Harry is marrying Ms Merkel?

[Psamathe]

Because getting married in Uniform is sinister snd stinks of stinks of "we are your betters"

By stating so clearly they are "our betters" they are oppressive.

I completely disagree. In what way are those firemen presenting themselves as "our betters". This is totally ludicrous. If people make sensible valid points I will consider their point and may change my position, may disagree, etc.

You claim firemen and fire women getting married in their uniforms is "orpessing the population". What difference between wearing a uniform at work or outside work? I can't even see why people wearing a uniform are stating they are "our betters". Do I take offence at my post lady because she is wearing a uniform and thus declaring she is "my better". I'm beyond lost.

Ian

I agree fully, I neither find the wearing of uniform a claim of being better, sinister or inappropriate for weddings

The post was in reply to the claims:

mercalia wrote:
what I dont understand is why was ginger dressed in military uniform? dont he have a proper suit?
not as if he is a proper soldier? do firemen get get wed in their job rags? something rather sinister here? the whole thing stinks of "we are your betters"

The post stated off with unacceptable slurs, proceeded to ridicule two front line tours in Afghanistan and then made assumptions about why people wear uniform

From that principle, it was a logical conclusion that by wearing uniform these people (and anyone else wearing a uniform) was guilty of this offensive behaviour. A ludicrous answer to highlight an equally ludicrous proposition


I agree fully, people wearing uniforms do so for many reasons, whether that be to identify themselves within a role or community or to establish a position within that community. They do not wear uniform to appear sinister or to belittle others.

You stated

.....
In direct answer, here are some very naughty firemen and firewomen orpessing the population:


.....

Clearly indicating that you consider the foremen and firewomen are "oppressing the population" (because of their wearing a uniform). You were answering a question and your answer clearly aserted that uniform wearing (in the case or fire service people) is "oppressing the population".

Ian

[Cunobelin]

I completely disagree. In what way are those firemen presenting themselves as "our betters". This is totally ludicrous. If people make sensible valid points I will consider their point and may change my position, may disagree, etc.

You claim firemen and fire women getting married in their uniforms is "orpessing the population". What difference between wearing a uniform at work or outside work? I can't even see why people wearing a uniform are stating they are "our betters". Do I take offence at my post lady because she is wearing a uniform and thus declaring she is "my better". I'm beyond lost.

Ian

I agree fully, I neither find the wearing of uniform a claim of being better, sinister or inappropriate for weddings

The post was in reply to the claims:

mercalia wrote:
what I dont understand is why was ginger dressed in military uniform? dont he have a proper suit?
not as if he is a proper soldier? do firemen get get wed in their job rags? something rather sinister here? the whole thing stinks of "we are your betters"

The post stated off with unacceptable slurs, proceeded to ridicule two front line tours in Afghanistan and then made assumptions about why people wear uniform

From that principle, it was a logical conclusion that by wearing uniform these people (and anyone else wearing a uniform) was guilty of this offensive behaviour. A ludicrous answer to highlight an equally ludicrous proposition


I agree fully, people wearing uniforms do so for many reasons, whether that be to identify themselves within a role or community or to establish a position within that community. They do not wear uniform to appear sinister or to belittle others.

You stated

.....
In direct answer, here are some very naughty firemen and firewomen orpessing the population:


.....

Clearly indicating that you consider the foremen and firewomen are "oppressing the population" (because of their wearing a uniform). You were answering a question and your answer clearly aserted that uniform wearing (in the case or fire service people) is "oppressing the population".

Ian

Please see above, it is called irony

[Psamathe]

I agree fully, I neither find the wearing of uniform a claim of being better, sinister or inappropriate for weddings

The post was in reply to the claims:



The post stated off with unacceptable slurs, proceeded to ridicule two front line tours in Afghanistan and then made assumptions about why people wear uniform

From that principle, it was a logical conclusion that by wearing uniform these people (and anyone else wearing a uniform) was guilty of this offensive behaviour. A ludicrous answer to highlight an equally ludicrous proposition


I agree fully, people wearing uniforms do so for many reasons, whether that be to identify themselves within a role or community or to establish a position within that community. They do not wear uniform to appear sinister or to belittle others.

You stated

.....
In direct answer, here are some very naughty firemen and firewomen orpessing the population:


.....

Clearly indicating that you consider the foremen and firewomen are "oppressing the population" (because of their wearing a uniform). You were answering a question and your answer clearly aserted that uniform wearing (in the case or fire service people) is "oppressing the population".

