What DO you think of General Sir Richard Dannatt's comments?
Tell us.
(And see post below if this seems confusing...)
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
The PM Privacy Commission
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
- Full Audio and Transcripts
- Hugh Tomlinson QC
- Zac Goldsmith MP
- Max Mosley
- Stephen Abell
- Hugh Grant
- Sir Charles Gray
- Alan Rusbridger
- Helen Wood
- Max Clifford
- Marcus Partington
- John Kampfner
- Christopher Graham
- Louise Mensch
- Andy Trotter
- John Mullin
- Avril Sanders Royle
- Jimmy Wales
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
damn and blast! I put my serious comment on the wrong thread! I'll re-post it in a little while when I'm able to copy & paste...
SB1
Right, now my post has appeared on the previous thread, I can copy it here:
I think we can certainly stand the more serious comments, and I do think it's important to question the fact that the government spokespeople seem to be avoiding a direct reply to Gen Sir Richard Dannatts' comments. I would love to hear a direct answer to the question "Do you agree with Gen Sir Richard Dannett when he says that the presence of British troops exacerbates the security problems, yes or no?"
So, Eddie, will you consider posing this exact question to any government spokesperson wou may be interviewing for tonight?
Having been (briefly) a member of the armed forces in the distant past, I welcome this intervention. I'm not entirely sure where the line should be drawn, but I do think that there should be more place for comments by senior military about current operations. Perhaps the reason I can say this is because I can choose to ignore at least some of the political "intent" of the comments made and thus take them at face value. With this in mind, I don't see that the comments made by Sir Richard Dannatt are particularly at odds with what the government is saying - i.e. he's basically saying we should be planning to pull out sooner rather than later. And the conclusion I draw from that is that he thinks we should have a specific goal, rather than a woolly aim of achieving some unlikely state of complete peace.
All that said, I did think that Nick Robinson's analysis was quite interesting too. I took this to mean that Dannatt was drawing a line under what had gone before and was calling for a plan for the near future - both in Iraq and beyond.
The general has it right. We are part of the problem now in Iraq. If only SOMEONE had told TB it would be a bad idea to go into Iraq as George's poodle...Call me silly, but does anyone else feel all this could have been avoided if TB had just refused to join the US in this folly, would that have stopped the war, avoided this rise in terrorism and saved 500,000 lives? Does TB have 500,000 souls on his Christian conscience?
General Dannatt's remarks have hit me in much the same way as all the fuss about veils - it feels as though, at long last, people are talking sense and not spin.
The General is right - we were not invited into Iraq. The truth, I think, is that we were caught between the devil and the deep blue sea (apply these epithets as you see fit to the US and the UN. That little exercise gets interesting when you change the idiom to "a rock and a hard place"!)
Personally, I was sad that our government did not stand up against the US for what I think is right, but we didn't, and we let ourselves be persuaded that shock and awe would work miracles. The US government does not seem to have even considered the possibility that shock and awe would fail and we are left with no strategy I can discern and hence, unimaginable consequences.
So the General is right to point out to Tony Blair et al that we must have a strategy for the only option still open to us - eventual withdrawal.
Was he right to add his personal view that a formerly Christian Britain is drifting in whatever wind happens to be blowing? I think he is - but then, I would. Even taking the Christian element out of the argument, we were weak and wobbly to go into this conflict, and we are now too weak and wobbly to stand up for what is morally right - and get out of someone else's country. But Tony and his cronies will always put off until tomorrow what they should do today.
My, my! that's a long and earnest frog! If anyone's off to the sweet shop, I fancy a Twirl!
I think the comments about British Troops making the problem worse are true to a certain extent.
If you take Afghanistan as a "problem area" I can rememer when the Russians were in there in the 80's the story line always seemed to be on the side of the afghan people defending the forced regime. Now when its our (by this I mean Western) forces in there its suddenly a terrorist element doing the fighting. Whilst there will be an element in there that is terrorist I wonder if the ones fighting "our Troops" are the sons of those who fought the russians.
I'm in agreement with the general idea that he has a right to say what he said and, indeed, what he's said is true - we need a better exit strategy than the apparently very vague plans that currently exist; we need, as John H says above, a specific goal.
Have to disagree with LittleJohn though - I think Bush would have gone anyway and Blair hoped to be a restraining influence on the US - and also believed in what he was doing, rightly or wrongly. Only the US could have prevented the US from going in, and so, no, most of those lives would not have been saved. (And, anyway, clearly you don't listen closely enough to 'The Now Show' - Blair is Bush's carer, not his poodle.)
Looking again at the frog wot I wrote (5), I must add that I am not suggesting we should simply withdraw willy nilly. What we need is a properly thought out, timed, public strategy for withdrawal. We need to be able to demonstrate to all sides exactly what our moral stand in this is, and how we plan to fulfil all the obligations we have now let ourselves in for. Perhaps then we might regain some credibility both at home and in Iraq.
I wouldn't say no to a bag of crisps and a large glass of dry white wine, if anyone is going that way.
Rightly or wrongly, we are there now. It's counter productive to link the fact (OK, call it the 'view', since there are those who still deny it) that we shouldn't be there ... we are.
TB certainly isn't going to risk looking weak (!) by withdrawing before Dubya says so, if it can be inferred that early withdrawal means he agrees it was a bad job from start to finish.
Frankly, if people would stop dragging up all the 'we were wrong to go in' stuff, and talk only about the realistic future and all too painful present, they might actually get a result.
Remember, this war is all about testosterone.
Serious colleagues,
On the matter of being part of the problem, I would dearly like to hear some strong questioning of any 'official' who is trying to 'dis' the Lancet/Hopkins survey of Iraqi deaths.
I have read the actual report from:
and find the methodology robust and the results shocking but sadly believable. I would welcome any thoughts to the contrary.
It seems an excellent partner piece for Sir Richard's comments.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanti
ed
He's absolutely right.
The religious element in the Arab world isn't interested in Western Style Democracy because only God can create laws and voting is sinful. For us to say we will stay there until they do things our way in Very Wrong and Foolish.
Our troops should come home and let the Iraqis sort themselves out. We just give them a unifying enemy at present and that is not good for our boys.
re new TEAM PHOTOS
The boys in the PM office are much happier to have their photos on the blog than the girls. But Manveen and Julia agreed to be "papped". Fiona says I can take her photo too but my camera phone memory is full so it might take a while.
Thank you for all your kind comments about Simon. I'm sure he will be flattered.
Clearly Gen. Dannatt has a valid point. The Government must concede that, or it clearly doesn't learn from experience.
In NI (AIUI) the Army went in before the IRA were founded - they came to be because of the Bristish Army being there. We then entered the classic viscious circle of conflict, and neither party could back down.
I think its clear that Al Queda has been formed because of how they perceive "The West" as acting against "Islam", and it is foolish to deny that the War on Terror is making recruitment of teenagers easier.
Would Germany have become Nazi in the 1930's were it not for the stringent repparations that were imposed?
The really big question is how do we (and by we I mean the world) resolve issues between nations, without causing new problems within any of the nations concerned?
Answers on a post card to the new Secretary-General of the UN!
