And if Gordon doesn't get the keys to No 10 ...

[powerdesal]

[quote]

Soldiers who have fallen in Afghanistan and Iraq are, I am informed, brought home because it would be insensitive to bury non-Muslim soldiers in Muslim countries (although this was done in both WW1 and WW2 and the graveyards are well looked after).

[/quote]

You are correctly informed.

As for Tony Blair 'sending someone' to be present at such returns, I would have expected  him to do it  himself, but that is only my opinion.

I am not sure that the Military actually want any politicians present, they have a long standing, deep seated dislike and distrust of politicians - with lots of justification IMHO.

[Dick Smith]

Sorry, Diva, that isn't condescending. It's disagreeing, and telling the truth. Different thing, but perhaps you expect everyone to believe you, after all you chose to call yourself a diva and a star. Delusions? Possibly.

Do I expect my students to be accurate? Yes. Do I accept "I read this somewhere"? No. Find the reference and I'll believe you. I go on evidence.

And why is it that every time I disagree with some muppet they throw back the teaching thing? Do you have NO imagination, or are you just another one who did badly at school and sees a chance to pay back?

I thought you were going to the beach?

[Dick Smith]

Steve

You are right that the army don't want big ceremonies with politicians saluting returning dead soldiers, and I would reiterate the point that if TB had done so, then muppets like Diva Star would be posting that he was milking the situation for publicity purposes. Politicians really can't win in these situations because people are always looking hysterically for some stick to beat them with.

[Viv]

I don't agree with everybody, but I try and write in a way so not as to run people down.

I used the name Viva from my name Viv A but some one else joined as that... so Just Katie recommended Diva ... the Diva Star is actually the brand of dolls that my daughter plays with. So no 'delusions' just a bit of fun, but another chance for you to be rude.

And I am a muppet too? Charming. It is YOU that tells everybody that YOU are teacher. God knows there are probably hundreds who post on here too but we are know Dick Smith THE Teacher.

I love teachers, my best friends are teachers. I did well at school thank you for asking and at University ( probably better than you )  Let me guess, became a teacher early 1970s I think I'll go with a  2.2 , am I right ?  probably not I'm sure you got a First from Oxford.

Thank heavens most teachers aren't like you!

Been to the beach and walked the dog, now back.

 

[Dick Smith]

Lovely. Very happy for you.

MA with Distinction, since you ask.

You know nothing about me, old love, so drop the patronising rubbish.

[Viv]

Feel free to read up on Eddie Wallace. You might learn something.

I know all I need to know about you from your self indulgent website ( didn't bother reading all of it , yawn)  and nasty attitude that comes out every so often on here.

Haven't you got any marking to do, dearie?

 

[Dick Smith]

Yes love. Year 7, it will be an intellectual step up from chatting to you.

[Coco]

Anyway...... back to the Falklands.  Yes, soldiers were brought home to be buried, sometimes it was after the war, as is the case with many wars.  I don't have any written evidence to prove it, just my own eye-witness account if that is worth anything.

I made several trips to the Falklands on ssUganda back in 1983/4 ferrying troops back and forth between Ascension Island and Port Stanley because we had bombed the s*** out of the runway.  Apart from troops we also took several parents of dead soldiers who were going to visit their sons graves and then decide whether they wanted them repatriated.  Quite a few felt unhappy at the desolate landscape and the fact that they would be unlikely to be able to make a return trip at a later date, so chose the option of having their sons brought "home" and buried in the UK.

[Will]

...if Gordon doesn't get the keys to No 10

Then he will, as long as Tony keeps hos word, probably hand them on a plate to one D. Cameron and his cronies. The prospect of Charles Clark as PM seems hardly feasible, and the latest New Labour farce recalls, for me, the leadership fiascos that made the Tories unelectable up to a year or two back. The other possible scenario involves a revitalised, dried-out Charles Kennedy - but that reminds me of porcine aviation, plus the fact that as soon as anybody mentions rent boys the rest of the Lib Dems seem to collapse in a heap.

Or maybe Sarko or Villepin would like to put in a takeover bid for the House of Commons? That really would make me want to emigrate (and I don't mean from France to Britain).

[Dick Smith]

The Falklands was the first, officially, as far as I know, but the period 1947 on is a bit vague. The rules applied in WW2, but since then have been 'open to interpretation' to an extent.

