Who is the greatest prime minister of the last 65 years?

[cityfanlee23]

I for one am glad Lee wants to be Tory Boy No.1 on FT.

 

There were contenders. Moosey is unquestionably hilarious, but Lee takes it all to a new level. 

 

 

Coming from you. Comedy Gold.

 

Simply giving the facts, when you get some come back 

[The Doctor]

The ENEMY being anything to do with argentina at the time. and I was talking from a post war perspective at people trying to defend the belgrano. they were right to take the belgrano down.  

 

still the point remains that no ships had been sunken prior to the belgrano. Well they weren't, because the belgrano wasn't a threat - it was outside the exclusion zone, sailing west (away from the islands and the patrolling subs) and there was a peace proposal on at the time from the Peruvians, which, despite Thatchers lies about it being communicated post attack, was announced 14 hours before the sinking.

 

The sinking of the belgrano was an attack on a retreating ship posing no threat in what should have been a cease-fire. There's no way it can be anything other than a war crime.

[separator]

It's ok I voted for the one who made the biggest change for society and equality for the average working man. Clue it wasn't a female. 9well only on Spitting Image0

Spitting Image, thats just reminded me of the grey John Major and his peas.

[Buce]

For christ sake, Just answered this

They were right to sink the belgrano, they were a threat from a strong argentinian force of 13,000 I was talking POST WAR in hindsight, they were 100% right.

I'm not arguing for or against the validity of sinking the Belgrano; I'm pointing out that a central plank of your argument in favour, ie. that we had had 6 ships sunk at that time, is incorrect. The Belgrano was sunk on May 2nd: HMS Sheffield (the first RN ship to be sunk) was sunk on May 4th. That is a verifiable fact.

[sphericalfox]

Coming from you. Comedy Gold.

 

Simply giving the facts, when you get some come back 

 

I wasn't joking

[cityfanlee23]

still the point remains that no ships had been sunken prior to the belgrano. Well they weren't, because the belgrano wasn't a threat - it was outside the exclusion zone, sailing west (away from the islands and the patrolling subs) and there was a peace proposal on at the time from the Peruvians, which, despite Thatchers lies about it being communicated post attack, was announced 14 hours before the sinking.

 

The sinking of the belgrano was an attack on a retreating ship posing no threat in what should have been a cease-fire. There's no way it can be anything other than a war crime.

 

 

Argentina claimed they were going AWAY, the belgrano heads back towards it (This was picked up by british military intelligence signals as well as other government agencies - this was released in private military dossiers in the sinking of the belgrano investigations) Around the ascension island major David thorp and his team also picked up naval communications ordering the belgrano to turn back towards grid references within the exclusion zone.

[Guest Kopfkino]

I'd probably say Atlee. Difficult to choose between Atlee, Churchill, Macmillan and the earlier years Thatcher

[cityfanlee23]

I'm not arguing for or against the validity of sinking the Belgrano; I'm pointing out that a central plank of your argument in favour, ie. that we had had 6 ships sunk at that time, is incorrect. The Belgrano was sunk on May 2nd: HMS Sheffield (the first RN ship to be sunk) was sunk on May 4th. That is a verifiable fact.

 

And I've said my argument was talking in hindsight that we were correct to sink it. my argument in favour was that clearly with 13,000 forces there they were a big danger, so when the belgrano was heading towards a grid reference WITHIN the exclusion zone... Sinking it was right, that was what I was saying.   

[cityfanlee23]

I'd probably say Atlee. Difficult to choose between Atlee, Churchill, Macmillan and the earlier years Thatcher

 

I think Atlee has had the biggest impact with the NHS, but as an all round leader and the state of the country Pre and post tenure, Thatcher edges it for me, probably quite obvious though... 

 

But yeah Atlee for the best individual service to britain.

[Rincewind]

I would say a 70 year span would be better. I know it may leave part of the Churchill years but he was a good wartime Pm not peacetime. He was soon out of favour after the war ended.

[Buce]

I for one am glad Lee wants to be Tory Boy No.1 on FT.

There were contenders. Moosey is unquestionably hilarious, but Lee takes it all to a new level.

Yep. Even Moose stops short of arguing that black is white...

[The Doctor]

Argentina claimed they were going AWAY, the belgrano heads back towards it (This was picked up by british military intelligence signals as well as other government agencies - this was released in private military dossiers in the sinking of the belgrano investigations) Around the ascension island major David thorp and his team also picked up naval communications ordering the belgrano to turn back towards grid references within the exclusion zone.

 

It was on a bearing of 280 (just north of west) and west of the falklands to start with. It was also at Lat 55º, 24', long  61º, 32', outside of the exclusion zone. It was outside of the exclusion zone and clearly retreating - there's no justification for attacking a retreating ship.

 

Also worth noting that the order to the belgrano was given before the peruvian peace proposal, directing it from south west to south east to attack, but when it was sunk, it was west going on north west of the islands - so clearly it wasn't carrying out the order. 

[cityfanlee23]

I would say a 70 year span would be better. I know it may leave part of the Churchill years but he was a good wartime Pm not peacetime. He was soon out of favour after the war ended.

 

 

I did originally mean to put 75 years but realised i'd posted it as 65 years, thankfully he fits both categories so I would assume people are taking churchil as an entire tenure pre and post war!

[Webbo]

It was on a bearing of 280 (just north of west) and west of the falklands to start with. It was also at Lat 55º, 24', long  61º, 32', outside of the exclusion zone. It was outside of the exclusion zone and clearly retreating - there's no justification for attacking a retreating ship.

Why fill a troop ship full of soldiers if you're not going to use them? Inside, outside the exclusion zone, who cares. If you don't want your soldiers killed, don't start wars.

