Daily Fail:Labour shadow Foreign Secretary praises calls for British Army to be replaced with a 'gender-balanced human security force'.

[Dan_Brown]

Non-article, but had to post

"suggested replacing Britain’s Armed Forces with a ‘gender-balanced human security’ corps."

Lisa Nandy praised report claiming 'UK no longer a great power'

Lisa Nandy, 41, has faced ridicule after praising a report which suggested replacing the British Armes Forces with a 'gender-balanced human security' corps and claimed 'UK is no longer a great power'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[vim_fuego]

Yet another reason why her party will continue to be hopeless in opposition.

 

[Light Blue Warrior]

Nandy displaying her credentials as an utter fooking dicklet of the unelectable party yet again.

Pricks like her don't understand that there's a whole world of nasty out there which pretty much sums up the world view that the rest of her muppet organisation has.

C0ckmangoes, the lot of em

 

[Barch]

Yet another reason why her party will continue to be hopeless in opposition.

But the most powerful man in the world is someone that they can look up to and follow.

I can't wait to see which of his policies that get incorporated into US law will be to the liking of the Labour supporters around this neck of the woods.

 

[Oldstacker]

But St Jezza told us that all that nastiness can be resolved by negotiation and talking to people..... Trouble is, some people actually believed him.

Personally, I'm with whoever (sometimes ascribed to George Orwell or Winston Churchill) actually said "Good people sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Having served in the mob (and hence been one of those rough men) and had some 60 years of life i am more convinced than ever that St Jezza was wrong and that the rough men are still required.

 

[Allflapnofly]

Leetha ith tho thexy......oh yeth.....

 

[Stevienics]

Poor Keith. It's like marrying into a family of retarded delinquents

 

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

Oh, if Justintime was still about. However it is the Daily Fail and no doubts some of it is bull. A non news story.

 

[busby1971]

Is it not about being part of a credible threat to keep rogue nations in check?

Personally I think world justice took a hit when Russia annexed the Crimea and nothing significant happened.

 

[Oldstacker]

If you get past the Dail Heil hype (which some of you have trouble doing) There is a point there..

Now we are a very little island on our own, yet remain part of NATO do we need a standing offensive military force? why not have a defence force?

The UK is not a global power anymore, despite what certain people think.

We may not be the global military power we once were with a gunboat in every other port, but we still have some political & moral weight in the world and lots of multi-lateral & bi-lateral international agreements that could require a bit of military 'oomph' available at some point - e.g. to deter local inter-state aggression or in a counter-insurgency, counter-terrorismrole. We are working, for example, in Mali at the moment with a French led coalition there. What is meant, anyway, by a purely defensive force? Which bits of the current force capabilities are not capable of being used in a purely defensive manner?

 

[Barch]

In my view a defence force would only be used within the landmass and territorial waters of the UK negating the need and use of long range strike capabilities.

I totally disagree with the idea because as in any competition or conflict a purely defensive system will never win.

 

[Rugby-Jock-Lad]

We NEED a larger Navy. This is the primary protection of the UK, backed up by the RAF for the Home Defence and projection of power abroad. The Army should now be considered the tertiary force (personally I think they should be re-roled to form an Expeditionay Marine Force (not Commando unless trained) with Air/Sea/Land training). RAF Regt to be given back Rapier and be the primary RAF "Army" so to speak with a remit of security/defence force.

 

[Tin basher]

The UK is not a global power anymore, despite what certain people think.

We may still be a member of the big bomb club but the days of empire ended long ago, Britannia no longer rules the waves and the army is relatively small in world terms but the RAF is still awesome obviously.

I watch PMQ's on a regular basis and left the BBC Parliament channel on today whilst pottering about TB Towers. The post PMQ debate was Russia and it's policies etc. There was much moaning and gnashing of teeth from MP's of all sides about the jailing of Alexei Navalny on his return to Russia. Equal amounts of indignation were displayed about the annexing of Crimea, treatment of its citizens etc. They asked what are we to do about Russian boots on the ground in Crimea, about human rights in Crimea etc etc. It seemed to pass them by what we were going to do was absolutely nothing beyond a sending a stern memo perhaps backed up by a strongly worded letter. The days of Empire are gone we are a tiny island just of the coast of France and this delusional "days of empire" thinking belongs in a museum along with biplanes, puttees and muskets.

And breathe

 

[busby1971]

We have no politcal weight or moral weight thanks to the the current government. They have managed to marginalise the UK on the world stage.

Why?

What countries manage to maintain moral weight and global political influence at the same time.

 

[vim_fuego]

We have no politcal weight or moral weight thanks to the the current government. They have managed to marginalise the UK on the world stage.

Depends on what rosette you wear and what you want to believe. No actual evidence to suggest any of that has occurred. We were the first nation to have a conversation with the most powerful man on the globe, still have 16 tridents floating around out there giving us a ticket at the big table, still an influential member of G7, a forerunner in the global response to the pandemic and able to trade with whomever we choose. Not bad if you put your political assignations aside for a second and grab some perspective.

 

[busby1971]

The fairness and openness of the UK is a prized asset and is very much appreciated by other nations, and from what I have experienced we are seen as a trusted partner by most friendly and neutral nations, obviously we have some history in some areas having once had an empire.

Individual politicians and governments will come and go, however, our underlying centre left culture will always be the bedrock of the nations reputation, extremists such as Corbyn and Farage will continue to be rejected by the majority.

 

[Are El]

Must say that it sounds like a really sensible idea to me

 

[Tin basher]

More military PC stuff.

"The Royal Air Force has already made changes, with personnel told to adopt gender-neutral titles if asked by colleagues. Air Force commanders have drawn up a list of more ‘inclusive’ pronouns. It is said to include zie, per and hir as alternatives to he, she, him and her".

WTF is zie, per and hir supposed to mean thought I???? But a quick google reveals this gem of knowledge.

What do zie / hir pronouns mean? | LGBT terms explained | Heckin' Unicorn

Zie / Hir is a set of gender neutral pronouns that some people and/or organisations have adopted.

heckinunicorn.com

Military ranks such as rifleman and guardsman could be scrapped

The Ministry of Defence is considering changing the titles of certain ranks to make them more inclusive by replacing the suffix man with person. The RAF has already instituted such changes.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Oldstacker]

And how, please, does the pronunciation of "hir" differ from "her" and "hirs" from "hers"?

 

[Spearmint]

An MoD spokesman said: ‘There are no current plans to change rank titles or terms.

So another load of old bollocks from the Daily Heil to whip up the faux outrage

I did note that a Female (I'm fairly sure from Birth otherwise it's getting real hard to tell....) Senior Civil Servent I used to work for used the phrase 'Preferred Pronouns: Her / She' in their email signature....

Surely not having that up in lights with every email you send out says exactly the same thing in that you prefer the more traditional pronouns? Does stating such still show solidarity with yet another group feeling marginalised and wanting attention or is it just paying lip service?