HappyHerts69's Profile

12 Mar 2010

Agreed.
Professional views and personal views can be kept apart, and as the BNP isn't illegal, then they should have the right to believe and support what ever organisation they wish, provided it doesn't spill over into the workplace.

View Post

9 Mar 2010

I agree No means No. And is wrong.
However, when I leave my house I lock the door, lock my windows and set my alarm. I lock my car when I leave it... If I left my house and left the doors and windows open, would I be surprised to come home to find everything gone? No!
Did I deserve to be robbed? Well no. No one deserves it, but it DOES happen, and i'm sure everyone would say, well I have little or no sympathy for you, as you were stupid to leave everything open.
is the same in the respect that no one deserves it, but some women do nothing to help prevent it! It does happen, so taking precautions is sensible. Just relying on "I said NO" is like just relying on a sign on your door saying "Please do not rob me, as this property does not belong to you"!
The act of is wrong, and lives are ruined by it, but how BOTH parties ended up in the position where a could take place is the crux of my despair. The trouble is it is one word used to cover a multitude of situations. And I'm sorry (and I know I'll be hated for saying this) but sometimes the victim has done nothing but play with fire, then complains when she gets burnt! And it is these victims that do nothing for the plight of victims that have found themselves in a situation totally not of their making.

View Post

9 Mar 2010

Spankwire is also free, and mobile phone friendly...

View Post

2 Dec 2009

EM - Might as well stay out and have another pint. You can get everything packed in the morning.....
EM - 'Go on, up here arse. She'll love it!'
EM - Keep driving, don't want to be late, there's bound to be a filling station in the next village.
EM - Go on its Sunday night, just have a couple more and WEwill both get up at six and iron your Kit mate.
I remember a time when I needed to visit the medical centre for some injections. Usual inoculations for some dump of a country I would be finding myself in, in the near future. As the kindly medic finished pumping my body with the concoction of drugs that would ward of Hepatitis, Malaria, Typhoid and Yellow fever or some such nasties, she reminded me that I was not to partake of heavy lifting, physical training or alcohol for the next 24 hours. At this point the dark lord, Emperor Mong turned up and whispered in my ear "Don't worry about that, the medics HAVE to say that, it doesn't matter if you have a beer tonight, the worse that can happen is you will get pissed quicker!"
As my departure from these shores in the near future entailed a protracted period with no access to any booze, I dutifully listened to the Emperor, and proceeded to go out on the lash that night.
Waking up in the shower, fully dressed and covered in sick and God knows what else, after what I was told was only a girls amount of beer, made me realise that EM was a tw@t!

View Post

1 Dec 2009

Ah, must be God's chosen few.... those elite cellar dweller miracle workers?
Behold the power of the dust coat.......
worship

View Post

1 Dec 2009

Quote by Dave__Notts
Thats just the VMs. Then you have the Air Techs, Elecy Techs, VEs, Reccy Mechs, Armourers, Gunfighters, Welders, Instrument Techs, and a few more that do something or other
Dave_Notts

My bold. Not a gunbunny were we?
Arte et Parte

View Post

1 Dec 2009

Looks like Emperor Mong has only visited Splendid and I....
:violin:

View Post

1 Dec 2009

OK, whilst trawling another site I came across this thread topic, which to be honest had me spitting coffee over the laptop laughing, so I thought I get some fellow swingers views on theirEmperor Mong's Pronouncements:
It is three o'clock in the morning, and you have just come off stag. It is snowing and you are freezing and knackered. You get into your gonk bag and try to zip it up, but it gets stuck half way. You know you should try and free the zip, but a small voice in your head says, "You don't need to do up the zip! You will be quite warm enough. Just go to sleep!" This is the Emperor Mong speaking, one of the strongest and cruellest rulers in the universe. Needless to say, twenty minutes after you go to sleep you wake up freezing cold, and can't sleep for the rest of the night.
Over the years, The Emperor's pronouncements have made us make some of the most mongy decisions known to man:
Don't worry - If you just roll over and ignore it, that sensation from your bladder the size of a space hopper will go away. You will then be able to enjoy a full and restfull nights sleep. There will definitely not be the need for you to get up in agony in a short while having stayed awake while trying to ignore it
So, lets have it- what has The Emperor made you do?

