|
Nice one Robin. And a helpful pointer to the MSE forums which I'd not seen before.
|
|
It is a tax.But why call it road tax if only a small amount of that tax collected is spend on roads?
|
|
its not called road tax though dutchie, its vechicle excise duty.
|
|
Ok sorry I stand to be corrected.nyx..;)
|
>> its not called road tax though dutchie, its vechicle excise duty.
Nowadays it's called an environmental tax.
The more you polute the environment, the more you have to pay for the priveledge. Cows are exempt though.
|
Cows what about all the gasses which effect the ozone layer according to Al Gore.
They should be taxed.
|
With so many taxes, they ran out of names. So made it look like it was spent on roads.
|
Direct Gov website seems to refer to it collectively as Vehicle Tax. There's no obvious mention of 'Vehicle Excise Duty' or 'Road Fund Licence'.
According to Wickipedia, it was started in 1888 and money collected was used to fund roads. Direct funding of roads through the tax stopped in 1937 whereupon roads were funded from general taxation and road tax simply became another form of general taxation of the masses.
Last edited by: TheManWithNoName on Tue 24 Apr 12 at 13:59
|
to quote
You do not get ANYTHING in return.
cyclist pay nothing yet they moan and whine and demand more.
|
>> to quote
>>
>> You do not get ANYTHING in return.
>>
>> cyclist pay nothing yet they moan and whine and demand more.
>>
Is this all cyclists Zero or just the millions you have met and spoken to over the years?
;-)
|
The Greenpeace supporters have made cyclists believe that they (i.e. cyclists) are closer to God than rest of us :-)
Last edited by: movilogo on Tue 24 Apr 12 at 14:09
|
|
Nah, they're only closer to God when they get run over and killed to death.
|
|
the quote was posted by a moaning cyclist, every cyclist on here is moaning, turn on the tv and its moaning cyclists, every cyclist everywhere is always moaning. If its so bad why do they still cycle?
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 24 Apr 12 at 14:14
|
|
Cyclists are always moaning eh? ..but so are a lot of motorists. This forum probably wouldn't exist if you didn't moan. However its one thing saying stuff for 'comic effect' but to blandly generalise (dare I say moan?) about a type of road user you don't particularly like or respect is rather tiresome and old hat.
|
Cyclist blame Motorists for all the problems, while most of them are responsible for their own demise.
And if you are defending cyclist with the same blind fervour that most of them do, then alas you invented tiresome and old hat. The outcry that hit the boss of Addison Lee was typical when he dared to utter some home truths
I didn't raise this thread now did I, but the quoted article was a typical militant cyclist rant.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 24 Apr 12 at 14:24
|
>> Cyclist blame Motorists for all the problems, while most of them are responsible for their
>> own demise.
>>
>> And if you are defending cyclist with the same blind fervour that most of them
>> do, then alas you invented tiresome and old hat. The outcry that hit the boss
>> of Addison Lee was typical when he dared to utter some home truths
>>
>> I didn't raise this thread now did I, but the quoted article was a typical
>> militant cyclist rant.
>>
Actually if you read the post on the MSE forum, the original guy is a car owner who pays his tax so thinks he can park in a cycle lane and the respondant is someone who 'corrects' him on what car tax is and what is doesn't entitle him to do. Neither poster claims to be an anti cyclist or an anti-car militant.
|
|
Cycle lane? Why is there a cycle lane? why do cyclists get special treatment? they want it they pay for it. No tax no cycle lane.
|
Blimey Zero, you really do have a chip on your shoulder, don't you?
Were you wun over by a bikist when you were ickle boy and get gwazed kneezy weezies?
I believe there's an anti cyclist rant over on HJ's forum. Why don't you vent your spleen there and leave us adults to it here.
|
No I don't have a chip on my shoulder about cyclists. I have a bike, I cycle.
I do however have no time for what appears to be the typical urban ranting cyclist who demands extra facilities for themselves, restrictions and cost for the rest, just because the majority of them want to cycle like maniacs and blame everyone else for the inevitable outcome. Oh and not contribute to fund for those facilities.
