Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Noel Gallagher

Amazed to see the recent ads on the Beeb, with the "One Chord Wonder" sharing the billing with Jimmy Page. You can't really argue with the album sales though, which puts Oasis above Pink Floyd's Dark Side in total sales - sacrilege!
 
The Gallaghers? Pair of muppets with droning monotone singing voices with about as much talent as Girls Aloud. Another old hasbeen who needs to justify his existence to the modern world.

Send him to Iraq for tour and see how long he lasts. I'll say it once again...MUPPET.
 
comrades!

bearing in mind, what he actually said was:

1) People who join up should expect to do some fighting.

2) I don't agree with the war in iraq.

Both of those are okay points aren't they?

People who join the military in Britain expect to do some fighting. Does the war in iraq /Afghanistan/ anywhere else mean that the British public should be out on the streets thanking the military for their good work? Of course not. Its in the job description.

Also, lots of people don't agree with the war in the middle east and think what the British military are doing is making things worse here and there. Does this mean that because people don't agree with the actions of the military they have to keep quiet?
 
sweeney said:
comrades!

bearing in mind, what he actually said was:

1) People who join up should expect to do some fighting.

2) I don't agree with the war in iraq.

Both of those are okay points aren't they?

People who join the military in Britain expect to do some fighting. Does the war in iraq /Afghanistan/ anywhere else mean that the British public should be out on the streets thanking the military for their good work? Of course not. Its in the job description.

Also, lots of people don't agree with the war in the middle east and think what the British military are doing is making things worse here and there. Does this mean that because people don't agree with the actions of the military they have to keep quiet?

But he blasted troops who claim compensation for injuries suffered on the frontline.

"You get a million people walking through Hyde Park - 'Don't send the troops and all that'," he said.

"The troops want to go, all they want to do is fight! They're soldiers. They're loving it, until they get shot - then they're claiming compensation. If you're bothered about getting shot - here's a thing - don't join the Army.

Your point is is valid, but I think people are upset more because of his criticism of servicemen who seek adequate compensation from the Government for injuries caused from this conflict which was started for questionable and erroneous reasons. Much like the previous thread about critics comments about Rememberance Day etc., recently, perhaps the Gallaghers could spend some time with injured personnel at Hedley Court or another Rehabilitation Centre closer to Supernova Heights... :lol:
 
sweeney said:
bearing in mind, what he actually said was:

1) People who join up should expect to do some fighting.

2) I don't agree with the war in iraq.

Both of those are okay points aren't they?

Thing is, that's only part of what he said. Had he added that his pet Bliar denies troops injured in whatever war he sends them to treatment by a military healthcare setup and looks after them well past their exit date from their Service, I'd have been more impressed. This ignorant pig who has become as rich as Croesus by ripping off Beatles tunes and calling them his own dares to criticise injured Servicemen for looking to the country to pay them compensation for injuries received in Service.

If an MP slipped on the stairs in Parliament and was injured, you can bet your boots he or she could live off the interest from their payout for life.
 
come_the_day said:
sweeney said:
bearing in mind, what he actually said was:

1) People who join up should expect to do some fighting.

2) I don't agree with the war in iraq.

Both of those are okay points aren't they?

Thing is, that's only part of what he said. Had he added that his pet Bliar denies troops injured in whatever war he sends them to treatment by a military healthcare setup and looks after them well past their exit date from their Service, I'd have been more impressed. This ignorant pig who has become as rich as Croesus by ripping off Beatles tunes and calling them his own dares to criticise injured Servicemen for looking to the country to pay them compensation for injuries received in Service.

If an MP slipped on the stairs in Parliament and was injured, you can bet your boots he or she could live off the interest from their payout for life.

Parliament is a Royal Palace (hence being called the Palace of Westminster) and is therefore exempt from ALL health and safety legislation. They can choose to comply but are under no statutory obligation to obey the law that applies elsewhere. An MP who fell down the stone steps and sustained crippling injuries could apply for medical retirement but no more. Any member of the public who so injured themselves would be able to claim nothing.
 
come_the_day said:
This ignorant pig who has become as rich as Croesus by ripping off Beatles tunes and calling them his own dares to criticise injured Servicemen for looking to the country to pay them compensation for injuries received in Service.