View Post

1 Dec 2009

Quote by Cubes
Oi you lot! You mutton be horrible to other people!

Shouldn't that be "Ewe mutton be horrible"?
Don't Lamb-bast me for pointing out the error wink

View Post

30 Nov 2009

:thumbup:
Well it's not rough engineering made easy!
drinkies

Although some think it means
"By Quilt and by Skiving" wink

View Post

30 Nov 2009

Quote by Rob_hood
As a former Royal Engineer my view is that only being allowed to build a foot bridge shows a lack of ambition by the authoritys.
Let the army build a Medium Girder bridge that will take the weight of vehicles.
Building bridges quickly is the stock in trade of the Royal Engineers who have the manpower, equipment, and knowhow. Just let them to do it and they will.
Simples!!

Err, they would spend the first week building a bar, with dance floor, disco lighting and seated tables out of cotton reels and drift wood. The bridge would be next week!
wink

Arte Et Marte

View Post

9 Nov 2009

Singstar, now Rock Band2, and of course from tomorrow, COD MW2!! lol

:lol: :lol:

View Post

22 Oct 2009

Quote by Mal
Missing kit will include body armour. Yes, it's available, but not in the numbers required. Before any troops can leave base camp they MUST have the correct body armour or they are not allowed to leave, simple as that. They wont allow them out without it. This means we have troops over there who cannot do the job purely because there isn't enough body armour to send out the number of troops they want to for any given operation.
That's one of the reasons we cannot operate as effectively as we want to out there.
Mal

This is not the experience I have had Mal. My experience is that you can not even fly out of BRIZE without body armour. In-fact, you need it for PDT. So everybody in theatre should have it. If this is not the case, then I stand corrected, as each time I have deployed I was fully equipped before I left blighty...

View Post

21 Oct 2009

Dave and Kenty
The whole kit shortage thing is an implement of the media. Don't get me wrong, we could ALWAYS do with more kit, but that isn't the real issue when it comes to the type of enemy and tactics they use.
Today, the British Army is the best equipped it has ever been. Ever! And I mean ever!
For the first time ever we can fight at night (properly, and fully at section level). We can accurately ID targets, we can prosecute a target with a multitude of options and at various ranges. We can move about on foot in clothing designed for the job, in vehicles designed for the job, and in aircraft designed for the job.
Is it perfect kit? No, but most of this kit are UORs (Urgent Operational Requirements) and as such are about 80-90% fit for purpose. To have "better" kit takes longer, and the troops will end up with nothing when they need it! And yes, there will always be a story of a tom who could have done with item X but there wasn't any, but on the whole this isn't really the case when it comes to our Doctrine and tactics.
As for IEDs, the weapon of choice of our enemy, well as I said before, no "missing kit" can stop them.
Jammers, sniffers, etc.. are only good against remote detonated devices, not against a timed device or a command wire device!
Training, knowledge of the ground, support of the people, a good situational awareness and shit loads of luck are what beats IEDs.
Better armoured vehicles just mean the IEDs get bigger. Look at the Russians, shed loads of Tanks, and they still got taken out. And when you're in all that Armour, you loose the ability to interact with the locals, and support then dwindles!
As for aircraft to get us to our destination, then yes, choppers are good to get you from A to B, but the problem of IEDs isn't solved, it is just moved to location B!
If it is any consolation, the work being done out there has intercepted, disrupted, or prevented more IEDs from killing or VSI'ing our troops than have fallen victim to them. Trouble is, that doesn't make good print, so the media don't bother reporting that!

View Post

30 Sep 2009

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
B.T.W. the vote for "new" labour leaves your voting record clean ...you've still always voted tory..they were just using a different name at the time.