If thats what you mean by a chip? Then yes I have one of those
>Were you wun over by a bikist when you were ickle boy and get gwazed kneezy weenies?
Thats your version of being adult is it? Nice one.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 24 Apr 12 at 14:41
|
>> I cycle.
Congratulations. Is that with or without stabilisers?
>>
>> I do however have no time for what appears to be the typical urban ranting
>> cyclist who demands extra facilities for themselves, restrictions and cost for the rest, just because
>> the majority of them want to cycle like maniacs and blame everyone else for the
>> inevitable outcome. Oh and not contribute to fund for those facilities.
>>
>> If thats what you mean by a chip? Then yes I have one of those
Thought so. Funny though how the same arguments get trotted out time and time again - 'I'm a motorist, I pay tax therefore I am entitled to XYZ'.
>>
>> >Were you wun over by a bikist when you were ickle boy and get gwazed
>> kneezy weenies?
>>
>>
>> Thats your version of being adult is it? Nice one.
Some mild humour, no offence meant. Apologies I've riled you. Virtual handshake being offered.
|
>> Thought so. Funny though how the same arguments get trotted out time and time again
>> - 'I'm a motorist, I pay tax therefore I am entitled to XYZ'.
>>
The problem is, if you pay nothing you are always open to, and have no defence to, that accusation.
>> >> Thats your version of being adult is it? Nice one.
>>
>> Some mild humour, no offence meant. Apologies I've riled you. Virtual handshake being offered.
Not riled, insulted or offended, in fact faintly amused that you managed to be childish and demand adult argument in the same post. Hence the "nice one"
|
>> no offence meant. Apologies I've riled you.
'Never apologise. It's a sign of weakness' (John Wayne. And, er, Zero actually).
|
Zero = John Wayne!
Yes that's it! The absolute certainty, the never admitting an error. I knew he reminded me of someone.
Another one of JW's gems
"Life's tough. Its even tougher if you're stupid."
|
>> And if you are defending cyclist with the same blind fervour that most of them
>> do, then alas you invented tiresome and old hat. The outcry that hit the boss
>> of Addison Lee was typical when he dared to utter some home truths
A rant from the owner of the company with the worst reputation in London for ignoring and cutting up cyclists was always going to get a response.
TfL have today won an injunction revoking AL's advice to its drivers about use of bus lanes. Remains in force until the substantive hearing on judicial review of the bus lane regs.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 26 Apr 12 at 13:39
|
>> This forum probably
>> wouldn't exist if you didn't moan.
You mean "we" not "you". That's my moan about your post.
;-)
|
>> .......... they ran out of names. So made it look like it
>> was spent on roads.
The definition of an excise duty is a a tax on some types of goods, paid to a national or state government. In our case, vehicle excise duty (or vehicle tax) is a tax on vehicles to allow us to use the roads, not for it to be spent on roads. I've no doubt that, like all taxes, it goes into the government's coffers and gets spent on all sorts of things.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Tue 24 Apr 12 at 14:21
|
The answer of course would be to tax cyclists. And ensure they pass a test. And ensure they have insurance.
Then its a dead argument.
|
This forum is called "car4play" and not "cycles4play".
So motorists can bash cyclists irrespective of whose fault it is.
If you want to bash motorists, go and post in a cyclist forum instead (there are lots).
:o)
|
|
The forum is called have a bit of four play.Who could be against that.>:)
|
If cyclists were taxed on emissions result would be same as a surprising number of cars - nil.
The car test and compulsory insurance both resulted from the massive loss of life and the injuries caused by motorised transport. On the odd occasion a cyclist causes real loss they turn out to be insured under their household policy.
Until someone stands up an economic case for then tax, insurance and licences for cyclists are just a motorist's wet dream!!
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 24 Apr 12 at 14:46
|
>> Until there's a real economic case for then tax, insurance and licences for cyclists are
>> just a motorist's wet dream!!