I think Sir Richard should shove his military pace stick up Tony Blair's arse. The Prime Minister might listen a bit more then.
What does it say about today's society when a man who is widely acknowledged to be telling the truth and standing up for his organisation is castigated as "naive" and expected to be bollocked or sacked?
I applaud his attempt to reduce the cost of the recent 2 grand tax free bribe to soldiers for doing their job by attempting to bring them home before they qualify.
well - I can't add anything to John H at 3.
Lee (11),
One of the reasons I love the PM blog so much is that it's generally free of that kind of comment. Why not give your point of view, back it up with explanation/evidence and if you are angry about something say "I'm angry"?
I thought his comments we the first open, honest and rationale thoughts on the military suitation that the UK is in. Breath of fresh air and a super catalyst for an open debate on the topic. I immediatley emailed the PM sister programme "Today" congratulating them on 15 minutes of un-interrupted interviewing on prime time. That was followed immediately with emails to the Prime Minister (note no abbreviation to cause confusion) and the Minister of Defence congradulating them on letting Sir Richard speak his mind. What a change - honest open opinions without spin or rhetoric well done Sir Richard.
I found the interview remarkably refreshing - funnily enough that seems to be the norm when the interview is of a Professional rather than a Civil Servant or Politician*.
I feel that the problem with his comments about "we are the problem" will be of people taking it out of context.
If taken in context with the example of the Australian patrol going in for discussions with a local leader and coming under attack it makes perfect sense and is a reasoned and restrained comment.
If taken without that contextual example, it would be used as a detrimental comment that I think is unfair.
Anyway - much finish - can't think after lunchtime drinkies!
Excellent blogs.
Please can somebody direct me to these photos that have been mentioned.
Aperitif (18)
Angry? I'm bloody livid!
Regardless of the content of the general's comments, it's not only acceptable to hear them, it's vital.
If you 'phone up a builder and ask why your garden wall hasn't been put up yet, you don't want to hear the manager saying:
"We firmly believe our wall-building strategy is the correct one. The wall will be completed at the appropriate time, after consultation with all interested parties and in accordance with our contract notwithstanding changes in circumstances on the ground..."
Rather, you want to hear the brickie saying:
"Can't build your wall Guv. Management's only gone and ordered 1cwt of bananas instead of bricks!"
It may be convenient for Dannatt that he is being labelled naive. I'm sure the man wouldn't be in the job without some sort of political skills. Reaching the top in any profession requires them. So we can assume that simple naivety is not the explanation for his comments. In fact, he may be rather shrewd. We are in a situation where the PM is politically weak. Dannatt will get away with his remarks now, because Blair is not strong enough to sack a man for telling the truth.
I'd be interested to know what Dannatt thinks he can achieve. I do not think that the UK will withdraw from Iraq any earlier as a result of his comments. But he will have made himself popular with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that combined with the 拢2K 'bribe' will help their morale. And, heaven knows, it must have taken a battering in recent months.
Er, Stephen, the IRA existed long before troops went in to Northern Ireland, although granted it changed its focus and behaviour in response. It's a lot more complicated than your post suggests - remember, the British troops were originally mobilised to protect catholic 'areas' of the province, with Bloody Sunday a major part of the turning point.
Lee (now at 14 but was at 11). Could I suggest that this blog be more a place of comment, analysis, etc, without resorting to simple name-calling and insults? I realise that you've got a strong point of view about this, but your comment actually hurts your case, while a calm , reasoned argument will get people listening to your views...
Or say "Grrr" - that always makes me laugh.
I've just said something about exactly this sort of thing, but somewhere else. And I'm not entirely sure where - prolly the other post today.
John H and Appy; I agree with all points raised.
Even if TB had wanted to go against Dubya's wishes, he could hardly have done so without fear of reprisal, could he? I think TB was, and still is, in an untenable position as our PM, regardless of the fact that it's his choice to be so.
The choice TB was faced with could simply have been (simplistically put, as I see it): 1)US + UK v Iraq or 2)US v UK. The bare fact that Hussein had to be halted was maybe the deciding, humanitarian (mistakenly) factor.
Gen Sir Richard Dannatt would have known from day one as a soldier that it is against military policy to be seen to criticise government, so unless he's looking for a dishonourable discharge from the Army I think it highly unlikely that his intent was to go against the grain.
Cappucino, anyone?
Is there any chance the combined staff of PM can find a better quality camera so we can see the staff in all their radiant beauty?
I don鈥檛 think you can get to a position like Chief of the British Army and not have an opinion worth listening to. Parliament has managed to get itself into a position whereby on-message robots are rewarded and MPs that say what they think are often marginalized and slurred. Even members of the cabinet are given little opportunity to discuss issues with a view to crafting policy. People like Sir Richard Dannatt should be able to air their views outside of the political framework so that we can all benefit. Perhaps then, in the future, we can question more effectively the conclusions of the government, if we have access to the information behind them.
Good decision making starts with sound facts.
Stephen, what's AIUI? Something to do with a United Ireland?
As a citizen of a country, the Netherlands, that also has sent troops to Afghanistan, I'm glad the UK's top soldier spoke out as he did. But I must say that a sense of relief is the only thing all this 'openness' seems to offer - the White House will not be deflected from its course, I'm afraid, and that's where the decisions are taken. And what HAS been worrying ME greatly the last few days is the possible outbreak of a war against Iran, yes, even a nuclear strike against this member of Bush's 'Axis of Evil'. I refer anyone who is willing to be upset to just two articles I read, among many others, and I wonder: why isn't PM (Or Today, OR The World At One, for that matter) informing us about this? Even if it is (well-informed) speculation, that hasn't stopped any network from raising an issue in the past. And this has a catastrophic import...
Lee (21),
Explaining why and sharing your opinion calmly would engage me in debate rather than turning me off and making it appear that there may be nothing behind your outburst. (I stretch my point to others - you're probably cross with me now and don't care whether I'm engaged or not, but you get my point).
I think Gen Sir Richard Dannett is correct in his assessment of the situation in Iraq. (In fact, I have no right to disagree with him, he quite obviously has much more knowledge then I have about the situation on the ground.) However, if I was TB, I think I'd sack him. Not because of what he said, but because of the medium he chose to use to say it.
The military report to the political leadership. His job is to report to the Defence Secretary or the Prime Minister. He has no right to conduct a debate about the rights and wrongs of the current situation in Iraq through interviews with the Daily Mail. It is absolutely not his job to do so. If he feels strongly that the situation is being badly mismanged, he should resign. He can then speak his mind freely as a private citizen.
Agree with Ian - it's like peering through a mist!
Don't where my attempt before this one has gone, I've had no "Naughty Message" message...
Oh, there it is, at 29... now I feel silly. Now this one will probably come out before the other one to make me feel even sillier...
:O)
...the comments above, in their various ways, say it all more-or-less, at least from my perspective.
Unfortunately, "...telling the truth and standing up for his organisation..." (see Charles Hookey above) is a concept I would say many (though thankfully, not all) of today's politicians would find both alien and beyond their comprehension. We shall see...