Ian

Please see above, it is called irony

You stated

.....
In direct answer, ...

- hence not taken as "irony". You clearly stated you were providing a direct answer!

Ian

[Cunobelin]

You stated
Clearly indicating that you consider the foremen and firewomen are "oppressing the population" (because of their wearing a uniform). You were answering a question and your answer clearly aserted that uniform wearing (in the case or fire service people) is "oppressing the population".

Ian

Please see above, it is called irony

You stated

.....
In direct answer, ...

- hence not taken as "irony". You clearly stated you were providing a direct answer!

Ian

As you wish............

[Mick F]

What about this famous couple?Register.jpg

A proper uniform before they sewed in the silks and collar

Yep.
I still have it, as does Mrs Mick F still have her wedding dress.
I'd just turned 21 a few days previous, and she wasn't even 18. Married 45years later this year. Platinum?

A few years ago, we had a fancy dress do down the pub, and we went in our wedding outfits.
Neither of us could do the zips and buttons up!

[Cunobelin]

What about this famous couple?Register.jpg

A proper uniform before they sewed in the silks and collar

Yep.
I still have it, as does Mrs Mick F still have her wedding dress.
I'd just turned 21 a few days previous, and she wasn't even 18. Married 45years later this year. Platinum?

A few years ago, we had a fancy dress do down the pub, and we went in our wedding outfits.
Neither of us could do the zips and buttons up!

Haven't tried mine, but I suspect it was the same. We were married in '82, but don't really make a big thing of the anniversaries (apart from between us), as my brother's ship the Glamorgan was hit on the same day. He was uninjured, he was one of the Medics on board and had agreed to do a dressing for someone going on watch. Any other day he would have been in the Galley at the time the ship was hit.

We had planned a short weekend Honeymoon, but cancelled it to return to Plymouth and find out what was happening, as news was slow coming through at that time. We found out he was OK on the Sunday evening, but nothing official was announced until IIRC the Tuesday.

[Mick F]

Glamorous Organ eh?

Sea Story Alert.

I was on Ambuscade, and we were in company with Glamorgan in 1981/2 in the Gulf area.
We had time off near Oman, and Glamorgan having a more senior CO than ours, went into anchor off nearer to the beach than us. They got the nearer better pitch, so we had a longer sea-boat ride to get there for BBQs and swimming.
Excellent time ashore was had by all, and by both ships's companies too.

Time to go, so we sea-boated it back to our ships, and weighed anchor. As we were further out, we left first.
Next thing we knew, Glamorgan called for help.
The tide had gone out, and she hit an uncharted rock and wrecked both propellors, so we reversed and connected our tow rope and pulled Glamorgan out. Everyone blamed the Glam's CO as he was well known for pushing his weight about and was not well thought of on Ambuscade.

We on the Good Ship Ambuscade were not best pleased. Yes, we helped a ship in trouble off the rocks, but due to Glams incapabilities she had to sail back to UK and we had to do her duties etc. The main issue with Glam in that condition, was that she had to transit the Suez Canal. The transit through the canal was hush-hush because defective vessels aren't strictly allowed through. No doubt the CO pulled some strings.

Some months later ...............

Down the South Atlantic during the Falklands Conflict. We were bombarding night after night over Berkley Sound into the Stanley area ahead of our troops. We had a 4.5Mk8 gun and Glam had two 4.5Mk6 guns and one didn't work, and the other had issues, plus the old MRS3 gun direction system was well out of date by then.

Our Mk8 plus (my) computer aided direction system knocked spots off the old MRS3 system and Mk6 in rate of fire and range plus accuracy, so we did our bit and so did Glam.

Come the end of the serial that night, off we went back out into the Atlantic under the cover of our fighter aircraft. The problem was, there was a D drawn on the charts at the maximum range of the Argentinian shore-launched Exocet missile bases. We left and went round the D, and guess what? Glam (still with the same CO) cut across the D.

I was in the Ops Room at the time, and watched the whole thing transpire. An Exocet was launched, and hit Glam but glanced off the flight deck and went in at the hangar.

All we could say in the Ops Room, was here we go again to sort out the Glamorous Organ ......... and she sailed home.
Meanwhile, we stayed on, and bombarded night after night after night again and again and again and again. God, we were all worn out and had little sleep, especially me as it was my gunnery system.

Sorry, I'm getting stressed and tearful here.

