British Army To March On London...

Originally posted by lacrimosa
do you remember when 1 million britons marched in protest against war with iraq? how did that work out?
protest marches are quite easy to ignore.

edit on 6-7-2012 by lacrimosa because: (no reason given)

Pissed off British Infantrymen is a different kettle of fish...... They will take note...

reply to post by Alastair2012


I hear you mate



I know THAT pain very well... Good to have you on board troop!

reply to post by EvanB


Cheers Mukka G ...Yeah jarred off,disillusioned,dismayed and disgusted ex Infantry are certainly a different Kettle my friend ..!

Pissed off British Infantrymen is a different kettle of fish...... They will take note...

that doesnt really say anything. what are these infantrymen gonna do that the civillians havent already.

at worst youll just get arrested then go home.
at best, maybe you could hand out some leaflets.

Originally posted by lacrimosa

Pissed off British Infantrymen is a different kettle of fish...... They will take note...

that doesnt really say anything. what are these infantrymen gonna do that the civillians havent already.

at worst youll just get arrested then go home.
at best, maybe you could hand out some leaflets.

It's going to be quite a mini-scandal if any of them did get arrested, or kettled for that matter. Imagine how that would look in the press.

Arrested for what ...No breech of the peace ..no right to arrest ,Police Constables are public servants ,we're all Sovereign ,under oath they have to prevent breeches of the peace,prevent loss or damage to property ,not acting under oath is treason a crime in it's own right.
Policy men are those handing out tickets that relate to Sections and Acts again something that holds no weight but we're led to believe it does ,magistrate courts are illegal Jugdes who preside in these circuses aren't usually under oath so have no right to even be there ,to be tried fairly then you have to be put before a judge an jury check bill of rights and magnacarta ,court De Facto's are simply places to collect money for the corrupt government and system,however a Court De Jour is a true court but to be tried fairly and put before a Court de Jour the you have to have committed an act of breech of the peace.
Police constable acting within the remit of their oath are there simply to ensure no breech of the peace,keep it simple ,"there will be no further business in the mess"

The cuts to the armed forces are nothing short of a disgrace (it's just another step closer to a European armed force) but this march as it is being portrayed is going nowhere to be honest.

I can divide all the members of the armed forces i have dealt with into two groups. One group being the consummate professionals, the other group being squadies looking for trouble at every turn. No offence meant but the OP is either in the latter group or needs to have a reality check.

If there is any sign of trouble from any member of the armed forces on this march it will be they who get their arse handed back to them, first by the police, then by their superiors. (Unarmed soldiers are mere men, not immune to water cannon, baton rounds or nightsticks).

There will be no coup/revolution
There will be no fighting with police
There will be no dragging politicians into the street

The best case scenario to get a u-turn on these cuts would be for Argentina to have a pop at the Falklands, we would practically have to hand the Falklands over to them as it is.

Originally posted by Alastair2012
Arrested for what ...No breech of the peace ..no right to arrest ,Police Constables are public servants ,we're all Sovereign ,under oath they have to prevent breeches of the peace,prevent loss or damage to property ,not acting under oath is treason a crime in it's own right.

First of all, the oath actually says they will "cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property". If the Law deems something an offence, they are duty bound to deal with it.

Secondly, we're not "sovereign". I have a funny feeling your going to turn out to be one of these Freemen types...

Originally posted by Alastair2012
Policy men are those handing out tickets that relate to Sections and Acts again something that holds no weight but we're led to believe it does

Ah, here we go. I knew it. Do explain, but I think I know where this going. Does it involve "common Law" and "statutes", by any chance?

Oh, by the way, the term "Police" doesn't come from the word Policy, but rather the Latin for civil government, poltia. The word Policy comes from the same root, but has a very different meaning.

Originally posted by Alastair2012
,magistrate courts are illegal Jugdes who preside in these circuses aren't usually under oath so have no right to even be there ,to be tried fairly then you have to be put before a judge an jury check bill of rights and magnacarta ,court De Facto's are simply places to collect money for the corrupt government and system,however a Court De Jour is a true court but to be tried fairly and put before a Court de Jour the you have to have committed an act of breech of the peace.

All total bollocks. Minor crimes can be dealt with by magistrates, which carry lesser punishments. It is up to the defendant whether they wish to be tried in a Magistrates court or go for a full Jury trial at Crown Court.

Originally posted by Alastair2012
Police constable acting within the remit of their oath are there simply to ensure no breech of the peace,keep it simple

That is one of their duties, yes. They also have a duty to prevent offences against person or property.

Originally posted by Ripersnifle
The best case scenario to get a u-turn on these cuts would be for Argentina to have a pop at the Falklands, we would practically have to hand the Falklands over to them as it is.

As I have said already in this thread and others, Argentina has no capability to even try and launch an invasion, whereas the islands are far better protected now than in 1982.

Don't talk us down, we're quite capable of holding off the Argies.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Ripersnifle
The best case scenario to get a u-turn on these cuts would be for Argentina to have a pop at the Falklands, we would practically have to hand the Falklands over to them as it is.

As I have said already in this thread and others, Argentina has no capability to even try and launch an invasion, whereas the islands are far better protected now than in 1982.

Don't talk us down, we're quite capable of holding off the Argies.

