Brexit or Britin

[Worthy4England]

Ok so you managed to run all the way from 1930's to 1980's, then skipped 30 years to now and a Labour party that doesn't look in any danger of getting re-elected any time soon as far as I can tell.

If we were to look at the brainwashed right in a similar light, where would it get us?

There is little difference over the years in the threat posed by the idiot left and the stupid right.

Appeasement of Hitler? Wasn't that Neville Chamberlain? No semi-junior Foreign Office personnel there. The Conservative Leader of our Country
The ring of five were almost universally recruited to the Foreign Office by Conservatives - guess they weren't watching too closely because they were well educated chaps - pass the soap please.
As recently as 2014, relaxation of Sales of Arms rules to states that are on the Government's own blacklists?
Cash for questions to protect private interests - Neil Hamilton anyone - lots of stuff like this, but I guess that's ok as it's not left wing.
Gerrymandering Dame Shirley - no messy direct action there, oh no, just self interest.

There is actually no law against "communism", followers may well be somewhat misguided, but it isn't actually illegal. I am struggling to recall when the Communist Party was actually anywhere near power in the UK?

They're both shite. And pretty much both as shite as each other. The whole system is just a two party fcuk up and has been pretty much as long as I've been alive.

[Hoboh]

Ok so you managed to run all the way from 1930's to 1980's, then skipped 30 years to now and a Labour party that doesn't look in any danger of getting re-elected any time soon as far as I can tell.

If we were to look at the brainwashed right in a similar light, where would it get us?

There is little difference over the years in the threat posed by the idiot left and the stupid right.

Appeasement of Hitler? Wasn't that Neville Chamberlain? No semi-junior Foreign Office personnel there. The Conservative Leader of our Country
The ring of five were almost universally recruited to the Foreign Office by Conservatives - guess they weren't watching too closely because they were well educated chaps - pass the soap please.
As recently as 2014, relaxation of Sales of Arms rules to states that are on the Government's own blacklists?
Cash for questions to protect private interests - Neil Hamilton anyone - lots of stuff like this, but I guess that's ok as it's not left wing.
Gerrymandering Dame Shirley - no messy direct action there, oh no, just self interest.

There is actually no law against "communism", followers may well be somewhat misguided, but it isn't actually illegal. I am struggling to recall when the Communist Party was actually anywhere near power in the UK?

They're both shite. And pretty much both as shite as each other. The whole system is just a two party fcuk up and has been pretty much as long as I've been alive.

Agreed, totally, being a politician nowadays is worse than hiding the fact you work for the inland revenue, the politicl elite shot themselves in the foot with the dodgy expenses scandal and the jobs for boys after quitting politics.
On another note I see, with great delight, people are gunning for the fat controller, will come to now't but it's a start.

[bedwetter2]

Ok so you managed to run all the way from 1930's to 1980's, then skipped 30 years to now and a Labour party that doesn't look in any danger of getting re-elected any time soon as far as I can tell.

If we were to look at the brainwashed right in a similar light, where would it get us?

There is little difference over the years in the threat posed by the idiot left and the stupid right.

Appeasement of Hitler? Wasn't that Neville Chamberlain? No semi-junior Foreign Office personnel there. The Conservative Leader of our Country
The ring of five were almost universally recruited to the Foreign Office by Conservatives - guess they weren't watching too closely because they were well educated chaps - pass the soap please.
As recently as 2014, relaxation of Sales of Arms rules to states that are on the Government's own blacklists?
Cash for questions to protect private interests - Neil Hamilton anyone - lots of stuff like this, but I guess that's ok as it's not left wing.
Gerrymandering Dame Shirley - no messy direct action there, oh no, just self interest.

There is actually no law against "communism", followers may well be somewhat misguided, but it isn't actually illegal. I am struggling to recall when the Communist Party was actually anywhere near power in the UK?

They're both shite. And pretty much both as shite as each other. The whole system is just a two party fcuk up and has been pretty much as long as I've been alive.

