Today I saw Prince Charles reading a lament at Tyne Cot cemetery. I have no idea how he has the cheek to stand there with a row of unearned, pointless, meaningless bling masquerading as medals spread across his chest.
Its an insult to those who died.
|
They are long dead and beyond being insulted
|
|
Goes with the territory I suppose, I don't really think anyone's really *that* bothered by his attendance medals.
|
Wow yes, all of them earned with bravery and valour.
|
>> Wow yes, all of them earned with bravery and valour.
Well yes some might find his dozen orders of most highest etc etc faintly ridiculous but I don't think any of them are operational medals or distinction in service. So in fairness i don't think he's claiming valour or bravery.
|
>> Today I saw Prince Charles reading a lament at Tyne Cot cemetery. I have no
>> idea how he has the cheek to stand there with a row of unearned, pointless,
>> meaningless bling masquerading as medals spread across his chest.
>> Its an insult to those who died.
Not often I find myself agreeing with Zero, but I thought the same when I saw it on the news.
Perhaps the loathsome Andrew may have been a better choice, as he at least earned some respect in the Falklands?
|
Charles would be on a hiding to nothing no matter what he did. If he turned up in a civvy suit, he'd be accused of disrespecting the services; for the record he's Colonel-in-Chief of the Paras, Welsh Guards and a host of others, and he wears that uniform on their behalf.
Appropriate that he should be there; he's had a lifetime of being sniped at, ironically for the most part by his fellow countrymen.
And what some people do forget; although he didn't see active service he did his time in the RN ending up in command of a minesweeper.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Mon 31 Jul 17 at 20:34
|
>> record he's Colonel-in-Chief of the Paras, Welsh Guards and a host of others, and he
>> wears that uniform on their behalf.
How appropriate for a second rate failed first lieutenant in the navy. being promoted to a Colonel by your mother does not garner one ounce of respect.
|
>> How appropriate for a second rate failed first lieutenant in the navy. being promoted to
>> a Colonel by your mother does not garner one ounce of respect.
>>
>>
>>
That rank enables him to represent the Queen at such events as this. Anyone who's served in the Armed Forces, as you evidently haven't, will tell you that you salute the pips not the person.
It's also a matter of fact that Prince Charles, at his own insistence, passed through "P" Company and earned his jump wings the hard way before becoming Colonel-in-Chief of the parachute regiment. When you have done that, Z, you can dig at the man as much as you like.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Mon 31 Jul 17 at 21:15
|
Ah yes salute the rank not the person. A perfect reason why that was invented.
And there is some doubt about his completing P company.
No I didn't do it, but then I am not sporting a row of medals of no merit.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 31 Jul 17 at 21:25
|
will tell you that you salute
>> the pips not the person.
Seen as this is car4play and pedantry matters, you salute the Queen's Commission surely.
|
>> will tell you that you salute
>> >> the pips not the person.
>>
>> Seen as this is car4play and pedantry matters, you salute the Queen's Commission surely.
You have failed basic pedant school. Zero points for grammar.
|
> You have failed basic pedant school. Zero points for grammar.
>>
A drop out, I'm a mere rank amateur compared to some on here.
|
>> > You have failed basic pedant school. Zero points for grammar.
>> >>
>>
>> A drop out, I'm a mere rank amateur compared to some on here.
No-one is going to be saluting your one stripe then sooty.
|
> No-one is going to be saluting your one stripe then sooty.
>>
Such dizzying heights, I could only dream of such a position.
|
>> will tell you that you salute
>> >> the pips not the person.
>>
>> Seen as this is car4play and pedantry matters, you salute the Queen's Commission surely.
>>
Correct. Which in Army terms, is designated by the pips, at least up to the rank of captain.
|
|
Stars please. Pips come out of oranges :))
|
>> Stars please. Pips come out of oranges :))
>>
They are stars, but are never referred to as such.
From the OED; Pip; a star (one to three according to rank) on the shoulder of a British army officer's uniform.
|
>>
>> How appropriate for a second rate failed first lieutenant in the navy. being promoted to
>> a Colonel by your mother does not garner one ounce of respect.
>>
Wearily. As we were taught in the school corps, you wear the uniform and salute the officers out of respect for the service and all those who have served and done their bit. It's nothing to do with the individuals, they are mere symbols.
You are showing respect for what they represent, and that includes being smartly turned out and wearing the proper full uniform.