LOL, quality rolleyes

View Post

30 Sep 2009

Well, now things have got to a level where debate can be undertaken without blind hatred ruining things, I feel I can return and chip in.
I think it was flower (please correct me if Iâ€™m wrong) who said his experience of squaddies was that of racists and homicidal maniacs. This army, the one of today, just like every army of years past is a reflection of the society it recruits from. If the young men of that society (the postmen, milkmen, car workers, factory workers, farm hands etc..) are racist thugs, then yes, the men who join up are a reflection of that. Where the army differs, is it is more condensed. If you took 100,000 twenty something farmers, I bet I could find some hard drinking bigots amongst them lol

The army today will not tolerate racism and bullying. Robust training, and banter, that's a different matter :lol:
As for whoever has drunk in a garrison town and was frightened, I agree. And I'm still serving. :shock:
But then again, what do I expect? Put a couple of hundred highly competitive, testosterone filled, young men into the same town, give them a pocket full of cash, train them to kill, instil a stoic rivalry into them against other highly trained, highly competitive young men of another unit, and sit back! :shock:
:shock: :shock:
The trouble with training an army that will be any good is what do you do with the soldiers when youâ€™re not at war? The solution has always been, let em out in a garrison, and send in the MPs at the end of the night to mop up the mess. I've seen squaddies pick a fight with themselves because there was no one left to fight! Is that professional? Probably not. Is it fair on the civilian population that have made the garrison their home? Probably not. Do I want to be stood shoulder to shoulder with that bloke in the crap in Afghan?
Most defiantly.
It's a price we pay.
And onto the most contentious topic raised so far, and do we lower ourselves to fight the enemy using the methods they use?
Then the answer is no.
When a bloke gets into a contact, his world changes. He gets pumped on adrenaline, everything slows down, he is scared, excited, confused, he's recalling all of his training, he is making decisions based on a faction of a seconds exposure to the contact. In this slow motion world there will be a deafening noise of incoming, outgoing fire, men shouting orders, men screaming in pain, confusion. All this in under a second. The man makes a choice, and his actions are then set. The outcome of that decision in that second he has to live with for the rest of his life. What does that mean? Yes, sometimes men make the wrong choice, and they have to take responsibility for those actions. Even in battle, those choices may not be excusable. But on the whole, these men make choices they can live with, or rather, choices that the public back home can live with. Because even in the public's eyes, "the right choice" is likely to be something that will never leave the guy who made it. Sometimes a local gets a kicking, and he is rightly pissed off about it. But how lucky he is, the choice made a faction of a second earlier wasn't to slot him! And that is the reality. Men on both sides are alive because of a split second decision another guy made. And men on both sides are dead for the same reasons.
The sad reality is this. Every day in Afghanistan the British go out on patrol, and every day someone has a contact with the enemy. Millions of bullets have been exchanged, hundreds of IEDs have been planted. You the public get about 10 minutes of edited highlights a week from a media keen to make money and give you the "juicy stuff". Everything else is just business as usual for the Army. Over 99.9% of the time we do the right thing by the law. And when it goes wrong, we have a courts martial to judge those events in context. And if the guilty party (sorry, force of habit, I mean the accused) were twats, then send em down for a stint at Colly :twisted:
So, to disagree with Kenty on something: Should we carry out our actions on operations in accordance with the law of armed conflict? Yes. Maybe that is why the British Army is well regarded by other armies? (It's certainly not because of the kit )

Quote by Col. Jessep:
Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

View Post

24 Sep 2009

We have really buggered up "childhood" for so many kids with our own insecurities and lack of common sense...
evil

View Post

24 Sep 2009

Thanks Kent..
To be honest, i'm more disapointed than upset. It started of refreshing haveing a discussion with people with differing views. If I din't want to understand others views Mrs Suffolk and I would just hang out in ARRSE, but here I hoped for some more diversity from others with valid views, even if they did not mirror my own. But it has degenerated into just blind hatred and insults, and I'm a little pissed off I bit, and resulted to the same, but hay, only human!
As for watching "Wounded" last night, I was moved to tears! There, I said it. I was glad I watched it though, and I am glad that the VSI are being acknowledged and not hidden away. But I was also humbled by the maturity and determination of those young men. I serve with men like this, and they are the salt of the Earth, because they almost all ways put their muckers before themselves. That is why I found some of the comments so hard to take. But your right. I think this thread has run its course, well for me anyway.
I'm now going to turn to the right, gain height and fall out....
lol

