BS: Was Thatcher right?

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 02:16 AM

Divant ye taalk to me like that ye geet big conservative geordie pillock.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 05:05 AM

Must be one of a rare breed, a Geordie tory! Probably a plastic Geordie with an 'Innovations' catalogue miner's lamp on the mantlepiece alongside his collection of Daily Mail free gifts.
The DUP is still a force to be reckoned with, and still has links with the murderers of the UVF and the UFF. The ones who haven't got rid of their guns.
Look at the name of the Tory party - it's the 'Conservative and Unionist Party'. There's a clue there!

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 10:56 AM

weelittledrummer - 01 Jan 07 - 11:44 AM

"As I remember, the interior of the Sir Galahad was coated in highly flammable material to save a few quid. And the whole bloody escapade was caused by her nibs deciding to knock off the naval patrols which were protecting the islands. that's why the Argies decided to chance their arm."

Eh, No WLD, you remember incorrectly:

"Anchored 1200 feet apart in Port Pleasant, the landing ships were near Fitzroy, the designated landing point. The landing craft should have been able to unload the ships to that point relatively quickly, but confusion over the ordered disembarcation point (the first half of the Guards going direct to Bluff Cove) resulted in the senior Welsh Guards infantry officer aboard insisting his troops be ferried the far longer distance direct to Port Fitzroy/Bluff Cove. The intention was for the infantrymen to march via the recently repaired Bluff Cove bridge (destroyed by retreating Argentinian combat engineers) to their destination, a journey of around seven miles.

The longer journey time of the landing craft taking the troops direct to Bluff Cove and the squabbling over how the landing was to be performed caused enormous delay in unloading. This had disastrous consequences. Without escorts, having not yet established their air defence and still almost fully laden, the two LSLs in Port Pleasant were sitting targets for two waves of Argentinian-FAA A-4 Skyhawks."

The "Household Brigade" and Amphibious Operations should never be mixed. Throughout this whole sorry business the Royal Marine liaison officer pleaded with these prats to get their men shifted ashore ASAP, he was politely ignored, after all who the hell was he, a marine, to instruct officers of the Household Brigade on what to do in the field of amphibious operations. Their ignorance, arrogence and incompetence were astounding.

But one thing is certain WLD it had nothing whatsoever to do with any orders or instructions given by Margaret Thatcher, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the paint, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with Admiral Sandy Woodwards fleet dispositions. The orders given for the operation were simple and straightforward, get in there, get ashore as rapidly as possible, and let the ships get clear as quickly as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 10:59 AM

I bet there are quite a few geordie tories. i bet half of them sing unaccompanied folksongs about pit explosions for light relief. its so much easier to blether on the what a rough time they had in those catherine cookson novels, than to focus on the groups in society who are having a shit time of it in the here and now.

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 11:16 AM

Once again Mr Dick sets us right....!

from David Copperfield, but it does have a certain resonance on these occasions.

Happy new Year Teribus!

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: Geordie-Peorgie
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 12:33 PM

Yup! There's lots of tory geordies - Mair than ye'd reckon!

"I bet there are quite a few geordie tories. i bet half of them sing unaccompanied folksongs about pit explosions for light relief. its so much easier to blether on the what a rough time they had in those catherine cookson novels" The Wilson Family by any chance??

And Thanks for coming in with a real bit of historical accuracy there Teribus

And..... you guessed wrong about the Davey Lamp, WLD - It's an original which belonged to my paternal Grandfather - My Granny was a labour councillor in Wallsend for many years but saw the light eventually (after WWll) and swapped horses.

Eric, Do you still have the Morning Star delivered or do you collect it yourself??

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 12:33 PM

looking back over your contribution Teribus. It does seem a bit of a bugger, attacking the NCO's and junior officers (presumably) who were having to execute orders which weren't crystal clear. where were all the big nobs when the shit started to fly - writing down statistics for mr dick to fly his kite round......

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: GUEST,Ms Penelope Rutledge
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 01:58 PM

Is Big Ben on the Isle of Wight? No, she was not bloody right!

* PR

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 02:02 PM

SHE STOLE MY MILK.

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 02:39 PM

Teribus is essentally right (as he's shown) about the Sir Galahad tragedy coming about because the Welsh Guards not disembarking in timely fashion.

Wld, you sort of misremembered the situation a bit, in that it was Hms Sheffield (& possibly her sister ship Coventry too, also lost) which had insulation around electrical wiring (stuff that looked like black-coloured pipe lagging) that burned & gave of toxic fumes, in 'companionways' (passageways) & workspaces.

