34 1 min 8 yrs

It seems in the topsy-turvy world of the Home Office, terror operatives, hate criminals and other criminal clowns that there has been a definite decision.

aswimmer                 We can get rid of him!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

anAbu             But we can’t get rid of him!

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

34 thoughts on “If him; why not him?

  1. Well who on earth would WANT to deport a jolly old man with a large beard who has a part time job at Harrods every Christmastime?

  2. As a sovereign country why cannot we be in charge of our borders and get rid of both of them? I’d prefer that.

    Oh …we’re not any more are we.

    Now we are merely the North Atlantic region of the EU megastate. Well that explains why we must keep one of the ‘cultural enrichments’. I’d like to keep him in a deep coal mine for the ‘full hour of the rest of his life’.

    In answer to your specific point about why we can easily get rid of the oik who fecked up a Oxbridge boat race is easy. The Gubbermint, judges and our useless civil servant bloat-ocracy is heavily over represented by ex Oxbridge types.

  3. ” Now we are merely the North Atlantic region of the EU megastate. ”

    But to add insult to injury, it’s not even a successful bloody megastate!
    It don’t bloody work, it only issues directives for useless politicians to follow.
    Even the USSR was more successful than the EU. At least it had a credible bloody military..

  4. No one here supports a strong UK or European military.

    Because there are no more dangers in this world you see.

  5. Oh yes some of us do, Phantom.
    In fact I was reading an article about George Osborne and our UK spiralling debt of £1.3 TRILLION.

    “When the government talks of “ring-fenced” spending, it is referring to health, education and aid. But, in effect, the protective cordon extends well beyond these areas. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, despite forecasts of higher employment and lower unemployment between now and 2017-18, social security spending – in cash terms – is not coming down. Neither is Britain’s interest bill, as it would be unthinkable to default on our sovereign debt (currently £1.3 trillion and rising).”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/10138120/It-cant-be-done-George-Osborne.html

    My guess is that a future government will have to bite the bullet and beef up our police force and military, in order to tackle the inevitable social unrest resulting from real and major social cutbacks that we really cannot carry on paying for.
    In fact I imagine that all of Europe will be forced to abandon this Welfare dream that has turned into a terrible nightmare. That’s when you’ll get a renewed interest in conventional armed forces.

  6. Whether we support a strong military or not is irrelevant, it so happens that we do have a strong military, – the main objection is that it is all abroad, fighting other peoples battles, when our real enemies are already here and living in ‘the neighbourhood’.

    We have already been invaded, and our pols are too stupid, or greedy, to even realise it.

    Our forces resemble a mercenary unit rather than a force to protect our own shores.

    Take NATO for instance, besides the US and the UK, who bear the brunt of the costs, most other euro countries provide little more than a token presence, and usually in admin roles, – and they laugh at our naivety, especially when we jump when the US says ‘jump!’.

    The same may be said of the UN, which ironically has members who are allies and some who are enemies.

    For a small country of sixty million souls, we bear a far larger proportion of the costs, both financial and in lives than many of our neighbours do en masse.

    And you, an intelligent man, wonder why we now say ‘enough is enough’! Our battles are now on what we used to call ‘the Home Front’, not in the wilds of some barbaric and primitive drug producing country, that cannot even change its underwear without cutting someones head off!

  7. ” our pols are too stupid, or greedy, to even realise it.”
    Ernest,
    I think they’re too frightened.

  8. You are one of a very small minority among the British here.

    I’ve never once heard even David speaking of a need to beef up the British Navy and Army and RAF.

    The only way forward to a real military once more is by way of taxes to pay for it.

    The usual nonsense here is that tax is always bad.

  9. Ernest

    Do you think that the Royal Navy – just to focus on one service, and one on which the UK has a really strong history – is of an adequate size and state of readiness going forward, to defend the Falklands if need be, and to protect British interests abroad otherwise?

  10. Agit8ed,

    Could be, – as in pantomime, now is the time for us to shout – “He’s behind you!’ – in reference to the heaving mess they have created on that ‘home front.

  11. Phantom,

    At this point in time I think the role of the navy has changed draamtically from their role in history. We do now have rockets and such, which do the job so much more quickly, besides which, who would wish to invade us now – the word has already got around that we are ‘all washed, and spent up’, – so what would be the point?

    As for the Falklands, what can one say, apart from some oil what would be the point of re-running ‘Maggies Last Stand’.? – would it be pride, or honouring a promise made a long time ago, – all rather futile wouldn’t you say, all things considered.

    Keeping a promise would be a rather empty gesture, when our politicians cannot keep even some of the more simpler promises they make on an almost daily basis.

    Incidentally, I didn’t speak ‘of a need to beef up the British Navy and Army and RAF.’ – I said – “it so happens that we do have a strong military”. meaning -‘it is already strong enough’

  12. See below, from an article more than five years old.

    The Royal Navy can no longer fight a major war because of years of under­funding and cutbacks, a leaked Whitehall report has revealed.

    With an “under-resourced” fleet composed of “ageing and operationally defective ships”, the Navy would struggle even to repeat its role in the Iraq war and is now “far more vulnerable to unexpected shocks”, the top-level Ministry of Defence document says.

    A maritime nation needs a Navy able to project force across the seas.

    You seem prepared to cede the Falklands. Fine by me, but I thought that this was a matter of principle for many there.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571188/Navy-would-struggle-to-fight-a-war-report.html

  13. Strange that Phantom mentions the Royal Navy, and just the Royal Navy, as though they were the ultimate heroes.

    It was the Merchant Navy that kept us all alive in WWII, yes, the RN had a job to do in protecting all those convoys, and they did it well, but the very idea of ‘Trafalgaresk’ style of open ocean warfare, with guns blazing delivering broadsides went out in the early years of WWII, and such scenarios are now well beyond being useful.

