Monday, 30 September 2013

Another One Bites The Dust

Oh how times have changed.  I can remember my father, a staunch Labour supporter, describing rallies or hustings he'd attended and how he judged the politicians by the manner in which they handled those who were in disagreement with their views. 

In those days 'security' wasn't called to remove objectors. Politicians argued their point and used their skills to reduce any tension.  Today's politicians don't even have to do that.  They just give the nod to a 'heavy' and low and behold their critic vanishes.

Retired officers, Joe Eastwood and Ian Brazier, accused the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond, of betraying their regiment yesterday - the first day of the Tory Party conference. The BBC reports their removal was due to their refusal to sit down when asked by the Defence Secretary. 

The two men were complaining about the plans to disband the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.  This is a regiment which came into being in the 1950s.  Most ex-military have an attachment and pride in their regiment all their lives but few of today's politicians understand the intensity of such attachments.

One particular of Col Brazier's rant caught my attention.  It was the fact that the colonel had written to Mr Hammond several times but had not received a reply. Why do we allow our paid representatives to ignore our communications?  I hear, all too often, that it's not worth contacting politicians because they seldom respond.

Philip Hammond's statement laying the blame for the disbanding firmly on the Army's leaders is an opt out.  It's well known that the Army heid bummers were told to reduce their full-time soldiers by X millions of pounds and arguments have been flying around for a considerable time as senior officers tried to protect their own.

Sadly, Col Brazier and his colleagues will lose. Just a few years ago thousands took to the streets in Scotland in an attempt to save some of Scotland's historic regiments, but their protests were in vain. The 2nd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers is just a continuation of a long term plan to reduce UK Forces to a shadow of what was once a great defence force. 

This is a further attempt to make our forces more 'palatable'. A disgraceful effort to hide the ravages of war.  The reason for most wars is because politicians fail to do their jobs. Let them feel the shame of their failures.


JRB said...

How very apt is your first sentence, it says it all - Oh how times have changed.

Sadly today’s politicians no longer talk ‘to people’, rather they talk ‘over people’ intent solely in getting their carefully structured sound bite across.

Long gone are the days of political hustings, where MPs had to justify their arguments.
Today’s party conferences are but mere freak shows. Staged entirely to preach to a few sycophants and to allow a few MPs to strut, preen and preach their platitudes in front of an obsequious audience.

As for the military their fate is sealed, they remain forever the plaything of ambitious politicians.

The 2nd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers is regrettably already under sentence.
But it is worth noting that they were formed in the 50’s, from the amalgamation of three very historic regiments of fusiliers.
The red over white hackle we see in the picture was a unique battle honour won in the 18th centaury and singled out for special royal approval by King George IV

We would do well to remember from such history that since the 1700s the red over white hackle of the fusiliers has stood in the defence of this country.

Joe Public said...

Could it be an English conspiracy, to weaken Scotland's defences, post independence?? ;-;

Radical Rodent said...

It could all be part of a grand plan to dismantle the entire country that business and politicians seem to have been intent on since at least WW2 - of which, the "independence" (and if you believe that, you'll believe anything; it will just become another small region of the EU) of Scotland plays its own small part.

Demetrius said...

I believe that the Kray brothers were conscripted into the Fusiliers but alas deserted. Their contribution to the debate might have been interesting. The size of the Army has gone below an effective strength, the Defence of the Realm is now a minor policy area. We could pay a high price for this.

Edward Spalton said...

We have seen regiments amalgamated and amalgamated again over the years, like the Fusiliers. This may well just be pure cheese-paring but the previous reorganisation was specifically to match British military formations with the "Battle Groups" favoured by current European thinking.

Whilst they were at it, the Labour government awarded the biggest contract for army lorries ever to MAN Fahrzeuge
to demonstrate its European credentials and bought the Pinzgauer Vector (which came to be known as "the coffin on wheels") to replace the inadequate Snatch Landrovers. The Pinzgauer had no blast deflecting hull and the driver actually sat over a wheel arch! But hey! It was European! Wasn't it great?

They have at last retained some mine protected vehicles now. They had them previously but got rid of them before they went to Iraq, Afghanistan etc.
The story is in full detail on Richard North's Defence of the Realm and blog.

subrosa said...

I should have put a link to the history of the Fusiliers JRB. My apologies.

Many interested in military history will remember. I doubt if the general public will though. Sadly.

subrosa said...

Oh I certainly think the loss of the Scottish regiments was all to do with that Joe.

subrosa said...

I think it was later than that Radical Rodent - more in Maggie Thatcher's era when the serious planning began. The Scots were getting too mouthy in the 70s.

subrosa said...

Demetrius, you do contribute some intriguing facts. :)

A very high price indeed and fortunately I won't be here to experience it.

subrosa said...

We have Edward but not to the extent of recent years.

I agree with you that's it's associated with the EU.

Thanks for the detail about hardware. I hope others read R North's blogs.

Radical Rodent said...

Ah, Subrosa, you may have mistaken my message. I was not talking about the break-up of the United Kingdom but the dismantling of the entire country. Look at the gross mismanagement during the 1950s and 60s, the rise of union power (aided and abetted by management? Could management truly have been as incompetent as demonstrated? How about the bizarre handling by the various governments?), and the destruction of virtually all manufacturing on this country. Micro-economies such as Switzerland and Singapore may be able to thrive on service industries (a purported Phony Bliar dream for us), but larger economies need production; the UK seems to have just enough of that to pay the taxes that fill the troughs of the politicos.

If I could actually work out WHY the “leaders” want to destroy the UK, I might be able to make more sense of it.

Anonymous said...

I haven't visited your excellent blog in awhile. I am going to add you to the side bar (your stats are about to go through the ceiling!)

On a more serious note I had a dear friend once and when we were rather new to each other, I said you know I am Scot and Irish. He said wow I am sorry to hear that, I am just Irish.

What I really wanted to point out however, this is not me! Now that my site is taking over the internet, everyone wants to be the real mick.

I am adding Chris Spivey also, not everyone has the cahones to point out the fuhrer had a secret.

The Mickster!


Related Posts with Thumbnails