[cityfanlee23]

It was on a bearing of 280 (just north of west) and west of the falklands to start with. It was also at Lat 55º, 24', long  61º, 32', outside of the exclusion zone. It was outside of the exclusion zone and clearly retreating - there's no justification for attacking a retreating ship.

 

 

Have you even read what I was saying, The ship was heading toward a grid WITHIN the exclusion zone, on orders from argentinians officials which were intercepted by british and other international intelligence, the signals picked up by our ships were also confirming the belgrano was not head away. 

 

This was posted in the secret military dossiers that were published about 3 years ago.. not recovered for around 30 years, backed up by the international intelligence they claimed in those dossiers, I'm sure if you fish around you'll be able to find them, although they were supposed to be kept a secret. 

 

Thatcher famously said in an interview when questioned by Diana gould that "One day, all of the facts, in about 30 years time, will be published"

It seems they were. 

 

Believe the argentinians who claimed the ship was heading AWAY (the same people that invaded the falklands with 13,000 forces and over 70 planes) 

 

Or believe our intelligence forces that have been backed by others, your choice really. I'd prefer to believe our official sources that were from an international investigation.

[sphericalfox]

Why fill a troop ship full of soldiers if you're not going to use them? Inside, outside the exclusion zone, who cares. If you don't want your soldiers killed, don't start wars.

 

 

Imagine some dickcheese spills your bitter down the pub Webbo. You exchange some words of disagreement. Dickcheese starts walking off, and you think to yourself, he's still got legs, he might come back.

 

What do you hotshot? Break his spine with your steeltoes, and perhaps dance on his head a bit. A dickcheese in the hospital is better than him spilling your boss drink. Am I right?

[The Doctor]

Why fill a troop ship full of soldiers if you're not going to use them? Inside, outside the exclusion zone, who cares. If you don't want your soldiers killed, don't start wars.

 

The ships were patrolling - they were then order to move from south west to south east of the island on the 1st of May to prepare for an attack. However the Peruvian prime minister proposed a peace plan and the belgrano retreated, instead heading westerly, further away from the islands. It wasn't attacking, and it was outside the exclusion zone so it shouldn't have been a target. Doesn't matter who started the war, there's still codes of conduct to follow.

[Webbo]

Imagine some dickcheese spills your bitter down the pub Webbo. You exchange some words of disagreement. Dickcheese starts walking off, and you think to yourself, he's still got legs, he might come back.

 

What do you hotshot? Break his spine with your steeltoes, and perhaps dance on his head a bit. A dickcheese in the hospital is better than him spilling your boss drink. Am I right?

I know you think you're funny, believe me you're not.

[Fox92]

65 years pretty crazy timeframe imo

 

Yes it does. Go back a bit further and David Lloyd George would be considered. 

[Webbo]

The ships were patrolling - they were then order to move from south west to south east of the island on the 1st of May to prepare for an attack. However the Peruvian prime minister proposed a peace plan and the belgrano retreated, instead heading westerly, further away from the islands. It wasn't attacking, and it was outside the exclusion zone so it shouldn't have been a target. Doesn't matter who started the war, there's still codes of conduct to follow.

You don't fill patrol ships with troops.

[The Doctor]

Have you even read what I was saying, The ship was heading toward a grid WITHIN the exclusion zone, on orders from argentinians officials which were intercepted by british and other international intelligence, the signals picked up by our ships were also confirming the belgrano was not head away. 

 

This was posted in the secret military dossiers that were published about 3 years ago.. not recovered for around 30 years, backed up by the international intelligence they claimed in those dossiers, I'm sure if you fish around you'll be able to find them, although they were supposed to be kept a secret. 

 

Thatcher famously said in an interview when questioned by Diana gould that "One day, all of the facts, in about 30 years time, will be published"

It seems they were. 

 

Believe the argentinians who claimed the ship was heading AWAY (the same people that invaded the falklands with 13,000 forces and over 70 planes) 

 

Or believe our intelligence forces that have been backed by others, your choice really. I'd prefer to believe our official sources that were from an international investigation.

 

No, it wasn't. It was heading away from the islands, born out by it's bearing and it's position when sunk. If the attack ordered was still going ahead, why was it sunk further west than where it was at the time of being given orders when it was ordered eastward? 

You don't fill patrol ships with troops.

 

So, when doing military patrols in wartime, who do you fill the ship with, other than the military?

[cityfanlee23]

The ships were patrolling - they were then order to move from south west to south east of the island on the 1st of May to prepare for an attack. However the Peruvian prime minister proposed a peace plan and the belgrano retreated, instead heading westerly, further away from the islands. It wasn't attacking, and it was outside the exclusion zone so it shouldn't have been a target. Doesn't matter who started the war, there's still codes of conduct to follow.

 

 

Funny how you keep missing vital points about the belgrano actually heading TOWARD the exclusion zone at the point of impact. 

As I said, you can either believe what you have heard from Argentina, which of course was widely reported here, or believe the intelligence dossiers finally released a few years ago with the official signalling and intercepted messages from Argentinian officials telling the ship to go to co-ordinates within the exclusion zone. 

 

You seem to have made your mind up already though.

[sphericalfox]

I know you think you're funny, believe me you're not.

 

I'd say that's a pretty accurate analogy of what you were saying. I wasn't trying to be funny (y'know like my blog. hehehoho)

[Jimothy]

 

You seem to have made your mind up already though.

Oh the irony!

[Webbo]

No, it wasn't. It was heading away from the islands, born out by it's bearing and it's position when sunk. If the attack ordered was still going ahead, why was it sunk further west than where it was at the time of being given orders when it was ordered eastward? 

 

So, when doing military patrols in wartime, who do you fill the ship with, other than the military?

It was a troop carrier, not a patrol boat.