There's a time and place for informality and sloppiness, but on this occasion he is representing all of us, and quite correctly is doing it properly and fittingly.
|
>the loathsome Andrew
I've met him a bit, in the UK and elsewhere, mostly for work. I've always found him very pleasant, helpful and courteous, not even slightly loathsome. I like him and admire him.
Where did you met him?
|
|
Could be worse I guess. You could have Trump as your commander in chief.
|
>>Prince Charles....
He has served.
That is more than I have done.
Not everyone is cut out to be a Para, naval commander etc.
As first in line, the chances of putting him in any real danger were always going to be slim.
The fact that he has gone through the process as a naval commander and Para, should and must earn him some kudos.
I wouldn't want his peace time job either.
Respect to the man.
|
|
Surrey is losing ground here. FAST.
|
>> Today I saw Prince Charles reading a lament at Tyne Cot cemetery. I have no
>> idea how he has the cheek
As everybody knows, it's his job. He has two choices, to do his job or not. He'd get plenty of flak if he decided not to.
I'd rather be me than him. I'm 64, and retired. He's nearly 69, still working and has yet to start the principal job he has been lined up for since 1948.
|
>> As everybody knows, it's his job. He has two choices, to do his job or
>> not. He'd get plenty of flak if he decided not to.
>>
>> I'd rather be me than him. I'm 64, and retired. He's nearly 69, still working
>> and has yet to start the principal job he has been lined up for since
>> 1948.
The Court Circular can make interesting reading....
www.royal.uk/court-circular
I suppose this all depends where you start from, are you a "we are so lucky to have them", or "load of wasters", type of person.
Reading through The Court Circular, as one does, there are a large number of functions carried out by the members of the Royal Family. And those functions are shared among a large number of people. Take your pick.
I don't doubt that these duties have been analysed by someone with more time than I have. However, it doesn't take long before you realise that some names appear much more frequently than others.
Henry/Harry and Andrew don't do an awful lot. Anne keeps busier than those two.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0906hqh/world-war-one-remembered-passchendaele-2017-1-for-the-fallen#
If you know the market square in Ieper you have to see what they did to Cloth Hall yesterday.
So moving, and I wish I could have been there.
22.09 onwards if time is short.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Tue 1 Aug 17 at 07:21
|
>> a row of unearned, pointless, meaningless bling masquerading as medals spread across his chest.
That's how you describe the Queen's Jubilee medal when worn on the chest of somebody currently serving, is it? Some of them will have no other medal.
You are the insult to the armed forces, not the Prince of Wales!
|
>> You are the insult to the armed forces, not the Prince of Wales!
If you had any moral standing on here or any meritorious medal winning exploits I would be mortified, you don't so you can swivel.
|
|
The vast majority of people who do difficult and dangerous jobs in the armed forces do not get medals for doing their job.
|
>> The vast majority of people who do difficult and dangerous jobs in the armed forces
>> do not get medals for doing their job.
Good point. Emphasises just how wrong Zero is to assume that medals relate to difficult and dangerous jobs.
|
>> Good point. Emphasises just how wrong Zero is to assume that medals relate to difficult
>> and dangerous jobs.
Your arrogance is only outshone by your inability to read and comprehend.
You did recognise the phrase "moral standing"?
I'll take no lessons on worthiness from a "tax consultant"
|
>>Emphasises just how wrong Zero is to assume that medals relate to difficult and dangerous jobs
I think Zero's point was that many medals reflect nothing of a person's character and personal valour, and as such are meaningless bling.
I'd rather see him wearing a poppy and perhaps a naval unit tie, than a titfull of unearned bling - the occasion is meant to promote a humble remembrance of those who died and those who have served.
**edit** - was sitting in my inbox for an hour so didn't see Z's reply but my point stands
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 1 Aug 17 at 17:38
|
Prince Harry would have been a far better choice.
Pat
|
>> Prince Harry would have been a far better choice.
>>
>> Pat
>>
True, because he has got sweet fanny adams to do, all day and every day. The bloke doesn't do a stroke of work.
|
>> www.royal.uk/prince-harrys-military-career
>>
>> Just for you Duncan.
>>
>> Pat
Why, thank you ,Pat.
"In 2007–08, he served for 77 days in Helmand, Afghanistan,he returned to Afghanistan for a 20-week deployment in 2012–13 with the Army Air Corps.He left the army in June 2015".
|
Of course, he didn't have to do that.
