24 Responses to ANOTHER BBC FANTASY

  1. Grant says:
    May 28, 2010 at 8:34 am

    The BBC would like to scrap the whole Military, full stop !

       1 likes

  2. Jack Bauer says:
    May 28, 2010 at 8:36 am

    The RAF high command should hold a symposium on the subject:

    “SHOULD THE BBC BE SCRAPPED?”

       0 likes

  3. Nick Name says:
    May 28, 2010 at 10:11 am

    It was a provocative piece – but the Beeboid (Justin Webb?) did at least allow the pro-RAF viewpoint good time – and also another speaker pointed out that RAF cuts wouldn’t be recycled into the other branches of the military – they’d be used to pay for schools etc.

    Frankly I welcome all R4 time on defence spending – every MoD procurement project is a failure, & the apparent lack of well informed defence journalists in the MSM allows the MoD to get away with it.

       0 likes

    • Millie Tant says:
      May 28, 2010 at 11:42 am

      ” and also another speaker pointed out that RAF cuts wouldn’t be recycled into the other branches of the military – they’d be used to pay for schools etc. ”

      Are you citing that as an argument in favour? 

      We already spend a huge amount of money on schools, yet they turn out children who can barely read, write, spell, do simple sums etc. 

      Perhaps if we spent less on schools, we would get better results.
      Well, it’s a thought. I wouldn’t just assume that putting more money in means better quality coming out.

         0 likes

      • Grant says:
        May 28, 2010 at 12:43 pm

        Exactly.

           0 likes

      • Nick Name says:
        May 28, 2010 at 5:17 pm

        No, I want the defence budget to be preserved as far as possible. But (despite the quality and training of our military personnel) the armed forces are supplied with inferior, late-arriving, massively over-budget equipment that often never serves the function that it was ordered to perform.

        Disbanding part of the military is IMO defeatist. Criticising their procurement is not. However if any branch of the military were to bite the budget-cut bullet, the savings would not necessarily be redirected to other parts of the armed forces.

        That was the point that I was attempting to make (and made more succinctly by the R4 interviewee).

           0 likes

    • Martin says:
      May 28, 2010 at 1:07 pm

      More schools? What to turn out even more retarded mongs to roam the streets high on Cider and lighter fluid?

         0 likes

  4. Marky says:
    May 28, 2010 at 11:39 am

    Aunty has become a bit of an embarrassment lately. I don’t like being in the same room as her any more as she’s lost her marbles possibly because she’s been drinking too much sherry and champagne. Time for the knackers yard.

       0 likes

  5. Ed (ex RSA) says:
    May 28, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    Al-beebzera is fond of asking these ridiculous types of questions. The other day it was “Should America lead the world”. Simply by asking questions that are so far outside the bounds of mainstream opinion they’re showing their bias. It probably never even enters their tiny minds that what’s normal around the dinner party tables in Grauniadlandia is extreme crankery in the outsidde world.

    I know that public spending needs to be cut, but I’d be wary about cutting defence spending. We don’t know what threats will be in the future. In the 60s and 70s many said we no longer needed a real navy. If we’d listened to them we would have lost the Falklands.

    I do think we have shifted the balance of risk much too far in favour of protecting enemy civilians, which results in greater risk to our troops and greater expenditure on over-sophisticated and expensive weapons where cheaper solutions would do. This is something that hasn’t been widely realised.

    As for schools, the socialists believe that throwing more money is the solution. The more they spent the worse the results seemed to be. It reminded me of the old communist joke about the five year plan being acheived ahead of schedule that went “so things are already as bad now as they were planned to be next year”.
    It’s all because of the Marxist perspective that poor results are the result of lack of money due to class oppression, rather than being the result of turning schools into places of social engineering instead of education.

    I can tell you that when I went to school in the 80s in South Africa we didn’t have half the stuff the worst UK school has, but results were incomparably better. Things we did have though were a wooden ruler for every woman teacher for discipline and an intercom system that the principal would use to call trouble makers for caning.

       0 likes

  6. Martin says:
    May 28, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    Ironic from the BBC, it’s nearly 70 years since the Battle of Britain.

    Why doesn’t the BBC ask if we should do away with prisons and execute all criminals or scrap the dole of idle shits who don’t want to work?

