Fuck me but you know things are desperate when that mad meddling old harridan Vanessa Redgrave turns up with a camera man and a reporter.
You wouldn't want the pikeys in your garden, luvvie darling, so keep your fucking nose out.
The Penguin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I seem to remember last year these travellers digging pits and filling them with oil barrels, building barricades and topping them off with razor wire. I also heard some say that the oil barrels would be filled with petrol and the first Bailiffs, Police or Council Official who tried to step over them to evict the travellers would be burned to death, as the travellers would put a match to the petrol as they would never leave their land willingly without a fight.
Now I don’t know about other people but to me those uttered comments about harming people and the actions of burying of oil barrels seem to me to plans to inflict GBH or death of lawful officials acting on court orders. Why was no one arrested for conspiring to commit murder or commit GBH (with intent) and charged for those offences. Oh, I know, fussy thinking diversity thinking stops the law being applied as it should...equal to everyone in the UK.
Vanessa Redgrave ?
I thought she died years ago ..
Mind you, who could tell the difference ?
Reminds me of Joanna Lumley and the gurkas...
Hasn't she got any acting to do?
sixtypoundsaweekcleaner said ...
"Reminds me of Joanna Lumley and the gurkas"...
Absolutely no comparison .. The Gurkhas have served Britain loyally for generations & to the best of my knowledge have never conned an elderly person by "bodging" an unecessary roofing job .. have never laid so much as an inch of dodgy tarmac, do not collect scrap metal, do not pollute any ground on which they settle & have never claimed benefits, to which they weren't entitled ..
Gurkhas take an inordinate pride in keeping themselves, their equipment & their accommodation immaculately clean ..
I'd far sooner have a Nepalese family, the father of whom had been a Gurkha soldier as neighbours, than a family of pikeys ..
Although Captain Haddock may make a valid point, perhaps he could explain the crucial difference between a Gurkha and a 'foreign mercenary'.
Chances are the real explanation is that when the paid contract killer is on our side, he's an honourable colleague, but when he's contracted by the enemy, he's an evil mercenary.
Perception is reality, as they say.
@ Anon ..
I'd be delighted to explain the crucial difference between a British Gurkha Soldier & a foreign Mercenary ..
A Mercenary fights for the person who pays him most, regardless of all other facts ..
A British Gurkha Soldier is a fully-fledged & fully integrated member of the British Army & has sworn the same oath of allegiance to "Her Majesty the Queen, Her Heirs and Successors" .. as does every other British Serviceman & Woman ..
He serves under precisely the same conditions & for the same rates of pay as any other British Serviceman, or Woman ..
But don't just take my word for it ..
http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/royal-gurkha-rifles/default.aspx
Glad to have the benefit of Capt Haddock's explanation, which only goes to confirm the reality.
Paragraph 2 says it all - serving the British Army pays far more than herding yaks.
The fact that we create a 'cover story' of oaths and rituals is mere 'establishment spin' to obscure the inconvenient truth.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking it, and certainly not diminishing the immense contribution such fighters have made in our past and present military adventures. It's just that I'd prefer everyone to be honest about what it really is and not be misled by the emotional puffery.
@ Anon ..
You're either still missing the point .. or, I suspect merely being obtuse ..
Of course being a British Soldier pays more than herding Yaks .. it also pays more than trolley-collecting for ASDA ..
So, by your perverse reasoning .. all British Soldiers are Mercenaries because they accept wages in return for their service ..
There are none so blind, or so deaf as those who refuse to see reason ..
I accept that, since conscription and National Service ended, Britain has had a professional military, staffed by those who actively apply for the job in preference to other employment choices. That is a good thing.
In addition to UK residents, the British military command also chooses to employ some professional fighters resident in other countries. That too is a good thing.
Both groups are selling their services as professional killers when the management instructs them to do so. That principle is just like any other job - you follow any legal management instructions.
Like many other jobs, it carries an element of potential danger, of which all its recruits should be well aware on application. Fortunately for the military, their job is statistically less dangerous than, for example, deep-sea fishing, which records a higher fatality proportion over the last half-century (the time when we have had a fully volunteer military).
I am not obtuse, nor blind, nor deaf - I am, however, acutely aware of the methods used to paint the option of a military career as incorporating attributes somehow superior to other employment choices.
The motivation for Gurkhas to join the British Army is for them to understand - I welcome their participation and respect their contribution, but I similarly respect the contribution of deep-sea fishermen and many others who opt for dangerous careers.
@ Anon ..
A very neat twisting of the thread, if I may say so ..
We've gone from you describing British Gurkha soldiers as "mercenaries" (I use the term "British" Gurkhas, because upon independence, India retained some Goorkha Regiments for her own Army .. and the Sultan of Brunei employs Gurkhas in his miltary forces) ..
To the dangers of various jobs ..
Having been shot down in flames (by indisputable fact) on the first issue, you now seek to change tack ..
Please, go spout out of your fundamental orifice somewhere else ..
Gurkhas fighting for Britain, good thing or bad?. Like any theory, take it to the limit to validate it. All British Army soldiers recruited abroad (which is where we fight most of our wars). No more flower of British youth shot to bits, no more Wootton Bassett, no more British suicides long after the conflict is over. No more top brass retired at 42 on huge pensions. It could be argued that they might not fight so well, but the Gurkhas are rated and the Viet Cong were pretty handy. Only downside is that some washed up luvvie would bully some politico wanker into letting them and their offspring live here when they couldn't fight any more.
Sad that Capt Haddock has evidently 'retired hurt'. The careless titbit of Gurkhas also selling their specialist contract killing services to the states of India and Brunei seems to emphasise my point so eloquently.
There is a valid debate to be had, but only if we are able to deal with facts and strip out the emotional nonsense so common in this area.
Modern armies are about killing people for money. They may spend most of their elapsed time on sponsored tourism, outward-bound jaunts, skiing or parachuting for fun, but that's just a means of filling in the time between bouts of killing.
We will always need soldiers, home-grown or imported, but they are all the same - paid hit-men who do an unpleasant job on behalf of those of us who choose not to.
So let's just be grown-up about it and not decorate it with emotive nonsense.
Pikeys are scum.
Gurkhas are not
Re: my remark about Joanna Lumley....
She (and others on the bandwagon) didn't think it through. According to recent newspaper articles, the Gurkhas have come over here in their droves, selling their land in Nepal in order to facilitate their settling over here. Unfortunately, depriving their blood line of their inheritance...
They have been persuaded by the thoughts of quick rich scheme over here in the UK, which none of them, least of Joanna, ever thought would happen.
Ask those in Aldershot!
Post a Comment