I don't suppose the young 'uns will ever go through what the oldies on here went through, but surely that's a good thing and no reason to belittle his time in the services.
Pat
|
>> Of course, he didn't have to do that.
>>
>> ....... no reason to belittle his time in the services.
>>
>> Pat
I made no comment on his military career.
Regrettably, there are too few people like me, who will have a rational debate on the merits and/or shortcomings of the Royal Family.
|
Duncan>> Regrettably, there are too few people like me, who will have a rational debate on
>> the merits and/or shortcomings of the Royal Family.
So e***** and blinding is your idea of a rational debate... what does an irrational debate look like.
|
>> So e***** and blinding is your idea of a rational debate... what does an irrational
>> debate look like.
Where have I done that?
I think you have got the wrong bloke!
Grovelling apology? I wonder?
|
>>
>> >> So e***** and blinding is your idea of a rational debate... what does an
>> irrational
>> >> debate look like.
>>
>> Where have I done that?
>>
>> I think you have got the wrong bloke!
>>
>> Grovelling apology? I wonder?
>>
Perhaps it was a different Duncan who wrote "True, because he has got sweet fanny adams to do, all day and every day. The bloke doesn't do a stroke of work."
Sweet fanny adams is a euphemism for e*****. Personally I don't regard ad hominem attacks as evidence of rational debate.
Grovelling apology? I wonder?
|
>> sweet fanny adams
more of a humourous variant of 'nothing' in time-honoured British tradition, such as using the word 'harris' or 'flippin' or 'bloomin' or 'heck' etc.
I don't think I'd be unduly outraged if my daughter used the phrase (although I doubt she would as it is peculiar to oldies...)
|
>> humourous variant of 'nothing' in time-honoured British tradition
I'm not sure you have that right! 'heck' is (traditionally) regarded as just as blasphemous as 'hell'. Sweet FA, even if lengthening it to Fanny Adams is still the naughty 'f' word. I wouldn't use any of them in front of my mother. Your daughter would probably just use the 'f' word, but, similarly, not in front of her father!
Describing it as evidence of being one of few people prepared to engage in rational debate is a bit silly; don't you think?
|
There is no point whatsoever in discussing the merits and shortcomings of the royal family.
If you are happy with the idea of a hereditary monarchy then you have to accept that those acquiring position as a result of that hereditary principle will be a mixed bag. You have to take the rough with the smooth
If you are opposed to the idea of a hereditary monarchy then it matters not how good the monarch or his family are; the whole idea is wrong in principle.
|
>> If you are happy with the idea of a hereditary monarchy then you have to
>> accept that those acquiring position as a result of that hereditary principle will be a
>> mixed bag. You have to take the rough with the smooth
>>
I'm happy with the idea of a parliamentary elective democracy but I'm not very happy with the mixed bag we get, and especially unhappy about some of the smooth ones :)
|
|
I would be interested to know what other people in the services thought of his nett contribution. I cannot believe that he did not receive 'special treatment' and was surrounded by additional close protection in the event that he was ever under real threat. Maybe he just carried a poison pill - the capture of a UK 'royal' would have had enormous negotiating value, and many lives would have been put at risk if he required to be 'recovered'.
|
|
My chum - who is now a Major - very much likes both the Royals. He said they were popular with their men and popular with their peers (like my chum).
|
>>He said they were popular with their men and popular with their peers<<
I would say they would be very discerning critics too.
Pat
|
>> My chum - who is now a Major - very much likes both the Royals.
>> He said they were popular with their men and popular with their peers (like my
>> chum).
>>
being popular has nothing to do with what they thought of his nett contribution.
|
was surrounded
>> by additional close protection in the event that he was ever under real threat.
I'm not sure how that would work seen as he was an apache pilot.
|
many medals reflect nothing of a person's character and
>> personal valour, and as such are meaningless bling.
Do fewer medals better reflect a person's character or is there an optimum number?
|
>>than a titfull of unearned bling
Does bling necessarily have to be earned?
Some of it is earned, and some of it is presumably just part of the correct uniform?
Hardly his fault if some of the people looking at his uniform didn't really know what they were looking at.
|
>> Hardly his fault if some of the people looking at his uniform didn't really know
>> what they were looking at.
He wasn't in uniform. He was in civies wearing a titful of meaningless bling.
|
>> He wasn't in uniform. He was in civies wearing a titful of meaningless bling.
Meaningless to you. Maybe not to the people it was there for.
