The services are taught not to just take an order and see it through, they are now empowered to question the order to understand if it is legal.Of course not.
I was making the comparison to make a point: the Government should be telling the civil servants what to do and the navy what to do and expect it to get done (because we live in a democracy and we elect the government). If a majority want control of laws and borders - which I believe is the case then so it should be. It seems that a large proportion of the thousands of civil servants whom are not elected and the Naval Officers - also not elected - might not share the views of the recent Home Secretary or indeed the new one and consequently they are being belligerent. Ditto border force employees (and the Union which represents them).
Why was Patel accused of bullying? Some might say because she was a nasty piece of work. But another angle could be: she was getting frustrated at having blocks put up against her attempts to deal with the migrant issue, so ended up shouting her mouth off in exasperation.
Let's see if the new woman does any better! But like I said, I'm not arguing about the small boats thing/illegal migration anymore - what is the point when 1.2 million visas were issued last year for legal entry, it hardly really matters, but I am just curious as to where power really lies.
The services are taught not to just take an order and see it through, they are now empowered to question the order to understand if it is legal.
And, thank fuck they do with the way you want this country to be run.
The services are taught not to just take an order and see it through, they are now empowered to question the order to understand if it is legal.
And, thank fuck they do with the way you want this country to be run.
Look, I am not here to make enemies. I am just curious about stuff.
I assume when you say: "The services are taught not to just take an order and see it through, they are now empowered to question the order to understand if it is legal." you have been in the services, or you know this from how? I assume it is tied up with that other thing I learnt about recently: that to say in defence "I was just following orders" is no defence at all, anymore.
What bugs me these days is how everyone in an argument somehow somehow falls back on 'the law'. What if the law is wrong? For example - to get back to the thread topic, I read all the time about how 75% are accepted for asylum after appeal, but are the asylum laws as they should be? Could those stats be to do with some untruths being told or indeed the fact that some countries these people are fleeing from have less enlightened views when compared with the UK e.g. on sexuality/gender issues? and does that make it Ok to come here? Would it not be better to stay and fight for your rights in your homeland, much as gay men did in England in the 60s or indeed suffragettes a hundred years ago to start to get some equality between the sexes (on voting in that case).
I am just wondering what has happened to the 'chain of command' between when I was a kid (1982) and me in middle age (now).
Is your name Norris McWhirter?
If I was I would be typing from some sort or after-life-internet-cafe.
I didn't really get your joke, was it Guiness Records related?
The civil service advise the government, and if they choose to ignore their advice, then so be it.Of course not.
I was making the comparison to make a point: the Government should be telling the civil servants what to do and the navy what to do and expect it to get done (because we live in a democracy and we elect the government). If a majority want control of laws and borders - which I believe is the case then so it should be. It seems that a large proportion of the thousands of civil servants whom are not elected and the Naval Officers - also not elected - might not share the views of the recent Home Secretary or indeed the new one and consequently they are being belligerent. Ditto border force employees (and the Union which represents them).
Why was Patel accused of bullying? Some might say because she was a nasty piece of work. But another angle could be: she was getting frustrated at having blocks put up against her attempts to deal with the migrant issue, so ended up shouting her mouth off in exasperation.
Let's see if the new woman does any better! But like I said, I'm not arguing about the small boats thing/illegal migration anymore - what is the point when 1.2 million visas were issued last year for legal entry, it hardly really matters, but I am just curious as to where power really lies.
‘Stay and fight for your rights…’Look, I am not here to make enemies. I am just curious about stuff.
I assume when you say: "The services are taught not to just take an order and see it through, they are now empowered to question the order to understand if it is legal." you have been in the services, or you know this from how? I assume it is tied up with that other thing I learnt about recently: that to say in defence "I was just following orders" is no defence at all, anymore.
What bugs me these days is how everyone in an argument somehow somehow falls back on 'the law'. What if the law is wrong? For example - to get back to the thread topic, I read all the time about how 75% are accepted for asylum after appeal, but are the asylum laws as they should be? Could those stats be to do with some untruths being told or indeed the fact that some countries these people are fleeing from have less enlightened views when compared with the UK e.g. on sexuality/gender issues? and does that make it Ok to come here? Would it not be better to stay and fight for your rights in your homeland, much as gay men did in England in the 60s or indeed suffragettes a hundred years ago to start to get some equality between the sexes (on voting in that case).
I am just wondering what has happened to the 'chain of command' between when I was a kid (1982) and me in middle age (now).
Thatcher gave the order to sink the Belgrano following a request for instruction from the submarine’s CO.We will vote them out at the next election we’ve all had enough of Boris and Truss, it’s gone to far when she describes poor peoples problems with the cost of living as “hand outs” generations of people paid in too fund the poor sick and disabled so they won’t be left unable to feed or heat there homes. I am so angry at the use of the phrase “hand outs”
Boris and his deportation plan is another disgraceful policy along with changes to the law through legislation.
Presumably the Belgrano was sunk not by Thatcher, but the head of the MOD who have the authority in a time of war. That was probably a mistake not deliberate it was sailing either in or just out of the exclusion zone
The civil service advise the government, and if they choose to ignore their advice, then so be it.
The Royal Navy, as do all the services, advise the government, but its the government that decides if it's time to send those services into battle.
You seem to be conflicted between democracy and internationally binding treaties we have signed that define how we react and respond to whatever situations we find ourselves in.
Politicians, particularly the present lot, speak no end of bollocks and pretend they are giong to be tough on immigrants, but the reality is their hands are tied. As members of the UN, the ECHR, and clauses in myriad treaties and agreements we have signed over decades, we are responding accordingly.
The power lies in us being part of the international community. A civilised country that respects human beings and has agreed over the years to respect their rights.
You may not like it, but we can't just shoot them with the agreement of Nigel Farage standing on the cliffs of Dover shouting his approval.
Thatcher gave the order to sink the Belgrano following a request for instruction from the submarine’s CO.