• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

[Continuation] General UK Politics V Suella Strikes Back

Status
Not open for further replies.
SteveAitch said:
But she apparently wants him to sack her, she doesn't want to resign.

So maybe he shouldn't sack her. Just have a mini cabinet re-shuffle and move her to a really low level post. Then she either has to resign, which she doesn't want to do, or take up the new position and be ever-so-slightly humiliated.
Click to expand...

Make her the junior most minister in the home office under and answering to her worst enemy, Kemi Badenough (just appointed the second most junior minister there).
 
Andy_Ross said:
The British Legion says it backs the rights of the pro Palestinian demonstrators' right to protest and march.

That sound you heard was GB News and the Daily Mail spontaneously combusting in rage.
Click to expand...

The Legion are a decent lot, overwhemingly friendly and polite.

It's the governments of the day that have made Armistice Day into the festival of jingo.
 
zooterkin said:
What are you wittering about this time?
Where do you mean by 'here'? You're apparently in Finland.

Yes, your post did say "in the context of WWII", but that's the first mention of WWII in the thread, so you're the one implying that veterans must be from that war to qualify for the name. Given that there can only be handful of people who were in the forces in WWII still alive today, who do you think Poppy Day is in aid of now?

As GlennB says, British service personnel have been serving since WWII, and many of them have seen active service around the world.

Do you think veterans don't deserve any respect for what they've done?
Click to expand...

Please explain what you mean by this phrase; is it intended to be gender-specific (would you have aimed it at a guy)?

Nobody said they do not deserve respect. What I said was former defence forces personnel would be horrified if the SUN newspaper demanded they had special treatment as hothouse flowers just because some ignorant person was rude to them whilst selling poppies.

But yes, WWII veterans are revered and rightly so. Few are still alive but to say they are the same as any ex-defence forces personnel is a moot point.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
His skin colour has already done that. It amazes me that she thinks she can get around that obstacle with the faithful.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. Indian culture is just as much class-bound as in England. The Conservative faithful like Rish! because he is an affable toff in a sharp suit and is a money-minded banker with their profits close to his heart. They like Suellen because she is a horrible snob just like themselves.
 
Vixen said:
Please explain what you mean by this phrase; is it intended to be gender-specific (would you have aimed it at a guy)?

Nobody said they do not deserve respect. What I said was former defence forces personnel would be horrified if the SUN newspaper demanded they had special treatment as hothouse flowers just because some ignorant person was rude to them whilst selling poppies.

But yes, WWII veterans are revered and rightly so. Few are still alive but to say they are the same as any ex-defence forces personnel is a moot point.
Click to expand...
Ding, dong. Sorry to interrupt but you seem to have forgotten it was your claim that only those in the military during WWII are known as veterans which was corrected. Your post I quote above is a prime example of what "wittering on" describes. Thanks for the example, handy to have if someone wants an example of "wittering on" rather than just its definition.
 
Vixen said:
I disagree with this. Indian culture is just as much class-bound as in England. The Conservative faithful like Rish! because he is an affable toff in a sharp suit and is a money-minded banker with their profits close to his heart. They like Suellen because she is a horrible snob just like themselves.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. He lost to Truss.
 
SteveAitch said:
But she apparently wants him to sack her, she doesn't want to resign.

So maybe he shouldn't sack her. Just have a mini cabinet re-shuffle and move her to a really low level post. Then she either has to resign, which she doesn't want to do, or take up the new position and be ever-so-slightly humiliated.
Click to expand...

A problem is that distancing herself from power may well be what she wants, when the time comes for a leadership contest she'll have distanced herself from the major decisions and be able to say "If only they'd listened to me we wouldn't be in this mess".

He needs to sack her and remove the whip, it may cost them a safe seat in the next election due to splitting the vote but at the current polling one more isn't going to make a difference
 
Mongrel said:
A problem is that distancing herself from power may well be what she wants, when the time comes for a leadership contest she'll have distanced herself from the major decisions and be able to say "If only they'd listened to me we wouldn't be in this mess".

He needs to sack her and remove the whip, it may cost them a safe seat in the next election due to splitting the vote but at the current polling one more isn't going to make a difference
Click to expand...

Exactly. Sunak should be able to win a game of chicken with her - especially if he accepts that he has nothing to lose but I would have thought the satisfaction of ruining her political career when she has been so treacherous towards him could have been a motivation.
 
It's not fair to say he's too weak to sack Suella. He's just taking time to properly consider it before deciding to do nothing.
 