In all previous wars fallen soldiers were buried in theatre, largely because they had to be. Then part of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission mission is to ensure that all fallen soldiers are buried 'equally' with no distinction of rank, religion etc. In fact in both WW1 and WW2 wealthy parents were able to 'steal' the bodies of their sons and bring them back. It was disapproved of, but not much anyone could do.

The Falklands were both a very long way away (no real chance of relatives visiting the graves) and advances in the treatment of bodies and transport allowed for it to be done relatively easily, so there was pressure for it to be done. And, as you say, the idea of leaving one's loved one in such a bleak place isn't attractive - never mind what may happen there in the future and whether or not war cemeteries would be honoured by an Argentinian government. And as you say, some were repatriated, the rest stayed.

Now we seem to have no fixed rules, and as Steve has confirmed, we are being 'sensitive' to local beliefs. I suspect that in future bodies will mostly be returned.

Incidentally, the graves of fallen soldiers when returned are still the responsibility of the CWGC, and I think that they use a slightly different design of headstone from the familiar WW1/2 style.

[powerdesal]

I'm not sure its just 'sensitivity', I think its more a case of numbers plus the ability with modern transport facilities. WW1 and WW2 would have been a logistical nightmare for the return of the fallen, plus the sight could have affected the civilian population morale.

[Dick Smith]

I'm sure that civilian morale is a key factor - another reason for not having big televised returns with politicians in attendance. You want lots pf pictures of the blokes marching out behind the flags and the bands, but not the hospital trains and the coffins returning...

[Patmobile]

If I were Mr. Blair, I think I would be hanging on to

the job for a while – at least for as long as it took me to line up a tasty,

well paid sinecure in the USA.

My fear (as Blair) would be that, the moment I left

office, I could be in danger of being hauled up before the International Court

on charges of crimes against humanity. 

I would be worried about spending a lot of time in

the Milosevic suite, reserved for warmongering politicians, particularly as the

court would be bound to investigate my "dodgy dossier", with which I

managed to convince most Labour MP's to vote for war.  No doubt the court

would not ignore the evidence in the way my tame

Hutton enquiry did.  I would calculate that even Cherie's superb advocacy

would be unlikely to get me off in a proper court of law.

If I were

Blair, I would have been hoping that the whole thing would have blown over by

now, but I would now realise that my escape plan must be in place before the

party or the country kick me out.  It could take a few more months, but

then it'll be off to the USA for me!

Of course, I might be entirely wrong about dear, sweet Mr Blair, BUT, my

money's on him going to the USA - or prison - within 2 years of leaving office.

Patrick

 

 

 

[Dick Smith]

Pat - that won't happen, and you know it won't.

Why do you assume that he is 'hanging on for a sinecure' - he is already a lot richer than you or I will ever be in this life, and he can earn millions in retirement with very little effort. And then there are Cherie's earnings. And the European Union.

[Deimos]

Apparently (so I've read anyway) he has already lined-up a US lecture tour. Although he will not command the same rates as Bill Clinton he is to get £75000 per lecture.

He may be wealthy but boy do the Blairs know how to spend it. Mortgaged to the hilt and outgoings already in excess of incomings (and that was from the Guardian but I cannot remember the date)

Ian

[Dick Smith]

There is a vast difference between Blair and Clinton. Blair has made a start on being an international figure, Clinton had eight years. Blair will probably spend some time in a Euro-Job and then move on. I would think that his lecture fees, magnificent as they may seem to us (I can get £350 a day if I am lucky) will, as Ian says, go only a small way to covering their expenses. But, whatever the Guardian says, they aren't on their uppers, the Blairs!

[Frederick]

You  are  correct about keeping coffins out of sight Dick..........years ago there was a special siding at Waterloo Station where trains were loaded at night and bodies taken to Brookwood  Cemetary  .

[LEO]

If Gordon Brown becomes prime minister (god help us) for more than a year, I will take my trousers off in Burton's window for a fortnight

Leo Martin,

.St SEVER 14

 

[Russethouse]

I have little idea what Gordon Brown is really like, his friends say he is much 'warmer' than comes over. I admired the way he handled the death of his first child, Jennifer, with a quiet dignity which at the time I thought showed the Blair's refusal to discuss Leo's vaccinations in a rather poor light.

