Comments on: Hijacking the military

By: Kings cross manifesto

Kings cross manifesto — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:31:07 +0000

As an ex serviceman in the seventiews and eighties you were told not to discuss 3 issues , race, religion and politics. I joined under a Labour government and went to the Falklands under the Tories. Politics having nothing to do with the services, you just obey the instruction from the democratic government of the day.
As for Neil’s argument, I agree totally but Labour and the Tories do not manipulate the services but get free photo shoots. I feel the BNP wants to use the armed forces as an arm of their party.
Although most ex serviceman, most are Thatcher golf club tories, a little like the posters at this site

By: sackcloth and ashes

sackcloth and ashes — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:17:14 +0000

‘I don’t really see much differnence between the vile islamophobic British nationalism of the BNP and the vile islamophobic Israeli nationalism of Harrys Place.’

That might be to do with the fact that you’re a complete moron. Go and see Lee about party membership. They’re looking to recruit more members who have opposable thumbs.

By: Graham

Graham — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:01:53 +0000

I’m afraid that the whole “Royal perogative” business delegating the historic powers officially held by the Queen that have, in reality, been passed to politicians (such as making war) make it all a little more complicated than that under our unwritten constitution David.

By: David All

David All — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:36:39 +0000

Nodrog is right. The purpose of Britain’s Armed Forces is to fight the Queen’s enemies. It is to the Monarch as Commander-in-Chief and not to the Prime Minister of the day, that the Armed Forces swear their loyality to; just as as the US Armed Forces swear their loyality to the Constitution of the United States, and not to the President.

By: Laban

Laban — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:08:01 +0000

I don’t think it is missing the point – in that, unlike Nothing British, the BBC are tax-funded and obliged to be neutral between parties – hence this evenings shenanigans (soon to be abandoned due to hoax bombs IMHO). Both Labour and BNP used the Spit in their West Mids Euro campaigning – and the generals were careful not to name any political party.

“We call on all those who seek to hijack the good name of Britain’s military for their own advantage to cease and desist.”

Now you know and I know the generals, presumably primed by Mr Bethell, were taking a pop at the BNP. But the BBC should surely look at all parties “who use the military for their own advantage”. They’re obliged by their charter to be neutral.

By: Larkers

Larkers — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:39:40 +0000

“Note the word ‘illegal’ – thats the legal point.” (JLB)

Under which body of law enforced by whom?” – Graham 3.49 p.m. in reply to Lee John Barnes.

You win the Harry’s Place Patience Award for 2009. I really cannot be bothered to debate such an obtuse poster myself.

Monty. If serving officers make political statements I expect them to be cashiered. (Not a party point this. The late Alan Clark, man of the Right, thought so too.) What former military types say is of course a different matter. Dannatt does not surprise me, Jackson does. Adm. Hill-Norton was a very out spoken man but had sense not to tie himself to any particular party. The late AVM Tim Garden joined the Liberal Democrats I recall and spoke for them. I would by these terms expect someone to speak up for the money spent driving through Typhoon (against German reluctance) and the investment in Taranis. However, I am not going to hold my breath. Much of the complaints about equipment can be laid at the feet of the MoD, the most under powered organisation on earth. I happen to know nothing, as in nothing, worked during the Falklands War, but that was over before the complaints could roll in. Defence procurement in the U.K. is beyond belief stupid and has been for decades.

By: Meir

Meir — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:26:14 +0000

Lee Barnes:

So does this mean that you perceive the views espoused on this site as a genuine threat to the BNP? That you engage with the commenters here because they pose an intellectual challenge?

Why aren’t you effing and blinding on the telly?

Seriously, why do you spend so much time dealing with this site? It’s sincerely flattering of course.

By: Lee John Barnes

Lee John Barnes — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:08:18 +0000

Whats the point of arguing with Guardianista’s – they spend all their time arguing with each other anyway.

By: phil

phil — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:52:26 +0000

I’m so glad to be a part of the problem.

By: Meir

Meir — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:48:22 +0000

I find it amazing that the supposed legal representative of a party with serious pretences of being able to run the nation spends much time debating with a handful of laypeople who comment on a blog with just about zero influence on the political landscape, rather than say, on the Guardian, where he would get far wider exposure for his interesting and well-judged contributions. Clearly, this little site winds him up no end.

But as the Dead Kennedy’s used to sing: “In a new 4th Reich you’d be the first to go” and I think Lee Barnes has enough Rohm tendencies to make this happen.