:lol:

View Post

24 Sep 2009

Quote by benrums0n
Qoute
We are patrolling. This is a key skill that enforces hearts and minds, gathers intel, denies overt use of the ground by the enemy and may more tasks that need to be carried out.
Unquote
Thanks again for debating this issue , it really is a joy to have an adult disucussion without being insulted or made to feel like a pariah. I hope this thread stays that way.
Going back to the bit Ive quoted, I understnd these things are important. Are there any cleverer ways of achieving the same things. For instance having strategically placed watchtowers/ forts. I dont know, I just wondered if there were any obvious alternatives that a mind other than mine can devise.

More than happy to discuss in an adult grown up objective way.
Not sure why you are receptive to discussion in this thread, but seem dead set on being insulting in the other thread, but I am sure you have your reasons. I will endeavour to remain proffessional and treat each thread individually, and not premit my anger at comments from the other thread interfere here.
And to be honest to your question, not really.
Yes there are much more high tech and safer ways to say gather intel. And yes forts and bases well defended can hold that bit of ground, but then you lose the ability to control all the ground, and you lose it to the enemy. You become defence and reactive, and the enemy gains the initiative. The enemy gets to chose the time and place of most engagements as it is, lets not give them any more power. The US has learnt the hard way, that bases only, and patrols in tanks, or reliance on intel and drones, doesn't work on its own. Only a bloke in boots, chatting with the locals, building up a relationship with people on his patch actually gets decent results. But as you point out, that is a guaranteed way of loosing men to IEDs. Look at policing in this country. When the local booby walked the beat, he had his ear open to every thing. Now he sits behind a desk in a fort, he can only react to incidents as they are reported. Obviously it's not as simple as that anology, but hopefully you get my point. We are not patrolling because we have the same mindset of the trenches. We are patroling because it has always given us results in almost every major (and minor) campain we have undertaken since WW2. smile

View Post

24 Sep 2009

Quote by splendid_
I certainly can't be as restrained as suffolk-cpl and I sincerely hope that you have the ignorance and temerity to vocalise your ill-thought out opinion in a place with serving military.

I have tried to be as understanding of differing views, and respectful of differing, even hostile opinions as possible. Tried to use reason based on knowledge rather than "opinion" to address some of Ben's thoughts. Tried hard not to to resort to the stereotype of arrogant squaddie. Tried hard, but failed. So fuck it...

Quote by benrums0n
The situation in Afghanistan is way too serious for meally mouthed hero worhipping.

The situation in Afghanistan is too serious for your ill informed shite to be worth a rat's piss!

Quote by benrums0n
People are dying unecessarily.

And many are dying necessarily

Quote by benrums0n
The blame for this lies with the soldiers, their leaders and their leaders leaders.

You are just showing you are typical mindless jerk with no concept of reality. I am not an oil worker, have never worked on the rigs or for an oil company. That is why I do not go onto forums and spout shite about how to find oil, bring it up from the ground, or have a pop at the riggers because the big oil companies are responsible for crimes against nature!

Quote by benrums0n
Avoiding discussion of what is primarily a deeply flawed set of objectives and a seriously incompetent action plan will simply lead to more senseless deaths.

Discussing anything with you will not lead to more deaths. well maybe one, I feel like throwing myself in front of a train reading some of your insulting crap!

Quote by benrums0n
Until the military at all levels start to make noises about changing how they do things rather than demanding more soldiers and more equipment I will continue to think they are incompetent.

And that is you right to think that.

Quote by benrums0n
Risking your life voluntarily for cash does not make you a hero nor does dying as a result.

Few people serve for the cash. OK, none of us would do it for free, but we don't have that mercenary attitude that say, the private sector bodyguard circuit has.
Men and women who serve are not doing it to be heroes. If their actions are seen as such by some, than that is their business. They are just professionals trying to do a job, and do it well.

Quote by benrums0n
I would add that I think far more people would have far more to say about the stupidity of this conflict if we needed conscription. Even then this ridiculous mentality of "you cant knock the military they do a great job" would get in the way, just as it did in vietnam.