Anyway, if the following is correct (from the New York Times) there are looming problems: "Mr Blair鈥檚 spokesman said the General鈥檚 remarks following his Daily Mail interview showed there was 鈥樷檔ot a cigarette paper between鈥 the solider and Mr Blair.
鈥樷橦e said we are going to see this through. He said: I鈥檓 on record saying we will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans. He also said that he remains committed to the vision of a unitary state in Iraq with a democratically elected government and security forces that underpin that government..."
If the General did say the foregoing, he is, I believe, being somewhat disingenuous.
Iraq was and remains, a tribally and religiously, deeply divided country. Arguably, Iraq should be at least three independant countries. But the oil. Not to mention regional politics...
"Unity" in Iraq is a western concept and will likely, again, only be imposed by a powerful Dictator - now, whatever happened to that fellow who was there before, funded, armed and enouraged by... oh yes, by the U.S. and us, to name but two...
Iran, Israel, the lebannon... I sense another Dictator emerging. So, what's it all been for?
The Iraqi's have had reasonable time now, to step along the road to a Western style democracy. Tribal interests and influences remain too strong. Memories of past hurts are elephantine.
But if "we" withdraw now, having destroyed much of the country's infrastructure and power-base, leaving a raging multi-tribal civil war, what then..?
If General Dannatt truly has a vision of a unitary state in iraq I have to think he's either taking magic mushrooms or, he's seen the country's new Dictator...
C the P (still 29?) - well said!
If this is a WW1 cappucino (and I think it is), somehow I don't fancy it.
But the thought of it in context still makes me cry. We seem to have learned so little in the last 100 years.
Oh dear, Chris (35, at present) - for a moment I read "peeing through a mist" and wondered what on earth that could be a euphemism for...
Feeling any better?
Appy,
"the IRA existed long before troops went in to Northern Ireland,"
As with Palestine, it all depends upon when you consider the beginning to be.
xx
ed
I have to say I agree with Mark (35).
Although I agree Dannatt's analysis (to many titles to put them all in here) I am concerned because it's not his job to start openly criticising the elected Government.
When he joined the army, he joined up to 'deliver' what the elected government wanted him to. What would happen if all the civil servants started briefing against their Ministers in this way? If they don't like what they're being asked to do then they should resign.
I believe Dannatt knows this and has actually decided that if he's going to have to go this is a far more effective way of getting the message across about the incompetency of the government than just going quietly - as Nick Robinson quoted this morning on Today - 'he's either a stupid man.....but he's not a stupid man'.
He has to go because it is not constitutionally acceptable for the Chief of Staff of the Army to criticise the Government in this way. And if we don't like it, then we need to vote the Government out...that's democray, that's how it's done.
Clearly, 18 months ago we weren't that bothered about it, the writing was on the wall then, clear as day for anybody to see, but we still voted TB back in (not Dannatt) ....we get the government we deserve, after all.
If you wanted to be REALLY cynical, you could just say that TB has his eye more on the lucrative US leature circuit - the place where all America's friends get rewarded after they retire - rather than on what's best for the UK or UK troops. But surely no-one is THAT cynical?!
Thank you Sara... Yes, a century seems like no time at all in this context, sadly.
Appy, you have caused a mental picture that I could really do without!! :)
I'm on the mend I think, thanks, though awaiting various test results, you doubtless know how it is...
Eddie, old boy.
I'm just back from my club, so bare with me.
I say, beware of politicians. When the bombing of German cities was popular in the second world war, the politicians would take the credit for it. But when public opinion was revolting against it, politicians were only too obviously running for cover and leaving the airforce and Air Marshall Harris to take the balme.
Despite Bomber Command suffering the heaviest of losses in the war. Those of us who remember that time, were very glad that Arthur Harris came along. I'm pleased with Sir Richrad's remarks too. Other than that, I think Lee (sb14) (who is probably young) has grasped the situation well, albeit in a nutshell granted. Such fourth right views should always be welcome if not necessarily encouraged.
TTFN
Ed (42), I suppose you are right if you are interpreting Stephen's reference to troops "going in" in a completely different way than I did, and, of course, it is all a matter of interpretation. Fair point.
LittleJohn, Blair may have done a lot of things differently than I would wish, and probably will head off on the lecture when he's done being PM - I would if I were him - and there certainly are people who pride themselves on being "that cynical", but I fear such people are misguided, more concerned with how they are perceived than with exploring fully what is going on and, imho, plain wrong. Most of our fellow froggers are above that sort of thing, I believe.
re Lee at 14, that is the other reason (see previous thread, just posted so at the end of it) why I am worried about serious comments, you get offensive material such as Lee's. Would it be possible to eliminate offensive stuff before it goes on the blog? And yes it is censorship, but of the words not the opinions.
ALSO Stephen, leader of STROP, it is an arguable point that the Nazis came to power because of the severity of the reparations. You could make a couple of other argumants:
that the French were right to go for a much more puntive settlement and carve Germany up and render her completely powerless,
or that the Nazis in fact were propelled to power because of the Great Depression and they used the reparations as an excuse.
I have to confess that I did think that it was right to go into Iraq, but it had never occurred to me that there were virtually NO plans what to do at the end. But come to think of it, wasn't it 1944 before the allies properly began to plan for after the war? At least they did plan. Anyway I was plainly wrong.
I couldn't agree more that you must have all the facts it is possible to have before making a decision, so on that basis alone the General was right to say what he did, but I presume he tried to say this more privately first?
Oh and a very large glass of dry white wine please if anyone is offering. Much nicer than sweets.
Captain, re Such fourth right views should always be welcome if not necessarily encouraged - too heavy on the tipples this afternoon?
It is so sad (weepingly, votingly sad) that we have a Prime Minister that seems unable to speak honestly to the people of the country he claims to represent. When we hear a professional soldier tell it how it is, why do we need someone like Blair to say that it is what he has being saying all along! This is not being economical with the truth - it is just plain economically illiterate.
Time to get some honesty back into UK politics and get an honest person to represent us.
Gordon
Get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Democracy? They don't want it, Tone.
Stop casting your pearls before swine.
Bullets make pretty swinish pearls.
I can't believe that some people are saying that TB could not have refused to go to Iraq against Dubya's wishes. Of course he could! Thank goodness that Harold Wilson had the courage to say no to Bush Senior who wanted us to go into Vietnam with them.
Anyway, we get so little straight talking from politicions these days that it is refreshing to listen to someone speaking without all the spin. We shall know what to think if the General finds himself sacked or moved to Greenland. We absolutely must have an exit strategy - the sooner the better. No party that fails to come up with one can look forward to my vote.
Ok, deep breath, here goes...
re 42 - "Clearly, 18 months ago we weren't that bothered about it, the writing was on the wall then, clear as day for anybody to see, but we still voted TB back in (not Dannatt) ....we get the government we deserve, after all."