My dear fellow, I certainly didn't suggest there were no complacent fools in the Government and I agree that both sides , left and right, are far from perfect.

However, you did imply that I had made things up. So I merely pointed out this was not the case. Furthermore, whatever you think of right leaning governments, Chamberlain was given a giant raspberry for not preparing the country for the threat of a really right wing country.

I know that communism was not illegal but the expansionist and subversive Soviet version was a malevolent presence which would have loved to capture the whole of western europe, including Britain. They tried pretty damned hard to achieve it, but not via the Communist Party of Great Britain which was always seen as a bit of a joke by the Soviets. Read up on some of the recent tomes by Russian cold war operatives if you don't believe me.

The end result, as we know with all such regimes is a dictatorship brooking no dissent. Would a totalitarian future suit?

[Lord Kangana]

Yeah, point of order here to plucky little Britain myth number 367835, we spent more on our armed forces than Germany did in every year bar one 1918-1939.

Not to burst anyone's bubble or anything, but it wasn't political problems that gave our armed services crap, yet expensive, weapons.

[Worthy4England]

Well, good Sir, I still contend that you were broadly saying there's a "huge left wing that poses a constant threat" Vs "Oh look there's Oswald" and that is probably not taking a straight down the middle view of the world, and actually I don't agree that the racists/facists have all taken up knitting classes and I think there's plenty of them.

There were over 1.2m people voted for BNP/English Democracts at the 2009 Euro elections (this is factual). My contention is that they're still there somewhere, pretty much and I doubt they've shrunk in volume given the higher levels of immigration we've seen since. There are also plenty of Citizen Smith power to the people types - Momentum membership was quoted as being 20,000 a couple of months back, Trades Union membership was said to be circa 6.5m by ONS for 2015. But when I was a Trades Unionist, we had members from all political persuasions, so it doesn't follow that they're all loony lefties (we had a broad spectrum of Conservative voters in there too and at the time SDLP(?).

In summary, I don't think all Brexiteer's are racists, I do think racists were more likely to vote for Brexit and that there's plenty of them just as subversive as the "commies" you refer to on the left. Nor do I think that all Remainers are members of momentum, there will have been some subversives in amongst that number.

I have no doubt that the Soviets have tried plenty of subversive actions (and still are doing). But then again, I haven't advocated that we should be following some sort of Soviet model any more than you're advocating we should all wear KKK hats.

Had, of course, we ever voted for the subversive Soviet view of the world, then it would have been "the will of the people" which it wasn't and generally in elections never is - it's generally the will of 35-40% of the people propped up by an electoral system leading to a two party system.

UKIP (who you might have spotted I don't have much time for) polled 4m votes at the general election and got one seat. As much as I don't like them, that's unfair. Part of the Brexit debate was about removing the political elites. Should be coming to an electoral system near us soon.

[bedwetter2]

Yeah, point of order here to plucky little Britain myth number 367835, we spent more on our armed forces than Germany did in every year bar one 1918-1939.

Not to burst anyone's bubble or anything, but it wasn't political problems that gave our armed services crap, yet expensive, weapons.

Where did you get your statistics from or did you just make them up? Agreed the British MOD was useless in specifying and producing armoured vehicles, particularly heavy tanks, but not all weapons were rubbish as you have claimed.

[bedwetter2]

Well, good Sir, I still contend that you were broadly saying there's a "huge left wing that poses a constant threat" Vs "Oh look there's Oswald" and that is probably not taking a straight down the middle view of the world, and actually I don't agree that the racists/facists have all taken up knitting classes and I think there's plenty of them.

There were over 1.2m people voted for BNP/English Democracts at the 2009 Euro elections (this is factual). My contention is that they're still there somewhere, pretty much and I doubt they've shrunk in volume given the higher levels of immigration we've seen since. There are also plenty of Citizen Smith power to the people types - Momentum membership was quoted as being 20,000 a couple of months back, Trades Union membership was said to be circa 6.5m by ONS for 2015. But when I was a Trades Unionist, we had members from all political persuasions, so it doesn't follow that they're all loony lefties (we had a broad spectrum of Conservative voters in there too and at the time SDLP(?).