What's your beef with jug ears?
|
>>
>> >> He wasn't in uniform. He was in civies wearing a titful of meaningless bling.
>>
>>
>> Meaningless to you. Maybe not to the people it was there for.
>>
>> What's your beef with jug ears?
Well his father thinks he is a knob.
|
>>He wasn't in uniform. He was in civies wearing a titful of meaningless bling.
He has been awarded these medals. He therefore, to be properly dressed, wears them on this occasion.
>>wear a poppy
Which would be completely incorrect. A poppy should only be worn between 1 November and Remembrance Sunday - or Armistice Day if the latter should fall after the former.
Why don't you want him to be properly dressed? Aha! So that you could give him an earful for being improperly dressed and not showing respect to the war dead. Heads he loses, tails he loses - when playing your rules.
>>24 most meritorious people in the Empire
No. The 22 most meritorious people in the Empire, the Sovereign, and the Heir to the Throne. The latter two make no claim to be 'most worthy people in the Empire' it's a part of their job. The Duke of Edinburgh has finally retired at the grand old age of nearly one hundred; Zero retired at barely more than half that age.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Wed 2 Aug 17 at 09:35
|
>>Zero retired at barely more than half
>> that age.
Zero didn't have a mansion full of flunkies to preen and pamper him. Zero didn't have a personal preeminent doctor and surgeon on a minutes notice, Zero even had to dress himself and shine his own shoes.
Sure I could have worked to 100 given that level of support. Anyway its work I could easily have done, standing there making wise cracks about Johnny Foreigner.
|
>>A poppy should only be worn between 1 November and Remembrance Sunday - or Armistice Day if the latter should fall after the former
That'll explain why he was wearing one then along with some other dignitaries.
cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/106/590x/secondary/Passchendaele-2017-Prince-Charles-William-Kate-Middleton-memorial-battle-100-years-1018069.jpg
Anything else?
|
>>Hardly his fault if some of the people looking at his uniform didn't really know what they were looking at.
I know what all of his bling is for, including the Order of merit round his neck from mum, marking him out as one of the 24 most meritorious people in the Empire.
Services to sanitary materials perhaps.
|
|
The vast majority of people who do low paid, often unpleasant, insecure jobs in civilian life don't get any sort of award.
|
>> The vast majority of people who do difficult and dangerous jobs in the armed forces
>> do not get medals for doing their job.
>>
I received the Naval General Service medal, (for Cyprus in EOKA times.) As Bootnecks we qualified for Naval specific gongs.
In later days it caused confusion (what's that then?) when I wore it as a member of the Territorial Army!
|
Do you not think it's time to stop "celebrating" long ago battles
Where do you draw the line in time?
I don't for one minute decry, or denigrate, the service of those who fought, before I'm shouted at!
Last edited by: Roger. on Wed 2 Aug 17 at 17:09
|
No I don't Roger.
I think it does us all good to reflect on why we have the freedom we have in this country today.
I think it's humbling to be 'forced' to think of what others went through to give us that freedom.
If you ever spend any time in Ieper you will realise they will never forget.
When my son was a teenager he thought he was hard done by but simply because he was interested in metal detecting, he got interested in WW1 and our family connections with it ( my Father), and it made him realise so much.
We should never forget....life could have been so different for all of us.
Pat
|
I remember Waterloo and Trafalgar, not to mention Azincourt and Crecy when we gave the French a drubbing! :-) LOL.
|
|
History is famously written by the winner, but I deprecate the lack of its teaching in schools these days.
|
>> History is famously written by the winner,
"to the victor the spoils" has gone right out the window tho.
|
>>not to mention Azincourt and Crecy when we gave the French a drubbing
Umm, remember Hastings 1066 when the French kicked your backside and took over.
Before them the Danes and before them the Italians until around 400AD.
Scots are the real Brits of course - inbred and proud.
|
>>Umm, remember Hastings 1066 when the French kicked your backside and took over.
Only kind of. They were really Vikings as well. They'd just stopped off on the way for 100 years or so.
|
>> Scots are the real Brits of course - inbred and proud.
>>
S'Funny. I get the same message from the Welsh.
|
|
Quite so Pat. Such remembrance is a good antidote to whinging about first world problems, I find.
|
>> I think it does us all good to reflect on why we have the freedom
>> we have in this country today.
Funnily enough, leaving Europe will allow the uk government to stomp all over those.
Still, price worth paying and all that
|
>>Its an insult to those who died. <<
Above is in your original post.