I'm sure we would hear a lot about it from you! Still if we had conscription, and lived in the Junta you seem to think we live in, then we wouldn't hear a peep from you would we, cos if you did spout this shite out loud, you'd be shot.

Quote by Phuckers
We buried a brave soldier here last wednesday i hope his life has not gone sjt Paul McAleese RIP

Stand easy Paul. RIP fella
Actually Phuckers, there is a casing point. The likes of Paul's old man and the other lads do some pretty messy jobs on our behalf. The more unfortunate ones names are immortalised on the clock tower, yet their deeds will never be told. A lot of us owe our lives to these men, yet we never realise it. Even Ben!

View Post

23 Sep 2009

They are all called "flower" when in female rig for their run ashore!!
:twisted:

View Post

23 Sep 2009

Quote by flower411
Muscles Are Required Intelligence Not Essential.
Well ....I thought it was funny !!

hahahah, over twenty years serving, and I have never heard that!!!! It will get some use now. Thank you :P :P :P

View Post

23 Sep 2009

Benrums, I agree with you sort of. However, Street fighting terrosists is what we wish we could do, then we would win!! biggrin

:D
Beaucse when it comes to swapping bullets, they lose almost every time (hence why they have moved to IEDs)
But what we are doing is not street fighting the taliban. We are patrolling. This is a key skill that enforces hearts and minds, gathers intel, denies overt use of the ground by the enemy and may more tasks that need to be carried out.
But you are right, keep doing the same thing, and you keep getting the same result. I suppose that's why we still foot patrol, we want the same result. We just have to live with the cost of that result.

View Post

23 Sep 2009

Great News, and hopefully a great life lesson that she will use positively in her future.

View Post

23 Sep 2009

Quote by benrums0n
Fair point suffolk and humorously put.
I will accept that there isnt an endemic gung ho attitude if just one of those serving soldiers will come on to the forum and state that they think it is foolish to undertake foot patrols in Afghanistan.
To refute your lovely ironic retort I really should point out that the Taliban kind of have a reaon to fight, being both Afgani and the incumbent government until we invaded.

OK, it is foolish to undertake foot patrols in Afghanistan or any other hostile country. It is dangerous, it WILL result in casualties, but it is necessary, and therefore it is as foolish as flying fast air, maintaining FOBs, and any other activity we carry out. You can't control the ground you have won without a presence on that ground. Only men in boots, face to face with the local population control the ground. Driving round in tanks doesn't work. It is a lesson we developed in Malaya, Northern Ireland, and Iraq.
I agree with where you are trying to go with this (I think). It does seem bloody foolish to go out on patrol knowing that Terry Taliban has more than likely put an IED on the route, but that is the nature of fighting a Guerilla army. Is it more or less foolish to charge a machine gun nest with only a rifle? Or run across open ground to try and rescue a man down? Or fly in two AH64 helicopters with Royal Marines strapped to the outside on the wings, into a Taliban compound to recover a fallen comrade?
War makes men make decisions. Those men who make them, make them under very different circumstances than those back here who analyse those decisions.

View Post

23 Sep 2009

Quote by benrums0n
It is rather foolish to think that the activities of our armed forces are dictated by Gordon Brown or the "Governement", whatever that phrase is intended to mean. Miliatry activity on a day to day basis is far more in the hands of the senior military officers as are tactical decisions.
I still think our military cant find its arse with both hands in terms of the necessary strategic and tactical thinking to oeprate in modern war environements. If anybody can tell me what our current official goals are in Afghanistan and how these are being measured I would like to be told.

