Just because you paid for them doesn't mean you have any rights to use them . . .

stockhausen

stockhausen

stockhausen

Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,130
I understand from the World at One on BBC Radio 4 that some naval buffoon (Kemp?) objects to Royal Navy ships being used to repatriate British taxpayers from Spain . . . no link because Rupert Murdoch would want paying :rolleyes:
 
He's saying, we as tax payers help fund the naval ships, yet some "naval buffoon" has said we have no right to use them on BBC Radio 4?

I think that's what he was getting at.
 
Last edited:
Of course we don't have a "right" to use them. You can hardly rock up to port and ask to borrow the keys to a destroyer.

Gordon Brown insisting that the Navy be on station to bring people back is a publicity stunt before the election, nothing more. The ferry lines are coping just fine with the increase in carriage.
 
Hutchy said:
He's saying, we as tax payers help fund the naval ships, yet some "naval buffoon" has said we have no right too on BBC Radio 4?

I think that's what he was getting at.
Click to expand...

Doesn't make any sense that they'd have 'a right' to be on board, they're military not civilian ships. I suppose if they're on their way somewhere and there is an immigration issue, then maybe at the captain's discretion some people could be allowed on, but he certainly shouldn't have has hand forced.

Though it would be different, say, if there was a disaster or something that required it.
 
platypus said:
Of course we don't have a "right" to use them. You can hardly rock up to port and ask to borrow the keys to a destroyer.

Gordon Brown insisting that the Navy be on station to bring people back is a publicity stunt before the election, nothing more. The ferry lines are coping just fine with the increase in carriage.
Click to expand...
Not before the Conservatives said this should be done, though :o
 
platypus said:
Of course we don't have a "right" to use them. You can hardly rock up to port and ask to borrow the keys to a destroyer.

Gordon Brown insisting that the Navy be on station to bring people back is a publicity stunt before the election, nothing more. The ferry lines are coping just fine with the increase in carriage.
Click to expand...

I agree there is no need to involve the navy, at what cost as well?

I wonder how much it is costing the economy not having these people here? Perhaps subing peoples travel costs across Europe to get back would be more effecient, but then there's no public display.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Not before the Conservatives said this should be done, though :o
Click to expand...
Oh I don't doubt that.

Regardless of which party said it first to try and curry favour, we are nowhere near the stages of a humanitarian disaster - that is the only time I could think that military ships should be sent to evacuate/provide help.

And as JB has said^, how much more tax money has been wasted having these ships on station?
 
I don't see why the government can't just charter a few cruise ships to make the journey between Southampton and a suitable Spanish port.

Guess it doesn't have the same media impact as roping in the Navy.
 
Why not use the navy. They're presumably ships that weren't doing anything anyway and makes everyone picked up feel happy and that their country cares about them.
 
I've lived on a navy warship for a few short periods of time and I wouldn't recommend it, they're certainly not cruise liners, built to fight not for comfort. In a situation like an emergency evacuation from a natural disaster or a war get on a warship, I think in this case you'd be better waiting for somthing a little nicer.

I think the armed forces should help if they're needed and if they can help, but there's better ways for this problem. The fire strike, foot n mouth and more recently bridge building after the floods were events that better fitted the armed forces ability to directly help the british people.
 
Send them out I say, fire a few warning shots at France on the way past and scuttle a few Spanish trawlers, that will learn them.
 
what is wrong with the likes of the Air Force's Hercules? this ash doesnt affect Props right? Plus they are saying that they can fly below the ash cloud, which reports say is as high as 5miles now, maybe they mean it is 3 miles in density?
 
Strife212 said:
Why not use the navy. They're presumably ships that weren't doing anything anyway and makes everyone picked up feel happy and that their country cares about them.
Click to expand...
That is true though I suspect taking them from whatever duties they were performing will have a cost/effect on the Navy's primary role.

From what I can see Ark Royal has a capacity to carry 500 commandos who will presumably be kipped down on bunks in large communal areas. I suppose people could be housed on the hanger deck, or kip under a harrier for the 34 hour trip (this was mentioned as the transit time on a news report).

I would hazard that a ferry/cruise ship would be significantly cheaper to run and provide better facilities.

Saying that, I would love to get a cruise on Ark Royal even if it meant sleeping on the floor :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom