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!

Sir Richard Dannatt

[.to be found.[/quote]

Dannatt is shrewder than anyone thinks, Blair is fatally wounded and the media are baying for his blood, the US midterms are coming up and it's a big topic over there, and the public are more hostile than ever to the war. Some of the media are saying he is unsackable; we'll see about that, but I would tend to agree.[/quote]

"All governments use people and then discard them when they have served their purpose"
 
Anybody else see that snivelling barsteward lackey Blunkett on the Suday morning show? Said that General Dannatt was being unconstitutional and that Soldiers should not comment on politics. I think that he shouldn't have spoken about religion, but that his bounden duty is to represent the people he leads, who have been sold down the river by as craven a bunch of charlatans as have ever drawn political breath, one of the main members of whom was the very same Blunkett!

We do not fight for God and God has no place any longer in British politics. When we make the mistake of suggesting that a Christain God has any more right to exposure than an Islamic God, we fall into the trap so ably laid!
 
come_the_day said:
Anybody else see that snivelling barsteward lackey Blunkett on the Suday morning show? Said that General Dannatt was being unconstitutional and that Soldiers should not comment on politics. I think that he shouldn't have spoken about religion, but that his bounden duty is to represent the people he leads, who have been sold down the river by as craven a bunch of charlatans as have ever drawn political breath, one of the main members of whom was the very same Blunkett!

We do not fight for God and God has no place any longer in British politics. When we make the mistake of suggesting that a Christain God has any more right to exposure than an Islamic God, we fall into the trap so ably laid!

Allowing the Prince of Wales to marry Camilla was unconstitutional but it didn't stop the government allowing him to marry supposedly on human rights grounds. Inappropriate use of the Parliament Acts is another example, or abolishing the rights of hereditary peers. These were unconstitutional. What about the human rights of soldiers, or sailors, or their families? The government have been making campaign plans without any real consideration of the longer-term sustainability of those plans and appear to have disregarded the advice given to them by their senior Service Staff. They cannot have it both ways. Think of their plans toi deploy the RN to a blockage of North Korea? How precisely?
 
come_the_day said:
Anybody else see that snivelling barsteward lackey Blunkett on the Suday morning show? Said that General Dannatt was being unconstitutional and that Soldiers should not comment on politics. I think that he shouldn't have spoken about religion, but that his bounden duty is to represent the people he leads, who have been sold down the river by as craven a bunch of charlatans as have ever drawn political breath, one of the main members of whom was the very same Blunkett!

We do not fight for God and God has no place any longer in British politics. When we make the mistake of suggesting that a Christain God has any more right to exposure than an Islamic God, we fall into the trap so ably laid!
If you have a chance read today’s telegraph they go into quite a few aspects of this debate and much more. Expect it to grow as defence and related subjects that the paper has got its teeth into over the last couple of weeks.
 
Since when did being in the armed forces and being a defender of democracy mean losing the right to free speech? Isn't that what's un-constitutional?

I won't say what I think of Blunkett, but suffice to say, I believe the Joint Chiefs have probably got more idea about politics than the government has about Defence!!

Stuff 'em all. Fair play to the man. Bliar should think himself lucky the guy doesn't try for a coup, 'cos somehow, I think he'd have a lot of support.
 
bunnyjumper said:
.......Bliar should think himself lucky the guy doesn't try for a coup, 'cos somehow, I think he'd have a lot of support.

Not sure I think that any of the senior officers I've served with have either the ability or patience to be politicians, although it's been pretty disappointing that so many of them so blatantly put their retirement funds before their people. What they have had, in the main, is a history of military service that means they don't need advice on their positions from such a philandering, lying git as David Blunkett. Yet another socialist firebrand who betrayed his high principles for high office.
 
finknottle said:
Strange of no one has mentioned that his words will have a negative effect on morale for our troops in that s..t hole. To be told that your presence there is exacerbating the problem is not very clever at all.
I for one would have an increased morale knowing that someone with a bit of clout was fighting my corner instead of kissing the political feet. The bods out there are not stupid, I am sure they are aware they are pissing in the wind and just delaying the inevitable civil war until such time as a Saddam replacement stamps on it and take charge. Full circle. All we have done is stirred up a tribal mob.
 
finknottle said:
Wakey Wakey dubaipusser check asst_dep_to_dep_asst post on page 1 :)

I had actually missed the page 1 post FN so thanks for the wake up call but it does no harm to keep pointing out that seniority, ambition and loyalty are not necessarily mutually exclusive (or service specific)
 
Always_a_Civvy said:
Inappropriate use of the Parliament Acts is another example, or abolishing the rights of hereditary peers. These were unconstitutional.

Always, it is not often I feel obliged to take issue with your comments, but how exactly is the use of the PA and the abolition of the rights of hereditary peers unconstitutional?

We do not have a written constitution per se and of course being the academic you are you will have heard of the Doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy. No parliament can bind its successors and it can pass what ever legisaltion it choses - dear old Dicey. You know that even the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Communities Act 1973 can be repealed.

Laws may only be made through Acts of Parliament which comply with the specified formalities, these are upheld by the Courts. Although Parliament can enact what laws it pleases - and it increasingly does - it is therefore difficult for the courts to find that a particular action is not justified in law. Except when those laws conflict with EU Law - the wonderful Factortame case, which we both know and love.

For those of you not as sad as Always and myself, I can recommend some particularly fascinating reading about Public Law!
 

Latest Threads

Top