Point 1. You must be living on another planet if you think the military control their own destiny. This is not a Junta. Our elected officials sign up to a war, not the Chief of Staff, or any Military officer! Yes they play an important roll in offering advice and strategy, but ultimately the buck stops with the PM.
Point 2. You are entitled to think what you like about our ability to find our own arse. You are entitled to voice that opinion. That is the privilege the military, (and their inept values and lack of ability to think at a strategic level) has given you.
Until you have served however, your opinion is based on the safety of your arm chair. If you can bring any first hand experience to the party, then your opinion will be based on something tangible, and therefore more worthy of consideration.
Strategy takes place at ALL levels, not just at staff officer level. Considering our forces have won almost every fire fight in Afghanistan, the strategic implementation of the soldiers and NCOs in those firefights was successful. And if you think telling a young tom who has come back from there he is inept and doesn't know where his arse is, and you know better than him on how to win a fire fight, pm me your ward number when you regain consciousness, and i'll pay you a visit and commend you on your bravery!
Yes the day to day running for the war is being run by the military, but within Government constraints. Until the PM tells the senior staff what he want's to achieve, the military can't pursue that fully. If our main task is to provide security for an election to take place, then that is what we did. The fact that the Afghans governments are so corrupt, the election was worthless is not the military issue. Security WAS provided!
Everyone knows a political solution is the only way the war will end. But that is always the case.
After all, the GOVERNMENT (what ever that means) start wars, they declare the war status, and ultimately they end the war.
The military just carry out the messy bit in between.
I think you are foolish not to acknowledge that the military are the tool of the government. Due process. GB is in charge, and the buck stops with him!

View Post

22 Sep 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
As an employer I was under the impression it was ten grand and not five?

Probably because the cleaner was cr@p and only cleaned half the house!

View Post

22 Sep 2009

So, Baroness Scotland fell foul of her own law and was fined Â£5k.
The implication is clear. You need a passport and another document to back it up before you give "Boris" a fiver to clean your windows, or little Tommy can wash your car on bob a job week (do they still exist?)...
Otherwise it's cough up the dosh and grovel to your boss that it was "an administration error".
Not really trying to start a debate, just laughing that the Baroness was hoisted by her own petard..
biggrin

View Post

22 Sep 2009

Quote by benrums0n
I find it quite hard to be proud of the job our soldiers ared doing, partly because they have a free choice to do it and partly because the servicemen who choose to do this job are often mad keen to tackle "the ragheads" This mentality seems to be endemic throughout the ranks.

No one is asking for your pride. But you seem to base it on knowledge of the mentality of over 100,000 people. You must have a massive contacts list to understand that many peoples views.
I've met a few Afghans in my time, therefore I feel able to state:
I find it quite hard to be proud of the job the taliban are doing, partly because they have a free choice to do it and partly because the taliban who choose to do this job are often "rag heads" and are mad keen to tackle "the infadels" This mentality seems to be endemic throughout rag heads.
(I did as much research on mine statement as you seemed to have done on yours!) biggrin

View Post

22 Sep 2009

Quote by benrums0n
Its about time we started to learn some lessons and our military started to revise their strategic thinking and the values they instil in their personnel.

Sorry, but that is just utter rubbish!
The GOVERNMENT have to revise the strategic thinking.
The GOVERNMENT need to set realistic end states and objectives. Only then can the military use appropriate strategy to achieve the stated objectives.
That solution might be fast air, lots of JDAMs dropped on johnny foreigner or it might be medical supplies to villages and building schools.
But until the GOVERNMENT sets out a realistic endstate, the military will keep boots on the ground, and a war footing attitude and will soldier on accordingly.
As for the getting slaughtered bit, IEDs are the price we pay for both keeping a footprint on the ground, and beating the Taliban in every combat engagement they have ever been in. The Taliban know they can't out fight us, so they resort to guerilla tactics. That's just the nature of the beast, and has nothing to do with our military's "attitude or values!"
And no equipment improvement can stop that.
Yes most squaddies want to get stuck in. We would be a cr@p army if we didn't. It would be like a fireman training for years to put out fires, and not ever wanting to put one out for real. We want to do our job, and most want to do it well, with professionalism and pride. As far as I am concerned they are the values and attitudes I have been instilled with, and if they offend you, well, that's your right.
But like all rights in this country, they were paid for by a military carrying out the orders of the GOVERNMENT of the day, under the belief that they were just and legal.
Going back to your comment I have quoted:
Take a visit to Selly Oak Hosital, or Wootton Bassit and repeat you views. I'm sure you would find one or two people who would love to discuss "their values" with you!

View Post

Forum