoker

War Hero
Moderator
#4
bowlineonthebight said:
But losing ones ship and official documents are both court martial offences. Are they not?
Hello Norman

I take exception to your inane drivel on this occasion. I saw his ship hit & the valiant attempt made to save it, despite the loss of life & the repeated attempts to save her.

Enquiry yes, Courts Martial No, for the loss of a ship in action unless the enquiry revealed negligence.

You are frankly beyond contempt.
 
#5
bowlineonthebight said:
Sparrowhawk01 said:
Found this in the Mail on Sunday, what do you all think??

THE ADMIRAL WHO SANK OF SHAME


A word to Admiral Lord West, a genuinely brave fighting sea officer whose ship was sunk in the Falklands.

What did you think you were defending when you held the Queen's commission in Her Majesty's Navy? British freedom, that's what, including habeas corpus, which you now seek to abolish.

How come you could face Argentine air attacks with cool courage but ran away like a frightened toddler when Gordon Brown shouted at you, and then sat like a nodding dummy in the House of Lords, like a defendant at a show trial?

Please rediscover your guts and quit as Security Minister. If not, you shame the Navy, as well as yourself.
But losing ones ship and official documents are both court martial offences. Are they not?
Feck off and annoy some Pongo's Mode
Norm

More pretentious drivel. So the Captain and Officers of every ship lost in WW11 were subject to a court martial. First a Board of Inquiry looks at the loss to see if any action should be taken against any member of her crew. I still await with growing frustration the pics of you pig ugly solicitor's office cleaning daughter.

Nutty
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#6
The reason for Adm. West's alleged loss of official documents (when he Asst. then Chief of Naval Intelligence) is well known in the intelligence community, but not for publication here. Suffice to say all is not you read in the media...
 
#7
The SUNDAY Mail? Like it's daily edition, I have difficulty believing the DATE on it, let alone any of it's content. Boards of Inquiry are held into the loss and/or damage to HM Ships, Courts Martials are only held if there is proven evidence against any member of the Ships Company failing in their duty - something Lord West CANNOT be accused of. Courts Martials were suspended during WW II, because of the massive losses HM Ships were suffering, and the usual cause of loss could clearly be stated as "enemy action". As for the "loss of documents", as Sgt P suggests, let it lie - although I have my own opinions on the subject!
 
#8
Ninja_Stoker said:
bowlineonthebight said:
But losing ones ship and official documents are both court martial offences. Are they not?
Hello Norman

I take exception to your inane drivel on this occasion. I saw his ship hit & the valiant attempt made to save it, despite the loss of life & the repeated attempts to save her.

Enquiry yes, Courts Martial No, for the loss of a ship in action unless the enquiry revealed negligence.

You are frankly beyond contempt.
Thanks Ninja it's so easy when you hide in cyber space to throw rocks.

Feck off Norman, and get a life :rambo: :rambo: :rambo: :rambo:
 

Sparrowhawk01

Lantern Swinger
#9
I would not for one second question the bravery or moral fibre of some like the previous Captain West. But, like all the other CinCs etc. he moaned about our loss of capability and defence spending. Currently as Security Gadgie in the house of lords he can do something about it, his pension and title are secure. What is he holding back for??
 
#10
sgtpepperband said:
The reason for Adm. West's alleged loss of official documents (when he Asst. then Chief of Naval Intelligence) is well known in the intelligence community, but not for publication here. Suffice to say all is not you read in the media...
Since when has the Daily Wail or Sunday Wail been a newspaper? Lavatory paper yes, but like the wearly, dreary, Sun, they cannot tell the difference between 3rd rate fiction and news. :lol:
 

wet_blobby

War Hero
Moderator
#11
I dont think he's done himself any favours, he was appointed as a "GOAT" their words not mine, obviously (now) that myth has been blown out of the water.

from a strictly P.R point of view he should have said something along the lines of "That is my personal opinion but I'm here to wiegh all the arguments up and form an opinion from them, once I have I shall inform the media of my reccomendations."

* GOAT..Government of all talents.
 
#12
Nutty said:
bowlineonthebight said:
Sparrowhawk01 said:
Found this in the Mail on Sunday, what do you all think??

THE ADMIRAL WHO SANK OF SHAME


A word to Admiral Lord West, a genuinely brave fighting sea officer whose ship was sunk in the Falklands.

What did you think you were defending when you held the Queen's commission in Her Majesty's Navy? British freedom, that's what, including habeas corpus, which you now seek to abolish.

How come you could face Argentine air attacks with cool courage but ran away like a frightened toddler when Gordon Brown shouted at you, and then sat like a nodding dummy in the House of Lords, like a defendant at a show trial?

Please rediscover your guts and quit as Security Minister. If not, you shame the Navy, as well as yourself.
But losing ones ship and official documents are both court martial offences. Are they not?
Feck off and annoy some Pongo's Mode
Norm

More pretentious drivel. So the Captain and Officers of every ship lost in WW11 were subject to a court martial. First a Board of Inquiry looks at the loss to see if any action should be taken against any member of her crew. I still await with growing frustration the pics of you pig ugly solicitor's office cleaning daughter.

Nutty
The Armed Forces Act makes mention of Hazarding of Ship
(1) A person subject to service law commits an offence if he does (or omits to do) an act that causes the hazarding of any of her Majesty's Ships.
(2) This Act is held in abeyance in time of war.
(3) No state of war existed in the Falklands
(4) Charles Butler Mc Vay 111 was found guilty of Hazarding his ship by not zigzagging against air-attack--The yanks were that strict in WW2
Did the Commander of Ardent take any decisive measures to counter Air-attack?
 