It has to be noted of course, Johanna, that re yours above, many others like me, did not vote TBlair back in, and consequently have not been rewarded with the government we (all) deserve. In such a position, I am in wholehearted support of anyone with the relevant experience and the ability to draw an informed conclusion, being able have their opinion heard. Granted, the Daily Mail may not have been an appropriate platform, but if my understanding of his comments to Jim Naughtie this morning are correct, then his comments on the position in Iraq, were a small part of a more wide-ranging 1.5 hour (I think he said) interview. This is where I leap on to my soapbox about misrepresentation by self-interested media who have their own (not so hidden) agendas to follow, regardless of how much bending is required.
Whew. Well I tried.
Gordon - I think the trouble with honesty in a country's leadership is that, whilst noble and endearing, would result in constant and complete racism, ageism, sexism, and all the other isms you can think of, because all MPs would be allowed to spout off their opinions. I see that this would be a major catalyst for international strife...
A case in point - if TB had been unsure all along about the wisdom of going in to Iraq, he wouldn't have been able to communicate that to the electorate without upsetting Dubya...
Gordon (50),
Like yourself, you mean?
Wrong question. Ask how Blair and Dannatt both come to declared agreement when it is plain they hold different views. Answer: collusion.
Oh! THAT agreement!
PM nearly over for another week, and how did we think it went?
Personally I was delighted by Eddie's ringing praise of the blog throughout, and frequent encouragement for listeners to have a look and take part.
I think this 'serious' lark has breathed new life into the thing.
And now I declare the sun over the yard arm... glass of something rich and red, anyone? All back to mine??
Valery (52),
Re your position on certain elements of the meedja "YES! Couldn't agree more".
Val P:
I have lost all faith in every Party - the boudaries between them seem to have blurred over the decades, to the detriment of the whole country. Also, as long as we're allied to a Superpower, we're going to be the victims of MPs pussy-footing around and toeing the party line.
I need chocolate. And real ale!
Golly, that took some reading through. Some interesting points, though, and so difficult to skip.
I think it's worth mentioning that, as so often is the case when something goes from "real" to "reported", the country's top soldier didn't launch a massive attack on the government. If he had, I might have welcomed his openness, and may have agreed with his comments, but I would be of the opinion that he should be sacked. A similar point has been made on here by number of people.
That he should blithely do as ordered is a tricky one. However, if he is to actively challenge his orders, hoping to do so whilst staying in the top job is probably not realistic.
I think that there are a couple of practical considerations. The guy has been in the job for 2 months (I think) and so is taking the only chance he has to distance himself from the previous leadership and make a difference. Perhaps there are people in government who actually appreciate his intervention? Another practical consideration is the "morale" card also mentioned earlier - he's sticking up for his boys. That seems worthwhile.
I do find myself fascinated though by this "exacerbates" comment. If there is more trouble now for British soldiers in Iraq than there was 1, 2 or more years ago (which there is) - is that not just a statement of fact? That's not the same as saying that the UK's involvement in Iraq is fuelling terrorism aimed at the UK - yet the terminology is very similar to that used when this issue was being discussed recently.
I agree with Gordon (above #50 - not the Scottish Player). It is deeply saddening that what is now obviously Government Policy had to be said by a profoundly sensible, professional man (the General - not Mr Bleh).
Bit odd to say he didn't want the army "broken". As if he'd lost the receipt or something.
And CONGRATULATIONS to Annasee!
P.S. Your wee sellkit timorous beastie is the best indicator of continued rat-free status. They do not often coexist.
xx
ed
and, from the burns unit:
I'm truly sorry man's dominion,
Has broken nature's social union,
An' justifies that ill opinion,
Which makes thee startle
At me, thy poor, earth-born companion,
An' fellow-mortal!
............
Still thou art blest, compar'd wi' me
The present only toucheth thee:
But, Och! I backward cast my e'e.
On prospects drear!
An' forward, tho' I canna see,
I guess an' fear!
Robert Burns, R.I.P. (To a Mouse)
The sad thing is that about a million people in the country had a fair idea what was going to happen before we went into Iraq, and said so loud and clear, including "what do we do if they *don't* all love us?", and what we got for seeing what was coming was the same thing Cassandra got for being right when she gave a leader prophecy he didn't want to hear: ignored, and called mad and stupid and you-name-it. At least the man Dannatt isn't as easy to ignore as the British public were.
Now I am worried.
I have just heard Blair give his full support to the General.
How many ministers has he "supported" one day screwed the next?
Despite Eric's protestations I think he (or perhaps his bigwig chum) does want to alter the nature of the blog - hence the extra pushing of it today when it's been much more serious on the whole. This saddens me - I prefer the serious/lighthearted mix that has grown organically. If I want 'mostly serious' I can go elsewhere.
I'm feeling very sad now.
Don't be sad Perry, it can't last, not with blog headlines like "That's Dannatt".
Going back a day or two, what is Jose Cuevo?
Indeed - keep the faith.
Good grief, now I sound like a Chatbot!
Hmm, it seems that even on the "serious" threads, our sense of fun will still come through :)
Well, if we keep the tone of the threads down, then all should be well. But as has been pointed out in sundry places, serious can be mixed in with the silly. I would not be here if it was all serious; if I want an arguement or a rant I would have left long ago.
BTW, I think Eddie signed his newsletter today in the wrong order. Shouldn't it have been General Prof Dr Sir Eric Muir, although suggesting his doctorate and professorial chair are at a continential university, as in the UK the Dr isn't used if you have a professorship, but is in, for example, Germany (where it would be Hr. Prof. Dr. Eric Muir for a civilian).
Another BTW,
At 16:30, during his PM trailer, did Eddie really ask whether Dannett should be sacked or given a knighthood for his comments? I thought it odd as he already has a knighthood, and it seems to be, like high Court judges, an honour that comes with the post.
Unlike PM, thought, I cannot listen again to the trailer to see if I heard correctly or not.
Rosalind -I've never heard of Jose Cuevo either, but he must have done something awful to end up in a bottle. Some sort of medical experiment that went wrong, perhaps?
Wow, I turned up here in time to see 73 comments related to a serious issue, if not all serious in content. There can鈥檛 be much left to add.
I agree with Aperitif about the mix of approaches as established here previously - because I think I might have to start feeling guilty about the urge to add something lighter. I mean, for instance, perhaps the Captain makes reference to views accessed behind the fourth door on the right...? (45) (49)
I know it's late and as stated on a previous thread I agree with all that Fearless Fred has said but I'd be interested to know if any other fellow 'Froggers' have had their partners say to them :-)
... "you aren't going to waste time on that thing reading what bored people have said about a radio programme" .. we will all be dead soon anyway! His normal slogan.
He, I hasten to add watches mindless cooking shows and 'how dirty is your house, all evening ?!? sorry! very off topic I know.
It's amusing to hear those who claim that Sir Richard should not get invoved in the political debate. I thought that was what New Labour are about. Remember replacement of Departments' press officers with their own. What about chief police officers who seem keen to say things to please their political masters. I suppose it all depends on whether they say the right things or dare I say are "on message".
Even sadder :-( I've now been denied marital rights) , and am lonely with no froggers, just Michael Palin with 'Book at bedtime'
I guess Eddie must still be up approving the comment so that's something :-)
TTFN
Jonnie - yes as I've already divulged, I have an S.O. who thinks this is a load of old diversionary tactics. Ach well, what do they know? Don't knock it till you've tried it eh?
