snafuBat, guess this was the important part of the post:
All put to the bench by somebody who speaks their language.
The funny handshake and the correct lodge phrase worked into the plea always works wonders, I believe…!;o)
snafuThe knighthood gets my vote
A moderator advocating rewarding an alleged criminal assault?
So it’s okay to assault someone if you happen to disagree with them? :
Oh, come on – surely you know they believe that battered wives also deserve to be beaten, for burning the dinner or looking at them funnily… (Of course in the real world they’d run away from the incident with the ‘nasty’ man beating up the other ‘nasty’ man…)
snafuWiki says:
No. 74 Operational Training Unit RAF
No. 74 OTU was formed in October 1941 at RAF Aqir for army co-operation training and to teach tactical reconnaissance skills in the desert, using the Hawker Hurricane.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Royal_Air_Force_Operational_Training_Units
Taken from RAF Flying Training and Support Units since 1912 by Ray Sturtivant, Air Britain.
Also I shall post this but, as with the above, shall assume you’ve already seen it already:
154 Squadron RAF
The squadron reformed in November 1941 at RAF Fowlmere as a fighter squadron equipped with Spitfire IIAs. It was briefly located in the south west of England then based at RAF Hornchurch. In November 1942 it moved to Gibraltar and Algeria to take part in Operation Torch. On 4 June 1943 it arrived in Malta, it then operated from Palestine and Cyprus. From 23 August 1944 it was based at Fréjus, France providing air cover for the forces that moved north to join those that had landed at Normandy. It was disbanded in Naples on 1 November 1944 but reformed on 16 November 1944 at RAF Biggin Hill to escort bombers and flew Mustangs until it was finally disbanded on 31 March 1945.
It also lists that it was Spitfires (IIa, IIb, Va, Vb, Vc, IX, VIII, VII, in that order) until the Mustang IVs came along in Feb 1945. Presumably your Harvard served with them whilst they were in the Middle East.
snafu10, 11 & 12 Groups were to do the changeover with immediate effect, with the following Groups, in this order, as stocks of paint came available: 13 – 14 – 9 – 82 & 81
The order for the new design roundels was issued on 30-4-42.
Interested in where the Fleet Air Arm came in with this change…?
snafuIt reminds me of that time there were British Army Scorpion tanks driving round Heathrow Airport…
…I never did understand what ‘threat’ they were supposed to counter? But it was just before Gulf War Two.
Remember, the first job before going to war is to ‘sell’ it to your own people.
Silly – they were there in case Saddam… um, did something? Flying the flag, I suppose; making everyone feel that much more secure.
Has having the threat level raised sold anything to you, CD?
ANYTHING which is likely to increase the safety of this country and it’s citizens is to be welcomed and is indeed the first priority of its government.
Indeed, but will the entire UK see it that way? Do you feel safer now, Charlie, than you did before we became severe?
If just raising the threat level one notch increases the safety of this country then why have they waited so long, and why not go all the way to the top? Because, on the whole, raising the threat level does precisely nothing; a few more security people deployed at entry points like airports and ferry ports, a few more armed police, some posters up at railway stations and maybe an advertising campaign to raise awareness and scare a few more people, and more suits scratching their heads, wondering what will happen and where, and worrying about the extra expenditure.
Charlie, you will believe I am trolling – but, seriously, I am not. They have raised the threat level – why? What made them choose now rather than just after the Foley video was publicised, say, or why not wait for something tangible to be found (which they won’t tell us about for security reasons; of course, they might already have that info but, understandably, they won’t tell us that although if this is the case is it fair to lead us all into a false sense of security by telling us there is nothing to worry about?). Just saying that it is a good thing for the security of the country when there is little reason other than vague supposition is doing a small part of the terrorists job for them.
It might, just might, be more to do with the rise of Ebola and they are trying not to let the country panic over that by scaring us with ‘yet another’ terrorist scare…
snafuNot too sure about the split vote benefitting Miliband – his charisma will just soak that up – but it might help rehabilitate the Liberals.
snafuI am sorry Moggy but I have to agree with Charlie.
Me too.
Maybe you can afford to live off one tin of supermarket value baked beans a day for a year so that a wealthy – sorry! expensive barrister can get you off (or as near as, damnit!) a speeding charge but that just smacks of not playing fair. Elitist, maybe, and legal too, but not fair.
snafuThen I guess it is all down to whether you feel confident enough in yourself and in the understanding of others of any such word when you use it!
Were I on the mean streets of Brixton or Handsworth where it is probably the norm then I might feel comfortable, but elsewhere it would be another matter (and I live elsewhere!).
snafuI don’t know. I’m being called a troll by John and (I guess) Charlie since I counter their views; is there a rule against that in the forum code of conduct?
snafuIf enough of the electorate vote for Nigel, UKIP will form the next Govt.
A very deep and thoughtful statement from John that I really cannot disagree with.
Anyone listening to Dead Ringers on Radio 4 on Wednesdays, 18:30? There is a marvellous parody of Farage by Lewis MacLeod as a man pontificating from his bar stool in a pub, this week rambling about encouraging healthy eating by replacing the peanuts behind the bar with fruit so that the picture of the hidden topless model will slowly be revealed and bananas eaten, or something. Also William Hague ringing up a bakery, trying to order an oblong cake with a file in it to be delivered to Andy Coulson, with the woman on the phone informing him that she didn’t think it would be wise to do that, or something.
Very funny.
snafuYou are quite correct about the sausages but the Pakistani-PaIci for short! Before anybody calls racist I refer to Aussie short for Australian,Brit for British
and if a Chinaman is from China,Irish from Ireland why the hell can’t we say a P A K I is from Pakistan without it being termed as racist ? .