Says the cyclist lobby. Until there is some contribution, they really can't have any say in the game.
|
>> On the odd occasion a cyclist causes real loss they turn out to be insured under their household policy.
Not all cyclists have home insurance and I'm not sure if all polices cover such incidents by default.
|
>> On the odd occasion a cyclist causes real loss
>> they turn out to be insured under their household policy.
On one occasion when I was stationary a cyclist rode up the inside of me and damaged my car with his handlebars. He wouldn't give me his name or address, so I had no means of identifying him and hence had to claim on my own insurance. Cycles should have to have number plates on the back like motorcycles.
|
You are all missing the point of taxation.
It's got nothing to do with raising money for anything, it's for taking spending power out of the economy. Governments can afford to spend money on anything they want - they just have to print the money.
Taxation is to mop up that money so that inflation is kept under reasonable control.
As to who or what should be taxed, fairness or justification doesn't come into it. Tax is applied to the easiest targets that seem likely to raise the most money.
Cars, fags, booze are obvious targets because they are addictive. No one is addicted to bicycles so there is no point in trying to tax them.
|
>> No one is addicted to
>> bicycles so there is no point in trying to tax them.
I'm Simon and I'm a bikeaholic!!
|
|
There is a logical error in Zero's argument: zero-rated vehicles and that great mass of pedestrians, as the OP was pointing out. So they should get off the roads too? As for walkers, forget your pavements and your crossings and other special treatment: you don't deserve them. You don't display a "road tax" licence. Churchill foresaw the danger in a specific road tax, so chopped away the foundations of road-hogs ambitions in 1937.
|
I am a regular motorist, cyclist and indeed pedestrian. Roads, with the exception mainly of motorways are a shared space used by all those categories of traveller. What's so tough to understand about that? I try to be courteous to others and appreciate their needs whichever way I'm propelling myself. So far so good. Never had a problem. Used to cycle into and through Edinburgh city centre every day at rush hour to and from school from the age of 9.
Nowadays I drive in central London often. In fact I was there today. Sure there's loads of bikes and some of them could be ridden better but if you keep your wits about you ( which is after all something of an obligation when driving ) it's fine. I certainly don't need a blinking number plate on my bike. We have quite enough legislation to keep us going already.
"Shared" remember, it's easy when you try ! Motorists, Cyclists and pedestrians are not distinct species. They're all humans.
:-)
|
Good points Humph.Human nature why have peace when we can make war?
|
|
The same thought occurs to me Dutchie. Not that it'll change the view of any of the bigots no matter which tribe they align themselves to. If you watch monkeys on wildlife programmes they're dreadful in their behaviour towards members of other troupes. We should know better by now.
|
Road FUND licence.
Non paying sanctimonious cyclists can go and *iss in the wind. If they took more care I would care, but the majority don't so I don't any more.
|
>> Road FUND licence.
>>
>> Non paying sanctimonious cyclists can go and *iss in the wind. If they took more
>> care I would care, but the majority don't so I don't any more.
No such thing as a Road FUND and therefore no Licence. Why should cyclists right not to have their lives chanced with relate to any tax obsolete or not?
|
Have another beer Martin. Oh and thank you for those kind and constructive comments.
:-))
|
|
Listen chaps. All joking aside. We are all being urged and rightly so, to look out for cyclists as cars will hurt them no end and not vice versa. However, spare a thought t'other way 'round too. Why do so many Cyclists think that they are invincible and ride so when in fact they are so fragile.
|
>> >> >> Why do so many Cyclists think that they
>> are invincible and ride so when in fact they are so fragile.
>>
Martin,
I'm never sure what folks mean when they refer to cyclists behaving as though they're invincible. This blog from the Guardian goes some way to explain why we ride out in the road and the reasons/training that underlie.
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/01/cyclist-take-the-lane
Unfortunately, as the article says, the method and terminology are not taught to drivers who may therefore think we're being selfish or hostile.
|
'I'm never sure what folks mean when they refer to cyclists behaving as though they're invincible.'