P2000

Lantern Swinger
#13
To ask that question in the 25th anniversary year of the Falklands War beggars belief. You, Norman (insert other alias here) have all the social grace of pondlife, and none of the intelligence.

Hazarding ships is what the Navy does in wartime. It's called taking the fight to the enemy. Ardent paid the price. No-one threw the lives of those lost away. It was an unfortunate tragedy of war. Now show some respect to those who lost friends and/or relatives, and p*ss off. At the rush.
 
#14
P2000 said:
To ask that question in the 25th anniversary year of the Falklands War beggars belief. You, Norman (insert other alias here) have all the social grace of pondlife, and none of the intelligence.

Hazarding ships is what the Navy does in wartime. It's called taking the fight to the enemy. Ardent paid the price. No-one threw the lives of those lost away. It was an unfortunate tragedy of war. Now show some respect to those who lost friends and/or relatives, and p*ss off. At the rush.
But did the Commander in Command hazard his ship by not taking appropriate zigzag? action? Was he derelict in his duties that resulted in those Ardent sailors's lives. The Commander in command was last off in true RN tradition but was he responsible for those who were not "last off"?
 
#15
bowlineonthebight said:
P2000 said:
To ask that question in the 25th anniversary year of the Falklands War beggars belief. You, Norman (insert other alias here) have all the social grace of pondlife, and none of the intelligence.

Hazarding ships is what the Navy does in wartime. It's called taking the fight to the enemy. Ardent paid the price. No-one threw the lives of those lost away. It was an unfortunate tragedy of war. Now show some respect to those who lost friends and/or relatives, and p*ss off. At the rush.
But did the Commander in Command hazard his ship by not taking appropriate zigzag? action? Was he derelict in his duties that resulted in those Ardent sailors's lives. The Commander in command was last off in true RN tradition but was he responsible for those who were not "last off"?
You really are after a bight (sic), aren't you? cnut :threaten:
 
#17
bowlineonthebight said:
P2000 said:
To ask that question in the 25th anniversary year of the Falklands War beggars belief. You, Norman (insert other alias here) have all the social grace of pondlife, and none of the intelligence.

Hazarding ships is what the Navy does in wartime. It's called taking the fight to the enemy. Ardent paid the price. No-one threw the lives of those lost away. It was an unfortunate tragedy of war. Now show some respect to those who lost friends and/or relatives, and p*ss off. At the rush.
But did the Commander in Command hazard his ship by not taking appropriate zigzag? action? Was he derelict in his duties that resulted in those Ardent sailors's lives. The Commander in command was last off in true RN tradition but was he responsible for those who were not "last off"?
Righ pal, I can see from your post that you have never been to Falkland Sound, because if you had you would now how much room there is for zigzagging. You are a class 1 plonker who has no idea of air defence on a type 21 frigate, weapons systems employed or even where the EMR flat is so take your pathetic attempt of an opinion somewhere else.
 
#18
alacrity174 said:
bowlineonthebight said:
P2000 said:
To ask that question in the 25th anniversary year of the Falklands War beggars belief. You, Norman (insert other alias here) have all the social grace of pondlife, and none of the intelligence.

Hazarding ships is what the Navy does in wartime. It's called taking the fight to the enemy. Ardent paid the price. No-one threw the lives of those lost away. It was an unfortunate tragedy of war. Now show some respect to those who lost friends and/or relatives, and p*ss off. At the rush.
But did the Commander in Command hazard his ship by not taking appropriate zigzag? action? Was he derelict in his duties that resulted in those Ardent sailors's lives. The Commander in command was last off in true RN tradition but was he responsible for those who were not "last off"?
Righ pal, I can see from your post that you have never been to Falkland Sound, because if you had you would now how much room there is for zigzagging. You are a class 1 plonker who has no idea of air defence on a type 21 frigate, weapons systems employed or even where the EMR flat is so take your pathetic attempt of an opinion somewhere el

He has a point you know Norman
 
#19
alacrity174 said:
bowlineonthebight said:
P2000 said:
To ask that question in the 25th anniversary year of the Falklands War beggars belief. You, Norman (insert other alias here) have all the social grace of pondlife, and none of the intelligence.

Hazarding ships is what the Navy does in wartime. It's called taking the fight to the enemy. Ardent paid the price. No-one threw the lives of those lost away. It was an unfortunate tragedy of war. Now show some respect to those who lost friends and/or relatives, and p*ss off. At the rush.
But did the Commander in Command hazard his ship by not taking appropriate zigzag? action? Was he derelict in his duties that resulted in those Ardent sailors's lives. The Commander in command was last off in true RN tradition but was he responsible for those who were not "last off"?
Righ pal, I can see from your post that you have never been to Falkland Sound, because if you had you would now how much room there is for zigzagging. You are a class 1 plonker who has no idea of air defence on a type 21 frigate, weapons systems employed or even where the EMR flat is so take your pathetic attempt of an opinion somewhere else.
You are even more wrong HMS Protector 1950. Probably before you were born. Stop trying to be clever
 
#20
IIRC my Naval history, McVay was court martialled for hazarding his ship by not zigzagging against SUBMARINE attack: he was in an area out of reach of any Japanese air capability. If you're going to throw in lessons from history learned, at least get the facts right. As for your assertions against the then Commander West and the loss of ARDENT, IMHO, you, sir, are an absolute PILLOCK !
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
geoffg Diamond Lil's 17

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top