Ditch the Falklands, says former Guardian editor

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by philc, Nov 15, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. On the day that we remember those that died in the Falklands this is what some over at the Guardian think.


    They would gladly stick up for those detained at Guantánamo, but don't think the Islanders have the right to live as they wish.
  2. I thought things were getting twitchy down there again as there's supposed to be oil reserves around the islands...........
  3. What the hell is a "subsidised six pack". Is it a reference to these chaps, albeit symbolic ones, drinking habits or some homoerotic dream of their physique? Anyway, I always thought a "symbolic guy" was something we set fire to every Bonfire Night. Top marks to his proof reader, incidentally.

    I think Mr Preston must be practicing for 1st of April next year. Sadly, I believe he is allowed to vote.


    A picture speaks a thousand words.
  4. He looks a c*ck and talks like one - come to think of it he reminds me of my last DO
  5. Reminds me of Sandy Woodward and Admiral West both *********
  6. ???

    Can't we just ditch the Guardian instead?
  7. One word PILLOCK !!! :(
  8. Isnt the guardian Liberal? Or is it the Independant?

    If it is then it makes this attitude in the article less surprising. Foolish thing to print
  9. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    It may come as no great surprised to some, but I actually like reading The Guardian on a regular basis. I have admired Peter Preston's editorial work in the past, and admire him as a diligent and experienced journalist. Those who form an opinion of someone purely based on their photograph are just highlighting their own inadequacies and narrowmindedness, rather than criticising the story itself.

    However... I do agree that The Guardian has scored a significant and insensitive own goal here with this piece. Whatever the agenda (political or otherwise) they should've researched or canvassed it prior to publication - despite the column being named "Comment is Free".

    It seems others tend to agree with the sentiment posted so far, including this article from the "Automonous Mind" blog:

  10. jockpopeye

    jockpopeye Badgeman Book Reviewer

    Don't read the Guardian (it's full of shit), says Jockpopeye.
  11. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    ...but how do you know, if you've not read it? :? :wink:
  12. The smell emulating from it
  13. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    You read with your nose?! 8O

    Then the same could be said about almost all tabloid media these days... :roll:
  14. Agreed why is x-factor and such like shows considered news nowadays? I thought that was what the TV guide type mags were for?
  15. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    X- what..?! :?
  16. Yeah its a heap of crap, although you do find yourself wondering if smashing the skinny bints back doors in would be an amusing experience :p

    I tend to take all media outlets with a pinch of Salt. The only news provider I wont give any time to is the SUN. That filthy lies rag isnt worth the paper its printed on
  17. A fair point, perhaps. As a fully functioning Gridiron reader, perhaps you can enlighten me as to what a "subsidised six pack" is: no bugger else has so far.

    I actually thought the picture portrayed very well the smug, self satisfied liberal thinker that this man clearly likes to impersonate.
  18. I believe it was a phrase coined by Harold Wilson in the late 60's to determine forces pay scales in comparision with civilian pay.
    The X factor was an addition to forces pay to compensate for 'unsocial hours', 'unsocial environment' or anything that can't be compared to civilian working conditions.

    But there again.... I'm just a smart arse ! :roll:

Share This Page