Not everyone, but a few enough to tar everyone else. An attitude that 'according to HC para 3 (c) sub para iv...etc I'm ok to do xyz'. There seems to be a thought being right is more important than uninjured. It's as if it gives some some comfort when the worse off in an accident. When your legs double up as crumple zones a little less pride might be the order for some. I've seen it in people who ride motorbikes as well, the often quoted 'most accidents are the fault of the car driver' as though it's a comfort to them, although it may well be.
I haven't read the link, so it isn't a pop against that.
This isn't meant to be some sort of chippy rant either, I'm not taring everyone or that all biycle users are all the same. It seems to me (and no doubt others) that a group of very vulnerable road users might be a bit too proud in some cases. As some other roads users are however being so vulnerunable they have little room to play with.
Hope this helps Bromptonaut.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Tue 1 May 12 at 12:59
|
The sad truth is that,
Some cyclists bully pedestrians
Some car drivers bully cyclists and pedestrians
Some drivers of large cars bully drivers of small cars, cyclists and pedestrians
Some van drivers bully car drivers, cyclists and pedestrians
Some truck drivers bully everyone
Many further permutations of the above also occur
Not the most endearing facts of human behaviour but sadly true. People tend to reflect the persona of the group they are part of at the time. For the worst examples of that see crowd behaviour.
Of course some of all the above just get on with their own travelling and mind their own business.
Which is probably the best option.
|
That post just confirms the sanctimonious, selfish and arrogant attitude of the typical cyclist ;-)
|
I don't mind any vehicle that uses the road not paying the duty. I just don't like the govt extracting as much as they can from Joe Grunt while the rich have all sorts of tricks to hang onto their wedge.
It seems to me, though, that it's us bikers who get the raw deal when dozens of cars get charged nowt, why do bikes, from 50cc up to the biggest, have to pay to be on the road ? Surely that can't be about emissions. Two of my cars are on free tax discs, a classic and a disabled. I'm quite sure the Jowett, with it's twin carbs and lack of cat pumps out a lot more grot than my 600cc Honda.
While I'm banging on, why the national reluctance to keep motorbikes out of bus lanes ? It's just not logical.
Ted
|
Too late to edit...that last sentence should read ' national reluctance to let bikers use bus lanes '
Well, you're an educated lot...you knew that already !
Ted
|
>> Surely that can't be about emissions.
>>
>> Ted
Absolutely spot on. It is about a country that has been living beyond its means for decades and it is now payback time.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 25 Apr 12 at 09:50
|
we have been living beyond our means since 1888 then ?
this 'Vehicle Excise Duty', 'vehicle tax', 'car tax', 'road tax', 'road fund license' is all a huge con anyway.
It used to be for the use of the roads where the tax goes back into the roads (upkeep and new roads).
These days its used to prop up the MP's duck houses and second homes.
In France and Switzerland you only need a tax disc to drive on the motorways.
No doubt someone will be along soon to justify why our corrupt government (any party in power) has a fair tax system.
|
>> we have been living beyond our means since 1888 then ?
>>
>>
I think it is well accepted that that is true.
That is the time when Britain lost predominance as the world's richest nation, when our industries began their decline in productivity, when the Empire finally became a burden rather than a source of income.
We disguised the fact quite well for several generations, by borrowing, protectionism, bluster and arrogance. Finally we blew and mortgaged all the remaining assets in one final and indeed finest hour when we saved the world in 1940.
Since then we have climbed painfully back to a sustainable position high up the league table of nations but by no means at the top.
And unlike a great many people around the world we have the leisure to argue about the rights and wrongs of cycle lanes and road tax.
|
>> I think it is well accepted that that is true.
>> That is the time when Britain lost predominance as the world's richest nation, when our
>> industries began their decline in productivity, when the Empire finally became a burden rather than
>> a source of income.
>> We disguised the fact quite well for several generations, by borrowing, protectionism, bluster and arrogance.
>> Finally we blew and mortgaged all the remaining assets in one final and indeed finest
>> hour when we saved the world in 1940.
