Tom Tugendhat Military Intervention in Illegal Migration

[Social Media]

 

Tom Tugendhat, a prominent figure in the Conservative Party and a contender for the Tory leadership, has made a bold proposition that echoes through the annals of British history. He suggests that the UK’s military should be involved in combating illegal migration, drawing a parallel with the Royal Navy’s historic role in ending the transatlantic slave trade. Tugendhat, who has previously served as a security minister, argues that the United Kingdom's national security today requires the same level of dedication that the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron demonstrated nearly two centuries ago in its fight against slavery.

 

Tugendhat's speech, delivered at an event hosted by the Kensington, Bayswater, Chelsea, and Fulham Conservatives association on August 14, was recorded and later obtained by The Times. His words have sparked a significant discussion, as he invoked a comparison with one of the most morally charged military campaigns in British history. “Our national security today demands the same level of commitment the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron showed in the fight against slavery almost 200 years ago,” Tugendhat stated.

 

He emphasized that while the tools and methods have evolved, the underlying focus remains constant—addressing the modern-day scourge of human trafficking, which he unambiguously labeled as "evil." Tugendhat called for serious and sustained investments to tackle this issue, dismissing the opposition Labour Party’s approaches as mere "short-term sticking plasters."

 

For Tugendhat, the moral clarity of his argument is paramount. He insisted that it is neither "wrong nor nasty to be against illegal migration," framing the fight against human trafficking as a moral duty rather than a matter of mere political convenience. In his view, the UK must demonstrate the same resolve in combating this modern form of exploitation as it did in the past when it dedicated significant resources to end the slave trade. He reminded his audience that funding the West Africa Squadron, which played a pivotal role in suppressing the transatlantic slave trade, cost Britain an estimated 2 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at the time.

 

Tugendhat cautioned that a similar level of financial commitment might be required again, although allies of his clarified to The Times that he was emphasizing the level of determination needed rather than suggesting a direct equivalence in expenditure.

 

In his speech, Tugendhat expressed deep frustration with what he perceives as a misplaced moral judgment regarding the issue of illegal migration. “I’ve had enough of this idea that it’s somehow wrong or nasty to be against illegal migration,” he declared. He then offered a stark rebuttal: “I’ll tell you what’s wrong and nasty: tolerating deaths in the Channel because of illegal migration; tolerating thousands of deaths in the Mediterranean; tolerating tens, even possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths in the Sahara, and in many other places. That’s what’s wrong and nasty, and that’s why I’m going to stop it.”

 

Tugendhat's rhetoric underscores his belief that stopping the illegal trade in human beings is not just a matter of national security but a moral imperative. He argues that the human cost of illegal migration—evidenced by the countless lives lost during perilous journeys across seas and deserts—is intolerable. To him, these tragedies are a clear indication that stronger, more decisive action is needed, and he posits that military intervention could be a key component of that action.

 

As the Tory leadership race intensifies, Tugendhat’s proposal has set him apart from his rivals, who include former business secretary Kemi Badenoch, former immigration minister Robert Jenrick, former foreign secretary James Cleverly, former home secretary Priti Patel, and former work and pensions secretary Mel Stride.

 

The contest is expected to narrow significantly after a series of votes in the House of Commons following the summer recess. The Conservative Party’s conference at the end of September will see the final four candidates make their case to party activists, with further votes by MPs whittling the field down to a final pair. Ultimately, the Tory membership will elect a new leader, with the announcement of the successor to Rishi Sunak scheduled for November 2.

 

Tugendhat’s vision, invoking the moral and historical legacy of the Royal Navy’s fight against slavery, presents a stark choice for the Conservative Party. His call to use military force against illegal migration is not just about securing borders or curbing immigration numbers—it’s a statement about the kind of nation the UK wants to be.