Tell him -at least we are interactive, which is more one can be with Kim and Aggie, n'est-ce pas?
Ahh Thanks Val,
I thought (for a minute) I might be really sad!
Now hunting for possible ways to stay interactive whilst hanging on to those 'marital rights' !
So you think you鈥檝e been reading this blog carefully for the last few weeks? Try today鈥檚 quiz to see how much vital information you鈥檝e retained鈥
1. 鈥淚 have nothing to say & this will be a waste of everyone鈥檚 time. Really.鈥 Who SHOULD have said this? Is it:
a) G Musharraf
b) G Brown
c) E Mair
2. John W has a problem with his late father鈥檚 garden shed. Is it:
a) too small
b) the roof leaks
c) a rat has moved in
3. Tilly, Sophie & Vicky are all:
a) friends
b) neighbours
c) bitterly disappointed not to be interviewed on PM
4. The 大象传媒 鈥淢r Big鈥 who reads this blog is called:
a) Mr I Kew
b) Mr B Wigg
c) Mr M Thompson
5.Valery is nostalgic for confectionery no longer available in shops. Is it:
a) toffee
b) tiffin
c) Muffin the Mule
6.General Musharraf鈥檚 book was won by:
a) A man named Eleanor
b) A woman called Brian
c) A goldfish
7.If you wish to use italics on the blog, do you:
a) use HTML tags for style
b) type 鈥渕eta鈥 hyper-text* / html/italics*鈥 鈥渆nd hyper-text鈥/hpslt.
c) think 鈥渟*d it, I鈥榣l use capitals instead鈥
8. My cat鈥檚 name is:
a) Tony
b) Menzies
c) Gordon
9. The PM team鈥檚 favourite tipple is called:
a) Jose Carreras
b) Jose Cuevo
c) 鈥淛ose drunk that bottle already?鈥
10. When the newsletter doesn鈥檛 arrive, who do we blame?
a) Rupert
b)Rupert
c)Rupert
jonnie- I'm worried that we might be married to the same bloke here! Part of the reason I spend time (sorry "waste" time) on this nonsense is so I don't have to watch Top Gear or some "action" movie he is enthralled with. I like this because it's so unpredictable & I generally get more laughs than I do from many tv comedy programmes.
Oo, lots of people playing late at night - or early morning, Annasee (congrats on your mention, btw!). Got a couple of things to add - need to correct my 61 - he did say that it was causing trouble around the world (or making it worse - according to Nick Robinson's blog). So I was wrong there.
Re Frog and S.O. - Mrs H has been away with work all week. Prior to this, I think she thought I was having an affair.
Jose Cue(r)vo - I just assumed Eric meant tequila (other brands are available). Go for the gold stuff (Especial?). Now, exactly when is it that the sun goes over the yardarm?
re (72) correct title order.
Its ecclesiastical first So is it not Revd Lord General Prof (Dr?) Edward ....
I agree us Brits tend to loose the Dr bit when you get the Professor bit.
Medics get the Dr bit without doing the PhD Then loose it when they get their FRCS then get it back again when they do thier doctorate
Must look up my etiquet book (and perhaps a Dictionary)
Annasse, I think I know all of the answers to your quiz. I'm worried now, so I'm going to go out and mix with flesh-friends.
I don't know what my S.O. would've thought about all this blogging, but, to be fair, if he were still with us I probably wouldn't get on here quite so much.
Annasee (81) Are you trying to guilt us all into going out a little more?? It's a bit scary to realise that I can answer these (okay maybe not all correctly, but a majority at least...)
As for SOs and their take on the frog, that's one thing I'll have to take your word on. I just hope that if I do find an SO, they'll understand!
Hum, OK, I should be able to answer one of them, but in fact think I can answer all but one which I have a pretty good idea about...perhaps I too should get out more.
However, consider my predition a couple of days ago, when I said that the strapline would appear today (Saturday). There it is, but I Kew has not provided the haiku. This may be that they were as spontaneous as the weekend strap line, but now that I've moved into the weekend-strap-line-prediction market, it means that a spontaneous haiku is not applicable.
So the rest of the prediction is a strapline tomorrow but not Monday or Tuesday (unless Tony fiddles with the code).
Someone put a straitjacket on the Bliar please...people really do need to stop going along with the head games of this individual that merely are the manifestation of illness.
No one falls for your insane ploys and games anymore Bliar...its only a matter of time before you are put on a mental health section - for the protection of the public.
btw can anyone explain today's strapline to me? Is it a film I've missed or yet more sci -fi /fantasy books I haven't read?
Why do the people in swallow this neo-con garbage about democracy in Iraq. Why do we think the neo-cons are so enthusiastic about "democracy"? In the 19th century democracy meant giving the working class a vote - that's why the democrats have that name.
But now, now it means creating an elected government - elected on the American system whre the largest campaign fund wins. The neo-cons have realised that this "democracy" has a fatal flaw - it can be bought, and any government that takes on American democracy can be bought just like the American presidency.
Buy the government, and of course they'll create a free-market system - free that is for US companies to go in and take all the oil.
Democracy isn't supposed to be like this - I'll leave with some quotes:
"Democracy is a form of government in which the offices are distributed by the people among themselves by lot;" (Aristotle, Rhetoric)
"And a democracy, I suppose, comes into being when the poor, winning the victory, put to death some of the other party, drive out others, and grant the rest of the citizens an equal share in both citizenship and offices--and for the most part these offices are assigned by lot." (Plato, Republic 8.557)
well - thankyou everyone!
Just spent (god, how long??) - reading through this and listening to the Friday PM on the podthing.
(hm - that first sentence could be misconstrued as me being hugely egotistical, as if everyone's been writing for my sole benefit, but you know what I mean!)
To my mind, Eddie was referring to John H's postings when he urged listeners to read the blog as some of it was "occasionally well informed".
Actually, to my mind "occasionally well informed" would be the best strapline of any.
and yes - on the day he asks for serious comments about life and death, did Eddie take a perverse pleasure in reading out Annasee's blog comment about rats and decking????
I mean, I'm pleased for Annasee, but we'll get the Home Truths lot over 'ere soon!!
On the contrary, King Amdo. Don't presume to speak for everyone, thank you.
Good for Gen Sir Richard Dannatt for expressing his views openly. There must be more than a few mp's and others in positions of power who had doubts about invading Iraq - if only they had said so at the time.
I agree with Cinders (53) - of course TB could have refused to go along with Bush - maybe the US would have a little more respect for us if we actually stood up for what we believed in..(or maybe not).
Re the 'seriousness' of the PM blog - I've always liked the program's mix of serious news, probing interviews and and often cheeky humour...assumed the blog would reflect that in (an even) more horizontal fashion....
King Amdo - TB may have his flaws, as do we all, but I wouldn't presume to call him insane, far from it. Consider yourself lucky if you have half of his intelligence...