>>
>> Since then we have climbed painfully back to a sustainable position high up the league
>> table of nations but by no means at the top.
>> And unlike a great many people around the world we have the leisure to argue
>> about the rights and wrongs of cycle lanes and road tax.
So were living in a false economy then, reality is starting to be restored hence were all screwed.
Regarding 1940, interesting point there.
This country went into WWII as an empire and despite winning the war it came out of it broke and lost its empire status.
Normally winning a war consolidates countries (even if they are under new rule of law).
Not in the UK. ho hum.
|
|
what came first, the bike or the car? in our village i think it was the bike in the car.....il get my coat, shuffle shuffle
|
The only reason they can tax us is 'cos we have a big, unique, number displayed on our possession...the vehicle. I've always said that if, prams, wheelchairs or bicycles were forced to display ID then they'd be after those people for wonga as well.
Long may anonimity reign !
Ted
|
>> This country went into WWII as an empire and despite winning the war it came
>> out of it broke and lost its empire status.
That should be WW one. WWII was conducted on tick from the USA.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 25 Apr 12 at 18:43
|
>> That should be WW one. WWII was conducted on tick from the USA.
>>
..and ultimately blooming expensive tick, both in money and dependency.
|
|
If we paid it off why are we still being wagged like the tail of some toy poodle.
|
>> If we paid it off why are we still being wagged like the tail of
>> some toy poodle.
>>
Unlike our illustrious leaders, the USA always puts the USA first. For instance they never sell military kit or know how until they have something better.
|
Missed the edit.
The "Special Relationship" is only special while it benefits the USA.
|
|
The UK didn't win WW2 - we just happened to be on the winning side. It was the USA and USSR who won it
|
|
We were a convenient unsinkable aircraft carrier for the USAF.
|
People who think or say that 'we won the war' are exaggerating.
But so are ON and RP exaggerating when they imply that the British had no significant role except as an aircraft carrier and an accidental ally of the real victors.
That is vulgar miserablist carp as any real Frenchman (not of course the common modern herd) with an understanding of the events will assure you. I can't approve and I don't. Get it right, don't just spout. It was complicated, but that's no excuse.
|
|
Without a miserable old sod to play the baddie there will be no discussion / banter.
|
|
True ON. In fact I'm not above that role myself from time to time.
|
Ayup....the Glums seem to be in town !
Ted
|
We were on the winning side despite the best efforts of the British Army and having Churchill as a leader....(wildly exaggerated maybe - but there is some truth in it.) The British Army were generally badly led, very much worse than in WW1, their equipment was sadly lacking, badly made, badly developed. The only real independent win they had was in North Africa and that was a mess. Even towards the end, their leaders were ill-informed and over-ambitious. Churchill was overrated as a strategist, he was out of his depth - spent millions on silly adventures that cost men and material and let the Russians down.
Last edited by: R.P. on Wed 25 Apr 12 at 21:54
|
|
A bit harsh there RP, although I think your more right than wrong (particularly equipment especially tanks). It was said that the army of 1918 was the best the BA has ever been.
|
|
Wasn't Arnhem planned by our lot?
|
|
In part yes, and the idea was our from our lot, one in particular.
|
Audacious, the BA had not done audacious throughout the war (apart from the odd bits and pieces by maverick units) why start then ?
List of disasters
Norway - complete disaster, badly thought out an executed, poorly equipped - PBI untrained for winter fighting, the air force with very limited capability - Gladiators....
Battle of France - including the Scottish Divisions pointlessly sacrificed by Churchill after Dunkirk, heroic fighting by the PBI and Tankies - fighting with light reconnaissance tanks....
Crete - The Germans overcoming a superior numerical force
Dieppe - a complete disaster with no hope of success...
East of Suez they badly lost to the Japanese in countless encounters....
Apart from the 8th Army (Superior in numbers to their Afrika Korps enemy out fought until their backs were against the Suez....and the leadership replaced) the British Army then stayed at home until 1944....and even then couldn't fight out of Normandy, basically being trounced by a defending army......
