A soldier's tale
Fraser Nelson 2:01pm
This picture is, for me, one of the most haunting images of the Afghanistan war – Sally Thorneloe at her husband’s funeral last week. Lt Col Rupert Thorneloe, who was killed by a Taleban roadside bomb three weeks ago, told me about her when we were on a trip to Iraq last summer. It’s weird, he said, he felt he saw her less working in London than he did on deployment. That day we left for the trip, he had arrived home at 2.30am – and left at 7am. Sally had seen him off. “Did you work as late as he did last night?” she asked the special adviser who had dropped by Rupert’s house to pick him up. But no-one worked like Rupert: 7am to 10pm every day. Then, he was military attaché to Des Browne- a bureaucratic job, but he approached it as if he were fighting on the frontline. I write about him in the News of the World today.
I took plenty notes on that trip. There wasn’t much news, but as there were just six of us – with me the only journalist - it was an invaluable chance to watch, at close quarters, how things were done. I sat in on some of Browne’s briefings, and in others I’d wait outside. For various reasons, I spent some time with Rupert. We shared a room in Kandahar, and while he was never going to tell me anything sensitive – nor would I ask – I learned plenty from him about the military and the battle.
It struck me as rather odd that a soldier like Rupert would throw his heart and soul into a job where the main weapon was a highlighter pen. I asked him about this, and he put me straight. Wars, he said, are lost when the people making the decisions in London have only a foggy understanding about the mission in the field. Such job rotation is crucial, and is partly why the British Army works so well. A soldier will know, in a way no career bureaucrat can, about the value of the flak jackets and other items he’s being asked to approve. And when that soldier heads back to the frontline, he will know the way the Ministry of Defence thinks.
Rupert worked those 75-hour weeks because he saw it as being important as being in theatre. He had the chance to sift through everything that came into the MoD, then point out to Browne what was important and what needed action. Rather than a chore, he saw it as an immense honour and told me that the hours were “the price you pay for working at the very top”. His next assignment, he told me, was to lead his men in Afghanistan and that was “the light at the end of the tunnel”. To a coward like me, this sounded odd: I’d take the safe desk job anytime. But as Sally Thorneloe said at his funeral, he was a born soldier. He felt that being with his men, leading front the front, was where he belonged.
Rupert’s role as MA was to bridge the gap beween civil and military, explaining to a politician (Browne) what mattered. It is becoming horribly clear that, more broadly, this gap is growing – to the extent where it sometimes seems that the two sides don’t understand each other. I have heard civil servants complain that the military speaks in a language of acronyms and can’t make a case beyond ‘give us more troops’. Just last week, I told a general how the Treasury say the cost-benefit case for 2,000 troops not made. He replied by flicking up V sign at Treasury’s direction (itself quite a feat – we were about a mile away from it) and saying that the military only asks if it bloody well needs. You can, perhaps, call it a Mars and Venus thing. But there a cultural chasm is opening up. Dannatt is protesting as he is because he feels other methods have failed him. I sympathise with his cause, but not his methods: you can’t have the military attacking the government. But nor can you have the government abusing the military’s ability to take pain quietly. The relationship is in a bad way.
Part of this is generational. Too few MPs have any experience of the military, which is perhaps the inevitable result of 64 years of peace. Gone are the days when people like Dennis Healey would address the Labour Party conference in army uniform. Now, party confernces can pass with scarcely a mention of the war. To talk to the MPs, and many civil servants, it’s as if we’re not at war. We have a huge monument to the Bali nightclub bomb victims in Westminster, for example, right next to the Treasury. But nothing for those who have fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s seems like no one really wants to admit it.
This chasm is very keenly perceived by the Taleban. They know they can’t defeat us in the field, but they also know the soldiers are controlled by politicians who are very different beasts. They think British political consensus will not tolerate casualties, that the West now lack the attention span to achieve anything serious. Fundamentally, they believe the West has no stomach for fighting. That the British soldiers may put everything into the war, but those back at home will not.
Rupert did. He worked as if it were a mission, not just a job. Last month he saw Tom Coghlan from The Times and told him that, ultimately, the Taleban’s only option was to outlast us. The Taleban are betting that those in London don't have the energy or resolve that Rupert showed - on and off the battlefield. He didn't just die for his country, but lived for it too.
Previous
paracelsus
July 19th, 2009 2:14pm Report this commentI think the case for re-instating National Service is growing by the day.