    That we are now an overpopulated country with insufficient resources to feed even half of the current population has seen to that.

  14. Not to belabor the point, but without the Royal Navy, you’d never have won the Falklands War.

    You have interests beyond your shores -including protecting the sea lanes.

    Beware!

  15. So the MOD leaked a report which said that the MOD should have more money. That’s what the upper echelons of the bureaucracy do, protect the empire.

    Getting back on topic …

    I’d have paid good money to see the smirk on Trenton Oldfield’s face when he was told he’s being kicked out. During and after the boat race he demonstrated that he’s an arrogant, narcissistic tosser without the slightest thought for anyone else.

    He’ll appeal, but if he loses in the end we’ll know that the “right to a family life”, that legalese which saves many a Third World rapist, murderer, mugger and terrorist from being kicked back to where they belong, is applied selectively. Oldfield’s wide is British (alright, “British”) and she’s pregnant. If that doesn’t keep him here he should get a cat.

  16. Phantom,

    You have really missed the point that I have been labouriously trying to make, – we are no longer interested in fighting other folks battles.

    Yes, the Falklands was ‘fight of principle’, – but as I pointed out – times have changed, and we could do with our politicians using some of that ‘principle’ back home i.e. in the UK.

    As for that quote – “A maritime nation needs a Navy able to project force across the seas.”

    What a load of historical nonsense – we are no longer a world force, we no longer have parasitic colonies to defend, we do still have them to support, and you expect us to defend them as well?

    What other ‘once-colonial’ power even bothers with its former colonies? France, Italy, Belgium, Germany, Porugal, Spain etc. etc.? all former colonisers who have hypothetically turned their backs on their former colonies.

    The sheer delusional hypocrisy of our politicians in believing that we have historical duties to perform as a ‘matter of principal’, when those times are long past and our priorities have changed considerably, give some idea of just how divided they are from us plebs, – especially when they are spending our cash.

    As with grandparents obligations to grandchildren, there comes a time when those obligations need to be assumed by others.

  17. Phantom,

    So? – would it have been half the disaster that everyone imagined it might be? No, of course it wouldn’t.

    The Falklands has a pouplation of less than 3,000, and we have to spend billions, in perpetuity, in case we have to defend them! – isn’t this where a sense of reality rears its ugly head and we all agree that enough is enough!.

  18. I agree that there is little need to keep undue ties with former colonies. There is no benefit to the UK to want to pretend that there is any benefit to a close relationship with a moral sewer like Pakistan for Gods sake.

    But you, and your neighbors, still have interests overseas, including eradication of piracy. Those interests aren’t going away, even if you want them to go away.

    The last war has not been fought.

    BTW, the French do keep strangely close relationship to their former colonies. Its important to them.

  19. p.s. As for protecting ‘sea lanes’ – you have read about the piracy around the shores of Africa and Indonesia and many other places, – no mention of our navy being involved after one little incident some years ago, where one of our boarding parties got caught and had their ipods confiscated and and pics of the little darling in tears.

  20. Ernest

    I propose a muscular Royal Navy that would not be messed with in such incidents.

  21. Phantom,

    You do have an ironic sense of humour! ‘Royal Navy’ and ‘muscular’ are two words seldom used or seen in the same sentence… 🙂

  22. “Royal Navy’ and ‘muscular’”

    It used to be, “Wooden ships and iron and iron men”.
    Phantom, if you ever have the opportunity to visit the Royal Naval dockyard at Portsmouth, you should go visit HMS Victory. That ship is incredible. There is an almost palpable atmosphere as you walk around it. Very inspiring and very interesting to see how they lived and worked.

  23. I have never been to see the War Rooms, but I have been all around the underground tunnels dug into the cliffs at Dover. First excavated during the Napoleonic Wars then used as a communications centre WW2. You can -and people have- got lost in there. Supposed to be haunted as well. They have a proper military hospital built in. This website is very informative.
    All over this part of Kent are WW2 fighter airfields and some famous pubs associated with them, but Dover its self is pretty dismal.
    In London of course there is the Imperial War Museum which is well worth a visit. But I found the Naval Dockyard at Portsmouth probably the most agreeable. There are the sail sheds and the ropemaking sheds as well Absolutely enormous. Then they have just opened the Mary Rose Exhibition, which is the Tudor Battleship found buried in the mud. Lots of preserved stuff there.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/uk/10071199/Inside-the-new-Mary-Rose-museum.html

    Wherever you do go, I would advise a digital camera and laptop to store all your pictures on!
    I am hoping to go down to see the Mary Rose later this year, and if there’s time I might do the tour of the Victory again. Did you know Nelson’s body was brought back from the battle of Trafalgar in a barrel of brandy?

    http://www.cromwell-intl.com/travel/uk/dover/

  24. . . . Spain etc. etc.? all former colonisers who have hypothetically turned their backs on their former colonies.

    Not nessecerily so Ernest. Spain is heavilly populated with South American immigrants from most SA countries but perdominantly from Ecuador & Colombia.

    I live in Navarra where a lot of the immigration is focused. One of the theories is that the autonomous Gov of Navarra is being pressurised by Opus Dei, throught it’s contacts in Madrid, in order to beef up the region’s practising Catholic population.

  25. I’d read of young Spaniards moving the other way, seeking jobs in Brazil or Chile in these days of mega-unemployment in Spain.

  26. I’d read of young Spaniards moving the other way, seeking jobs in Brazil or Chile in these days of mega-unemployment in Spain

    I haven’t heard of that Phantom but if the respective economies are vibrant it wouldn’t surprise me (even if there is a language barrier in Brazil).

Comments are closed.