Arnhem. Say no more. Bad luck played a part in that but still....
There are more.
|
>> List of disasters
I'm not even an amateur military historian. But there can't be any big countries whose armed forces can't come up with similar lists over time. Indeed you could say that war itself is a gigantic cockup. And as for Churchill's defects as a strategist, they should perhaps be set alongside the towering strategic achievements of (say) Hitler or Stalin...
Hitler's Wehrmacht was indeed a terrifyingly efficient war machine which he squandered on a misconceived project of world domination for his silly and nasty Breivik-like ideology. The countries that started the second world war were Britain and France, despite their amateurish unprepared forces, when Hitler attacked Poland to launch his project.
The way I see it this reflects well on Britain and France. Anyway if they hadn't respected their treaty to defend Poland just because it looked rather difficult history might have been very different.
|
Some people see the second conflict as a continuation of the the Great War - had the Allies not exacted such a price from the Germans in Versailles that Hitler would never have come into power in the way he did on a tsunami of nationalism and it's probable that the second war would never have happened in the way it did. I view Chamberlin as a national hero in buying valuable time for the Air Force in particular, the Navy was in a good position in 1938, the army being largely irrelevant. The British Army post WW1 has been a poor to moderate performer - even to recent times in 2008.
Lloyd George was a craphound.
|
>> had the Allies not exacted such a price from the Germans in Versailles that Hitler would never have come into power in the way he did on a tsunami of nationalism and it's probable that the second war would never have happened in the way it did.
Yes. But once the nazis were there, doing their thing, someone had to do something about them. No one else did.
I'm not an apologist for warmongering or Lloyd George or Churchill. Nor would I want to idealize any of our armed forces, not even the senior one which I know best (but still not well).
However they are far from the worst in terms of performance and behaviour, and they are ours. So I don't like seeing them run down in general, blanket terms, however much they may sometimes deserve it. Old-fashioned of me I know.
|
I wouldn't do that - The Navy and the Air Force were by far the best performing arms, however misguided the area bombing under Harris. The RAF were pretty crap in the early years as well. I agree in general terms with you - the Forgotten Army under Slim was well organized and a formidable fighting machine in the Far East - but as a sweeping generalization in comparison to the Wermacht, UK land forces were badly equipped, badly led and there was a large element of bad soldiering by the private soldier. Post war conflicts have been much the same, the Falklands being a notable exception, were leadership, training and equipment met at a mutually beneficial peak (Boots apart) - the Navy was let down badly by poor design and equipment issues. Gulf War 1 was a British success story as was GW2 - but there was a notable failure during the occupation especially in Basra..
Afghanistan (early on) was a notably badly run in the early days. At least the kit is up to the job now, but it's been a long road and many have suffered through bad kit (think Snatch Land Rovers)
|
>> many have suffered through bad kit (think Snatch Land Rovers)
Bad kit? Counts for nothing compared to confused, often contradictory and shifting war objectives, wholly inadequate numbers and having to work in tandem with the Bush gang and its assorted generals whose project the 'war on tourism' was. The present US president has abandoned that moronic slogan but even he can't undo the past.
|
|
I agree - the objectives in the Falklands were clear - there was a considerable amount of "against the odds" and classic make do and mend involved - But there were some idiot Officers there - not least the ones that directly or indirectly caused the death of the those aboard the Galahad. The action impressed many of our allies (not least the Americans) and many of our enemies. One of the little known facts of this war was the offer by the USA of a Carrier, but we got on with it in our own little way - a 19th Century war fought with 20th tech, but lacking fundamentals like Satellite cover. Maybe it was an inspirational leader that made the difference ?
|
>>- not least the ones that directly or indirectly caused
>> the death of the those aboard the Galahad.>>
Or the Sheffield.
|
|
indeed - switched off main radar on a picket air-defence ship ?
|
>> there were some idiot Officers there
Idiot military officers? A contradiction in terms surely. No one who has ever met anyone of commissioned rank in any of the armed forces can be in the slightest doubt of their towering cognitive skills.
