Harry is marrying Ms Merkel?

[thirdcrank]

back to topic...

I'm not sure you are even on the right thread

viewtopic.php?p=1234807#p1234807

[661-Pete]

back to topic...

I'm not sure you are even on the right thread

viewtopic.php?p=1234807#p1234807

You have a point.

But seeing as almost all the threads in Tea Shop are started by you-know-who, I tend to get a bit mixed up with them ...

[Cyril Haearn]

Maybe a Thread Merging Strategy could be developed

[Cunobelin]

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

Again 'I think" does not reflect the reality.

One can use ones rank and wear one's uniform regardless of the length of military service.

Second is the assumptions about resigning. I know several people who resigned, but having served and in one case lost a limb, I feel that the suggestion they have somehow no longer have those rights is absurd

Then we have the suggestion that 30 years is the acceptable period of service... the reality is that few would serve that long, the peaks for exit reference the contract ends, which tend to be 9, 12, and 22 years, few serve over 22 years - but some bloke on the internet decides that the majority os Servicemen haven't served long enough for him!

Then there is the "greasy pole" claim... To perform a role everyone completes the same training and has the same expectations and tasks.....unless you care are to enlighten us with your experience and how sit differed form those who have actually served?

I look forward to the details of your service that gives you the right to decide on what those who have served can and cannot do

[Cunobelin]

Maybe both are true

I thought using ones rank even when retired was allowed

The informed answer is that you are allowed to wear your uniform and that rank or rate after you have left the Services regardless of the length of service, rank or rate you attained, or where you served (Campaign medals and the honouree being the exception)

The only time this is prevented is where it would bring the Service into disrepute. Turning up at a National Front Rally for instance, or similar

Officers above Major are allowed to used their title in civilian life, both in writing and but the uniform rules are the same as everyone else.

Nipping down the pub though and insisting everyone calls you "Major" or "Colonel" is allowed, but a little naff and an old rarely used tradition that is deeply frowned upon. The same applies to the workplace, it is is usual that the rank is only used in appropriate circumstances. For instance if working with charity or company with military connections.

[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

You will need to point that one out, the only comment I recollect (or comes up on search) on this thread about tourism was:

It is a no-win.....

The predictions for tourism and local enterprises are massive which is why it is hyped. It is no different from any other big event. Think of the fuss when Le Tour visits, or the FA Cup final.

However I stand to be corrected if there is a post I have missed, or that big events do not profit local enterprise and tourism

[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

You will need to point that one out, the only comment I recollect (or comes up on search) on this thread about tourism was:

It is a no-win.....

The predictions for tourism and local enterprises are massive which is why it is hyped. It is no different from any other big event. Think of the fuss when Le Tour visits, or the FA Cup final.

However I stand to be corrected if there is a post I have missed, or that big events do not profit local enterprise and tourism

.....
If only all spongers were so profitable!

Ian

[Cyril Haearn]

Landsurfer had it right about uniforms

*An old tiger is still a tiger*

[Cunobelin]

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

You will need to point that one out, the only comment I recollect (or comes up on search) on this thread about tourism was:

It is a no-win.....

The predictions for tourism and local enterprises are massive which is why it is hyped. It is no different from any other big event. Think of the fuss when Le Tour visits, or the FA Cup final.

However I stand to be corrected if there is a post I have missed, or that big events do not profit local enterprise and tourism

.....
If only all spongers were so profitable!

Ian

Which page of this thread is that on?
I can't find it , neither physically going through the thread, or using search

Can anyone else find it?

[Psamathe]

You will need to point that one out, the only comment I recollect (or comes up on search) on this thread about tourism was:





However I stand to be corrected if there is a post I have missed, or that big events do not profit local enterprise and tourism

.....
If only all spongers were so profitable!

Ian

Which page of this thread is that on?
I can't find it , neither physically going through the thread, or using search

Can anyone else find it?

Parallel thread. But maybe it was an ironic post?

Ian

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Ah well.............-
https://news.sky.com/story/meghans-neph ... e-11380995

"Scotland Yard said in a statement: "Police were called by security to a club in Union Street, Kingston upon Thames, in the early hours of Sunday, 20 May, after a man openly declared he had a knife as he attempted to enter the club.

"When officers arrived at 1.55am enquiries led them to a hotel in Kingston and two men in their 20s were spoken to by officers in connection with the incident.

"One of the men also voluntarily surrendered a noxious spray."

[Cunobelin]

Ian

Which page of this thread is that on?
I can't find it , neither physically going through the thread, or using search

Can anyone else find it?

Parallel thread. But maybe it was an ironic post?

Ian

So not really relevant as it stands?

Perhaps better discussed in that thread, or if to be discussed here, then please quote my whole post, and place it in context with regard to the thread it was in

[Cunobelin]

Hi,
Ah well.............-
https://news.sky.com/story/meghans-neph ... e-11380995

"Scotland Yard said in a statement: "Police were called by security to a club in Union Street, Kingston upon Thames, in the early hours of Sunday, 20 May, after a man openly declared he had a knife as he attempted to enter the club.

"When officers arrived at 1.55am enquiries led them to a hotel in Kingston and two men in their 20s were spoken to by officers in connection with the incident.

"One of the men also voluntarily surrendered a noxious spray."

However the article also says that they were not at the wedding, not invited to the wedding, not connected to the wedding, and had travelled independently without any contact wit the the wedding.

Apart form the possibility that they "may" have been hired by an unnamed US TV Company

So really....... Distant relative of someone who is famous is naughty and poor reporting links it to a completely irrelevant event in order to boost sales.



It really is poor sensationalism

(PS... NOT ironic, simple question whether the level of reference and number of pictures of teh royal wedding in teh article are really justified and relevant, or simply sensationalism to link to a relative to boost the sales)

[Psamathe]

Which page of this thread is that on?
I can't find it , neither physically going through the thread, or using search

Can anyone else find it?

Parallel thread. But maybe it was an ironic post?

Ian

So not really relevant as it stands?

Perhaps better discussed in that thread, or if to be discussed here, then please quote my whole post, and place it in context with regard to the thread it was in

If I argued black was white in one thread, then on the same topic in a different thread argues black was black would people assume I was being ironic (or just inconsistent).

This is daft. You were arguing that the Royals were porfitable with reagrd to tourism; your complete quote

.....
Its a bit like "road tax" in it depends what you want add in

Estimates show that income from Tourism alone benefits the Country's economy by more than we pay out.

If only all spongers were so profitable!

So what were you arguing? 'cos you've loat me completely and I can no longer really understand what point you are making as we seem to be getting flip flopping all over the place, sometimes denied because it's apparently "irony", other times because it's in a different thread on the same subject.

Ian

[reohn2]

Hi,
Ah well.............-
https://news.sky.com/story/meghans-neph ... e-11380995

"Scotland Yard said in a statement: "Police were called by security to a club in Union Street, Kingston upon Thames, in the early hours of Sunday, 20 May, after a man openly declared he had a knife as he attempted to enter the club.

"When officers arrived at 1.55am enquiries led them to a hotel in Kingston and two men in their 20s were spoken to by officers in connection with the incident.

"One of the men also voluntarily surrendered a noxious spray."

I don't see the connection to the thread.
I have a cousin who I wouldn't spit on if he was on fire due to his despicable nature and criminal record.you can choose your friends but not you relatives.