ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by History_Man

No, just underwater buffalo wrestlers...

I once wrestled what could have passed for a buffalo in a jacuzzi in the domincan republic once. Does that count?


Sent from my iPhone using ARRSE

Originally Posted by hogspawn

Well seeing as he's been given/promised the job by that foul ****ing vulture May, and defected from Labour to Toff, I'm fairly sure Winsor will continue to do exactly as his paymasters order

Funny that, I get the opposite impression and always have, Winsor always came across as apolitical which was why he lost his job as rail regulator. He always did his job to the letter which funnily enough is what he was paid to do unlike those less apolitical ****s around him.

Originally Posted by hogstable

Most of the coppers I know are decent chaps and in it for the right reasons. Some are idle, some crap but that would seem to sum up most jobs and their workers. My mates shift had a minimum manning level of 20 at one time that has now dropped to 6 I think. Certainly got more faith in them for doing the 'right' thing than a lawyer / business man / politician. Might be idealistic claptrap but can't imagine many of those people saying 'I want to make the world a better place and serve the public', perhaps some politicians when they start off.

Just going on what is here there does seem to be a conflict of interest, there should be a law forbidding 'public servants' to benfit from their post, anti corruption like.

What would the outrage be from Arrsers if there was a similar post for HM Armed Forces and a civvy was put in that to fill it? Just a thought.

No outrage from me mate..a representative from the recipients of all our defending might put a dampener on the turf wars, one who has done the "one size fits all" MBA type courses may even decide that defence cuts could be met by transferring combat air ops to the Navy, air transport functions to the RLC, and the RAF regt to the Infantry.

Originally Posted by ugly

Funny that, I get the opposite impression and always have, Winsor always came across as apolitical which was why he lost his job as rail regulator. He always did his job to the letter which funnily enough is what he was paid to do unlike those less apolitical ****s around him.

Considering that we have policing by consent in this country ...what is wrong with having the "policed" overseeing the Police??

Originally Posted by ugly

Funny that, I get the opposite impression and always have, Winsor always came across as apolitical which was why he lost his job as rail regulator. He always did his job to the letter which funnily enough is what he was paid to do unlike those less apolitical ****s around him.

Doesn't strike you as odd that he's been given a £200k gig after producing that propaganda rag that May wanted for taking an axe to the fuzz?

Originally Posted by Kromeriz

Tom Winsor took on the Government AND made them pay for rail investment. He also took on Railtrack and the TOCs. Good guy, looks for the public interest.

But is hacking at and demoralizing public sector workers terms and conditions, as well as their numbers to do the work likely to improve that public service? If the OP wants a useless police service, he will soon get it.

My opening gambit would be for an effective police service or none at all. If it is to be none at all then just give the money back to the taxpayer, so he can improve his own security with home security with decent doors and windows and buy a gun/pepper spray/tazer to defend himself when outdoors.

If we all literally, took the law into our own hands, we wouldn't need a police force. Maybe just a local Sheriff to keep our zeal in check and on the right side of justice, like the old wild west. (Which by some accounts was less wild and more law abiding than many American towns and cities are today)

I actually agree with the OPs point about shooting burglars and the RTKBA. I also think we should be allowed 20mins to tie up and torture up any **** burglar at gunpoint before the filth arrive to take him away too. If they don't arrive within that 20 minute period we should be allowed to slot the ****ing burgling ****. In my perfect world the burglars deterrent would work because they don't relish the prospect of me black nastying them to a chair and then cutting off their ears off whilst I play 'Stuck in the middle with you' by Steelers Wheel on my hi-fi.

I've been burgled three times, and hence, not liberal in my outlook one bit.

Originally Posted by ugly

Funny that, I get the opposite impression and always have, Winsor always came across as apolitical which was why he lost his job as rail regulator. He always did his job to the letter which funnily enough is what he was paid to do unlike those less apolitical ****s around him.

Then how come he's so utterly and disastrously wrong?!

How can he be apolitical and independent when he switched sides from Lab to Con funnily enough after Lab binned him as rail regulator?

How can someone who is a partner in the law firm advising G4S be independent when advising that private security (G4S) take over most police functions?

How come his 'recommendations' are identical to those suggested by David Cameron in 2006?

then funnily enough he happens to be appointed as 'independent' person in charge of overseeing the implementation of his own report!!!

He's hardly going to say 'Oops I was a **** and****ed it right up' now is he?!

Originally Posted by The_Seagull

I once wrestled what could have passed for a buffalo in a jacuzzi in the domincan republic once. Does that count?
Sent from my iPhone using ARRSE

No, not really, but you are clearly a braver man than me