 

By drawing parallels with the abolition of the slave trade, Tugendhat places his policy within a grand narrative of British history, one where moral courage and national security are intertwined. Whether this vision resonates with Conservative Party members and, ultimately, the British public, remains to be seen. However, what is clear is that Tugendhat has positioned himself as a candidate who sees the fight against illegal migration not just as a policy issue, but as a moral crusade that demands nothing less than the full commitment of the nation.

 

 

Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-08-29

 

 

 

Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

[thaibeachlovers]

Good for him. Finally a politician that has a pair. I wish him well.

[JonnyF]

Top man. Talks a lot of sense. 

[Hanaguma]

Makes sense. The real villains are the human traffickers and smugglers who depend on fleecing immigrants to make money. Remove their incentives (and hopefullly remove THEM in the process) and the problem will largely be solved.  There is no reason any true refugee or asylee need leave Europe and 'flee' to the UK, except convenience and economics. Which AFAIK are not valid reasons for an asylum claim.

[retarius]

Go Tom Tug-a-lump-off-himself-in-the-Parliamentary-toilets. Brilliant idea, maybe the military could use the migrants in small boats as target practice. Have Tories ever thought of leaving the ECHR that the useless wastrel Winnie Churchill signed its up to. 

Why do we never have referendums on key policy matters like whether we want to be multicultural and woke, and whether we want human rights at all.

[Chomper Higgot]

Screaming from the political wilderness.

 

All these ‘good ideas’ start popping up once no longer in power.

 

It’s an idea with two advantages, it appeals to the Captain Hornblower demographic and Tugedhat will never have to deliver the policy, let alone the promised out come.

 

 

Edited August 29 by Chomper Higgot

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Screaming from the political wilderness.

 

All these ‘good ideas’ start popping up once longer in power.

 

Reminds me of you moaning about the Tories for the last god knows how many years 😃.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, JonnyF said:

 

Reminds me of you moaning about the Tories for the last god knows how many years 😃.

I don’t recall proposing any policies that were obviously never going to get enacted.

 

 

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t recall proposing any policies that were obviously never going to get enacted.

 

 

 

You often don't recall what was posted 5 minutes ago 😃.

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

You often don't recall what was posted 5 minutes ago 😃.

We’ll certainly the views, opinions or beliefs you invent on my behalf.

[Will B Good]

 

 

 

Smacks of out and out desperation ...like a toddler screaming for being ignored in the supermarket.

 

Badenoch is kicking rubber and he comes across...always has done.....as a bit of a no mark.

[Humpy]

Makes sense... but nobody is listening.

[newbee2022]

14 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

Tom Tugendhat, a prominent figure in the Conservative Party and a contender for the Tory leadership, has made a bold proposition that echoes through the annals of British history. He suggests that the UK’s military should be involved in combating illegal migration, drawing a parallel with the Royal Navy’s historic role in ending the transatlantic slave trade. Tugendhat, who has previously served as a security minister, argues that the United Kingdom's national security today requires the same level of dedication that the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron demonstrated nearly two centuries ago in its fight against slavery.

 

Tugendhat's speech, delivered at an event hosted by the Kensington, Bayswater, Chelsea, and Fulham Conservatives association on August 14, was recorded and later obtained by The Times. His words have sparked a significant discussion, as he invoked a comparison with one of the most morally charged military campaigns in British history. “Our national security today demands the same level of commitment the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron showed in the fight against slavery almost 200 years ago,” Tugendhat stated.

 

He emphasized that while the tools and methods have evolved, the underlying focus remains constant—addressing the modern-day scourge of human trafficking, which he unambiguously labeled as "evil." Tugendhat called for serious and sustained investments to tackle this issue, dismissing the opposition Labour Party’s approaches as mere "short-term sticking plasters."

 

For Tugendhat, the moral clarity of his argument is paramount. He insisted that it is neither "wrong nor nasty to be against illegal migration," framing the fight against human trafficking as a moral duty rather than a matter of mere political convenience. In his view, the UK must demonstrate the same resolve in combating this modern form of exploitation as it did in the past when it dedicated significant resources to end the slave trade. He reminded his audience that funding the West Africa Squadron, which played a pivotal role in suppressing the transatlantic slave trade, cost Britain an estimated 2 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at the time.

 

Tugendhat cautioned that a similar level of financial commitment might be required again, although allies of his clarified to The Times that he was emphasizing the level of determination needed rather than suggesting a direct equivalence in expenditure.

 

In his speech, Tugendhat expressed deep frustration with what he perceives as a misplaced moral judgment regarding the issue of illegal migration. “I’ve had enough of this idea that it’s somehow wrong or nasty to be against illegal migration,” he declared. He then offered a stark rebuttal: “I’ll tell you what’s wrong and nasty: tolerating deaths in the Channel because of illegal migration; tolerating thousands of deaths in the Mediterranean; tolerating tens, even possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths in the Sahara, and in many other places. That’s what’s wrong and nasty, and that’s why I’m going to stop it.”

 

Tugendhat's rhetoric underscores his belief that stopping the illegal trade in human beings is not just a matter of national security but a moral imperative. He argues that the human cost of illegal migration—evidenced by the countless lives lost during perilous journeys across seas and deserts—is intolerable. To him, these tragedies are a clear indication that stronger, more decisive action is needed, and he posits that military intervention could be a key component of that action.

 

As the Tory leadership race intensifies, Tugendhat’s proposal has set him apart from his rivals, who include former business secretary Kemi Badenoch, former immigration minister Robert Jenrick, former foreign secretary James Cleverly, former home secretary Priti Patel, and former work and pensions secretary Mel Stride.

 

 

The contest is expected to narrow significantly after a series of votes in the House of Commons following the summer recess. The Conservative Party’s conference at the end of September will see the final four candidates make their case to party activists, with further votes by MPs whittling the field down to a final pair. Ultimately, the Tory membership will elect a new leader, with the announcement of the successor to Rishi Sunak scheduled for November 2.

 

Tugendhat’s vision, invoking the moral and historical legacy of the Royal Navy’s fight against slavery, presents a stark choice for the Conservative Party. His call to use military force against illegal migration is not just about securing borders or curbing immigration numbers—it’s a statement about the kind of nation the UK wants to be.

 

By drawing parallels with the abolition of the slave trade, Tugendhat places his policy within a grand narrative of British history, one where moral courage and national security are intertwined. Whether this vision resonates with Conservative Party members and, ultimately, the British public, remains to be seen. However, what is clear is that Tugendhat has positioned himself as a candidate who sees the fight against illegal migration not just as a policy issue, but as a moral crusade that demands nothing less than the full commitment of the nation.

 

 

Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-08-29

 

 

 

Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

Not necessary to spread this nonsense. He's just an unimportant dumb loudspeaker looking for attention.🥱

[MicroB]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Screaming from the political wilderness.

 

All these ‘good ideas’ start popping up once no longer in power.

 

It’s an idea with two advantages, it appeals to the Captain Hornblower demographic and Tugedhat will never have to deliver the policy, let alone the promised out come.

 

 

 

I think a few of the posters don't realise that he wasn't pushing for the Royal Navy  to start machine gunning rubber dinghies in the Channel, or squaddies to start patrolling fortified beaches in khaki. I agree with what he's saying, but for different reasons for others who, if this policy was presented differently, would call it "Neocon" (Bush's policy post 911 was guided by what happens to America if you ignore a corner of the world, hence Nation Building was a major feature, but done on the cheap).

 

Its about the role of the armed forces overseas, either through coercive active intervention without cooperation of the sovereign powers (invasion etc), or using the armed forces as an arm of overseas development, eg deploying Royal Engineers to lead construction projects, reinvigorating the Loan Service system (which my father was part of). Loan Service was basically the MOD sending out technical officers, to serve in overseas militaries, ie taking overseas rank, allegiance and uniform. This could be in all sorts of projects involving engineering.