Not only had the Government planned to withdraw Hms Endurance from Antarctic/South Atlantic waters, they had also had preliinary negotiations to sell one of the 2 larger Amphibious Landing Ships (larger than Galahad class I mean) either Fearless or Intrepid (I cant remember which). What the hell we thought they wanted a Landing Ship for though is one of the things that boggles my mind the most.

It was also the case that the discussions with the Foreign Office had possibly led the Argentinians to think that we wouldnt be unhappy to hav the issue of the Falklands resolved in whatever way.

As is often the case in war, this armed conflict was as a result of somebody calling the other guys bluff.

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 06:53 PM

It wasn't me who cast aspersions on that little lamp of thine. i wouldn't have too much confidence in them though, I think my Grandad used his to light his fags with - send down a pit pony, or whatever... if it turns into a canary, theres something fishy going on.....(ancient piece of mining folk lore)

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 06:27 AM

From my post that weelittledrummer looked back over to find that I had critisized the NCO's and men of the Welsh Guards:

"the landing ships were near Fitzroy, the designated landing point. The landing craft should have been able to unload the ships to that point relatively quickly, but confusion over the ordered disembarcation point (the first half of the Guards going direct to Bluff Cove) resulted in the senior Welsh Guards infantry officer aboard insisting his troops be ferried the far longer distance direct to Port Fitzroy/Bluff Cove."

"The longer journey time of the landing craft taking the troops direct to Bluff Cove and the squabbling over how the landing was to be performed caused enormous delay in unloading. This had disastrous consequences."

Now then WLD where, in all of that, does it refer to any Welsh Guard's Private, NCO or Junior Officer? Doesn't does it WLD? So where does your charge of me critising them come from? Or are you just putting words into my mouth then hauling me to task over them?

Also, with your extensive military experience, how if Fitzroy is designated (Ordered) landing point for ALL troops, and the senior Welsh Guards Officer onboard altered that against the best specialist advice of the Royal Marine Liaison Officer (Rank - Major). Does the fault for this monstrous cock-up devolve to those higher up the chain of command and to those political leaders sitting many thousands of miles away? Local decision, the senior Guards Officer did not want half of his troops to "yomp" seven miles with full kit, he wanted his "Household Brigade" delivered to the front door by taxi. In short WLD - His decision - caused unnecessary delays - resulted in the disaster that followed.

I hope that that is simple enough for you, and the massive chips you bear on each shoulder, to understand. Difficult though that may be for a cynical, hard-left, old-labour dinosaur, such as yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 06:50 AM

That's terribly terrible, Teribus

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 06:53 AM

Once again, Teribus, you are devoting huge energy to outlining and defending a very specific point, while ignoring the great ocean of truth before you. The Tories, like Labour before them, were running down the Navy and Fearless was to be pensioned off. Standards of construction and specs in recently-built vessles had been pared to ludicrously low levels while the construction companies creamed off the cash.
The kit for those on land wasn't great either - some of 2 Para experienced trench foot because of the shite boots. Before the task force sailed Silverman's was under seige because the issue kit was so useless (As it has been before every major engagement since - the MoD should simply make them Quartermasters General and be done with it!).
Thatcher's arse was saved by the fact that the men she sent were extraordinary. Their professionalism had absolutely nothing to do with her, and her triumphalism afterwards was nauseating to many who went.
Agreed, the senior ruperts in the Household Division were wankers. But they always have been - it's what comes of putting inbred halfwits in charge. Brave as lions in a tight spot, but that tight spot is usually a result of their own stupidity.
And when they retire from the Army they become stalwarts of the local Tory party, with the blue-collar deferential tories fawning around them, licking arse and tugging forelocks, because they have 'breeding'.

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 07:04 AM

I remember those boots well.
The tongue was not sewn in.
Just walking through wet grass got your socks wet.

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 07:35 AM

Perhaps the guy on the ground made a mistake. At least he was there on the ground. a position you should respect.

they always DO put you in this position. i don't need vast military experience. just a bit of insight into human nature.

i spent frigging years in inner city schools trying to make them work with thirty year old text books, shitty uncleaned buildings, senior staff imported fom 'nice'schools sat in their offices making up rules that were complete bollocks, money shovelled out of every window on politically motivated 'initiaves'.....

Its the way of the world my friend, the guy who gets the job of making things work is always 'arse end charlie'.

its the privilege of those who seek power without responsibility, and those who fawn upon them, to sneer.