Argentina does have the capability and the means. Granted they lack the numbers but they still have an effective army, navy and airforce. Without us using friendly air bases in SA or borrowing a French carrier they would certainly give an expeditionary force with only helicopter air support some trouble. And by protected I take it you mean by the Falklands Defence Force. The only way the Falklands can be truly protected would be by an airbase providing protection against Argentinian aircraft.

A bit off topic so i'm done.

reply to post by stumason

In an interview with the Observer, Nick Hardwick, chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), hit the nail on the head when he said:

“I think that is unacceptable. It is about being servants, not masters: the police are there as public servants.”

A read of the ‘Principles of Good Policing’ would be well advised at this time. It is thought to written by Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne, first joint Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police:

To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
You should check the Magna Carta out too fella ,that makes a great read seeing as 1215 (The constitution of England) hasn't been changed I think you'll find it still stands Constable

reply to post by Alastair2012

Police Oath.

"I, ... of ... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."
Just for the Record old Chum too Here's your Oath
Thats the office of Constable and you're Peace officer Role

Originally posted by Ripersnifle
Argentina does have the capability and the means.

No, they don't.

Originally posted by Ripersnifle
Granted they lack the numbers but they still have an effective army, navy and airforce.

They lack any serious amphibious capability, they have no carriers, they have a couple of ancient diesel-electric subs and their surface "fleet" is made up of 4 destroyers which are approaching 30 years old.

At best, the Argentine Navy can only carry 240 soldiers at any given time on a single ship.

There are over 1,000 British soldiers on the Falklands, with a flight of Typhoons, a Type 45 and an Astute submarine knocking about. How long do you think that single Amphibious vessel will survive once detected? And the rest of their fleet?

As for the Argentine Air force, it's even worse off. They still have the same Aircraft which failed so badly in the last War, with over 100 lost to zero British aircraft.

Originally posted by Ripersnifle
Without us using friendly air bases in SA or borrowing a French carrier they would certainly give an expeditionary force with only helicopter air support some trouble.

Ascension Island provides a nice mid point stop off for a reinforcing force of Typhoons and other aircraft.

Originally posted by Ripersnifle
And by protected I take it you mean by the Falklands Defence Force.

That and the 1,000 or so British Army personnel there. Not to mention the RAF and Navy personnel.

Originally posted by Ripersnifle
The only way the Falklands can be truly protected would be by an airbase providing protection against Argentinian aircraft.

What, you mean RAF Mount Pleasant with it's flight of Typhoons? Me thinks you need to research things before you open your mouth.

Originally posted by Ripersnifle
A bit off topic so i'm done.

Just as well....

MoD treat the troops like #.

I hope they listen to you.

I don't remember this happening before in my life time, i'd say this is a historic demo.

I wish you all well.

reply to post by EvanB


Good luck. I can only hope that your march goes through and makes change. In the US, our marches are going unseen and unheard. It will take much longer for the US to come around. We don't have universal healthcare yet...

reply to post by stumason


I appreciate your confidence but it's not quite as clear cut as you think.

The 4 typoons based at the Falklands would be the first thing the Argentinians would target in an invasion. They certainly have the means to attempt to destroy them. Paras, for example.

Wideawake is 4000 miles away so i agree with you, it is a stop off point but it's useless in the context of providing air support over the Falklands, it far exceeds the range of typhoons. It could, however, provide fighters over the Falklands with refuelling tankers but only if the runways at Mount Pleasant remained intact.

Without carrier support, holding the Falklands would indeed be risky.

I'm sure the Maj Gen Julian Thompson has done more research on this than you. I'm just reiterating his view.

Are the Welsh Regiments going too? Or is it time to go home and declare independence?

reply to post by Ripersnifle

The 4 typoons based at the Falklands would be the first thing the Argentinians would target in an invasion. They certainly have the means to attempt to destroy them. Paras, for example.

But the thing is, they haven't.

Any unauthorised aircraft, military or civilian, would be easily and immediately recognised, warned and then dealt with before reaching Mount Pleasant airstrip.

Without carrier support, holding the Falklands would indeed be risky.

I agree it's certainly not ideal and I don't like the thought that we have limited carrier options but The Falklands are far better defended now than they ever have been and the Argentinian military is in a piss poor condition and not really capable of performing anything more than support roles.

I'm sure the Maj Gen Julian Thompson has done more research on this than you. I'm just reiterating his view.

I'm sure he's emminently more qualified than most of us, but he is a lone voice.
The vast majority of British UK military strategists and Generals etc feel that the defence systems in place in The Falklands are more than sufficient to repel any military threat posed by Argentina both now and in the foreseeable future.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg

I'd like to think a unified group of us representing the Armed Forces would be excellent "Brothers in Arms" Clearly without arms and with a peaceful intent mate.
Worked with the welsh lads several times and along the the scottish boys and Irish too I recon we might have a decent gathering old boy .

The bigger agenda is Europe. That's what these cuts are about. Anyone who thinks the EU superstate is going to fail had better think again. We'll moan and moan about a referendum but while we are moaning we are being drawn further in. Even if we get a referendum, our political leaders are ruling out an 'out' option.
The only thing that could stop the Europe agenda is the great British public getting off it's collective *rse and doing something about it. Won't happen.