 

Its nothing new. When the British Army intervened in Sierra Leone, it was to bring that country under governance again, preventing a wave of refugees. When the military intervened in the Libyan civil war, if that policy was in place, we will still be there. We have done this before. The NATO mission in Afghanistan was stabilisation; support the government there to build a functioning state that people don't want to flee from. Lack of support at home from politicians on the Right and Left meant it failed. It can work, if you make a commitment like the British Empire.  So colonial officers who spend their entire lives "embedded", knowing the locals, knowing the characters, reporting back to London, occasionally getting butchered by a mob.

 

In the 21st Century, it would mean expanding the role of the 13 Signal Regiment, from beyond conducting "traditional" CyberWarfare, to a new mission profile, intercepting the monies of the Snakehead gangs, even if that leads back to governments.

 

Elsewhere, the Navy will need different kinds of surface craft, eg more landing ships. Longer overseas deployments will need at sea resupply.

 

The army will need to refocus on the trades. The RAMC has been stripped back to reservists in the NHS (all the military hospitals have gone).

 

This is basically Rory Stewart stuff, and Rory Stewart, being a sensible chap, is probably someone most  contributing on the thread actively opposed. I didn't. I wanted him as leader. But the policy meant more army officers working in the FCO or with the FCO (which is where the Overseas Development Budget sits). Its the policy Cameron wanted, but you lot shouted him down because of Brexit. You lot moan about the pledge of $ of gdp on aid. Aid is all about supporting the UK.

 

Fundamentally, people aren't fleeing to the UK because suddenly its become a nicer place to live. To my shame, its now a nastier place to live. My Thai wife watches the news, and thinks English people hate Thais and foreigners. People flee, because where they live has become a hell hole, because of what we did or what we didn't do, what that their governments did or didn't do, what Mother Nature did or didn't do. How do you fix all that. Well, we could go it alone, like Hornblower. Or, go in with the help of others. Maybe the UN.

 

There is a very real problem of how you intervene if refugees are caused by the actions of a degenerate government, eg Serbian government action against Kosovans. Are you lot happy for squaddies to hit the beaches fighting in  some far off land if it means less bearded 15 year olds rocking up on a Dover beach?

 

Rory Stewart warned over a decade ago how crap we had become at intervention; Intervention is not bad, but it has to be implemented correctly, and its not just for Christmas.

 

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v33/n07/rory-stewart/here-we-go-again

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, MicroB said:

You lot moan about the pledge of $ of gdp on aid. Aid is all about supporting the UK.

Do you mind leaving me out of that.

 

6 minutes ago, MicroB said:

This is basically Rory Stewart stuff, and Rory Stewart, being a sensible chap, is probably someone most  contributing on the thread actively opposed.

And please leave me out of that too.

[billd766]

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Good for him. Finally a politician that has a pair. I wish him well.

He is living in a political dream world.

 

In theory it is good.

 

The problem is that the RN don't have any spare ships or men/women to carry out yet another useless political idea.

 

As a thought (if this plan) ever sees the light of day.

 

The RN deploys a frigate that actually chases a boatload of illegal immigrants and orders it to stop. They will probably ignore that and carry on.

 

What should the captain do next? Launch a small boat loaded with armed marines and take over the boatload of illegals, bring them back to the frigate, and do what with them?

 

Take them back to France and dump them there? I doubt if the French will even accept them. Take them to the UK, and hand them over to who? That won't fix the problem.

 

Talking is what politicians do best.

 

If you come up with an idea like that, plan it through from start to finish, long before you mention it. Dig deep into the Tory policy rules and regs on illegal immigrants on exactly what happens to them from the time that they land, right through to the end. Where do they stay, what is real total cost to the UK, how to deport them and who will even accept them.

 

If they have no passport, ID etc, how can you send them to another and what is the cost.

 

The Tory party had years to sort this out and they couldn't. The Labour party are making loud noises about what THEY will do.

 

In the end, if the UK is lucky and smart enough. they will make it impossible to land as an illegal, be given somewhere to stay, food etc and money to live on.

