Kit Shortages "Absolute Bollocks" according to Ainsworth

#3
Ainsworth really just is a total throbber.

Every time I hear him on the radio, he's spouting more uninformed bollocks.

How do these people get appointed to positions of responsibility, when their intellectual level is somewhere between a root vegetable and a house brick?
 
#4
FluffyBunny said:
Ainsworth really just is a total throbber.

Every time I hear him on the radio, he's spouting more uninformed balls.

How do these people get appointed to positions of responsibility, when their intellectual level is somewhere between a root vegetable and a house brick?
Don't you watch UK reality TV these days? I think that Labour Central Office takes it lessons in candidate selection from them.

All you need to be is a self publicising tosser with attitude and no shame and you can get to do anything you want..... :roll:

BB has a lot to answer for....
 

BiscuitsAB

LE
Moderator
#5
in_the_cheapseats said:
FluffyBunny said:
Ainsworth really just is a total throbber.

Every time I hear him on the radio, he's spouting more uninformed balls.

How do these people get appointed to positions of responsibility, when their intellectual level is somewhere between a root vegetable and a house brick?
Don't you watch UK reality TV these days? I think that Labour Central Office takes it lessons in candidate selection from them.

All you need to be is a self publicising tosser with attitude and no shame and you can get to do anything you want..... :roll:

BB has a lot to answer for....

self publicising tosser with attitude and no shame....... hmm been accussed of that myself! so me for Primeminister then.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
ABrighter2006 said:
Well, it's not exactly the first time that he's come out with absolute balls where the armed forces are concerned.
Nothing more than is to be expected from what appear to be Stalinist scum who think they rule this country and therefore are above the law, and have no need to display any form of decency or good manners.
Their attitude seems to indicate there is only concern for power and the system; the civilian population and the Armed Forces are merely statistics.
 
#7
A creature of dubious characteristics.

During 1982 and 1983 he was a candidate member of the International Marxist Group, but he was never a full member of that organisation.

He has shown how incompetent he is by his shifty, misinformed diatribe before Christmas about troop levels in Iraq. It appears that of the 1000 troops that were due back from Iraq, 500 have never got there, 270 were already back before Cyclops arrived with his tumultuous morale boosting announcement so only 230 actually returned.

He also voted in favour of exempting MPs from the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act to ensure his expenses were not subject to public scrutiny.

Number 1 in Defence (Des "bean counter" Browne) has been relegated to Part Time status with the MOD footing the bill for his Scottish job.

With Ainsworth as Number 3 in the Defence "Food Chain" this epitomises this Governments open and very public contempt of the Armed Forces.
 
#8
Sadly for Mr Ainsworth, it appears that a report into the death of Mark Wright GC would suggest that the absolute b*ll*cks being spouted emanates from the Minister...

A British war hero who bled to death after being injured in an Afghan minefield died because of a catalogue of failures, incompetence and equipment shortages, a military inquiry has found. Cpl Mark Wright, who was posthumously awarded the George Cross after rescuing an injured colleague, could have survived if a properly equipped helicopter had been available, it ruled.

A copy of the report, which has been obtained by The Sunday Telegraph, adds that the rescue operation was dogged by confusion, delays, poor communication and a shortage of maps showing the location of minefields.
Torygraph - Army hero left to die by failings at MoD
 
#9
Media article on Ainsworth:

He wasn't the one who really caught my eye, though. Down at the other end of the Chamber, in two small box seats, were Bob Ainsworth and Dave Watts. What a duo.

Mr Ainsworth (Coventry North East) once did a brief spell as a departmental minister and he was not an unqualified success, being both dim and squeaky.

This may be a good combination in a Devonian swimwear model; in a politician it is less ideal.

Burly Mr Ainsworth, who chooses to wear a toothbrush moustache, was sent to the Whips' Office where no one would mock him.
A failure as a Departmental Minister but good enough to be Armed Forces Minister. :x
 
#10
Archimedes said:
Sadly for Mr Ainsworth, it appears that a report into the death of Mark Wright GC would suggest that the absolute b*ll*cks being spouted emanates from the Minister...
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "At the time of the incident, all of the helicopters in theatre would have been fully equipped.

"However, a fault with another system, necessitated all of the winches being returned to the UK, as a matter of urgency, for inspection to ensure their reliability."
Is this statement not contradictory?

If all the helicopters were fully equipped why were the winches not provided? By default, if the winches were missing it was NOT fully equipped.

Why were the winches not inspected prior to deployment? If this was not possible, why was the testing not carried out "in theatre"?

Another unmitigated, disastrous, misleading half truth quote from the MOD spokesman.
 
#11
FluffyBunny said:
Ainsworth really just is a total throbber.

Every time I hear him on the radio, he's spouting more uninformed balls.

How do these people get appointed to positions of responsibility, when their intellectual level is somewhere between a root vegetable and a house brick?
This is Labour after all and you only have to consider how our forces have fared under their leadership the past 10 years so it’s no surprise politicians without any relevant military experience are being appointed to key posts. Part-timer Des Browne is a good case in point. With his area of expertise being child law, how does that qualify him for the Defence Secretary post? It’s highly insulting to our military having individuals like Browne and Ainsworth in key positions.
 