In summary, I don't think all Brexiteer's are racists, I do think racists were more likely to vote for Brexit and that there's plenty of them just as subversive as the "commies" you refer to on the left. Nor do I think that all Remainers are members of momentum, there will have been some subversives in amongst that number.

I have no doubt that the Soviets have tried plenty of subversive actions (and still are doing). But then again, I haven't advocated that we should be following some sort of Soviet model any more than you're advocating we should all wear KKK hats.

Had, of course, we ever voted for the subversive Soviet view of the world, then it would have been "the will of the people" which it wasn't and generally in elections never is - it's generally the will of 35-40% of the people propped up by an electoral system leading to a two party system.

UKIP (who you might have spotted I don't have much time for) polled 4m votes at the general election and got one seat. As much as I don't like them, that's unfair. Part of the Brexit debate was about removing the political elites. Should be coming to an electoral system near us soon.

So basically, cutting out the bullshit, you agree with me. Why didn't you just say so?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Yeah, point of order here to plucky little Britain myth number 367835, we spent more on our armed forces than Germany did in every year bar one 1918-1939.

Not to burst anyone's bubble or anything, but it wasn't political problems that gave our armed services crap, yet expensive, weapons.

Where did you get your statistics from or did you just make them up? Agreed the British MOD was useless in specifying and producing armoured vehicles, particularly heavy tanks, but not all weapons were rubbish as you have claimed.

He didn't say all were crap, merely that they got some crap but expensive ones. I am curious here as to what weapons you think were provided to the armed services that were really good stuff between 1918 -1937.

[Worthy4England]

Well, good Sir, I still contend that you were broadly saying there's a "huge left wing that poses a constant threat" Vs "Oh look there's Oswald" and that is probably not taking a straight down the middle view of the world, and actually I don't agree that the racists/facists have all taken up knitting classes and I think there's plenty of them.

There were over 1.2m people voted for BNP/English Democracts at the 2009 Euro elections (this is factual). My contention is that they're still there somewhere, pretty much and I doubt they've shrunk in volume given the higher levels of immigration we've seen since. There are also plenty of Citizen Smith power to the people types - Momentum membership was quoted as being 20,000 a couple of months back, Trades Union membership was said to be circa 6.5m by ONS for 2015. But when I was a Trades Unionist, we had members from all political persuasions, so it doesn't follow that they're all loony lefties (we had a broad spectrum of Conservative voters in there too and at the time SDLP(?).

In summary, I don't think all Brexiteer's are racists, I do think racists were more likely to vote for Brexit and that there's plenty of them just as subversive as the "commies" you refer to on the left. Nor do I think that all Remainers are members of momentum, there will have been some subversives in amongst that number.

I have no doubt that the Soviets have tried plenty of subversive actions (and still are doing). But then again, I haven't advocated that we should be following some sort of Soviet model any more than you're advocating we should all wear KKK hats.

Had, of course, we ever voted for the subversive Soviet view of the world, then it would have been "the will of the people" which it wasn't and generally in elections never is - it's generally the will of 35-40% of the people propped up by an electoral system leading to a two party system.

UKIP (who you might have spotted I don't have much time for) polled 4m votes at the general election and got one seat. As much as I don't like them, that's unfair. Part of the Brexit debate was about removing the political elites. Should be coming to an electoral system near us soon.

So basically, cutting out the bullshit, you agree with me. Why didn't you just say so?

Errrrrrrrrrr. No.

[Hoboh]

Yeah, point of order here to plucky little Britain myth number 367835, we spent more on our armed forces than Germany did in every year bar one 1918-1939.

Not to burst anyone's bubble or anything, but it wasn't political problems that gave our armed services crap, yet expensive, weapons.