 

They will be tied up in the courts for decades with appeal after appeal that the UK government will have to pay for the courts, the prosecutors cost and the defence costs as the illegals have no money to pay them. Not to mention all the protests about civil rights and all the bleeding heart liberals against the government.

[MicroB]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

He is living in a political dream world.

 

In theory it is good.

 

The problem is that the RN don't have any spare ships or men/women to carry out yet another useless political idea.

 

As a thought (if this plan) ever sees the light of day.

 

The RN deploys a frigate that actually chases a boatload of illegal immigrants and orders it to stop. They will probably ignore that and carry on.

 

What should the captain do next? Launch a small boat loaded with armed marines and take over the boatload of illegals, bring them back to the frigate, and do what with them?

 

Take them back to France and dump them there? I doubt if the French will even accept them. Take them to the UK, and hand them over to who? That won't fix the problem.

 

Talking is what politicians do best.

 

If you come up with an idea like that, plan it through from start to finish, long before you mention it. Dig deep into the Tory policy rules and regs on illegal immigrants on exactly what happens to them from the time that they land, right through to the end. Where do they stay, what is real total cost to the UK, how to deport them and who will even accept them.

 

If they have no passport, ID etc, how can you send them to another and what is the cost.

 

The Tory party had years to sort this out and they couldn't. The Labour party are making loud noises about what THEY will do.

 

In the end, if the UK is lucky and smart enough. they will make it impossible to land as an illegal, be given somewhere to stay, food etc and money to live on.

 

They will be tied up in the courts for decades with appeal after appeal that the UK government will have to pay for the courts, the prosecutors cost and the defence costs as the illegals have no money to pay them. Not to mention all the protests about civil rights and all the bleeding heart liberals against the government.

 

You are thinking very small, and wrongly if you think emulating the West African Squadron, which consumed 2% of GDP (about the current defence budget once pensions are stripped out) is anything to do with a frigate or two sailing up and down the Channel.

 

In his speech, Tom proposed that British troops are deployed to confront Russian and Belarusan paramilitaries forcing people over the border on the orders of their government.. The West Africa Squadron was deployed for 60 years; thats how long it took to destroy the slave trade. The Squadron had some of the highest casualty rates in the Navy at the time.

 

It means deploying British troops to the major sources of the refugees, which are Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, and accepting the cost of that,

[MicroB]

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Do you mind leaving me out of that.

 

And please leave me out of that too.

 

I don't think you understood what was being proposed.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, retarius said:

Go Tom Tug-a-lump-off-himself-in-the-Parliamentary-toilets. Brilliant idea, maybe the military could use the migrants in small boats as target practice. Have Tories ever thought of leaving the ECHR that the useless wastrel Winnie Churchill signed its up to. 

Why do we never have referendums on key policy matters like whether we want to be multicultural and woke, and whether we want human rights at all.

Making it up?

Where did he say anything about killing them?

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, billd766 said:

He is living in a political dream world.

 

In theory it is good.

 

The problem is that the RN don't have any spare ships or men/women to carry out yet another useless political idea.

 

As a thought (if this plan) ever sees the light of day.

 

The RN deploys a frigate that actually chases a boatload of illegal immigrants and orders it to stop. They will probably ignore that and carry on.

 

What should the captain do next? Launch a small boat loaded with armed marines and take over the boatload of illegals, bring them back to the frigate, and do what with them?

 

Take them back to France and dump them there? I doubt if the French will even accept them. Take them to the UK, and hand them over to who? That won't fix the problem.

 

Talking is what politicians do best.

 

If you come up with an idea like that, plan it through from start to finish, long before you mention it. Dig deep into the Tory policy rules and regs on illegal immigrants on exactly what happens to them from the time that they land, right through to the end. Where do they stay, what is real total cost to the UK, how to deport them and who will even accept them.

 

If they have no passport, ID etc, how can you send them to another and what is the cost.

 

The Tory party had years to sort this out and they couldn't. The Labour party are making loud noises about what THEY will do.