Since the term was used as a lazy and offensive reference to all peoples from the Indian subcontinent, and others besides – it is regarded as racist because it is associated with being used in a racist fashion. If you hear someone using that term as a casual reference about somebody, in general conversation, the chances are that one of the first things to come into your mind is a lowering of your opinion about that person; if you use it (or other, similar terms) to the police then you are more likely to encounter a reluctance to pursue your cause (I forget who did the research and when, but the findings apparently demonstrated that it didn’t matter whether the officer was latently racist or not, and was lumped in with a similar reluctance in inner city officers to assist black males making a civil complaint or when they had requested the police to attend an incident).
When Bernard Manning died I clicked on an online video of him performing in a nightclub during, maybe, the early 1970’s and he was almost spraying that word – and others – around in an aggressive and very deliberate way; there was nothing ironic or knowing about it, his use of such language was derogatory and meant as an insult to people from those cultures.
I dare say there will be a deputation along shortly insisting that the word has honourable origins (maybe it has) and should be rehabilitated (um, yeah, good luck with that), but then some people will still define the Chinese as Chinks, every Irishman as Paddy, every Scotsman as Jock, the Germans as Krauts, the Japanese as Nips, etc; you get the picture?
snafuCongrats on the sprog, when he arrives. You do know he’s a he, then…?
Thinking colour is important too. Vulcan would be too big, as would Concorde. Red Fokker triplane ticks colour and shape
Maybe we should have some guidance as to how big the framework for this mobile is expected to be!
I mean, when I was growing up I had a small toy Vulcan bomber, solid and in bright green plastic, (don’t ask, I haven’t seen it in years!) that had a wingspan of probably around 100mm, and there were models of Concorde available in near enough any size you could wish for (again, a yellow plastic one which came out of an Xmas cracker with the lovely choking hazard length of maybe 30mm), so when you say too big are you imagining them all to one scale?
If you are building it yourself there are some exceedingly tiny electric engines around, for models, which might be incorporated into moving the mobile, tiny lights too (word to the wise: my daughter – who arrived nearly two weeks late! – had some dangling dolphins which lit up; unfortunately it was a little on the long side, even when hung from the ceiling, so that when she was able to stand up in her cot she pulled the lower ones off…). Of course lullabies are traditional, it’s true, but a nice, gentle rendition of Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines might be suitable for assisting your offspring to sleep, or possibly the theme to the film The Battle Of Britain…
Names:
Hunter – worked for Hunter S Thompson.
Hercules – I’m sure you’ll find a non-deity Hercules if you look hard enough!
VC10, or Spitfire, or Phantom – be a trendsetter!
BUT I do not give any guarantees that any of the above – or any others along this theme – will find favour with your better half… Worst comes to worst you could always give the little fella (if he is, of course) a nickname that keeps the aviation theme greased in your mind.
Ah, it is lovely to have little ones – mine (two years old in October) screams, thumps, scratches, and throws – but then she smiles the most loving smile and I am twisted around her little finger. Again.
snafuMalloch himself was an interesting chap, an historical chapter in aviation all of his own…
snafuRobert Rudhall told me that most of the CASAs were scrapped.
Wiki says there are (approximately) 14 survivors from the 236 built; I guess that does mean that most of them were scrapped!;o)
Sorry, what I meant was that there were no Ju88s in the Battle of Britain film, and although the Spanish AF did use 25 Ju88s (bought 10 and interned 15) they don’t appear to have been used as transports (or survived long enough to have been considered for the film), and that when the CASA 2.111s were retired the last ones in service were transports.
snafuSnafu – what a crass response. Of course my comments only apply to the extremists – that’s who we are discussing in this thread isn’t it?
A fair few have not made that distinction, and 1batfastard did not make that distinction either; that was why I made my ‘crass response’.
And comparing the actions of ISIS with fox hunters is bizarre beyond belief.
Oh I’m not sure I was comparing actions, just demonstrating that the description you gave was applicable to more than just one crazy Islamic faction – my brother is a train spotter, for example, and fits that description of yours perfectly.
I’m reluctant to condemn someone as an idiot but in this case I’ll make a rare exception. His ‘arguments’ are contradictory and threadbare.
Indeed. And your arguments are straight forward and as plush as a Hilton wedding suite, right?
Except…except we never get to see your arguments since as soon as someone questions your view you clam up. Point a finger at me for asking questions, John, call me an idiot but you still have three more fingers pointing back at silent old you. Strange that the ‘rare exceptions’ are both users here who have seemingly contrary view to yours; so while we – sorry, while I – am the idiot who doesn’t bow down to every post you make and is therefore ignored, you can go back to believing that with no dissention to your post then everybody obviously agrees with you.
He is primarily a troll, looking to create opportunities for mischief. This persons comments discredits all notions of civilised discourse.
I pose questions or query your view and you decide that I am a troll whose comments oppose discussion? Would I not be a troll if I didn’t keep posting threads discussing where UKIP members keep inserting their feet firmly in their mouths; would that work with you?
What is it you want exactly – to be able to state your view and not have anyone pose an opposite opinion? Is it that you are unable to discuss why you believe what you think or that you cannot believe some might think differently to you? Not responding doesn’t mean that your view is carried through, just that you will appear to have surrendered, to not debate, to not undertake the simple notion of civilised discourse, in fact.
IGNORE
But I’m still here. You are the one who fails to understand the meaning of a word in the forums name: Discussion.
Sign In
