Fitzroy Maclean book is outstanding

Thirded.

At the risk of a tangent, but linked to Rory Stewart’s experiences, this is an outstanding read as well,

Plenty did before going into politics. Much rarer the other way round mainly due to the ages involved, though I guess in both world wars it must have happened.

If you want the full SP CFH his Desert Island Discs programme is worth a listen.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/03/uk-tires-career-politicians-soldiers-are-returning-parliament

Will look for that, Sandwich.
It’s odd, but we appear to have lost the line to Scotchlandshire… 😉

That aimed at me CFH? Remember I am trying to avoid pointless arguments

If you think its OK for Davidson to swan around in uniform and to use that uniform for party political purposes thats up to you. I know its morally wrong and against army regs. Note that piece you both quoted says she was entitled to wear the honorary colonels uniform – what it omitted was she must not under army regs use it for political purposes – which she has done many times not just that occasion. Thats why she is known as Ruth tank copmmander for he willingness to use her 3 years in the TA to promote herself shamelessly

What did she do to deserve that honorary colonels uniform? Tell me thats not political in itself?

And remember – I have time for Davidson generally – a very able politician and one generally truthful

And yet, here you are…

She didn’t break ‘army regs’ and you even managed to contradict yourself after saying

a uniform she had no right to be wearing.

when you said she did have the right to wear it.

Thanks for playing.

Has there been a war since 1945 that actually posed a threat to this country ?
Seeing as most wars are initiated by politicians maybe it’s only right that they ought to be the first ones in, lead from the front so to speak. Or maybe war mongering politicians prepared to send their own offspring into battle.

Errrr….the Cold War!!! Or did we forget that we spent the best part of 50 years after ww2 facing the threat of total annihilation?

Errrr….the Cold War!!! Or did we forget that we spent the best part of 50 years after ww2 facing the threat of total annihilation?

Errrrrr….think WE need to brush up on the meaning of Cold war.

Genuine question – wasn’t that the meaning of Cold War – threat of Mutually Assured Destruction prevented it going hot, except of course for the numerous places where it was fought as a proxy – Africa/ Vietnam etc…?

Edit. Can’t be **** bothered.

timbog160
Errrr….the Cold War!!! Or did we forget that we spent the best part of 50 years after ww2 facing the threat of total annihilation?

We were probably fortunate that most world leaders at that time had seem the results of partial annihilation close up and personal. To them MAD was unthinkable.

The current crop all seem proud of their eagerness to press the button.

For contrast – Enoch Powell MC:
“Nobody disputes, I believe, that our nuclear weaponry is negligible in comparison with that of Russia: if we could destroy 16 Russian cities, she could destroy practically every vestige of life on these islands several times over. For us to use the weapon would therefore be equivalent to more than suicide: it would be genocide – the extinction of our race – in the most literal and precise meaning of that much abused expression. An officer may, in the hour of his country’s defeat and disgrace, commit suicide honourably and rationally with his service revolver; but in any collective context the choice of non-existence, of the obliteration of all future hopes, is insanity.”