Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
What a total.....
29 Answers
Pr*ck.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/74455 35.stm
I never liked the man much (he has all the acting talent of a peach), but you'd think he would manage to keep his mouth shut on a subject he knows little about. His dad might have been in the army but that doesn't make him an expert. If that were the case I'd be a professor at it having been round the military most of my life.
If he thinks they are all whimps then he should get out there and do it himself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/74455 35.stm
I never liked the man much (he has all the acting talent of a peach), but you'd think he would manage to keep his mouth shut on a subject he knows little about. His dad might have been in the army but that doesn't make him an expert. If that were the case I'd be a professor at it having been round the military most of my life.
If he thinks they are all whimps then he should get out there and do it himself.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by tigerlily11. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If he wanted to make a statement about the whole thing he should have directed it at the group concered for putting the army there in the first place. The goverment.
I can't imagine how those who have lost loved ones must feel having some two bit actor call their relative a whimp.
They are out there fighting against a force that would have the likes of him shot if given the chance. They are there defending the right of this miserable troll to say what he wants.
A think at least might be nice.
I can't imagine how those who have lost loved ones must feel having some two bit actor call their relative a whimp.
They are out there fighting against a force that would have the likes of him shot if given the chance. They are there defending the right of this miserable troll to say what he wants.
A think at least might be nice.
If you read the whole interview, you can detect that Everett likes to appear 'shocking', and he enjoys stirring people up with his observations.
I have interviewed him, and found him to be prissy, arrogant, boorish and generally unpleasant, which may be exactlyhow he is. So at least he is consistent.
I have interviewed him, and found him to be prissy, arrogant, boorish and generally unpleasant, which may be exactlyhow he is. So at least he is consistent.
Controversy seems to be his way of getting attention...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/69293 86.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/53522 84.stm
A bit pathetic really.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/69293 86.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/53522 84.stm
A bit pathetic really.
Again though I have to admit to getting annoyed when the military groups bemoan "compensation" paid to their wounded to that given in civilian accidents.
Civilians injured due to negligence of others did not volunteer to be put in harms way those in the armed forces did.
May be some of the "Be the best" ads should show some medics being the best at caring for their wounded comrades.
Or perhaps they don't want to remind gung-ho 18 years olds that they could come back minus a leg
Civilians injured due to negligence of others did not volunteer to be put in harms way those in the armed forces did.
May be some of the "Be the best" ads should show some medics being the best at caring for their wounded comrades.
Or perhaps they don't want to remind gung-ho 18 years olds that they could come back minus a leg
But, jake, the armed forcers are not taking care of their troops as well as they should. Of course, they all accept the risks or they would not have signed up. But that does not mean that they can be expected to perform their duties ill equipped, which is certainly what seems to be happening.
As well as this, the compensation and care afforded to those who are maimed serving their country is completely out of alignment with examples of civilians who have, shall we say, tripped over a paperclip in the office. Just because they have put themselves at risk (as opposed to being conscripted) does not mean that the nation should not fully support them when necessary.
As well as this, the compensation and care afforded to those who are maimed serving their country is completely out of alignment with examples of civilians who have, shall we say, tripped over a paperclip in the office. Just because they have put themselves at risk (as opposed to being conscripted) does not mean that the nation should not fully support them when necessary.
But the fact is that we do need an army.
If there is no one to fight for this country then we are really doomed.
The freedoms that this country hasis due to those people who went out there and fought in WWI and II and anything since.
If it were not for them then we would be under NAzi rule.
We owe them better than they get and the likes of Mr Rupert 'I,m a tw@t' Everett should remember this.
The other expression that hacks me off is the 'not in my name' routine.
Well maybe not but I bet those who shout the loudest would be the first to complain and do a runner if this country was seriously under threat from another nation.
Bet you Mr Everett wouldn't be in the cue to join up.
If there is no one to fight for this country then we are really doomed.
The freedoms that this country hasis due to those people who went out there and fought in WWI and II and anything since.
If it were not for them then we would be under NAzi rule.
We owe them better than they get and the likes of Mr Rupert 'I,m a tw@t' Everett should remember this.
The other expression that hacks me off is the 'not in my name' routine.
Well maybe not but I bet those who shout the loudest would be the first to complain and do a runner if this country was seriously under threat from another nation.
Bet you Mr Everett wouldn't be in the cue to join up.
There is a total difference betwenn people who signed up to fight for their country in World War II when there was a clear immediadte danger to the country and those who join the army because they have no better job or because they want the chance to play with guns and maybe even legitimately kill and maim someone.
People joining the armed forces since the last World war have no idea in what conflict they might be asked to fight and kill.
They abdicate their moral judgement to some politician or even some future politician.
Add that to the rather limited threats to our freedoms since the last war and it's no wonder that the apologists for the armed forces have to keep coming back to a conflict which finshed years before most of us were even born.
Do we need an army? yes
Do we need an army in dozens of places all over the world? no.
We certainly don't need a whole fleet of Trident submarines that deter no one, cost a fortune and make us reliant on the US.
And while we're at it what's defensive about an aircraft carrier?
How do you need an aircraft carrier to defend Britain?
The idea of fighting for our country is a sham nobody's fought for this country in 60 years.
It's all about fighting for this countries foreign interests which is a little less noble wouldn't you say?
People joining the armed forces since the last World war have no idea in what conflict they might be asked to fight and kill.
They abdicate their moral judgement to some politician or even some future politician.
Add that to the rather limited threats to our freedoms since the last war and it's no wonder that the apologists for the armed forces have to keep coming back to a conflict which finshed years before most of us were even born.
Do we need an army? yes
Do we need an army in dozens of places all over the world? no.
We certainly don't need a whole fleet of Trident submarines that deter no one, cost a fortune and make us reliant on the US.
And while we're at it what's defensive about an aircraft carrier?
How do you need an aircraft carrier to defend Britain?
The idea of fighting for our country is a sham nobody's fought for this country in 60 years.
It's all about fighting for this countries foreign interests which is a little less noble wouldn't you say?
Jake I'm certainly gald your not in charge of our countrys defences. That is a very simplistic view and I am actually quite surprised at you, despite you very left tendancies.
Do you honestly believe we currently have no threat ?
You clearly like to spout your piece but I can assure you there are many that woudl soon shut you up - with a bullet or sword to the neck.
Strangely people like me have more in common with the people posing a threat, - both right wing - if only it was not for the booze thing.
So mate they are probably fighting for your right to gob off more than mine. Show some respct.
Do you honestly believe we currently have no threat ?
You clearly like to spout your piece but I can assure you there are many that woudl soon shut you up - with a bullet or sword to the neck.
Strangely people like me have more in common with the people posing a threat, - both right wing - if only it was not for the booze thing.
So mate they are probably fighting for your right to gob off more than mine. Show some respct.
