I’m wondering if the British Army which the BBC seems ever so concerned about today is in any way related to the British Army which the BBC routinely likes to run down as bloodthirsty mercenaries at every possible opportunity? Each time our brave soldiers go into battle, the BBC has been there to demoralise them; to undermine the legitimacy of the operations; to offer propaganda for their enemy. But today, when it comes to job cuts imposed by the Coalition, they are EVER so concerned. A cynic might think that this is empty posturing by the BBC.
ARMED FORCES
Bookmark the permalink.
A cynic might also wonder why they are not asking tough questions of the previous government (of 13 years) as to why many of the cuts have been necessary to balance the books
Or why armed forces resourced for one set of assumptions after the SDR were consistently over committed (over a decade in excess of defence planning assumptions)
Or why it is only since the ejection of the last govenrment has anything other than lip service been paid to the treatment of armed forces personnel and their families?
BBC defence journalism is a joke anyway – even the daily wail is better
I wonder how much of these jobs could be saved if Brown’s Carrier Contract (aka Labour voter handouts) could have been cancelled ?
Sorry Paul, but I am getting hacked off with people having a go at the carrier programme because it is a) expensive and b) ordered by Labour.
The commitment to new carriers was just about the only decent thing the Labour government did in the field of defence, and for once they were not responsible for the farce over which aircraft to order, caused entirely by the stupidity of the incoming Coalition, which has delivered us with a ten year carrier gap.
You may or may not have any understanding of naval warfare, and the requirement for naval aviation in any sort of blue water navy. But just to carp at the carrier programme because it is expensive misses the point. The current cuts to the army, which I deplore, are the result of years of government mismanagement and misallocation of funds, not the fact that the decision to equip the Royal Navy with new carriers was, rightly in my opinion, made.
I was surprised that the carriers are not to be nuclear powered – seemed like a backward step. I also note that nuclear power plants for the new generation of Trident submarines are to be constructed at Derby. I’m not an expert, and I’m not sure how different the power plants would have to be, but I can’t help feeling that the MoD has missed an opportunity here.
I agree that, as an island country which should trading more with China, India, Brazil etc, we need carriers.
We have the ability to make nuclear power units for submarines, but those for carriers are rather bigger and more expensive. The French used submarine type nuclear power units in their carrier Charles de Gaulle as a cost saving measure, but it has not been entirely satisfactory, and the ship is somewhat underpowered. However at least they, unlike us, have a fully working carrier. We might have one sometime around 2020 if we are lucky.
Yes but the Labour Party screwed up when they ordered the carriers without catapults and now they will only be able to operate with inferior aircraft that have 50% of the capability of conventional carrier aircraft
I agree that it would have made better sense to have designed and built the ships with catapults from the start, but it looks as if we are stuck with the STOVL F35B now. The good thing is it seems to be working well in trials. I think a major reason the Coalition originally planned to convert Prince of Wales to cats & traps was that in 2010 the F35B looked like it might have been cancelled, and then we really would have been left with two carriers and no aircraft.
Sorry to keep banging on about this but, another “news in the future” item headed the 8:00 Radio 4 news this morning with a spot of speculative analysis and then a thorough-going item on Today. This time the “news” is about cuts in the army details of which, you guessed it, are going to be announced today by the Defence Secretary.
This is not reportage: this is setting the agenda and the context in which this news – when it becomes news – is to be dealt with, certainly at the BBC and, given the BBC’s influence, nationally in the media. Manifestly, I would not want the government to set the agenda or define the context but the BBC is influential enough – and the rest of the MSM is strong enough – to resist agenda-setting by the government. In these matters the BBC is attempting to arrogate to itself the agenda setting: this is not an exercise in “impartiality” – it’s crude in-yer-face politics.
For years the left have banged on about saving money by cutting defence. Yet when this government does so, they bitch. Yet for all their so called defence experts, the bBC still hasn’t managed to grasp the salient fact that there is peace in Europe. That any invading force will have to go through Europe to get here and that the military of today is actually much more lethal than its predecessors.
Take for example last year’s air campaign in Libya reports were coming in of a tank brigade baring down on a town a flight of 4 tornados were sent into action firing 24 brimstone anti-amour missiles destroying 24 vehicles.
Using cameras on Satellites/UAVs we can target enemy forces in real time.
During the Gulf war’s not one Challenger Tank was disabled by enemy fire
We use long range MLRS missiles combined with GPS to carry out surgical strikes at 60 miles
We use Javelin missiles to take out Taliban snipers at very long ranges.
An Apache (AH64D) can carry 16 Hellfire Missiles, which is getting replaced by the Griffin which is cheaper and more lethal.
If HMS Daring (Type 45 destroyer) had been around in 1982, It could have won the airwar in the Falkland’s on its own.
In otherwords, The British Armed forces of today are much more lethal than ever before, so why in a time of symmetrical warfare freedom should we host a huge symmetrical military.