Vixen said:
Please explain what you mean by this phrase;
Click to expand...
What do you think I mean? It's perfectly normal English.
is it intended to be gender-specific (would you have aimed it at a guy)?
Click to expand...
Don't be utterly ridiculous.
Nobody said they do not deserve respect. What I said was former defence forces personnel would be horrified if the SUN newspaper demanded they had special treatment as hothouse flowers just because some ignorant person was rude to them whilst selling poppies.
Click to expand...
We can all read what you said, though you appear to have difficulty with remembering. Let me help you:

Vixen said:
Darat said:
Vixen said:
In any case, someone aged 78-years-old hardly qualifies as a 'veteran' in the context of WWII. The youngest conscripts then would now be well into their late 90's and early 100's.

...snip...
Click to expand...
Military "veteran" has never meant either just WW2 or even only the world wars. Which morons think that?
Click to expand...

Here, it refers only to those who fought in the war. I know in the USA it means anyone who served in the armed forces. My post did say 'within the context of WWII', otherwise, all ex-armed forces personnel will be featured in SUN newspaper headlines as being precious hothouse flowers who should be accorded special privileged treatment like the 78-year-old fellow in his beret. Not nice to be dissed but it is hardly headline news, was the point being made.
Click to expand...

You are claiming that only those who served in WWII should be referred to as 'veterans'.

So, to repeat, where is 'Here'?
But yes, WWII veterans are revered and rightly so. Few are still alive but to say they are the same as any ex-defence forces personnel is a moot point.
Click to expand...
Again, why are you limiting it to WWII veterans?
 
Andy_Ross said:
He keeps wearing a parachute regiment cap badge and parachute maroon beret. He was in the Royal Corps of Signals and is only entitled to their badge and a dark blue beret.

Even if he was in a unit that was part of the Air Assault Brigade he only got to wear a maroon beret while part of the brigade.

Wearing a parachute regiment badge and beret is the most Walter thing you can do.
Click to expand...

But this is just you saying it. Do you understand that the reason I ask for a citation is because you just saying it is not evidence?

Furthermore, he's not in the army now, he can wear any damn colour beret he likes. He can wear whatever insignia he likes. In fact, the photos I've seen of him (upthread) suggest he wears the insignia of several units. It seems like this is just a costume he wears whilst selling poppies.
 
Given the clashes that occurred today, with some of the far right extremists explicitly stating they were there due to Braverman's comments, I'd say that's a decent enough excuse for Sunak to sack her.
 
KDLarsen said:
Given the clashes that occurred today, with some of the far right extremists explicitly stating they were there due to Braverman's comments, I'd say that's a decent enough excuse for Sunak to sack her.
Click to expand...

Sunak is obviously not looking for an excuse to sack her. He seems to be looking for reasons to keep her on.

All he needed to do was, as soon as the Times article came out, sack her with immediate effect and put the justice secretary in as interim Home Secretary until he could have a proper reshuffle.

He needed to act quickly to stamp on her. But he's failed. And even if he sacks her in the next five minutes it's too late.

He also risks losing the least insane Tory MPs.
 
KDLarsen said:
Given the clashes that occurred today, with some of the far right extremists explicitly stating they were there due to Braverman's comments, I'd say that's a decent enough excuse for Sunak to sack her. reason for her to be arrested for promoting extremism and violence.
Click to expand...

FTFY! :)
 
KDLarsen said:
Given the clashes that occurred today, with some of the far right extremists explicitly stating they were there due to Braverman's comments, I'd say that's a decent enough excuse for Sunak to sack her.
Click to expand...

To clarify the clashes seem to have been entirely between the police and the far right thugs, not with the estimated 300,000 protestors on the other side. When that many people are willing to turn out for a march on a chilly Saturday in November I think Sunak and Braverman have picked the wrong side to attack, as usual.

I do hope someone calls for Braverman to be investigated for incitement to violence.
 
We it appears that, as expected by everyone with a functional brain, the "counter-protestors" started the trouble.
 
zooterkin said:
What do you think I mean? It's perfectly normal English.

Don't be utterly ridiculous.

We can all read what you said, though you appear to have difficulty with remembering. Let me help you:



You are claiming that only those who served in WWII should be referred to as 'veterans'.

So, to repeat, where is 'Here'?

Again, why are you limiting it to WWII veterans?
Click to expand...

Once again, I have to ask you to please always quote me in context. The context of my remarks was the SUN newspaper running a headline PROTECT OUR VETERANS using a 78-year-old guy who claims yobs upset him whilst he was selling poppies. I was simply pointing out the SUN trying to convey the impression that this 78-year-old beret-wearing guy was some frail old relic from WWII was quite misleading to the average SUN reader, as he was not a WWII veteran as they were trying to imply.

