mac Posted 2 March , 2006 Share Posted 2 March , 2006 Graham Reading beteen the lines I think you are not a happy light bunny !!!! You are quite right recruiting down here has always been slow, but it has not always been one way traffic. For reasons we cannot pin down a significent amount of Berkshiremen served in the Royal Scots Fusileers during the great war. In my time we took on a lot of Welsh lads when the South Wales Borderers and Welch Regiment amalgamated in 69. It was a big shock to them but they soon integrated into the mob, maybe work in the Jungles of British Honduras and grief on the streets of Derry and Belfast moulded them in. Many of them attend our reunions to this day. I would take you back even further than 40 years, my research of the Berks and Wilts between the wars show that a significent number joined both regiments from Birmingham. If you look at the land makeup of both counties at that time it was all sheep and cows with very few built up areas. It must be said that those from the two conunties that did join up were very sound (Maybe a little slow, but sound). When I served we were very proud of our county connections and I can assure you the anger you display is more than mirrored down here in 'Swedeland'. Which ever way you look at it is is angry but supportive folk like us that will support the new mob, but NEVER letting them forgetting where they came from. One of the best Infantry units to come out of the South was the Middlesex Regiment, they became the 4th Queens and were chopped shortly after, I think the same happened to the 4th Light Infantry formerly the Durham light infantry one, if not the finest to come from the North, so loyalty counts for nothing. Don't forget most British Regiments (Both North and South) in particular in days of Yore consisted of Irishmen or in this day and age Fijians. Keep banging the drum......Sorry your lot don't use them, nor will we soon. Cheers MAC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staffsyeoman Posted 3 March , 2006 Share Posted 3 March , 2006 Looks like the Green Jackets come out quite well from this amalgamation Yours aye OxfordYeoman Not half as well as the Maroon Machine (Parachute Regiment) - as usual. Now, remind me what regiment the Chief of the General Staff is from, again? Army Catering Corps as was? No, I didn't think so... For my money, 'The Rifles' is such a lame name, notwithstanding its pedigree. It should be the something Rifles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 3 March , 2006 Author Share Posted 3 March , 2006 Staffsyeoman, so I'm not the only one who thinks that "The Rifles" is an odd name. A bit more imagination might have come up with something more meaningful and memorable but that seems not to have been applied too liberally to the amalgamation so why should the name be any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob B Posted 3 March , 2006 Share Posted 3 March , 2006 The Rifles is a strange name as is the Royal Scottish Regiment, but its the Maroon machine running the show, the Paras will soon be the oldest regiment and any one created after 1940(ish) will be junior to them. Its their bid to become The 1st of Foot having got rid of the Royal Scots in the process! I am sorry, as much as we bleat and protest the changes will go on as it is all music to Reid and Ingrams ears, it means money savings and the end of those elitist names-It will be the Guards next as it is it's miraculous that they have survived thus far! Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 3 March , 2006 Author Share Posted 3 March , 2006 And I wonder what names they will come up with for them! The mind boggles! In the light of the above perhaps they'll just call them "The Guards" and leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob B Posted 3 March , 2006 Share Posted 3 March , 2006 No squirrel "The Guards" is far too elitist we must think of something that will totally denigrate them how about The Ceremonial Regiment-I think that removes any vestage of a past or heritage! To be abreviated as CRAP-Ceremonial Regiment Aides to Politicians. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 3 March , 2006 Author Share Posted 3 March , 2006 Do I detect a slight anti-guards bias? Remove the definite article and just call them "Guards" thus removing any "prestige" that this may infer? Probably be "Her Majesty's Regiment of Foot Guards" or something similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob B Posted 3 March , 2006 Share Posted 3 March , 2006 No anti Guards feeling this end. I served in the Guards run Company at IDB in the 80's and felt very at home there. My view was that there are people who would want to remove all traces and links to elitism and class hence the Ceremonial Regiment tag. It will be a sad day, but the thin edge of the wedge is in the traditional Regimental system and that change is here to stay. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 3 March , 2006 Author Share Posted 3 March , 2006 RobB, Sorry if I caused any offence. You are of course correct. The Regimental system has been maligned and messed about with so much that any reference to umpteen years of history, loyalty, duty and sacrifice has been totally eroded from the new names. Those responsible have no concept of tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob B Posted 3 March , 2006 Share Posted 3 March , 2006 No offence taken. I suppose I have become hacked off with all things PC and the need to change everything. I read that applicants for Scottish regiments were being phoned up and told they would no longer have a choice in what Regiment they would be posted into so a number have said S*D it we won't join after all. Woops the recruitment figures start looking worse than they did before! Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 3 March , 2006 Share Posted 3 March , 2006 Do I detect a slight anti-guards bias? Remove the definite article and just call them "Guards" thus removing any "prestige" that this may infer? Probably be "Her Majesty's Regiment of Foot Guards" or something similar. How about we go to the logical conclusion and call the The Republican Guard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeppoSapone Posted 3 March , 2006 Share Posted 3 March , 2006 How about we go to the logical conclusion and call the The Republican Guard? Republican Guards who are concerned with the security of the monarch? Security Guards would be more apt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 3 March , 2006 Share Posted 3 March , 2006 Republican Guards who are concerned with the security of the monarch? Security Guards would be more apt! How long are we going to have a monarch, Beppo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeppoSapone Posted 3 March , 2006 Share Posted 3 March , 2006 How long are we going to have a monarch, Beppo? We will probably have a monarch for the rest of your, or my, lifetime Steven. Not because the basic idea has any worth, but because we would have to have a President instead. I used to be a Republican, but am not one any more. Two words changed my mind - "President Thatcher". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 3 March , 2006 Share Posted 3 March , 2006 If I'd ever contemplated it, the words "President for life Tony" do it for me And J S Mill wasn't right about everything, you know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeppoSapone Posted 3 March , 2006 Share Posted 3 March , 2006 If I'd ever contemplated it, the words "President for life Tony" do it for me And J S Mill wasn't right about everything, you know! Maybe not, but he was right about that Steven. I think I agree with you about "President for life". Anyone fit to rule would not dream of doing so. The fact that anybody wants to be a politician says to me that they are not worthy of the task. All politics is personal politics, but we have been duped into this "representative democracy" thing. You would not ask someone else to go to the toilet for you. Why ask someone else to represent you in the political arena? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 4 March , 2006 Share Posted 4 March , 2006 Beppo - this probably deserves its own thread in Skindles, but....the reason i got involved in politics is because it does matter. No, I wouldn't ask someone else to go to the toilet for me, but actually that's not a sensible analogy. I'm a councillor because (in my opinion) someone has to take decisions. You want your bins emptied, your streets cleaned, your street lights to work. If there weren't people to 'arrange' these things, they wouldn't happen. I do agree that 'party' politics has no place in local government - there are a lot of things i agree with other parties on (and disagree with my party, actually), but sadly it is the only way I could ever see of getting elected. If you wouldn't want someone else to represent you in the political arena, then why not stand yourself in May? Frankly, I am appalled at the levels of indifference in politics - an election where the governing party receives the votes of fewer than 20% of the electorate is - frankly - ghastly, and president for life might not be pushing the realms of fantasy as far as we might think. Way off topic now, so I'll stop....but I am a (small time) politician because it is important to offer different ways of getting the bins emptied, or the street swept - or of conducting international affairs or my children's education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeppoSapone Posted 4 March , 2006 Share Posted 4 March , 2006 Beppo - this probably deserves its own thread in Skindles, but....the reason i got involved in politics is because it does matter. No, I wouldn't ask someone else to go to the toilet for me, but actually that's not a sensible analogy. I'm a councillor because (in my opinion) someone has to take decisions. You want your bins emptied, your streets cleaned, your street lights to work. If there weren't people to 'arrange' these things, they wouldn't happen. I do agree that 'party' politics has no place in local government - there are a lot of things i agree with other parties on (and disagree with my party, actually), but sadly it is the only way I could ever see of getting elected. If you wouldn't want someone else to represent you in the political arena, then why not stand yourself in May? Frankly, I am appalled at the levels of indifference in politics - an election where the governing party receives the votes of fewer than 20% of the electorate is - frankly - ghastly, and president for life might not be pushing the realms of fantasy as far as we might think. Way off topic now, so I'll stop....but I am a (small time) politician because it is important to offer different ways of getting the bins emptied, or the street swept - or of conducting international affairs or my children's education. Steven Well worth a thread of its own. Start one up! Even if I were to sink low enough to stand for election in May, and even if I got elected without a political machine, it would matter not one jot. I would be wasting my time. I would be outvoted at every turn by hacks. A single elected representative can achieve very little against 'jobsworths' 'lobby fodder' and place seekers. We need a total re-jig of the way that this country is run. We need referenda and we need local fora/forums. With the internet this is possible. That is the way democracy was run in Ancient Greece, every free adult male took part. Of course, we no longer have slaves and women have some sort of equality, but you will get my drift. In my opinion, the reason that people are indifferent to politics in its present form is because, with the Poll Tax, Thatcher et al broke the Social Contract. I am not saying that the British people are in the habit of reading political philosophy, what I am saying is that they know a con when they see it. So too with "Tony B Liar", who could have done just about anything with the size of his original majority. He seems, to me anyway, to spend his time attacking the sick and taking us into immoral wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 4 March , 2006 Share Posted 4 March , 2006 OK, OK, you win. I'll stick a thread in Skindles, but don't blame me when the mods pull it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob B Posted 4 March , 2006 Share Posted 4 March , 2006 Steven, All credit to you for standing and looking to make a difference in local politics and your local community. I know the joy of local elections all to well. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Clark Posted 5 March , 2006 Share Posted 5 March , 2006 Graham, I felt compelled to add my own comment... I agree totally with what you say. This dammed bunch of idiots keeps meddling with things they don't understand. They manage to do this by placing their own cronies (yes men) in high places. The Generals, Admirals and Air Marshalls have much to answer allowing politicians to ruin our excellent armed forces (or what's left)... Regards to all Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now