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 07:42 AM

Hi Geordie, the feckin paper lad chucks it at my door in a poor attempt
at breaking my window cos I didn't tip him at christmas.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 09:09 AM

Yes GUEST of 03 Jan 07 - 06:53 AM, I was and I am addressing a very specific point, that very specific point having been raised by weelittledrummer in his post of 01 Jan 07 - 11:44 AM

"As I remember, the interior of the Sir Galahad was coated in highly flammable material to save a few quid. And the whole bloody escapade was caused by her nibs deciding to knock off the naval patrols which were protecting the islands. that's why the Argies decided to chance their arm."

What is quoted above is incorrect. Whereas much of what you say in your post I agree with

"The Tories, like Labour before them, were running down the Navy and Fearless was to be pensioned off."

Very true, but what is the relevance of this in relation to Margaret Thatcher, or to the Falklands. The Falklands War was brought about by Argentinian aggression. If ever the "green light" was given to the Argentinians in relation to the Falklands it was when Dennis Healey as Minister of Defence oversaw the axing of the Carriers and his attempt to get rid of the Fleet Air Arm. If at any time during the period 1966 to 1982 anybody had told me that the UK would independently mount an amphibious assault operation supported by minimal air cover to recover possessions over 12,000 miles away, I would have laughed. The biggest mistake the Argentinian Junta made was in underestimating the lady's will and determination.

"Standards of construction and specs in recently-built vessels had been pared to ludicrously low levels while the construction companies creamed off the cash."

Take this up with the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors at Bath - Nothing political with regard to technical input into the Construction Standards and Specs of Royal Navy warships.

"The kit for those on land wasn't great either - some of 2 Para experienced trench foot because of the shite boots. Before the task force sailed Silverman's was under seige because the issue kit was so useless (As it has been before every major engagement since - the MoD should simply make them Quartermasters General and be done with it!)."

As you infer yourself - How far back do you want to go? It was the same for soldiers of Wellington's Army as it is for the present day British soldier, and not just boots, why do you think their back packs are called Bergans - Those on winter training in Norway ditched the UK issued kit and bought Norwegian rucksacks made by Berghans of Norway. Once again this has always been a common failing in the British armed services and is not down to any specific government or politician. As such it should be up to the senior members of the armed services and civil servants in charge of procurement to get it set right.

"Thatcher's arse was saved by the fact that the men she sent were extraordinary. Their professionalism had absolutely nothing to do with her, and her triumphalism afterwards was nauseating to many who went."

With that I whole-heartedly agree, but you have to admit, she did demonstrate the will to recover what had been taken and act to defend the inhabitants of the islands and restore to them what had been taken and I will give her full credit for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: GUEST,06:53
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 11:10 AM

So, by and large, you agree with me Teribus?
Good show!

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 11:11 AM

yeh but those islands would never have been even put at hazard had it not been for her, trying to save a few quid in the first place - to fund tax relief for the stinking rich.

'the lady's will and determination' - I bet she could give a good hiding any day of the week in a rubber mask Teribus......

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: GUEST,Still bitter
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 11:22 AM

As someone who lost a good friend on Wireless Ridge when the craphats in the RA couldn't get their fucking guns to range properly because their equipment was obsolete shite, I would happily spit on her bloody grave.
There was fuck all of him left, so the bag in the coffin that was shipped all the way home to be buried with full military honours was more full of peat than person.
I've gone on to have kids and a life - he didn't get that chance. Dulce et Decorum Est? He didn't give his life for his country; it was taken away from him by incompetence and penny pinching. The sort of incompetence and penny-pinching that Thatcher stood for.

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: Geordie-Peorgie
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 12:59 PM

My apologerries WLD - Insufficient attention to detail!

Eric, If the little bugger cannit be bothered te waalk up yer drive/path te put the thing through yer letter box he dizzent desorve a tip - Unless it's heid forst into the dustbin.

AND..... we'll still be blaming her for the state of this country at the turn of the next century - It's cos she committed the cardinal sin when she won and we aall knaah that this country LOVES a loser!

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 01:58 PM

cultural diversity is all very well, but we don't all love losers - some of us like Tony Blair and Manchester United.

can't all be Sunderland fans....

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: Tootler
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 04:01 PM

"... triumphalism afterwards was nauseating to many who went."

The same nauseating triumphalism she displayed at the end of the miners strike.

"We won!", she said. We won, my arse. Nobody won in that case. The whole episode was a disaster for everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right?
From: Geordie-Peorgie
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 05:50 PM

Hadaway!! Sunderland's for Makkems