Obviously no one ever asked for more helos or they would have been provided, Snatch is well armoured (he has seen one that survived an IED - presumably based on a firecracker) and Bowman is a great success because the soldiers chosen to speak to him said so.
Always good to see a man on top of his job. Mind you, some of the good vibes he has been experiencing on his visits may be due to people looking towards their next OJAR or indeed a nice gong.
Oh yes indeed trossachs, when alluding to APCs in the sense that we know them and in armoured landrovers in the way the interviewer meant but did not state when he said: "APC's', the procurement Minister correctly stated that "APCs in the way you descrbe them" had not been provided to the Iraqi Army or Police"
A very slippery customer is Drayson and a golden opportunity lost to nail his arrse to the wall.
In the event, there was sufficient collateral evidence to cast reasonable doubt on the veracity of his statement.
I think we should give responsibility for procurement to TESCO, they are extremely good at it and we may even get a 'buy one get one free'!
This is what Colonel Tim Collins writes in his book; Rules of Engagement (pp 423-4):
"This is no way to man an Army and the figures show it does not work. This has come about because of the success of the civil service n gaining power over the controls of the Armed Services and their attempts to run it as a business. Coupled with this we have simply had some bad leaders. Those who I call the 'Neithers'. These are the self-publicists who are neither soldiers (most have never been in a fight of any kind, even in the playground at school) nor businessmen, though some like to flatter themselves that they 'run' multi-million pound businesses. They enjoy business talk and like to pretend that they are up with the latest business thinking. These staff pigeons have even developed their own language, a newspeak that charts the Byzantine budgetary structure and cripples innovative thinking. It is, in fact, a mechanism for combing the thinning hairs of the Army's once proud mane to cover the parchment-thin skin of this formerly world-class service. There can be no doubt whatsoever that real businessmen would do a much better job of running the Army. We, as a nation, have long since discovered that the in-house entrepreneurs in the public sector are low grade. The private sector has the cream and a business like the Army - if it is to be run as a business - needs this sort of talent. They would need military advice for sure, and that is where the men with proven leadership and field experience come in. Alternatively generals could run it as an army. But that seems to be outmoded.".
Lord Drayson always chooses his words very carefully (or has them chosen for him), as a reading of Hansard will show. An utter weasel who is where he is because he donated a lot of money to New Labour, not because of any skills he may have.
Drayson was very well probed and showed himself to be a rather oligacious toe rag. He is clearly aware of the utter train wreck of the process, but seems completely unable to be honest about it.
However this is the same chap who bought a vacine factory, ran it on the cheap and gave up to 18,000 schools kids dodgy injections, who gave the Labour party a million in donations, who's drug compoany was shut down for general dodgyness by the US FDA within a year of it's sale to a US company, and who sold the government a load of doses of small pox vaccines in a sewn up deal with no tendering about a month after a lovely big donation.
Although some people think it's a good idea to let smart business men run the MoD procurement process, I'd hazard a guess they didn't have such people in mind.
If there is one politico I'd like to see the beeb realy go for and bury, it's this guy. There is mud out there, just keep throwing and it'll stick.
Hmm, perhaps I did over egg if for a first post. My bad.