Turning this thread into an argument about Brexit certainly is >> an insult to those who died.<<
Leave it out.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Wed 2 Aug 17 at 18:05
|
|
My great grandfather and my father in law died, for a free EUROPE strangely enough. So just accept the dig, because its well earned.
|
I'll let you off then!
Pat
|
|
I was there singing with a choir. We were rather good apparently - We sang in the Menin Gate ceremony on Tuesday night. Unbelievable experience. I never, ever, ever, ever thought I'd end up doing that sort of thing. Never.
|
|
His medals aren't military - they're sort of honourary crap. He wasn't wearing a poppy at our gig though I did notice that.
|
|
Riding into Dunkirk harbour this morning I was stopped by a group of French soldiers, all carrying strange looking assault rifles. They stopped me 'cos I was riding a bike and they wanted a better look at it. I also stopped at UK border control, the miserable so and so behind the glass was jobsworth embodied - moaning that I'd handed him my passport in its cover...it was quiet I was the only one near the place. Sarcastic, surly and uncivil. Horrible little man. A metaphor for Brexit in two encounters.
|
On a purely pragmatic note, we would all be considerably worse off if millions of people had not been killed in both world wars (And every war through history come to that). Most would have bred and so obviously would their offspring, leading us a lot nearer to the crisis point of over-population, possibly even having passed it by this time.
The odd global catastrophy generally leads to long term good, though of course one would rather miss it during one's own lifetime.
|
|
Odd conclusion. So it was a cull...?
|
>> Odd conclusion. So it was a cull...?
Didn't work, did it.
Mind, the world might have been a better place if Friedrich Trump, of Kallstadt had fallen in the great war.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 3 Aug 17 at 08:53
|
....or even Private Harry Farage...........
;-)
|
Apart from being a somewhat callous point of view its is not true. the numbers killed in WW1 was thing like 1,800,000,000 or around 2%. Not particularly significant statistically
It ignores the fact that there was a huge baby boom both after the first and second world wars and the growth in population continued unabated
|
>> Apart from being a somewhat callous point of view its is not true. the numbers
>> killed in WW1 was thing like 1,800,000,000 or around 2%. Not particularly significant statistically
>>
Without checking on google, are there 3 zeroes too many there?
(some would say that one zero is too many:-))
|
What was lost though as the cream of the British Army, the regular Army. You can't train "experience" on top of that we lost a generation of Subalterns - disproportionate rates of young men were lost who were groomed to lead the military and potentially the nation - at least one historian attributes the lackluster performance of the British Army in WW2 post Dunkirk down to this monumental loss. These guys were the "war winners" that the nation had nurtured.
|
>> in WW2 post Dunkirk down to this monumental loss. These guys were the "war winners"
>> that the nation had nurtured.
Yeah but it took them 4 years and the aid of the Yanks to win, so they werent that good.
|
>> Yeah but it took them 4 years and the aid of the Yanks to win,
>> so they werent that good.
>>
I think if we had to single out one single nation's efforts as being decisive in WW2, then I think that credit would go to the Russians.
|
>>at least one historian attributes the lackluster performance of the British Army in WW2 post Dunkirk down to this monumental loss.
I'm confused. We didn't really lose many men at Dunkirk; Hitler kindly let most of them out. I thought the general view was that subsequent British success was down to his kindly allowing our battle-hardened troops back into the ranks, so that by D-day (and indeed many other piffling little campaigns before like North Africa, Sicily etc. etc.) we had plenty of experienced soldiers.
Or are you talking about deaths in WW1 affecting WW2?
|
|
I read the reference as the losses in WW1 impacted our ability to command troops in WW2. We threw away soldiers' lives on both sides in the first world war. We sadly didn't learn.
|
10 times more died from the "Spanish" flu epidemic right after WW1, and the same number again probably died in Stalin's gulags after WW2.
War as a method of population control doesn't work too well.
|
>> Apart from being a somewhat callous point of view its is not true. the numbers
>> killed in WW1 was thing like 1,800,000,000 or around 2%. Not particularly significant statistically
>>
>> It ignores the fact that there was a huge baby boom both after the first
>> and second world wars and the growth in population continued unabated
>>
It's not a callous or any other point of view, merely an opinion of the effects on the population of the planet by WW1 (Est 15 to 18 million deaths) and WW2 (Est 60 to 85 million deaths).