My two brothers both served in Iraq as Captain in the British Army. I am sure they both would be tough enough to cope with yobs dissing their poppy selling. My father was in the RAF in WWII. He died ten years ago. Were he alive today he would be in his late-nineties and were he selling poppies and some yobs berated him, then the SUN might have a point about 'PROTECT OUR VETERANS'.

That was my opinion. My opinion, 'wittering' your opinion, gold?

'Here' is Finland, which was at war against the USSR the same time. My uncles and grandfather - two of whom having served frontline both in the Winter War and the Continuation War - after the war, were given 'Freedom of the City', which included being allowed to park wherever they liked, and two of them, whom I never met, were dead as young men lying in war memorial graves. All of them are dead now. The veterans still alive are celebrated and feted every independence day.

Not all ex-defence forces personnel are equal although all have given valuable service to their country.




Of course all of those who served in places like Afghanistan, etcetera, are war veterans. But the SUN article was homing in on this 78-year-old guy's age, hence my sardonic comments about how he was hardly precious.
 
KDLarsen said:
Given the clashes that occurred today, with some of the far right extremists explicitly stating they were there due to Braverman's comments, I'd say that's a decent enough excuse for Sunak to sack her.
Click to expand...

It's fairly certain by now that the only people causing trouble today are SueAdolf's buddies.
 
Vixen said:
Once again, I have to ask you to please always quote me in context. The context of my remarks was the SUN newspaper running a headline PROTECT OUR VETERANS using a 78-year-old guy who claims yobs upset him whilst he was selling poppies. I was simply pointing out the SUN trying to convey the impression that this 78-year-old beret-wearing guy was some frail old relic from WWII was quite misleading to the average SUN reader, as he was not a WWII veteran as they were trying to imply.
Click to expand...
I did quote you in context.

Now, where exactly did the Sun imply that he was a WWII veteran? It's not been quoted in this thread, and I didn't see any links.

And why does a 78-year-old automatically not count as frail, or a veteran?


'Here' is Finland
Click to expand...
This is the UK politics thread, so the meaning of 'veteran' in Finland is irrelevant.



Of course all of those who served in places like Afghanistan, etcetera, are war veterans. But the SUN article was homing in on this 78-year-old guy's age, hence my sardonic comments about how he was hardly precious.
Click to expand...

If he's 78, then they cannot be implying that he was a WWII veteran since he was only just born when the war ended. I've no idea where this judgement about him being precious or not is coming from.
 
zooterkin said:
I did quote you in context.

Now, where exactly did the Sun imply that he was a WWII veteran? It's not been quoted in this thread, and I didn't see any links.

And why does a 78-year-old automatically not count as frail, or a veteran?



This is the UK politics thread, so the meaning of 'veteran' in Finland is irrelevant.





If he's 78, then they cannot be implying that he was a WWII veteran since he was only just born when the war ended. I've no idea where this judgement about him being precious or not is coming from.
Click to expand...

You have caught up at last. That was the point I was making: the 78-year-old guy did not need the SUN newspaper's protection of 'OUR VETERANS'.
 
Vixen said:
You have caught up at last. That was the point I was making: the 78-year-old guy did not need the SUN newspaper's protection of 'OUR VETERANS'.
Click to expand...

:confused:

Do you think you could answer the post I made, not the one in your head?

What did the Sun actually say? You're the only one apparently privy to this information.
 
zooterkin said:
:confused:

Do you think you could answer the post I made, not the one in your head?

What did the Sun actually say? You're the only one apparently privy to this information.
Click to expand...

The SUN seems to have taken the article down now it transpires that the 78-year-old guy in the beret wasn't a veteran of the Parachute Regiment* needing protection after all.


*read = 'hero of the highest order'.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
It's fairly certain by now that the only people causing trouble today are SueAdolf's buddies.
Click to expand...

Apparently they have decided it was a set up to make them look bad.
The police were waiting in force dressed in riot gear and provoked the trouble.
It's all part of the plan to undermine white Christian Britain and replace everyone with Islamic extremists.
 
Vixen said:
Once again, I have to ask you to please always quote me in context. The context of my remarks was the SUN newspaper running a headline PROTECT OUR VETERANS using a 78-year-old guy who claims yobs upset him whilst he was selling poppies. I was simply pointing out the SUN trying to convey the impression that this 78-year-old beret-wearing guy was some frail old relic from WWII was quite misleading to the average SUN reader, as he was not a WWII veteran as they were trying to imply.