Where did you get your statistics from or did you just make them up? Agreed the British MOD was useless in specifying and producing armoured vehicles, particularly heavy tanks, but not all weapons were rubbish as you have claimed.

He didn't say all were crap, merely that they got some crap but expensive ones. I am curious here as to what weapons you think were provided to the armed services that were really good stuff between 1918 -1937.

Shame you left a year out Monty,

RJ Mitchell, an engineer at Supermarine Aviation, designed the Spitfire originally to be a high performance, short range plane. The first planes were mass produced in 1938.

[bedwetter2]

Yeah, point of order here to plucky little Britain myth number 367835, we spent more on our armed forces than Germany did in every year bar one 1918-1939.

Not to burst anyone's bubble or anything, but it wasn't political problems that gave our armed services crap, yet expensive, weapons.

Where did you get your statistics from or did you just make them up? Agreed the British MOD was useless in specifying and producing armoured vehicles, particularly heavy tanks, but not all weapons were rubbish as you have claimed.

He didn't say all were crap, merely that they got some crap but expensive ones. I am curious here as to what weapons you think were provided to the armed services that were really good stuff between 1918 -1937.

The Lee Enfield rifle was considered to be as accurate as any rifle produced pre-war (in use by the army from 1895 to 1957). The 105mm howitzer was an excellent field gun. Heavy machine guns were considered to be good although the lack of a good light automatic rifle didn't help. What about the outdated old string kite, the Swordfish? Slow and reliable enough to finish off the Bismarck. As Hoboh mentioned, the Spitfire was a development of the Schneider Trophy winning Supermarine which was designed and developed in the late '20s. The first flying prototype Spitfire was in fact built in 1934.
In terms of the Royal Navy, there were no outstanding battleships - but there again no navy had invulnerable capital ships. The aircraft carrier was coming into its own by 1940 and all ships were under threat from both aircraft and submarines.

[bedwetter2]

Well, good Sir, I still contend that you were broadly saying there's a "huge left wing that poses a constant threat" Vs "Oh look there's Oswald" and that is probably not taking a straight down the middle view of the world, and actually I don't agree that the racists/facists have all taken up knitting classes and I think there's plenty of them.

There were over 1.2m people voted for BNP/English Democracts at the 2009 Euro elections (this is factual). My contention is that they're still there somewhere, pretty much and I doubt they've shrunk in volume given the higher levels of immigration we've seen since. There are also plenty of Citizen Smith power to the people types - Momentum membership was quoted as being 20,000 a couple of months back, Trades Union membership was said to be circa 6.5m by ONS for 2015. But when I was a Trades Unionist, we had members from all political persuasions, so it doesn't follow that they're all loony lefties (we had a broad spectrum of Conservative voters in there too and at the time SDLP(?).

In summary, I don't think all Brexiteer's are racists, I do think racists were more likely to vote for Brexit and that there's plenty of them just as subversive as the "commies" you refer to on the left. Nor do I think that all Remainers are members of momentum, there will have been some subversives in amongst that number.

I have no doubt that the Soviets have tried plenty of subversive actions (and still are doing). But then again, I haven't advocated that we should be following some sort of Soviet model any more than you're advocating we should all wear KKK hats.


Had, of course, we ever voted for the subversive Soviet view of the world, then it would have been "the will of the people" which it wasn't and generally in elections never is - it's generally the will of 35-40% of the people propped up by an electoral system leading to a two party system.

UKIP (who you might have spotted I don't have much time for) polled 4m votes at the general election and got one seat. As much as I don't like them, that's unfair. Part of the Brexit debate was about removing the political elites. Should be coming to an electoral system near us soon.

So basically, cutting out the bullshit, you agree with me. Why didn't you just say so?

Errrrrrrrrrr. No.

You know you do really

[Worthy4England]

I'm fairly sure that's still no. I just double checked.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Yeah, point of order here to plucky little Britain myth number 367835, we spent more on our armed forces than Germany did in every year bar one 1918-1939.

Not to burst anyone's bubble or anything, but it wasn't political problems that gave our armed services crap, yet expensive, weapons.

Where did you get your statistics from or did you just make them up? Agreed the British MOD was useless in specifying and producing armoured vehicles, particularly heavy tanks, but not all weapons were rubbish as you have claimed.

He didn't say all were crap, merely that they got some crap but expensive ones. I am curious here as to what weapons you think were provided to the armed services that were really good stuff between 1918 -1937.

Shame you left a year out Monty,

RJ Mitchell, an engineer at Supermarine Aviation, designed the Spitfire originally to be a high performance, short range plane. The first planes were mass produced in 1938.

Er.... that's why I changed the date.

[Montreal Wanderer]

The Lee Enfield rifle was considered to be as accurate as any rifle produced pre-war (in use by the army from 1895 to 1957). The 105mm howitzer was an excellent field gun. Heavy machine guns were considered to be good although the lack of a good light automatic rifle didn't help. What about the outdated old string kite, the Swordfish? Slow and reliable enough to finish off the Bismarck. As Hoboh mentioned, the Spitfire was a development of the Schneider Trophy winning Supermarine which was designed and developed in the late '20s. The first flying prototype Spitfire was in fact built in 1934.
In terms of the Royal Navy, there were no outstanding battleships - but there again no navy had invulnerable capital ships. The aircraft carrier was coming into its own by 1940 and all ships were under threat from both aircraft and submarines.

I used a Lee Enfield .303 when I played soldiers. Mine had the date 1914 on it, and the essential design did not really alter. It held ten cartridges in the magazine plus one up the spout. It was neither self-loading, automatic or recoilless (nearly broke my shoulder). It was accurate enough if the sight hadn't got bent. It was not a new development between the wars and I didn't consider it superior to the competition.

I thought the 105 mm howitzer was an American development after the war started.

I don't know which heavy machine gum you refer to. You did not mention the Bren Light machine gun, which had a magazine of 22 .303 rounds. It was very accurate but had heating problems - mine came with three interchangeable barrels but they still heated up too fast, and cooling then off in water warped them. I was told in WW2 the soldiers pissed on them to cool them down.

I grant you the swordfish was new and had its successes. However, it was of very limited use. The Spitfire was delivered after my cut off date.

Our battleships were generally from WW1 and of poor design. The new King George V class ships were not launched until the war.

So it seems to me defense was not a priority budget area before the UK woke up around 1937 and realized the danger presented by Germany. So the equipment was old if still serviceable. The swordfish, a slow biplane with limited application, did not tip the balance for me.

[Worthy4England]

Imma going to look it all up on the internet. If it's in Wiki, then it must be true!

[Harry Genshaw]

I used a Lee Enfield .303 when I played soldiers. Mine had the date 1914 on it, and the essential design did not really alter. It held ten cartridges in the magazine plus one up the spout.

it must have been rough when you were a lad Monty. We used a stick round our way

[bedwetter2]

The Lee Enfield rifle was considered to be as accurate as any rifle produced pre-war (in use by the army from 1895 to 1957). The 105mm howitzer was an excellent field gun. Heavy machine guns were considered to be good although the lack of a good light automatic rifle didn't help. What about the outdated old string kite, the Swordfish? Slow and reliable enough to finish off the Bismarck. As Hoboh mentioned, the Spitfire was a development of the Schneider Trophy winning Supermarine which was designed and developed in the late '20s. The first flying prototype Spitfire was in fact built in 1934.
In terms of the Royal Navy, there were no outstanding battleships - but there again no navy had invulnerable capital ships. The aircraft carrier was coming into its own by 1940 and all ships were under threat from both aircraft and submarines.

I used a Lee Enfield .303 when I played soldiers. Mine had the date 1914 on it, and the essential design did not really alter. It held ten cartridges in the magazine plus one up the spout. It was neither self-loading, automatic or recoilless (nearly broke my shoulder). It was accurate enough if the sight hadn't got bent. It was not a new development between the wars and I didn't consider it superior to the competition.

