REAR PARTY

#1
ah well ... RR's version of political correctness wins the day and the Queen's name is removed. Do we do something sensible like change it to 'those whom the Nation forgets'? Do we hell! Well you saddo's should just go the whole hog then and call them 'camp followers' in my opinion.

Guys - this stinks of poo ... from a bull's rear end too ...
 
#4
I think he's complaining about the rear party banner which said "for all those her majesty forgets" - blatently not true I admit. The odd thing is that I changed this yesterday - before his post. Either the change prompted him to write thinking the old banner was still running, or I've missed another showing of the old one somewhere.
 

janner

MIA
Book Reviewer
#6
Good_CO said:
I think he's complaining about the rear party banner which said "for all those her majesty forgets" - blatently not true I admit. The odd thing is that I changed this yesterday - before his post. Either the change prompted him to write thinking the old banner was still running, or I've missed another showing of the old one somewhere.
I think He's a She, though its difficult to tell under the make up on the avatar :dwarf:
 
#10
no boys and girls its the NEW one I object to - so no wriggling out of that. I stated my opinions quite clearly when we debated the topic a couple of months ago and I DON'T see any MORE evidence that the nation and the Queen gives a flying about the families of the military NOW than I did THEN. (Even if they do they do sod all for them.)

So there!
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#12
While I agree that the nation's support of its Armed Forces is questionably lethargic (in comparison to, say, the USA), I don't necessarily agree that the nation owes a debt to the families of forces personnel. Mrs. SPB married me - not my job, so would not expect any preferential assistance from the RN/MOD. Likewise, I would not (and do not) receive special support/treatment from her employer.
 
#13
golden_rivet said:
no boys and girls its the NEW one I object to - so no wriggling out of that. I stated my opinions quite clearly when we debated the topic a couple of months ago and I DON'T see any MORE evidence that the nation and the Queen gives a flying about the families of the military NOW than I did THEN. (Even if they do they do sod all for them.)

So there!
Paging sense of humour!

Believe it or not the RP banner wasn't some sort of protest but an advert for RP. Despite that over the last year I'd had a number of comments (one from a Padre) that actually there was quite a lot done for families - certainly more than most civi employers, and that the banner wasn't appropriate. Before you argue that, ask someone who's other half works for a security contracter doing similar work overseas.

Good point says I, and eventually (sorry padre) got round to making it a bit less offensive to those that spend their days dealing with family matters.

I'm sure the treatment of families could be better, but if I'm forced to take sides in the great RP advertising banner controversy, I'm on the side of the padre.
 
#14
Good_CO said:
golden_rivet said:
no boys and girls its the NEW one I object to - so no wriggling out of that. I stated my opinions quite clearly when we debated the topic a couple of months ago and I DON'T see any MORE evidence that the nation and the Queen gives a flying about the families of the military NOW than I did THEN. (Even if they do they do sod all for them.)

So there!
Paging sense of humour!

Believe it or not the RP banner wasn't some sort of protest but an advert for RP. Despite that over the last year I'd had a number of comments (one from a Padre) that actually there was quite a lot done for families - certainly more than most civi employers, and that the banner wasn't appropriate. Before you argue that, ask someone who's other half works for a security contracter doing similar work overseas.

Good point says I, and eventually (sorry padre) got round to making it a bit less offensive to those that spend their days dealing with family matters.

I'm sure the treatment of families could be better, but if I'm forced to take sides in the great RP advertising banner controversy, I'm on the side of the padre.
I think there is a need to differentiate the work done within the service by service people for the families (which is what I think your Padre chum was refering to), and what our munificent government actually pays for for our families.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Seadog Site Issues 15
B Nearest & Dearest 1
J History 52

Similar threads

Top