Rant over :O)
whisht (91) I know what you mean -(couldn't stand Home Truths I'm afraid) but let us not forget it was PM that started it by giving us the item about rats in the first place. On the cutting edge /news /as it happens/ gets broken programme. Does that not strike you as a wee bit odd? Was there a subliminal thought association in the minds of those responsible along the lines of " politicians - can't get any tonight - rats, they'll have to do, close enough" Or do you think it was perhaps a bit of "You & Yours" that they ran out of time for, & rather than waste it (budgets & all that) they thought "We'll let PM use that one up"
Annasee, is there a prize? You should get it for being so entertaining!
Whisht, but we ARE all figures of your imagination, didn't you know that?
I see we seem to have hijacked the serious blog over the weekend (I've been out all day and now have a full house - both offspring home, so limited pc access), did we ask permission, or are we going to suffer the consequences on Monday? Maybe If we all were to withhold our "labour", then there wouldn't be any fascinating insights etc. See how the powersthat be like them apples?
Serious schmerious - I'm not playing any more if there are to be such rules!
Valery,
the phrase I want to write, I can't (appropriate self censorship).
but you're effing with my mind.
hello? can anyone hear me....?
oh dear...
I hear you Whisht, but I'm squiffy so I have no idea what's going on.
Drinks, 99, & whisht, 98, what have you been taking?
Hahaha!
Morning all! I've just had a thought about having serious threads here on the frog. I think it may actually help keep the frog out of the targets of any higher-ups at Auntie who want things to be more like the other blogs here on the Beeb network. Think of it this way...
If EM puts up a couple of serious threads here on the frog, the "Angry Opinionated of Tunbridge Wells"s of the world and other trolls will be satiated and left to play in that little sandpit. Meanwhile EM will no doubt continue to be his usual self, and the rest of the frog will be open to us. If a bigwig (other than the fan of the frog, of course) wants proof that the blog gets people talking about "serious" topics and has the typical loud voices, EM, Lissa with an a, Rupert, et al can always pont to the threads where the trolls are, and we'll be left alone...
Phew, a bit serious for a sunday morning. I think I need to go downstairs and make a coffee to relax. Chocolate biccie anyone?
SB101 (!)
"Serious" certainly seems to create volume if nothing else. Interestingly, Eddie's original post was one of his shortest ones.
Do you think there's a connection there?
Morning all. Fred, good thought. I'm definitely suspicious of the juxtaposition of the start of "serious" thread with the awayday. Bound to be some sort of "encouraging feedback from listeners on the important news stories of the day" idea. Like there weren't already enough avenues for the shouty-voiced ones to make their opinions known. This is special - it's where the "well actually I can see both points of view " and "Mmmm, not too sure on that one, have to think seriously about it"- type people gather. And especially where the POLITE people are. Or am I wrong? The non-polite ones don't seem to stick around for long anyway.
Am I the only person who finds today's strapline a bit off-putting so early in the morning? Doesn't conjure up a nice vision in my mind. Perhaps the anchovy toast I've just had didn't help...
The image I have in my mind is of the 大象传媒 team peering into a glass of pond water, staring at the little squirming things...
"ahhhh.... look, that one's going quite fast."
"hmm..."
"is that algae?"
"yeah"
"hey look - if you shake it they all go in different directions"
"ha... yeah..."
"hmm... anyone for tea?"
"Oh yes, cheers! Anyway tell me about that guest, what did you say he did later on..?"
glass put back on the shelf, with the team hoping it won't smell any worse than it already does...
102 (SSCat) Do you think he was just rattling the bars of our cage then? Seems to have worked!
I'm sure you're right Fearless (101), but it's not as if we don't have our serious moments anyway. I don't like the idea of rules; I come here for fun - and chocolate - and general chat that flows as if we were in the Mair Arms or the PM & Duck. Being told we 'have to be serious for a while now' makes it seem more like a classroom than a bar. I'm sure if Eddie starts us off in a serious manner we will continue in that vein generally, but he's so - Eddie - it breeds, well, Eddieness. Oh, reading that back, I think maybe I am still a bit squiffy...
On a serious note, i note Gen'l Dannatt has disappeared as meat for headlines. Perishable goods indeed.
happy Sunday
ed
Hi, faithful froggies. It's nice to know you're all still there and not being too serious.
When I woke up yesterday morning I found my duvet had turned into a corkscrew - which reminded me of FF's rotating duvet of ancient blog. And I also suddenly remembered the solution, which happens to be Dutch, and came down to frog it to those of you who have duvet troubles, but because I included the Dutch name of the simple thing which solves the problem my whole entry was "politely" declined. I was only trying to explain how you can buy it if you are in the Netherlands some time.
Anyway, what it is is a kind of flap of fabric at the bottom of the duvet cover which you tuck in under the mattress. If you go to Holland you can buy duvet covers ready made with these flaps, but I guess you could always sew a bit of matching fabric onto the end of your existing cover.
I don't suppose any of you want to know this anyway, but I was so cross to have been rejected yesterday ...
This is a serious comment, Eddie. You wait till your duvet twizzles - you will be glad to know the solution but very sorry you don't know it in Dutch.
Have a nice day everyone.
Fellow froggers,
As a relatively eco-friendly way to travel, nothing beats Google Earth. With minimal fossil burn, I can fly low over the melting Greenland glaciers, between the volcanic peaks of the Pacific Northwest, and even count the wheelie bins at Heathrow, but it strikes me odd to find that some architects may have more of an agenda than previously suspected.
Try
32 40 34.10N 117 09 27.71W for a shocking aerial view of a U S Navel base in Coronado, California.
And remember you bet better at Google Earth, and as for
And, for a sense of perspective, look up in a pre 1950s dictionary.
Stay home and save the Earth.
xx
ed
54 53 13.00N 03 49 50.59W
Excellent Sara - information which is invaluable to the hormonally challenged, let me tell you. Enough of that though.
Whisht - are we still here? are you?
Ap - some of Annasee's anchovy toast would suit the apres-squiffiness better than FF's choccy biscuits - I often find a bit of over-indulgence induces a salt craving, perhaps cos I don't normally take much salt, for reasons connected to first part of this ramble.
Here I am on my fence musing about the Serious/non-Serious differentiating; I think I have to slither off towards FF's 101. Whatever keeps it going is worth going along with.
Today will be spent mostly trying to reduce a mountain of clothes down to a respectable 30kg between the two of us (to male froggers out there, yes I KNOW this is not something you ever have to address! A carrier bag, a book, a bikini, cut offs and a couple of tshirts HAS been suggested to us as being perfectly adequate, but Teen daughter and I know differently!)
FFred (101) - Agreed with you there - my attempt at being serious t'other day wasn't good for morale, and that sort of behaviour should indeed be left to the "trolls"!
ValP - have a fabby hol (as if you need telling...), good luck with the mountain-minimising effort. What I try to do is make a pile of items I definitately want to take, then only take half of them, and it usually works out ok! And don't forget to have half of yours and half of Teen Daughter's in each bag so if one goes astray, you won't have to buy t-shirts & shorts at the local market when you get there!! (Not happened to me, but to someone I know...)
Happy days!
Oh, and don't forget a postcard to the Blog!
Off for a coffee and a think about all the things I have to do; bleah.