Oh and here’s something the bBC doesn’t mention.
The Military has pushed for bigger redundancies now , rather in the future due to a new EU ruling will when it comes into effect in 2015,means that people who get made redundant will only receive 3 months’ salary rather than the current 9 months.
Yes. signing off ‘Newsnight’ last night, the politically subtle PAXMAN said, with a smirk, in relation to cuts to armed forces:
‘One almost feels sorry for them’.
How many squaddies could you employ for £450k pa?
Still, I am sure the new DG is worth it
And all the ‘talent’…..
The other side to the coin of armed forces cuts:
“Six” [Islamic jihad suspects] “arrested in London anti-terror operation”
Another day, another Islamic jihad threat to British people.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18720213
INBBC and programme on Islamic jihadist.
“Convert’s extremist views were aired in stepbrother’s BBC documentary”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9379932/Converts-extremist-views-were-aired-in-stepbrothers-BBC-documentary.html
Also today in England:
“M6 terror alert: Coach passenger seen ‘pouring liquid into smoking bag’.”
{excerpt}:-
“Bomb disposal experts were also called. A member of the military was seen alongside a worker in a blue forensic suit who boarded the bus this afternoon. ”
Read more: http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2012/07/05/m6-terror-alert-coach-passenger-seen-pouring-liquid-into-smoking-bag/#ixzz1zkoqQ6c3
The BBCs crocodile tears for the British Army would carry more weight if they managed to get the terminology right when they talk about them. Recent stunners include :the Royal Anglican Regiment (Royal Anglian), Lieutenant Colonels being introduced as Lieutenant Corporals, and Cavalry regiments being described as “Battalions” (the infantry have battalions). I know its all silly details, but it is easy to get it right. It really boils my p*ss when they do it, as so often they do, when they are talking about casualties. All they have to do is pick up a phone and ask.
Their carelessness is emblematic of their very ambivalent feelings towards the Army. I can see the Islamophile beeboids being very much in favour of harsh cuts to the ‘Royal Anglicans’, if not their complete disappearance. Apart from Brigadier-Druid R. Williams. My preference would be to see Lord Ahmed’s 10,000 strong muslim street army disappear in a puff of smoke, as in a scene from Tales of the Eurabian Nights. Beeboids? moon jockeys? Deserve each other. It’ll end badly. Hanging off cranes. Meanwhile, God bless the British Armed Forces. Unlike the BBC, worthy of the description ‘British’.
this from Con Coughlin at The Daily Telegraph:
“The Muslims who shouted abuse at the homecoming march by 2nd Battalion, the Royal Anglican Regiment“.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/9151637/Are_Muslim_radicals_trying_to_provoke_a_civil_war_in_Britain/
Seems to be a common mistake.
And both Sky and the Sun have used the erroneous rank of Lieutenant Corporal.
That isn’t to excuse the BBC, simply to say that in these days when few have direct family connections with the armed forces these sort of stupid mistakes are more common.
Thank you, Corporal Beefheart. Dismissed.
I remember one BBC employee who worked in the TV newsroom who never told her colleagues that her fiancee was a soldier. Too “embarrassed”. I hope the marriage lasted.
Most Beeboids see no intrinsic need for significant defence forces to protect the interests of British people.
Rather they want more cuts to defence and for such the public expenditure to be switched to more spending on, e.g. mass immigration, foreign aid, and on BBC-NUJ.
Redistribute (other people’s) wealth (freedom) to Guardian readers (the middle class left) is pretty much the entire content of the political “analysis” supplied by the BBC 24/7 – paid for by everybody else naturally. Because they think they are worth it.
Guardian readers, middle class left = oxygen thiefs.
“Don’t expect our new remodelled army to fight a major war ”
By Con Coughlin
[concluding excerpt]:-
“There are many potential areas of conflict of looming, and it is a very foolish – or should I say negligent? – government indeed that believes Britain can remain a war-free zone for the foreseeable future.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100169236/dont-expect-our-new-remodelled-army-to-fight-a-major-war/
Should be alright as long as politicans do not overcommit the armed forces
Note while all the fuss today is about the Army the RN and RAF have already taken huge hits. To a degree the Army was sheltered by the Afghanistan requirement – these cuts are only possible because of the apparent commitment to withdraw from there
Why doesn’t INBBC report this?:
“Woman, two children beheaded in Afghanistan honor killing”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/woman-two-children-beheaded-in-afghanistan-honor-killing.html
Has British MILITARY ELITE become ‘politically correct’ and so ineffective against Britain’s enemy too?
We know how ‘political correct’ is British political class, including 3 main political parties, extending to BBC-NUJ and police hierarchy. Does this apply to the British military establishment too?
Who is standing up in the British military elite to say that since the ending of the Cold War, the specific challenges of Islamic jihadists, operating both inside Britain and inside many Islamic countries of the world needs a new UK defence and intelligence force?