[Psamathe]

Please see above, it is called irony

You stated

.....
In direct answer, ...

- hence not taken as "irony". You clearly stated you were providing a direct answer!

Ian

As you wish............

So I assume that your comments about the Royals being a highly profitable tourist attraction were irony as well. Of all you've said on this thread I now have no idea what is irony and what is your assertion.

Ian

[merseymouth]

Hi All, My take on the uniform point is that too many of the Nobs wear uniforms that they haven't earned, but have been gifted a posh title and a uniform with lots of scrambled eggs on!
The latest one to receive a bloated title was recently also given a very high rank in the Royal Marines? He may have earned a lower commision rank, but the elevation to his new post is a joke.
Remind me of a joke about Edward VIII/Duke of Windsor. They said he went from Admiral of the Fleet to 3rd mate of a U.S. tramp!
Too many folk who have resigned their commission persist on using the rank to pre-fix their name? Doesn't happen with the NCO's & other lower types.
Why don't they join the Salvation Army to try and gain the rank all over again? TTFN MM

[merseymouth]

Hi All, My take on the uniform point is that too many of the Nobs wear uniforms that they haven't earned, but have been gifted a posh title and a uniform with lots of scrambled eggs on!
The latest one to receive a bloated title was recently also given a very high rank in the Royal Marines? He may have earned a lower commision rank, but the elevation to his new post is a joke.
Remind me of a joke about Edward VIII/Duke of Windsor. They said he went from Admiral of the Fleet to 3rd mate of a U.S. tramp!
Too many folk who have resigned their commission persist on using the rank to pre-fix their name? Doesn't happen with the NCO's & other lower types.
Why don't they join the Salvation Army to try and gain the rank all over again? TTFN MM

[Cunobelin]

You stated - hence not taken as "irony". You clearly stated you were providing a direct answer!

Ian

As you wish............

So I assume that your comments about the Royals being a highly profitable tourist attraction were irony as well. Of all you've said on this thread I now have no idea what is irony and what is your assertion.

Ian

Simply points out the lack of evidence or proof and some of the absurd claims being made.

[Cyril Haearn]

Maybe both are true

I thought using ones rank even when retired was allowed

[Psamathe]

As you wish............

So I assume that your comments about the Royals being a highly profitable tourist attraction were irony as well. Of all you've said on this thread I now have no idea what is irony and what is your assertion.

Ian

Simply points out the lack of evidence or proof and some of the absurd claims being made.

Is that irony or a point you are trying to make?

Or are you referring to the lack of evidence or proof that the Royals are a highly lucrative tourist attraction.

Ian

[merseymouth]

HI all, I think that if one completes a full military service one may upon retirement use the rank as a courtesy title, but if someone has resigned their commission it is very poor practise. After 30 plus years it is well earned, But a couple of years after one has avoided the greasy pole that "lesser" plebs have to negotiate is very bad taste!
It all lessens respect for the people who really have done their duty. IGICB MM

[661-Pete]

back to topic...

I haven't really figured out who's pro-, and who's anti-monarchy.

I freely declare, I'm anti.

We might lose a bit (e.g. royal weddings) if we went for a non-exec President (as in Germany or Italy - not as in USA ). Not so much pomp associated with a prezzy as with a queenie. But would cost a hell of a lot less to the taxpayer.

Royals a net money-spinner/cash cow? I doubt it. People claim they're a tourist attraction. Dammit, last time I was in Paris I went to the Louvre*; I went to Versailles. Not much sign of any royals about, there, but plenty of tourists - as I can testify having queued for hours...

In fact someone told me the French had a spate of shortening their royals, a while back.... If we did away with the occupants (not so violently, I hope!), tourists would still be flocking to Buck P and Windsor C in their droves. And buying all the souvenirs, etc. etc.

And we'd still have pomp for people to watch. They'd still be changing the guard in front of BP. In Greece the Evzones still parade in Athens, they've had a republic there for decades.

So I don't buy into that "royals are a tourist draw" stuff. Only when there's a royal wedding do they flock to see the royals in person. But there are only so many princes and princesses to get spliced. And some of them have the annoying tendency to marry the 'wrong' person...

No. Enough of privilege and inherited status and wealth. A republic in which anyone has an equal chance of becoming president - for a term.

Argue the toss with me if you wish....

*Is it true, that old trope that Parisians never go to the Louvre. Or is it just another urban myth?