    Or “is it wrong to bugger 8 year old boys on Hampstead Heath?”

       0 likes

  7. Barry says:
    May 28, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    “…it’s nearly 70 years since the Battle of Britain.”

    But that’s part of the problem for the BBC. The RAF is a focus for pride and patriotism and if it goes, it’ll take a lot of inconvenient history with it.

    BTW, now that we almost have a Conservative government, can we have the Royal Tournament back? Thought not.

       0 likes

  8. Asuka Langley Soryu says:
    May 28, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    No Aunty, it serves a purpose (like intercepting Russian bombers and bombing ragheads). The BBC, however, serves no purpose other than to give unemployable left shitheads something to do, and so can easily be scrapped.

       0 likes

  9. hippiepooter says:
    May 28, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    Should the Lord Haw, Haw show be scrapped?  Answers on a payload c/o the RAF.

       0 likes

  10. Betty Swollocks says:
    May 28, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    ….Only if the nuke Television Centre first !!!

       0 likes

    • Martin says:
      May 28, 2010 at 6:29 pm

      Nuke TV centre! To misquote Abdul Barry Twatman ” I would dance in Trafalgar Square if the BBC were nuked”

         0 likes

  11. John Horne Tooke says:
    May 28, 2010 at 11:06 pm

    Theres no need to scrap the RAF – just do what PC did to the Royal Navy and it will be useless anyway. 
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3048303.ece

       0 likes

  12. cjhartnett says:
    May 28, 2010 at 11:56 pm

    God Bless the patriotic lads and ladies at the Beeb!
    Some might see this as a provocation… I see it as a window of opportunity!
    Obviously in their bashful way the Beeb are volunteering themselves to go out in their gliders(no carbon footprint natch!) and see how that old ash cloud is faring…all so we the little people can get out to Magaluf…gawd bless `em all!
    Can imagine Tinseltits Davis taking his orders from the toothless Taff Humphrys(last gummed Thorpe in 74 but who needs an effective interrogator of politicians these days?). Naughtie as a barrage balloon full of his own windy questions that go nowhere…and Montague being the prep school bluestocking that she is…no need to act dearie!
    Didn`t Birt want “blue skys thinking?”…as the Beeb replaces our military(certainly got enough of them!) we can only thank them for their sacrifices to come!More BBC…more!

       0 likes

  13. dave s says:
    May 29, 2010 at 12:25 am

    Sorry but there is a case for scrapping the RAF on good  military grounds as a naval officer( I know they are biased! ) put it to me recently. It is perfectly feasable to split it between the army and the navy. I doubt it will happen as sentiment plays a real part here but it is an option. Transport, strike aircraft  and attack helicopters to the Army.Interceptors (the Eurofighter ) to the Navy along with Awacs etc.
    The BBC may well have another agenda but it is increasingly obvious the RAF is losing it’s role. We no longer operate heavy bombers so what exactly is unique to the RAF? A few Eurofighters which could operate from Yeovilton and one or two other airfields given to the fleet Air Arm.
    The real losers would be the civil servants and the top brass. Not the aircrew and maintenance staff.

       0 likes

    • Martin says:
      May 29, 2010 at 9:13 am

      You can argue we no longer need a Navy. The first and second gulf wars were fought by the Army and RAF and I don’t see much need for the Navy in Afghanistan, the Navy is incapable of mounting an operation like the Falklands war again and the two new proposed aircraft carriers are a total waste of money.

      It’s a nonsense argument any way round. There is an argument to cut the top brass but that wouldn’t happen anyway.

      There is already integration, the Harrier force is already a combined RAF Royal Navy force.

         0 likes

      • Damon says:
        May 29, 2010 at 4:19 pm

        Yes

        After all we are not an island and 95%+ of our trade does not travel by sea and we have no global interests

        Perhaps you should be applying to be the BBC’s Defence correspondent?

           0 likes

      • jim says:
        August 9, 2010 at 7:11 pm

        Perhaps you didn’t know that the Royal Marines are part of the RN and that RN medics treat wounded soldiers one medic winning the Military Medal, only the second woman to win one. And perhaps you also didn’t know that Fleet air arm helicopters are constantly in use in Afghanistan both in transport/ troop role and for surveilance.
        I’ll excuse your ignorance.

           0 likes