Aha! so there is a cure for a trizzling duvet :o) I shall have to try it out sometime (although how do you know that it's the fix that's prevented a duvet twizzle situation rather than it just not occuring??)
Don't worry, Appy (106) I doubt Eddie takes any rules too seriously at the best of times, so I expect it'll be even laxer here. I guess all the true froggers here already have an element of Edieness as part of their psyche anyway :o)
ValP (110) I'm not going to make any comment about the relative packing skills of men vs women. All I will say is that for the first time in I don't know how many years, I'm having to pack an overnight hold bag for my trip to the Netherlands:(( Before, through experience, I could manage 3 or at a pinch 4 days with what I could pack in my carry-on. It may sound petty, but I have no desire to stand around at Heathrow for 30 minutes, waiting for the bags to finally arrive at the carousel. Now, unfortunately, with the new restrictions on size and what you can/can't take, I'm going to have to use a bag. GRRRRRRR! Even if I could get the clothing in there, I wouldn't be able to take the cream for my psoriasis through, and I doubt I could get any more airside. You know the really silly thing? When I fly back to the UK, I'd be able to do it with just the old size hand baggage and no restrictions on liquids.....
ValP and the Teen - have a great holiday once you've got past the packing stage. Can't remember quite where you're going but sure it will be lovely - and sunny? It's very grey here in Shroppy.
FF - with these duvet covers the duvet certainly can't rotate or fall off. It can still turn into a corkscrew, at least at the top, which happens when you throw it off and then pull the wrong side back over you, etc etc. When are you off to the Netherlands? You could try and get one of those duvet covers when you're there, despite the fact this blog won't let me tell you what they're called. Big lad like you can make yourself understood anyway, I expect.
I wonder what Ed is making of all this air travel; I know he doesn't like it, but if you want to keep Teen Daughter and Work Boss happy, what else can you do? We can't all hive off to his beautiful neck of the woods, or it wouldn't be beautiful any more and economics would grind to a halt. Tell us what you think, Ed.
Oh dear - this serious thread is exercising an uncanny influence. I would rather be lighthearted. But it's grey here in Shroppy.
Wel, Sara, I'll try to keep an eye out, but knowing what my trips are like, I doubt I'll get any time to myself for this...
Unfortunately I fly out on tuesday (Appy's birthday) so I won't be arround to celebrate with the rest of you:( I probably won't be able to log on until thursday morning, as I'll be getting back some time round 11:30pm on wednesday, and will feel like falling into bed as soon as I get through the door...
So, if I forget to say it tomorrow:
Have a lovely holiday, ValpP and Teen Daughter! I hope you'll be able to find a suitably pointless card to send to Ed while you're away!
Appy, I really do hope you have a nice birthday. I'll be sending you lots of nice thoughts on the day itself :o)
Time to go and get something to eat, I think. two chocolate biscuits obviously isn't enough of a breakfast/lunch....
Sara: "Tell us what you think, Ed."
You don't want to know. Last night friends came to dinner and there were essentially three topics of conversation - everybody's (and their children's) recent (and intended) goings and comings, the relative merits of various places to eat out, and other peoples' lives.
We then went on a 40 mile round trip to see a film (yes, it's like that in the boondocks!) of cops and robbers blowing each others' brains out (departed), stopped in the local for a drop of Liffy water, and our friends left to drive 14 miles home....If Bremner Bird & Fortune had been on last night I might have tried to decline the film...
I know I sound like a grumpy old git, but it's only because I am. I also know hyper-mobility is the new black (for the privileged 20% of us who do 80% of the consuming) and it's hard to swim against the current. Watch out Marvin, you've got
On a (slightly) more positive note I got referred to a couple of excellent .
You shouldn't have gotten me started thinking about the efficiency of the Global Market.
Once, long ago, while I was being fairly well paid as a research scientist, the firm bought an oyster farm to diversify (we were mostly paints and printing inks), and for a few weeks I daily rode out from NYC to the labs in New Jersey as usual, to be taxied to a local airport, flown back across Manhattan to Long island to stand in an assembly line shucking oysters and putting them on a belt leading into liquid nitrogen spray (quick frozen oysters on the half shell). Then back via the plane/taxi/carshare (daily!)
The Long island airport had been designed by an engineer. He decided that since the wind blew from one direction about half the time and the rest of the time exactly the other way, the best way to align the runway was halfway between the two. As a result, every landing in the four-seater was crosswind - alarming at first.
Now, you can buy 'fresh' oysters on the halfshell in Kansas City or Oshkosh all year, and only those of us who know how to spot their heartbeat can tell if they're alive. That project was a "success"!
Another project involved me buying a hundred pounds of live lobsters in the wholesale market to take them to the lab and cook them and try and make a dried instant lobster flavouring from the shells. This was actually quite an admirable effort to devise a product from the waste stream of a plant producing frozen lobster meat and a steaming heap of shells...needless to say, I had friends galore with all that waste meat to dispose of. We had similar projects for prawns & crabs. They were fun while they lasted, but the 'products' needed an aquired taste.
The firm also spent a fortune working on automotive paint formulations designed to withstand the 'acid apotting' effects of the stack gasses outside the auto factories. My suggestion that we diversify into pollution control was not taken seriously.
I think I'll go have a frozen pizza for supper. See y'all later.
xx
ed
What I think about the whole business of the General and Iraq is best expressed in this poem by Peter Pindar
Tommy in the 21st Century
We aren鈥檛 made for cool Britannia; we leave boot marks on the floor.
We don鈥檛 walk like Peter Mandelson or talk quite like Jack Straw
Call us 鈥渇orces of conservatism鈥 if it suits your turn
But we鈥檙e off like some world fire brigade when flash points start to burn.
Yes it鈥檚 Tommy this, and Tommy that, and spend less on defence
But who walks the streets of Basra when the air is getting tense?
When the air is getting tense , boys, from Kabul to Kosovo
Who鈥檒l say goodbye to wife and kids, and shoulder pack and go?
The Queen, she鈥檚 sat in Windsor now for 50 years or more.
She鈥檒l see this government depart like other ones before.
And Blair and Bush and Chirac make their plans to no avail
But who remains to serve the Crown when politicians fail?
O it鈥檚 Tommy change your values- now diversity鈥檚 the game;
But when Christmas leave is cancelled, then whose tyrants are to blame?
There鈥檚 tyrants in the mountains, boys, and tyrants in the sands,
So farewell to wives and risk your lives for them in foreign lands.
Peter Pindar ( with apologies to Rudyard Kipling)
Dear Ed, I did indeed want to know, and I think that what you did last night was by far the best. Stay grumpy.
Thanks for the poem, MG. I am thinking about it. It's dark now in Shroppy, so perhaps not the best time to think too deeply.
A glass of wine, methinks, and hey ho for the morrow. Safe travels one and all.
Hi Eddie
Down to some serious blogging.
Listened to the Profile on Gen. Dannett this evening, which inspired me to read the story properly this evening (having been away for a few days and missed out on the PM prog for Friday - Though I may well 'Listen Again' tomorrow when I've more time with the PC)
Now that the General has 'clarified' his remarks, I don't think it is really possible to disagree with the drift of it all. I cannot, anyway, imagine that he was all that happy 'going in' to Iraq in the first place, given the principles he holds, but just had to get on with it.