Our troops in the first war have been famously described as 'lions led by donkeys'. That was a deliberate distortion put about by some sort of socialist chappie. The original phrase, obviously from the lips of a responsible individual, was 'liars led by dons'.
|
Leaping to the defence of the WW1 Officer class - the operational ones (in the trenches) were the creme de la creme - especially of the regular army that went over in August 1914 - the post Somme ones were probably the best this country has ever fielded (with the possible exception of post Iraq ones) the ones in the later part of WW1 included ones that came up through the ranks as the originals got slaughtered...
Another not inconsequential fact is that more Divisional Officers died in the Battle of Loos than in the course of WW2...
John Laffin wrote numerous books on the war, including "Lions led by Donkeys" was a socialist craphound he did much to discredit the efforts of the British Army in WW1 - as Gary Sheffield wrote WW1 was a forgotten victory - it was claimed by socialist pacifist types. The Allies should have marched on Berlin. People forget (and I repeat it often) that the Regulars fought the German war machine to a standstill in 1914. The army of 1918 as mentioned earlier was the best that Britain had fielded since Wellington and were the true victors of that conflict and rightly proud they were....
Recommended reads on a modern take on the conflict...
Mud, Blood and Poppycock - Gordon Corrigan
Forgotten Victory - Gary Sheffield
Read them the source materials died for this.
|
>> it was claimed by socialist pacifist types.
Yes, that ghastly industrial orgy of murder and squalor made a lot of pacifists.
Perhaps one shouldn't give vent to frivolous sarcasm in a serious context. High intelligence is always an asset to a stable individual in any context. But it's perfectly possible to become a military officer, even a very good and sound military officer, without it. So quite a few do.
|
Yes, that ghastly industrial orgy of murder and squalor made a lot of pacifists.
You're right. But it was a war that had to be fought, the UK could have ignored its treaty obligations with France and gone neutral, but do you think the Germans would have stopped at the Channel ? Because of French incompetence and the aforementioned German war machine there was only one outcome but for BA1914's intervention....that army was effectively destroyed during that remarkable fighting retreat from Mons - that was an absolute masterpiece of tactical fighting that arguably meant that WW1 was only going one way....the way the retreat was managed was absolutely brilliant - a masterpiece of war fighting, and who did it ? The much decried British General Staff and the humble squaddie. It all went downhill after that though !
I recall a question asked at the turn of the millennium in a national newspaper - it was about the most important pivotal point of the 20th Cent.Without hesitation my WW1 historian friend said "Simple, the Battle of the Marne". And when you think about it, not only was that the pivotal point of the war but affected the outcome of absolutely everything in Europe thereafter. History is a remarkable science !
|
|
didnt the yanks kill more people in europe in 1917 with spanish flu? when they turned up for the finale
|
Possibly - mind you the Americans fought really well and their mere presence was enough to frighten the Germans - they knew it was game over when the first dough-boys arrived. Not because of their fighting prowess but because of what they represented - the unbridled might of America's economy.
Churchill and WW1 ? - a Maverick - he conceived the Gallipoli campaign, delay upon delay was heaped upon it but he was too stubborn to cancel and the Aussies paid the price (ANZAC day today ?) he learnt nothing from that and went on with his madcap schemes in the second war.
|
>> Lloyd George was a craphound.
>>
Why do you think that?
|
|
Are we now thinking along the lines of using Military tactics against cyclists?
|
|
If the BA was in charge they would be quickly overwhelmed.
|
>> Are we now thinking along the lines of using Military tactics against cyclists?
>>
he, he.
I love the way threads start to drift off course.
I return here after a day or so and its gone from 'berate your local cyclist' to outright war!
Its actually quite fun to read how a thread starts off and then see what the subject matter is a few hundred posts further on.
|
>> >> Are we now thinking along the lines of using Military tactics against cyclists?
>> >>
>>
>> he, he.
>> I love the way threads start to drift off course.
>> I return here after a day or so and its gone from 'berate your local
>> cyclist' to outright war!