An awareness and appreciation of duty, honour and sacrifice is something of which recent generations have little understanding. This government is a complete disgrace.
Nicholas
July 19th, 2009 2:21pm Report this comment"you can’t have the military attacking the government."
Rubbish. This government deserves attacking on the principle that the military's primary mission is to defend this country against any enemies bent on its destruction. I know of no more dangerous enemy than this Labour government and that includes the Taliban.
I wish that you journalists would think outside the box and show some gumption instead of succumbing to the Stockholm Syndrome as a result of too much proximity to the cosy conventions of Westminster and the "modern" age.
It is the stifling mediocrity, the slavery to relatively recent convention and the inability to understand historical parallels that condemn us to repeat the mistakes of the past. In the present situation this means letting New Labour rape and plunder the country with highly dubious and dangerous national socialist policies because we are all too frightened, meek and emasculated to understand that fulfilling historical destiny means taking risks and thwarting conventions. I refer you to Nelson and Napoleon's "whiff of grapeshot".
Would Von Stauffenberg have said "Oh, dear. As a military man I cannot be seen to be attacking the government."?
"But this isn't Nazi Germany!" the useful idiots bleat. Well, watch this space.
Plato-Says
July 19th, 2009 2:58pm Report this commentGreat tribute Fraser - thanks
Verity
July 19th, 2009 3:22pm Report this commentR.I.P. Lt Col Rupert Thorneloe.
My heartfelt condolences to his grieving family.
One Worlderism creep is destroying our armed services. We shouldn't fight with anyone. Everyone should be nice and buy peace baskets while singing 'Kumbaya'. But this doesn't flatten out hero fantasies in morons who have never held a gun and never been in a real confrontation.
I speak, of course, of Tony Blair and his posturing when he visited the troops. He was always photographed walking in front of a group of officers, both hands held slightly out from his sides, as if poised for hair-trigger action, like Gary Cooper walking down the empty street in High Noon. He was absolutely despicable. The only reason he was safe was that there were alert men around him who knew how to aim and fire.
Peter from Maidstone
July 19th, 2009 4:16pm Report this commentThe armed forces are not a bunch of mercenaries, we haven't paid for them so we can expend them as we wish. They are part of us, and so have an absolute right to participate in the political and democratic discourse.
Fraser you are 100% wrong to say that the military should not attack the government. It certainly cannot be left to spineless journalists who hide behind cosy relationships with 'sources'.
If Dannat should not be protesting at the deaths caused directly by political incompetence then journalists should be, but you are not. Little pieces in the Spectator are no substitute for a universal campaign on behalf of our troops. But there isn't one, so of course the Generals must speak up. Men are dying every day and are not being heard or represented - that is the real democratic deficit.
I support him all the way. And I know that most people do. It's time that journalists and opposition politicians caught up with the rest of us.
Barbara
July 19th, 2009 4:18pm Report this commentInterestingly, it is von Stauffenberg's son who is leading the legal challenge against the Lisbon Treaty in Germany...!
paul holdstock
July 19th, 2009 4:35pm Report this commentthe fundamental decency, integrity, honesty, and patriotism, of such officers is a source of enormous pride for us all.
the complete lack of any decency, integrity, honesty,and patriotism, of this truly hateful government, is something that all who voted for them, must bear, wreathed in shame, within themselves.
Sue
July 19th, 2009 4:36pm Report this comment"you can’t have the military attacking the government."
It is worth re-reading Second Lieutenant Sigfried Sassoon's "A Soldier's Declaration" published in The Times on July 3oth 1917 for precedence.
logdon
July 19th, 2009 5:43pm Report this commentThis is the actual tradition of Britain and Britishness as reality rather than the overblown Dianaesque crap which has crept into our national vocabulary.
Watching both Lt Col Rupert Thorneloe's wife and mother bearing the enormous grief with such stoicism is a lesson to us all.
Not however the BBC who constantly treat this quintessentily quiet and dignified suffering as an outdated anacronism.
Whenever I hear the drone of sneering tones the likes of Dara O'Brien, Hardeep Sing Colie, Alexi Sayle and all the others who have built entire careers on mocking our heritage in favour of that of the flea blown sandpits they so obviously revere makes me feel like joining the licence rebels.
I know only too well how this family feels and it's not easy. Their courage and endurance is a fitting tribute to that of Rupert Thorneloe.
If only our politico's and client institutions could take heed?
Frank P
July 19th, 2009 5:43pm Report this commentNicholas
" ...you can't have the military attacking the government."