I thought the 105 mm howitzer was an American development after the war started.

I don't know which heavy machine gum you refer to. You did not mention the Bren Light machine gun, which had a magazine of 22 .303 rounds. It was very accurate but had heating problems - mine came with three interchangeable barrels but they still heated up too fast, and cooling then off in water warped them. I was told in WW2 the soldiers pissed on them to cool them down.

I grant you the swordfish was new and had its successes. However, it was of very limited use. The Spitfire was delivered after my cut off date.

Our battleships were generally from WW1 and of poor design. The new King George V class ships were not launched until the war.

So it seems to me defense was not a priority budget area before the UK woke up around 1937 and realized the danger presented by Germany. So the equipment was old if still serviceable. The swordfish, a slow biplane with limited application, did not tip the balance for me.

[bedwetter2]

The Lee Enfield rifle was considered to be as accurate as any rifle produced pre-war (in use by the army from 1895 to 1957). The 105mm howitzer was an excellent field gun. Heavy machine guns were considered to be good although the lack of a good light automatic rifle didn't help. What about the outdated old string kite, the Swordfish? Slow and reliable enough to finish off the Bismarck. As Hoboh mentioned, the Spitfire was a development of the Schneider Trophy winning Supermarine which was designed and developed in the late '20s. The first flying prototype Spitfire was in fact built in 1934.
In terms of the Royal Navy, there were no outstanding battleships - but there again no navy had invulnerable capital ships. The aircraft carrier was coming into its own by 1940 and all ships were under threat from both aircraft and submarines.

I used a Lee Enfield .303 when I played soldiers. Mine had the date 1914 on it, and the essential design did not really alter. It held ten cartridges in the magazine plus one up the spout. It was neither self-loading, automatic or recoilless (nearly broke my shoulder). It was accurate enough if the sight hadn't got bent. It was not a new development between the wars and I didn't consider it superior to the competition.

I thought the 105 mm howitzer was an American development after the war started.

I don't know which heavy machine gum you refer to. You did not mention the Bren Light machine gun, which had a magazine of 22 .303 rounds. It was very accurate but had heating problems - mine came with three interchangeable barrels but they still heated up too fast, and cooling then off in water warped them. I was told in WW2 the soldiers pissed on them to cool them down.

I grant you the swordfish was new and had its successes. However, it was of very limited use. The Spitfire was delivered after my cut off date.

Our battleships were generally from WW1 and of poor design. The new King George V class ships were not launched until the war.

So it seems to me defense was not a priority budget area before the UK woke up around 1937 and realized the danger presented by Germany. So the equipment was old if still serviceable. The swordfish, a slow biplane with limited application, did not tip the balance for me.

I did say that the Lee Enfield dated from the late 19th century. However it did meet your specified end date and over 17m were made. I have also fired that rifle and can confirm it packed a hell of a kick so you did have to hold it tight to the shoulder. In my experience it was accurate up to 600 yards easily and a really good marksman could hit the target up to 800 with an overall range of 2 miles or so before your round fell to earth.

The howitzer I was referring to was 4 1/2 inch bore and British, but sometimes referred to as 105mm. The older field guns such as the 18 pounder could be accurate and sustain a high rate of fire but they predated WW1.

The importance of battleships was overstated but I guess that Britain retained as many as possible such as the Lion class from WW1 because the empire was far flung and it was felt that there needed to be a presence in the far east. Plans to build more were dropped fairly quickly during the war because of their vulnerability, Vanguard being the last and that was built only because it would be more expensive to cancel.

Regarding the Spitfire and the Hurricane I think you are trying to move the goalposts - prototypes were flying and orders placed before 1937.

Don't get me wrong; the appeasement of Germany and the lack of preparedness together with low spending on defence was all part of the same problem caused by complacent politicians. History to some degree is being repeated today.

[bedwetter2]

I'm fairly sure that's still no. I just double checked.

Well check again. I know that you are in denial.