>> Its actually quite fun to read how a thread starts off and then see what
>> the subject matter is a few hundred posts further on.
>>
Blimey, now we're onto the Falklands!
Wonder if they have cycle lanes?
;-)
|
And what happened to Poland after the war ?
So Britain goes to war with Germany because they invade Poland, at the end of the war we give it to the Russians.
plus we also sent back a few Polish fighter pilots that helped us out in WWII.
Good old Britain, knows how to carp on the small guy !
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 29 Apr 12 at 03:20
|
|
Would you trust any politician?
|
nope. they are all failed car salesmen.
They would sell your nan given the chance.
|
>> nope. they are all failed car salesmen.
>>
>> They would sell your nan given the chance.
There are some decent ones Diddy but they're a fast reducing pool. Two, Jack Ashley and Tony Newton, have died in the last month.
|
Politics is the art of the possible. What is possible is sometimes surprisngly little. Yet we all expect our politicians to perform miracles. Until we all grow up and stop expecting the government to sort everything from economic decline to the NHS within a few years of being, elected politicians will continue to keep promising the earth and failing to deliver.
|
|
A country gets the leaders it votes for and deserves...(except Gordon Brown. The only people who deserved him were the Scots...:-)
Last edited by: madf on Thu 26 Apr 12 at 14:06
|
Is it prophetic that this thread started about cyclists and now has got around to WW3?
Pat
|
|
im thinking of going to RAF cosfords cold war museum, free entry and reasonable parking ....has any one been? im 70 miles away ....cheers zoo
|
|
No worries from the me anyway !
Last edited by: R.P. on Thu 26 Apr 12 at 16:15
|
Cosford is well worth a visit but IME it's a bad idea to take the wife and daughter...
(YMMV)
|
|
Duxford's just as good and if you have enough money you can drive a tank !
|
>> Duxford's just as good and if you have enough money you can drive a tank
>> !
>>
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5czS2HvnxFQ&feature=plcp
|
|
was going to take the GF .... i bored her senseless at the birmingham motorcycle museum .... need a ploy ...help?
|
ok let her drive a tank.
Then be cheeky and ask her how her parking is in that. he he
|
>> Good old Britain, knows how to carp on the small guy !
>>
By the end of the war, Britain was the small guy. We didn't have a lot of say in it in reality. The US and Russia puled the strings.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 29 Apr 12 at 03:19
|
|
We shrank even more after Suez.
|
but didnt we expand 'trouserly' after the falklands debacle?
|
|
It wasn't a debacle by any twist of the facts. Very good programme last week on the Falkland's Legacy - which made your point.
|
>> It wasn't a debacle
No. It was an odd moment though, and if like me you were involved (peripherally, but in London) as a hack from the word go, it had aspects of high comedy as well as tragedy.
Mrs Thatcher, a friend by definition of the Argentinian generals, discovered with startling suddenness that they were a fascist junta. Almost everyone on the left with very few exceptions discovered with startling suddenness that their visceral enemies the Argentinian generals were the legitimate government of a third world country arrogantly robbed by British imperialism.
'Iron Britannia'. 'Thatcher's War'. Unbelievable floods of utter crap at that point made me fall out of love with even the so-called hard left, and I've never been the same again.
The untold story of the Falklands is the ambivalent, zigzag line pursued by the US and the means by which the special relationship was patched up in a Heath Robinson way. It's no joke when your children outgrow you and lose their respect.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 28 Apr 12 at 19:16
|
>>
>> The untold story of the Falklands is the ambivalent, zigzag line pursued by the US
>>
Only because they were unsure where their best interest was, what is best for them always comes first.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 28 Apr 12 at 19:28
|
>> Only because they were unsure where their best interest was, what is best for them
>> always comes first.
>>
Quite right and proper, too.
I just wish UK politicos would take the same "pro-my-country" line and not the "pro-themselves" one!
|
|
Fear not, Pastyman has our best interests at heart.
|
"I Pay Road Tax, You don't" - nyx2k