Who in the British military elite is advising the British government against the entry of 80 million Muslim Turks into the EU (and unknown millions into the UK) on the grouinds of the increased islamic jihad threat? Is Cameron seeking such advice?
If the British forces become political correct, will they have political commissars like the USSR had?
I thought that there was a peace dividend, and the military were traditional adventurers that tortured decent folk in Abu Gharib and the like!
The Left-Phil Shiner etal-have long told us that the Army is macho detritus that need to be given real jobs like social worker or diversity consultant.
So why then the BBCs show of concern for soldiers losing their jobs…where is this public sector solidarity then?
The Army at least ARE of some use and a reason to be proud of this country-the very reasons why the corkscrew cabbages at the BBC will hate them.
Oh yes-it`s the Tories doing this…when Labour did it, it was something to wallow in…Blair securing peace in our time an` all that!
INBBC supports Muslim Brotherhood more than it supports British troops.
‘Jihadwatch’:
– indicates the pattern of political support for Muslim Brotherhood by Obama (which is, of course, supported globally by INBBC broadcasting empire):-
“Libya’s top politicians make deal for Muslim Brotherhood to lead government after Sunday elections”
[Opening excerpt]-
“Obama has enabled Muslim Brotherhood governments in Egypt, Tunisia and now Libya, as well as soon in Syria. But it’s just a coincidence, doncha know, just the natural workings of democracy, nothing to be concerned about — after all, the Muslim Brotherhood is ‘largely secular,’ and would never, ever pursue its stated goal of ‘eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.'”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/libyas-top-politicians-make-deal-for-muslim-brotherhood-to-lead-government-after-sunday-elections.html
INBBC, in contrast, has:
“Libya elections: Do any of the parties have a plan?”
By Rana Jawad
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18721576
“Fight a war? Soon our tiny army will barely be up to Trooping the Colour”
By Max Hastings
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2169462/Fight-war-Soon-tiny-army-barely-Trooping-Colour.html#ixzz1zpIZmlk9
Why British people need a large, armed forces sector and intelligence units to resist daily internal and external terror threat .
Eg. today (‘breaking news’ details lacking):
“British police: 7 men arrested over terrorist offenses”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-07-06/british-terror-arrests/56054664/1
The above case should be distinguished from the completed different case of yesterday’s arrests of Islamic jihad suspects:-
‘Telegraph’
“White Muslim one of six arrested over ‘terror plot'”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9379748/White-Muslim-one-of-six-arrested-over-terror-plot.html
There is an overwhelming security case that the armed forces should, and will have to play a larger role in all this to protect the British people.
When will INBBC catch up on the growing threats to security to British people and join up the dots?
‘Telegraph’:-
“Seven arrested on suspicon of terror offences after arms found in car”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9381092/Seven-arrested-on-suspicon-of-terror-offences-after-arms-found-in-car.html
INBBC will inevitably refuse to see the obvious linkages in such cases to the deliberate policy of open-door, mass immigration into Britain, as practiced over past 15 years and more; and still advocated in the case of 80 million Muslims Turks, and their entry into EU (and into UK, of course).
Supplementay.
‘Daily Mail’ report:-
“Seven more terror arrests as police find ‘weapons hidden in car’ just a day after Olympic round-up that saw white Muslim convert captured”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2169657/Seven-terror-arrests-police-weapons-hidden-car-just-day-Olympic-round-saw-white-Muslim-convert-captured.html#ixzz1zqMZsSqP
A warning: to which INBBC is oblivious.
Allan West on Trojan horses inside US military.
(3 minutes video, ‘Fox News’)
http://dodocanspell.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/allen-west-on-trojan-horses-already.html
http://dodocanspell.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/allen-west-on-trojan-horses-already.html
Allen West:
“Congressman Allen West calls upon Obama to cut off U.S. aid to Egypt and repudiate Muslim Brotherhood”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/06/congressman-allen-west-calls-upon-obama-to-cut-off-us-aid-to-egypt-and-repudiate-muslim-brotherhood.html
“Muslim pilot linked to suspected terrorists loses case against BA”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/42800
Did anyone see the ridiculous and annoying (in equal measures) Alibhai-Brown on Dateline London talking about cuts in the number of troops? She suggested that Britain should more like Switzerland. The stupid woman probably doesn’t realize that Switzerland has national service. Anyway, it was clear that this former refugee loathes the armed forces of the country that gave her sanctuary. She said that British troops are not even welcome in some British towns. Presumably, she means some parts of Bradford and Oldham.
In fact, on every issue discussed she was anti-British to the point of embarrassing the foreign participants of Dateline London. The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations, we are told, were a “diversion”. She also said that the emphasis of the 2012 London Olympics shouldn’t be about promoting Britain but about the “whole world”.
I hate this woman more than words can adequately say.
She is without doubt the most stupid and annoying woman in Britain, which is of course why the BBC can’t get enough of her.