It does make me wonder, however, whether this is why, on this occasion, so much dissension has been allowed to leak out from the troops by way of negative blogs, etc., which, in times gone by, the powers that be would doubtless have somehow censored.
I was strangely relieved to know that the Army is being led by somebody who has clearly got more than two wits to rub together and a positive barrel-load of integrity to boot. And I'm a died in the wool pacifist, so don't convince easily on this!
BTW, and because I've not long got back from my own extended Awayday(!) and have to get on with other stuff tonight, may I take this opportunity of saying that I whoeheartedly agree with your idea of having a serious strand along with our usual highjinks - But never, never, never lose your sense of humour!
Big kiss from Big Sis
Morning all
Sorry not responded to any questions about my entry on Friday, but had weekend away with SO
AIUI: sorry, standard email shorthand for "As I Understand It", thereby allowing me to be incorrect as to whether the IRA had existed first, as clearly I was, but I don't believe it affects the thrust of my post.
Morning, Stephen,
Hope your weekend away was as good as mine.
I was also away on Friday, so missed out on all the fun.
Good to be back with the 'kids'.
When will Eddie come out to play?
BTW, I should warn you that you may get a few ribald comments about your last sentence - but I'm too much of a lady to do that to a 'gent' like you!
An 鈥楨鈥 appears to have dropped off your ledg. Not enough room up there now you鈥檝e got that book of speeches, too?
Well, oo-er Stephen! (Although I hadn't noticed until OtL mentioned it so clearly I am not to blame).
Hope your weekend was lovely and that you are still in that 'good place' mentioned a little while back, if not an even better one.
P.S. AndyCragg, congratulations on becoming a strapline! (Wonder whether special greetings cards are available for such an occasion?...)
'Es a good chap, that Dr. H.
Blame the weekend. Too much booze Saturday = Too few brains Monday.
I'd better pull myself together.
Hi OntheLedg .. e
Re: your comments to Stephen, presumably you were referring to the IRA comment, or was it in relation to 'thrusting posts' -- surely not!
??
Jonnie - As you'll see, I like your style!
I'm a big fan of thrusting posts, me, but not so keen on the IRA.
Does that help?
Wow, strapline fame for a day!!
I should have kept to my real name.
I'd like to thank my agent, my Mother, God ...
Hang on, I'm the wrong way round - I am the strapline and my strap is my name. Hey-ho.
Thankyou Eddie, Lissa, I'm truly honoured and I shall be on a high all day!
Well done, Andy. Enjoy your day (and night)
General Dannant can only be described as a good and honest man, who has seriously taken into consideration the waste of lives in Iraq and the devastation it causes to families who loose loved ones over this lude war on terror, he was brave enough to face the public and his superiors and say what we all know but didnt want to see, the war in Iraq isnt working its time for British troops to come home. He should be commended and i hope our leaders take heed rather than try to critiscise him
Hey - Andy - congratulations! Everyone's talking about you on the other thread - have you been over for a look yet?
Thankyou for the congrats everyone, I'm blushing a bit now, after the initial elation and general smugness had subsided.
Which other thread? I've been a thread tart and posting all over the place so I might have interruped the flow with my own ponderings.
I'm trying to find Stevens double-entendre but it's alluding me, so many frogs, so little brain ...
AndyCra@@
I fear the use of the word Thrust has excited the froggers somewhat.
stephen - i wouldn't start using the term "froggers" if I was you... one small slip of the hand and you'll be casting aspersions everywhere..
Stephen : Oh that reference.
I hope it's not too affected. You shouldn't be thinking about world politics if it does :)
Ah, but whisht (133) think of the whole new vistas of double entendres the word froggers opens up!
:p
Do you think if we all kiss each other we'll turn into princes?
What a horrible thought! Some princesses, please!
Andy???Strap; nice back-to-front strapline!!
FFred; perhaps you shouldn't be so descriptive about what you rpost can do?!? Ahem...
All of tiswas today as back to work after nasty tummy episode (still not right) and don't now if I'm on my ear or my elbow. Why am I complaining, that's normal.
:O)
Oh Chris the P, I hope you're back to all your bits in the right place in time for cake tomorrow!
Are you mixing Fearless up with Stephen of Strop btw? It was the latter who referred to the thrust of his post. Fearless has no doubt had to stay away from thoughts like that so he can get off to sleep early before his silly-time flight. And anyway, Stepehn's the one who has been away for a proverbial 'dirty weekend'...
Althouuuugh... we don't really know what FF will be getting up to on the continent do we? I don't have cameras in his hotel room. He could have the twizzliest duvet yet!
I agree 100% with Ed(137). We need princesses as well, please :D
CtheP (138) I'm sure I don't know what you mean!!
I'm afraid that's just not the fairytale. Kiss a frog, get a prince; bite an apple, pass out; prick your finger; go to sleep. Nothing about gaining princesses.
Ah, but when have we ever stood by convention? After all, we turned this from a blog to a frog...
Mind you, I think we already have some princesses here anyway:o)
Hello Fearless! You're an early frogger (prince) today! How is your hotel? The trip generally? Got your camera with you? I know you won't be able to get this until this evening, but hello anyway.
Happy Birthday Perry!
Whoops, tilt! Sorry FFred and Stephen!! I blame the hormones for all this stupidity...
Have to go and collect Teen Daughter & Boyf from Station, back later
xx
Pickled Chris : Check the mis-spelt postcard flicker - you've won a prize!
Hey Appy :o) It sounds (on other threads) that you've been having a really nice today. I hope Eddie behaved himself for you, and that the duvet remains un-twizzled :p
I thought I'd try & frog from the airport to see if the free minutes from a certain internet provider provided would work (it's the one that Marcus B. "loved" so much!) I see everyone else polished off the cakes before I got here:( Never mind, I'll make sure you get a slice when it coms round to mine...
Unfortunately, probably no chance of any photos this trip (all work, I'm afraid) and the hotel's just like any other really. At leat I've got the lapdog with me for the party tonight!
I guess I'd better see if the Sales guy has turned up, as he's going to be paying for dinner.. Talk to you all later!
Oops! I just noticed Appy's 139 (which I sweqr wasn't there when I logged on this morning....
Well, I can honestly say there's no twizzling duvet here in Antwerp... It's an old-fashioned sheet and blanket bed! Even if there were a duvet, I severely doubt there'd be any energy left for twizzling it after a looooooong day like today. Thank goodness for listen again :o)
But are there any knowholes in your hotel room???
Woo-hoo!! Go Chri-is, go chri-is...
Thank you AndycStrapNoMore - I'm completely overwhelmed and overexcited... I REALLY must get some sleep now!
Nite nite
x
Appy (149) It's only this moring that I found your knowholes! I don't know how you do it... Who told you where I was going to be staying? I think there's a worldwide conspiracy!! At least I was frogging from bed by the time you got back (I think) so you wouldn't have seen much :p
I did see you trying to stop the sheet and blanket combo from twizzling, but I think you were asleep ;)