The same sentence from Mr Nelson's text hit me between the eyes, too. With a name like Nelson our intrepid hack should not be a political groupie, but name dropping and 'inside track' preening strikes me as being more important to him than exposing this government and the whole feckin' Labour party as inimical to Britain's interests. As for trying to rub some faux active service glory by association with the late lamented Lt Col.Thorneloe ...
Stop it Fraser! Get your nose out of the arses of leftie hacks and current and aspiring NuLab Prime Ministers and ffs refrain from buying access to Brown's cosy briefings by laying off the kind of criticism he deserves. The Scotia Nostra is sure spreads its tentacles; it's time somebody trod on its testicles.
pharbitis
July 19th, 2009 5:54pm Report this comment"you can’t have the military attacking the government."
Why not?
The "govt" consists of Brown - who was not leader of the party at the last election and was not elected by his party to be leader or PM - and a nasty cabal of mediocrities and unelected peers. So the democracy argument fails.
Men like Lt Col Thorneloe, General Dannatt are the true backbone of Britain, not the second-rate spivs on the make in Westminster.The country would rally round any group with integrity and focus on putting this country's interests first - if that is a threat to democracy, the politicos have themselves to blame.
Otherwise an excellent article.
Lions Roar
July 19th, 2009 5:57pm Report this commentMy deepest sympathy for Lt Col Rupert Thorneloe and his family at this time. It is indeed true that our forces have been led by Men who know the needs of their Men and have been unable to push forward in communication back home and in the memory of such Men and Women in our forces all the support now required will be hopefully be met in order to create a positive outcome for the future not only for our soldiers but for the people they are assisting in a liberation against evil, misunderstanding and ignorance.
God bless them all.
Searcher
July 19th, 2009 6:00pm Report this commentA long time ago, the MOD used to be 50-50, civilian and military. Nowadays, the ratio is more like 4-1 (4 civilians to 1 military, that is, for anyone who mught have imagined that it was the other way round). My friend who worked in the MOD told me that it had got to the point where it was almost embarassing to appear at a meeting in uniform. That is the heart of the problem.
And another thing, Fraser, while I'm commenting, re your previous posts. It is easy enough to go to the front line and find soldiers who will say that they have got what they need to do the job. Well, doh!! That is what soldiers do, and thank God for it. If a soldier were inclined to argue whether he should advance or wait for more equipment, then this nation would be Belgian. Or speaking German. It is people in the MOD and the Government (no, seriously) who should be making the call on what is needed to fight any particular war.
Kevyn Bodman
July 19th, 2009 6:03pm Report this comment'you can't have the military attacking the government'.
Quite right, Fraser.
I think I was the only commenter on these pages saying that General Dannatt should have been sacked for publicly opposing government policy on Iraq, and I stand by that.
The government came into power through the ballot box, yes I know they only got 22% of the electorate voting for them but that's the system we've got.
This government will be turfed out through the ballot box.
I oppose the way the police appear to have been supporting NuLab in recent tears. Nearly every commenter here would also oppose that.
Why then would you not oppose the Armed Forces taking an overtly political stance?
It is simply not good enough to base a case on the political colour of the government of the day.
If you think it's OK for the military to attack the government then imagine a government in power that exactly reflects your political views.
Is it still OK for the military to attack the government?
The military must be subservient to civilian authority, and everyone must know that that is the case.
Kevyn Bodman
July 19th, 2009 6:12pm Report this commentMy earlier comment did not mention Lt. Col Thorneloe.
Lest anyone misunderstand my views let me say I believe he was a fine officer, a fine and courageous leader.
The death of any of our soldiers is a tragedy, regardless of rank.
But for me, not all lives are of equal value; I put British lives at the top.
I would like our politicians to affirm that too.
TrevorsDen
July 19th, 2009 6:49pm Report this comment"The Taleban are betting that those in London don't have the energy or resolve "
Which makes the governments decision to needlessly (thats needlessly) put our soldiers in harms way all the more negligent.
They are playing into the Talibans hands by not supplying helicopters and MRAPs that are needed.
Lets not forget the young private killed with Col. Thorneloe. His funeral was the day after. No former Defence Secretary delivering the eulogy, no Prince of Wales, not the same cut glass accents - but the same grief, the same gap in the family.
Both victims of the same lack of government judgement.