#13
Ainsworth, a true representation of the dearth of cabinet talent surrounding Gordon Brown. Oh the next couple of years are going to be fun. A run on the pound to follow a run on the bank. Not much fun if you are in the AF though. If anyone has current examples of shortages of equipment this is a very good opportunity to bring then to the attentions of a press that has by and large turned on the worst govt in living memory.

What a load of bollox.
 
#14
If Neu Arbeit were serious about defence, The Rt Hon (talk about inaccurate - judging by what little I have heard about this buffoon he is very either right or honourable!!) Bob Ainsworth would already have been made to apologise for his outburst, at the very least.

However, as everyone who has served in the the military since 1997 knows, NA is not serious about defence. The amount of stories highlighting equipment shortages and/or failings, retention problems, recruitment problems etc etc only serve to prove that this gubmint is absolutely not serious about defence.

Put it another way, can you imagine doctors and nurses having to provide their own scalpels or other minor, but very important pieces of equipment? Because, as small a piece of equipment as it is, a minefield is pretty bloody important if you suddenly find yourself in the middle of a minefield. To my knowledge, there is no 'issue' minefield kit. I well remember making them up out of various bits and pieces for vehicles in my troop in 2006 / 2007.

So Mr Ainsworth, you may believe that the Conservative MP was talking 'absolute bollox' - but you should remove yourself from the Ivory Tower which you so obviously inhabit, and start doing the job the taxes I and other 'normal people' pay you to do - do not stop at Whitehall, for you will only find other people of your ilk there, warming their overly large posteriors in chairs designed for their health and well being. What a pity that money didn't go to the mine kits (for one thing) I mentioned previously - that might really have done some good.

And to finish, I hope the families sueing the MOD for negligence win, and win BIG! Perhaps then the gubmint will realise the little folk outside of Parliament can see through all their lies pretty much all of the time! Not to mention the fact that those soldiers deserve more than MOD will give.
 
#17
mad_mac said:
Archimedes said:
Sadly for Mr Ainsworth, it appears that a report into the death of Mark Wright GC would suggest that the absolute b*ll*cks being spouted emanates from the Minister...
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "At the time of the incident, all of the helicopters in theatre would have been fully equipped.

"However, a fault with another system, necessitated all of the winches being returned to the UK, as a matter of urgency, for inspection to ensure their reliability."
Is this statement not contradictory?

If all the helicopters were fully equipped why were the winches not provided? By default, if the winches were missing it was NOT fully equipped.

Why were the winches not inspected prior to deployment? If this was not possible, why was the testing not carried out "in theatre"?

Another unmitigated, disastrous, misleading half truth quote from the MOD spokesman.
In aircraft, a fault in a single part can result in increased servicing of that part, increased observation or even removal from all airframes for closer inspection. In my time this included fenestron blades, tail rotor gear boxes amongst others.

Apparently the winches went into theatre and because of a fault found were then dismantled and because of an inablility to do the work in theatre, sent back down the line to a rear workshop.

This is totally different to not supplying the winches.
 
#18
Sven said:
mad_mac said:
Archimedes said:
Sadly for Mr Ainsworth, it appears that a report into the death of Mark Wright GC would suggest that the absolute b*ll*cks being spouted emanates from the Minister...
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "At the time of the incident, all of the helicopters in theatre would have been fully equipped.

"However, a fault with another system, necessitated all of the winches being returned to the UK, as a matter of urgency, for inspection to ensure their reliability."
Is this statement not contradictory?

If all the helicopters were fully equipped why were the winches not provided? By default, if the winches were missing it was NOT fully equipped.

Why were the winches not inspected prior to deployment? If this was not possible, why was the testing not carried out "in theatre"?

Another unmitigated, disastrous, misleading half truth quote from the MOD spokesman.
In aircraft, a fault in a single part can result in increased servicing of that part, increased observation or even removal from all airframes for closer inspection. In my time this included fenestron blades, tail rotor gear boxes amongst others.

Apparently the winches went into theatre and because of a fault found were then dismantled and because of an inablility to do the work in theatre, sent back down the line to a rear workshop.

This is totally different to not supplying the winches.
Ah, Sven; I wondred how long it would take you to crawl out from under your stone and defend the indefensible.

Perhaps you should become a lawyer or even a politician. After all, you obviously have no morals and that's one of the major requirements! :twisted:
 
#19
Sven,

If winches were issued to aircraft that were defective, they were not fit to have been issued.

Our servicemen have the right and should expect that if kit is fitted to an aircraft or a vehicle, or indeed issued on an individaul basis, that it should function fully as designed.

Equipment that is not fit for purpose is in some ways worse than not issued at all, as it is assumed that it has been supplied correctly and is working as designed.

Bob Ainsworth is a complete buffoon, and without any operational military experience, he is of no use to our armed forces who are fighting 2 campaigns currently.

Bob
 
#20
""However, a fault with another system, necessitated all of the winches being returned to the UK, as a matter of urgency, for inspection to ensure their reliability."

I am not defending the Ministers position here, but how would people react if it was found out that it was known that the winches were faulty, and that no action was taken to send them back for inspection - in the course of doing so this lead to casualties? There would be uproar here, with people blaming MOD / Neu Arbeit etc for cuts and delays and failings.

Seems a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top