If an MP slipped on the stairs in Parliament and was injured, you can bet your boots he or she could live off the interest from their payout for life.

Fair enough comrade. But can you just run past me again why soldiers should receive compensation for injuries? I am not deliberately being a c**t here, I just don't understand the reasoning behind it.

On the new contracts you sign when joining, does it state anywhere that you are going to get compo if you are injured? Are we talking accidents here or combat related stuff?
 
If you look to some of our allies and their provision for the care of Servicemen and -women injured in the course of their duties, you really begin to see the poverty of the UK system. Essentially, if you lose limbs or are otherwise rendered unfit for active duty, you are out and under NHS care almost immediately, whereas the US and Aussies, among others have funded veterans organisations which include hospital care at public expense for as long as you need it. Compensation awards would support the cost of such care provision, given that such costs should be met from the public purse in the first place.

As to AAC's suggestion that there would be no payout for anyone injured within the confines of the Royal Palace of Westminster - pull the other one! That might be what it says in the rules, but you're as daft as me if you think it would never happen. Elfin Safety applies everywhere and there is nowhere safe from the European Court of Mollycoddling!
 
Always_a_Civvy said:
come_the_day said:
sweeney said:
bearing in mind, what he actually said was:

1) People who join up should expect to do some fighting.

2) I don't agree with the war in iraq.

Both of those are okay points aren't they?

Thing is, that's only part of what he said. Had he added that his pet Bliar denies troops injured in whatever war he sends them to treatment by a military healthcare setup and looks after them well past their exit date from their Service, I'd have been more impressed. This ignorant pig who has become as rich as Croesus by ripping off Beatles tunes and calling them his own dares to criticise injured Servicemen for looking to the country to pay them compensation for injuries received in Service.

If an MP slipped on the stairs in Parliament and was injured, you can bet your boots he or she could live off the interest from their payout for life.

Parliament is a Royal Palace (hence being called the Palace of Westminster) and is therefore exempt from ALL health and safety legislation. They can choose to comply but are under no statutory obligation to obey the law that applies elsewhere. An MP who fell down the stone steps and sustained crippling injuries could apply for medical retirement but no more. Any member of the public who so injured themselves would be able to claim nothing.

As the palace of westminster AAC does that mean they are exempt from the impending smoking ban ?.
 
sweeney said:
Fair enough comrade. But can you just run past me again why soldiers should receive compensation for injuries? I am not deliberately being a c**t here, I just don't understand the reasoning behind it.

On the new contracts you sign when joining, does it state anywhere that you are going to get compo if you are injured? Are we talking accidents here or combat related stuff?

As already mentioned, many feel compensation should be awarded if the conflict in which they were injured was started for illegal or nefarious reasons. If a serviceman is injured during a legitimate conflict then fair enough.
 
My estimation of one of Oasis main detractors went up from zero to hero when an oppo told me the following story (and it's gen)

After returning from Op Telic war phase a marine was asked to report to an officer, he was told by said officer that a number of tickets had been made available for a concert to those wounded in action, he then promptly handed him two tickets (one for him and one for his other half) they were for....

.......Robbie Williams, never used to like him, now I don't give a shit what people think, he did us proud and is a bigger man for it (and on the plus side hates the eyebrow bloke with a vengence since he nicked his bird!)
 
What a t**t, I'd like to see him get shot at.
It's not the point that poople in the mob should expect to get shot at, its all about acceptable risk, if it's worth fighting for fair enough, but when casualties can be avoided by a number of factors you have a right to try and rectify them.
 
Welbexian_RN said:
What a t**t, I'd like to see him get shot at.
It's not the point that poople in the mob should expect to get shot at, its all about acceptable risk, if it's worth fighting for fair enough, but when casualties can be avoided by a number of factors you have a right to try and rectify them.

We appreciate the sentiment, but never advocate the unnecessary use of violence against anyone - whether you like them or not. That sort of attitude has led to most of the current global disputes, which we (as Armed Forces) are sent in to resolve when politics and negotiations have broken down.

Especially as I doubt you've even been in a War Zone being shot at - I would not wish that on anyone. Think about what you are saying before you engage mouth; it's easy to wish pain and suffering on another person when you're sat in your bedsit eating takeaways... :?
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top