Pat
July 19th, 2009 7:14pm Report this commentAs a recently retired soldier with two sons serving, one of whom is due to deploy to Afghanistan I thank General Sir Richard for the care, love and devotion he has for the men and women under his command.
The 'Reverend' as he is known to us soldiers is a man of honour, integrity and self-sacrifice. He hasn't hid behind his men and protected his career like General Mike Jackson. General Dannatt has balls and any suggestion that he should not attack the Government when the defence of this nation is being done on the cheap by this disgraceful Prime Minister is beyond contempt.
Enjoy your holiday Fraser but take a little time out to reflect and remember all of those lads and lasses sweltering in the heat of Afghanistan not knowing if they will survive the road convoy or how they will cope if injured. And spare a thought for their families who dread each news broadcast or knock on the door.
"You can't have the military attacking the government' is the sort of phrase used by those who have never worn uniform or been under attack for hours without proper equipment, ammunition and food and water.
'Bollocks Bob' Ainsworth and you have much in common. You both talk utter bollocks.
Dave B
July 19th, 2009 7:49pm Report this commentOne MOD suggestion I read, I forget where, was that the ratio of civil servants to armed forces personnel at the MOD should be weighted more towards armed forces personnel, and they should wear uniform rather than civvies when working in Whitehall.
Ivy Eileen
July 19th, 2009 8:11pm Report this commentParacelsus makes a good point.
This Government has hidden behind the skirts of the Military's traditional loyalty. I have a friend working in the MoD who has admitted privately over many years that the Treasury has been underfunding them. Brown at last week's PMQs was deplorable - classic apples and pears, when he claimed an increase of 2,000 in troops and 60% in helicopters ....and what is it 60% of ? .. otherwise its obfuscation.
There was a more poignant picture, I think, in The Times ... of Mrs Thorneloe standing between her husband's parents with her eyes closed and each hand clenched, willing herself to hold back the tears.
Carly
July 19th, 2009 8:31pm Report this commentI don't agree the military should not attack the government. It's the only way the message gets through to the ordinary person. When the Generals speak out the media have to report it and let the people know how this government have betrayed our forces. Otherwise the media (BBC, Guardian etc) just pump out Labour propaganda day and night.
Jo
July 19th, 2009 8:33pm Report this commentQuite honestly Fraser I would prefer the Military men in charge than Brown. I would like to see Cameron get someone in the shadow cabinet with military experience, maybe from the Lords.
Nicholas
July 19th, 2009 8:58pm Report this commentRe Sue's post:-
"I am making this statement as an act of willful defiance of military authority, because I believe that the war is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it.
"I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers. I believe that this war, upon which I entered as a war of defense and liberation, has now become a war of aggression and conquest. I believe that the purposes for which I and my fellow-soldiers entered upon this war should have been so clearly stated as to have made it impossible to change them, and that, had this been done, the objects which actuated us would now be attainable by negotiation.
I have seen and endured the sufferings of the troops, and I can no longer be a party to prolong these sufferings for ends which I believe to be evil and unjust.
I am not protesting against the conduct of the war, but against the political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed.
On behalf of those who are suffering now I make this protest against the deception which is being practiced on them; also I believe that I may help to destroy the callous complacence with which the majority of those at home regard the continuance of agonies which they do not share, and which they have not sufficient imagination to realize."
Siegfried Sassoon July 1917
Ray
July 19th, 2009 9:15pm Report this commentI'm currently reading "Dunkirk: Retreat to Victory" by Major General Julian Thompson (who commanded 3 Commando Brigade in the Falklands War).
It is a superb dissection of an epic campaign. However, if nothing else, it proves that:-
a) Most armies fight the present war with the strategy and tactics of the preceding one.
b) Once battle is joined, the British Army will often find itself hamstrung by the earlier parsimony of its politicians.
c) Despite all this, the sheer courage and resourcefulness of its officers and men in the field somehow saves the day.
Deja vu!
Swiss Bob
July 19th, 2009 9:38pm Report this commentI think you're making the mistake of conflating the military commenting on government policy amd the military commenting on being killed by government incompetence and international grandstanding.
I can only agree with Pat.
Verity
July 19th, 2009 9:49pm Report this comment"I would like to see Cameron get someone in the shadow cabinet with military experience, ..."
You forget, he had an honourable and seasoned military man in the shadow cabinet, and he sacked him, over his mobile phone. Patrick Mercer.
I hope when the Tories are led by someone with real prime ministerial potential, William Hague or John Redwood, that Mercer would be invited to rejoin the shadow cabinet.
TGF UKIP
July 19th, 2009 10:09pm Report this commentNot just the Government, the military should feel absolutely free to attack, but the Cameron Tory "Opposition" too.
An Opposition that has not only promised to prioritize "International Development" over making good Labour's neglect of the Armed Forces but has at its head a clique who wish to keep any sort of internal military voice at a greater distance than arm's length. Just ask Patrick Mercer and then look at the assortment of wets, wimps and crooks that comprise the current Tory Front Bench.
The real Tory disgrace, though, is Fox who should have resigned in a shower of sparks and shit over a year ago.
Nicholas
July 19th, 2009 10:35pm Report this commentKevyn Bodman: "Why then would you not oppose the Armed Forces taking an overtly political stance?"
Whilst I would tend to agree with you in normal circumstances I believe these are extraordinary times. I no longer view it as a question of party politics but as simple good vs evil. Too many totalitarian regimes, and the majority of them on the left, have crept in under one pretence and then imposed a quite different reality. Look to your history. And in the present case they have the weight of a very sinister EU centrality behind them.
It is precisely the complacency of "it couldn't happen here" or an unwise and naive belief that this government has no hidden aims which allows the greatest danger to flourish. Quite simply this government has got away with murder and has not been properly held to account. It is a criminal government with a tarnished record of unbelievably scandalous proportions which in another time and age would have caused it to fall long before now.
If anyone still believes this gang of marxist subversives will "do the right thing" or respect the conventions then I feel sorry for them. New Labour's greatest deceit has been their extremism in discrediting and dismantling our proven institutions whilst pretending to be benign and centre-left. They have constructed a web of radical left-wing ideology that permeates almost every aspect of our lives, is based on the usual socialist falsehoods of "threats" and "enemies" and is imposed through coercion and the fear to speak out against it.
Cameron hasn't got a clue and most of the people in his shadow cabinet are chumps who think they are engaged in some form of gentlemanly, parliamentary cricket. They have nothing with which to counter the practiced subversion of New Labour and the acolytes of its church except the hope of a favourable general election result bringing them to power. Since they have not had to fight for the things we hold dear they can hardly be expected to uphold them - or save them. They have made no direct appeal to the people over the burning issues which have been made very clear to them. Instead they too practice a deceit, falling in with the ghastly political correctness that has stifled the truth for too long. Timid and terrified that they might do or say something which brings the approbation of the vociferous leftist bloc in the media, the new "establishment" and the commentariat.
The line between a soldiers duty to obey and to disobey is a fine one and has been argued over for centuries. The assumption that blind obedience to civil government is always warranted is, I suggest, a dangerous one and there are historical precedents to demonstrate the folly of it. Had the German military risen against Hitler's regime earlier the world might have been spared much suffering but, at the time, the soldiers with doubts were restrained by just such conventions as you present here. The move of the police hierarchy to the left wing and an overtly political stance, which you correctly suggest is viewed with disgust, actually lends to the argument for military intervention before it is too late. The sad situation prevailing is Cameron's Chamberlain to Brown's Hitler. Wagging a finger and tut-tutting at a man completely without regard for truth, decency or integrity and who is surrounded by cronies of similar vein, all determined to cling to power at any price, come what may, and to so entrench themselves with legislation, constitutional "reform" and the fostered climate of paranoia that they can never be dislodged.
TrevorsDen
July 19th, 2009 10:40pm Report this comment"I believe that this war, upon which I entered as a war of defense and liberation, has now become a war of aggression and conquest." --- Sassoon was clearly loopy when he wrote (was pressed to write) this.
Belgium was 90% occupied by Germany at the time. Mr Sassoon did not see fit to explain how leaving Belgium in that state could be squared with his avowed stance.
Archie
July 20th, 2009 5:52am Report this commentWe obviously lost a first-class man in Lt. Col. Thorneloe. My condolences to his family. Reference Gen. Dannatt: how does Cameron now feel, I wonder, about sacking Mercer. One action alone which will deprive the Tories of my vote.
logdon
July 20th, 2009 11:12am Report this commentFrazer, I think the overarching message here is that the gloves are off. No more Mr Nice Guy public, who have had it up to their ears. They've had enough and the leash is getting very frayed.
For too long a kind of British trust and passivity has held sway. We’ve muddled along in the forelorn hope that they know what they’re doing. That it’s all in our best interests. But little by little, as people have noticed that the concept of Britishness and fealty to our national interest is being trashed in a huge socialist bonfire of the traditions, the old spirit of Dunkirk and a kind of circling the waggons around what’s left is taking hold.