 

In the end, if the UK is lucky and smart enough. they will make it impossible to land as an illegal, be given somewhere to stay, food etc and money to live on.

 

They will be tied up in the courts for decades with appeal after appeal that the UK government will have to pay for the courts, the prosecutors cost and the defence costs as the illegals have no money to pay them. Not to mention all the protests about civil rights and all the bleeding heart liberals against the government.

I already suggested how the navy could do it simply by blocking them with fast patrol boats from crossing into British waters. No need to board them or take them into custody.

 

No doubt there will be a chorus of how that wouldn't work by those with no better ideas.

 

Bit ironic that the navy that ruled the oceans can't find enough sailors to do much any more. Perhaps they are all on those 2 big floating targets.

 

How the once upon a time mighty has fallen!

 

Ozymandias by Shelley

 

I met a traveller from an antique land,

Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;

And on the pedestal, these words appear:

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, MicroB said:

 

I don't think you understood what was being proposed.

I think I do.

 

But that’s not my objection to your post.

 

I don’t moan about UK foreign aid, I recognize and understand the positive part it plays in supporting UK interests.

I’ve never said anything against Rory Stewart, my view is he’s the sensible and moderate path the rightwing chose not to follow. 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, MicroB said:

 

You are thinking very small, and wrongly if you think emulating the West African Squadron, which consumed 2% of GDP (about the current defence budget once pensions are stripped out) is anything to do with a frigate or two sailing up and down the Channel.

 

In his speech, Tom proposed that British troops are deployed to confront Russian and Belarusan paramilitaries forcing people over the border on the orders of their government.. The West Africa Squadron was deployed for 60 years; thats how long it took to destroy the slave trade. The Squadron had some of the highest casualty rates in the Navy at the time.

 

It means deploying British troops to the major sources of the refugees, which are Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, and accepting the cost of that,

Just to pick one. How many times do British troops have to be sent to Afghanistan before the lesson not to do so sinks in?

 

Oh and that sovereignty thing.

 

Other nations have that too.

[billd766]

7 hours ago, MicroB said:

 

You are thinking very small, and wrongly if you think emulating the West African Squadron, which consumed 2% of GDP (about the current defence budget once pensions are stripped out) is anything to do with a frigate or two sailing up and down the Channel.

 

In his speech, Tom proposed that British troops are deployed to confront Russian and Belarusan paramilitaries forcing people over the border on the orders of their government.. The West Africa Squadron was deployed for 60 years; thats how long it took to destroy the slave trade. The Squadron had some of the highest casualty rates in the Navy at the time.

 

It means deploying British troops to the major sources of the refugees, which are Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, and accepting the cost of that,

I was thinking about the modern day RN which still does not have ships or man/women power to spare not about something that happened more than 100 years ago. Back in those times if men were required for the RN, press gangs simply went out, banged a few heads and there was a ships crew.

 

Nowadays that doesn't happen and new recruits and retaining serving members is at a low point.

 

Back in the days of the West Africa Squadron a new ship could be built, commissioned and in action in a matter of months. Nowadays it is a matter of years to build , commission, handover after sea trials, fit out, equip and staff even a small ship such as a frigate.

 

The Tories under their multitude of PMs have had 14 years to come up with a workable plan whilst they were in power, but they didn't or couldn't.

 

 

[billd766]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I already suggested how the navy could do it simply by blocking them with fast patrol boats from crossing into British waters. No need to board them or take them into custody.

 

No doubt there will be a chorus of how that wouldn't work by those with no better ideas.

 

Bit ironic that the navy that ruled the oceans can't find enough sailors to do much any more. Perhaps they are all on those 2 big floating targets.

 

How the once upon a time mighty has fallen!

 

Ozymandias by Shelley

 

I met a traveller from an antique land,

Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;

And on the pedestal, these words appear:

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

 

 

For the manning levels of the British Forces you need only to look and see who has decimated them. The UK politicians have done it themselves and at the same time they have also increased the number of tasks given to the Forces with a reduced number of people.