Of course there was a population boom after both wars with hundreds of thousands of randy servicemen returning home after years away.
|
Me,Me ! I guess I'm a Baby Boomer. I could well have been conceived on VE night. Too late to arx me ole mam now...and she'd only give me a slap !
I hope the ole man took his dirty boots off.
|
"It's not not a callous or any other point of view"
You don't think your view that the deaths of millions of people in two world wars is somehow necessary and to our general benefit is not insensitive and without feeling ?
|
>> You don't think your view that the deaths of millions of people in two world
>> wars is somehow necessary and to our general benefit is not insensitive and without feeling
It is a simple fact that the world's population would be considerably higher than it is now if history were war free, a statement made without prejudice or judgement.
It is overpopulation that will eventually do for mankind.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 4 Aug 17 at 16:54
|
Regarding sustainability, I'm fairly sure that the single most helpful thing we could do is to reduce the population by a large percentage.
From a purely rational point of view, we should not be striving so officiously to keep people alive. Other people, that is!
I struggle to see humanity lasting more than a few generations before we poison/vapourise/starve ourselves one way of another.
The Earth of course will be fine.
|
>> Regarding sustainability, I'm fairly sure that the single most helpful thing we could do is
>> to reduce the population by a large percentage.
>>
>>
>>
That is the elephant in the room, one that is being steadfastly ignored by almost everyone. The Chinese were denounced almost for crimes against humanity when they tried to limit population growth, by far the most sensible thing any country has ever done to ensure a long term future for the human race.During the twentieth century the world's population rose from 1.5 billion to six billion, the last three billion being added since 1970.
Energy efficient washing machines and turning the central heating down by one degree is going to do sweet FA if we continue to expand as we are, let alone where we are going to put everyone and feed ourselves. Of course the problem may well solve itself if some nutter pushes the Big Button, which is entirely possible - or probable - at some point in the future.
|
All experience shows that an increase in living standards education and and health care reduces the rate of population growth.
That is what we should be striving for throughout the world , not wishing for some apocalyptic event to kill billions of people.
|
>>not wishing for some apocalyptic event to kill billions of people.
I once told an aged book-keeper that his record keeping was not to the required standard for a loan.
His spiteful retort was that young people don't know what hardship is and another war would sort them all out.
I called him a sick prat for effectively wishing me and numerous others dead, packed my bags and left. Luckily my boss agreed with me.
|
The world population is 7.5 billion.
The Second World War killed 3%. If something similar happened again that would reduce the world's population to 7.25 billion. Of no relevance.
Spanish Flu killed 4%, equally the world would notice no difference only the dead or their nearest and dearest.
Can you imagine the magnitude of the disaster or disease required to substantially reduce the population size?
If its a war, then it'll need to be nuclear, and even then it probably wouldn't manage it without actually making the planet entirely uninhabitable.
Most probably a rampant disease would be needed. Perhaps Ebola or HIV spread by mosquitoes might do it.
It'd destroy the world's economy, infrastructure and structure though.
|
>>All experience shows that an increase in living standards education and and health care
>>reduces the rate of population growth.
>>That is what we should be striving for throughout the world
Its certainly the only thing that will make things better.
|
|
With declining sperm count the birth rate may well drop considerably, resulting in the required population decline.
|
|
That'd take a b***** long time - if the birth rate dropped to zero tomorrow, the population would decline at 0.8% per year.
|
But the difference between the present annual growth and the annual decline would be a lot higher, presumably.
Stabilising the population would be a big step.
|
How can one change the heading in a thread here? Since I don't know, a bit off-topic:
I always thought that aerial warfare in WWI was a matter of gladiatorial contest between fighter pilots with little emphasis on bombing. However I have just finished reading Hans Herbert Grimm's "Schlump", in which the hero gives account after account of British bombing raids, often with little discrimination but with great devastation. Another thing I didn't know: The British and French troops hated each other so badly that the Germans separated them into separate prisoner of war camps.
|
>> How can one change the heading in a thread here? Since I don't know, a
>> bit off-topic:
Reply to the first post in a thread and change the subject.
|
|
.....no you can't......!?
|
You can't change the heading of existing posts, only one's you are editing.
The mods can change them but if we change the first one the remainder don't change - each one has to be done manually.
|
>> .....no you can't......!?
>>
|
|
Is there some confusion here between the heading of a thread; and the title of a post that is not the first in the thread?
|
What? :-)
Yes probably...
|
passchendaele - CGNorwich