My two brothers both served in Iraq as Captain in the British Army. I am sure they both would be tough enough to cope with yobs dissing their poppy selling. My father was in the RAF in WWII. He died ten years ago. Were he alive today he would be in his late-nineties and were he selling poppies and some yobs berated him, then the SUN might have a point about 'PROTECT OUR VETERANS'.

That was my opinion. My opinion, 'wittering' your opinion, gold?

'Here' is Finland, which was at war against the USSR the same time. My uncles and grandfather - two of whom having served frontline both in the Winter War and the Continuation War - after the war, were given 'Freedom of the City', which included being allowed to park wherever they liked, and two of them, whom I never met, were dead as young men lying in war memorial graves. All of them are dead now. The veterans still alive are celebrated and feted every independence day.

Not all ex-defence forces personnel are equal although all have given valuable service to their country.




Of course all of those who served in places like Afghanistan, etcetera, are war veterans. But the SUN article was homing in on this 78-year-old guy's age, hence my sardonic comments about how he was hardly precious.
Click to expand...
Were they? I think even the average Sun reader isn't actually that stupid.
Now while the average Sun reader is stupid even they should be able to do some basic arithmetic.
 
Is there a particular reason why it was so important for the pro-Palestinian protesters to have their protest today (when the British people honour those who died on duty during one of the bloodiest European wars) – as opposed to any other day?
 
aniri said:
Is there a particular reason why it was so important for the pro-Palestinian protesters to have their protest today (when the British people honour those who died on duty during one of the bloodiest European wars) – as opposed to any other day?
Click to expand...

Not pro-Palestinian, pro ceasefire - which makes the date absolutely appropriate.
 
Vixen said:
The SUN seems to have taken the article down now it transpires that the 78-year-old guy in the beret wasn't a veteran of the Parachute Regiment* needing protection after all.


*read = 'hero of the highest order'.
Click to expand...

So you were ranting about something without giving the context but expecting us to know what you were on about? And it's not clear that the Sun implied he was a WWII veteran (which would have been stupid), rather than that being your error, since the article has mysteriously disappeared?

ETA: It hasn't disappeared, here it is - https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24646606/poppy-seller-edinburgh-palestine-protesters/

Vixen, could you point out where it suggests he was a WWII veteran? It gives his age, and says he served in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
Not pro-Palestinian, pro ceasefire - which makes the date absolutely appropriate.
Click to expand...
)

Yeah, right. It's like celebrating, let's say, Easter on Christmas day. Both are Christian holidays after all ...))
 
Last edited:
aniri said:
Is there a particular reason why it was so important for the pro-Palestinian protesters to have their protest today (when the British people honour those who died on duty during one of the bloodiest European wars) – as opposed to any other day?
Click to expand...

Because it's Saturday, that's the day most people have off and can get to the march. Most marches and demonstrations are on Saturday.

The 'honour' thing is two minutes silence at 11 o'clock observed wherever you happen to be.

It's tomorrow that the remembrance services and acts take place.

The march was two miles from the cenotaph.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
You have caught up at last. That was the point I was making: the 78-year-old guy did not need the SUN newspaper's protection of 'OUR VETERANS'.
Click to expand...

I'm not following.

You made an irrelevant comment about the Sun implying that he was a WWII veteran, which was utterly ridiculous.


using a 78-year-old guy who claims yobs upset him whilst he was selling poppies. I was simply pointing out the SUN trying to convey the impression that this 78-year-old beret-wearing guy was some frail old relic from WWII was quite misleading to
Click to expand...

Nobody was implying that.


-------------

jeremyp said:
But this is just you saying it. Do you understand that the reason I ask for a citation is because you just saying it is not evidence?

Furthermore, he's not in the army now, he can wear any damn colour beret he likes. He can wear whatever insignia he likes. In fact, the photos I've seen of him (upthread) suggest he wears the insignia of several units. It seems like this is just a costume he wears whilst selling poppies.
Click to expand...

I think it is pretty obvious that if the guy is collecting for the British Legion wearing a maroon beret, he's trying to convey the impression that he had been a para. As he hadn't, he is a Walt.
 
aniri said:
)

Yeah, right. It's like celebrating, let's say, Easter on Christmas day. Both are Chgristian holidays after all ...))
Click to expand...

Not really, no. Calling for a cease-fire on a day that specifically commemorates a cease-fire is a lot more relevant than that. It's also a Saturday, so more people could attend, and it is possibly the earliest day that something that large could be organised.
 
aniri said:
)

Yeah, right. It's like celebrating, let's say, Easter on Christmas day. Both are Chgristian holidays after all ...))
Click to expand...

and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom