And don’t say Churchill straight off, like it is an undeniable truth. He was hated by miners – the Welsh especially – after turning the police and soldiers against strikers, and voicing the opinion that machine guns should be turned on them, trade unionists, and the working class. He was against sufferage, deciding that social order would collapse if women were given the vote and were their views not perfectly represented by their fathers, husbands, brothers and sons?
Churchill was one of the engineers behind the disasterous Gallipoli landings, and dragged allied intervention in the Russian Civil War on long after it was obvious that it would never succeed. He ordered mustard gas to be used against the Kurds after his previous attempts to quell their uprising (using only 10-15% of the troops recommended by his generals) failed, and he advocated its use against any uncivilised tribes. He was against the break up of the British Empire, citing views that today would be labled outrageously racist, and keen to use extreme military action to destroy the independance movement in India in the 1930s. 2.5 million Bengalis died in the famine of 1943 when the British military adopted, at Churchills behest, a scorched earth policy to prevent the Japanese from progressing any further west into India.
He used the opinion of only experienced career people: a newer or younger mans suggestion would be pointedly ignored but the same suggestion from an experienced civil servant or officer would be taken without query, sometimes with the embarrassed younger man present, yet always attributed to the senior; this was unless the advice went against those of Churchills own friends and confidants, of course. And he thoroughly enjoyed being centre of attention: witness, for example, his bringing a photographer along to the Sidney Street Siege in 1911, when he was home secretary, to capture him staring at the building the anarchists were holed up in.
This is not to say that he wasn’t the right man for the job in 1940… – Nermal

A fair bit last night and this morning. – Nermal

I fully believe that if someone is suspected of terrorism, be they Irish Nationalist, Islamic fundamentalist, Nazi, lunatic Christian or whatever, you HAVE to take action. No sane and responsible government can allow someone suspected of being a terrorist to walk the streets. OK, so sometimes intelligence gets it wrong, but with terror, it really is better safe than sorry. Would you rather have one man behind bars, or allow him to go free with the slightest chance he’ll strap a bomb to himself and jump on the number nine bus with your wife and kids? That’s not right-wing thinking that’s just plain common sense! And my support for Thatcher has nothing to do with it!

In South Africa, being locked up was frequently dependant on the colour of the skin and political views. In Portugal it was for toasting freedom. In Russia it was for having a bible. In Chile and Argentina (and other places I am sure) it was for political views and would frequently cost the miscreant their life. In other places it was for trade union membership, for not agreeing with whoever was in control, for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, for not having a face that fitted, for protesting about corruption in local government and/or national government, for not having enough money to pay the bribes, and even for no reason at all. That was inprisonment, torture, starvation, beatings, sleep deprevation, death: all the things that no civilised country would apparently like to be thought to tolerate, and would protest about in others.
You say we can’t risk having a suspected terrorist walking the streets, but they are merely suspected – not convicted. I dare say that you would advocate having suspected shoplifters locked up too, or suspected tresspassers, speeders, jaywalkers, and then its just a short step to thought crime and criminalising people because of what they might do. After all, its is just common sense, yes? – Nermal

The RAF probably started issuing parachutes to aircrew in the early 1920s. There was no Fleet Air Arm at the time. Aircaft flying off Royal Navy ships were flown by RAF aircrew. The Royal Navy only regained control over its naval aviation assets in the 1930s by which times parachutes were standard issue.

Have another look at your history book. It may well have been the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force until 1939 but there were naval officers flying as well as air force. The sea lords provided the ships whilst the RAF provided the ‘planes, and the chance to be at the forefront of naval aviation by the start of the 2nd world war was drastically set back, but a fair proportion of the crews were navy – my great grandfather included. – Nermal

What colour is sound? – Nermal

I remember a teacher demonstrating force or something by using a bow and arrow. Yes, the inevitable did happen and the arrow merrily sailed through a dividing wall and embedded itself in a mobile blackboards frame. Oh how we laughed – Nermal

Mark V, come on mate, you know me better than that (or come to think of it, you might not know me at all :rolleyes: )

It IS a Walrus and here’s the proof – I thought I’d better take a picture of the data plate as this subject just keeps on coming round. Note the first line of text, you can clearly see, ‘Walrus’. They just got the top line wrong, that’s all. Eat that, Nermal! 🙂

Good grief, are you serious? It is a Seagull, just as the sign says: it was purchased by the Royal Australian Navy as a Seagull and the fact that it says ‘Walrus’ in the blurb just shows that you shouldn’t believe everything you read… – Nermal