The old rule book is being ripped and torn apart by self serving imbeciles to be replaced by a hectoring soviet state collection of edicts which bear not one scintilla of relation to our past and the glorious achievements of our tiny island.
They and their slimy outreach tentacles of local govermnent have done their best to root out patriotism, national pride and in attempting to replace that with some formless goo of multiculturalism have actualy alienated huge swathes of our country.
It is abundantly clear that Labour has zero respect for deference or the concept of duty. They then insult our collective intelligences at each turn with their blatant evasions and deceit. When challenged they mount massive and punitive offensives designed to destroy opponents. Classic tactics of a totalitarian state.
Brown and his clowns now try this with the Army. On the one hand they use our soldiers to shore up their own pathetic ego’s yet will not fund or provide adequate means and safety to the troops who are doing this work for them. And, lets not forget have an obligation of duty of care towards.
However the tipping point has arrived. Andrew Niel pulverised Bill Rammel, exposing the lies of troop and helicopter numbers and a Select Committee virtualy accused Brown of dishonesty and evasion last week over this very issue.
The worm is turning. If Labour can gleefully ride roughshod over a modus operandi which has served us for decades the only way of fighting back is to reverse the tactic. This is precisely what Dannat has done.
He is merely fighting fire with fire.
PS: Sacking Mercer for speaking a truth which was backed by his own men of all races was a Cameron low. In pandering to political correctness over good judgment he displayed the obeisance to the hollowness of gesture politics we expect from Labour and he should be thoroughly ashamed. Time to grow a spine, Dave.
The Bellman
July 20th, 2009 12:22pm Report this commentFraser: In those "64 years of peace", a British soldier has been killed in action in every one except 1968. The absence of military experience on the contemporary government benches is not for want of opportunity.
I believe the example of Eric Joyce MP is instructive. During a wholly unremarkable military career, the then-Major Joyce achieved notoreity in 1998 by writing a pamphlet for the Fabian society decrying the Army's 'old-fashioned' values, describing it as racist, sexist and discriminatory. His insights, influenced no doubt by the fact that he was denied a commission in The Black Watch, the regiment in which he had served as a soldier, were lauded by Labour politicians, and, on leaving the Army, he was selected as a Labour candidate. He initially resisted calls to resign, saying that Queen's Regulations were 'a convention', and not legally enforceable. That tells you everything you need to know about the modern Labour party's soldierly instincts - and a great deal more about its ideological prejudices about the rest of the great institutions it has vandalised in the name of 'progress'.
Mr Joyce was also the first MP to claim cumulatively more than GBP1m.
logdon
July 20th, 2009 1:44pm Report this commentFrazer, I think the overarching message here is that the gloves are off. No more Mr Nice Guy public, who have had it up to their ears. They've had enough and the leash is getting very frayed.
For too long a kind of British trust and passivity has held sway. We’ve muddled along in the forelorn hope that they know what they’re doing. That it’s all in our best interests. But little by little, as people have noticed that the concept of Britishness is being trashed in a huge socialist bonfire of the traditions, the old spirit of Dunkirk and a kind of circling the waggons around what’s left is taking hold.
The old rule book is being ripped and torn apart by self serving imbeciles to be replaced by a hectoring soviet state collection of edicts which bear not one scintilla of relation to our past and the glorious achievements of our tiny island.
They and their slimy outreach tentacles of local govermnent have done their best to root out patriotism, national pride and in attempting to replace that with some formless goo of multiculturalism have actualy alienated huge swathes of our country.
It is abundantly clear that Labour has zero respect for deference or the concept of duty. They then insult our collective untelligences at each turn with their blatant evasions and deceit. When challenged they mount massive and punitive offensives designed to destroy opponents. Classic tactics of a totalitarian state.
Brown and his clowns now try this with the Army. On the one hand they use our soldiers to shore up their own pathetic ego’s yet will not fund or provide adequate means and safety to the troops who are doing this work for them.
However the tipping point has arrived. Andrew Niel pulverised Bill Rammel and a Select Committee virtualy accused Brown of lying last week over this very issue.
The worm is turning. If Labour can gleefully ride roughshod over a modus operandi which has served us for decades the only way of fighting back is to reverse the tactic. This is precisely what Dannat has done.
He is merely fighting fire with fire.
Back to top