He has had to some extent, sit on the side lines while the political mood changes - many English people are now not thrilled at the idea of having a Scot as Prime Minister when the Scots have their own Parliament . Thats just an observation.

If there was really an agreement between Blair & Brown then surely Blair is duty bound to honour it ? I wonder what the late John Smith would make of it ?

More questions than answers.........

As for books regarding what went on in Mrs Thatchers era - could it have been something written by Bernard Ingram ?

[Will]

But John Smith was a Scot too. He was universally liked, probably the best PM Britain never had. I met him when he came to speak up for the staff during a dispute at a large publishing company where I worked, not long before he died. Gordon Brown, I think, is respected for what he has achieved as chancellor, but liked? I think not. Tony Blair was liked when first elected, though as always the honeymoon soon ended. David Cameron is much more likeable than any Conservative leader for years, so that might make things interesting.

Whatever TB and GB may have cooked up in secret, it remains unofficial and unsubstantiated, which in politics counts for little. And who believes Bernard Ingham? He (with Tim Bell and the Saatchis) started what Alistair Campbell and co built upon.

[Russethouse]

But John Smith could have been elected before this feeling of 'the Scots have their own parliament' got a foothold, events have moved on and perhaps a Scottish Prime Minister is not such a favourable thought as it may once have been. (though I agree whole heartedly with your esteem for John Smith - as we have discussed before, I think many people are just disappointed with TB, who seemed to promise so much )

Dick asked Diva Star about where she had read about Mrs T meeting the planes carrying bodies of servicemen. I believe Bernard Ingham has written a book (or two) about Mrs Thatchers time as PM , I wondered if that is where the reference is. I agree though - he started something that the Labour party continued and expanded - 'spin' 

[Deimos]

Russethouse commented: "If there was really an agreement between Blair & Brown then surely Blair is duty bound to honour it ?"

My own opinion is that who is Prime Minister should be determined by the people rather than by some private agreement made in a cafe (supposedly) many years ago between two people. To that end I tend to this there may be a case for, when the Prime Minister changes (for whatever reason) then there is automatically a general election. Also (though not the reason), I wonder if GB would be quite so keen to "oust" Blair if he then had to be approved by the electorate.

Ian

[Russethouse]

[quote user="Deimos"]Russethouse commented: "If there was really an agreement between Blair & Brown then surely Blair is duty bound to honour it ?" My own opinion is that who is Prime Minister should be determined by the people rather than by some private agreement made in a cafe (supposedly) many years ago between two people. To that end I tend to this there may be a case for, when the Prime Minister changes (for whatever reason) then there is automatically a general election. Also (though not the reason), I wonder if GB would be quite so keen to "oust" Blair if he then had to be approved by the electorate. Ian[/quote]

I suppose the truth is that neither man was ever really in a position to make that agreement - isn't up to the Labour Party who their leader is - not just up to the Prime Minister to name his successor. ? (I may be wrong about this of course)

Perhaps TB will hang on fearful that GBs more left wing policies would lose the Labour party the next election?

[Frederick]

If T B had any guts he would have had Brown in by now and told him he was not having anymore plotting and to clear his desk...If any of the ministers  supporting Brown were unhappy with that .... he could tell them a box would be left on the steps of No 10 to chuck their resignations in. ......Clean sweep is needed  ...start again... to put an end to all this in fighting. ... and  then announce he is staying on in the job . ....  " If he had the guts " 

[Alcazar]

[quote user="Frederick"]

If T B had any guts he would have had Brown in by now and told him he was not having anymore plotting and to clear his desk...If any of the ministers  supporting Brown were unhappy with that .... he could tell them a box would be left on the steps of No 10 to chuck their resignations in. ......Clean sweep is needed  ...start again... to put an end to all this in fighting. ... and  then announce he is staying on in the job . ....  " If he had the guts " 

[/quote]

Unfortunately, Blair has few guts for that sort of thing, but enough to send other people's kids to die in an illegal war.[:@] Blair's legacy: "the man who COULDN 'T afford to send our kids to university, but COULD afford to send them to die in two wars"

Does anyone else feel that GB is getting a bit desperate? Perhaps he NEEDS to be no longer the chancellor when his economy built on sand finally collapses? Then he can say it wasn't HIS fault.

Or am I just cynical?

Alcazar